RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/192  
 
4 October 2021  
(21-7454) Page: 1/229 
General Council  
27-28 July 2021    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 27-28 JULY 2021 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Dacio Castillo (Honduras)  
The Chairman bade farewell to H.E. Mr. Mārtiņš Kreitus  (Latvia), H.E. Mr. Syamsul Bahri Siregar  
(Indonesia), H.E. Mr. Daniiar Mukashev  (Kyrgyz Republic), H.E. Ms. Monique Van Daalen (The 
Netherlands), H.E. Mr. Thay Bunthon (Cambodia) and H.E. Mr. Yurii Klymenko  (Ukraine) and 
expressed appreciation for their valuable contribution during their time as  Permanent 
Representatives.  
 
Subjects discussed1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE AND REPORT  
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ .......................  7 
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT  ....................  12 
4   TRIPS COUNCIL MATTERS  ................................ ................................ .........................  15 
4.1   Status Report on the Considerations by the TRIPS Council on the "Proposal for a Waiver   
from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and   
Treatment of COVID -19" – Statement by the Chair of the Council for TRIPS  .............................. 15 
5   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE – REPORT BY THE CHAIR  ..............  33 
6   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND MORATORIUM ON  
IMPOSING CUSTOMS DUTIES ON ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSIONS  – REQUEST  
FROM INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA  ................................ ................................ ..................  35 
7   PREPARATIONS FOR THE TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL  
CONFERENCE – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR  ................................ ................................ .... 48 
7.1   WTO Response to the Pandemic – Report by the Facilitator  ................................ .............. 50 
8   CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MULTILATERAL PROCESS ON THE                                                      
WTO RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC  ................................ ................................ ...............  53 
8.1   Draft General Council Declaration – COVID -19 and Beyond: Trade and Health – 
Communication from Australia; Brazil; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; China;  
the European Union; Hong Kon g, China; Iceland; Japan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Republic of Korea; 
Mexico; Republic of Moldova; Montenegro; New Zealand; North Macedonia; Norway; Singapore; 
Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu;  
the United Kingdom; Uruguay and Vanuatu  ................................ ................................ ........... 53 
8.2   Urgent Trade Policy Responses to the COVID -19 Crisis – Communication from  
the European Union to the WTO General Council  ................................ ................................ ...54 
 
1 The proposed agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/824.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  8.3   Ministerial Declaration on Combating, Mitigating and Recovering from the Impacts of  
COVID -19 and Beyond – Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,  
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu   ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 
9   SAUDI ARABIA'S RESTRICTIVE POLICIES ON POULTRY IMPORTS –  
REQUEST FROM BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 74 
10   TRADE RELATED CHALLENGES OF THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND  
WAY FORWARD: A DRAFT FOR MC DECISION   ................................ ................................  75 
11   PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR WTO COUNCILS AND COMMITTEES ADDRESSING 
TRADE CONCERNS – COMMUNICATION FROM ALBANIA; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHINA; 
EUROPEAN UNION; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; NEW ZEALAND; NORTH MACEDON IA; NORWAY; PANAMA; QATAR; 
SINGAPORE; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; THAILAND; TURKEY; AND UKRAINE  .............................  81 
12   SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION OF FISHERIES SUBSIDIES NEGOTIATIONS  
FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE OCEAN AND FISHING COMMUNITIES – DRAFT 
MINISTERIAL DECISION – COMMUNICATION FROM BRAZIL   ................................ .........  85 
13   G90 DECLARATION ON SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT – 
COMMUNICATION FROM SOUTH AFRICA ON BEHALF OF THE G90   ................................ . 91 
14   PAPER TITLED "THE LEGAL STATUS OF 'JOINT STATEMENT INITIATIVES'   
AND THEIR NEGOTIATED OUTCOMES" – REQUEST FROM INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA  .. 104  
15   PROPOSED GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION ON PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE 
TRANSPARENCY AND STRENGTHEN NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER WTO 
AGREEMENTS – ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHILE; COSTA RICA;  
THE EUROPEAN UNION; ISRAEL; JAPAN; NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; SINGAPORE; 
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU,  
KINMEN AND MATSU; UNITED KINGDOM; AND THE UNITED STATES  ...........................  115  
16   JOINT COMMUNICATION ON SYSTEMIC ISSUES – STATEMENT  
BY SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  125  
17   STRENGTHENING THE MULTILATERAL CHARACTER OF THE WORLD TRADE 
ORGANIZATION – REQUEST FROM THE AFRICAN GROUP  ................................ .............  131  
18   WAIVERS UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT  ................................ ....... 139  
18.1   European Union – Application of Autonomous Preferential Treatment to  
the Western Balkans – Extension of Waiver – Draft Decision   ................................ ................  139 
18.2   Review of Waivers Pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement  ...............................  139 
18.2.1    Least -Developed Cou ntry Members – Obligations under Article 70.8 and  
Article 70.9  of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to Pharmaceutical Products,  
granted on 30 November 2015 until 1 January 2033  ................................ ............................  139 
18.2.2    Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds,  
granted on 26 July 2018 through 31 December 2024  ................................ ...........................  139 
18.2.3    Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 28 July 2015 until 31 December 2023  .....................  139 
19   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION – REPORTS ON THE 
MEETINGS OF APRIL, MAY, JUNE AND JULY 2021  ................................ ........................  140  
20   WTO PENSION PLAN  ................................ ................................ .............................  142  
20.1   Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ending 31 December 2020  ............  142 
20.2   Report of the Independent External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial Statements of  
the World Trade Organization Pension Plan ( WTOPP) for the Year Ended 31 December 2020  ..... 142 
21   CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT – 
AUSTRALIA; CANADA; THE EUROPEAN UNION; JAPAN; NEW ZEALAND;  
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; 
UNITED KINGDOM; AND THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ..............................  143  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 3 - 
 
  22   APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL  
FOR TRADE IN GOODS – REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL FOR  
TRADE IN GOODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  146  
23   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 149  
ANNEX 1 – STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL, THE CHAIR OF THE GENERAL 
COUNCIL AND THE CHAIRS OF THE NEGOTIATING GROUPS AT THE INFORMAL TNC  
AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS HELD ON 23 JULY 2021  ................................ ...........  151  
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS AT THE INFORMAL TNC AND  
INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS HELD ON 23 JULY 2021  ................................ ...................  170  
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENTS JAMAICA (ACP GROUP) AND CHAD (LDC GROUP)  
AT THE E -COMMERCE STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS HELD ON 5 JULY 2021  ...................  222  
ANNEX 4 – STATEMENTS AT THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL  
ON 28 JULY 2021  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  225  
 
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE AND REPORT BY 
THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  
1.1.  The Chair  recalled that an Informal TNC  meeting  and Informal Heads of Delegation had been 
convened by the Director -General  on Friday, 23 July . He invite d the Directo r-General, as Chair of 
the TNC, to report on th at meeting.  
1.2.  The Director -General  provided the following statement2:  
1.3.  Since the General Council in May, the TNC has held three meetings on 25 June, 15 July3, and 
23 July. My statements in these meetings have been circulated in documents JOB/TNC/93 to 96.  
1.4.  At the 25 June informal session, Members discussed the modalities for the 15 July Ministerial 
Meeting and had a focused discussion on where they stood on some  of the possible deliverables for 
MC12 including the WTO's response to the pandemic, agriculture, dispute settlement and other 
issues they raised. 65 interventions were made throughout the meeting.  
1.5.  On 15 July, I convened a virtual Formal Session of the TN C at Ministerial Level on Fisheries 
Subsidies. It was the first of its kind in the WTO's history with 104 Ministers and Heads of Delegation, 
representing 128 Members and 1 Observer, participating in the discussions.  
1.6.  Factoring in statements by group coordi nators, nearly all Members were represented in these 
statements. This is a record for the TNC, attesting to Members' commitment to the multilateral 
trading system, and the high importance attached to successfully concluding the fisheries subsidies 
negotiat ions. And I want to sincerely thank all of you and your Ministers and Heads of Delegation 
for this commitment.  
1.7.  I know that it was not easy doing it virtually, but we managed to pull it off.  
1.8.  Last Friday, 23 July, I organized another informal session to ta ke stock of our work across the 
broad spectrum of issues that Members have been working on and to discuss the next steps from 
September as we draw closer to MC12.  
1.9.  We heard reports from the Chairs facilitating Members' efforts on Fisheries Subsidies, 
Agriculture, Services, Special and Differential Treatment and the DSU negotiations. A total of 50 
interventions were made with delegations sharing their views on the way forward.  
1.10.   From what I have gathered from these discussions: Members see MC12 as an important  
milestone to deliver meaningful outcomes. However, gaps in all negotiating areas and ambition 
 
2 The Director -General's statement was also circulated in JOB/GC/265.  
3 The Minutes of the 41st Formal Session of Trade Negotiations Committee – the Virtual TNC Meeting at 
the Ministerial Level on Fisheries Subsidies – was circulated in document TN/C/M/41.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 4 - 
 
  levels differ – be it in agriculture, in fisheries subsidies, in S&DT or even the WTO's Pandemic 
Response. They are important gaps.  
1.11.   In spite of this, a lot of h ard work has been put in by Members and Negotiating Group Chairs 
to move issues forward. There is a willingness to work together to have a successful MC12. I 
therefore highly commend all delegations and Chairs for this, particularly during the intense 
processes over the past weeks and days. I don't know about you - we have had so many meetings, 
so many consultations that finally one is beginning to feel the impact of that. I want to commend all 
of you because I know that many of you have other responsibilit ies to other institutions, not only 
the WTO - so well done.  
1.12.   Work continues this week – for example the CoA -SS will continue its meeting today and after 
the General Council on the 29th. I would like to pay tribute to Members and the Chair –Ambassador 
Gloria Peralta for her leadership and to thank the Agriculture Secretariat team and the delivery unit 
for supporting her.  
1.13.   As I said on Friday, while agriculture is a tough issue, and we have a long way to go – the 
good news is that everybody wants a package. I  believe we can come up with something credible 
for MC12 as the will exists, but the ambition levels are quite different, as we know. We therefore 
have some work ahead and I look forward to the Chair's draft text this week under her own 
responsibility.  
1.14.   On fisheries subsidies, while important concerns remain to be addressed, Members have 
remained constructively engaged and I have sensed a genuine willingness to move forward. I 
sincerely thank all delegations and Ambassador Santiago Wills for this. We rece ived political guidance 
from Ministers and Heads of Delegation to conclude the fisheries subsidies negotiations soon. Again, 
that does not mean that we do not take cognisance of the views of Members regarding what needs 
to be done with the existing text.  
1.15.   Last Friday Santiago outlined a two -stage process aimed at addressing the "Macro -issues" 
and the perceived imbalances in the text and then embarking on a more detailed line -by-line 
negotiation to get us to the finish line for a quality and meaningful outco me. I really want to thank 
him for coming up with this approach which will enable Members to engage, hopefully, substantially 
all along the process. He is currently further refining the proposed work plan through his outreach 
to delegations this week – and I look forward to its circulation. I understand that Ambassador Wills 
will circulate the workplan this week.  
1.16.   On Friday, I heard the call of some delegations for the release of the minutes of the Ministerial 
TNC on Fisheries Subsidies along with statements  of Ministers. I just want to confirm that the 
Secretariat is finalizing the record which should be available by the end of the week.  
1.17.   Discussions are also ongoing on the Concept Note for a WTO Funding Mechanism in fisheries 
subsidies, and I heard loud and  clear the discomfort expressed by some delegations, which I said 
we will address one -by-one.  
1.18.   However, let me re -emphasize what I said on Friday. The Funding Mechanism is in no way 
meant to prejudge the fisheries subsidies negotiations outcome nor be a su bstitute for structural 
issues. This capacity support is not intended to be forced on anyone. It is meant for only those who 
want to use it and will be demand driven. The idea of starting early is to be prepared in case it is 
needed after the negotiations are completed. As a former Finance Minister, I am mindful of budget 
cycles and we need to get in early with some countries so that they can integrate it into their budget 
cycle. I will continue my outreach efforts on this in the coming weeks.  
1.19.   Another impor tant issue which has been raised is dispute settlement – where at a minimum, 
a common understanding on the needed reforms is what many are seeking for MC12. I think this is 
an appropriate level of ambition for this issue. Everyone heard what was said on Fr iday and I believe 
the GC Chair will provide a report on his consultations on this under Agenda Item 7.  
1.20.   WTO Reform is another area with a clear desire by Members for engagement, and the idea of 
a Working Group is welcomed. However, from what I have heard i n my meetings and outreach to 
different groups of Members, views on what constitutes WTO Reform differ. And I shared this at the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 5 - 
 
  TNC. Therefore, let me repeat a little bit what I said, which is that Members need first of all to come 
to a common understandi ng of what is meant by WTO reform before embarking on it. I look forward 
to the GC Chair's report on this also under Agenda item 7.  
1.21.   Finally, the WTO's Pandemic Response, where there is unanimous support from Members that 
the WTO should address this urgentl y – not only for now, but for the future. Lives are at stake. As 
Ambassador Parola said on Friday, it would be embarrassing if we did not have a credible outcome 
here. And I believe that we have the essential ingredients before us to deliver something cred ible 
soon – the world is expecting it from us.  
1.22.   So, let me again commend the GC Chair for the horizontal multilateral process he has initiated, 
and I look forward to hearing Ambassador Walker's report and the presentation of communications 
from Members under Agenda Items 7 and 8. Let me again thank and commend Ambassador Spencer 
and Tan for the work they have done on this which has been integrated into Ambassador Walker's 
own work.  
1.23.   I think we also have to step back and give ourselves a little pat on the back. Sometimes we 
are very hard on ourselves. In the past four months, the WTO has achieved a lot. It has been placed 
squarely at the heart of the solution to the Pandemic. We have strengthened our ties with other 
international organizations, and we have reached out to the private sector including manufa cturers. 
So, let's take further concrete steps and deliver a collective and credible outcome for the people we 
are here to serve by MC12.  
1.24.   In terms of the way forward, the Chairs facilitating Members' discussions have laid out plans 
for work in various con figurations from September to MC12 – which we heard on Friday. And we will 
hear more when they release more information on the workplan.  
1.25.   Delegations are also actively reaching out to each other albeit mostly to coordinate like -
minded positions. That is wh y I have continued to urge you all to reach out to those on the other 
side – if we are going to deliver meaningful outcomes in the short time left. And I thank you for the 
efforts you have been making already.  
1.26.   Chair, a lot of hard work has taken place ove r the nearly five months since I took office as 
Director -General and Chair of the TNC. Credit is due to all delegations – both at the HoDs and experts 
level for their constructive engagement. Special thanks go to all the Chairs, facilitators and the 
Secret ariat teams who have worked very hard to assist Members.  
1.27.   It is the end of July and much remains to be done. We certainly have a tough road ahead of 
us.  
1.28.   Although there are a lot of obstacles on our way, I remain hopeful that everyone is willing to 
put in the effort for us to deliver high quality results. As I said on Friday, we will continue to reach 
out with optimism and with smiles. But for us to do that quickly and arrive at mutually agreeable 
solutions, we need to start building convergence and reachin g out to delegations on the other side 
of the aisle.  
1.29.   If we are to achieve anything meaningful, we need to focus on a limited number of issues for 
delivery before or by MC12 – three or four at the maximum and intensify processes from 
1 September as laid ou t by the Chairs or Facilitators.  
1.30.   Given where we are today – from what I have heard in the past months and last week – 
intensifying efforts on some areas such as Fisheries Subsidies, Agriculture, the WTO's Response to 
the Pandemic, WTO reform and dispute s ettlement – seems reasonable and could take us within the 
realm of what could be possible for delivery. If we deliver successfully on even two of these - that 
would be a major outcome for the organization.  
1.31.   There are other critical areas such as S&DT – a central tenet of the WTO which we must also 
aim to work hard on. While cognisant of the difficulties involved, I really urge all Members to remain 
engaged with the Chair and the G90 to see how practically we can move forward the specific 
proposals that have  been put on the table. Members may also have to address this issue in a broader 
way down the line.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.32.   In addition, other equally important areas of interest to membership are there and work is 
ongoing either multilaterally or amongst groups. On some of these , converging on a strong, credible 
political commitment – including by defining meaningful work programmes or work calendars to 
conclude and continue work – post MC12, might be the most pragmatic route.  
1.33.   In a Member -driven organization – the ball is in your  court. But as Director -General and TNC 
Chair, you have also entrusted me with the responsibility of facilitating your efforts – together with 
the Chairs – to deliver credible and meaningful results for the people we are here to serve.  
1.34.   Chair, before I con clude my report, I would like to ask your indulgence and use this 
opportunity to update Members on the WTO Secretariat Structural Review. We just got in some 
results, and I know this is the only opportunity I will have to share what we have before we go so  
please, if you permit me.  
1.35.   Delegations will recall that I mentioned this issue at our meeting on 25 June and sent you a 
short note on the way that McKinsey – who was chosen to undertake the review – was looking to 
consult with you. I would like to thank a ll Members who participated and contributed to the process. 
I understand that it went quite well and there were focus groups of almost 20 Members at a time. 
Over 60 Members participated in these sessions.  
1.36.   Insights from the Member Consultation sessions wer e used to complement the findings from 
other sources such as staff surveys – again we had very good luck with the staff survey, with a 
50%+ response rate – which McKinsey tells me that in their experience was quite high. It is normally 
30 – 40% so our staf f really engaged in the process.  
1.37.   Along the different Member consultation sessions, the areas of strength that were identified 
included that the WTO Secretariat was clearly perceived to have highly capable staff with deep 
content knowledge and expertise, d riven by the purpose of the WTO and by the desire to serve its 
Members. In addition, a second area of strength was that staff felt comfortable in the ecosystem in 
which they were working. They found their ecosystem to be favourable and this may be because the 
Secretariat has made progress in recent years in strengthening its procedures and infrastructure 
working more efficiently than before, but more remains to be done.  
1.38.   However, a few recurring improvement areas were identified: First, lack of clarity abou t the 
strategic direction and priorities of the Secretariat, with a large majority of Members confirming that 
there is potential for the Secretariat to amplify the WTO's overall impact by having a clearer vision 
and strategic priorities;  
1.39.   Second, regarding the organizational structure, it is perceived there should be more cross 
divisional collaboration when working on horizontal topics, instead of working in siloes which creates 
uncoordinated meetings and answers;  
1.40.   Third, some Members highlighted that they fe el the workload across teams and Divisions is 
distributed in an unequal way and that due to rigid structures no dynamic allocation of staff is 
possible;  
1.41.   Fourth, processes are not always perceived to be streamlined or run in the most efficient way, 
despite some improvements. With some perception of duplicated activities, and not knowing whom 
to engage on cross -cutting topics. In addition, Members mentioned that the communication process 
could be strengthened (communication with Members and other senior manag ement as well as 
external communication relating to meeting outcomes) and that in some cases there was a lack of 
follow up or integration of Members' inputs;  
1.42.   Last, on technology some Members mentioned the potential to improve how information is 
made availa ble – e.g., the need to use multiple different systems to get information.  
1.43.   So, some weaknesses that have come up when you integrate all the information that has 
been put together. I will just go quickly through as we don't have time. They are as follows: Lack of 
a strategic direction; Ineffective structure and siloed ways of work ing; Rigid resource allocation; 
Weak approaches to talent management; processes, recruitment and promotion; Inefficient 
operational processes; Some disconnect between staff and management with respect to the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 7 - 
 
  effectiveness of the organization; Not leveragin g data and technology to full potential, and; Lack of 
outward looking orientation and innovative culture.  
1.44.   In terms of next steps –based on these findings we will develop an action plan and initiatives 
for implementation aimed at serving you – the membershi p better. And at strengthening for the 
staff the motivation to work in the organization and deliver better.  
1.45.   In closing my report under this agenda item, I would like to echo the GC Chair's call last week 
to all delegations to please come back in early Sep tember with a solutions -oriented mindset and the 
energy to constructively engage in the intensified processes ahead to ensure that we can deliver 
meaningful results before and at MC12.  
1.46.   I have urged you often to find flexibilities and compromise within your  own national positions, 
which will be necessary to get to 'yes' in the months after the break. In this regard, I was so inspired 
by the Robert Burns lines that Ambassador Manley quoted on Friday that I looked them up over the 
weekend. As some of you may k now, I like reading poetry – one of my sons is a poet. I was surprised 
to learn that the poem was actually about resisting and defeating an English invasion! The good 
news is that the concessions we need to deliver results this year are vastly more modest than 
defeating the British. So, I want to echo Ambassador Manley, and Burns, by urging you to come 
back on September 1 with this in mind: "Now is the day, now is the hour!"  
1.47.   The Chair thanked the  Director -General for her report, and for her tireless engagement, 
efforts, and collaboration. He did not expect a long discussion under this item and noted that 
statements made at the TNC meeting of 23 July would  be reflected in the minutes of this General 
Council meeting.4 
1.48.   The General Council took note of the report of the Director -General.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  
2.1.  The Chair recalled5 that the item remain ed on the agenda so that the General Council c ould 
continue to follow up, in a horizontal and transparent manner, on the Ministerial decisions adopted 
in Bali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires . His report that day was  based on the information provided by the 
Chairs of the regular bodies on the implementation work taking place further to Ministerial mandates 
in their respective areas.  For some issues, including the Work Programme on Small Economies and 
the Work Programme on Ecommerce , there would be  separate items lat er in the agenda.  
2.2.  Regarding TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints, he understood that there ha d been no 
new substantive developments to date. Members ha d largely reiterated their known positions 
regarding the applicability of NVCs in TRIPS, and the Chair would  continue to seek engagement from 
Members ahead of the next TRIPS Council meeting.  
2.3.  There were a few matters to report in the area of Agriculture. In particular, concerning the 
Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purpose s, the Committee on Agriculture 
had reviewed notifications by a Member invoking the Decision for the breach of the de minimis limit 
for rice for the marketing years 2018/19 and 2019/20, including at its latest meeting in June.  
2.4.  As regards the follow -up to t he Bali TRQ Decision, Members ha d been engaged to find a solution 
to the outstanding issue of the future operation of paragraph 4 of the underfill mechanism within 
the agreed deadline of December 2021. The Chair of the Committee on Agriculture ha d held 
consultations on this issue in various formats, and Members ha d put forward some concrete textual 
suggestions.  
2.5.  Regarding the implementation of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, the Committee 
on Agriculture had continued its deliberations on the seco nd triennial review of the Decision at its 
 
4 The Director -General's report and the reports of the Chairs of Negotiating Bodies at the 23 July Informal 
TNC and Informal HODs Meeting were circulated in document JOB/TNC/96. At his request, the report of the Chair 
of the CTE SS was subsequently circulated in document TN/TE/25 . They are reproduced in Annex I to this 
document.  
5 The Chair's statement was circulated in document JOB/GC/266.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 8 - 
 
  June meeting. The Secretariat had circulated few days ago the background document that w ould 
serve as a basis for the next dedicated discussion on export competition planned during the 
September 2021 CoA meeting.  
2.6.  Turning to the LDC Services Waiver, following an initial proposal by the LDC Group, the Council 
for Trade in Services had held a webinar on "Least Developed Country services export performance 
and facilitating implementation of preferences notified under t he LDC Services Waiver".  At the 
subsequent meeting of the Council, Members had shared their reflections on the event.  
2.7.  All delegations who intervened had expressed appreciation for the webinar. Many had noted 
that the event had illustrated the opportunities and challenges faced by LDC suppliers in participating 
in global services trade, while also highlighting the significant gaps in LDC services trade data. The 
LDC Group had put forward a number of sugge stions for next steps and had indicated that it would 
submit them in writing, for further reflection.  
2.8.  In the area of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs at the meeting of the Committee on Rules 
of Origin in May, a number of items related to the implement ation of the Ministerial Decisions had 
been raised.  In relation to transparency, almost all preference -granting Members, except two, ha d 
notified their preferential rules of origin for LDCs.  There ha d also been some progress on coverage 
of import statistic s. Full notifications ha d been received from several preference -granting Members. 
The Chair understood that there were still some important gaps in the statistics, which hinder ed the 
ability of the Committee to comprehensively monitor the utilization of th ose preferences. On this, 
the Secretariat ha d continued to examine patterns in the utilization of trade preferences by LDCs 
and ha d presented a report analysing trends for a 5 -year period. In addition, a webinar had taken 
place in May on preference utiliza tion. He encourage d delegations to visit the WTO website to review 
the available materials. Also in May, several Members  had updated the Committee on recent 
developments in their preference schemes.  
2.9.  Regarding Duty -Free Quota -Free market access for LDCs, at  the last CTD meeting, a number 
of Members had provided updated information on their DFQF schemes for LDCs. At the next meeting 
in November, the Committee would undertake its annual review of the steps taken by Members to 
provide DFQF market access to LDCs . 
2.10.   Regarding the Monitoring Mechanism for S&D, the situation remain ed the same. The CTD 
Chair once again had urged Members to come to a common understanding on how to move forward 
with the Mechanism. He had also indicated his intention to work with Members in informal settings 
to explore ways to make the Mechanism operational.  
2.11.   Concerning the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology, he understood that at 
the May meeting some Members stressed that advancing the work in that area had become 
imperative  because of COVID -19, including in the context of assisting LDCs level -up their 
development. The Chair ha d initiated a process of informal consultations to assess how to revive 
work and what could be done differently to fulfil the mandate.  
2.12.   2.13.  Regarding Aid for Trade, a formal meeting of the CTD's Aid for Trade session had been  
held to launch preparations for the 2020 -2022 monitoring and evaluation exercise. The CTD Chair 
had given an overview of the plans for the exercise in terms of themes to be addressed, timelines 
and survey methods. The Secretariat ha d prepared draft monitoring and evaluation questionnaires, 
and Members ha d been invited to provide comments by the end of August.  A further informal session 
to discuss th ose comments would be scheduled. The monitoring and evaluation exercise would then 
be launched, with a deadline for responses at the end of the year. The results of th at exercise w ould 
be presented at the Eighth Global Review of Aid for Trade, which was envisaged for mid -2022.  
2.13.   And finally, on Trade Facilitation, the Committee continue d its work on the four -year review 
of the TFA, and aim ed to have it completed ahead of MC12. The rate of implementation commitments 
stood at just over 70% for the entire Membership and at 61% for deve loping country Members and 
LDCs. The rate of ratification remain ed at 94% with 9 Members still to ratify.  
2.14.   The representative  of Chad provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.15.   We reiterate the importance of the implementation of the decisions in favour of LDCs , with 
the aim of accelerating and increasing our integration into global trade , with positive outcomes on 
the creation of employment and  the reduction of poverty . An effective operationalization of previous 
decisions taken in favour of LDCs is more than ev er crucial at this time of financial crisis , when our 
economies are particularly affected and the diversification of our productive capacity and of  our 
export potential is ever more necessary. The LDC Group will publish its proposal on the 
implementation o f decisions in favour of LDCs in order to share our expectations with Members just 
after the summer break.  
2.16.   The LDC Group would like to thank Members who have notified their preferences and will call 
on those who have not done so to do it for market access , DFQS and for the services waiver. We 
need to notify more if we are to ensure the implementation of these decisions. As far as work on 
notifications is concerned for the implementation of the services waiver, the LDC group has co -
organized a workshop with  the Council for Trade in Services that took place in June. We would like 
to thank the Chair, the Secretariat and the Members for the success of that workshop and we note 
that in the future and in the context of the preparation s for MC12 , that we will be a ble to take stock 
of the outcomes of the workshop and of any upcoming recommendation. The surveys can be 
conceived or designed to provide indications with regard to the services exports of LDCs through 
digital intermediary platforms, in line with the OECD,  WTO, IMF handbook to measure digital trade, 
published in 2020. Furthermore, we think it is useful for Members who are notifying to be aware 
every year of the initiative s taken by LDCs in order to provide guidance for LDC exporters with 
regard to how to us e preferences and also to provide information about consumers within their 
market who actually use the LDCs' services. The WTO should also put into place a LDCs ' services 
online portal which would look at the obstacles and challenges and also the best prac tices in 
operationalizing the preferences.  
2.17.   We intend to present recommendations at the 12th Ministerial Conference to look at the 
stocktake of the situation from here to the 13th Ministerial Conference . That could include exploring 
any improvement with regard to the level of services export s from LDCs . Additional preparation can 
be done to improve preferences in order to allow the growth of LDCs' participation in trade in services 
within preference -granting Members requesting LDCs ' services, as well as an assessment of the 
options beyond the preferences themselves , in order to facilitate the utilization of these preferences , 
and an assessment of any change in information about the rebound of LDC services or new 
opportunities since the pa ndemic and if the waiver should be made permanent , given the difficulties 
in collecting data, the complexities with regard to information as well as the fluctuating capacities in 
LDCs.  
2.18.   As far as preferential rules of origin for LDCs are concerned , we welc ome the work undertaken 
up until now within the Committee on Rules of Origin with the implementation of the Ministerial 
Decisions of Bali and Nairobi. We also call on Members to examine our submissions which have been 
made within the Committee on Rules of Origin, identifying best practices and the areas which 
perhaps need reform in terms of rules of origin , if we are to ensure that they align their regimes on 
preferential rules of origin within our Ministerial Decision.  
2.19.   Finally, with regard to the 12th Ministerial Conference, the LDC G roup will submit a draft text 
on preferential rules of origin for LDCs, so that Members can review it and integrate it into the 
Ministerial Declaration, placing emphasis on relaunching the work of the Committee on Rules of  
Origin, looking to assess the links between requirements in terms of origin and utilization of trade 
preferences , whilst also identifying and recommending best practices to Members.  
2.20.   The representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement:   
2.21.   During my time in Geneva , I witnessed the Appellate Body becoming dysfunctional, 
multilateral mandates being atrophied  and pushed under the carpet , changes in language and a 
growing indifference to the concern s of develo ping countries and LDCs. The pandemic is a classic 
example where we could have collectively provided a credible response to the pandemic with some 
new ideas and initiative s out of the toolbox. I am saddened by the constant business -as-usual 
approaches  and this long-established tradition of working together for the global public good , like 
equitable access to vaccines , appear to be floundering. However, I remain optimistic and hope that 
there will be a turnaround for the better in the near future.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.22.   Indonesia  continues to reiterate its priority and need to deliver the mandated issues in 
agriculture and fisheries subsidies for MC12 , based on the Bali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires outcomes. 
On agriculture, we believe that MC12 should not leave without a meaningful outcome towards the 
establishment of a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security and a comprehensive 
and bal anced outcome on the S pecial Safeguard Mechanism. Agriculture reform is urgently needed 
to create a fair discipline that addresses the current pandemic challenges and its impact on food 
security. Indonesia welcomes Members' proposal s that provide option s for the conclusion of the 
permanent solution on PSH , such as the one submitted by the African Group , to help provide a 
common basis upon which further negotiation on the development of new rules on PSH can proceed. 
In this regard, Indonesia with cosponsorin g Members also has pre sented a draft permanent solution 
for PSH. We hope it is a realistic and viable proposal that could work as a basis for discussion towards 
MC12. Indonesia requests all Members to sincerely consider the proposal during the upcoming 
CoASS on 29 July.  
2.23.   On fisheries subsid ies, we urge Members to remain in line with the Buenos Aires mandate in 
prohibiting subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity , while reserving special and 
differential treatment. Respecting the principle o f common but differentiated responsibility in this 
discipline is a key ingredient to achieve a balanced discipline. We note that much work needs to be 
done to resolve imbalances and other technical issues to move forward with this negotiation, but we 
are optimistic that we would resolve those imbalances in our upcoming negotiation after the summer 
break.   
2.24.   The representative  of Tanzania  provided the following statement:   
2.25.   I would like to align my statement with the statement of the LDCs  Regarding the Nairobi 
Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs, my delegation commends on the work undertaken 
so far by the Committee on Rule s of Origin. The Committee assessed the utilization by LDCs of a 
number of preferential programs of prefer ence-granting Members. In all the assessments done, the 
results indicate that the utilization of preferences by LDCs still stand low and rules of origin applicable 
to LDCs ' imports from the respective preference granting members are not yet aligned to the Nairobi 
Decision. Therefore, it is correct to assert that there hasn’t been a substantial progress in 
implementing the requirements of the Nairobi Decision such as to allow 75% of None Originating 
Materials of inputs used by LDCs, flexible cumulation, simp lification of rules on Change of Tariff 
Classification (CTC) and documentary requirements.  
2.26.   It is high time for preference -granting Members to seriously consider reforming their rules of 
origin applicable to LDCs ' imports based on the Nairobi Decision and best practices identified in the 
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO). Preference -granting Members also need to share in the 
Committee on Rules of Origin, the experience of administering their respective rules of origin in 
relation to the utilization of pref erences by LDCs.  
2.27.   In our view, the MC12 Ministerial Declaration should ensure that M embers reaffirm their 
commitment to expeditiously implement in full the Bali and Nairobi outcomes in favour of LDCs, 
particularly on preferential services and rules of orig in. 
2.28.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
2.29.   The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition was adopted in December 2015. The 
European Union continues to urge the remaining Members that have not yet submitted their revised 
schedules, to make the necessary schedule modifications to eliminate export subsidy commitments 
as soon as possible and indeed in time for MC12.   
2.30.   The 2021 Export Competition Questionnaire was the first occasion on which developing 
countries were required to submit replies. The European Union is disappointed with the low response 
rate. We will be interested to discuss this further in the regular Committee on Agriculture in 
September. The European Union also looks forward to the discus sion in the Committee on Agriculture 
regular meetings on the triennial review of the Nairobi Decision. We count on Members ' active 
participation on how to enhance disciplines and ensure no circumvention of commitments.  
2.31.   The European Union notes that India has invoked the Bali Ministerial Decision on public 
stockholding for the second time in its DS:1 notification submitted on 8 April 2021. This notification WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 11 - 
 
  was examined in the June Regular Committee on Agriculture together with the remaining questions 
from last year 's notification to which India still has to reply in full. We look forward to further 
engagement in the next regular Committee on Agriculture meeting.  
2.32.   On the Bali Ministerial Decision on Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) administration, the European Union 
is pleased to see the progress made in the last regular Committee on Agriculture on the Bali TRQ 
review, and in particular the text on changing the wording for the under -fill mechanism, which was 
proposed by Costa Rica. We are optimistic that further progre ss can be made in the coming regular 
Committee on Agriculture. We urge the membership to engage on this issue and work constructively. 
We would underline that the result of the discussion on this in the regular Committee on Agriculture 
should lead to a dec ision by Ministers at MC12.  
2.33.   The representative  of India provided the following statement:   
2.34.   As we work towards outcomes for MC12, we would like to reiterate the Ministerial mandates 
from Bali and Nairobi regarding an effective, permanent outcome on public stockholding for food 
security purposes. The Ministerial mandate for PSH is clear, that the PSH negotiations have to be on 
an accelerated, separate track, any effort to link these discussions with other pillars is undermining 
the Ministerial mandate.  If the WTO membership cannot deliver on the mandated issues of the past 
Ministerial meeting s, then first, its competency comes under question, second, it leaves a doubt in 
the mind whether it will hono ur in the future  the outcomes of MC12 , if any.  In a nutshell, the 
credibility of the WTO hinges on the outcomes of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial mandates, especially 
when food security issues have become pronounced due to the ongoing pandemic . The scale and its 
continuous resurgence over different parts of t he world indicate that the pandemic may not be easing 
anytime soon.  In these unpreceded times, the WTO should get out of the self -imposed impasse and 
redeem itself by delivering a permanent solution on the PSH.   
2.35.   Pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision on  Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
and the General Council Decision of 2014 , as contained in document WT/L/939, India notified the 
Committee on Agriculture that it has exceeded the de minimis level of market price support for rice 
for the mark eting year 2018 -2019 and 2019 -20. India's public stockholding programmes for food 
security purposes, covering rice and several other commodities, have been consistently reported in 
its Table DS:1 notification since 1995.  India has been constructively engag ing on this issue with 
other Members in the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Agriculture 
in Special Session. We do not support linking PSH outcomes with outcomes in other pillars. A simple, 
efficient, and permanent solution on extending PSH for food security purposes to new programs and 
new products is therefore a key deliverable. In this regard, I suggest that the new submissions by 
the Africa Group and the proposal being worked upon by G33 are a good basis for CoA  SS to take 
the process forward.  
2.36.   The proponents calling for transparency should lead by example. It is seen that this one flag 
bearer of transparency submitted DS:1 Notification for the marketing year 2018 -19 in May 2021 
many months past the deadline of 30 September 2 019. (Table DS:1 for the Marketing Year 2018 -19 
was notified on 17 May 2021 vi a G/AG/N/EU/69).  The Member has not submitted its DS:1 
Notification for 2019 -20, which is due for more than 10 months now.  The Member gave its reasons 
in the past to explain the delay.  While it feels it can have reasons not to notify on time, it is ironical, 
it does not see others can also have genuine reasons for not notifying on time. As a responsible 
member of the WTO, India is conscious of its notification obligati ons and has been making consistent 
efforts to comply with them. Our Domestic Support and Market Access notifications are up to date. 
Our track record with meeting our transparency obligations has been much better than that of 
several Members pressing for e nhanced transparency at the WTO.  
2.37.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   
2.38.   Proposals for a new UK Developing Countries Trading Scheme will replace the GSP and we 
have invited colleagues ' views on the scheme. This is due to  come into effect next year. It will be 
more sustainable, pro -growth and simpler. We are looking to be best of class. Live consultations are 
underway until 12 September and we welcome Members ' feedback.  
2.39.   The representative of South Africa  provided the follo wing statement:  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.40.   In Bali, Ministers instructed the Trade Negotiations Committee to work on the remaining Doha 
Development Agenda issues, particularly on agriculture, development and LDC issues. This work 
remains outstanding and is even more important in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic that will 
have a disproportionate impact on developing countries. COVID -19 will have significant implications 
on food security. Already 174 million people across 58 countries are grappling with serious food  
consumption gaps or above -usual acute malnutrition, i.e. serious levels of food insecurity. The WTO 
will need to prioritise agriculture and deliver a food and livelihoods agenda at MC12.  
2.41.   The General Council took note of the Chairman's statement  as circula ted in document 
JOB/GC/266  and of the statements  by Members . 
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  The Chair  recalled that i n line with the agreement in the General Council in 2002, the Work 
Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the agenda and the Committee on Trade 
and Development report ed regularly on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions . In Buenos 
Aires, Ministers had reaffirmed their commitment to the Work Programme and instructed the CTD 
to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibility of the General  Council. 
He invite d Ambassador P iracha  to provide his report.  
3.2.  Ambassador Muhammad Mujtaba Piracha (Pakistan), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, provided  the following  report :  
3.3.  I am pleased to inform Members that a meeting of the CTD 's Dedicate d Session on Small 
Economies was held on July 6th. The meeting was convened to discuss the economic and trade 
impact of natural disasters on small economies. As part of this discussion, presentations were made 
by experts from the FAO, the ITC, UNCTAD and t he WTO. Presentations were also made by Ecuador, 
and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – members of the Group of Small, Vulnerable Economies – on 
their national experiences in this regard. The presentations, and the subsequent discussion, pointed 
to the dif ficulties faced by small economies in coping with natural disasters. Some ideas were shared 
on what could be done to allow small economies to be in a better position to deal with the negative 
effects of these disasters. Overall, I believe the meeting prove d very useful and instructive.   
3.4.  The Dedicated Session will have some work to do in preparation for MC12. In particular, going 
by past practice, the Dedicated Session will need to approve a report to the General Council, which 
would contain a summary of the work undertaken since the last Ministerial Conference. This report, 
in the past, has also contained the elements of an agreed text for a decision on the Work Programme 
on Small Economies, particularly the possible elements of future work.  As I mentione d in my 
intervention at the General Council meeting of 5 May, I have been given to understand that the SVE 
Group Coordinator will be consulting with Members on this matter. The objective of the SVE Group 
would be to eventually table a proposed text for a M inisterial Decision on the Work Programme on 
Small Economies in the Dedicated Session, for approval by Members.  I shall remain in touch with 
the SVE Group Coordinator, as well as with other Members, in this regard, and will be convening a 
meeting of the De dicated Session after the summer break.  
3.5.  The representative of Guatemala  provided the following statement:   
3.6.  After several consultations with different Members, my delegation is very pleased that the 
session on the economic and trade effects of natural disas ters on small economies has finally taken 
place. This session is of utmost importance as many small and vulnerable economies, such as 
Guatemala, are subject to extreme weather events and natural disasters. During the session, 
important participants from in ternational organizations such as the FAO, UNCTAD, the WTO, and the 
ITC presented data and information on the devastating effects of such disasters on small economies. 
During their presentations they shared valuable information on their experiences and 
recommendations for measures to help small economies to improve their resilience in order to offset 
the adverse effects of such disasters. In addition to these presentations, several small and vulnerable 
economies took the floor to share their national experi ences.  
3.7.  My delegation concludes from these discussions that natural disasters have a serious impact 
on infrastructure, logistics and communications in affected countries and, as a consequence, in many WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 13 - 
 
  cases hinder the flow of goods and services that are ne cessary to maintain a stable economy. It is 
important to continue to discuss how the WTO can help small economies, particularly when they are 
affected by disasters such as these. During the meeting, the importance of measuring the impact of 
such disasters on world trade was highlighted, as it is important to establish the factual basis in 
order to work on possible ways and solutions to reduce the impact that such disasters can have on 
small economies. Given that the WTO already monitors trade flows globally , we believe that it could 
work with international organizations such as the FAO to measure the effects of natural disasters on 
trade.  
3.8.  The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:   
3.9.  CARICOM was particularly pleased with the convening of the CTD's Dedicated Session on small 
economies on 6 July, which specifically addresses economic and trade impacts of natural disasters 
on small economies. We welcome the presentations by FAO, ITC, UNCT AD and the WTO Secretariat. 
We are also gratified that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, members of CARICOM, were able to 
make a presentation which demonstrated the reality of many small vulnerable economies that are 
exposed to natural disasters of many va rieties. The case of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines includes 
having to deal simultaneously with volcanic eruption and also Atlantic hurricanes. We are also highly 
appreciative of the hard and dedicated work of the permanent delegation of Guatemala and th e WTO 
Secretariat in making the dedicated session a reality and a success.  
3.10.   Most of the populations of CARICOM countries live in high -risk areas. They are exposed to sea 
level rise, weak infrastructure and heavy reliance on climate sensitive sectors such a s tourism, 
agricultures and fisheries. We anticipate that, as climate change compounds the problem of natural 
disasters in making them more severe and frequent, the impact on the economies of our countries 
could consequently be more severe. Natural disaste rs undermine our ability to attain macroeconomic 
and development goals and to break free from the vicious cycle of low -growth and high -debt 
prevalent in the Caribbean region. The high costs incurred by climate -induced events have also 
contributed to the re gion's high public debt, with as much as 15% of the debt accumulated by some 
countries over the previous decade being attributable to post -disaster reconstruction and investment 
in building disaster resilience. These problems also limit our fuller integrat ion into the multilateral 
trading system. Therefore, even as we seek to find solutions combatting the deadly global public 
health pandemic which we are currently facing, we cannot afford to relegate the susceptibilities of 
SVEs to other exogenous shocks, n atural disasters and the effects of climate change to the 
background. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to keep these issues alive. Moving ahead towards 
MC12, our aim is to gain a renewal commitment for Ministers to reaffirm the Work Programme on 
Small E conomies in the form of a Ministerial Decision.  
3.11.   I now deliver a brief statement on behalf of Barbados. The Work Programme on Small 
Economies continues to be of particular importance to Barbados. The topic that will be open for 
discussion today is one whic h speaks to the core of our vulnerabilities. Barbados thanks the Chair of 
the CTD for his report  and for convening the Dedicated Session on small economies, which focused, 
as I mentioned before, on the economic and trade impact of natural disasters on smal l economies. 
Small economies are susceptible to natural disasters and over the last years many have been 
exposed to meteorological and geophysical hazards. These hazards range from hurricanes and 
cyclones in the Pacific to volcanic eruptions, droughts and flooding. Inherent vulnerabilities of small 
vulnerable island economies have been exacerbated by greater threats such as extreme weather 
events and climate change. As I said earlier, this is something that cannot be overstated. On 2 July, 
for the first tim e in 67 years, Barbados was hit by a major storm. Whilst the extent of damages is 
still being assessed, it caused disruptions to our tourism sector through the closure of our airport 
and stagnating commercial activity in the entire country.  
3.12.   The impact of the eruption of the  Soufriere volcano on Barbados is evidence that natural 
disasters do not need to have a direct or immediate impact on a country to have a significant impact 
on that country. Our dependence on trade and our ability to influence shipping g oods or large 
shipping liners entails that supply chain disruptions caused by natural disasters have a knock -on 
impact on food security for small vulnerable economies like Barbados, whose container volumes are 
incredibly small. Like other small vulnerable economies, Barbados is highly dependent on trade, food 
security and inputs into other sectors including the tourism sector. As such, given Barbados is 
dependent on interregional trade, and the country's ability to trade – mainly through the import and 
export goods – is therefore curtailed for some time during this period.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.13.   In light of the impact of natural disasters, we would like to continue to discuss the situation 
relating to the high levels of debt. Vulnerable economies consider it to be timely to have wider 
discussions on this issue at the WTO , particularly in the lead up to the Ministerial. We truly believe 
that it is time for us to examine the role of the organization and to examine the nexus between trade 
and natural disasters . I say that particularl y having been the Chair of the CTE for one year where 
these issues were being fleshed out, and how it can assist small economies in this regard. Therefore, 
we hope we will be able to build upon the body of work which has been started in the WTO and other 
international organizations. It must not be all for naught. We look forward to the commencement of 
discussions  and to the text  of the Draft Decision on the Work Programme on Small Economies, for 
adoption by our Ministers at the Ministerial , and also to participating in the consultations to finalise 
this important text for the WTO Ministerial agenda.  
3.14.   The representative of Mauritius  provided the following statement:   
3.15.   Mauritius would like to thank the Chair of the CTD for holding the Dedicated Session on small 
economies on trade and economic effects of natural disasters. I think that t he discussions highlighted 
that small economies continue to pay the highest price for the damage which has been done to the 
planet. Erratic and extreme weather con ditions, rising sea levels and the pandemic have caused , 
and will continue to cause , significant loss for small economies. Whilst a ll countries in the world face 
natural disasters from time to time, the impact on small economies is always disproportionatel y 
high. I recall the case of cyclone Hugo, which is quoted all the time as having in three days set back 
the GDP of Jamaica by 500%. But beyond the natural disasters, changing weather conditions are 
also destroying our ocean resources, on which many small island developing states rely, but which 
also hold potential for future economic development. Whilst we  encourage discussions on how to 
support small and vulnerable economies at the CTD, we also believe that it would be good to try and 
find some meaningful  solutions long -term on how the small economies may best be assisted . I look 
forward to a discussion at the CTD on whether  the rules we have carved out at the WTO are fair on 
the small economies and , if not, what changes should be brought when we look at t he reform of the 
WTO on this issue.  
3.16.   The representative of Vanuatu , on behalf of the Pacific Group , provided the following 
statement :  
3.17.   Our Group aligns with the SVE statement made by Guatemala. Small Vulnerable Economies 
face significant challenges.  We are  very small open economies, dependent on a very few exports, 
are highly susceptible to external economic shocks, and are uncompetitive due to high trade costs 
that we face, owing to our remoteness, smallness and geographical fragmentation. These structural  
characteristics are exacerbated by climate change and natural disasters. These disasters are growing 
in frequency and intensity and which often wipe away a significant proportion of our economy. 
COVID -19 has further exacerbated these vulnerabilities as ou r major economic sectors such as the 
tourism industry collapses and exports and remittances decline. The Pacific Group therefore 
welcomed the Dedicated Session held on 6 July which focussed on the Economic and Trade Impact 
of Natural Disasters on Small Eco nomies and how to build resilience.  Many useful lessons and 
experiences were discussed. The next step is how to translate these into framing responses for the 
fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system , as required by 
paragraph 35 of the Doha Agenda. We therefore encourage Members to engage constructively to 
facilitate meaningful responses for integrating SVEs into the multilateral trading system. The Pacific 
Group also supports a Draft Decision for MC12  to continue this important work.  
3.18.   The representative of Fiji provided the following statement:   
3.19.   Fiji wishes to commend you for your report in particular for the meeting conducted by the 
Committee on Trade and Development Session - Dedicated to Small Econo mies which had been 
pending for a while. In this regard, we wish to register our gratitude to the delegation of Guatemala 
for its leadership and dedication to the SVE Group and who was instrumental in this milestone 
progress. The session was highly rewardi ng and beneficial in view of the trade effects posed by 
natural disasters on small economies. The session was bolstered with the presence of partner 
organi zations who shed light on the effects of natural disasters on small economies including 
recommendatio ns on the way forward to mitigate the current circumstance faced by our small island 
economies. From the knowledge sharing session it became very clear that natural disasters ha ve 
serious disastrous effects on our economies , that impinges on our ability as  a small island developing 
state like Fiji to contribute effectively in the global value chain. As a way forward , it is important to WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 15 - 
 
  gauge the trade effects of natural disasters on small economies. The WTO should also envisage 
appropriate mechanisms that w ould assist small economies withstand such challenges and to build 
back stronger in view of the revolving nature of natural disasters. Finally , Fiji aligns its intervention 
with the statements delivered by Vanuatu for the Pacific Group  
3.20.   The General Council  took note of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the statements.  
4  TRIPS COUNCIL MATTERS  
4.1  Status Report on the Considerations by the TRIPS Council on the "Proposal for a 
Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment 
and Treatment of COVID -19" (IP/C/W/669) – Statement by the Chair  of the Council for 
TRIPS  
4.1.  The Chair  recalled that this item relate d to a status report by the TRIPS Council Chair on the 
revised "Proposal for a Waiver from Certain Pro visions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, 
Containment and Treatment of COVID -19" in document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1.  Since the May meeting, 
the Council for TRIPS had considered th e request again at its informal and formal meetings in May, 
June and July . He therefore invite d Ambassador Sørli to provide a status report on the TRIPS 
Council's consideration of th e matter.  
4.2.  Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli (Norway), Chair of the TRIPS Council , delivered the following report :  
4.3.  At the meeting of the TRIPS Council on 15 -16 October 2020, India and South Africa introduced 
document IP/C/W/669, requesting a waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the 
prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19, which had been c irculated on 2 October 2020 
and has since been co -sponsored by the delegations of Kenya, Eswatini, Mozambique, Pakistan, 
Bolivia, Venezuela, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, the African Group, the LDC Group, the Maldives, 
Fiji, Namibia, Vanuatu, Indonesia and Jo rdan. Since the introduction of the document, discussions 
took place in various formal and informal TRIPS Council meetings. Delegations exchanged views, 
asked questions, sought clarifications and provided replies, clarifications, and information, including  
through documents IP/C/W/670, IP/C/W/671, IP/C/W/672, IP/C/W/673 and IP/C/W/674, on the 
waiver request. Since the last status report to the General Council on 5 -6 May 2021, the co -sponsors 
issued a revised proposal on 21 May 2021, which was circulated in document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1. 
The revised waiver request was presented at an informal open -ended meeting of the Council on 
31 May and  introduced at its formal meeting on 8 -9 June 2021. Following the arrangement of a 
text-based process, discussions continued i n small -group consultations, at informal open -ended 
meetings on 17 and 30 June, and 6 and 14 July, and at a formal meeting of the Council on 20 July.  
4.4.  In the context of the text -based process, delegations held focused discussions on the topics of 
scope, bo th from the perspective of products and of IP rights, on duration, implementation and on 
protection of undisclosed information. Delegations engaged positively and their detailed substantive 
exchanges helped clarify various aspects and nuances of positions.  While delegations remain 
committed to the common goal of providing timely and secure access to high -quality, safe, 
efficacious and affordable vaccines and medicines for all, disagreement persists on the fundamental 
question of whether a waiver is the appr opriate and most effective way to address the shortage and 
inequitable distribution of and access to vaccines and other COVID -related products.  
4.5.  In addition, a proposal for a draft General Council declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and 
Public Health in the  circumstances of a pandemic, issued by the European Union on 21 June 2021 
and circulated in IP/C/W/681, has also been discussed in those meetings. Delegations exchanged 
views, asked questions, sought clarifications and provided replies, clarifications, an d information. 
Disagreement persists on the fundamental question of whether this proposal is the appropriate and 
most effective way to address the shortage and inequitable distribution of and access to vaccines 
and other COVID -related products.  
4.6.  This means  that the TRIPS Council has not yet completed its consideration of the revised waiver 
request. The TRIPS Council will therefore continue its consideration of the revised waiver request, 
including through small -group consultations and informal open -ended me etings, and report back to 
the General Council as stipulated in Article IX:3 of the Marrakesh Agreement. In addition, the TRIPS WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Council will also continue in the same manner its consideration of the other related proposals by 
Members. This concludes the Co uncil's status report.  
4.7.  The Chairman  thank ed Ambassador Sørli for his report on the discussions in the TRIPS Council, 
and noted that  the TRIPS Council would  continue its work on that matter.  
4.8.  The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
4.9.  We support the statement from the Africa Group and the ACP. We thank the Chair of the TRIPS 
Council for his status report. The report is an objective assessment of progress up to this point. We 
are however disappointed t hat we could not reach consensus on the waiver once again. The cost of 
our deliberations is measured in lives. As of 26 July 2021, 4.2 m illion people have died from this 
virus. A total of 3 .6 billion vaccine doses have been administered. But so far, approx imately 75% of 
these have gone to people in high -income and upper -middle -income countries. To put it into 
perspective, only 13% of the world population is fully vaccinated, with much of the vaccination 
focused on higher income countries.  
4.10.   Approximately 2 % of Africans have been fully vaccinated. And even the African Union 's 
modest goal of getting 20 % of the population vaccinated by the end of 2021 seems out of reach. 
Around 11 billion doses are needed to fully vaccinate 70% of the world’s population against 
COVID -19. There is little room for African countries to buy doses on their own. Almost all of t he 
vaccines forecast to be made in 2021 have already been sold, according to data from Airfinity. This 
data shows that rich nations have bought up most doses long into the future, often far more than 
they could conceivably need. This situation must greatly  worry all of us, for it shows that the current 
production, supply and distribution is only working for a small percentage of countries.  
4.11.   While we welcome progress from the voluntary mechanisms including the launch of the 
vaccine mRNA technology hub in Sou th Africa and partnerships between S outh African  companies 
and IP holders towards the production of vaccines in S outh Africa, much more needs to be done to 
scale-up production. The WHO reports that in the week of 12 to 18 July 2021 , there was a 12% 
increas e of cases compared to the previous week , and many countries across the six WHO regions 
continue to experience surges in COVID -19 cases. Many jurisdictions are entering a third wave with 
a drastic increase of infections and mortality due to new variants of  concern. The urgency of passing 
the Waiver has not abated.  
4.12.   Since our last discussion, the TRIPS waiver proposal has been discussed extensively and the 
co-sponsors have responded to questions and requests for clarification from WTO Members. The 
European P arliament recently approved a resolution "calling for support for proactive, constructive, 
and text -based negotiations for a temporary TRIPS Waiver of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, aiming to 
enhance global access to affordable COVID -19-related medical products and to address global 
production constraints and supply shortages ". The waiver also received support from over 100 IP 
academic experts in an open letter.  While we recognize that IP rights are important for innovation, 
we must recognize that they must serve  the public interest. It is in the global public interest to 
provide access to vaccines and the technologies to produce them in the regions that need them. The 
urgency of passing the TRIPS waiver remains, given the continued loss of life which is perfectly  
preventable.  
4.13.   The co -sponsors have argued that the TRIPS waiver is a necessary, targeted, time -limited 
and proportionate legal measure directed at addressing intellectual property barriers in a direct, 
transparent and efficient fashion, which is consistent  with the WTO legal framework. Passing this 
waiver allows companies the freedom to operate and to produce covered COVID -19 health product s 
and to use health technologies without the fear of infringing another party 's IP rights and the 
attendant threat of l itigation. Furthermore, passing a TRIPS waiver acts as an important political, 
moral and economic lever towards encouraging solutions aimed at global equitable access to 
COVID -19 health products and technologies , including vaccines, therapeutics and diagno stics, which 
is in the wider interest of the global public. While vaccines are important, saving lives necessitates 
access to diagnostics, treatments, oxygen and personal protective equipment, to prevent, treat and 
combat COVID -19. It is likely that millio ns more people will contract COVID -19 and would need 
treatment and care in the years to come, as the realities of vaccine production makes it difficult to 
replicate and ramp -up production in all countries at the same time. Many products related to the 
prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19 are potentially patent -protected, so a TRIPS WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 17 - 
 
  waiver could promote and enhance access to better care for sick people, even if the vaccines are 
not imminently available.  
4.14.   One of the major gaps exposed during this pandemic has been the lack of international 
solidarity and sharing: the sharing of pathogen data, epidemiological information, resources, and 
technology. It has also revealed the profound gap in the tools that every nation needs to keep its 
people safe, es pecially Africa that imports 99% of its vaccine needs.  
4.15.   As the DG of the WHO said at the 138th International Olympic Committee Session in Japan: 
"The global failure to share vaccines, tests, and treatments – including oxygen – is fuelling a two -
track pandem ic: the haves are opening -up, while the have -nots are locking down. The longer this 
discrepancy persists, the longer the pandemic will drag on, and so will the social and economic 
turmoil it brings."  
4.16.   If there was a time when faith in humanity is tested , it is now. I am however reminded by 
Tata Mandela quote when he said : "I am fundamentally an optimist. Whether that comes from nature 
or nurture, I cannot say. Part of being optimistic is keeping one's head pointed toward the sun, one's 
feet moving forward. There were many dark moments when my faith in humanity was sorely tested, 
but I would not and could not give myself up to despair. That way lays defeat and death ." In his 
well-known autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom ", Tata Nelson Mandela reminds  us that he was 
born in a year in which humanity faced challenges similar to the current challenges that the world is 
confronted by, specifically that of the COVID -19 pandemic. He remarks, and I quote: "The year of 
my birth, marked the end of the Great War ; of the outbreak of an influenza pandemic that killed 
millions throughout the world. " If he were alive today, having been born in the midst of such 
challenges and into a life of struggle that was given momentum by global solidarity, he would most 
certainl y urge us as humanity to rise together in solidarity to save lives everywhere, because none 
of us are safe until all are safe.  
4.17.   The WTO has the policy tools to contribute towards universal access of COVID -19-related 
medical products and technologies. We mus t deploy all policy tools. All proposals and initiative s 
aimed at addressing barriers to production are not substitutes , but contribute from different 
perspectives and should be welcomed with a view to find landing zones on all. A WTO response to 
COVID -19 is fundamental to a meaningful outcome at MC12. I hope we can work together in 
solidarity to ensure that the WTO is on the right side of history.  
4.18.   In conclusion Chair, the previous cycle of small group and informal meetings of the TRIPS 
Council were very us eful and informative and should continue to revisit some of the issues that 
require further discussion.  
4.19.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   
4.20.   We wish to refer to our statement at the last G eneral Council meeting  on this issue and further 
underscore the urgency for Members to move to constructive text -based negotiations on this 
proposal in the TRIPS Council. We thank the E uropean Union for their proposal to the TRIPS Council 
titled "Urgent Trade Policy Responses t o the Covid -19 Crisis: Intellectual Property " contained in 
document IP/C/W/680 and the Draft General Council Declaration on the Trips Agreement and Public 
Health in the Circumstances of a Pandemic , contained in document IP/C/W/681. We note that these 
propo sals are centred  on the activation of existing TRIPS flexibilities to deal with the pandemic. We 
wish to state that the TRIPS Agreement constitute s a barrier to ramping -up of production in 
developing countries , and existing limited and restrictive voluntar y licenses provisions have not 
helped the situation. Furthermore, existing flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement , especially Article 31 
and Article 31bis are not sufficient , given that they are not designed to address the challenge of 
global health emergenc ies such as that posed by the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.21.   It is for th ese reasons that we believe the EU proposal cannot effectively address the current 
precarious situation which is exacerbated by huge and ever -increasing therapeutics and vaccines 
supply -demand g ap. The solution lies in rapid access by every country to affordable diagnostics, 
therapeutics, and vaccines to combat this COVID -19 menace. This can only be achieved by ramping -
up the production of these products in developing countries. We look forward to constructive text -
based negotiations on the proposal contained in document IP/C/W/669/R ev.1 in the TRIPS Council , 
so we can achieve a balanced outcome on this issue.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.22.   The representative of Argentina  provided the following statement:   
4.23.   Since the la st meeting of the General Council, at which the Proposal for a Waiver from Certain 
Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID -19 
(IP/C/W/669/R ev.1) was discussed , the proponents have submitted a revised version  and several 
meetings have been held to clarify views. As previously noted, Argentina considers it of utmost 
importance that significant and effective joint action to address the pandemic be agreed to at the 
forthcoming MC12. The current health crisis and poor vaccine distribution, especially in developing 
countries, forces us to consider solutions focused on equitable access to vaccines. Argentina supports 
the proposal to waive intellectual property rights, on the understanding that extraordinary situation s 
require responses that go beyond the current regulatory tools. We must therefore continue the 
discussion and text -based negotiations, with a commitment to finding common ground. Argentina 
will continue to participate actively and constructively to reach consensual solutions, with a focus on 
improving access to vaccines, treatments,  and medicines to combat COVID -19. 
4.24.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , provided the following statement:   
4.25.   I am speaking on behalf of the CARICOM Group, and w e also align with the ACP statement 
under this agenda item. CARICOM recognizes that the COVID -19 pandemic is far from over. We are 
still counting the costs of pandemic lives, socio -economic dislocation and  the degradation of our 
health system. If there was any doubt before regarding our interconnectedness, the pandemic has 
certainly put this to rest. As variants emerge and spread faster, it is clear that no country is safe 
until all countries are safe. In t his context, equitable access to preventive, containment and 
treatment measures for COVID -19 for all becomes even more critical. CARICOM takes note of the 
text-based process which is ongoing. We further take note that the TRIPS Council will continue its 
consideration of the waiver request, including through small group consultations. We encourage 
Members to remain diligent, constructive, transparent and inclusive in their deliberations on this 
important topic. We also look forward to further reports to the General Council.  
4.26.   I now take the floor on behalf of Barbados. We believe that the work over the last few weeks 
has been instrumental in forging constructive engagement amongst WTO Members. We believe that 
this will be key to delivering meaningful outcomes on the prevention, containment and treatment of 
COVID -19. The pandemic continues to be challenging in terms of health and the economy. The 
number of positive cases and deaths continue to increase. There are more troubling fears regarding 
new variants , which can still affect any positive response and recovery that we have been making 
over the last year. Furthermore, importantly, access to vaccines and life -saving medical supplies 
continue s to be uneven and inequitable and I really want to emphasize this poin t. We continue to 
be uneven and inequitable across many countries in the world. It is, therefore, very clear that the 
WTO has a role to play in the response to and recovery from the pandemic.  
4.27.   Barbados strongly welcomes the revised proposal that has been submitted by the proponents 
of the waiver. The discussions on this issue have been encouraging and have certainly given us a 
better understanding of Members' positions, both proponents and non -proponents alike. Barbados 
continues to urge Members to en gage in text -based discussions with the hope that we can reach 
consensus and an outcome which incorporates the interests of all Members, including Barbados. We 
align with the statements delivered on behalf of the CARICOM and ACP Groups.  
4.28.   The representative of the Central African Republic  provided the following statement:   
4.29.   Like the African and LDC Groups, we support the Chair's report and hope that following the 
discussions, we will be able to agree on a text catering to the interests of developing countries as 
regards technology transfer , that will promote increased production capacities with a consistent 
mechanism , guaranteeing the equitable distribution of COVID -19 vaccines and pharmaceutical 
products.  
4.30.   In this international environment marked by the effects  of the COVID -19 pandemic, an 
agreement encouraging technology transfer is very much needed and would strengthen trade 
measures adopted at the WTO level , while contributing to the promotion of herd immunity and global 
economic recovery. Today, we have a gl obal responsibility to offer appropriate solutions to the 
challenges facing the world. Now is the time for us to assume this responsibility in order to leave a 
legacy for future generations and show everyone what the WTO multilateral trading system is WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 19 - 
 
  capable of.  This pandemic has shown the limits of our system, but also the strategies that we must 
adopt in order to improve the way we work and ensure that, going forward, we are proactive and 
able to prevent rather than cure.  
4.31.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement:   
4.32.   I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate Colombia's commitment to the search for a 
coordinated response to the global health crisis caused by COVID -19 and the economic effects arising 
from measures taken to contain it. We are convinced that the WTO will be instrumental in ensuring 
a concerted response, from the technical level, necessary for overcoming bottlenecks in global 
production and distribution chains for vaccines and medicines. As we have reiterated on various 
occasions, this concerted response should contain elements in the areas identified as priorities: 
intellectual property, export restrictions and direct dialogue with producers in the pharmaceutical 
industry.  
4.33.   The representa tive of China  provided the following statement:   
4.34.   We are glad to witness Members ' active and constructive engagement in the text -based 
discussion since this June, which provided opportunities to clarify each other 's positions and 
concerns, and enable releva nt parties to have deeper consultations on the key issues in the 
proposals. However, diverging views still exist over some key elements, such as the scope and 
duration of the waiver, the relationship between the waiver and ramping up the production of 
vaccines, etc . It is clear that time is not on our side. The spread of Delta variants recently has put 
developing Members with insufficient vaccination rate in greater danger. It is a common challenge 
as well as an urgent call for the international community to expand the COVID vaccine manufactur ing 
and to ensure fair and equitable access to COVID vaccines for developing Members. The WTO, by 
exploring a possible landing zone on the TRIPS waiver, could demonstrate its value and make its 
contribution in the fight against the pandemic. Therefore, we call upon all Members to actively 
engage in all forms of discussions after the summer break with an aim to reach a balanced and 
effective solution as early as possible.  Though facing the challen ges of its own mass vaccination 
program, China has provided more than 500 million doses of vaccines to other developing countries,  
and will provide another USD 3 billion in international aid over the next three years to support the 
COVID -19 response and ec onomic and social recovery in other developing countries. Recently, two 
Chinese vaccine manufacturers, Sinopharm and Sinovac , signed advance purchase agreement s with 
Gavi and will provide 550 million C OVID -19 vaccines to the COVAX programme. We will contin ue to 
do our best to contribute to the global fight against pandemic.  
4.35.   The representative of Chad provided the following statement:   
4.36.   The recent trend of the pandemic is very concerning, the economic recovery will be very 
difficult according to all the projections , and rapid affordable effective and efficacious access to 
vaccines and to therapeutics for all vulnerable citizens in the world is now the absolute priority. 
Currently, there are 4.14 million deaths linked to COVID -19, however according to seve ral 
researchers the number of deaths is more than double than what has been officially declared. Recent 
statistics show that 2% of LDCs , which as you know represent 14% of the global population , have 
received at least one injection up to the end of June 20 21. In comparison, 43% of developed 
countries, which represents 16% of the global population , have received at least one injection during 
the same period, that is up to the end of June 2021. In 2021, the production was estimated to be 
between 10 and 14 bil lion, but up until the end of June 2021 approximately 3.5 billion doses have 
already been produced. Up to mid -July, the establishment of COVAX, managed by the WHO, only 
managed to deliver 5.3% of the 2 billion doses scheduled for 2021. A temporary time -limited waiver 
will help a number of countries produce vaccines if they can obtain the appropriate technology, 
unrestricted supply of raw materials and the legal security from the point of view of intellectual 
property rights. Vaccines for treatment of COVID -19 and the different variants should be declared 
global public goods. Our group sincerely hopes to be able to effectively engage in textual 
negotiations.   
4.37.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:   
4.38.   With all the cosponsoring Member s, including the LDC group, Bangladesh attaches high 
importance and welcomes the discussion of the proposal contained in the revised version WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 20 - 
 
