 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/180  
 
3 December 2019  
(19-8339) Page: 1/130 
General Council  
15-16 October 2019   
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 15 -16 OCTOBER 2019  
Chairperson: H.E. Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand)  
The Chair, the Director -General and delegations  extended condolences for the demise of the for mer 
Director of the Accessions Division and Nigeria's Chief Trade Negotiator and Director -General of the 
Nigerian Office for Trade Negotiations , Mr Chiedu Osakwe , to the Government of Nigeria and to 
Mr Osakwe' s family, colleagues and friends.  
 
The General Council welcomed H.E. Abdulrahman Al -Harbi, Governor of the General Authority of 
Foreign Trade of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and H .E. Maria Luisa Hayen, Minister of Economy of 
El Salvador who both addressed t he General Council under Item 1 of the agenda.  
 
Subjects discussed1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CH AIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITT EE AND    
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUT COMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IR ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
3   WORK PROGRAMME O N SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TR ADE AND DEVELOPMENT  ......................  6 
4   INFORMAL PROCESS  ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONING O F THE   
APPELLATE BODY – REPORT BY THE FACILITAT OR ................................ ..........................  7 
5   PROCEDURAL GUIDE LINES FOR WTO COUNCI LS AND COMMITTEES AD DRESSING 
TRADE CONCERNS – COMMUNICATION FROM ALBA NIA; AUSTRALIA; EURO PEAN UNION; 
HONG KONG, CHINA; RE PUBLIC OF KOREA; RE PUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; N EW ZEALAND; 
NORWAY; PANAMA; QATA R; SINGAPORE; SWITZE RLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN,  PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; THAILAND; TUR KEY; AND 
UKRAINE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  21 
6   EXPANDING THE SC OPE AND MANDATE FOR THE GENEVA WEEK –      
COMMUNICATION FROM S AINT LUCIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS AND VANUATU  .................  28 
7   PROCEDURES TO ST RENGTHEN THE NEGOTIA TING FUNCTION OF THE  WTO – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ ..............  31 
8   STATEMENT DELIVE RED BY THE UNITED ST ATES ON THE IMPORTAN CE OF 
TRANSPARENCY IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT  ................................ ............................  39 
9   WORK PROGRAMME A ND MORATORIUM  ON ELECTRONIC COMME RCE – 
COMMUNICATION FROM A USTRALIA; CHILE; COL OMBIA; COSTA RICA; G EORGIA;     
HONG KONG, CHINA; IC ELAND; MEXICO; NEW Z EALAND; NORWAY; SING APORE; AND 
SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  44 
 
1 The proposed agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/784.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10   TRIPS NON -VIOLA TION AND SITUATION C OMPLAI NTS MORATORIUM  – 
COMMUNICATION FROM C HILE, COLOMBIA, NEW ZEALAND AND PANAMA  ....................  53 
11   STATEMENT ON SP ECIAL AND DIFFERENTI AL TREATMENT T O PROMOTE 
DEVELOPMENT – STATEM ENT BY CHINA, CUBA, INDIA, NAMIBIA, OMAN ,                 
SOUTH AFRICA, UGANDA  AND ZIMBABWE  ................................ ................................ ..... 56 
12   TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFEREN CE................................ ..........  67 
12.1   Election of Officers  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....67 
12.2   Attendance of Observers from Governments and International Intergovernmental 
Organizations  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 68 
12.3   Attendance of Non -Governmental Organizations  ................................ ........................... 69 
13   WAIVERS U NDER ARTICLE IX OF T HE WTO AGREEMENT  ................................ .........  70 
13.1   Preferential Tariff Treatment for Least Developed Countries – Extension of Waiver –       
Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 70 
13.2   United Stat es – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA as amended) –       
Extension of Waiver – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ .................... 70 
14   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 74 
14.1   Appointment of Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules – Statement by GRULAC ............. 74 
14.2   Statement by the Chair on Administrative Measures for  Members in arrears  ..................... 75 
ANNEX  1 – THE REPOR TS BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAIR S OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC A ND INFORMAL HODS MEE TINGS       
HELD ON 14 OCTOBER 2 019 ................................ ................................ ...........................  76 
ANNEX 2 - STATEMENTS  BY MEMBERS AT THE I NFORMAL TNC AND INFO RMAL HODS 
MEETINGS HELD ON 14 OCTOBER 2019  ................................ ................................ .........  82 
 
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENE RAL 
1.1.  The Chair recalled that the Director -General had convened Informal TNC and Informal Heads 
of Delegation meetings on 14 October where he had provided a report on his recent activities and 
consultations. The Chairs of three Negotiating Bodies had als o report ed on the work in their 
respective areas  and fifty-two delegations had taken the floor . 
1.2.  As pe r established practice and as had been announced at that meeting, the Director -General's 
report and the reports of the Chairs of Negotiating Bodies would be included in the minutes of the 
General Council meeting.2 Statements delivered by delegations would also be included in the minutes 
of the General Council meeting.3  
1.3.  H.E. Abdulrahman Al -Harbi, Governor of the General Authority of Foreign Trade of the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia , said that preserving and enhancing the multilateral trading system was important  
to foster growth and prosperity in the world economy. In that regard, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
 
2 The Director -General's report (also circulated in JOB/TNC/ 76) and the reports of the Chairs of Negotiating 
Bodies at the 14 October Informal  TNC and Informal HODs Meetings  are incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and are  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  
3 The statements at the 14 October Informal TNC  and Informal HODs Meeting s by the following delegations 
are incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in Annex 2 of this document:  Singapore; Costa 
Rica (Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation); Chad (LDCs); Cuba; Australia (J oint Statement Initiative 
on Electronic Commerce); Panama (Article XII Members); Benin (African Group and C -4); China; New Zealand; 
Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development); Switzerland; Brazil; Japan; Pakistan; 
European Un ion; Trinidad and Tobago (CARICOM); Argentina; Malaysia; Russian Federation; South Africa; United 
States; Ecuador (GRULAC); India; Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs); Jamaica (ACP); Turkey; 
Thailand (ASEAN); Nigeria; Canada (Ottawa Group); Indonesia ; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Chinese Taipei; 
Egypt; Senegal; Mexico; Norway; Uganda; Republic of Korea; Colombia; Plurinational State of Bolivia; Peru; 
Montenegro; St. Vincent and the Grenadines (OECS); Viet Nam; Nepal; Paraguay; Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela; Sri Lanka; Ghana; Cambodia and Morocco . WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 3 - 
 
  acknowledge d the importance of WTO reform to address major economic challenges and new 
realities in the global economy.  
1.4.  Enhancing confidence in the multilat eral trading system depend ed fundamentally on reforming 
the WTO and working under its umbrella. To advance WTO Reform, a ctive engagement, strong 
political will and full understanding of the scope and elements of the proposed reform s were required. 
Members should also be more responsive to  the economic  and development needs and priorities of 
developing and LDC Members.  
1.5.  In reforming dispute settlement  at the WTO, Members should aim at enhancing its effectiveness 
and strength , while safeguarding the basic str ucture of the dispute settlement mechanism. 
Transparency was likewise important being one of the most fundamental principles of the multilateral 
trading system. Improving transparency w ould enhance the business environment and mak e it more 
predictable.  
1.6.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  was fully aware of the importance of the new initiatives within 
the WTO context specifically on the areas of e -commerce, investment facilitation, domestic 
regulation and MSMEs and was helping the further integration of developing M embers into the 
multilateral trading system. In th at spirit, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ha d recently joined the four 
joint initiatives.  
1.7.  In 2020 , the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia w ould assume the presidency of the G -20 and recogni zed 
the great responsibility of  the G -20 and its role to contribute to the prosperity and stability of the 
global economy. As His Royal Highness Prince Mohammad bin Salman ha d indicated in his concluding 
remarks at the Osaka Summit, " Enhancing international cooperation and coordination is more 
pressing than ever before considering the complex and inter -related challenges facing our world 
today . […] E ffectiveness in achieving this depends on the ability to strengthen international 
consensus by establishing the principles of e xpanded dialogue and building on the international 
system based on common principles and interest".  
1.8.  Now more than ever, t he WTO need ed to build on its strength to play its due role in global 
economic governance and help the international community recogni se the essential role of 
international trade in development and stability.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stood ready to work 
constructively with other Members to guide the process es of the multilateral trading system towards 
a more open, inclusive and balanc ed direction.  
1.9.  H.E. Maria Luisa Hayen, Minister of Economy of El Salvador , the multilateral context  was at 
crossroads,  particular ly in the work carried out by the WTO , not only in the run up to MC12 , but also 
in strengthening the multilateral trading system . The WTO was important as  it was  the only 
multilateral body that regulate d trading relation s among  its 164 Members. In the case of El Salvador, 
ever since it had  joined the WTO, it had benefitted from a predictable regulatory framework  which 
had made it p ossible to integrate itself into the multilateral trading system and into global value 
chains.  
1.10.   El Salvador's Government headed by President  Nayib Bukele , had premised  its new vision  for 
the country on  social wellbeing, security and economic growth with innovation as a crosscutting 
element. Th ose pillars  would be needed to reach El Salvador's  objectives. In its economic agenda,  
El Salvador  was working in a forthright fashion  by prioritising areas such a s trade facilitation and 
investment  – key instruments in improv ing the conditions in El Salvador and for companies including 
foreign ones to be able to engage in business in the country.  
1.11.   The Trade Facilitation Agreement was a clear example of the tangible benefits that th e 
organization ha d been able to generate for entrepreneurs. El Salvador  had included the TFA in the 
framework of its action plan which had recently been approved by its National Committee for Trade 
Facilitation. El Salvador  would continue t o work with the WTO' s Committee on Trade Facilitation 
including  by sharing at the Committee's October meeting some of the major strides it had made in 
the last four months brought about by its new government which include d the Trade Facilitation 
Action Plan that went hand in hand with initiatives with the private sector.  
1.12.   As Members  currently f ound themselves in the midst of the digital era , they were experiencing  
a major change in the way in which they engage d in various economic activities in all areas including WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 4 - 
 
  trade . El Salvador continued to face a number of those challenges as well. Under the leadership of 
its new government, El Salvador  was therefore working creatively and tirelessly in adapting its 
country into the  new econom ic trading environment . El Salvador st ood ready to work to find solutions 
for all Members with a renewed sense of commitment in order to secure a better future for everyone.  
1.13.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Director -General on 14 October,  of the 
statements that day, and those delivered at the Informal TNC and Informal HODs meetings.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IR 
2.1.  The Chair4 recalled that,  at MC11, Ministers had agreed to continue and reinvigorate the Work 
Programme  on Electronic Commerce,  had instructed the General Council to hold periodic reviews 
and had agreed to continue the practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions. 
At the July General Council  review of the Work Programme, she had  informed Members that she 
would consult broadly after the summer break, given the December 2019 expiry of the Moratorium .  
2.2.  In that regard, she had  convened an Informal Open -ended meeting on 1 October to get a 
general sense of Members' views. It had been  clear from that meeting that views on the scope and 
implications of the Moratorium  remain ed divergent. Some delegations had requested further 
discussions.  
2.3.  Following that meeting, she had  invited all Members to bilatera l consultations on the way 
forward with respect to both the Moratorium  and the Work Programme. Thus far, only a few 
delegations ha d come forward to consult with her. She strongly urge d all delegations to engage in 
those consultations which remain ed Member -driven, inclusive and transparent.  
2.4.  As she had  mentioned at the Informal meeting, she remain ed ready to meet delegations in an 
effort to make progress on th e matter, and she hoped that a possible draft decision c ould be 
presented to the General Council for  its consideration.  
2.5.  She also note d that a specific item on the Work Programme and the Moratorium  on Electronic 
Commerce ha d been included in the agenda by Switzerland and other co -sponsors and w ould be 
taken up later on in the meeting.  
2.6.  Regarding TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints, under the Buenos Aires Decision, the  
TRIPS Council was directed to continue its examination of scope and modalities for such complaints 
and make recommendations by the end of 2019 when the Moratorium  on bringing such co mplaints 
would expire. Members' discussions at the TRIPS Council meetings in 2019  had shown signs of 
increased activity but th at had not yet resulted in any tangible submission or new proposals.  
2.7.  Since the summer break, the Chair of the TRIPS Council ha d been holding focused consultations 
with a view to intensifying the substantive engagement and to finding a permanent solution to th e 
issue. As usual, the item of non -violation complaints was also on the agenda of the next TRIPS 
Council meeting and she encourage d delegations to engage on substance regarding the merits of 
the TRIPS Moratorium on N on-Violation  and Situation Complaints . 
2.8.  As it was the case for e -commerce, a specific item on the TRIPS Moratorium  had also been 
included in the agenda of th at meeting at the request of Chile and other co -sponsors.  
2.9.  Moving to the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration, the General Council  was 
expected to take a decision on the recommendations arising from the review no later than 
31 December 2019 unless Members agree d otherwise.  
2.10.   The objective of the Review was to promote improvement in the utilization of TRQs and to 
specifically consider the issue of the future operation of Paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism. On 
the issue, Members appear ed to agree towards seeking an extension of the timeline to finali se 
recommendations on its future operation. Members ha d been engaged and ha d shown co mmitment 
 
4 The Chair's statement was circulated in JOB/GC/2 21. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 5 - 
 
  to arrive at an agreed language to propose such an extension without altering the overall balance of 
the original Bali TRQ Decision.  
2.11.   The Chair of the Committee on Agriculture w ould organise additional informal meetings and 
consultations to enable  Members to reach an agreement on the report of the Review and the 
associated recommendations by the October 2019 meeting of the Committee. The agreed 
recommendations w ould be forwarded to the General Council for a decision.  
2.12.   Regarding the implementation of  the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition by Members with 
scheduled export subsidies commitments, eleven Members currently  had their revised schedules 
certified; and two Members ha d circulated draft revised schedules for which the certification process 
was ongoing.  
2.13.   With respect to the Decision on the LDC Services Waiver and the Decision on Preferential 
Rules of Origin for LDCs, both the Services Council and the Committee on Rules of Origin were 
scheduled to meet after th e General Council meeting. She would provide a more substantive report 
at the next meeting following their respective discussions.  
2.14.   She could not report any changes on the Monitoring Mechanism. Positions were also 
unchanged on Duty Free Quota Free market access for LDCs, in particular wit h respect to the 
divergent views on the background paper by the Secretariat which should inform the DFQF annual 
review. The CTD Chairman ha d been holding informal discussions with some delegations in an effort 
to find a way forward on both matters.  
2.15.   On Aid  for Trade, at the next meeting in November, the CTD Chairman w ould outline his 
thoughts on the process for a new Aid for Trade Work Programme for the 2020 -2021 period. Th e 
meeting w ould be preceded by a workshop on SMEs and Access to Finance.  
2.16.   On Trade Fac ilitation, since her last report , there ha d been additional ratifications bringing 
the overall number to 146. There were also some positive developments on the notifications side as 
45 implementation notifications ha d been received – that mean t the notific ations related to 
Categories A, B or C. Th at was especially important given the deadline on 22 August for developing 
country Members to submit their definitive Category C implementation dates. Out of the 60 
developing country Members that ha d designated Ca tegory C commitments so far, 55 ha d presented 
definitive dates  – meaning the 92% of the total.  
2.17.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that the full implementation of 
Ministerial Decisions in favour of LDCs was essential for LDCs to feel ta ngible and meaningful benefits 
manifested in  economic growth and the evolution of their market share in world trade.  The 
implementation of the decisions on DFQF  market access, preferential rules of origin and service s 
waiver in favour of the LDCs'  economic stakeholders would likewise contribute to  the achievement 
of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.  
2.18.   The LDC Group thanked  those Members that ha d notified and had implemented preferences 
in favour of LDCs in accordan ce with the Ministerial Decisions taken. The Group  also encourage d 
those Members that ha d not yet done so to notify and implement the decisions.  Beyond th at, the 
LDCs called on Members and the Secretariat to provide all the necessary technical assistance n eeded 
to enable LDCs to concretely use the preferences granted.  
2.19.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , underscore d that several 
objectives and implementation measures still need ed to be carried out for developing and LDC 
Members inclu ding African countries. Th ose objectives and measures  involved  matters related to the 
improvement of rules in important areas such as cotton, domestic support in agriculture, public 
stockholding for food security purposes, preferential rules of origin, DFQ F market access for LDCs, 
intellectual property  and TBT, among many others. Th ose also include d fisheries subsidies where 
the African Group  regre tted the fact that Members  still d id not have a new Chair on the Negotiating 
Group on Rules.  With regard to cotton, the group recommend ed that, based  on the relevant mandate 
and from the discussions and consultations carried out on 7 October 2019 in Geneva during the First 
World Cotton Day, Members should work to ensure that they achieve d concrete and measurable 
results  in Nur -Sultan . The African Group called on  Members to continue their efforts with a view to 
ensuring effective implementation of the decisions adopted and commitments made.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.20.   The representative of Tajikistan  update d Members  on its efforts  concerning the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement. Over the last seven years of its Membership, Tajikistan continue d to fully 
comply with its WTO commitments and had successfully implemented useful re forms on trade 
facilitation. The Government of the Republic of Tajikistan, considering the importance of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement that led to the reduction of expenditures on trade deals related to customs 
procedures on imports, exports and transit , had launched internal procedures to ratify the TFA . 
2.21.   After conforming it on its government, the Parliament of Tajikistan had issued the relevant 
instrument concerning its ratification of the TFA . Within the framework of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement, T ajikistan had established a Coordinating Committee on Trade Facilitation in 2016 based 
on Article 23 of the TFA. The members of the Coordinating Committee on Trade Facilitation  had 
included government officials and the private sector. Another s ignificant a chievement of the Republic 
of Tajikistan within the framework of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  related to  the notification of 
Categories A, B and C  commitments . The Category A obligations notifications had already  been sent 
to the WTO in 2014 . On 2 July 2019, the WTO had officially acknowledged Tajikistan's instrument of 
acceptance of the Protocol amending the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO.  
2.22.   Furthermore, the official delegation of the Republic of Tajikistan he aded by the First Deputy 
Minister of Economic Development and Trade during an official trip to Geneva had discussed the 
issue on the implementation of trade facilitation commitments and the notification of Categories B 
and C commitments. As a result, on 12  August 2019, Tajikistan's  notification of Categories B and C 
commitments had been  published in the official WTO website. Since t he implementation of 
Category  B require d additional time while Category C require d both additional time and financial 
support f rom development partners , the Republic of Tajikistan could request financial and technical 
support from the development partners in order to implement its Categor ies B and C obligations.  
2.23.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement and of the oth er statements.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPO RT BY THE CHAIRMAN O F THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TR ADE AND DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  The Chair  recalled that in line with the agreement in the General Council in 2002, the Work 
Programme on Small Econ omies was a standing item on the agenda and the Committee on Trade 
and Development reported regularly to the Council on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions. 
In Buenos Aires, Ministers had adopted a Decision reaffirming their commitment to the Wo rk 
Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the overall 
responsibility of the General Council.  
3.2.  Deputy Director -General Yonov Agah, on behalf of the Chair man of the CTD, reported that  the 
next meeting of the CTD's Dedicated Session on Small Economies w ould be held on 1  November.  
For th at meeting, the Secretariat w ould prepare an update to its compilation document monitoring 
Small Economies' issues in the negotiating groups and other WT O bodies. Th e compilation document 
had served as a reference over the years in the context of the Work Programme on Small Economies.  
3.3.  At the  1 November meeting, the Committee w ould also  consider a communication from 
Guatemala to be circulated on behalf of t he SVE Group regarding future work in the Dedicated 
Session. The issue of future work was important for the Dedicated Session at th at point in time – in 
particular as Members  worked thei r way towards MC12, and the eventual guidance that Ministers 
could  provide on the way forward in the Work Programme on Small Economies. In th at regard, the 
document to be circulated by the SVE Group w ould be carefully studied by Members with a view to 
discussing and identifying what areas could  form part of the future work o f the Dedicated Session.  
3.4.  The meeting on 1 November w ould additionally provide the opportunity for Guatemala, on 
behalf of the SVE Group, to introduce some follow -up issues concerning the challenges faced by 
Small Economies in attracting investments.  The CT D Chair  looked forward to a constructive and 
productive meeting  on 1 November and  would report back at the next General Council meeting on 
the outcome as well as on what steps remain ed to be taken from the point of view of the Work 
Programme on Small Econo mies in preparation for MC12.  
3.5.  The representative of El Salvador , on behalf of the SVEs , said that a fter hard work , the SVEs 
had finalised  a proposed text for a Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on Small Economies. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 7 - 
 
  The proposal include d new topics for the future work of the work programme and w ould be circulated 
in advance of the next CTD Dedicated Session meeting to be held on 1 No vember. The SVEs  hoped 
that the decision c ould be discussed and adopted during th e session. On the November meeting, as 
a follow up on the work done on reducing trade costs, the Group w ould be introducing the topic of 
challenges experienced by SVEs to attr act investment that they expect ed to further discuss at a 
future meeting in 2020.  
3.6.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , noted that t he Work 
Programme on Small Economies continue d to be important to the CARICOM Group given  the 
challenges faced by small economies such as Trinidad and Tobago . 
3.7.  The CARICOM Region was faced with unique circumstances and vulnerabilities including climate 
change, access to finance and development challenges. The advancement of the Work Programme 
continue d to be important toward ensuring the realization of solutions which len t themselves to their 
meaningful participation in global trade. For small and vulnerable economies, th ose challenges were 
intensified and compounded due to their remoteness from major markets, vulnerability to external 
economic shocks and climactic events, small, undiversified markets and lack of economies of scale.  
3.8.  The Atlantic had faced two Category 5 hurricanes for 201 9 and the hurricane season would 
continue  until 30 November. Since August, the region which comprise d several small and vulnerable 
economies ha d witnessed multiple devastating storms which had included Hurricanes Dorian and 
Humberto which had caused damage  to the region and to The Bahamas in particular. Member needed  
only to look at th at devastation to appreciate how development flexibility and policy space to restore, 
rebuild and reinstate infrastructure and resources was a survival issue for many small States. 
3.9.  The issue of development in its broader context  should  be at the heart of WTO discussions and 
negotiations.  It should  include the regulatory sovereignty and policy space to implement 
development objectives rather than just a narrow focus on S&DT . That would ensure that the 
smallest players in the multilateral trading system were not marginali sed and the needs of all  
Members were sought inclusive of the recognition of Members ' sovereign rights to pursue legitimate 
socio-economic development goals.  
3.10.   Due to the vulnerability of the region , the CARICOM Group underscore d the need for proactive 
steps to address some of their most pressing concerns. The CARICOM Group w ould remain engaged 
in discussions seeking to identify areas for future work under th e Work Programme for consideration 
at the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  
3.11.   On behalf of Trinidad and Tobago , her delegation associated with the statement made by the 
CARICOM Group. In addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September, Dr the 
Honourable Keith Rowley, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago and other CARICOM leaders had 
drawn  attention once more to the innumerable threats caused by the effects of unmitigated cl imate 
change. The recent havoc wrought by Hurricane Dorian on the Abaco and Grand Bahama islands of 
The Bahamas was a stark reminder of the challenges arising from the interplay of their unique 
circumstances and vulnerabilities.  
3.12.   In that vein, the advanceme nt of the Work Programme on Small Economies remain ed a critical 
tool towards ensuring that small and vulnerable economies were fully integrated into the global trade 
architecture in a manner which len t to meaningful development. To th at end, Trinidad and T obago 
looked forward to engaging in the upcoming dedicated session on 1 November and w ould remain 
attuned to th e process of elaborating future work for consideration by MC12 in 2020 . 
3.13.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Chair of the CTD and o f the statements.  
4  INFORMAL PROCESS ON MATTERS RELATED TO T HE FUNCTIONING OF TH E APPELLATE 
BODY – REPORT BY THE  FACILITATOR  
4.1.  The Chair  recall ed that  at the July meeting the General Council  had a third stocktaking of the 
work carried out in the Informal Proce ss on matters related to the functioning of the Appellate Body 
and the Facilitator, Ambassador David Walker, had outlined the points of convergence that had 
emerged.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.2.  Building on the progress made in the first half of the year, the next phase of th e Process  had 
started immediately after the Summer break and the Facilitator had continued his consultations in 
different configurations. She had  convened an Informal Open -Ended meeting on 4 October in which 
the Facilitator had provided delegations with an update of the work in the Informal Process and had 
outlined his intentions for the way forward.  
4.3.  Ambassador David Walker, Facilitator of the Info rmal Process on matters  related to the 
Functioning of the Appellate Body , reported5 on the matter for the fourth time  at the General Council , 
and in so doing, t ook stock of where Members  stood in the Informal Process and his own 
consultations at th at momen t in time.  His previous report to the General Council had been  in July. 
At and since the July  meeting, he had received useful feedback from Members and work ha d 
continued in the Informal Process.  
4.4.  As requested by the Chair of the General Council, he would  therefore provide Members  with an 
update on developments in the process since they had  last met.  His current report  should be read 
in conjunction with his reports to the General Council on 28  February, 7 May and 23 July, which had 
been issued as JOB/GC/215 , JOB/GC/217 and JOB/GC/220 respectively.  
4.5.  As had been mentioned by the Chair, he had continued his consultations and meetings in a 
range of formats, keeping in mind the solution -focused spirit of th e Informal Process. That had 
included a further small group session – the tenth in that format – on 26  September, as well as a 
fifth open-ended Informal Meeting on 4 October to ensure transparency and inclusiveness in the 
Informal Process.  
4.6.  As before, the informal small group meeting had comprised delegations and coordinators that 
had: (i) tabled written proposals; (ii)  raised concerns about the functioning of, and the adherence 
to WTO  rules by, the Appellate Body; and (iii)  made alternative proposals and/or raised follow -up 
questions o n the proposals, issues and convergence elements.  
4.7.  He recalled that he had presented to the General Council in July a progress report focusing on 
the points of convergence that he had  considered could be drawn from the Informal Process. He had 
put forward t hose points of convergence on his own responsibility in line with the purpose of th e 
Informal Process as had been initiated by the General Council Chair: namely, to undertake a 
discussion aimed at seeking workable and agreeable solutions to improve the fun ctioning of the 
Appellate Body and avoid deadlock come December. Th ose points of convergence had been  and 
were without prejudice to differences that could  remain on some issues that Members  had been 
discussing.  
4.8.  Responding to the feedback that he had  receiv ed from Members at and since the July General 
Council meeting, the process ha d focused on developing a concrete instrument for consideration by 
Members.  Based on the discussion to date and the proposals that Members ha d put forward in th e 
Informal Process,  his view was that an appropriate form for such an instrument would be a General 
Council Decision. Following his discussions with the Chair, and drawing on Members' feedback, 
Members  had therefore started looking to frame up such draft instrument based on the points of 
convergence from JOB/GC/220.  
4.9.  The draft as  had been  presented that day contain ed some adjustments to the JOB/GC/220 
'points of convergence' text, resulting from the feedback that he had  received – both at and since 
the General Council meeting, including of a linguistic  nature. As Members  would  recall, he had  
highlighted th ose adjustme nts at the 4  October open -ended Informal Meeting. He had then 
proceeded to highlight the points of adjustment that ha d been made (i.e. compared with 
paragraphs  1.13 through to 1.32 from JOB/GC/220) . 
4.10.   First, in the section on 'Transitional rules for outgoing  Appellate Body members', ahead of 
what correspond ed to paragraph 1.13, there was a new point, which read: "Only WTO Members may 
appoint members of the Appellate Body."  
 
5 The Facilitator's report was circulated in JOB/GC/222 . WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.11.   In what correspond ed to paragraph 1.13, at the end of that sentence, the following ha d been 
added: "obligated to fill vacancies as they arise."  
4.12.   In the section on '90 days', in what correspond ed to paragraph 1.18, instead of the phrase 
that "an Appellate Body report needs to b e issued no later than […]", it  currently  read: "the Appellate 
Body is obligated to issue its report no later than […]".  
4.13.   Then, in what correspond ed to paragraph 1.19, a footnote ha d been added at the end of 
where it sa id that "the parties may agree with th e Appellate Body to extend the time -frame for 
issuance of the Appellate Body report beyond 90 days", and the footnote read: "Such agreement 
may also be made in instances of force majeure." – and that was to pick up a point that a number 
of Members had raised in a recent proposal.  
4.14.   Then, on 'Advisory Opinions', in what correspond ed to paragraph  1.23, instead of saying, as 
it had previously d one, "should not be ruled or decided upon", it currently  said "may not be ruled or 
decided upon".  
4.15.   And then, in what corr espond ed to paragraph 1.24, after the word "necessary" and before 
the words "to resolve the dispute", an additional phrase ha d been included, which read: "necessary 
to assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the ruling provided for in the  covered 
agreements in order to resolve the dispute".  
4.16.   And finally, on "Regular dialogue between the DSB and the Appellate Body", in what 
correspond ed to paragraph 1.30, an additional phrase ha d been added after the word "issues" and 
before "in a manner unr elated to the adoption of particular reports", it currently  read: "on issues, 
including in relation to implementation of this Decision, in a manner unrelated to the adoption of 
particular reports".  
4.17.   Taking account of Members' feedback, th ose were the changes that he had applied to the 
substantive part of the draft at th at point. As a draft General Council Decision, there was also some 
Preambular language . In that Preambular language , there was a reference to what the General 
Council d id, i.e. co nducting the function of the Ministerial Conference in the interval between its 
meetings pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article IV of the WTO Agreement.  
4.18.   As was common in such decisions, the General Council was having regard to paragraph 1 of 
Article  IX of the  WTO Agreement. And, because of the context of the work in th e Informal Process, 
the General Council was mindful of the work, which ha d been undertaken in the Informal Process of 
Solution -Focused Discussion on Matters Related to the Functioning of the Appe llate Body, under the 
auspices of the General Council.  
4.19.   The General Council also recogni sed the central importance of a properly functioning dispute 
settlement system in the rules -based multilateral trading system, which serve d to preserve the 
rights and o bligations of Members under the WTO  Agreement and ensure d that rules were 
enforceable. And finally, it state d that the General Council desire d to enhance the functioning of that 
system consistent with the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the  Settlement of 
Disputes.  
4.20.   That was  how he saw the draft instrument at th at point.  He was putting it forward for 
Members' consideration, on his own responsibility as Facilitator, based on the proposals submitted 
by Members and the extensive discussion in the  Informal Process, as well as the feedback on the 
points of convergence that he had  received since July.  It was then up to Members to see how they 
wished to take th e matter forward.  
4.21.   In considering the draft General Council Decision there were a few observa tions that, in his 
view, could  be relevant.  As he had previously  noted, the purpose set for this Informal Process  by 
the Chair was to undertake a discussion aimed at seeking workable and agreeable solutions to 
improve the functioning of the Appellate Body and to avoid deadlock come December.  It would  seem 
tautological, but a solution to improve the functioning of the Appellate Body c ould only have effect 
if there was a functioning Appellate Body for it to apply to. So logically, the adoption of such a 
General Council Decision should be accompanied by an instruction from the General Council to the 
DSB to launch the selection process to fill vacant positions.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.22.   As had been observed in July, the adoption of a Decision such as that attached – based as it 
was on the points of convergence from JOB/GC/220 – would constitute a shared assessment by 
Members that the Appellate Body ha d, in some respects, not been functioning as intended under the 
DSU. Such a Decision would have implications for the actions of the Appellate Body, but it also 
carrie d implications for how Members look ed to use the Appellate Body.  
4.23.   To take such 'reset ' action, Members w ould need to have sufficient trust and confidence in 
each other that they w ould work together to implement any s uch Decision in the coming years.  
Building that trust and confidence was an urgent task.  
4.24.   Even if action had been  taken t hat day, the time required to conduct a selection process was 
such that the Appellate Body w ould inevitably experience a 'technical dip'  (i.e. it w ould fall below 
the number of members needed to hear a new appeal) as of 11  December. The urgency  then was 
to take action to avoid that situation becoming material for Members in resolving a dispute.  
4.25.   As with  his previous reports, th at report w ould be issued in the JOB/GC -series, with the draft 
General Council Decision annexed to it. He continue d to stand ready to assist the Chair of the General 
Council and Members, in his capacity as Facilitator, as could  be required.  
4.26.   The Chair  noted that efforts were focused on a draft instrument for consideration by Members  
as it ha d been put forward by the Facilitator. Th e instrument was going to be included in the 
Facilitator's  report to be circulated after th e meeting. She reiterate d that th e draft instrument was 
based on the "points of convergence" that the Facilitator had reported to the General Council in July, 
which were in turn based on: (i) the proposals tabled by Members, (ii) the solution -focused 
discussion in th e Informal Process and  (iii) comments and feedback received from Members at and 
since the July General Council.  
4.27.   Therefore, th at was a collective effort by the WTO Membership. Without prejudice to the 
different views that remain ed on some issues and that w ould need to be addres sed, it was her view 
that such instrument represent ed a major step in th e Informal Process.  
4.28.   She recall ed that th e process had been  established to address matters related to the 
functioning of the Appellate Body and to seek solutions regarding the selection processes of the 
Appellate Body in line with the Dispute Settlement Understanding. In the solution -focused spirit that 
had guided  the process, Members could  wish to give due consideration to the draft instrument put 
forward by the Facilitator as an element towards finding a solution.  
4.29.   The representative of  Brazil  refrain ed from making comments about the specific points noted 
by the F acilitator in his previous reports and in his remarks t hat day. As Members however  move d 
forward in the discussion and negotiation of a draft decision, Brazil would raise some points. In any 
case, Brazil was encouraged with the recognition that elements of  convergence were to be found in 
the text  and remain ed prepared to engage in the discussion of solutions with the whole Membership 
in a truly solution -oriented mode.  
4.30.   If Members  did not manage to find a solution to th e problem, the A ppellate  Body would soon 
be unable to hear appeals of panel reports. It w ould be unfortunate if such a key element of the 
dispute settlement system that Members had  agreed in the DSU would simply cease to function. As 
Members knew,  that would affect not only the Appellate stage but the entire dispute settlement 
process. Brazil therefore stood ready to discuss proposals or approaches which could  avoid that 
scenario.  
4.31.   The representative of Uruguay  said that the  informal process ha d been carried out in a n 
inclusive and transparent manner . As a result, it ha d been possible to identify a number of areas of 
convergence on the functioning of the Appellate Body. On th at basis, Members currently had  a 
concrete proposal put forward. Uruguay  therefore reiterated it s support to the process led by 
Ambassador Walker  and at the same time confirm ed that it would seriously look at the draft 
instrument .  
4.32.   Uruguay reaffirm ed its commitment to the dispute settlement mechanism  to enable it to 
function  properly and maintain the  two stage  dispute settlement system  and the principles enshrined 
in the DSU. Uruguay  likewise agree d with the need to improve some of the aspects of the WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 11 - 
 
  implementation of the DSU. It  was Uruguay's  hope that the strides forward that the informal process 
had achieved w ould make it possible to immediately launch the selection process.  
4.33.   The representative of Guatemala  noted that, over the last eighteen  months, Members ha d 
moved from denying the existence of problems with the Appellate Body to recogni sing that s ome 
areas could be improved.  While the WTO dispute settlement system c ould be improved, and 
Members ha d shown their willingness to do so, Members also need ed to recogni ze that the WTO ha d 
the best functioning international dispute settlement mechanism.  Although n o international dispute 
settlement mechanism was perfect , nobody had referred  to any international, regional or domestic 
dispute settlement system t o be better than the one Members  had at the WTO.  
4.34.   For Guatemala, and for many other Members, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism was 
the only available means to exercise rights and to level the playing field. Guatemala ha d witnessed 
the effectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism i n bringing important trad ing partners into 
compliance with their WTO obligations. Without th e mechanism, Guatemala would have not been 
able to reopen important export markets, preserve business opportunities, maintain and create jobs 
and find the means to alleviate poverty and foster sustainable growth.  
4.35.   A rules -based system was fundamental for all Members: small, medium and large  Members  
alike.  Members ha d actively participated in the process led by Ambassador Walker and delegations 
had shown their commitm ent to address the concerns expressed by the United States. To that end, 
twelve proposals ha d been tabled. Members were genuinely and in good faith trying to address the 
concerns of the United States while preserving the main features that were the basis o f the success 
of the  dispute settlement system.  
4.36.   In that regard, t he areas of convergence identified by Ambassador Walker achieve d the double 
objective of improving the mechanism without changing its main features and scope.  Guatemala 
remain ed ready to enga ge and support initiatives leading to the resolution of the current impasse 
including the launching of the selection process to appoint Appellate Body members.  
4.37.   The representative of China  said that t he proposed text based on the Facilitator's  judgment 
had provide d a helpful guidance towards the potential breakthrough.  China had its own preference 
in terms of the reform text and the vehicle to reali se that reform. China remained  convinced that 
the proposal s in WT/GC/W/ 752 and WT/GC/W/ 753 jointl y constitute d a comprehensive, balanced 
and operational solution to unblock the current impasse. China nevertheless respect ed the 
judgement of the Facilitator and the approach he had preferred.  
4.38.   With the view to breaking the selection deadlock expeditiousl y, China would  carefully assess 
the merits of the text and continue to be pragmatic and flexible in future consultation s. Without 
however the United States' constructive engagemen t, the Facilitator 's proposed reform text would 
remain  to be a semi -finished product. Members  needed concrete comments  which meant more than 
just criticism. China  expect ed the United States to specify what else need ed to be done in the text 
to unblock the selection deadloc k for Members to have  a clear sense of where they were and h ow 
far they should go.  
4.39.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , noted that the CARICOM 
Group, as small vulnerable economies , placed great value on a rules -based multilateral trading 
system of which the dispute settlement mechanism and the Appellate Body were key elements . The 
paralysis of the Appellate Body would damage the enforcement mechanism and undermine the rules -
based multilateral trading system.  
4.40.   The CARICOM Group  agree d that there was need for reform of the dispute settlement 
mechanism. There should be broad reform in a manner that protect ed and enhance d the rights of 
small and vulnerable economies and deliver ed wider and more effective participation of developing 
countries. Some areas that c ould contribute to th e more effective participation would be  the 
strengthening of the consultative mechanism, enhanced third party rights, and effectively 
safeguarding developing country interests in the dispute settlement mechanism.   
4.41.   The CARICOM Group reiterate d its commitment to  a rules -based multilateral trading system 
that was transparent, inclusive and consensus -based. Any proposed reforms, at a minimum, should  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 12 - 
 
  promote the rule of law and the independence, impartiality, consistency and predictability of the 
appellate process.  
4.42.   The representative of Australia  expressed Australia's  commit ment to continuing a solution -
oriented approach to resolving the Appellate Body appointments impasse and maintaining a viable 
dispute settlement system. A ustralia  urged all Members to engag e actively and constructively with 
a view to building on Ambassador Walker's valuable work and agreeing a solution in their collective 
interest.  
4.43.   The representative of Chile said that the Informal Process  had been a transparent process 
and one that was marked by M embers' participation. Points of convergence ha d been pointed out 
which form ed the basis for future participation seeking to solve the various issues pending and 
unblock the Selection Process. Given Members'  strong commitment , the process ha d been effective. 
In that regard, it was important to note that , to date,  70% of the Membersh ip called for  the launching 
of the process to appoint new Appellate Body members.  
4.44.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  supported the Facilitator's  suggestion about adopting a 
General Council Decision as a solution to the present impasse. As Chinese Taipei  had mentioned in 
its proposal, setting guidelines through a General Council Decision would help to clarify, harmoni se 
and elaborate the existing rules. It was therefore a reasonable approach to address the concerns 
being raised – and perhaps  the only viabl e way at th at moment to deliver a timely solution.  
4.45.   Chinese Taipei  also agree d that Ambassador Walker's report and the draft objectively 
recap ped the points where convergence among Members ha d emerged to the largest extent. Subtle 
nuance should not be the hurdle in reaching any possible solution.  Members should recall that t he 
purpose of th e process was to unblock the Appellate Body Selection Process . Chinese Taipei  could 
therefore  be as flexible as possible and encourage d Members to show the same flexibili ty. 
4.46.   The representative of Japan  support ed the Facilitator's  approach to develop a concrete 
instrument in a form of a draft General Council Decision drawing from certain areas and issues of 
convergence identified and reported to the July General Council meeting. Th at would mark the 
important milestone in Members'  common endeavour which would show in a concrete manner the 
progress they had made so far in th e solution -focused process. At the same time, all  Members  
recognise d that there remain ed certain difficult issues where  their views differ ed. Members should  
therefore continue their discussions in th at process to narrow the gap and enlarge the convergence.  
4.47.   As Ambassador Walker observ ed, building trust and confidence among Members was 
indispensabl e. Members  would  need a deeper discussion about the functioning of the Appellate Body 
and ha d to explore and find a way to have constructive conversations among themselves . By 
addressing all  of those, Japan hope d to see the Appellate Body fully and properl y function as 
Members had agreed in 1995 as soon as possible.  
4.48.   The representative of Ecuador  welcome d the draft decision that had been  put forward by  the 
Facilitator . It was a concrete contribution  and a positive step towards achieving a solution on th e 
matter which was of critical importance for the organization. Ecuador would be able to share more 
detailed comments o nce its capital ha d the opportunity to analyse the proposal . As Ecuador  had said 
through its active commitment in th e process, it was open to engaging in positive discussion on the 
various aspects of the Appellate Body and the need for reform.  
4.49.   As had been said earl ier, Members'  priority should remain to be finding a solution to the 
unblocking of the Appellate Body impasse. If Members  wanted to have discussions on reform and as 
time was quickly passing by, the agreement with the DSU rules should be done as swiftly as possible 
as they were, in any case, obligations for all Members.   
4.50.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African G roup, said that the African Group  had 
taken part in an ongoing way to the various consultations on th e matter. The African Group  
underscore d the need and the urgency for the Selection Process to be unblocked and launched as 
quickly as possible. In that reg ard, t he African Group had  noted  that the further measures that would 
be adopted within the framework of the reform of the Appellate Body contribute d to the improvement 
and effective operation of the Appellate Body – which was a keystone of the institution al framework WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 13 - 
 
  of the organization and the final bastion against trade practices that were not in compliance with the 
rules, procedures and mechanisms that govern ed international trade.   
4.51.   The representative of the United States  noted that it  had listened carefully to the discussions. 
As the United States  had explained, the fundamental problem was that the Appellate Body was not 
respecting the current, clear language of the DSU. While a number of Members ha d expressed 
concern with actions or appro aches by the Appellate Body, others appear ed willing to tolerate – or 
even encourage – those actions. If Members c ould not agree that they should be concerned that the 
Appellate Body ha d broken the plain rules that Members had agreed to in the DSU, then it  was 
difficult to see how they could find solutions to a problem they did not agree exist ed. By denying 
that they were concerned about persistent rule -breaking by the Appellate Body, some Members 
sought  to avoid the deeper question  on why the Appellate Bod y felt free to disregard the clear text 
of the agreements . 
4.52.   Members  could not find meaningful solutions without understanding how they had  arrived at 
that point. Without an accurate diagnosis, they could not assess the likely effectiveness of any 
potential solution. It was possible that some explanations could  cut across several of the issues and 
be of a systemic nature. For instance, one cause could be the ongoing challenges facing the WTO 
negotiating function and its oversight function, leading to unchecke d institutional creep  by the 
Appellate Body as Members push ed to achieve through litigation what they ha d not achieved or c ould 
not achieve at the negotiating table.  
4.53.   Another cause could be that some Members believe d that the Appellate Body was an 
international court and its members were judges who inherently ha d more expansive authority than 
what was provided in the DSU, for example, to create jurisprudence  and fill gaps in the WTO 
Agreements. Th at view could  be shar ed by some who ha d served on the Appellate Body. It was also 
possible that some explanations for why the Appellate Body had felt free to depart from the clear 
text of the DSU could  be specific to the concerns that ha d been raised.  
4.54.   For example, Article 17.5  of the DSU could not be more clear or categorical that appellate 
reports should  be issued within 90 days. While the DSB minutes record ed that some Members  had 
raised concerns about the Appellate Body 's exceeding 90 days, particularly without even consulti ng 
the parties, the minutes also record ed a few Members excusing the breach of their agreed rules.  
The United States asked whether the attitude of th ose Members contribute d to a mindset among the 
Appellate Body that the WTO 's rules and deadlines did not  need to be respected . 
4.55.   On so -called cogent reasons, the Facilitator 's Report suggest ed that Members agree d that 
precedent was not created through WTO dispute settlement. If th at was so, then the United States 
asked why some Members advocate d for the Appellat e Body to assert that its interpretations should  
be followed by panels absent unidentified cogent reasons and why the Appellate Body assert ed a 
precedential value for its reports like an authoritative interpretation that only Members in the 
Ministerial Con ference or General Council c ould give. 
4.56.   As a result of th ose fundamental questions not yet being addressed, the United States  did not 
see convergence among Members with respect to an understanding and appreciation of the concerns 
raised.  
4.57.   It was important to recogni ze that suggested convergence on statements in the Facilitator 's 
Report that largely reflect ed the existing text of the DSU d id not indicate convergence on the 
understanding of the problem and the situation in which Members currently found themselves. It 
simply w ould not work to paper over the problems that ha d been identified with new language that 
the Appellate Body and s ome Members could subsequently argue mean t the Appellate Body c ould 
continue operating the way that it ha d. 
4.58.   To find a solution to the concerns raised, Members w ould need to reach a shared 
understanding that the Appellate Body ha d failed to follow the rules  agreed by Members and the role 
assigned to it by the Members. The United States reiterated that t he purpose of th e process was not 
to re-negotiate the rules already agreed by Members to establish and govern the WTO dispute 
settlement system. Rather,  Membe rs needed to find a way to ensure that the system operate d as 
had been agreed by Members. Consequently, simply re -affirming the current WTO rules that ha d 
been broken persistently d id not resolve the problem.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.59.   In addition to th ose threshold considerations, the United States  question ed whether there was 
convergence on the suggestions presented in the Facilitator 's Report. For example , with respect to 
the issue of Appellate Body members whose terms ha d expired, the proposal would appear to depart 
from the DSU and provide d for an undetermined term for those former Appellate Body members.  
4.60.   Regarding the 90 -day deadline for Appellate Body reports, the DSU text was already clear, 
and yet the Appellate Body ha d failed to respect it. The United States asked w hat reaso n would there 
be to think th e language would ensure a different result . 
4.61.   With respect to the issue of appellate review of questions of fact, the United States  was 
concerned that the Appellate Body would say it was already abiding by the text in the Facilitator 's 
Report especially since the Appellate Body ha d interpreted DSU Article 11 to convert questions of 
fact into questions of law and the United States  heard Members expressing different views on the 
meaning of Article 11 of the DSU.  
4.62.   With respect to advisory opinions, similarly, the Appellate Body presumably consider ed that 
it was already abiding by the text in the Facili tator's Report. The United States asked w hat the basis 
was to consider that th e language would have a different result . 
4.63.   Regarding the issue of precedent, the Appellate Body ha d relied on the reference in the DSU 
to security and predictability to justify its cogent reasons approach and the United States  was 
concerned that the proposed language d id not address the issue.  
4.64.   With respect to the issue of overreach, it was clear that th e Appellate Body would say that it 
already abide d by the text of Article 17.6 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and, in turn, the text in 
the Facilitator 's Report. The problem was that the Appellate Body ha d adopted an erroneous 
interpretation of Article 17.6 that render ed it inutile. The United States  had not yet seen convergence 
on how to address th e issue or other instances in which the Appellate Body ha d departed from the 
plain text of other covered agreements.  
4.65.   The United States noted that  there were a numb er of concerns that ha d been expressed over 
the years with respect to the Appellate Body 's approach to substantive provisions in a variety of 
areas such as national treatment and technical barriers to trade, safeguards, subsidies, 
countervailing measures a nd antidumping duties. Concerns related to the Appellate Body departing 
from the plain text of the covered agreements and upsetting the careful balance of rights and 
obligations struck by Members ha d not yet been part of the discussions.  
4.66.   In sum, the Facili tator's Report suggest ed agreement among some Members that the DSU 
impose d clear limitations on the Appellate Body. The United States  appreciate d that some progress 
had been made through engagement by Members and the efforts of the Facilitator and others. But 
the United States  failed to see convergence on how to ensure that those limitations were respected 
going forward, and what were the consequences for continued failu re to adhere to those limitations.  
To find an appropriate and effective solution, it was imperative for Members to engage in a discussion 
on how they had come to th at point.  
4.67.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , urged Members to unblock the 
appointment of Appellate Body members. Many good ideas ha d surfaced which  could form the basis 
of convergence on issues that ha d been problematic for all Members. Th ose should be resolved in 
any case  but not to the detriment  of the proper functioning of the  system including the appointment 
of Appellate Body members.  The LDC Group also register ed the LDCs'  interest in the selection 
process  for new Appellate Body members and stressed that qualified LDC candidates should be 
considered and taken seriously.  
4.68.   The r epresentative of Thailand  said that the  efforts and the flexibilit y demonstrated by  
Members had led  to the convergence elements and had indicate d positive progress. The draft 
instrument  relating to the convergence elements w ould help enhance the dispute settlement system. 
More importantly , such an instrument should  lead to the unblocking of the Appellate Body impasse . 
Thailand  therefore urge d all Members to fully engage and give positive consideration to the 
immediate launching  of the Appellate Body Selection Process.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.69.   The representative of Turkey  recalled its statement at the July General Council meeting and 
noted that the Facilitator 's report had identified main areas of convergence among Members. The 
report was being translated into a concrete instrument which Turkey considered as a solid base to 
move forward. The adjustments Ambassador Walker had proposed that day were also in line with 
concerns raised by Members. Turkey was open to move forward in that direction based on Member s' 
common perspectives as the report had outlined. As others had implied, on that significant issue, 
responsibility rested with all Members. For a solution to be found, all Members should commit to 
safeguarding the dispute settlement system.  
4.70.   The representa tive of Mexico  noted that Mexico had been reiterating the importance of a fully 
functioning Appellate Body over the past two years. Mexico together with all other Members – both 
users and non -users of the system – could face a situation where they could no t find a solution to 
the current Appellate Body impasse by December. Members should therefore prioritise unblocking 
the Selection Process. At the same time, the results of the discussions in the Informal Process should 
preserve the fundamental characterist ics of the dispute settlement system by protecting the 
independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body, ensuring that the two parts of the system 
functioned fully and that procedures be automatically implemented in that regard.  
4.71.   Mexico thanked the prop onents for all the proposals they had put forward which clearly 
reflected their intention to find a solution. Mexico welcomed the hard work of Ambassador Walker in 
the Informal Process including for the points of convergence identified under his own respon sibility 
that resulted from the discussions. The points of convergence could be improved,  and Mexico would 
be carefully looking at the details of the proposal put forward that day.  
4.72.   Mexico continued to support the Informal Process and to take into account the concerns 
expressed by one Member with regard to the dispute settlement system – with the only goal of 
unblocking the Selection Process. In that regard, Members should be focusing on their future work 
taking into account the concerns expressed with a vi ew to improve the situation. Mexico did not 
want to enter into a discussion on the "why" as it was the best way to move forward. What was truly 
urgent was to put the fire out rather than to understand what had started it.  
4.73.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway' s original talking points had said that it would 
study the draft decision carefully. One point remained valid which was the important linkage between 
that instrument and the objective of the exercise which was to unblock the Appellate Body 
appointment process so that Members could ensure that the dispute settlement system functioned 
to its purpose also in the future. Norway noted in that context the Facilitator's observation regarding 
the need for such a decision to be accompanied by an instruct ion to start the Selection Process. 
Beyond that, Norway recalled the Facilitator's observation that there was a need to build trust and 
confidence – which went without saying that building trust and confidence required the constructive 
engagement from all parties.  
4.74.   Members had just heard a very interesting statement from the United States. For the first 
time, the United States had provided Members a good glimpse into its own thoughts about why it 
had observed its issues with the functioning of the Appellate  Body. That was a good start for a 
discussion that Members should have had a long time ago. It would be helpful though if the attempts 
at answering its own question of "why" would also be accompanied with some thoughts on "how" 
Members could move from what  the United States had considered to be an intolerable situation and 
how then Members could move on to a situation where they could go back to the normal functioning 
of the dispute settlement system. That would take Members a good step forward in that disc ussion 
which definitely needed to be continued. In that regard, Norway hoped that Ambassador Walker 
would still be available to serve as Facilitator for the Informal Process.  
4.75.   The representative of the European Union  noted that the Informal Process had been  launched 
almost a year ago with a clear purpose of finding ways to address the concerns that the United 
States had raised with the functioning of the Appellate Body in order to unblock the appointments 
process. Starting with proposals that the European Un ion and others had made in December 2018, 
a number of additional proposals had been made since by other Members and numerous meetings 
had been held to discuss those proposals and issues. In that regard, the European Union thanked 
all Members that had contr ibuted to the Informal Process and Ambassador Walker for his hard work.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 16 - 
 