  (IP/C/W/669/Rev.1). In many previous occasions, as my delegation has already emphasised, 
Members should engage in t ext-based discussion as soon as possible.  
4.39.   We are facing an unprecedented public health emergency. The priority now is to ensure 
unconditional, affordable, equitable and timely access to vaccine s, therapeutics, required medical 
equipment to stop the pandem ic. The TRIPS Council 's objective on this specific discussion, under 
this waiver proposal, is to overcome barriers in order to achieve equitable and timely access.  
4.40.   May I point out that the high -income countries that make up 16% of the world population 
have pre-booked the majority of the vaccines till 2025. On the other hand, the majority  of developing 
countries and particularly the LDCs are left in absolute uncertainty on accessing the vaccine against 
the virus. There is an urgent need to expand manufacturing globally and to diversify supply, for 
vaccines, therapeutics and other health products needed in 2021 and beyond. Immediate and 
unhindered supply of the vaccine to th ese countries is the priority. The TRIPS Agreement or any 
other regulatory process should not be brought as a hindrance to the most urgent needs of humanity 
today.    
4.41.   We welcome any initiative by Members that aim to address the challenges of unhindered 
supply of vaccines, therapeutics and other medical equipment for the treatment  of COVID -19. The 
current time -limited waiver proposal is with us from October 2020. Let us redouble our efforts in 
reaching a consensual outcome as early as possible. If we just in vest our time only on the legitimacy 
of the proposals and not on the substance, we are leading to nowhere. We must act quickly and 
collectively to remove the barriers to production and supply of affordable and effective vaccine s for 
all, irrespective of ou r development status.   
4.42.   The representative of Nepal  provided the following statement:   
4.43.   My delegation wishes to associate with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDC 
Group and with South Africa and India on behalf of the proponents. A wide ran ge of discussions has 
been conducted in both formal and informal modes of the TRIPS Council in this matter. A large 
proportion of the m emberships is in favour of concluding text -based negotiations based on the 
revised proposal. I reiterate Nepal’s full sup port to the revised proposal and urge all Members to 
conclud e negotiations at the earliest possible to save millions of lives across the globe.  
4.44.   The representative of Malaysia  provided the following statement:   
4.45.   Malaysia would like to join other Members in highlighting the common goal of providing timely 
and equitable access to affordable vaccines and medicines for all. Malaysia wishes to urge 
strengthened collaboration on this front among the key stakeholders towards equitable, affordable 
and acc essible COVID -19 vaccines for all.  In view of the pressing global needs to prevent the spread 
and mitigate the COVID -19 pandemic, we wish to stress the importance of undertaking all measures 
necessary to expand and diversify the supply of vaccines and rela ted goods. We must act sensibly 
to ensure that no Member is left at the end of the COVID -19 vaccines line. Vaccine -nationalism and 
vaccine stockpiling are counter -productive in our effort to increase the global vaccination rate and 
clear the path for a recovery across all our economies.  As of 25 July 2021, Malaysia has recorded 
more than 1 million cumulative confirmed cases and close to 8,000 cumulative deaths, with only 
16.5% of the population having been administered two full doses – significantly lower t han most 
advanced nations.  Malaysia wishes to underscore our continued support for Members to engage in 
meaningful text -based negotiations and finding the appropriate landing zone that will be mutually 
acceptable by all Members ahead of MC12.  
4.46.   The represent ative of Tanzania  provided the following statement:   
4.47.   I would like to align myself to the statement of the African Group as delivered by the 
delegation of Mauritius. Regarding the proposed waiver enshrined in document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1, 
my delegation , like o ther cosponsors, is looking forward to an early conclusion of the text -based 
negotiations. My delegation believes that the long -held discussions in the TRIPS Council prior to the 
commencement of text -based negotiations, have already exhausted most of the k ey concepts and 
questions of Members on the proposed waiver.  COVID -19 has already done enough damage to the 
world, we greatly depend on vaccines to survive the pandemic. However, the low pace of distribution 
of vaccines is concerning as it is not adequate to attain the desired herd immunity in  a short period WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 21 - 
 
  of time. On the other hand, the mutating pace of the COVID -19 variants is worrisome, rendering the 
efficacy of the current vaccines to fade away. The production and distribution of vaccines needs to 
be scaled up , and we believe that the proposed waiver will attract more participants in the production 
and distribution when the onerous procedures of compulsory licensing are temporarily lifted.  At this 
point, my delegation is prioritising the waiver abov e all other WTO issues that are currently being 
discussed. According to the Preamble of the WTO Marrakesh Agreement, all other WTO Agreements 
are for raising standards of living and ensuring full employment of people, but this waiver is for 
saving the live s of millions of people around the world. Therefore, we urge the membership to 
exercise flexibilit y in the text -based negotiations process, with a view to conclude the waiver soon.  
4.48.   The representative of Vanuatu , on behalf of the Pacific Group , provided the  following  
statement:   
4.49.   The Pacific Group supports the ACP statement and considers this matter as a priority for an 
outcome at MC12, for the simple reason that human lives matter.  We are seeing the onset of a third 
wave for countries and regions that had brought COVID -19 under control, while others are still 
struggling from the previous waves of the pandemic. Infections are rising and so are deaths, while 
vaccine shortages continue to be critical. Vaccine inequity cannot continue.  How many more lives 
need to die before we take action? We must place people at the centre of the solutions, not profits. 
The TRIPS Waiver in our view provides an effective solution to scale up needed supplies of vaccines. 
The Pacific Group therefore supports urgent work in the TRI PS Council on text -based discussions, 
and urges Members to engage constructively, in good faith, and in a solutions -seeking mode so that 
agreement on an outcome can be reached well before MC12.  We also believe this should form part 
of the overall package o n WTO 's COVID -19 response.  
4.50.   The representative of Morocco  provided the following statement:   
4.51.   There is a sense of urgency regarding the current situation with a serious deterioration on the 
epidemiological front, and not just in Africa. Our duty is to act collectively and in a timely fashion to 
conclude our discussions on a waiver for intellectual property rights relating to COVID -19 vaccines. 
We think that the WTO has a major role to play in this regard. We thank the Director -General for 
her engagement and  her mobilization , particularly for having brought in other international 
organizations, in particular  WIPO and the WHO. We therefore call for maximum flexibility on behalf 
of all the actors in this process. We reiterate  the importance of effort s towards R &D. This must be 
done fairly and equitably. It should not be done at the cost of human lives , whilst we continue to 
tackle a global crisis with very serious health, economic, social and other consequences. We 
therefore would like to underline that the King dom of Morocco has launched a comprehensive 
vaccination program which aims at assisting our brother African countries with a view to producing 
COVID -19 vaccines prior to the end of this year and in the future to tackle other illnesses through a 
range of di fferent technologies.  
4.52.   In conclusion, I would like to recall that many high -level scientists, political figures and non -
state actors who fully understand the situation have all called us to tackle this waiver in a positive 
way to the benefit of all. They also called on us to ensure that particularly the most vulnerable 
amongst us have access to tools that would allow them to tackle COVID -19 given they are currently 
limited and, in some cases, have zero access. It is through our efforts and given the a bsolute urgency 
of the situation that the WTO must act.  
4.53.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement:   
4.54.   Kenya aligns with the statement that was delivered by Mauritius on behalf of the African 
Group. We believe that the proposed waiver will be handy in enhancing prevention, treatment, and 
containment of COVID -19, by scaling up production of and increasing access to vaccines, 
therapeutics, and diagnostics. We therefore urge Members to focus on the ongoing text -based 
process at the TRIPS Counci l, with a view to expediting the conclusion of the discussions. As the 
world is now focused on vaccination, which is the most effective way to control the pandemic, we 
must also appreciate that the coronavirus continues to ravage many people as countries, especially 
in Africa, battle with the new and more lethal variants. The demand for diagnostics and therapeutics 
has therefore increased exponentially and no one knows how long this pandemic will last. On the 
other hand, many developing countries have barel y vaccinated their populations due to limited 
access to the vaccines, occasioned by supply side constraints, as well as restrictions imposed by WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 22 - 
 
  some vaccine producing countries. The WTO therefore has a role to play in ensuring fair and 
equitable access to the vaccines. The TRIPS waiver will certainly be helpful in ensuring this access.  
4.55.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement:   
4.56.   Nine months have elapsed since the proposal was initially submitted and we  all know of the 
excruciating effects of the pandemic on public health conditions of developing and least developed 
countries. The death toll continues to rise, and our economies are being crippled. Yet, only four 
percent of the population of African count ries have been vaccinated as compared to nearly forty -five 
percent in developed countries – what a contrasting tenfold disparity!  With such a backdrop , the 
African Group is pleased that we have now moved to text -based negotiation s. However, we deal 
extensively on scope, duration, implementation and on protection of information . The negotiation 
by itself is not an achievement as our people are still deprived of vaccinations.  Furthermore, access 
to products and technology in the manufacturing of vaccin es remain critical and the WTO 
membership must expeditiously come together to achieve the desired outcome in favour of the 
TRIPS waiver.  The WTO and its membership need to have a response to the COVID -19, and there 
must be both policy and action coherence globally, involving the WTO, WHO and other international 
organi zations to find solutions to the global pandemic seriously affecting developing countries, 
including African countries which do not have access to vaccines and therapeutics.  
4.57.   The representative of Sierra Leone  provided the following statement:   
4.58.   My delegation would like to endorse the statement by the African Group and to add a few 
points . On vaccine distribution, we are not  begrudging  securing vaccines for the needs of the 
population. This is what all governments do to protect their population. We are extremely grateful 
for some of the vaccine donations that we have received from wealthier nations. We are in the midst 
of the third wave , and we all keep saying that less than 2% of the population in Africa have been 
vaccinated. In some regions it is probably less than 1% , in our region for example. Thousands of 
people continue to be infected and to die , and there is absolutely no end in s ight without more 
vaccines being made available. We are simply asking to be given a chance to be able to secure more 
vaccines. Donations will not do the trick. We need the TRIPS waiver in order to ramp up supplies 
that will pick up the slack , and there is a huge slack. This is much more than a moral appeal , this is 
enlightened self -interest. The pandemic will not end in pockets, you cannot create isolated islands 
of fully vaccinated citizens and leave out a whole sea of unvaccinated people. Travel bans will  not 
do the trick either, mutations of the virus are likely to defeat any vaccine and unless we are able to 
vaccinate all populations around the world , this pandemic will not end. We appeal for a conclusion 
of the TRIPS negotiations and for actions to be t aken as soon as possible.  
4.59.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP  Group , provided the following statement:   
4.60.   The small groups' meetings and the informal meetings of the TRIPS Council have provided 
the opportunity for further deliberations and r obust exchanges on the matter. We appreciate the 
constructive spirit of delegations in these meetings and request continued engagement as well as a 
greater level of flexibility amongst Members. As a group of developing countries, the ACP Group can 
attest to the devastating social and economic impacts brought on by the C OVID -19 pandemic.  The 
rate of vaccination in ACP Group and developing countries is very low due to limited access to 
vaccines with some  countries having as low as only 1% of the total population vaccinated. This is 
noteworthy as it means that economic recovery for many Members of the ACP Group and other 
developing countries will not be possible in the near future. This is being further co mpounded by the 
emergence of new strains which are being reported as more contagious. Vaccination of individuals 
across the world, therefore, has to be a priority particularly for those living in developing countries. 
We all know that no one is safe until everybody is safe. Furthermore, the recovery of the global 
economy should not be at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. Therefore, we should all strive to 
have a response from the WTO in dealing with the pandemic. This sentiment is shared by all WTO 
Members based on the discussions within the Council over the past weeks and months.  
4.61.   The ACP Group welcomes the discussions on specific elements of the proposals such as scope, 
duration, implementation and regulatory data. There should also be continued stru ctured discussions 
on specific elements of the proposal with a view to concluding the discussions way ahead of MC12. 
In closing, the ACP Group wishes to reiterate its willingness to continue engaging on this matter and WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 23 - 
 
  is committed to ensuring that the WTO  is a part of the solution and effectively contribute to the fight 
against this pandemic as well as the global economic recovery. Our response should also, to the 
extent possible, foresee the contribution of the WTO to future pandemics.   
4.62.   The representative  of the Maldives  provided the following statement:   
4.63.   It has become increasingly clear that market -based approaches alone are insufficient to 
effectively respond to the demands of the COVID -19 pandemic, including the equitable and 
affordable access to vaccines and therapeutics. The current system of production and supply is failing 
to mobilize the demand for global production capacity.  It is for this reason that we need to move 
forward constructively on text -based negotiations and achieving a meaningful  outcome with regard 
to the proposed TRIPS waiver in a timely manner. We believe the proposed waiver would enable the 
utilization of resource capacity and facilitate scaling -up production and enable equitable access to 
vaccines for everyone. Given the rela tively small proportion of the population in many poorer 
countries that have been vaccinated, further delays in access will be devastating for all. As we all 
know, "no one is safe, until everyone is safe ". The next few months will prove to be both importan t 
and challenging , as we move forward to achieve deliverables for MC12, including on this important 
issue. This would also be the time to engage constructively and build consensus among us for a 
better and healthier future for all.  
4.64.   The representative of Zimbabwe  provided the following statement:   
4.65.   We align ourselves with the statements delivered by Mauritius and South Africa on behalf of 
the Africa n Group and the co -sponsors of the TRIPS waiver, respectively. Zimbabwe is currently 
grappling with the tragic i mpact of a third wave of C OVID -19 infections and deaths , the consequence 
of a recent major upsurge in the D elta variant cases across many parts of our country.  Although we 
have fared relatively well in terms of both the steady implementation of our nationa l vaccination 
roll-out programme and the sourcing of vaccines for our people  - for which we must once again 
express profound gratitude to China, the Russia n Federation  and India for their partnership and 
generous cooperation  - we have a great deal of ground to cover if we are  to attain our target of 60% 
of our population to be fully vaccinated before the end of 2021 , and, with that target, of course, the 
hope of an effe ctive herd immunity and a safer pathway back towards normality. As we all know, 
global vaccine shortages are partly attributed to manufacturing capacity constraints, vaccine 
nationalism, vaccine export restrictions and a range of other factors. The Propos al for a  Waiver from 
Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of 
COVID -19 remains one of the most obvious remedies towards addressing those shortages, and 
towards rapidly increasing manufacturing capacity, wher ever possible and practical,  thereby 
ensuring enhanced supply and with it, enhanced safe, equitable, and timely access to C OVID -19 
vaccines and therapeutics. Zimbabwe commends Member s for agreeing to move to text -based 
negotiations of the revised TRIPS waiver proposal, and hopes these negotiations will continue in 
good faith. Let us remind ourselves that when we reached agreement to move to text -based 
negotiations, we had just recorded 3 million Covid -related deaths  - up from the 1 million recorded 
deaths a t the time when India and South Africa first tabled the waiver proposal.  We have now 
surpassed 4 million recorded deaths. We therefore urge Member s to be cognizant of the urgency 
involved, and of the need for both collaboration and flexibility in the searc h for a practical way 
forward – one that contributes both to minimizing further loss of human life from C OVID -19, and to 
the steady recovery of economies and livelihoods.  
4.66.   The representative of Turkey  provided the following statement:   
4.67.   We very much value discussions at the TRIPS Council and other WTO bodies on how to 
respond and contribute to the global fight against COVID -19 pandemic. There are divergent views 
among Members with respect to the possible advantages and shortcomings of two  different 
approaches presented to the TRIPS Council. We believe that further clarifications and constructive 
discussions are needed on both proposals. Addressing the concerns raised by Members in a swift 
manner and striving to bridge the gap is crucial to  provide a timely response to the pandemic.  
4.68.   The representative of Botswana  provided the following statement:   
4.69.   Botswana aligns itself with the statement delivered by Mauritius on behalf of the African 
Group. Due to the inequitable access to COVID -19 counte rmeasures in particular vaccines, countries WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 24 - 
 
  in our region , including Botswana,  are now experiencing a third wave of new infections with high 
mortality as hospitals are stretched beyond capacity. As of 15 July 2021, the Africa region has 
managed to secure s upplies to fully vaccinate only 1.19% of its eligible population. This situation is 
deeply concerning. The low vaccination coverage and the emergence of new deadly variants mean s 
that we will struggle to end the pandemic and re -build our societies and econ omies. The faster we 
can scale up global vaccine supply, the faster we can contain the virus and end the pandemic. This 
therefore needs our concerted effort to work together in good faith to reach an agreement on the 
waiver proposal. We believe that the wa y forward is to remove barriers towards the development, 
production and approval of vaccines, therapeutics and other medical technologies necessary for the 
prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19, so that more manufacturers, especially from 
devel oping countries, may independently contribute to the global supply. While we acknowledge that 
there are other key factors that will contribute to addressing the pandemic , such as access to 
technologies and productive capacities, we believe that the TRIPS w aiver is the first step. Timely 
conclusion of these discussions will lead us in the direction we are all moving towards  - ramping up 
the global manufacturing capacity to address the dire supply shortage we are currently facing. I wish 
to reiterate that whi le conclusion of the discussions on this matter are stalled, we continue to record 
preventable deaths. As such , temporarily waiving relevant intellectual property will indeed 
demonstrate the important contribution that the WTO as a rule -based multilateral institution can 
make on this matter in the pandemic.  
4.70.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
4.71.   Pakistan would like to recall all its previous statements on this issue in the General Council 
and the TRIPS Council at its formal and informal sessions. With mortality officially crossing 4 million 
and real numbers estimated to be much higher, the situati on of the pandemic has worsened 
considerably. More lives are being lost to the new Delta variant at greater speed. At the same time, 
availability of vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics is also worsening. 76% of global vaccination 
has been carried out on ly in 10 countries and only 1% and 10% of the populations are vaccinated 
in Africa and Asia respectively. C OVAX , C-TAP and other facilities have fallen a long way short of 
expectations and desired results. In fact, it is astonishing to observe in recently presented data by 
an analytics firm, that of the much hyped 11 billion doses of vaccines that are to be available by the 
end of 2021, more than 10 billion have already been purchased mostly by the advanced countries; 
leaving less than 1 billion doses, only  of the Chinese vaccine to be purchased by poor countries. A 
"shocking imbalance in distribution ", a "moral failure ", a "human catastrophe ", an "economically 
self-defeating " situation. These are a few of the many expressions used by the D irector -General  of 
the WHO for the stark vaccine inequity across the globe. Cosponsors have indicated that we are 
open to all and even a combination of solutions that would help the efficient scaling up of production 
and provide equitable and affordable access to everyone. Each proposal must be evaluated on its 
merit. However, as we are witnessing, reliance merely on voluntary licenses cannot produce desired 
results. Also, due to the myriad problems associated with the grant of compulsory licenses in 
individual countries, an d the huge scale of the pandemic, that option also provides an improbable 
and grossly inadequate solution. While we appreciate the proposal by the E uropean Union for 
clarifications on compulsory licenses under the TRIPS Agreement, we find that the proposal  alone, 
by itself , cannot address the enormity of the task at hand. Therefore, the TRIPS waiver proposal is 
a necessary component for saving precious lives and must be an integral part of any fight or response 
by this organi zation against the pandemic. We urge all Members to engage meaningfully and 
earnestly in text -based discussions with a view to improving the text and granting the waiver.  
4.72.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
4.73.   The European Union is strongly committed to achieving our common goal: to continue 
ramping up production, to share COVID -19 vaccines and medicines more widely and faster, and to 
ensure equitable access to these products for low - and middle -income countries.  
4.74.   The European Union is making every effort to fight the pandemic. The European Union is the 
biggest producer of mRNA vaccines and is therefore at the forefront of deliveries of vaccines to the 
rest of the world: so far, more than 500 million doses have been exported from the European U nion 
and similar amounts have been delivered to Europeans.  
4.75.   The European Union and its member States have also been the largest donor to the COVAX 
facility: EUR 3.2 billion have been committed to support the equitable distribution of vaccines.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 25 - 
 
  4.76.   We already se e enormous progress in the total global production of COVID -19 vaccines: 
according to Airfinity, a billion doses were produced by 12 April, another billion were produced by 
26 May and the third billion by 22 June. It is clear that production is acceleratin g, and it is therefore 
realistic to expect that some 10 billion doses will be produced by the end of 2021. By comparison, 
the total global output of all vaccines before COVID -19 was only 5 billion doses.  
4.77.   To support short -term actions for ramping up vaccin e production, the European Commission 
set up a vaccine task force in the E uropean Union whose objective is to match supply with demand 
and to lift bottlenecks. Its main tasks are to promote partnerships through matchmaking events. 
And this has brought tang ible results: we have seen that so far technology transfer is working well 
with a number of high -level partnerships announced recently. Fifty-three  (53) EU manufacturing 
sites are already engaged in relation to COVID -19 vaccines, based on voluntary partner ships.  
4.78.   Important partnerships are forged also outside of the European Union.  Just to give an 
example , recently Pfizer has signed a letter of intent with the South African company Biovac, to 
manufacture the Pfizer -BioNTech COVID -19 vaccine for distribution within Africa. Technology 
transfer, on -site development and equipment installation activities will begin immediately. It is 
expected that the facility will be brought into the supply chain by the end of this year. Biovac will 
obtain drug substance s from Bi oNTech 's facilities in Germany, and manufacturing of finished doses 
will commence in 2022. At full operational capacity, the annual production will exceed 100 million 
finished doses annually. All doses will exclusively be distributed to the fifty -five (55)  Member States 
of the African Union.  
4.79.   Beyond the current crisis, it is also necessary to build resilience of the health systems in those 
countries which do not have their own manufacturing capacity and are overly reliant on imports. To 
this end, the Europea n Union and its member States are launching an initiative to develop vaccine 
production in the African continent , entailing investment in infrastructure and production capacities 
as well as skills development, supply chains management, and the necessary re gulatory framework 
in order to create conditions for technology transfer. The objective is to develop a number of regional 
hubs distributed across the African continent , and we have already identified promising projects in 
South Africa, Senegal and Rwanda.  EUR 1 billion has already been allocated from the EU budget and 
the EU finance institutions to deliver on this goal.  
4.80.   On 9 July, the E uropean Union signed in Dakar a EUR 6.7 million grant in support of Institut 
Pasteur  de Dakar, in Senegal, to produce the anti -COVID -19 vaccine by early 2022 with a production 
capacity of 300 million doses of vaccines per year. Rwanda is also receiving EU support to enhance 
its manufacturing capacities and strengthen regulatory frameworks.  
4.81.   These are only examples showing the range of efforts and actions that are taken – it is clear 
that the response must go beyond the matters related to trade. But trade may and should play a 
role in enhancing access to COVID -19 vaccines and medicines.  
4.82.   The in tense discussions in various fora have demonstrated that limited manufacturing 
capacity, restricted access to raw materials and other inputs as well as complex supply chains are 
the main bottlenecks as regards the production and distribution of COVID -19 va ccines. In addition, 
having the required know -how is key due to the complexity of the production process of these 
vaccines. Last week, the WTO published information on the bottlenecks regarding critical products 
to combat COVID -19 that confirms these findi ngs. 
4.83.   Trade -related measures, if agreed swiftly, could address some of the bottlenecks and make a 
real difference. We need to look into export restrictions, minimise barriers to trade and put forward 
trade -facilitation measures. We will further discuss thes e issues in a separate point of our agenda 
today.  
4.84.   Given the nature of the identified bottlenecks and the need for the sharing of know -how, the 
European Union does not believe that the proposed suspension of the TRIPS Agreement by the 
waiver proposed by Sou th Africa, India and a number of other WTO Members, is an appropriate and 
effective response.  The proposed waiver will not increase production of COVID -19 vaccines and 
medicines, as it will not address any of the existing bottlenecks that have been identif ied. It rather 
risks having counterproductive effects on our common efforts to enhance access to such vaccines 
and medicines. In particular, it will undermine the ongoing collaborations, which are based on the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 26 - 
 
  well-established platform of intellectual prop erty protection and will have a chilling effect on future 
such collaborations.  
4.85.   In addition, the waiver may have harmful effects going forward when it comes to fighting 
future pandemics , and more generally on incentives for research and innovation. The Euro pean 
Union has provided details on these risks in the discussions in the TRIPS Council.   
4.86.   The intellectual property system is not an obstacle to access COVID -19 vaccines and 
medicines. To the contrary, it has played a key role in the development of these pr oducts and can 
play an enabling role in deploying existing capacity or creating new capacity for the production of 
COVID -19 vaccines and medicines. The European Union believes that it is possible to enhance the 
role of the IP system while at the same time maintaining the protection required for incentivising 
technology transfer and investment in innovation, so that we can fight against new strains of COVID -
19 and any future diseases. It is to this end that the European Union has put forward an alternative 
proposal to the proposal on the waiver – the European Union proposal focuses on the clarification 
and facilitation of the use of compulsory licensing system.  
4.87.   The compulsory licensing system provides for tools that can be used in times of the pandemic 
to ove rcome potential IP -related obstacles . It also provides enough legislative space to apply the 
system in a swift manner. The proposal is meant to clear any doubts that may persist about the use 
of the system and to indicate ways in which the system can be us ed in a fast and simple manner 
that is fully adapted to the challenges of the pandemic.  
4.88.   We have proposed clarifications on the elements that we find most relevant for the situation 
of the pandemic, that is the fast -track procedure that omits negotiations w ith right holders; the 
support for manufacturers wishing to supply to low - and middle -income countries at discount prices; 
and the simple single notification to be made by the exporting country to speed up exports. We have 
also emphasized that the European  Union remains open to discuss other aspects of the compulsory 
licensing system that merit clarification and facilitation. This discussion has already started in the 
TRIPS Council.  
4.89.   In our view, clarifications on the proposed aspects would provide the neces sary legal certainty 
to Members to intervene and swiftly grant compulsory licences including for purposes of export to 
countries that are lacking manufacturing capacity. Our approach would also promote production and 
supply of those products to low - and mi ddle-income countries at affordable prices, including via the 
COVAX Facility.  
4.90.   Given the stalemate we are experiencing in the TRIPS Council, we encourage all WTO 
Members to try to find convergence on the basis of the European Union proposal as the one that  is 
pragmatic, targeted and effective in responding to the current needs , while keeping intact the 
necessary incentives for innovation. It is through the targeted approach proposed by the European 
Union that we believe we can advance in our discussions on the intellectual property element of the 
WTO response to the COVID -19 crisis and finally pave the way for advancing on the other parts of 
the needed comprehensive approach.  
4.91.   We are ready to discuss all the requirements of the compulsory licensing system, requirement 
by requirement, to see what issues there are, how they can be addressed and how we can make the 
system function. We thank all Members for their engagement on our p roposal and for their 
contributions, questions and thoughts on it so far. We have received valuable feedback and we are 
pleased to see the interest of various delegations on this approach. We look forward to our continued 
discussion and hope to be able to agree on an outcome in advance of the November Ministerial 
Conference.  
4.92.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
4.93.   As my delegation has reiterated on several occasions, Brazil wants meaningful, timely and 
comprehensive solutions that em power all Members in their response to the challenges we are 
currently facing. We are confident that, if we approach these negotiations with the necessary 
combination of flexibility, sense of urgency and pragmatism, we will be able to find common ground. 
You can count on our engagement to work to that end in the months ahead. We want to thank the 
DG for organizing, together with the Director -General of the WHO, the High -Level Dialogue on WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 27 - 
 
  "Expanding COVID -19 Vaccine Manufacturing to Promote Equitable Access" , held on 21 July. The 
event provided a useful stocktaking of prospects for vaccine production and distribution, with an 
enhanced focus on how we could promote equity. We invite all actors to continue to invest in this 
concerted effort to provide meaningfu l solutions to end the pandemic.  
4.94.   The representative of Norway  provided the following statement:   
4.95.   Norway would like to thank the TRIPS Council Chair for his report. Norway welcomes the 
proponents ' revised proposal. We had, however, hoped that the revised pr oposal to a larger degree 
would have reflected the comments and concerns raised by many Members in our deliberations. 
Norway also welcomes the submission from the European Union as a valuable contribution to our 
deliberations on how the IP system can best contribute to our common objective. Norway would like 
to appeal to all parties to search for a common ground as a basis for a pragmatic compromise that 
can achieve consensus, and we look forward to continuing our deliberations within the framework of 
the TRIPS Council.  
4.96.   The representative of Afghanistan  provided the following statement:   
4.97.   We welcome the revised proposed decision text and support it. The pandemic continues to 
affect society and the economy worldwide and has caused a massive human catastrophe. The 
pandemic 's effects on the health sector, especially in LDCs, are horrific. While some developed 
country Members are easing pandemic restrictions, many other countries, including Afghanistan, are 
experiencing a problematic situation and new  phases of the pandemic. Aside from the impact of the 
virus itself, the secondary effects of the pandemic are continuing to hit communities that had not 
yet recovered from the previous waves. While we are thankful for receiving some COVID -19 
vaccination do ses, based on the data from our capital, unfortunately, only 1.92 % of our population 
has received the vaccine. While we are happy that Members are moving closer to a text -based 
negotiation process to improve the international response to COVID -19 and achie ve the common 
goal of providing global equitable access to vaccines and other medical products, we are concern ed 
by the pace. Therefore, we urge all Members to consider the severity of this crisis, take a solution -
finding approach, and move to text -based n egotiations soon. It is the proper time to put practical 
measures to ensure the availability and accessibility of affordable and timely vaccines and the 
required medical products to all worldwide Members to combat this pandemic. Finally, Afghanistan 
associ ates itself with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group.  
4.98.   The representative of Cabo Verde  provided the following statement:   
4.99.   My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by Mauritius on behalf of the African 
Group and by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP  Group . We support the statement made by our colleague 
from South Africa. Over the last few months, we have seen substantial progress in the number of 
vaccines distributed. However, the majority of those went to richer countries . Thanks to bilateral 
agreements with production companies, these countries have accumulated doses for their own 
populations and have left poorer countries aside. We all know that in order to stop this global 
pandemic, a global response is needed. The pand emic will not come to an end whilst significant 
reservoirs of the virus remain, and the world remains in danger given that new variants are 
emerging. The temporary waiver is essential if we are to avoid this pandemic. Some developing 
countries who have pro duction capacity should have access to the technology and the products to 
provide a generic version, which would reduce the cost of the vaccines and increase production. The 
appearance of new variants such as Delta add difficulties for countries with scarc e resources. As the 
Director -General  of the WTO has declared, we are living in exceptional times and we need to 
overcome this challenge. We cannot repeat the painfulness of the first years following AIDS , where 
the richer countries had access to medication  while millions in developing countries were dying 
because they had no treatment available.  
4.100.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement:   
4.101.   Regrettably, the discussion was supposed to be in the context of a text -based process . 
Constant repeated question s have slowed down such text -based process, but of course we 
profoundly appreciate the constructive engagement made by all Members during the course of this 
discussion , guided skilfully by the Chair of the TRIPS Council. Indonesia would like to reiterate that 
for us the TRIPS waiver proposal is the WTO top priority at this moment. We consider this proposal WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 28 - 
 
  as a main element of the holistic WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic. It is inevitable that we 
immediately pursue and conclud e the TRIPS waiver to address such obstacles and to scale up the 
production of all COVID -19 related health products and technology , to save people from the 
worsening pandemic. IP rights are not absolute, they are subject to public interest and such public 
interest exists now. The TRIPS waiver should be our way, the Members' way, to uphold public interest 
and the livelihood of so many.  
4.102.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   
4.103.   We all recogni ze the scale of the challenge as t he pandemic continue s to rage in so much of 
the world and pa y tribute to the eloquent testimony to its human effects by South Africa and others. 
We all agree that our objective should be - to use the phraseology of the G7 at Carbis Bay - to 
vaccinate the world. The question is how. Sitting on the UK 's Vaccine Taskforce board last year, we 
faced many challenges in developing and deploying vaccines, including potential bottlenecks and the 
resilience of our supply chain s. IP was not the problem, nor is it. In fact, it is the IP regime that has 
enabled the extraordinary scientific advances of the last year, including the development of an 
unexpected number of safe and effective vaccines . Scaling up the production and deli very of vaccines 
has been at the heart of our G7 Presidency, including the commitment to share a billion doses within 
the next year and our national financial contribution to COVAX of £548  million (three quarters of a 
billion dollars) as well as our forthc oming sharing of doses through COVAX. We will continue to 
encourage voluntary licensing and technology transfer, support COVAX and look to identify solutions 
to production bottlenecks and weaknesses in the supply chain. In that respect , we very much 
welcom e efforts to bolster public/private and international collaboration in this area, such as the 
WTO-WHO Symposium last week, and also the new World Bank/COVAX financing mechanism.  
4.104.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement:   
4.105.   Members s hare the objective of ensuring global, equitable and timely access to vaccines and 
medicines against COVID -19. However, they do not agree on the means to achieve this.  Switzerland 
has been committed since the beginning of the pandemic to ensuring rapid and  equitable access to 
health technologies, including vaccines. We do not consider a waiver of the TRIPS Agreement to be 
an effective way to rapidly increase the manufacture of vaccines against COVID -19. On the contrary, 
such a waiver risks undermining the e fforts of the more than 300 international partnerships that are 
currently working to build production capacity. These production partnerships are based on the 
international regulatory framework, of which the TRIPS Agreement is a key element. This is 
partic ularly true when it comes to the sharing of innovative technologies and know -how. Such 
sharing is a prerequisite for increasing the production of COVID -19 vaccines.  Today, voluntary 
technology transfer is taking place on a considerable scale, as illustrate d by the manufacturing 
partnerships between Astra Zeneca and the Serum Institute of India,  or the more recent partnership 
announced between Pfizer/Bio Ntech and the South African manufacturer Biovac.  A waiver of the 
TRIPS Agreement would suspend the international regulatory framework for intellectual property. 
Existing production partnerships would face a legal vacuum. Such legal uncertainty could disrupt or 
even jeopardise ongoing partnerships to increase global production as quickly as possible. 
Intellectual property protection is not the problem, but part of the solution.  This is the message that 
practitioners, women and men in the field - who toil day and night to keep complex production 
chains running - gave us at the 21 July symposium organi zed by the WTO and WHO. It also became 
clear at this event that supply problems and regulatory barriers were the main obstacles to the 
optimal functioning of production units.  This is why Switzerland is actively involved in the work on 
trade and health in the W TO context. We support a holistic approach, which is the only way to solve 
the problems faced by supply chains.  It goes without saying that international programmes such as 
the ACT Accelerator and COVAX also have a crucial role to play in the fight against  the pandemic. 
On 28 April, Switzerland made available an additional CHF 300 million to support the ACT 
Accelerator, on top of the CHF 400 million already made available to support international pandemic 
initiatives. In addition, the Swiss Federal Council decided on 30 June to transfer 4 million doses of 
vaccine to the COVAX programme.  Switzerland remains committed to continuing discussions on the 
proposals made in the context of the TRIPS Council, including those of the EU, in the hope of reaching 
a mutual ly acceptable outcome.  
4.106.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  provided the following statement:    
4.107.   We believe that we are extending the discussion , which is preventing us from achiev ing real 
results , while  this is an urgent issue. The lack of agreement amongst Members undermines the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 29 - 
 
  WTO's ability to act, particularly when the proposed extension and waiver has received large support 
around the world. It is clear that there is real inequality in terms of acce ss to vaccine, we have seen 
this in terms of death rates . The number of deaths around the world is up to 4 million , around the 
world  and it is clear that we have an urgent need to increase production and diversify existing 
vaccines and medicines. This mean s lifting legal barriers to production , which  come in the form of 
intellectual property law. We recognize that this is not the only obstacle, however it is the most 
significant one. The waiver is a necessary tool, a temporary tool , to lift intellectual pro perty barriers 
and allow  to increase production. Bolivia would like to see a waiver which allows us to address urgent 
situations such as this one . This  example is only showing the great inequalities in the current system , 
which cannot be addressed in the s hort term. We would urge all Members of the WTO to show real 
interest and political will to participate in the text -based negotiations without diverting or extending 
the discussions unnecessarily before the Ministerial Conference.  
4.108.   The representative of Eswatini provided the following statement:   
4.109.   My delegation aligns itself with the statement of the ACP Group and the Africa Group. The 
Kingdom of Eswatini is pleased that, while the initial proposal of the waiver was first introduced nine 
months ago, there is finally an agreement to advance this proposal to text -based negotiations. We 
welcome this move and we are also sensitive to the urgency of these negotiations to reach a solution 
to the catastrophic effects of the COVID -19 pandemic, especially in developing  countries, where 
vaccine access continues to be elusive. We note with concern the continued inequality that has 
characterized the distribution of medical products including vaccines and therapeutics required to 
curb the pandemic, resulting in high mortali ty rates and loss of livelihoods. We cannot 
overemphasize the urgent need to ameliorate the current dire situation, in order to save lives and 
livelihoods. It is also clear that it is necessary to achieve herd immunity through vaccination globally , 
in orde r to prevent the COVID -19 from continuing to mutate, becoming more resistant to current 
vaccines and causing more periods of mass fatality. In the last few months, we have witnessed the 
virus continue to mutate into new variants. This means if there are large populations waiting to be 
vaccinated, the virus will continue to mutate and affect the poorer countries even more. The lack of 
access to medical products , including vaccines and therapeutics, will not just lead to more deaths, 
but will also cause a r aft of economic, social, and health effects, both in developing countries and to 
the rest of the world. This means we are not safe until we are all safe. Ensuring equitable access 
and distribution of the vaccine is in the interest of all. In this regard, w e urge that these text -based 
negotiations are done expeditiously, in good faith and in a transparent manner, with the aim of a 
results -oriented solution in order to save lives and livelihoods. We also urge that the negotiations 
not just focus on the supply  and distribution of vaccines but also cover a range of COVID -19-related 
health products and technologies, including access to information on their materials and components 
and their methods and means of manufacture, as per the revised waiver proposal.  
4.110.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  provided the following statement:   
4.111.   We recall our previous statements and emphasize that the situation is extremely serious. 
What we are facing now is the urgent need to take an action . In this regard , we welco me the report 
of the TRIPS Council Chairman, Ambassador Sørli . We think his report is a useful and good bas is for 
us to continue our discussions. We urge all Members to cooperate and to show the necessary 
flexibility to provide timely and secure access to safe and affordable vaccines for all.  
4.112.   The representative of Cameroon  provided the following statement:   
4.113.   We associate ourselves with the statements made by the African Group and the ACP Group 
and thank the Chair of the TRIPS Council for the quality of his report. There is no need for us to 
mention again the importance of finding a quick and consensual outcome to the proposal on the 
lifting of certain intellectual property rules for the purpose of facilitating the production of vaccines 
and pharmaceutica l products needed for combating the COVID -19 pandemic. We therefore invite all 
parties to actively engage in the search for concrete and effective solutions to overcome the various 
obstacles we are facing. We welcome the willingness shown so far, and stres s that only a quick and 
effective Council decision on this issue will provide solid evidence of our goodwill. The world is 
watching, and the threat posed by the emergence of new variants  is right outside the door. There is 
merit in the development of innov ation and research, just as it makes sense to give appropriate 
consideration to commercial interests and investors ' rights. However, intellectual property and 
investment security aspects are not incompatible with common sense and cannot override the public  
interest. Only comprehensive medical coverage that meets the needs of all countries will enable this WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 30 - 
 
  pandemic to be tackled effectively.  It is indeed necessary to show solidarity and that is why we 
welcome the COVAX facility and the multi -faceted donation s made to Cameroon and other states. 
Such donations are a gesture that reflect international solidarity and are necessary , but the question 
is whether they are sufficient to meet the needs of States. In its latest report, the WHO welcomes 
this surge of sol idarity, but expresses concern over existing disparities in access to vaccines. This is 
to underline the urgent need to include other mechanisms in the current framework of solidarity that 
can increase technical and technological access with a view to sign ificantly increasing the production 
of vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.  Hence it is up to us to adopt a response that takes 
account of all possible approaches, limiting the pitfalls while making the most of the merits.  We have 
no doubt regarding  our capacity to do so. Let us show more determination and take resolute action 
in the consensus -based search for a pragmatic, effective solution that responds to the current 
emergency with an eye to any future pandemics.  
4.114.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement:   
4.115.    To achieve equitable access to vaccines, our government co -hosted the COVAX AMC Summit 
with Gavi in June, and we have already pledged approximately USD 1 billion of financial resources 
to COVAX. In addition, Japan intends to provide around 30 million doses of vaccines manufactured 
in Japan to other countries and regions, including through the COVAX Facility. Japan will also make 
steady progress on our "Last One Mile Support " initiative to ensure vaccination  is deliver ed down to 
the last person in the supply chain all over the world. We believe such a framework for multilateral 
cooperation is the most effective way to achieve timely, fair and equitable access to medical 
produc ts. With regard to technology transfer, we will encourage the voluntary transfer of vaccine 
production technologies on mutually agreed terms as per the APEC Economic Leaders ' Statement on 
16 July. In this context, Japan supports the WTO Director -General 's continuous initiatives , such as 
promoting dialogues with pharmaceutical industries and pragmatic cooperation among capable 
manufacturers. We will engage in the discussion in various formats at the TRIPS Council, listening 
to the views of Members on how int ellectual property , including the existing TRIPS flexibilit ies, can 
contribute to achieving our common goal of providing timely, fair and equitable access to high -
quality, safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines  and medicines for all.  
4.116.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement:   
4.117.   In light of the divergent views expressed by Members at the TRIPS  Council , the deliberations 
on the proposals on the table need to be continued. IP -related issues at the TRIPS Council should 
be approached keeping in mind the need to explore the best pragmatic way to secure the increased 
production of and equitable access to vaccines in a timely manner at this urgent time of crisis. I also 
would like to reiterate that along with IP -related measure s, a broad based and holistic approach 
should be taken, such as encouraging technology transfer, facilitating the supply of raw materials 
and strengthening the operation of COVAX Facilities.  For the COVAX Advanced Market Commitment, 
Korea plans to increase  its contribution to USD 200 million over two years.   
4.118.   The representative of Singapore  provided the following statement:   
4.119.   Allow me to make three points on this agenda item . First, like all WTO Members, Singapore 
continues to share the common objective of scaling up vaccine production and ensur ing its equitable 
distribution. In this context, Singapore fully supports the continuum consideration of all possible 
means to scale up vaccine production and distribution. Singapore has participated actively in the 
text-based process of the TRIPS waiver proposal and will continue to do so. However, the main 
challenges of increasing vaccine production and distribution remain complex and de mand a holistic 
approach.  
4.120.   Second, while Members share the same objective, there are serious differences in 
approaches. The fundamental difference voiced out and questioned of whether IP has been hindered 
to scal e up vaccine production a t the WTO -WHO High Level Dialogue on Expanding COVID -19 
Vaccine Manufacturing to Promote Equitable Access last week, the unequivocal answer that we have 
heard from the ho rse's mouth was that IP has hindered  production . The common refrain we heard 
from vaccine manufacturers i s that vaccine supply chain bottlenecks, lack of regulatory 
harmonization and export restrictions pose greater challenges. On the contrary, there was unanimity 
that IP has enabled vaccine developers to confidently invest in research and development , that 
enabled them to produce effective COVID -19 vaccines in record time.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 31 - 
 
  4.121.   Third, it is time for Members to focus on the real question at hand, which is "how do we work 
together in a practical and pragmatic manner to scale up vaccine production and ensure more 
equitable distribution?" Taking reference again from the 21 July WTO -WHO High Level Dialogue , it 
is heartening to learn about Pfizer and BioNTech collaboration with the Biovac Institute in South 
Africa to manufacture and distribute COVID -19 vaccines. This co llaboration will involve technical 
transfer, on -site development and equipment installation activities to develop South Africa's 
manufacturing capability. Furthermore, all the vaccines produced will be for the 55 member states 
of the African Union. Another  encouraging announcement from the same event was that Pfizer will 
produce 3 billion doses of vaccines by 2021 and up to 4 billion doses by 2022. Similarly, AstraZeneca 
said that it is on track to deliver 2 billion doses and Moderna will deliver between 80 0 million to 
1 billion doses by the end of the year. What these developments clearly illustrate is that there are 
existing pathways and modalities to enable public -private partnerships and collaboration s that are 
capable of scaling -up vaccine production an d more importantly getting vaccines into the arms of as 
many people around the globe as possible. What WTO Members must do is to focus on taking the 
most practical and pragmatic steps to reach our common objective.  
4.122.   The representative of Fiji provided the following statement:   
4.123.   The first revision to the proposal in document IP/C/W/669/Rev .1 has the necessary 
ingredients to pave the way forward for the WTO to contribut e to the trade and health agenda. 
Despite the current roll out of COVID -19 vac cines, therapeutics and related tools, many gaps remain 
to be resolved. The COVAX Facility as we have noted is unable to deliver despite its initial plans , due 
to the production constraints and other restrictions in light of global demand. Above all, the v irus 
continues to mutate with the current Delta variant being more pernicious and replicat ing itself faster. 
We therefore should expect similar trend s in the future, whereby new variants will continue to mutate 
given the current trend of access  delay . The critical way to address this dilemma is to ensure that 
all States have access to the vaccine and therapeutics as a starting point. Therefore, Members who 
have the capacity to produce should be equipped with the necessary tools and know how to do so. 
The wa iver of certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement in this pandemic time is therefore relevant 
and a step in the right direction.  Every avenue must be explored to get people vaccinated in good 
time, both to save lives and to save our economies.  
4.124.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   
4.125.   While we continue our protracted deliberations on this proposal on a waiver from certain 
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement , for the past ten months more than 4 million people have 
succumbed to this virus  - these lives could have been saved had we agreed to the proposal and 
given it a chance. With less than 1% of vaccines administered in low -income nations, increasingly 
we see that a two -track pandemic developing, with countries having deep pockets having access to 
vaccines while poorer nations are being left behind. Each nations ' interests are entwined with that 
of the other, while developed countries have outpaced developing a nd LDCs in vaccinations and have 
also secured supplies for future doses, such a lopsided approach will only prolong the pandemic and 
exacerbate its aftereffects .  
4.126.   Members have argued that the waiver is not a response to enhancing supplies because the 
const raints are varied. They have repeatedly claimed that voluntary approaches will deliver. But the 
current situation clearly reveals that waiting for pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily license 
their know -how to manufacturers world over , to supply develop ing countries, including LDCs , has 
not delivered equitable access at affordable prices.  There is, thus, an urgent need for the WTO 
Members to take action, to use existing tools for improving access.  Limitations and shortcomings of 
voluntary approaches has already cost us many a lives and livelihood s and impacted economies, 
especially in the developing world.  In the 21 July event, three areas were identified by D irector -
General of the World Health Organization in order to increase manufacturing, and these were 
technology transfer, supply chain resilience and IP waiver.  These are not areas that are mutually 
exclusive, because each area responds to a particular aspect of the crisis and therefore must be 
looked at independently and com prehensively. Even if we were to assume that as per some recent 
estimates that we could manufacture 11 billion doses by the year end, significant issues surrounding 
equitable access and affordability of these vaccines would continue to persist and would ne ed to be 
addressed.   
4.127.   The strength of economic recovery across countries is being driven by three key factors, 
namely, the extent of public health interventions including the vaccination programme, domestic WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 32 - 
 
  policy and government stimulus and the reliance of  the economy on high contact sectors like tourism. 
Trade plays a key role in this recovery, and while global trade volumes saw a resurgence by 
April 2021, such recovery has been skewed with trade in goods leading the resurgence and services 
lagging behind.  In the recent WTO Report, it has been highlighted that global services trade, that 
marked a decline of 21% last year, remained sluggish in the first quarter of 2021, falling 9% year -
on-year owing to continued weakness in resumption of travel services amon g others. The continued 
uncertainty due to new variants and subsequent waves hitting various parts of the world, restrictions 
on movement of people, lack of retail spending, less consumer spending on services than goods, will 
continue to slow down the reco very and should be of concern to us all. This will continue to have 
devastating effect on small and vulnerable economies that are heavily reliant on services.   
4.128.   All Members reiterate their commitment to a shared objective of saving lives, and the need 
to ramp up global manufacturing, and with that goal and understanding, the cosponsors engaged 
during the text -based negotiations process. However, to our dismay , a few Members refuse to 
engage in the text -based negotiation.  These few Members ensured that we are  unable to meet the 
deadline set by the TRIPS Council Chair for reaching the necessary landing zone by end -July. While 
these Members emphasise the need for a comprehensive solution, it appears that the understanding 
of the term comprehensive is to be align ed with the priorities of these few Members. We continue 
to hear importance of a rules-based organi zation, what we are witnessing though is that the rules 
and procedures are conveniently and selectively interpreted. It would be worthwhile for Members to 
ponder over the kind of precedence these selective interpretations of rules are creating.  The 
proposed waiver will enable the temporary suspension of the relevant TRIPS rules, providing 
manufacturers around the world the freedom to operate and scale up the production of vaccines. It 
is, thus, a necessary ingredient of a multi -pronged approach to combat the pandemic. The writing 
on the wall is clear, though we may choose to turn a blind eye. A differential approach to combat 
the pandemic will not only fail but  also be counterproductive to the recovery. We must as an 
organi zation rise to the occasion and deliver, and save the people we are here to serve. Therefore, 
it is high time this organization prioritizes saving human lives and livelihoods over all other pr iorities. 
Needless to say , a decision on this critical proposal is absolutely crucial to the relevance of this 
organization in these trying times.  
4.129.   The representative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of CARICOM , provided the following statement:  
4.130.   We are also aligned with the ACP statement under this agenda item. CARICOM recognizes 
that the COVID -19 pandemic is far from over. We are still counting the cost of the pandemic in lives, 
socio-economic dislocation, and  the degradation of our health systems. If there was any doubt before 
regarding our interconnectedness, the COVID -19 pandemic has certainly put this to rest. As variants 
emerge and become "fitter and faster ", as one WHO expert has called it, it is clear th at no country 
is safe until all countries are safe. In this context, equitable access to preventative, containment and 
treatment methods for COVID -19 for all becomes even more critical. CARICOM takes note of the 
text-based process which is ongoing. We furt her take note that the TRIPS Council will continue its 
consideration of the revised waiver request, including through small -group consultations.  
4.131.   The representative of Niger  provided the following statement:  
4.132.   In view of the developments and transformations  relating to COVID -19 that we are seeing 
worldwide, we believe that all our discussions at the WTO on managing the pandemic crisis must be 
aimed at removing all obstacles to the mass production of vaccines, to the supply of raw materials 
and to access the technologies needed to respond adequately and effectively to humanity's urgent 
needs therein. In our opinion, it is necessary to create hubs for the production of vaccines, drugs 
and protective equipment in all corners of the world , to track the virus and its various mutations. 
This forms part of the view we championed at the general debate of the 74th World Health Assembly 
calling for an end to the current pandemic and the prevention of any future pandemic. Achieving the 
goals of herd immunity and balanced recovery are dependent on this, as are the goals of the 
Immunization Agenda 2030 of the World Hea lth Organization (WHO) as part of sustainable 
development of the United Nations (UN). Finally, we urge all Members to further reconcile their 
positions, so as to reach an  appropriate political decision without delay to address the urgency and 
gravity of th e situation and allow safe access to vaccines for all and to uphold these ideals.  
4.133.   The Chair  encourage d all delegations to remain positively engaged as text -based discussions 
continue d in the TRIPS Council, with a view to finding a solution that was accepta ble to all. He added 
that this was an important matter which require d willingness to listen to each other, understanding WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 33 - 
 
  and flexibility , thank ed the TRIPS Council Chair for his status report and  noted that the TRIPS Council 
would report back to the Genera l Council , in line with Article IX:3 of the Marrakesh Agreement.  
4.134.   The General Council took note of the report of the TRIPS Council Chair and of the statements.  
5  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE – REPORT BY THE CHAIR6 
5.1.  The Chair recalled  that a t the General Council meeting in December 2019, Members had 
adopted a Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, in which they had agreed to 
reinvigorate this work, including by holding structured discussions based on all trade -related topics 
of interest brought forward by Members. Members had also agreed to extend the moratorium and 
to report to Ministers at MC12.  
5.2.  In view of this ma ndate and the work that ha d taken place under the General Council and the 
bodies entrusted with the implementation of the Work Programme, he provide d Members with a 
comprehensive report.  
5.3.  The relevant bodies  had last reported to the General Council in Dece mber 2020, except for the 
CTD that ha d not reported to the General Council since July 2019.  
5.4.  With respect to the Council for Trade in Goods, the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 
had been considered at the two formal meetings held this year. Delegations  had generally 
encouraged the reinvigoration of the Work Programme and reach ed a better understanding of the 
implications of the moratorium on electronic transmissions. Members had noted the importance of 
discussing the developmental aspects and implicatio ns of e -commerce, enabling LDCs to benefit 
from the opportunities provided by e -commerce, and bridging the digital divide. The CTG Chair would 
provide a more detailed report under his own responsibility at the end of the year.  
5.5.  The Council for Trade in Serv ices had considered the Work Programme at its meetings of 
2 March and 1 July. A joint communication tabled in July 2020 on how Members were supporting 
digital capabilities of business and consumers, had continued to generate substantive engagement.  
Several  Members had shared information about their programmes as well as recent domestic 
e-commerce related developments. At the March meeting, Members had appreciated the previous 
Chair's Overview Note on the information shared by delegations.   
5.6.  While welcoming t he exchange of information, a couple of delegations had called on Members 
to focus the discussion on the issues mandated by the Work Programme, including those related to 
the scope of the moratorium and the challenges faced by developing countries.  In thei r view, the 
extension of the moratorium would be harmful to developing countries. They had added that the 
parallel JSI negotiations were detrimental to the multilateral trading system. On the other hand, 
several Members had noted the far-reaching benefits of the moratorium for both businesses and 
consumers. They underscored that the JSIs were inclusive, transparent and open to the participation 
of all Members.  
5.7.  In July, the LDC Group referred to the services elements of their communicat ion to the General 
Council.  A couple of delegations had noted the challenges that developing countries faced in reaping 
the opportunities provided by the digital economy. They had underscored the importance of 
strengthening multilateral discussions under t he Work Programme, including through structured 
discussions.  One delegation  had called for the scope of the moratorium to be clarified and indicated 
that it had been  working on a submission that would elaborate on the treatment of electronic 
commerce in th e GATS legal framework.  
5.8.  With regard to the Committee on Trade and Development, the Work Programme ha d been 
regularly placed on the agenda. Although there were no specific submissions to consider, some 
delegations ha d highlighted the importance of discussin g the development -related aspects of e -
commerce. At the last CTD meeting held on 28 June, one delegation had indicated that it was working 
with other Members on a submission for the CTD's consideration.  
 
6 The Chair said that  if agreeable to delegations, he would  take up both items  5 and 6  and then open 
the floor once  on both items . WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 34 - 
 
  5.9.  With regard to the TRIPS Council, since the last rep ort to the General Council in 
December  2020, the Work Programme ha d not been discussed in the Council meetings. The Chair 
had been regularly reminding delegations of the Council's mandate in this regard.  
5.10.   He thank ed the Chairs and delegations for the work c arried out in their respective bodies. He 
noted that the level of engagement continue d to differ among th ose bodies. In line with the Member -
driven nature of their work, he encourage d delegations to contribute to th ose discussions.  
5.11.   Regarding the e-commerce  discussions under the auspices of the General Council , he recall ed 
that at the May General Council meeting he had reported on his consultations on the Work 
Programme and the moratorium. On that occasion, he had noted that despite well -known differences 
in Members' positions, delegations had confirmed their readiness to engage and deepen the 
discussions on e -commerce. Several delegati ons had also highlighted the need to have structured 
discussions to allow for more in -depth analysis, and to share experiences and expertise on specific 
issues.   
5.12.   It was in this context, and in light of the December 2019 General Council Decision, that  he 
had convened a structured discussion on 5 July. The Discussion had been  organized around 
3 themes: electronic transmissions; imposition of internal non -discriminatory taxes on electronic 
transmissions ; and challenges and opportunities of e -commerce, pa rticularly in light of the COVID -19 
pandemic. These themes had been  based on what he had heard in his consultations.  
5.13.   Each session had been  introduced by a few speakers, who had provided context and shared 
their national experiences. He thank ed once again all the presenters for providing very informative 
presentations , which were available on the WTO website.  
5.14.   Under the first session on electronic transmissions, the Secretariat had recalled the history 
and discussions held in the CTS and the CTG on this matt er. Members had reiterated their positions 
on the moratorium, with some calling for a permanent moratorium or at least an extension at MC12, 
and others seeking a common understanding on its scope first.  
5.15.   With regard to scope, some delegations had been of the view that the moratorium did not 
apply to content transmitted electronically and had been concerned about the broader implications 
of extending its scope. For others, the moratorium had applied to the content of the transmission, 
as well as the transmis sion itself. In their view, implying that the moratorium only applie d to the 
electronic transmission would render it meaningless.  
5.16.   Different views had also been expressed with regard to the impact of the moratorium on the 
growth of e -commerce, the wider economic benefits it provide d, and whether th ose benefits offset 
any potential revenue losses.  
5.17.   The second session on the imposition of internal non -discriminatory taxes on electronic 
transmissions had been organi zed in response to the request by som e delegations to hear more 
from those Members that impose d internal taxes, such as VAT and GST, on electronic transmissions.  
5.18.   He reiterate d that the sole purpose of the discussion had been to share information and that, 
as reiterated by some delegations, t axation remain ed an issue outside the WTO. Nonetheless, he 
believed that they had had an interesting exchange that  had encouraged Members to raise some 
interesting questions and share their national experiences.  
5.19.   He noted that while some delegations  had said that collection of internal taxes had helped 
address concerns about the loss of government revenue, others had noted that the issue of internal 
taxes was different from customs duties and that the possibility of imposing internal taxes did not 
compensat e for the loss of revenues nor for the policy space limitations.  
5.20.   Finally, the third session had focused on the challenges and opportunities faced with respect 
to e-commerce.  
5.21.   In general, delegations had acknowledged the role that e -commerce ha d played dur ing the 
pandemic and had recognized both the opportunities and challenges. Delegations had also WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 35 - 
 
  highlighted some specific issues of interest for discussion under the Work Programme, including the 
importance of addressing the digital divide.  
5.22.   The Chair hoped that  Members had found th ose discussions useful. The idea had been to 
provide a platform for information -sharing without prejudging Members' final decision on the Work 
Programme and the Moratorium. Some delegations had requested the holding of further st ructured 
discussions.  
5.23.   Moving forward, it was clear that there were still very divergent views, especially on the 
moratorium. Nonetheless, the Chair was  encouraged by the level of engagement that had been 
shown , midway through the year with only a few months remaining before MC12.  
5.24.   As noted at the beginning of his report, the General Council was to report to Ministers on the 
Work Programme on E -commerce and to decide on the moratorium. There was a  need to start 
reflecting on what had been  discussed thus far and to start thinking about the post summer work. 
While discussions  continue , Members should  delve deeper and focus attention towards a possible 
draft text for the consideration of Ministers.  
5.25.   The Chair further  emphasise d the need to make some headway on this matter. Many  
delegations , if not all, ha d acknowledged how the pandemic ha d demonstrated the potential role of 
e-commerce in supporting economic recovery and, at the same time, how it ha d brought into the 
fore the existing challenges that were to  be addressed.  
5.26.   Given the Member -driven nature of the work, any decision on the way forward with respect 
to both the moratorium and the Work Programme was in the hands  of Members . He urged 
delegations to come forward with proposals on draft decisions  - to start somewhere. They needed 
to be able to submit something to Ministers – a draft text as a basis for further consultations as they 
prepare d for MC12.   
5.27.   The Chair expressed his hope that all delegations would continue to pay attention to each 
other's views and that we can continue the work in a constructive manner. On his part, he intend ed 
to consult broadly with Members following the summer break and  was ready to facilitate any further 
meeting or discussion as necessary, based on delegations' submissions.  
5.28.   The Chair concluded recalling his intention to  consult broadly with Members after the summer 
break as they looked at MC12, and remain ed ready to facilit ate further discussions on the basis of 
Members' submissions.  
5.29.   The General Council took note  of the  Chair's  report7.  
6  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND MORATORIUM ON IMPOSING 
CUSTOMS DUTIES ON ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSIONS – REQUEST FROM INDIA AND SOUTH 
AFRICA8 
6.1.  The Chair  recalled that India and South Africa had requested that the item concerning the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce and Moratorium on Imposing Customs Duties on Electronic 
Transmissions be included in the agenda of today's meeting.  The item had also been included in the 
agenda of the March and May meeting, as well as previously in October and Decembe r 2020.  
6.2.  The representative of India provided the following statement:   
6.3.  The digital revolution is still unfolding. While digital infrastructure has played a critical role 
during the ongoing pandemic, it has also brought out clearly the existing and widening digital divide 
among Members, a divide exposed further during the COVID -19 crisis. Moreover, many of us are 
yet to fully comprehend  the implications of e -commerce on competition and market structures; 
issues related to transfer of technology; data storage; automation and its impact on traditional jobs; 
and gaps in e -commerce policy and regulat ory frameworks in developing countries , including LDCs. 
That is why India has been a proponent of strengthening our multilateral work under the non -
 
7 The report was subsequently circulated in document JOB/GC/267.  
8 See footnote 6.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 36 - 
 
  negotiating and exploratory 1998 Work Programme on E-commerce.  Under this multilateral Wor k 
Programme and with the intention of understanding the implications of the moratorium on customs 
duties on electronic transmissions, India along with South Africa has introduced submissions which 
explain our understanding of the scope and impact of the mo ratorium.  
6.4.  We believe it is important for Members to review the 1998 decision to have a moratorium on 
customs duties on electronic transmissions. We are all aware that this decision was taken with no 
consensus on the scope of the moratorium and no notion o n how the digital revolution would unfold. 
In December 2019, we had joined the consensus for a six-month extension of the moratorium, with 
an understanding that the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce will be reinvigorated, to 
achieve clarity on various issues, including the scope of the moratorium and its impact on Members ' 
policy space and revenues. Since then , due to repeated postponements of the 12th Ministerial 
Conference, the moratorium has got extended by about two years, that is much beyond six months 
initially agreed to in December  2019. However, we have not seen much progress in the discussions 
on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  During the coming few months before MC12, we 
need to engage constructively on various issues under the Wor k Programme. We also need to have 
a clear understanding on the scope of the moratorium, to enable us make an informed decision on 
an extension or otherwise of the moratorium in the upcoming Ministerial Conference . 
6.5.  As we have been repeatedly highlighting, a  re-consideration of the moratorium is critical for 
developing countries, inter alia, to preserve policy space to regulate imports, generate revenue 
through a simple and direct instrument such as customs duties , and achieve digital industrialization. 
Some Members have opined that the moratorium has brought about significant benefits in terms of 
increasing digitalisation and development of the digital economy. We request the proponents of the 
moratorium to provide specific evidence that the development of th is sector depends on the 
moratorium and that its withdrawal will disrupt it. In our view, the cost of the moratorium is mainly 
borne by developing countries by extending duty free quota free market access, largely for the 
developed countries. We  therefore need further discussions on this issue.  
6.6.  Multilateralism is vital in a world facing development challenges, and through constructive 
discussions on the Work Programme mandated multilaterally , the WTO has a unique opportunity to 
make a contribution towards an inclusive and development -oriented approach to electronic 
commerce. In this context, India along with South Africa,  has also circulated a paper in document 
WT/GC/W/812, which seeks that this Council play s a central role in  the discussions on the Work 
Programme , keep this item under regular review , take up any trade related issue of a cross -cutting 
nature , and  continue structured thematic discussions in the General Council through various 
platforms.  
6.7.  Paragraph  1.2 of the Work Programme mandates that this Council shall play a central role in 
the whole process and keep the work programme under continuous review through a standing item 
on its agenda. We , accordingly, urge you to ensure that the Work Programme is kept as a standing 
agenda items for the meetings of this Council. We also need to ensure that, as mandate d under 
paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Work Programme, relevant WTO bodies do engage constructively and report 
to this Council on issues as signed to them under the Work Programme, including on the issue of 
challenges to and ways of enhancing the participation of developing countries in electronic 
commerce, in particular as exporters of electronically delivered products;  the role of improved a ccess 
to infrastructure and transfer of technology, and of movement of natural persons; the use of 
information technology in the integration of developing countries in the multilateral trading system; 
the implications for developing countries of the possib le impact of electronic commerce on the 
traditional means of distribution of physical goods; and financial implications of electronic commerce 
for developing countries.  
6.8.  We are working with likeminded Members to introduce submissions in all relevant WTO bodies, 
to engage in constructive discussions on a non-negotiating basis. We also urge Members to 
constructively engage in discussions on the Work Programme, here in this Co uncil and in other 
relevant WTO bodies.  
6.9.  The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement:   
6.10.   On item 5, t he structured discussion s held on 5 July served as a useful information -sharing 
exercise for Members to exchange views and experien ces on the issues relating to the moratorium WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 37 - 
 
  on electronic transmissions, particularly the challenges and opportunities of e -commerce in light of 
the COVID -19 pandemic.  The Philippines attaches great importance to electronic commerce as it 
facilitates cros s-border trade and plays a critical role in the global post -pandemic recovery to boost 
economic growth. Therefore, we reiterate our commitment to reinvigorate the work under the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce and support the current practice of not imposing customs duties 
on electronic transmissions until the next Ministerial Conference.   
6.11.   We also believe the work on e -commerce, overall, can be pursued in parallel in the General 
Council structured discussions, as well as in the Joint Statement Initiat ive. The JSI discussions can 
complement the GC structured discussions to advance Members ' priorities on the area of electronic 
commerce.  
6.12.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   
6.13.   Under item 5, d igital trade is growing rapidly, and its performance has become an important 
determinant of the distributional effects of trade, and growth. However, the existing North –South 
digital divide continues to undermine the gains of developing countries from glob al digital trade. 
Nigeria has been consistent in its call for the membership to reinvigorate the 1998 Work Programme 
on Electronic Commerce and explore ways of addressing the difficulties undermining the gains of 
developing countries from global digital tr ade. In this regard, we co -sponsored the Australian led 
proposal on exploratory discussions on supporting digital capability of business es and consumers in 
the CTS , which is gaining traction with more Members engaging in the discussions. Nigeria support s 
a more structured and targeted discussions on horizontal and vertical issues regarding the trade 
related aspect of e -commerce under the Work Programme , with a view to setting an inclusive and 
development -oriented agenda for consideration by Ministers at MC1 2.  
6.14.   Under item 6, r egarding the issue of the m oratorium on customs duties, we support the 
renewal of the moratorium at MC12. This is to forestall the disruption of  the global e -commerce 
landscape and the negative effects on businesses and consumers  that is likely to occur from the 
non-renewal of the Moratorium at MC12. The global economy is already shattered by COVID -19, 
and the WTO should be part of the recovery effort s. This is without prejudice to the call by some 
Members for broad based discussions on scope and definition , so we can gain greater insight and 
deepen our understanding of these issues.  We are also mindful of the legitimate concerns of some 
Members on the  effect of the moratorium on fiscal revenue. As stated at the last meeting of the 
General Council , we support the call by some Members for the four designated bodies under the 
Work Programme, to delve deeper into the benefits and costs of the moratorium on  customs duties , 
especially for developing countries.  However, such assessment should not only focus on the static 
effects, but also the dynamic effects so that we can be properly guided. In our view, an objective 
assessment of the impact of the moratorium  on economies will reveal that the benefits associated 
with the dynamic effects of the moratorium outweighs the revenue loss. We therefore call on 
Members to support the renewal of the moratorium at MC 12.  
6.15.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement:   
6.16.   On this item, our views are well known. The idea that we would let the moratorium expire at 
one of the most significant points of transformation of the global economy would be very  odd indeed 
and would add a serious blow  to the WTO's credibility. We would like to see the moratorium returning 
and, of course, made permanent.  
6.17.   The representative of Thailand  provided the following statement:   
6.18.   Thailand reassures all WTO Members that we recognize the importance of the 1998 Work 
Programme on E -commerce and remain committed to the General Council 's Decision of 
December  2019.  In accordance with the decision, we have actively engaged in previous discussions, 
such as the virtual webinar and the open -ended meeting held in July last year, Australia' s initiative 
under the CTS meeting. In particular, at the most recent structured dis cussion on 5 July, we had a 
representative from Bangkok sharing the experience of our domestic practices, policies, pandemic 
challenges, and opportunities in terms of digital capability and development.  To take this issue 
forward, we support the continuati on of the current practice of extending the e-commerce 
moratorium as well as the Work Programme at MC12. Apart from trade and health outcomes, this 
decision will offer another opportunity for the WTO to contribute to the global trade community by WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 38 - 
 
  providing  a predictable business environment in current and post -pandemic situations, and ensure 
that after MC12 we will have a forum to discuss e-commerce in terms of development , and delve 
into issues important to developing members and LDCs.  While it is undeniab ly beneficial for Members 
to consider how to improve our existing working structure under the Work Programme, we must 
also be careful not to duplicate our efforts or create overlapping mechanisms when deliberating our 
e-commerce -related works.   
6.19.   Our exports  last month expanded 43.8% and the first 6 months of this year increased 20% . 
Even though last year's figure was very low, the total value of exports of Thailand is still growing. 
The main reason why we are still gradually growing is due to e-commerce, bot h in terms of imports 
from and exports to neighbouring  countries and others, as well as our domestic development that 
has gained from e -commerce activities in Thailand.  
6.20.   For our export efforts, we have shifted a lot of activities towards online activities,  such as 
online matching among importers and exporters between Thailand and trading partners, signing 
agreements virtually, starting many virtual exhibitions to showcase our products and services, and 
doing online audio -visual entertainment and services. E verything is moving towards online activities, 
and I believe that virtual e-commerce activities will become semi -permanent and an integral part of 
the world economy in the future. There is no reason why we need to put barriers to the growth of 
e-commerce r ight now and in the future.   
6.21.   On the domestic side, unfortunately, we are going t hrough  another partial lockdown in many 
areas of the country. Many Thai people are now surviving because of the food delivery from grocery 
stores, and everything being delivere d to their homes , in particular  elderly people . Livelihoods can 
be sustained through e-commerce activities.  
6.22.   While we understand the debate at the WTO concerning taxation and tariffs, we have to 
recognize that e-commerce could be an important factor on how we survive during a pandemic 
situation. E-commerce benefits many SMEs , since many of them are in the supply chain of food 
delivery  – it is not only big companies that reap the benefits of e-commerce  This is the answer to 
future global trade and domestic trade. It is in our interest to keep the online regime as open as 
possible.  
6.23.   Many members mentioned the digital divide. From our experience, currently it is not the 
problem of the digital divide that m akes countries not realize the benefits of e-commerce, rather it 
is a human development divide since e -commerce is a system and a technological network. If there 
are no people who can utilize it, then it means nothing. Thailand has been able to use e-comme rce 
a lot and much faster than in the past few years because of the focus on human resources 
development rather than talking about systems or networks. It is important that users get 
experience on how to utilize the system of modern technology and e -commer ce. At the same time, 
another kind of human development which is needed is entrepreneurial. Start -ups and SMEs need 
to understand how useful technology  is to develop their businesses. Thailand is happy to share its 
experience on this.  
6.24.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement:   
6.25.   At the last General Council meeting on 5 July on the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce, my country presented its national experience with respect to the opportunities and 
challenges brought about by e -commerc e. This presentation illustrated the importance of e -
commerce to Mexico, through its development of the digital economy, thereby enabling small and 
medium -sized enterprises (SMEs) to benefit from valuable business opportunities. The international 
legal framework of the trade agreements negotiated by Mexico also led to a significant increase in 
e-commerce operations during lockdown.  My country considers that e -commerce has been able to 
grow beyond expectations thanks to the multilatera l commitment to not apply tariffs on electronic 
transmissions.  Mexico therefore reiterates the importance of continuing the moratorium and is in 
favour of making it permanent.  
6.26.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement:  
6.27.   Under item 5 , we consider the continuation of the Work Programme  as essential , as well as  
the renewal of the moratorium until at least MC13. This will be this organization's contribution to WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 39 - 
 
  one of the most dynamic sectors of the world economy, which has also played a key role during the 
pandemic and will be even more relevant for the recovery of our economies in a post COVID -19 
context. We believe that, after 23 years, the discussions should be about how to achieve a 
permanent moratorium and thereby ensure stable and n on-discriminatory conditions for the benefit 
of suppliers and consumers of all WTO Members.  The current moratorium is in line with the objectives 
of the Marrakesh Agreement which, in its Preamble, calls for the reduction of trade barriers and the 
eliminati on of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations. In everything we do in this 
organization, and in particular on this issue, we should take these principles into account.   
6.28.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement:   
6.29.   Under item 5, a s we live in a society where digital technologies play an increasingly important 
role, access to technology can no longer be treated as a luxury but a necessity.  Indeed, the 
information age has revolutioni zed the way we live, the way we interact with each and the way we 
trade.  Unfortunately, the African continent continues to suffer from the digital divide , and the fourth 
industrial revolution that other parts of the world are living may leave Africa behind.  The pandemic 
further aggravated the situation and African economies could not adopt measures such as work from 
home, tele -schooling or e -commerce.  It is, in our view, crucial at this stage that the WTO takes a 
leading role on the development aspects of e-commerce by harnessing institutional coherence and 
bridging the gaps towards addressing the digital divide.  We must not limit ourselves to e -commerce 
facilitation, but more importantly, we must look at the real weaknesses that countries and regions 
are facing, such as, logistical limitations, lack of know -how and technology, information transfer and 
security issues, and cross -border transactions.  
6.30.   In this regard, we request that the 1998 Work Programme on E -commerce be quickly revived 
and reviewed to achieve the development goals of a modern and integrated society.  As regard s the 
moratorium on electronic transmissions, the African Group is of the view that there is an urgent 
need to carefully assess the situation in light of the growing role of digital services.  We would, 
therefore, request the Secretariat to consider preparing an objective and factual report about the 
impact of moratorium on Members ' econom ies. Only a comprehensive assessment would allow us 
to take an informed decision on whether the moratorium may or may not be extended.  I also take 
this opportunity to thank the delegations of India and South Africa for the next item on the agenda 
that, int er-alia, highlights the importance of sincerely pursuing the work envisaged in the 1998 Work 
Programme on E -Commerce and the need for a comprehensive assessment of the moratorium.  
6.31.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP, provided the following statement:   
6.32.   Under item 5, t he 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce continues to be a critical 
aspect of the WTO 's current and future work. The ACP Group has been one of the main supporters 
for the reinvigoration of the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and the structured 
discussions which were set out in the 2019 Decision.  We have therefore, taken good note  of the 
recent activities that have taken place and the proposed road ahead on the issue.  While at the macro 
level we can concur that the COVID -19 pandemic has bolstered e -commerce and digital trade, there 
is evidence to suggest that such growth has not be en equal across all WTO Members.  In fact, there 
is data to suggest that growth has been limited to a handful of WTO Members and there has indeed 
been a widening of the digital divide since the onset of the pandemic.  
6.33.   We were pleased to have been able to sh are some of the challenges that continue to plague 
our countries in terms of e -commerce as well as some of the opportunities that some ACP Members 
have been able to benefit from during the 5 July Structured Discussions. We would like to request 
that the ob servations which were made at the structural discussions be placed on the record of this 
meeting under this agenda item .9 We note and understand that the moratorium on customs duties 
does not prohibit internal duties and taxes.   
6.34.   Whilst our membership is d iverse and remain s open to exploring the landing zone on the 
moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions, we feel that it is 
necessary to remind WTO Members that while we do recogni ze the opportunities, we also face 
challenge s concerning internal taxes on digital trade. We would like to mention here that we are 
 
9 At the request of Jamaica,  the statement delivered by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Group  at the 
5 July 2021 Structured Discussions on E -Commerce is annexed to the minutes of this meeting.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 40 - 
 
  finding that we must seek to examine a balance between our revenue requirements from internal 
taxes and where we have emerging exports of digitised products that could face discriminatory taxes 
in export markets and added costs our entrepreneurs and businesses, which are predominantly small 
and medium sized business. In the ACP regions , where Economic Partnership or other Agreements 
have been entered into, we committed to non -discriminatory treatment of digitally traded goods and 
services.  We would like to suggest that the structured discussions of the Work Programme could 
take stock of the extent to which developing countries are party to such agreements with similar 
terms. The ACP Group is examining in detail the e -commerce -related challenges and opportunities 
confronting our countries and is of the view that there is scope for us to be nefit from more dedicated 
structured discussions before MC12.  The Group will bring forward its ideas on the specific issues that 
could be covered in these sessions.  For us, such issues extend beyond the moratorium on the 
imposition of customs duties on ele ctronic transmissions.  
6.35.   We recogni ze that we will need to renew the Work Programme at MC12 and that the 
discussions on this will need to start soon.  The ACP Group continues to be a proponent of the 
exploratory discussions under the 1998 Work Programme and would therefore wish to be a part of 
any consultations on this issue.  
6.36.   Under item 6, w e agree with India and South Africa that there still is a need for greater clarity 
on the scope and definition of electronic transmissions and the impact that the morator ium has had 
on developing countries, particularly from a revenue perspective.  We look forward to a resolution of 
the issues raised in  this submission.   
6.37.   The representative of Chad on behalf of the LDC Group  provided the following statement:   
6.38.   With regard s to item  5, as agreed at the extension in December 2019 , we must continue 
structured discussions in the framework of the 1998 Work Programme on the basis of Members ' 
propositions. The LDC Group submitted an i ntervention at th e Structured Discussions, which we 
would like to see included  in the record of this meeting under this agenda item. 10 We would also 
like to draw Members' attention to the LDC Group's communication in the framework of the 
November 2019 Wor k Programme , document  WT/GC/W/787 . We must adopt an empirical approach , 
with the idea not to simply reproduce what has already been performed elsewhere,  as every country 
has its own advantages and comparative strength , but u ndertaking a needs assessment at a national 
level might aid us in better understanding where we should begin the deployment of a strategic 
reform programme on electronic commerce , which would of course leave no one behind.  
6.39.   With regards to item 6, the LDC Group is aware of the urgent nature of a decision on e -
commerce , given that the current decision will expire at the next Ministerial Conference at the end 
of this year. The LDCs Group  submission also addresses the interest of solving and bringing solutions 
to issues on customs duties on electronic transmission s, as raised in the India and South Africa 
submission. More specifically, LDCs are also interested to see how a solution to the issu es raised in 
our paper can be provided. In addition, the LDC Group in its communication stated that a lack of 
clarity on the nature of electronic transmissions and the ability of LDC Members to apply internal 
taxes , with regard to customs duties if necessa ry, is one of its major concerns. We believe that this 
aspect and other aspects of the Work Programme , such as localisation and appropriate regulation 
for the protection of data and consumers , are essential. All the same , we must be equally clear on 
how we  deliberate under the framework of this Work Programme so that LDC businesspeople and 
their domestic markets can make best use of their own data and exploit them on their electronic 
commerce platforms.  
6.40.   The representative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of CARICO M, provided the following statement:   
6.41.   Under items 5 and 6, CARICOM  aligns with the views of the ACP Group on these items. We 
take this opportunity to underscore the importance the Work Programme holds for the CARICOM 
Group and to underline  our commitment to its reinvigoration. As the General Council prepares to 
report to Ministers at MC12, we are pleased that we were able to proceed to structured discussions 
earlier this month. We note that the topics selected for the discussion reflected e lements identified 
by Members during your consultations. The sessions proved pertinent and timely, both in their 
examination of the considerations of the membership on electronic commerce over the last two 
 
10  At the request of Chad,  the statement delivered  by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group at the 5 July 
2021 Structured Discussions on E -Commerce is annexed to the Minutes of this meeting.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 41 - 
 
  decades , and in respect of insights shared on Memb ers' current challenges and approaches related 
to electronic commerce.  
6.42.   Regarding the latter, the CARICOM Group is appreciative of the opportunity during the 
Structured Discussion on 5 July to provide details on how CARICOM Member States have sought to 
treat with e -commerce related challenges and opportunities in the context of the COVID -19 
pandemic. The various elements outlined in our presentation, including in respect of digital 
infrastructure, the nexus between financial inclusion and digital inclusion,  the rural digital divide and 
digital payment solutions, are among a substantial list of topics we understand to be relevant to a 
broad cross -section of WTO Members.  In reiterating the view that our structured discussions should 
place emphasis on the devel opment dimension, we look forward to an engagement on these and 
other trade -related topics brought forward by Members, both in the lead -up to MC12 and beyond.  
6.43.   On MC12, we are mindful of the limited time between the end of the summer break and the 
start of  the Conference in late November. We are also cognisant of the considerable amount of work 
to be done in preparation of outcomes on trade and health, agriculture and other priorities identified 
by the membership. In addition, what is clear is that our dial ogue on the moratorium since MC11 
has not yet yielded the desired clarity or consensus. In the circumstances, structured discussions 
after the summer break must include focused dialogue on the moratorium, with a view to outlining 
a mutually agreeable  recom mendation for consideration by Ministers at MC12. It would also be useful 
if Ministers could be positioned at MC12 to provide a meaningful direction regarding a reinvigorated 
Work Programme for the period after the Ministerial Conference. This is particula rly important in the 
context of the COVID -19 pandemic, and as the membership looks ahead to a post-pandemic 
recovery. It is evident that trade is becoming increasingly digital, and that electronic commerce will 
play a critical role in post -pandemic recover y efforts.  
6.44.   The representative of Zimbabwe  provided the following statement:   
6.45.   We align ourselves with the statement delivered by Mauritius on behalf of the Africa n Group. 
The delegation of Zimbabwe wishes to underscore the importance of re -invigorating the mandated 
work under the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. The COVID -19 pandemic has 
accelerated the digital transformation of the global economy and has  made it clear that we need to 
build capacity in the use of digital tools and to prioritise the development of digital infrastructure. It 
is imperative for Members to address the digital divide both within and among countries. The Work 
Programme provides a  suitable foundation for Members to explore the policy -solutions required and 
to discuss their implications. We therefore call for a collective and constructive engagement to 
discuss the Work Programme with an emphasis on digital development and inclusion.   
6.46.   Under i tem 6, regarding the e -commerce moratorium , we believe it is important to bring 
clarity with regard to the scope of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, 
its potential impact on the sustainability of the domestic industry a s well as its negative impact on 
job creation, and on revenue generation. In this regard, we also repeat our call for Members to adopt 
an evidence -based approach as they consider the future status of the 1998 moratorium.  
6.47.   The representative of Uganda  provid ed the following statement:   
6.48.   We agreed in 2019 to reinvigorate the Work Program on E-commerce and continue the 
practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until the next Ministerial 
Conference which we had hoped to hold in 2020. Hav ing missed this opportunity, it is expected that 
our Ministers will revisit this matter at MC12. However, as we head to this date, many questions 
regarding various elements on e -commerce envisaged in the Work Programme that need to be 
clarified remain outs tanding. Issues of the technological neutrality principle, classification of new 
services, jurisdictional issues in terms of the law applicable , as well as issues related to the 
transposition of GATS commitments in market access in a digitized trade context , among others , are 
yet to be resolved. The impact of the COVID -19 pandemic has continued to reveal the critical role 
of the digital economy in  dealing with the pandemic and in recovery efforts. The LDC Group has in 
the past presented many of the challenges that we face in making use of the opportunities of 
e-commerce , including the lack of mechanisms to start enterprises in e -commerce business, limited 
existence of and affordable ICT infrastructure , such as internet and electricity , coupled with 
challenges related to access to credit cards. It is important that we utilize any remain ing time before 
MC12 to delve in discussions of these and other i ssues in the relevant bodies. We thank South Africa WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 42 - 
 
  and India for their communications regarding the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties 
on electronic transmissions. My delegation continues to critically consider this matter.  
6.49.   The representative of Morocco  provided the following statement:   
6.50.   The COVID -19 pandemic has confirmed the pivotal role that e -commerce currently plays in 
international trade, as has been underscored in the information note that the Secretariat published 
last March. However, n umerous major challenges are still faced by all of us if we are to ensure that 
e-commerce is a synonym of prosperity and development for all. I would also like to recall that 
Morocco had planned to schedule a conference for the African Trade Ministers dedicated to e -
commerce in Rabat on 17 March 2020, which was unfortunately postponed for reasons which we are 
all familiar  with. However, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my country 's intention to 
reschedule the conference when circumstan ces allow. In light of all of this, we should double our 
efforts to bridge the digital divide within countries and between them , through technical assistance 
and targeted technology transfer in such a way that we can integrate developing countries into 
global value chains and create wealth and resilience to see the issues from the same perspective 
and take inclusive and balanced decisions. The 1998 Work Programme should find new impetus and 
be strengthened so that all the pending issues can be remedied.  
6.51.   The representative of Nepal  provided the following statement:   
6.52.   Under items 5 and 6, I would like to refer to the views Nepal  shared in detail during your 
consultation with my delegation on 13 April , and to associate with the statement delivered by Chad 
on behalf of the LDC group. In the wake of the pandemic, we are compelled to go digital in order to 
survive in global trade.  However, due to the huge digital divide among and within the Members, 
LDCs and LLDCs have not been able to harness the potential benefits of e -commerce. Insufficient 
ICT infrastructure, and weak institutional and human capacity are their main obstacles to participate 
in and b enefit from e -commerce. Needful intervention has become urgent through the E-commerce 
Work Programme to enable LDCs and LLDCs to participate in global trade. Some important initiatives 
that can be undertaken to overcome their capacity constraints in e -comm erce include widespread 
access to telecommunications at low prices and with latest technology; strengthening  human, 
institutional and technical infrastructure; capacity -building in information technology; and promoting 
technology transfer and foreign direc t investment. In addition, the Work Programme on E-commerce 
should be delinked from the Joint Statement Initiatives on E-commerce. Efforts should be advanced 
without further delay to deliver on the mandate and ensure a fair participation of LDCs and LLDCs 
in e-commerce. Regarding the issue of  the moratorium, clarity on the scope of the moratorium is 
absolutely necessary. Finally, implications of a continued moratorium should be assessed before 
taking any decision on it.  
6.53.   The representative of Tanzania  provided the following statement:   
6.54.   Under item 6, a s we mentioned in the past, the moratorium on imposing customs duties on 
electronic transmissions was adopted in 1998 , when most of the Members , including Tanzania,  were 
not aware of its implications. There was no clarity regarding how the economy would be transformed 
by digital advancements. Nevertheless, the measure was meant to be temporary. Currently, digital 
economy is growing rapidly. We are witnessing the volu me of trade of digitized products such as 
films, printable materials e.g . electronic books, video games, software, sound and music , growing 
at a radical rate. With the introduction of new technologies such as 3D printing, big data and artificial 
intelligen ce, our economies will further be transformed. Trading of digitized products is becoming 
one of the areas with high potential as a source of revenue collection especially for developing 
countries , like the United Republic of Tanzania. Tariffs remain the ma in source of revenue to support 
development in most developing countries and also can be used as a policy instrument to protect 
infant industries from stiff competition. In our view, digitized products and physical products should 
be treated the same way, considering that most of them are not new products but being converted 
from physical to digital forms. In this regard, my delegation supports the call for review of the 
moratorium, in order to give Members an opportunity to assess its implication s, and als o redefine 
its scope of application.   
6.55.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 43 - 
 
  6.56.   My delegation endorses the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDCs. The Work 
Program on Electronic Commerce (WT/L/274) is very relevant. In fact, the COVID -19 pandemic has 
further validated the significance of reinvigorating it. I would like to refer to our statement delivered 
at the G eneral Council  meeting in March 2021. We suggest a temporary moratoriu m on e -commerce.  
6.57.   The representative of the European Union provided the following statement:   
6.58.   The European Union would like to underline that the moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions provides the predictability and security that our con sumers and businesses 
– in both developed and developing countries – need when engaging or planning to engage in e -
commerce. We would also like to recall that several recent economic studies have provided solid 
new evidence on the positive economic implica tions of the moratorium. The European Union remains 
committed to continue engaging in structured discussions on the moratorium in line with the General 
Council Decision of December 2019, taking into account the new evidence that has been published 
over the  last couple of years , on the multiple benefits of the moratorium for businesses and citizens 
alike.  While Members had decided to extend the moratorium until MC12, the European Union hopes 
that our Ministers will be in a position to consider a longer term – if not permanent – extension at 
the next Ministerial Conference.  
6.59.   The representative of Chile provid ed the following statement:   
6.60.   The Structured Discussion that took place on 5 July was highly useful for refreshing our 
memory regarding the discussions on electronic transmissions that have taken place in this 
organization, hearing about some  Members ' experience in relation to the imposition of internal non -
discriminatory taxes on electronic transmissions and learning from the experiences of various 
Members, especially developing Members, with respect to the challenges and opportunities 
presented by e -comme rce, particularly in the context of the pandemic. While we very much 
appreciate the information shared in this and previous activities, we regret that it is not leading to 
a narrowing of gaps between existing positions and that it does not appear to us tha t such a 
narrowing will occur in the few months that remain before the Ministerial Conference. To be 
convinced of the benefits of the moratorium, it is necessary to be open to being convinced. Against 
this backdrop, the focus should now be on negotiating, covering all elements linked to and going 
beyond the Work Programme and the moratorium. We call on all Members to engage in these 
negotiations in good faith, so as to achieve an outcome that leads to progress – much needed by 
our organization – rather than to a regression. Turning to the proposal to include the Work 
Programme and the moratorium as standing items on the agenda of this Council and other WTO 
bodies, we reiterate our call to avoid creating new unnecessary fora and to ma ke use instead of 
those that already exist to hold discussions based on concrete and substantive proposals. Lastly, our 
experience has shown the benefits of continuing the moratorium and we are looking for its 
permanent extension or, failing that, its exte nsion for a set duration of time, as has been done to 
date. We also reiterate our support for the renewal of the moratorium on TRIPS non violation and 
situation complaints.  
6.61.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement:   
6.62.   My statemen t is in relation to agenda items 5 and 6. On the Structured Discussion  under the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce on 5 July 2021 , the informative presentations by the 
Secretariat and Members formed a good basis for further discussion in the future on electronic 
transmission in accordance , with the December 2019 G eneral Council  Decision (WT/L/1079). We 
certainly are aware that the classification of electronic transmissions is an issue not to be resolved 
overnight. In addition, we were pleased to hear the report under agenda item 2 about the discussions 
in the relevant WTO bodies on the Work Program on Electronic Commerce. We believe that the 
sharing of practical experience and information among Members is also promoting related work and 
bridging the digital divide. In response to the request from India and South Africa, we are of the 
view that the priority and focu s, at this stage , should be to maintain the 22 -year-old practice of not 
imposing customs duties on cross -border electronic transmissions, including the content 
transmitted. From the overall economic perspective, the significant benefit from the moratorium to 
SMEs and MSMEs and to the growth of the global ICT sector and digital economy , has been self -
evident. Facing the current pandemic, it is key for the WTO to secure an extension of the moratorium 
at MC12, or even consider mak ing it permanent.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 44 - 
 
  6.63.   The represen tative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   
6.64.   Digitalisation is one of the great features of the modern age. It has been hastened by the 
pandemic. Digitalisation is a good thing for developing and developed countries alike. Many examples 
have been cited of countries who have been helped to integrate into the global economy and pull 
themselves out of poverty through digitalisation. We are a very strong supporter of the work 
programme on e -commerce and recogni ze the importance of inclusive d igital trade. We welcome 
recent structured discussions held by the G eneral Council  Chair and support constructive, open and 
inclusive discussions. Let me echo the comments of Australia and the European Union. It would be 
inconceivable to do anything other than extend or render permanent the moratorium. To do 
otherwise would be bizarre.  
6.65.   The representative of Norway  provided the following statement:   
6.66.   Under item 6, Norway agrees that it is important to continue our dialogue on the relationship 
between development and e -commerce, and we are looking forward to continuing discussions under 
the Work Programme. Norway continues to support the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions. The moratorium has created predictability for consumers, businesses, domestic 
regulators, and customs authorities. Creating more uncertainty should not  be the purpose of this 
organization.  
6.67.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
6.68.   The moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions has supported the rapid 
growth of digital trade over the past two decades, and the United States continues to believe that 
WTO Members should be ready to agree to a permanent moratorium. The Stru ctured Discussions of 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce held on 5 July only underscored the importance of 
continuing the moratorium, as both developed and developing countries increase their reliance on 
digital tools during the pandemic response an d recovery. Ending the moratorium at this critical time 
would create uncertainty and concern for consumers and businesses, particularly MSMEs.  
6.69.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement:   
6.70.   Under item 5, Japan believes that the moratorium h as provided certainty and predictability in 
digital trade for both consumers and businesses, including MSMEs. As such, it has underpinned the 
development of digital trade globally. Particularly under the current C OVID -19 pandemic, it is 
important to ensure  a sound and liberalized environment through e -commerce  and to support safe 
or less -risky socio -economic activities.  To discontinue the moratorium at MC12 would be considered 
a serious step backward not only for e -commerce but for the multilateral trading system. This is 
true, particularly at the time of a pandemic, Japan strongly believes that we should maintain our 
current multilateral practice of the moratorium at MC12, and make it permanent eventually.  
6.71.   The representative of Vanuatu , on behalf of the Pacific Group , provided the following 
statement :  
6.72.   On Agenda  items  5 and 6, e-commerce has grown significantly in recent years and more 
particularly in response to the COVID -19 pandemic as businesses adapt to lockdowns around the 
world. The Pacific Group se es e-commerce as both providing potential opportunities to harness our 
trade and to build resilience to external shocks. However, many developing countries including our 
Group were not able to take advantage of these online opportunities due to various cha llenges.  
These included weak infrastructure, limited skills, low levels of access to the internet and high 
connectivity costs. The Pacific Group therefore considers the Work Program me on e-commerce as 
an important platform to help us address the digital di vide faced by small vulnerable economies like 
ours. In this connection , the Pacific Group supports the re -invigoration of the Work Program me on 
e-commerce as agreed to by the General Council in December 2019, which also called on structured 
discussions on the Work Program me and the moratorium , including its revenue impact. We therefore 
support the call for you, as Chair, to facilitate structured discussions on this issue in preparation for 
MC12.  
6.73.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following state ment:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 45 - 
 
  6.74.   The 5 July Structured Discussions allowed for interesting exchanges on different aspects of 
the moratorium. Switzerland considers the tariff moratorium on electronic transmissions to be a 
cornerstone for the development of the digital economy and trade. For t his reason, we are pleased 
to signal our willingness to make the moratorium permanent at the 12th Ministerial Conference. 
Switzerland's position on the other aspects discussed under this agenda item is known and has 
already been recorded in the minutes of the General Council.  
6.75.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement:   
6.76.   The e-commerce JSI is a complementary way to move forward with the work of creating rules 
that support a transparent and stable e -commerce environment for all.  We encourage more Members 
to join the negotiation s on the e-commerce JSI. Regarding the moratorium, Korea reiterates its firm 
support for the permanent extension of moratorium for the sake of certainty, predictability and 
security. Whi le appreciating your efforts to lead the structured discussion on the moratorium, I would 
like to stress that the importance of the role of E -commerce and the moratorium is getting more 
evident as we move toward the post -pandemic digital era. As regards co ncerns over potential 
revenue losses, it would be useful to note, as you mentioned, that internal non -discriminatory taxes 
could supplement any customs revenue losses the moratorium may incur.  
6.77.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
6.78.   We associate ourselves with the statement by the Africa Group and the ACP  Group . South 
Africa supports the continuation of Structured Discussions in the General Council , which should 
include , among others: the developmen tal aspects of electronic commerce; the scope, definition and 
impact of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions; and an examination of the 
challenges experienced by developing countries and in relation to electronic commerce , and explo re 
ways of enhancing the participation of developing countries in electronic commerce.  
6.79.   The pandemic has highlighted the enormous gap in access to digital technologies. It has laid 
bare the problems of digital divide both between and within countries. Tech nology is critical for 
achieving all the SDGs, but to fully harness its potential, rapid action is needed to close the digital 
divide and promote inclusion. The issues entailed in the Work Programme remain critical to achieve 
this objective. It remains South Africa' s view that it is only through a truly multilateral process that 
issues identified by Members under the Work Programme such as classification, definition and scope 
can be clarified to enable a common understanding on e -commerce. It is regrettable  to see lack of 
commitment to the developmental aspects of the WTO mandated work , and we are concerned that 
this is increasingly contributing to  a lack of progress in the WTO. We caution that attempts to expand 
the definition of electronic transmissions will have significant revenue and industrialisation 
implications for developing countries. It substantially increases the trade coverage of the moratorium 
by multiples and has implications for the current obligations of Members under GATS. The magnitude 
of this can be inferred from UNCTAD (June 2020 -Research Paper 47) estimates that show that total 
imports of services via Mode 1 amounted to USD 705 billion in 2017 while total imports of digitizable 
products were around USD 80 billion in 2017. The UNCTAD Paper  also estimates potential losses 
from the moratorium to up to USD 10 billion per annum for developing countries and only 
USD 289 million in losses for advanced economies. These forgone revenues to developing countries 
are set to exponentially increase with the increasing digitization of goods, including advances in 3D 
printing technologies. This is even more concerning as Members are considering policy tools that will 
drive economic recovery efforts. Suggestions that revenue losses can be evene d out by internal 
taxes or compensated for by dynamic gains , ignores the principal purpose of customs duties as an 
industrial policy tool that can and indeed should also be deployed to foster the development of local 
digital economies.  
6.80.   While we note the g rowth of e -commerce, especially during the COVID -19 pandemic, it is also 
indisputable that its benefits are highly uneven with high levels of concentration that also affect the 
benefits MSMEs can derive from e -commerce. The Work Programme is designed to ad opt a 
comprehensive and holistic approach to e -commerce to ensure equitable benefits for all. The 
reinvigoration of the Work Programme is therefore critical , given our interest on the development 
dimension of the longstanding area of work in the multilater al framework of the WTO, including 
digital industrialization and the need to address the digital divide. We believe that structured 
discussions on the scope and definition of electronic transmissions is required in order for us to 
appreciate the real impac t of the moratorium on customs duties given the different views of 
Members. The lack of clarity results in attempts to expand the definition of electronic transmissions . WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 46 - 
 
  The broadening of the scope to include all goods and services covered under GATS Mode 1 drastically 
encroaches on the policy space and flexibility of developing countries to regulate importation of 
services. Even more concerning, especially for developing countries and LDCs in particular, is that 
the expansion of the definition encompasses more and more traded products are subjected to the 
moratorium on customs duties on e -commerce, with significant implications on revenue collection, 
industrialization, and broadly the economy and jobs. The absence of a shared and common 
understanding on the  scope and definition of electronic transmissions will make a decision on the 
extension of the moratorium a challenge at MC12. We must reinvigorate the Work Programme so as 
to remedy the unsustainable inequities and broaden the benefits from growing e -comm erce.  
6.81.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement:   
6.82.   I would like to reiterate that our long -standing position on this issue remains unchanged . 
While attaching great importance to the development of e -commerce , the WTO should also focu s its 
work on the developmental aspect of the sector. Hence, Indonesia fully supports the reinvigoration 
of the multilaterally agreed 1998 Work Programme on e -commerce. It is important to complete work 
clarifying what is the impact of electronic transmissi ons and the moratorium on customs duties.  
6.83.   The representative of Sri Lanka  provided the following statement:   
6.84.   My intervention intends to touch on both agenda items. Sri Lanka attaches great importance 
to the Work Programme on E-commerce , which  has now gained more importance in the digital 
revolution. It should be used to examin e the implications of digital rules fo r developing countries 
and discuss the best bridge for the growing digital divide. Key for the reinvigoration of the 
programme as Members prepare for MC12 and beyond , is the scheduling of structured discussions 
over the few coming months.  
6.85.   On the WTO e -commerce moratorium, it is extremely important for developing countries to 
know what the scope of the moratorium is and what is covered within the definition of electronic 
transmissions , which was not well-known at the time of ad opting this Decision in 1998. The goal post 
has been continuously shifting for developing countries . Electronic transmissions were first defined 
as digitizable goods , which covered five categories . The question on the definition of  the moratorium 
arises because why should exporters of t hese digitizable goods not face customs duties , when micro, 
small and medium enterprises face custom duties on the export of physical goods. We should be 
able to impose custom duties on the content of the electronic transmissions , which constitutes the 
highest value of the electronically transmitted e -commerce products . This  can generate a sizable tax 
revenue and provide a level playing field for local developers of similarly electronically transmitted 
e-commerce products. Countrie s are also losing valuable tariffs revenue especially in these times of 
COVID -19, and they can always unilaterally reduce custom duties to zero on software if they want. 
This is a policy space which we wish to retain. It is therefore important to remove th e moratorium 
on e-commerce and de -link it from the TRIPS moratorium.  
6.86.   Through the presentations at the event organized on 5 July, in terms of the different 
mechanisms established by countries for the recovery of non -discriminatory taxes , which is called 
internal taxes on digital goods and services, the countries are able to categorize digital goods and 
services based on their own interests , while compounding the content and bits and b ytes of the 
electronic transmission. Also, internal tax recovery mechanism  can be easily replicated for the 
purposes of covering even custom duties . If we are to do so , the moratorium finally disappears from 
the WTO's context. This revelation is very important as we know that many countries favour 
continuation of the moratorium advocat ing that it is not feasible to recover custom duties on 
electronic transmissions , and that  we should agree on a permanent moratorium.  
6.87.   On agenda item 6, Sri Lanka supports the concerns of South Africa and India on the Joint 
Statement Initiative on E-commerce. The legal standing o f the JSI on e -commerce in the WTO is 
questionable and there is no consensus on initiating any negotiations on e -commerce in the WTO. 
The JSI is also challengeable on the grounds that it may go against the basic principles of  the WTO, 
as it may require developing countries to take mandatory commitments in GATS. The digital rules 
that are being negotiated are not particularly favourable for developing countries like mine which 
are still struggling to put the ICT infrastructure in place. Countries like Sri Lanka need policy and 
fiscal space in the digital economy so that they can develop their digital competencies in their own 
space and provide a level playing field to their infant digital sectors. It is therefore extremely WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 47 - 
 
  important to reinvigorate the Work Programme on e -commerce, and Sri Lanka has high expectations 
for MC12. It is important that WTO Members share their know -how to bridge the digital divide and 
facilitate digital technology transfers. Sri Lanka stands ready  to engage meaningfully and 
constructively towards the collaborative formulation of the mutually agreeable recommendation on 
the moratorium for the consideration of Ministers in MC12 , and needs assurances from Members , 
particularly the ones who are ready t o address the concerns of developing countries.  
6.88.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
6.89.   Brazil supports the extension of the moratorium for two reasons. The more obvious, 
immediate one is that we do not want bad news in this organi zation. We can survive a standstill , but 
a rollback would be too much regarding the credibility of the WTO. We have heard a lot about the 
digital divide and the development dimension , those are fundamental concepts. The digital divide is 
a reality and needs to be overcome. The development dimension is at the essence of what we do, 
that is why we need trade. It is puzzling to imagin e that we are going to overcome the digital divide 
by creating a new barrier. It seems counter sensical. It is explainable in the light of 19th century 
economic theory, but I think one hundred years of economic history  has proven this to be flawed. If 
we want to move ahead, it is time to integrate, to grow tog ether, to benefit from the dynamic sectors 
of the economy , not to shield ourselves away.  
6.90.   The representative of Singapore  provided the following statement:   
6.91.   Singapore's consistent position on agenda item 6 has been well articulated many times so in 
a depart ure for my usual three points I will just make one point : to reiterate that Singapore strongly 
supports the renewal of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. Adding trade 
barriers to digital trade at this point in time when e -commerc e is driving the post -pandemic recovery 
will inevitably send a very wrong signal to the business and industry , but particularly the medium, 
small and micro enterprises who have relied on digital platforms for survival during these difficult 
times.  
6.92.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
6.93.   Pakistan is strongly of the view that the General Council must fulfil its mandate to reinvigorate 
the structured discussions on various aspects of electronic commerce. It is extremely important that 
we find solutions for developing Members to basic issues such as the digital divide, technology 
transfer, and the effective utilisation of digital raw material to advance digital development in those 
countries. Structured discussions must be carried out within the various Councils and Committees 
mandated to do s o on all relevant aspects. Pakistan, like many other developing countries , has been 
making efforts to propel the discussions forward in these mandated bodies, and we would like to 
urge the membership to engage in earnest and meaningfully in these discussio ns. These bodies are 
the correct and relevant forum for this discussion under the WTO and provide an effective way for a 
multilateral fulfilment of our mandate. The moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions is one of the key issues represent ing a realisation of new realities for a new WTO and 
a new move towards meaningful development in our countries. The issue has been under discussion 
for some time now, and Pakistan has been consistent in its view that a fundamental reassessment 
of the situ ation is required due to new technological developments and emerging realities in the 
digital realm.  Technology, especially in the digital age, is a powerful enabler. At present, developing 
countries lag far behind advanced countries in their access to and  utilisation of modern digital 
technologies. At the same time, while acquiring technological capabilities, developing countries 
remain cognizant of serious revenue and industrial implications arising from digital advancements 
such as Artificial Intelligenc e and 3 -D printing. The temporary nature of the moratorium allows us 
the important space to move forward only after a conclusive re -examination on the implications of 
such developments and the moratorium. We also understand that the removal of the moratori um 
does not automatically impose duties, but only allows Members the right to do so – if and when they 
deem it appropriate. Therefore, before any decision on the continuation of the moratorium we must 
first consider all aspects for developing countries wit hout linking it with other issues.  
6.94.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement:  
6.95.   I would like to thank India for its interest in the topic and join those Members that have 
already taken the floor in expressing our interest in ensuring a  further extension of the moratorium WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 48 - 
 
  on e-commerce, as well as in reinvigorating the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, as 
agreed at MC11.  We firmly believe in the positive effect that the moratorium has on enterprises' 
exports, especially for MSMEs, a s well as on the development of a globally competitive software 
industry. We hope that importance will continue to be given to ensuring the two moratoriums to be 
examined at the next Ministerial Conference , are treated consistently.  
6.96.   The representative of Fiji provided the following statement:  
6.97.   E-commerce plays an important role in facilitating access to goods and services in our 
economies . However , the level of trade and the financial gains resulted remains one - sided. Such 
gaps from trad e under the e -commerce platform remain wide in the case of small island developing 
countries such as Fiji. It is critical that meaningful approaches are developed to allow Members 
accessing the platform to also access a fair share of gains that are commens urate with its use of the 
platform , and this needs to be addressed. Fiji ha s noted the Chair 's report and we will continue to 
remain engaged under the Work Programme. The knowledge sharing opportunity on 5 July was 
important for Members.  
6.98.   The Chair  announc ed that, as under the previous agenda item, he would consult broadly with 
Members after the summer break  towards  MC12 . He remained ready to facilitate further discussions 
on the basis of Members' submissions.  
6.99.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  PREPARATIONS FOR THE TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR11 
7.1.  The Chair recalled that  since the month of April  he had  been conducting broad consultations 
on the preparations for MC12, to hear Members' views on a range of issues including the substantive 
issues under the General Council, the format of the Conference and the outcome document. To 
ensure transparency and inc lusiveness, he had been reporting on these consultations regularly in a 
series of Informal General Council meetings.   
7.2.   In particular, a first round of consultations had taken  place from 16 April to 12 May.  At an 
Informal General Council meeting on 28 May, he had provided a comprehensive report, which had 
been circulated in JOB/GC/259, outlining the main take -aways from the consultations, namely, some 
overarching principles, priorities of Members in various areas, as well as their views on the format 
of the Conference and on the outcome document.  
7.3.   He had  continued consulting with Members and group coordinators on the issues contained in 
his report, in a number of configurations.  He had  reported on th ose consultations at a further 
Informal General Council mee ting held on 22 June, and his statement had been  circulated in 
JOB/GC/262.  
7.4.  At that meeting, he had  noted that the main issues identified in his report in JOB/GC/259 could 
be useful pointers for Members to focus their work in preparing for MC12. He had  also recalled that 
it remained entirely up to Members to determine which issues would be carried forward, as well as 
their actual content – and that , under each issue, possible results could  take different forms.  
7.5.  At the 22 June meeting, and further to the call by many Members during his consultations, he 
had appointed Ambassador David Walker as the Facilitator for the multilateral process on the WTO 
response to the pandemic, which had been  identified as a key priority for MC12.   
7.6.  The Chair's  report in JOB/GC/259  identifie d a number of priority areas where work was already 
taking place in existing WTO bodies, on which he had  provided a brief overview at  the meeting on 
22 June. The Chair had  signal led that he would seek delegations' views and suggestions on how to 
 
11 At the start of the meeting, the Chairman said that, r egarding Items 7 and 8 of the agenda, his intention 
was to provide a report on his consultations on MC12 preparations, the n ask Ambassador Walker, as Facilitator, 
to provide his initial report on the work he ha d carried out in the multilateral process on the WTO response to 
the pandemic (under sub -item 7(a)).  He would then move to item 8 , and ask the delegations submitting t he 
communications under the three sub -items to introduce them in turns.  He would then open the floor on both 
Items 7 and 8.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 49 - 
 
  advance work in some specific areas mentioned in his report in more concrete terms – in particular 
the Appellate Body, WTO reform, and some iss ues in paragraph 3.17.  
7.7.  Consultations on th ose specific issues had taken place on 19 -20 July, and the Chair had  
reported at a further Informal General Council meeting the previous  week, on 22 July.  
7.8.  A few points had emerged during th ose recent consultations . In particular, regarding the 
Appellate Body, he had  recalled that the issue has been raised and discussed in the regular meetings 
of the Dispute Settlement Body, and with the "Walker Process" in 2019 there  had been an intensive 
Facilitator -led process un der the auspices of the General Council.  
7.9.  The Chair had  asked delegations how they saw work advancing in th at area for MC12, including 
in the context of the discussions for a Ministerial Declaration.  
7.10.   He had  heard most delegations say that work should be don e together towards the shared 
objective of restoring a fully functioning Dispute Settlement system, a central pillar of the rules -
based Multilateral Trading System. To that end, several suggestions had been put forward. It was 
also clear that fundamental differences in that area remain ed for substantive progress to be possible 
at MC12, and all delegations that had come to consult acknowledged th ose difficulties. Some 
delegations had suggested that Minis ters could give a political message and launch a future 
discussion on the restoration of a functioning dispute settlement system, either as part of a broader 
discussion on WTO reform or on a separate track.  
7.11.   On WTO reform, he had noted that this was an umb rella of issues of a horizontal and systemic 
nature, which ha d been raised in the General Council and in other WTO bodies. He had recalled that 
some delegations had also suggested the creation of a Working Group or a Committee on WTO 
reform to look at th at issue in a horizontal manner. Again, he had  asked delegations how they saw 
the work advancing on this matter for MC12, including in the context of a Ministerial Declaration.  
7.12.   There seem ed to be broad agreement among delegations that had come to consult tha t work 
should be done towards a MC12 outcome about WTO reform. Some had suggested that th at outcome 
could be in the form of a political message, which acknowledge d the need for institutional reform 
and instruct ed the setting up of a multilateral exercise w ith broad participation, under the General 
Council. The nature and manner in which such an exercise would be organized would need to be 
further considered, and the Chair would look to Members for views and ideas.  
7.13.   What had seemed to emerge had been  a willi ngness to have Ministers create a space at MC12 
that would allow for discussions to take place going forward. The Chair had also taken note of a 
couple of preliminary suggestions – for instance, a number of delegations cautioned against being 
too prescript ive or over articulated, to ensure an enabling environment. On the other hand , there 
had also been the view that some specificity could  be needed to enable focused discussions, given 
the broad spectrum of issues that could be considered under WTO reform.  Another point had been 
made that th ose discussions should focus on the three core functions of the WTO, that is the 
monitoring and deliberative function; how to improve the negotiating function; and dispute 
settlement - and work on them in parallel .  
7.14.   And finally, other issues mentioned in paragraph 3.17 of his report, he recalled that some, 
but not all, of these issues had dedicated fora where they were or could  be taken up and he had  
asked delegations how they saw work advancing on th ose for MC12.  
7.15.   In that regard, several delegations had referred to the importance of MC12 discussing and 
achieving results on issues related to trade and environment, sustainability and climate change and 
referred to the work taking place in th at respect. Others had also noted that issues related to trade 
and gender were of importance in the work going forward and that they had sought an outcome at 
MC12 in th at area. A number of Members had also stressed the importance of improving 
transparency and notifications, and had noted that they would like to see a MC12 outcome in that 
regard – while one Member had said that individual Committees were better placed to deal with th at 
matter. Some delegations had again cautioned against overloading the agenda, especially given the 
complex circumstances in which they are operating, and on bringing new issues to the WTO at th at 
time. WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 50 - 
 
  7.16.   Paragraph 3.17 was not an exhaustive list but reflect ed the issues that  the Chair had  heard 
during his first round of consultations, and, as he had  said be fore, it would  depend on Members 
which issues – contained but also aside of th at paragraph - they wish ed to ultimately carry forward.  
7.17.   The Chair also noted that he had  heard the suggestion that a Ministerial outcome document 
could include a section with the results of previous Ministerial Conferences and how they ha d been 
implemented.  
7.18.   Finally, a number of delegations had raised once again the point of the format of MC1 2 and 
stressed the need for clarity about th at. Indeed, there should be a strive to arrive at an 
understanding about the format of the Conference as soon as feasible after the summer break. 
Knowing that th at largely depends on the sanitary situation overal l, they had  to be mindful of the 
importance to ensure smooth preparations ahead of MC12, both from a substantive as well as 
logistical perspective.   
7.19.   Related to th at, and in particular if the Conference t ook place virtually, delegations had 
stressed again t he importance of concluding the work early on, so that Ministers were in a position 
to consider the results for endorsement when they gather ed virtually.  
7.20.   Therefore, as he had said at the Informal General Council meeting and as the Director -General 
had also reiterated, it was the Chair's  intention to resume work in all areas immediately after the 
summer break, that was in early September, and to start a process of consultations on a possible 
Ministerial Declaration without delay. With that in mind, they should aim for texts in the various 
areas of work as soon as possible.  
7.21.   They were  at the end of July, and many had seen that  meeting as the natural marker in the 
lead up to MC12. As the Chair had said at the TNC meeting on Friday, and as had been noted by the 
Director -General, it was now time to focus their work on the key priority issues – and begin preparing 
possible outcomes. They were  operating in very challenging times. For that Conference to be 
successful and to put the WTO on a positive trajectory, it would be essential that efforts were focused 
on a few key areas. Processes were underway for that to be possible, including the Facilitator -led 
multilateral process on the WTO response to the pandemic. Of course, work in all areas that Members 
wished to pursue remain ed equally important, but certain choices would  have to be made in terms 
of what they could  deliver by and at MC12, and what work could  usefully continue post -MC12 in the 
way that Members deem ed appropriate, including through work programm es.  
7.22.   The Chair then  proceeded  to sub -item (a) of the agenda on the WTO response to the 
pandemic, and gave the floor to Ambassador Walker for his report.   
7.1  WTO Response to the Pandemic – Report by the Facilitator  
7.23.   Ambassador David Walker  (New Zealand), Facilitator for the WTO response to the pandemic , 
provided the following report:  
7.24.   Let me start by thanking the Chairman of the General Council and all of you for placing your 
trust in me as Facilitator. I am pleased to have this opportunity to report to you on the developments 
and consultations in the multilateral process on the WTO response to the pandemic. Since my 
appointment as Facilitator on 22 June at an Informal Meeting of the General Council, I undertook 
consultations and convened meetings in a range of formats. Specifically, I convened two sessions 
with group coordinators and delegations – on 6 July and 19 July – and I undertook a number of 
consultations with individual delegations and groups of delegations, at their request. To ensure 
transparency and i nclusiveness, the Chairman of the General Council also convened another Informal 
Meeting of the General Council on 22 July, at which I provided a brief update on the developments 
and ongoing discussion in this process. Let me now provide you with a recap o f where we stand.  
7.25.   The objective of the consultations and the two meetings (on 6 and 19 July) was to kick -off a 
discussion on the multilateral WTO response to the pandemic. We started out by looking at the 
elements that have been identified in the report by  the Chairman of the General Council - in 
paragraph 3.3 of JOB/GC/259. Specifically, I suggested that we start our discussion by focusing on 
the trade policy related aspects (minus IP and IP -related aspects) and the "Third Way " - mindful 
that the elements contained in the report by the Chairman of the General Council serve as a starting WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 51 - 
 
  point and would be adjusted as Members deem necessary, going forward. I proposed leaving IP and 
IP related aspects aside from this process for n ow, as the Chairman of the TRIPS Council will be 
reporting on these aspects to the General Council.  
7.26.   To kick -off a discussion, I asked three specific questions, namely: (i) do we have all the 
necessary elements in paragraph 3.3 of JOB/GC/259; (ii) is there anything that needs to be added 
or removed; (iii) do delegations have any views on how these elements should be taken forward in 
more concrete terms. In the follow -up meeting, which was held in the same format on 19 July - and 
as part of my preparations fo r my initial report to the General Council - I suggested that we consider 
three specific elements, namely:  Firstly, to see if any delegation or group of delegations wished to 
put forward or signal further ideas and thoughts on the substance or the process,  including planned 
proposals. Secondly, to take stock of what we have on the table in terms of proposals and ideas, 
and in so doing, look at how we wish to structure our work and discussion as we move this process 
forward in September. Thirdly, to consider , tentatively, if there are any issues that might be up for 
harvest, ahead of MC12.  
7.27.   Given the urgency of the matter, and the little time left before MC12, I emphasised that the 
sooner any further planned proposals or suggestions are fed into the process, t he better. I also 
noted in my consultations that I was aware there were ongoing discussions among some Members 
– with the intention to feed the results of these discussions into this multilateral process. In this 
regard, Ambassador Spencer (Jamaica) and Am bassador Tan (Singapore) made a room document 
available to delegations at the meeting I convened on 19 July, which is available to delegations as 
RD/GC/14. This document contains the result of Ambassador Tan's and Ambassador Spencer's joint 
effort working with a group of Members and reflects conversations they jointly held with a range of 
Members. I would like to take this opportunity to, once again, thank them for the tremendous work 
that has gone into this effort. It is a valuable piece of work and I hope  we may look to build on some 
of the points contained in this document as we advance our work in this multilateral process.  
7.28.   I should also note that, as part of the discussion in this multilateral process, Brazil signalled 
that its recent submission contai ned in JOB/GC/263 covers, amongst others, trade and health issues 
and is thus of relevance to this discussion. In the same vein, Canada signalled that there is a revised 
submission by the Trade and Health Initiative, contained in WT/GC/W/823, which will be  introduced 
under the next agenda item i.e., item 8.a. A couple of other delegations and other groups of Members 
signalled that they were looking to possibly submit further proposals.  
7.29.   I would encourage you all, once again, to submit any further proposals on issues related to 
the WTO response to the pandemic as soon as possible, so that they can be fed into this process 
and inform our work.  
7.30.   In the discussions so far, we also touched upon how we might, potentially, structure our work 
and discussion going fo rward - taking into account pandemic -related communications, including 
proposals that have already been put forward under the General Council and WTO bodies. As the 
Director -General recently mentioned, there is already a plethora of material out there. Not ably, 
under the General Council alone, there are more than 25 documents that relate – in full or in part – 
to the subject of WTO response to the pandemic. Beyond that, there are various other 
communications to WTO bodies which are linked to this subject ma tter. These communications come 
in a variety of forms: including, for example, in the form of declarations, joint statements, narratives 
and proposals; and, as contained in room document (RD/GC/14), the useful compilation shared by 
Ambassador Spencer and A mbassador Tan.  
7.31.   These documents and communications are filled with a wealth of views and suggestions on 
the various topics that relate to the pandemic and can guide us in formulating a multilateral WTO 
response. I will be using the coming days and weeks to  carefully review and reflect on these various 
communications to understand fully what we have on the table, and I would encourage you to do 
the same.  
7.32.   As a way forward, I would propose that we structure our discussions around the issues that 
have already been addressed in proposals and raised in consultations, and that we proceed on a 
thematic basis. I would look to start those thematic sessions as early as possible in September.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 52 - 
 
  7.33.   Based on what I have seen in the documents so far, including in RD/GC/14, an d what I have 
heard in my consultations and the meetings on 6 and 19 July, I think we could meaningfully and 
usefully kick -off the thematic series with the following focus areas, namely: (i) export restrictions; 
(ii) trade facilitation, regulatory coherenc e, cooperation and tariffs; (iii) the role of services; 
(iv) transparency and monitoring; (v) collaboration with other organizations and engagement with 
key stakeholders; and (vi) the idea of a framework to respond more effectively to future pandemics 
and crises. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list of themes, but I think it would usefully kick -off 
the thematic discussion.  
7.34.   In the consultations and discussion so far, I also suggested that we could tentatively consider 
issues that may be up for harvest , ahead of MC12. Based on what I have heard, I understand that, 
for instance, putting in place and operationalizing collaborative and cooperative arrangements 
between international organizations and strengthening the relationship with key stakeholders is 
something that we all seem to be wanting to do. To be able to do this, it would be necessary to 
understand a bit better what this might entail. In this regard, it seems to me that it may be useful 
if the Secretariat could scope out some more details on this . For example, (i) which organizations 
and stakeholders would need to be involved; (ii) what contribution and value added could each 
organization/stakeholder bring to the table; and (iii) how would such a collaboration/cooperation be 
organized.  
7.35.   In this co ntext, I would also like to recall that the Director General recently referred to various 
collaboration efforts that are already under way with several international institutions, including 
WHO, WIPO, IMF, and the World Bank. A more detailed exploration of  these existing collaborations 
could meaningfully contribute to the scoping exercise, including in terms of best practices and 
lessons learned.  
7.36.   One particular aspect that is frequently referenced in the discussions, is the "relationship with, 
and the role  of, the private sector ". In this context, I would like to mention the High -Level Dialogue 
on "Expanding Covid -19 vaccine manufacture to promote equitable access", which was jointly 
organized by the WHO and the WTO on 21 July under the umbrella of the Dire ctor General's "Third 
Way". This event, as I am sure those who attended would agree, helped shed more light on this 
subject, which I hope will be useful as we continue thinking about what the WTO should be doing in 
this regard. This concludes my report to you today, which will be issued after the meeting in the 
JOB/GC -series12. 
7.37.   Again, I would like to thank all delegations for the constructive ideas that I have received so 
far as part of the consultations and discussion. I think we are all of the view that i t is our shared 
responsibility to formulate an effective and credible multilateral WTO response to the pandemic. I 
will therefore continue to count on your active participation and guidance, as we move this process 
forward and, to quote the Director Genera l, "work to tie the different elements together into a 
framework ahead of MC12".  
7.38.   I would welcome any views and any comments that you may have on what I have outlined in 
my report, including on having the Secretariat scope out in more concrete terms what so me of this 
collaborative activity might entail. In this regard, if any delegation wishes to discuss any of these 
specific issues or any other matter related to this process further, please know that you can come 
to see me anytime.  
7.39.   On the way forward, it is  my intention to continue the multilateral process – as I mentioned 
earlier – in September, in a series of thematic sessions and in a range of different formats, and I 
will continue to report on this multilateral process at open -ended Informal Meetings and  formally to 
the General Council, at the invitation of the Chairman of the General Council. I very much hope that 
I can continue to count on your guidance and support.  
7.40.   I am ready to respond to any questions that Members may have. Thank you, Chair.  
7.41.   The Chair thanked Ambassador Walker  for his report and, as announced at the start of the 
meeting , moved to agenda item 8, to then open the floor for both items.  
 