  4.76.   In his report to the General Council in July, Ambassador Walker had sketched out the 
"convergence elements " which were used as the basis for the dr aft decision of the General Council 
that he had presented that day. The European Union welcome d that step. It was  a sound and 
balanced way to move the process forward towards its objective.  
4.77.   Through such decision , the Membership would effectively address the concerns that the U nited 
States  had raised with regard to the Appellate Body in the past. What Ambassador Walker ha d 
captured in his report and in the draft decision were precise directions to the adjudicators on the 
very issues on which the U nited States  had complained. If transl ated into a proper legal form, they 
would have a real impact on the way the dispute settlement system operate d.  
4.78.   The E uropean Union  therefore support ed that course of action and was ready to work towards 
the adoption of a decision based on th ose "convergen ce elements ". All Members ha d the 
responsibility to work towards the restoration of a fully functioning dispute settlement system, 
including by showing the necessary flexibilities.  
4.79.   The E uropean Union  was ready to do its part, as it had clearly shown. The European Union  
was ready to work towards the adoption of the decision as had been sketched out by Ambassador 
Walker . But its  support was based on the understanding that th at was part of an overall solution 
that should  necessarily include the unblocking of the appointments.  
4.80.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  recalled what  many Members ha d already stated  
that the terms for two more Appellate Body members w ould come into a close in less than two 
months ' time. Unless the Selection Process start ed immediately, the paralysis of the Appellate Body 
would not be avoided. In th at regard, Korea appreciate d the efforts of the Members and Ambassador 
Walker to overcome the impasse on the matter s related to the functioning of the Appellate Body .  
4.81.   The report of Ambassador Walker was a product of ten  month s of hard work through the 
informal process including various compositions of small group meetings. The draft instrument 
presented by the Facilitator seem ed to reflect most of the elements of convergence in th e spirit of 
trying to find solution to th at imminent crisis.  In that regard, Korea appreciate d the proposal made 
by Ambassador Walker  which deserve d Members'  serious consideration.  
4.82.   In any case , some divergent views still exist ed for further discussion. Korea remained  ready 
to engage in such discussion going forward.  Time was not on Members'  side and the world was 
watching their every step. Korea therefore  encourage d all Members to put forward their utmost 
effort into rescuing th at important pillar of the WTO.  
4.83.   The representative of South Africa  said that it was Members' collective obligation to ensure 
that the Appellate Body remain ed functional to enforce the negotiated balance of rights and 
obligations.  Areas of convergence ha d emerged among Members including on transitional rules for 
outgoing Appellate Body members, the 90 -day rule, municipal law, advisory opinions, precedent and 
overreach. Th at was an outcome of a genuine attempt and solution -oriented process by Members to 
resolve  the impasse. It was a positive step forward and should be endorsed by all Members, more 
particularly, given the small window they had until 10 December 2019.  
4.84.   South Africa  also agree d that the emerging convergence should form the basis of a General 
Counci l decision to address the ongoing impasse. The process to formali se a draft decision should 
receive the highest priority if Members  were to break the A ppellate Body  deadlock and ensure that 
the dispute settlement system  did not become dysfunctional.  
4.85.   An imp ortant innovation of the  WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding  had been  the change 
of decision -making for the adoption of final reports to negative consensus decision -making which 
had removed the ability of individual Members to block the progress of a disp ute – and th at should 
be preserved.  The D ispute Settlement Understanding  without a doubt was an important pillar of the  
multilateral trading system.  Members'  collective objective should be to safeguard it . In doing so,  
Members  should  preserve the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body and  the current 
architecture of the dispute settlement system  and its two stage s and ensure  an effective and efficient 
dispute settlement system .  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.86.   South Africa emphasised that the  proposals had been put forward as a basis to unlock the 
impasse and call ed on all Members to show flexibility and not leverage the crisis on the A ppellate 
Body for the broader reform of the WTO. Members  had collective responsibility to build trust in the 
system and to ensure adherence to the decisions they took. South Africa  remained  ready to work 
constructively with Members to achieve th ose objectives.  
4.87.   The representative of Singapore  was hearten ed to see that there was continued interest 
among Members including the United States to use and maintain the dispute settlement mechanism. 
At the last regular DSB meeting on 30 September, three panel requests had been  filed including one 
by the United States. The United States in particular ha d also inscribed an agenda item on 
transparency in WTO dispute settlement which Singapore was happy to co -sponsor. Singapore  saw 
them as encouraging signals that Members remain ed committed to not only resolving their disputes 
through WTO di spute settlement but also in putting forth proposals to improve it.  
4.88.   It was likewise  obvious that Members  had come to a pivotal moment in the timeline for the 
resolution of the appointments'  impasse. They were no longer talking about years or months . 
Instead, they  were unfortunately at the point when there were exactly 56 days left to 10 December 
when the Appellate Body w ould fall to one member if vacancies remain ed unfilled. Even if unblocked, 
the Selection Process w ould still require time to be imple mented. Without pre -judging what could  
happen, Members  should continue to support Ambassador Walker in his efforts not only  until 
10 December but also beyond if need ed be. 
4.89.   Concerning  the draft General Council decision, as Members consider ed its contents, i t was 
obvious that progress w ould only be made if all Members seriously consider ed if it c ould form the 
basis of a decision for adoption in order to ultimately unblock appointment of new members. As 
Ambassador Walker had emphasi sed, developing trust and co nfidence were essential.  
4.90.   When the General Council next convene d, it would likely be in the same week as 10 December. 
By then, Members  would know which side of history they would be on.  
4.91.   The representative of Iceland  said that m uch work ha d been done in order to address concerns 
of certain Members . Members'  certain convergence on a number of issues was emerging as 
highlighted in Ambassador Walker's report and the draft decision. Iceland  therefore welcome d the 
continuation of th e process and hopefully further progress. It was imperative that the Membership 
ensure d the functioning of the dispute settlement system. Members  should not allow the multilateral 
trading system to become non -functional. There was simply too much at stake for all of them.  
4.92.   Iceland was willing to work constructively towards a solutio n that c ould satisfy all Members. 
Any such reform progress c ould not however  stand in the way of the Membership carrying out its 
duty according to their common WTO rules that was to fill the A ppellate Body vacancies as they 
arose. Th ose were two independent processes and should  remain if they were to ensure the integrity 
of the multilateral trading system which they all benefit ed so greatly from.  
4.93.   The representative of Indonesia  continue d to rai se its grave concern over the crisis 
surrounding the  Selection Process of Appellate Body  member s. As 10 December was fast 
approaching, Members  were not far away from the absence of the two-stage dispute settlement 
process which w ould not only severely impact the dispute settlement system itself but also write the 
future of the multilateral trading system into paralysis. There w ould therefore be no other  time for 
Members to agree on the immediate launch of the Selection Process than at  that exact moment.  
4.94.   The representative of the Russian Federation  noted that  Members were well aware of the huge 
challenge that they were currently facing  within the WTO.  In that regard, Russia was ready to 
contribute its efforts in order to reach the resol ution of the Appellate Body  crisis.  
4.95.   Russia  was grateful to Ambassador Walker for his latest report and for the draft G eneral 
Council  decision  and would provide its comments after careful examination of the most recent 
amendments. Most importantly, the draf t document respond ed and should respond to the critical 
issues and should effectively contribute to the launch of the appointment process of A ppellate Body  
members.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.96.   All Members ha d agreed to the two-tiered dispute settlement system  – which should be 
maint ained. As provided for in the Dispute Settlement Understanding, i t was the responsibility of all 
Members to fill the vacancies in the A ppellate Body  as they ar ose. The existence of the A ppellate 
Body ensure d predictability and consistency in application of the WTO provisions. As everything in 
the world, A B-related provisions would  not seem perfect to someone and it was for Members  to 
make them better to preserve the A ppellate Body' s role in the multilateral t rading system.  
4.97.   That did not mean that the disruption of the A ppellate Body' s work or its non -functioning in 
the nearest future was a solution. The Appellate Body's  non-existence, de jure or de facto, was 
clearly in contradiction with the Dispute Settlemen t Understanding and impede d the attainment of 
the objectives of not only the Dispute Settlement Understanding but also of the WTO Agreement in 
general.  
4.98.   Russia  thanked all Members that had provided comments, feedbacks and inputs in their 
sincere efforts to find resolution to the A ppellate Body  crisis and hoped that the Selection Process of 
Appellate Body members w ould be launched without further delay.  
4.99.   The representative of Switzerland  said that t he identification of elements of convergence that 
would improv e the functioning of the Appellate Body was a very important step in th e process. 
Switzerland support ed the Facilitator's approach to include th ose elements in a draft decision of the 
General Council.   
4.100.   Switzerland was also ready to continue and deepen the necessary discussions in th e process 
to find practical and viable solutions as quickly as possible. The ultimate goal was to ensure the 
functioning of the dispute settlement system and its Appellate Body to its full potential.  If Members  
wished to make real progress, it was essential that all  of them  engage d constructively in th e process.  
4.101.   The representative of India noted that s ince the beginning of 2019, Members  had met in a 
variety of configurations hoping to find the elusive solution to the Ap pellate Body impasse – an 
impasse that ha d been created by the block on appointments to the vacancies in the A ppellate Body 
which was  in direct contravention of Members' treaty obligations under Articles 17.1 and 17.2 of the 
DSU. Members  should  not lose si ght of the fact that the rationale for the informal process was to 
unblock the appointments to all vacancies in the Appellate Body. With less than two months to go 
before the December deadline, India urged all Members to continue working to resolve th e impasse.  
4.102.   The DSB SS was the forum for addressing the issues raised by the U nited States . In moving 
forward in the spirit of focusing on solutions , India was willing to get on board and look at the text 
put forward as an instrument based on elements of conver gence identified by Ambassador Walker. 
The draft G eneral Council  decision appear ed to be the best way out of th e impasse.  Any attempt at 
addressing the crisis should  preserve the essential features of dispute settlement – notably an 
independent and two -step system and the principle of negative consensus.  
4.103.   The representative of Qatar  said that t he Informal Process ha d allowed Members to focus on 
the main issue that seem ed to trouble the membership in respect of the functioning of the Appellate 
Body and ha d identified a possible solution that could be made through a decision to be adopted by 
the General Council.  
4.104.   Pursuant to Article s 17.1 and 17.2 of the DSU, all Members had a collective obligation to 
ensure the maintenance of a standing Appellate Body comprising of seven members. In th at respect, 
Qatar was delighted to join as a co -sponsor to the proposal introduced by Mexico to launch the 
Appellate Body vacancy processes  aiming to point a suitable solution to the Appellate Body  impasse.  
4.105.   Qatar  called on all Members to fill the vacancies on the Appellate Body in order to remain a 
dynamic institution and to ensure the security and stability of the multilateral trading syste m. At the 
same time, Qatar  acknowledge d that concerns ha d been raised about the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system. Qatar remained  ready to work on a solution with all Members while preserving 
the essential f eatures  of the system and of its Appel late Body.  
4.106.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , noted that the ACP  Group ha d long 
considered how the dispute settlement system c ould be made more responsive to the needs of all WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 19 - 
 
  developing countries. In that regard, colleagues in the African  Group had proposed development 
enhancing reforms to the DSU as far back as 2008 on the cover of document TN/DS/ W/92. 
4.107.   The ACP Group acknowledge d the efforts which were being made by Ambassador Walker to 
address the existential threat posed to the system by a non -functioning Appellate Body. Th e crisis 
necessitated  collective action from all Members. The ACP Group  therefore welcome d the report by 
Ambassador Walker and commend ed his efforts aimed at finding convergence among the 
Membership that w ould assist in unblocking the Selection Process.  
4.108.   On substance,  the ACP Group  noted the proposals that ha d been submitted, reviewed and 
discussed through the informal process  and further register ed the important contributions made by 
many developing countries i ncluding the African Group. On the question of transitional rules for 
outgoing Appellate Body members, the ACP Group ha d interest in having prompt filling of vacancies 
on the Appellate Body as they ar ose.  
4.109.   On the 90 -day rule, the Group support ed adherence to the rules. Yet it also t ook note of 
Members' concerns over the adaptability of the current DSU framework to the increasing complexity 
of cases and the heavy workload of the Appellate Body and therefore underst ood the call for 
pragmatic solutions includi ng the option of allowing the parties to the dispute to agree on appropriate 
time flexibilities.  
4.110.   While there seem ed to be an understanding that the issue of precedent was not treated 
within the WTO as it was in national laws, the need for predictability re quired like cases to be treated 
alike without necessarily deviating from rules established by the DSU. The ACP Group also  took note 
of the Facilitator's text on the issues treating with municipal law and overreach  and saw merit in 
establishing regular dial ogue between the Membership and the Appellate Body.   
4.111.   There was ample room for dialogue on pressing issues that affect ed the functioning of the 
Appellate Bod y, for example , on improving inclusivity, access and compliance with rulings. At the 
same time, the ACP Group  was cogni zant of the time sensitivities of th e file given the looming 
December deadline to resolve the impasse.  
4.112.   Against th at background, the ACP Group consider ed the Facilitator's Text to represent a fairly 
good basis for Members  to advance their collective goal of unblocking the appointment of Appellate 
Body members and call ed on the Membership to cooperate to th at end. The ACP Group  thank ed the 
delegations that had worked on  those proposals that s ought  to establish a common understanding 
on the critical issues  and called on all Members to demonstrate maximum flexibility as necessary 
and importantly to urgently launch the Selection Process.  
4.113.   The representative of Guyana  said that a  lot of time ha d been usefully spent by Members  
focusing on the concerns raised and trying to address all of the apprehensions related to the 
functioning of the A ppellate Body . There was no perfect solution. Members  had arrived at a good 
place arising from all the proposals seeking to meet the concerns raised about the A ppellate Body . 
Those proposed reforms would ensure greater consistency, greater impartiality and predictability, 
greater timeliness of the appellate p rocess workings and increased dialogue between the A ppellate 
Body and Members to continually improve the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
4.114.   Everyone kn ew that impro ving and strengthening the system was a continuous process. It 
was however already time  to harvest the good results of the efforts of the past year  and avoid the 
disruptions of the functioning of the Appellate Body while continu ing to deliberate on how they could  
improve it. Members should  avoid further damaging the rules -based multilateral trading system that 
they all value d. Guyana therefore  urged the General Council to move towards taking the decision on 
the draft instrument on the Appellate Body as attached to Ambassador Walker's report and thereby 
launch ing the process to fill the vacant  positions in the Appellate Body.  
4.115.   The representative of Argentina  said that d iscussions held in 2019  had been  based on 
different concrete proposals. The talks ha d been open and positive  – giving all interested Members 
the opportunity to exchange views on t he matter . As a result, Members  had a more complete 
diagnosis of what work ed well and of the areas that could be improved.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.116.   A fully functioning Appellate Body was of utmost importance  as part of the multilateral 
trading system based on rules that Members  support ed and adopt ed. The absence of an effective 
dispute settlement system w ould adversely affect one of the essential pillars of th e organization.  In 
the time Members  had until 10 December, it was imperative to move forward towards a General 
Council  decision and launch the  procedures to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
4.117.   The representative of Barbados  noted that the discussions in the informal process had been 
crucial to the discourse which addresse d what could  and could  not be possible  – but more so  on 
what was an absolute necessity and what was not.  Barbados  took note of the areas outlined in the 
draft decision which ha d been identified as enjoying a certain degree of convergence among 
Members and equally  of those where continued dialo gue among Members w ould be necessary. 
Barbados  would consider th ose issues carefully in capital.   
4.118.   With what Members  had observed in the discussions in the informal process coupled with 
what they had heard so far t hat day, the main issue that should  be ove rcome was one which was 
not necessarily technical in nature. In th at regard, while Members had  heard calls for substantive 
amendments to the DSU or for guidelines to be developed, they should  remain open -minded to all 
solutions including those which could  require no technical amendments at all.  
4.119.   In order to arrive at th at point however, there was a clear need for Members  to engage in a 
more honest and pragmatic conversation on th e issue. It also require d all Members to employ the 
necessary political will to arrive at a consensus solution as a matter of urgency as time was not on 
their side. 
4.120.   As a small, vulnerable economy, it was important for Barbados  that Members  continue d to 
maintain a rules -based multilater al trading system and in so doing avoid at all cost any retreat to 
the type of dispute settlement system which had predated the WTO. It was also critical that within 
the rules-based system that the Appellate Body and its members remain ed independent and 
impartial, and that the balance between Members ' rights and responsibilities were maintained. While 
Members  recognise d that th ose were principles which were already inscribed in the DSU, th ose 
should both  still be reiterated in any instrument that went forwa rd for agreement.  
4.121.   The dispute settlement system was a critical arm of the WTO . In the international 
governance community, it was what set the WTO apart from other similar entities . A paralysed 
dispute settlement system was simply not an option.  
4.122.   The current  discussions were focused on the urgent need to unblock the Selection Process 
of Appellate Body members.  It was however critical that Members  did not lose sight of the need for 
wider dispute settlement reform.  Barbados  assure d Members  of its continued support in th e process 
and stood willing and ready to continue its active engagement on th e important issue.  
4.123.   The representative of Colombia  said that t he dispute settlement mechanism and its correct 
functioning was fundamental in preserving the credibility of the WTO and the entire multilateral 
trading system. The two -tiered approach of the dispute settlement system ha d been well -known and 
had been referred to commonly as the crown jewel of the WTO. There were many crowns throughout 
other interna tional systems but not many ha d such a valuable jewel as the WTO's . It ha d served as 
a beacon of legality and respect of the rule of law in Members'  international economic relations.  
4.124.   Members should  also recogni se that the adequate functioning of their crown jewel was as 
important as its existence itself. At th at very crucial time, Members  should  keep pushing forward to 
preserve and even strengthen it.  Colombia was prepared to engage further in th ose discussions 
hopefully reaching a multilateral understanding on th e matter before having a real deadlock of the 
Appellate Body 's activities.  
4.125.   The representative of Pakistan  noted that the paper presented by the Facilitator wa s a 
meaningful contribution to resolving the Appellate Body impasse. It d id not create linkages with 
other potential negotiations or reform and s ought  to maintain the independence and impartiality of 
the Appellate Body. While Pakistan  studied the paper in more detail, it agree d with Ambassador 
Walker that Members should concomitantly  work towards launching the process to fill A ppellate Body  
vacancies.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.126.   The representative of Nigeria  said that  the draft General Council decision put together by  
Ambassador  Walker represent ed a concrete step towards addressing the challenges of the dispute 
settlement system. The non -paper had addressed some of the concern s raised by Members. Nigeria  
therefore encourage d Members to engage constructively towards addressing divergent issues in the 
draft General Council decision to pave way for its adoption.  
4.127.   It was in Members'  collective interest that the Appellate Body impasse was resolved so as 
not to undermine the dispute settlement system. It ma de no sense negotiating new rules in the 
absence of any enforcement mechanism. Nigeria  therefore urge d Members to take concrete steps 
to resolve the Appellate Body impasse.  
4.128.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  noted that t he Appellate Body play ed a key 
role in the dispute settlement system  – which had been a result of pragmatism demonstrated by 
those who ha d come before them ever since the beginning of the GATT. In that regard,  Members 
should  pay tribute to Mr. Eric Wyndham -White who , in his position as Secretary -General , had 
brought forward the transformation of the former system of Working Groups to Panels.  
4.129.   Going forward, Members should  take note of the progress that ha d been made in the Tokyo 
Round and the Uruguay Round. There ha d been a lot of com plexity as well with the unfolding of the 
growth of new standards and new trading patterns. It wa s therefore good that Members  had the 
opportunity to stop and think and  to put forward proposals regarding the way forward for th ose 
improvements.  
4.130.   Ambassador Walker's report was an important step forward in the right direction to adopt 
the correct measures within the spirit of pragmatism when it c ame to arriving at solutions to the 
obstacles that Members  currently face d. They should  always remember that at th at point in time it 
was a legal obligation that the dispute settlement system operate d properly.  
4.131.   The Chair said that she and the Facilitator  had taken note of all comments and feedback.  
Members  had come a long way in th e Informal  Process. There were less than eight weeks left to 
agree on a workable  and viable solution  – and it was already time for them to act. In th at spirit, she 
and the Facilitator  hoped that Members w ould give due consideration to the draft instrument that 
had been presented.   
4.132.   In moving  forward, she asked  the Facilitator to continue to work with Members in the urgent 
task of restoring the necessary trust and confidenc e which were very much needed to implement 
any such instrument in the future.  She count ed on all  Members' engagement towards th at end. 
4.133.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Facilitator and of the statements.  
5  PROCEDURAL GUIDELINE S FOR WTO COUNCILS A ND COMMITTEES ADDRES SING TRADE 
CONCERNS – COMMUNICA TION FROM ALBANIA; A USTRALIA; EUROPEAN UNION; HONG  
KONG, CHINA; REPUBLI C OF KOREA; REPUBLIC  OF MOLDOVA; NEW ZEA LAND; NORWAY; 
PANAMA; QATAR; SINGA PORE; SWITZERLAND; T HE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINM EN AND MATSU; THAILA ND; TURKEY; AND UKRA INE 
(WT/GC/W/777/REV.3)  
5.1.  The Chair recalled that the European Union had requested the Secretariat to include th at item 
in the agenda of t he meeting  together with the revised communication circulated in 
WT/GC/W/777/Rev.3.  
5.2.  The representative of the European Union  noted that since th e initial presentation to the last 
meeting of the General Council in July, the group of co -sponsors had grown,  and they had been 
working to incorporate Members' suggestions into the proposal. In that regard, the European Union 
thank ed the co-sponsors: Alba nia; Australia; the European Union; Hong Kong, China; the Republic 
of Korea; the Republic of Moldova; New Zealand; Norway; Panama; Qatar; Singapore; Switzerland; 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Thailand; Turkey; and 
Ukraine and all other Members who had provided valuable feedback to their proposal on "Procedural 
Guidelines for WTO Councils and Committees Addressing Trade Concerns" .  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 22 - 
 
  5.3.  The guidelines proposed by the E uropean Union  and fifteen  other Members were intended as a  
modest but practical and doable contribution to their big task of making the WTO more effective, 
and hence more concretely how  Members deal t with each other's trade concerns.  
5.4.  Much inspiration ha d been taken from the best practices used in so me committees that ha d 
longstanding experience with trade concerns such as the Agriculture, SPS and TBT Committees.  
Importantly, th e proposal had not intend ed to alter existing approaches which had worked well or 
to limit any WTO body from setting itself more sophisticated or more ambitious arrangements. 
Instead, the proposal had aimed at creating a minimum platform of good practices.  
5.5.  At the last General Council as well as in numerous outreach meetings, the co -sponsors had  
received lots of encouraging reac tions but had also heard some questions and concerns. In response 
to those comments, the co-sponsors ha d included a number of changes in th e revision . 
5.6.  The changes aim ed to underline that the responsibility for engaging in dialogue on trade 
concerns was upo n Members whereas the WTO as an institution should assist Members in their 
dialogue as had been indicated in recitals 3 and 4  of the proposal ). 
5.7.  The co -sponsors had  also taken the suggestion of some developing countries on board to 
include additional practi cal tools that would help small delegations cope better with meetings – hence 
the principle that the Secretariat sh ould remind them of the closing dates for agendas as had been 
indicated in paragraph 1  of the proposal . 
5.8.  Furthermore, a number of amendments emphasi sed the voluntary nature of the good practices 
which the proposal promote d. That wa s the case for example regarding participation at the informal 
meetings which was meant to help resolve persistent trade concerns as had been indicated in 
paragraph 12  of the proposal , as well as the involvement of capital -based experts by appropriate 
means as had been indicated in paragraph 13  of the proposal . 
5.9.  Finally, the changes clarif ied that the Chair's factual report about the informal meeting, which 
was intended to provide transparency to the wider Membership, was merely an oral summary as 
had been indicated in paragraph 14  of the proposal . 
5.10.   The co-sponsors  were not looking to have a long debate t hat day but  had wanted to update 
the Membership about whe re they stood. In the interest of time, only a few co -sponsors w ould take 
the floor t hat day. The c o-sponsors w ould continue their informal outreach work with the whole 
Membership in order to further mature the proposal for adoption. They trusted that Memb ers ha d 
the political will to improve the way they worked in order to eventually strengthen the deliberative 
function of th e organization.  
5.11.   The representative of Qatar  associate d with the statement made by the European Union as a 
co-sponsor of th e communication. Qatar fully support ed the aim of encouraging the effective 
resolution of trade concerns among Members through dialogue and share d the desire to strengthen 
the ability of r egular WTO Councils and Committees to facilitate the effective resolution of such 
concerns by equipping them with horizontal procedural guidelines.  
5.12.   It was of systemic interest to ensure that regular WTO Councils and Committees function ed 
as efficiently as possible and ha d procedures in place to facilitate dialogue between Members on 
specific trade concerns. The proposal contribute d to those goals by for example ensuring that 
sufficient time was provided to Members to become aware of trade concerns in order to prepare and 
meaningfully discuss such matters at meetings and by providing for a transparent exchange of 
information relating to the concerns raised.  
5.13.   Furthermore, Qatar consider ed that the proposed procedural guidelines also properly s ought  
to actually resolve trade concerns that were repeatedly raised in the relevant Committees or Councils 
through voluntary but substantive dialogue with the mediation support of the relevant Chairperson 
and where necessary and desirable the administrative support of the Secretariat. The point of raising 
a trade concern should not be to repeat the same concern at every meeting but to seek to find an 
amicable solution.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 23 - 
 
  5.14.   The proposed guidelines w ould reinforce the importance of the relevant Councils and 
Committees as a forum for understanding and resolving trade concerns which could  further assist in 
reducing the burden on the dispute settlement system. Qatar was encouraged by the already 
sizeable number and diverse nature of co -sponsors for th e proposal and look ed forward to further 
engaging with other Members on ways of taking th e proposal to strengthen the deliberative function 
of the WTO forward.  
5.15.   The representative of Australia  noted that Australia  was one of the sixteen co -sponsors of th e 
proposal and welcome d Qatar's and Iceland's co -sponsorship since the last General Council meeting. 
The aim of th e proposal was to equip Council s and Committees with procedural guidelines to assist 
Members to better utilise existing mechanisms for resolving trade concerns.  
5.16.   Australia  thank ed the E uropean Union  for outlining the improvements made to the proposal 
in response to the comments that the co -sponsors  had received since their last meeting. With the 
focus of th e proposal on procedural improvements, Australia  and other co -sponsors had considered 
that th at was a modest but practical and achievable contribution to their broader joint effort to 
strengthen the functioning of the WTO as an organization.  
5.17.   Australia  reiterate d that the proposal was a work in progress . Australia  and other co -sponsors 
remained  open to suggestions to further improve the text and encourage d all Members to support  
the proposal . 
5.18.   The representative of Iceland  said that i t was important that the regular work of the WTO's 
Councils and Committee s function ed properly and deliver ed useful work on trade concerns. 
Improving the efficiency of WTO Bodies was to the interest of stakeholders and would help Members  
to keep the WTO relevant at a time where solutions to negotiating the dispute settlement fu nction 
were being sought.  
5.19.   The proposal aim ed to facilitate the resolution of Members' concerns with trade measures of 
other Members to the WTO Bodies before they escalate d to dispute settlement stage or remain on 
agendas for years without progress. Icelan d was therefore pleased to co -sponsor the proposal.  
5.20.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that t he LDC Group had several 
constructive contacts with the proponents. The LDCs  acknowledge d that th e communication 
contribute d to nourishing their thought process on WTO Reform with a view to improving the WTO's 
functioning. It was highly relevant that Members  defend ed the principle of a more effective system 
to resolve trade concerns they faced and that were dealt with by the various Councils and 
Committees.  
5.21.   The LDCs share d the idea on the search for a better arrangement to ensure that Members 
would be able to effectiv ely follow the meetings. Providing all the relevant information and 
documents in advance w ould be a welcome thing from a logistical point of view given the constraints 
faced by the LDCs in terms of availability of sufficient human resources at the ir perman ent missions  
in Geneva. Anything that c ould be done to improve the quality of their participation in negotiations 
and discussions in an inclusive manner w ould also be welcome d. The LDC Group  encourage d all 
Members to move forward in a constructive manner o n the issue taking into account the concerns 
and interests of everyone.  
5.22.   The representative of Uruguay  welcome d the revised version of th e proposal  which  include d 
improvements from the original version. Uruguay  acknowledge d that there was space and interest  
in improving the functioning of the Councils and Committees  – which  was reflected in the various 
efforts carried out by Members at different levels. Uruguay  was nevertheless uncertain about 
whether the proposed horizontal guidelines  that did  not take into  account the specificities of each 
Council or Committee was necessarily the most adequate  solution . Members  needed to be cautious 
with too restrictive deadlines and requirements and its impact on their ability to include their 
concerns on the agendas of the various bodies. It would have been good to be able to have the 
minutes circulated before the following meeting b ut Members  should  look at it on a case by case 
basis particularly on  the reasons why there were delays  in the first place . 
5.23.   With regard to the review of trade concerns, Uruguay  was not against the idea of having 
questions and answers in written form when it would be a  complement and not a substitute to WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Members' interaction at regular meetings. Uruguay referred to the situation of trade concerns 
repeatedly raised  in Councils and Committees particularly in relation to  Paragraph 11 of the proposal 
regarding making the most of Members' available time. All Members had the right to decide to what 
extent they wished to present their positions and arguments taking into account their interests and 
legitimate concerns and highlighting the intrinsic political value in r epeatedly raising an issue. 
Uruguay  likewise encourage d Members to work on preparing their statements ahead of time . 
5.24.   As had been mentioned at the previous General Council meeting, Uruguay  share d the goal of 
trying to resolve the many trade concerns of Memb ers in the different bodies. From an optimistic 
point of view, one could interpret the submission of trade concerns in the multilateral f orum  as being 
a reflection of t he WTO's  relevance. Members should  however  acknowledge  that the existence  of 
such concer ns was generally the consequence of the adoption and implementation by Members of 
measures that were not necessarily in line with the provisions of the various multilateral agreements. 
In that sense, apart from the procedural issues that should  be addressed , the main way for Members 
to avoid the cumulation of trade concerns would be by respecting the principles and standards that 
they had committed themselves to uphold.  
5.25.   The representative of Bangladesh  associate d with the statement  made by t he LDC Group and 
welcome d the constructive ideas in the proposal . Bangladesh noted that the proposal was still a draft 
and that there was still room for improvement.  For example, the use of the modal verb s "shall, 
should, may and will " should  be consistent and rat ionali sed throughout the text.  
5.26.   Bangladesh suggest ed changes in the existing convening notice templates which should 
include  information such as  the date of the last meeting of the relevant  Council or Committee , 
document reference of the minutes of the previous  meeting and the name of the Chair. Members  
could also review the suggested time -limit for serving a convening notice before the actual date of 
a meeting and the time -limit for circulating the minutes afte r a meeting. Bangladesh  also propose d 
that a summary note should go to the WTO newsfeed and website immediately after the meeting.  
Those changes  would immensely help smaller delegations  who were  unable to attend all meetings 
in regularly updat ing their in formation repository . 
5.27.   The aim of the submission, as the proponents point ed out, was to strengthen the capacity of 
the regular Councils and Committees to help Members conduct their discussions  more efficiently. In 
that respect, Bangladesh encourage d Members to reflect on the wider scope that the proposed 
guidelines ha d so that their decisions d id not create difficulties in the future. For example, Paragraph 
13 of the proposal  suggest ed that Members should ensure partici pation of capital -based experts in 
person or through video conferencing. Members could  re-think whether all Members were in a 
position to implement th at call for all informal meetings.  Bangladesh would  remain constructively 
engaged with the proponents and other Members on th e issue.   
5.28.   The representative of Ecuador  welcome d the efforts made by the proponents in taking into 
account the comments that they had received from other Members. There was however concern on 
some of the items  proposed . Inadvertently, t hey could lead to a weakening of the position of 
developing countries in the various Council s and C ommittees. The proposal need ed greater balance 
from the point of view of Members  which were often faced with the need to raise trade concerns.  
5.29.   The increased frequency of raising trade concerns reflect ed the rising  number of trade 
restrictions of all sorts at the international  level. The persistence of some concerns  raised  in the 
agendas in some Committees , sometimes spanning  several years , was not ne arly a procedural issue. 
It was  rather  due to the lack of a resolution of the restriction at stake and sometimes even due to 
the lack of involvement  of the Member that had implemented the measure  at issue . Members should 
therefore not only look at the symp toms but also the causes.  
5.30.   Ecuador was  also concerned by the fact that some of the items in the proposal could 
compartmentalise and prematurely withdraw from the multilateral debate some concerns that were 
previously raised which  could put even greater pres sure on developing and LDC Members . Ecuador 
saw merit in the use of establish ing uniform procedures for the various Councils and Committees . It 
would  however require much greater work and flexibility to ensure that the proposal was balanced 
so that all Mem bers c ould benefit from it.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 25 - 
 
  5.31.   The representative of Colombia  support ed the draft proposed guidelines  and thought that the 
discussions on the proposal had been  a right step to enhance efficiency and to maintain coherence 
among different Councils and C ommittees  and to improve  the quality of the discussions related to 
specific trade concerns.  Colombia  recogni sed and appreciate d the changes implemented during the 
various iterations of the document and congratulate d participa ting Members for their commenda ble 
efforts during the discussions.  
5.32.   The representative of Nigeria  noted that Nigeria had  forwarded t he proposal  to its capital for 
consideration . The third revision of the proposal  contain ed some good elements that , if well -
developed , would enhance the pro cess of addressing trade concerns without necessarily increasing 
the burden for developing countries. I n that regard, Nigeria would  make a textual submission on 
that issue in due course.  
5.33.   The representative of Japan  was committed to Members' collective ende avour to improve and 
strengthen the activities of the WTO regular bodies. Japan therefore thank ed the European Union 
and co -sponsors for their efforts to deepen discussions with a view to better addressing and resolving 
trade concerns in the relevant Counc ils and Committees in a more effective manner. Japan  would  
further look into the proposal.  
5.34.   The representative of Guatemala  noted that its capital was  still analysing the proposal. As an 
initial comment, Guatemala did not agree with the intention of limiting Members' right to raise trade 
concerns and to intervene  in such discussions as well as with the limitation in the inclusion of topics 
on the Committee's agenda especial ly when trade concerns remain ed unresolved.  
5.35.   It was vitally important for developing countries to have transparent processes that 
strengthen ed dialogue. Guatemala reiterate d its commitment to improve the procedures in the 
different Councils and Committees to resolve trade concerns while respecting at the same time the 
rights of Members to intervene in  the regular bodies . 
5.36.   The representative of Paraguay  said that it was important to improve the functioning of the 
organization and its Committees.  Paraguay howev er had  a divergent view regarding  the origin of 
the problems and the possible ways to improve the manner  of addressing  trade concerns.  The fact 
that Members br ought  their trade concerns to t he WTO  was something positive and that hav ing 
charged agendas mean t that Members continued to resort to the multilateral trading system to 
resolve their trade problems – despite th e system  undergoing a difficult period . 
5.37.   With regard to the substance of the proposal, Paraguay was concerned with some of the 
proposed measure s that could affect the effective participation of Members in the Committees . The 
proposal ha d the potential to reduce multilateral attention on those issues which  was essential  not 
only to generate  consciousness  on the respective issues  but also to maintain  the balance and to level 
the playing field  between large and small Members.  
5.38.   Many of th ose propos ed measures  came from good intentions but they could have adverse 
effects  which were  not anticipated by the propo nents . Those could end up negatively affecting the 
ability of Members to bring their concerns to th e WTO since although the language was mainly 
exhortative, th at would generate expectations about the standard of behaviour of the Members in 
the Councils and  Committees.  
5.39.   The representative of the United States  continue d to believe that what was needed most to 
resolve longstanding specific trade concerns was the political will to do so and not additional 
bureaucratic processes.  
5.40.   The representative of Mexico  noted that Mexico had  been in favour of work to improve the 
functioning of the Committees and one way to do th at was to ensure that procedures were based on 
the experience of other Committees. Th at was why Mexico  was in favour of  establishing good 
practices that could be used in a horizontal manner based on the processes used in the  regular 
bodies. In particular, Mexico  saw the part on preparations on meetings positively because the ir goal 
was to ensure that Members were better pr epared before each meeting.  
5.41.   Mexico  agree d to facilitating the resolution of trade concerns but acknowledge d that it could 
not be achieved only through procedures. It was likewise  important to ensure that the various parties WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 26 - 
 
  were willing  to engage in such a process . Although  the proposal remained  a good foundation for 
future discussions , much still needed to be done to address the concerns expressed by some 
Members . Mexico remained  available  to continue discussions and to work with the view to ensuring 
that the Councils and  Committees work ed in a more efficient manner in carrying out th eir respective 
mandates.  
5.42.   The representative of Chile asked the co -sponsors to continue improving the proposa l and in 
particular stressed that it was  a Member' s right to include items on the agenda even if other 
procedures ha d already been used  as referred to in the proposal . 
5.43.   The representative of South Africa  noted that even though South Africa had already made 
substan tive comments in its previous  statement on th e issue, concerns still remained on  three  major 
issues  including on  the introduction of horizontal procedural guidelines without taking due account 
of implications for the mandate and rules of procedure of Councils and Committees. The proposal 
would operate ind iscriminately and w ould fundamentally affect the operation and the purpose for 
which th ose committees were established. Elements of th ose guidelines could be discussed in the 
various Councils and C ommittees rather than in the G eneral Council.  
5.44.   South Africa  also remain ed concerned with the enhanced role of Chairpersons of the Councils 
and Committees and the Secretariat. The proposed roles alter ed the manner in which Members 
implement ed the agreements and decisions of the Committees. In addition, it was not cl ear what 
the standing of the oral report by the Chair w ould be.  
5.45.   Finally, t he manner in which the consideration of trade concerns was proposed impose d 
additional obligations especially  on developing countries and in particular LDCs with capacity 
constraint s. Encouraging submission of written questions and replies on specific trade concerns  
within a specified period prior to the meeting w ould overstretch the limited human resources and 
institutional capacity of such Members.  
5.46.   There were elements of the proposal  that could be considered . Those should  however  be 
discussed in relevant Councils and C ommittees. South Africa st ood ready to engage constructively 
with proponents in the relevant Co uncils and Committees . 
5.47.   While noting the need for effective resolut ion of trade concerns among Members, South Africa 
would be concerned with any process that would change the rights and obligations in covered 
Agreements that ha d been carefully negotiated. The various Councils and Committees would need 
to engage and assess  the implications of the proposal for the rules of procedure and functioning of 
the relevant institutions.  
5.48.   The representative of Indonesia  referred to its statement at the previous General Council 
meeting. As ha d been mentioned by some delegations, Indone sia remain ed cautious on the 
projection of the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposal in resolving trade concerns and at the 
same time on the assurance for the proposed mechanism not giving unnecessary burden to the 
Members such as ensuring the prese nce of capital -based officials as well as the Chairpersons of the 
regular bodies and the Secretariat. Indonesia therefore  urged the proponents to continue to closely 
identify and to take into account the comments and observations by Members on the proposal  before 
discussing it further.  
5.49.   The representative of Sri Lanka  said that the co -sponsors  had made a genuine effort to 
address some of  the concerns that many delegations , including  Sri Lanka,  had made at previous 
discussions in different fora such as the Goods Council – including by incorporating the concerns 
raised in some of their proposed items.  However, s ome concerns  remained . In particular, although 
the proposal ma de an attempt to differentiat e its proposed procedure from th ose under the  DSU, Sri 
Lanka remained sceptical whether the proposed mechanism aimed to fill a gap in the absence of a 
proper functioning dispute settlement system.  
5.50.   Like other delegations, Sri Lanka  had questions related  to the horizontal application of the 
mechanism that would be applied across the board on all the covered agreements. As South Africa 
had stated, each Agreement ha d different minimum standards on consultations , particularly in 
dealing with trade concerns . The European Union had  said that the proposal aimed at develop ing a 
minimum level of requirements that c ould serve as the yardstick in addressing trade concerns . WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Consequently,  each Council and Committee  could draft its own procedures over and above th ose 
minim um standards. That posed the question on  how Members could be certain that the items 
proposed constituted the minimum standards. To determine whether such was the case, Members 
needed to  careful ly analys e each Council and Committee covered by their respect ive agreements , 
which  include d specific provisions on consultations. In that regard, Members  should  carry out such 
analysis to determine whether th e minimum standard s proposed went beyond those enshrined in 
the agreements. If such wa s the case , then the proposal would be tilting the balance that Members 
had embedded  in those agreements.  
5.51.   Concerning  capacity constraints , Sri Lanka  saw some merit in th e proposal. As Bangladesh 
had stated, small delegations w ould be able to gather more information with the proposed measures 
on the  circulation of the agenda including providing  annotations . In fact, such measures should not 
be confined in cases where trade concerns were raised , but should be applicable in all meetings due 
to its importance to small delegations that did not have  capacity to attend and to prepare themselves 
for all meetings . Sri Lanka therefore suggested for those measures to be replicated in the meetings 
of all WTO bodies.  
5.52.   Sri Lanka said that t here was some truth to what the  United States had stated regarding 
showing political will instead of creating  more bureaucratic processes. If a developing Member would 
raise a trade concern to a Council or Committee , its resolution would depend on the political will of 
the relevant  trading partner. Absent  the requisite political will , the trade concern would  persist.  
5.53.   To illustrate, twenty years before , Sri Lanka had raised  a trade concern  to the SPS Committee 
as it was told that its  product d id not meet international standards  given the lack of it and was asked 
to go to the Codex Alimentarius Commission to develop  one. Sri Lanka  found it challenging  due to 
the long process of  getting a standard developed for  a product. But thanks to the Doha Round, there 
had been  political will at that time to resolve the issues of developing countries  – Members had 
mandated the SPS Committee to direct  the Codex Alimentarius Commission to shorten the proces s. 
There had been  seven  or eight steps that one had to undergo in order to create a standard for a 
product. But because of  the mandate, the Codex Alimentarius Commission had been  able to speed 
up that process. As a result, Sri Lanka's proposal had jumped f rom Step 3 to Step 7. That had been  
an expeditious solution  because Members had shown political will.  
5.54.   For developing Members, ensuring the presence of political will to address their concerns was 
integral.  If such would be ensured,  the proposed mechanism would  be workable for everyone 
because the absence of the requisite political will would further aggravate the imbalance that 
developing Members currently faced . Sri Lanka was concerned about the possibility that the proposal 
would  inundate  developing Members  with more inquiries,  submissions and explanations rather than 
address their trade  concerns. Sri Lanka hoped that the co -sponsors  would take its concerns into 
account because Members could not afford to bear further imbalance in the syst em. If the co -
sponsors w ould be  able to genuinely  address th at matter in their proposal, Sri Lanka would welcome 
further discussions with them.  
5.55.   The representative of India support ed the idea of improving the meeting arrangements of 
WTO bodies with a view t o making them more efficient. An indicative yearly schedule of meetings 
for each WTO body and advance notifications of all documents to be discussed at a meeting would 
allow for more effective participation from small delegations with limited resources. As  things st ood, 
proposals to be discussed at a meeting were often circulated at the eleventh hour  – impeding 
meaningful engagement by most delegations. India also support ed the proposal for the timely 
circulation of the minutes of meetings of WTO bodies by the Secretariat.  
5.56.   India agree d that it was in the interest of all Members to make full use of the Council and 
Committee procedures within the WTO to seek satisfactory outcomes of their trade concerns. Having 
said that, it was important to ensure that any pr oposal in th at regard would  not in effect end up 
adding to or diminishing Members ' rights and obligations under the covered Agreements.  
5.57.   In that context, while India support ed strengthening the existing processes in the various 
Councils and Committees and a ddressing the issues and concerns especially of developing countries 
and LDCs in a time -bound manner, India made a few comments with respect to the proposal.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5.58.   The Marrakesh Agreement la id emphasis on the neutrality and need for the Secretariat not to 
align itself or take positions of particular Members or groups. India would advise caution regarding 
attempts to confer an enhanced role for the Secretariat in the resolution of trade concerns  between 
Members as th at would impinge on the Secretariat 's neutrality and diminish the Member -driven 
nature of th e organization. Th at also applie d to proposals that suggest ed an enhanced role for the 
Chair of a WTO body.  
5.59.   The limited technical and financia l capacity of developing Members should also be borne in 
mind. India could not support any proposal that s ought  to, in practice, add to the existing obligations 
of developing Members vis-à-vis consultation requirements, provision of inputs or other burdens ome 
rules such as requiring the participation of capital -based experts.  
5.60.   Finally, the appropriate forum for discussing procedural guidelines for trade concerns was the 
relevant committee dealing with the specific trade concern as per the scope of the releva nt WTO 
Agreement. Therefore, while India was open to discussing all possible suggestions aimed at 
improving the existing processes, it would not like to take away the role of the relevant bodies.  
5.61.   The representative of Canada  continue d to see the suggested horizontal improvements to 
meeting arrangements as a valuable contribution to the overall improvements in the deliberative 
function. Canada also viewed positively the good practices suggested in respect to addressing trade 
concerns in WTO bodies and the informal framework as a tool available to Members to resolve trade 
concerns. Canada looked forward to contin uing to engage with the co -sponsors and other  Members 
on the proposal.  
5.62.   The representative of Oman  noted that t here were some good elements and ideas that Oman  
could study further. But Oman  also share d the concerns expressed by other Members and support ed 
the proposal made by South Africa on discussin g the proposal in Councils and Committees instead 
of the General Council.  
5.63.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
6  EXPANDING THE SCOPE AND MANDATE FOR THE GENEVA WEEK – COMMUN ICATION 
FROM SAINT LUCIA, SO LOMON ISLANDS AND VA NUATU (WT/GC/W/781)  
6.1.  The Chair recalled that the item was  included in the agenda at the request of the delegations 
of Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu together with the communication WT/GC/W/781 and 
that a revisio n had been  circulated the previous day to include additional co -sponsors – Barbados 
and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.  
6.2.  The representative of Saint Lucia, on behalf of the OECS , said that  the WTO was currently  
hosting the 39th instalment of the Geneva Week. Th e initiative allow ed representative s from Member 
States that d id not have permanent mission s in Geneva  to spend a week at the WTO to receive an 
overview of the main developments taking place. Th ose developments c ould include updates on WTO 
Reform, the joint statement initiatives, agricultur e and services negotiations, dispute settlement and 
any other procedural, transparency or negotiating mandate on the WTO dockets.  
6.3.  In clear terms, the Geneva Week programme offer ed non-resident officials a bird's eye view of 
the multilateral process in moti on. In a sense, it allow ed Members who were remote to the process 
to feel a part of it. It afford ed all Members an opportunity to be engaged in the cut and thrust of the 
Geneva Process  and gave  texture and meaning to a sometimes opaque multilateral process .  
6.4.  One of the key objectives of Geneva Week was to update capital -based officials on ongoing 
discussions taking place in the house. The programme expose d participants to some of the key 
issues underpinning the work of the multilateral trading system allowi ng them to have broader and 
deeper understanding of the Geneva process and the means and methods of work within the WTO. 
Additionally, the week -long workshop also help ed to strengthen contacts between participating 
delegations and buil t bridges between par ticipants and the Membership more broadly as well as with 
the Secretariat.  
6.5.  Participants also ha d the chance to take part in the formal WTO meetings. Being physically 
present in formal meetings of the WTO offer ed non-resident Members a unique if not rare o pportunity WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 29 - 
 
  to take collective ownership and responsibility for a process that was within the ir charge but 
oftentimes too distant to access. Th e initiative was therefore a valuable opportunity for developing 
and LDC Members to enhance their participation in  the multilateral trading system and be better 
positioned to articulate and defend their interests.  
6.6.  Geneva Week was the most important platform for some Members to have a voice in shaping 
the multilateral trading system in a way that c ould benefit their constituents and promote their 
national development plans and priorities. Allowing for more effective participation at the WTO for 
resource -constraint countries remain ed work in progress. For the Membership and the Secretariat, 
it was critic al to better appreciate the significant challenges faced by non -resident delegations in 
engaging the formal and informal processes of the WTO. For those not in Geneva, it could  appear to 
be a Byzantine world.  
6.7.  Against th at backdrop, the tabled proposal s ought to expand the scope and the mandate of the 
Geneva Week by broadening the eligibility criteria for participation. Concretely, it w ould allow the 
following participants or Members to benefit from Geneva Week: recently acceded Members 
including those that had established missions in Geneva , Members with up to four permanent 
delegates assigned to the WTO and existing non -resident representatives w ould continue to benefit 
from the programme.  
6.8.  Such expansion would greatly benefit developing and LDC Members in p articipating in the WTO 
processes with capital counterparts being better prepared to work more closely with Geneva -based 
delegates after being immersed in the process through th e programme. Th at would allow delegates 
to develop their skills and enhance the  overall capacity of small States to engage more meaningfully 
and actively at the WTO.  
6.9.  On behalf of the proponents, Saint Lucia  invite d all Members to give favourable consideration 
to the proposal  and commend ed it to the Membership.  
6.10.   The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines  said that t he Geneva Week Programme 
offered an important opportunity to see the system function up -close and in real time. Participants  
had learned directly from those persons involved in decision -making and had benefit ed from the 
wealth of experience of the Secretariat. While St. Vincent and the Grenadines  were non-residents in 
Geneva, they had  a high degree of interest in the functioning of the system because decisions taken 
in the WTO could have deep impact on the ir people. It was therefore  important for non -resident 
delegations to have the ability to access and participate in WTO work . 
6.11.   The very presence of the delegation of St. Vincent and the Grenadines that  day had been  
facilitated by the Geneva Week. St. Vincent and the Grenadines  welcome d the aim of the proposal 
to expand the mandate of the Geneva Week to small delegations and those that ha d recently 
established a permanent mission  in Geneva. Th at would allow for those  small delegation to also 
benefit from the programme. St. Vincent and the Grenadines  therefore request ed that all Members 
support ed that important programme.  
6.12.   The representative of Mauritius  fully subscribe d to the statement made by S aint Lucia and 
support ed the proposal . Being a small island developing State, the issue of capacity constraint s did 
not need to be further emphasis ed. S mall delegation s had very limited capacity which constrain ed 
their ability to participate in the many meetings being held at th e WTO. Very often, there were 
important meetings being held concurrently and small delegations could not be everywhere at the 
same time. So they tried to juggle from one meeting to the other.  In that regard, t he proposal w ould 
help empower smaller delegations as it w ould improve further transparency and enhance inclusivity  
– something that all Members had committed themselves to uphold.  
6.13.   The representative of Sri Lanka  associated with the statements made by the co -sponsors of 
the proposal.  Sri Lanka was considering to  co-sponsor  the proposal  and share d the concerns of small 
delegations . As Mauritius had stated, small delegations  found it very difficult to cope with the volume 
of work generate d in the Committees , the proliferation  of meetings  and the expansion of work 
programmes.  Being  presen t in those fora was a dichotomy that small delegations  needed to deal 
with on a daily basis. Sri Lanka therefore  support ed the pr oposal  to expand the mandate and the 
scope of the current proced ures of the Geneva Week in order to include small delegations. It would 
enhance participation and inclusivity – principles that all Members committed themselves to uphold. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 30 - 
 
  The proposal would also enhance the participation of capital -based officials who wou ld in turn be 
able to acquire knowledge on the issues and lessen  the burden  of preparing  reports and other briefs.  
6.14.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , support ed the proposal . The Geneva Week 
Programme wa s an excellent tool for capacity building and was useful for capital -based officials. The 
Programme  enabled  its participants  to get a thorough update on the state of play of the Geneva 
negotiations and provided a forum for them to  discuss matters of interest  with other de legations and 
their representatives in Geneva.  Geneva Week was therefore  helpful in raising understanding and 
awareness about certain trade issues in their capitals – including those where solutions were still 
being sought by Members in the lead up to the Ministerial Conference.  
6.15.   The holding of  the Geneva Week was an excellent way of involving Members  in the multilateral 
trading system as it brought  their capital -based officials that much closer to what was happening  in 
Geneva. The objective was to improve the level of participation in negotiations. The LDCs  therefore 
fully support ed the proposal  to expand the criteria for admissibility t o participat e in the Geneva 
Week. That would benefit delegations in Geneva and capital -based officials and w ould further 
improve the multilateral trading system.  
6.16.   The representative of Suriname  said that, a s an active Geneva Week participant, Suriname 
associate d with and fully supported the pro posal put forward.  
6.17.   The representative of Bangladesh  noted that s mall delegations face d huge challenges to cover 
all the issues with different organizations in Geneva. For a meaningful and integrated multilateral 
trading system, Members should support each other. Geneva Week br ought  Members the  
opportunity to get an overarching picture of the current state of play at the WTO mainly for missions 
not based in Geneva and their capital -based colleagues. Bangladesh therefore  support ed the 
proposal to include Gene va-based mission s with a small delegation to Geneva Week. 
6.18.   The representative of Barbados  joined Saint Lucia, St . Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon 
Islands and Vanuatu in co -sponsoring the proposal . The thinking behind th e proposal had been  
articulated during the May 2019 General Council meeting. Barbados  was therefore pleased to see 
that it was being formally pres ented to Members t hat day. 
6.19.   Barbados was witness to the tremendous benefit that Geneva Week ha d had for both resident 
and non -resident Members alike. Whether it ha d been in its capacity as Group Coordinator or focal 
point on subject -specific areas within li ke-minded Groups, Barbados  had been  well placed to share 
its perspectives on negotiations, receive necessary feedback and update its partner non -resident 
ACP, SVE and CARICOM Group members on matters of common interest to their countries.  
6.20.   As resource -const rained small States, they often ha d the responsibility of representing their 
countries ' interests on the plethora of issues that engage d international Geneva on a daily basis.  
Expanding the criteria for participation in Geneva Week allow ed for small States with limited Geneva -
based technical capacities to enhance their capacity and coordinating mechanisms between Geneva -
based delegations and capitals on WTO related issues. Th at could only redound to improving on their 
participation in the Regular and Negotiating Bodies in the WTO.  
6.21.   Barbados join ed with other co -sponsors in calling on all Members to support the proposal to 
expand the scope and mandate for Geneva Week  and welcome d other small State delegations 
wishing to associate with th e proposal.  
6.22.   The repres entative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , commend ed the work done 
by the co-sponsors of the proposal . If adopted, it ha d the potential to greatly benefit Members.  
CARICOM Small States were limited in their ability to fully participate in the multilateral trading 
system due to human and financial resource constraints. They could  attest that active participation 
in the WTO and in Geneva based activities  as had been  facilitated during Geneva  Week ha d in the 
past and w ould continue in the future to bring rewards for Members.  
6.23.   CARICOM express ed its support and expect ed the support from all Members for the proposed 
broadening of the eligibility requirements for participation in the Geneva Week s ince it would 
contribute positively to capacity -building for the region.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 31 - 
 