12 The Facilitator's report was subsequently circulated as JOB/GC/269.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 53 - 
 
  7.42.   The General Council took note of the report . 
8  CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MULTILATERAL PROCESS ON THE WTO RESPONSE TO THE 
PANDEMIC13 
8.1  Draft General Council Declaration – COVID -19 and Beyond: Trade and Health – 
Communication from Australia; Brazil; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; China; the 
European Union; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Japan; Kazakhstan ; Kenya; R epublic of 
Korea; Mexico; Republic of Moldova; Montenegro; New Zealand; North Macedonia; 
Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu; the United Kingdom; Uruguay and Vanuatu (WT/GC/W/823)  
8.1.  The Chair  recalled that  the first sub -item under agenda item 8 had been included in the agenda 
by the co -sponsors of the "Draft General Council Declaration – COVID -19 and Beyond: Trade and 
Health" , which had been  circulated in document WT/GC/W/823. He invite d Canada to take the floor.  
8.2.  The representative of Canada  provided the following statement:   
8.3.  Thank you Chair for the opportunity to update the General Council on the draft declaration 
titled COVID -19 and Beyond: Trade and Health and its contribution to the m ultilateral process on 
the WTO response to the pandemic. Since the last General Council meeting, the initiative has added 
five more WTO Members as co -sponsors - Brunei Darussalam, Chinese Taipei, Uruguay, Vanuatu 
and Kazakhstan - bringing the total number to 52 WTO Members. More importantly, we have recently 
circulated a revised and updated version of the initiative in document WT/GC/W/823 which contains 
a number of improvements and additions to the proposal. To begin, in our discussions in past 
meetings, w e have always been clear; the trade policy actions set out in this proposed declaration 
are not an exclusive list. That said, we identified them as critical to help keep trade in essential 
medical goods, including vaccines, open and to support the ramping up of production of these goods. 
We recognize that there may be complementary aspects of trade policy that can also help Members 
respond to global crises such as the one we continue to face. The actions we decided to focus on in 
the Declaration are designe d to make a positive, trade facilitating contribution to the WTO response 
to the current pandemic and to enhance Members' resilience against future pandemics. I'd like to 
now highlight the new elements in the text.  
8.4.  First, we believe it is imperative for go vernments to respond to the widespread call for restraint 
and transparency when it comes to export restrictions. We therefore suggest strengthened action in 
relation to: (i) using such measures only when necessary and as a last resort after considering oth er 
less trade -restrictive measures; (ii) regularly reviewing if they remain necessary and to limit market 
disruptions to the greatest extent; and (iii) recognizing that substantial producers have a particular 
responsibility towards achieving equitable acce ss to essential medical goods, especially for Members 
which are highly dependent on imports. We have also added calls for increased transparency from 
Members around imposed export restrictions, including calls for positive responses from those 
Members to a ny requests for urgent consultations from Members affected by those measures. Lastly, 
we believe it helpful that the WTO proactively share any information provided by Members with the 
organizations responsible for the operational response to the crisis. We  see the sharing of trade 
policy information by the WTO as helping to create a collaborative approach to informing on the 
current conditions for trade, and for receiving feedback regarding the real -time trade barriers that 
may restrain that operational res ponse by other international organizations.  
8.5.  Second, we have added a commitment to intensifying efforts to accelerate the implementation 
of the Trade Facilitation Agreement provisions that support the timely and efficient release of goods. 
There is also a p roposal to that effect currently being discussed in the Trade Facilitation Committee 
and it deserves further advancement by Members.  
8.6.  Third, and in support of ongoing efforts, we are calling for further cooperation among all WTO 
Members, and between the WTO  and other international organi zations and the private sector, to 
support the production and distribution of essential medical goods, including vaccines. This also 
includes further work by the WTO to report on COVID -19 measures taken by Members and to repo rt 
on the trade in essential medical goods. Members are also called upon to examine how to improve 
 
13 See footnote 11.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 54 - 
 
  data gaps in our understanding on the production, demand and supply of such goods, including 
through a review of statistical collection and classification of  goods.  
8.7.  Fourth, the co -sponsors believe Members need to consider the establishment at MC12 of a 
work programme on pandemic preparedness which could lead to additional steps or commitments 
that could help Members to enhance their preparedness and crisis resilience. Chair, these updates 
to the proposed Declaration are designed to respond to the changed circumstances faced today as 
compared to the end of 2020 when the ideas were first discussed in the General Council, as well as 
lessons learnt since then. This Declaration also can be seen as a concrete contribution to the 
multilateral process on the WTO response to the pandemic.  
8.2  Urgent Trade Policy Responses to the COVID -19 Crisis – Communication from the 
European Union to the WTO General Council (WT/ GC/231)  
8.8.  The Chair  recalled that the agenda item made reference to a communication from the European 
Union on "Urgent Trade Policy Responses to the COVID -19 Crisis" circulated in document 
WT/GC/231 , and invite d the European Union to present th e communicatio n. 
8.9.  The representative of the European Union  provided  the following statement:   
8.10.   Beyond individual actions by Members, the agenda of this meeting suggests that expectations 
are high that the WTO membership would provide a collective and solid contribution as part of the 
international efforts to respond to the COVID -19 pandemic. As the membership is endeavouring to 
shape the "how?" the European Union has sketched out its views in this respect in the 
Communication on urgent trade policy responses. We should build on the lessons learnt and, in a 
solution -oriented mode, take a holistic appr oach to the issue.  
8.11.   As WTO Members, our prime responsibility is to enable a trade -conducive environment. We 
have suggested enhanced emphasis on a restraint from unnecessary export restrictions in particular 
where the exporting Member is a substantial produc er of vaccines and other essential goods. We 
also underscore the need to respect the highest degree of transparency, when it comes to notification 
of or information about all measures that have a trade restricting effect. In that sense, the European 
Union firmly believes that the proposed Council Declaration on Trade and Health just presented 
under the preceding point provides an effective and robust way forward.  
8.12.   Needless to say, trade policy cannot be conducted in isolation. There is room and need for 
strengthened collaboration both with relevant international organi zations and private stakeholders, 
including the industry.  
8.13.   In this regard, we welcome the High-Level Dialogue that took place on 21 July at the initiative 
of the WTO Director General and the WHO  Director General.  
8.14.   We should support the private sector in its unprecedented efforts to increase vaccine 
production by maintaining open supply chains and improve the way we monitor trade flows and 
market developments.  
8.15.   Equitable vaccine distribution requi res acknowledgement of the different level of development 
of recipient countries and exploiting any available manufacturing potential. Therefore, the European 
Union strongly encourages the industry to engage in voluntary licensing agreements for vaccine 
production and distribute vaccines at affordable prices, involving no profit, to low and middle -income 
countries. As indicated in a previous point of the agenda, we are also ready to discuss how to 
facilitate the issue of compulsory licences.  
8.16.   This crisis has  brought to our attention the striking reality that building crisis resilience 
requires investment in domestic manufacturing facilities. It is of particular relevance in those 
regions, which have a limited industrial base and heavily rely on imports. Howev er, the much -sought 
investment will only happen in a business -friendly  environment, which means the right regulatory 
framework that also includes protection of intellectual property.  
8.17.   The views set out in this Communication are a genuine contribution and a  support to the 
multilateral process aimed at shaping a WTO response to the pandemic at the latest by MC12. We WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 55 - 
 
  are ready to further engage with the understanding that such response should be meaningful and 
equip us to address the global challenges of today  and of tomorrow.  
8.3  Ministerial Declaration on Combating, Mitigating and Recovering from the Impacts of 
COVID -19 and Beyond – Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (WT/GC/W/822)  
8.18.   The Chair recalled that the item involve d a communication from the delegation of Chinese 
Taipei entitled "Ministerial Declaration on Combating, Mitigating and Recovering from the Impacts 
of COVID -19 and Beyond" circulated in document WT/GC/W/822. He invite d Chinese Taipei to take 
the floor.  
8.19.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement:   
8.20.   We are pleased that we are also a co -sponsor to the Trade and Health proposal led by Canada. 
Thank you also for the opportunity to briefly introduce document  WT/GC/W/822 entitled "Ministerial 
Declaration on Combating, Mitigating and Recovering from the Impact of COVID -19 and Beyond", 
which includes some points additional to the elements included in the Trade and Health proposal. 
We hope that some ideas in our proposal will contribute to the WTO's collective effort to address the 
pandemic.  
8.21.   As Members can see, this document tries to integrate with other proposals as much as 
possible. Here, my delegation would like to highlight some ideas and key elements which a re 
additional to or different from the elements in other proposals. We all agree that saving lives is of 
highest importance and utmost urgency. But rescuing the livelihood of vulnerable people is also of 
extremely high importance and high urgency. When we were drafting our proposal, many reports 
and studies relate d to the pandemic caught our attention about how disadvantaged Members and 
vulnerable people are suffering most seriously. Our proposal distinguishes from other proposals in 
that we suggest to miti gate the impact of the extreme situations and to use trade tools to help less 
developed country Members to recover from the impact, especially to identify trade and economic 
tools to assist vulnerable Members and vulnerable people. Actually, we are not the  only one which 
considered that economic recovery from the pandemic is of highest importance. At the APEC Trade 
Ministerial Meeting earlier this year, APEC Trade Ministers already emphasized the essential role of 
trade in tackling the impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic and "in enabling a strong economic recovery 
for all our people".  
8.22.   I would like to briefly mention some points to bring them to your attention. On paragraph 6 
of our proposal , although many Members have separately mentioned in various occasions that they 
support the Director  General 's Third Way and her role in pursuing the expansion of vaccine 
production, Members have not made a collective support through  a formal decision to endorse the 
Director General 's role. Introducing this paragraph into a Ministerial Declaration would show that the 
whole WTO membership is in full and firm support of the Director  General 's "Third Way". This might 
further enhance the Director  General 's role and position to discuss with the private sector and to 
help Members and the WTO on the related matters. This also has to do with the WTO's cooperation 
and collaboration with other international organizations.  
8.23.    On paragraphs 9 and 10 , we suggest Members to consider the role of government support 
and technical regulation in support of making vaccines more available from the WTO perspective. 
From paragraphs 24 to 37, we tried to identify what could be the trade and economic tools to sav e 
and restore livelihood of the most vulnerable countries, people and sectors. Since the WTO is one of 
international organizations most relevant to addressing COVID -19 and since the WTO 's whole 
membership is severely affected by the pandemic, it should be an important task at MC12 for 
Members to comprehensively address the trade and economic aspects arising from COVID -19 so as 
to show to the world that the WTO is relevant to the life and livelihood of the people.  
8.24.   Last, but not least, there is a suggestion on the institutional arrangement in paragraph 38 of 
our proposal. Unlike the trade and environment issues being handled by the Committee on Trade 
and Environment, currently we do not have an existing WTO body resp onsible for addressing public 
health crises from  the trade perspective and for reviewing the related trade measures in a holistic 
manner. Considering that public health related issues involve many WTO bodies, and considering 
that it is important to timely and comprehensively respond to COVID -19 and other public health WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 56 - 
 
  crises of similar nature by the WTO, we suggest Members to reflect whether the current WTO's 
institutional framework is sufficient to address these issues or whether Members should consider 
creating a new Committee on Trade and Public Health so as to tackle the related issues in a horizontal 
and holistic manner. Again, we look forward to Ambassador Walker's thematic discussions in 
September and will follow the majority view on what should be tackled in the initial process.  
8.25.   The Chair  proceeded to open the floor to delegations on items 7 and 8.  
8.26.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
8.27.   Brazil thanks Canada for placing this item on the agenda and for presenting the revised 
document. Brazil also commends the co -sponsors of the Trade and Health Initiative in updating the 
text and integrate vaccines into the discussion. We are fully committed to vaccine access within the 
"Diplomacia da Saúde", which can be translated as "Health Diplomacy", a top priority of our current 
foreign policy. In this sense, we also believe that a ministerial decision on trade and health should 
be the top priority for MC 12. This is the key deliverable for the Ministerial C onference and will 
consti tute an important signal that the WTO can provide adequate responses to the pandemic and 
other crises.  
8.28.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement:   
8.29.   Uruguay is one of the co-sponsors  of document WT/GC/W/823 COVID 19 and beyond: Trade 
and Health. We firmly believe that the WTO cannot afford not to have  a concrete outcome on the 
role of the organization in this pandemic, which has already lasted a year and a half. The least we 
can do as Members is to arrive at a policy declaration, in which  we agree to implement trade 
measures that favour and facilitate trade in essential medical products, including vaccines. Other 
Members certainly have excellent ideas on how to achieve this goal, and this is an opportunity to 
come up with ideas and be inno vative.  
8.30.   In our role as co -sponsors, we have agreed to make our best efforts not to modify the applied 
tariffs on lines of interest , and to exercise self -restraint when applying restrictive measures to 
exports – including customs measures, services and tec hnical regulations – and implementing a 
monitoring system together with the Secretariat. With regard to the Secretariat 's role, it  will produce 
a trade monitoring report every two years , publish a summary report every three months on 
measures taken by Members , work with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World 
Customs Organization (WCO) to develop a database on supply chains of essential medical products , 
and draw up a report on compliance six months after the adoption of this Declaration. Basically, this 
text is intended to send a clear signal to public opinion that WTO Members are capable of reaching 
a series of basic commitments and creating a statistical monitoring and develop ment structure, 
enabling us to have greater transparency and shed light on the trade in products regarding which 
we are all in the dark.  
8.31.   Lastly, it is important to mention that discussions on this text in the General Council are being 
conducted in paralle l with those on intellectual property rights in the TRIPS Council, and Uruguay 
hopes that after the summer break we will be able to consolidate the progress in both bodies in 
order to have a single final document that reflects the greatest number of issues  and the interests 
of all Members. The world is watching us. Our people are going through dramatic moments and trade 
is suffering every day, with MSMEs, the basis of our economies, affected above all. It is vitally 
important to make a declaration on trade and health at the Ministerial Conference and this text is 
an excellent means of launching  an extensive dialogue among the entire Membership. Comments, 
suggestions for changes and support for the initiative are all welcome.  
8.32.   The representative of Viet Nam  provided the following statement:   
8.33.   As I am delivering this statement for item 7 as well as items 4 and 8 under the G eneral 
Council's  agenda all together because my delegation believes these items are related. First, we 
would like to underline that the pandem ic is far from over while the COVID -19 new variants are 
complicating and threatening the socioeconomic situation in many parts of the world, especially 
Southeast Asia n countries including Viet  Nam. We are taking various measures in solidarity with the 
international community to fight the pandemic and save lives, overcoming disruption and ensure 
inclusive recovery. We support international efforts and coordinated measures in scaling up vaccine WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 57 - 
 
  production and equitable access to vaccines and other tools for an effective response to COVID -19, 
and promoting an inclusive recovery from the pandemic. On this occasion we also wish to express 
our deep appreciation to our friends who have come to help espec ially for vaccine donations at this 
critical juncture.  
8.34.   Second, as part of a global solution, the WTO's response to the pandemic needs to deliver a 
meaningful package and outcome  or MC12. Vietnam thanks Ambassador David Walker for his 
concrete report as fa cilitator of the multilateral process under the G eneral Council purview.  We 
appreciate many Members who have provided valuable inputs to this process through different 
submissions as well as their active engagement. We support Ambassador Walker's outline o f a final 
package and his plan for continued and intensified consultations to reach consensus on the WTO 
response to the pandemic. We will actively cooperate and participate in this multilateral process 
towards consensus within this organization for the de liverable s at MC12.  
8.35.   Third, concerning the substance of the WTO response to the pandemic, we are of the view 
that it is important to be comprehensive and concrete, not only to deal with this pandemic but also 
to enable responses  for future health crisis pa ndemics. Hence our considerations are all substantive 
and on the trade and health initiative, we urge for trade policy responses to the COVID -19 crisis . 
The TRIPS waiver would be reflected in the WTO response package.  
8.36.   The representative of Norway  provided the following statement:   
8.37.   Norway notes with satisfaction the broad support in the membership for making the WTO 
response to the pandemic a main theme for MC12. We appreciate the engagement of Members in 
this regard, and we are happy to be among t he cosponsors of the Trade and Health Initiative listed 
under agenda item 8 (a). Norway also welcomes the contribution of the E uropean Union listed under 
agenda item 8 (b). Furthermore, Norway welcomes the appointment of Ambassador David Walker as  
Facilitato r for our collective work on the WTO response to the pandemic and would like to thank him 
for his report. Norway is looking forward to engaging in the thematic process outlined by the 
Facilitator with the aim to have a robust outcome on trade and health at  MC12.  
8.38.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP  Group , provided the following statement:   
8.39.   My intervention covers both agenda items 7 and 8. We thank the Facilitator for his report and 
acknowledge the contributions of Members in WT/GC/W/823, WT/GC/231 and WT/GC/W/822 , which 
is critical in light of the global circumstances posed by the C OVID -19 pandemic. The WTO has been 
fairly responsive to the impact of the pandemic. Initiatives taken to date include monitoring of trade 
measures,  publication of reports on trends in trade, collaboration with other international 
organi zations, facilitating discussions in committees and negotiation groups, initiation of processes 
with a view to map out the WTO 's response to the effects of the pandemi c with a dedicated Facilitator 
and very recently the Director General 's convening of events that bring vaccines stakeholders 
together. We are seeing progress with the reduction of restrictive measures implemented in light of 
the pandemic with continued rep orts on specific trade concerns faced by Members. These initiatives 
should continue and be bolstered, as trade restrictive measures negatively affect the trade and 
economies of ACP Group Members. A uniform approach is critical that considers both health an d 
trade that aims to eliminate unilateral measures that could further exacerbate the situation of our 
vulnerable Members.  
8.40.   The ACP Group believes that the WTO should further enhance the pace at which it collaborates 
with key international organi zations , such as the IMF, World Bank and regional organi zations or 
country groupings , to complement initiatives underway in these frameworks. It is advisable that the 
WTO's response to the pandemic be guided by core principles. These principles could include 
equitabl e and efficient access to C OVID -19 vaccines therapeutics and related products, preservation 
of trade flows, international coherence, inclusivity, transparency, respect for WTO rules and 
adaptation to a post COVID -19 global economy that embraces the positiv e changes occasioned by 
the pandemic, while enabling Members to manage issues that have emerged. Our focus should be 
on building back better. There are at least three approaches that the WTO should pursue in its 
response to the pandemic:  
8.41.   One, trade and hea lth – there should be a coordinated and timely response to the health 
dimension of the crisis, similar to what is now in progress in the TRIPS Council. We welcome text -WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 58 - 
 
  based negotiations on the waiver, and it is critical to have a text adopted prior to MC1 2. We urge 
Members to prioritise discussions on the waiver with a view to arriving at an amicable conclusion 
that improves access to medical supplies to respond to the pandemic.  In parallel, the TRIPS Council 
initiative could be complemented by improving t he pace at which COVID -19 related medical and 
health products are processed at the border, removing unnecessary trade -related bottlenecks, 
export restrictions including tariffs and raw materials, in order to better facilitate transactions 
involving these p roducts along the supply chain. Additional measures to monitor, safeguard and 
expedite procedures for vaccine inputs to be more predictable for manufactures is critical to sustain 
production and needs . Further , the WTO needs to continue to collaborate clos ely with the World 
Health Organi zation and private sector stakeholders involved in the production and trade of these 
items.  
8.42.   Two, it is important to streamline the recovery and rebuilding initiatives in the work 
programmes of WTO committees and negotiating groups, bearing in mind that the impact of the 
pandemic is likely to be prolonged, and the lag effect as well as the severity of the impact, will vary 
from country to country, most likely depending on their trade capacity. Developing countries such 
as thos e in the ACP Group will be disproportionately affected. The rebuilding work in the WTO should 
involve both a focus on the impact of the present crisis, facilitating development -oriented and 
capacity -building work to address these crises  to mitigate the cur rent circumstance s, and 
establishing a blueprint for future similar events.  
8.43.   Three, monitoring and reporting  – the WTO should continuously monitor and evaluate the 
impact of the crisis on trade and report findings so that the relevant committees can take them into 
account in their work. The objective is to ensure that the pandemic does not interrupt world trade 
nor impede the integration of developing countries and LDCs into the global economy and global 
value chains,  safeguard measures to sustain the vulnerable and worst affected must be instituted to 
expedite recovery for such economies.  
8.44.   Four, collaboration with global economic governance organi zations  – the WTO Secretariat 
should continue and enhance its collaboration with other international organi zations, such as the 
United Nations, IMF, World Bank and Regional Development Banks, to ensure that global economic 
recovery is coherent, timely, inclusive and incorporates trade as an important element of global 
recovery. The objective should be to ensure that issues such as reduced access to trade finance, 
trade restrictive measures and possible trade distorting subsi dies emanating from stimulus 
programmes, all of which we have seen throughout the crisis,  have a lasting negative impact on 
trade flows. This is critical to the survival of MSMEs, as they are disproportionately affected by the 
fall-out from the pandemic.  
8.45.   We are already witnessing a third wave of infection of COVID -19 and new variants which will 
continue to stall our economic recovery and rebuilding. We need to work urgently to prioritise these 
elements of the negotiations with available WTO tools, that can ensure equitable access to affordable 
vaccines and medical supplies, required to help us all to combat COVID -19. We look forward to 
working closely with you Chair and Ambassador David Walker in this regard.  In closing, we will 
continue to approach discussi ons on the WTO 's response in a solution -seeking mode. We believe 
that outcomes from these discussions should contribute to the successful adaptation of developing 
countries and LDCs to a post -pandemic trading environment , and provide a blueprint on how the  
WTO should respond to similar future occurrences.  
8.46.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement:   
8.47.   In the current global response to this unprecedented pandemic, the bottom -line for the WTO 
as an organization governing international trade is that we should first and foremost focus our efforts 
on facilitating trade in essential medical goods and preventing disruption of the supply chain. In the 
WTO, we have been discussing for a w hile how to enhance the WTO's response to multiple aspects 
of COVID -19, with a view to presenting a broad set of trade -related policies in preparation for MC12. 
In this regard, Ambassador Walker 's role as a facilitator is crucial and my delegation is ready  to work 
with him. As a co -sponsor of the proposal on Trade and Health, Korea believes that this initiative 
will contribute to the WTO 's enhanced response to the pandemic. The initiative notably presents 
comprehensive trade -related actions that will certai nly serve the WTO's objective. My delegation 
calls on Members to support the Trade and Health Initiative and work together to elaborate the 
WTO's response to the pandemic when we come back in September.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 59 - 
 
  8.48.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided th e following statement:   
8.49.   This is an area where Ministers will want a substantive outcome, as we will still be in the midst 
of the pandemic when they meet at MC12. Let me pay tribute to Ambassador Walker for the 
consultations and hard work. Let me also pay tribute to the D irector General for the collaboration 
with other international organi zations and business. We need more of this collaboration in the 
months ahead. We are a cosponsor of TAHI and therefore encourage others to join up to it. We also 
welco me the E uropean Union and Chinese Taipei 's proposals. As others have said, we need a holistic 
approach that focuses on practical solutions. That is what is so strong about the Trade and Health 
Declaration Proposal that delivers concrete actions to facilitate trade during the pandemic and 
beyond, allowing Members to react with flexibility and agility to pressures. It is important that as we 
move forward, we reach an outcome for this Ministerial Conference, but also a programme of work 
that allows us to develop these proposals in the years ahead to ensure this organi zation is prepared 
for future pandemics.  
8.50.   The representative of China  provided the following statement:  
8.51.   Under item 7, o n process, we are now at the end of July, and it is high time that we need to 
pragmatically focus on a few key areas, ar eas that have the possibility to achieve something at 
MC12. As the D irector General  said during  the 15  July TNC Meeting, striving for perfection prevents 
us from achieving something good. We can put it like this : striving for all prevents us from achieving  
something adequate. Time is not on our side. It is not appropriate to add elements or topics that 
are highly controversial or without mature discussions, or even never discussed in the WTO. On 
substance, I just want to highlight two aspects : first, in our  view, focused discussions on the 
Appellate Body impasse should be organized as soon as possible, ideally immediately after the 
summer break. We are open to the platform or format of such consultation, be it in the framework 
of the DSB, or under the auspic e of General Council. In any event, Members should have a frank 
exchange of views and brainstorm on what type of outcomes is desirable and feasible at MC12. 
Second , China supports hav ing some sentences and paragraphs that demonstrate Ministers ' political 
guidance on how to advance the reform of the WTO, perhaps including some timeframes towards 
MC13. We also note that some Members suggest that it would not necessarily be helpful to have too 
many overlapping configurations. With this observation, we would ask whether establishing a 
Working Group on WTO Reform would add value to the current discussion. The package of reform 
would be a result from all relevant bodies and other mechanisms in t he WTO. Lastly Chair, let me 
thank Ambassador Walker for his efforts on consultations on the multilateral process of  the WTO's 
response to the pandemic. China will continue to engage in the following thematic discussions under 
the leadership of Ambassador Walker, and make needed contributions.  
8.52.   Under item 8 , China thanks Canada for the update on this important initiative on behalf of co -
sponsors. The WTO could and should play an active role in response to the C OVID -19 pandemic. The 
WTO should achieve concret e results as soon as possible in this field. We hope that the initiative will 
provide input s to MC12 outcomes on the WTO's response to the pandemic. China looks forward to a 
multilateral declaration at MC12, not only on our current work but also on the way  forward. We also 
stand ready to work with Members to strive for Ministerial Decisions on specific issues.  
8.53.   The representative of Turkey  provided the following statement:   
8.54.   Our intervention will pertain to sub -items (a) and (b) of agenda item 8. We will refer to certain 
parts of these documents. Given the urgency of the situation, ramping up production of vaccines is 
a priority for all. Dialogue with vaccine developers and manufacturers as well as those of other 
necessary medical products is an effective way to detect problems and bottlenecks. In addition to 
efforts to increase production, trade facilitation is a priority area for Turkey. We can focus on what 
can be done to accelerate a simplified and timely release of goods critical to fight the pandemic.  
Turkey co -sponsors a proposal to that effect , which suggests accelerating implementation of the TFA 
and enhancing communication, cooperation and automation  in border operations. We believe 
another significant contribution of the WTO during this process ca n be to ensure transparency of the 
restrictive and facilitative measures and to provide foresight. For enhanced transparency, we would 
like to note the WTO Market Access Committee 's recent report of April 2021 as a good example of 
stock -taking exercise. Th is practice could continue in future. Facing critical shortages of certain 
supplies, many countries from all levels of development have naturally resorted to export -restrictive 
measures during the pandemic. This is an area where can see again how delicate the nexus between 
trade and health is. Any rule -making on this should be a careful exercise because it may affect WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 60 - 
 
  States' decision -making on human health and safety. Finally, as a member of the G -20, we are fully 
committed to "limit trade measures taken to  promote public health to those that are targeted, 
proportionate, transparent, temporary and consistent with WTO obligations. "  
8.55.   The representative of Malaysia  provided the following statement:   
8.56.   Under a genda items 7 and 8 , on the WTO's response to the COVID -19 pandemic, we 
acknowledge that the WTO needs a holistic approach in addressing this global public health crisis. It 
is our hope that the various efforts i n response to the COVID -19 pandemic  will be more structured 
as we are approaching MC12 in Dece mber. With regards to addressing the COVID -19 pandemic, we 
wish to stress the importance of undertaking all measures necessary to expand, diversify, and 
facilitate the supply of essential medicines urgently , through a close collaboration with the private 
sector.  
8.57.   The representative of Chad provided the following statement:   
8.58.   The LDC Group  would like to recall our statement last year on this issue. Our aim is to save 
lives and bolster economic resilience. In May 2020 , the LDC Group suggested the adoption of 
provisions to avoid export restrictions on goods , including basic food supplies and essential medical 
supplies when these products are purchased by LDCs for national use or when exported for 
humanitarian purposes. We therefore wish to underscor e the importance of adopting a holistic 
coordinated approach which addresses all relevant WTO pillars to ensure access to medication, 
vaccines and other necessary equipment. We welcome the thematic spheres proposed by 
Ambassador Walker and believe they wil l help us to guide our discussions. They are indeed very 
relevant and we encourage Members to bear in mind the impact that the pandemic has on LDCs 
concretely , and the necessary political responses to mitigate their effects. The WTO's work must also 
includ e types of cooperation which pave the way to addressing manufacturing capacity limitations 
in LDCs. We also wish to see this opportunity to thank the Director -General for her dialogues with 
the WHO and WIPO in order to ensure a collaboration which aims to boost access to vaccines and 
therapeutics to combat COVID -19. We also welcome the efforts made by Ambassador Spencer and 
Tan and we hope that their work will also be recognized here alongst with the work of Ambassador 
Walker as part of the General Council' s work. We also wish to express our appreciation to the WTO 
for following up on trade related restrictions and COVID -19-related easing of measures as well as 
the online reports. Finally, we would like to note that we made various statements during the 
informal TNC meeting and the Heads of Delegation s meeting , and we request  that these be 
incorporated into our statement here.14  
8.59.   Turning now to item 8, the LDC Group would like to thank the E uropean Union and other 
co-authors for their various proposals on tra de and health , especially for their contributions to the 
multilateral procedure tied to the WTO's pandemic response. It is quite clear that the COVID -19 
pandemic has stepped up challenges and added additional pressures for vulnerable countries , 
especially LDCs. The LDC Group would like to note the aim of securing equitable access to vaccines 
worldwide. It is of utmost importance that we act on a global stage to address this pressing urgent 
need, and we therefore call on all WTO Members to agree on the need to take steps to address this 
current public health emergency created by the pandemic. The LDC Group had a very fruitful 
exchange with the E uropean Union yesterday and we would like to thank Ambassador Machado for 
his personal commitment and for hearing our views. We welcome efforts made by the EU delegation 
and their notifications provided to the WTO , which help to bolster transparency within our 
organiza tion. Our representatives are ready to continue an  exchange of views with the EU delegation , 
including on the proposed waiver under item 4 of today's agenda. We hope that this can help us to 
move in the direction of forging a consensus -based outcome amongs t all WTO Members.  
8.60.   The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  provided the following statement:   
8.61.   Under agenda item 7, t here is no doubt whatsoever that COVID -19 has had a major impact 
on our population. In light of this, the agenda item on trade and health is of paramount importance. 
It's worth noting, however, that COVID -19 doesn't only impact people 's health , it also impacts access 
to finance. COVID -19 exacerbated the challenges that developing countries and LDCs face in terms 
of finding access to funding for tr ade. The WTO must adopt a holistic approach to finding solutions , 
 
14 The statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group at the at the 23 July Informal TNC and 
Informal HODs meeting is annexed to the Minutes of this meeting . WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 61 - 
 
  this must be global and inclusive ensuring that our work can move forward. We welcome your report 
in JOB/GC/259 which includes all the concerns reported by Members in your consultations. We also 
welcome other documents which respond to concerns about debt and finance. We invite you and 
Ambassador Walker to bear this in mind in your consultations.  
8.62.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement :  
8.63.   Under item 7, s ince the global outbreak of the coronavirus, our economies have been 
struggling to stay afloat. There is a clear disproportionality in both the health and economic effects 
of the pandemic, as developing co untries, LDCs and small island developing economies were the 
most affected.  To make things worse, the capacity to respond to the situation is even more 
disproportionate. For instance, only 4% of the African population is vaccinated. The African economy 
incurred a 2.1% contraction in 2020 and it is estimated that 39 million Africans could slip into 
extreme poverty this year.  As we have repeatedly said, no one is safe until everyone is. And no 
economic recovery will happen unless the health crisis is brought under control. Bearing this in mind, 
we call on Members to take exceptional decisions in these exceptional circumstances. It is clear that 
the TRIPS provisions on patent protection and the related licensing solutions have failed to meet our 
needs. In this regard, we are glad that textual discussions have begun for a TRIPS waiver , but we 
must accelerate discussions and ensure that we are able to reach an outcome at the earliest.  In 
parallel, we need to facilitate (i) the movement of inputs for the production  of vaccines, (ii) the 
transfer of technology, (iii) an equitable distribution of vaccines, and (iv) access to essential goods 
for the foreseeable future.  To achieve this, we need to eliminate IP barriers, export restrictions on 
certain goods and ultimatel y develop an appropriate response programme for future crisis situations.  
Furthermore, the WTO has to play a proactive and leading role to ensure collaboration between 
international organi zations and relevant stakeholders with the aim of achieving a common  response 
to the pandemic.   
8.64.   With respect to the concerning drop in government revenues and the increase in debts, we 
call on Members to consider the discussions conducted with respect to debt restructuring and debt 
relief in other international fora , while the WTO could examine the balance of payment needs of 
Members , in view of providing meaningful support to the most affected sectors.  Africa is highly 
reliant on its agricultural sector, both for revenues and for food security. Sadly, this vulnerable secto r 
was immensely affected. As such, we call on Members to consider the African Group’s proposals for: 
i) a permanent solution on public stockholding , ii) a substantial reduction of trade distorting domestic 
support measures , iii) a reform of SSM to make it more accessible to developing countries and LDCs , 
iv) an outcome on the existing proposal on agricultural export prohibitions on WFP , and v) a 
reduction of product specific cotton AMS supports to de -minimis level.  
8.65.   The repre sentative of Chile provided the following statement : 
8.66.   I request that our delegation's statements at the meetings you mentioned be incorporated 
into the record of this meeting, as well as those delivered in relation to this matter at the Trade 
Negotiations C ommittee last Friday.15 Under Ambassador Walker  we will have a single formal process 
that should lead us towards an ambitious and balanced deliverable , providing a real and effective 
response to the pandemic , while also serving as a lesson for future pande mics, especially in areas 
specific to and falling within the competence of the WTO. Canada's Trade and Health Initiative, which 
we co -sponsor, contains the elements in relation to which the WTO can deliver concrete solutions to 
improve access to vaccines a nd other medical inputs. We highlight, inter alia, disciplines in the area 
of export restrictions and similar measures; notification commitments; customs and trade facilitation 
measures, including through the Trade Facilitation Agreement; and regulatory me asures. This 
initiative is a solid basis for starting work on a text for the declaration to be signed by our Ministers 
at the end of the year. In this regard, we appreciate Chinese Taipei's contribution, which provides a 
good potential structure for this m inisterial declaration. The Trade and Health Initiative is just one 
of many existing documents and declarations.  
8.67.   I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Ambassadors of Jamaica 
and Singapore and their valuable written contribut ion. All of these documents have something in 
common: they reaffirm our strong conviction that the WTO has a central role in combating and 
 
15 The statement delivered by Chile 23 July Informal TNC and Informal HODs meeting is annexed to the 
Minutes of this meeting . WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 62 - 
 
  recovering from this and future pandemics. Given the number  of documents, we support the working 
structure presented by Ambassador Walker. At some point, this work should be brought together 
with the Director General's process – the so -called Third Way – which now has its own course and 
is being supported with ide as from the Trade and Health Initiative. In our view, it will be particularly 
important for the process upon which we have embarked, and which will be led by Ambassador 
Walker, to produce short -, medium - and long -term deliverables, i.e. before, during and after the 
upcoming Ministerial Conference, considering the diverse nature of the current issues. We have faith 
in the Facilitator to work expeditiously , in view of the short amount of time remaining.  
8.68.   One issue  that the Facilitator and the Trade and Health  Initiative have expressly left to follow 
its own course is that of intellectual property aspects. For Chile, this is a key aspect. The IP pillar 
has its own forum and this morning we attended the debate based on the report by the TRIPS Council  
Chair , for which we are grateful. It is important that the discussions in this Council continue on the 
basis of constructive negotiations, conducted in good faith and aimed at achieving an outcome that 
is effective and genuinely leads to an increase in vaccine produc tion capacity. An agreement that 
fails to deliver an effective response and is also difficult for Members to implement , will certainly not 
be of use to the WTO 's pandemic response.  
8.69.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement:   
8.70.   On agenda  items 7 and  8, Colombia is of the view that the Initiative on Trade and Health is 
very positive, and supports discussions on a practical and effective WTO response to the pandemic. 
This is a multi -dimensional issue and the response to this crisis must make use of the various tools 
offered by trade policy. We welcome and support  the work undertaken by Ambassador Walker as 
Facilitator in these discussions, as well as that of Ambassadors Spencer and Tan. The document 
compiling the elements gleaned in the consultations certainly reflects the fact that the response to 
the crisis invo lves various elements, from trade facilitation and regulatory cooperation to measures 
on export restrictions.  
8.71.   On this matter, we wish to draw attention to document WT/GC/W/826 circulated by a group 
of six Latin American countries, which reflects the profound concern regarding a number of trade 
practices that hinder and limit the importation of vaccines, thereby depriving our citizens of timely 
and equitable access to these goods. This document puts forward concrete ideas to improve the 
collective resp onse to the pandemic through the tools of the multilateral trading system. We 
particularly stress the need to multilaterally address the discussion on more comprehensive and 
firmer actions to avoid restrictions on exports, and in particular on vaccines and  their components. 
The WTO holds a piece to the puzzle , that is the global response to the pandemic, and it is up to us 
to take collective and coordinated action for the benefit of all. The issue of trade and health should 
form part of the Ministerial outc omes and, to that end, Colombia stands ready to engage actively in 
the various discussions and thematic dialogues with a view to achieving convergence between the 
visions and proposals.  
8.72.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement:   
8.73.   We support Canada 's statement on the Trade and Health Initiative ; and we note that, as 
Canada said, the Trade and Health Initiative is not an exhaustive proposal. I wanted to add that it’s 
not an onerous one either. It aims to reinforce the norms and values to which we have all committed , 
and it is not about making new rules or setting new onerous obligations.  
8.74.   The representative of Brunei Darussalam  provided the following statement:   
8.75.   As one of the co -sponsors, Brunei Darussalam aligns itself with the s tatement they have just 
delivered. We joined this proposal because we believe that it is important  to have a strong response 
from the WTO on the COVID -19 pandemic, particularly for MC12, to demonstrate that the WTO still 
remains relevant and credible today , and that it has a real and central role to play in the global 
economic recovery. As a country that had little to no manufacturing or production of essential 
medical equipment such as PPE, we were one of those that were affected at the start of the pandem ic 
by export restrictions, so we strongly see the merit of a united position on this. We believe the 
proposal achieves this in a balanced manner, by emphasizing the importance of transparency and 
focusing on dialogue. In our view , the pandemic has shown us  the importance of working together. 
In an unprecedented show of cooperation, the world has come together not just between countries, WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 63 - 
 
  but also with organi zations and industry. We are therefore also pleased to see that the proposal 
highlights this, particul arly by pledging our commitment to work together with other organi zations 
and institutions. The emergence of the multitude of variants of the COVID -19 virus also show that 
the pandemic is not over, and that other iterations may come up again in future. We need to consider 
what work needs to be done to prepare for such a situation in future. All of us here have agreed that 
there should be an outcome at MC12 on the WTO 's response to the pandemic. We believe that the 
proposal for a decision by Ministers to est ablish a work programme on pandemic preparedness as 
envisaged by this proposal should thus be one of the outcomes.  Brunei Darussalam therefore 
remains committed to continue supporting this initiative, and encourages other WTO Members to 
also join and support it, so we can have a strong and unified statement on trade and health.  
8.76.   The representative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of CARICOM , provided the following statement:   
8.77.   CARICOM aligns itself with the statement delivered  by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP. T he most 
critical issues for CARICOM currently are the continuing need for equitable access to vaccines as well 
as how to treat the emerging COVID variants. We take note of the various contributions to the 
multilateral process on the WTO response to the COV ID-19 pandemic. We also observe that there 
are dozens of proposals from Members, all of them well intentioned and in several instances, 
overlapping. We thank Members for the various submissions under this agenda item 8. CARICOM 
believes that WTO Members sh ould be open to all possible solutions to combat the pandemic, 
including unblocking supply chains, enhancing manufacturing capacity, invoking appropriate 
intellectual property flexibilities, and enhancing trade facilitation measures among others. At some 
point, Members may also want to see how best they can streamline their various approaches and 
proceed under an omnibus framework , to both reduce the risk of bifurcating pathways and reduce 
the burden on small delegations to participate meaningfully in the v arious conversations. We renew 
our call to WTO Members to remove export restrictions, particularly export prohibitions or bans on 
drugs and medical devices for the treatment of COVID -19, as well as inputs needed for vaccines and 
therapeutics. We also call on Members not to introduce new restrictive measures. Members are also 
reminded to be mindful of their transparency and notification obligations.  
8.78.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   
8.79.   Under item 7 , on the issue of Appellate Body , we believe that Members should re -engage. We 
support the process for necessary reforms that would restore the two -tier DSB. On the issue of WTO 
reforms, we need to look at the proposals submitted by Members in that regard and agree on the 
common elements that could constitute reform package. Then only we can discuss the process for 
working on the reform proposal package. My delegation does not support setting up of a Working 
Group, as being suggested. On para 3.17 issues, our view is that, d uring a pandemic year when our 
attention should be fully devoted to delivering a robust response to the pandemic, taking up other 
issues will be a distraction and we should avoid doing that for MC12. As suggested earlier, we 
reiterate our request for inclu ding a section on the status of past MC deliverables in the MC12 
document. We are running short of time and it is high time that we quickly identify the agenda items 
which we want to pursue for delivery at MC12, so that we can come back and focus on them 
immediately after the summer break. Also, having a clarity on the format of the meeting – virtual 
or in-person – will help delegations to effectively prepare for the Ministerial.  
8.80.   On the  WTO’s response to the pandemic , we note that there are many proposed d eliverables, 
but we should avoid those that are openly trying to push the market access agenda and aim to take 
away the policy space available for Members and also impose cumbersome obligations that serve to 
benefit a few in the name of pandemic. No doubt,  we need to work on supply -chain bottlenecks. 
However, doing away with the legitimate policy instrument of export restrictions or aiming to make 
a temporary elimination of tariffs a permanent measure or calling for stringent transparency 
obligations , will not guarantee access to vaccines, therapeutics or diagnostics or access to food for 
the most vulnerable. In fact, such a step is likely to lead to a flight of these critical final finished 
products to the highest bidder, making them inaccessible to the res ource -poor, further aggravating 
the current divide which we are seeing.  
8.81.   On the waiver proposal, as few Members were successful in delaying the landing zone beyond 
July, I wish to reiterate that there is an urgent need to engage in the text -based negotiati ons and 
finalise the waiver request to be adopted by MC12.  The WTO's response to the pandemic will not be 
fulfilled without an agreement on the waiver. Millions have regressed deeper into poverty during this 
pandemic , and their food security is another cri tical issue for this organization. A simple, efficient, WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 64 - 
 
  and permanent solution on extending PSH for food security purposes to new programs and new 
products is therefore a key deliverable. In this regard, we once again reiterate that the new 
submissions by the Africa n Group and the proposal being worked upon by G33 are a good basis for 
CoASS to take the process forward. We also urge for a multilateral outcome on the movement of 
healthcare professionals, particularly in view of the current pandemic. We need t o be aware of new 
forms of trade barriers in the name of a "selective use of vaccine certificate s", and find ways to 
resolve them .  
8.82.   Under item 8 , we thank the co -sponsors for their update on the submission WT/GC/W/823 
calling for measures facilitating trade in essential medical goods, including vaccines to respond to 
the current COVID -19 related challenges in international trade. We also thank propon ents of 
WT/GC/231 and WT/GC/W/822. Certain measures highlighted in these submissions can help in 
keeping the supply chains open, in transportation of raw materials and distribution of final goods , 
and are welcome. These are one part of the solution. Howeve r, unless the supply options are 
diversified by mobilising the global manufacturing capacity, by making the IP, know -how and 
technology openly accessible to all potential manufacturers, we cannot resolve the challenge of the 
COVID -19 pandemic. The rules an d agreements inked for a normal situation, not keeping in mind a 
disaster or pandemic situation, will not deliver the desired and effective outcomes. We are 
disappointed with most of the contents of the present proposal. An effective response to C OVID -19 
comprises of not only scaling up production, but also to make them affordable and accessible. That 
can happen only after billions of doses are produced affordably and made available to everyone. In 
order to achieve this goal, we need to ensure that intellec tual property rights do not restrict a rapid 
scaling up of manufacturing. The co -sponsors have engaged in good faith and positively in the text -
based negotiations for a TRIPS waiver , and we are keen to continue to engage for a TRIPS waiver , 
to remove barri ers and create greater freedom to operate , so that capacity all over the world can be 
mobilised. The need of the hour is to go beyond the ordinary and take extraordinary measures to 
combat the challenge . In this regard , it is naïve to believe that a mere r eiteration of existing TRIPS 
provisions would provide the legal certainty to existing flexibilities , when we have clearly seen for a 
fact that neither existing TRIPS flexibilities nor reliance on voluntary mechanisms have yielded any 
significant result so far.  
8.83.   While highlighting preventing further disruptions in the supply chains of essential medical 
goods, the submission misses out a very significant element of the  COVID -19 response. It talks 
about facilitating the movement of goods , including medical pro ducts, but it is silent on facilitating 
the movement of healthcare and other professionals and liberalising measures on that front. While 
the proposal calls for removing export restrictions, let me emphasise here that export restrictions 
are a legitimate d ual use policy tool. During a pandemic where we are not working in perfect market 
condition s, export restrictions will be used unless we correct the supply side. We have used this tool 
to ensur e equitable distribution of critical medicines, diagnostic kits, ventilators and personal 
protective equipment to more than 150 countries , based on mutually assessed needs , in the absence 
of which  the entire supply of finished products might have been corne red by the rich and privileged 
lot with deep pockets.  
8.84.   On elimination or reduction of tariff s, Members have been calibrating tariffs unilaterally to 
achiev e their policy objectives, including access to medical products for its citizen s. India has also 
mode rated its tariffs on such products during the pandemic. On cooperation of the WTO with other 
organizations, we welcome the proposal and are willing to discuss it further with the proponents. 
Any binding measure on additional transparency will only come in the way of a successful integration 
of trade and health, particularly during a pandemic. In conclusion, Chair, we need to be mindful that 
lives and livelihoods are being lost while we continue to debate the WTO's response to the pandemic. 
We need to take r ealistic and pragmatic action now to protect the credibility of this organi zation.  
8.85.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
8.86.   We are pleased to continue this important discussion – how the WTO can contribute to our 
recovery from the pandemic. The WTO has a very good story to tell about its role during the 
pandemic , and so do its Members. Our predecessors may not have had a global pandemic at front 
of mind when they negotiated GATT rules, but they were remarkably succ essful. The balance they 
struck between Members ' rights and obligations, including by providing for certain flexibilities for 
governments during crises, has worked, and continues to help us navigate this long crisis.  By and 
large, Members have acted respon sibly with respect to trade during the pandemic , with little 
evidence of protectionism. A few statistics help illustrate this. During the crisis, trade facilitating WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 65 - 
 
  measures outnumbered trade restrictive measures by nearly two -to-one, and in value terms, a bout 
3.5 to 1. Members appear to be lifting trade restrictive measures when they judge they are no longer 
necessary. We are still afflicted by the pandemic – yet as conditions have slowly improved, in fits 
and starts, restrictive measures are being removed  – nearly 60 per  cent already, according to a 
recent count. And while merchandise trade fell 8 per  cent last year, trade in medical goods surged, 
with trade in PPE up about 50 percent.  Moreover, when Members see concerns, we have WTO 
committees and council s to discuss and monitor these developments, such as the Committee on 
Market Access. Still, there are lessons to be learned. For example, in the United States, we painfully 
learned that we did not have essential products where we needed them, when we neede d them.  
8.87.   Moving forward, our focus is on building secure, resilient, and diversified supply chains. We 
will evaluate any proposal at the WTO in part based on whether it advances that objective. We will 
also approach coming conversations with pragmatism and  realism. That means being pragmatic and 
realistic about where consensus is possible, and where it is not. For example, we do not believe that 
consensus is possible on ideas that aim to narrow or otherwise burden Members ' flexibility in 
responding to emerg encies. In fact, it would be a grave and short -sighted misjudgement  to attempt 
this. We do not see consensus as possible on proposals that call for increasing Secretariat monitoring 
of Members ' trade measures, or of their supply chains, or calls to empower  the Secretariat to 
undertake work with other organizations , that is not Member -driven. Instead, we urge Members to 
begin work by focusing on a topic where consensus seems possible. Let 's start with something small 
but pragmatic and build around it. If we find there is sufficient agreement, we can build further. As 
a first topic for focus, we recommend working to accelerate the implementation of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement. Certain provisions could make a real positive impact on essential goods 
moving across borders more quickly. If we make strides, we can examine other possible trade 
facilitating measures. If we start in this small and pragmatic way, and build from there, we’ll have 
a chance to succeed.  
8.88.   The representative of Vanuatu , on behalf of the P acific Group , provided the following 
statement:   
8.89.   Our Group considers this initiative, a WTO Response to the Pandemic , as both critical and 
urgent and a priority for MC12 . Vanuatu is a co -sponsor of the WT/GC/W/823, Draft General Council 
Declaration on Trade and Health – COVID -19 and Beyond. The Pacific Group also considers this 
proposal on Trade and Health as an important response to COVID -19 and to future pandemics. The 
Draft G eneral Council  Decision outlines five measures  which Members can take to combat the 
ongoing pandemic and to respond to future pandemics. Most of these elements are not new and 
come from existing WTO Agreements. The prompt notification would ensure the transparency of 
trade measures imposed by Members and should be e ncouraged. Trade facilitation would facilitate 
the efficient distribution of essential goods. Standards must address mutual recognition of vaccines 
and vaccine certificates. However, on export restrictions, the situation of import -dependent 
Members, such a s those of the Pacific Group , should be taken into account in this Draft Decision , to 
ensure they are not denied the supply of essential products during times of health crises. The Pacific 
Group is open to engage in discussions on this Draft Decision as we ll as other proposals.  
8.90.   The representative of the European Union provided the following statement:   
8.91.   On item 7, t he European Union will be engaging fully and contributing to the discussions ahead 
of us to prepare for MC12. The European Union would like to raise an issue of concern. We are two 
months and a half away from MC12 , and  a number of thematic sessions are pla nned in various 
areas : fisheries, the response to the pandemic, intellectual property, agriculture and other issues. 
What is missing in our view is a clear roadmap on how these different strands will be organi zed and 
come together in a process to deliver a n outcome for MC12. It would therefore be useful to have a 
clear roadmap for our work in the autumn on the basis of an agenda that is feasible and realistic.  
8.92.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement:   
8.93.   On item 7, a s a co -sponsor of the proposed General Coun cil Declaration, presented by Canada 
for the  Ottawa Group, Japan supports a holistic approach that not only deals with the usual export 
restrictions and trade facilitation, but also addresses the expansion of production of vaccines and 
therapeutics, which has increasingly become an issue. This approach will ensure that the WTO can 
also contribute to preparing for future pandemics. We believe the proposed Declaration will be a WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 66 - 
 
  good basis for achieving a positive outcome at MC12 and call f or more Members to support this draft 
Declaration. Japan also appreciates the European Union and Taiwan for submitting their respective 
proposal s. Japan will engage in the process by Ambassador Walker to forge an outcome for MC12.  
8.94.   The representative of Argentina  provided the following statement:   
8.95.   We thank Ambassador Walker for his report and reiterate Argentina's support for his work.  
We agree on the importance of making the WTO's response to the pandemic an MC12 outcome, 
which had to be achieved in a transparent, open and inclusive manner. All the initiatives that have 
been addressed today under item 8 of the agenda are important and h ave many points of contact. 
It is therefore necessary and logical to channel these particular efforts into a collective outcome. At 
the same time, we recognize that these initiatives succeeded in attracting only a fraction of the 
membership and we understa nd that they contain elements that not all of us are in a position to 
accept. Argentina believes that all of the proposed solutions have to be analysed against a 
background of an imbalance in access to vaccines and treatments. We must, therefore, be able t o 
reach agreements that will bring us closer to the ambitious goal of ensuring equitable access to 
vaccines and treatments in order to end the pandemic. Furthermore, any outcome must be 
consistent with WTO rules, without altering acquired rights or prejudg ing future agreements or 
negotiations, reaffirming existing trade policy tools to address the pandemic. Important elements 
on the subject discussed in the framework of the G20 could serve as a reference and we understand 
that the different circumstances, e fforts and challenges faced by developing countries must be taken 
into account. Lastly, we believe that any calls, suggestions and/or recommendations that emerge 
should also be addressed to the private sector, which has a key role to play in all aspects re lating to 
the production and distribution of goods and inputs, including with regard to access to health 
technologies.  
8.96.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement : 
8.97.   On item 7, Paraguay welcomes the presentation of document RD/GC/14. We agree that it is 
important to focus efforts so that the WTO may produce a response to the COVID -19 pandemic as 
soon as possible. Paraguay has participated in the consultations of the Group of Latin American and 
Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) wit h Ambassadors Tang and Spencer in order to make progress in 
the sub working group established for this purpose. Further to the statement delivered jointly at the 
May General Council by Colombia and Paraguay on behalf of a number of Latin American and 
Caribbean delegations, we have circulated a communication in document WT/GC/W/826 of 26 July, 
which is co -sponsored by the delegations of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, the Dominican 
Republic and Paraguay. This document puts forward additional elements that we ask to be  taken 
into account in the process led by Ambassador Walker, and we therefore request its inclusion in the 
report RD/GC/14. We consider that our contribution contains deliverables that could be explored by 
the WTO, particularly in relation  to export restrictions, trade facilitation, services and regulatory 
harmonization, with a view to ensuring improved and more equitable access to vaccines.   
8.98.   Similarly, we welcome all the contributions submitted under item 8. With respect to those 
submissio ns containing intellectual property elements, we would like to highlight that we have 
actively participated in the discussions in the TRIPS Council and are following this debate closely. 
Paraguay is a country that does not have the capacity to produce vacc ines locally, for which reason 
it is crucial for our delegation to find a consensus solution that enables us to import and gain 
immediate and effective access to COVID -19 vaccines through the tools available to us in the WTO 
toolbox.  
8.99.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement:    
8.100.   We are certain that trade and the WTO will be called on to play a key role in addressing this 
pandemic and into the future.  Costa Rica, together with other Latin American countries, has listed a 
series of actions to achieve this objective in document WT/GC/W/826, circulated yesterday and to 
which reference has already been made. The actions proposed in this document complement other 
discussions on trade and health in this organization, including other proposals presented as part of 
this agenda item, as well as the efforts made by the Director General to foster dialogues with 
different actors. We see synergies and complementarity  in these initiatives and will work 
constructively to achieve an outcome on this issue at MC12 under Ambassador Walker's leadership.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 67 - 
 
  We request  that Costa Rica be added to the list of proponents of the draft declaration entitled "COVID 
19 and Beyond: Trade and Health" (WT/GC/W/823).  
8.101.   The representative of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement:   
8.102.   Under item 7, let me suggest some ideas which could be used in our further work. First, 
measures to be taken should be consistent with the identifie d challenges. The WTO analytical efforts 
recently brought some fruit s, resulting, inter alia, in the Indicative List of Trade-Related Bottlenecks 
to Combat COVID -19. We believe that the 20 July  document calls for our in -depth study to clearly 
identify the full set of problems, which can be resolved through decision -making at the Ministerial 
level within the WTO. The joint WTO -WHO Conference, organized by Dr Ngozi and Dr Ghebreyesus 
on 21 July, with the participation of pharmaceutical companies, was also quite useful in terms of 
identifying major challenges. This event also allowed to compare the views of the participants with 
the initiatives we are discussing today. Such a comparison make s it clear that several measures 
suggested in those papers are not s een by the major public and private stakeholders as most 
relevant and urgent. In fact, the message coming from major stakeholders was quite clear: the best 
possible way to meet the global demand is through maximizing operational and production 
effectivenes s of producers. The success of such approach shows through a significantly rising number 
of vaccines produced over time. At the Conference, some companies referred to discrimination based 
on the country of origin of the vaccine and specifically pointed out  that obstructions in registering 
certain vaccines create massive problems for business.  
8.103.   Second, we should identify areas that fall within competence of the WTO, and among those , 
problems which can effectively addressed through joint commitments and colle ctive efforts. Such 
bottlenecks as burdensome regulatory approvals, insufficient TFA implementation and lack of 
transparency of trade regimes , evidently fall under this category. We don’t think it’s a good idea to 
include into the list of possible MC12 out comes , decisions which have nothing to do with the WTO 
mandate or empty political slogans. The public may interpret it as a sign of inability of our 
organization to provide effective input in the global efforts to fight the pandemic.  
8.104.   Third, we should take  into account the ongoing initiatives and discussions in the WTO, which 
have a direct link to the COVID -19 response efforts. Besides negotiations within the TRIPS Council, 
those include effective implementation of the TFA and increasing transparency of tra de regime, i.e. 
in the area of applied tariffs. It is also important that we address not only the movement of vaccines, 
but also the expansion of their production. Investment policies play a key role in creating conducive, 
non-discriminatory and rules -based global environment for increasing international cooperation on 
vaccine manufacturing, and promoting an efficient organization of their production globally. 
Favourable investment climate in the recipient countries is essential in this regard. Facilitation  of 
investments could significantly contribute to its improvement. Fourth, we should separate measures 
that must be taken urgently and proposals of a systemic nature, aimed at the long term. The latter 
could be translated into a working program, approved a t MC12.  
8.105.   The representative of Ecuador  provided the following statement:   
8.106.   We welcome the proposals that Members have submitted under this agenda item . We believe 
that these proposals contain relevant proposals that can be part of an ambitious pragmatic poli cy 
on trade and health to help us address this and future pandemics. Chairperson, this is not a local or 
regional crisis, this is a global crisis which will impact us all . As a result, the COVID -19 pandemic 
response must adopt a holistic global effective and urgent response and this organization will clearly 
play a key role on this. As for the trade and health WTO response , all national efforts made by 
countries are insufficient in the short term. We must remove all barriers to trade preventing a ccess 
to medication and COVID -19 vaccination and components . As Ecuador has already mentioned , it will 
take years for us to overcome this crisis and we need to address this crisis urgently , so that we are 
prepared for future crisis. We need to bear in mind  joint action amongst all international 
stakeholders , including governments, international organizations, pharmaceutical corporations, 
financial organizations and institutions and universities. We welcome the D irector General 's efforts 
to have an ongoing d ialogue with various stakeholders to identify what we can do in the WTO . We 
support the dialogue , and we are certain that it will continue to be inclusive and broad, bearing in 
mind the needs of all, including those countries which depend on vaccine import s.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 68 - 
 
  8.107.   As Colombia, Paraguay and Costa Rica have already mentioned , yesterday , alongside other 
Members from our region, we circulated document WT/ GC/W/826, which includes tangible actions 
which the WTO must bear in mind in its COVID -19 response. This document  aims to constructively 
contribute to discussions on trade and health underway at the WTO, promote various collaborations  
and international solidarity to ensure universal guaranteed vaccine access due to the joint efforts of 
all states, call s for the immed iate elimination of all export restrictions and barriers to COVID -19 
vaccine distribution , and to ensure trade policy that helps us to bolster global vaccination.  
8.108.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
8.109.   Under item 7 , we re-iterate the points we made at the TNC on MC12. We thank Ambassador 
Walker for his report. As well as Ambassadors Tan and Spencer for their efforts. We agree that the 
WTO response to COVID -19 is the most important issue for the WTO for MC12.  I will high light the 
following: MC12 is being held under challenging circumstances , when the world is grappling with an 
unprecedented pandemic of our lifetime , that is wreaking havoc across the globe with a 
disproportionate impact on health, economy and livelihoods i n developing countries. A business -as-
usual  approach and a trade liberalization agenda in not realistic. We must define priorities that will 
determine a credible outcome. The WTO response to COVID -19 is key and the TRIPS Waiver is a 
necessary temporary, ta rgeted and proportionate component for any outcome on a WTO response 
to COVID -19. We should not wait for MC12 to save lives. Economic recovery and a development -
oriented agenda will go a long way in building resilience and inclusive growth and development.  
Agriculture has to be part of an outcome and the deliverables must centre on a food security and 
livelihood package. Lastly is a Fisheries outcome that is balanced and delivers on the mandate – we 
underscore that a Fisheries only outcome is not sufficient . On MC12, a Ministerial Declaration should 
cover multilaterally mandated issues if we want to reach consensus. We must also acknowledge that 
Members have different views on WTO reform, so we must think carefully what can be reflected that 
sets a balanced forward -looking  agenda. The Declaration should also re -affirm multilateralism and 
the multilateral character of the WTO and the principles that underpin the WTO.   
8.110.   In relation to item 8 , the membership of the WTO agrees that the biggest challenge we face 
in the fight against the COVID -19 pandemic is the limited or insufficient supply of essential vaccines, 
therapeutics and diagnostics and that this requires the ramping up of production. We commend the 
Director -General  on the various initiatives she has spear headed, particularly the meetings and 
engagements in different formats with an assortment of stakeholders, including sister organizations 
towards finding practical solutions to these supply constraints. A clear and consistent message from 
these engagements  was the confirmation of the existence of under -utilized manufacturing capacity 
available in developing countries that can contribute to the solution. It is also clear that we all 
recognize the role of the transfer of intellectual property , technology and know -how was the need 
to boost and diversify global production, including in developing countries. South Africa welcomes 
the recent announcements of partnerships between pharmaceutical companies with the South 
African -based Biovac Institute and Aspen for vaccine manufacturing, and hope that these 
arrangements will contribute towards resolving the supply challenge on the African Continent. This 
is a positive step, but still falls short in resolving the current supply con straints facing the continent.   
8.111.   In relation to the Trade and Health Initiative, there are some useful elements , such as 
cooperation among international organi zations , that we can consider as we look at a WTO response 
to COVID -19. We also agree with a need for a comprehensive response to the pandemic. We support 
calls for Members to exercise restraint in introducing new restrictions and prohibitions on the 
exportation of COVID - 19 vaccines and other essential medical products necessary to combat the 
COVID -19 pandemic and the need to re -affirm the G20 principles that emergency measures designed 
to tackle COVID -19, if deemed necessary, must be "targeted, proportionate, transparent, and 
temporary," and should be "consistent with WTO rules." However, we also ackn owledge that a focus 
on trade aspects without addressing IP barriers will not be sufficient in ramping up production. We 
believe the most sustainable way to address export restrictions is by addressing the shortages by 
ramping up production. The TRIPS Waiv er is a core element of any WTO response to the pandemic.  
8.112.   Some of the proposals venture into trade liberalization which we find problematic in the 
context of a crisis, while some of the measures are initially temporary, the Trade and Health Initiative 
for example states that Members will consider to what extent some of the measures can be made 
permanent. We will need all the policy tools to address the strategic vulnerability of Africa associated 
with over -reliance on imports. We would also be concerned wi th a proposal of unilateral trade 
facilitative measures implemented in the context of this crisis must be converted into permanent WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 69 - 
 
  commitments. We need to ensure that the interventions we take in the context of the pandemic do 
not close the door to any fut ure industrialization ambitions that developing countries would have in 
production of essential health products. We would not support disciplines on export taxes. Export 
taxes are allowed by the WTO rules applicable to most WTO Members and have been used t o 
encourage value -added processing.  
8.113.   We are also concerned with proposals on fast -tracking the TFA without any support to 
developing countries and LDCs who had in their commitments identified aspects they will need 
support for in order to implement. The Tr ade and Health proposal is offering no new aid to enable 
accelerated implementation of the TFA, especially when so many LDCs and developing countries are 
facing major challenges with their fiscal space in light of the pandemic.   
8.114.   We need a C OVID  package, pu rsued on parallel and mutually reinforcing tracks, done 
pragmatically and covering five areas: i) scale -up production in different and additional parts of the 
world. This necessitates effective transfer of technology, sharing of know -how, backward integrat ion 
of the raw materials and distribution rights. It must unlock productive capacity not just fill and finish; 
ii) a timebound and targeted TRIPS waiver covering essential diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics; 
iii) protocols covering transparency of cont racts and price stability undertakings; iv) a commitment 
to avoid resort ing to vaccine nationalism and this should include a commitment to release and 
equitably distribute excess doses and end vaccine nationalism and "vaccine diplomacy "; and v) a 
TRIPS pro vision dealing specifically with future pandemics, that provides automatic rights of use and 
obviates the need for special arrangements and waivers.   
8.115.   The two missing elements in the thematic areas as covered by Ambassador Walker in our 
view are food securi ty and livelihoods and economic recovery which must complement the trade 
related aspects. A clear determination to develop a sustainable policy environment that will facilitate 
the development and rebuilding of industries to foster resilience against any f uture pandemics, 
especially in developing countries , is critical. Economic recovery and a development -oriented agenda 
will go a long way in building resilience and inclusive growth and development. We do nevertheless 
agree with some elements of the submission (WT/GC/W/822), but only in as far as it calls for the 
safeguarding of the policy space of developing countries to allow them to rebuild better and foster 
resilience against future shocks and pandemics. We remain ready to engage with all the prop onents 
of the proposals to find landing zones.  
8.116.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement:   
8.117.   My statement relates to items 7 and 8. Switzerland is pleased to co -sponsor the very 
important initiative that Canada presented. We are conv inced that a cross -cutting approach is 
necessary to bring an end to the COVID -19 pandemic and to address future pandemics. Our aim is 
to ensure development as well as equitable and fair access to essential medical products , including 
vaccinations. In this vein, we wish to warmly thank the D irector -General  for her work and for co -
organising the various successful events on 21 July which aimed to consider how to step -up 
production of COVID -19 vaccines and ensure equitable  access. The debate at this event unde rscored 
the need to preserve and bolster the operations of the supply chains and to ensure cooperation 
between the public, private and organizational sectors. The draft proposal presented today by 
Canada provides pragmatic and key solutions including disci plines on export restriction s, trade 
facilitation and additional transparency , not only in terms of trade -related measures but also in terms 
of overseeing the value chains. We encourage all WTO Members to welcome this initiative and 
consider participating therein.  
8.118.   The representative of Singapore  provided the following statement:   
8.119.   Allow me to make three points, first, it has become clear that Members want to deliver an 
outcome related to trade and health at MC12 as the emergence of new variants has caused a surge 
in the number of COVID -19 cases globally, there is greater urgency for  the WTO to deliver tangible 
outcomes that can contribute towards the global fight against the pandemic. Second, it is critically 
important that we ensure that the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic adopt a forward -looking 
approach. In this context, while the various proposals seek to address some of the challenges caused 
by the current COVID -19 pandemic, it must also ensure that the WTO will be able to respond to 
future pandemics. It is important for us to continue finding ways to exercise existing flex ibilities 
within the WTO framework. Third, it is worth reemphasizing that no single proposal can be the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 70 - 
 
  panacea to solve all the current challenges in addressing the COVID -19 pandemic. For example, the 
contribution of the trade and health declaration is sp ecific, the declaration is designed to address 
trade -related impediments to the flow of essential medical products including diagnostics, vaccines 
and therapeutics and sets up practical actions that Members can take that we have learned from the 
21 July WT O-WHO High Level Dialogue, the common refrain we have heard from vaccine 
manufacturers is that vaccine supply chain bottlenecks lack of regulatory harmonization and export 
restrictions pose the greatest challenges to access to vaccine distribution and prod uction. To address 
these issues, the E uropean Union's communication has proposed to facilitate the use of compulsory 
licensing to scale up the production and distribution of vaccines. We see these various initiatives as 
being complementary to other ongoing  workstreams, including the D irector General 's Third Way, the 
discussions at the TRIPS Council and the facilitator -led process. The challenge is how can we 
synergize all these workstreams in order to produce a meaningful deliverable at MC12. In closing, I 
wish to join the other cosponsors in encouraging other WTO Members to support the Trade and 
Health Declaration.   
8.120.   The representative of Honduras  provided the following statement:   
8.121.   The document circulated yesterday  by Latin American co -sponsors  helps to raise awareness 
about what is happening in our region and worldwide , especially when it comes to the challenges 
that developing countries face when it comes to equal and fair access to vaccines. This is a global 
challenge , and we need to assure effective vaccine distribution to ensure that all countries have 
equal access to medication and vaccines. We must have a debate followed by concrete actions.  
8.122.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement:   
8.123.   My statement will address both items 7 and 8. Given the broad nature of the proposals, we 
are still studying all the proposals on the table but allow me to make a broad preliminary observation 
on some of the proposals. First, we would like to recall that we support having a holistic and coherent 
approach for an outcome that brings all elements in the areas concerned, including reducing trade 
barriers, facilitating trade, increasing production and distribution of vaccines and IP and technology 
transfer issues.  Second, on the proposal on  the trade and health initiative, we share the view that 
we need to avoid export restrictions on essential medical goods, especially vaccines, therapeutics 
diagnostics and other critical medical products and the raw materials dur ing this pandemic. However, 
we are also of the view that export restrictions and also tariff and trade facilitation are not the only 
issues that limit the production of critical medical products to ensure equity of access globally. If 
there are only a few companies producing essential medical products and raw materials and 
equipment, how then can we adequately ensure that those companies increase the production. If 
the output of these companies is still the same regardless of any elimination or reduction of  export 
restriction or tariff barriers, how then this proposal helps us to address the access issue for many 
developing and LDC countries. Hence, we are not convinced that this proposal will help take upon 
all the issue s of global access for medical produc ts, that we are badly in need of. Third, on the 
communication concerning our urgent trade policy response, we respectfully disagree with the 
proposal that says that IP is not hindering global access, it is obvious that monopolistic protection 
of products t hat have public health impact will always have a side effect , both in price and 
accessibility.  
8.124.   On vaccines, our position is very clear that we want every vaccine manufacturer to be able 
to produce COVID -19 vaccines to tackle this pandemic as soon as possible , and at the same time it 
is unacceptable that the Global South is to wait for years to have  access to lifesaving products , while 
some other countries can now lessen the ir restrictive measures. The proposal 's assertion that the 
main issue is only p roviding adequate and equal manufacturing capacity , globally ensuring sufficient 
raw material  and equipment , is far from reality. We understand that voluntary licensing during this 
time could be given to a manufacturer that has never produced any vaccine a t all. Hence whenever 
a manufacturer is willing to provide a transfer of technology and know -how to other established 
manufacturer in the developing world then there would be a significant chance that the established 
manufacturer in the Global South could  deliver vaccines without delays.  
8.125.   Concerning compulsory licensing, the EU proposal fall s short from its promise to address 
export restriction s. If the E uropean Union wants to address export restriction s with its proposal on 
compulsory licensing , we would  suggest that Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement is inapplicable during 
the global pandemic. We would like to underline that relying on securing voluntary licensing and 
market mechanisms during the global health crisis will never address the issue of global h ealth. WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 71 - 
 
  Finally, we should avoid any discussion on a permanent elimination of tariff s under the WTO response 
to the COVID -19 pandemic , bearing in mind the importance of tariff s as border taxes for some 
developing and LDCs.  
8.126.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement:   
8.127.   Under item 8(a) we look at the Trade and Health Initiative contained in WT/GC/W/823, with 
interest , and note the wide and diverse co -sponsorship that it has attracted. The Philippines will be 
prepared to engag e with the proponents in further discussions.  
8.128.   The representative of Kazakhstan  provided the following statement:   
8.129.   The Ministerial Decision on the WTO's response to COVID -19 should consist of two major 
parts. One should be the Ministerial Decision on immedi ate and short -term trade policy to address 
the COVID -19 pandemic. The second part should be a work plan, elaborating a comprehensive and 
systemic response to future pandemics. With regard to the first part, the paper presented by Canada 
on behalf of group of Members could serve as a good basis.  
8.130.   I also would like to address the concerns mentioned by some Members regarding the import 
tariffs or other measures ' liberalization being on a permanent basis, as well as some services or 
market access measures. Based on the experience which we are facing now and which we have 
faced in early months of pandemic , when we were all facin g shortages of medical supplies and now 
we are facing also shortages of vaccines , export restrictions are very important . With regard to 
import measures, such as trade facilitation or tariffs relaxation  or removal on a temporary basis, it 
is up to each gov ernment , because its they who need these medical supplies, vaccines ; as well as a 
temporary liberalization of services if there are any barriers these are also required to make possible 
the movement of goods. National governments and Members should be doin g that for their own, in 
order to address their own national needs, not to address global trade policy issues. These measures 
should be temporary , without a permanent market access liberalization in services and goods , and 
there  should be an immediate resp onse on trade policy measures by Ministers at MC12.  
8.131.   I would like to make another point in terms of timeframe for our interventions. We are sitting 
today and addressing items  7 and 8 of the agenda , which consist of 20 agenda items, and it is 
already 8:10  pm. Many of the Ambassadors who also represent their countries to the United Nations 
know about the limits we have in the Human Rights Council. We have Human Rights Council sessions 
three times a year , which last for three weeks, not two days as General Cou ncil meetings, and 
depending on the number of interventions to be made, we are given either two minutes or one and 
a half minute s for our interventions. For the future General Council meetings,  if we do not have new 
arguments, any creative or innovative solution , then we should limit our interventions to certain 
timeframes which you, the General Council Chair, based on your consultations with Members , could  
let us know for future General Council  sessions.  
8.132.   The representative of Mongolia  provided the following statement:   
8.133.   On both items 7 and 8, Mongolia would like to especially signal the following points in the 
response to the pandemic : the pandemic has brought and continues to bring about unprece dented 
disruptions to  global economy's supply chains . Border measures, SPS and other measures aim at 
curbing the speed the disease impacts economies . Efficient transit and effective trade facilitation are 
becoming more critical today . Long waiting times at border s, caused by tight border restrictions , 
have a significant negative impact on trade and trade costs. Even situations when thousands 
sometimes hundreds of kilometres of trucks being stuck for days and weeks at border crossing 
points, also ha ve a nega tive impact on the environment and sustainability. We welcome the view 
that the WTO's response to pandemic should be addressed in collaboration with other international 
organizations in support of the smooth functioning of transit, transport and trade corr idors, and 
ensuring freedom of transit. I would like to suggest adding  the World Customs Organization to that 
list of organizations mentioned by the facilitator Ambassador Walker , another important organization 
in order to secure smooth trade facilitation measures.  
8.134.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  provided the following statement:  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 72 - 
 
  8.135.   On the WTO's response to the COVID -19 pandemic, we highly appreciate and welcome your  
leading efforts as well as the report by Ambassador Walker, which we hope will lead us to a 
meaningful outcome on this urgent matter by MC12. I would like to thank the D irector -General  for 
her engagement and cooperation with other international organizati ons; the high -level dialogue with 
vaccine producers across the globe was a really useful forum. We think we should capitalize on that 
momentum and continue such a useful dialogue.  
8.136.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
8.137.   We will address both items 7 and 8 along with all their sub -items together. We thank you 
for your statement and efforts to advance preparations for MC12. With only four months to go, we 
need to urgently address many questions – not least on the format and mec hanics of the M inisterial 
Conference,  which will no doubt pose a challenge. The recently concluded Ministerial TNC Meeting 
on Fisheries was a novel step , but has alerted us to the many pitfalls , including technological glitches, 
time zones and interpretati on difficulties such a format could present at the M inisterial Conference . 
To this end, we wish to stress the importance of full and equal participation of all Ministers across a 
uniform format.  
8.138.   We also wish to thank Ambassador Walker for his efforts as f acilitator on a WTO response to 
the pandemic. We hope to continue to work with him and other Members on finding an outcome and 
look forward to more deliberations especially with Ambassador Walker on this process.  
8.139.   The pandemic is far from over. The longer we go without a meaningful solution, the more 
we allow those challenges to mount and give rise to new ones. The global nature of this pandemic 
needs a global response where we exhaust all available avenues and means to overcome the present 
situation. We no te and appreciate the efforts of the D irector -General,  especially for the WTO -WHO 
High Level Dialogue held recently. Pakistan has maintained that we are open to all solutions that 
contribute in a meaningful way, especially for the scaling up of production of vaccines, diagnostics 
and therapeutics , and to provide their equitable and affordable access to everyone across the globe. 
In this regard, Pakistan is one of the co -sponsors of the TRIPS waiver proposal which must form an 
integral part of any response o f this organization to the pandemic.  
8.140.   We thank the cosponsors of the papers in documents WT/GC/823, 231 and 822 presented 
for the three sub -items in this agenda. This effort reveals a collective realization by the membership 
of a pressing need for the WTO to remain relevant in wake of this pandemic and provide a global 
response to a problem that affects us all. At the same time, Chair, we are starkly aware that for any 
response to be meaningful, it must add real value and contribute in a way that can actual ly address 
the core problems at hand. While we appreciate the efforts of the proponents, we note that the 
papers make general calls which serve the objectives of trade liberalization, policy and regulatory 
restriction, and transparency. These elements are already covered in several places in WTO 
agreements and principles in various forms. For instance, an early implementation of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement is a general demand which is not even being resisted by any Member, but for 
the lack of direly ne eded technical assistance. Indeed, many members including developing 
countries , are already quite advanced in their implementation of the TFA. Similarly, principles for 
the use of export restrictions, tariff reduction, transparency and notifications are we ll established in 
the WTO Agreements, and a recall or reiteration of such principles does little to help the pandemic 
situation. In fact, new obligations for reporting, transparency, monitoring and review could add to 
the burdens for developing countries a lready constrained with poor capacities and infrastructure and 
dealing with the realities of the pandemic simultaneously. It is therefore difficult to fathom how these 
proposals are actually meant to combat the pandemic.  
8.141.   We note that the submission by the  European Union, in item 8 (b), while detailing similar 
issues addressed above, discusses the element of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement 
as a means to expanding production , which has also been presented by them in the TRIPS Council. 
We would like to refer the membership to WTO documents IP/C/W/670, 672, 673 and 674 where 
the cosponsors of the TRIPS waiver proposal have, in meticulous detail, explained, among others, 
the problems with the implementation of existing flexibilities in the compulso ry licensing system. We 
appreciate the contributions to the production of vaccines and their export, including to and through 
the Covax facility. However, it is precisely the limitations of these and the present production 
facilities that present a serious  challenge. A mere clarification of existing provisions on compulsory 
licensing is not something that would solve the problems and suddenly increase manufacturing.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 73 - 
 
  8.142.   We also recognize the E uropean Union and other Members ' concerns about technology 
transfer,  and their emphasis on voluntary licensing. This is also an element in the paper presented 
by Chinese Taipei in document 822 under Item 8 (c). We have, in many of our submissions in the 
General Council, TRIPS Council and other relevant bodies, requested Members to identify means by 
which they can provide certainty that the holders of technology will share it with developing 
countries, by means of a mere encouragement in a WTO document. Similarly, we have shown in 
many of our submissions , alongside the cospon sors of the TRIPS waiver proposal, how voluntary 
licensing remains confined in the hands of a few who wish to reap exorbitant monopolistic profits 
and the licenses they give out are selective, secretive and inadequate. We are not against the 
mechanisms of compulsory or voluntary licensing. We have consistently indicated our readiness and 
openness to all solutions that will help address the pandemic However, we are at a loss to understand 
how a mere reiteration or clarific ation of these existing provisions in a WTO document would 
concretely address the actual problems of the pandemic. How will these proposals overcome the 
disaster we referred to earlier today – that while advanced countries have already achieved 
vaccination  for almost 50% of their population, they have still pre -purchased 90% of the 11 billion 
doses that are to be manufactured by the end of this year? Lastly, as indicated in our interventions 
today and before, we are happy to discuss and work with delegation s on proposals that meaningfully 
and concretely address the core problems. We must reiterate that the TRIPS waiver must form an 
integral component of any meaningful response of the WTO to the pandemic and we urge the 
membership to work seriously towards th at end.  
8.143.   The representative of Fiji provided the following statement:   
8.144.   On items 7 and 8 , the WTO must respond efficiently and effectively to the pandemic to 
mitigate the current circumstance and to device appropriate and sustainable future measures to help 
revive trade. This includes access to trade finance to support MSMEs and our service sector  in small 
island developing states like Fiji and the Pacific Islands who remains disproportionately affected and 
are worsened off by this pandemic.  
8.145.   On Item 8, we thank the co -sponsors for the proposals which Fiji believes provide a 
framework on the WTO's response to the pandemic. The proposal needs to be reviewed wholistically 
in light of other proposals to address the equitable access to COVID  vaccines, therapeutics and other 
COVID -19-related tools. We need to take a balance d approach that accounts for th e different 
dimensions , with the view of ensuring an efficient response to halt the pandemic and its evolving 
mutations , through equitable vaccine access. We need to build back our economies better and 
stronger , so we need the tools to be within our grasp as a starting point.  
8.146.   On document  WT/GC/W/822 from Chinese Taipei , Fiji thanks the proponent for the ideas 
enshrined in the proposal and the efforts in formulating this draft ministerial declaration under the 
three -core framework of combating, mitigating and recovering from the pandemic and beyond. We 
hope to further engage to better understand the proposal , especially to revive small island 
developing states as Fiji, to allow them to sustainably build back better and to contribute to the 
global  value chain in good time.  
8.147.   Fiji thanks the Secretariat and the important insights in the Information Note on the 
indicative list of items shared by the Secretariat on 20 July which accounts for all related 
discussions/seminars under the subject in the WTO. Finally, Fiji aligns itself with the ACP statement 
and the Pacific statement under these two items.  
8.148.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:  
8.149.   Under item 8.1 , Nigeria believes that the multilateral trading system should be responsiv e 
to the challenges raised by the pandemic. In our view targeted trade policies and international trade 
rules could support COVID containment efforts, build resilient health sectors and contribute to 
economic recovery. We share the proponents view that exp ort restrictions placed on diagnostics, 
therapeutics, and vaccines needed to combat COVID -19 by some developed countries undermined 
access to these products by developing countries. However, in our view, the major challenge 
undermining access to vaccines i s the huge and ever -increasing supply -demand gap and the solution 
has to do with our ability to ramp up production of these products. We believe  that tariffs are not a 
barrier to trade in essential medical goods in times of a pandemic , as countries unilate rally dismantle 
tariffs to safeguard the lives of their citizens. For instance, Nigeria implemented a unilateral temporal WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 74 - 
 
  suspension of tariff s on essential medical products needed to combat COVID -19, and streamlined 
customs procedures related to the importation of these products. What is needed to ramp up 
production of COVID -19 vaccines is a waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the 
prevention, containment, and treatment of COVID -19. We therefore call on Members to support the 
India and South Africa led Proposal for a Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for 
the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID -19, contained in document 
IP/C/W/669/R ev.1. The adoption of this waiver will also facilitate the building of a pandemic -resilient 
health sector in developing countries.  
8.150.   Under item 8.2 , Nigeria believes the major challenge undermining access to vaccines is the 
huge and ever -increasing supply - demand gap , and th e solution ha s to do with our ability to ramp 
up the production of these products. Existing flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement , especially 
Article  31 and 31bis , are not sufficient given that they are not designed to address the challenge of 
global health  emergencies such as that posed by  the COVID -19 pandemic. It is for this reason that 
we believe the EU proposal cannot effectively address the current precarious situation which is 
exacerbated by the huge and ever -increasing therapeutics and vaccines suppl y - demand gap. The 
solution lies in rapid access by every country to affordable diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines 
to combat this COVID menace. This can only be achieved by ramping up the production of these 
products in developing countries. We there fore call on Members to support the proposal in document 
IP/C/W/669/R ev.1. The adoption of this waiver will also facilitate the building of a pandemic -resilient 
health sector in developing countries.  
8.151.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:  
8.152.   My delegation aligns with the statement delivered under this item by Chad on behalf of the 
LDCs.  Bangladesh thanks the E uropean Union, Canada and other co -sponsors for the updates on 
the three communications under this agenda item.  The communications highlight the urgency to 
help each other during a global crisis. LDCs particularly suffer the most in the face of any disaster – 
global, regional or local. The ongoing pandemic has multiplied their sufferings. The most urge nt 
issue is to stop the virus by ensuring easy and affordable access to vaccines and essential medical 
and pharmaceuticals products for everyone everywhere in the world. Bangladesh thanks the 
proponents for recognizing this human urgency, both for the pres ent and future, beyond the existing 
pandemic.  Bangladesh however hopes that such proposals will not be tied up with any conditionality 
in future. Moreover, Members need more clarity on several expressions contained in the document 
(WT/GC/W/823) like emerg ing best practices, new WTO commitments, the period of validity for 
export restriction s and so on – just to name a few.  
8.153.   The Chair made reference to the statements made by delegations, noting, as he had, that 
issues related  to the recovery from the health c risis were of the utmost importance, in particular as 
they looked ahead at MC12. These were helpful communications and initiatives that could  feed into 
the work facilitated by Ambassador Walker. In fact, textual inputs from delegations form ed the 
backbone of sound process es. Members had heard the Facilitator's report and the Chair hoped he 
could  count on all Members to work together and engage constructively in that process so that the 
WTO could  provide an effective and credible multilateral r esponse to the pandemic.  
8.154.   The General Council took note of Chair's report under item 7, of the report of the Facilitator, 
and of the  statements  made under both items 7 and 8.  
9  SAUDI ARABIA'S RESTRICTIVE POLICIES ON POULTRY IMPORTS – REQUEST FROM 
BRAZIL  
9.1.  The Chair recalled that t his item was on the agenda at the request of the delegation of Brazil . 
9.2.  The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
9.3.  Brazil has requested the inclusion of this item on the agenda of the General Council to b ring to 
the attention of the membership the series of restrictive measures Saudi Arabia has been adopting 
on poultry imports. These measures led to a drastic reduction of Brazilian  exports to Saudi Arabia, 
which decreased by over 40% from 2015 to 2020, in terms of volume, and almost 50% in terms of 
value.  At the same time, Saudi Arabia decided, in 2016, to include a 60% self-sufficiency  goal in 
poultry production in its National Transformation Program. After achieving this, Saudi Arabia has WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 75 - 
 
  increased the self -sufficiency goal to 80% by 2025. Several different types of measures are being 
used, including , among others: suspension followed by suppression of the pre -listing system for the 
approval of plants; de-listing of plants without scientific justification or indication of the results of 
inspections and assessments; breach of the "de minimis" product -specific domestic support for 
poultry  meat, since 2012; four-fold tariff increase; introduction of a non -automatic import licensing 
system, requiring unreasonably detailed information, including the disclosure of confidential business 
information; an intended reduction of the shelf life of fr ozen chicken products from the current 
12 month to only 3 months, without scientific justification.  Brazil has raised a specific trade concern 
regarding the de -listing of approved plants in several meetings of the SPS Committee. We have also 
questioned Sau di Arabia in the Committee on Agriculture regarding its import licensing system. 
Brazil expects that Saudi Arabia will reconsider these measures, in the light of its WTO obligations.  
9.4.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  provided the following statement:   
9.5.  At the outset, I would like to emphasize that the Kingdom's national plan and program are 
consistent with the international commitments including the WTO Agreements. Thus, w e do not 
agree with what was stated by Brazil regarding our national transformation program and th eir 
argument regarding the goal of self -sufficiency. Self -sufficiency means the quality or condition of 
being self -sufficient and it does not mean in any way restrictive policy or measures. Now let me 
respond to the specific trade concerns raised by Brazil . The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia took note of 
the concern s expressed by Brazil and would like to indicate to all WTO Members that this issue is 
totally related to the SPS measures tak en regarding  certain poultry meat establishments in Brazil by 
the relevant a uthorities in Saudi Arabia. Also, we would like to indicate that the Saudi authorities 
have already provided Brazil  officially with the required procedures needed to remove these SPS 
measures that affect the import of poultry meat and other poultry meat fr om certain establishments 
in Brazil to the Kingdom. All measures taken by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are consistent with the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement and intended to ensure food safety and the protection of human 
health in light of article 2.1 of t he SPS Agreement. Therefore, we see no merits in bringing this issue 
to the General Council since it  is not the right forum to discuss this very technical SPS measure . 
Instead of this , we encourage Brazil to continue its participation in the recent  dialogu e to resolve 
this issue bilaterally with the aim of reach ing a satisfactory solution for both sides.  
9.6.  The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
9.7.  The United States has raised similar concerns with Saudi Arabia regarding its po licies negatively 
affecting imports of poultry. There has been no progress to resolve our concerns. We look forward 
to working with Saudi Arabia and other Members to address these concerns.  
9.8.  The General Council took note of the statements.  
10  TRADE RELATED CHALLENGES OF THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND WAY 
FORWARD: A DRAFT FOR MC DECISION (WT/GC/W/807)  
10.1.   The Chair recalled that t his item had been included in the agenda at the request of Chad on 
behalf of the LDC Group and was related to the Communication from the LDC Group on "Trade 
Related Challenges of the Least Developed Countries and Way Forward" in document WT/GC/W/807 , 
which include d a propos ed Draft Ministerial Conference Decision.  
10.2.   The Chair further recalled  that th e item ha d been discussed in the December 2020, March and 
May 2021 General Council meetings , where the LDC Group  had requested assistance from the 
Chairman of the General Council in facilitating a conversation on this matter.  
10.3.   In response to that request, he had  held a preliminary round of informal consultations with 
21 delegations after the March meeting. As he had reported on the consultations in May, he only 
reiterate d some of the points he had made then: (i) delegations had sympathize d to the challenges 
faced by LDCs; (ii) several of them had raised some questions related to: (a) the rationale of the 
proposal, (b) th e 12-year period of extension, (c) the horizontal approach in seeking a solution in 
particular in light of the different challenges LDCs faced and the varying impacts of graduation on 
the LDCs, and (d) the issue of graduated LDCs benefiting more in particu lar vis-à-vis Members at 
similar levels of development who had never enjoyed LDC preferences.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 76 - 
 
  10.4.   Since then, the Chair said he had had a constructive follow -up meeting with Chad, the LDC 
Coordinator, and Bangladesh, the Focal Point for LDC Graduation. The pur pose of that meeting had 
been two-fold: first, to take stock of the efforts and outreach undertaken by the LDC Group in 
responding to Members' questions on the proposal, and second, to understand how the LDC Group 
intended to carry that proposal forward in  concrete terms.  
10.5.   From his discussion, he understood that the LDC Group had seen  the General Council as the 
forum for a horizontal discussion on LDC Graduation, including with a view to work towards an 
outcome by MC12, or a clear pathway forward.  
10.6.   He had encouraged the LDCs to continue their outreach and respond to the questions raised 
by Members, and the meeting  offered another opportunity to hear updates on their efforts. He also 
reminded  the LDC Group that his door remain ed open should further assistance be needed.  
10.7.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:  
10.8.   The LDC Group submitted a draft Ministerial Decision back in December 2020 . It proposes 
that all of the measures to suppor t LDCs in the WTO be extended to LDCs who have graduated for 
12 years after the date of the graduation. LDC graduation from one day to the next won't change of 
course the situation in the LDC and the pandemic has only worsened our existing challenges and 
shown how fragile LDC economies are. During the last triannual review of the CPD at the United 
Nations, Cambodia, Cameroon,  Djibouti , Senegal and Zambia for the first time met the graduation 
criteria. Including them there are 16 countries which now satisfy graduation criteria and are on the 
road to graduation. Beyond those there are ten more countries that meet at least one of the 
graduation criteria and should be eligible for graduation during the next review in 2020. So, 
graduation has received a new boost  and at this point LDCs need particular attention from Members 
on the evolution of that future status.  
10.9.   We are committed and working hard with Members on this matter , we appreciate the wide 
support that we received on our submission, Members are sensitive to the challenges that LDCs face 
and to LDCs on the road to graduation. LDCs are not asking for anything new, just a formal and 
predictable mechanism to extend existing flexibilities for a few extra years after graduation. And as 
such, soften the transitio n for LDCs that are on that road to graduation, complying with the relevant 
resolutions from the United Nations.  
10.10.   A number of Members have raised concerns about the logic of the proposal, the 12 -year 
duration that has been proposed, the horizontal approach , the differentiation between LD Cs on the 
road to graduation and non -LDC developing countries, based on a series of indicators and of course 
the possibility of LDCs to ask the United Nations to slow down the graduation process. We responded 
to all the questions that have been asked and we  do not want to repeat our answers now, they are 
available in the minutes of formal meetings. However, our group would be more than happy to 
explain anything or to provide any supplementary explanation to any Member that would like them , 
and that would be in the next bilateral opportunity.  
10.11.   I would also like to call Members' attention to the fact that the duly motivated request from 
the LDC Group in IP/C/W/668 from the TRIPS Council hasn't even been partially dealt with. Members 
agree that the challenges li nked to the TRIPS Agreement for LDCs after graduation would remain an 
integral part of the duly motivated request and therefore will be followed up in the General Council 
within the framework of this submission. So, it could be the case of this be further reviewed. We 
would like to see a result between now and MC12 . We thank you Chairman for your continued 
discussions on this issue, and also would like to reaffirm our commitment with Members to find a 
landing -ground with them on how we will deal with this i ssue at MC12. I think a really focused remit 
on all of the flexibilities linked to LDC graduation would be very useful for us and we will continue to 
discuss with Members and continue to request their support to the legitimate LDC cause.  
10.12.   The representative  of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:  
10.13.   Bangladesh aligns with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDCs on this issue. 
To recap what our coordinator just said, the LDC Group submitted this draft  at the G eneral Council 
meeting  in Decem ber 2020 and since then, the G eneral Council  has been discussing this item. The 
draft decision proposes that all support measures available to LDCs in the WTO shall be extended to WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 77 - 
 
  graduated LDCs for a period of twelve years after the effective date of grad uation from the LDC 
category , as decided by the UN General Assembly.  
10.14.   The LDC Group has been approaching and engaging with Members and groups seeking their 
understanding and support on this issue. We are grateful to WTO Members for their general support 
in favour of this submission. Even those Members who did not support are sympathe tic to the 
challenges of the LDCs who are on the graduation track. As the coordinator just said, LDCs are not 
asking for anything new, but simply a continuation of the existing flexibilities for a few more years 
after graduation to help them navigate throu gh the transition.  We are truly grateful to you, Chair, 
for your continued engagement and consultations with Members and different groups on this issue.   
10.15.   I must emphasise that graduation of an LDC based on three development thresholds does 
not fully take c are of all development challenges of the country. It needs time to adjust with and 
adapt to the sudden loss of the ISMs, particularly the trade related exemptions and flexibilities. My 
colleague LDC Coordinator has responded to some queries, particularly o n the rational e of the 
proposal, duration, horizontal approach, differentiation, etc. So, I do not want to repeat the same. 
Our group will be happy to explain further any issue, if needed, to interested delegations both 
formally and informally. In our unde rstanding, the issue may be a possible deliverable of MC12.  We 
wish to continue our engagement with Members to find a common approach to address this issue 
during MC12.  
10.16.   The representative of Nepal  provided the following statement:   
10.17.   My delegation wishes to  align with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDC 
Group, and would like to submit the following additional points. I wish to refer to the statement s 
delivered by my delegation since last December and reiterate all the justifications and argu ments 
shared earlier. Sustainable and inclusive export constitutes a critical pillar for the overall 
socio-economic development of a country. This remains instrumental in achieving a sustainable LDC 
graduation and SDGs by 2030. Despite the devastating impa cts of the COVID -19 pandemic, LDCs 
are not hesitating to proceed in the path to the graduation. However, supply side capacity constraints 
and the negative impact of the pandemic have posed severe challenges to their sustainable 
graduation. Sustainable graduation requires a continuation of LDC -specific support for a certain time 
period after graduation. This is well -reflected in the submission of the  LDC group. The post -
graduation temporary support will not have significant negative impact on international trade as the 
LDCs cover just about 1% of global merchandise trade ; and it will end after 12 years of their 
graduation as per the submission, which aims to support sustainable graduation rather than do harm 
in international trade.  
10.18.   An incomplete and fragile graduation, without a specific support mechanism, may lead 
graduated LDCs to confront much more difficulties in addition to their existing constra ints. For these 
reasons, graduating LDCs are in dire need of continuation of the existing LDC -specific support 
measures for 12 years , as is reflected in the submission. This is not any new or additional support 
graduating LDCs are seeking for but just a continuation of the flexibilities already given to LDCs for 
a few more years , merely for their smooth transition to graduation. It is an important aspect of 
global cooperation and collaboration and is, therefore, incumbent upon the international community 
to support this vulnerable group of economies.  
10.19.   The representative of Tanzania  provided the following statement:   
10.20.   I would like to align myself to the statement of LDC Group. It should be recalled that the 
LDC category was established by the United Nations Ge neral Assembly in 1971 as countries with 
special economic needs that needed special treatment. Since then, LDCs have been granted 
numerous special treatments including the preferential market access under Generalised System of 
Preference, preferential rule s of origin, preferential services and many others in the WTO multilateral 
trading system. The objectives of the special treatments are to reduce the vulnerabilities of LDCs 
from externalities, increasing productive capacities , and to link products from LD Cs to the markets 
in an effort to integrat e them into the world trading system. As mentioned in the previous meetings 
of the General Council, the granted preferential treatments immensely support the growth of LDCs . 
As a result, some are scheduled for grad uation in the coming few years. Much as the graduation 
from LDCs is a milestone achievement, it should be handled carefully by providing a reasonable 
transition period to avoid affecting the attained progress. The contribution of the WTO to the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 78 - 
 
  economic achievements of LDCs is tremendous, it has played a great role of heavy lifting of LDCs 
towards graduation. With that in mind, it will be important for Members to endorse the proposed 
decision that will help graduating LDCs not to backslid e. 
10.21.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
10.22.   We have appreciated the LDCs ' outreach and look forward to continuing our discussion with 
them as we work to understand several aspects of this proposal and its potential implications. W e 
believe the proposal raises several interesting and challenging questions that continue to need 
reflection. One is about horizontal equity, or in this case, potentially significant inequity. That is, 
under this proposal, any graduating LDC would continue  to receive special treatment and preferences 
that are available only to LDCs for 12 years past graduation. However, a non -LDC Member that 
scores lower on various development indicators than the graduating LDC would not receive such 
special treatment. This  raises a question of fairness. It is not a theoretical question. From our 
colleagues at the UN, we understand that Bangladesh and Lao PDR could graduate as soon as 2026. 
Both Bangladesh and Lao PDR, as of 2019, already had a GNI per capita (measured on a PPP basis) 
that was significantly higher than that of non -LDC Members, including Nigeria, Kyrgyz Republic, 
Pakistan, Kenya, Tajikistan, Cameroon, Congo and Zimbabwe.   
10.23.   The proposal also raises questions about the relationship between WTO rules and 
developme nt. Some of the LDC -specific S pecial and Differential provisions that would be extended 
for 12 years past graduation would, in effect, delay these Members ' implementation of WTO rules. 
This would appear to suggest that such WTO rules are somehow in conflic t with development. We 
continue to believe that implementation of WTO rules fosters development, and that graduating 
LDCs would not want to delay their implementation. In addition, the proposal also raises questions 
about need, given the lengthy and very f lexible UN graduation process. As an example, the UN once 
recommended that a certain LDC graduate "immediately ", but graduation didn 't occur for another 
23 years. The UN graduation process is intended to ensure that by the time a LDC graduates, it 
would be  extremely difficult for the country to meet the LDC criteria ever again. We look forward to 
continued engagement with the proponents on this.  
10.24.   The representative of China  provided  the following statement:   
10.25.   LDCs comprise around 12 % of the world 's population, while they only account for less than 
2% of world GDP and around 1% of global trade. Due to their vulnerability to external factors, LDCs 
are facing significant challenges, aggravated by the prolonged C OVID -19 pandemic. As a staunch 
supporter for LDCs ' better integration into the multilateral trading system, China extends 97% duty 
free treatment for imports from 41 LDCs and 95% duty free treatment for imports from another 
2 LDCs. Transition periods are also provided for some recently graduated LDCs. China sees the 
importance and necessity for the substantial discussion on the draft decision, particularly in the 
context of the pandemic. We call for Members ' collective and constructive engagement in the 
proposal and look forward to a meaningful an d positive outcome at MC12.  
10.26.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement:   
10.27.   During the Doha Round, we agreed to put the needs and interest of developing countries, 
and especially the least developed among us , at the heart of our development agenda. However, 
since the creation of the WTO in 1994, only 6 countries have graduated from LDC to developing 
country status.  We all acknowledge that transition from LDC to developing status presents num erous 
challenges and require s significant amendments to a Member 's trade regime, especially with regards 
to institutional capacity and WTO obligations, including under the TRIPS Agreement. The loss of LDC -
specific preferences also becomes a concern as it m ay have important impacts on market access on 
these vulnerable economies.  Considering potential difficulties faced by graduating LDCs and the 
impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on LDC economies, the African Group fully supports the 
submission by the LDC Group contained in document WT/GC/W/807 as well as the draft Ministerial 
decision.  
10.28.   We believe that the 12 years transition would allow LDCs to continue with the LDC -specific 
support measures , and that special and differential treatments and flexibilities are reasonable.  
Graduating LDCs deserve to be supported and the draft Ministerial decision provides for a WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 79 - 
 
  comprehensive and effective smooth transition within the WTO system. The African Group therefore 
calls upon all Members to constructively engage in discuss ions on the proposal with a view to its 
adoption at MC12.  Let me also seize this opportunity to express our appreciation for the agreement 
reached at the last TRIPS Council for the extension of the transition period for the application of the 
TRIPS obligat ions to LDCs.  
10.29.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
10.30.   We refer to the statements we delivered at previous G eneral Council  meetings and at the 
last G eneral Council  meeting in May 2021. We associate ourselves with the statement made by the 
Africa Group.  An overarching objective of the Istanbul Programme of Action for the LDCs for the 
Decade 2011 –2020 (IPoA) is the graduation and smooth transition of LDCs. Graduation from the 
United Nations (UN) LDC category is seen as an important milestone in the development path of 
each LDC. Whilst the graduation of LDCs should be welcomed and it is a sign of positive progress, 
the phasing -out of benefits associated with the LDC sta tus could present challenges for graduating 
LDC governments on their path towards integration into the global economy. It is important to 
explore what additional supportive measures can be agreed upon to ensure a sustainable graduation. 
LDCs face significa nt trade and development challenges, more so in the context of the COVID -19 
pandemic which threatens to reverse some of the gains achieved over the years towards the SDGs. 
South Africa reiterate s its support for the LDCs ' submission in WT/GC/ W/807 and look s forward to 
constructive discussions towards a decision at MC12.  
10.31.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   
10.32.   At the outset we welcome the decision made by Members at the TRIPS Council last month 
on the extension of the transition period  under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and I thank and 
congratulate all Members for their tireless efforts, in this regard. India has been a votary of LDC 's 
integration into the multilateral trading system, and has been at the forefront of efforts to increase 
their share in global trade . To that end , India has unequivocally supported the request by the LDC 
group contained in document WT/GC/W/807 for the duration as decided by Members by consensus. 
India urges Members to engage constructively  and consider this proposal favourably for an outcome 
at MC12.  
10.33.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   
10.34.   We would like to thank Chad for presenting the proposal on behalf of the LDCs. We wish to 
register our support for the proposal.  We also want to call Members to consider the vulnerability of 
the LDCs and to grant their support for the proposal.  
10.35.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:  
10.36.   I wish to thank those Members who have taken the floor for their support. We have also 
taken good note of the questions and concerns raised by the United States. We stand ready to  
continue  ongoing discussions in all potential configurations. We look forward to providing additional 
clarification and respo nses to the concerns that have been raised or that may be raised by Members. 
We stand ready, open and flexible with an aim to forging a compromise on our proposal while 
adopting a realistic and pragmatic approach. Chairman, pragmatism, realism these are th e words 
that underpin the work of the LDC Group. We are certain that all WTO Members will understand the 
colossal challenges that LDCs face, including graduating LDCs. Indeed, addressing the concerns of 
the most vulnerable countries means standing in solidarity with the most vulnerable, poorest 
populations, and there are specific challenges in doing so. We would like to again thank Members 
for their support for this proposal.  
10.37.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
10.38.   The European Union is mindful of the challenges that least developed countries face in 
integrating in the global trading system. The European Union also recogni zes that while graduation 
is a positive and remarkable milestone  to be celebrated, many graduated  least developed countries 
have not, at the time of their graduation, achieved the same level of capacity and integration in the 
global economy of those developing countries that are better integrated in the global trading system. 
A smooth transition after  graduation may therefore be needed in some cases. The European Union WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 80 - 
 
  does believe that there should be support and flexibilities for WTO Members, commensurate with 
their needs and capacity constraints, beyond the group of Least Developed Countries.  As not ed 
previously, this is established in the European Union' s trade and cooperation policies that provide 
support for least developed countries, for countries that have recently graduated from the least 
developed countries ' status, as well as other developing countries.  
10.39.   In the area of trade specifically, the aim of the European Union is to focus on how to facilitate 
and enhance the capacity of countries to assume commitments that foster integration in the global 
economy. In  our view that is the best way that the WTO can effectively contribute to sustainable 
development. In that spirit, the European Union will continue to support constructive initiatives to 
better integrate Members with capacity constraints into the multilate ral trading system, and to take 
into account in that connection the specific situation of graduating least developed countries. We 
especially encourage discussions based on analysis that shows where specific difficulties exist.  We 
look forward to hearing t he views of other Members and we thank in particular the LDC G roup for 
their continued constructive engagement in this matter.  
10.40.   The representative of Niger  provided the following statement:  
10.41.   The impact of the COVID -19 pandemic crisis is much more accentuated for LDCs , not only 
in health but also in economic terms. This situation adds to the vulnerability faced by the Members 
of our group. The international community will have to play its part and assist the LDCs in their 
efforts with ade quate financial resources, policy space and more effective international support 
measures in areas where our capacities are limited, notably in the area of technology transfer. The 
rapid spread of the pandemic has shown that the call for a true global part nership to ensure that no 
one is left behind is not just a moral commitment, but also a longer -term consideration for the 
resilience of the  global system. Therefore, we believe that the draft Ministerial Decision for LDCs to 
benefit from a transition perio d of at least 12 years after graduation , must receive a favourable 
opinion from all Members , to allow for a smooth transition after graduation. All the factual data and 
other analyses made by other international organi zations, such as the recent publicatio ns of 
UNCTAD, highlight the urgent need to support LDCs after their graduation from this category, 
particularly because of the extreme vulnerability of these countries and the disastrous consequences 
that any natural or cyclical, structural or specific eco nomic, health or security shocks may have on 
these countries, and whose degree may cause them to fall back into the category of LDCs. 
10.42.   The representative of Uganda  provided the following statement:  
10.43.   My delegation associates itself with the statement deliver ed by Chad on behalf of the LDC 
Group and the views of other LDC Members on this matter. We recall our statement delivered at the 
last General Council Meeting of 5 -6 May 2021 and request that it is fully reflected in the minutes of 
this meeting.16 
10.44.   The Chair noted that this had been the fourth time that the matter had been discussed at 
the General Council. He added that he had heard the LDCs say that this was an important issue for 
them – something that they would want to resolve in the lead up to MC12. He had further  likewise 
heard other delegations reiterate the points they had previously made on th e proposal. There 
seem ed to be a need for greater clarity on the main problem the LDCs wish ed to address and on the 
response they propose d. The Chair  urged the LDCs and all Members to listen to each other and work 
together to find a mutually agreeable solution ; and remain ed available to assist in th at endeavour .  
10.45.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
 
16 The statement delivered by Uganda  at the General Council Meeting held on 5-6 May 2021 is contained 
in document WT/GC/M/191, para. 5.29 and included by reference in the minutes of this meeting.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 81 - 
 
  11  PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR WTO COUNCILS AND COMMITTEES ADDRESSING 
TRADE CONCERNS – COMMUNICATION FROM ALBANIA; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHINA; 
EUROPEAN UNION; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; NEW ZEALAND; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PANAMA; QATAR; SINGAPORE; 
SWITZERLAND; THE  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU; THAILAND; TURKEY; AND UKRAINE (WT/GC/W/777/REV.6)  
11.1.   The Chair recalled that the item had been added at the request of t he European Union, 
together with the revised communication  in WT/GC/W/777/Rev.6.  
11.2.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
11.3.   On behalf of all co -sponsors, the European Union would like to provide an update about our 
work on the proposal for Procedural Guidelines for WTO Councils a nd Committees Addressing Trade 
Concerns.  To recall, this proposal aims to improve how WTO Members address each other 's trade 
concerns in regular WTO bodies. For more than a year, co -sponsors of the proposal have continued 
to listen to concerns and suggestions. We would like to thank Members for the feedback we received. 
This revision comes as a response to that. It is an honest and serious attempt at capturing a possible 
common ground. We sense support for the ideas in the first part of the proposal  on meeting 
arrangements - this part remains.  
11.4.   We also heard some concerns around the part dedicated to the informal resolution of trade 
concerns. Although co -sponsors are convinced that these elements could have helped, we have 
taken them out. The emphasis  is now more on Member -to-Member consultations, where Members 
can, if they deem appropriate, associate with the WTO Secretariat or technical experts to benefit 
from their technical input.  
11.5.   A number of changes have also been introduced as regards the consid eration of trade 
concerns in WTO bodies. For instance, Members are encouraged to engage in writing , but a longer 
timeframe is suggested for Members to provide a written response (60 days now instead of 30 days). 
This was a rapid and non -exhaustive brush of  the amendments but gives a sense of the flexibilities 
included.  
11.6.   The overall approach of the proposal remains unchanged, namely that of non -binding 
guidelines with the objective to give guidance to Members to use tools at their disposal, while the 
responsi bility remains , of course , on Members to address and do their best to resolve trade concerns. 
We hope that we can move forward on the basis of this revised text and look forward to stepping up 
engagement with other Members.  
11.7.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:  
11.8.   The LDC Group takes note of the co -author's update to the proposal on procedural guidelines 
addressing trade concerns. The LDC Group is carefully reviewing this proposal and may have further 
comment s. Our initial observation is that we should bear in mind the limitations LDCs face , especially 
given the small sizes of our delegations. We understand that the proposal on meeting arrangements 
in paragraph 1 , which stipulates that documents should be subm itted 15 days before a meeting , 
aims to pave the way for debates on specific trade concerns. It might be helpful to have additional 
time to consider these concerns before the meeting. Indeed, the 15 -day timeline might be more 
challenging for LDCs with trade concerns, it might not provide them enough time to have documents 
ready 15 days before the meeting, so we would like to ask the cosponsors if they can clarify whether 
these guidelines are voluntary .  
11.9.   For the LDC Group, any proposed new procedural guidelines and processes need to bear in 
mind the limitations that our group faces, that our Members face. We need to avoid overburdening 
the system , which might prevent all of our Members from being able t o fully participate or contribute. 
We have taken note of paragraph 12 and also the fact that regular WTO bodies have put in place 
mechanisms to respond to specific trade concerns. We are currently analysing the proposal 
paragraph -by-paragraph and bearing i n mind the experience of our delegations. Of course, our aim 
is to further contribute to this discussion before the 12th Ministerial Conference.  
11.10.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 82 - 
 
  11.11.   We wish to refer to our statement on this issu e delivered at the G eneral Council meeting  of 
22 July 2020 and reiterate that the proposal is burdensome on developing countries. To achieve the 
desired improvement, there is need for clarification on the challenges undermining the effectiveness 
of the ver tical procedures currently available in the regular committees and councils, which 
necessitated a horizontal procedure. There is also need for clarifications on the scope of the concerns 
that can be raised under these procedural guidelines , to guide agains t Members raising issues that 
are outside the scope of existing agreements.  Given the resource and capacity constraint of 
developing countries, care must be taken to ensure that proposals like this do not directly or 
inadvertently place huge burden s on developing countries that are still grappling with the 
implementation of existing obligations. In view of the foregoing, we stand ready to further engage 
proponents of this proposal to explore further flexibilities for developing countries , especially LDCs, 
who will most likely encounter difficulties in complying with the guidelines contained in this proposal.  
11.12.   The Director -General  provided the following statement:  
11.13.   I wanted to thank everybody. I thought that what the Ambassador of Kazakhstan  has said 
has a lot of merit , and we really ought to think about it17. What has also struck  me is the way that 
Members say that they have been hearing the same thing for years, for  time they have been here, 
and I thought we should reflect on that. There is really something to think about  - how do we move 
forward at the WTO. I wanted to share  this reflection, and I think we ought to  consider this proposal 
for limiting the time  for interventions . 
11.14.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statem ent:  
11.15.   We wish to recall our previous statements in this submission, including at the last G eneral 
Council  in May 2021.  We remain concerned with the horizontal application of this proposal. 
Addressing specific trade concerns (STCs) is provided for under cer tain agreements. Mainstreaming 
of STCs across all committees and councils will negatively impact developing countries who already 
have capacity constraints. We already have the instruments needed to address trade concerns within 
respective agreements. This  proposal is enlarging the mandates of regular bodies in ways we have 
concerns with.  We do nevertheless find the suggestions under the section "meeting arrangements " 
– on the documents for meetings, minutes of meetings , etc., helpful. Concerns raised by LD Cs on 
the 15 days have merit and would require further consideration.  
11.16.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement:   
11.17.   As one of the co -sponsors of this proposal, it is encouraging to see Members actively 
providing suggestions which make the proposal more neutral and practicable. It can be reasonably 
expected that these non -binding guidelines on meeting arrangement s, informal consultations, and 
consideration of trade concerns in WTO bodies, among other things, will b e able to substantially 
improve the process of addressing specific trade concerns without much additional burden to 
Members, so that Members can deal with their daily works and resolve long -standing issues more 
effectively. In addition, it will be a concre te step to improve the WTO's monitoring and deliberative 
function in support of the future reform of the WTO. We look forward to having more Members 
discuss with the proponents and ultimately  join the proposal.  
11.18.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement:   
11.19.   Addressing trade concerns in WTO Councils and Committees is an essential part of 
overseeing the implementation of WTO Agreements. Korea appreciates the intervention the 
European Union and, as a co -sponsor of this proposal,  supports the establishment of non -binding 
procedural guidelines along the line of this proposal. In the view of my delegation, the revised 
proposal, which has reflected some concerns expressed by Members, will help enable the WTO 
mechanism to operate in a  more efficient and systematic way so as to facilitate the effective 
resolution of trade concerns among Members through dialogue. Korea urges all Members to engage 
in constructive discussion on this proposal to finetune the details of the procedures and bu ild 
consensus.  
 
17 See statement by Kazakhstan un der Item 8, para 8.131.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 83 - 
 
  11.20.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement:   
11.21.   Uruguay thanks the co -sponsors for submitting the sixth revision of this proposal, as well as 
the explanations provided by the European Union on the changes made to it. Uruguay maintains its 
doubts previously expressed on the proposal to adopt a "top down" horizontal approach, instead of 
allowing each body to review or adapt its operating rules, where necessary, in light of its particular 
situation. With regard to paragra ph 11, Uruguay understands that Members should be free to use 
existing mechanisms in councils and committees to raise their concerns and express their positions 
in a manner that they understand to be relevant. In other words, it is up to Members to decide how 
to make better use of time and how to exercise their rights at the WTO. We remain ready to engage 
in open and constructive discussions with interested Members with a view to improving the 
functioning of the regular bodies of this organization and their  outcomes, particularly as regards the 
effective resolution of the many trade concerns submitted to them.  
11.22.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement:  
11.23.   With regard to document WT/GC/777/Rev.6, we reiterate that the horizontal nature of the 
document remains a problem for my delegation, particularly in the light of paragraph 5, which 
establishes that these procedures shall prevail over those specific to each Committee. The nature of 
some Committees, such as the TBT and SPS Commit tees, means that they operate differently to 
other regular Committees. In addition, these Committees are functioning extremely well, with the 
exception of some overlap s or scheduling problems , that have more to do with the functioning of 
the Council for Tr ade in Goods and the internal coordination of the Secretariat than with the work of 
these Committees per se. While the proponents have given assurances on a number of occasions 
that these guidelines would not apply to the above -mentioned Committees, this i s not indicated in 
the proposal. In addition, the prescriptive nature of paragraph 6 could inadvertently obstruct 
dialogue rather than encourage it, since the Member to which the concern relates could delay 
addressing the concern by claiming that the descr iption provided in advance is insufficient to prepare 
a substantive reply. We have already witnessed such behaviour at certain sessions of the 
Committees.  
11.24.   With regard to the submission of questions, we are of the view that the Member should send 
the repli es prior to the meeting, provided the questions were submitted before the closure of agenda, 
with a view to moving forward the discussions in the room. The 60 -day period granted after the 
meeting , essentially means that the replies are not addressed and th ere is no opportunity for 
follow -up questions or clarifications at the meeting, which delays even further the handling of the 
concern , instead of ensuring progress towards its resolution. Lastly, paragraph 11, in which 
"Members…are encouraged" to ensure th eir statements have a specific focus in order to "make the 
best use of time", is contrary to Paraguay's position that Members will use their best understanding 
and judgement when deciding how to address the concerns of their interest, that repetition may b e 
necessary, and that sufficient time must be granted for the handling of trade concerns, in line with 
the level of priority that each Member attaches to the concern. The implicit suggestion that 
addressing trade concerns is not "mak[ing] the best use of t ime" in the Committees , is unacceptable 
to my delegation.  
11.25.   The representative of Chile provided the following statement:  
11.26.   Chile welcomes this new version of the document. We are pleased by some of the changes 
made, such as the elimination of the section "In formal resolution of trade concerns", as well as the 
limitation of the powers intended to be granted to the Secretariat and the Chairs of the bodies. 
However, the idea of establishing horizontal guidelines to address specific trade concerns in the 
councils and committees still features, with these "guidelines" prevailing over the functioning of each 
body. In addition, despite the changes introduced, we remain of the view that this proposal would 
restrict Members' ability to raise trade concerns, as i ndicated by Paraguay. Lastly, we consider that 
many of the elements contained in the proposal do not require a decision by the General Council, 
but instead may be implemented within the relevant Committee, at the initiative of its Chair, the 
Secretariat or  the Members themselves.  
11.27.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 84 - 
 
  11.28.   India supports the idea of improving the meeting arrangements of WTO bodies with a view 
to make them more efficient. We, therefore, support proposals for preparation of  advance indicative 
yearly schedule of meetings , circulation of all documents to be discussed at a meeting at least 15 
days prior to the meeting and timely circulation of the minutes of meetings of various WTO bodies. 
We also agree that it is in the intere sts of all Members to make full use of the WTO Council s and 
Committees to seek satisfactory outcomes of their trade concerns. However, while considering any 
changes in procedures to be followed for various WTO bodies, we need to ensure that such proposals,  
in effect, do not end up adding to or diminishing Members’ rights and obligations under the concerned 
WTO Agreements. India also believes that the appropriate forum for discussing procedural guidelines 
for trade concerns is the relevant Council or Committ ee dealing with the specific trade concern, as 
per the scope of the relevant WTO Agreement. Therefore, while we are open to discuss all possible 
suggestions aimed at improving existing processes, we would not like to take away the role of such 
WTO bodies i n finalizing such procedural guidelines.  
11.29.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:   
11.30.   Let me begin by aligning our statement with that of Chad made on behalf of the LDC Group. 
We welcome the constructive ideas in the proposal. My del egation previously made some 
suggestions, for example, for changes in the existing format of the convening notice and the 
necessity of uploading the meeting summary on the same day on the WTO website, to help smaller 
delegations who are unable to attend al l meetings update their information repository. My delegation 
also pointed out the concerns on the proposed provision in paragraph 10 of the draft regarding 
participation of capital -based experts through video conferencing. Internet connection is still a 
severe challenge in many of our countries. Nonetheless, we look forward to engaging constructively 
with all concerned Members on this issue to move forward the discussion.   
11.31.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , provided the following statement:  
11.32.   The ACP  Group  is of the view there are certain systemic benefits which apply to all WTO 
Members when they are allowed to address trade concerns through the relevant Councils and 
Committees of the organi zation. There are a lso benefits to be derived from strengthening the ability 
of regular WTO Committees and Councils to facilitate the effective consideration of trade concerns 
to the extent that it improves efficiency, is inexpensive and increases the robustness of the proce sses 
concerned.  However, we have to be mindful that there is the potential to impose additional financial  
and institutional burdens on developing countries and LDC Members. Essentially, some elements of 
the proposal would require technical assistance, trai ning, a greater commitment of time and human 
resources in some cases.  
11.33.   We should also proceed cautiously in seeking to establish deadlines that are difficult for 
many delegations to meet. We must also give further consideration to whether it is best to est ablish 
horizontal procedural guidelines across various WTO Councils and Committees including in areas 
which differ substantially and which would require specific guidelines which are fit for purpose. The 
ACP Group believe s that the current proposal could b enefit from further consultations across the 
WTO Membership, and we stand ready to engage. Therefore, we are not in a position to support or 
endorse the proposal at this time. We trust that the proponents will accept our invitation to carry 
out further out reach to Members.  
11.34.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:  
11.35.   We are carefully reviewing the revised proposal, with an eye for practical and modest steps 
that would contribute to a shared goal – to rebuild norms for Members to respond to and address 
trade concerns raised by other Members. As we have noted previously, these norms have eroded, 
and the key culprit appears to be some Members ' lack of interest and political will to address such 
concerns. Fundamentally, the  problem is substantive, not procedural. But we don 't rule out 
identifying pragmatic procedural steps that could help. WTO Committees are diverse, and solutions 
that can be applied horizontally may be few. But we look forward to working with the proponents  to 
find potential solutions. In addition, we urge Members – those raising the concern and those that 
are the subject of the concern — and not the Secretariat or the Chair  — to put the work and political 
will into finding substantive solutions to specific trade concerns.  
11.36.   The representative of Uganda  provided the following statement:  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 85 - 
 
  11.37.   My delegation wishes to thank the proponents for their communication and their continued 
efforts towards ensuring that the concerns and interests of Members are reflected throu gh the 
revisions. We note that there is work still to be done in this regard. It is especially important for the 
proponents to fully recognize the constraints that delegations like mine face in terms of size. We 
look forward to a revision that fully takes into consideration this important issue.  
11.38.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
12  SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION OF FISHERIES SUBSIDIES NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE 
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE OCEAN AND FISHING COMMUNITIES – DRAFT MINISTERIAL 
DECISION – COMMUNICATION FROM BRAZIL (WT/GC/W/815)  
12.1.   The Chair recalled that the item had been included in the agend a for the second time by the 
delegation of Brazil, together with the communication in document WT/GC/W/815.  
12.2.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
12.3.   Each year, governments spend an estimated US D 22 billion on capacity -enhancing subsidies 
that artificially lower fishing costs. Consequently, the percentage of fish stocks within biologically 
sustainable levels has dropped continuously, and now more than one -third of fish stocks in the 
oceans are overfished. This deteriorat ion has a serious impact on the livelihoods of millions of people 
who depend on fishing resources. This is precisely why we should keep a sense of urgency to finalize 
the negotiations. It is no small matter that the only multilateral negotiation s in the WT O today that 
could yield results in the short run has a sustainability purpose. WTO Members, therefore, have a 
crucial role to play in securing a robust agreement to curb subsidies that lead to overcapacity and 
overfishing and contribute to the depletion o f global maritime fish stocks, as well as to illegal, 
unreported and unregulated fishing. Brazil invites all Members to join this initiative and hopes that 
the proposed draft could be approved by the General Council before the MC 12. We look forward to 
working constructively with Members on this matter.  
12.4.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
12.5.   The United States is committed to working with Members to reach a meaningful conclusion to 
the negotiations. The current negotiating text can serve as the basis for a Member -led, text -based 
negotiation, but it does not yet contain the elements required for reaching a meaningful conclusion. 
The United States has proposed a targeted approach to ensure that highlighting and addressing the 
use of forced labo ur on fishing vessels are part of any outcome. This is an important way for the 
WTO to positively impact the lives of our fishers and workers. There are other key elements missing 
from the negotiating text, and we hope to have a text -based negotiation so these can be reflected 
in the text. Significant shortcomings must also be addressed if we are to successfully conclude these 
negotiations. This includes the approach with respect to special and differential treatment. A blanket 
approach to  special and differential treatment with permanent carve -outs is neither appropriate nor 
effective given the purpose of this agreement. It also does not reflect the reality that some self -
declared developing country Members are among the largest producers and subsidizers, or among 
the wealthiest Members of this organization. WTO Members have an opportunity to produce an 
agreement that can make a serious and credible contribution to ending harmful fisheries subsidies. 
This will require all Members to make an d support improvements to the text to reach a meaningful 
outcome.  
12.6.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement:   
12.7.   The African Group has consistently emphasized that any outcome at MC12 should, inter alia, 
be based on the principles of sustainability. An agreement on fisheries subsidies that delivers on 
SDG 14.6 would be an excellent example for the WTO to prove that it is indeed committed to 
contribute to the sustainability agenda. We further reiterated t his position at the last Ministerial TNC 
Meeting.  In addition, the Ministerial meeting has also provided clear guidance on how to move 
forward in the negotiations. Delegations also often recalled the MC11 mandate. Let me reiterate the 
commitment of the Afr ican Group to the conclusion of a balanced outcome on fisheries subsidies , 
and this is where our focus should be in the coming months.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 86 - 
 