  6.24.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , support ed the proposal  given its  
relevan ce and legitima cy. The delegations who participate d in the Geneva Week were delega tions 
who d id not have permanent missions in Geneva or who ha d limited staff. The objective of th e 
proposal was one that the African Group  strongly support ed and would like to be followed up upon. 
The African Group  hoped that the capital -based experts could  come to Geneva Week events including 
those of  small delegations with a permanent mission in Geneva . They  should al l be able to benefit 
from th at flexibility  especially as Members  needed to take into consideration the c onstraints of the 
small delegations.  
6.25.   The representative of the European Union  said that a ll Members should be able to participate 
effectively in the multilateral trading system and in the WTO. Trade -Related Technical Assistance  
(TRTA)  was an important fact or in supporting developing countries and especially LDCs in doing that.  
6.26.   The E uropean Union  support ed the Geneva Week event which should continue to concentrate 
on non -resident delegations. For developing countries , including LDCs , there was already a lar ge 
number of TRTA activities and capacity -building initiatives organi sed both face -to-face and online in 
Geneva and in various countries.  
6.27.   As an example of technical assistance that addresse d the capacity constraints of small 
missions in Geneva, the E uropea n Union  drew attention to the Franco -Irish Mission Internship 
Programme (FIMIP). For over fifteen  years, the FIMIP ha d funded 10 -month internship s for up to 
20 Geneva -based missions per year.  
6.28.   The E uropean Union  welcome d the increase of participants taking part in the TRTA activities 
during the year. In 2018, about half of the participants had taken  part of the training online.  The 
European Union  welcome d constant efforts by the WTO as well as the beneficiaries to enhance the 
efficiency and impact of the activities of the TRTA. Members  should ensure  that the activities target ed 
the main goals and were kept within the planned budget.  
6.29.   The representative of t he United States  said that the United States was studying the paper 
and plan ned to submit questions in writing to the proponents in advance of the next General Council 
meeting.  
6.30.   The representative of Guyana  noted that Guyana was a small State with a recentl y established 
mission in Geneva and appreciate d greatly the resource constraints that small delegations face d. 
Guyana  recognise d the importance of th e proposal , joined whole -heartedly in calling for its support  
and thank ed Saint Lucia and other co -sponsors  for taking th at action on behalf of all small States.  
6.31.   The representative of Jamaica  joined others in expressing support. Undoubtedly, the capacity 
constraints of small delegations were hurdled to maximising participation in Geneva. There was a 
need for gr eater alignment between engagement and domestic policies and between engagements 
and developments in Geneva . The current Geneva Week Programme was assisting in filling th at gap. 
The proposed expansion would be a much -needed  revision of the current programme especially in 
an environment where issues were moving at a fast pace. As current sizes of delegation s inhibit ed 
participation , Jamaica  joined others in p ledging support in th e proposal.  
6.32.   The representative of Honduras  support ed the proposa l which ha d been presented by the co -
sponsors  to expand the scope and mandate of the Geneva Week.  
6.33.   The representative of Saint Lucia, on behalf of the OECS , thank ed Members who ha d taken 
the floor in support of th e proposal.  
6.34.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
7  PROCEDURES TO STRENG THEN THE NEGOTIATING  FUNCTION OF THE WTO  – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES (WT/GC/W/ 757/REV.1 AND WT/GC/ W/764)  
7.1.  The Chair  recalled that t he item was a statement included in the agenda by the delegation of 
the United States with the referenced communications circulated in WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1 and 
WT/GC/W/ 764. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 32 - 
 
  7.2.  The representative of the United States  was pleased to continue the discussion of th at 
important  reform initiative. As the Membership was aware, the United States in January had 
submitted a detailed paper on the lack of differentiation at the WTO and why th at was damaging the 
WTO's negotiating function.  
7.3.  On that factual and analytic basis, the United States in February had submitted to the General 
Council a proposal to resolve the differentiation problem through a pragmatic approach that 
recogni sed the complexity of th e issue.  
7.4.  The US proposal had establishe d objective criteria for determining whether a  Member could  
continue to avail itself of blanket, open -ended special and differential treatment in current and future 
WTO negotiations. The four criteria were: a WTO Member that was a Member of the OECD, or a WTO 
Member that ha d begun the accession proces s to the OECD; a WTO Member that was a member of 
the G20; a WTO Member that was designated as a high income country by the World Bank or a WTO 
Member that account ed for no less than 0.5 percent of global merchandise trade.  
7.5.  Since the last meeting of the General Council in July, there ha d been several important 
developments. In September , Singapore had committed to not seek S&D T in current and future WTO 
negotiations. In its statement, Singapore had stated that "all Members should take on commitments 
commensurate with their abilities ". 
7.6.  The United States  firmly agree d and kn ew many other Members d id too. An increasing number 
of Members were expressing th at view to the Un ited States . The United States  applaud ed Singapore 
for stating it publicly and for taking action. That was the kind of leadership  that the organization 
sorely need ed from the Friends of the System.  While noting that it still s aw itself as a developing 
country, Singapore had emphasi sed the importance of updating the WTO so it c ould remain relevant 
in a rapidly changing global economy. The message for the rest of the Membership  was obvious . The 
WTO ha d a role to play in advancing the development aspirations o f all Members ' citizens . But to 
remain relevant, the WTO 's architecture should  evolve to keep pace with the times.  
7.7.  At the July meeting of the General Council, the United States had  shared several themes that 
had been  emerging from its initial conversations with Members. For example, the United States  had 
seen growing traction for its call to reform.  It was worth reminding themselves that th e reform 
conversation had not seem ed remotely possible just a short time before,  but it was currently a 
centrepiece of the WTO reform discussion. Th at was  progress.  
7.8.  The United States  had also shared that the US analytic paper on differentiation enjoy ed support 
from a diverse and deep cross -section of the Membership. The United States  suspect ed that was 
because the paper had raised issues of basic fairness that resonate d for nearly all Members in th e 
room.  Members across the development spectrum kn ew that certain self -declared developing 
Members were relatively advanced, wealthy and influential.  Members  across the development 
spectrum hear d those Members, year after year, insist ing on receiving access to any blanket special 
and differential treatment in every negotiation as if they had been  smaller and less advanced and 
lacking the negotiating capacity i n Geneva to advance their interests.  
7.9.  Members across the development spectrum recogni sed that th ose Members ' insistence on 
inclusion in th e special and differential treatment dilute d and in fact prevent ed Members from 
agreeing upon the critical special and differential treatment that was intended to benefit the poorest 
among them and to help them integrate into the trading system. Members had  all witnessed th at 
cycle repeat ed itself over and over again.  Members across the development spectrum kn ew it was 
nearly impossible to negotiate new agreements when the more capable among them refuse d to 
make meaningful offers and preserve d their right to hold back fair and equitable contributions to the 
global trading system by insisting that they belong ed in the s ame category as poorer and less 
advanced economies.  
7.10.   Since the General Council meeting in July, the United States  had expanded and deepened its 
conversations with scores of Members across the development spectrum, holding dozens of meetings 
in capitals, in Washington and in Geneva. The United States  continue d to engage Members who 
would meet at least one of the four criteria in the US proposal . The United States  was also engaging 
other Members  such as LDC s who would benefit if the more advanced, wealthy and influential 
economies among them finally accept ed responsibilities commensurate with their role in the global WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 33 - 
 
  economy and agree d to step back and allow special and differential treatment to apply only to those 
that require d it. 
7.11.   Many share d its goal of rese rving blanket S&D T provisions for those Members that were the 
relatively less developed of the over 100 Members claiming developing country status. Many ha d 
confirmed that the current situation d id not lead to equitable outcomes. Their extensive discussion s 
with Members ha d continued to be candid and thoughtful. Th ose conversations were also increasingly 
detailed, reflecting the growing number of Members that were giving serious thought to the US 
proposal.  
7.12.   In short, Members were listening to the United Stat es and the United States  was listening to 
them. The United States  was providing clarifications where necessary and was giving careful 
consideration to constructive suggestions that ha d been offered in the spirit of real reform.  
7.13.   The United States  stood ready to continue th ose discussions and remained  open to making 
improvements to the US proposal. The United States appreciate d Members ' open-mindedness and 
willingness to consider how they  could show leadership in improving th e organization for the good 
of all.  
7.14.   In late July, the President of the United States had issued a Memorandum that direct ed the  
USTR to secure changes at the WTO so that relatively advanced, wealthy or influential Membe rs 
forewent S&DT in current and future WTO negotiations. The President was keenly interested in th at 
issue.  In the Memo, the President had instructed the USTR to take several actions. One of th ose 
actions had been  for the USTR to update the President on pr ogress made within 60 days. That update 
had been provided. The Memo also instruct ed the USTR to take certain actions within 90 days  – 
24 October  – if he determine d that substantial progress ha d not been made toward ensuring that 
relatively advanced, wealth y or influential Members fore went S&DT in current and future 
negotiations.  
7.15.   In that case, the USTR sh ould no longer treat as a developing country for the purposes of the 
WTO any self -declared developing country Member that, in the USTR 's judgment, c ould 
inappropriately seek S&D T in current and future WTO negotiations.  In addition, the USTR sh ould not 
support any such country 's application for membership in the OECD.  
7.16.   Unrelated to the 90 -day deadline, the President had instructed the USTR to publish on its 
website a list of all self -declared developing countries that the USTR believe d were inappropriately 
seeking S&D T in WTO negotiations.  
7.17.   The President 's Memo d id not in struct the USTR to ask any Member to change its self -declared 
development status. Th at was consistent with the US reform proposal which , as the United States  
had stated repeatedly , did not ask any Member to change its self -declared development status.  The 
President 's Memo d id not instruct  the USTR to ask any Member to forego S&D T in existing WTO 
Agreements. Th at wa s consistent with the US reform proposal which d id not ask any Member to 
forego such S&D T. The United States  was not seeking to reopen existing a greements.  
7.18.   Nothing in the President 's Memo or in the US proposal preclude d a Member from negotiating 
the flexibilities it need ed in a WTO negotiation. All Members negotiate d their specific needs in every 
negotiation.  The United States  expect ed any country that fore went blanket S&D T provisions in any 
future WTO Agreement would negotiate its needs into the agreement text.   
7.19.   Several Members ha d asked what action the USTR w ould take to no longer treat as a 
developing country for the purposes of the WTO any self -declared developing Member that  in the 
USTR 's judgment c ould inappropriately seek S&D T in current and future WTO negotiations. 
Regarding th at instruction, and as had been  directed by the White House memo, the USTR was 
consulting with the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee.  
7.20.   The United States thank ed Members for their constructive dialogue with them. That work was 
important as th at issue and the US proposal w ould not g o away. The United States  looked forward 
to continuing to engage with Members and to making new progress on th at reform effort.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 34 - 
 
  7.21.   The representative of Brazil  said that c lashing views on special and differential treatment ha d 
intensified over successive Gene ral Council meetings t hroughout the  year. To find a way forward, 
Members  should recognise that S&DT was by nature a flexible concept. It was also clear that 
developing country status was not to be identified with S&DT. Flexibility was needed to overcome 
the profound and longstanding disagreement among Members. As a matter of fairness, it was clear 
that there were significant differences in capability among developing countries and some who 
needed S&DT more than others.  
7.22.   The use of S&DT should be judicious to address the specific sensibilities and needs of 
developing countries with a focus on those with the greatest needs.  Brazil ha d decided to begin to 
forego the use of S&DT in negotiations at the WTO. Members'  collective failure in forging 
conver gences undermine d negotiations of new disciplines and ultimately threaten ed broader efforts 
to revitalise and strengthen the WTO. Members  seem ed to be arriving at a critical juncture but there 
was still time for them to act together to bridge their differe nces, revive the multilateral trading 
system and prepare for the future in an open and constructive dialogue in th e organization.  
7.23.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , recall ed that on notifications the conditions 
of the LDCs  in terms of insti tutional structures and human and financial resources should not be 
overshadowed so as not to burden their procedures. Relevant technical assistance remain ed an 
essential dimension of supporting their countries in strengthening their capacities and making further 
progress.  
7.24.   LDCs ha d very weak i nstitutional infrastructure to follow and prepare notifications  which wa s 
also the case in their Geneva missions.  Support to the existing rules and mechanisms should be 
enhanced and on a sustained basis. Some ideas pu t forward should be addressed in a collaborative 
and capacity building manner.   
7.25.   Regarding the function of the WTO bodies, the LDC Group ha d indeed submitted proposals in 
regular bodies of the WTO ahead of many delegations since Buenos Aires. The LDC Group  was still 
awaiting positive engagement on its proposals in the TRIPS and Goods Councils . The LDCs  also 
sought  effective implementation of decisions in favo ur of LDCs in the Services Council  and C ommittee 
on Rules of Origin  on the services waiver and preferential rules of origin respectively. The LDC Group  
noted the positive interaction in consultations with various preference providing Members.    
7.26.   The LDC Group w ould soon submit a general communication on the matter of notification s 
and the functioning of the WTO bodies with a view to having constructive discussion s.  
7.27.   The representative of the European Union  concur red that development was a central pillar of 
the organi zation.  The current distinction between developed and developing countries no longer 
reflect ed the reality of the rapid economic growth in some developing countries. Members  should 
therefore continue to work on special and differential treatment  with a view to ensuring that 
flexibilities were made available t o those Members who actually need ed them to enable them to fully 
benefit from their membership to th e organi zation.  
7.28.   If the organi zation was to prosper, special and differential treatment should  become much 
more granular in function of an individual Member' s demonstrated needs and capacities. Future 
differentiation should be designed in terms of specific individual country needs at the sectoral and 
activity level rather than calling for a block exemption of a large category of Members. Furthermore, 
the E uropean Union  consider ed that each developing country's need for S &DT should be assessed 
on a case -by-case and evidence -based basis. The notable exception should be the LDCs who 
deserve d particular treatment and who in any case ha d graduation mechanisms.  
7.29.   The E uropean Union  was open to looking into special and differential treatment  provisions in 
future agreements, starting with ongoing negotiations such as the fisheries subsidies. The European 
Union  expect ed to have a discussion with Members as to what developm ent concern was raised by 
the provisions under discussion and what flexibility was necessary in order to eventually allow the 
affected Members to fully implement the agreement. It was only where special and differential 
treatment respond ed to a specific need that it c ould be truly effective.   WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 35 - 
 
  7.30.   In existing agreements, the European Union  was open to discuss and help other Members 
with the difficulties they face d. The European Union  already provide d considerable development 
assistance to help developing countries, in particular LDCs, achieve  their development objectives.  
7.31.   There was a strong  need to reform S&D T. The European Union was  open to discuss any 
proposal that ensure d that flexibilities responding to development concerns were available to those 
who need ed them. At the same time, i t was clear that the economic situation of certain Memb ers 
had improved considerably in the last decade and there was currently  a need for an evaluation of 
whether they ha d development needs that c ould be served by S&DT  or not.  
7.32.   The representative of India had made detailed statements on th e item in previous G eneral 
Council  meetings and d id not wish to repeat them.  Suffice it to say, if the objective was to make 
trade more inclusive, less disruptive and fulfil the promise of not leaving anyone behind on the path 
to development, special and differential treatmen t for all developing country Members, including 
LDCs, was the obvious answer. It should  be preserved in all current and future negotiations.  India 
did not agree with the premise that onerous S&DT provisions were impeding negotiations and making 
the WTO irr elevant.  
7.33.   The representative of South Africa  recall ed the submission that  it had co-sponsored with 
China, India and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in WT/GC/W/765 which  continue d to be their 
response on th e issue. S&D T was an integral part of the WTO rules provided to developing countries 
to adjust to trade rules in accordance with their level of development and ha d been part of the 
architecture of WTO rules. It should continue to underpin existing rules as well as current and future 
negotiations i f Members  were to strengthen the negotiating function of the WTO.  
7.34.   The basis for the criteria advanced by the proponent was not clear . It was rather  arbitrary  – 
such as  the one on  G20 membership . The G20 include d countries with major differences in levels of 
development measured by a variety of socio -economic and human development indicators and had 
never  been conceived as a grouping of developed countries. Further, income level per se d id not 
determine the level of development. Development necessarily mean t, inter alia, economic 
transformation/diversification, sustainability, food security, access to health care  and absence of or 
reduced poverty levels. In addition, any Member c ould be ineligible for S&D T in sector specific 
negotiations. The proposal was therefore not targeting specific countries  as the limitation to S&D T 
would apply to any Member.  
7.35.   South Africa  did not support any attempts that aim ed to introduce differentiation in the WTO 
and limit ed the flexibilities available to developing countries. Such attempts aim ed to modify the 
architecture of WTO Agreements, s ought  to alter the balance of rights and obligations of developing 
countries in the WTO and reverse d the earlier gains made by developing countries in the GATT, 
achieved through long and har d negotiations which had resulted in Part IV of the GATT recogni sing 
differences between developed and developing countries. Since then many provisions recogni sing 
those differences in capacity of developing countries had been  added to the GATT. For the fi rst time 
in the history of the GATT, the Doha Round had included in its mandate the commitment of the 
Membership to "address the needs and interests of developing countries " as a priority in the round.  
7.36.   Attempts to change the approach to S&D T would further  increase existing imbalances and 
asymmetry of the rules -based trading system in favour of developed countries  – that, in a system 
that was already characteri sed by imbalances which still define d international trade as c ould be seen 
in agriculture, TRIPS  and TRIMS , among others.  That was what necessitated the negotiation of the 
Doha Development Round. Since the DDA ha d not been concluded, the imbalances that necessitated 
the negotiation of the Round still exist ed. 
7.37.   The development objectives embedded in the Doha mandate including S&DT remain ed 
important cornerstones of the multilateral trading system  for current and future negotiations. S&DT 
ensure d that negotiated outcomes would accommodate differences in levels of economic 
development as well as the capacit y constraints of developing Members. Without meaningful, legally 
enforceable S&DT that favo ured all developing countries, future negotiations of ambitious 
outcomes/agreements in the WTO would be even more difficult to achieve. Th at called for focused 
engag ement on S&DT provisions to make them precise, effective and operational in accordance with 
the mandate of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial  Declaration . South Africa was  working with the 
G90 towards finalising  proposals in th at regard.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 36 - 
 
  7.38.   The representative of China  noted that it was  the fourth time for the United States to submit 
its papers  – which was not what China had  expected. As the  United States had said that the item  
would not go away , it seem ed that Members  could no t live without i t for a long time. In that regard, 
China raised a procedural question.  Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the General 
Council require d Members to make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each 
meeting of any issue that  had already been fully debated in the past and on which there appear ed 
to have been no change in Members ' position already on record. China did not  think the policy 
change of one or two Members was worth discussing again in the General Council.  China ther efore 
asked  the General Council to take note of its position.  
7.39.   The representative of Australia,  interven ing under Items 7 and 11 , said that  Australia was 
committed to fostering all Members' participation in global trade and recognise d the value of S&DT 
in supporting the integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system. S&DT 
should not be an end in itself. Rather, it was part of a br oader set of tools available to assist 
developing countries to fully implement WTO Agreements.  
7.40.   Australia  recognise d that some approaches to S&DT ha d not helped achieve negotiated 
outcomes and in some cases ha d not reflected developments in the global econ omy. Members' needs 
differed on particular issues so S&DT should not be applied in a one -size fits all fashion. S&DT that 
was instead tailored to particular contexts and had provided on a needs basis w ould best enable 
Members to make commitments commensura te with their capacity to do so. Australia  was committed 
to finding solutions to S&DT in current and future negotiations that result ed in targeted and practical 
outcomes.  
7.41.   The representative of Turkey  said that, a s a firm supporter of the multilateral tradi ng system, 
Turkey st ood ready to discuss other proposals that aim ed to further improve the negotiating function 
of the WTO. The issue of development was a sensitive one. Changes in the way that they approach ed 
it would have significant ramifications. The p roposal to strengthen the negotiating function of th e 
organization should ensure  and preserve the building blocks of th e organization. In th at respect, 
Turkey ha d serious concern s on the approach that link ed the negotiating function of the WTO with 
the dev eloping country status.  
7.42.   Deciding on Members' level of development by interpreting some selective data was not and 
would not be an option either to strengthen the rules -based system or achiev e the goals of WTO 
Agreements. It was critically important to uphold the principles Members had  agreed  to. Questioning 
the status of developing Members w ould open the very essence of the WTO Agreements up for 
renegotiation.  Instead of putting certain countries to the spotlight, Members  shoul d focus their 
efforts on how to contribute to the current negotiatin g agenda in a realistic manner and should 
refrain from proposing rules t hat could  crumble the entire edifice of th e organization which ha d been 
carefully built over the years.  
7.43.   The represen tative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , reiterated the ACP's statement on the 
matter at the previous General Council meeting. The  ACP Group was not in a position to agree to 
the use of pre -defined indicators to determine whether a Member should have acces s to S&DT 
provisions in the WTO. S&DT was an embedded right in the WTO for all developing and LDC Members. 
It was within a Member's prerogative to determine its level of development and no other entity was 
better placed to discharge th at important responsi bility.  
7.44.   In that regard, the ACP Group urge d greater use of consultations, dialogue and diplomacy to 
find a mutually satisfactory solution to th at very sensitive issue. The Group continue d to advance 
the view that any decision to opt out of an S&DT flexibil ity should be left to the voluntary and 
sovereign decision of a Member who chose to do so. The TFA demonstrate d that it was a practical 
option.  
7.45.   The discussions on development and S&DT in the WTO including in the context of reform c ould 
not be divorced from the recurring realities of developing countries with weaker, absorptive and 
adaptation capacities to manage unforeseen developments such as the cyclical nature of the global 
economy, significant swings in commodity prices and the delet erious effects of environmental events 
on the trade-related institutions, infrastructure and frameworks. Th at was especially relevant to 
SVEs, NFIDCs and resource -poor developing countries.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 37 - 
 
  7.46.   The ACP Group therefore value d developing countries' access to S&D T in the WTO and 
believe d that existing mandates from Ministers in th at area should be fulfilled. The ACP Group  stood 
ready to engage constructively with the view to finding a mutually satisfactory approach to the issue 
of S&DT that preserve d the transpare nt, inclusive, rules -based and Member -driven multilateral 
trading system with a development -oriented WTO at its core.  
7.47.   The representative of Indonesia  said that t he Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO 
agreed by the founding Members had explicitly ident ified the differences in level of economic 
development that occur red among Members. At the same time, Members had also agreed to provide 
assurance for developing countries in order to secure the share in growth in international trade 
commensurate with the needs of their economic development. For years, the philosophy ha d 
underlined the S&DT principle in WTO rules for developing Members and LDCs fulfilling their 
development needs. The Doha Development Agenda had then reaffirmed the needs for development 
to be mainstreamed and integrated into the multilateral trading system to bridge the gap  between 
developed and developing Members. Members ha d had a longstanding belief on th e WTO being 
supportive to the importance of S&DT and Members working together  to achie ve the DDA goals.  
7.48.   Bearing in mind that the agenda which ha d been set together by all Members were still far 
away from conclusion, it ha d been a  wakeup  call to all Members  that they were also still far away 
from reaching their common goals and bridging the gap. Indonesia therefore  urged all Members to 
recollect their initial goal and to work together towards the comprehensive integration of the 
development dimension towards WTO rules through the Doha Development Agenda. In that sense, 
the negotiating fu nction of the WTO w ould be proven effective to address the common goals set up  
by each Member through the utili zation of S&DT to bridge development gaps and development needs 
between developed and developing countries including  the development gap within t he respective 
developing countries. Indonesia w ould continue to study the proposal and send it  to capital for 
further discussion.  
7.49.   The representative of Norway , interven ing under  Items 7 and 11 , said that  it was the 
negotiated result that matter ed, and  not the categorization of Members  – although the special 
treatment of LDCs should be maintained. The question should be how S&DT could be designed to 
address the development challenges Members were facing and to design S&DT in a way that 
facilitate d developing  Members' integration into the global trading environment. Th at was why 
Norway ha d taken an initiative in the negotiations on fisheries subsidies looking at how to address 
specific development issues in relation to the disciplines on overcapacity and overf ishing.  If Members  
channel led their efforts on addressing concrete developing challenges in the context of ongoing 
negotiations, they could  stand a better chance at being successful than if they kept debating 
principles in the General Council.  
7.50.   The representative of Barbados  said that d espite certain classifications, small island 
developing economies continue d to be challenged by small production capacities, susceptibility to 
economic shocks, susceptibility to climate change and other natural disasters, remoteness from main 
markets, limited natural resources, bourgeoning debt levels and significant capacity and  
infrastructural constraints. Per capita income alone was therefore not a sufficient indicator to 
determine development status particularly as it pertain ed to small island developing economies like 
Barbados and those in the Caribbean and in the Pacific  as it did not take into account economic and 
environmental vulnerability.  
7.51.   Such a classification  marginali sed vulnerable, small island States from receiving much -needed 
technical assistance and concessional development financing. Barbados therefore continue d to urge 
the international community to give due regard to economic and environmental vulnerability in 
defining access to development finance, concessional finance and technical assistance and capacity 
building. Barbados remain ed engaged in the discussions surrounding the development of S&DT.  
7.52.   The representative of Switzerland,  interven ing under  Items 7 and 1 1, said that  special and 
differential treatment was one of the key elements of the WTO. The solutions adopted in th at area 
would have an impact on the pr ospects for ongoing and future negotiations.  Following the many 
discussions Members  already had, it appear ed that any homogenous and wide -ranging derogation 
applicable to all developing Members would not bring about a consensus in current and future 
negotiations.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 38 - 
 
  7.53.   Indeed, a competitive and advanced economy c ould not be expected to enjoy the same 
flexibilities as  a country that ha d just graduated from the LDC category.  It would also be fruitless to 
seek to define a priori abstract criteria to determine the levels of commitments of developing 
Members.  There were many ways and approaches to differentiate levels of c ommitment in a 
pragmatic way. It should be possible to find practical solutions according to the particular 
circumstances of each negotiation.  
7.54.   Except in the case of LDCs, whose special treatment should be maintained, it was not the 
categorization that matt ered but rather the binding commitments that each Member was able to 
make in the various areas under negotiation. What matter ed was that the results were balanced and 
transparent and cater ed to the interests of Members.  As Norway ha d mentioned, th at was precisely 
what Members  should seek to do in the ongoing negotiations on fisheries instead of holding 
theoretical and inconclusive debates in the General Council.   
7.55.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , interven ing under Items 7 and 
11, said that  the Group  stress ed that following a  systemic approach, S&DT was the logical, legal and 
institutional appreciation of the balance Members sought and it ha d to exist in the rights and 
obligations of developing  and LDC Members to maintain  international economic order. Flexible 
measures that were appropriate should therefore  form part and parcel of the present and future 
WTO Agreements .  
7.56.   Based on th ose reasons, the African Group associated with the Joint Statement submit ted by 
a group of developing and LDC Members  contained in document WT/GC/202/Rev.1. The Group also 
recommend ed that the Chair of the CTD SS who w ould be starting her new functions th at month 
started the consultations on S&DT according to a programme which would ensure inclusive 
participation of all Members. The African Group for its part would be finalising and submitting in the 
coming days a revised draft text on S&DT in connection with the G -90 proposal.  
7.57.   The representative of Thailand,  interven ing under I tems 7 and 11 , said that  S&DT was an 
indispensable element of the WTO  as it was  vital for pursuing sustainable and inclusive economic 
growth. Thailand  was aware that the ongoing function ing of the WTO could be enhanced and 
support ed constructive and pragma tic approaches to tackling the issue of development in a 
thoughtful and holistic manner. The discussion on trade and development should not  however  be 
undertaken in a binary manner where the focus was just on S&DT in isolation. Members  should 
instead work together to find an appropriate approach to achieve a negotiated balance of rights and 
obligations among Members in any of the negotiating issues.  
7.58.   The representative of Pakistan  referred to its statements  on the matter  particularly in the 
February and May General Council meetings and said that  there was no change in Pakistan's  position.  
7.59.   The representative of Senegal  associate d with the statement made by th e African Group  and 
remind ed Members that trade rules at the WTO were the fruit of consensus negoti ations that t ook 
into account the interests and the capacity of all  Members. S&DT was a means to reach consensus 
in the negotiations . It was therefore  something absolutely essential if Members  wanted to move 
forward  in the negotiating pillar. In the absenc e of S&DT, there w ould clearly be a blockage in WTO 
negotiations . 
7.60.   The debate on S&DT and the polarization stemming from it w ould not help relaunch the WTO's 
negotiating function . Consensus rules were only possible if they respond ed to the interests and 
capacities of each Member  assessed  by each of them in an autonomous fashion. Only through 
pragmatism and by taking into account S&DT could Members guarantee a result in their current  
negotiations . 
7.61.   The representative of Oman  thank ed the U nited States  for providing the clarifications on the 
proposal and for meeting with Oman  during the visit of their capital officials and for the good 
discussion they had  had w ith them.  
7.62.   The representative of  the United States  thank ed Members for their interventions . Their 
discussion had been useful.  The United States clarified that it  support ed S&DT for LDCs and other 
developing Members who truly need ed it to integrate into the global trading system. The issue was WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 39 - 
 
  that there was a group of relatively advanced, wealthy an d influential self -declared developing 
countries that should not have access to blanket as of right S&DT in current and future negotiations.  
7.63.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
8  STATEMENT DELIVERED BY THE UNITED STATES  ON THE IMPORTANCE O F 
TRAN SPARENCY IN WTO DISP UTE SETTLEMENT  
8.1.  The Chair  recalled that the  item was included in the agenda at the request of the United States.  
8.2.  The representative of the United States  recalled that a t the last General Council meeting, it 
had presented a lengthy statement on the lack of transparency in the WTO dispute settlement 
system, and why the Dispute Settlement Understanding d id not prevent Members from achieving 
greater transparency in their dis putes.  Following that meeting, the United States  had had very 
constructive conversations with a number of delegations to reach a deeper understanding in relation 
to the value of transparency in dispute settlement.  
8.3.  In that regard, the United States  was plea sed to deliver the following joint statement on behalf 
of itself and the following co -sponsors: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, New 
Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and M atsu. The statement6 would be subsequently circulated after the meeting.  
8.4.  The co -sponsors of t he statement recogni sed that the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism 
was to secure a positive solution to a dispute (DSU Article 3.7), and that greater transpa rency in 
dispute settlement could  facilitate finding such a solution by improving confidence among 
stakeholders, businesses and communities in the dispute settlement mechanism.  
8.5.  Transparency was of great importance for the legitimacy and integrity of the WT O dispute 
settlement system. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism as it operate d that day ha d nothing to 
hide so increased transparency could only increase its legitimacy with the public and reduce the 
space for misrepresentation or misunderstanding.  
8.6.  Trans parency in dispute settlement enhance d Members ' understanding of the dispute 
settlement system particularly for those who d id not participate often in the system. Increasing the 
ability for al l Members to access hearings and submissions w ould assist all Me mbers by increasing 
the system 's accessibility.  
8.7.  The co -sponsors of t hat day's statement recogni sed that increased transparency c ould be 
achieved by Members t hat day in each of their disputes without modifying the existing rules and 
while protecting confidential information.  
8.8.  The DSU recogni sed the right of each Member to disclose statements of its own position to the 
public (DSU Article 18.2). Thus, each Member ha d the ability on its own to make its positions publicly 
available in any given  dispute.  
8.9.  Members c ould and were encouraged to bring greater openness to dispute settlement through 
a variety of mechanisms under the appropriate circumstances including to make their written 
submissions publicly available and to make their statements obse rvable by Members and the public 
with the aid of the adjudicator in a proceeding and the Secretariat.  
8.10.   The co -sponsors of t he statement encourage d all Members to join th e statement on the 
importance of transparency in dispute settlement and to take the step s they had described to 
improve transparency in their disputes.  
8.11.   The representative of Canada  believe d in the value of transparency in dispute settlement 
proceedings  which was why Canada had  co-sponsored th e joint statement . Canada  had had 
extensive, positive experience with providing a high level of transparency in WTO dispute settlement. 
Each Member engaging in dispute settlement ha d an opportunity to foster legitimacy in the 
proceedings through its position on transparency and  Canada  invite d Members to consider various 
 
6 The statement was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/W/785 . WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 40 - 
 
  means through which they c ould promote transparency in dispute settlement proceedings and 
elsewhere including through flexible and voluntary commitments such as the ones enabled by the 
dispute settlement practice mechan ism set out in JOB/DSB/1.  
8.12.   To that effect, Canada  also invite d the Membership to look at two of the practice documents 
that ha d been circulated under the practice mechanism and which were open to co -sponsorship. 
Practice document JOB/DSB/1/Add.3 provide d notably for open hearings and publicly available 
submissions. Th at had been endorsed by Australia, Canada, the European Union and Norway. 
Another practice document JOB/DSB/1/Add.10 also promote d transparency by providing that 
Worki ng Procedures, Timetables and Procedural Rulings sh ould be promptly made public. That 
document had been  endorsed by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the European Union, Japan, 
Norway and Singapore. So there were different approaches that c ould be taken  and Canada 
reiterate d that its own experience in th at regard ha d been quite positive.  
8.13.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  had long been supporting the enhancement of 
transparency in the WTO. As a co -sponsor of th e statement, Chinese Taipei  believe d that 
transparency was the very basis of the mutual trust among Members and it was also the essential 
objective that the WTO had been  built to. The increased transparency in the dispute settlement 
mechanism c ould bring in more public confidence and strengthen the legitimacy of the mechanism 
as well illustrated in the joint statement. Enhancing  transparency should be viewed as an integral 
part of all their efforts in advancing a better, efficient and functioning dispute settlement mechanism. 
Chinese Taipei therefo re called for constructive engagement from all Members to th at end. 
8.14.   The representative of Switzerland  associated with the joint statement and support ed the 
objective of encouraging transparency in dispute settlement procedures.  Transparency play ed an 
important role in raising public awareness of trade issues in general and that it promote d a better 
understanding of the functioning of the WTO's key pillar  of the dispute settlement system.  
Transparency thus promote d confidence in the multilateral trading system and ultimately enhance d 
its legitimacy.  
8.15.   Transparency provide d access to useful information for different stakeholders – civil society, 
the private s ector, academia, but also  Members. In th at respect, Switzerland emphasi sed that it 
consider ed that transparency was in no way an alternative to strengthening the rights of third parties 
in dispute settlement procedures.  It was also self -evident that the pr otection of confidential 
information should  be ensured,  and that some flexibility was needed to take into account special 
circumstances.  
8.16.   As several Members ha d already testified, the experiences to date in the area of procedural 
transparency ha d been pos itive. Switzerland for its part  had published its first written submission 
and had agreed to open the first physical meeting for public comment in the United States – Steel 
and Alumin ium Products case.  
8.17.   The representative of Colombia  express ed Colombia' s support to the joint statement  
presented by the United States.  Colombia was moving towards enhanced transparency in the dispute 
settlement mechanisms in which it participate d seeking greater legitimacy of such procedures. 
Moreover, as part of Colombia' s accession to the OECD, good practices on transparency all across 
the aisle in government actions were the new norm.  
8.18.   Colombia  commend ed in addition the flexibility and generosity shown by the U nited States  
and the co -sponsors to reach a language that accomm odate d the participants ' points of view and 
concerns.  Colombia  looked forward to participating actively in further discussions o n the topic.  
8.19.   The representative of Australia  was pleased to  co-sponsor the statement delivered by  the 
United States. Australia  had consistently supported transparency in WTO dispute settlement 
including through its own longstanding practice of publishing party and third-party dispute 
submissions and advocating for open hearings and enhanced third party rights . Enhanced 
transparency  of dispute proceedings would help strengthen the system as a whole. Accordingly, 
Australia  encourage d all Members to give positive consideration to its joint call for greater openness 
and transparency in dispute settlement proceedings.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 41 - 
 
  8.20.   The representative of Chile support ed the initiative seeking to increase transparency in the 
WTO. Members  were looking at a commitment among proponents with regard to the dispute 
settlement system in the WTO and the way it would work in the future. It would be good for the 
parties to understand that there c ould be different levels of transparency at different st ages in the 
dispute settlement beyond what exist ed at the moment because there was no provision at the 
moment for increasing transparency. Greater transparency need ed to be determined between the 
Members and the specific case taking into account the level of confidentiality of the trade 
information.  
8.21.   The representative of Costa Rica  said that t ransparency in all the pillars of the WTO was a 
principle to which Costa Rica attache d utmost importance. In particular, Members c ould adopt 
practices that contribute d to a better understanding of the operation of the WTO dispute settlement 
system, without modifying the rules of the Dispute Settlement Understanding and ensuring proper 
protection of confidential information.  In that regard, Costa Rica  associate d with th e joint statement 
that it hoped would be positively received by all Members.  
8.22.   The representative of the European Union  expresse d support to the proposals to enhance the 
transparency of the dispute settlement proceedings.  As the European Union  had always made clear 
including in the last General Council meeting, it was strongly committed to ensuring that trade policy 
was transparent in order to enhance legitimacy and public trust. Against that background, the 
European Union  had been advocating for i ncreased transparency in WTO dispute settlement including 
by making open meetings a general rule and by making party submissions public. The European 
Union  had supported proposals to th at effect also in the on -going review of the DSU.  
8.23.   The E uropean Union  underline d the importance of transparency of the proceedings from a 
systemic perspective. The WTO dispute settlement as it currently operate d had nothing to hide so 
an increased transparency could only increase its legitimacy with the public and reduce the s pace 
for misrepresentation.  
8.24.   The European Union  urged Members to adopt practices of increased transparency that were 
already possible under the DSU and look ed forward to continuing discussions in relevant WTO fora 
on further proposals with increased transpa rency in mind.  
8.25.   But transparency in dispute settlement proceedings obviously presuppose d a functioning 
dispute settlement system. The European Union  therefore also reiterate d its call on all Members to 
fill the outstanding vacancies of the Appellate Body as  soon as possible.  
8.26.   The representative of Guatemala  said that t ransparency was one of the cornerstones of the 
WTO. Nothing in the Dispute Settlement Understanding prevent ed Members from increasing 
transparency.  As a matter of fact, transparency was even mo re relevant nowadays that the dispute 
settlement mechanism was under scrutiny and criticism.  Transparency was the tool to dispel 
misunderstandings.  
8.27.   In addition to transparency, Members should also consider enhanced third party rights. A 
greater level of participation by third parties could  also increase the legitimacy of the outcomes in 
every dispute.  While Guatemala support ed improving transparency , Members ha d more pressing 
matters to resolve  such as appointing Appellate Body members. If Members  did not have a fully 
functional dispute settlement mechanism, the issue of transparency risk ed becoming superfluous.  
8.28.   The representative of Brazil  noted that Brazil was co-sponsoring th e joint  statement t hat day. 
Promoting greater transparency strengthen ed the legitimacy of the WTO dispute settlement 
mechanism thus building greater support for the system. As had been noted in the joint statement, 
greater transp arency in disputes c ould be promoted in different ways – all of them fully consistent 
with the existing rules. The DSU affirm ed under Article 3.7 that  the aim of the dispute settlement 
mechanism was to secure a positive solution to a dispute.  
8.29.   With that in mind, it was for Members to judge on a case by case basis whether and when for 
example the disclosure of submissions or statements w ould help further that goal  – in other words, 
whether and when circumstances would be appropriate for Members to bring great er openness to 
dispute settlement proceedings. The joint statement fully acknowledge d that discretion. It also 
recognise d that consistent with the DSU rules, Members c ould promote greater transparency while WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 42 - 
 
  protecting confidential information. Stakeholders  could thus be assured that when they provide d for 
example business sensitive information for the governments to use in WTO dispute settlement 
proceedings, the protection of that information w ould continue to be fully respected.  
8.30.   Many Members  were or ha d been, either as complainants or defendants, grappling with the 
consequences of recommendations and ruling s of the DSB. Those recommendations and ruling s 
could lead to results that ha d significant consequences to citizens, businesses, communities and 
legislators in their countries. It was very important that those stakeholders ha d a better visibility 
and understanding of th ose processes. Th at could help improve their confidence in the system, 
increasing their support for it. Such support was highly welcome d. For those reasons, Brazil was co-
sponsoring the joint statement  and encourage d all Members to join and to take the steps to improve 
transparency in disputes.  
8.31.   The representative of South Africa  recogni zed the importance of transparency  and reiterate d 
the points it had  raised in the previous General Council meeting. T ransparency and confidentiality 
were currently under discussion in the DSB SS  and Members  should intensify their discussion s within 
the existing process.  
8.32.   Transparency was already fully embedde d in WTO dispute settlement proceedings since there 
was essentially no difference between the nature and timing of the information shared with the 
Membership as a whole and the information shared with the wider public. Council Decision WT/L/452 
of 16 May 2 002 ma de redundant most of the proposals in th at regard since the asymmetry that had 
traditionally existed between information shared with Members and the public at large ha d then been 
eradicated through the simultaneous sharing of such information through  the WTO website.  
8.33.   The priority for the Membership should be the resolution of the appointment crisis for 
Appellate Body  members as the issues raised on transparency were either already reflected in the 
text of the DSU or subject ed to separate proceedings under the DSB SS.  
8.34.   The representative of China  said that since the matter was not  a new issue, Article 27 of Rules 
of Procedure for Meetings of the General Council also applie d to it.  
8.35.   China's  position on transparency remain ed unchanged. China  viewed the current rules 
adequate to ensure the appropriate transparency of the dispute settlement procedures without 
interfering disputing parties ' ability to agree on strengthened transparency in disputes between 
them. In contrast, new rules  aggressively promoted by the United States such as open hearings, 
immediate release of submissions a nd unfettered amicus curiae interventions had not take n into 
account developing Members ' constraints on capacities and resources. They w ould place those 
already disadvantaged Members at an even worse situation in future dispute settlement proceedings.  
8.36.   China also  agree d with what ha d been said by South Africa and the E uropean Union . China  
was not convinced that transparency should become its priority at th at time. Breaking the selection 
deadlock of the Appellate Body remain ed the most urgent matter for Members.  
8.37.   The representative of Japan  supported  the initiative. There was nothing in the text of the DSU 
or inherent in the nature of state to state dispute settlement which would require an absolute 
confidentiality in the process. Indeed, the DSU prescribe d the issue of transparency as a matter of 
Members' rights. Improving transparency need ed to be balanced with other potentially competing 
interests such as the requirement of prompt settlement, fair and orderly conduct in the process, 
parties' right to present their cases, due process, ensuring high quality reports and the protection of 
confidential information. Japan's  experience in prior cases ha d demonstrated however that WTO 
adjudicators were perfectly capable of balancing th ose various interests and that increased 
transparency c ould be achieved without modifying the existing rules as had been recognised in the 
joint statement.  
8.38.   Improving transparency and increased public scrutiny contribute d to enhancing the legitimacy 
and integrity of the WTO dispute settlement system. The joint statement was aspirational in nature 
and that while illustra ting types of mechanisms, the joint statement expressly recognise d a degree 
of discretion of Members under the circumstances of each dispute. Japan look ed forward to working 
with the proponents and other Members with the view to improving the dispute settl ement system 
by promoting its transparency.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 43 - 
 
  8.39.   The representative of Mexico  recogni zed how important transparency was in the WTO. At the 
same time, confidentiality was embedded in the DSU including the discretion for parties to make 
their positions transparen t in accordance with Article 18.2 of the DSU. The DSU therefore allowed 
any parties to, for instance, make their positions and communications public.  
8.40.   Improving transparency in different areas of the organization was very important for Mexico . 
Nonetheless,  it should not be understood that Members' right to assess with in their discretion on a 
case by case basis whether or not they were in a position to make their positions in the dispute 
settlement mechanism public  should  be undermined .  
8.41.   Finally, t ransparency could  be less relevant if Members  did not have a functioning dispute 
settlement system. Mexico therefore appealed for the  launch ing of the Selection Process to fill the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
8.42.   The representative of Norway  said that Nor way was a staunch supporter of transparency in 
WTO dispute settlement procedures and associated with the joint statement presented by the United 
States. T here were other more fundamental and acute issues for the Membership to address in the 
realm of disput e settlement  – most notably the blocking of appointments to the Appellate Body. 
Those  should not however prevent Members  from cooperating to strengthen the transparency, 
openness and ultimately the legitimacy of the dispute settlement system that all of th em cared 
strongly for.  
8.43.   The representative of Indonesia  referred to its statement at the previous General Council 
meeting in July. The dispute settlement mechanism and the DSU ha d adequately addressed the 
issue of transparency by establishing the conduct of  transparency between parties in a dispute. The 
DSU ha d also provided parties in a dispute  various levels of transparency expected in dispute 
settlement proceeding s. Similar to many arbitration system s, transparency within the WTO dispute 
settlement should  be addressed in a proportional manner since WTO dispute s were both commercial 
and public in nature. Hence, both transparency and confidentiality interest s should be served in a 
balanced manner. In the current stage, priority should be accorded to the solution of the Appellate 
Body crisis to preserve the well -functioning  dispute settlement system. Indonesia w ould continue to 
study th e joint statement back in its capital.  
8.44.   The repr esentative of Peru said that t ransparency in the dispute settlement mechanism was 
important. Th at was an interesting issue within the dialogue Members  were currently having in 
determining how they could improve the different pillars of the organization. Un doubtedly, th e joint 
statement ha d triggered support from  Peru as it preliminarily support ed many of its aspects.  
8.45.   Transparency was a legitimate principle in the administration of government issues which 
were public in nature and concern ed all citizens. Peru also agree d with the importance of, in certain 
circumstances, transparency within the dispute settlement mechanism with a view to finding a 
mutual agreement between parties and to facilitate access to information by the different interest 
groups that co uld be related to a given case.  
8.46.   Greater transparency in the dispute settlement mechanism would make it possible for 
Members who d id not participate could also be aware of the special procedures – because in many 
cases, only the parties and third parties ha d access to th at information. Transparency c ould also be 
enhanced with prior recognition by Members of that very principle without prejudging their rights 
within the framework of the DSU – taking into consideration the particular conditions that could aris e 
in a given case.  
8.47.   In the negotiations to improve and to better clarify the DSU at the WTO, Peru ha d agreed to 
hold meetings with adjudicative authorities wh ich were open to those interested in the practice that 
had been observed for certain disputes. Th at position ha d as one of its tenets the understanding 
that the opening to the interested public w ould not generate increased onus on the parties as the 
public c ould only hear the deliberations but not take part in th em.  
8.48.   Since  Peru did not participate frequently in the mechanism, it continue d in capital to follow 
the discussions  on the matter and would keep the co -sponsors informed on its possible joining of 
the joint statement. Peru was open to continue participating  in that dialogue and remained  ready to WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 44 - 
 
  look into proposals to improve the practices and rules relating to transparency and other aspects of 
the dispute settlement mechanism.  
8.49.   The representative of India said that enhanced transparency c ould improve the eff ectiveness 
of the WTO. However, requirements of transparency should  be looked at together with issues of 
capacity of developing countries , including LDCs. As a first step, developed Members could lead by 
example in the area of transparency in dispute settl ement.  
8.50.   India refer red to its previous statements on transparency in dispute settlement and reiterate d 
that the existing provisions contained in the DSU and the rules followed by Panels and the Appellate 
Body on transparency appear ed to be working and d id not need a fix. However, India suggest ed that 
the issue of enhanced transparency could be discussed in the DSB  in Special Session where it was 
one of the twelve  issues being negotiated.  
8.51.   At present , the dispute settlement system was facing an existential crisis which was crying 
for resolution. Discussion on any other issue could  divert the attention of Members.  
8.52.   The representative of Argentina  noted that i n line with other proposals presented within the 
framework of th e organization related to the issue of transparency, Argentina also share d the 
desirability of advancing the opening of  dispute settlement procedures.  
8.53.   Argentina's  co-sponsorship of the joint statement was in line with its country's commitment 
to the central role of the W TO as  an institution t hat ensure d transparency, predictability and stability 
in multilateral trade relations.  Argentina  was convinced on the importance of preserving  the dispute 
settlement system . In that regard, t ransparency in its procedures w ould contri bute to improving its 
efficient and effective functioning while maintaining its essential characteristics.  
8.54.   Opening hearings to the public and providing access to the written submissions  of Members 
in relation to their disputes  were just some of the aspects  that w ould allow a better understanding 
of the operation of the system and increase its transparency.  Transparency was part of one of the 
founding pillars of th e WTO – reinforcing its  legitimacy and integrity and constitute d as an essential 
principle of the organization . Transparency was not an option but an obligation of all Members.  
8.55.   The representative of the United States  thank ed all Members  that had co-sponsored the paper 
and the joint  statement and those  that had made interventions t hat day. For the sake of 
transparency, the United States  also appreciate d the intervention from China.  
8.56.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
9  WORK PROGRAMME AND M ORATORIUM ON ELECTRO NIC COMMERCE – 
COMMUNICATION FROM A USTRALIA; CHILE; COL OMBIA; COSTA R ICA; GEORGIA; HONG 
KONG, CHINA; ICELAND ; MEXICO; NEW ZEALAN D; NORWAY; SINGAPORE ; AND 
SWITZERLAND (WT/GC/W /782)  
9.1.  The Chair recalled that  the delegation of Switzerland and the other co -sponsors had requested 
to include  the item  in the agenda of the meeting together with the communication  circulated in  
document  WT/GC/W/782.  
9.2.  The representative of Switzerland  introduce d the communication on the Work  Programme and 
Moratorium on Electronic Commerce  circulated in document  WT/GC/W/782 on behalf of the following 
fourteen  co-sponsors: Australia; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Georgia; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; 
Israel; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Paraguay; Singapore and Switzerland.  A revised version of 
the document  which  includ ed those co -sponsors who had not figure d in the present version  as well 
as possible new co -sponsors w ould be issued within the next days.  
9.3.  Since 1998, Members ha d periodically taken decisions at Ministerial Conferences to continue 
their practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions. In the field of e -commerce 
– as in many other commercial areas – certainty and predictability were of utmost importance for 
business and consumers. Economic operators , for example , carefully evaluate d changes in the 
framework conditions for their investment decisions. Having recogni sed the potential implications 
from t he Moratorium lapsing prior to the Twelfth  Ministerial Conference , the co -sponsors  therefore WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 45 - 
 
  propose d an extension of the Moratorium until MC12  and for work to  continue under the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce during th at period.  
9.4.  The Moratorium was without prejudice to Members' right to impose internal taxes, fees or other 
charges in a manner consistent with WTO Agreements. The c o-sponsors  propose d that the General 
Council adopt ed a decision to th at effect at its meeting in December 2019 , and that t hey would 
submit a draft decision in the near future.  
9.5.  The representative of Singapore  had co -sponsored the submission because it was imperative 
that the Membership took a decision to extend the customs moratorium in view of the 
December  2019 deadline that loomed. It was only logical for the customs moratorium to be extended 
to MC12 because when the previous extension was decided, the assumption was that MC12 would 
be held in December 2019. Since MC12 had been re -scheduled to take place in June 2020, Members  
needed to extend the Moratorium procedurally to MC12 to have it synchronised with the original 
intent of the MC11 decision.  There was likewise clear interest from the business community to 
maintain the Moratorium. As major stakeholders, it was important that Members took the views of 
the business community into account  to ensure that what delegations did in the WTO would be 
meaningful and relevan t. 
9.6.  It was critical that Members took a holistic approach towards evaluating the Moratorium. 
Members should avoid looking at the Moratorium only through the narrow prism of policy space and  
revenue. In that regard , the European Centre for International Poli tical Economy 's Policy Brief on 
"The Economic Losses from Ending the WTO Moratorium on Electronic Transmissions " was instructive 
as it had identified gaps in the existing debates for Members to consider. In particular, the study 
highlighted the economic an d domestic tax losses that countries would incur if they were to impose 
customs duties on electronic transmissions. Members should consider a range of perspectives when 
assessing the issue.  
9.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  supported the proposal to e xtend the e-commerce 
Moratorium until MC12 and for the work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce to 
continue.  Hong Kong, China supported making the Moratorium permanent as it had provided the 
necessary certainty and predictability to the global business community for e -commerce to thrive 
over the past twenty  years. In fact, the international business community, represented by the 
International Chamber of Commerce, had also called for  Members to agree at least on an extension 
of the Moratorium in December 2019 , if not made permanent.  
9.8.  Some  Members had asked for more discussions to further clarify the impact of the Moratorium 
on their economies and their development needs. New studies on the Moratorium from various 
bodies outside the WTO were also emerging result ing in  Members be ing in a better position to 
consider the matter in a more holistic manner. Meanwhile, the WTO should not lose sight of the fact 
that the ongoing Moratorium would expire in December and that it was urgen t for Members to 
immediately act on the matter .  
9.9.  Any delay in the decision to extend the Moratorium beyond December would be seen as a big 
step backward for the WTO  – undermining its credibility and the multilateral trading system that it 
represent ed. Hong Kong, China ther efore invited Members to support the proposal to extend the 
Moratorium until MC12 , would welcome any proposal to reinvigorate the Work Programme and would 
engage constructively in the discussions.  
9.10.   The representative of Costa Rica  had supported the W ork Programme on Electronic Commerce  
since its inception in  1998 including  the commitment not to impose customs duties  on electronic 
transmissions. While Costa Rica preferred to agree on a permanent  moratorium , it recogni sed that  
such a proposal  was not possible in the few weeks  that Members had  before the expiration of the 
current one  in December . For that reason, Costa Rica had co-sponsored the proposal to extend the 
Moratorium and to continue the Work Program me until MC12 – to achieve a minimum level of 
predict ability that allowed electronic commerce to remain an instrument fo r development . 
9.11.   The representative of Chile associated with  the statement made by Switzerland on behalf of 
the co -sponsors of the communication on the Work Program me on Electronic Commerce and the 
Moratorium. On different occasions  and based on its  experience as a developing country, Chile had 
expressed its firm support to maint aining the Moratorium on electronic transmissions  as it had WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 46 - 
 
  provided  important benefits to all Members  regardless of their  level of development. By not 
extending the Moratorium, Members  would create uncertainty and  impose potential greater costs 
for consum ers and business especially for developing countries  – which could also extend to  workers  
and their salaries.  
9.12.   Given the temporary nature of the Moratorium and with its looming expiry in December, 
Members were called to urgently decide on the matter. Such a decision should be based on facts, 
statistics  and studies carried out that would cover all the relevant aspects to enable Members to 
properly deliberate on the matter . Chile therefore invited all Members to show responsibility b y being 
constructive  and b y support ing the very reasonable idea of extending the Moratorium to MC12 . In 
doing so , Members would arrive in Nur -Sultan in the same way they had left Buenos Aires.  
9.13.   In effect, the proposal  would put the onus on the Ministerial Conference to decide on whether 
to pursue the Moratorium or not beyond MC12 . Members were living in times of great challenges for 
the WTO, and now more than ever, Members had to defend the multilateral  trading system.  In 
moving forward, Members should work together and  not backtrack as they could not afford to run 
the risk of being weakened  upon their arrival at MC12.  
9.14.   The representative of Iceland  co-sponsored the communication on the Work Program me on 
Electronic Commerce  and the Moratorium  and supported the work being undertaken under the Joint 
Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce. Renewing the Moratorium  on electronic commerce 
was of high importance. Placing duties on electronic transactions would hamper trade across borders 
and would have  a negative effect on t rade and development in that field. It was not in the interest 
of any Member to see that happe n. Iceland therefore urged the Membership to renew the 
Moratorium . 
9.15.   The representative of Mexico  associate d with the statement made by Switzerland on behalf 
of the co -sponsors of the communication on the Work Program me on Electronic Commerce and the 
Moratorium . Mexico fully supported the extension of the Moratorium  until MC12 to maintain  certainty 
in the business environment given the growth in e -trade.  During the 2019 P ublic Forum, the 
Moratorium  was one  of the issues which  had greatly concern ed companies participating in digital 
trade. If Members would not  extend the Moratorium , it would have a negative impact on efforts by 
developing  countries such as Mexico in the area of innovation and on  MSMEs that depended a lot on 
e-commerce.  
9.16.   The representative of Georgia  associated with the statement made by Switzerland on behalf 
of the co -sponsors and fully supported the proposal.  The E-commerc e Moratorium  was one of the 
areas where Members could demonstrate their positive engagement and pragmatism by at least 
finding an interim  solution . Doing so would s end a positive signal to the international community 
that the WTO was  still able to produce meaningful and liberalization -oriented decisions.  
9.17.   The representative of Australia  saw the E-commerce Moratorium  as a critical component of 
the modern trading system. The Moratorium  had promoted the growth of digital trade provid ing 
business better access to more customers and giving consumers more choice s. It had provided 
Australian businesses, especially MSMEs, with the certainty and predictability that they needed to 
grow. Whil e Australia's preference was to make the Moratorium  permanent, it recogni sed that some 
Members wanted to better understand the impact of the Moratorium . In that regard, Australia noted 
the studies on the Moratorium 's impact and the potential risks associated with the Moratorium  
lapsing and understood that a further study by the OECD was imminent.  
9.18.   A broad, cost -benefit analysis of the impact of the Moratorium  was appropriate and the 
revenue impact of lifting it was likely to be small and would be at the expens e of more significant 
losses in consumer welfare and export competitiveness.  During the General Council Chair's 
consultation on that issue on 1 October, it had been clear that Members were interpreting those 
studies in different ways. That diversity of opi nion underscored the risk associated with allowing the 
Moratorium  to lapse in December.  Accordingly, while further analyses were given to relevant studies, 
Australia supported  the proposal to extend the Moratorium  to MC12. And as other co -sponsors had 
emph asised, Australia noted the longstanding practice of Ministers deciding on that issue.  
9.19.   The representative of Paraguay  considered it a timely proposal which had taken into account  
the deadline set in the Buenos Aires Ministerial Decision on the Moratorium  which would expire in WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 47 - 
 