  12.8.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
12.9.   South Africa supports the interventions made on beh alf of the African Group and the ACP 
Group . We once again thank Brazil for their submission as entailed in WT/GC/W/815.  We are guided 
by the Ministerial mandates, including of MC11, as well as SDG 14.6 in the Fisheries negotiations. 
We are concerned that t he proposed Draft Ministerial Decision, seems to re -interpret the mandate 
in ways we do not find helpful and makes no reference to special and differential treatment  - a 
critical element of the mandate quoted above. In view of the sustainability objectives  of the mandate, 
we believe that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility should underpin the 
negotiations.  Given the substantial amount of work to be completed for our fisheries subsidies ' 
negotiations, we do not see how work on a draft decision will assist us in completing the outstanding 
work. Our Ministers at the 15 July 2021 Ministerial TNC meeting indicated that much more work 
needs to be done to address the imbalances in the current C hair's text. All our efforts should be 
directed to ensure that gaps in the text are addressed if we are to reach agreement before or at 
MC12.  
12.10.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   
12.11.   I While India remains fully committed to the negoti ations on fisheries subsidies as provided 
under the SDG 14.6 and the MC11 mandates, we share our concern regarding the lack of explicit 
reference to special and differential treatment for developing countries and LDCs, an integral and 
important part of SDG  14.6 and the mandate of MC11. In the previous G eneral Council  Meeting, we 
had highlighted and sought clarification on some of the few phrases used in the communication such 
as "ambitious outcome ", "to curb subsidies that threaten global maritime fish stoc ks", "improve 
existing WTO disciplines in fisheries subsidies " and "highest standards of environmental 
sustainability ". But we did not receive any clarification on these terms used in the communication.  
Its disconcerting that in the name of collective resp onsibility the communication puts at par countries 
with no or very few industrial fishing fleets with countries having highly developed industrialised 
fishing fleets. We believe that environmental sustainability of fisheries resources, is a classic case 
for the application of the polluter pays principle and common and differentiated responsibility.  
12.12.   At the 15 July Ministerial TNC on fisheries subsidy negotiations , it was evident that Members 
agreed that status quo is not the preferred option , because irrational subsidies and overfishing by 
many countries is hurting the interest of our fishermen; but it was also evident that significant gaps 
still exist. I am sure d elegations would have noted that more than 80 delegations said they did not 
believe the draft consolidated text is balanced to call it a landing zone for them. We heard Minister 
after Minister calling the text imbalanced and requiring to be reworked to mak e it a negotiating text. 
On the issue of special and differential treatment , once again speakers representing more than 80 
delegations said that what the text offers on special and differential treatment  is grossly inadequate 
and they rejected the notion t hat special and differential treatment  should be restricted to artisanal 
fishing , and that too within 12 nautical miles. They also demanded the text should provide sufficient 
policy space for developing their future fishing capacities for achieving equitab le growth. Ministers  
and Members emphasized that, if this agreement is about sustainability, based on the principle of 
common but differentiated responsibilities, the biggest subsidizers who are responsible for the 
present state of marine resources should take greater responsibility to reduce their subsidies and 
fishing capacities.  
12.13.   Let me finish by saying that while India remains committed to concluding these negotiations, 
unfortunately we are quite far from the necessary landing zone required to reach an agreement. We 
hope that after the summer break, sincere efforts will be made to accommodate the interests of 
developing countries and LDCs in the draft text, which at the moment remains highly imbalanced.  
12.14.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:  
12.15.   The LDCs are actively involved in text -based negotiations and fully expect that the Members 
will find a landing -zone in the areas that will enable us to achieve a positive outcome. As India 
underscored, special and  differential treatment is a key element in the fisheries subsidies provisions, 
and we feel that LDCs would like to reiterate how important special and differential treatment is as 
a means of tackling specific concerns of artisanal fisheries , particularly in least developed countries. 
We really need room for manoeuvre to ensure that our fleets can be developed in a sustainable way. WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 87 - 
 
  The LDC Group will continue to exhibit flexibility under a constructive spirit with a view to achieving 
final agreement on fish eries subsidies.  
12.16.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP, provided the following statement:   
12.17.   We re -affirm our full commitment to concluding the fisheries subsidies negotiations as soon 
as possible, preferably, before the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference. We would also wish to ensure 
that we conclude a quality agreement that delivers on the SDG14.6 and MC11 mandates. The WTO 's 
fundamental objectives of prohibiting certain forms of harmful subsidies that contribute to 
overfishing  and overcapacity and IUU fishing, while preserving the sovereign rights of Members 
within their maritime jurisdiction, and allowing for sufficient policy space for developing countries 
and LDCs to develop the capacity of their fisheries sector , in a manne r that responsibly seize the 
benefits to be derived from the ocean economy. In 2018, only ten of the largest subsidizing fishing 
countries in the high Human -Development Index (HDI) category together accounted for 64 percent 
of the global total fisheries su bsidies.  Total subsidies provided by all high HDI countries amounted 
to 87 percent, which represents a bulk share of the total. In contrast, estimations from the same 
global dataset reveal that 62 developing WTO Members, which form the African, Caribbean a nd 
Pacific (ACP) Group at the WTO, together account for only 4.7 percent of total global marine fisheries 
subsidies. ACP and African Group Members are predominantly not subsidising or engaged in large -
scale industrial fishing. It would therefore be a prior ity of these negotiations, in line with our mandate 
to eliminate certain forms of subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, to target 
large subsidisers that provide 81 % of global subsidies based on proportionate burden and 
responsibility s haring.  
12.18.   We are concerned that the term "sustainable development " is often used in a manner that 
does not reflect the reality that exist in the fishery sector today. The ACP is also on record in saying 
that special and differential treatment provisions of the agreement should allow for and foster the 
responsible development of the fisheries sectors in developing countries and LDCs. We believe that 
we all have an interest in ensuring that fishing at all levels remain sustainable based on 
determinations and p olicies by national authorities. There is no single common international standard 
by which sustainability can be assessed , given the different ecological and regulatory frameworks 
that exist. However, what we need is to ensure that the most appropriate sus tainability standards 
should be applied , having regard to a myriad of different circumstances that Members find 
themselves in and the type of information they rely on to take such decisions. We urge Members to 
constructively engage in discussions in order achieve an outcome by MC12. The ACP does not believe 
that whatever little time remains should be invested in negotiating a draft ministerial decision on 
sustainability. All our efforts should go into finalising an outcome on fisheries subsidies negotiation s. 
12.19.   The representative of Malaysia  provided the following statement:   
12.20.   On fisheries subsidies, Malaysia reiterates her commitment to conclude the negotiations by 
MC12 as per the mandate. In order to achieve this, we must remain focused on the work in finding 
compromise. As we have raised previously, especially during the 15 July Fisheries Subsidies 
Ministerial TNC Meeting, Malaysia is concerned over the revised text particularly on the imbalanced 
and limited scope of special and differential treatment,  as well as the burdensome transparency 
mechanism. Malaysia is also deeply concerned with the inclusion of non -specific subsidies within the 
meaning of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement in Article 1.2 of the draft text. We firmly believe that the 
discipline s on fisheries subsidies should address only specific fisheries subsidies, while providing 
necessary flexibilities to developing and LDC Members to develop their fisheries sector. We hope 
that the revised consolidated draft text will be further improved to address these pertinent concerns , 
as well as incorporate the importance of positioning fish eries in the context of food security and 
national economy for many Members. The outcome of this negotiation must reflect the WTO 
principles of non -discriminatory trade, predictability and transparency, fair competition, and 
encouraging development and eco nomic reform. Let us work together with the outlook of concluding 
the negotiations as soon as possible.  
12.21.   The representative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of CARICOM , provided the following statement:   
12.22.   This statement is made on behalf of the CARICOM Group, and w e are also aligned with the 
ACP Group statement on this agenda item. CARICOM wishes to reiterate its commitment to the 
successful conclusion of the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations in as short a timeframe as possible. WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 88 - 
 
  This is a commitment which our Ministe rs reinforced at the TNC Meeting at Ministerial level which 
was convened on 15 July. The importance of these negotiations for CARICOM is without doubt. As 
we have said many times before, we see a successful outcome in these negotiations as vital to the 
economic, social, and environmental sustainability of our fisheries sectors. In this regard, we 
continue to advocate for a fair and balanced agreement that disciplines those most responsible for 
the damage caused to our global fisheries resources , by the prov ision of massive amounts of harmful 
subsidies over many years. CARICOM Ministers recently reemphasized that as small fishing nations 
with under -developed fisheries sectors, our commercial fishing operations are miniscule in 
comparison to those of the major  players. Furthermore, our economies are highly susceptible to 
global shocks that slow our developmental and growth trajectories. These factors underscore our 
insistence on including a strong discipline on special and differential treatment in keeping with  the 
Doha Mandate, SDG 14.6 and the decision of our Ministers at MC11.  
12.23.   The CARICOM group stands ready to engage constructively with Members to reach a 
successful conclusion to these negotiations. While we reiterate our willingness to negotiate the 
details with Members, including safeguards and other assurances, we continue to call on Members 
to be sensitive to the realities of our econo mies. CARICOM Ministers remain committed to achieving 
a high -standard outcome in these negotiations. Again, we thank Brazil for its submission which 
contains many of the elements which we see as critical. However, we urge Members to focus their 
attention o n securing an outcome through the NGR process so as to have an outcome to present to 
Ministers by MC12.  
12.24.   The representative of Fiji, on behalf of the Pacific Group , provided the following statement:   
12.25.   We recogni ze the urgency to complete this negotiation on fisheries subsidies, which is a top 
priority for the Pacific Group. Pacific Ministers have clear ly indicated on 15 July 2021 that they are 
committed to concluding this negotiation  ahead of MC12. However, they were clear that we must 
not try to conclude jus t any type of Agreement. We must deliver a balanced and meaningful 
Agreement at MC12. This Agreement must focus on disciplining harmful subsidies and not fisheries 
management. It must also provide policy space for small developing Members, especially small  island 
developing states that have little to no fishing capacity at present , must exempt small scale and 
artisanal sector to support livelihood security and should not undermine Members ' rights under 
UNCLOS to offer access to fishing in their EEZ on terms  they decide. The Pacific Group will engage 
constructively with Members after the summer break to advance this negotiation.  
12.26.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:  
12.27.   My delegation aligns with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDCs.  
Bangladesh is fully committed to conclude the fisheries subsidy negotiations. We have been seized 
with the issue for quite some time. Unfortunately, we are still far from rea ching a broad consensus 
on the content of the revised consolidated text. Let me remind us all that the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration in 2001 and the Hong Kong Ministerial in 2005 mandated the WTO to take into account 
the development priorities, poverty redu ction, livelihoods and food security concerns of our countries 
in any outcome on fisheries subsidies negotiation. SDG 14.6 is built on our Hong Kong mandate, 
and added a deadline to conclude this negotiation , and now our mandate is to conclude the 
negotiat ion by MC12. In doing so, we must stick to our mandate , and any deviation would delay the 
process and make a quick progress in our negotiation difficult.  My delegation thanks the delegation 
of Brazil for this Draft Ministerial Decision and their statement made today. However, to 
accommodate any new mandate, in our view, will need extra time , and w e are not sure if we have 
the time. We must strengthen our ongoing efforts and thereby fulfil our collective responsibility.  
Bangladesh is ready to constructively  engage with Members for the conclusion of the negotiation 
before the MC12.  
12.28.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
12.29.   As pointed out by many before us, we are hopeful of a conclusion of the ongoing fisheries 
negotiations. We thank B razil for this proposal and draft Ministerial Decision. Indeed, fisheries 
subsidies are one of the most important elements of WTO negotiations, carried over from the Doha 
Agenda. On the proposal itself, it is hard to understand its motivation. Firstly, the  proposal is a draft 
Ministerial decision to be agreed at MC12, aiming for a high standard of environmental sustainability 
in concluding the discussions. Would this imply that we are not seeking a conclusion at MC12? Also, WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 89 - 
 
  we note that the document affirms  a commitment to SDG 14.6, but the language of the draft decision 
reduces the mandate to only a higher standard of environmental sustainability. It does not mention 
the most crucial aspect of special and differential treatment, which is the core of SDG 14. 6. While 
ensuring environmental sustainability is a much -needed objective, we all have a responsibility to our 
people, to allow them the opportunities for sustainable livelihoods as well. Moreover, while 
considering sustainability, we must address all aspe cts of sustainable development to make it truly 
meaningful. The Ministers guided us well on 15 July and we all commit ted to work hard to arrive at 
an acceptable conclusion to fisheries negotiation. Pakistan is not yet convinced of the usefulness of 
this Ministerial Decision at this time.  
12.30.   The representative of Sri Lanka  provided the following statement:  
12.31.   The way we view this proposal is that it tends to give different interpretations to development 
mandates on fisheries subsidies and to prejudge the outcome , disregarding the elements of the 
mandate in their entirety. No o ne can make attempts to subtract certain elements of the mandate 
which favour them and suggest that such elements figure in any outcome to be reached. As ministers 
stated categorically recently, the current negotiations are to address all the elements in t he 
mandates . They  also raised their serious concerns with the current text and the need to  provide a 
balance and the most needed landing -zones, enabling all Members to engage in meaningful 
negotiations, with the view to arriving at an outcome by MC12. The proposed draft Ministerial 
Decision seems to reinterpret the mandate in ways Sri Lanka does  not find helpful and make s no 
reference to special and differential treatment,  a critical element of the mandate. Any agreement 
must recognize special and different ial treatment in principle , while understanding that  different 
countries are at different stages of development and current fishing arrangement reflect their current 
economic capacities. Needs will change with time as countries develop. Any agreement will have to 
provide balance for current and future needs. We are therefore of the view that the proposal of Brazil 
lacks a recognition of these considerations.   
12.32.   The representative of Thailand  provided the following statement:   
12.33.   . Thailand would like to emphasize that fisheries subsidies negotiations are our priority, and 
would like to call for a conclusion of the fisheries subsidies agreement at the earliest opportunity. 
The willingness and efforts of all Members in driving the neg otiations forward to the goal, have thus 
never been more crucial.  We cannot afford any further delay in tackling the harmful fisheries 
subsid ies and preserving the sustainability of fisheries resources, especially at this critical juncture  
— the WTO needs to prove itself relevant in the changing global trade environment.  It is time that 
we all need to focus on negotiating disciplines and put utmost efforts in bridging the gaps and 
narrowing the differences, aiming to fulfil the 11th Ministerial Conference m andate and the UN 
Sustainable Development Goal 14.6.  Thailand would like to reaffirm its full commit ment to actively 
participate in negotiations , and supports the Chair's way forward, leading to a balanced outcome 
that serves both calls for a meaningful ag reement, effective discipline, and sufficient policy space. 
Having said that, while we fully understand the positions of the Members, we feel that we already 
have a lot of issues on the plate. Therefore, we should rather focus on the issues that have been 
contained in the mandate and have been discussed for many years in order to conclude on what we 
have already on the plate now. We can continue discussing other issues that some Members may 
feel are relevant to the discussion on fisheries subsid ies in the f uture. We are not saying that we will 
not discuss this, but the view is that this is not the right time to do so.  
12.34.   The representative of the Central African Republic  provided the following statement:  
12.35.   The negotiations on fisheries subsidies have evolved a lot over the past month and in a 
positive fashion , because Members have a draft text and , as Ministers said during the Ministerial 
Conference in July, it is a basic document which will enable to pursue and conclude negotiations in 
this sector of activity. We recently had an exchange and a meeting with the Director -General on the 
setting up of technical assistance mechanisms and on aid for capacity building in LDCs. We have to 
differentiate technical assistance from special and differential treatme nt, taking into account the 
aspects of artisanal fishing. We resort to Members to show flexibility so as to be able to conclude a n 
agreement based on the principles of sustainability , respecting the goal of SDG 14.6 by 2030.  
12.36.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 90 - 
 
  12.37.   Nigeria wishes to thank Brazil for presenting the draft Ministerial Council Decision. Nigeria 
adduced four reasons to demonstrate the deviation of the Brazilian Proposal from the objectives of 
the Fisheries Subsidies negotiations set out in SDG 14.6, the WTO Ministers Mandate and 
paragraph  9 of Annex D of the 2005 Hong Kong Ministe rial Declaration , as well as the 2001 Doha 
Ministerial Declaration. Our expectation was that Brazil would either withdraw or modify this 
proposal. However, this is not the case.  
12.38.   Given that we have already missed the 2020 timeline to deliver on SDG 14.6 , the least we 
could do is to work towards outcomes by or before MC12 rather than commit to a future date beyond 
MC12 for the completion of the negotiations. Furthermore, SDG 14.6 and our Ministers mandate 
requires that we prohibit and eliminate subsidies whi ch contribute to overcapacity and overfishing 
and IUU fishing , respectively and not a commitment to curb harmful subsidies being suggested by 
Brazil. In addition, the proposed objective of "highest standards of environmental sustainability " of 
the Brazilia n proposal , which is geared towards the introduction of fisheries ' management obligations 
into the WTO , differs substantially from the objective of "enhancing the mutual supportiveness of 
trade and environment " set out in the Hong Kong as well as Doha Mini sterial Declaration. We have 
consistently registered our objection to the introduction of fisheries ' management obligations in the 
WTO, as this approach has proven in the past to be ineffective in addressing global overcapacity and 
overfishing problems. Al so, the proposal ignored economic and social pillars of SDGs as well as the 
need for effective special and differential treatment for developing countries. This proposal falls short 
of the objectives set out in SDG 14.6 and our Ministers mandate. Consequen tly, we will not support 
the proposal.  
12.39.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement:  
12.40.   At this juncture our focus should be placed on negotiat ing the draft text discipline. We need 
to be optimist ic and ambitious  in the negotiation process until MC12. As it has been raised by other 
colleagues, we believe that there are many aspects of this proposal that need to be looked at and 
negotiated to reflect  the divergent point s of views concerning the discipline s.   
12.41.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
12.42.   We wish to thank all the delegations that took the time to engage in this debate. I will learn 
from the comments and try to improve the text through another version. Regarding the Ministerial 
TNC Meeting that took place on 15 July, my feeling is that the g eneral consensus was of two natures. 
The text does offer a landing zone despite the imbalances identified by some , and which we can 
improve. There is also a general understanding that we simply do not have another twenty years to 
block this process. Twenty  years is enough, let us find a solution. Another point, which is rather 
surprising as I heard in many statements an already overcome dichotomy between the environment 
and people. The very notion of sustainability integrates those two dimensions. When maki ng a 
reference to a UN mandate referring to sustainability, this is already integrated. This is not a 
discussion among biologists. We are not here together to save fish because we love fish , we may 
love fish , it is not about that. As we preserve the enviro nment, it is integrated. Either we preserve 
the fish  and have fishermen communities, or this is going to disappear. I suggest a very simple 
example. When we go to the summer break, let the delegates go back to their capitals and  to the 
fishermen communitie s and ask a very simple question: do you want to wait another twenty years 
during which your fish stock is going to be reduced by seventy or eighty %? That is the price we are 
going to pay in order to have policy space, are you happy with that? We will not be able to fish but 
we will have all the policy space we need, and maybe in another twenty years we will have a blooming 
fish industry. But we are going to pay the price. The price for those abstract notions is paid by the 
people on the ground. We need to be clear about those things, otherwise the debate is never going 
to evolve. I heard today that there was a lack of new ideas in this debate, so perhaps I can bring 
new ideas. We need to update the terms of the debate. It is not possible that we say the sam e things 
after twenty years. As we propose high standards in sustainability, this is about people. It is about 
current and future generations. I repeat this very simple question: do we have another twenty years 
to waste? I do not think we do. It is time to  move on and reach an agreement.  
12.43.   The representative of Cameroon  provided the following statement:  
12.44.   Our delegation joins the statements  made  by the African and ACP Groups. We believe that 
the best resonance of this proposal by Brazil would be reflected in th e real, true commitment of all WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 91 - 
 
  parties to be able to give a concrete meaning to the mandate in these negotiations. The mandate 
clearly spells out that we have to prohibit subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity , 
to eliminate subsidies to IUU fishing and to guarantee special and differential treatment . The 
appropriate special and differential treatment  is both operational and effective. This is precisely 
where  we should focus our interests. In fact, our Ministers said that the current text, although it 
does include some appreciable elements, moves away from the initial mandate regarding the true 
and effective prohibition of subsidies to overcapacity and overfish ing. Over and above that, we have 
provisions that tend to give legitimacy to practices which have been leading to  overexploited species.  
12.45.   Regarding the elimination of IUU subsidies, the current provisions are not precise enough. 
They are not operative from  a legal point of view and create legal conflicts. Our delegation has 
regularly highlighted this and expressed its reservation regarding this. We hope that the discussions 
in the future will make it possible to redefine or come back to the initial terms of  our mandate. It is 
only by giving a meaning to our mandate that we will ensure sustainability as it can be found in the 
terms of our mandate. This is precisely what Cameroon has repetitively stressed. Our Minister once 
again repeated this. We  welcome thos e that have expressed their commitment. We  hope that in the 
coming months we will be able to come back to the initial negotiations and give them a meaning 
which would be in line with our mandate and with sustainability.  
12.46.   The General Council took note of the  statements.  
13  G90 DECLARATION ON SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT – COMMUNICATION 
FROM SOUTH AFRICA ON BEHALF OF THE G90 (WT/GC/234 ) 
13.1.   The Chair  recalled that the item had been included in the agenda of the General Council by 
the delegation of South Africa on behalf of the G90, together with the communication in document 
WT/GC/234.  
13.2.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
13.3.   The Declaration highlights t he disproportionate impact of COVID -19 on developing countries, 
especially LDCs, LLDCs, NFIDCs, SIDS and SVEs, not only as a health crisis in the short term but as 
a devastating social and economic crisis over the months and years to come, and thereby 
exacerbating the development gap, inequality and asymmetric economic development patterns that 
already existed before the crisis.  
13.4.   According to the OECD Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2021, the 
COVID -19 crisis hit at the dawn of the De cade of Action for the SDGs (2020 -2030). The health crisis 
triggered an economic crisis of long -lasting effects on inequalities and development. It hit more 
brutally countries lacking the financial and technological means to deal with long -term health 
emergencies and the necessary restrictions on movement of people and general commerce.  
13.5.   Based on this report, more developing countries have entered into economic recession than 
at any time since the Second World War, with more than 73% (90 of 122) of low and middle -income 
countries impacted. According to the World Bank, C OVID -19 has already added 120 million to the 
count of the world poor and the figure is expected to go up to 150 million by end 2021. The World 
Bank also estimates that more than 80% of the "new poor " will be in middle income countries.  
13.6.   The economic impact of the pandemic is much wider as it affects all sectors including 
agriculture, manufacturing and services, deepening the vulnerabilities of developing countries who 
have limited fiscal space to respond to the crisis.  
13.7.   The G90 recalls that the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) recognizes the "need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and 
especially the least developed amongst them, secure a share of growth in international trade 
commensurate with the needs of their economic development. " The multilateral trading system has, 
therefore been quite conscious of the differing levels of development among Members of the WTO 
and that i nternational trade should play a role to assist developing and least -developed countries to 
increase their share of international trade. S pecial and differential treatment  is therefore vital for 
developing and LDCs as a means towards that end.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 92 - 
 
  13.8.   The levels o f development, in terms of infrastructure, technology, industrialisation, 
digitalisation, prosperity, etc., are quite different between developed countries and the developing 
and least -developed countries. S pecial and differential treatment was incorporate d into the 
multilateral trading system as a means to ensure that trade can play a role to allow countries at the 
lower level of development to catch -up and to effectively integrate into global trade. Therefore, 
Special and differential treatment is at the core of the efforts to level the playing field for developing 
countries and least -developed countries and bridge the gaps separating them from their developed 
counterparts.  
13.9.   Strengthening and operationalising special and differential treatment provisions i n line with 
the mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration is, therefore , now a matter of 
urgency. It will enable developing countries to diversify and industrialise so as to accelerate their 
recovery and promote their resilience to future  shocks. The G90 is concerned by the lack of progress 
in the negotiations on special and differential treatment in the CTD SS.  
13.10.   The categorization of special and differential treatment provisions in WTO Agreements is 
described in WT/COMTD/W/258 and includes : i) provisions aimed at increasing the trade 
opportunities of developing country Members (15 provisions in various WTO agreements) , accord 
high priority to the reduction and elimination of barriers to products currently or potentially of 
particular export interest to developing countries, including customs duties and other restrictions 
which differentiate unreasonably between such products in their primary and in their processed 
forms , or devising concrete measures to promote the developme nt of export potential and to 
facilitate access to export markets for the products of interests to developing countries; ii) provisions 
under which WTO Members should safeguard the interests of developing country Members (47) , 
which  would include for examp le refraining from introducing or increasing customs duties or 
introducing non-tariff barriers on products of interest to developing countries , or have regard to the 
trade interests of developing countries when introducing trade measures; iii) flexibility of 
commitments, of action, and use of policy instruments (44) , for example making provision s for 
asymmetry in trade negotiations with developed countries , not expecting reciprocity for 
commitments  - Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture would fall in  this category; iv) transitional 
time-periods (27) ; v) technical assistance (25) ; and  vi) provisions relating to LDC Members (25) . 
13.11.   The Declaration on Special and Differential Treatment is put forward by the G90 with a view 
to ensure effective integration o f developing countries in global trade. Para graph  44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration recogni zes special and differential treatment as a treaty-embedded right. 
Special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries is an integra l part of 
the architecture of the multilateral trading system. Para graph  44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
mandates that the special and differential treatment provisions that are already included  in the 
existing WTO Agreements be reviewed and strengt hened to make them more precise, effective and 
operational for developing and least -developed countries.  
13.12.   Therefore, the CTD -SS derives its mandate from paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration and has to deliver in accordance with its mandate. Out of the 155 provisions, the G90 
has only prioritized 10 which are critical to structural transformation and to ensure effective 
integration of developing countries in global trade. The G90 is not asking for blanket exemptions 
from commitments. The proposal focuses on operationalising the collective commitments of the WTO 
Membership in several WTO agreements that will facilitate the integration of developing and least -
developed countries into the multilateral trading system.  
13.13.   The G90 remains ready to engage with all Members in good faith to find solutions. This is 
the long outstanding issue that needs to be resolved by MC12. In conclusion, Chair, the Declaration 
emphasizes the need to preserve special and differential treatment  as a central tenet of the WTO 
system.  
13.14.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   
13.15.    The revised special and differential treatment proposals tabled by the G90 are critical to 
increasing trade opportunities of developing countries and L DCs, speed up their post COVID 
economic recovery, and support building of resilient economies.  The discussion of the 10 agreement -
specific special and differential treatment proposals of the G -90 in the CTD -SS is consistently being 
frustrated by developed countries who , through their respective statements in meetings of the CTD WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 93 - 
 
  SS, consistently reiterated their unwillingness to engage in the discussions of G -90 agreement -
specific special and differential treatment proposals. This sends the wrong signal and could erode 
the faith of developing and least developed countries have in the multilateral trading system. It also 
risks paralyzing the multilateral trading system, should developing countries also reciprocate this 
gesture in other WTO negotiations and works. The best approach is for developed countries to shed 
light on specific elements of the G -90 proposals that poses difficulties (if any) so we can collectively 
discuss and work towar ds meaningful outcomes on the issue of special and differential treatment in 
line with para graph  44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  
13.16.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement:   
13.17.   The African Group s upports and associates itself with the statement by South Africa on behalf 
of the ACP on the G90 Declaration on special and differential treatment as contained in WT/GC/234. 
The CTD -SS discussion on the ten special and differential treatment agreement spec ific proposals  
was a necessary process , as it provided the G90 an opportunity to further elaborate on what practical 
steps need to be undertaken to respond to and deliver on the mandate under paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration review and stre ngthen special and differential treatment to make it 
more precise, effective and operational for developing and least -developed countries.  
13.18.   The credibility of the WTO and the multilateral trading system will be all the stronger if the 
benefits from trade ar e equitably shared amongst all its Members. Unfortunately, the reality has 
been rather different, with many developing and least developed countries yet to reap the benefits 
promised at the establishment of the WTO, or when they acceded. The C OVID -19 pande mic has 
been a stark reminder of this reality, showing up the vast inequalities among WTO Members, 
including in their ability to respond to the health crisis, navigate the economic consequences 
therefore and rebuild. Figures are pointing to extreme poverty  levels increasing to as much as 
40 million people in Africa as a result of C ovid-19, whilst our economies continue to deal with the 
consequences of GDP contractions which have largely affected the most vulnerable within our 
societies.  
13.19.   It is important to e mphasise that special and differential treatment  is a right that was 
consciously enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
and cannot all of a sudden be treated as a flexibility that its beneficiaries should justi fy or make a 
case for. We are, therefore also concerned at the level of disengagement by our developed country 
partners on this critical component of the architecture of the WTO , principally meant to assist 
developing and least -developed countries catch up  with their developed country partners and 
increase their share of international trade.  We nevertheless look forward to the next steps in formal 
mode in the CTD  SS. An outcome on special and differential treatment  at MC12 is critical if we are 
to restore the trust that the majority of our populations have on the WTO .  
13.20.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
13.21.   Pakistan welcomes this submission by South Africa on behalf of the G90 . Pakistan is  a 
staunch supporter of special and differential treatment as a fundamental tenet of this rules based 
multilateral system. Without effective, meaningful, and appropriate special and differential 
treatment  for developing and least developed countries, the e ntire edifice of the WTO is threatened. 
The G90 proposals, similar to the fisheries ' subsidies negotiations have been under discussion for 
the last 20 years. The demands of developing countries are completely justified and in fact, as time 
has gone by, new  challenges to development have emerged underscoring the absolute necessity of 
these demands. Unfortunately, as in some other areas of interest to developing countries, 
meaningful engagement on the issues by some delegations is disappointing. It is high ti me that the 
G90 proposals are given their due attention and are accepted as a package in favour of development. 
This would be a strong signal to the world that our organi zation stands for and can actually deliver 
on the development pillar  
13.22.   The representativ e of Chad, on behalf of the LDC , provided the following statement:  
13.23.   The LDC Group is part of the G20 and echoes the statement made by South Africa on the 
specific proposals relating to the agreement on special and differential treatment. The issue of special 
and differential treatment  is in our opinion a pivotal one, conce rning multilateral trade negotiations WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 94 - 
 
  here at the WTO. The issue of special and differential treatment is, we might say, the raison d'être 
of our organization and there is no doubt that the escalating COVID -19 crisis is set to have a 
disproportionate impac t on developing and least developed countries , not only in terms of the short -
term health impacts but also as economic and social crisis that will prove devastating over the course 
of the coming months and years. Global poverty may affect more than two bil lion people and the 
economic and social fallouts from the crisis will affect all of our societies. The goals of the proposal 
made by the G90 include building -in flexibilities to encourage structural transformation, 
industrialization and the diversification  of developing countries and particularly LDCs' economies. 
However, the arguments put forward by the G90 to support this proposal haven 't yet led to 
consensual outcomes , primarily due to the rejection of that by some Members. They see the G90 
proposal as a  threat to the multilateral system and those same Members have expressed a certain 
reluctance , even though they have shown themselves to be open to discussions around a solution. 
We feel quite the opposite, our opinion is that the implementation of the pro posals put forward by 
the G90 will certainly increase the stability of global trade and bolster the competitiveness of 
economies for developed as well as developing countries and LDCs. A number of meetings of the 
CTD SS have taken place. We have asked Memb ers a number of questions and informal discussions 
have taken place around the different proposals so that we can find the best possible way forward 
towards a consensus. We tried to consolidate our convergences  under the leadership of the 
Chairperson . We are willing to engage constructively on the issues being dealt with by the CTD  SS 
as we look to MC12 and beyond.  
13.24.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of  the ACP, provided the following statement:   
13.25.   Special and differential  treatment  is a fundamental pillar of the WTO and should not be 
dispensed with in current nor future agreements . We believe that an outcome for MC12 based on 
the G90 proposals would assist our national efforts to stabilize our trade imbalances, including those 
arising from the COVID -19 pandemic, build back better and successfully integrate into the global 
economy and global trading system. In this regard the ACP supports the G90 Declaration on Special 
and Differential Treatment contained in WT/GC/234. The COVID -19 pa ndemic is expected to slow 
down or even reverse some of the gains made in the realization of the SDGs, as indicated in the 
Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020 (United Nations, 2020). According to the OECD Global 
Outlook on Financing for Sustainable D evelopment 2021, the COVID -19 crisis hit us at the dawn of 
the Decade of Action for the SDGs (2020 -2030). Based on this report, more developing countries  
entered economic recession than at any time since the Second World War, with more than 73% (90 
of 122)  of low and middle -income countries impacted.  
13.26.   Increasing the share of international trade of developing and least developed countries and 
empowering them with policy space and flexibilities to enable them to diversify and industrialise 
their economies wil l accelerate their recovery and promote their resilience to future shocks. 
Strengthening and operationalising special and differential treatment provisions in line with the 
mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration is, therefore, now a ma tter of urgency 
and survival for our people. The ACP Group also wants to thank the Chair of the CTD  SS for her 
monumental efforts to facilitate discussion of the G90 Agreement Specific Proposals (ASPs). The G90 
has made efforts to negotiate in good faith. As the ACP  Group , we remain concerned about the lack 
of engagement by some Members. The ACP Group stands ready to engage with the broader 
membership on how special and differential treatment  can be made more effective and appropriate 
to the prevailing circ umstance that many developing, and least developed countries continue to face. 
As we move towards MC12, clear parameters to deal with special and differential treatment  need to 
be agreed upon and put in place. We ask for a further engagement on the G90 Agr eement Specific 
Proposals to be facilitated by the Chair in order to finalise recommendations to the Ministerial 
Conference.  
13.27.   The representative of Vanuatu , on behalf of the Pacific Group , provided the following 
statement:   
13.28.   The Pacific Group strongly suppor ts this declaration and the ACP Group statement. The 
Pacific Group underlines the importance of special and differential treatment in helping us overcome 
the multi -faceted challenges that we face owing to our inherent structural and geographic 
characterist ics as small island developing states and SVEs, combined with our exposure to frequent 
and severe natural disasters. These challenges have been exacerbated by COVID -19 which has 
disproportionately affected developing countries especially Small Island Developing States (SIDS) 
and Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) . The G90 proposals therefore presented practical ways to WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 95 - 
 
  address the challenges posed by WTO rules, that many developing countries face in trying to 
integrate into the multilateral trading syst em. These proposals remain important to the Pacific Group. 
These proposals aim to make special and differential treatment  provisions more operational, 
effective and precise, to fulfil the mandate of paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
13.29.   The representative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of CARICOM , provided the following statement:   
13.30.    CARICOM also aligns itself with the statement delivered  by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP. 
We also thank South Africa for its statement as well as its submission on beha lf of the G90 contained 
in document WT/GC/234. We reiterate the importance that CARICOM assigns to preserving both the 
principle and practice of special and differential treatment for developing and least -developed 
countries in the WTO. In this regard, we believe that the WTO should be moving in the direction of 
strengthening special and differential treatment  provisions , with a view to making them more 
precise, effective and operational , as articulated in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
CARICOM is comprised of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Small Vulnerable Economies 
(SVEs) which face many constraints that reinforce the need for special and differential treatment . 
We have spoken on numerous occasions about our vulnerability to n atural disasters, climate change 
and other exogenous shocks, such as the current COVID -19 pandemic, which tend to have a more 
acute impact on our economies compared to many other countries. We are further hampered by 
high levels of public debt, low economi c growth and an undiversified economic structure. According 
to the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, our high debt dilemma has 
not been principally driven by policy missteps. Rather, it finds its roots in external shocks, 
compound ed by the inherent structural weaknesses and vulnerabilities confronting Caribbean SIDS 
and their limited capacity to respond, including with respect to extreme weather events, climate 
change attendant challenges and most recently, the COVID -19 pandemic. A nother major 
contributing factor to this situation includes the underperformance of our export sectors, partly due 
to a decline in the competitiveness of our economies. CARICOM countries are further confronted by 
large infrastructure gaps, including physic al trade and e -commerce infrastructure. The development 
challenges highlighted above are all interlinked , and the binding constraints at home also present 
binding constraints abroad , to the extent that they also prevent us from integrating further into the  
multilateral trading system. It is in this context that recourse to special and differential treatment 
becomes a necessary condition for us to participate meaningfully in the multilateral trading system. 
We fully endorse the 12 points elaborated by South Africa on behalf of the G90 in the proposal before 
us. We call on all WTO Members to engage constructively with the G90 on the proposed declaration 
and in other  theatres where we meet to discuss special and differential treatment . 
13.31.   The representative of Central African Republic  provided the following statement:  
13.32.   My delegation firmly supports South Africa's statement. We remain committed to 
paragraph  44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration on special and differential treatment , with the view 
to strengthening  it to make it more effective and operational , to strengthen the capacity of 
developing countries and least developed countries as best as we can to gain market access. Special 
and differential treatment  is a significant element within the multilateral tra ding system. Today we 
are deeply concerned to see the lack of progress in negotiations on special and differential treatment  
under the CTD  SS. That lack of progress will have consequences such as the marginalization of 
developing countries on international  markets and they will have a very small share of international 
trade that puts their populations in circumstances of extreme poverty. We welcome the statements 
made by the LDC Group and the African Group calling upon Members to return to paragraph 44 of 
the Doha Declaration to enable developing countries and least developed countries to integrate 
better into the multilateral trading system and to overcome the various obstacles to their 
development.  
13.33.   The representative of the European Union  provided the foll owing statement:   
13.34.   The European Union has on numerous occasions underlined its support for special and 
differential treatment of WTO Members , especially for LDCs but also for other Members who have 
specific needs. It is our priority to ensure effective, pre cise and operational special and differential 
treatment in the WTO , in order to enable these Members to apply and benefit from the agreements 
concluded.  The European Union firmly believes that if WTO is to prosper, special and differential 
treatment  must b ecome 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 or activity level , rather than calling for a block ex emption of a large category WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 96 - 
 
  of Members. Furthermore, the European Union considers that each developing country's need for 
special and differential treatment  should be assessed on a case -by-case and evidence basis.  We take 
note of the declaration submitted by South Africa on behalf of the G90. The European Union is of 
the opinion that continuing the discussion based on the 10 proposals of the G -90, will neither lead 
to an outcome nor provide the basis for increasing understanding and cooperation be tween 
Members, which is much -needed.  
13.35.   The representative of China  provided the following statement:   
13.36.   The prolonged pandemic has caused economic and social devastation  to developing 
members and LDCs in particular. China shares the sentiments with other devel oping Members on 
the unprecedented challenges in fighting against the pandemic. Special and differential treatment , 
in this context, should continue to enhance its role in facilitating developing Members ' integration 
into the multilateral system, and helpi ng their economic recovery in the post -pandemic period as 
well. China supports to have the issues raised by the G90 well taken into account in related 
negotiations and consultations , to provide the necessary flexibilities and policy space to developing 
Members, particularly LDCs , to ensure that the multilateral trading system will help them achieve 
the development goal, and to have an early economic recovery against the current and future 
possible pandemics. China is willing to shoulder the responsibilities  commensurate with our 
development level and ability. We are committed to our efforts in the WTO to assist other developing 
Members ' better integration into the multilateral trading system and better response to the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  
13.37.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement:   
13.38.   We align with the statements by Mauritius on behalf of the African Group and Jamaica on 
behalf of the ACP Group. special and differential treatment is an integral principle of the WTO, and 
the respective provisions  and Decisions are important to many developing country Members and 
LDCs, as they implement their obligations in the respective WTO agreements. It is therefore 
important to uphold the existing special and differential treatment  provisions and follow up on their 
implementation. It is equally important to consider the revised special and differential treatment  
proposals tabled by the G90 and integrate them in WTO work. The devastating impact that COVID -
19 has had on many developing countries and LDCs ' economies calls for concerted efforts to protect 
many lives and livelihoods in the Global South. The pandemic has exacerbated the vulnerabilities of 
these countries, most of which are yet to recover from the detrimental effects of natural disasters 
caused  by climate change. Recovery from the effects of the pandemic will certainly be slow and 
protracted and will largely depend on the interventions that countries deploy. Special and differential 
treatment is therefore critical for these countries to effectiv ely mitigate against the effects of the 
prevailing crises, build resilience and increase trade opportunities. We ought to deliver on our 
mandate under paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration, with respect to special and differential 
treatment , to facilitate t he integration of developing countries and LDCs in the multilateral trading 
system.  
13.39.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   
13.40.   We all agree that special and differential treatment remains an important tool for supporting 
WTO Members with genuine need - in particular for supporting LDCs in their integration into the 
multilateral trading system and enjoy the benefits of this system. This should obviously continue. 
But, we all recogni ze that the current mechanism for awarding a nd claiming special and differential 
treatment  requires reform. A more targeted approach based on specific and identified needs is 
required to ensure those Members with real need are supported during current and future 
negotiations  — a granularity to which  the European Union just referred. Both at, and in the run -up 
to MC12, the United Kingdom would like to see concrete progress towards such a more balanced 
and targeted approach to special and differential treatment , and we look forward to engaging with 
further Members to seek common ground in the weeks ahead.  
13.41.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   
13.42.   Special and differential treatment provisions are an integral part of the multilateral trading 
system. They continue to be a critical aspect of the WTO 's framework and a non -negotiable right of 
all developing countries, for which they have already paid. They are to be looked at, not as WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 97 - 
 
  exceptions to the general rules , but as an inherent objective of the Multilateral Trading Syst em, 
something our Ministers agreed to in Doha. Given the concerns expressed by Members regarding 
the effectiveness of special and differential treatment provisions in the WTO Agreements, our 
Ministers in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Decision, had g iven a mandate to review all special 
and differential treatment  provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more 
precise, effective and operational. Although Members have been discussing these issues since 2002, 
unfortunately, it has not b een possible to secure tangible progress with regard to this Ministerial 
mandate. The proposal clearly demonstrates the pressing need to agree to the 10 Agreement 
Specific Proposals to enable the social and economic transformation required by developing an d least 
developed countries to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to ensure that no 
one is left behind. The same frustration what we see in fisheries negotiations, should be reflected 
here also. As we say WTO is about people, certainly th is is about people. India believes that the G90 
proposal provides a useful basis to advance work in this important area. We appreciate the initiatives 
by CTD  SS Chair Ambassador Kadra to have discussions in the informal configuration for 10 items. 
We hope for a meaningful outcome by MC12. We urge all the Members to collectively work towards 
finalizing this , like we are working for fisheries negotiation.  
13.43.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
13.44.   We take note of the proponent s' statement. We also note that the proponents have 
repeatedly tabled their proposals in the CTD  SS, even after Members have reviewed and discussed 
them, and have been unable to agree to them. We have invited South Africa to pursue a different 
approach – one that focuses on how to better integrate LDCs and similarly -situated Members into 
the rules -based trading system. We also sense there are many in the G90 who might be interested 
in pursuing a different approach. Such a result could be advanced by helping  Members fully 
implement WTO rules. WTO rules are building blocks for sustainable development, not impediments 
to development.  
13.45.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:   
13.46.   My delegation thanks South Africa for presenting this proposal on behalf of the G90 and the 
statement delivered by Chad on behalf of LDCs. This communication highlights some critical 
challenges of the developing countries , particularly LDCs , which are furt her aggravated by the 
ongoing pandemic. Our colleague from South Africa and other delegations have elaborated on the 
current context and the long -term impact of this public health crisis on the lives, livelihoods and 
economies of the developing south. Even  prior to the pandemic the developing countries , particularly 
LDCs, needed support from Members to bring them into the mainstream global trade. The proposal 
under consideration focuses on operationalizing the collective commitments of the membership and 
some agreements that will facilitate the integration of developing and least developed countries 
meaningfully into the world trading system. As we have emphasized in other occasions, and 
reiterated by many before me, special and differential treatment  for de veloping and least developed 
countries is an integral part of the architecture of the multilateral trading system, it is a treaty -
embedded right. The objective of this exercise is therefore not to discuss the concept or rationale of 
S&DT but to make it a r eality. We believe that the G90 communication generated discussion and 
that will encourage Members to engage constructively so that a positive outcome is possible.  
13.47.   The representative of Cameroon  provided the following statement:  
13.48.   Cameroon supports the state ment made by the African and ACP Groups and is in favour of 
the proposal put forward by the G90. The reason why we are part of this organi zation is the hope to 
have fair trade , that is rules -based trade , because that could guarantee the necessary resources  to 
development.  Special and differential treatment  is a rule of fairness which takes into account the 
differences between Member s. There is a need to adjust the rules to the development needs of the 
countries and to modify special and differential treatm ent according to the mandate s we have 
received, to make them operational . Moving away from the WTO is not the objective pursued by the 
parties. That is why we invite all Members to show openness and to be ready to examine the proposal 
of the G90 so as to come to a consensus at MC12. Of course, we need more transparency and 
predic tability, and we want to ensure greater inclusiveness thanks to operational special and 
differential treatment . We do not want a body that strengthens some and weakens others. COVID -19 
has shown the vulnerability of states and the interest there is in buil ding a multilateral system which 
is fair, inclusive and which takes on board the hopes and expectations of all parties.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 98 - 
 
  13.49.   The representative of Zimbabwe  provided the following statement:   
13.50.   Zimbabwe aligns itself with the statements delivered by the delegatio ns of South Africa and 
Mauritius on behalf of the G90 and the Africa n Group respectively. We also share the views expressed 
by Chad and Jamaica on behalf of the LDC and the ACP  Groups . Special and differential treatment 
is an integral part of the multilate ral trading system, providing policy -space for developing Members 
to fulfil their development goals and to more effectively participate in the global trading system. 
Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration on special and differential treatment  recognizes the 
need to review all provisions, to strengthen them, and make them more precise, effective, and 
operational. This was a very clear acknowledgement and recognition of the special needs of 
developing and least -developed countries, given their lower  levels of development. The growing 
evidence of market failure, the uncertainties with regard to the future of international cooperation, 
the complexities of problems caused by widening global inequalities, have underscored, as never 
before, the critical i mportance of special and differential treatment  for developing countries. The 
G90 proposal on special and differential treatment  reflects the widely -shared and longstanding, 
legitimate concerns of many developing countries. Zimbabwe agrees on the need to s trengthen 
special and differential treatment  provisions by making them binding and according them due legal 
status. We have noted with great concern a certain reluctance, by some Members, to engage on this 
proposal.  We call on those Members to reflect deep ly, to engage and to use the proposal as a basis 
leading towards an outcome which will ensure that special and differential treatment  is adapted to 
meet the challenges inherent to the ongoing evolution of the global economic and trading 
environment.  
13.51.   The representative of Nepal  provided the following statement:   
13.52.   My delegation wishes to extend sincere appreciation to the Chair of the CTD -SS and thanks 
South Africa for introducing this agenda on behalf of the G90. I wish to associate with the statement 
delivered by South Africa on behalf of the G90 and Chad on behalf of the LDC group. My delegation 
supports this proposed declaration on spec ial and differential treatment and urges all Members to 
show flexibility to conclude this through the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  
13.53.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement:  
13.54.   We fully share the views of the G90 that special and d ifferential treatment  is central in the 
WTO system . It should be preserved and reinforced in order to ensure equity , and must remain an 
integral part of the WTO Agreements and be part of any deliverable at MC12.  
13.55.   The representative of Sri Lanka  provided th e following statement:  
13.56.   Looking at the historical background which sets the justification for introducing the principle 
of special and differential treatment  into the multilateral trading system, what Sri Lanka has 
witnessed is that the concept has been dil uted in all aspects disregarding the very purpose of it. 
Members are to bear in mind that the more this principle is set aside , the more we begin to see 
difficulties. They should not be seen only as a tool for development but also as one of the core 
principles upon which the multilateral trading system has been established. As a positive note, many 
countries have reaped the benefits due to the preservation  of this principle , but it is not the case for 
all developing countries . Members should  engage meaningfully in addressing the inherent 
weaknesses to make those provisions more timely, effective and useful for developing countries , as 
some of  them are ineff ective at the implementation level. These issues have been with us for more 
than decades even before the fisheries subsidies negotiations have commenced , but we adopt  a 
different interest when it comes to dealing with the interest of humankind over fish in  this situation.  
13.57.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
13.58.   The ten agreement specific proposals  that are discussed in the CTD -SS are proposals that 
are en grained  in existing agreements and Members would have  taken due note of t he number of 
provisions that exist in the number of agreements , including the six categories that define what 
special and differential treatment  is in WTO agreements. Therefore, the role and mandate of the 
CTD-SS is derived from paragraph 44 of the Doha Mi nisterial Declaration . It is about making those 
existing provisions more precise, effective and operational, because there has been a view in certain 
agreements by the WTO membership in recognition that , even though those special and differential WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 99 - 
 
  treatment  provisions exist in WTO agreements , it has been very difficult for developing countries to 
make use of them and invoke them, so that they are able to advance their development. It is in that 
regard that , collectively , the WTO membership agreed to  give this mandate to the CTD -SS. 
Therefore , the G90 , out of 155 provisions , have prioritized only ten . These ten provisions are 
prioritized because of their effect on structural transformation , which will then advance the interest 
of developing countries , but also to ensure that those specific areas where there are barriers to entry 
for products of export of interest  to developing countries are also addressed. The G90 remains ready 
to engage with all Members with a view to engage in good faith discussions , and hopefully solution -
oriented discussions , so that we can address this long outstanding issue by MC12.  
13.59.   The Director -General  provided the following statement:  
13.60.   Since I am not in the Chair, this gives me an opportunity to make a few remarks on this 
issue,  because the CTD  SS is also under the TNC. One of the things we have to look at is what has 
happened, or is happening, to developing economies and particularly the least-developed,  with the 
advent of COVID -19. I think this is really important. All the numb ers are going in the wrong direction 
and, today, the headline is about the IMF emphasis on a "K -shaped" recovery. Prior to COVID -19, 
there was an emerging convergence of developing countries with developed countries , even LDCs 
were not doing that badly. Bu t COVID -19 has set the world back considerably and set the poor 
countries back considerably. So, this two -track or "K -shape" recovery, of course, is exacerbated by 
the inequity in access to vaccine s, which we are here to try to find ways to solve.  
13.61.   I think  that where we are now behoves us to step back and look at the issue of SDT with 
fresh eyes. I have heard talks to offer a fresh approach. I really think that we need to examine 
where we are in light of what is happening to poor countries from COVID -19. No w, since I came, 
almost five months ago, I have seen frustration building in the CTD  SS particularly on the part of 
Ambassador Hassan, with whom I had several meetings. I am very grateful for the continuous push. 
I think that the non -engagement is what is leading to the frustration. What I am happy about today 
is to hear the willingness to engage, I think we have to engage; we cannot just let this issue go by 
year after year. There is indeed equal frustration . This General Council has been an eye -opener in 
listening to Members talk about how stuck everything is. There is no pride in collective failure at 
everything, whether on SDT or fisheries, and so on. There should not be any pride in that. We have 
to tell ourselves that we need to move on this SDT issue. I think we have to find a way to engage 
with the CTD  SS, to make progress in light of what is happening. I have heard some Members  say 
that they are willing to take responsibility commensurate to their leve l of development. Maybe we 
should think about looking into how we can make this work. I have heard others they say that they 
are willing to support LDCs and other Members who are on the poor end of the scale to avail 
themselves of SDT , we should look at th at. All I am trying to say is that there is merit to looking at 
what SDT can do , because COVID -19 has put us in a different position, and we have to find a way 
to engage. We should not allow ourselves to get to MC12 and make this an issue of rancour.  
13.62.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
13.63.   I would like to clarify that  the non -engagement is on both sides . I am a bit troubled by this 
axiomatic connection between economic difficulty and SDT. Why are we in the WTO not discuss ing 
the connection between pandemic -related stress and the support that can be provided by 
implementing WTO rules ? Why is that not , first and foremost , our concern about how trade rules 
promote resilience and provide a backstop to the crisis, rather than p resenting them as if they are 
the cause of the difficulties ? I think that the CTD  SS needs to reflect on , whether or not , we agree  
that the underlying rules support development ; or do we reject the WTO rules as somehow being 
anti-development?  I think Brazil has made this point numerous times.  I am a little bit concerned 
with considering that special and differential treatment is the answer to the COVID -19 response , 
because I believe that supporting integration through WTO rule s is the response . Special and 
differential treatment  is an accommodation to help people get to the same endpoint, not a carve -
out or an elimination of those rules for certain Members.  
13.64.   The Director -General  provided the following statement:  
13.65.   Thank you  for the comments  made . I agree with some of what was said. The point is not 
that SDT is the solution to COVID -related stress, but because there is this stress, there is a need to 
look at how countries can have better access and use th at as part of their  recove ry efforts . You are WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 100 - 
 
  absolutely right , integration into the trading system is very important because that is how countries 
are going to make progress. Right now , they are falling further behind. Africa's share of global trade 
was almost 3% and it is falling  back to 2.4%. It is getting worse. The point I am trying to make is 
for some Members to be able to avail themselves of some of this. By getting better integrated into 
the trading system they may indeed recover better and faster from COVID -19. It is not that SDT will 
solve the economic problems per se  - I think we are both saying the same thing in different ways. I 
just wanted us to know that this issue is pervading all the discussions. We should listen again today 
– there are nuances  which show that peop le are actually moving together in the right direction ; but 
because we do not listen to each other as well , that prevents us from coming together. We should  
look at this issue and the circumstances. We are looking towards coming together. Whether it is a 
new approach or the same approach, I think we should engage  on this issue . 
13.66.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
13.67.   I agree that a real conversation is required . There are two aspects to this conversation . One 
part of the conver sation included existing commitments ; existing flexibilities that are not effective ; 
an agreement and a mandate. Then there is another part of the conversation that says : "how do we 
deal with special and differential treatment going forward ?". That conversation also needs to be held . 
But there is also this assumption that , when we talk about special and differential treatment , we are 
talking about blanket exemptions from agreements. If Members go through the ten Agreement -
specific proposals, it is not about blanket exemptions . In fact, in most cases it is about additional 
time for those Members that are facing specific constraints , whether in implementing  the SPS or TBT 
measures . Those are the t ype of conversations that we need to have . In addition to that , we have 
this specific challenge now with COVID -19 that has a disproportionate impact on developing 
countries . Flexibilities will be required in terms of rebuilding industries that are struggling as a result 
of the pandemic . What role will the WTO have ? The WTO has a critical role in promoting economic 
recovery. That is another conversation that we need to have . All of these conversations are quite 
urgent .  
13.68.   The Director -General  spoke abo ut the frustration , I agree that probably the frustration is on 
both sides . That frustration arises from the fact that we have commitments that we  have taken and 
Ministerial mandates that have been agreed  on. But we do not implement those . And then the 
developing countries are asking themselves how Members can take on new commitments when 
there is no respect of existing commitments and mandates ? There are a  number of long outstanding 
issues that I think are critical to development  and that we need to look a t. What I appreciate from 
this conversation is that all of us agree that special and differential treatment  is an important aspect 
and that we need to have a real conversation.  
13.69.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   
13.70.   Special and differential treatment , as everybody knows , came as a result of the fact that we 
have Members who do not have the capacity to implement their obligations. We have explained the 
frustration and lack of engagement .  Everyone that participated in discussions prior to MC10 will 
confirm that a certain number of special and differential treatment request s were tabled at MC10 , 
but the y did not receive any attention . In fact, at that time, developing countries reduced the 
numbers of requests  to about 25 . At the end of MC10, they had not been  considered. The same 
requests  were taken to MC11 and they were not given much consideration. Under the CTD -SS, we 
have been engaged in discussions through the G90 , but the other side hasn't made much effort. 
That is why we are reiterating  that there is a need for constructive engagement . This  should be 
tabled and discussed thoroughly. I am happy that the other side will now be fully engaged . We 
believe that , if that is done , we will find a way out and then  at least  the de veloping countries will be 
able to get their required benefits and will be able to address some other challenges they are facing 
in terms of capacity.  
13.71.   The representative of Sri Lanka  provided the following statement:   
13.72.   We appreciate the DG 's intervention to day put ting special and differential treatment  and 
other important issues on the table. W e should not be drawing divisions among the issues , all issues 
are important to many countries . We see special and differential treatment as an important issue 
which gives us  the assurance and the required confidence that  the organization  is working for all I 
fully endorse what has been  stated by South Africa . I would also like to comment on the level of WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 101 - 
 
  engagement and the frustration , as we have seen that in  the CTD-SS we have been presenting 
proposal s in a vacuum. We presented examples of serious empirical evidence suggesting how some 
of the special and differential treatment provisions  – as currently draf ted and enshrined in relevant 
Agreements – are preventing us from making full use of those flexibilities. The response we receive 
in the CTD -SS is that other Members  are listening , but they are not even commenting on the proposal  
and we receive  no follow -up questions. Engagement should come from both sides if we are to achieve 
some meaningful outcomes  on this topic .  
13.73.   We attach high significance to this issue and we share d our experiences. Some of these 
experiences are a result of the pandemic  as we have  not been able to make use of these provisions , 
and the  pandemic has aggravated other issues. Hence,  it is good to hear that we can look at this 
topic from a different perspective. Confidence building should be a priority for this institution , 
because that would set a motion for us to negotiate and agree on many new disciplines including 
fisheries subsidies. The reason why special and differential treatment has become a crucial issue in 
the fisheries subsidies negotiations , is the lack of confi dence and trust. Therefore, developing 
countries are very cautious about  negotiating any discipline in the future. If the institution is to 
produce new agreements and obligations, then this issue has to be fixed once and for all.  
13.74.   The representative of Came roon provided the following statement:   
13.75.   Cameroon aligns itself with the statements by the African and ACP Groups, and endorses 
the proposal submitted by the G90.   Our states joined this organization essentially because of their 
hope that fair and equitabl e trade would guarantee them access to the resources required for their 
development. The word "fair" refers to clear, predictable and fixed rules, while the notion of "equity" 
relates to the adjustment of these rules to states' economic and social realitie s, in order to prevent 
injustices according to the principle of summum jus, summa injuria. Special and differential 
treatment is thus based on this notion of equity, taking into account the existing disparities between 
Members and, accordingly, the need to  avoid obstructing the development of beneficiary countries 
(developing countries and LDCs). Seeking to considerably alter the modalities for the enjoyment of 
special and differential treatment and cancel the mandate of paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration , 
in effect, means calling into question our raison d'être in this organization and infringing the 
provisions of the WTO's constitution. Our differences cannot be ignored, just as unfair rules that run 
counter to the principles that we freely set ourselves  cannot be laid down.  
13.76.   Indeed, we cannot build an organization that benefits some and marginalizes others. Such 
double standards would be a major threat to our organization. COVID -19 has shown the vulnerability 
of our economies as well as the need to constr uct a fair and inclusive multilateral system that brings 
together all Members and creates prosperity for all. Nonetheless, we remain assured that this is 
neither the goal sought by certain parties nor the essence of their reservations. We therefore invite 
all parties to examine the G90's proposals with a genuinely open mind , so that we may reach a 
consensus at MC12. We need greater transparency and predictability just as much as we need to 
ensure that this organization is more inclusive through precise, eff ective and operational special and 
differential treatment. The G90's proposals are concrete solutions in this regard.  
13.77.   The representative of Mauritius  provided the following statement:   
13.78.   I must highlight how pleased I am that we are finally having a conversation. I fully agree  
with the statements of  Nigeria and South Africa. What we find most problematic  in this context of 
special and differential treatment is that , when we made these  agreement s so many years ago , we 
agreed on a package . Very often when we are told we need to implement this particular part of the 
package,  for instance  notifications , and not have the same for another part of that package, an 
essential part of the package, which is  special and differential treatment . We cannot be having a 
conversation  10 years after we conclude  an Agreement about how we should be implementing one 
part of that Agreement. All that does is create a lot of suspicion about whether , in the future , when 
we conclud e Agreements  such as the one on fisheries subsidies,  if the special and differential 
treatment we fight so hard for will have any value or will not be implemented for that purpose. We 
have a concern  about the practice of picking and choosing what one wants to do in an agreement 
that Members  have agreed upon. This been said , I am happy that we can ac tually reach out and 
start conversations on how to take this forward, perhaps bearing in mind the new realities on the 
ground.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 102 - 
 