  December. Paraguay agreed with the proponents that Members needed to make positive efforts to 
prevent a legal vacuum being generated that would create uncertainty in the economy.  Paraguay 
reiterated its support for the  extension of the  Moratorium  at least until MC12.  The extension would 
provide predictability to the digital  industry , would  allow MSMEs to integrate into the global value 
chains due to the  clear rules that they could count o n and would  give a strong boost to the innovation 
and entrepreneurship culture of Paraguay's youth.  
9.20.   Many complex and sensitive issues likewise existed that could continue to be discussed within 
the scope of the 1998 Work Program me on Electronic Commerce  especially those related to digital 
taxation. Generat ing a discussion in that area would help rebuild trust among Members who had 
concerns and would facilitate Members in benefit ing from a better technical understanding of the 
real impact of the Moratoriu m. All Members wanted to maintain policy space th at allowed them to 
define taxation  modalities and discussing that would not pose as an obstacle to the development of 
trade and innovation but would serve  as a catalyst for economic development.  
9.21.   The represen tative of Uruguay  noted that a  lot of discussions had been  held on e-commerce, 
many  proposals had been  put forward on the Moratorium  and various activities had been organised 
such as th e Workshop on the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissi ons held on 29 
April. Those discussions had helped Uruguay to gain a greater understanding of the different aspects 
involved in the Moratorium . The relationship of the Moratorium  with the possibility of levying customs 
duties, the maintenance of poli cy space and development industrialization however continued to be 
important  albeit extremely complex matters that had yet to be solved.  
9.22.   As the  e-commerce sector had shown enormous gro wth, there was a lot of expectation  both 
from businesses and consumers especially MSMEs on maintaining predictability and certainty  in that 
area. Uruguay supported the proponents  and considered that what was most appropriate was to 
pursue the practice of renew ing the Moratorium  on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions and  
continu ing the Work Program me on Electronic Commerce at least until  MC12 in Nur -Sultan.  
9.23.   The representative of Argentina  said that  the issue of the Moratorium  on Customs Duties on 
Electronic Transmissions  and the Work Program me on Electronic Commerce should be decided by 
the General Council at its December meeting. In that regard, Argentina valued the proactive attitude 
of the proponents and the document which had been presented . At MC11 in Buenos Aires , Ministers 
had decided to maintain the practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions 
until their next session.  While that decision had been made with December 2019  in mind , based on 
the consensus reached in the discussions on the preparations for MC12  which would be held  in June 
2020, Members agreed with the idea of extending the Moratorium  until that date.  
9.24.   Any sign of stability that Members could offer was a positive step whose value for the private 
sector was not to be underestimated.  A protectionist strategy  was the consequence of fear. Some 
saw putting up trade barriers as a huge advantage  while others like Argentina saw their absence as  
a great opportunity especially for  the new and future  generation s. 
9.25.   The representative of Indonesia  recogni zed the importance of digital industrialization and 
trade as well as the need for policy  and regulatory space for developing digital sectors.  Further 
studies on the issue of fiscal and economic implications arising fro m the Moratorium  on Customs 
Duties on Electronic  Transmissions  were also needed.  Members should therefore carefully examine 
all the issues in a balanced manner to ensure  that no Member wa s unduly affected by the 
Moratorium . 
9.26.   The representative of the European Union  said that the Moratorium  on Customs Duties on 
Electronic Transmissions had become an indispensable aspect of modern trade relations. The 
Moratorium 's extension for over two decades denoted Members ' shared understand ing of its 
contribution to the growth of digital trade which in turn had contributed to the growth of global 
trade.  The Moratorium  had brought multiple benefits. It had enabled the development of digital trade 
free from burdensome customs duties. It had he lped consumers access new services and had 
provided certainty to businesses including  MSMEs  by enabling them to engage in global e -commerce.  
9.27.   As was indicated by Singapore, the economic study by the European Centre for International 
Political Economy  dated August 2019 had shown that the payoff in tariff revenues would ultimately 
be minimal relative to the scale of economic damage that would result from import duties on WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 48 - 
 
  electronic transmissions. Moreover, m any Members had already committed to a permanent 
prohibition of custom s duties on e lectronic transmissions in the context of bilateral or regional trade 
agreements. The absence of a multilateral commitment would mean that Members without vast FTA 
networks could face unfavourable terms of trade. For those rea sons, the E uropean Union  remained 
strongly attached to seeing that the Moratorium  continue d to apply.  
9.28.   The E uropean Union 's preferred approach was to render the Moratorium 's prohibition 
permanent. That would bring the benefit of certainty and predictability to businesses and consumers 
and would save on the important resources of Members engage d in discussions every two years. If 
such a permanent solution could not be agreed,  the E uropean Union  would support extending the 
Moratorium  until MC13. The European Union therefore  called on the General Council Chair to start 
consultations with Members in view of taking a decision at the December General Council  meeting . 
9.29.   The representa tive of Panama  noted that discussions on e -commerce were highly important . 
Saying that e -commerce w as a tool that allowed for economic development and greater inclusion in 
global trade was an understatement. Members could not ignore the relevance of e -comm erce. It was 
ubiquitous. The transactions that were carried out and which relied at least in part on e -commerce 
were infinite. Cross -border trade likewise relied on technology and electronic means. E-commerce  
was therefore not only a tool in trade  but was also a pre-requisite for modern transactions.  Without 
it, development and growth prospects would be very much reduced.  
9.30.   The 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  should move from the stage of general 
discussion s and exchange of experiences to a new, s ignificant stage  which would lead towards 
achieving multilateral  outcomes and specific recommendations in accordance with the mandate that 
had been given by Ministers. Discussions and exchanges of experiences in the Work Program me had 
clearly demonstrated that the Moratorium  on customs duties on e -commerce transactions had led 
to significant, multifaceted benefits particularly for developing countries and MSMEs.  Looking at the 
results of th eir discussions under the Work Programme , Panama therefore saw that it should be 
leading into a decision to make the Moratorium  permanent in December. Panama aimed to continue 
to be involved in the consultations and discussions on that and other related issues.  
9.31.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that, f ollowing Members' discussion in the open -
ended meeting on 1 October for the Work Program me on Electronic Commerce and the Moratorium , 
some Members were still concerned about the implications of the Moratorium  on tax revenue and 
policy space necessitating f urther discussions on the issue before  possibly reach ing consensus. 
Chinese Taipei therefore supported the proposal in document WT/GC/W/782 to avoid the interruption 
of the Moratorium  and to preserve the interest of global enterprises and consumers.  
9.32.   The re presentative of Thailand  intervened under I tems 9 and 10. The two moratoria remained 
important to  preserve the WTO's  credibility  – the absence of which would create uncertainty and 
unpredictability for all stakeholders.  That was not desirable in the changi ng circumstances of global 
trade. While s ome Members had substantive concerns with the two moratoria and would need 
further, in -depth discussion before reaching any decision , the best way forward for Member s – 
especially given that time was running out – was to maintain the ongoing practice of the WTO. 
Thailand w as taking steps to delve deeper into discussions in that area  and supported the 
continuation of both the TRIPS and E -Commerce Moratoria  including the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce until MC12 to be held  in June 2020.  
9.33.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , noted that the LDCs had expressed the 
need for the Work Programme to take up issues relating to the constraints they faced  in participat ing 
effectively in e -commerce.  While LD C entrepreneurs had been participating in e -commerce, they 
had suffered from unsustai nable  growth and certainty due to lack of the necessary policy, access 
and infrastructure development. The LDCs w ould therefore like to examine th ose issues and any 
implic ations o r benefits of the Moratorium  to them and their people .  
9.34.   The representative of Guatemala  support ed the initiative presented by the co-sponsors.  
Guatemala considered that several issues still  required further evaluation under the Work 
Program me on Electronic Commerce  and that Members should  continue the practice of not imposing 
customs  duties on electronic transmissions. Guatemala therefore supported the idea of extending 
the e-commerce Moratorium  until MC12 . WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 49 - 
 
  9.35.   The representative of the United States  continued to believe that all  Members should be 
prepared to agree to a permanent Moratorium  on Customs Duties on Digital Transmissions. While 
the U nited States  remained committed to that long -term goal, the delayed Ministerial Conference 
had created some ambiguity around several of the deadlines which had been agreed to at MC11  
including the e -commerce Moratorium . The United States supported the extension of the  Moratorium  
until MC12  as that would address its interest in ensuring that there was no arbitrary break in 
application of the Moratorium  before Ministers re-convened.  
9.36.   The representative of Japan  noted that the Moratorium  on electronic commerce had 
contributed to the establishment of a free trade environment in the digital economy which provided 
certainty and predictability for business and trade. During the recent P ublic Forum , many industry 
people emphasi sed the importan ce of the mortarium for businesses.  E-commerce was a powerful 
enabler that made international trade more inclusive  particularly by empowering MSMEs, farmers, 
women and persons with disabilities. To discontinue the Moratorium  would be considered as a seriou s 
step backwards for e -commerce and international trade. That was why Members should maintain 
their ongoing multilateral practice of the Moratorium . 
9.37.   Japan respected the concerns that had been raised by some developing Members about the 
impact of the Morato rium on their customs revenue. Economic impact could however be measured 
not only in customs revenue but more broadly in other factors such as overall tax base and GDP. In 
that re gard, Japan noted the variety of valuable inputs which had given  due consider ation to  the 
broad economic implications of the Moratorium  from reliable sources such as international 
organizations like the OECD and global think tanks like ECIPE. Japan remained committed to 
contributing to constructive and informed discussions on the m atter.  
9.38.   The representative of Canada  noted that Canada had had a longstanding position on the issue 
but was not able to comment on the communication at the present meeting. Canada w as encouraged 
by efforts to bridge differences on that matter and intended t o officially confirm its position by the 
next meeting of the General  Council. In the meantime, Canada was committed to continuing to 
participate in informal consultations.  
9.39.   The representative of India stated that as the digital revolution was still unfolding, India had  
on several occasions reiterated that it was important to first unde rstand the complex and multi -
faceted dimensions of issues related to e -commerce.  Members still did not comprehend the full 
implications of the effects of e -commerce on competition and market structures, issues related to 
transfer of technology, automation and robotization and its impact on traditional jobs and the gaps 
in policy and regulating frameworks in developing countries. India had therefore been a proponent  
of strengthening the multilateral work under the non -negotiating and exploratory Work Program me 
on Electronic C ommerce.  
9.40.   Under the multilateral Work Programme and with the intention of understanding the 
implications of the Moratorium  on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions, India along with 
South Africa had introduced two submissions in July 2018 and in June 2019.  
9.41.   When the mortarium had first been agreed upon there had been  limited understanding about 
e-commerce and it had been mechanically extended. Members had however access to better expert 
inputs at present. With the advent of industry 4.0  and the advancement of 3D printing technologies, 
the Moratorium  would erode the existing GATT bound rates which were typically higher in developing 
countries and would bring them to zero. That could have a catastrophic effect on the nascent 
domestic digit al industries and jobs in developing countries.  
9.42.   The existing literature and research also unequivocally pointed out that developing countries 
would bear the brunt of losses of revenue due to the Moratorium . The UNCTAD Trade and 
Development Report of 2019 c onfirmed that the Moratorium  had implied a loss in fiscal revenue of 
more than USD10 billion globally, 95 per cent of which had been borne by developing countries.  
9.43.   India urged that it was also important to keep in mind that the estimate of USD10 billion as  
the potential tariff revenue loss per annum was only the tip of the iceberg as that estimate was 
based on only a small number or products – that was 49 identified HS -6-digit products. On the other 
hand, digitalization was rapidly affecting an increasing n umber of products and therefore that 
estimate of foregone fiscal revenue could rapidly multiply.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 50 - 
 
  9.44.   In view of the above, the E -Commerce Moratorium  was asymmetrical for developing countries 
both from the revenue point of view and because of the severe negativ e impact on efforts of 
developing countries towards digital industrialization.  Nevertheless, India w as willing to engage with 
an open mind on the proposal  and suggested that the Secretariat organi sed another workshop on 
the e-commerce Moratorium  well before December 2019 to better understand the definition, scope 
and impact of the Moratorium  so that Members could take an informed decision on the issue.  
9.45.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that the use of new technologies  
in e-commerce was a reality that Members need ed to focus on in multilateral trade  – particularl y on 
the digital divide and the unequal access to technology in the interest of coming up with contributions 
for discussion. With regard to the Moratorium  and its exten sion, Members  should  come up with 
effective solutions that would be satisfactory in the long -term and that would satisfy the needs  of all 
– particularly one that consider ed the opportunities and the chal lenges faced by developing countries 
and MSMEs on e-commerce.  
9.46.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , noted that the  ACP Group was fully 
cognizant of the essential aspect of WTO work before the end of the year  relating to the  renewal of 
the 1998 D ecision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and the  Moratorium  – as they 
would have systemic implications for the Group. It was evident in previous discussions that s ome 
unfinished business  remained  concerning the application of customs duti es on the electronic 
transmissions. In arriving at an agreement around which Members could all coalesce, they should 
fully consider and integrate the development dimension as it related to the Moratorium  and wider 
discussions in the Work Programme on Elect ronic Commerce – which was  essential as the gap 
between the haves and the have-nots in terms of technological advancements continued to grow.  
9.47.   Many countries in the ACP still lacked the necessary basic infrastructure and electricity supply 
to benefit from those enhancements or enable them to benefit from e -commerce. The ACP  Group 
was undertaking internal talks on all those issues with the aim of not only contributing positively to 
the agenda but also to ensure that the ACP's  interest as developing countries , and in particular the 
LDCs and the SVEs among them,  were in tegrated  into the discussions.  
9.48.   On behalf of Jamaica , she noted that Jamaica did not necessarily oppose the extension of the 
Moratorium  until MC12 as proposed by the co -sponsors. There should howe ver be an assessment of 
the continued Moratorium  on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions . E-commerce represented 
a growing and evolving medium of international trade with an estimate d value of USD 2.3 trillion in 
2017. The expectation was for it to reach US D 4.5 trillion by 2021  – almost doubling its value.  Given 
the importance of digital trade, any multilateral decision with permanent implications  should  be 
made from an informed perspective  particularly as t he understanding of the scope and definiti on of 
electronic transactions remained limited especially among developing countries.  
9.49.   Among the important issues that continued to be debated w ere the revenue implications of 
the Moratorium , the technological feasibility of levying customs duties and the characterization of 
electronic transmissions as goods or services. Existing literature had  already  estimated the revenue 
implications of the removal of customs duties on digital products. Uncertainty however remained as 
to the veracity of such assessments.  Some doubts had also been raised on whether it was 
technologically feasible to levy customs duties on electronic transmissions and whether the 
associated costs of levying such duties, whenever technologically feasible, would be higher than the 
actual reve nue collected. Such ambiguities necessitated a further  study o n the topic and a 
continuation of the Work Program me and the Moratorium  in the interim.  
9.50.   As a small island developing State, Jamaica understood that its very survival was dependent 
on its ability to expand its engagement in international trade. To that end, in preceding years, 
Jamaica had developed various policies and strategies, all of which had spoken  of the need to take 
advantage of the growing e -commerce aspect of global trade. Notwithstandi ng those efforts, Jamaica 
had had to acknowledge the need for a cohesive set of policies, regulations and laws on digital trade.  
9.51.   In a time when the number of countries who were involved in digital  trade was steadily 
increasing, Jamaica acknowledged the critical need to have the appropriate regulatory framework in 
place w hich could be  constant ly updat ed. Infrastructure development would also be crucially 
important  particularly as many developing countries , including Jamaica,  did not  have adequate 
infrastructure to embrace digital trade and were yet to establish a national strategy on e -commerce. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 51 - 
 
  That underscored the importance of maintaining flexibility at a multilateral level to implement 
policies as necessary which were consistent with t he development priorities of individual Member s. 
9.52.   The representative of Nigeria  noted that the proposal to extend the e-commerce Moratorium  
until MC12 would maintain  predictability for businesses and consumers between December and in 
the lead up to Nur-Sultan. Undoubtedly, an unpredictable business and investment environment  
would result in negative effects . At the same time, developing countries  had legitimate concerns on 
the effect of the Moratorium  on tariff revenue especially given the results of static analysis shared 
in the public domain. There was therefore a need to careful ly examin e those studies  to enable the 
General Council to make an  informed decision on the matter that would  ensure a win-win outcome.  
9.53.   On the other hand, t he results of static analy sis alone did not tell the whole story about the 
impact of trade arrangements on economies given that those studies  excluded the dynamic effects 
of such arrangements on outputs, consumption  and jobs, among others . Care should therefore be 
taken to ensure  that Members would not  throw the baby out with the bathwater . 
9.54.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  associated with the statement s made by Members 
that reiterat ed the importance of continuing the ongoing practice of not imposing customs duties  on 
electronic transmissions  and support ed the communication in WT/GC/ W/782. It was vital to maintain 
certainty and predictability for businesses and consumers as well as for  Members by preventing any 
possible lapse of the Moratorium  prior to MC12. The Moratorium  had been a key enabler for an open 
and free trade environment. It  likewise  facilitat ed the rapid grow th of the  digital economy which had 
unlocked opportunities for stakeholders in both developed and developing countries. In particular, 
the cross -border threshold remained at zero tariff  – benefitting those who were the most 
underrepresented in global trade such as MSMEs and women entrepreneurs in developing regions.  
9.55.   Korea took note of the concerns that had been raised by some Members with respect to  
possible negative impacts of the Moratorium . Recent works and studies had however strongly 
advised against imposing tariffs on e -transmissions. Levying new tariffs could incur highly distortive 
impacts that would outweigh any potential revenue to be obtai ned from it  – let alone the issue of its 
technical and legal feasibility.  Korea again expressed its strong support for continuing the 
Moratorium  – which had already been accepted in many regional trade agreements.  
9.56.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  understood that the reasons for th e 
communication had been clearly looked into. Th e Dominican Republic therefore  supported the 
extension of the Moratorium  on e-commerce and request ed that the issue would be deci ded upon at 
MC12 so that Members could find  a definitive solution on the matter . 
9.57.   The representative of Peru extended Peru's support to the communication presented that day.  
9.58.   The representative of South Africa  had emphasi sed the need to have discussions on the Work 
Programme and the Moratorium  on Electronic Commerce. In the joint paper contained in 
WT/GC/W/774, South Africa and India had argued for a rethink of the Moratorium  on Customs Duties 
on Electronic Transmissions be cause prevailing realities had changed drastically since the 
Moratorium  had been  introduced in 1998. The debate on the continuation of the Moratorium  should 
be driven by concrete facts and statistics. The impact of the Moratorium  should  be understood from 
a revenue point of view and from a development perspective. Members should  analyse the impact 
of the Moratorium  on digital industrialization efforts of developing countries and LDCs.  
9.59.   Fundamental questions around the scope and definition of electronic tran smissions, the 
revenue implication of the Moratorium  and technical feasibility of imposing customs duties on 
electronic transactions among others had not been answered. Those were critical questions that 
would inform decision -making. South Africa w as conce rned with the lack of structured discussion s 
on mandated work with some Members having given attention to the plurilateral initiatives. The 
decision on the E-commerce Moratorium  should be made based on clear evidence and concrete facts. 
South Africa's efforts were aimed at stimulating an inclusive debate since new facts about the 
implications of e-commerce were emerging.  
9.60.   It was clear from the information available to Members tha t the E -Commerce Moratorium  was 
asymmetrical for developing countries both from the revenue point of view and because of the severe 
negative impact on efforts of developing countries towards digital industrialization. The UNCTAD WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Trade and Development Revie w of 2019 had further confirmed a loss in fiscal revenue of more than 
USD 10 billion globally as a result of the Moratorium  – 95 per cent of which had been  borne by 
developing countries. Since th at estimate was based on only a small number of products and 
digitalization was rapidly affecting an increasing number of products, th at estimate of foregone fiscal 
revenue could rapidly multiply.  
9.61.   With the advent of industry 4.0 and 3D printing technologies, the Moratorium  would erode 
the existing GATT bound rates w hich were typically higher in developing countries. The existing 
literature and research also unequivocally pointed out that developing countries would be bearing 
the brunt of losses of revenue due to the Moratorium .  
9.62.   The call for a deeper discussion did n ot narrowly focus on the revenue implications of the 
Moratorium . South Africa w as more concerned about broader trade and industrial policy implications 
and the impact on their development priorities. South Africa's core objective was to harness digital 
trade for their own development and to have the policy space to promote their digital industrial 
policies. Tariffs were an important industrial policy tool and should not be removed from the tool 
box without understanding the implications. Members should have  the discretion to deploy that 
important tool based on their developmental objectives.  
9.63.   South Africa would continue with its efforts to deepen the discussion and engage with 
Members to further understand and examine the various dimensions of issues surround ing the 
Moratorium  so that Members could take a well -informed decision on the Moratorium  in December. 
It was a pity that a call for a workshop on the matter had been opposed despite a clear need to 
consider research regarding the impact of the E -commerce Moratorium  on electronic transmissions.  
9.64.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil  had carefully reviewed the relevant studies and 
all the communications which had been circulated by Members in the WTO bodies mandated by the 
Work Program me to discuss iss ues related to electronic commerce. Brazil had also taken into 
consideration the different perspectives which were presented during the workshop on the 
Moratorium  held on 29 April and the informal meeting of the General Council on 1 October which 
had added  some valuable elements to the discussion.  
9.65.   As the General Council should decide on the Moratorium  in its December meeting , Brazil 
supported the extension of the Moratorium  for two years or until the Thirteenth  Ministerial 
Conference. If it was not possible to reach a decision in December, Brazil w as open to consider the 
proposal of the group of Members to extend the Moratorium  and to continue to work under the Work 
Program on Electronic Commerce until MC12 in Nur -Sultan.  
9.66.   The representative of Switze rland thank ed the delegations for their statements  particular ly 
those that  had supported the approach proposed by the co -sponsors of the communication the y had 
introduced.  The solution Switzerland w as proposing was a pragmatic step to bridge the gap until  
MC12 . In fact, it was a modest step  and a middle ground solution that considered the different 
sensitivities which were expressed in the many debates that had already been held on the issue. 
Switzerland hoped that the proposal would serve as a basis for fu rther consultations.  
9.67.   Switzerland and the co -sponsors would issue a revised version of the communication  and 
invited those who wished to co -sponsor it to inform them of their intention to do so until the end of 
the week. The y would then feature as co -sponso rs in the revised version.  Switzerland look ed forward 
to further discussions on the matter under the able guidance of the Chair.  
9.68.   The Chair, in referring to her earlier statement under Item 2, invited all Members to engage 
in the consultations that she had been conducting on the Work Programme and the Moratorium  with 
a view to make progress on the matter by the December meeting of the General Council.  
9.69.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 53 - 
 
  10  TRIPS NON -VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLA INTS MORATORIUM  – 
COMMUNICATION FROM C HILE, COLOMBIA, NEW ZEALAND AND PANAMA 
(WT/GC/W/783)  
10.1.   The Chair recalled that t he delegation of Chile and other co -sponsors had requested the 
Secretariat to include th e item in th e agenda of the meeting t hat day – together with the 
communication circulated in  document  WT/GC/W/783.  
10.2.   The representative of Chile, on behalf of the co -sponsors Chile, Colombia , New Zealand  and 
Panama , introduce d the communication on the TRIPS Non -Violatio n and Situation Complaints 
Moratorium . A possible revised version of th e document including new co -sponsors could  be issued 
within the next days. The co -sponsors had noted that Members ha d periodically taken decisions at 
the Ministerial Conference to continue their practice of not initiating non -violation and situation 
complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.  
10.3.   Recognising that there was a need to continue discussing th e issue among the Members 
between the TRIPS Council, the co -sponsors  propose d an extension of the Moratorium  until MC12 
and to continue the examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided 
for under sub -paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article 23 of the GATT 1994 during th at period. They 
propos ed that the General Council adopt ed a decision to th at effect at its meeting in December 2019. 
They would submit a draft decision in the near future.  
10.4.   On behalf of Chile , as regards the formal and informal discussions on the Moratorium  on Non -
Violation and Situation Complaints,  Chile felt that there was a need for more time in order to come 
to a common understanding and consensus on the different issues that f ell under the mandate of 
Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement. Without prejudice to what could  be discu ssed in the TRIPS Council 
that week, Chile wished for the General Council to extend the Moratorium  to MC12 and to continue 
to examine the scope and modalities of th ose types of complaints.  
10.5.   Chile hoped that the communication it had submitted together with Colombia, New Zealand 
and Panama could  contribute to constructive dialogue among Members so that they could reach  
consensus at the December  General Council  meeting  for the extension of the Moratorium  to MC12 – 
which could  also contribute to the technical preparation for th e upcoming  Ministerial Conference.  
10.6.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand was pleased to co-sponsor th e 
communication with Chile, Colombia and Panama. New Zealand ha d long supported the m oratoria 
on non -violation and situation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement and on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions. Some Members were interested in further analysis and discussion as had 
been heard in the discussion under the E-Commerce  Morator ium. That was something that  
New Zealand  was open to on the proviso that Members  did not move away from the status quo 
pending any results from such analysis that suggest ed the basis for doing so. Allowing the moratoria 
to lapse in December would introduce  significant uncertainty for Members and business. New 
Zealand  saw no basis for doing that without having had the time and stability to engage in the 
analysis and discussion – hence the proposal to extend both moratoria to MC12.  
10.7.   The representative of Panam a noted that Panama together with New Zealand and Colombia 
were co-sponsors to th e communication that had been presented by Chile. Panama  express ed its 
firm support for extending the Moratorium  until MC12. The objective of th e proposal was for 
discussions to be stepped up in the TRIPS Council in the relevant format. The idea was to launch an 
in depth discussion on scope and modalities in order to come up with relevant recommendations. 
Panama  hoped that th e draft decision could be adopted i n the December General Council meeting.  
10.8.   The representative of Colombia  intervened under Items 9 and 10. Colombia supported  the 
statements of the co -sponsoring Members particularly t hose made  by Switzerland in relation to the 
E-Commerce Moratorium  and to th e Chilean statement on the TRIPS  Moratorium . Colombia 
support ed the interest of a large part of the Membership in ensuring the extension of both moratori a 
and continuing the practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, or of not 
initiating claims not based on a violation or in cases where there was another situation under the 
TRIPS Agreement.  Colombia reiterated the  proposal for the General Council to extend both moratori a 
until MC12  when both issues w ould be discussed again in  the search of a pronouncement from the 
highest decision -making body of th e organization.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 54 - 
 
  10.9.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the issue of TRIPS Non -Violation and 
Situation Complaints need ed a permanent solution rather than a temporary one. Russia would 
however  support an interim decision explicitly extending  the Moratorium  until MC12 to avoid  
uncertainty  on the matter. Such a t echnical extension of the Moratorium  should go hand in hand 
with intensified examination of the scope and modalities for non -violation and situation complaints 
under the TRIPS Agreement as per the Ministerial Decision made at MC11.  
10.10.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  consider ed that the uncertainties surrounding non -
violation situation complaints ha d made it harder for Members to rely on the agreed text of the 
TRIPS Agreement to define their obligations. As a staunch supporter of the multilateral trading 
system, H ong Kong, China  share d the concern that introducing non-violation and situation 
complaints  in the TRIPS context could  undermine the security and predictability provided by the 
system. Th at in the long term would weaken the public support to the system and the WTO.  As 
Members ha d yet to identify a solution to resolve the impasse, it was a pragmatic step for Members  
to extend the current Moratorium  until MC12  to provide more time to work out solutions to the issue 
and avoid bringing unnecessary uncertainties and confusions to the system  in the meantime.  
10.11.   The representative of South Africa  said that Members  remain ed divided on the question of 
whether non -violation and situation complaints should apply to the TRIPS Agreement at all or 
whether the application of th ose types of c omplaints should be subject to certain modalities. South 
Africa  welcome d the proposal for  a discussion on the matter in the TRIPS Council for consideration 
by the G eneral Council in December . 
10.12.   South Africa was not a proponent for the application of non -violation and situation complaints 
to the TRIPS Agreement. It could  also be useful for the proponents of the non-violation complaint  
remedy to clarify what situations they wish ed to avoid by having a non -violati on remedy available 
under the TRIPS Agreement. South Africa would be concerned with any non-violation  remedy that 
would have the effect of expanding existing TRIPS obligations or reduce flexibilities that Members 
currently ha d. 
10.13.   Should Members not be able t o agree on the scope and modalities that w ould underlie the 
application of non -violation and situation complaints in the context of the TRIPS Agreement, South 
Africa would support the extension of the Moratorium . 
10.14.   The representative of India believed that introducing non -violation and situation complaints 
into the TRIPS Agreement was unnecessary and inconsistent with the interests of Members. As such, 
any benefits arising from the Agreement c ould be adequately protected by applying the text of the 
Agreement in accordance with accepted principles of international law without any need for 
introducing the legally uncertain notion of non -violation and situation complaints.  
10.15.   Serious concerns remain ed on the debilitating impact that non -violation complaints in TRIPS  
could have on the regulatory policy space of Members, on TRIPS flexibilities, thereby increasing the 
complexity in interpreting the TRIPS provisions. It c ould not only have a chilling effect on Member 's 
exercise of their IP flexibilities but it could also severely restrain the ability of Members to achieve 
other public policy objectives.  
10.16.   India look ed forward to working with like -minded Members in making non -violation 
complaints inapplicable to TRIPS.  However, until  that happen ed, India could support the ex tension 
of the Moratorium  on applicability of  non-violation and situation complaints  to the TRIPS Agreement.  
10.17.   The representative of the European Union  support ed extending the Moratorium  of 
13 December 2017 on not using TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints.  
10.18.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  noted that Bolivia's position on th e 
matter had already been presented in the TRIPS Council and ha d not changed. Non-violation and 
situation complaints d id not apply in the TRIP S context as it w ould extend its scope. Members  needed 
to protect the rights and obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Thus far , it had not been made 
clear when or how th at should be implemented. The same applie d to complaints in other situations  
which we re based on any situation which could  undermine the benefits of any Member or prevent 
them from reaching the objectives under the Agreement.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 55 - 
 
  10.19.   Members  should apply the text of the Agreement in accordance with international law 
principles. The rights and obligations under the TRIPS Agreement should be applied because 
otherwise there could be a contradiction between the IPRs and the legitimate exercise of 
governments' regulatory practices. Members  had the sovereign capacity to implement  social , 
economic  and environmental measures. If there was no consensus on the issue , the Moratorium  
should be extended to the next Ministerial Conference.  
10.20.   The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh's position on the matter was well -
known as could be r eferred from its interventions at past TRIPS Council meetings.  Bangladesh had 
however invited the proponents of the application of non -violation and situation complaints to 
provide their views and ideas on the scope and modalities of the proceedings as req uired by 
Article  64.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Co uncil needed to be better informed and only then w ould 
it be in a better position to examine and consider the proposal.  
10.21.   The concept appear ed to be still an unknown territory, and unless the scope and moda lities 
were outlined first, Members  could not go any further in th e discussion. Bangladesh was in favour 
of establishing a permanent Moratorium . However, considering the current uncertainty, it support ed 
the temporary extension until MC12. Bangladesh expre ssed its readiness to further constructively 
engage with Members on th e issue.  
10.22.   The representative of Nigeria  noted that  even though Nigeria's  preferred outcome was a 
permanent Moratorium , Nigeria  welcome d the proposal and call ed on all Members to favourabl y 
consider it. Nigeria encourage d Members not to link the issues related to the e -commerce 
Moratorium  to that of the TRIPS Non -Violation  and Situation  Complaints. Th at would not achieve the 
desired results given that the TRIPS Council was yet to decide on the scope and modalities for TRIPS 
Non-Violation  and Situation  Complaints.  
10.23.   The representative of Canada  said that it was unable  to co-sponsor th e communication that 
day but its  longstanding position on th e issue was well -known. Canada  intend ed to confirm its official 
position by the next meeting of the General Council. In the meantime, Canada w ould continue to 
participate in informal consultations with any interested Member on th e issue including during the 
meetings of the TRIPS Council later th at week.  
10.24.   The representative of Guatemala  support ed the communication  presented by Chile, 
Colombia, New Zealand and Panama. Guatemala also consider ed that th e issue require d further 
evaluation in the TRIPS Council and therefore that an extension of the Moratorium  would be 
necessary until the Twelfth Ministerial  Conference . 
10.25.   The representative of Sri Lanka  noted that, a s a co -sponsor of the proposal which had been  
submitted in 2015, Sri Lanka  was of the view that the matter require d further attention at the 
appropriate forum  which was the TRIPS Council. Past practice d id not demonstrate much experience  
on non -violation and situation complaints. Sri Lanka  therefore recognise d the need to have further 
and more elaborate d discussion s on the matter at the TRIPS Council.  
10.26.   The TRIPS Moratorium  should not be linked to any other issue which was before Members . 
Sri Lanka  had not yet made a decision on the proposed exten sion of  the Moratorium  until MC12  but 
would convey its position to the Chair  during her consultation s on e-commerce. Some delegations 
were trying to link the two issues together. Sri Lanka  could not agree with th e proposal that there 
should be a temporary Moratorium  because it was in favour of having a permanent one. In that 
regard, Sri Lanka supported further discussions on the matter at the TRIPS Council.  
10.27.   The Chair  said that as she had  also noted earlier under Item 2, discussions on th e issue were 
taking place in the  TRIPS Council. She encourage d delegations to actively engage in the TRIPS 
Council including with respect to examining possible scope and modalities for such complaints, as 
mandated by the Ministerial Decision.  
10.28.   The General Council took note  of the statemen ts. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 56 - 
 
  11  STATEMENT ON SPECIAL  AND DIFFERENTIAL TR EATMENT TO PROMOTE 
DEVELOPMENT – STATEM ENT BY CHINA, CUBA, INDIA, NAMIBIA, OMAN , SOUTH AFRICA, 
UGANDA AND ZIMBABWE  
11.1.   The Chair recalled that Item 11 was  a statement included on the agenda at the request of 
India an d other co -sponsors. A revised statement ha d been circulated with the list of co -sponsors in 
document WT/GC/202/Rev .1. 
11.2.   The representative of India said that the  joint submission by the African Group, the 
Plurinational  State of Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Cuba, India, Lao PDR, Oman, Pakistan and the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a total of 52 Members, in WTO document WT/GC/202 was a 
response to the Presidential Memorandum issued by the United States on 26 July 2019. The 
submission reaffir med that the developing countries' unconditional rights to S&D T in WTO rules and 
negotiations should  continue . They should be allowed to make their own assessments regarding 
their developing country status . Existing S&D T provisions should be upheld and S&D T should  be 
provided in current and future negotiations.  
11.3.   The statement ha d the support of more than 50 Members of which only four had been targeted 
for graduation by the U nited States , while the rest support ed it for its systemic value  and intrinsic 
merit. Th e support extend ed across the so -called development spectrum. Clearly , the attempt to 
divide developing countries was not working . Many more Members ha d expressed support and were 
seeking capital clearance to co -sponsor th e paper.  The statement remind ed Members that the 
Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO recogni zed that international trade was not an end in 
itself but a means of contributing to certain objectives including ensuring that developing countries 
and LDCs secure d a share in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic 
development.  
11.4.   Special and Differential Treatment was a right of the developing countries and was as much 
treaty -embedded as the other core principles of the rules-based mul tilateral system such as the MFN 
and National Treatment. Until the development challenges and difference in levels of development 
persist ed, developing countries and LDCs should continue to benefit from their right to S&DT in WTO 
rules and negotiations. An y unilateral attack on S&DT  was an onslaught on the very tenets of 
multilateralism that the WTO sought  to protect. Th at would cause lasting and systemic damage to 
the multilateral trading system.  
11.5.   The rationale behind S&DT was simple and obvious – it recogni sed the enormous difference 
in the levels of development between different Members and allow ed developing Members space to 
formulate their domestic trade policy in a way that help ed them to reduce poverty, generate 
employment and integrate meaningfu lly into the global trading system.  
11.6.   But for the existence of S&DT provisions, many developing Members and LDCs would not 
have signed and ratified the Marrakesh Agreement. Depriving them of their rightful policy space in 
future agreements , policy space that  had been enjoyed by developed Members in their process of 
structural transformation and economic growth, would be a gross violation of the basic  tenets of 
equity and justice and would strike at the very legitimacy of the rules -based system. Th at would 
compound the wrong which ha d resulted from the non -completion of the Doha Work Programme 
which had sought to mainstream development in the multilateral trading system and make 
provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements more precise, operational and enforceabl e. 
11.7.   Members need ed to be cognizant that developing economies themselves, and they alone, ha d 
adequate knowledge of their local conditions to decide whether they should be categori sed as 
developing Members to avail S&D T or not. There was no "one size fits al l" definition of development . 
Any attempts at differentiating between developing Members based on arbitrary and selective 
criteria should  be avoided at all costs.  
11.8.   The US Presidential Memo and the submissions in February sought  to reduce special and 
differe ntial treatment from a treaty embedded right available to all developing Members including 
LDCs into a plea for mercy based on arbitrary and changing parameters. Given the broad language 
of the US proposals, there was no guarantee that other developing Mem bers would not be targeted 
for graduation on the basis of a growing set of conditions in the near future. The large developing 
economies were sought to be graduated in the first instance so that the collective negotiating ability WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 57 - 
 
  of the South was weakened and smaller developing countries were saddled with the burden of 
proving, on a case to case basis, that they need ed S&DT, sector by sector, product by product and 
perhaps  line by line as was happening in the case of accessions. The US President 's Memo of 
26 July 2019 thus str uck a death knell for the principle and practice of S&DT which w ould become 
extinct at the WTO.  
11.9.   Significant gaps present between developing and developed countries remai ned and in many 
cases th ose ha d widened. Catching -up was a challenge because of the non -level playing field and 
structural obstacles faced by developing countries. It was therefore essential to preserve S&DT for 
allowing developing Members the space to for mulate their trade policies in a way that help ed them 
to integrate meaningfully into the global trading system. It was a necessary condition for inclusive 
development and for taking everybody along.  
11.10.   S&DT was not derailing the negotiations  – it was rather d ue to a  lack of attention to 
mandates . Any attempt to water down the core principle of S&DT would be a recipe for intractable 
deadlock at the WTO. It was in the interest of the entire Membership to avoid th e situation.  
11.11.   To conclude,  S&DT for developing coun tries, including LDCs, was a right for which they had 
made payments in the form of obligations in the Uruguay Round  like the Agreement s on Agriculture 
and TRIPS.  S&DT wa s part of the basic structure of the multilateral trading system and abandonment 
of S&D T would imply abandoning a core principle of the WTO Agreement.  
11.12.   The United States  was using arbitrary parameters, many of them unrelated to development, 
together with unilateral enforcement to target the Members and to divide developing countries. 
While so me developing Members could  have made progress in overall or per capita GDP, huge gaps 
between developed and developing countries remain ed and ha d in many cases widened as outlined 
in the submission to the G eneral Council  in February  circulated in document  WT/GC/W/765 /Rev.2. 
A country like India with a per capita income of about US D 2,000 and home to 35% of the global 
poor could not be placed in the same development category as the U nited States  with a per capita 
GDP of more than US D 70,000.  
11.13.   52 developing Members representing more than 75% of the people of Africa and Asia across 
the development spectrum ha d rejected the US narrative as unacceptable. Their voice c ould not be 
ignored.  
11.14.   Finally, pursuing the course of action outlined in th e Memo w ould result in a complete 
breakdown of trust in the WTO, raise unilateralism to a new height and jeopardi se current and future 
negotiations including those on fisheries subsidy disciplines.  
11.15.   The representative of China  noted that Members had had sub stantive debates on the 
development issue at the February General Council meeting. In May, China had  said it did not want 
to repeat what it had  already expressed . In July, China had  hoped that  things would not have to be 
discussed for  more than three times  and referred to its statement regarding " Three and Out ". 
Unfortunately, t hat day, Members  had to again debate on th at very issu e. 
11.16.   People ha d to face the reality that not a single selected indicator, or even a few, could 
determine the application  and scope of special and differential treatment as development was such 
a complex issue. Addressing such an issue need ed sympathy, understanding a nd respect by allowing 
developing Members to make their own decisions according to their own national situations. A 
backseat driver was not needed indeed. And resorting to unilateral coercion was intrinsically 
incorrect.  Trying to solve current complex interna tional problems by using outdated philosophy and 
approaches w ould lead Members  nowhere.  
11.17.   The current serious crisis for the multilateral trading system was by no means caused by 
special and differential treatment. Rather, it was a matter of whether the WTO's basic principles and 
core values sh ould be strengthened or at least upheld. As a matter of fact, the historical bad debt 
of special and differential treatment was up to  its neck – causing  the severely imbalanced status of 
Members ' rights and obligations.  Without  an equitable and sufficient fix to th at problem in  current 
and future trade negotiations, the chance to reach any agreement would  consequently  be fairly slim.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 58 - 
 
  11.18.   For developing Members, special and differential treatment was in no way a free lunch no r 
was it a shield not to make any contributions to the multilateral trading system. On the contrary, 
due to the development gaps, and capacity constraint s in particular, developing Members need ed 
some specific arrangements to enable them to better integrat e into the multilateral trade 
negotiations, make due adjustment at home and gradually adapt to the changes of the multilateral 
trading system. China  invite d those who hope d developing Members would  make more contributions 
to lower themselves , carefully lis ten to the real difficulties and true demands for adjustment and 
help them by putting  themselves in their shoes instead of simply ignoring such difficulties and 
demands.  
11.19.   Some Members tr ied to find middle ground to address the issue of special and differential  
treatment  and China  appreciate d their efforts.  The so -called "case by case " approach was not  
however  an appropriate option either. "Case by case " itself was not a dirty word  but if it was used 
on the issue of S&DT , the equal relationships between negotiating Members w ould be turned into 
the ones between charity granters and beggars. There was no way out.  
11.20.   As a large developing country, China never evade d its international responsibilitie s. China  
had been trying its best to make more contributions to the multilateral trading system within its 
capabilities. At the same time, China  was facing various challenges, difficulties and gaps in achieving 
a balanced and adequate development. So  it would not make commitments beyond its capabilities 
nor w ould it  give up its legitimate and institutional rights as a developing Member. For future special 
and differential treatment in specific negotiations, if it was indeed needed, China  would be honest 
to speak out and spare no efforts  in trying to get it through negotiations . If not, China  would, without 
any hesitation, leave the chance to other developing Members who really need ed it. 
11.21.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , said that its statement 
compliment ed the spirit of what it had stated under Item 7.  S&DT was a  well-recognised principle in 
the WTO and in international public law . Its benefits were well -known  also in terms of appreciating 
the scale of the treatment of th e provisions and the rights and obligations in favour of developing 
countries and LDCs. In th at regard, the African Group ha d decided to co -sponsor th e statement.  
11.22.   The African Group ha d sought to continue to promote the message that Members  needed to 
respo nd to the mandate which had been  set in Doha in 2001 under Paragraph 44 as regards S&DT 
contained in the WTO Agreements by reviewing them in a crosscutting manner with a view to 
strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational.  
11.23.   The statement  had reaffirmed that developing countries' unconditional rights to S&DT in 
WTO rules and negotiations should continue , that developing countries should be allowed to make 
their own assessments regarding their own developing country status , that existing S&DT provisions 
should be upheld and that S&DT should be provided in current and future negotiations. Members  
needed to act in th at way to avoid an impasse in the negotiations including in fisheries subsidies. It 
was a whole package and Members  needed to work on it in a synergistic and beneficial way for 
developin g and LDC Members . 
11.24.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that development and S&DT were 
fundamental for LDCs  particularly as they  needed to benefit from S&DT  for development  purposes 
and for them to  catch up on their participation in world trade.  S&DT wa s a necessary condition for 
the achievement of a real multilateral trading system as had been intended by the WT O. Members 
had established the very foundations  and principles of the WTO to move towards trade  liberalization  
while giving particular flexibilities to developing countries especially the most fragile among them 
and better benefit from the gains of international trade. Th at was enshrined in the Marrake sh 
Agreement and had later been consolidated at the Doha Ministerial Conference.  
11.25.   The development dimension in the negotiations was part of the multilateral trading system's 
DNA. In that regard, Members and the organization  had the duty  to achieve a balance  where  
everyone c ould derive sufficient resources from international trade to ensure good living conditions 
for their population and sustainable development.  The LDC s therefore call ed on Members to always 
constructively consider the introduction of develop ment-related measures in the WTO Agreements. 
Flexibilities should be taken into account for graduating LDCs as  had been  emphasi sed by the LDC 
Trade Ministers at the Eleventh  Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. Development  should  remain 
at the heart of the process of trade liberalization.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 59 - 
 
  11.26.   The representative of Uganda  express ed systemic concerns regarding the discussions on 
S&DT in the WTO. An attack on the architecture of S &DT was unwarranted. S &DT had been  and 
remain ed but a part of an equation  – an equation which many Members walk ed away with very big 
wins that they still enjoy ed to date. S &DT could not therefore be simply wished away  especially as 
the practice of self -declaration had been  hard-earned.  
11.27.   When Uganda had  joined the WTO in 1995, S &DT had and still represent ed a form of relief 
from the numerous obligations it had  undert aken by signing onto the WTO Agreements which  had 
by far exceeded its capacity to implement them. In S &DT, Uganda  had seen  and still s aw 
opportunities for market acces s through preferential rates for  its exports among others , protection 
of its markets through non -reciprocity and meaningful technical assistance.  
11.28.   Paragraph 44 of t he 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration mandate d the review of the S &DT 
provisions across WTO Agreements with a view to strengthening them and making them more 
precise, effective and operational. The questions Members  should be asking themselves  included  
what they should do to facilitate development and not who should benefit from what some could  be 
willing to allow to enable development and whether S &DT ha d indeed operated to make economic 
inequalities work for the benefit of those for whom it was intended. In con sidering th ose fundamental 
questions, Members  should  also acknowledge that free trade per se was not development, neither 
was it sufficient to ensure development in the absence or with low levels of industrialization.  
11.29.   The WTO negotiating arm was not in tro uble because of self -declaring of development status 
and inability to differentiate. Negotiations in the WTO multilateral framework were seemingly at a 
standstill because some Members were better served by lip service and the deliberate refusal to 
follow t hrough with commitments they ma de. Para graph  68 of the 2030 Agenda was a case in point.  
11.30.   The achievement of great strides in raising standards of living, increasing real income and 
expanding production and trade d id not also mean the attainment of developed status warranting 
the removal of flexibilities to allow further progress.  
11.31.   The importance of S &DT was not limited to integrating into the global trading system but 
also extend ed to facilitating managing the "shocks " in that dealing with that new environment to 
avoid setbacks.  
11.32.   The effectiveness of S &DT for less developed Members ha d instead been diluted and 
undermined by the deliberate refusal by some Members to engage and agree on the G90 proposals 
in the CTD SS ove r the years, the very essence of the Paragraph 44  of the  Doha mandate. In that 
regard, Uganda reiterated the importance of meaningful engagement by all Members in the CTD SS 
for the fulfilment of th at mandate.  
11.33.   The representative of Zimbabwe  associated with the statement made by the African Group. 
S&DT had been  important as a trade instrument to assist developing countries to integrate into the 
global economy – creating policy space for them to develop. S&DT was a WTO principle that 
promote d equity, inclusiveness and development. To th at end, the Doha Declaration had mandated  
Members to strengthen S&DT provisions to make them more precise, effective and operational. The 
mandate however remain ed unfulfilled as some Members were deviating from it  and making an 
attempt to unilaterally narrow the scope of application of S&DT to developing countries – sadly so 
at a time when the development gap between developed and developing countries was widening. 
Any attempt to change the  principle of  self-declar ation of developing country  status in the WTO was 
therefore  not justified and was outside the mandate of th e organization.  
11.34.   Members should respect the legal structure of the WTO and preserve the rules -based nature 
of the multilateral trading system. To tha t end, S&DT was an unconditional, embedded treaty right 
for developing countries which c ould not just be unilaterally altered. S&DT should remain a core 
principle of the WTO and its architecture should not be tampered with. Additionally, S&DT should be 
provided in current WTO Agreements and in all future negotiations. The issue of self -declaration of 
developing country status should be preserved in the WTO. Members should  respect the WTO 
principles and mandates and commit themselves to preserving the legal structure a nd the rules -
based system of the WTO to enable them to move forward with their DDA negotiations.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 60 - 
 
  11.35.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that o ne of the preambular based  
objectives of the Marrakesh Agreement Establish ing the WTO was to rais e standards of living and 
ensur e full employment which  were also in line with the SDGs 1, 2 and 8. Th at was why Bolivia  
recognise d the challenges developing countries experience d and th e importance of the right to S&DT 
which was  in line with  the human right to development and with the WTO Agreements which  in turn 
provide d for the self -designation of development status for each Member.  
11.36.   S&DT should provide each Member the space to prepare  its own internal policies and to 
participate taking into account its particular limitation s and bearing in mind that the challenges 
experienced by developing countries had not changed since the creation of the WTO. Furthermore, 
Members  should  strengthen t he S&DT provisions in current WTO Agreements and make them more 
precise, effective and operational in line with Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.   
11.37.   Against th at backdrop, instead of seeking to deprive developing countries of their right to 
have S&DT, Members  should be looking to provide more flexibilities for those  which require d them. 
Being a landlocked developing country, Bolivia had  fewer possibilities for trade and consequently 
paid higher price s for basic commodities . Landlocked countries on average trade d 30% less than 
coastal States. The increasing importance of global value chains multiplie d the negative effects of 
the cost of trade in terms of global integration of landlocked countries.  
11.38.   Furthermore , 27 of the landlocked developing countri es depend ed on raw materials 
amounting to more than 50% of their exports  – making them  very vulnerable to price shocks which  
could limit their trade reliability and had an impact on efforts to reduc e poverty. Th ose raw materials 
had an effect on the level of development of Members. LLDCs ha d average rates of growth which 
were lower than those of coastal States according to a study  which could  reduce trade by about 
1.5%.  S&DT was therefore  important  and Members should look at particular cases where they could 
extend S&DT provisions  – as would be the case for LLDCs.  
11.39.   The representative of Oman  noted that Oman was  a staunch supporte r of the multilateral 
trading system  and had contributed to the preservation and improvement of the system in many 
different ways in cluding by supporting accessions of a number of acceding countries. Oman ha d 
been promoting the multilateral trading system by its active participation in WTO activities including 
Public Forums where Oman ha d been organising sessions. In 2019 , around 30 pe ople had attended 
the Public Forum from Oman from business, industry and various government agencies – many of 
who had been women. Oman had also participate d actively in the global review on aid for trade and 
was an active Member in the fisheries subsidies negotiations.  
11.40.   Oman was a n Article XII Member that had made extensive commitments believing that other 
Members especially developed ones w ould reach its leve l of commitments during the Doha Round 
negotiations. At present , more than any other time, it seem ed that the playing field w ould not be 
levelled soon. Making extensive commitments had not immunise d Oman from being targeted by 
some Members who raise d tariffs against some Omani products. Oman's  bilateral agreement had 
not help ed either. It was essential to keep whatever flexibilities that remain ed because uncertainty 
and unpredictability was increasing and it affect ed Oman's  local industries and its developm ent 
needs. Oman was a country that was reliant on single commodity, was in the process of diversifying 
its economy  and would need policy space to reach its development goals.  
11.41.   Oman  acknowledge d the importance of WTO reform. Reform was needed to enable the WTO 
to keep up with the changing times  and should reflect the realities and specificities of Members 
including the vulnerabilities of narrowly based economies that were heavily dependent on the exports 
of a few commodities. Ignoring th ose realities could  deprive developing Members of their right to 
develop. In that regard, S&DT was an integral component of the multilateral trading system and was 
inextricably linked to developing country status  – and t he balance of rights and obligations o f 
Members was the r esult of negotiations.  
11.42.   Like many developing Members, Oman had made significant economic progress over the 
past decades but still believe d that there remain ed a gap between developing  and developed 
Members. Developing Members  continue d to face significant challenges especially related to human 
and institutional capacity and over -reliance on the energy sector. As such, income per capita alone 
was not dispositive in characterising a country's level of development. The gap that exist ed between 
developed and developing countries was even exacerbated by the digital divide. In addition, m any WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 61 - 
 
  areas of development that still f ell far below Members'  level of ambition  remained . Oman therefor e 
reiterate d its position as a developing country on its  entitlement to S&DT.  
11.43.   The representative of Pakistan  associate d with the statement made on  behalf of the 52 co -
sponsors of th e joint statement . Since its inception, th e organi zation ha d stood for equitable shares 
in the gains from trade, inclusive prosperit y and the need for economic development for its 
developing Members.  While trade and technology ha d advanced globally at tremendous speed, the 
gulf between developed and developing countries ha d however persist ed. In fact, w ith new global 
advancements in science and technology, the divide ha d found new ways to manifest itself such as  
through  the technological and digital divide.  
11.44.   Recognising th ose persistent challenges for developing countries in their pursuit of 
sustainable development and higher standards of living, the concept of S&DT  should  be endorsed 
and strengthened in present agreements and in current and future negotiations. Not only was S&DT 
relevant and central for developing countries ' development objectives, the right to th at treatment 
was also unconditional and embedded in the WTO Agreements. It was a right exercised by every 
developing country of its own accord and c ould not be diluted through  a case by case approach or 
other negotiatin g criteria.  
11.45.   S&DT was the bedrock of th e rules-based multilateral  system and should  be preserved as 
such in the interest of maintaining a functional system that was inclusive and cognizant of the needs 
and concerns of developing countries.  Pakistan therefore reaffirm ed the right to S&DT  for develop ing 
countries on a self -declared basis as it s tood that day without dilutions or amendments.  
11.46.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , support ed the proponents' initiative to 
bring the Membership's attention to the importance of S&DT to the purs uit of development in the 
WTO. The ACP Group was fully supportive of the general thrust of the submission and believe d that 
elements of the submission w ould prove helpful in guiding Members'  discussions on S&DT.  
11.47.   The proposal clearly outline d the principles that should be factored into Members'  work on 
S&DT in the WTO : that developing countries' unconditional rights to S&DT in WTO rules and 
negotiations should continue , that developing countries should be allowed to make their own 
assessments regarding their own developing country status , that existing S&DT provisions should 
be upheld and that S&DT should be provided in current and future negotiations.  
11.48.   Discussions in the WTO should  recognise the uniqueness of the challenges encountered 
which was reflective of the heterogeneity of the WTO's Membership. The discussions should take 
into account developing and LDC Members' limited capacity  to assume  obligations . Making their 
commitments on par with  those of  their developed partners without adequate  flexibilities 
incorporated to bridge the development divide in the implementation of WTO rules  ran counter from 
all perspectives  from the principles of fairness and inclusivity and w ould have a deleterious impact 
on their ability to integrate into a dispr oportionately competitive global economy.  
11.49.   Developing and LDC Members' limited capacities to manage and adapt to risks of shock to 
all trade patterns should  be at the centre of the discussions. What Members  did in Geneva should 
not be separated from the national context and should not be counterproductive to their pursuits 
under the SDGs. They require d the necessary policy space within WTO rules to effectively rebuild 
their economies in the event of natural disasters and the paralysing impact of climate cha nge and 
not constrain their efforts to industrialise.  
11.50.   The ACP Group  called on all Members  to redouble their efforts to consider the challenges of 
developing countries and LDCs in all negotiations. They should all aim to preserv e a multilateral 
trading system that was transparen t, inclusive, rules -based, Member -driven and development 
oriented. The ACP Group  stood ready to engage constructively in th at regard.  
11.51.   The representative of Colombia , on behalf of Argentina , Brazil , Chile, Colombia , Mexico , 
Panama , Paraguay , Peru and Uruguay , intervened under Items 7 and 11 and recalled  their previous  
interventions at the G eneral Council on  the same matter . Development was a multidimensional 
phenomenon that Members ha d incorporated into the WTO Agreements in order to facilitate trade  
and that translate d into a true engine of inclusive economic growth for their people.  In tha t regard, WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 62 - 
 
  S&DT  was one of the tools that developing countries ha d to achieve a better and faster integration 
into the multilateral trading system.  
11.52.   Those Latin American Countries  reiterate d thei r call to reflect  on the matter in a way that  
that would allow a pragmatic implementation of S&DT  according to the needs of each Member and 
the specific negotiati ng area. At the critical stage that the WTO currently found itself in , an open, 
respectful, reflective and cons tructive multilateral dialogue was required on development and S&DT . 
Such dialogue would serve to revitali se, unite and strengthen the organization and would facilitate 
Members to  reap the benefit s offered by a greater liberalization of trade in goods and services.  
11.53.   The representative of Cuba associated with the  statements made by India and other co -
sponsors. Cuba's  position on th e issue ha d been stated on numerous occasions and  had not changed. 
S&DT was an unconditional right embedded in WTO Agreements . Any unilateral change would be an 
infringement of what Members  had agreed upon with consensus.  
11.54.   The representative of Sri Lanka  intervened  under Items 7 and 11  and associate d with the 
core issues presented in th e joint statement . S&DT had  emerged for the first time in the Tokyo 
Round as it had been  believed to be an effective way to get less developed countries to participate 
in the multilateral rounds. Since then, t he importance of S&DT ha d not disappeared  as it continue d 
to play an essential  role in  all of the activities  of Members  including in the trade rounds that they 
had embarked upon and still unable to conclude.  
11.55.   One of t he most important aspect s of the multilateral trading system's legal history was the 
introdu ction of Part IV of the  GATT. A lot of countries still believe d that Part IV was an infant  without 
a father and a mother because a lot of people tend ed to forget its importance in the GATT history. 
Part IV had focused on many areas  which ha d already been forgotten by a lot of de legations because 
they currently did  not appear in the  WTO Agreements. The essence of th ose articles ha d however  
been in corporated  into most of the WTO Agreements including  the provisions on S&DT.  
11.56.   Most of those less developed countries ha d achieved a certain level of development albeit 
diverse in terms of their  capacity to make use of th e S&DT provisions in achiev ing their current  
development goals. S&DT provisions in WTO Agreements were diverse. To illustrate , provisions 
concerning de mini mis thresholds in agreements relating to trade remedies already  recognise d the 
different  levels of development such that some had not been granted equal treatment . That example  
showed that  some of the advanced developing countries were no longer beneficiar ies of  certain 
flexibilities in  some of the provisions  in WTO Agreements . 
11.57.   Over the years, th e development concept ha d been incorporated  into the WTO A greements . 
The WTO did not permit its Members to resort to  unilateral measures and to deprive certain coun tries 
from availing S&DT.  Some Members had  made it clear that they would not seek S&DT in future 
negotiations. It  was their decision  but it should not result to them being recognise d as developed  
Members. It should likewise not result in  depriv ing others  from benefiting from  S&DT. In the 
multilateral forum, Members could take into account the various levels of development but in no 
case should they  ignore S&DT.   
11.58.   If Members  allowed the adopt ion of unilateral measures as they deem ed appropriate, those  
would override the tenets of the multilateral trading system – a system which provided Members 
the forum to identify provisions where , for example, they could grant  S&DT to those  that deserve d 
it. Sri Lanka therefore  urged those countries to  first exhaust all of their options within the multilateral 
framework  before resorting to imposing unilateral measures.   
11.59.   The criteria in the US proposal used certain unrealistic standards.  For example, Argentina 
had b een considered as a high income country some years ago but was currently an upper middle 
income country . Despite enormous setbacks in the economy, Sri Lanka had become an upper middle 
income country in 2019. But nobody knew if it would go back to the lower  middle income country 
classification in the future.  The US proposal d id not have a mechanism  to anticipate such a change 
in circumstance . As a Member's  situation c ould differ, classifying them  based on their economic level  
would therefore not necessarily reflect reality.  
11.60.   The US proposal also included a sectoral clause  which could  put Members in a situation where 
they would have to negotiate for S&DT – putting s mall developing Members  such as Sri Lanka in a WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 63 - 
 
  much  weaker negotiating position . As all Members believe d in multilateralism , they should all work 
together and take into account the concerns of  Members on all sides of the development debate 
rather than res orting  to unilateral measures. Otherwise, it would simply encourage policymakers to 
engag e more in bilateral discussions which were not healthy for the multilateral trading system. 
Accordingly,  given its good elements,  Sri Lanka supported th e joint statement.  
11.61.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  noted that the current situation  of glob al trade 
showed that imbalance between developed, developing and LDC Members  still existed . Concepts  to 
address such imbalance had already been  developed in 1965 – decades before the Doha Round . 
Efforts were therefore already made to define such concepts a nd how they would be implemented – 
leaving Members the task of identifying the  areas where th ose concepts  should be implemented to 
prevent them from moving backwards .  
11.62.   The principle s enshrined in Part IV of the GATT  should be maintained. Members should take 
them up in a pragmatic ma nner and should not be  waylaid by dogmatic approaches. Although the 
GATT had not look ed at all of the practical operative aspects  of those principles  in depth , they had 
been guided by the principle of  relative reciprocity. In 1964, certain preferences had been defined 
in UNCTAD.  As a re sponse , the GATT Contracting Parties had granted  a waiver for  that system of 
preferences  leading to the adoption of the Enabling Clause  in 1979. In addition to recognising th at 
system of preferences,  the GATT Contracting Parties had also granted  extensions for LDCs and 
developing countries to implement  their commitments  and had accorded them mutual preferences. 
All of th ose specific concessions had however bee n eroded by the  tariff system. At the same time, 
there were areas which still exist ed such as agriculture where there  were no  carveouts  during those 
days and there were other provisions  which ha d disappeared.  
11.63.   In the current  WTO system , Members should be re alistic.  They had already taken  a number 
of decisions t o maintain a balance  between their rights and obligations . Progress and dialogue 
depend ed on whether they would  choose between being too restrictive or too broad in mapping out 
criteria and standards . In any case, Members should  remain  objective . Current n egotiations ha d 
allowed for new ideas to emerge such as the Swiss Formula on tariffs which had made it possible  for 
more fluid negotiating processes. They should  exert more  effort on th at and other issues. As 
Members  did not have time on their side , the Dominican Republic suggested  for them to give more 
thought to implementation measures in the lead up to MC12.  
11.64.   The Marrakesh Agreement had provide d Members  with guidelines on how to proceed with  
WTO work including ensuring that developing and LDC Members participated in global trade . In that 
regard, Members should  look at the scale of development of all Members taking  into account the 
various capacity constraints they faced particularly in discussing S&DT. As the former GATT Director -
General  Olivier Long  had said, in applying rules and looking at the diplomatic procedures in place, 
one should  see that that reality had been something that  had been  implemented mutually  – a 
principle that should guide Members  in their work.  
11.65.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , was concerned about the 
divisiveness of the discussions on S&DT . The WTO Agreements recogni sed the need for positive 
S&DT  to ensure that developing countries secure d a share in the growth in international trade that 
advance d their economic development . The CA RICOM Group remain ed committed to the 
development dimension of the Doha Declaration where Members had agreed that all S&DT  provisions 
were an integral part of the WTO Agreements and that th ose provisions should be reviewed with a 
view to strengthening them  and making them more effective and operational.  
11.66.   As developing countries , particular ly the small vulnerable economies which still face d serious 
difficulties compared to developed countries to participate actively in international trade and to fully 
impleme nt the WTO trade agreements, S&D T was and remain ed extremely important. Any attempt 
to roll back eligibility for S &DT would be inconsistent with the WTO rules.  The CARICOM Group 
reiterate d its support for the inclusive rules -based multilateral trading syst em embodied in the WTO 
and stresse d the importance of preserving and strengthening long -established principles which were 
linked to the sustainable development and successful integration of LDCs and small vulnerable 
economies into the global economy.  
11.67.   The representative of Namibia  underscore d the importance of S&DT for developing and LDC 
Members  and associate d with the statement made by the African Group and the joint statement WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 64 - 
 
  delivered by India on behalf of the co -sponsors. Namibia reaffirm ed its commitment to the objectives 
of the multilateral trading system. WTO was a rules -based institution  which  provide d an opportunity 
for economic growth and development for all Members by reducing obstacles to international trade 
and ensuring a level play ing field for all. Th at could be achieved by strengthening provisions on 
special rights that were geared towards assisting Members especially LDCs and non -LDCs to increase 
trading opportunities within the multilateral trading system.  
11.68.   As had been enshrined in the Doha Declaration, Members had agreed that all S&DT 
provisions were an integral part of WTO Agreements and that th ose provisions should be reviewed 
with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational hence 
the ne ed to address the issue of S&DT in a proper and transparent manner for all Members to achieve 
the objectives of the WTO to help developing countries benefit fully from the global trading system 
in order to ensure that no Member would be made worse off. S&D T should not be seen as a favour 
to developing countries but an unconditional right under the multilateral trading system which all 
Members had a responsibility to protect.  
11.69.   The representative of Ecuador  said that S&DT was a principle that went back to the 
establishment  of the WTO as a cornerstone of the multilateral trading system. Th ose were the rights 
and obligations that Members ha d committed themselves in  – which included S&DT . Any change to 
that principle w ould upset the balance of the whole system .  
11.70.   As a small developing country with an economy which was not yet sufficiently diversified 
and which was focused on commodities , Ecuador only had small industr ies making it vulnerable . If 
Ecuador  did not have the right to S&DT, each Member w ould have to negotiate to get access to 
S&DT in current and future negotiations . Such a mechanism disregarded the needs and capacities 
of each Member and placed one's  political weight as a determining factor to receive S&DT.  
11.71.   S&DT did not moreover pose as an obstacle in the  current negotiations. On the contrary, it 
was required in order to restore confidence among Members because many of them we re hiding 
behind rigid redlines which in turn was  pushing  them further  away from consensus.  As a core 
principle of the multilateral trading system, S&DT should  be preserved.  
11.72.   The representative of Bangladesh  associated with  the statement made by  the LDC Group.  
Development was a multifaceted concept and inclusive development was one of the pre -conditions 
of sustainability. In that regard , Members should be cognizant of and responsive in a meaningful 
way to their varying levels of technical or management capacit y.  
11.73.   The c hallenges faced by  many developing countries particularly the LDCs and the graduating 
LDCs were unique and diverse. Those Members undoubtedly still need ed S&DT  – a central, inherent 
and inseparable  WTO principle. Creating a level playing field through affirmative action c ould help 
improve Members'  collective efforts in raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and 
steady growth of real income for their people.  
11.74.   Bangladesh welcome d the idea of inclusivity in the overarching development goals  which 
meaningfully alig ned with the fundamental principle of the SDGs  of "no one should be left behind ". 
Inclusive development demand ed discussion and participatory decision -making in the WTO wh ich 
stood  for collective responsibility. Bangladesh look ed forward to working constru ctively and 
objectively with the co -sponsors and other Members in integrating LDCs and newly -graduated LDCs 
into the  multilateral trading system for everyone's  shared prosperity.  
11.75.   The representative of Barbados  associated with the statements made by the ACP  and the 
CARICOM Groups and supported Members' continued focus on development – reinforcing its 
importance and centrality in every aspect of WTO work. S&DT  had been enshrined in the WTO 
Marrakesh Agreement and Part IV of the GATT and remain ed a central feature in assisting developing 
countr y Members  to achieve their developmental objectives and implement WTO Agreements. S &DT 
provisions , in the outcomes of current and future negotiations , should therefore  remain accessible 
to developing countr y Members  especially small vulnerable economies, LDCs and other developing 
countries with capacity constraints.  
11.76.   Trade was one of the tools in the growth and development toolbox and not an end in itself. 
In that regard, S&DT was  not a carte blanche to avoid undertaking commitments but an enabler for WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 65 - 
 
  the implementation of commitments and the achievement of development objectives.  As a small 
island developing State in the Caribbean, Barbados was highly vulnerable to economic and 
environmental shocks. If the aff ected Members  were to address the impacts of th ose shocks on  their 
economies, they should  be afforded the requisite policy space within WTO rules which would allow 
them to rebuild their economies in the event of natural disasters and the debilitating impac t of 
climate change and more effectively integrate into the multilateral trading system.  
11.77.   The representative of the United States  had listened to the four principles that India had 
listed at the outset of th e agenda item and w as very encouraged to hear that  they largely match ed 
– or at least d id not contradict  – the principles that the United States ha d repeated when discussing 
its own special and differential proposal. The United States  could  be getting ahead of  itself but its 
agreement was so broad that it was surprised it had  not been asked to co -sponsor t he joint  
statement.  
11.78.   The United States fully agree d that developing countries c ould make their own assessments 
regarding their own developing country status. Neither the US proposal nor the White House Memo 
said otherwise.  
11.79.   The United States  fully agree d that self -declared developing country Members should retain 
the ability to utili ze special and differential treatment provisions in existing WTO agreements.  
Neither the US proposal nor the White House Memo s aid otherwise.  
11.80.   The United States  fully agree d in principle that special and differential treatment should be 
a part of current and future negotiations. At several General Council meetings in 2019 , the United 
States  had reiterated its longstanding view that special and differential treatment should be  available 
in current and future WTO negotiations to Members having difficulty integrating into the global 
trading system.  
11.81.   Before discussing special and differential treatment related to an obligation, Members would 
first need to agree on what the obligati on was – and therein lie d the problem . The Membership d id 
not seem able to negotiate new obligations. The US firmly believe d that a root problem of Members'  
collective struggle was that certain self -declared developing Members refuse d to take commitments 
relative to their status in the global economy and in trade.  
11.82.   Concerning the  other principle that had been  put forth – that the developing countries ' 
unconditional rights to special and differential treatment in WTO rules and negotiations should  
continue  – the United States first focused on where it agree d. At several General Council meetings 
that year, the United States  had reiterated its longstanding view that special and differential 
treatment should be available to Members having difficulty integrating into the global trading system.  
11.83.   It was its sense that Members generally agree d that LDCs should have access to special and 
differential treatment in current and future WTO negotiations. The United States  suspect ed that 
Members also generally agree d there was a set of relatively poor, less -integrated Members who also 
should have access to special and differential treatment in current and fu ture WTO negotiations.  
11.84.   The United States' only point of departure then was its firm conviction that there was a group 
of self -declared developing country Members that were relatively advanced, wealthy and influential 
and that should not have access to blan ket special and differential treatment in current and future 
WTO negotiations. They ha d the ability to take on obligations commensurate with their status and 
they ha d the negotiating capacity to ensure they d id not take on obligations in excess of their 
capacity.  
11.85.   In short, th ose Members d id not need access to blanket special and differential treatment 
provisions because they c ould and d id negotiate flexibilities they judge d necessary to defend their 
interests.  
11.86.   For example, the United States asked whether China mean t to say that if a Member self -
declare d developing country status in perpetuity that such a country should also enjoy blanket 
special and differential treatment in perpetuity  and whether  China would  still claim developing 
country status in 2030 and  would still then assert that it ha d a right to special and differential 
treatment despite what was likely to be ever more mounting evidence to the contrary . WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 66 - 
 
  11.87.   In summary, the United States recogni sed that certain Members could  lack the capacity to 
negotiate  such flexibilities but asked whether  any of them seriously believe d that some of the most 
advanced WTO Members claiming developing country status lack ed that capacity in 2019 . 
11.88.   The representative of Indonesia  said that t he joint statement  reflect ed concerns of 
developing countries including  the challenges they faced  in the current global economic climate 
particularly  in international trade. S&DT was one of the main topic s of the paper and  of Members'  
debate t hat day – becom ing more relevant than ever  for developing and LDC Members in order  for 
them not to be left behind in pursuing the objectives of the SDGs as trade was an important means 
for achieving those goals.  
11.89.   As had been  outlined in many  of its previous  interventions, Indonesia  reemphasise d the 
important role of S&DT in closing the gap between developing, LDC and developed Members not 
only in international trade but also in development effort s in general. In th at regard,  future WTO 
negotiation s should always include S&DT for developing and LDC  Members  as one of its main 
feature s. Indonesia  stood ready to continue the discussion on th e matter.  
11.90.   The representative of Turkey  agree d with the essence and the idea behind the joint 
statement. S&DT was an indispensable principle of th e organization  and continue d to be an important 
tool for developing countries to retrieve benefits from international trade in accordance with their 
development needs. In achieving th at, Members  should continue to craft new ways of amplifying 
those benefits  and take into account the capacity of each  of them  in undertaking new commitments.  
11.91.   The representative of South Africa  emphasi sed that S&DT was a treaty -embedded right . It 
had been a fundamental principle in GATT and form ed an integral part of WTO Agreemen ts including 
the principle of self -declared development status. Attempts to reverse the earlier gains made by 
developing countries in the GATT  and achieved through long and hard negotiations which had 
resulted in Part IV of the GATT recogni sing differences  between developed and developing countries 
and subsequently captured in WTO Agreements was not supported.  
11.92.   The persistence of the enormous development divide between developing and developed 
Members was reflected in a wide range of indicators. The develop ment divide was evident in levels 
of economic development, industrial structure and competitiveness such as GDP per capita, poverty 
levels, levels of under -nourishment, production and employment in agriculture sector, trade in 
services, receipts from intellectual property rights , share of trade in value -added under global value 
chains , energy use per capita, financial infrastructure, R&D capacity, company profits, and a range 
of institutional and capacity constraints, among other things.  
11.93.   For example, UNDP 's Human Development Index reflect ed that the gap between developing 
countries and developed countries still remain ed wide. The per capita income gap between China 
and the U nited States  had increased from US D 43,319 in 2000 to US D 45,835 in 2016. China' s per 
capita income (GNI per capita) had increased from US D 1,753 in 2000 to US D 6,872 in 2016, the 
corresponding figures for the United States we re US D 45,072 and US D 52,707.  
11.94.   In the area of rail and energy , even with the considerable progress made by developing 
countries including China, the gap between OECD countries and developing countries implie d that it 
would take decades for most developing countries to converge with OECD countries in terms of rail 
density and reach comparable levels of energy co nsumption.  In many developing countries , the 
share of informal employment was very high averaging about 60 percent for the world according to 
ILO figures. In the case of China,  informal employment range d between 50 percent and 74 percent 
while the figure i n North America was less than 20 percent.  
11.95.   Despite significant progress achieved by developing Members since the creation of the WTO, 
old divides ha d therefore  not been bridged and had even widened in some areas while new divides 
such as those in the digita l and technological spheres were becoming more pronounced. In addition, 
despite the progress achieved, developing countries ha d not come anywhere near catching up with 
developed Members.  All developing countries were entitled to S&DT and c ould not be exclu ded 
upfront from claiming the flexibilities that they were entitled to even before negotiations beg an. A 
case by case approach was not supported.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 67 - 
 
  11.96.   Emerging economies ha d always made a contribution commensurate with their level of 
development and th at had been a feature of negotiations  – which  was evident in the accession of 
China.  In its accession, China had not gotten full developing country treatment in its WTO accession 
package including its AMS de minimis level which was set at 8.5% rather than 10%. It was also 
reflected in the Trade Facilitation Agreement commitments of t hose Members. Where there ha d been 
political will and trust, the WTO Membership ha d therefore  found creative solutions within the 
existing S&D T architecture which  should not be changed.  
11.97.   S&DT had not moreover  been an impediment to negotiations and ha d actually assisted 
developing countries to take commitments they would ordinarily not be in a posit ion to assume and 
to calibrate trade integration in accordance with their level of development to achieve sustainable 
growth, employment, poverty reduction and economic development. Removing the right to S&D T 
would make the conclusion of negotiations diffi cult in  the future.  
11.98.   For Members who wish ed to opt -out of S&DT, it was their prerogative to self -declare that 
they d id not require flexibility in implement ing WTO Agreements. South Africa would not however 
waive its right to self -declare its development st atus and to S&DT. South Africa  had an experience  
of taking the same commitments as develop ed countries under the Uruguay Round which had 
resulted in the premature de -industrialisation of its economy. Any discourse on development should 
therefore have the o bjective of making the WTO more equitable, balanced, development -oriented, 
inclusive and transparent in decision -making.  
11.99.   South Africa  underscore d developing countrie s' unconditional right to S&D T and  emphasi zed 
the importance of the principle of self -declaration and that existing S&D T provisions should  be upheld 
and S&D T should  be provided in current and future negotiations. South Africa called on all Members 
to work collectively towards delivering on the agreed mandate of making S&D T more precise, 
effective and operational. Th at was the only way of making trade inclusive and to ensure effective 
integration of developing countries in global trad e. 
11.100.   The representative of India thanked  all Members who ha d participated in th e debate  
especially those who ha d supported the joint statement.  India notice d the wide support that its  
proposal ha d received and a strong push -back to the efforts to make the pr inciple and practice of 
S&DT at the WTO a part of history. India hoped that  others s aw that as well including those who fel t 
left out for not being asked to co -sponsor the paper. India would continue to work with all Members 
on th e issue and hope d that its stand related to preserving the principles enshrined in the WTO 
Agreement and maintaining the balance of rights and obligations that all  Members  had committed  
themselves  to assume  would not only endure but would also prevail and th at the issue w ould not 
divide them in those difficult times.  
11.101.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , said that, in moving forward, 
the joint statement  should be made available to all in printed form on 25 October and that the  Chair 
of the CTD SS should propose a schedule for Members'  work on the matter  to enable  all of them  to 
get together to talk about new ideas and make progress. Th at was the only way that they would  
advance in that area . In that regard, the African Group  would like to have a draft skeleton on the 
matter with which Members could  flesh out later.  
11.102.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
12  TWELFTH SESSION OF T HE MINISTERIAL CONFE RENCE  
12.1.   The Chair recalled that, a s Members started with their  preparations for MC12 which w ould 
take place in Nur -Sultan, Kazakhstan, on 8 -11 June 2020 , the General Council was required to take 
a decision on a number of administrative matters indicated in t he agenda. She had  convened an 
informal General Council meet ing on 26 September to discuss th ose matters and it appear ed to her 
that the approach to be taken had been  agreeable to delegations.  
12.1  Election of Officers  
12.2.   The Chair  recalled that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure for the Ministerial Conference 
establish ed that "During the course of each regular session a Chairperson and three Vice -WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 68 - 
 
  Chairpersons shall be elected from among the Members. They shall hold office from the end of that 
session until the end of the next regular session ". 
12.3.   At MC11, Ministers had request ed the General Council to hold consultations to decide on the 
election of Officers of the next Ministerial Conference.  
12.4.   The customary practice ha d always been that the Minister of the Government hosting a 
Ministerial Conference outside Geneva was elected a s Chair. The three Vice -Chairs were then 
selected from the other broad groupings of Members. From the exchanges she had had with 
Members, including on 26 September, she believed that Members  could repeat th at past practice for 
MC12.   
12.5.   Therefore, she propos ed that the General Council formally elect ed H.E. Bakhyt Sultanov, 
Minister of Trade and Integration of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to chair the Twelfth Session of the 
Ministerial Conference.   
12.6.   The General Council so agreed . 
12.7.   The Chair congratulate d Minister Sultanov on his appointment as Chairman of the Ministerial 
Conference. Although  Minister Sultanov c ould not be at the General Council  that day, she was certain 
that Members  very much look ed forward to working together as they move d forward towards the 
Ministerial Conference . She  assure d him of the General Council's  full commitment towards a 
successful MC12 next year.   
12.8.   Regarding the three Vice -Chairs, as the General Council had just agreed that the Chair w ould 
come from Asia and in lin e with customary practice, she invite d the coordinators of the other three 
broad groupings – i.e. Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) and the developed 
countries – to consult with their constituents with a view to put forward their respective nominations 
for Vice -Chairs.  
12.9.   The General Council would revert to th e matter at the December Council meeting and she 
hoped that they would at that time formally agree on the three MC12 Vice -Chairs. She would also 
send a communication to the group coordinat ors on th e matter after the General Council meeting. 
She trusted that was acceptable.  
12.2  Attendance of Observers from Governments and International Intergovernmental 
Organizations  
12.10.   The Chair  recalled that 26 September, she suggest ed to repeat  the past practice  by inviting 
the Governments with observer status at MC11 to attend MC12. Th at concern ed the Governments 
with regular observer status in the General Council plus the following five Governments which ha d 
previously been granted observer status  only at Ministerial Conferences: Cook Islands,  Eritrea,  Niue, 
San Marino and Tuvalu. She propose d that the General Council agree d to follow the procedure she 
had just outlined.  
12.11.   The General Council so agreed . 
12.12.   The Chair noted that the Rules of Procedure est ablish ed that: "Representatives of 
international intergovernmental organizations may attend the meetings as observers on the 
invitation of the Ministerial Conference in accordance with the guidelines in Annex 3 to these Rules."  
12.13.   In that respect, she recall ed that past practice up to MC7 (2009) had been to invite those 
IGOs which had observer status in the previous Ministerial Conference to attend the following one.  
12.14.   During the preparatory period for MC8, despite intensive consultations, consensus on 
repeatin g that past practice could not be achieved due to a lack of agreement on granting observer 
status to an IGO that had not been an observer at previous Conferences or in the WTO.  
12.15.   The same situation had arisen for MC9, MC10 and MC11 and therefore no IGOs could be 
invited as observers to the last four Ministerial Conferences. In an effort to break th e impasse, her WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 69 - 
 
  predecessors had conducted consultations on th e matter – not only in Ministerial years – but to no 
avail.  
12.16.   Since the Informal Open -ended meeting on 26 September, she had been conducting 
consultations including on a request for observer status that had been  received on 20 September. 
On the basis of th ose conversations, she had to report that the positions  previously expressed ha d 
not changed and that the difficulties regarding th e issue remain ed. 
12.17.   She remain ed available to consult and her door remain ed open to all delegations that wish ed 
to discuss th e matter with her – in particular if there were any new d evelopments.  
12.3  Attendance of Non -Governmental Organizations  
12.18.   The Chair  recalled that  for all previous Ministerial Conferences, the attendance of NGOs ha d 
been governed by a procedure that was agreed by the General Council in July 1996.  This procedure 
was as f ollowed: "a limited number of accredited NGO representatives are allowed to attend only 
the Plenary Sessions of the Conference, without the right to speak; applications from NGOs to be 
registered are accepted on the basis of Article V, paragraph 2 of the W TO Agreement, i.e. NGOs 
"concerned with matters related to those of the WTO"; and a deadline will be established for the 
registration of NGOs that wish to attend the Conference".  
12.19.   As she had  indicated on 26 September, she would propose that Members  follow ed that past 
practice based on the procedure she had just read out. A deadline for registration w ould be 
communicated in due course. Once the registration procedure was finalised, the Secretariat w ould 
circulate the list of registered NGOs to all Me mbers. She trusted that was acceptable to delegations.  
12.20.   The General Council so agreed .  
12.21.   The representative of Kazakhstan  thank ed the Members for putting their trust in Kazakhstan  
to host the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference in Nur -Sultan in June. The Gov ernment of Kazakhstan 
had tasked H.E. Bakhyt Sultanov, Minister of Trade and Integration, to lead t he preparatory process 
towards MC12 and offer ed to the General Council his candidature for the position of the Chair of the 
upcoming Ministerial Conference. On behalf of the Government  of Kazakhstan , she convey ed 
Kazakhstan's  deep appreciation for placing their confidence in Minister Sultanov as well as 
assurances of his determination to put all the efforts in order to secure that MC12  was a success.  
12.22.   As a strong supporter of the multilateral trading system and trade liberalization 
demonstrated not only by its WTO accession commitments but also by the terms of its bilateral and 
regional trade agreements, MC12 was a very important event for Kazakhstan  as indeed for all its 
partners in the Eurasian Region. The spirit of multilateralism currently faced growing pressure  as 
the trading system was confronted with unprecedented challenges. It was a crucial moment for 
global trade and multilateral cooperation. Kazakhstan therefore  encourage d everyone to collectively 
take required action to urgently respond to the very difficult systemic issues that confront ed the 
WTO.  
12.23.   Members  were less than eight months away from MC12. A s a host country representative, 
she was reaching out to them to prioritise discussions about how they could collectivel y adapt the 
global trading system in order to make it more responsive to the needs of its Members and its 
citizens. As a recently accede d Member, to host the WTO Ministerial Conference, Kazakhstan believe d 
that accession of new Members would be one of the tangible outcomes of MC12.  
12.24.   New Members were genuine proponents of the multilateral trading system due to the depth 
and scope of their a ccession commitments both with regard to market access for goods and services 
as well as regarding rules and disciplines based on WTO Agreements including some WTO plus 
commitments. Thus, th ose Members  had set high standards and benchmarks and hope d other 
Members would follow their example to ensure a level playing field. Several Eurasian economies 
remain ed outside the WTO . Kazakhstan count ed on their support and constructive engagement in 
advancing to its full integration of its regional partners into the global trading system.  
12.25.   Kazakhstan  hoped that Nur -Sultan w ould be the place where Members  would take the 
necessary concrete steps to revitalise multilateral cooperation on trade and sustainable WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 70 - 
 
  development. Kazakhstan  hoped it could count on the Membership's  full support. In good spirit of 
cooperation, Kazakhstan  looked forward to working with each delegation, with the Director -General, 
his team, with the Chairs of Negotiating Groups in order to secure meaningful, substantive outcomes 
in Nur -Sultan. 
12.26.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statements and of the other statement.  
13  WAIVERS UNDER ARTICL E IX OF THE WTO AGRE EMENT  
13.1  Preferential Tariff Treatment for Least Developed Countries – Extension of Waiver – 
Draft Decision (G/C/W/764)  
13.2  United Stat es – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA as amended) – 
Extension of Waiver – Draft Decision (G/C/W/765)  
13.1.   The Chair said that t he draft waiver decisions listed in the two sub -items had been  taken up 
for consideration by the Council for Trade in Good s at its meeting on 8 July, and the Chairman of 
the Goods Council was required to report to the General Council. She therefore invite d Ambassador 
José Luís C ancela (Uruguay) to take the floor.  
13.2.   Ambassador José Luís Cancela (Uruguay) , Chair of the Goods Cou ncil, reported that  the Goods 
Council , in its meeting on 8-9 July 2019  had approved the request for extension of the waiver  
presented by Chile, China, India and Thailand contained in document G/C/W/764, on " Preferential 
Tariff Treatment for Least Developed  Countries ". At that meeting, the Goods  Council had also 
approved the request for extension of the waiver  submitted by the United States contained in 
document G/C/W/765, on the "  Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA as amended) ", 
Consequently, the Goods  Council had recommended that the draft decisions attached to th ose 
documents be referred to the General Council for adoption.  
13.3.   The Chair said that f ollowing the report by th e Goods Council Chair, she propose d that, in 
accordance with the Decision -Making Procedures under Articles 9 and 12 of the WTO Agreement 
agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93), the General Council adopt ed the two draft decisions on the 
agenda. Th ose were relate d to: (i) the extension of the waiver on Preferential Tariff Treatment For 
Least Developed Countries (G/C/W/764) and (ii) the extension of the waiver "United States – 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act" (G/C/W/765).  
13.4.   The General Council so agreed7. 
13.5.   The representative of the United States  thanked  the Membership for t he decision. The United 
States was committed to working in partnership with its friends and neighbo urs in the Caribbean to 
expand economic opportunities. The CBERA provide d a vital contribution  to the efforts in th at 
partnership by creating opportunities to expand trade between the United States and the Caribbean, 
thus promoting economic opportunity and growth in the region.  
13.6.   The representative of Jamaica  said that, a s one of the many beneficiaries of th e arrangement, 
Jamaica underscore d the continued importance of the CBERA through which over 80% of its exports 
was guaranteed duty -free access to the US market. The scope of coverage of the act ha d significantly 
bolstered the flow of tra de in agricultural and manufactured products, increased export 
diversification and complemented national efforts to strengthen employment and economic growth.  
13.7.   As had been indicated at the previous General Council  meeting, CBERA continue d to be a 
relevant market access tool for the Caribbean countries with regional exports to the U nited States  
under CBERA increasing by 9% to USD 1.7 billion in 2018 up from USD 1.5 billion the previous year.  
For Jamaica, the positive contribution of the preferential access t o the US market to the productive 
capacity of the SMEs was further born e out by the trade data which reveal ed that exports peaked at 
USD 206 million during the 2010 to 2012 period. Since then, approximately 43% of Jamaica's total 
exports enter ed the US mar ket over the last five consecutive years.  
 
7 The decisions were subsequently circulated in documents W/L/1069 and WT/L/1070, respectively.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 71 - 
 
  13.8.   The CBERA as amended was also designed to help strengthen collaboration with the Caribbean 
in the vital areas of security, disaster, risk reduction and resilience building. In addition, CBERA was 
a mutually benefic ial instrument as it provide d significant benefits to the U nited States  which ha d 
consistently enjoyed the substantial trade surplus with partner countries under the arrangement. 
That had been  valued at USD 9.1 billion in 2018 and was even higher when trad e in services was 
included. Jamaica  therefore reaffirm ed its sincere gratitude to the United States for its efforts in 
facilitating the maintenance of CBERA which was testament to its unwavering commitment to a 
partnership for trade and development with it s Caribbean neighbours. Jamaica  also thank ed 
neighbours for granting support to th at decision.  
13.9.   The representative of Chile thank ed Members  for the adoption of the draft decision to allow 
LDCs to continue to enjoy preferential tariff treatment in line with their sustainable economic 
development.  
13.10.   The representative of Barbados  said that Members were all  aware of the critical role trade 
had played in poverty alleviation and job creation . It was undisputed  that trade was an engine for 
development and an important driver of sustained economic growth. The Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act had been  instituted as a means to assist the nations of the Caribbean, like Barbados, 
along the path to development, by creating mar ket opportunities for their goods and in turn 
expand ing their manufacturing sector.  
13.11.   Barbados was a small open economy with limited production capacities and statistics ha d 
shown that during the period 2009 -2018, on average, 60% of Barbados'  exports to the United States 
had entered under th at programme. The preferential access accorded increase d the ability for 
Barbadian goods to compete in the US market and allow ed the local industries to grow.  
13.12.   Barbados'  exports under CBERA also account ed for 10% of Barbado s' total exports. Th ose 
exports consist ed of goods that represent ed the major exported products to any market, including 
Barbados'  rum – a significant source of export revenue.  
13.13.   As the CBERA continue d to be beneficial to Barbados,  it reaffirm ed its  gratitud e to the United 
States for extending the waiver of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act and to Members for 
approving the extension  that day. 
13.14.   The representative of St. Lucia , on behalf of the OECS , associate d with the statements made 
by the  CARICOM Group in Geneva and by other CARICOM members.  
13.15.   The Authorities in the OECS place d high priority on the renewal of the CBERA Waiver. The 
waiver ha d become a longstanding anchor of their trade relationship with the U nited States . OECS 
firms through e nabling provisions of the waiver benefit ed from secure access to external supply 
chains for a range of products across sectors. While th at trade relationship ha d assisted firms to 
beneficially integrate into external supply chains, more critically, the CBE RA Waiver was a source of 
employment for those directly and indirectly involved in the supply of goods under th at regime. 
CBERA h ad therefore supported the consolidation of trade with the United States.  
13.16.   The Caribbean was a zone of peace and security. Key to preserving th at state of being  was 
the establishment and maintenance of crucial economic and trade ties. It was within th at factual 
circumstance that the renewal of the CBERA waiver serve d as an affirmation that stability, peace 
and securi ty did not exist in a vacuum but c ould be actively supported and promoted through 
economic and trade ties.  
13.17.   The waiver was not novel or unique as its provenance and legal underpinnings were well 
entrenched in the covered agreements. Several legal texts for med the basis for the granting of 
waivers from WTO obligations. Th ose include d Article IX paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Marrakesh 
Agreement, the Guiding Principles of 1 November 1956 on the Application of Waivers (BISD 5S/25) 
and the Understanding in Respect o f Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994.  
13.18.   The Guiding Principles of 1 November 1956 refer red inter alia to the obligation for the GATT 
Contracting Parties ( now, the WTO Members) to ensure that the other Parties were not negatively 
affected by the waiv er, and the obligation for the waiver to be subject to an annual report and an WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 72 - 
 
  annual review of the operation of the waiver.  The OECS was  heartened that th e qualifying step ha d 
been successfully completed.  
13.19.   The OECS thanked  the United States for putting forward the request and to all Members for 
their support.  Given the OECS'  unique circumstances and vulnerabilities, the CBERA waiver was a 
key policy tool that support ed the economic resilience and social stability of its region. 
13.20.   The representative of China  said that t he integration of LDCs into the world trading system 
and the global economy need ed efforts of all  Members. Th e waiver ha d provided a legal instrument 
for developing Members to grant unilateral tariff preferences to LDCs and ha d substantially promoted 
market access opportunities for LDCs. According to UNCTAD data, LDC exports to most of the 
preference granting developing Members ha d largely increased. In general, the share of LDC exports 
to developing Members in to tal LDC exports had increased from 35% in 1999 to 57% in 2017.  
13.21.   Meanwhile, LDCs were still facing particular vulnerability and structural difficulties. The 
exceptional circumstances that justif ied the initial granting of such waiver continue d to exist. It was 
in that regard that China had  worked with the CTG Chair, the Secretariat and other co -sponsors to 
seek another extension of the waiver by a further ten years from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2029. 
China w ould continue to try its best to give its support to LDCs' integration into the multilateral 
trading system.  
13.22.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , thank ed the developing countries offering 
the preferential tariff treatment to which the draft decision refer red to – particularly China, India, 
Chile, Thailand, Turkey and Brazil.  The extension of the waiver agreed during the last Goods Council 
meeting held  on 8 July was an excellent thing. Th at was part of the drive and initiatives to better 
integrate LDCs into world trade which w ould ultimately benefit all trading partners through 
deepening trade in both directions.  
13.23.   Those tariff preferences fed the LDCs'  export  capabilities and opportunities resulting in 
increased resources for both internal and external consumption as well as for investment 
opportunities to the benefit of their structural transformation.  
13.24.   Since the introduction of th ose tariff preferences in 199 9, the volume of exports to 
developing countries ha d increased by almost 420%, according to WTO data. Thus, the existence of 
such preferences and their extension c ould only be beneficial and essential for their countries insofar 
as, despite progress, their relative share of participation in world trade remain ed barely 1% whereas 
they represent ed about 13% of the world's population.  
13.25.   Many of the constraints that had existed in 1999 when th ose tariff preferences had first been 
implemented still exist ed that day in terms of export capacity and market access.  As a result, the 
LDCs welcome d the continued momentum of Members to ensure that LDCs continue d to be 
supported in their goals of achieving a better level of integration into world trade.  
13.26.   The LDC Group thank ed their developed country  partners who had supported th e initiative  
– the United States  and the European Union – until it  had been approved by the General Council . 
The Group also thank ed the Goods Council Chair and the Secretariat for facilitating the informal 
consultations that had helped in achieving that decision.  
13.27.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , reiterate d CARICOM's  
support in relation to the United States'  request for a waiver ex tending the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act until 30 September 2025 . Trinidad and Tobago also expresse d gratitude to Members 
for their support for  such extension. The CBERA support ed Trinidad and Tobago' s goals for export 
growth and diversification w hich create d positive spill -over effects on other development goals 
including economic transformation and reductions in unemployment and poverty.  
13.28.   Trinidad and Tobago again reiterate d its commitment to fully satisfying each aspect of the 
eligibility criter ia for the programme and was currently making every effort to address any 
enforcement challenges.  In that light, Trinidad and Tobago join ed with other CARICOM delegations 
to underscore the importance of the preferential access provided under CBERA to the t rade and 
economic development of the Caribbean Region.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 73 - 
 
  13.29.   The representative of Haiti said that  CBERA representing a major program of trade 
preferences put in place by the United States continue d to have a positive impact on the beneficiary 
countries of the Caribbean Basin  – which had even encouraged many of them to develop niche 
exports to the US m arket.  Various developmental challenges however  remain ed enormous in their 
countries and continued to be difficult for them to overcome  due to l ack of capacity . The current 
situation also rendered them unable to take full advantage of th at important prefer ential trade 
arrangement. Haiti and other Caribbean States  needed cooperation programs such as CBERA to 
enable them to  continue their efforts to boost, stabili se and diversify their economies in the region.  
13.30.   In the case of Haiti, more than 90% of its total exports were destined for the US market and 
consist ed mainly of textiles thanks to the provisions of the CBERA, HOPE and HELP programs. Th ose 
programs ha d a strong positive effect on export earnings and job creation in the clothing sector in 
Haiti represen ting its largest manufacturing activity and its largest source of employment.  CBERA, 
reinforced by the HOPE and HELP, was a key factor in promoting Haiti's garment production and its 
exports to the US market. In the absence of th ose programs, it would be  extremely difficult for Haiti 
to attract investment.  
13.31.   Haiti associate d with the statement made by the  CARICOM Group in Geneva  and thank ed 
the United States for maintaining th e waiver for the Caribbean Basin countries and the Member 
States for adopting the de cision.  
13.32.   The representative of India was a co -sponsor of the proposal on the extension of the waiver 
on preferential tariff treatment for LDCs. India thank ed Members for their consent for the extension 
of the LDC waiver providing the legal basis for continuing providing preferential tariff treatment for 
LDCs. It w ould go a long way in helping LDCs to catch up.  
13.33.   The representative of Nepal  share d the views expressed in the statement delivered by the 
LDCs. The Gen eral Council Decision adopted on 15 June 1999 in th at regard was a legal instrument 
that w ould allow developing Members to grant unilateral trade preferences to LDCs to grant a waiver 
pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article IX of the WTO Agree ment. The continuation of 
the waiver was fundamental as the integration of LDCs into the multilateral trading system need ed 
meaningful market access, support for the diversification of their production and export base, among 
others. Nepal thank ed all Membe rs for the support and Brazil, Chile, China, India, Thailand and 
Turkey for the initiatives taken to extend the waiver for the preferential tariff treatment for LDCs.  
13.34.   The representative of Turkey  co-sponsor ed the document regarding the extension of waiver 
to provide  preferential tariff treatment for LDCs  and thank ed the Membership for deciding  to extend 
the waiver. Through th e waiver, Members  were putting meaningful input to the integration of LDCs 
into the global economy. Turkey  hoped that would help fight  development challenges  and was 
pleased to see that the  Membership ha d shown its commitment to the Marrakesh Agreement by 
recognising the specific problems LDCs face d and t aking  positive action for their economic 
development.  
13.35.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , endorse d the statements made 
by previous speakers in welcoming the adoption of the extension of the waiver for preferential tariff 
treatment for L DCs. The LDCs made up a significant number of countries within the African Group  
and exten ding the waiver  would contribute to strengthening their participation in international trade.  
13.36.   The representative of Thailand  highly value d the preferential tariff tre atment for LDCs aimed 
to promote and enable LDC s to better integrate into the multilateral trading system. Thailand  was 
pleased to continue co -sponsoring th at important initiative for the benefit of all  LDCs and to see that 
all LDCs ha d benefitted from the  scheme. Thailand was likewise pleased with the continuation of 
that important scheme and welcome d the decision adopted by the General Council in that regard . 
13.37.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 74 - 
 
  14  OTHER BUSINESS  
14.1  Appointment of Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules – Statement by GRULAC  
14.1.   The representative of Ecuador , on behalf of GRULAC , speaking under "Other Business ", 
express ed the deep concern of GRULAC over the situation regarding the Chairmanship of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules which remain ed vacant  for months since the departure of Ambassador 
Roberto Zapata of Mexico.  
14.2.   GRULAC ha d once again displayed flexibility and prudence and ha d always acted with a sense 
of responsibility and the commitment to being constructive. Within th at framework, GRULAC ha d 
proposed options that had set a professional and impartial direction for the negotiating process with 
Ambassadors of high calibre, proven competence and extensive experience.  
14.3.   Nevertheless, the process of replacing the Chair ha d regret tably been steeped in conflict, 
characteri sed by contradictions and discrepancies which flout ed the criteria that should be 
considered in the selection of chairpersons for bodies of th e organization.  
14.4.   Members  had a clear mandate to achieve a meaningful outc ome of the negotiations on 
fisheries subsidies by December 2019. GRULAC  therefore invite d Members to move ahead with th e 
selection process guided by existing practices and directives for the appointment of Chairs of WTO 
Bodies in order to strengthen the ne gotiations with the requisite sense of urgency that  was essential  
for the multilateral  trading system.  
14.5.   GRULAC fully support ed its Ambassadors. In th at regard, in light of the inability to overcome 
the deadlock and in a spirit of compromise and flexibility with respect to the WTO and to th at specific 
negotiating process, the Group believe d that the Director -General, as Chairman of the Trade 
Negotiations Committee, should  lead the process of negotiation s as it was his prerogative according 
to WTO rules and practices.  
14.6.   GRULAC reiterate d its willingness to continue working constructively and tirelessly towards a 
fruitful outcome of the negotiations on fisheries subsidies.  
14.7.   The Chair raised once again her serious concerns about the impasse regarding the 
appointment of a new Chair for the Negotiating Group on Rules. Despite nearly three months of 
intensive consultations, since the July General Council meeting, Members  did not seem to be getting 
closer to a solut ion. 
14.8.   She did not intend to repeat what she had  said on many different occasions, including at the 
Informal General Council meetings on 2 and 30 September which she had  convened to provide an 
update about th e process, and at the Informal TNC meeting on 9 Se ptember.  
14.9.   But as Chair of the General Council, she should  stress once again that the process of selection 
of Chairs should be approached by all delegations in good faith and in full respect of the principles 
contained in the guidelines for the appointment o f officers.   
14.10.   The situation ha d already impacted the negotiations on fisheries subsidies as  Members  had 
stressed several times and as they had  also heard  at the October Informal TNC and Informal HODs 
meetings . The situation als o had grave systemic conseque nces on the ability of the organization to 
conduct its business in an orderly manner.  
14.11.   She once again  appeal ed on all delegations' sense of responsibility. Th e situation was simply 
not sustainable. She stood ready to continue to consult and assist in any way she could. 
14.12.   The representative of Mongolia , on behalf of the Asian Group of Developing Countries , 
inform ed Members that since the beginning, the AGDC  had addressed the issue of the appointment 
of the new Chairs of the Negotiating Group o n Rules and CTD SS in a constructive manner. The 
AGDC  had nominated the candidatures of Ambassador Gothami Silva of Sri Lanka as Chair of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules and of Ambassador Tan Hung Seng of Singapore as Chair of the CTD 
SS. Both candidates possess ed the necessary qualities and qualifications. However, considering the 
urgency of the appointment of the new Chairs, the AGDC's  candidates had shown great flexibility by WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 75 - 
 
  withdrawing their candidacies. The AGDC  extend ed its gratitude to Ambassador Gothami Silva and 
Ambassador Tan Hung Seng for their flexibility. Fisheries was an important sector of majority of the 
Members. Th e AGDC therefore  urged the Members to display utmost flexibility with a view to 
resolving the is sue surrounding the appointment of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules.  
14.13.   The AGDC wishe d to bring to Members' attention the issue of existing imbalance in the 
Chairmanship of Negotiating Bodies. The distribution of the Chairmanship of the regional g roups 
looked unjust. The AGDC ha d 31 Members which represent ed a considerable portion in the 
Membership. The Group consider ed that it was not being represented adequately. Only one out of 
the eight Negotiating Bodies was chaired by the AGDC. For the sake o f having a  more results -
oriented and effective negotiations, all Groups should  enjoy equal representation. The AGDC  would 
continue to raise th at issue of imbalance.  
14.14.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , thank ed the Chair for her tireless 
efforts in facilitating the search for a new Chair o f the Negotiating Group on Rules. The African Group 
had participated in the various consultations and ha d listened to the interventions of Ecuador and 
Mongolia. The Group  was concerned and recommend ed for Members to urgently  overcome the 
impasse.  The African Group  urged the Chair to keep up the good work and the fact that she was 
always available to Members so that she could  propose  dates for consultations which would  in turn 
allow them within their regional groups to undertake consultations for all Members to  make progress  
on the matter . 
14.15.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
14.2  Statement by the Chair in connection with Administrative Measures for Members in 
arrears  
14.16.   The Chair , speaking under "Other Business ", noted that the revised Administrative Measures 
for Members in arrears in WT/BFA/132 required that, at the end of each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Admi nistration should provide 
information with regard to which Members and Observers were under Administrative Measures.  
14.17.   Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli  (Norway), Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , reported that  the Administrative Measures applicable to Members and Observers 
with arrears in contribution had been in place since 1 March 2013. In accordance with the Decision 
of the General Council, he should state all Members and Observers under all categories of 
administrative measures.  As at 14 October 2019, there had been  16 Members and 5 Observers 
under Administrative Measures.  The following 8 Members were currently in Category I: Cameroon, 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Liberia, Mozambique, Senegal, Yemen and Zimbabwe. 
The followi ng Member was in Category II: Congo. The following 7 Members were in Category III: 
Antigua and Barbuda, Burundi, The Gambia, Guinea -Bissau, Niger, Sierra Leone and Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela. The following 2 Observers were in Category I: Comoros and South Sudan. 
Somalia was the only Observer in Category II. The following 2 Observers were in Category III: Libya 
and Sao Tomé and Principe.  
14.18.   The Chair  said that she was required at each Council meeting to request Members and 
Observers in Categories II and I II of the Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment 
of arrears could be expected.  
14.19.   The General  Council took note  of the statements . 
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 76 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
THE REPORTS BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND  THE CHAIRS OF THE N EGOTIATING 
GROUPS AT THE INFORM AL TNC AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS  
HELD ON 14 OCTOBER 2 019 
Report by the Director -General1:
 
I would like to start my own report by putting on record my thanks to the C hairs for their leadership 
and reports to us today.  
Overall, it is clear from what we have just heard that Members still have a lot of work to do to find 
convergence. This is true both for issues with a December deadline, and those on which we are 
targeti ng significant progress by MC12, now just over 6 working months away.  
On fisheries subsidies, you saw at the Public Forum last week that a broad range of stakeholders 
have shown great interest in the negotiations - and not just the usual groups that follow  WTO issues. 
That interest is only going to increase. And let us not forget it is also the next major test for 
multilateralism in this Organization.  
We remain a long way from where we should be, and with very little time left.  
Let me reiterate that there are limits to what facilitators and Members can accomplish in the absence 
of someone with clear responsibility for guiding the process. We need a full time and fully committed 
Chair to supervise the Negotiating Group.   
Moving now to agriculture. At the en d of July – Ambassador Ford circulated a report that focused on 
identifying doable elements for MC12. I believe this constitutes an excellent basis to continue these 
negotiations.  I therefore welcome the forthcoming submissions that several of you have an nounced, 
and support the Chair's call to circulate these submissions soon, ideally before the next CoA SS.  
I also welcome the adoption of a joint statement by ministers and high -level representatives at the 
World Cotton Day last week. I would like to pay t ribute to the C -4 countries – Benin, Burkina Faso, 
Chad and Mali - for their drive and commitment to convening this very important event.   
We must not forget any of the unfinished business . Ministers in Buenos Aires tasked us with 
advancing all remaining areas of our negotiations.  So, in slightly over 6 months, they will be 
expecting to see our scorecard.  
Let me now update you on my own activities since my July report.   
I was invited to various high -level gatherings that covered a variety of issues, in particular 
strengthening and improving the WTO.  
My meetings included:  
• The G7 Summit in Biarritz, where G7 Leaders expressed strong support for our ongoing 
reform efforts.  
• The second Trade for Her conference on empowering women through international trade, 
which was held in Brussels.  
• A meeting with other heads of international organizations hosted by German Chancellor 
Angela Merkel in  Berlin.    
 