  13.79.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
13.80.   We welcome the conversation  and firmly believe we ne ed such a conversation in the autumn , 
we need a renewed and fresh discussion on special and differential treatment , on a different basis. 
Benefits are reaped through the rules, not by being outside of the system. The division between 
mandated and future is sues is artificial. We need to be honest: the DDA failed  - this was an overall 
package , and we did not succeed. Looking at the ten requests, they include requests for a derogation 
of provisions from 1947 – for instance on balance of payments – or in relation with TRIMS, which is 
a clarification of GATT rules. We need a reality check , and a renewed understanding on special and 
differential treatment. This was a good opportunity for a frank exchange of views.  
13.81.   The representative of Vanuatu  provide d the following statement:   
13.82.   We should encourage the continuation of this conversation going forward after the summer 
break because the issue at hand is critical to many developing countries , including Pacific countries. 
First of all, Vanuatu  would like to support the G90 proposal as presented by South Africa and the 
statements made by the Pacific and ACP Groups on this proposal. Certainly, I think there are many 
apprehensions about the G90 proposal not being advanced in the current special and differential 
treatment negotiations  in the CTD -SS. We fear whether this will have a spill -over effect on other 
aspects, as we are currently seeing in the fisheries subsidies negotiations. I f we do not deal with the 
existing imbalances, the challenges faced by developin g countries in the implementation or when 
invoking the current flexibilities , then developing countries will find it difficult to engage in new 
negotiations where special and differential treatment will be discussed . This is the risk of ignoring 
these conc erns. We note  the point made by South Africa that we need to deal with what was  
presented in the G90 proposal as well as the issue of  special and differential treatment going forward . 
To respond to the E uropean Union's concerns about some of the G90 proposal , policy  space is very 
important , I think this was said in the fisheries subsidies discussions. M any developing countries are 
late in the ir development process.  As such, t hey should not be penalized for asking for policy space 
because they are in t hat level of development. This has to be taken into account.  
13.83.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
13.84.   I fully agree with  what the D irector -General  said about this new ambiance in which dialogue 
is possible. I think special and differ ential treatment is a fundamental dimension of what we do in 
the WTO . It is very important and something to be preserved. It is a core concept of this 
organization. It is so important that it has to be handled carefully. Let me try to handle this carefully . 
The first thing is about the DDA. I worked in the Doha  days as a negotiator of the SSM and I saw 
how the DDA collapsed . I saw the forces at play when the DDA collapsed . I have a simple question : 
does anyone think the  world is better today without the DDA? Does anyone regret having obstructed 
the DDA 15 years ago? I would like to hear a mea culp a. I would like to hear these  delegation s say: 
"I am sorry , I should have been more generous and flexible, it would have been better for the 
developing world". 15 years later , to invoke the DDA , when we play ed against the DDA , I do not 
think that is fair. Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration is very important , but I also want to 
resuscitate Rev . 3 and Rev . 4. If we want to discus s the DDA seriously , let us bring to the table the 
concessions and the balance that we achieved in Rev . 3 and Rev . 4, which were not possible to agree 
on. I am ready to work on that basis ; it was a wonderful package . It was such a good package that 
it is c ompletely out of our reach now . It was a very ambitious package  and it would have hugely 
benefited the developing world. The DDA goes beyond a negotiation;  it is a measure of fairness in 
the system that is important because the assumption under which we wo rk here is that trade 
generates prosperity  and wealth , but that countries do need time to adapt. That is a measure of 
fairness. It is a way in which you integrate and generate a community committed to the same 
systems and beliefs.  
13.85.   Special and differential  treatment was never conceived as a way of shielding yourself from 
trade , otherwise you do not join the WTO. As we use the special and differential treatment  rhetoric 
to defend the status quo, but the reality in the field is changing. Many are hugely benefiting from 
special and differential treatment . Look at the list of the major agriculture exporters 20 years ago  
and look at the list of the major agriculture exporters now. This is clear example of wha t is 
happening. Take a look at who subsidize d agriculture 20 years ago and who subsidizes agriculture 
now. That is how special and differential treatment  is being used. Is this to the benefit of the poor? 
Is this to the benefit of the LDCs? I am afraid not . As we reach  MC12  it is time for frankness  and for 
generosity. We cannot invoke special and differential treatment in a self -interested way to the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 103 - 
 
  detriment of those who really need  it. This is a very important dimension of what we do , it should 
be preser ved. The fundamental question is : do we believe that closing our economies will allow us 
to grow faster? If that is the answer , then  there is no hope for the WTO. If that is not the answer , 
then we should revisit the way we handle those concepts . 
13.86.   The Director-General  provided the following statement:  
13.87.   I am delighted to see that people are talking to each other , and not reading speeches. This 
is what we should be doing, engaging on the issues in good spirit. I wanted to thank you for that, 
and if we could co ntinue this kind of engagement , talking to each other frankly, that is what we need 
to be able to move. The last comment I want to make on this is to recall something I said during 
the TNC, let us not head for collective failure, let us not try to link everything to everything and 
there fore end up getting nothing. I want to invoke a very famous negotiation in the world where 
people failed to get what they should have gotten, and today they cannot get it, they are very far 
away from it. If they had taken what they had then, life would hav e been better.  
13.88.   The representative of Norway  provided the following statement:  
13.89.   We found that the exchange touched upon some of the fundamental issues that we will have 
to address to enable movement on this file. We would therefore like to express our since re hope 
that Members can find the opportunity to continue this exchange when we resume our work after 
the summer break.  
13.90.   The representative of Jamaica  provided  the following statement:  
13.91.    I thank the DG for having triggered a very important and encouraging engagement. I 
believe, like many other issues, we have been talking across each other because our starting points 
are different, and the challenges seem unsurmountable. While we do not like the DDA, as I put it 
under agenda item 5, one of the key elements was our ability to engage and the atmosphere within 
which to do so. This was a core part of building trust and convergence. I look forward to the 
assistance of the Director -General as Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee through convening 
some session s post -summer break so that can begin to work on the issues and facilitate a greater 
understanding and find possible paths forward. In this context, those who have proposals, even if 
they are non -linear approaches, it would be good to bring them all forwar d.   
13.92.   The representative of Uganda  provided the following statement:  
13.93.   We align ourselves with the intervention made on behalf of the G90. When Uganda joined 
the WTO in 1995, special and differential treatment represented and still represents a form of relie f 
from the numerous obligations we undertook by signing onto the WTO agreements , which by far 
exceeded our capacity to implement them. Under  special and differential treatment , we saw and still 
see opportunities for market access through preferential rates for our exports and protection of our 
markets through non -reciprocity and meaningful technical assistance. The 2001 Doha ministerial 
Declaration in paragraph 44 mandates the re view of the special and differential treatment provisions 
across WTO Agreements with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective 
and operational. There are two critical questions Members should reflect upon : first, how can we 
facilitate development as opposed to who should benefit from what some may be willing to allow to 
enable development and second, whether special and differential treatment has indeed operated to 
transform economic inequalities into benefits of those for whom it  is intended. In considering these 
fundamental questions, we must not forget that free trade per se does not mean development, 
neither is it sufficient to ensure development in the absence of or with low levels of industrialization. 
The achievement of grea t strides in raising standards of living, increasing real income and expanding 
production and trade , does not also mean the attainment of developed status , thus  warranting the 
removal of flexibilities to allow further progress. The importance of special an d differential treatment 
is not limited to integrating into the global trading system , but also extends to facilitating the 
management of the "shocks " in dealing with that new environment , to avoid setbacks. We continue 
to call upon Members to meaningfully  engage and agree on the G90 proposals in the CTD -SS in the 
spirit of the paragraph 44 Doha mandate.  
13.94.   The representative of Fiji provided the following statement:  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 104 - 
 
  13.95.   Special and differential treatment remains an integral part of the WTO Agreements and it is 
important that it is safeguarded and strengthened , with the view to make it more precise, effective 
and operational in line with paragraph 44 of the D oha Ministerial Declaration. The disproportionate 
effects of the COVID -19 pandemic on small island economie s like Fiji, and the level of our resilience 
in view of other forces such as natural disasters  and the size of our economies , amongst others , 
requires a flexibility within the current WTO Agreements and future ones , to safeguard our interests. 
It is critical that Members take commitments that are commensurate with their level of development , 
taking into account the differences in our economic capacities. In our view , this submission  provides 
a balanced framework that  should assist small island developing states as Fiji to be able to integrate 
meaningfully into the multilateral trading system , in line with what it can offer to be able to build 
back better sustainably and to withstand future shocks. We urge Members to e ngage constructively 
and wholistically in the CTD -SS and in other forums. Technical assistance and capacity building , 
including transitional period s, do not sufficiently provide the developmental space needed for Fiji, 
and that Members need to declare the level of flexibilities they need under special and differential 
treatment . Fiji aligns itself with the ACP Group and the Pacific Group in this G90 declaration.  
13.96.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
14  PAPER TITLED "THE LEGAL STATUS OF 'JOINT STATEM ENT INITIATIVES' AND THEIR 
NEGOTIATED OUTCOMES" – REQUEST FROM INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA (WT/GC/W/819)  
14.1.   The Chair  recalled that t his item was on the agenda at the request of the delegations of India 
and South Africa and relate d to the Paper on "Legal Status of Joint Statement Initiatives and their 
Negotiated Outcomes", together with the communication in WT/GC/W/819. The item had been  first 
introduced during the March meeting and had also been taken up in May.  
14.2.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   
14.3.    The Tokyo Round Plurilateral Codes created a fragmented system of rules. While in respect 
of some Contracting Parties, the GATT rules were applicable , and in respect of other s, rules of the 
Plurilateral Codes were applicable. This created considerable complexity in determining which 
obligations were applicable in respect of which Contracting Party. Recognizing problems created by 
the fragmented system of trade rules, WTO Members sought an end to this problem. This has been 
clearly articulated in the following recitals of the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement : "[r]esolved, 
therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable multilateral trading system (…)" and 
"[d]etermined to preserve  the basic principles and to further the objectives underlying this 
multilateral trading system. " The reference to an integrated multilateral trading system clearly 
highlights the concerns of WTO Members arising from the fragmentation of the multilateral r ules on 
account of Tokyo Round Plurilateral Codes.  Going back to fragmented agreements would, therefore, 
be a step in the wrong direction and would be contrary to the determination and resolve enshrined 
in the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement.  
14.4.   As co-sponsor to this paper, we would also like to reiterate that we are not questioning the 
right of Members to meet and discuss any issue. What we are saying is that when such discussions 
turn into negotiatio ns and their outcomes are to be brought into the WTO r ule book, the fundamental 
rules of the WTO must be followed. Any attempt to introduce new rules, resulting from JSI 
negotiations, into the WTO without fulfilling the requirements of Articles IX and X of the Marrakesh 
Agreement , will create a precedent for any group of Members to bring any issue into the WTO without 
the required consensus , bypass the collective oversight of Members for bringing in any new rules or 
amendments to existing rules , and  usurp limited WTO resources available for multilateral 
negoti ations. Most importantly, such an approach will undermine the balance in agenda -setting and 
result in Members disregarding existing multilateral mandates , arrived at through consensus in 
favour of matters without multilateral mandates, leading to a margina lization or exclusion of issues 
which are difficult but critical, such as agriculture. In sum, our paper only states that basic 
fundamental principles and rules, of the rule-based multilateral trading system, as enshrined in the 
Marrakesh Agreement, should be followed by all Members, including the participants of various JSIs. 
In fact, our paper also lists out options available to JSI proponents for bringing in their negotiated 
outcomes in the WTO.   
14.5.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 105 - 
 
  14.6.   In the spirit of the frankness with which we are engaging with each other today, I think it is 
important for a number of us to reflect on what is going on with these important initiatives. We 
should also be very clear about what i s possible and realistic and what is essential and practical. We 
need to keep the rule -making function alive. We have all been working, as Brazil eloquently pointed 
out earlier, in a variety of multilateral, single  undertaking, all -in kind of exercise. Tha t has not 
enabled rulemaking to advance. It is important that we reflect on what is practical and what has 
been a tradition in this house for a very long time. Plurilateral initiatives can and must drive 
rulemaking and be part of strengthening the WTO's ar chitecture, strengthening the rulemaking 
function, modernizing the rulebook, and trying to assist with the task that this last conversation on 
the role of trade in development has just emphasized and is so important to this house.  
14.7.   In reacting to that pape r, I will just simply make a couple of points. First, there is clearly a 
need for the continuing drive in the rulemaking function, starting with the plurilaterals. It does not 
mean that we end there, but it is absolutely the way we have always driven rulem aking in this house. 
It is also important that it continues, as long as they are open, inclusive, and transparent. With 
respect to a number of the joint statement initiatives that are under way,  that is precisely the mode 
in which they are being pursued. O n the legal arguments, we do not agree with the arguments that 
consensus is required to launch plurilateral initiatives. In fact, as one potential possible legal pathway 
to collectively improve the commitments in Members' schedules, consensus is not requir ed to do 
that either. We are open to talk about these issues. We have done precisely that through the various 
discussions we held in our joint statement initiative meetings, for instance on e -commerce. We are 
very open to others contributing to those discu ssions. Just as recently as a month ago, as current 
chair of the MIKTA group, we were happy to host a panel on these issues that drew on expertise 
from all the MIKTA countries: Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Indonesia and Australia. It 
included all of the perspectives on this issue. I would encourage those who have not seen the webinar 
to do it as it is public available. We encourage all Members to participate in this thinking and all the 
plurilateral initiatives and absolutely to keep an open mind o n them.  
14.8.   The representative of Nigeria  provided the following statement:   
14.9.   We to refer to our statement on this issue delivered at the last G eneral Council meeting  and 
reiterate that we do not agree with the assertion that JSIs are likely to undermine the Multilateral 
Trading System. Plurilateral arrangements have always been critical building blocks of the MTS , even 
during the GATT era. We also believe that the vie ws expressed in the paper regarding the likely 
implication of introducing new JSI rules into the WTO due to perceived inconsistencies , are 
premature. We believe the JSIs are of critical importance if the WTO is to be responsive to the 
economic realities of  the 21st century. We therefore call on Members , especially developing countries 
who are not participating in the JSIs discussions , to join us so we can collectively shape the 
discussions and deliver a development -friendly outcome.  
14.10.   The representative of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement:   
14.11.   My delegation believes that the issue of legality of joint initiatives and their consistency with 
the WTO system is unquestionable. We strongly disagree with the view that JSIs undermine the 
multilate ral character of the WTO , that is in need of saving. On the contrary, by turning a blind eye 
to the current inert rules -making situation we are simply creating more risks. Conservation of 
problems will neither lead to their solution, nor increase the efficiency of the organization. Russia 
participates in JSIs with the aim to create new rules that meet the current needs and challenges of 
the global trading system in the 21st century, while respecting the multilateral principles of the 
organization. When ther e are areas in which many WTO Members are ready and willing to work, and 
the "benefits" of this work are to be applied on MFN terms, we consider it unfair to deprive those 
Members of the right to conduct such work.  
14.12.   The representative of Costa Rica  provide d the following statement:   
14.13.   I would like to focus my remarks on the negotiations on Services Domestic Regulation, as 
this is the initiative that I have the pleasure of coordinating. JSI participants have carefully 
considered the concerns expressed by India and South Africa, but disagree with the legal 
interpretations of these Members. I do not wish to repeat the legal arguments advan ced earlier as 
to why these negotiations, and the outcome they will produce, are firmly within the agreed 
framework of rules of the WTO. Let me just say that the group considers that there are no provisions WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 106 - 
 
  in the WTO Agreement that require consensus for a  group of Members to launch negotiations on 
topics of interest, such as Services Domestic Regulation. There is also no provision in the WTO 
Agreement or the GATS that requires consensus for a Member to introduce improvements to its 
Schedule of Specific Commitments under the GATS. And finally, Article XVIII of the GATS provides 
unambiguously that Members are entitled to incorporate commitments within the scope of this Article 
into their GATS Schedules.  
14.14.   At the May meeting of the General Council and today, it  was alleged that the WTO Agreement 
sought to end the earlier practice of Plurilateral Agreements under the Tokyo Round Codes, and it 
was cautioned that going back to Plurilateral Agreements would be a step in the wrong direction.  Let 
me say again that as far as the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation is concerned, 
participants are not aiming to create a new plurilateral agreement.  Rather, they are using the 
multilaterally designed flexibility that the GATS provides for Members to take on diffe rent levels of 
specific commitments, with regard to different sectors and measures, and within the context of 
existing rules.  Another argument that has been made is that the matters addressed by the Initiative 
fall under Part II of the GATS (General Obligations and Disciplines), which would prevent that they 
could be scheduled under Part III (Specific Commitments). It is not clear what the legal basis for 
this claim is, because Article XVIII - which is in Part III - refers explicitly to the same matters tha n 
Article VI:4 – licensing, qualifications and technical standards. Let me also note that this claim is 
also not borne out by the scheduling practice of more than 100 WTO Members whose additional 
commitments typically address matters for which baseline pro visions already exist in Part II of the 
GATS.  Mr Chairman, India and South Africa are expressing concern that the negotiations under the 
JSI would undermine the Article VI:4 mandate.  Let me recall that these same delegations asserted 
at the time of the W orking Programme on Domestic Regulation  negotiations in 2017 that the 
proposals on which the current disciplines negotiated in the JSI are based, were not falling under 
the Article VI:4 mandate because they addressed issues for which multilateral disciplines  were not 
"necessary", or covered issues that were outside the scope of the mandate, such as "transparency" 
and "authorizations". This latter point on authorizations was repeated just recently, at the Working 
Programme on Domestic Regulation  meeting on 30 June.  This argumentation exhibits a high degree 
of intellectual flexibility: I certainly am not able to reconcile how disciplines that could not be 
negotiated in the Working Programme on Domestic Regulation  because they were outside the 
Article  VI:4 mandat e, can now undermine or dilute the same mandate.   
14.15.   The high level of commitment to these negotiations by services trading Members is 
testament to the importance of this negotiation.  Above all, as we all know, enhancing transparency 
and predictability of regulatory frameworks to harness the potential of services trade is a crucial 
element of the post -COVID economic recovery. The positive economic effects of an outcome will 
spread to all WTO Members, as services suppliers from all Members – including non -participants - 
will benefit from the reduced trade costs that the negotiations will bring about.  Nonetheless, for JSI 
participants it is evident that the greatest benefits will come from each Member implementing the 
disciplines at home, the reby benefitting particularly their own small and medium sized services 
suppliers.  The Initiative remains open and transparent, and all Members are welcome to join the 
meetings and constructively engage with the participants to ensure that the outcome bene fits service 
suppliers across the world and includes as many Members as possible.  
14.16.   The representative of Tanzania  provided the following statement:   
14.17.   Regarding the tabled communication in document WT/GC/W/819/Rev .1, we would like to 
once again echo our views  shared in previous General Council meetings, that Joint Statement 
Initiatives (JSIs) are products of lack of consensus among members, of which some members decide 
to pursue in their own configuration outside WTO framework. In our view the outcomes to be 
achieved under JSI s, will remain binding only to the participating Members.  However, the United 
Republic of Tanzania has no intention to object other Members pursuing their interest through JSIs 
configurations. Nevertheless, it is critical to ensure negotiations under JSI arrangements abide to 
the WTO agreed procedures. Therefore, as a matter of principle, the General Council should clarify 
the nuances e merging from JSI configurations or they should follow the process of Article X (9) of 
the Marrakesh Agreement, in order to attain the legal status as WTO Plurilateral Agreements.   
14.18.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the followi ng statement:  
14.19.   The LDC Group has taken note of the request made by India and South Africa. We welcome 
the informal meeting organized by the co -authors of Joint Statement Initiatives and we have noted WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 107 - 
 
  that some of our Members have been attending or participa ting in these initiatives. We call on the 
General Council to share responses to the questions which have been raised as well as the path 
moving forward. The LDC Group wishes to reaffirm that all WTO negotiations need to adopt an 
effective and flexible appr oach, perhaps through the General Council. Particularly with regard to the 
fundamental principles of our organization which lay the groundwork for our commitments, these 
include the principles of consensus -based decision making, inclusivity, non -discrimina tion and 
special and differentiated treatment for LDCs and developing countries with capacity constraints. We 
took note that Australia pointed out the importance of looking at what is practical, realistic and 
pragmatic to achieve consensus -based outcomes. We share their point of view, but we would like to 
add that we must pay attention to one fact. We cannot claim that we are being realistic but not 
actually respond to the needs and expectations of Members , especially the most vulnerable 
Members.  
14.20.   The repres entative of Nepal  provided the following statement:   
14.21.   Our efforts and contributions should be towards safeguarding multilateralism and facilitating 
rules-based, predictable, transparent, and inclusive trade with a view to achieving broad objectives 
of the Marrakesh Agreement. My delegation respects the consen sus-based decision -making and 
consultation, discussion, and dialogues to achieve the WTO objectives. Any initiative of multilateral 
negotiation needs to bring all Members on board irrespective of the size of their economy and volume 
of trade. The n umber of  members outside the JSIs and the size of population they cover are also 
equally important and really matters. Furthermore, attending discussions on these JSIs occasionally 
without officially joining JSIs should not be taken as support from such Members. T herefore, Nepal 
is in favour of the paper and supports its essence, as it is consistent with the promotion and 
protection of the provision s and spirit of the Marrakesh Agreement. Finally, concluding mandated 
negotiations at the maximum possible level throu gh the upcoming Ministerial Conference should 
continue to remain our focus.  
14.22.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
14.23.   At previous General Council meetings where this submission was discussed, it was clear that 
a very larg e number of WTO Members are involved in plurilateral negotiations under the Joint 
Statement Initiatives and support such approaches, which can bring real benefits and ensure that 
the WTO continues to engage in matters of importance to its Members relevant to today’s trade 
challenges. For the sake of time, I will not reiterate the many arguments in favour of plurilaterals – 
nor the legal basis for plurilaterals within the WTO framework - but simply stress that maintaining 
the option of developing rules that respond to current economic and trade realities through 
plurilateral agreements is absolutely vital for the WTO’s relevance and credibility. Rejecting this 
option would condemn the WTO to irrelevance. We cannot stress this enough.   
14.24.   We also believe we should avoid having too legalistic a debate in this setting on the legal 
claims of this submission, many of which are simply not valid in our view, as we have pointed out in 
previous General Council meetings or in the Working Party on Domestic Regulation ( when it comes 
to the specific claims made against the Joint Statement Initiative on services domestic regulation). 
Just to point to two elements: First, nowhere in the WTO rulebook does it say that Members need a 
consensus to start exploratory talks and in deed negotiations on issues of shared interest, as the 
submission seems to suggest. The WTO rulebook provides for a number of options to give outcomes 
negotiated in such context legal effect, such as through scheduling of additional commitments in the 
individual Members ' schedules.  Secondly, the GATS in its Article XIX:4 specifically refers to the 
progressive liberalisation to be advanced through bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral negotiations. 
Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent with the GATS. We  are however, in favour of discussing this 
issue further with Members in a constructive and coordinated manner. As part of future work on how 
to improve the functioning of the WTO, we would favour having discussions on the relationship 
between the WTO arch itecture and plurilateral agreements.  The European Union favours an inclusive 
approach to open, plurilateral agreements that facilitates participation by developing countries and 
allows them to decide whether they wish to join the agreement, leaving the do or open for them to 
join in the future if they so wish. We hope that many Members will support our approach. We 
encourage more Members to join the ongoing Joint Statement Initiative negotiations, which provide 
an essential tool to moderni ze the WTO ruleboo k. 
14.25.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 108 - 
 
  14.26.   What strikes me is the importance of the Joint Initiatives to the credibility of the WTO. If we 
were to lose the J SIs then we would be all the poorer. We support the comments made by the 
European Union and recall our statements in previous meetings. The U nited Kingdom is a strong 
supporter of the Joint Initiatives, which have brought much needed energy and dynamism to the 
WTO. These plurilateral negotiations are enabli ng a significant proportion of the membership to make 
much needed progress on key areas, where new rules are urgently needed to demonstrate the 
organizations credibility in the 21st century global economy, in a way that is open and inclusive.  
14.27.   The representative of Turkey  provided the following statement:   
14.28.   We believe that this issue is crucial, not only for the future of the ongoing JSIs but also for 
the WTO as a whole. We all know for a fact that the ideal way for a rules -based system, concerning 
new and emerging issues , is through the multilateral decision -making. But, in order not to fall behind 
these improvements, the WTO needs additional instruments and different configurations to engage 
in negotiations among Members. Moreover, this is not a nov elty. We should not forget that the 
negotiations around certain topics have evolved differently and under diverse configurations 
throughout the negotiating history of this organization. With this respect, Turkey believes that 
discussions under JSIs, contri bute to the main objective of the WTO, as long as they continue to 
maintain their transparent and inclusive character and adhere to the fundamental principles of this 
organization. We are ready to engage in further discussions on how these agreements can b e 
integrated into the WTO acquis.  
14.29.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement:   
14.30.   We believe the JSIs will contribute to updating the WTO rulebooks and to ensuring the 
relevance of the WTO in the world today. Without the JSIs, the WTO risks  becoming less relevant 
and even losing its raison d’être as a cornerstone of the multilateral trading system (MTS). We 
should recall that a number of achievements made in the GATT or the WTO were initially taken up 
or discussed in the plurilateral initiat ives and they are later merged in this system. We believe the 
JSIs are legitimate and consistent with the WTO.  The JSI meetings are organized in an open, 
transparent and inclusive manner. While we need to take account of the convenience of respective 
Membe rs, including the size of the delegations , to organize the process, the fact that many WTO 
Members are participating in the JSIs and actively engaging in negotiations in a creative and 
innovative way clearly shows its importance and relevance. We have high  hopes that, with more 
Members ' participation, JSIs will achieve concrete outcomes at the time of MC12 and beyond. Japan 
will continue to work with other Members to deliver substantial outcomes in the JSIs.  
14.31.   The representative of Chile provided the following statement:  
14.32.   This morning's discussion on the previous item highlighted the importance of dialogue for 
gaining a better understanding of each another, avoiding suspicion and hearing what is actually 
being proposed. This is the only wa y for us to build trust.  The discussion on this item must follow 
such an approach if we wish to make progress. We want to have a constructive and positive 
conversation. As we said from the first day on which this paper was presented, the proponents are 
raising an important topic that must be discussed. However, it must be discussed with a view to 
seeking solutions, rather than rejecting them. Such dialogue cannot be based on unsubstantiated 
assertions. In this regard, there is no provision requiring consens us in order for a group of Members 
to initiate negotiations. All of the joint initiatives are fully consistent with the WTO legal framework. 
It is also incorrect that authorization from the rest of the Members or consensus is required if a 
Member wishes to  make improvements to its GATT or GATS Schedules as a result of the agreements 
reached in plurilateral initiatives. Two thirds of Members participate in at least one initiative. We 
cannot all be in the wrong.  
14.33.   The Joint Statement Initiatives are open, tran sparent and inclusive processes that respect 
the decision and rights of those Members that prefer not to join them. They are also a legitimate 
way of addressing many of the challenges presented by 21st century trade. Our alternative was 
multilateral negoti ations, which, while certainly preferred, do not work. It is vital to acknowledge 
this, rather than bury one's head in the sand. Seeking to deny Members the right to continue along 
this path with unsubstantiated arguments does not help us move forward. The  way to incorporate 
the outcomes of the Joint Initiative negotiations must be decided within each initiative when the 
negotiations reach sufficient maturity, as has been the case of Domestic Regulation in Services, WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 109 - 
 
  which was correctly explained by the coor dinator of this initiative, Jaime Coghi. In the short term, 
pragmatic solutions under the current WTO framework will be required for each joint initiative, and, 
in the long term, discussions for a permanent solution as part of the reform of the WTO will al so be 
needed. Lastly, as regards the Joint Initiative on Investment Facilitation for Development, I would 
like to recall that a first dedicated academic session was held at the end of May, which proved to be 
very useful to begin to explore the various lega l architecture options for a future agreement. During 
the second half of the year, we will hold a conceptual discussion among participants, to which all 
WTO Members will certainly be invited.  
14.34.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement:   
14.35.   Like many others, Korea is a strong believer in the legitimacy and usefulness of JSIs in the 
legal framework of the WTO. Under the current circumstances in the WTO, these initiatives, which 
are open to all Members, repre sent the most viable, practical path for updating the WTO rulebook 
in order for the WTO to remain relevant to the priorities of today. At the same time, my delegation 
thanks India, Namibia and South Africa for raising the issue of how negotiated JSI outcom es could 
be incorporated into the WTO legal architecture. It seems that a variety of possible procedures could 
be envisaged indeed.  This is why we have been supporting and encouraging efforts to explore options 
to this end. Such discussions have already ta ken place in the E -Commerce and Investment 
Facilitation JSIs and also in other fora such as the panel organized by MIKTA last month, as 
Ambassador Mina of Australia said this morning. Korea will continue to take part in advancing these 
discussions. Obvious ly, the procedures of incorporating plurilaterally negotiated outcomes are 
predicated, to varying degrees depending on the areas concerned, on cooperation with non -JSI 
Members. It is our hope that participation in the JSIs would be as broad and inclusive a s possible. 
It is the expectation of my delegation that at the end of the day, all Members will be supportive of 
the integration into the WTO rulebooks of the outcomes that are being negotiated in earnest by more 
than three quarters of its membership, incl uding small vulnerable economies and LDCs.  
14.36.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
14.37.   The United States believes that plurilateral negotiations at the WTO can be a useful means 
to advance issues of interest to Members and to  keep the WTO relevant. The various rigid positions 
expressed in this paper would seem to foreclose Members ' ability to pursue creative and flexible 
approaches at the WTO to the challenges of today and tomorrow. We do not view plurilateral 
negotiations and  outcomes as undermining multilateral ones. In fact, plurilateral initiatives can foster 
new ideas and approaches and build momentum toward multilateral outcomes. Just last week, the 
United States announced our intention to join the WTO Joint Statement Ini tiative on Services 
Domestic Regulation, and support conclusion of this initiative by MC12. We recognize the 
negotiations as an opportunity to improve the transparency and fairness of processes for obtaining 
licenses to provide services, for ours and other  Members ' service providers. The United States has 
long championed transparency and fairness of regulatory rules as a fundamental feature of good 
governance, and we view this JSI as an opportunity to strengthen such standards around the globe.  
14.38.   The represen tative of Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement:   
14.39.   We are of the view that the voluntary, open, transparent and inclusive nature of plurilateral 
approach of JSIs is a practical approach to update the WTO rules and to make the WTO a living 
organiza tion, without affecting non -participating Members' right and obligations. The voluntariness 
actually gives the non -participating Members a carve -out or a special and different treatment in their 
favour . The issues being negotiated make the WTO rules more i n response to what are happening 
in the real world. The Service s Domestic Regulation  JSI is to improve the market access commitment 
of the participating Members; the E -commerce JSI is to respond to the already prevalent digital 
trade at the minimal level; and the Investment Facilitation for Development JSI is to help Members 
to streamline their own investment procedures. They do not pose threat of any kind to non -
partic ipating WTO Members. Instead, these JSIs benefit all Members, including the non -participating 
Members.  
14.40.   If a plurilateral approach is not allowed at this stage, Members might have to wait for another 
quarter of century or even a longer time before the WTO rules can respond to the rapid development 
in the real world. Also, if the plurilateral approach is effectively excluded from the WTO, it is actually 
forcing Members to conduct the negotiations outside of the WTO. This is actually undermining the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 110 - 
 
  WTO. Ther e are pathways to integrate the results of the JSIs into the multilateral trading system to 
take into account the respective development stages and still maintain the existing rights and 
obligations of Members. We urge Members to discuss a workable way for ward, taking into account 
the respective development stages and maintaining the existing rights and obligations of Members.  
14.41.   The representative of Norway  provided the following statement:  
14.42.   We agree that seeking multilateral outcomes should always be our firs t priority. Initiatives 
by individual Members and groups of Members have, however, been a natural part of the 
development of the multilateral, rules -based trading system. There is nothing that impedes Members 
from working on and negotiate new rules in the WTO.  The Joint Statement Initiatives respond to 
Members ' ambitions to update our rule book by addressing issues of relevance in the 21st century. 
The current initiatives cover a variety of issues, and the format of the negotiated outcomes will be 
diverse, also in its legal architecture , and cannot therefore be predefined or prejudged. We are, 
however, of the opinion that a broader discussion on how we can more effectively make sure that 
plurilateral agreements are integrated into the multilateral system in the WTO, would benefit our 
work moving forward. This cou ld therefore be an element of the WTO reform discussion.  
14.43.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement:   
14.44.   Brazil believes that the WTO is in dire need of reform. This should come as a surprise to no 
one. In this regard, we need to use all of  the tools and procedures at our disposal to advance in 
pressing issues. This includes plurilateral processes, which — in turn — leads us to the consensus 
rule. We recognize that Members may want to move at different speeds on certain issues. This, 
however , cannot serve as a pretext to prevent other Members to advance negotiations on important 
and pressing issues of contemporary trade. As Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro stated - "the 
consensus rule cannot be transformed into a veto or an instrument of pe rpetual inaction". The same 
logic holds for the WTO. The consensus rule cannot be used as a tool to halt or to veto negotiations 
by those who do not want to move the multilateral trading system forward.  
14.45.   The representative of Singapore  provided the followin g statement:  
14.46.   First, we do not agree with the analysis in India's and South Africa's paper on the legal status 
of JSIs and their outcomes. Plurilateral initiatives are not new or unusual, in fact they have always 
been part of the multilateral trading system and plurilat eral negotiations have facilitated plenty of 
rulemaking in the WTO's history. An example is the Information Technology Agreement which India 
is a party to. The JSIs continue in this tradition, the consensus decision by the Ministerial Conference 
is not req uired to launch plurilateral negotiations under existing agreements. Second, we have 
valuable/variable options for JSI outcomes to be legitimately integrated into the WTO framework, 
for example, the participants of the JSI on Services D omestic Regulations have agreed to capture 
their outcomes as improvements to their GATS Schedules. For the other JSIs, including the one on 
e-commerce, participants are still discussing the options. The choice will depend on the substance 
of the commitments eventually agreed upon. In this regard, we should not prematurely frustrate 
efforts in trade liberalization, the modernization of trade rules or the removal of trade barriers. That 
would be contrary to the WTO's raison d'être. Third, we should recall D r Ngozi's call last we ek to 
operate with the end objective, which is to engage, negotiate and deliver. I am heartened that the 
large majority of WTO Members participate in at least one JSI. This shows that the JSIs are open, 
transparent and inclusive and more importantly, most WTO Members are aligned to the objective of 
delivering meaningful quality outcomes for the people we serve. As one of the co -conveners of the 
JSI on E-commerce with Australia and Japan, we hope that Members who have yet to join the JSIs 
will consider comin g on board and collaborate with other Members to advance the goals of the WTO. 
In conclusion, we must keep up the momentum on our JSI negotiations and not allow divisive 
debates to slow ourselves, as responsible WTO Members, we have to move forward constru ctively 
to bridge our differences and work together to strengthen the WTO.  
14.47.   The representative of New Zealand  provided the following statement:   
14.48.   New Zealand is pleased to participate in the JSI processes launched by Ministers in Buenos 
Aires. We note that t he various JSIs are aiming for different outcomes, tailored to the nature and 
substance of the topic under discussion, and bring together participants representing both developed 
and developing Members, a range of regions, and different sized economies. Ne w Zealand supports WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 111 - 
 
  the JSIs aiming for a pathway to multilateralization over time. Accordingly, in all cases, N ew Zealand  
supports participation being open to all WTO Members, and is willing to discuss how to broaden 
current participation in each context. We are pleased that these conversations have taken and 
continue to take place. We are aware that full participation may not be possible at the outset, for a 
range of reasons, but it should not prevent groups of Members from moving ahead, nor preclude 
Membe rs from joining the JSIs at a later date. It is New Zealand 's expectation and experience that 
JSIs operate transparent, open and inclusive approaches to negotiations, ensuring the widest 
participation possible. This includes practical steps like ensuring a ccess to meetings and papers. We 
continue to invite all Members to consider joining the range of JSIs taking place.  
14.49.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
14.50.   This paper has raises pertinent questions on an element which is of a fundamental nature 
for this organization. Notwithstanding the content or topic of any of the JSI 's, potentially, they pose 
a serious challenge to the consensus -based decision -making principle of the multilateral system. We 
recognize that some Members wish to advance certain discussions. At the same time, a large number 
of other Members consider some of the subjects as unrelated or premature for negotiations, and 
also wish to address other issues such as those pending for decades. However, consensus lies at the 
core of this multilateral institution. It means taking everyone along, regardless of their background. 
This has been a hallmark of multilateralism in this organization and has differentiated it from other 
institutions. Compromising this principle wi ll strike at the very heart of what we stand for. Or, as 
pointed out by some others , we reach some common understanding going forward. But just on one 
point being made a number of times here, that the present JSIs under discussion reiterate that they 
are open, transparent and inclusive. This per se is no qualification, since every activity at the WTO 
is by definition supposed to be open, transparent and inclusive. However, moving without consensus 
does not qualify as inclusivity. Negotiating an agreement th at others do not wish to engage in, 
without a consensual mandate , does not qualify as openness. For non -multilateral negotiations, 
developing and smaller countries will be at a loss in terms of negotiating coalitions and defending 
their interests. We, ther efore, see the questions posed in this paper as pertinent and look forward 
to discussing this aspect, particularly with reference to upholding the fundamental pillars of this 
system.  
14.51.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement:   
14.52.   As stated in previous General Council meetings, Switzerland does not share the views 
expressed in the document presented . Plurilaterals are an integral part of the WTO and its 
predecessor GATT system. We reiterate that initiatives emanating from joint declarat ions are an 
appropriate instrument to develop the trading system and strengthen the negotiating function of the 
WTO, thus enabling the organi zation to meet the challenges of the contemporary economy. Let me 
conclude by stressing that Joint Statement Initiatives do not affect the obligations of non -
participating Members, and in many cases these initiatives will extend the latter's new rights under 
the MFN clause.  
14.53.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement:   
14.54.   Indonesia holds that the ambition and urge to generate a particular discipline within the 
WTO must be in line with the rules agreed by all of us at the very beginning of this organization. As 
an organization based on a rules -based system , failure to follow these rules will not onl y jeopardize 
the legitimacy of the agreed rules but also the organization as a whole. Therefore, Indonesia is 
looking for ward to  the discussion on how the JSI s will be integrated into the WTO system , to give 
the same level of comfort for all Members who ar e engaged as well as who are not engaged in the 
negotiations.  
14.55.   The representative of Thailand  provided the following  statement:   
14.56.   We believe that a plurilateral discussion would be a good way to address current issues in 
the global economy. Without the abili ty or flexibility to hold a plurilateral discussion, the WTO will 
be stuck with all of the traditional issues that have been ongoing for the past 20 years.  It is one 
good way to keep the WTO relevant in the future, which will greatly benefit especially dev eloping 
countries and LDCs. Therefore, we would like to invite Members to share views and thoughts and 
not be confined by theoretical issues about the format of discussion.  We believe that a plurilateral WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 112 - 
 
  discussion is always a good option for the WTO to pr oceed. For Thailand, we are not participating in 
all JSIs, but we chose to fully participate in two JSIs and observe others, in which we benefit from 
hearing the views of Members. While we recognize the limitations of small delegations, we should 
look at the JSIs discussion in a favo urable manner and try to be a part of it as much as we can. 
Thailand also supports the legal interpretation of the E uropean Union on this matter.  
14.57.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  provided the following statement:   
14.58.   At the  General Council meetings held in March and May, Hong Kong, China already expressed 
our views on the issues raised in the communication on the legal status of JSIs. We would just 
reiterate our view that these JSIs will help moderni ze and strengthen the mul tilateral trading system 
and demonstrate that the WTO is capable of handling new trade topics in response to the latest 
developments in the global trading environment. Since the General Council meeting in March, several 
seminars and discussions focussing o n the issues of JSIs' legal structure have been organi zed by 
Members and the WTO Secretariat to facilitate informed discussions with experts, academics and 
experienced diplomats in the relevant areas. I would like to share with Members briefly some of the 
key points highlighted at these discussions. First, plurilateral discussions have all along been a part 
of the WTO framework. Second, multiple pathways exist for incorporating these initiatives into the 
WTO framework. Third, some of these pathways require consensus of the whole membership, 
whereas others rely on the prerogative of individual Members to improve their commitments 
unilaterally under the relevant WTO agreements. All of these pathways are consistent with the WTO 
framework. We therefore cannot ag ree with the proponents of this agenda item that the outcome of 
the JSIs would diminish or affect the existing rights and obligations of Members under the WTO 
Agreements, including those of non -participants of the JSIs. Hong Kong, China continues to 
encour age all interested Members to join the discussions on the JSIs so that their views could be 
taken into account fully and accurately.  
14.59.   The representative of Israel  provided the following statement:   
14.60.   In light of the discussion that has been developed, and since this is an important issue for 
us, we wish to place our position on record. Israel has always  been a strong supporter of the 
multilateral trading system. As an open and relatively small economy, Israel tries to further develop 
its inte rnational trade and economic collaboration with countries around the world on the basis of 
the multilateral trading system and the WTO rules. Therefore, we recognize the importance of 
supporting a well -functioning WTO, including taking up negotiations with in its rules -based  
framework. We note, however, that WTO Members have not managed in recent years, except in a 
few cases, to achieve the negotiated outcomes expected by the ever -changing international trade 
landscape. The plurilateral route has been able t o partially fill in some of the gaps and complement 
it. Of course, plurilateral agreements or JSIs should not replace multilateral negotiations. We prefer 
the latter, but plurilaterals do offer a complementary route that can deliver tangible results in new  
areas. Israel will continue to participate in all multilateral trade negotiations and similarly in 
plurilateral negotiations in which it has specific trade interests. We see both routes as viable and 
complementary of the rulemaking function of the WTO.  
14.61.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement:  
14.62.   There was a seminar where this was discussed in detail and various experts on legal issues 
and WTO architecture were invited to speak. It was clear that we can find common ground  on JSIs. 
The sem inar is available online and I think it might be relevant for interested parties to take a look 
at it. Mexico has already spoken on this topic in the past and I don’t want to repeat our prior 
comments , namely that we are in favour of JSIs and them being pa rt of the WTO architecture. I 
would like to point out that negotiations on these initiatives are moving forward and they will help 
to underscore the relevance of this organization, they will help to improve the business environment 
worldwide and lead to mo re jobs and investment. The E-commerce JSI is trying to put in place rules 
for an industry that has been swiftly growing faster than regulations  - if the WTO does not regulate 
this, somebody else will , and that is what happening in bilateral and regional negotiations. In light 
of this, wrapping up these negotiations would again reaffirm this organization's relevance. I also 
welcome this discussion but would like to point out the following, we can't get wrapped up in legal 
arguments, we need to foc us on the relevance of the organization and strengthening international 
trade, I think all Members participating in these negotiations would never want to hamper anyone 
who has decided not to participate in this round of negotiations.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 113 - 
 
  14.63.   The representative of Sri Lanka  provided the following statement:   
14.64.   The JSI proponents believe that JSIs seem to be the most feasible way forward to circumvent 
the existing negotiating deadlock at the WTO. But the proponents are trying to implement the 
outcomes of negotiations through modifications of schedules , which  is limited to the legal scope of 
those schedules , that is  tariff concessions for the GATT and sector specific commitment on services 
in the GATS. That mechanism does not allow the further adoption of general rules in schedules. 
General rules belong to the appropriate part in the text of the relevant agreement and subject to 
the process for amendment set out in the Marrakesh Agreement. We also note that the proponents 
have two preferred options to introduce JSIs in t he current WTO system, that is again a division 
among developing and developed countries. Developing countries believe that it may be through 
regional trade agreements, and developed countries believe it should be through an amendment of 
the Member 's sched ule, most likely to be in the area of services preferred by developed countries. 
These divisions and difference s in opinion demonstrate that there are a lot of systemic issues that 
are to be addressed by the proponents. When we look carefully at the propos als before them going 
beyond the modifications of existing schedules. Similarly, there are many legal flaws that have been 
flagged in the joint proposal by India and South Africa. We therefore request the proponents to 
seriously study the concerns expresse d therein and initiate a process to genuinely engage with other 
Members . 
14.65.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement:   
14.66.   The Philippines is a willing and active participant in most JSIs. We believe that the JSIs are 
a hugely positive contribution to the multilateral trading system even if their pursuit, and their 
eventual implementation, is not shared universally by the membership. For us, and many other 
Members, JSIs serve to deepen tra de relations among us, they serve to clarify rules that bind us 
more strongly, and more importantly, they respond to the policy exigencies of modern -day global 
trade, such as our advocacy on the importance of integrating MSMEs into the global trading syste m. 
14.67.   The provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement are, indeed, clear and undisputable. I believe 
no one questions Article X of Marrakesh. We understand the institutional and legal questions raised 
in WT/GC/W/819 and they are not the same questions for each of t he JSIs, as the legal questions 
and issues may vary in relevance and importance,  depending on the level and nature of 
commitments being envisioned in the particular JSI discussions being conducted.  
14.68.   For this reason, we ask the proponents to engage in a dialogue with JSI participants to 
address the institutional and legal issues in such a way as would permit the laudable objectives and 
outcomes envisioned in the Member -driven initiatives to produce results that will benefit the  global 
economy and the whole WT O membership in accordance with the preamble and the  covered 
agreements and texts of the Marrakesh agreement.  
14.69.   The representative of Viet Nam  provided the following statement:  
14.70.   JSIs have provided additional dynamism to the discussions for rulemaking at the W TO. We 
share the view that the legal status of the JSIs in the WTO system should be explored as much as 
possible to give some level of control to the membership  and to share their considerations on the 
legal pathway to incorporate the respective JSI into t he multilateral system. We also suggest 
considering  the implications of JSI discussions , including various aspects of the organization and 
operation of the WTO , such as on existing negotiation mandates and resource constraints of the 
WTO Secretariat  and of  WTO Members , especially developing and least developed countries.  
14.71.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement:   
14.72.   My delegation supports and has been participating in most JSIs, we believe that we can 
make progress on topics of interest to many Members in various formats although we do prefer 
multilateral options. We like to see this opportunity to avoid the narratives that these initiatives are 
debated between developed and developing countries as noted by Chile's Ambassador, al most two 
thirds of Members are participating in at least one of these initiatives. Continuing to argue that some 
developing Members and other developed Members have been participating in these debates on 
unequal footing would imply that we are questioning the development of Members. As a result of 
this I would suggest that we avoid such narratives.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 114 - 
 
  14.73.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
14.74.   We recall our previous statements made in this regard. We wish to emphasize that the WTO 
was established as the forum governing multilateral trade relations. Our fundamental interest in 
submitting this paper is thus aimed at reminding ourselves of the legal architecture that governs the 
functioning of the WTO and to highlight the systemic impo rtance of preserving its multilateral 
character, including the underpinning principles that should inform the incorporation of new rules in 
the WTO legal framework.  We note with concern that the organi zation is now hovering towards 
becoming a two -tiered institution ignoring the commitments and payment extracted from developing 
and least developed countries during the Uruguay Round. Yet today the issues of importance to 
developing countries remain outstan ding. These are issues which are critical to an inclusive agenda 
that is capable of addressing the core needs of its poorest Members and thereby contributing to the 
achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.  
14.75.   JSIs do introduce new systemic and  developmental challenges that the membership must 
reflect on  the implications for  decision -making in the WTO and what the impact is on the core 
principles of the WTO. Of concern are implications for existing multilateral mandates arrived at 
through consen sus in favour of matters without multilateral mandates , including the marginalisation 
of issues which are difficult but yet critical for the multilateral trading system, such as agriculture  
and development, thereby undermining balance in agenda setting, ne gotiating processes and 
outcomes.  There is a difference between sectoral negotiations that change schedules v ersus rules. 
A procedure for amending rules is enshrined in Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement. On the other 
hand, the GATT and GATS contain spec ific provisions for modifications of Schedules. It is therefore 
important to respect this difference.  We want to emphasise that there is a difference between 
item 13 and 14  - one is a mandated issue and the other one is not. Under item  13 we are asking for  
implementation of an issue with an agreed Ministerial mandate.  We agree with Korea and Philippines 
that each of the recent JSIs is likely to pose different legal challenges to existing WTO rules and 
mandates, given the differences in the nature and scope of issues covered under each of these 
initiatives and we raise this point in our submission.  The question the Members need to ask 
themselves is:  can any group of Members come up with an idea and bring it into the WTO under a 
JSI and what does that mean for  the multilateral character of the WTO? Will this not fragment the 
multilateral trading system ? What lessons can be drawn from the GATT and the predictability of rules 
when you have different rules applying to different Members? How and whether Members can  bring 
new rules not agreed by consensus into the WTO without following the processes and provisions 
entailed in the Marrakesh Agreement? What are the implications of JSIs in addressing issues that 
have a multilateral mandate, thus subverting the multilate ral directives? What does this mean for 
the membership and the Secretariat?   
14.76.   We would like to reiterate that we do not question the right for any group of Members to 
discuss any issue informally, but where such discussions turn into negotiations, and their  outcomes 
are sought to be formalized into the WTO framework, this can only be done in accordance with the 
rules set out in the Marrakesh Agreement. We have adopted a constructive posture by outlining in 
the Paper the options that Members can consider in bringing new rules into the WTO , which must 
be preserved. In addition, it is not about the number of Members that participate in a specific 
initiative , but our paper is about the legal provisions that underpin the functioning of the WTO that 
must be respected. It is about raising pertinent issues that the membership must grapple with.  The 
legal questions are important in a rules-based  system and we encourage the membership to engage 
on these legal and systemic questions as they stand to create i ssues going forward.  It is good to 
hear that the JSIs are also looking at the issues of the legal architecture and we believe that we 
need to deepen the multilateral discussion on these issues is not only timely but important as others 
have said.  
14.77.   The repre sentative of Argentina  provided the following statement:  
14.78.   Argentina is constructively engaged in the structured dialogues on various topics that 
represent certain challenges to modernizing WTO rules, such as the Joint Initiatives on Electronic 
Commerce, th e Integration of SMEs into International Trade, Investment Facilitation, and Services 
Domestic Regulation. However, Argentina considers that the methodology of structured dialogues 
cannot become a systematic negotiating practice in the multilateral trading system. Plurilateral 
discussions should be the exception rather than the rule. Argentina advocates a multilateral system 
based on a broad, transparent and inclusive discussion with the consensus of all WTO members.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 115 - 
 
  14.79.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement:  
14.80.   We would like to reiterate our support for and commitment  to the discussions that are taking 
place in the various Joint Initiatives on E-commerce, Investment Facilitation for Development, 
Services Domestic Regulation and MSMEs.  Our position on the discussion paper is well known, and 
we would simply like to reiterate our statement made under the same agenda item at the previous 
regular session of 1 -2 March 2021.  
14.81.   The representative of the Kingdom  of Saudi Arabia  provided the following statement:  
14.82.   We thank the proponents for their proposal in highlighting the correlation between 
plurilateral and Multilateral agreements within the WTO system. At the same time, we would like to 
underline the importan ce of the various JSIs that address important issues for developed and 
developing countries that are of interest to their economies, including, E -commerce, Investment 
Facilitation, Micro, Small and Medium -Sized Enterprises as well as Services Domestic Regu lation. We 
hope to achieve concrete outcomes in these areas by MC12 that would not undermine our 
multilateral mandate. Finally, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands ready to work constructively with 
WTO Members towards achieving meaningful outcomes in these areas at MC12.  
14.83.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:  
14.84.   My delegation aligns with the statement of Chad on behalf of the LDCs and also thanks India 
and South Africa for this submission (WT/GC/W/819/R ev.1). Bangladesh is a strong supporter of 
multilateralism and is of the view that multilateralism should be the main principle of the WTO.  The 
questions and concerns raised in the communication are important and demand deeper discussion 
involving all WTO Members. Our capital is currently examining this communication.    
14.85.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
15  PROPOSED GENERAL COUNCIL  DECISION ON PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE 
TRANSPARENCY AND STRENGTHEN NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER WTO 
AGREEMENTS – ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHILE; COSTA RICA; THE EUROPEAN 
UNION; ISRAEL; JAPAN; NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; SINGAPORE; SWITZERLAND; THE 
SEPARATE CU STOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; UNITED 
KINGDOM; AND THE UNITED STATES (JOB/GC/204/REV.6 - JOB/CTG/14/REV.6)  
15.1.   The Chair recalled that t his item was included in the agenda of the General Council by the 
United States, together with the com munication in document JOB/GC/204/Rev.6 – 
JOB/CTG/14/Rev.6 ; and that the proposal ha d been discussed in the Goods Council.  
15.2.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
15.3.   Today we are bringing to the General Council a reform proposal intended to support 
meaningful and successful negotiations at the WTO. That proposal, as found in JOB/GC /204/Rev.6  
and JOB/CTG/14/R ev.6, seeks to enhance transparency and improve Members ' ability to comply 
with notifications. The proposal h as substantial support from nearly one -third of the membership.   
15.4.   We are bringing this proposal to the General Council because the General Council has  the 
responsibility for the overall functioning of the WTO and the WTO Agreements and Understandings 
covere d by the proposal. The Council has a duty to ensure that the WTO remains true to the central 
principle of transparency, which is foundational for a predictable and stable global trading 
environment.  At its core, this proposal is an effort to respond to the  needs of Members while enabling 
the WTO to function effectively. As we well know, the WTO cannot remain static if we wish it to 
continue championing smooth, predictable and free trade. Challenges must be addressed, and this 
proposal is an opportunity to d o so. From a systemic perspective, the information that Members 
should provide through existing notification obligations is necessary to improve the operation of 
various WTO agreements, Members ' monitoring work in WTO committees, and Members ' ability to 
negotiate meaningful agreements.  
15.5.   It has been almost two decades since the General Council tasked the Working Group on 
Notification Obligations and Procedures to review Members ' notification obligations and recommend WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 116 - 
 
  changes. The Working Group has essentially  been dormant since then, while new Members have 
joined the WTO and the organization has undergone a number of changes.  In the process of 
preparing this proposal, the co -sponsors have reached out to a broad range of Members to 
understand their needs and pe rspectives on how to improve notification capabilities. These 
conversations resulted in many constructive suggestions for actions and process improvements to 
notification procedures, which feature in the current version of the proposal.  
15.6.   I encourage those M embers who have not reviewed the proposal for some time to take a 
moment to do so. It does not seek to expand Members ' existing notification obligations or increase 
notification requirements in any way. The objective is to find ways to enable Members to me et 
existing commitments, which has benefits for the entire WTO Membership.  To be clear, the goal of 
the proposal is not to penalize Members – we know that Members are making best efforts to submit 
complete notifications on time. Rather, this proposal is an  effort to address notifications -related 
challenges at their root and help Members get the assistance they need, for the better functioning 
of the WTO as a whole.  
15.7.   We recognize that some Members face resource and capacity constraints and other challenges 
that hinder their ability to prepare and submit notifications in a timely manner. That 's why the 
proposal includes options for consideration by the Working Group, which is open to all Members, 
that would regularize online resources and support to Members bot h in Geneva and in capital , as 
officials work to prepare and submit notifications.   
15.8.   The proposal also contains a number of opportunities for Members to seek specific technical 
assistance and capacity building support to enable them to submit notifications – and to build their 
capabilities to do so moving forward. These provisions are designed to address capacity gaps and 
domestic coordination challenges as identified in past discussion of the proposal in the Council for 
Trade in Goods.  And, in  another effort to account for the development dimension, the proposal 
exempts LDCs from any administrative measures, provided that a Member seeks assistance and 
support for notification -related capacity building.  
15.9.   We welcome all opportunities to meet with Members to discuss the proposal in greater detail, 
and we are greatly appreciative of Members ' support for this initiative to reinforce transparency as 
a core principle for the effective functioning of the WTO.  
15.10.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement:   
15.11.   Transparency plays a key role in creating and maintaining a stable and predictable 
environment for trade. Following the outbreak of COVID -19, it becomes all the more important , as 
exceptional measures are being take n in a number of Members to deal with the pandemic. My 
delegation highly values this revised proposal in that it strives for a right balance between the need 
for enhanced notifications and the burden of fulfilling that obligation. In particular, the recent  version 
scraps the idea of punitive measures, which was the main obstacle to gaining support from certain 
Members. I am pleased to announce Korea' s intention to co -sponsor this proposal.  
15.12.   The representative of Norway  provided the following statement:   
15.13.   Transparency is fundamental to the WTO, both as a basis for an effective monitoring 
function, as well as a basis for negotiating new rules. Norway would like to thank the proponents of 
this proposal for having listened to concerns raised by other Members, including Norway, in relation 
to earlier versions. After the element of financial sanction was dropped from the proposal, Norway 
is delighted to be counted among the co -sponsors. We urge other Members to support the proposal , 
as we believe that this will c ontribute to strengthening the foundation of the rules -based trading 
system anchored in the WTO.  
15.14.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement:   
15.15.   My delegation would like to thank the United States for its leadership in initiating th e reform 
and advocating this important proposal in the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) over the past three 
years. We welcome the proposal being brought to the General Council for the first time. We firmly 
believe that it should be a crucial outcome that c ontributes to the work of WTO reform at MC12. We 
are very encouraged that the latest revision, discussed at the earlier July CTG meeting, received a WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 117 - 
 
  range of positive responses and constructive feedback from many Members. Members should have 
noted that the  latest version has included significant changes that reflect comments heard in the 
previous discussion and different formats of outreach. While enhancing transparency and improving 
the operation and effectiveness of notification requirements continue to b e the common objective, 
we are of the view that this updated version now strikes a better balance between the notification 
obligation and the incentive for improving compliance in facing genuine capacity constraints. We 
therefore urge all Members to attach  greater attention to the positive effect this proposal intends to 
achieve and to work collectively to develop a meaningful discipline on notification s that would 
improve the fundamental function of the WTO.  
15.16.   The representative of Canada  provided the follow ing statement:   
15.17.   In reading through past interventions by Members on this proposal in the Council for Trade 
in Goods, three common threads appear to Canada. First, there is a universal recognition that 
compliance with notification requirements is an essenti al element in the context of Members 
discharging their WTO obligations. Only in this way can we provide other Members with the 
information and clarity on our laws and regulations, facts and figures, as well as the measures 
impacting upon international trad e. Second, that the first step should be a comprehensive review of 
notification requirements, in order to make an effort to understand the difficulties facing developing 
Members. Based on that review, updates to the notification requirements could then be considered, 
and more focussed technical assistance and capacity building could be provided to those Members 
that have fallen behind. And third, there were many voices objecting to the imposition of a financial 
penalty if non -compliance continued to exist. In reading through this substantially revised proposal, 
you will see clearly that these comments have been heard and incorporated. All that is left is for us 
now is to approve the proposal and activate the Working Group on Notification Obligations and 
Procedures to begin its efforts to support provision of that information and clarity all Members want.  
15.18.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement:   
15.19.   Uruguay thanks the co -sponsors for the presentation of the sixth revision of this proposal, 
as well as the explanations provided on the changes made to it. My delegation would like to 
acknowledge the improvements contained in the proposal with respect to  earlier versions, in 
particular the withdrawal of monetary sanctions from the list of Phase 2 Administrative Measures, 
and the removal of the explicitly unequal treatment for DS:1 notifications in agriculture.  Uruguay 
has conveyed to the proponents its views on some points where it considers that further work and 
additional adjustments m ight be required to have a proposal with the appropriate balance and tone 
for reaching consensus at the multilateral level.  An innovative element is that this week some 
Members presented JOB/AG/213 containing a proposal on transparency in agriculture for d iscussion 
in the CoA  SS. We note that the co -sponsors of this proposal are also the co -sponsors of 
JOB/GC/204/Rev.6, and we have some concerns as to how the mandate for review and updating of 
G/AG/2 and the administrative sanctions in the general proposal would interact with the proposal in 
JOB/AG/213 to provide a standard 12 -month period for all Members except LDCs, regardless of 
whether or not they have AMS entitlements.  Uruguay hopes to continue constructive exchanges on 
this topic not only with the prop onents but also with the rest of the membership, with a view to 
achieving concrete and balanced results to achieve a genuine improvement in transparency at the 
WTO, ensuring compliance by all Members with their respective notification commitments.  
15.20.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   
15.21.   As others have said, transparency lies right at the heart of this organi zation and I would like 
to salute the United States for the leadership role they have made on this initiative and really 
welcome the new co -sponsors who have joined up to it. As our Canadian and US colleagues have 
said, we have made a real effort to try and  listen to the comments of others before bringing this 
initiative to the General Council, in particular as was said, to consider the capacity constraints that 
some LDCs fair. I would appeal to others across this organi zation to join this initiative and we really 
look forward to taking it forward and put into practice. I think it can really aid us, as so many 
delegations have expressed in the last day or so. Increased transparency, as a means of increasing 
the trust which we need to build within this organiz ation.   
15.22.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 118 - 
 
  15.23.   We thank the proponents for updating and presenting this new version of the document. 
Overall, we support the changes, which we believe are a step in the right direction. In particular , we 
would like to welcome the changes with respect to differentiation in notifications and the elimination 
of financial penalties.  However, while we agree that there is a need to examine formats and other 
tools to improve the notification processes, we st ill have concerns about the manner in which the 
revision of document G/AG/2 has been presented, as we believe that the language used in the 
current version could prejudge its outcome.  We urge the proponents to continue to listen to the 
suggestions and conc erns of the Members, particularly with regard to agricultural notifications which 
could, at least for my delegation, enable it to co -sponsor this document.  Hopefully, the work will 
continue in such a way as to steer this proposal towards reaching consensus  among the Membership.  
15.24.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement:   
15.25.   The African Group wishes to re -iterate its position on this item as expressed in previous 
discussions and General Council meetings.  It is not sensible to impose punitive administrative 
measures and financial penalties against Members that fall behind in their notification obligations.  
Such measures, rather than assisting the concerned Members , would rather further exacerbate their 
situations.  Members would need to acknowledge  that technical assistance alone cannot be the 
solution to notification problems. Rather than proposing punitive measures, there should rather be 
a comprehensive assessment of the reasons why countries lag  in their notification obligations.  Many 
developing countries are unable to comply with their notification obligations due to the technical 
complexity of the notifications and institutional and capacity constraints.  
15.26.   The African Group is also concerned on t he proposal on "counter -notifications ". Innovative 
at it may sound, such practice would rather generate new sources of conflict amongst Members and 
not necessarily assist in strengthening the multilateral trading system.  
15.27.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement:   
15.28.   We thank the United States for its introductory remarks and for this substantially revised 
version of the proposal. After the financial penalty was removed from the proposal, Switzerland 
decided to join the co -sponsors. Our decision was communicated at the last Council on Trade in 
Goods on 8 July this year. The latest amendments to the proposal demonstrate the willingness of 
the co -sponsors to take into account the concerns expressed by Members in order to fost er 
consensus in this important area of transparency. We wish to recall that compliance with our 
notification obligations is a prerequisite for effective monitoring of our respective trade policies, a 
key pillar of the WTO. Today, there is room to improve t he rate of compliance with notification 
obligations. In line with this objective, the present proposal provides a pragmatic and effective 
mechanism. Improving transparency in a broad sense would also contribute to restoring confidence 
among Members.  
15.29.   The representative of China  provided the following statement:  
15.30.   We thank the proponents for updating this proposal. We note that a number of changes have 
been introduced and the financial penalties have been removed. We welcome this positive 
improvement. Transpar ency is important to the proper functioning of the multilateral trading system. 
We also see the importance of improving the compliance with notification obligations. However, 
China is of the view that the proposal should enhance transparency and strengthen  notification 
requirements not only in goods, but also in service and intellectual property sectors. We should 
provide incentives to support Members ' efforts to meet its notification obligations, rather than take 
a punitive approach depriving Members ' legitimate rights as a WTO Member. We look forward to 
continuing discussions with proponents on this proposal.  
15.31.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement:   
15.32.   We strongly support this proposal. We want to thank the U nited States for its leadership in 
tabling it and we see the growing support for it because of the move away from disincentives to 
incentives. Given the importance of this issue for the multilateral rules -based system, and given – 
as the U nited States said – the simpl e means by which we can improve compliance with our 
notification obligations , rather than change the notification obligations, we urge others to consider WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 119 - 
 
  joining the proposal. We heard the comments from Mauritius and others today about their concerns 
on elements of the proposal and the burdens. If I can just point to Mauritius elements of the proposal 
that allow for an explanation on delay, it is precisely this sort of call for flexibility that was being 
asked for. We look forward to working with others to make sure that this is a significant contribution 
to the MC12 agenda.  
15.33.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
15.34.   As mentioned by the United States, the proposal has changed  over time and the latest 
revision of June is an honest attempt to address the concerns that have been raised by Members. 
Improving on notifications will admittedly require efforts from all Members. Co -sponsors are willing 
to do their part too - all notifi cations are now subject to the same treatment.  This revision also lays 
more emphasis on improving the existing tools at our disposal, as well as technical assistance and 
capacity building. It takes account of the particular constraints of L DCs by exempting  them from 
administrative measures if they request assistance.  We believe this revised proposal provides a solid 
basis for further engagement with Members in view of reaching agreement for an outcome at MC12. 
If concerns remain, we encourage Members to com e up with concrete ideas and suggestions that 
would effectively support Members ' efforts to improve in the crucial area that is transparency.  
15.35.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement:   
15.36.   Japan thanks the United States for its introduction  of the proposal. We appreciate the 
collective effort by all the co -sponsors, as well as the constructive engagement of other Members 
with this proposal. I would like to highlight two important points. First, this proposal does not create 
any new obligatio ns. Its aim is to improve the current situation surrounding notification requirements 
and the level of compliance, which is essential for the proper functioning of the WTO , and is 
accordingly sought by many Members. Second, enhancing transparency is one of  the important 
pillars of the WTO reform. In order to achieve this goal, Japan, together with the other co -sponsors, 
has worked hard to make our proposal better reflect feedback from Members shared at the CTG and 
gathered through outreach efforts. We thank  all Members for the various comments and feedback 
they have provided to date.  Through this process, we are confident that the proposal has become 
more inclusive and balanced, especially in terms of addressing developing countries ' difficulties. 
Towards MC12, we hope to see consensus on this proposal to show our readiness and capability to 
reform the WTO.  
15.37.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:   
15.38.   We appreciate the many contacts engage d in by the sponsors and ourselves to explain the 
changes. Our Group is assessing the impact of this proposal upon our Members even though we are 
not in a negotiation position on this proposal. We appreciate that certain changes have been made 
and not e for example paragraph 10 recognizing the difficulties of LDCs, our preliminary comments 
on paragraphs 11 to 13, something a number of our Members had negative experiences with .  They 
are not persuaded that such measures linked to the implementation by LDCs wo uld facilitate the 
application and compliance with their obligations in the multilateral trading system or our 
participation in the organization. This raises a problem : if ever there was a consensus , if a LDC 
requested  aid, the conditions linked to flexibi lities regarding  the compliance of obligations and the 
creation of new obligations , may make it difficult to actually address the various systemic problems 
that we have in our capital and in Geneva . It could very well be that LDCs do not possess all the 
capacity to submit their request in time and if they find themselves facing administrative procedures. 
On the framework of the TFA, LDCs have called for a proposal to provide for a timeframe during 
which the Secretariat could contact us in a proactive way , and also with reminders. However, given 
the breath of this proposal, other approaches may also be necessary in order to support LDCs , rather 
than having a punitive response  or sanction . If the conditions for flexibility in paragraph 10 are not 
complied wit h, we understand that the co -sponsors have encountered some specific problems with 
some of the Members when it comes to respecting the notification requirements . The overall majority 
of Members , especially the LDCs , are not to be obliged to take on obligat ions further whereas part 
of the reform of the WTO would be doing the opposite, there would be  two burdens . We still have a 
long way to go to correct the notification obligations requirements in LDCs . We will have to find 
approaches where we can implement and comply with existing notification requirements but without 
adding a further burden or additional punitive arrangements. We have learned a lot from these 
requirements in the TFA. The LDC Group is active in the work with the framework of the first WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 120 - 
 
  examin ation of the TFA , and the experience and the lessons learned concerning the notification 
requirements.  
15.39.   The representative of Tanzania  provided the following statement:   
15.40.   I would like to align myself to the  statement of the LDC Group. My delegation takes note of 
the proposed Decision and would like to thank the proponents. I would like to express our concerns, 
which we think if adopted may weaken the participation of most of developing members in the WTO 
rules-making process. As much as the proponents may have crafted the proposal based on good 
faith and intention, we believe that the Decision will adversely affect Members , particularly LDC s and 
developing Members. The draft provisions enumerated in paragraph 11 -13 of the proposed Decision 
are against the spirit of equality. They will divide Members into categories of privileged and less 
privileged ones. Considering our own experience on administrative measures relating the Budget, 
Finance and Administration (BFA) and focusing on th e empowerment of Members to fully participate 
in the rules -making process, my delegation is reluctant to support the proposed Decision. 
Nevertheless, we would like to urge proponents to consider recommending to the General Council 
collaborative approaches that will address challenges facing Members on notifications.  
15.41.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement:   
15.42.   Costa Rica considers transparency to be a fundamental principle and a public good for the 
proper functioning of the multilater al trading system. This is a matter of individual responsibility and 
collective commitment, as without timely access to information, the WTO's monitoring and 
negotiation functions are weakened, and the risk of trade frictions and conflict grows. The WTO is  
performing a task which, performed elsewhere , would be available to just a few. Hence the value of 
strengthening these mechanisms and ensuring proper compliance. The proposal before the General 
Council today has evolved significantly since it was first presented to the Goods Council some years 
ago. The comments and constructive feedback received by the co -sponsors on the proposal during 
discussions in the Council for Trade in Goods and during the many consultations , enable us to present 
today a mat ure and robust outcome aimed at supporting Members in their notification work. We 
urge all Members to support this proposal, which helps towards effectively strengthening the WTO's 
transparency pillar.  
15.43.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement:  
15.44.   My delegation is pleased to note the improvements in the revised proposal contained in 
document JOB/GC/204/Rev.6. However, we remain concerned by paragraph 5 of this proposal.  Our 
capital is in the process of evaluating all the changes made sin ce the fifth revision of this document 
so that we can define a position on the proposal as a whole. We will continue our dialogue with the 
proponents in order to move forward together.  
15.45.   The representative of Turkey  provided the following statement:   
15.46.   Transpa rency is a fundamental element for the functioning of the WTO and any proposal for 
its improvement is considered as a positive step forward by Turkey. While engaging in efforts to 
enhance transparency , however , we should not lose sight of the genuine capacity constraints many 
developing and least developed countries face. There are times notification requirements may 
represent real challenges for countries that lack necessary infrastructure, technical capacity a nd 
required human resources. However, experience shows that once notified repetition is much easier. 
That’s why, we believe, what we need is simplification, longer timeframes, technical assistance and 
close guidance of the Secretariat to assist Members to comply. In that sense, we view that the last 
revision of JOB/CTG/14 contains meaningful proposals pertaining to the expanded role of the 
Working Group on Notifications. We are also pleased to see the removal of financial penalties from 
the proposal. Howeve r, we see that other administrative measures are still preserved. We consider 
that such administrative measures aimed at enhancing transparency bear the risk of pushing 
Members even further away from the system. As a conclusion, we are ready to work with t he 
interested Members on proposals that will bring pragmatic approaches to notifications to increase 
compliance.  
15.47.   The representative of Bangladesh  provided the following statement:  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 121 - 
 