I conducted bilateral visits to Uruguay  and Brazil. Here in Geneva, in September, I met bilaterally 
with the Prime Minister of Saint Lucia; the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Senegal and the Minister of 
Economy of the Comoros.  
 
1 Also issued as JOB/TNC/76.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 77 - 
 
  Over the past week, the World Cotton Day launch event and the WTO P ublic Forum brought several 
leaders to Geneva.  
Last Monday, in the context of World Cotton Day, I was pleased to welcome to the WTO ministers 
from:  
• Benin  
• Burkina Faso  
• Chad 
• Mali 
• Angola  
• Brazil; and  
• India.  
 
At the Public Forum , I had useful discussions about our organization and how to further improve it 
with ministers, senior officials, parliamentarians and various stakeholders. They are frankly too 
numerous to list here, but you will find information on those meetings on the W TO website and social 
media  feeds.  
If the enormous interest in the Public Forum is any indication, the long -term future of the trading 
system is bright. Notwithstanding the challenges we currently face, people recognize that things are 
happening here. The y are expecting us to deliver concrete outcomes.  
Here and now, however, there is serious cause for concern. The backdrop of an uncertain global 
economic landscape makes our work even more important.  
Our global trade forecast released at the beginning of Oc tober estimates that merchandise trade will 
grow by only 1.2 per cent in 2019.  This is a big downgrade from the April estimates of 2.6 per cent . 
In addition, our services trade barometer showed that global trade in commercial services was 
weakening into t he second half of 2019 – although holding better than trade in goods.  
While discouraging, this darkening outlook for trade should not surprise anyone. Trade conflicts have 
not abated. Indeed, they have continued to increase. The current uncertainty is not conducive for 
business confidence and investment. This is not good for trade and growth in the immediate term. 
Worse, it is denting future prospects for growth, development and job creation.  
We must therefore work together to resolve the prevailing trade t ensions and rebuild confidence in 
the global trading system.   
And in this context, our ongoing WTO reform efforts will be central to restoring confidence in the 
system 's ability to meet the needs of its users and adapt to changing economic circumstances.    
Standing still will not preserve the system. Paralysis here means decisions elsewhere.  
As I said at our last meeting, the challenges we face cannot, and will not, be addressed overnight 
or even in the space of a few months.  But we must start to map out paths that lead us to 
fundamental decisions about the ways forward.  
First and most critical is finding a solution to the crisis of the  Appellate Body.  
I remain in cont act with Members both in capitals and in  Geneva about this issue, but I still have no 
positive news to share.  
Members remain engaged in the informal process led by Ambassador Walker, under the auspices of 
the General Council. This engagement demonstrates the great value Members attach to the WTO's 
dispute settlement system.   
I think that it is helpful that you have moved to developing draft language for a possible instrument 
based on points of convergence.   WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 78 - 
 
  Nevertheless, despite this good work since the start of the year, the reality is that as of today, the 
crisis persists.  I look forward to hearing Ambassador Walker's report at tomorrow's General Council, 
and your views on how we can quickly arrive at an agreeable solution.  
In little over two months, w e also face the potential expiry of the moratoria on e -commerce and 
TRIPS non -violation complaints. But while the deadline for both is fast approaching, we still have no 
convergence on how to proceed. I urge Members to think  very carefully about the signal s that we 
will be sending to stakeholders around the world.  
Turning now to the other "reform" issues on the table – that is – strengthening the work of WTO 
regular bodies and committees as well as our negotiating work.  
Proponents have a key responsibility  here. But the full engagement of all Members is vital, given 
that the health of the Organization is an issue that concerns us all.  Work on strengthening the 
functioning of WTO regular bodies and committees is continuing. I understand that some of these 
issues will be taken up at the General Council tomorrow. I look forward to those discussions.  
On the negotiations – we have heard the progress reports and work plans from the Chairs. We must 
seek to advance in all these long -standing negotiating areas.  
In these areas, Members will need to start quickly prioritizing which issues have the realistic potential 
to produce outcomes by MC12 and which do not.  
Of course, our immediate priority is successfully concluding the fisheries subsidies negotiations, 
given the  December deadline.  
As I said in July, the Negotiating Chairs will have a key role to play. I hope Members and Chairs will 
soon start pragmatic conversations about what could be doable. We need clarity on this very soon 
if we are going  to give ourselves th e best chance of success in Nur -Sultan.  
Looking beyond Nur -Sultan, we will need to maintain engagement and a spirit of pragmatism to set 
the game plan for work on issues that will need more time to mature.  As I said at our last meeting 
– reform will rema in an on -going process.  
I also said in July that we need to be cognizant that without meaningful advances, frustration builds 
up.  This was the case over many months and years, which was why we have seen the joint initiatives 
spark so much interest and ene rgy from groups of Members.  
As I conclude my report, I wish to remind delegations that despite the good work taking place across 
so many issues, we are a long way from where we should be.  Time is not our friend.  
The world is counting on us to deliver a s tronger rules -based trading system – with more 
predictability and less uncertainty. A system that unlocks opportunities for trade, development and 
inclusiveness.  
I stand ready to support all Members in this endeavour in whatever way you deem useful.  
This c oncludes my report.  Thank you for listening.  
_______________  
 
 
  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 79 - 
 
  Reports by the Negotiating Group Chairs : 
 
1. Committee on Agriculture in Special Session and Sub -Committee on Cotton  
 
There are two words that are more important than all the other words in my report this morning. 
Those two words are : one, priority; and, the second , phasing.  
 
As announced at the last informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on 19 July 2019, I 
circulated as envisaged my report entitled "Working Towards Doable Elements for Meaningful 
Outcomes" on 31 July 2019.  
 
The purpose of the Report was to summarize the various suggestions and ideas put forward by 
Members, to pose questions to assist in focusing the negotiations in order to identify steps towa rds 
possible initial meaningful landing zones.   
 
Members had the opportunity to respond to my 31 July report at the last meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture in Special Session and at the Dedicated Sessions on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purp oses and Special Safeguard Mechanism, held on 26 September 2019.  
 
At the September CoA  SS meeting, two new submissions were introduced, one on "Complex tariffs" 
by the United States and a revised proposal on Cotton by the C -4.  
 
The discussions continue to  confirm that Domestic Support remains the priority issue for the majority 
of Members and that there is growing interest by some Members on various Market Access issues. 
The exchanges on PSH, SSM, Export Restrictions and Export Competition also generally c onfirmed 
past positions.  
 
Regarding Cotton, on 7 October , I chaired the High -Level Trade Session on Cotton on World Cotton 
Day. The meeting was attended by and received interventions from Ministers from Benin, Burkina 
Faso, Chad and Brazil as well as Heads of Delegations and representatives from China, the US, India, 
the EU, Cote d 'Ivoire and Mali.  
 
As might be re called, I had expressed the hope that the World Cotton Day would constitute a 
galvanizing moment that would help us to make some small step forward in the negotiations.  
 
That objective was partly fulfilled. The participants in this Session issued at the en d of the meeting 
a joint statement , which has been circulated in document JOB/AG/165.  
 
It confirms the commitment of the participants, and I am convinced it is shared by all Members, to 
intensify discussions focusing on factors negatively impacting cotton  trade and markets and to 
continue efforts aimed at enhancing transparency and monitoring of cotton -related trade measures 
affecting the global cotton market.  
 
In my view, this Joint Statement constitutes a small but significant first step in this phase o f our 
work.  
 
Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the C -4, the WTO and its partners for the 
organization of a very successful WTO launch of World Cotton Day , which served to remind the global 
cotton community that cotton is a key part of the WTO's work and of our Members' commitment to 
deliver both trade and development -oriented outcomes, especially for LDCs.   
 
Of course, this statement on the cotton negotiations does not conceal the fact that divergences 
remain amongst Members on what kind o f outcome can be envisaged on cotton by MC12.  
 
The assessment also applies to the other topics under negotiations.  
 
As stressed in my July report, it is now time to address some fundamental questions on each topic 
under the agriculture negotiations. It is  now the time to prioritize and phase elements on which 
options can be examined for possible agreement. From all that I hear , it is not conceivable to have 
outcomes on all the elements of all the negotiating issues in the agriculture file. Some issues need  
to be prioritized and phased for a meaningful outcome at MC12 and some issues will be addressed 
post-MC12. The phasing would not necessarily reflect importance of the element but rather WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 80 - 
 
  complexity of work needed and doability in a limited time period. We will have to work together as 
Members to see how soon we can agree on which elements and when they should be dealt with.   
 
The clock is ticking; the next meeting of the CoA Special Session is scheduled on  28 and 29  October 
to be followed by the last meeting of the year tentatively scheduled for 26 and 27  November, 
including Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM as mandated.  
 
Those two CoA  SS meetings, in October and November, will take us to the end of the year, we will 
then be only 5 months away from MC12.  
 
We have repeated and should recall daily that one of the main lessons from MC11 was that we must 
work to complete our work before the Ministerial, so as not to run out of time at the Ministerial.  
 
Our objective , in the agricultural negotiations, should be to have a document outlining clear options 
for the probable doable elements by the end of the year.  
 
I therefore strongly encourage Members currently working on submissions to increase the intensity 
of their work and  circulate these submissions in the form of options to be considered for an outcome, 
including descriptions that advance greater understanding of the  special  situations. We need these 
submissions in the coming days in advance of the October CoA Special Ses sion.  
 
I also urge Members to be proactive, innovative and flexible and to engage with each other in a 
constructive manner before the next CoA Special Session and share with the membership at the 
next CoA Special Session meeting the results of their consu ltations  aimed at bridging gaps.  
 
I will continue my own consultations with Members in several formats. I remain committed to finding 
a path that takes us to a meaningful outcome by MC12.  
 
2. Council for Trade in Services in Special Session
 
The Special  Session held an informal meeting on 30 September.  The purpose of that meeting was 
to discuss a communication in which a group of Members shared their views and interests in relation 
to market access in environmental services.  
 
As was the case for  deliberations on tourism services before the summer break, proponents saw 
their communication as a contribution to exploratory discussions on market access.  
 
Chair, I feel that the discussion we had was useful and constructive. A number of delegations 
emphasized the contribution of trade in environmental services to broader policy objectives, in 
particular environmental protection, the achievement of sustainable development goals, and the 
fight against climate change.  
 
Among the delegations that took the f loor, many expressed interest in greater GATS commitments 
in this sector. A key justification put forward was that trade liberalization would help reduce the cost 
of meeting certain environmental objectives.  
 
Interventions detailed some specific areas of i nterest.  For example, a number of delegations 
underscored that technological advances had created new opportunities for cross -border supply in 
an increasing array of environmental services.  Others highlighted the role of commitments under 
mode 3 to help attract investments, build up infrastructure, and incentivize diffusion of green 
technology.  
 
Some delegations expressed interest in services other than those labelled 'environmental services' 
in the classification system, and some Members said that signi ficant services  commitments in 
regional trade agreements showed the potential for improvements at the multilateral level.   
 
Even though discussions are exploratory in nature and without prejudice, some delegations wished 
to bring attention to flexibilitie s and to the broader context that would be pertinent to any future 
negotiation.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 81 - 
 
  More details on views expressed will be captured in a meeting summary that I will circulate shortly. 
For future meetings, some delegations expressed interest in discussing, including through possible 
contributions, logistics services, e -payment services, and services related to agriculture.    
 
3. Dispute Settlement Body in Special Session
 
Following my election in July, I have started to schedule for this month some informal bilateral 
meetings with interested delegations.  
 
The aim of these meetings is two -fold. First, I want to see with delegations whether they have any 
further comments on the recent work reflected in the report presented by my predecessor, 
Ambassador Seck, and second, I am keen to hear Members' views on the way forward, as well as 
their expectations in the context of the DSU negotiations.  
 
I expect to continue to consult w ith participants in the coming weeks and  I am available to meet 
with any delegation interested in sharing their views with me.  
 
I will take Members' views into account in proposing how to proceed.  
 
I may hold an informal open -ended meeting later this aut umn to discuss the future work of the DSB  
SS. 
 
_______________  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 82 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS 
HELD ON 14 OCTOBER 2019  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meetin g, the statements made 
by Singapore; Costa Rica (Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation); Chad (LDCs); Cuba; 
Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce); Panama (Article XII Members); Benin 
(African Group and C -4); China; New Ze aland; Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment 
Facilitation for Development); Switzerland; Brazil; Japan; Pakistan; European Union; Trinidad and 
Tobago (CARICOM); Argentina; Malaysia; Russian Federation; South Africa; United States; Ecuador 
(GRULAC); I ndia; Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs); Jamaica (ACP); Turkey; Thailand 
(ASEAN); Nigeria; Canada (Ottawa Group); Indonesia; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Chinese Taipei; 
Egypt; Senegal; Mexico; Norway; Uganda; Republic of Korea; Colombia; Plurination al State of 
Bolivia; Peru; Montenegro; St. Vincent and the Grenadines (OECS); Viet Nam; Nepal; Paraguay; 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Sri Lanka; Ghana; Cambodia and Morocco are included below as 
part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Singapore  
 
Let me begin by quoting what the Director -General said at the beginning of this month, that "The 
multilateral trading system remains the most important global forum for settling differences and 
providing solutions for the challenges of the 21st century global economy. Members should work 
together in a spirit of cooperation to reform the WTO and make it even stronger and more effective."  
These are wise words, and I would like to make three points about strengthening this im portant 
organization.  
 
First, all WTO Members have the ability and responsibility to support the multilateral trading system, 
as embodied by the WTO. Certainly, the majors play a key role in leading change due to their sheer 
economic size and share of worl d trade. As the old joke goes, "Where does an 800 -pound gorilla 
sit?"; "Anywhere it wants to". At this point, allow me to speak frankly. On the issue of appointing a 
Rules Negotiating Group Chair, one gorilla took a position and another gorilla countered. I am not 
going to comment on who is right and wrong, but we now seem to be playing the game of who is 
the bigger gorilla. While gorillas do not need to eat fish to survive, may I just point out that gorillas 
live in the same ecosystem as the rest of us, an d if we do not move quickly to address fisheries 
subsidies in a sustainable manner, we will all pay the price. It is therefore natural that smaller States 
look to the majors for wise and constructive leadership, and hope they will strengthen the rules -
based multilateral trading system.  
 
That said, one of the most influential creatures in the tropical rainforest is neither the tiger nor the 
python, but the ant. When ants work together, they become a powerful force. Similarly, when 
smaller WTO Members come t ogether, our combined strength enables us to advance common goals 
and make a positive impact. For example, the proposals on the E -commerce Moratorium and the 
TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints Moratorium, which will be discussed at tomorrow's 
General Council meeting, are both being led and co -sponsored by smaller -sized but like -minded 
WTO Members. This shows that Members, regardless of one's size, can contribute to strengthening 
the WTO.   
 
Second, all WTO Members should commit to free and fair tr ade. As my Prime Minister Lee Hsien 
Loong said at the UN General Assembly last month, "Traditionally, developed countries help 
developing countries through foreign aid and technical assistance. But a much more effective way 
to help them is for developed co untries to keep trade and markets open, so that the developing 
countries become more productive, and can uplift standards of living on their own, providing good 
jobs at home, without the pressure to seek better lives elsewhere." We therefore urge all Membe rs 
to resist protectionist tendencies and reduce trade tensions in order to provide much needed stability 
in the multilateral trading system and to strengthen the WTO.  
 
Third, all WTO Members must do what we can to strengthen the WTO. At a time when the WT O is 
under severe stress, any positive contribution, no matter how small, has the potential to buttress WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 83 - 
 
  the WTO. As a small trade -dependent Member, Singapore has consistently sought to support the 
WTO system to the best of our ability. In June, for example , Singapore tabled a discussion paper on 
good practices in the TBT Committee, and together with Australia and Japan, we have been working 
to advance the Joint Statement Initiative on E -Commerce.  
 
Just last month, Singapore also committed to not seek Speci al and Differential Treatment in ongoing 
and future WTO negotiations. Here, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate Singapore's 
position on this issue.  
 
• One, Singapore made this decision because of our commitment to support, uphold and 
update W TO rules. This also builds on Singapore's long -standing policy of not availing 
ourselves of the flexibilities provided by S&DT at the WTO in negotiating agreements. At 
the same time, we recognise that ultimately, each economy must make its own assessment 
on the issue of S&DT.  
 
• Two, Singapore's position on S&DT has not changed. We continue to regard S&DT as an 
essential part of the WTO toolbox. Not seeking S&DT is also consistent with Singapore's 
position that WTO Members should take on commitments and contr ibutions that are 
commensurate with their abilities.  
 
• Three, Singapore continues to support the principle of self -declaration. As a small country 
with no natural resources and a high reliance on global trade, Singapore remains firmly a 
developing Member o f the WTO and will continue to work closely with other developing 
Members to pursue our common objectives.  
 
2. Costa Rica  
 
I would like my first statement in this body as Ambassador of Costa Rica to the WTO to highlight the 
value of the WTO and the importance my country attaches to its proper functioning, to the renewal 
of its mandate and to enabling it to continue fulfilling its key role in the global economy. A robust 
multilateral trading system based on clear rules is without a doubt the best tool  we have to navigate 
the troubled waters of today's international markets.  
 
For this reason, I would like to reaffirm Costa Rica's commitment to the WTO and to the process of 
reform that is needed to strengthen the organization. Examples of this commitment are the 
initiatives we sponsor to improve compliance with transparency obligations, and the joint initiatives 
that we participate in with a view to moving forward on various issues requiring action at the WTO, 
in particular those on e -commerce a nd domestic regulation in services.  
 
Costa Rica has promoted and supported pragmatic solutions to the concerns expressed about the 
functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism and has addressed all issues from a solution -
oriented standpoint. I wish to t hank Ambassador Walker for his efforts. We believe it is important to 
now think about moving towards a text that sets out the solutions to this issue.  
 
We also need to conclude and fulfil our mandate concerning critical global issues such as fisheries 
subsidies. For this reason, we are concerned about the impasse created by the lack of agreement 
on the appointment of the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules. While it is true that these 
discussions have continued thanks to the drive of the Facilitators , whom we thank for their efforts, 
it is imperative that their work be backed by the leadership of a Chair especially given that the 
December deadline is rapidly approaching. We therefore urge Members to reflect on this issue and 
resolve it as soon as poss ible. 
 
In agriculture, the Committee began a review of the operation of the Bali Decision in January 2018. 
This review should be finalised before the end of the year. In Bali, significant efforts were made to 
introduce a decision on tariff rate quota admin istration which required delicate balancing during the 
drafting process. We call on Members who have expressed concerns regarding the language used to 
find pragmatic solutions that will enable us to successfully complete the review and move forward 
with th e Decision in its entirety in January 2020. As regards negotiations, reforming the trade 
distorting support pillar remains a priority for Costa Rica. To proceed towards a successful outcome 
for MC12, the current context calls for a pragmatic approach in th e negotiations without setting aside 
the ambition needed for a gradual reform process. Costa Rica is prepared to work with all Members 
who are interested in exploring new ideas with a view to reaching a balanced outcome, limiting the WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 84 - 
 
  growth of trade distor ting support and incorporating the principles of proportionality and 
progressiveness in the various disciplines so that Members with greater potential to cause distortion 
can contribute in a proportional manner to the solution.  
 
Costa Rica has, from the ou tset, supported the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and the 
commitment not to impose customs duties on electronic transmissions. For this reason, we are 
participating in a joint proposal to extend the moratorium until the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
Costa Rica is a small economy that relies on international trade and the WTO forms the basis of our 
trade policy. For our country, there is no alternative to the WTO. Our commitment to the system is 
based on the belief that only by improving and strength ening it, so that it can pragmatically address 
the challenges it comes up against, will it be able to remain operational.  
 
3. Costa Rica (Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation)  
 
I welcome this opportunity to report on the open -ended negotiations in  the context of the Joint 
Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.  
 
Since this is the very first time, I inform Members of the ongoing work as the Chair of this Joint 
Initiative, I would like to shed light on the good progress made so far, while also t aking stock of 
where we stand in this informal process at this point in time, and encouraging all WTO Members to 
actively engage in this process.  
 
Over the last 20 months, the Joint Initiative has built upon the extensive work undertaken in the 
context of  the Working Party on Domestic Regulation. The latter had been established in 1999 with 
the purpose of developing any necessary disciplines to ensure that measures relating to licensing 
and qualification requirements and procedures, and technical standards  do not constitute 
unnecessary barriers to trade in services.  
 
As the possibility of reaching a consensus outcome in the Working Party proved elusive, on the 
margins of MC11, 59 Members issued a Joint Statement on Services Domestic Regulation. The 
signato ries reaffirmed their commitment to advancing negotiations of disciplines on domestic 
regulation and to intensifying work towards concluding them in advance of MC12 to be held in June 
2020.  
 
Subsequently, on 23 May this year, 59 Members issued a second Jo int Statement on Services 
Domestic Regulation. In this statement, the signatories committed to continue working on 
outstanding issues, with a view to incorporating the outcome of the negotiations in their respective 
schedules of specific commitments as add itional commitments through Article XVIII of the GATS.  
 
The Joint Initiative currently counts 61 official co -sponsors. Most recently, the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia has joined the group of co -signatories of the Paris Joint Statement at the last open -ended 
meeting held on 1 October.  
 
The last meeting has further confirmed the participants' high level of commitment to this process 
and their desire to achieve a concrete and positive outcome by MC12. Negotiations are moving 
forward on the basis of a stable draft  Reference Paper.  
 
The Reference Paper provides for substantial built -in flexibility to allow for horizontal application 
across all sectors and by all Members.  
 
The disciplines focus largely on procedural aspects of authorization processes and do not interfere 
with the regulatory mechanisms and objectives that Members may set in their domestic laws and 
regulations. Therefore, the disciplines preserve Members' righ t to regulate in order to meet national 
policy objectives in consistency with the GATS Agreements.  
 
Finally, the Reference Paper also ensures flexible treatment for developing and least -developed 
country Members. In this light, it provides developing coun tries with the possibility to inscribe 
transitional periods in their schedules. It also maintains the long -standing understanding of previous 
texts that LDCs participating in the Initiative would be required to apply the disciplines only upon 
graduation.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 85 - 
 
  Let me emphasise that the work undertaken in the context of this Joint Initiative has not been carried 
out in a vacuum. On the contrary, most of the substantive disciplines contained in the Reference 
Paper are closely aligned with indicators of regulatory  quality widely accepted at the international 
level. Increasingly, good regulatory practices have been enshrined in domestic regulatory reform 
programmes aiming to enhance economic growth and development.   
 
The participants to this Initiative are now prep aring for the submission of indicative draft schedules 
by the end of October. The exchange of indicative draft schedules represents a crucial step in this 
process to the extent that it would allow the visualisation of the specific commitments that each 
participant would incorporate in its schedule.  
 
Moving forward, the Initiative is committed to addressing the remaining outstanding issues in the 
Reference Paper in a mutually agreeable manner.  
 
The exchange of draft schedules and the solution of outstandin g issues in the Reference Paper 
constitute complementary components of this process for the purpose of achieving a substantial 
outcome by MC12.  
 
To conclude, I invite all Members not already part of this Initiative to examine the issues at stake 
and consi der joining this process.  
 
4. Chad (LDCs)  
 
I take the floor on behalf of the LDC Group. As it stands at the moment, the LDC Group wishes to 
emphasise several aspects on the occasion of this Trade Negotiations Committee meeting.  
 
First, the LDC Group expresses  its concern regarding the resolution of the Appellate Body impasse 
of the dispute settlement system. Our point of view is known but our group repeats that it is urgent 
to find an arrangement that allows the appointment of new Appellate Body members and th e 
continuity of the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
 
The proper functioning of the key WTO mechanisms must be preserved. These are integral to the 
multilateral trading system which has done well in expanding trade rules and global standards for 
decades . This issue regarding one of the core pillars of the WTO has impacts on the other pillars as 
well, including negotiations.  
 
Second, we have just celebrated the first World Cotton Day on 7 October in which several Ministers 
from our Governments took part t o demonstrate our commitment and the importance of the cotton 
trade as part of the agricultural trade for the C -4 countries and for many LDCs. A joint statement 
was adopted between the C -4 countries, China, the European Union, India and the United States, 
stressing the willingness to make progress on this topic in the negotiations. This should be 
concretised into an outcome at MC12 where the domestic support for cotton production that affects 
LDC economies will be removed. This outcome is possible knowing t hat this is probably one of the 
most advanced aspects of the negotiations.  
 
Beyond that, our Group stresses the importance of a global reduction of distorting domestic support. 
In addition, our Group reiterates its commitment to a permanent solution on public stockholding for 
food security purposes which would allow LDCs to develop programmes that do not yet exist. Also, 
the existence of a special safeguard mechanism remains relevant and important to us in order to 
preserve our vulnerable far mers from market volatility.  
 
Third, the LDC Group is intensively engaged in the negotiations on fisheries subsidies. In this regard, 
LDCs defend the strict disciplines on harmful subsidies that have resulted in overcapacity and 
overfishing. As part of an Agreement, the LDCs intend to develop their artisanal fishing and 
sustainable fishing activities. In this regard, the rules must capture this aspect and the fact that 
LDCs are not providing harmful subsidies and are not depleting fisheries resources. S&DT is integral 
to our mandate in this regard. Without this element, there is no mandate to negotiate. It is also 
important to contemplate flexibilities needed for those graduating from LDC status.  
 
The LDC Group notes that many Members are submitting new them atic proposals along with some 
refinements of textual proposals. The LDC Group feels the focus should be on working with what is 
on the table and would bring forth more convergence. We wonder if some of the new thematic WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 86 - 
 
  papers may have created more questio ns and might delay our work and objective to meet our 
deadline to conclude the negotiations by December as instructed by Ministers in Buenos Aires.   
 
In contrast, we do however applaud Members and Facilitators who worked diligently to hold meetings 
with u s and each other and open -ended meetings to increase our understanding and to find new 
areas for building convergence.  
 
We again thank the Director -General, the Rules Division, our own LDC core group including our 
advisory support, and donors – Norway, Ge rmany, Australia and New Zealand – for preparing and 
establishing the trust fund for LDC fisheries officials to attend the clusters. We have greatly profited 
from the presence of these officials to better engage them and obtain their support for these 
negotiations. Already, over ten officials have participated in the last two clusters, and more are 
preparing to attend the November cluster. We note that the Secretariat Workshop at the start of the 
last cluster done upon the arrival of such officials in Genev a was excellent and well -received. The 
LDC Group has also held internal briefings on the LDC Group's 2017 text and the texts in play to 
date.  
 
We would like to take the opportunity to also thank the United Kingdom's TAF2 Fund (implemented 
by BKP/SAI) for providing the extraordinary support for the attendance of other coastal State LDC 
fisheries officials. The UK's initiative and the WTO's Fisheries Trust Fund are critical to our work 
particularly as the attendance of our officials helps build consensus in the LDC Group and in the 
fisheries negotiations in general.  
 
Much work remains to be done to reach an agreement but we must remain positive and engaged. 
In addition, the LDC Group urges Members to put aside differences and allow for the appointment 
of a ne w Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules who will serve ad personam and in a non -partisan 
manner in order to gain the trust of all Members.  
 
Finally, all Members should work together at the WTO to enable a more equitable trading system in 
which LDCs can m ove more rapidly towards their genuine integration into international trade with 
the positive externalities that are desired by all in terms of trade, job creation, decent standard of 
living and the ability to assume their rights and obligations.  
 
5. Cuba  
 
We are only a few months away from the next Ministerial Conference. The current scenario has 
passed from uncertainty to a standstill in the growth of world trade and, according to the latest IMF 
assessment, economic slowdown in almost 90% of the world.  
 
Although this scenario was determined at the outset by unjustified trade wars initiated by the world's 
leading economic power, and other uncertainties in the European context, it has also been influenced 
by the stagnation of trade negotiations and the paralysi s to which this organization has been 
subjected.  
 
While it is true that this situation has a very negative impact on all countries, and particularly 
developing countries, it has even greater implications for small economies and developing island 
States, wh ich are especially vulnerable to climate change and global economic turmoil.  
 
In this context, unilateral coercive measures applied against some Members cannot be circumvented. 
Such measures continue to undermine the economic development of those Members a nd impede 
their optimal economic performance and integration into the global economy.  
 
This is the case with the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the 
United States. Over the past year, the current US Administration has signifi cantly stepped up its 
financial and commercial siege against my country. It has imposed additional measures to obstruct 
foreign trade and ramped up persecution of our banking and financial relations with the rest of the 
world. This tightening has also invo lved the heightened and more punitive implementation of 
extraterritorial measures, such as the full activation of Title III of the unlawful Helms Burton Act of 
1996, which provides for cases to be brought before the North American courts against investors 
from third countries investing in Cuba. This is completely illegal and contravenes the most basic 
norms of international law and trade.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 87 - 
 
  The Helms Burton Act not only constitutes the most comprehensive tool of economic war and political 
coercion against any country, but also tries to dictate to third countries which are Members of the 
organization, as to how they ought to conduct their economic relations with Cuba, in clear violation 
of international law.  
 
Cuba's position is in line with the legit imate interests of developing countries in alliances to which 
we belong.  
 
We reiterate the need to move forward and achieve results under the mandate of the Doha 
Development Agenda and the multilateral approach it advocates. Whatever work we do in this reg ard 
must take into account the development dimension, including special and differential treatment, as 
an integral part of any outcome.  
 
The defence of multilateralism, the preservation of the development dimension, transparency and 
inclusiveness, and deci sion-making by consensus are, and will continue to be, the principles that 
Cuba will defend within the framework of its participation in the work of the WTO.  
 
Therefore, in preparing for the Twelfth Ministerial Conference in Nur -Sultan, we reiterate our 
willingness to continue participating in an active and constructive manner, in accordance with the 
criteria mentioned above, in order to achieve tangible outcomes.  
 
Cuba appreciates the need to strengthen the global scope of this organization. In this vein, we 
remain convinced that one outcome of the next Conference should be the accession of new Members.  
 
Despite the current uncertainty, we are optimistic. We trust in the wisdom and the interest of most 
Members to preserve the system with greater multilatera lism, increased dialogue and greater 
cooperation.  
 
6. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce)  
 
I will first provide a report on negotiations under the Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic 
Commerce on behalf of the co -convenors: Austr alia, Japan and Singapore.  
 
Since the July HODs/TNC, we have welcomed two additional Members, Kenya and Cote -d’Ivoire, 
bringing the total number of signatories to 80 and covering over 90 per cent of world trade.  
 
We held the fourth negotiating round from 2 4 to 27 September where around 90 WTO Members 
participated. This round marked a new phase of negotiations with work structured around 
Facilitators' "streamlined texts" drawn from proposals tabled by Members. Our discussions were 
constructive and highlighte d areas of convergence and specific points of difference under each 
theme.  Specifically, we covered the facilitation of electronic transactions, non -discrimination and 
interactive computer services, consumer protection, transparency, domestic regulation a nd 
cooperation.  
 
Two further negotiating rounds are scheduled this year: the first will be next week on 22 -25 October 
and the second will be on 19 -22 November. These meetings will address key topics including data 
flows and localisation, privacy, market ac cess, customs duties and capacity building. They will again 
be open to all WTO Members and structured around streamlined texts.  
 
We have continued to work to ensure transparency in this Initiative. All proposals and reports have 
been circulated to all WTO  Members and are available on the WTO's online portal.  
 
Our objective, as agreed by Ministers, is to achieve a high standard outcome that builds on existing 
WTO agreements and frameworks with the participation of as many WTO Members as possible.  We 
have encouraged all Members to highlight the opportunities and  challenges they face, particularly 
developing countries, LDCs and MSMEs, to ensure these are taken into account in the negotiations.  
 
We continue to complement our discussions with seminars ran by stakeholders in the margins of the 
negotiating rounds, op en to all Members, which have provided valuable real world perspectives on 
relevant issues.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 88 - 
 
  We look forward to a continuation of the constructive spirit and momentum demonstrated in the 
initiative to date.  
 
7. Australia  
 
Australia, like others, is very conce rned about the rise in protectionism and sharp cuts to forecasted 
growth in world trade.  
 
We remain determined to work tirelessly in support of the WTO and the multilateral trading system 
to address the many challenges we currently face.   
 
We know we are not alone and are encouraged by the level of interest shown at the Public Forum 
last week and the engagement displayed by delegations here today.  
 
This has been particularly evident on fisheries subsidies, where, despite the regrettable lack of a 
Chair, Me mbers have shown renewed commitment to narrow gaps. We believe the capping proposal 
we co -sponsored offers an important element of an overall package, which, alongside strong, clear 
prohibitions, would have real impacts on the global level of subsidisation  while leaving appropriate 
flexibilities for Members in need. We urge all Members to continue to work hard, with the December 
deadline in mind, to ensure a meaningful outcome to these important negotiations  
 
We also see the extension of the moratorium on i mposing customs duties on e -commerce as an 
important step ahead of Ministerial consideration of the matter at MC12. An extension in December 
will provide business, especially MSMEs, with the certainty and predictability that they need, and will 
further pro mote the growth of digital trade between Members.  
 
As we prepare more intensively for MC12, Australia, together with other Cairns Group Members, will 
maintain focus on agricultural trade reform, particularly domestic support. I recall for the 
Membership th e level of distortion we are seeking to combat. If left unchecked, the trade distorting 
subsidy entitlements of just nine WTO Members will exceed USD 1 trillion by 2030.  
 
Australia is also looking to make substantial progress in the Joint Statement Initiat ives at MC12. We 
see this work as integral to the future of the organization, focusing as it does on issues of core 
interest to business and the community. The WTO must be working on e -commerce, on services 
domestic regulation and investment facilitation a nd discussing the particular needs of MSMEs and 
the importance of women's economic empowerment – this is where our business sector and 
communities are focused and we must be too. As we have just heard from the Chair, Costa Rica, we 
have agreed a pathway to  a concrete outcome on Services Domestic Regulation for MC12 which will 
benefit businesses, especially MSMEs, across all our economies. Momentum also continues to grow 
in the E -Commerce JSI, where we are working hard to achieve substantial progress by MC12 . 
 
Of course, we are keen to see a quick resolution to the Appellate Body impasse. Efforts under the 
General Council informal process have intensified and we look forward to the report of the Facilitator, 
Ambassador Walker, to the General Council tomorrow.   We urge solutions which maintain a workable 
dispute settlement system that upholds the rules to which we are all committed.  
 
Finally, we reiterate the importance of transparency and the overall operation of WTO Committees.  
The work of the regular bodies  is fundamental to the effective functioning of the WTO and we 
welcome all Members' contribution to these discussions.  
 
In closing, MC12 is fast approaching and there are many challenges ahead for the organization. We 
may not resolve them all immediately,  but we are encouraged to see strong shared commitment to 
working together to deliver meaningful outcomes at MC12 and find new ways to strengthen the 
organization and ensure it remains at the heart of the multilateral trading system for the next 25 
years.  
 
8. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
I am speaking on behalf of the Group of Article XII Members. We would like to reiterate our Group's 
position on the topic of future reforms and the importance of balancing commitments amongst all 
Members.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 89 - 
 
  Article XII Members  stand ready to continue the work aimed at strengthening all sectors and pillars 
of the multilateral trading system while addressing the imbalances that arise from diverse 
commitments and entitlements of the Members.  
 
Our Group has repeatedly pointed out i mbalances between the average agriculture bound tariff of 
the original Members and that of the Article XII Members, as well as gaps in domestic support and 
commitments in export competition. We have drawn Members' attention to equally striking 
imbalances i n NAMA and services. These gaps have continued to widen with every new accession.  
 
As stated in the past meeting of the CoA SS, we reiterate our Group's position that current 
negotiations should address all pillars of the Agriculture negotiations and not p ick those that are 
tailored to benefit a few Members in their specific areas of interest.  
 
Article XII Members have made extensive concessions in the course of their accession to the 
organization and we encourage the WTO Members to see the commitments embr aced by Article XII 
Members as guidelines for the WTO reforms and as a benchmark for all Members on future 
Agriculture, NAMA and Services negotiations.  
 
The Group encourages the Membership to take a proactive position and seek to push new ideas in 
how all Members can undertake commitments of importance and value to other Members, with a 
view towards a stronger and more balanced rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
9. Panama  
 
Panama stressed the need for a Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules. We reaffi rm our support 
of the nomination submitted by GRULAC.  
 
Only two sets of meetings remain before the deadline granted by the Ministers. It is imperative that 
work and negotiations be intensified in all necessary formats, including meetings at the level of 
Heads of Delegation.  
 
Panama reiterates its commitment to working constructively with other Members, with a view to 
reaching a balanced and fair agreement for all. For this reason, the guidance of a Chair is essential. 
We also call upon delegations to refrai n from introducing new elements to the discussion that are 
either not within the remit of the WTO and are addressed in other multilateral forums, or are not 
part of the negotiating mandate. We appeal to Members to show not only flexibility, but particularl y 
pragmatism.  
 
Panama wishes to emphasise the relevance of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. The 
Programme should quickly evolve from the level of discussions and presentations of experiences 
held over the past 20 years to a substantial phase in t he multilateral context.  
 
We wish to highlight how important it is that the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions be made permanent, or at least renewed in December 2019. The discussions and 
exchanges of experiences have shown that count ries, including developing countries, have received 
tangible economic benefits, bringing security and predictability to businesses and consumers.  
 
We would also like to reiterate the importance of renewing and extending the current moratorium 
on non-violation cases in TRIPS. For this reason, Panama, together with Chile, Colombia and New 
Zealand, has presented a communication to this effect.  
 
Since Doha, reform of all the pillars of this organization has been delayed. Such reform would 
address the realities and needs of all Members, including the differences between original Members 
and those who acceded under Article XII.  
 
We would like to stress to the importance of introducing a different dynamic to negotiations on 
services, which must take place  in parallel with other ongoing negotiations and ensure that a balance 
between benefits and responsibilities under the agreements is maintained. To this end, Panama 
supports the continuation of exploratory discussions on market access.  
 
As regards agricult ure, we reaffirm our country's stance that we must achieve concrete results in all 
pillars and not only in transparency issues or reforms in specific areas of domestic support.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 90 - 
 
   
In issues related to WTO reform, the Republic of Panama co -sponsored, together  with 16 other 
Members, document WT/GC/W/777 on trade concerns aimed at identifying best practices in the 
Committees that are conducive to allaying trade concerns and enhancing the functioning of the 
Committees.  
 
Lastly, Panama wishes to state its commitme nt to continuing to participate in joint initiatives, such 
as investment facilitation for development and MSMEs, with a view to contributing to discussions 
and working on presenting possible deliverables in the framework of the Twelfth Ministerial 
Conferen ce of the World Trade Organization.  
 
10. Benin (African Group)  
 
The African Group stressed the need for the Negotiating Groups to speed up the work under way, 
with a view to achieving consensus results, by the Twelfth Ministerial Conference of the WTO, to be 
held in Nur -Sultan in June 2020, in the following areas, inter alia:  
 
Agriculture  
 
There could be no positive outcome in MC12 without the adoption of measures that result in 
substantial reform of domestic support that distorts international trade in agricul tural products, 
including cotton, by reducing Aggregate Measurement Support beyond the de minimis level, and 
addressing the supports of the blue box, as well as ensuring effective monitoring of green box 
support. Agriculture must continue to set the level of ambition in other areas.  
 
The African Group hopes that the renewed commitment shown by Members during the first edition 
of World Cotton Day held in Geneva on 7 October be translated, in the short term, by the adoption 
of concrete and measurable results on cotton.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
The African Group is deeply concerned by the lack of consensus on the appointment of the new Chair 
of the Rules Negotiating Group. We therefore urge Members to intensify their work to respond to 
our mandates. The African Gr oup is committed to an outcome that can contribute to reducing the 
global excessive capacity in the fisheries sector and to contribute to the global fight against IUU 
fishing. At the same time, appropriate flexibilities for developing countries and LDCs in  particular 
should be part of our Agreement.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
The G90 will request the Chair of the CTD SS to convene the Negotiating Group soon for consultations 
and negotiations, with a view to finalise and submit a revised draft of the G90 S&DT provisions. We 
take this opportunity to reaffirm that S&DT is a treaty -embedded measure that is consistent with 
the rights and obligations of developing countries and LDCs, and should be an integral part of the 
present and future WTO Agreements. In that regard, we urge Members to engage in a constructive 
manner for a meaning ful outcome towards MC12.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
The African Group takes note of the update presented by the Chairperson of the General Council and 
the Facilitator on the reform of the Appellate Body. It recommends that the new measures that will 
be adopted eff ectively contribute to improving the functioning of the Appellate Body which is the 
cornerstone of the legal and institutional architecture of the WTO.  
 
E-commerce  
 
The African Group also takes note of the report of the Chairperson of the General Council a nd remains 
concerned with the implications of the Moratorium, especially in relation to loss of revenue related 
to electronic transmissions for developing countries, and LDCs in particular, as well as its implications 
on the development of digital industri al policies.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 91 - 
 
  It is clear that the E -commerce Moratorium cannot be made permanent. It is also appropriate that 
the modalities of treatment of losses of revenues related to e -commerce be sought including the 
compensation for losses recorded.  
 
The Group rema ins committed to achieving balanced results on the issues under negotiation, taking 
into account the priorities and concerns of developing Members, in particular those of LDCs among 
them. In addition, we emphasise the need to ensure that the outcomes on al l issues promote 
inclusive growth and development.  
 
11. Benin (C -4) 
 
On behalf of the co -sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in favour of Cotton – the C -4 – I would like to 
express my profound gratitude to the Director -General and his team for the successful organization 
of the first World Cotton Day held on 7 October 2019.  
 
I would also like to thank the Members and the heads of the partner organizations and institutions 
that co -sponsored this event as well as our technical and financial partners f or their much 
appreciated contributions to the success of the first World Cotton Day.  
 
The C -4 greatly appreciates the important contributions of the Chair of the Special Session of the 
Committee on Agriculture, H.E. Ambassador John Deep Ford, and Deputy D irector -General Mr Alan 
Wolff. Thanks to their beneficial efforts, initiatives and interactions, the event was a resounding 
success.  
 
This significant event is now part of economic and trade annals worldwide.  
 
The C -4 thanks Members particularly those from  the Quad plus for their renewed commitment to 
continuing consultations with a view to enhancing the transparency and monitoring of cotton -related 
trade measures affecting the global cotton market.  
 
We invite all WTO Members to engage actively in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session 
so as to make progress on the cotton issue with the aim of finding concrete and quantifiable solutions 
and ensuring the effective implementation of the results of these efforts, in both the trade and the 
developm ent components of the cotton sector, in Africa and in LDCs in particular.  
 
12. China  
 
Last week, we saw a broad and extensive participation to the Public Forum from governments, 
industries, NGOs, trade unions, think tanks and parliaments, clearly showing the g reat interest of 
the whole international community to trade and trade -related issues. However, compared to the 
enthusiasm from the public, we, as WTO professionals, seem to have made little encouraging 
progress to a range of "December issues", such as Appe llate Body impasse, fisheries subsidies, e -
commerce moratorium, etc. As the clock is ticking, we should not give up in the following two 
months, but continue to try our best to find possible solutions, if any.  
 
I will only share my observations on certain issues with some new development, bearing in mind 
that China's position for other issues stays unchanged.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
We support the informal process led by Ambassador David Walker. A good sign is that we now have 
a report on the table for Members' co nsideration. Though we have some reservations, China 
welcomes the report and will continue to constructively engage in the process. We note that a large 
majority of Members have requested to launch the Appellate Body Selection Process and we urge 
the Unite d States to be meaningfully and constructively as soon as possible.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  Negotiations  
 
Finding a capable Chair is the most urgent thing for now. We hope all Members to be as flexible as 
possible and show the spirit of cooperation in this re gard. It will be, literally speaking, not possible 
to implement the mandate otherwise. As December is just around the corner, Members should have 
a reasonable expectation for the possible outcome. As for the substance, China is of the view that WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 92 - 
 
  the most pr agmatic and appropriate solution for the time being is the combination of "strict 
prohibition on IUU and over fished stocks + well -designed green box + capping the rest".  
 
Investment Facilitation for Development  
 
We appreciate the leadership of Ambassador Gálvez and joint efforts of all Participating Members, 
so that we are now able to move into a result -oriented phase and focus on the text, with a view to 
achieving a concrete outcome at MC12. At the same time, I want to reiterate that the discussion will 
continue to be open, transparent and inclusive with development at its core. In this regard, I would 
like to encourage more Members especially the developing ones to participate in this new phase and 
help to shape the future framework.  
 
Development  
 
China,  together with several other Members, has submitted a joint statement on developing country 
status and special and differential treatment in the WTO. We will further elaborate this at tomorrow's 
General Council meeting.  
 
13. New Zealand  
 
This is the last sched uled Informal Heads of Delegation meeting before we are faced with three 
critical deadlines in December: the Appellate Body, fisheries subsidies and the moratoria. All three 
of these issues are critical to this organization.  
 
The Appellate Body deadline is clearly understood. We know that if we do not address the impasse, 
this body will cease to be able to consider new appeals in December.  
 
With respect to fisheries subsidies, the Public Forum should be a reminder that not only governments 
will hold us to account if we do not follow the clear instructions of Leaders and Ministers to conclude 
a fisheries subsidies agreement by December. Sir David Attenborough's message on the urgency to 
deliver rang loud and clear. The world is watching and credibi lity is at stake.  
 
The absence of a Chair is unfortunate for almost three months is unacceptable and needs to be 
resolved now. We do not buy the argument that we cannot reach an outcome by December. That is 
simply wrong. The key ingredients for a final out come are before us – now, the hard political choices 
need to be made. Some Members ask us if we are being realistic. A December outcome is not only 
realistic but what is required of us. If we cannot find a permanent Chair, we want to consider the 
options f or someone who can conduct the fisheries negotiations in the interim.  
 
The e -commerce and TRIPS moratoria will also expire unless renewed in December. We will speak 
to this at the General Council but the failure to renew these moratoria would also hold neg ative 
consequences.  
 
Negotiations in other areas must also be progressed. Agriculture remains a critical issue for Members 
at all stages of development. The precipitous both entitlements and outlays for trade and production 
distorting agricultural domestic  support destabilises agricultural markets, and compromises food 
security, sustainable development, and the well -being of producers. At USD 620 billion, this is waste 
on a grand scale. Money could better be spent on improving human and natural capital. We continue 
to need robust and broad -based disciplines to bring down the level of this support over time.  
 
As the Chair imparted, at the informal session for the CTS SS, New Zealand joined Australia, Canada, 
Mexico and Switzerland in presenting a communicatio n on exploratory market access discussions on 
environmental services. We were pleased with the level of engagement which made clear the 
significance of environmental services in relation to both trade and wider environmental 
considerations.  
 
We continue to  strongly support efforts to advance the JSIs, including on e -commerce and services 
domestic regulation. We are pleased with the progress made in the e -commerce JSI negotiation 
since we began work on the basis of streamlined text. Likewise, we look forward  to exchanging 
indicative draft schedules in services domestic regulation at the end of this month.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 93 - 
 
  We continue to welcome the ongoing increase of engagement in these processes from more Members 
both by joining as formal participants or participating less  formally in discussions.  
 
As we look to MC12, we also must look to more concrete results on MSMEs and Women's Economic 
Empowerment.  
 
In closing, we are not here to simply manage crises. We need to look to make the most of the 
opportunities before us as we ll to meet our milestones in December and help generate momentum 
on the road to Nur -Sultan.  
 
14. Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development)  
 
In keeping with the open, transparent and inclusive nature of the Joint Initiative on In vestment 
Facilitation for Development, I am pleased to update the Members on the latest development since 
the last report to the HODs made by my predecessor, Ambassador González, in July. Since July, 
there had been three developments worth nothing: the off icial joining of new Members to the 
initiative, the circulation of the working document and the endorsement at the organizational 
meeting held in September of the work plan until December 2019.  
 
At the organizational meeting held on 23 September, the Kingd om of Saudi Arabia and Turkey 
informed me that they are officially joining the Joint Statement Initiative on Investment Facilitation 
for Development – an indication of their readiness to work to achieve a meaningful outcome for 
MC12. On behalf of the Parti cipating Members, let me welcome them to this initiative.  
 
As requested by Participating Members at the July Meeting, the Coordinator prepared and circulated 
under his own responsibility a Working Document at the end of July. The document was circulated 
to all WTO Members. The Working Document represents the disti llation of the discussions that 
Participating Members had between January and June this year on the basis of text -based examples 
and suggestions submitted by Members drawing not only from their trade and investment 
agreements but also from the WTO texts.  
 
The Working Document focused on the areas of convergence and common interest emerging from 
those discussions. It is aimed at assisting Members in furthering the development of the elements 
of a multilateral framework on Investment Facilitation for Develop ment. It is a tool intended to 
facilitate more focused and substantive discussions among Members.  
 
I hope that the Working Document will help Members further consolidate the areas of convergence 
and make progress in those areas requiring further considera tion. The Working Document will also 
assist Members in carrying out their consultations in capital. The Working Document was well -
received by Participating Members who viewed it as providing a sound basis and good starting point 
for more focused and in -depth discussions on the substance in the coming months.  
 
On the work ahead, the work plan endorsed by Participating Members at the organizational meeting 
held on 23 September was the result of the extensive bilateral consultations that I conducted with 
interested Members in my appointment. I would like to thank all the delegations that expressed an 
interest in sharing their views with me. Those discussions have proven to be very useful.  
 
My consultations and the organizational meeting revealed that the initi ative is ready to shift up 
another gear and enter a more results -oriented phase in pursuing the development of the elements 
of a multilateral framework on Investment Facilitation for Development. Furthermore, there is 
expectation among Participating Member s that the initiative should lead to a meaningful outcome at 
MC12.  
 
At the organizational meeting, Participating Members agreed to move to the next phase of work 
which will consist in a series of thematic discussions using the Working Document as the basi s. 
Members are encouraged to actively participate in the discussions and to provide their concrete 
views and positions on each of the different issues under consideration.  
 
From now until the end of this year, the Structured Discussions will hold three su bstantive meetings 
starting this week, on 17 -18 October, and a stocktaking and next steps meeting in December. The 
calendar of meetings indicating the actual days and topics to be discussed has been circulated to all 
Members. As I indicated at the organiza tional meeting, I hope that the discussion on the basis of WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 94 - 
 
  the Working Document will lead to a more streamlined text which could be a good basis for 
negotiations in 2020.  
 
Let me conclude by expressing the open, inclusive and transparent nature of the init iative that 
common discussion will provide the opportunity for Members to shape the framework on investment 
facilitation according to their objectives and specific needs. Participation is entirely without prejudice 
to Members' position on the Joint Initiat ive. 
 
15. Chile  
 
The Mission of Chile has always actively participated in all levels of the WTO's work in a constructive 
spirit.  
 
This meeting and tomorrow's General Council session are taking place at a very special time for the 
WTO, as these are the last mee tings before December 2019, the month in which we should know 
the outcomes of extremely significant issues that are likely to have a major impact on the WTO and 
the multilateral trading system.  
 
I am referring to the deadline for the appointment of new mem bers to the Appellate Body, the 
promise to fulfil the mandate on fisheries subsidies and the renewal of the moratorium on electronic 
transmissions and non -violation complaints.  
 
Discussions need to intensify in order to achieve meaningful results in Decemb er 2019. The way in 
which the WTO resolves these challenges will determine how the organization will be considered in 
the future.  
 
We have always supported the facilitation process undertaken by Ambassador David Walker, to 
whom we are very grateful. We loo k forward to hearing the proposal for a General Council Decision, 
which is based on the points of convergence reported by Ambassador Walker. We are ready to 
continue supporting this process, given that 70% of Members support the launching of the process 
to appoint new Appellate Body members.  
 
Furthermore, we are members of the joint initiatives on e -commerce and domestic regulation in 
services, areas in which we continue to work towards substantive results in preparation for MC12. I 
would also like to express our support for the negotiating processes on agriculture, and for the Chair, 
Ambassador John Deep Ford of Guyana.  
 
As reported to the Members, I have taken over as the coordinator for the structured discussions on 
investment facilitation where we a re moving forward in an atmosphere of cooperation and 
understanding also with a view to delivering visible and tangible outcomes for MC12.  
 
At such an exceptional moment for the WTO, we would like to insist on the need to understand that 
our objectives sho uld be achieved using a multilateral approach, which requires hearing and being 
heard, as well as flexibility in positions, so that we may achieve consensus.  
 
And now more than ever, leadership and responsibility must be shown by all stakeholders, Members 
and experts, and the Secretariat.  
 
16. Switzerland  
 
The Public Forum that has just ended was a success. The number of participants and sessions was 
an all -time record and the discussions addressed key issues that are relevant for the WTO. We can 
draw some over all lessons from the deliberations that took place during the Forum.  
 
Stakeholders would like to see our organization progress, modernise and, above all, overcome the 
most pressing problems. These problems have already affected the global economy. If they remain 
unsolved, they could take an even greater toll.  
 
All stakeholders stand to benefit by the public good function of the WTO. A public good that consists 
of stable and predictable conditions for international trade and market access. Stability and 
predictability are the prerequisites for any decision to invest, create jobs and innovate. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 95 - 
 
  Unfortunately, the current economic and trade policy uncertainties are harming investors' 
confidence.  
 
This challenging situation should incite us to redouble efforts t o find appropriate responses. We can 
help prevent the most pessimistic scenarios. We can help restore business confidence. To do this, 
we must act quickly  
 
– by easing trade tensions through dialogue and negotiation;  
 
– by restoring a fully -functioning Appell ate Body and adopting improved dispute settlement 
procedures;  
 
– and by extending the customs moratorium on electronic transmissions at least until the 
upcoming Ministerial meeting.  
 
These are the most urgent actions needed to promote the stability and predictability that are so dear 
to economic agents.  
 
But this will not be enough to meet the numerous challenges we are facing. Most Members agree 
that the WTO needs to be reformed. They are right.  
 
Concluding the negotiations on fisheries subsidies by th e end of 2019 is a crucial step on the reform 
path. It is as well important to achieve progress in other issues under negotiation.  
 
Reform also means implementing pragmatic solutions to differentiate the commitments made by 
developing Members according to their capacities.  
 
Furthermore, there is a need to address a number of practices that disrupt international markets.  
 
Modernization requires the inclusion of new themes such as electronic commerce, investment 
facilitation and MSMEs, although these efforts  will be initially pursued in plurilateral initiatives.  
 
The latest World Trade Report has shown that trade in services grew faster than trade in goods from 
2005 until 2017. It is therefore high time to relaunch the exploratory discussions on market access  
in services. In this context, we would like to highlight the constructive discussions that took place 
recently at the CTS SS on environmental services.  
 
Another objective is to finalise the negotiations on domestic regulations in services by the Nur -Sultan 
Ministerial Conference.  
 
Finally, we welcome initiatives to improve transparency as well as the functioning of WTO's 
committees. Switzerland has made proposals to this end, including in the field of rules of origin. The 
ordinary bodies of the WTO are a  valuable asset that we should put to good use, also in order to 
prevent conflicts.  
 
This is nothing new. Many speakers have already pointed this out repeatedly at TNC meetings. It is 
now important to switch to a more operational mode, to match words with actions. And, as we know, 
time is running out for the most pressing issues.  
 
17. Brazil  
 
We have a lot of work to do and not much time to do it.  
 
The path we take now will determine the future of the multilateral trading system. We can choose 
to do nothing, bu t maintaining the status quo will lead the WTO to paralysis. Reform – and 
meaningful reform – is the only option if we want to keep this organization and multilateralism alive.  
 
We are fully aware that change is difficult. Internally we are conducting domestic reforms to ensure 
that our economy is able to grow and generate prosperity. It is not simple or easy, but it is 
indispensable.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 96 - 
 
  We heard Members saying that we should strive for realistic results. We agree. Results should be 
realistic – doable – and substantial.  
 
Being realistic means understanding the need to change, to adapt to the new reality. Blocking 
progress in negotiations will not freeze reality. Solutions will be found elsewhere, with unpredictable 
consequences for us.  
 
We need to be pragmatic and keep discussions within the framework of the WTO.  
 
We will insist in realistic, but substantial results in agriculture.  
 
Subsidies should be treated horizontally. There is no solid ground to separate the discussions. Market 
distorting s ubsidies have the same negative effects on both industry and agriculture.  
 
All types of subsidies should be reviewed. However, being realistic – pragmatic – we need to 
concentrate on the most distorting ones at first.  
 
We need to reduce amber box subsidies  – wherever they may lay, be it on AMS or "de minimis".  
 
Doing nothing is the same as allowing major new and old subsidizers to increase their support, year 
after year. We need to find a solution for this issue, which is creating ever -larger distortions in  
agricultural markets.  
 
Transparency is part of that solution. It is important and necessary, but, by itself, it is not enough.  
 
We must strengthen the science -based concept of SPS in all its dimensions.  
 
We are also working on the elements for a decision by the SPS Committee that should improve the 
way the Committee works and handles STCs.  
 
Regarding S&DT, we need new, flexible and pragmatic approaches: development is a central 
objective and S&DT has an important role to play. But it must reflect contempor ary realities, 
capabilities and challenges. Thus, it should offer no less and no more than what is appropriate for a 
country in the context of a specific negotiation.  
 
Moving on to the Appellate Body, we continue to support the "Walker" process.  
 
We still favour a simple and direct solution, through the adoption of guidelines, for the issues raised.  
 
There is room for improvement in transparency in the dispute settlement system. Brazil supports 
making the system more accessible to stakeholders.  
 
We need to find a solution to the current deadlock quickly or we will risk permanently damaging the 
dispute settlement system.  
 
E-commerce, investment facilitation and domestic regulation should all be part of our package of 
deliverables to reinvigorate the negoti ating pillar of the WTO.  
 
Finally, on fisheries subsidies, we need leadership and high -level guidance right now. There is very 
little time to fulfil our mandate. Stalling the discussions should be stopped if we want to reform and 
revitalise the WTO.  
 
18. Japan  
 
With eight months to go until MC12, there still remain many challenges. To achieve meaningful 
outcomes at MC12, we need to redouble our efforts to resolve each of these issues. This is 
particularly true in respect to the most pressing issues with a deadl ine for the end of this year. The 
opportunities for discussions left to us, notably the General Council meeting in December, present 
us with the possibility of making real progress. Let us turn this possibility into reality. Our combined 
efforts over the c oming months will lead to the successful outcomes at MC12.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 97 - 
 
  Obviously, these pressing issues include the Appellate Body matter. Japan takes note of the progress 
made so far in the Informal Process under the auspices of the General Council. Japan looks forw ard 
to the fourth report to the General Council from Ambassador Walker. This is an important milestone. 
That being said, our work on this matter is unfinished. WTO Members must continue to engage in 
the Informal Process with a sense of urgency to find a la sting solution that would satisfy all Members.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, Japan recognises the importance of this negotiation, which helps to ensure 
marine sustainability. Bearing in mind the target 14.6 of the SDGs, Members need to accelerate 
relevant works  by narrowing down the issues identified to date. In this connection, Japan tabled the 
text proposal during the last cluster meeting. Japan will continue to actively contribute to finding 
constructive solution to the various issues on the table.  
 
On a posi tive note, we are encouraged by progress in some areas, notably in the Joint Statement 
Initiatives. We welcome the recent progress on e -commerce and reiterate the importance of 
deepening discussion with a wide range of stakeholders.  
 
During the Public Foru m last week, Japan organised an event on the Osaka Track, where 
stakeholders shared the importance of facilitating the e -commerce negotiations in the WTO to 
harness the full potential of the digital economy across the world. Japan remains committed to 
continuing such efforts in the aim of achieving substantial progress in the negotiations by MC12.  
 
Moreover, we are facing the urgent issue of the extension of the E -commerce Moratorium. Japan 
would like to emphasise the need to give due consideration to posit ive and broad implications of the 
Moratorium. With this in mind, Japan strongly believes that our current multilateral practice of the 
Moratorium should be extended at the end of this year.  
 
On domestic regulations on services, we are working hard to submi t an indicative draft schedule by 
the end of October. We welcome the progress made and intend to further accelerate the work.  
 
Japan also highly values transparency and notification as a litmus test of the WTO reform and 
believes this sentiment has been wi dely shared. Together with the other proponents, Japan will 
continue to work on the outstanding issues to reach a consensus at the earliest possible time.  
 
Finally, let me touch upon the importance of today's trade issues such as industrial subsidies and 
forced technological transfers which have not been sufficiently addressed under the existing WTO 
rules. Japan, together with the United States and the European Union, has been discussing how to 
tackle these issues. Japan hopes that we discuss  this issue further with interested Members.  
 
Japan will work together with all the Members to address the pressing issues to be resolved by the 
end of the year, and to achieve meaningful outcomes at MC12.  
 
19. Pakistan  
 
Consistent with our earlier statements on the issue, we maintain that any discussion on WTO reform 
should have developing countries at its centre and must be geared towards addressing their needs. 
Reform should not, at any cost, alter the fundamental principles of the WTO. We note that some 
proposals are already on the table seeking to underscore a development -friendly reform process and 
strengthening the fundamental pillars of this system. We will welcome similar efforts and look 
forward to engaging positively on them.  
 
On the Appellate Body d eadlock, we note some progress under the process led by Ambassador 
Walker. The resolution of the deadlock is the most urgent issue independent of any progress on 
other reform processes. We wish to highlight again the importance of a functioning dispute 
settlement system for Pakistan – like many other developing countries. The system stands as one 
of the main pillars upholding the edifice of multilateral trade. We must support all efforts to 
reinvigorate the Appellate Body and keep its independence, integrit y and impartiality intact.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, the small window of opportunity to contribute to sustainable development, 
will keep getting narrower as we approach our deadline. While we strive to find common ground, 
the element of Special and Differe ntial Treatment and artisanal fishermen must not get overlooked. 
In fact, effective S&DT and safeguarding development aspects in these negotiations will be critical 
for finding a balanced and effective outcome.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 98 - 
 
   
We express our satisfaction over the proces s being followed by the Chair of the CoA SS. We have 
noted some new proposals tabled in the last meeting and look forward to engaging constructively in 
the next session to find effective and meaningful solutions on all issues.  
 
We also take the opportunit y to congratulate all participants especially the C -4 countries on an 
impressive showing at the World Cotton Day last week. Being a significant stakeholder on any 
discussions on Cotton, Pakistan was represented by a delegation of senior Parliamentarians an d 
made important contributions. We look forward to continued engagement in efforts to make Cotton 
a sustainable source of livelihood and development across the globe.  
 
20. European Union  
 
The European Union remains extremely concerned. The WTO crisis is set to  further deteriorate 
without a strong and swift reaction by its Members.  
 
Discussions in the Public Forum again demonstrated that the WTO needs to adapt to a rapidly -
changing global trading environment. The European Union believes that we should do this t hrough 
three strands of work.  
 
First, as of tomorrow, with Ambassador Walker's presentation of his report to the General Council, 
we will have an opportunity to lay down the ground for a reformed Appellate Body and for resuming 
nominations. We need to focu s our work on the future of the organization. This is an opportunity to 
seize and would be a first step to put the WTO back on track.  
 
A second strand would be to ensure that we deliver on the negotiating function of the WTO. This 
means a successful and s ubstantial Twelfth Ministerial Conference. The European Union believes that 
what the WTO needs are substantial outcomes, no fig leaves.  
 
A successful MC12 could among others include outcomes on fisheries subsidies, agriculture, 
progressing in the context of the Joint Statement Initiatives and improving also our regular work.  
 
• Starting with the Fisheries Subsidies, we need to switch to a true negotiation mode, and 
to this end, the European Union is first of all calling on all those blocking the appointment 
of a new Chair to reach a compromise. We should not put in danger the substantive 
negotiations with a proxy debate on the new Chair.  
 
• With respect to agriculture, positions have not yet changed since Buenos Aires and without 
a substantial chang e of position by Members, any outcome for MC12 beyond transparency 
issues looks difficult. The European Union remains ready to engage with those who are 
ready to contribute to an outcome.  
 
• The progress achieved since the summer break by the ongoing Joint S tatement Initiatives 
is encouraging. More particularly, the European Union wishes to encourage all participating 
Members to come forward with updated services schedules containing the Domestic 
Regulation disciplines by end of October. This would allow us t o put Services Domestic 
Regulation on the right track for a finalization by MC12.  
 
• The European Union continues its efforts to make regular work in the WTO more effective, 
in particular as regards with notification requirements and the way Members address each 
other's trade concerns. While this is by no means intended to distract from the bigger 
challenges we face, it is important to show that WTO Members can improve the way in 
which they conduct their daily business. Together with the respective groups of co-sponsors 
of the notification proposal and the trade concerns proposal and all Members, we are 
maturing the proposals further for eventual adoption. We count on the continued 
engagement and political will of all Members.  
 
A substantial outcome at MC12 wo uld pave the way for a more structural and comprehensive reform 
of the organization – this is the third strand. We need to reflect on the functioning of the organization, 
on rules to level the playing field and on how development and special and differenti al treatment 
can contribute to development.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 99 - 
 
  We should not waste time. The European Union is ready to engage.  
 
21. Trinidad and Tobago (CARICOM)  
 
This statement is being delivered on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Group in 
Geneva. The CARICOM Group believes in the transparency and appreciates the sustained 
demonstration of transparency that the TNC delivers to the WTO Membership.  
 
Investment Facilitation  
 
CARICOM notes that the Joint Statement Initiative is progressing at a rapid pace. While no CARICOM 
Member State is a part of these discussions as no mandate has been received from our political 
directorate in that regard, a number of o ur delegations here in Geneva follow the discussions closely 
and officials in capitals continue to deliberate on the implications of these developments for the 
region. We also note that there is a broad support among participating Members for the landmark 
objective of achieving a meaningful outcome for MC12.  
 
As participating Members continue their engagement, we call on them to keep the process open and 
transparent by allowing non -participants to observe the deliberations. This is critical to our own 
assessment of the proposals and for our consultations with our capitals.  
  
Agriculture  
 
On the subject of Agriculture, first allow me to express our profound gratitude to Ambassador Ford 
for his continuing efforts in moving the negotiations on agriculture forward, given the complexity of 
the task. We nevertheless note with concern that these talks have not progressed in any substantive 
way that the prospects for a balanced outcome in this area at MC12 are very dim.  
  
Food and nutrition security is of utmost importance to our economies. We also view agriculture as 
one of the key drivers for our export diversification programmes. Our agricultural sectors are, 
however, very fragile both in respect of our ability to compete with globalised and often highly 
subsidised trade as well as our susceptibility to natural disasters. It is therefore important that, while 
we as a multilateral institution continue to make the push towards meaningful disciplines on domestic 
support, due recognition is given to the  need to maintain the flexibilities currently afforded to SVEs 
and LDCs in the Agreement on Agriculture. We are not significant subsidizers of our agriculture, and 
even when we can afford to give some support to our sector, this is almost always targeted t o our 
smallest and most vulnerable operators.  
  
Regarding the market access pillar, CARICOM wishes all Members to reaffirm the acquis of the 2008 
draft agriculture modalities text insofar as it ensures that any agreed tariff reduction formula would 
allow s mall vulnerable economies to shield their key food security and commercial products from 
tariff reduction.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
We continue to take note of the developments in respect of Electronic Commerce. The Informal 
Open -ended Meeting on the Work Pro gramme on Electronic Commerce, held earlier this month, has 
further pointed to the pressing need to also channel our energies towards fulfilling our MC11 mandate 
in this respect. In this regard, we will seek to contribute to constructive discussions on dri ving the 
Work Programme forward inclusive of reaching a decision on the Moratorium concerning the 
application of customs duties on electronic transmissions that will be amenable to all Members.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies N egotiations  
 
With respect to the Fisheri es negotiations, I wish to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of the 
Director -General to guide the work of the Negotiating Group on Rules and maintain the needed 
momentum in the absence of a confirmed Chair and in view of the mandate to conclude the 
negotia tions by the end of this year. We appreciate the dedicated efforts of the various Facilitators 
and our negotiators and remain hopeful for a good progress in the remaining months ahead.  
  
We are all rightly concerned about the situation surrounding the non -appointment of a Chair to date, 
and would like to see an immediate resolution. The GRULAC has addressed this matter with all WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 100 - 
 
  diligence, flexibility and transparency within the framework of the existing practices and guidelines 
for the appointment of Chairp ersons to the WTO bodies. CARICOM supports the statement to be 
made by GRULAC on the matter.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
We remain very concerned at the state of play of the discussions on development and special and 
differential treatment for dev eloping countries, in particular the small, vulnerable Members. 
Undoubtedly, this issue will also confront us in the current fisheries negotiations.  
  
We must ensure that the promised benefits of the multilateral trading system are shared in an 
equitable m anner to take account of our diverse levels of development and capacities. The recent 
hurricane disaster which visited our Caribbean Community and basically wiped out the livelihoods 
and economic structures of one of our islands, not for the first time, is  a grim reminder that the hard 
facts do matter in our deliberations here at the WTO in so far as our smaller Members are concerned.   
 
Services  
 
With regard to services, the CARICOM Group continues to be disappointed in the progress made to 
date.  While we  note that there is some exploratory discussions on market access in the Council for 
Trade in Services in Special Session, work in other important areas in recent times has suffered from 
inactivity.  
  
On services market access, discussions on environmental  services in the CTS SS highlighted the fact 
that "nexus of trade and environment presents a unique opportunity for WTO Members to show 
leadership and action on mitigating the effects of climate change".  In 2017, the damages and losses 
for Dominica were e stimated to have been in excess of 200 per cent of its gross domestic product.  
The recent devastation of the Bahamas, a sister CARICOM country and acceding WTO Member has 
once again reinforced this.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
The CARICOM Group views the impasse in appointments to the Appellate Body with concern. The 
looming paralysis of the Appellate Body will damage the enforcement mechanism of the rules -based 
multilateral trading system. The CARICOM Group, as small vulnerable economies, wishes to indica te 
the importance we place on a rules -based multilateral trading system – of which the dispute 
settlement mechanism and the Appellate Body are key elements. CARICOM notes the proposals 
which seek to address concerns raised about the functioning of the Appe llate Body and believe that 
any proposed reforms must promote the rule of law and promote the independence, impartiality, 
consistency and predictability of the appellate process.  
  
CARICOM reiterates its strong commitment to a rules -based multilateral trad ing system that is 
transparent, inclusive and consensus -based.  
 
22. Argentina  
 
The agenda of tomorrow's General Council meeting reminds us how close we are to the Twelfth 
Ministerial Conference and also the great distance that still separates us from reaching that 
Conference with a package of possible commercially meaningful outcomes. In saying this, we start, 
of course, from the assumption that we all aspire to demonstrate with concrete evidence that the 
WTO is functionally alive.  
 
Indeed, we are convinced tha t this unprecedented crisis to which reference is often made can lead 
us to a revitalised multilateral trading system. In other words, we can transform the threat that 
every crisis poses into a real opportunity if we commit ourselves to managing it with co llective 
wisdom and spirit.  
 
Last week's new edition of the Public Forum corroborates the space that this organization occupies 
not only in the governmental agenda but also, and especially, in the private sector and in civil 
society.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 101 - 
 
  For this reason, we do not share the idea that in order to revitalise the WTO it is necessary to first 
subject it to a state of "induced coma". In general, I believe there is a unanimous assessment of the 
contribution that the WTO has made to international relations. Promotin g reforms should therefore 
not be an excuse for our patient to go through therapy from which it may not be able to escape.  
 
Rationality and pragmatism means for us being aware that we cannot expect unilateral concessions 
and that certain spheres may demand  more time than we have. Rationality would then be to work 
on a scheme that allows us to respond to our own national demands bearing in mind that other 
Members must be able to respond to theirs. That same rationality leads us to pragmatism: in no 
parliamen t or ministry are we going to add support with the sole argument that this is an essential 
issue for a particular Member or group of Members. Any negotiation, if we speak of negotiation, 
implies a "trade off".  
 
We hope that this Trade Negotiations Committe e will not be transformed into a Trade Imposition 
Committee. Humanity has already tried that path and it did not do very well.  
 
Like the results, the process is also important. It is the process that largely defines the legitimacy 
of the outcome. In this r egard, we renew our call for a use of consensus that is commensurate with 
the circumstances. Consensus is a valuable democratic tool that, as such, requires to be responsible; 
rather, jointly and collectively responsible.  
 
The exercise of consensus require s enormous responsibility but also understanding, tolerance, 
patience and mutual trust. In that regard, we regret that we do not yet have a Chairman for the 
Negotiating Group on Rules.  
 
In conclusion, allow me to reiterate the issues that we consider cruci al: the impasse of the Appellate 
Body, the imminent expiration of the deadline for reaching an agreement on fisheries subsidies, 
agricultural trade reform, Joint Initiatives and, in the case of Argentina, let me add the proposal we 
co-sponsored on transpar ency, something basic that would not even need the slightest discussion 
at this stage.  
 
Finally, we take this opportunity to value the efforts of acceding governments and consider that 
expanding Membership in the next Ministerial Conference would be a goo d sign to reconfirm the 
relevance of this organization.  
 
23. Malaysia  
 
At the outset, Malaysia associates with the ASEAN Statement to be delivered by Thailand. At this 
critical juncture, Malaysia wishes to make the several points.  
 
Malaysia has been a strong advocate of the multilateral trading system of the WTO. We believe that 
the WTO has been effective in ensuring that global trade governance remain open, predictable and 
transparent, benefitting both developed and developing countries as well as LDCs . 
 
In this regard, we view with deep concern the global trade developments over the past year 
especially the rising trade tensions stemming from the proliferation of protectionist sentiments and 
unilateralism. The protectionist cycle poses threats to world  trade as it is now evidenced with many 
countries taking retaliatory measures to protect their trade interests. Malaysia, in particular, is 
currently facing this issue with our main commodity. These sentiments require the multilateral 
trading system to be further strengthened through the WTO.  
 
On the Selection Process of the Appellate Body, there is an urgent need and flexibility to resolve the 
pending issue. Constructive dialogue and flexibility from all WTO Members are required to solve the 
impasse.  
 
As such, Malaysia welcomes efforts needed to revitalise the WTO as a rules -based, open and non -
discriminatory platform to make meaningful progress towards the development agenda of the 
developing countries and LDCs.  
 
Apart from the Doha Round issues, Malaysia  supports the ongoing efforts in the areas of e -
commerce, MSMEs, investment facilitation for development and the negotiations to prohibit fisheries 
subsidies in line with the mandate by the Ministers.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 102 - 
 
   
To achieve good progress, WTO Members should assume a more constructive role in narrowing the 
gap in key areas of negotiations. Greater political will and flexibility are crucial if we want to see this 
through bearing in mind that time is against us.  
 
Having said that, we must recognise the foundation upon w hich this organization was built – that is 
development. Special and Differential Treatment is a treaty -embedded right of Members. 
Reassessing this right at this point of time will further complicate the situation.  
 
It is critical that Members exercise fle xibilities to resolve the bigger, pending issue to ensure that 
the credibility of the multilateral trading system is not undermined.  
 
24. Russian Federation  
 
The Russian Federation acceded to the WTO in 2012 when the world trade environment was defined 
by the words "globalization" and "openness". In recent years, however, one can best describe it as 
"trade wars", "trade restrictions" or "quick -hit exchange" rooted in deepened controversies.  
 
We insist that the WTO is and must continue to be a Member -driven orga nization. If so, where are 
we driving it? Could we argue that paralysing the organization advancement on numerous tracks is 
equivalent to doing a good job? Russia wants a WTO that works, that evolves and that is up to the 
relevant challenges of the 21st ce ntury.  
 
After our accession, we looked forward to creative work in Geneva, not on digging trenches. 
Unfortunately, under current circumstances Members are forced to deal with issues that the WTO 
was not originally supposed to face. However, we are not alone, and I am sure that together with 
the partners we will be able to stabilise the situation and drive the organization out from the crisis.  
There is little doubt that in December the Appellate Body will cease to exist. Nevertheless, the last 
hope we re ly on is that the Walker process that has been going on in Geneva will bear fruit, and 
because of some new circumstances, the mechanism will be allowed to survive after December.  
 
Achieving concrete outcomes that improve the functioning of the WTO by MC12 is also important.  
There are many submissions that delegations tabled but we must work hard to ensure that we deliver 
timely and meaningful improvements.  
 
We now have less than three months to the agreed deadline for delivering on fisheries subsidies. 
We need to move urgently into intensive text -based negotiations. However, without a Chair's 
leadership, this track is in a grave condition. It is hard to imagine that we would finalise negotiations 
by the end of this year.  
 
Facilitators are doing their best in maintaining the declining momentum, but it is far from enough to 
ensure progress and close wide gaps that we have in each pillar. It is high time to recalibrate 
ambitions, keeping in mind the mandate. New papers should unite Members. We probably need to  
achieve by December a common understanding regarding the architecture and principles of the 
agreement so that from the beginning of next year we could focus on final refinements on the way 
to Nur -Sultan.  
 
In agriculture, the situation is also by far not e asy. We need both political and systemic incentives 
to move forward. We do not think that the current subsidy levels can be left untouched in a situation 
when key WTO rules are challenged. Russia will continue to push forward in such issues as a formula 
approach to trade -distorting domestic support, applied tariffs and shipments en route, TRQ 
reallocation, SSG and other topics. We also stand ready to be constructively engaged in the process.  
 
Russia is a strong supporter of the gradual removal of burdensome  technical barriers to trade in 
services. We hope that disciplines on domestic regulation will contribute to the improvement in this 
area. I assume that a number of Members could have concerns in specific areas. Russia welcomes 
a focused and constructive d iscussion on such aspects. I am confident that we will be able to 
overcome difficulties both in adapting disciplines to different national systems and in finalising the 
open provisions remaining in the document.  
 
We welcome Members' constructive engagement  on the Moratoria on TRIPS non -violation complaints 
and on non -imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 103 - 
 
   
We expect that MC12 will be marked with the expansion of WTO Membership. One of the candidates 
is the Republic of Belarus which was id entified as a priority in the Director -General's previous Annual 
Report on Accessions. We keep working on the assumption that huge amount of work, both 
legislative and negotiating, has already been accomplished by virtue of Belarus' Membership in the 
Euras ian Economic Union which was established on the basis of Russia's and Kazakhstan's 
commitments in the WTO. The accession of Belarus at MC12 will conclude the integration of the 
Eurasian Economic Union and its Members into the multilateral trading system.  
 
We also support MC12 outcomes in electronic commerce, investment facilitation and MSME s. 
 
25. South Africa  
 
The multilateral trading system is facing significant challenges. The immediate threat to the system 
is the impasse on the appointment of Appellate Body  members. We thank Ambassador Walker for 
his efforts. The risk to the dispute settlement mechanism may have grave implications for the 
functioning of the multilateral trading system. We support a process that works towards the 
development of an instrument for a decision by the General Council to avoid the Appellate Body 
being dysfunctional by December 2019. We hope that all Members will engage in a solution -oriented 
process that preserves the principles and provisions of the DSU.  
 
In relation to S&DT, the mandate we have is captured in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration which calls on Members to make S&DT more precise, effective and operational. We are 
working with the G90 to finalise our proposals and to start bilateral engagements with Membe rs in 
order to deepen our discussion and deliver on the mandate. S&DT is an unconditional and treaty -
embedded right that has been provided to all developing countries at the WTO in recognition of the 
enormous difference in the levels of development. S&DT i s extremely important for trade to be more 
inclusive and equitable as well as for developing countries to meet their SDGs.  
 
On the E -commerce Moratorium, in the informal General Council meetings in June and October, we 
have highlighted the need for a deep er discussion on the revenue, economic and trade and industrial 
policy implications of the Moratorium to inform decision -making. This is an extremely important 
issue given the increasing role of the digital economy which will define the future of our econo mies. 
It is important to learn from past experiences lest we disable the very tools we need now and in 
future to properly position ourselves in the digital economy.  
 
Turning to Agriculture, we need an outcome in MC12 and it should include substantial reform of 
trade -distorting domestic support notably Cotton, a permanent solution for Public Stockholding and 
advancing the discussions on a Special Safeguard Mechanism. We underscore that S&DT must be 
integral to any outcome in agriculture and we would seek to ensure that LDCs and NFIDCs are 
exempted from further commitments.  
 
On Fisheries Negotiations, we remain concerned regarding the slow pace at which the fisheries 
subsidies negotiations are proceeding. If we are to meet the December deadlin e as laid out in the 
MC11 Decision, substantial progress would have to be registered, including the resolution of the 
appointment of the Chair.  
 
On Transparency, we continue to advocate for a cooperative, development -oriented approach and 
we will work con structively with Members in this regard.  
 
On the TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints, it may be useful for the Proponents of the non -
violation and situation complaints remedy to clarify what situations they wish to avoid by having a 
non-violation remedy available under the TRIPS Agreement. We would be concerned with any non -
violations and situation complaints remedy that would have the effect of expanding existing TRIPS 
obligations or reduce flexibilities that Members currently have.  
 
In relation t o CTS SS, we note that the exploratory discussion on environmental services are without 
prejudice to the positions of Members. We are concerned about discussion that centre on further 
liberalization commitments and would like to emphasise the need to ensur e that Members have the 
necessary policy space within WTO rules to effectively deal with natural disasters and industrialise.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 104 - 
 
  26. United States  
 
I would like to use my intervention to touch upon four subjects: special and differential treatment, 
the fisheries  subsidies negotiations, the e -commerce negotiations through the Joint Statement 
Initiative, and the Appellate Body.  
 
On special and differential treatment, I again would like to emphasise the importance of the 
conversation we are having on this issue, bot h in the General Council and in capitals. We look forward 
to the General Council discussion this week under two agenda items. With respect to fisheries 
subsidies, the United States, together with other Members, has advanced a series of proposals that 
create a framework for a meaningful result in these negotiations. It will be up to Members, 
particularly those seeking carve outs and flexibilities from the disciplines, to decide if we want a 
meaningful result that will change the status quo.  
 
After nearly 20 years of negotiations, we should not be trying to make it easier for the subsidizers. 
That is the opposite of our mandate. Regrettably, it is becoming less and less clear what activities 
Members are willing to stop subsidising. The United States will conti nue to push for a meaningful 
outcome in these negotiations and we hope other Members will join us in doing so.  
 
I would also like to express our disappointment with the fact that collectively we have been unable 
to reach consensus on a candidate for the Ch air of these important negotiations. The task put before 
us by the Chair of the General Council in July should have been routine and without controversy.  
We were asked to identify an individual who demonstrated the personal capacity and availability to 
undertake the responsibilities required of a Chair.  
 
However, politics, rather than principles, have unfortunately been injected into this process, 
distorting the framework Members established to enable the organization to continue to handle its 
business in a smooth and seamless way. If decisions are now being made based on a Member's 
national negotiating position rather than the specific candidate's personal capacity to act with 
impartiality and objectivity, then it appears that the existing system for selec ting Chairs for any WTO 
body will not, and cannot, ever lead to consensus.  
 
Turning to the Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, we note some encouraging progress being 
made, and we welcome the intensification of efforts by this group of Members and the move to more 
serious discussions of formal text -based proposals following the summer break. We continue to seek 
an outcome that establishes high -standard, commercially meaningful rules on digital trade with an 
eventual agreement that applies the same rules  to all participants.  
 
The initiative is not without its challenges. However, we remain optimistic that the Joint Statement 
process will prove to be an effective vehicle for Members to pursue their commercial interests, 
negotiate new rules and move the org anization forward. We look forward to determining which 
Members are truly committed to an ambitious outcome and willing to demonstrate that the WTO can 
deliver meaningful results.  
 
Finally, on the Appellate Body, I have often reminded my WTO colleagues that US concerns about 
the Appellate Body are not only principled, well -documented, and longstanding but also shared 
broadly across the political spectrum in the United States.  
 
Last week, a bipartisan, high -level delegation from the US House of  Representatives Ways & Means 
Committee visited Geneva and had the opportunity to meet with some of you. As the United States 
has explained, our concerns about Appellate Body overreach are not the exclusive province of just 
one US Administration or one pol itical party.  
 
Also last week, the Chairman and ranking member of the US Senate's Committee on Finance – one 
a Republican and the other a Democrat – weighed in with an important op -ed on WTO reform. The 
op-ed covers a range of critical issues but let me ta ke a moment to read what they had to say 
specifically about the Appellate Body:  
 
"While the WTO serves as a forum to settle disputes among its Members, we have serious concerns 
about the degree to which the system is working. The Appellate Body — the quasi -judicial review 
forum used to take a second look into dispute decisions — has long strayed off course from its 
original form and function. Our concerns about systemic and procedural problems with the Appellate WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 105 - 
 
  Body are not new, nor are they partisan. US P residents on both sides of the aisle have taken issue 
with Appellate Body members addressing issues that were not raised by the parties involved in the 
dispute, taking longer than 90 days to decide appeals, and creating new rights and obligations for 
WTO M embers — all against the terms of the Dispute Settlement Understanding."  
 
"We see great value in having an institution like the Appellate Body that ensures dispute panels 
faithfully apply the rules to which we all agreed. However, the Appellate Body also n eeds to operate 
as the Members agreed."  
 
The United States will continue to insist that the WTO dispute settlement system follow the rules of 
this institution. And we will continue our discussions with other Members to seek a solution to the 
problem of App ellate Body rule -breaking.  
 
27. Ecuador (GRULAC)  
 
Speaking on behalf of WTO Members in the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries 
(GRULAC), I wish to express the deep concern of our regional group over the situation regarding the 
chairmanship of the N egotiating Group on Rules, which remains vacant, months after the departure 
of Ambassador Roberto Zapata of Mexico.  
 
GRULAC has once again displayed its flexibility and prudence, and we have always acted with 
responsibility and the commitment to being cons tructive. Within this framework, GRULAC has 
proposed options that ensure professional and impartial direction for the negotiating process, with 
Ambassadors of high calibre, of proven competence and extensive experience.  
 
Nevertheless, the process of replac ing the Chairman has regrettably been steeped in conflict 
characterised by contradictions and discrepancies which flout the criteria that should be considered 
in the selection of chairpersons for bodies of this organization.  
 
As Members, we have a clear ma ndate, which is to achieve a meaningful outcome to the negotiations 
on fisheries subsidies by December this year.  
 
We therefore invite Members to move on with this Selection Process, guided by existing practices 
and directives for the appointment of Chairs  of WTO bodies, in order to strengthen the negotiations 
with the urgency that the matter implies for the global trading system.  
 
GRULAC fully supports its Ambassadors. In this regard, in view of the inability to overcome this 
deadlock, and in a spirit of c ompromise and flexibility with respect to the WTO and to this specific 
negotiating process, the Group believes that the Director -General, as Chairman of the Trade 
Negotiations Committee, must lead the process of negotiation, as is his prerogative according  to 
WTO rules and practices.  
 
The GRULAC countries reiterate their willingness to continue working constructively and tirelessly 
towards a fruitful outcome to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies.  
 
28. India  
 
Congratulations on the success of the WTO Public Forum and the launch of the World Cotton Day.   
 
State of Play  
 
Today, we are in a full blown crisis at the WTO. The attack on principles of non -discrimination and 
special & differential treatment continues and the Appellate Body will be all but paralysed, come 
11 December 2019.  This inability to preserve and protect what we have will have a chilling effect 
on the rules -based multilateral system, one that would be difficult to undo and which may last for a 
long time.   
 
In this dark scenario, let me briefly share s ome thoughts on important issues and areas of work.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 106 - 
 
  Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
India provides only survival subsidies to our 4 million plus subsistence fishermen, which we notify 
transparently at the WTO. We are at the same time committed to contri buting to a solution to 
improve the health of our oceans and sustainability of fishing. However, while negotiating the 
subsidy disciplines, we must be mindful of the mandates of SDG 14.6 and the MC11 decision on 
fisheries, both of which clearly state that there should be appropriate and effective special & 
differential treatment for developing countries. These mandates need to be honoured in letter and 
in spirit. We would like to remind Members that in sensitive areas like fisheries and agriculture, 
where l ivelihoods of a large number of the poor and marginalised are at stake, especially in 
developing countries, reneging from mandates is likely to unravel progress and delay outcomes. The 
lessons of Buenos Aires cannot be forgotten so soon.  
 
WTO Reforms  
 
For the last year and a half, WTO reforms have been at the centre -stage of our discussions in 
Geneva. Initially, the reform agenda was a one -sided narrative. In order to ensure balance in WTO 
reform, India together with some developing countries tabled a 'deve loping country reform paper' 
at the WTO's General Council meeting in July 2019 on the basis of the New Delhi consensus among 
some developing Members. This paper has now been co -sponsored by 45 WTO Members. It 
emphasises that discussion on WTO reform should  be premised on the principles of inclusiveness 
and equity, and not serve to widen existing asymmetries in the covered agreements. We look 
forward to an active engagement on our proposal.  
 
Development  
 
Given the clear, empirical data on challenges faced by  developing countries at various stages of 
development we are convinced that there are no grounds for diluting special and differential 
treatment. Indeed, on the other hand, in light of the imprecise, unenforceable and 'best endeavour' 
nature of existing S &DT obligations in the WTO Agreements, the call should be for more, not less. 
Continuing with the divisive rhetoric on differentiation would only serve to widen the trust deficit 
amongst Members. In this important area, the silence of those who are committ ed to the WTO 
principles enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement can be more harmful than the violence of those 
who challenge those principles. We propose to address this issue in more detail at the meeting of 
the General Council tomorrow.  
 
E-Commerce Morator ium 
 
We believe the 1998 Work Programme on e -commerce needs to be worked further to get clarity on 
many areas including definitions and potential impact on revenues and domestic industry of 
developing Members. Otherwise a decision on that moratorium, much like rulemaking on e -
commerce, will be a leap in the dark. It will be a case of the undefined being negotiated by the 
unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.  
 
Conclusion  
 
To conclude, we are at a critical juncture, as challenges have amplified and the multilateral rules -
based trading system is facing existential threats. Keeping in view the aspirations of the large 
majority of Members, our priority should be to balance our agenda and make it inclusive, transparent 
and development -oriented. First and foremost, we must work to preserve the system by ending the 
impasse in the Appellate Body appointments with a sense of utmost urgency. Members would do 
well to heed Elvis Presley 's advice, "a little less conversation, and a little more action."  Rather, a lot 
more action, particularly to follow up on the work done as part of the Ambassador Walker process.  
In this context, we need to urgently strive to get done collectively what w e all treasure individually.  
 
India remains a staunch supporter of the rules -based multilateral trading system and will do its best, 
to address the challenges that the WTO faces.  
 
29. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
I make this statement in my capa city as General Coordinator of the Informal Working Group on 
MSMEs under my own responsibility.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 107 - 
 
   
The next Ministerial Conference is fast approaching and it is critical that we start fleshing out our 
proposal for a Ministerial statement. I have invited Mem bers to reflect on elements of language that 
could be included in a Ministerial Declaration so that we can have a constructive discussion on our 
next meeting on 29 October.  
 
Potential proposals include language on collection of MSME -related information for  TPRs; a website 
with information for MSMEs and policymakers; access to trade information for MSMEs, including the 
GTH; Trade Facilitation; and Good Regulatory Practices such as consulting with MSMEs on regulation 
changes. This list is not exhaustive and p roposals on other relevant topics are more than welcome. 
I also invited delegations to submit draft language for the preamble and the post -MC12 work 
programme.  
 
My idea would be to finalise a draft (or at least stabilise it) by the time of our first meeti ng, in late 
January or February, so that we then have time to reach out to non -members of this group to build 
support in the lead up to MC12.  
 
Finally, I would like to reiterate that our Group remains completely open to receiving new Members 
and proposals for work or observations, both from Members and non -Members.  
 
30. Uruguay  
 
Agriculture  
 
Uruguay wishes to thank Ambassador John Deep Ford for his ongoing efforts to advance the  
negotiations in agriculture, including his presentation of a comprehensive paper b efore the summer 
break. In this paper, he set out the status of negotiations on the various topics, as he saw it, and 
invited us to identify achievable elements in order to provide focus to our discussions in the run up 
to the next Ministerial Conference, where, as we have said before, the WTO must show that it is 
capable of achieving tangible results in agriculture.  
 
As a member of the Cairns Group, Uruguay aspires to achieving ambitious reform that leads to the 
fulfilment of the long term objective set ou t in the Preamble of the Agreement on Agriculture, which 
is to establish a fair and market oriented agricultural trading system, in which the huge restrictions 
and distortions that currently exist are corrected through substantial reductions in support and  
protection.  
 
With the Ministerial Conference eight months away, we note with concern that some Members seem 
to remain inflexible in their extreme positions, while others believe that this is not the right moment 
to embark on substantive negotiations. Given the difficulties facing the organization, in general, and 
this process of negotiation, in particular, it is vital for us all to show that we are flexible and 
committed to achieving results that allow for incremental progress towards the  stated objective.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
Firstly, I would like to recognise the important work that the Facilitators have been doing, and to 
reiterate our support to each of them for continued progress in the technical discussions.  
 
We would a lso like to thank delegations that have made valuable efforts in presenting papers and 
other contributions that have brought new elements to the table and, in many instances, also helped 
to bring positions closer together and to find alternatives in the va rious areas of discussion.  
 
We nevertheless believe it is urgent to resolve the issue of the chairmanship of the Negotiating 
Group as soon as possible. We need to have guidelines at the highest political level for our work, in 
order to materialise the prog ress reached at the technical level. We therefore support the statement 
made by Ecuador on behalf of GRULAC.  
 
The hour is drawing near. There is little time remaining for this organization to demonstrate that it 
can still carry out its negotiating function , as well as settle disputes among its Members.  
 
Uruguay is not a demandeur on fisheries subsidies. We have no special domestic interests invested 
in this issue. Our efforts have been, and will continue to be, aimed solely at encouraging all proposals WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 108 - 
 
  that seek a path to understanding and compromise between the distant and at times extremely 
distant existing proposals.  
 
It is time for us to raise our sights and to look beyond the legitimate, but always biased, national 
interests in order to reach an agreeme nt that is – let us remember – anchored in the higher interest 
of the international community for the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals.  
 
31. Jamaica (ACP)  
 
Jamaica takes the floor on behalf of the ACP Group.  
 
Developments within the multilatera l trading system and their negative impact on the functioning of 
the WTO remain a concern. Significant divergences exist among Members on fundamental issues, 
many of which are of relevance to the policies necessary for the successful integration of develop ing 
and least developed country Members into the global economy. The ACP Group therefore expresses 
its full support for the multilateral rules -based trading system and we reiterate that for the WTO 
there is no alternative.   
 
Dispute Settlement  
 
In that co nnection, we reiterate the legitimacy of the dispute settlement system. Further, the Group 
remains disappointed with the lack of progress towards the appointment of Appellate Body members. 
The ACP Group wishes to emphasise that WTO Members have a vested in terest in safeguarding the 
maintenance of a functioning, fair and effective dispute settlement system. The Group commends 
Ambassador David Walker of New Zealand for his ongoing efforts in facilitating discussions towards 
achieving a resolution on this cruc ial matter. At the same time, we underscore the need for all 
Members to demonstrate urgency, flexibility and constructive engagement towards this end.  
 
Agriculture  
 
I must reiterate that agriculture remains integral to the growth and development of ACP Members. 
In this regard, the ACP Group has placed a high priority on achieving sustainability in this very critical 
sector. Our focus is on increasing value addition, enhancing our international competitiveness, 
increasing the use of research and developme nt, undertaking sectoral upgrades and boosting export 
performance. We therefore foresee an outcome in agriculture along the lines of the Doha Mandate 
as an important element in our economic and trade pursuits. The Group thanks Ambassador Deep 
Ford for his efforts.  
  
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
With less than some two months remaining before the Ministerial deadline as agreed in Buenos Aires, 
it is imperative that all Members work constructively to ensure that the December deadline is met. 
We commend M embers for showing their commitment to continuing their discussions even in the 
absence of a Chair to guide their work. We also commend the Facilitators for their contribution. 
Nevertheless, we call on all Members to work constructively with a view to an a greement on a 
Chairman. The Group maintains a high level of ambition for the fisheries subsidies negotiations. The 
ACP will continue work with all WTO Members to ensure that a full outcome is achieved on all pillars 
of the negotiations in line with the Min isterial mandate.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
Special and Differential Treatment continues to be an issue of priority for the ACP Group. The G90 
is in the process of reviewing the various S&DT proposals and have started consultations at the 
techni cal level with various Members. The ACP Group reiterates the importance of adherence to the 
principles of inclusivity, transparency, development and particularly S&DT for developing countries 
and LDCs.  
 
Services  
 
With regard to Services, the ACP Group note s that the recent meeting of the Council for Trade in 
Services in Special Session entertained an exploratory discussion on environmental services and 
reiterates that services remain an important sector for all ACP economies. We would like to WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 109 - 
 
  emphasise that  solutions sought in this regard should allow our countries the necessary policy space 
within WTO rules to effectively rebuild our economies in the event of natural disasters and the 
paralysing impact of climate change and not constrain our efforts to indu strialise.  
 
The Group reminds Members of the importance of fidelity to the flexibilities for individual developing 
countries and LDCs provided for in Articles XIX:2 and IV:3 of the General Agreement on Trade in 
Services and the Negotiating Guidelines and P rocedures.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
The recent discussions on the upcoming renewal of the 1998 Decision on the E -Commerce Work 
Programme and Moratorium have shown us that there is much unfinished business on issues under 
the Work Programme and on the Morator ium concerning the application of customs duties on 
electronic transmissions. The ACP Group is discussing this matter internally.  
 
Transparency and Notification  
 
The ACP Group reiterates its call on Members to approach the discussions on transparency and 
notification bearing in mind the genuine capacity constraints confronting some developing and least 
developed countries. We are of the view that it is important for there to be an examination of these 
constraints with a view to collectively find ways to add ress them through positive and constructive 
measures.  
 
In conclusion, the ACP Group pledges its commitment to continue to play a constructive role in any 
decision that seeks to make the WTO better serve the interest of all its Members.  
 
32. Turkey  
 
Turkey has been a staunch supporter of the WTO and the rulebook it was built upon. Turkey regrets 
that trade tensions continue to increase in a way that also impact the work of the WTO.  
 
Actions outside this rulebook will always have negative repercussion s for the global economy. The 
WTO's recent forecasts downgraded trade growth rates for 2019 and 2020 again. Whatever 
grievances Members may have concerning the system, protectionism and unilateral moves neither 
provide answers nor better wealth. The uncert ainty these tensions create have repercussions beyond 
trade relations and well into other areas of global economy including development.  
 
Turkey recognises the need to update the rulebook. We have been engaging constructively and 
contributing to the effort s on new initiatives on e -commerce, investment and MSMEs among others.   
 
Concerning the reform discussions, priority should be on ensuring the well and effective functioning 
of the system. Like others, we also want to improve the deliberative function of the WTO. We all 
know this cannot happen when its most significant body for dispute resolution is forced to a crisis.  
Without further delay, we call for unblocking the Selection Process of the members of the Appellate 
Body.  
 
Reform discussions should not t ake place at the expense of the development needs of Members. We 
recognise that development is a complex and difficult discussion. In our view, the application of the 
S&DT provisions is not the cause of the challenges WTO faces today. We should be open to discuss 
all issues however this should not precipitate the organization into crisis on other issues.   
 
Turkey fully supports the idea of strengthening the disciplines on fisheries subsidies. On the road to 
MC12, delivering a meaningful and credible outcom e will be critical to show that the negotiating 
function of WTO is still strong despite the current environment. We are strongly committed to 
conclude the ongoing negotiations and remain open to carry forward the discussions. Showing 
flexibility will be th e determining factor in the negotiations.  
 
On Services and Domestic Regulation, we are pleased that the work has advanced and it is now at 
the stage of solving some outstanding issues. We are looking forward to this being a deliverable at 
MC12.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 110 - 
 
  We should  continue e -commerce discussions and seek a "balanced outcome" that will both benefit 
the business sector, particularly the integration of MSMEs in global trade and maintain the necessary 
regulatory space for public interest.   
 
On agriculture, we truly ap preciate the efforts of Ambassador Ford to move forward the discussions. 
We believe that a development -oriented and fair outcome in agriculture that will address the existing 
imbalances and level the playing field in agriculture trade will contribute to th e effectiveness of the 
multilateral system.  
 
Finally, accessions remain very important for our organization. I would like to state Belarus' 
accession has reached a level of maturity and I call on all Members to continue to work for it to be 
a deliverable at MC12.  
 
33. Thailand (ASEAN)  
 
Thailand delivers this statement on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
ASEAN acknowledges the important role of the WTO in promoting fair and equitable trade under the 
rules-based multilateral trading system. However, as with most long -establish ed systems, an 
inability to adapt to challenges and emerging issues can lead to stagnation of the system.  
 
In this regard, the enhancement of the functioning of the WTO is vital to address the challenges that 
have arisen since the organization's establishment and to ensure the continued promotion of growth 
and development.  
 
ASEAN therefore sees the importance of the ongoing discussions on WTO reform and would like to 
express our shared views.  
 
The Appellate Body impasse remains the most critical issue for Members to address. We encourage 
Members to find a mutually agreeable solution expeditiously in order to la unch the Appellate Body 
Selection Process immediately. While we continue our work to resolve this crucial impasse, ASEAN 
reiterates our commitment to the multilateral trading system and its rules.  
 
We acknowledge the ongoing discussion surrounding special and differential treatment in relation to 
the WTO's negotiations and stress our view that the principle of S&DT remains imperative for the 
WTO and the multilateral trading system. We reiterate that the ability of Members, particularly LDCs, 
to take on obli gations commensurate with their economic and social development needs should 
remain an integral part of all negotiations.  
 
While the ongoing negotiations remain our top priority, we are of the view that gradual, balanced, 
and inclusive outcomes on WTO refo rm will be beneficial to the system and to global trade as a 
whole. ASEAN therefore reiterates its commitment to establish an inclusive rule -based multilateral 
trading system and will continue to actively engage on the issue of WTO Reform.  
 
34. Thailand  
 
Thailand believes that it is time to further intensify our efforts to deliver meaningful outcomes, send 
positive signal to our stakeholders and reemphasise the WTO's continued relevance and ability to 
positively contribute to global trade.  
 
The critical i ssue of the Appellate Body impasse remains. Thailand therefore reiterates the need for 
Members to expeditiously achieve a consensus to fill the Appellate Body vacancies.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, we remain committed to delivering meaningful outcomes on Fis heries 
Subsidies by the end of this year. In this regard, we are pleased to note the continued active 
engagement from Members as well as the progress made in the two previous cluster meetings. We 
urge Members to keep on the positive momentum and find conve rgence on this subject as soon as 
possible.  
 
However, we reiterate that Members cannot afford prolonged absence of the Negotiating Group Chair 
and therefore urge Members to show flexibilities in this regard to enable this urgent and critical work 
to move f orward in a focused and efficient manner.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 111 - 
 
   
Thailand would also like to highlight the crucial importance of achieving a decision on the extension 
of the two Moratoria by the end of this year. To allow the lapsing of the Moratoria without a decision 
from Mem bers will create uncertainties for all stakeholders and have a negative impact on the 
credibility of the WTO. Such situation is not desirable in this challenging circumstance for global 
trade. We therefore welcome the proposals by a number of Members on th is issue and look forward 
to discussing them in detail at the General Council Meeting.  
 
Given the central role of Agriculture in global trade and food security, delivering a package of 
meaningful outcomes in Agriculture will also be vital for MC12 would se nd a much needed signal to 
the global community. Thailand therefore supports all efforts to intensify the negotiations in this 
area with a view to achieving substantive outcomes by MC12.  
 
On WTO Reform, Thailand believes that gradual, inclusive and meanin gful outcomes to strengthen 
the WTO will enable the organization to respond to present -day trade challenges in an inclusive 
manner. We are encouraged by a rising engagement from diverse range of Members and welcome 
further discussions in this area.  
 
35. Nigeria  
 
Nigeria believes that collectively we can achieve win -win outcomes in Nur -Sultan.  
 
We wish to associate ourselves with statement made by Benin on behalf of the African Group.  
 
Regarding the ongoing Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations, we look forwar d to a balanced outcome that 
will reduce unsustainable fishing practices, as well as take into account the development needs of 
developing countries. As mentioned in previous meetings of this Committee, small scale fishing is a 
lifeline for a good number o f households and communities in Nigeria. Sustainable development of 
this sector will create jobs and wealth, as well as reduce poverty. We are therefore concerned that 
the idea of capping which in our view is unlikely to reduce harmful subsidies for large scale fishing 
will undermine developing countries' ability to develop their fisheries sector in future.  
 
In order to significantly reduce overfishing and unsustainable fishing practices, we believe it is of 
utmost importance that we work collectively to e liminate fisheries subsidies that enhances illegal, 
unreported and unregulated fishing especially for large scale fishing. In conclusion, we wish to 
reaffirm that special and differential treatment should be an integral part of any outcome on fisheries 
subsidies in line with the mandate.  
 
Agriculture is at the centre of Nigeria's ongoing efforts for economic diversification, modernization 
of the economy and sustained growth. We therefore look forward to an outcome that addresses the 
current imbalance in the  system especially under the domestic support pillar. We know that it is 
unlikely that the inequities of decades will be corrected overnight. However, at the minimum, we 
look forward to an outcome in MC12 that results in the elimination of AMS beyond de mi nimis.   
 
On the issue of the E -Commerce Moratorium, we are conscious of the implication of the Moratorium 
on fiscal revenue of Member States especially given the results of static analysis of the impact of 
the Moratorium which are in public domain. Howeve r, we also know that in modelling the impact of 
trade arrangements on economies of parties, static analysis alone does not tell the whole story given 
that it excludes dynamic effects of such arrangements on outputs, consumption and jobs, among 
others. Whil e we are not canvassing for a Permanent Moratorium, we believe care must be taken to 
ensure we do not throw away the baby with the bath water. We look forward to a balanced outcome 
on this issue that takes into account the concerns of developing countries both in December as well 
as in Nur -Sultan.  
 
On Special and Differential Treatment, we wish to re -affirm our well -known position that S&DT is 
crucial to achieving an acceptable balance of rights and obligations among WTO Members. S&DT 
provides developing co untries with requisite policy space to formulate and implement trade policies 
that foster the integration of their economies into global value chains as well as enable these 
countries seize development opportunities and benefit from inclusive international  trade. In our view, 
S&DT must be an integral part of all current and further negotiations. We look forward to constructive 
engagement on this issue to achieve a win -win outcome in MC12.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 112 - 
 
  On the issue of reform, Nigeria is of the view that the dynamics of the global economy is continually 
being shaped by a number of factors. Consequently, if the WTO is to remain relevant in the 21st 
Century, the need for reforms cannot be overemphasised. However, such reforms should also take 
into account some of the unreso lved 19th Century issues that are of critical importance to the 
developing countries especially as it relates to apparent imbalance in the current rules.  
 
Regarding the dispute settlement system, we wish to state that the system is the pillar that provide s 
security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. It is therefore in our interest that the 
Appellate Body impasse is resolved so as not to undermine the dispute settlement system. We 
therefore urge Members to take concrete steps in resolvin g the Appellate Body impasse.  
 
36. Canada (Ottawa Group)  
 
I will provide an update on the work of the "Ottawa Group" WTO reform initiative.  
 
The Vice Ministers of the Ottawa Group met in September in Geneva to review the status of the work 
done since the May M inisterial Meeting and to discuss next steps on the road to MC12.  
 
In Geneva, informal discussions have continued on the work of four WTO bodies.  
 
Brazil has been coordinating efforts to improve the work of the SPS Committee and has held four 
informal "open -ended" meetings to exchange ideas with Members. The main outcomes of the 
discussions meetings are described in document G/SPS/W/319, circulated b y Brazil on 23 September 
and was presented to Members at an informal meeting of the SPS Committee on 25 September. The 
proposals in this document aim at improving the regular work of the Committee in ways that do not 
add to Members' substantive obligations  and that complement the Committee's procedures. They 
provide guidelines for themes such as STCs, the agenda, thematic sessions, notifications and 
document translation. Brazil's goal is to increase transparency and enhance Members' ability to take 
part in the discussions of specific SPS issues brought before the Committee.  
 
This morning, Brazil held an informal meeting to review the proposal based on comments and 
suggestions from Members. Brazil's objective is to have it agreed by the SPS Committee this ye ar 
or, at the latest, by the first semester of 2020. This would be a positive sign for the WTO on the 
road to MC12.  
 
Singapore circulated a discussion paper on Good Practices in the TBT Committee at the 18 June 
2019 Informal Council for Trade in Goods meet ing. The paper is aimed at exploring how some of the 
"good practices" of the TBT Committee, which is generally considered to be functioning well, can be 
helpful to the work of other WTO Bodies as well. Some of the ideas in the paper have been picked 
up by other Committees under the CTG, and discussions are expected to continue at the next 
informal CTG meeting.  
 
Switzerland and 13 co -sponsors submitted a proposal to the Committee on Rules of Origin aimed at 
enhancing transparency in non -preferential rules o f origin. Constructive dialogue with Members 
helped us to identify and reduce divergences in a few areas. Informal consultations to find common 
ground are ongoing.  
 
Concerning Trade in Services, Australia is continuing to explore ideas for strengthening th e WTO's 
monitoring and transparency function for services trade measures.  
 
With respect to the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations, Canada has been working closely with other 
members of the Ottawa Group, as well as with Pew Trusts, the IISD and the ICC, to sh are 
perspectives on how to reach a successful conclusion to these negotiations by December.  
 
As well, as a follow -up to Norway's paper on development that was presented to the General Council 
in May, the IISD has produced a paper financed by Norway on "Ad dressing the development 
dimension of an overcapacity and overfishing subsidy discipline in the fisheries subsidies 
negotiation". The paper was introduced to the Membership in the margins of the Negotiating Group 
on Rules last Wednesday.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 113 - 
 
  37. Canada  
 
Canada th anks the co -sponsors of the communications on the two WTO moratoria (WT/GC/W/782 
and WT/GC/W/783) that were circulated in advance of the next General Council meeting. Our 
longstanding positions on these issues are well -known, and we intend to confirm our o fficial positions 
by the next meeting of the General Council.    
 
On the agriculture negotiations, Canada's priority remains to develop stronger disciplines on trade 
and production -distorting domestic support that reflects current trends and realities in i nternational 
agriculture markets, and to address the unfinished business in export competition.  
 
Canada will continue to play a constructive role in order to develop realistic outcomes that takes a  
step forward while not losing sight of the long -term refo rm objectives. In order get to an outcome 
for MC12, Canada believes that Members should examine options that:  
 
– develop new rules that address trade distortions,  
 
– clarify the interpretation of existing rules, and  
 
– enhance transparency.  
 
Our Ministers committed to delivering an agreement on harmful fisheries subsidies by December. 
Members need to show that those commitments are being taken seriously. This means agreeing on 
a new Chair. And it means continuing and intensifying our talks so that we can get to an agreement 
by December.  
 
On the Joint Statement Initiatives, Canada is pleased with the new phase of discussions initiated 
this fall under the e -commerce initiative.  
 
On services domestic regulation, it is important to maintain the m omentum and the commitment to 
reach a meaningful outcome in MC12. As a result, Canada encourages all participating Members to 
actively participate in the schedule exercise and table draft indicative schedules by 28 October.  
 
Canada also welcomes the conti nuation of the structured discussions on the JSI on investment 
facilitation for development this fall.  
 
We are pleased that the implementation of the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women's 
Economic Empowerment continues, including the most recent w orkshop organised by the European 
Union on women and digital trade on 1 July. We call on all WTO Members that have not yet signed 
on to the Buenos Aires Declaration to do so.  
 
At the informal session of the Council for Trade in Services in Special Session , Australia, Canada, 
Mexico, New Zealand and Switzerland presented their communication on exploratory discussions on 
market access for environmental services. The co -sponsors are pleased with the level of engagement 
by Members as it is clear that environme ntal services is a sector of growing importance in world 
services trade and can play a role in addressing global environmental issues.  
 
Finally, we deeply regret the persistent blockage of the Appellate Body appointment process. We 
encourage all Members, p articularly the United States, to meaningfully engage in a forward -looking 
dialogue to address the concerns that have been raised. While our priority remains to find a 
permanent solution to the Appellate Body impasse, Canada considers it warranted to take 
contingency measures such as the Canada -EU Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement aimed at 
safeguarding our rights to binding adjudication and an appellate review.   
 
We must also not lose sight of the need to address the other challenges facing the organi zation, 
including strengthening the deliberative functions as well as advancing work in negotiations.  
 
38. Indonesia  
 
My delegation associates this statement to the statement delivered by Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, 
and further wishes to convey some observat ions and concern over issues related to this organization.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 114 - 
 
  Appellate Body  
 
As mentioned by many delegations, my delegation also wishes to reiterate concern over our failure 
to begin the Selection Process of Appellate Body members. We are not far from two months before 
the Appellate Body may become ineffective which will not only severely impact the dispute 
settlement system but will also ride the future of the multilateral trading system into paralysis.  
 
With regard to the matter, we recognise and thank the informal process led by Ambassador David 
Walker to find a solution on bre aking the impasse over the Selection Process for Appellate Body 
members. As convergence among Members have been reached throughout the process and as all of 
us come closer towards 10 December, tomorrow’s General Council meeting will be timely for 
Members t o agree on the solution for the Appellate Body crisis as well as launching the Selection 
Process of Appellate Body members.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Indonesia wishes to reiterate the importance in delivering meaningful progress for the mandated 
Special Safeguard Mech anism and Permanent Solution for Public Stockholding's negotiation. The 
momentum for Members to renew their commitment to address imbalances and inequities within 
the Agreement on Agriculture has been provided for Members in the upcoming Nur -Sultan Ministe rial 
Conference, and now it is the moment for all of us to set utmost priority to utilise the momentum 
by delivering outcome for both items.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
We take note with concern on the issue to reach consensus on the appointment for  the Chair of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules, particularly bearing in mind the current state of the Fisheries Subsidies 
Negotiations. We urge all Members to show their flexibility to resolve the Chairmanship appointment 
with the sense of delivering progres s for Fisheries Subsidies.  
 
In this occasion, Indonesia also wishes to reiterate the importance to deliver outcome for fisheries 
subsidies with the overall objectives of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. We are also 
of the view that fisheries su bsidies disciplines should provide tools in eradicating poverty, improving 
the livelihood of subsistence fisheries as well as promoting sustainability for fish stocks in the context 
of food security. Hence, flexibilities as outlined by the mandate of the n egotiations and SDGs through 
effective special and differential treatment provisions shall be integrated within the discipline to 
reach balance between Members' obligation to contribute to sustainable fisheries and their 
development rights. We also wish to  reemphasise the importance for fisheries subsidies in having 
meritorious and effective instrument to combat IUU fishing.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
Finally, we would like to express the view on the discussion related to WTO reform. While taking 
note of the report deli vered by the Director -General that mentioned issues related to WTO reform, 
my delegation also wishes to express concern over the way we address the reform issues. Our 
discussion, which we addressed as "WTO Reform", has been seemingly unstructured and sprea d in 
many different committees/councils as well as contained in many proposals.  
 
Consequently, this organization experienced difficulties to focus on what aspects we intend to reform 
and how we would like to do that reform. Hence, my delegation is of the view that it is important 
for us to begin to think about particular agenda/forum/process/mechanism/modality within the WTO 
that can structure our discussions and proposals on WTO Reform. The Twelfth Ministerial Conference 
might be our momentum to structure  the discussion so that we can have a real talk and deliver 
results that address balanced interest of all Members.  
 
Finally, Indonesia wishes to reiterate its readiness to engage actively and constructively with the 
aim to deliver outcomes to address all Members' interest and concerns.  
 
39. Hong Kong, China  
 
At the General Council meeting held in July, some of us mentioned that the summer break would be 
a good time for us not only to take some rest but also to give some serious thought as to how we WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 115 - 
 
  should proceed in the remaining months of 2019. I hope that we have done exactly that and that 
we have come back to this very room with fresh ideas and renewed energy. With the many 
challenges that we face, particularly in the run -up to MC12, there is litt le room, and indeed very 
little time, for pessimism without concrete action and concerted efforts.  
 
The negotiation work on fisheries subsidies is one such challenge. Hong Kong, China would like to 
express our thanks to the Facilitators for their hard work  in leading the discussions during the 
September and October meetings in the absence of a new Chair for the Negotiating Group on Rules.  
We would reiterate our full support for the work to improve the disciplines for fisheries subsidies.   
 
The clock is ti cking.  With less than three months before we reach the end of 2019, we would urge 
Members to re -double efforts in the remaining clusters of meetings so that we may reach a 
meaningful agreement in time. We also urge Members to be constructive in building c onsensus on 
the selection of a new Chair for the Negotiating Group on Rules. An early resolution of the matter 
would certainly help expedite the negotiation work.  
 
As for the issue of WTO reform, with the various ideas and proposals put forward by Members  so 
far, Hong Kong, China looks forward to working with Members in a result -oriented approach to 
strengthen the multilateral trading system and to improve the WTO so that it remains relevant and 
effective in contributing to the future growth of the global economy.  
 
Improvements do not come exclusively from big changes or novel ideas. By focusing on small and 
practical steps readily implementable under the existing framework, we could reduce administrative 
burdens and focus on the more substantive work. Stre amlined arrangements in daily operation could 
make a significant difference in enhancing Members' participation in discussions. They could also 
release the resources of the Secretariat so that it could provide greater support to Members. With 
this in mind and looking through the lens of a smaller delegation, Hong Kong, China has been working 
on arrangements to support the better functioning of the Council on Trade in Goods and its subsidiary 
committees – and we will continue to do so.   
 
On the Appellate Bo dy issue, Hong Kong, China commends Ambassador Walker for his effort in 
leading the consultations under the informal process. As two Appellate Body members are going to 
retire in two months' time, the WTO dispute settlement system will soon be unable to ac cept new 
appeals. Solutions to the impasse are urgently required to preserve the integrity of this important 
function of the WTO. We welcome constructive discussion to address the systemic concerns about 
the Appellate Body but we believe we should proceed with the Selection Process to fill the Appellate 
Body vacancies immediately while Members continue with the meaningful dialogues on reforming 
the Appellate Body in parallel.  
 
It would perhaps be fair to say that everywhere we turn in the WTO, we could feel  a clear sense of 
urgency. Many of us here have spoken of our support for the multilateral trading system. It is now 
the time for us to stand by our words and translate words into immediate action.  
 
40. Iceland  
 
The WTO was mandated to conclude an agreement on  fisheries subsidies which delivers on 
Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 by the end of 2019. Iceland is fully committed to the process 
and appreciates the engagement of other Members in this respect. It is regrettable that we have not 
been able to agree on  a new Chair for the Negotiating Group on Rules. The Facilitators that have 
stepped in the last two rounds of negotiations merit special thanks for their efforts. However, time 
is running short and we now have less than three months to meet the end -of-year deadline.  
 
Discussions in the Public Forum last week showed that the world is watching and results are 
expected. We heard powerful messages from prominent figures on the need to prohibit subsidies 
contributing to overfishing and overcapacity, and to IUU fishing. The future of our oceans depends 
on it. The WTO is not and should not become a Fisheries Management Organization. Our task is to 
eliminate harmful subsidies. The outcome of these negotiations must establish a clear commitment 
from Members that the y will not grant any harmful fisheries subsidies.  
 
Much work has been done in order to address the complex issues at stake. Time has come to move 
to text based negotiations and finish the task to deliver an Agreement at MC12.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 116 - 
 
  41. Chinese Taipei  
 
We are deepl y concerned by the substantial slowdown of trade as had just been reported by the 
WTO. At the same time, we are convinced that WTO Reform is absolutely essential for the future 
sustainability of this organization. Despite current divergence across the Memb ership, we do not 
believe Members want to see this organization fall apart. Therefore, my delegation calls on Members 
to engage in more constructive dialogue and find a way to resolve their differences.  
 
We greatly value the basic and critical functions o f the WTO: monitoring, negotiations and dispute 
settlement. As a co -sponsor of the proposal on "Improving Transparency by Enhancing Notifications 
with Compliance Procedures", we encourage Members to reaffirm their commitment when they first 
acceded to the WTO. By doing so, we believe that the benefits generated by the WTO Agreements 
can be more assured. At the same token, improving transparency in dispute settlement could 
generate greater public confidence and trust. Developing horizontal procedures for add ressing 
special trade concerns would also make this organization more transparent. Modest but useful steps 
like these can improve the WTO's monitoring and negotiating functions to the benefit of all Members.  
 
As for the Appellate Body issue, Ambassador Walker's efforts are much appreciated. However, it is 
regrettable that no concrete outcomes have yet been achieved – even now with the prospect of the 
Appellate Body being paralysed in two months' time. Again, we  call for constructive engagement of 
all Members to find a last minute solution to this crisis.  
 
As we fast approach MC12 next year, I would like to share our view on some items on the agenda.  
 
On Agriculture, we believe any attempt in the area of domest ic support to set new product specific 
limit or single out specific market access issue should not be a shortcut to achieving an early harvest.  
 
For Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations, we want to express our concern on the absence of a Chair of 
the Negotiati ng Group on Rules. For the content, my delegation continues to demand an effective 
discipline to eliminate subsidies to IUU fishing and prohibit other forms of subsidies jeopardising our 
goal of sustainability. In our view, it is equally important to have truly reasonable Green Box to 
provide necessary support to our fishers fully in compliance with our goal. In that vein, the latest 
proposal submitted by Japan certainly warrant further consideration.  
 
As for Electronic Commerce, we seek to achieve a high s tandard and ambitious outcome that include 
the free -flow of data. We believe that the future possible e -commerce rules should be designated to 
prevent any Member from hindering or blocking cross -border data flow and information accessibility. 
Based on that , we are in favour of having a permanent moratorium on the customs duties on 
electronic transmissions.  
 
Regarding Services Domestic Regulation, we welcome the progress made and we are committed to 
continue the work with the view to achieving a meaningful outcome by MC12.  
 
Finally, we support WTO enlargement and looks at further accessions as being an important outcome 
at MC12 in Nur -Sultan in June.  
 
A lot of work lies before us. A trade crisis is looming. Action is needed before it is too late. We stand 
ready to work with Members to this end.  
 
42. Egypt  
 
Let me start by focusing on some of the urgent issues that require concerted efforts to be resolved 
by December 2019, including the fisheries subsidies negotiations, Appellate Body crisis and e -
commerce morator ium. 
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, we value the work of the Facilitators in all areas and we call on Members to 
reach an agreement on the nomination of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules. We believe 
that progress achieved in negotiations so far does no t give us reasons to be optimistic about reaching 
a positive outcome by December. Much remains to be done as per the mandate of the MC11 decision. 
In our view, we should engage more to direct the negotiators to focus their work and be realistic. 
Also, we m ust make sure that any future agreement on fisheries subsidies shall fully consider the WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 117 - 
 
  needs of developing and LDC Members for appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment and shall not lose sight with the objectives of the SDGs.  
 
We belie ve that resolving the Appellate Body crisis is the most pressing priority as it is crucial to the 
well-functioning of the multilateral trading system. We fully support Ambassador Walker's efforts in 
this regard and believe the outcome document of the infor mal process which is now under 
preparation as a very good basis for resolving this crisis.  
 
As for the e -commerce moratorium, it appears that at the time when convergence among Members 
is needed, the gaps in their positions are widening. Taking into our co nsideration, recent 
developments, studies and indicators, we must urgently engage to assess the impact of the 
Moratorium in the case of renewal or expiry.  
 
Regarding the work up to MC12, as the unfinished business of the Uruguay Round and one of the 
longest standing issues of the Doha Development Agenda, we believe that agriculture shall be a 
priority for MC12. Egypt believes that our aim shall not only be reaching an outcome but more 
importantly a "meaningful one" that meets the aspirations of develo ping countries. Therefore, we 
support prioritization to address elements of interest to the vast majority of WTO Membership, 
namely domestic support, public stockholding for food security purposes and the special safeguard 
mechanism.  
 
We also took good not e of the Joint Statement of the C -4 countries along with C ôte d'Ivoire, Brazil, 
China, the European Union, India and the United States on cotton last week, and Egypt pledges 
constructive engagement on this issue to reach an outcome that would constitute a real reform to 
this important sector.  
 
On Development, allow me  first to congratulate Ambassador Khadra Hassan of Djibouti for her 
selection as Chair of the CTD SS and wish her all the success in her mission. Egypt is involved with 
members of the G90 in discussions to update the group proposal on Special & Differentia l Treatment 
provisions in the CTD SS.  
 
The preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO encourages "positive efforts" to 
ensure that developing countries "secure a share in the growth of international trade commensurate 
with the needs of their  economic development". These positive efforts take the legal form of 
provisions on Special & Differential Treatment which are recognised under the Doha Declaration to 
be "an integral part of the WTO Agreements." We believe that special and differential tr eatment 
needs to be protected in all future agreements as well.  
 
Finally, with respect to WTO reform, we strongly believe that discussions among Members should 
continue in an inclusive and transparent manner in order to agree on a balanced agenda that tak es 
into account the different priorities and perspectives of all Members. Moreover, the reform process 
must preserve the centrality of development at the WTO and capacity constraints faced by 
developing Members must be given due consideration.  
 
43. Senegal  
 
Senegal aligns itself with the statements made by the Groups to which it belongs.  
 
As we look at the upcoming Ministerial Conference, we must understand that there are many 
uncertainties with regard to meeting the mandates that we have to finding solutions t o crucial issues 
for the global economy and for trade. In fact, most of the issues we are confronted with date back 
some years and in some cases some decades. It is now time for Members to assume their 
responsibility to arrive at viable and balanced result s that will be to the advantage of all of our 
people. Therefore, negotiations currently pending under the Doha Development Round including 
agriculture, services, fisheries subsidies, NAMA and S&DT must be brought to a conclusion urgently 
with all Members a ssuming commitments in those areas.  
 
Allow me now to highlight our areas of priority and those where Members should make special efforts 
to find solutions.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, my delegation recalls that the mandate is to ban certain forms of subsidies  
contributing to overcapacity and overfishing and to eliminate those that contribute to IUU fishing. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 118 - 
 
  Therefore, we call on all Members to focus their efforts on this goal to achieve the expected results. 
Appropriate and effective S&DT must be included for developing and LDC Members.  
 
On Agriculture, we underscore the need to continue the reforms that were set out during the Uruguay 
Round to eliminate the structural imbalances with regard to trade distorting domestic support and 
which is currently keeping de veloping and LDC Members in poverty. My delegation is in favour of 
the implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Decisions to find a permanent solution to public 
stockholding for food security purposes and to establish a special safeguards mechanism. This wil l 
allow our economies to stand up to unpredictable situations such as food shortages and volatility of 
commodity prices.  
 
In conclusion, we would like to recall the importance of maintaining development at the centre of 
our negotiations in line with the Do ha Mandate and to take into account S&DT in all future disciplines 
to ensure that developing and LDC Members can easily integrate into global trade.  
 
44. Mexico  
 
First of all, we reiterate our concern over the current situation. We have passed from a state of alert 
to one of extreme concern.  
 
As a public good, our organization needs its Members to provide it with new and improved tools to 
face the new challenges of international trade. Nevertheless, it would seem that we are sitting on a 
powder keg, and some of us are still lighting up cigarettes, oblivious to the danger.  
 
We have two important objectives before us and only two months in which to reach them.  
 
The first, and more urgent is the Appellate Body. Since it is on the agenda of tomorrow's General  
Council meeting, I shall limit myself to saying we hope that, through the informal process, we might 
find a way to overcome the gloom that has emerged over the past two years or more.  
 
The second is to reach agreement on fisheries subsidies. All Members a gree that the topic is of 
special importance and of the greatest priority, but after two months of consultations to elect a 
Chairperson for the Negotiating Group, we have not managed to reach a consensus on a matter that 
should be considered routine.  
 
As we all know, the office of the Chair is held in a personal capacity, and the outcome of the 
negotiations is the responsibility of the entire Membership and not of the Chairperson himself. 
Unfortunately, this only makes it clear that if we are taking more t han two months for such a routine 
matter, for more substantive issues we can expect many complications, that is, if we do not change 
our approach and adopt a genuinely pragmatic focus.  
 
As far as the joint initiatives are concerned, we would like to thank the coordinators for the work 
they have done, and also express our satisfaction for the high level of discussions and the 
commitment of Members throughout. We are very pleased that new Members have officially joined 
the Joint Statement Initiative on Electr onic Commerce, and that around 80 Members are actively 
participating in the discussions under this Initiative. Without a doubt, this is the result of the growing 
interest that these discussions have elicited.  
 
We are also heartened by the Members' level of  commitment and the progress achieved in the work 
regarding the Initiatives on Domestic Regulation and Investment Facilitation. Mexico remains 
committed to advancing these initiatives and we shall continue to participate actively in future 
discussions.  
 
With regard to services, Mexico wishes to endorse the statement by Canada on behalf of the co -
sponsors of the communication on exploratory discussions on market access in environmental 
services. Mexico is also pleased with the level of discussion and welcome s the active participation of 
Members at the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services.  
 
In conclusion, we are in the midst of a storm, with potentially devastating and unprecedented 
consequences. We trust that under your leadership this great v essel, the WTO, might reach safe 
harbour.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 119 - 
 
  45. Norway  
 
In the last meeting of the TNC in July, we expressed a certain degree of optimism regarding the 
state of play in the negotiating pillar. The main reason for this flicker of optimism was the progress 
made i n the fisheries subsidies negotiations before the summer break.  
 
Today, that picture is less clear. On a positive note, Members engage in a somewhat more focused 
discussions, inching us slowly forward. Progress is however too slow given the fast approachi ng 
target date.  
 
The Facilitators should be commended for their hard work and efforts to facilitate discussions in their 
respective areas of responsibility. We are, however, starting to see the negative effect of not having 
someone in place to lead our ef forts. The next level of engagement must be prepared, first at the 
ambassadors and senior officials level, and ultimately at the political level. If Members cannot agree 
on a Chair, we would welcome that the Director -General as Chair of the TNC, assist us in our 
endeavours.  
 
Norway strongly appeals to those who are holding up the process of selecting a new Negotiating 
Group Chair to resolve their issues as soon as possible. Not only are the fisheries subsidies 
negotiations being held back, harm is also being done to the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
On substance, Norway will continue to insist that we need to deliver on the whole mandate. We 
strongly warn against any self -fulfilling prophecies regarding lack of sufficient time to deal with the 
whole mandate before the December deadline expires.  
 
We should not settle for an outcome that will have only limited impact on the fisheries resources in 
the oceans. This is the main reason why we need to reduce harmful subsidies that contribute to 
overcapacity and overfishin g. 
 
Furthermore, we recognise that overcapacity and overfishing is an area where challenges related to 
the development dimension need to be addressed effectively. This is why Norway asked a consultant 
to develop a paper which was presented to the Membershi p last Wednesday. We hope that this 
contribution can assist Members in finding ambitious results in the area of overcapacity and 
overfishing, and at the same time incorporate the development dimension in a meaningful and 
pragmatic way.  
 
Please allow me in  this context to inform you that Norway is taking steps to address this issue on 
the home front as well. Last week, the Norwegian government presented a proposal to the 
parliament to eliminate a support scheme that reduces CO2 tax to be paid on mineral oil  used in 
vessels for fishing in inshore waters.  
 
I would also have to note that our efforts to establish needed disciplines on fisheries subsidies should 
be mirrored by efforts to ensure that these disciplines can be enforced. We should thus redouble our 
efforts to find a solution to the Appellate Body crises.  
 
On other tracks focusing on updating the rulebook, Norway is delighted to note the constructive 
participation of many Members in the joint statement initiatives, in particular related to e -commerce , 
investment facilitation for development and domestic regulation.  
 
While continuing to be worried about the state of affairs in the global trading environment and the 
continued crisis in parts of the system, Norway is encouraged by the active engagement o f many 
Members. We share the belief in the rules -based multilateral trading system, and agree that the 
best way to safeguard the system is to constantly look for ways to improve it. Because the alternative 
to a trading system based on rules is not an optio n. 
 
46. Uganda  
 
First and foremost, my delegation allies itself with statements  made  by Benin, Chad and Jamaica on 
behalf  of the African, LDC and Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Groups respectively.  
 
As MC12 draws nearer, we start to critically ask ourselves wha t we have to show for the time that 
has gone by and what we would like our Ministers to guide us on regarding our future trade relations. WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 120 - 
 
  The road to MC11 was as difficult as the result was disappointing. It is therefore crucial that we 
avoid going down th at road again.  
 
Turning on matters of Agriculture, it is time to focus on the area with greatest importance and need. 
The desire to have a little bit of everything at the expense of what is commonest amongst us will 
lead us nowhere if not over a cliff. Dom estic support entitlements was and still remains the greatest 
and most blatant imbalance in the Agreement on Agriculture. We call upon Members to focus 
attention on the fairest and most straight forward way to deal with Aggregate Measurement of 
Support ent itlements as a start in the Agriculture reform process and a reasonable outcome for 
MC12.  
 
On Special and Differential Treatment, my delegation continues to emphasise the fact that attempts 
to change the architecture of S&DT serves to drive the Membership further apart and undermine 
any efforts towards ensuring that the organization delivers on the interests of the majority of its 
Members. Members must engage constructively in the CTD SS. For us, responsible participation in 
trade also involves correcting s ome imbalances in existing multilateral trade agreements.  
 
During the course of last year, my delegation cautioned that new approaches that Members sought 
to devise had to respect the multilateral nature of the WTO, including the fundamental decision - 
making principle of consensus. What we have seen however is increasing attempts to undermine 
this principle. We reaffirm this principle and call upon all Members to uphold it.  
 
It is very disappointing that our engagement on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce has 
remained wanting while some Members have chosen to follow a separate route. We must all carefully 
reflect on the implications of these actions especially to LDCs.  
 
This Work Programme lapses come December and with it the Moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions. However, serious questions have been raised regarding the continued 
relevance of this Moratorium. It has been repeatedly said that the Moratorium is important for 
predictability and certainty for businesses an d consumers. In our view, this argument only makes 
sense when such business to make use of the Moratorium actually exists and that indeed these 
businesses reap great rewards from it. The relevance of this Moratorium vis -a-vis the gains that 
such duties cou ld produce if levied is therefore a question that my delegation is seriously considering.  
 
I conclude with the matter regarding the Appellate Body. We ask again that Members carefully 
examine the relevance of making new rules without a proper enforcement m echanism for those 
rules. Meanwhile, our greatest concern is to see the Appellate Body put in place and fully functioning 
come December 2019.  
 
47. Republic of Korea  
 
First, I would like to congratulate the Director -General on the successful conclusion of the P ublic 
Forum. Korea is pleased to have contributed to this important event by organising a session on 
Borderless Trade of Digital Contents. I hope the enthusiasm that filled the WTO rooms would spur 
our work towards a fruitful outcome at MC12.  
 
Electronic c ommerce was one of the main topics in the Public Forum and I could feel the high 
anticipation for a deliverable at the WTO. In this regard, I believe the general direction of the ongoing 
negotiations on e -commerce is very encouraging.  
 
Since the last TNC m eeting held in July, we have now started negotiations based on now started 
negotiations based on a streamlined text. We have an intense schedule for the second half of this 
year and we hope that we can come up with a consolidated text to move forward onto the next step. 
I believe that with the continuous efforts of the Members and the participation of the wider 
Membership, we will be able to achieve a concrete and meaningful outcome.  
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies, after the summer break, Members have alrea dy engaged in two 
clusters of negotiations. I appreciate all the efforts put forth by the Members and the Facilitators. I 
would just like to stress today that the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules should be selected 
as soon as possible if we are to m eet the upcoming deadline.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 121 - 
 
  Domestic regulation of trade in services is another area where Korea is actively participating in. And 
I would like to welcome Saudi Arabia for its decision to participate in the negotiation. We would like 
to see a concrete outc ome in this issue supported by wider the Membership at MC12.  
 
I appreciate the technical ground work prepared by the CoA SS Chair and the coordinators of the 
working groups. However, there still remains much room for discussion. Korea expects practical and  
balanced approach to such discussion and will continue to participate constructively.  
 
The degree of dependency on trade for growth and development may vary among the Members. 
However, we are all closely knitted through global value chains. The rules -based multilateral trading 
system provides transparency and predictability forming the basis for the development of such global 
value chains. However, there are concerns that the system is not working as intended. For example, 
it is worrisome to see that even nowadays restrictive measures on trade are arbitrarily used, and 
thus pose serious threats to the system.  
 
In the run -up towards MC12, I hope that we can all put our heads together not only to work towards 
a concrete outcome but also to replenish trust for  the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
48. Colombia  
 
This is my first statement in the TNC as Ambassador, and Permanent Representative of Colombia to 
the WTO. I must say I feel privileged to be here and to be able to speak on behalf of my country 
before this important organization and its Members.   
 
I want to start by expressing my full appreciation to the Chair and to all Members. I extend to you 
all a warm offer of kind and hard work together.  
 
As a first -timer, I will be brief, and will try to avoid repeating much of what has been already said.   
 
With r espect to some of the ongoing negotiations, I want to convey two messages.  
 
First, in the area of fisheries subsidies, Colombia reiterates its full commitment to achieve a result 
for December this year that reflects all the elements of the Buenos Aires Min isterial Declaration. We 
support the documents of the Facilitators as work platforms, together with the constructive efforts 
in texts and proposals that are already part of the acquis of the negotiations.  
 
Time is of the essence and political compromise i s looming. We cannot let go at this point of time. 
We cannot give up. As mentioned, Colombia is fully committed to keep pushing forward for a 
successful and timely conclusion of these crucial negotiations. We hope all Members are up for the 
task.  
 
Second,  Colombia will continue to participate constructively in all the Initiatives that arose from the 
Joint Declarations in Buenos Aires. We have actively participated, in particular, in the discussions 
related to Domestic Regulation, E -Commerce, and Investment  Facilitation. We see with optimism 
how the Initiatives are moving towards a phase of deeper results -oriented discussions, which will 
hopefully result in concrete deliverables for MC12.  
 
These negotiating outcomes are important in and of themselves, but t hey are also key for the sake 
and future of this organization.  
 
Allow me to conclude by expressing the deep commitment of Colombia to engage in the different 
dimensions and discussions under the modernization and reform process of the WTO, including the 
strengthening of our dispute settlement mechanism.  
 
We are at a fundamental time in the history of the WTO. Its future, its legitimacy and its relevance 
in the world economic order rely on what we, the Membership, decide to do at these very turbulent 
times.   
 
Let us not disappoint upcoming and future generations – and I include myself in the former.  
 
The world is watching us. We have a responsibility. We must deliver.    
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 122 - 
 
  49. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
Bolivia would like to reassert its position that this organization should remain relevant. To this end, 
all Members need to try to contribute to consolidating a rules -based multilateral trading system. We 
believe that the current times represent significant concern. At the same time, we have challenges 
and op portunities.  
 
In finding a way out of the current impasse, we would set the stage for institutional renewal that 
will last for years to come. The WTO deserves to be armoured against future crossfire resulting out 
of trade wars and a situation whereby one or a few Members may block the organization and impose 
unequal conditions on the negotiations.  
 
We continue to have faith that we might find a solution by the end of the year for the Appellate Body 
impasse particularly in relation to the Select ion Process to fill in the vacancies. There are proposals 
from Members that contribute to the renewal of procedural rules and a shared interpretation which 
should be able to provide solutions to the concerns of Members.  
 
We are facing a historic moment in  this organization given the fact that the digital revolution is 
making its presence strongly felt. We do not believe that the E -commerce Moratorium should be 
permanently extended. There should be a temporary solution. However, in the long -term, we should 
find a solution to recognise and bridge the digital divide.  
 
We need to work on this matter in the WTO and in other organizations based on multilateralism, 
solidarity and collaboration. In doing so, we should focus on the problems leading to the digital 
divide and unequal access to technologies. If we do this, we can pave the way for discussions.  
 
Bolivia would like to stress that S&DT is important and relevant as is development as a part of 
multilateral trade policy. Therefore, we co -sponsored the documen t on S&DT that will be presented 
to the General Council to protect the interests of the Membership and the organization as a whole. 
S&DT provisions seek to eradicate inequalities and poverty. It is for this reason that we do not see 
why S&DT should be remo ved and that is why we have the economic indicators included in this 
document.  
 
50. Peru  
 
We underscore our concern about the current situation with the Appellate Body because it will not 
be operational soon. Given how important this pillar is in the multilateral trading system, we need 
flexibility and cooperation in working in the General Council to resolve the issue. We are concerned 
that we have not yet found a way out of the impasse despite the significant efforts on the part of 
the Facilitator. Ag ainst this backdrop, we need to continue with dialogue in order to seek out a 
multilateral solution bearing in mind the long -term effects.  
 
Looking at the overall situation on Services, I would like to reiterate my country's position. We 
believe that there  is a good prospect in getting an outcome on this area in the upcoming Ministerial 
Conference. My delegation will be working to find solutions to the pending issues including those 
that we consider as a source of concern.  
 
On Electronic Commerce, like oth er Members, Peru is concerned about the movement of discussions 
on the extension of the Moratorium. The Moratorium has had a favourable impact on the 
development of e -commerce and it will continue to do so in the future. We recognise that there are 
divergi ng views and there are many different studies available on the issue. Given that the effects 
of such a change are unknown, we should not distance ourselves from the status quo.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations, I would like to endorse the concerns exp ressed by the GRULAC 
about the need to appoint a Chair for the Negotiating Group because this is going to be very 
important in order to get results by the deadline. This is essential so that the Negotiating Group 
would be able to make the required progress  in a text -based negotiations process.  
 
51. Montenegro  
 
Allow me at the outset to reiterate that we all agree that a rules -based multilateral trading system 
is vital to ensure a stable and predictable framework for world trade. We are deeply concerned WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 123 - 
 
  regardin g the current situation with Appellate Body and we support the process led by Ambassador 
Walker to find a negotiated solution.  
 
Problems in the functioning of the dispute settlement lead to the introduction of safeguards and 
subventions of some Members av oiding the WTO rules which leads to market distortions. We have 
already been informed by some companies in Montenegro that they will suspend production due to 
a market flooded with products that could not be exported to the market of some Members which 
introduced safeguards. These products are often selling below the cost of the raw materials needed 
to produce them. As a small open market, we are very sensitive to any market disruption. Therefore, 
we urge all Members to respect the WTO rules before the intr oduction of safeguards.  
 
Regarding Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations, we would like to thank Facilitators and the Secretariat 
for their comprehensive work performed in order to finalise negotiations on related issues as well as 
all delegates and countries -proponents for their contributions. We hope that we can be able to find 
a Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules and do our best to find a way to finalise the negotiations. 
At the same time, we are still expecting that negotiations will take int o account specific realities, 
main players and challenges and have flexibilities to address the rules of the WTO.  
 
As a signatory of the Joint Statement on Services Domestic Regulation, we reaffirm our commitment 
to make progress on outstanding issues and hope to achieve an outcome that would allow us to 
improve the policy environment for Trade in Services.  
  
With regard to the negotiations on the trading aspects of e -commerce, we are pleased to see that 
progress is being made thanks to the comprehensive wo rk of Facilitators. This is a good base for 
future negotiations and we hope to make progress by MC12.  
 
We welcome the progress achieved on Investment Facilitation for Development and support the 
ambition to move the discussion to the new phase.   
 
Let me c onclude by stressing that Montenegro hopes that in a spirit of free and open discourse, we 
will be able to tackle most of the pending issues, and successfully finish some of the ongoing 
negotiations by MC12.  
 
We will continue to do our utmost to work in c ooperation with all Members.  
 
52. St. Vincent and the Grenadines (OECS)  
 
Allow me to associate with the statements made by the ACP and CARICOM Groups. This statement 
is delivered on behalf of the members of the Organization of the Eastern Caribbean States.  
 
The future of the multilateral trading system remained marred in uncertainty. The reports presented 
today provide little comfort that the objective of the system as reflected in the Marrakesh Agreement 
are being met. Many small developing countries like thos e of the OECS remain persuaded that an 
equitable and functioning system can give impetus to raising standard of living, ensuring full 
employment and the large and steady growing volume of real income and the expansion and 
production of trade in goods and s ervices. Regrettably, the noblest of objectives contained in the 
chapeau of the Marrakesh Agreement are no longer the central focus of our efforts. This House is 
now focused on preserving the integrity of the system.  
 
For small States, the WTO is more than  a collection of rules, more than a seat for the adjudication 
of disputes and more than a focal point for transparency. The WTO serves as an insurance policy 
against the arbitrary use of economic force by the strong against the weak. It provides a forum fo r 
the concerns of both the strong and the weak to be ventilated. Policy backsliding and efforts to roll 
back the consensus based approach to decision -making pose a threat not only to small States but 
the vast majority of the Membership. Therefore, it is cr itical for all to reaffirm the primacy of the 
multilateral trading system.  
 
Given the wide range of economic challenges and vulnerabilities faced by particularly small island 
developing States, the multilateral trading system is indispensable to the fuller  and more beneficial 
integration of small States into the global economy. In the context of this expectation, we must 
register our disappointment at the slow progress towards mainstreaming development provisions 
relevant to small States into the ethos of W TO rulemaking.  WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 124 - 
 
   
We note the work already undertaken by the Secretariat on the link between trade and national 
disasters. But more must be done to support economic resilience in the face of climate change and 
related hazards.  
 
With respect to the ongoing negotiations on the fisheries subsidies, we note the continuing absence 
of the Chair of this critical Negotiating Group. We urge that all efforts be deployed to resolve this 
matter at the earliest opportunity. This is necessary to achieve the deadline for completion of this 
negotiation as agreed by our Ministers in Buenos Aires. The interest of the OECS members remain 
undimmed for a successful conclusion to the negotiations in a fair and equitable manner with rules 
that limit the excess of major subsidizers  while providing sufficient policy space.  
 
Regarding the WTO Reform, we look forward to the report of Ambassador Walker under his own 
responsibility and we welcome with interest the areas of convergence highlighted therein. Against 
this background, we wish  to reaffirm the need for an independent and impartial system – a system 
that does not favour the strong over the weak.  
 
53. Viet Nam  
 
We associate ourselves with the statement of ASEAN delivered by Thailand.  
 
We would like to share additional views with regard to some critical issues at hand.  
 
The importance of ongoing discussion on WTO reform has been widely shared thanks to its ultima te 
goal of preserving an open, non -discriminatory, and rules -based multilateral trading system which 
serves us well. In the current changing realities of the global economic environment, the system 
needs to be more responsive and inclusive. Its functions – particularly its dispute settlement 
mechanism – must remain fully operational, effective and be strengthened.  
 
In this connection, we regret to see the looming crisis of the Appellate Body as the Selection Process 
remains blocked. We feel a bit relieved t o note that there has been considerable work done so far in 
the informal process led by Ambassador David Walker of New Zealand and that there is some level 
of convergence on the language for addressing the concerns. However, given that there is no time 
to spare, this issue deserves the highest priority of the Membership and it is high time for 
contemplating actionable steps.  
 
In the area of fisheries subsidies, we commend the steady progress of negotiations and the devotions 
shown by all Members despite of  the current impasse of selecting the Chair. We support maintaining 
the momentum in terms of organising an intensive negotiation cluster every month to achieve 
tangible outcomes by the deadline. We also urge Members to show the much -needed flexibility to 
the nomination of the new Chair so that the negotiations can be effectively led.  
 
On the issue of special and differential treatment for developing and least developed Members in the 
WTO, Viet Nam subscribes to the common understanding that S&DT remains an embedded principle 
and defining feature of the WTO, which should be maintained and strengthened. We are of the view 
that the balance of rights and obligations must be ensured not only in the implementation of existing 
WTO Agreements but also in the current  and future negotiations.  
 
Nonetheless, S&DT in the ongoing and future negotiations can be considered on the basis of actual 
needs of developing and least developed Members. Accordingly, S&DT should be commensurate with 
the challenges of new obligations t o these Members, who should be afforded to self -select an 
appropriate level of S&DT.  
 
Finally, it is time for WTO reform issues to be consolidated and a clear roadmap to this year's end 
and Nur -Sultan to be presented. The WTO and the multilateral trading s ystem as a powerful force 
supporting economic growth, development, stability and peace should continue to be viewed that 
way. In this regard, we would like to voice our support for the WTO enlargement, including the 
accession of Belarus, as one of the most  important deliverables of Twelfth Ministerial Conference in 
June 2020 to show the relevance and desirability of the WTO and in recognition of the hard work, 
the strong commitment of this acceding government.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 125 - 
 
  54. Nepal  
 
The recently concluded Public Forum rec orded the largest gathering which is in itself reflective of the 
importance of this House.  
 
I align my statement with the statement delivered by Chad, the LDC Group Coordinator.  
 
The dispute settlement mechanism is one of the fundamental pillars of the WTO. The vacancies in 
the Appellate Body adversely affects the credibility and functioning of the organization. The 
expeditious and immediate resolution of the impasse in the appointment of its members has to be 
resolved immediately.  
  
The development dimension, particularly those included in the DDA, must remain our prime 
negotiating agenda to ensure an inclusive, fair and equitable global trading regime. S&DT is 
fundamental in support of achieving SDGs. It should be made more effective, functional and  
meaningful. New issues should enter in discussion based on the understanding and consensus of the 
Members. Concerns and priorities of LDCs should be made central in all negotiations and 
agreements, not just in rhetoric, but in real action.  
 
Graduation fro m the LDC status is a very challenging situation as the graduating LDCs have to 
relinquish a number of International Support Mechanisms and trade preferences. Thus, we urge WTO 
Members to keep thinking and discussing on continuation of trade -related prefer ences to graduating 
LDCs even after completing the transition period. This is highly desirable for sustainable graduation 
and achieving the SDGs by 2030.  
 
Customs duty is a major source of revenue in several developing and least developed countries. The 
Moratorium of customs duties on electronic transmission has a great impact on their revenue. 
Considering the rapid advancement of information and communication technologies, it is important 
to undertake a study on the impact of the Moratorium. We underline t hat the rulemaking on e -
commerce should follow the existing mandate.  
 
My delegation wishes to thank the WTO for organising the workshop and dedicated session on trade 
facilitation from 14 to 18 October – inviting officials from capital. The participation o f multilateral 
stakeholders including development partners and the discussions and presentations on donor 
coordination, SPS and trade -natural disaster nexus, among others, are important to understand the 
diverse perspectives in the Trade Facilitation Agree ment.  
 
As featured in the Public Forum, technology is a major driver of economic advances – making 
production easier, more efficient, cheaper and making services more tradable. We call upon Members 
to support bridging physical and digital gaps in LDCs. The  sincere implementation of Article 66.2 of 
the TRIPS Agreement in this respect is highly imperative.  
 
As highlighted by the Director -General in the morning, all regular bodies and committees of the WTO 
are in need of reform for their strengthening. We unde rline that the reform should focus on making 
more functional and effective WTO system. Its reform outcome should ensure more inclusive and 
sustainable development. The process of reform should be Member -driven and participatory.  
 
55. Paraguay  
 
As a supporter o f the multilateral trading system, Paraguay is ready to engage constructively with 
other Members and hopes to achieve concrete results in several areas.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
Regarding reform, Paraguay considers that the discussions should continue to be inclusive and 
transparent, and respect the development component as a fundamental principle and right of 
Members. We must preserve special and differential treatment for those Members who really need 
it. Also, the discussion on improving transparency and notificatio ns should move away from the 
punitive approach in order to find a solution that would make it possible to identify not only 
appropriate incentives, but also the most effective mechanisms for Members to fulfil their 
outstanding obligations.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 126 - 
 
  Appellate Body  
 
Turning to the Appellate Body, we reiterate our deep and systemic concern regarding the current 
situation, and we support the process led by Ambassador Walker to find a negotiated solution. The 
priority of the entire Membership must be to restore the Appe llate Body to its full capacity and launch 
the process for selecting its members without delay.  
 
Negotiations  
 
With respect to the agriculture negotiations, we would like to thank Ambassador Ford for the 
document he presented at the beginning of the summer, which seeks to outline how we can move 
forward in the negotiations. However, we believe a greater balance is needed that includes more 
elements from the market access pillar. Accordingly, we wish to note the growing interest of 
Members in these dis cussions and will work on our contributions to make progress within this pillar.  
 
We would also like to highlight the positive initiative of exploring negotiations on market access in 
services since the lack of progress in this area is routinely cited by s ome Members as one of the 
obstacles blocking the advancement of discussions on market access in agriculture. We will continue 
to pay close attention to Members' contributions in this regard, particularly those that support the 
fulfilment of the Sustainable  Development Goals and help to highlight the positive impact of trade 
on eradicating poverty and protecting the environment.  
 
Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation  
 
As a signatory of the Joint Statement on Services Domestic Regulation, we reaffi rm our commitment 
to making progress on outstanding issues and hope to achieve an outcome that would allow us to 
improve the regulatory environment for trade in services.  
 
Trade Facilitation  
 
Paraguay, as a landlocked country, faces enormous challenges due  to its geographical situation. The 
Trade Facilitation Agreement has provided considerable support for countries such as ours, and we 
wish to emphasise the need for Members to step up their efforts to ensure full implementation, and 
to comply with the Agre ement's key principles, such as freedom of transit. We are grateful to the 
WTO and the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility, which have organised a series of workshops and 
activities this week to bring together donors and Members for the implementation of  Category C 
Commitments. Paraguay will actively participate and share details of its implementation experiences 
in these sessions.  
 
Work Programme and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce  
 
Not only are we faced with a lack of logistical connectivity and cost overruns in the transport of 
goods, but in this new digital era we are also faced with a handicap even more crucial to our 
development: being a digitally landlocked country. For this reason, Paraguay supports the extension 
and renewal of the moratorium, as  well as the continuation of the 1998 Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce, so as to provide predictability to the industry, MSMEs and our young 
entrepreneurs in these times of trade uncertainty.  
 
Joint Initiatives  
 
With respect to participation in the va rious Joint Initiatives, we view with much enthusiasm the 
WTO's potential to generate new disciplines that are linked in a crosscutting manner to trade 
facilitation. This is why we firmly support the work of the Initiatives on Electronic Commerce, 
Investme nt Facilitation for Development and MSMEs.  
 
As a signatory to the second Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, we reaffirm our commitment 
to supporting the process of negotiations regarding e -commerce related aspects of trade. Paraguay 
looks forward to a ctively participating in the forthcoming sessions with concrete proposals that 
reflect our digital needs and interests.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 127 - 
 
  Conclusion  
 
My delegation is ready to continue making an active contribution to the discussions that will be held 
in the next half of t he year and hopes to achieve a balanced outcome that reflects the interests of 
the Membership with a view to the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
56. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We would like to express our deepest concern, not only regarding the current impasse on matters 
highly relevant to the proper functioning of the organization but also in respect of the emergence of 
new challenges that also jeopardise the future work of the WTO.  
 
Despite efforts by the Facilitator, we still remain unable to resolve the impasse regarding the 
appointment of the members needed to ensure the continued functioning of the Appellate Body. To 
this troubling reality, we can also add our apparent inability to agree on the appointment of a new 
Chair to lead the negotiat ions on fisheries subsidies. In this respect, we associate ourselves with the 
statement made by Ecuador on behalf of GRULAC.  
 
While these two issues are of a different nature, the failure to resolve them has as its common 
denominator the extreme veto posit ions that are far from the much needed transparent and open 
dialogue that should characterise our role as negotiators seeking the common good.  
 
I would also like to refer to the discussion of ideas on special and differential treatment and the 
concept of d evelopment, which is currently taking place in this organization.  
 
For our country, trade can be an important instrument for development, provided that the relevant 
conditions are in place, and in this regard special and differential treatment is an essent ial 
component.  
 
While the concept of development has been the object of in -depth study throughout the decades 
following the Second World War, today, in a new century, it has still not been possible to find ways 
to overcome the large divide between develope d and developing countries.  
 
Despite the fact that the globalization process and interdependence go hand in hand with scientific 
and technological developments, it has not yet been possible to narrow the gap between the rich 
and the poor, much less eradica te poverty. While searching for answers that would address such 
profound inequalities, the concept of development has evolved over time. The economic and social 
variables that traditionally qualified the concept of development, such as per capita income, 
employment, and nutrition, are now joined by new variables.  
 
The development issue is extremely complex and is influenced by a number of conditions. For this 
reason, the most significant contribution the organization offers to this development dilemma is th e 
preservation of the principle of special and differential treatment as a way of trying to mitigate the 
problem of asymmetrical relations in a global context. My delegation therefore joins the already 
extensive list of developing Members that support the joint submission on special and differential 
treatment to promote development.  
 
I would like to conclude by reiterating our strongest condemnation of the use of unilateral coercive 
measures as a policy tool to attempt to crush the will and force the self d etermination of peoples. 
Our country is now the most recent victim of this type of criminal measure, with our sister country 
Cuba being the longest standing historical example. We reaffirm that this type of measure severely 
distorts relations with our trad ing partners and sabotages our ability to honour international 
commitments, such as those pending with this organization.  
 
57. Sri Lanka  
 
For brevity, my delegation will focus on issues of priority interests to Sri Lanka.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
It is a fact that Members have many technical issues to deal with. The Facilitators -led process has 
managed to clarify many ambiguous areas bridging the conceptual differences. My delegation is WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 128 - 
 
  however is concerned that the proposals presented on special and differential treatment, which is 
an integral part of the mandate, are being diluted by counter proposals and this essential principle 
under the mandate is being questioned by many countries. These kinds of approach will further fall 
apart the constructive approach which many developing countries have adopted so far on this file, 
and may pose a threat of derailing the current process of negotiations and eventually missing the 
deadline.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Concerning the Chair's report on many key issues such as SSM and the preservation of Article 6.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture, those areas are fundamental for Sri Lanka if we are to consider 
the further liberalization of our agricultural trade market. I f the negotiating forum does not provide 
us the expected level of comfort, then it may be a recipe for another failure on this file.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
We are also concerned with current trends that aim to diminish the strong binding between trade 
and development, as some Members started to question this binding by bringing proposals to 
disregard policy space and developmental concerns of many developing countries. If we are to create 
an enabling environment for inclusive participation, then S&DT should be preserved in its current 
context and be incorporated in all future negotiations without diluting its original objective and 
intent.   
 
Electronic Commer ce 
 
On the extension of the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions, 
Sri Lanka has recently evaluated the revenue concerns of this Moratorium on its total indirect 
Government Revenue and is concerned of any future extensi ons on this file if the Members do not 
have a forum to discuss such entailed developmental implications and identify safeguards for 
addressing the implications before agreeing to a further extension.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
On the ongoing impasse on the Appellat e Body in the DSB, we note that finding an early solution on 
this is imperative as it will strengthen the multilateral trading system and the relevant WTO rules – 
at a time when many WTO Members have resorted to unilateral trade measures, undermining the 
spirit of multilateralism.  
 
58. Ghana  
 
From the outset, Ghana would like to associate itself with the statements made by Benin on behalf 
of the African Group and Jamaica on behalf of the ACP.  
 
The convergence in Geneva last week during the WTO Public Forum, of a significant number of 
stakeholders of the multilateral trading system brought to light the importance of the work of the 
WTO to the global community.  
 
The signals picked from the various sessions were indicative of the fact that the world expects 
nothing  but positive outcomes from the WTO.  
 
The diverse nature of topics discussed and the intensity with which the discussions were held should 
prompt us all to be a bit more attentive to other approaches as well as build on steps that seek to 
consolidate the g ains that we have already made.  
 
On the basis of the aforementioned narrative, Ghana wishes to re -emphasise the importance of the 
multilateral trading system and calls on all Members to recalibrate their efforts especially in the 
subject areas that we have expended time and energy on in the last few months.  
 
Regarding the Appellate Body, we are of the view that if we do not double our efforts towards settling 
the outstanding issue of appointing new Members, with a view to protecting and preserving the 
"jewel in the crown", we may succeed in de -legitimising the WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 129 - 
 
  Views on other subject matters such as Agriculture, Fisheries Subsidies, E -Commerce and Special 
and Differential Treatment that are of significant importance to Ghana have been clearly articu lated 
by Benin and Jamaica on behalf of the African and ACP Groups, respectively, so we would not repeat 
them.  
 
Ghana once again pledges its support to working with Members in a constructive manner with a view 
to achieving positive outcomes at MC12.  
 
59. Cambo dia 
 
Cambodia associates itself with the statement made by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group and by 
Thailand on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
My delegation appreciates the great efforts made by Members and Facilitators in making text 
proposals and working to gether in finding concrete solutions to achieving meaningful outcomes.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
My delegation would like to reiterate our concern on the crisis of the appointment of Appellate Body 
members which need to be urgently resolved. It is extremely import ant to make the judicial system 
in this organization remain complete, effective and functional.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
Cambodia would like to emphasise that the special and differential treatment which are allowed 
under the WTO Agreements an d Decisions are very important for us to promote trade and 
development. In this regard, we welcome proposals and initiatives submitted by Members. We would 
like to call on Members to provide the special and differential treatment to developing countries 
especially to LDCs. Cambodia sees that the special and differential treatment must be an integral 
part of the negotiations as it is integral of our mandate.  
 
Implementation of Ministerial Decisions in favour of  LDCs 
 
While Members are negotiating in various  areas including fisheries, services domestic regulation, the 
two Moratoria, E -commerce and Investment Facilitation, among others, my delegation urges 
Members, at the same time, to fully implement previous mandates and Ministerial Decisions in favour 
of LD Cs including the full implementation of DFQF, services waiver and Preferential Rules of Origin.  
 
Conclusion  
 
Finally, my delegation looks forward to working closely with Members on the issue of WTO reform 
and current areas of negotiations towards MC12.  
 
60. Morocco  
 
Morocco congratulates the Director -General for the excellent organization of the Public Forum. We 
see this as an excellent opportunity to organise a seminar ourselves on Trade in Serves in Africa. 
This came hand in hand with the publication  of the Secretariat Report last week on new trade trends 
which effectively shows that trade in services is accelerating and is developing in a very meaningful 
way. In Africa, this is of great importance because even if it is a slow process, it is a sure pr ocess. 
It means that our continent is moving towards free trade in services.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations, Morocco recently organised a workshop on one of the most 
complex subjects which is the overcapacity in large scale fishing. We brought the FA O to participate 
through their experts as well as experts from other parts of the world. This allowed us to put into 
the debate some important elements which may lead us to a common understanding with regard to 
definitions on these specific aspects in our negotiations.  
 
We would also like to flag our concern regarding the lack of Chair in the Negotiating Group on Rules. 
In this regard, we would like to underline the priority in this area given that we need to preserve WT/GC/M/180  
 
- 130 - 
 
  resources for future generations. Fish eries Subsidies Negotiations should therefore be concluded on 
their own merit in this organization bearing in mind that there are many other important subjects. 
In any case, we must all commit to move forward in the area of fisheries and we hope that this will 
be the case in the coming weeks.  
 
On the discussions on development, trade allows us to reduce existing inequalities to improve the 
global economic situation. The principle of self -designation of development status and S&DT should 
therefore be preserv ed – as the developing country status allows us to integrate well into global 
trade.  
 
In conclusion, Morocco is also working in the lead up to the next Ministerial Conference. We will hold 
a very important francophone meeting in Marrakesh in the coming mon ths for Western African and 
Indian Ocean French -Speaking Countries. We are likewise looking forward to the Ministerial 
Conference in Nur -Sultan and particularly with regard to the environment on our continent for e -
commerce. We therefore will be counting o n the WTO to support us in this regard particularly with 
regard to negotiations.  
 
__________  