  15.48.   My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDCs.  My 
delegation thanks the U nited States and other co -sponsors for their submission.  We have spoken 
on this issue in previous occasions and exchanged our views with other Members. We believe that 
transparency is an essential pillar. However, we  do not think only a few notification templates can 
guarantee transparency.  
15.49.   I would like to refer to the commitment made in the Marrakesh Agreement  Article XI.2, that 
the LDCs  "(…) will only be required to undertake commitments and concessions to the exte nt 
consistent with their individual development, financial and trade needs or their administrative and 
institutional capabilities ".  The same has also been guaranteed in paragraph 1 of the Uruguay Round 
Ministers ' Decision on Measures in Favour of Least -Developed Countries. These flexibilities have 
been allowed considering the systemic challenges of LDCs.  
15.50.   We thank the proponents for the 6th revision of this submission, and particularly for 
recognizing the difficul ties of some Members and their capacity constraints to comply with the 
notification requirements. We have earlier pointed out that notification provisions under different 
Agreements are of diverse nature and the capability of the LDCs do not allow them to notify on time. 
These countries are constrained by the lack of technical capacity and unique internal coordination 
challenges to comply with the notification obligations.  
15.51.   We appreciate the co -sponsors for suggesting technical assistance for the Members fa cing 
difficulties in notifications. The ongoing efforts of the WTO Secretariat to provide technical support 
and customized trainings for the LDC candidates are deeply appreciated. However, the fact remains, 
these initiatives though useful, are not near eno ugh to take us to an expected level of progress. We 
believe  that without addressing the capacity gaps and tackling the domestic coordination issues, 
only administrative measures at the WTO will not be able to improve the situation.  We look forward 
to worki ng with the Members on this issue.  
15.52.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , provided the following statement:   
15.53.   I take the floor on behalf of the ACP Group. We also thank the co -sponsors for their 
submissions on this agenda item. The ACP Group considers transparency and notification 
requirements to be particularly important areas. Transparency reduces information asymmetries and 
contributes to predictability in the trading environment which is beneficial for all Members. The Group 
remains concerned about the punitive measures contemplated in document JOB/GC/204/Rev.6 
under the heading Administrative Measures. Should punitive measures and sanctions  be introduced 
as instruments for promoting compliance with transparency and notification obligations, as 
proposed, this will serve only to further alienate many developing countries from the WTO, and may 
even undermine the already faltering capacity of Members to agree on future binding commitments 
and be further marginalised in the WTO system. Furthermore, the ACP Group observes that punitive 
measures relating to a breach under a covered Agreement, if imposed without recourse to the 
dispute settlement pro cess, may constitute unauthorised enforcement, and be of uncertain legality. 
It must be emphasized that failure to adhere to notification obligations is not wilful on the part of 
many developing countries. These countries face formidable capacity and insti tutional constraints in 
meeting the numerous regular and ad hoc notifications required under the WTO Agreements.  
15.54.   For the ACP Group, therefore, the starting point must be engagement in meaningful dialogue 
on the underlying reasons for non -compliance by dev eloping and least developed countries. These 
reasons would include, but are not limited to, notification templates which remain too complicated , 
limited technical and human resources , and difficulties relating to domestic inter -agency 
coordination, especia lly as transparency and notification obligations increasingly impinge on a large 
number of national agencies and economic actors. The ACP Group believes that the Working Group 
on Notification Obligations and Procedures can be usefully reactivated for the p urpose of this 
important discussion. The ACP Group further shares the view, also expressed by some other 
Members, that transparency should not be limited to compliance with notification obligations. It must 
permeate the entire functioning of the WTO system , including areas such as the scheduling of 
meetings, the conduct of negotiations, and in the preparation, organi zation, and decision -making 
relating to Ministerial Conferences.  Special attention should also be paid to conformity by developed 
countries wit h transparency and notification requirements that have the effect of facilitating or 
contributing to improved market access for developing countries, especially those pertaining to 
technical barriers to trade and phytosanitary measures, and to the establis hment of mechanisms 
such as trade facilitation and Enquiry Points.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 122 - 
 
  15.55.   Additionally, the role of the Secretariat should be strengthened in regard to transparency 
and notification obligations, but we recommend that this should be achieved primarily through 
enhancing further its supportive role in providing technical assistance to developing and least -
developed Members. However, the ACP Group does not contemplate any role for the Secretariat to 
make notifications on behalf of Members. Furthermore, the Secretaria t should work closely with 
developing and least -developed Members in identifying and addressing their technical assistance 
and capacity building needs regarding transparency and notification, and this role should be 
strengthened. In closing, proposals with  respect to transparency and notification must be thoroughly 
examined and tested against the fundamental principles of the WTO, which are without fault , such 
as the consensus rule in decision -making. Essentially, the work on all elements of WTO reform shou ld 
be handled in a holistic manner that allows the participation of all Members.  Finally, while the ACP 
cannot acquiesce to the draft Decision before us today, we will remain engaged and constructive in 
discussions on every aspect of reform. We are also de veloping a contribution which we hope to put 
forward in the General Council in the not-too-distant  future.  
15.56.   The representative of Chile provided the following statement:   
15.57.   Chile has joined this initiative as a co -sponsor for three reasons. First, because we 
understand that all WTO Members have assumed the obligation to notify our trade measures, which 
is stipulated in the various WTO legal texts, and because  we are conscious that the current low level 
of notifications at this organization is a seri ous problem for the WTO's transparency and credibility. 
It creates situations that border on the absurd, as has been rightly stressed on a number of occasions 
by the Director General. Second, because the revised proposal accommodated various visions and 
comments, meaning that a number of aspects have objectively been improved. These improvements 
include the elimination of financial penalties for failure to comply with the obligation to notify and 
enhanced support from the Secretariat so that developing coun tries, especially LDCs, are able to 
fulfil their obligations. Third, the revised proposal no longer draws any distinctions between the 
different notifications, meaning that they will all be subject to the same treatment. We call on those 
Members that have not yet joined this proposal to consider it as a substantive support for the work 
of the WTO.  
15.58.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
15.59.   Pakistan thanks the co -sponsors for the revised document. Chair, we take this opportunity 
to emp hasize that Pakistan takes its notification obligations seriously. We believe that transparency 
is a fundamental pillar of the WTO, which brings predictability to trade. However, we are not sure 
that the current proposal will have the desired impact of imp roving transparency. To address that 
issue, the real problems must be addressed. In the case of developing countries, it is the severe 
capacity constraints, lack of technical training of staff, lack of institutional capacity, and insufficient 
human resourc es to carry out the desired tasks in the stipulated time in the cumbersome detail they 
are required. These are not mere excuses , they are defining attributes of developing countries, 
generally, and no amount of technical assistance but only development wil l overcome these 
shortcomings. If I may give an analogy, cars have gauges that give you data, go -carts don 't. Data, 
or lack of it , is a systemic issue in most developing countries. But we do try our best to keep up with 
our obligations. On the other hand, Pakistan considers that many countries , including some of the 
developed ones , find it difficult to comply with their notification obligations. While we all endeavour 
to submit all notifications in a complete and timely manner, no Member is fully compliant with all its 
transparency obligations at all times. This points to fundamental issues in the requirements and 
obligations, which might be the root of the problem. Pakistan therefore reiterates its views that 
administrative and puni tive measures would not lead to an optimal resolution. Such measures risk 
being counterproductive  as they do not address the main causes of non -compliance. Instead, we 
call for simplifying procedures, and seek an approach that makes the obligations easier and less 
complicated.  
15.60.   The representative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of CARICOM , provided the following statement:   
15.61.   CARICOM also aligns itself with the statement delivered by  Jamaica on behalf of the ACP. 
We thank the co -sponsors for their submission under t his agenda item. CARICOM has always 
recognized the importance of transparency and notification in the WTO. Creating a critical mass of 
compliance with transparency and notification obligations can only redound to the benefit of all WTO 
Members. Therefore, prima facie, there is value in agreeing to procedures to enhance transparency 
and strengthen notification requirements. However, how this is achieved is equally as important as WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 123 - 
 
  what is achieved. It is in this context that we consider a punitive approach, c ouched as administrative 
measures in the submission from co -sponsors, as a sub -optimal approach. Developing and least -
developed countries are the ones likely to be most adversely affected by punitive measures. A 
punitive approach also implies a certain wilfulness  on the part of the many developing and least -
developed countries that have encountered challenges with respect to their transparency and 
notification obligations. However, rather than a wilful flouting of the obligations, it is more often than 
not a lack of capacity stemming from deficits in human resources and finances. We suggest that 
proponents engage with developing and least developed countries, including CARICOM, on the 
nature and extent of the challenges which we face in meeting transparency and notification 
obligations. From here, we can better assess the technical assistance and capacity building needs of 
Members. We also suggest that the Working Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures be 
reactivated, and we can advance discussions there and when that work is sufficiently mature, we 
can return to the General Council to seek a decision which is in the best interest of all Members. 
CARICOM intends to remain constructive on these important issues.  
15.62.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
15.63.   We would like to thank the cosponsors of the revised document in JOB/GC/204/Rev.6 and 
the further explanation of changes made to the original proposal as put forward by the U nited States. 
We align ourselves with the Statement by the Africa Group and the ACP  Group . South Africa views 
transparency as one of the important pillars of the multilateral trading system. The Paper titled "An 
Inclusive Approach to Transparency and Notification Requirements in the WTO" is our departure 
point and Jamaica has referred to the core issues raised therein. We also need to recognize the 
challenges that developing countries face in meeting their transparency obligations due to limited 
capacities and resources, especially in the context  of a crisis.   
15.64.   We remain concerned with the proposed administrative measures that aim to penalize 
Members that are unable to comply with their obligations.  We believe that this  represents a 
disproportionate response to the inability of many developing coun tries to fulfil their notification 
obligations due to capacity constraints, especially when the inability of many developing countries 
to comply is not wilful neglect of obligations, but is primarily due to serious capacity constraints at 
Member s' level.  We are concerned at the attempts to introduce changes to notification obligations 
under the Agreements and Understandings listed in paragraph 1 of the proposal without following 
the amendment processes prescribed under the Marrakesh Agreement, thus severely  affecting the 
rights and obligations of Members. Similarly , the intention to use Members ' TPR reports as a basis 
for the enforcement of specific obligations or the imposition of new policy commitments on Members. 
The TPRM was never intended to serve as a basis for the enforcement of specific obligations under 
the Agreements or to impose new policy commitments on Members.  While this revised paper has 
addressed the financial penalties, it still does not address notification requirements on final bound 
rate AMS commitments for developed Members to 2 years. We look forward to engaging with the 
proponents to further engage on t he issues entailed therein.  
15.65.   The representative of Singapore  provided the following statement:   
15.66.   This proposal has been cooking for the past two years and has taken on board the comments 
and feedback from many Members, including from Singapore. Hence, Singap ore was pleased to 
cosponsor this proposal at the Council for Trade in Goods on 8 July. Let me make three points on 
the revised proposal. First, the current version of the proposal strikes the right balance between 
assistance  and administrative measures. F or example, an earlier proposal to impose a financial 
penalty for Members who cannot comply with their notification obligations has been removed. 
Second, we believe that this proposal will make a helpful contribution to improving the transparency 
of Member s' trade regimes and further facilitate global trade in the broader context. For example, it 
proposes specific improvements such as simplified notification formats, updating reporting 
requirements as well as identifying enablers , such as holding additional  training and workshops at 
the Committee level and using digital tools. These specific proposals will support Members' efforts 
to submit timely and complete notifications. Third, an outcome on transparency at MC12 would 
strengthen the WTO's monitoring func tion. As the Director -General had highlighted at last Friday's 
TNC meeting, many Members call for increased transparency, but we need to back this up with 
concrete action and submit information about our trade measures in a timely manner so that all 
Member s can respond quickly, especially given the pandemic. In addition, as we want to reform the 
WTO to make it more relevant to stakeholders, we must ensure that it is able to carry out its regular 
work more effectively. It would also send a strong signal to o ur stakeholders that Members see WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 124 - 
 
  continued value in a transparent and rules -based multilateral trading system. Singapore looks 
forward to working with all Members to advance work on this proposal.  
15.67.   The representative of India provided the following  statemen t:  
15.68.   Despite the revisions that the proposal has undergone we find that the inherent principle of 
the proposal , i.e. suspicion , remains the same. India finds it difficult to agree to a proposal which 
provides for administrative actions in case of default in submitting notifications, rather than taking 
cognizance of the capacity constraints and other legitimate difficulties faced b y Members in meeting 
their notifications obligations under the WTO Agreements. Therefore, what is required is not to 
assume wilful default, but to encourage those who are able to update their notifications despite 
difficulties faced, and to assist those wh o have not been able to do so because of various reasons, 
including capacity constraints. Though Rev.6 refers to certain solution in this direction, it fails to 
address the problem at its root. India would therefore , once again, re -iterate that instead of the 
administrative actions, appropriate support to notify will encourage Members in improving their 
internal capacity to fulfil their notification obligations.  With our experience, we have seen that 
incentives work better than administrative actions in suc h matter. Further, transparency cannot only 
be seen from the view of notification obligations.  In this morning 's discussion, both in informal and 
formal G eneral Council  meetings , under  agenda item 22, we have seen how the lack of transparency 
has failed us  in agreeing to Chairs of various bodies/ Committees.  Transparency should permeate 
the full spectrum of the operation of the WTO, from the conduct of its day -to-day meetings, to how 
Ministerial Conferences and processes preceding them in Geneva are conducte d, and how media 
releases of various Committee s and C ouncils ' proceedings are transparently handled.  We would have 
appreciated if proponents would have also taken note of a proposal in JOB/GC/218 submitted by 
India in 2019 , that essentially calls for enhan ced Mode 4 GATS transparency to allow for an effective 
realization of market access, more transparency in the monitoring mechanism placed under 
Article  66.2 of TRIPS Agreement, Members to make annual notifications on the number of patent 
applications based  on traditional knowledge to prevent unlawful appropriation of biological resources 
and/or associated traditional knowledge affecting the traditional communities , to name a few 
examples. We are concerned by looking at the lack of engagement on this issue b y proponents of 
transparency , and we hope to see comprehensive discussions on this issue in the future.  
15.69.   The representative of Israel  provided the following statement:   
15.70.   Transparency is a vital element of the multilateral trading system. We agree with what India 
has said regarding the importance of transparency in general. It allows Members to monitor the 
proper implementation of WTO Agreements, it serves as a basis for fut ure negotiations, and it helps 
Members to make well -informed policy decisions. Israel is one of the co -sponsors of the paper and 
we would like to thank the United States for its leadership in this initiative. We would like to 
encourage all the WTO Members to assess this revised proposal and to support it.  
15.71.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   
15.72.   I would like to thank each speaker individually, for brevity I will note just a few. First, I want 
to thank everyone for their eng agement and responses on this. It has been a long time since we 
have discussed this in the CTG and we have worked hard  to do a lot of outreach, which I think has 
come through in the revisions. I would like to at least acknowledge the intervention from the 
representative of Korea and thank them for their announcement , and w elcome them on board as 
co-sponsors. We clearly have a lot of outreach to do to explain the revisions , but we would like to 
reiterate that all financial penalties have been removed from th e proposal. The proposal includes 
multiple layers of flexibility that are designed specifically so that any Member who endeavours to 
comply is not captured by those. On the comments made by Uruguay and Mexico and Paraguay, in 
particular, we have heard your  concerns and we are working to address them. We should have some 
responses soon that may hopefully address this concern. With respect to the intervention by 
Mauritius, we appreciate the African Group's response, and we look forward to some more detailed 
discussions with them. I believe that, if we were able to sit down, we could explain that the proposal 
itself is not unreasonable and that, in fact, it is not arbitrary. We worked quite hard to make sure 
that it is reasonable . We are trying to do exactly what Mauritius pointed out, which is to find a way 
to distinguish between wilful noncompliance and those who are struggling legitimately to fulfil their 
obligations. The majority of the proposal aims specifically to strengthen th at category of Members. 
I appreciate the acknowledgment of Ambassador Spencer of Jamaica and the ACP Group and others 
on the importance of the Working Group and what that could establish. I think many of the concerns WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 125 - 
 
  we heard today about the individual cap acity and the strengthening of domestic coordination 
mechanisms can actually be achieved through the Working Group. I know that if you look at the 
work in the TBT Committee or the SPS Committee, or even in Agriculture, it is those Member -to-
Member conversa tions about how each of us operate and runs our inter -agency coordination, that 
has improved and strengthened both the Enquiry Points and our ability to fulfil the notifications.  
15.73.   I want to thank Chad and the LDC group. We will continue our outreach with t hem. We are 
trying to precisely address those systemic problems that they have addressed. I would note and 
congratulate them , LDCs were far more compliant in the TFA notification process than developing 
countries. Hence, we know that it is possible. I woul d also note that one particular LDC is the largest 
user of the TBT notification process. I think that it shows that the work that has been undertaken in 
these Committees to strengthen the domestic processes actually has results. That is where we are 
headed  with the Working Group in trying to strengthen those discussions. We understand that 
technical assistance is not enough, but what alternative do we have to look at cooperative 
mechanisms among Members to begin to build up capacity and exchange ideas? That  is precisely 
what we are aiming at the Working Group. Obviously, we don 't have all the answers for everyone 's 
problems today, but what we are trying to do is to create a mechanism to build that capacity going 
forward. I think Bangladesh and Tanzania also mentioned strengthening some of those domestic 
coordination measures. With respect to India' s comments, I would agree that no one assumes wilful 
default. The proposal tries to address multiple avenues for finding and identifying assistance . I think 
it is i ncumbent on all of us to make sure that we have mechanisms in place that support better 
compliance. It is useful to remind Members that these are existing obligations, these are not new 
obligations. We are supporting the operation of existing obligations a nd the fulfilment of these 
commitments. I think that the incentives are participation in the multilateral trading system , the 
incentives flow from the compliance. There were too many comments to address today, but I think 
this was a helpful discussion and we are really enthusiastic about the response we received. We are 
looking forward to doing more outreach.  
15.74.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement:  
15.75.   Transparency is invaluable to the proper functioning of the rules-based multilateral trading 
system.  We see the importance of improving compliance with the basic notification obligation under 
the WTO Agreement s, and therefore look with interest at the proposal in JOB/GC/204/Rev.6 of 
15 July 2021.  We note the revisi ons in the latest version, Rev . 6 of 15 July 2021, of the proposal 
and, among others, we welcome the removal of financial penalties. We also note the flexibilities on 
implementation and those afforded to Members who request technical assistance, and the pr oposed 
technical and institutional improvements to the notification exercise.  The Philippines will continue to 
engage on this proposal  and thank the proponents for their flexibility and continued commitment to 
engage other Members.  
15.76.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
16  JOINT COMMUNICATION ON SYSTEMIC ISSUES – STATEMENT BY SWITZERLAND  
16.1.   The Chair recalled that t his item had been included in the agenda of the General Council by 
the delegation of Switzerland.  
16.2.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement:   
16.3.   I wish to introduce a communication on systemic issues cosponsored by developing and 
developed Members tha t are strongly supportive of the Multilateral Trading System.  
16.4.   The communication is contained in document WT/GC/W/827. It is dated 27 July 2021 and 
was issued on the same day. The communication is cosponsored by the following 3 1 Members:  
Albania; Australia ; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; 
Israel; Japan; Liechtenstein; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; Republic of 
Moldova; New Zealand; Nigeria; Norway; Paraguay; Peru; Russia; Singapore; Switzer land; 
Thailand; The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Turkey; Uruguay.  
16.5.   The Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference will already take place in a few months and 
preparatory work is already in full swing. The co-sponsors are committed  to a successful 12th WTO WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 126 - 
 
  Ministerial Conference and urge Members to engage constructively and to work towards pragmatic 
and tangible outcomes. It will be important that Ministers provide political guidance on outcomes for 
MC12, including on the WTO's futu re work.  
16.6.   With this Joint Communication on Systemic Issues, the co -sponsors wish to share their 
contribution to the systemic part of a Ministerial outcome document for MC12. We hope that 
Members can support this approach as we continue to work towards MC12.  The Joint Communication 
consists of three parts, of which I would like to highlight a few elements:  
16.7.   The first part stresses the relevance of the rules -based multilateral trading system. This part 
reaffirms the principles and objectives set out in the Marr akesh Agreement Establishing the WTO. It 
notes the major role trade can play in the promotion of sustainable development and the alleviation 
of poverty. The co -sponsors recognize the WTO as the preeminent global forum for trade 
rules-setting and governance . They call on Members to safeguard the integrity of the open, 
non-discriminatory and rules -based Multilateral Trading System embodied in the WTO and to work 
together to ensure its sound functioning. The co -sponsors also reaffirm the central importance of 
development in the WTO.  
16.8.   The second part addresses the importance and relevance of the multilateral trading system 
in the context of the global health crisis. The response to this crisis remains a priority of the co -
sponsors. International cooperation and c oordination is needed more than ever to fight the pandemic 
and make the system more resilient for the future. The WTO has an important role to play in 
maintaining well -functioning supply chains.  A predictable, transparent, non -discriminatory and open 
global trading system is crucial for a broad -based, sustainable and inclusive economic recovery.  
16.9.   The third part addresses the need for WTO Reform. For co -sponsors, it is critical that the WTO 
respond s in an effective way to a changing international trading environment, which calls for new 
and updated global trade rules. They will also support continued and renewed efforts to reform the 
WTO to ensure its sound functioning.  
16.10.   A productive negotiating func tion is essential for the WTO to deliver meaningful outcomes 
for Members at all levels of development. The co -sponsors will strive to make further progress in an 
open and inclusive manner on issues of interest to Members and to seek high quality outcomes. In 
this regard, they recognize that a range of approaches, including plurilateral negotiations, such as 
the Joint Statement Initiatives, can ultimately support and contribute to the shared objectives.  
16.11.   The co -sponsors remain committed to fully participatin g in the important regular work of the 
WTO. The regular WTO bodies have an essential role in ensuring oversight of the implementation of 
WTO agreements. The WTO 's trade monitoring work contributes to the effective functioning of the 
multilateral trading sy stem, by enhancing transparency of trade policies and practices of Members. 
In this regard, the co -sponsors call on Members to fully comply with their notification obligations.  
16.12.   The co -sponsors reaffirm their commitment to abide by the WTO's rules in the co nduct of 
their trade relations. The WTO 's two-tier dispute settlement system and its binding nature is a central 
element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. The co -sponsors 
therefore recall their strong resolve to r estore its effective functioning, including through necessary 
reforms, and call on all Members to constructively engage in finding solutions to identified concerns.  
16.13.   This ends my presentation of this joint communication that, as I mentioned at the outset, i s 
intended to provide an input to the systemic part of a Ministerial outcome document for MC12. We 
very much hope that Members will seek inspiration from this contribution when we start drafting the 
outcome document for MC12.  
16.14.   The representative of China  provided the following statement:   
16.15.   It is the consistent position of China that we staunchly support the rule s-based multilateral 
trading system, and firmly oppose unilateralism and protectionism. In the context of C OVID -19 
pandemic, the multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core, should play a more important 
role in the pandemic response , cooperation and economic recovery. China believes that to restore 
the Appellate Body and safeguard the two -tier dispute settlement system remains the top -most 
priority for WTO reform , and we call upon Members to start substantive discussions as soon as WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 127 - 
 
  possible. China sincerely hopes all Members could utter more loud and clear voices in supporting the 
multilateral trading system and work jointly to achieve consensual outcomes at MC12.  
16.16.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   
16.17.   We are not a co -sponsor but there is much in this communication that we very much 
commend. We support efforts like this to affirm the rules -based multilateral trading system and 
indeed the need for a reform of this Organization in order to support that. We particularly agree with 
the centrality of this Organization in the multilateral trading syste m, as well as the importance of an 
open, predictable and transparent system to secure the sort of inclusive, sustainable, greener 
recovery that I think we all want to see after this pandemic. I also want to mention in this context, 
in the response to this pandemic, we have just announced today the delivery of the first 9 million of 
the promised 100 million doses to developing countries . Those 9 million of AstraZeneca vaccines are 
being delivered in the course of this week and next for a number of developing  countries, most of 
them through the COVAX mechanism.  
16.18.   As well as the existing negotiations and systemic discussions on reform, we would like to 
see further reform of the WTO rulebook to mitigate, amongst other things, the impact of market 
distorting pract ices in the global trading system, including the use of industrial subsidies. We look 
forward to working with Members across this organi zation to progress this reform agenda, both up 
to, and beyond MC12.  
16.19.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement:   
16.20.   The Friends of the System (as already pointed out by colleagues who preceded me in the 
use of the expression) are seeking to draw the attention of the rest of the membership to systemic, 
cross cutting issues that relate to the smooth functioning of the multilateral system. It is for this 
reason that Uruguay is a co -sponsor of this joint communication, which we hope can serve as a basis 
for the preamble of a possible Ministerial Declaration. This communication emphasizes t he 
importance of a rules -based multilateral system, the negative effects of protectionism, whose 
dramatic consequences we see on a daily  basis, and also the key role of the development dimension 
in the pillar of negotiations. It also highlights the fundame ntal role that the WTO must play in 
addressing the COVID -19 pandemic and the economic crisis that has resulted from it, perhaps the 
most important issue we must address at the next Ministerial Conference. Also, it reserves a 
prominent place for the long ov erdue reform, including the negotiating function and transparency. 
Lastly, it refers to the situation of the Appellate Body, whose disappearance has had serious 
repercussions on one of the key pillars of the organization. All of these topics are at the hea rt of the 
multilateral trading system, whose smooth functioning is so important to us. We hope that between 
now and November we will be able to continue working with Members to reach a consensus on a 
Ministerial Declaration that we consider so necessary in  the current situation.  
16.21.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement:  
16.22.    No one can question or deny the primacy and integrity of the rules -based multilateral trading 
system. We thus understand the strong call on all Members to safe guard and strengthen the sound 
functioning of the multilateral trading system.  There has been a focus on the role the WTO can play 
in addressing the C OVID -19 pandemic and global health crises, and understandably so because the 
WTO exerts tremendous influen ce on global supply chains.  The attention the communication gives 
to WTO reform could be described as à-propos . We need to reinvigorate the negotiating function of 
the WTO, including through the plurilateral processes. We need to ensure that WTO bodies con tinue 
to run efficiently , and we also need to restore the effectiveness of the two -tier dispute settlement 
system.  
16.23.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement:   
16.24.   We hope Members can all support the join communication to secure the stability and 
certainty of the rule -based multilateral trading syste m, to attach importance and relevance of the 
multilateral trading system in the context of the global health crisis, and to carry out WTO reforms 
on all three pillars as early a s possible.  
16.25.   The representative of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 128 - 
 
  16.26.   The elements of the statement presented by Switzerland are in line with Russia's  priorities 
as outlined in our communication "MC12: Shaping the Package Agenda " (JOB/GC/261). My 
delegation is pleased to join this statement as one of co -sponsors.  
16.27.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement:   
16.28.   We firmly support the communication as one of the cosponsors. In order to strengthen the 
multilateral trading system, we consider it important to update trade rules, including by using JSIs, 
enhance transparency and strengthen notification requirements, and reform the Dispute Settlement 
System. The multilateral trading system is all the more important post COVI D-19 pandemic.  
16.29.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
16.30.   We are studying the proposal and we will make initial comments. There are elements in the 
proposal we find useful which can be the basis for the systemic elements of the M inisterial 
Declaration. These include reaffirming  the relevance and support for the multilateral trading system ; 
multilateralism, including the principles and objectives set out in the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the WTO ; and the centrality of the rul es-based multilateral trading system; the 
centrality of development which should underpin the work of the WTO and as critical to the effective 
integration of developing countries in global trade, including to inclusive growth and development . 
Regarding the relevance of the WTO in the context of the pandemic, we believe that the WTO has a 
role and that the pandemic has reminded all of us of the need for global solidarity and the need for 
the system to promote inclusive economic recovery. This is why we be lieve that one of the themes 
should be on this - this is the only way we will be able to contribute to resilient economies. We are 
however, concerned that the proposal does not address other barriers such as intellectual property  
as part of the response , and limits it only to maintaining well -functioning supply chains.   
16.31.   On WTO reform , there is a need to talk about what we mean by reform. Our view is that 
JSIs are raising systemic and developmental concerns for us and actually fragment the multilateral 
tradin g system , undermin ing existing multilateral mandates. We therefore have concerns with what 
is captured under WTO reform. WTO reform does not mean accepting either inherited inequities or 
new proposals that would worsen imbalances. Reforms must be premised on the principles of 
inclusivity and development . We however, welcome the call to restore effective functioning of a two -
tier dispute settlement system .  
16.32.   The representative of Mauritius  provided the following statement:   
16.33.   There are a number of elements in t his paper  which converge with our own thinking and 
with the African Group 's paper that will be presented later. I note some of them : the reaffirmation 
of the relevance and the support extended to the multilateral trading system  and the importance of 
the multilateral trading system in the context of the global health crisis. Of course, it is not totally 
adequate . We see some words missi ng like "solidarity " and "leaving no one behind ", but that is 
maybe a question of differences of perspectives. We fully agree , especially that the multilateral 
trading system and trade have an important role in taking the sustainable development goals 
forward. In fact, we are happy to be able to see this reflected in the elements paper for MC12.  
16.34.   We find the paragraph 2 of the document rather inadequate as a response to the global 
health crisis, for reasons stated by South Africa . I also recall that , while the African Group's position 
on the centrality of the Intellectual Propert y Waiver in the WTO 's response to COVID -19 is well 
known, there were several other issues mentioned yesterday including  the movement of inputs for 
the production of vaccines , transfe r of technology, access to essential goods, equitable distribution 
of vaccines, which are all part of the response to COVID -19. We believe, therefore, that the focus 
cannot only be on well -functioning supply chains in the health context . In fact , given the  difficult 
challenges that Africa has faced, particularly during the pandemic, well -functioning supply chains 
are also for food security purposes.  
16.35.    We agree with the document 's emphasis on a predictable, transparent, non -discriminatory 
and open global trad ing system, for broad -based sustainable and inclusive economies. We also 
require that the global trading system delivers effectively on special and differential treatment . We 
also require a multilateral trading system that strives for sustainability and se rves to save both lives 
and livelihoods. Th is perspective is rather lacking in the document, but we are sure that these can WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 129 - 
 
  be taken on board. On the issue of reform, reform does not happen in a vacuum but within a context . 
To us, the context is taking forward all the unfinished business, in particular from the Doha 
Development Round . I think , as Ambassador Chambovey of Switzerland said, development is at the 
core, development is the centre of the system. It is not reform for the s ake of reform . It must be 
clear what the ultimate objective of such reform would be before we engage. Achieving development 
based on sustainable principles is, from our perspective, a key element of the reform . So, we would 
rather see a reform that has bee n discussed already among Members to see what are the parameters 
that will guide the discussion on the reform.  
16.36.   Finally, we agree that the changing international trade environment does require us to adapt 
to new realities. We joined the WTO on a certain pr emise of the Marrakesh Agreement , as highlighted 
in paragraph 1 of this document. In that context, our approach es within the WTO must always be 
based on agreed mandates by the membership.  
16.37.   The representative of Tajikistan  provided the following statement:   
16.38.   The Joint Communication on Systemic Issues is under review and consideration of the capital 
and we will present our position once we receive the relevant updates and instruction s. The Republic 
of Tajikistan attaches great importance towards trade and economic relations with WTO members, 
particularly during the pandemic. It is clear that the pandemic has created devastating social, 
economic and political crises. In order to mitigat e the negative impact of COVID -19 to the economy , 
joint decisive and timely action is required. The Republic of Tajikistan greatly values the WTO and 
acknowledges its central role within the rules -based multilateral trading system and is confident that 
constructive cooperation under the WTO framework will allow to maintain economic cooperation 
despite the global spread of the pandemic.  
16.39.   The representative of Republic of Korea  provided the following statement:   
16.40.   Korea  calls on Members to start to work together  to reflect the major elements contained in 
the Joint Communication in the outcome document of MC12 , to produce a concrete forward -looking 
vision aimed at making the WTO more responsive to the challenges ahead, in particular through the 
long-awaited WTO re form in three main pillars.  
16.41.   The representative of Singapore  provided the following statement:   
16.42.   Singapore is happy to co -sponsor the Joint Communication and commend Switzerland's 
initiative and diligent efforts. This Joint Communication is timely and will make an important 
contribution towards a positive outcome at MC12. Second, the Joint Statement addresses critical 
systemic issues faced by t he WTO. If I can use an analogy, the WTO is like a computer that must 
undergo periodic technical refresh so that we can upgrade the WTO and equip it to handle new 
software , such as issues dealing with the digital economy, trade and health and environmental  
sustainability. At the same time, we also need to continue to upgrade the existing hardware by 
restoring the effective functioning of the Appellate Body. Only then can we ensure that the WTO 
remains fit for purpose. Third, Singapore wishes to join Switzer land to encourage all Members to 
cosponsor the Joint Statement. At a time when the WTO is under stress and scrutiny, Members must 
demonstrate that we are united in our common beliefs and values. This joint statement presents a 
good platform for Members to come together.  
16.43.   The representative of Viet Nam  provided the following statement:   
16.44.   Viet Nam is still considering the Joint Communication in its entirety. We share the view that 
it is timely to give input to shape the MC12 outcome in a concrete form , this Joint Communication 
is a welcome effort in this regard. We are also of the view that it contains a number of essential 
systemic elements for a possible MC12 outcome document and encourage Members to consider their 
incorporation as much as possible.  
16.45.   The repres entative of India provided the following statement:   
16.46.   India is happy to note that part of the submission is borrowed from the "Reform Proposal " 
submitted by India with other co -sponsors in the December 2020 General  Council meeting and under 
agenda  item 14 discussed today in this meeting. India remains fully committed to the rules -based WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 130 - 
 
  multilateral trading system with WTO as its centre piece. In that regard we hope that MC12 will be 
successful in delivering a fair, balanced and meaningful outcomes that w ill reflect the interests of 
developing and LDC Members of this Organization. We believe that a successful MC will go a long 
way in restoring the credibility of this institution and also repose everyone 's faith in the multilateral 
trading system. Most impo rtantly, this organization needs to show its relevance by delivering a 
robust response to the COVID -19 pandemic, which is perhaps one of the biggest health and socio -
economic challenge s of our generation. In this regard, we urge all Members to engage const ructively 
and to work towards pragmatic, balanced and tangible outcomes at MC12.  Leaving out intellectual 
property -related issues and movement of professionals (particularly health care workers) will make 
the proposal unbalanced and ineffective.  
16.47.   India gre atly values the WTO and the principles and objectives set out in the Marrakesh 
Agreement and the centrality of the rules -based multilateral trading system. Any attempt to bring 
in non -mandated outcome through the JSI route in MC12 will be counterproductive . Trade can play 
a major role in the promotion of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty. The rules -
based trading system contributes to fostering international trade and development, including 
through facilitating the peaceful settlement of  trade disputes, and containing protectionism. We join 
others in reaffirming the central importance of development in the WTO. The WTO needs to remain 
an essential tool for Members to achieve inclusive and sustainable global growth and development, 
includi ng through the further integration of developing countries and LDCs into world trade. Finally, 
we emphasize the urgent need for reforming the WTO in order to correct the historical imbalances 
as well as to make it effective to address current and future ch allenges. In this regard, we would 
like to recall the WTO reform proposal submitted by India, along with other developing countries in 
August 2019 and again in December 2020, contained in document WT/GC/W/778/Rev.3.  
16.48.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:   
16.49.   We take note of the objectives of the communication. It is clear that in order to surmount 
the various sticky points we have to reform the WTO and prove it functions well in order to meet the 
needs of its Members , being mindful of the expectations and priorities of LDCs. The rules of the WTO 
seek to provide for freedom, liberty, equality, predictability of trade patterns, setting the basis for 
trade negotiation and dealing with the various link s between different states , including through the 
dispute settlement mechanism. We know that the Appellate Body is not functioning. This uncertainty 
gives rise to a stalling of initiatives in the area of trade. If there is uncertainty, this will mean a dro p 
in foreign trade and have a negative impact on worldwide growth, employment and investment. We 
cannot sit back idly and let such a negative deleterious trend continue. We have to ensure the 
viability of the system. The multilateral trading system guarant ees and sets forth the conditions for 
proper and predictable trade and this is one of the best tools when it comes to the integration of 
LDCs into the scheme of world trade. At the same time, it stands against the idea that might makes 
right. We have to im prove the functioning of the WTO. It is against this backdrop that the LDC Group 
takes part in the efforts on reform , so as to arrive at a concrete, tangible result, especially within 
the context of MC12.  
16.50.   The representative of Ecuador  provided the followi ng statement:   
16.51.   We think that the communication is constructive. It shows the importance of the proactive 
role of Members as an essential element which will allow us to recover the negotiating dynamic 
within this Organization and thus facilitate the functio ning of the multilateral trading system. We are 
delighted to announce that we will cosponsor the Joint Communication in order to reiterate our 
commitment to the success of MC12. Ecuador believes that this communication  contains key 
elements where Members, both developed and developing, can contribute to the multilateral trading 
system, taking into account the current context and the importance that the work of this house 
becomes a positive factor for the recovery of international trade in the post -pandemic era. 
Furthermore, we wish to highlight that Ecuador attaches great importance and preference to 
multilateral negotiations. Ecuador highly values and recognizes the importance of the different 
negotiating approaches. We are part of the majority of the Joint  Statement Initiatives, and we 
recognize the important advances made in investment facilitation for development, e -commerce and 
MSMEs.  
16.52.   The representative of Kazakhstan  provided the following statement:    WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 131 - 
 
  16.53.   We wish to express our support for this communicatio n, and we hope that this document 
will serve as a strong basis for a future Ministerial Declaration at MC12.  
16.54.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement:  
16.55.   Mexico and 26 other Members of this organization have submitted this Joint Communication 
which seeks, from a constructive point of view, to help prepare a document that would be the 
outcome of the Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12).  The Communication proposes language on 
three elements tha t we consider essential: (i) reaffirming the relevance of and support for the 
multilateral trading system; (ii) the importance and relevance of the multilateral trading system in 
the context of the global health crisis; and (iii) the need for WTO reform in  its three pillars.  We are 
confident that this communication contributes in a systemic manner to the discussions we will have 
after the summer break , aimed at preparing a document to be approved by our Ministers at MC12.  
16.56.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement:   
16.57.   I would like to thank all delegations who have made a statement in support  of this 
communication. Some are co -sponsoring clearly, and others are supporting important elements of 
the communication. We are pleased to see tha t, on some elements, there is high -level of 
convergence. This will certainly be very useful for the work that we will have to undertake after the 
summer break in order to draft the outcome document for MC12. We can certainly bank on this. 
When we drafted t his document, what we had in mind was to use formulations that are more likely 
to attract consensus among the membership without forgetting the objective of the cosponsors to 
preserve the integrity of the system and to ensure its good functioning. I would like to add that we 
very much welcome an additional co -sponsor, Ecuador, that has just been announced.  
16.58.   To expl ain, once again, the purpose of this communication, it is intended to be a contribution, 
a kind of platform, on which we can build. It is not meant to be the entire outcome document; our 
assumption is that an outcome document will consist in a systemic or political part, and of another 
part where decisions made by Members are going to be referenced. We have heard some Members 
today consider that the parts on the pandemic are too "light" in our document. I would like to recall 
that there will probably be a m ore substantive part on trade and health and on the pandemic in the 
outcome at MC12. This outcome, those results, will certainly be referenced in the second part of the 
Ministerial document or in the MC12 outcome documents. I believe that this important is sue of trade 
and health will not be treated as the "poor cousin" of the WTO , this is certainly not the case. It is a 
contribution to the systemic part of our work. We understand that there are other less consensual 
aspects that we have heard today. We are ready to engage with all delegations with a view to finding 
mutually acceptable formulations and solutions. That being said, the co -sponsors are certainly 
looking forward to contribut ing constructively to the work that will be undertaken after the summer 
break, in order to evolve and to draft an MC12 Ministerial outcome document. I thank all delegations 
for their statements, in particular those who have been supportive, and we are looking forward to 
continuing this discussion at the earliest possible junctu re. 
16.59.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
17  STRENGTHENING THE MULTILATERAL CHARACTER OF THE WORLD TRADE 
ORGANIZATION – REQUEST FROM THE AFRICAN GROUP  
17.1.   The Chair  recalled that the item had been included in the agenda of the General Council at 
the re quest of the African Group.  
17.2.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , provided the following 
statement:   
17.3.   The C OVID -19 pandemic has reminded us of the importance of global solidarity when faced 
with common and shared challenges.  It has reminded us of the centrality of multilateralism and 
global solidarity in addressing common challenges.  Importantly, it has highlighted the vast 
disparities between the haves and have nots amongst the membership of the WTO.  The vaccine 
inequity is resulting in a two -track economic recovery process , with a disproportionate impact on 
Africa given the region's limited policy space. Forging the path towards a stronger and sustained 
recovery will require comprehensive and targeted policy actio ns and multilateral support.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 132 - 
 
  17.4.   The preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO recognizes that international 
trade is not an end in itself, but a means towards "raising standards of living and ensuring full 
employment ". It further recognizes tha t "there is a need for positive efforts to be designed to ensure 
that developing countries, and especially the least developed among them, secure a share in the 
growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development ". 
17.5.   It is these ideals that ensured that the WTO is able to attract the diversity of countries, each 
with the hope to engage in a rules -based multilateral trading system that would serve the 
developmental needs of all its Members. Implicit in these ideals was the p rinciple of equality, equity 
and the guarantee that all voices mattered. The optimism with which developing countries embraced 
the WTO was grounded on the promise of prosperity that the trade rules agreed to , would deliver. 
A promise that trade would lead to equitable economic development, inclusive growth, 
industrialization, poverty alleviation – and would be responsive to their needs and the needs of their 
people.  
17.6.   COVID -19 continues to ravage the African Continent, with vaccination numbers lagging far 
behind other regions, let alone developed economies. The economic impact has been equally 
devastating on African economies, affecting the most vulnerable groups in our societies, largely 
women, the rural poor, youth and informal sector workers. Whilst  real GDP in Africa is projected to 
grow by 3.4 % in 2021, this is on the back of a contraction of 2.1 % in 2020. This however masks 
the setbacks that are likely to have a lasting effect well after the pandemic has subsided, with 
estimates that up to 40 million p eople could be pushed into extreme poverty as a result. It is in this 
regard that we call for development to underpin the work of the WTO.  
17.7.   Building back better post pandemic should be about re -anchoring ourselves on the goals and 
principles of the Marrakes h Agreement. This necessitates preserving the multilateral character of 
the WTO and addressing existing asymmetries in trade agreements, especially in the Agreement on 
Agriculture which is critical to food security.  
17.8.   The WTO must contribute to the achievem ent of the SDGs. Indeed, the success and credibility 
of the WTO will not be assessed on the basis of the number of declarations we churn, but on the 
impact of the rules on our respective populations, the majority of whom reside in developing 
countries and LDCs. In the midst of C OVID -19, it will be judged on the basis of how responsive the 
WTO is to the health and economic crisis confronting us. We need a WTO that contributes towards 
equitable access to global public goods and that protects global commons on  the basis of common 
but differentiated responsibilities.  
17.9.   We need to strengthen the multilateral trading system in a manner that benefits all, while 
providing sufficient flexibilities for developing countries to effectively integrate into global trade. Thi s 
should be given expression in the negotiating outcomes that we strive for in the various areas , by 
ensuring effective special and differential treatment and balanced, fair and equitable outcomes.  
17.10.   The two -tier dispute settlement system is fundamental to a  fair and equitable rules -based 
multilateral trading system and must be urgently restored. The biggest risk of a dysfunctional 
Appellate Body is borne by smaller WTO Members who are likely to be subjected to unilateralism 
and power dynamics. Without the A ppellate Body, the WTO dispute settlement system is losing much 
of its predictability. This in turn has serious implications for the rights and obligations of Members 
and has serious consequences for future rule -making efforts in the WTO, as the value of ne gotiated 
outcomes depends on the ability of signatories to enforce them.  
17.11.   The Africa n Group is confident that collectively we can summon the courage to gravitate 
back to the foundational principles that brought us together under the umbrella of the WTO. A W TO 
anchored on the principles of non -discrimination, predictability, transparency, and, most 
importantly, the commitment to development.  
17.12.   The representative of Botswana  provided the following statement:   
17.13.   My delegation aligns itself with the statement by Mauritius on behalf of the African Group, 
and expresses its support for the communication contained in WT/GC/W /825. The multilateral 
trading system is the collective responsibility of all countries who have a stake in it. Its underlying 
princi ples of non -discrimination, predictability, transparency, the tradition of decision -making by WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 133 - 
 
  consensus and, most importantly, the commitment to development, should remain our guiding 
compass. Of outmost importance to WTO Members in the new environment we find ourselves in , is 
the need to reflect on the role of the multilateral trading system in promoting economic recovery 
and in addressing the current and future health crisis. Multilateral cooperation and solidary is needed 
now more than ever to enable Mem bers to effectively respond to the crisis.  
17.14.   I think all Members can agree that the COVID -19 pandemic had a  multifaceted impact on 
the global economy, our health systems and the financial standing of our governments. It has greatly 
turned the tides of our de velopment trajectory and threatens to reverse our development gains in 
ways we could never have anticipated , and is widely disproportionate especially in Africa. As WTO 
Members, we regularly repeat the mantra that we are a rules -based organi zation, but the  continuing 
impasse in restoring a fully functional Appellate Body continues to negate this. We all know that a 
two-tier dispute settlement is essential in building confidence on the ability of the WTO to effectively 
resolve disputes between Members. The c ontinuing impasse has knock -on effects on the negotiating 
function of the WTO – as rules are only as good as we can enforce them. This impasse therefore 
needs to be resolved as a matter of priority. As one of the fundamental principles of the WTO, 
transpar ency must be central to the entire functioning of the WTO and negotiations must be open 
and inclusive,  and take into consideration the resource constraints of developing countries. Let me 
reiterate that in order for our countries to build back better from the COVID -19 pandemic, we need 
multilateralism and mutually beneficial partnerships or cooperation, and a top priority being vaccine 
equity. The concentration of COVID -19 vaccines in a few parts of the world has relegated Africa to 
begging status, even whe re we have access to some resources to purchase. This will result in African 
countries being left behind while many nations are well into their recovery. At this rate, we will not 
be able to close the wide gaps in our levels of development, let alone achie ve the Sustainable 
Development Goals. The WTO has an important role to play in this regard. In conclusion, as a firm 
believer in multilateralism, Botswana stands ready to work with other members to strengthen the 
multilateral character of the WTO.  
17.15.   The representative of Cameroon  provided the following statement:   
17.16.   We support the statement made by Mauritius and we also support the African position  on 
this subject. Regarding the reform of this Organization, this proposal by the African Group indicates 
the principles on which this reform should be done. Of course, the rules of our organi zation would 
only work if inclusivity and transparency are included , so as to ensure a robust multilateral trading 
system enhancing the development of all parties. As indicat ed in the Preamble to the 1994 Marrakesh 
Agreement, international trade is based on states. Cameroon supports the African Group with the 
interest of building a multilateral trading system which is fair, includes the development needs of 
countries, gives pre-eminence  to multilateral discussions, promotes transparency both in its 
procedures and in its discussions , and strengthens the belonging to the organi zation. The same goes 
for the dispute settlement system; it must be accessible to all parties. To this e nd, it is important to 
highlight that it is commonly agreed that the inclusive character of the  dispute settlement system is 
not only appreciated at the level of rules and decisions , but also when looking at the accessibility to 
the system, be it at the fi rst stage or second stage of the procedure. That is why Cameroon supports 
the statement made by the African Group , which not only supports the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system but also supports the setting up of a fund.  
17.17.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , provided the following 
statement:   
17.18.   This submission is not only timely but is relevant as WTO Members continue preparation in 
earnest for MC12. Like other areas of international cooperation, the multilateral trading s ystem faces 
challenges, but it remains an importan t pillar of the global architecture. If the multilateral trading 
system is to be effective in contributing to the growth and sustainable development of all its  
Members, especially the most vulnerable among us, it must be underpinned by the principles of non -
discrimination, predictability, inclusivity, decision making by consensus, transparency and 
development -orientation. The ACP Group wholeheartedly supports the African Group 's view that 
decision by consens us must be the modus operandi in the WTO. In fact, this is a longstanding 
position of the ACP Group. Decision by consensus has played a critical role in the WTO in bringing 
balance to decision making and negotiated outcomes, catering especially for smaller  economies with 
less capacity. Decision by consensus does not always deliver on legitimate expectations, as we have 
seen in the case of the impasse over the appointment of Appellate Body members, but it is the most 
durable solution in the interest of all W TO Members. We, therefore, jealously guard against any WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 134 - 
 
  attempt that may undermine this fundamental principle within the WTO.  It is within this context that 
the ACP Group urges caution again st the current proliferation of plurilateral initiatives in the WTO . 
While we believe that plurilateralism is not new to the WTO, as witnessed with the Government 
Procurement Agreement, for example, we believe that plurilateral discussions should not undermine 
the coveted tradition and principle of multilateralism in the WTO. Additionally, any plurilateral 
outcome must be accepted by consensus by the WTO 's membership in accordance with Articles IX 
and X of the Marrakesh Agreement.  
17.19.   We align our sentiments to the African Group 's call for the restoration of the Appellate Bod y. 
Without adequate confidence that the dispute settlement system will be able to bind Members ' 
adherence to existing rules, we believe that it could affect negotiation of new ones. Our Ministers 
should be presented with a reform work programme to this eff ect at MC12. It is time to resolve the 
Appellate Body impasse. A two -tier, transparent, independent dispute settlement system, as 
envisaged by the DSU, is critical to the functioning and credibility of  the WTO. The C OVID -19 
pandemic has highlighted the int erconnectedness of our world , and while causing disruptions on 
several fronts has also presented an opportunity for us to demonstrate what can be achieved through 
shared collaboration. The global community is keenly observing the WTO and is expecting 
deliverables at MC12. As members of the WTO, we have the moral obligation to ensure the 
organization continues to perform its roles and responsibilities and it remains relevant and fit for 
purpose. The ACP Group thanks the African Group for its submission and e ncourages all WTO 
Members to have deeper engagement and discussion on this matter.  
17.20.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:   
17.21.   We thank the African Group for its submission,  which spells out the fundamental principles 
of the Marrakesh Agreement and the rules of commitment at the WTO which must be maintained 
for the Ministerial Conference as well. If we go back to the recent history of the WTO, the Eleventh 
Ministerial Confere nce conveyed the feeling that the multilateral trading system could undergo a 
serious calling into question. There is a need to take into account the current realities. It is in this 
perspective that it is absolutely essential to take political and courage ous initiatives if we want to 
move forward and obtain results.  The lack of this would run the risk of jeopardizing even more the 
resilience in the long term of the multilateral trading system. We would miss a precious opportunity 
of change in favour of the  implementation of rules and principles , which are the very tenets of the 
WTO and the basis of the multilateral trading system. The LDC Group highlights the fundamental 
role of multilateral rules and regulations to ensure a stable and predictable framework  for multilateral 
trade. It is in the interest of all – developed countries, developing countries and LDCs – to preserve 
the integrity and the advantages of the multilateral trading system and to reform what has to be 
reformed so as to strengthen even more  the work and credibility of the World Trade Organization. 
There are challenges that we have to face. They are colossal.  
17.22.   But trade is not just a buying or selling system regulated through the WTO, it is also a means 
to an end. It is wise to ensure that tr ade can contribute to what we want first and foremost, that is 
to create an added value so as to improve the living standards of populations as mentioned by the 
Ambassador of Mauritius. This concerns especially the living standards of the weaker, more 
vulnerable and fragile populations. WTO Agreements include provisions aimed at increasing the 
trading possibilities of LDCs and also offer them flexibility so that they can implement WTO rules. To 
do so, it is fundamental to move on from reflecting to acting , and then reach convergence through 
a process which is open, inclusive, transparent, flexible and non -discriminatory. The common desire 
to safeguard and strengthen the multilateral trading system would ensure the participation of LDCs 
in international trade . The LDC Group wants a multilateral trading system which is fairer, more 
equitable and within which the LDCs will be able to evolve in a way to speed up their integration in 
international trade and ensure sustainable economic development. We have heard to day the 
statements made by different delegations including Brazil, the United States, China, the European 
Union and other groups. Everyone wants to achieve results by MC12 on important issues of the 
WTO. Given the current situation and context, we must and  can collectively achieve something which 
will give greater credibility to the WTO.  
17.23.   The representative of Pakistan  provided the following statement:   
17.24.   Pakistan is a strong believer of the proper functioning of the multilateral trading system, for 
the mutual benefit of the membership. We believe that the core principles of the Marrakesh 
Agreement should not only be preserved but they should be further str engthened. Some of these WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 135 - 
 
  principles that need to be highlighted and re -emphasized include: (i) Development, that must remain 
a fundamental pillar of the multilateral system. It should provide benefits to the membership across 
the board , particularly to the  developing and least developed countries ; (ii) The principle of special 
and differential treatment should be preserved, as it is a treaty -embedded right of developing 
countries. This principle cannot be diluted to a case-by-case approach or made condition al upon 
other requirements. (iii) Existing inequities and injustices in the system, such as those in the 
Agreement on Agriculture, must be removed to level the playing field. (iv) The c onsensus -based 
decision -making principle must be absolutely upheld. Thi s includes continuing discussions at 
multilateral, mandated forums. (v) The Appellate Body crisis must be resolved to ensure justice and 
to uphold the trust and credibility of the WTO. The credibility and continued relevance of the 
multilateral trading sys tem will depend on its ability to adapt itself to the changing realities and 
dynamics of the globe, such as the COVID -19 pandemic and climate change, in order to uphold these 
principles. Any failure to do so will be detrimental not only for the organizatio n but also for the 
greater public good. Pakistan therefore supports this call by the African group and will continue to 
engage constructively to achieve these objectives.  
17.25.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement:   
17.26.   The E uropean Union welcomes this constructive contribution of the African Group, pointing 
to the particularly negative impact the COVID -19 pandemic has had on developing countries. 
Furthermore, the European Union also agrees with the necessity that the global t rading system and 
therefore the WTO increase its capacity to promote resilience, preparedness and effective response 
to common challenges, including future pandemics.  We believe that for this to happen, WTO 
Members should come together at MC12 to launch wo rk on institutional reform of the organization, 
addressing all three of its core functions – rulemaking, dispute settlement and 
monitoring/deliberation. We welcome a constructive dialogue with the African Group in this regard.  
At the same time, the Europea n Union is committed to preserving the core tenets upon which the 
WTO has been built,  and agree that aiding development and effectively integrating developing 
countries into global trade needs to remain at the core of WTO action.  We agree that special and 
differentiated treatment is important for many WTO Members. It is our priority to ensure effective, 
precise and operational special and differential treatment in the WTO in order to enable these 
Members to apply and benefit from the Agreements. The Europea n Union will continue to support 
constructive initiatives to strengthen the WTO and support developing countries to better integrate 
Members with capacity constraints into the multilateral trading system. We would like to thank the 
African Group for their contribution in this matter.  
17.27.   The representative of China  provided the following statement:   
17.28.   Let me start by thanking the African Group for their submission of this proposal. China 
recognizes the enormous challenges and high vulnerability faced by developin g Members, especially 
LDCs during the global pandemic period. The multilateral trading system is a key tool in addressing 
this common challenge and the current widening inequity in the trading system. To this end, 
Members should strengthen solidarity, enha nce mutual trust and cooperation. The key principles of 
the multilateral trading system should be preserved. Decision -making by consensus must also be 
upheld. We also share the view in the proposal that the proper functioning of a two -tier dispute 
settleme nt system should remain as the top priority for the WTO. The rules -based multilateral 
trading system must be more inclusive, with development at its core, by providing sufficient 
flexibilities and strengthening technical assistance and capacity building fo r developing members to 
be effectively integrated into global trade. S pecial and differential treatment is an integral part of 
the multilateral trading system. We also encourage Members ' full engagement in the discussions on 
special and differential treatm ent provisions to make them more precise, effective and operational. 
In the current pandemic, it is urgent for the WTO to ensure fair access to vaccines and related goods 
for developing Members. MC12 provides us with an invaluable opportunity to strengthen ing the 
multilateral character of the WTO by delivering concrete and meaningful outcomes.  
17.29.   The representative of India provided the following statement:   
17.30.   It is heartening to see that 3 agenda  items relating to the centrality of  the multilateral trading 
system have been brought forward in today 's deliberations, agenda items 14, 16 and this one.  We 
share the core objectives stated by Mauritius on behalf of African Group, namely, the preservation 
of the multilateral character of the WTO, the core pr inciples of the Marrakesh Agreement, including 
special and differential treatment , the need for policy space for developing and LDC Members to reap WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 136 - 
 
  the full benefits of trade, the need for negotiated outcomes of the WTO to be fair and balanced, the 
need fo r WTO Members to share common and differentiated responsibilities, the immediate 
restoration of the two -tier dispute settlement system and the development objective underpinning 
the multilateral trading system.  
17.31.   As mentioned in our intervention under agenda item 14, recognizing the problems created 
by the fragmented system of trade rules, WTO Members sought an end to this problem. This has 
been clearly articulated in the following recitals of the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement : 
"[r]esolved, therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable multilateral trading system  
(…)" and "[d]etermined to preserve the basic principles and to further the objectives underlying this 
multilateral trading system. " Going back to plurilateral agreements would, therefore, be a step in 
the wrong direction and would be contrary to the determination and resolve, as enshrined in the 
Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement. My delegation therefore supports the call by the Afri can 
Union and many other Members to strengthen the multilateral character of the World Trade 
Organization in all its activities, starting from agenda setting, negotiations and finalization and 
adoption of new rules, to achieve inclusive development -oriente d balanced outcomes, in line with 
the principles enshrined in the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement, including "raising standards 
of living and ensuring full employment " and the "need for positive efforts designed to ensure that 
developing countries, and  especially the least developed among them, secure a share in the growth 
in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development ".  
17.32.   The representative of Central African Republic  provided the following statement:   
17.33.   This presentation  recalls the multilateral trading system's limited capacity to overcome the 
significant challenges of our time in the light of the goal that our organization has set itself since it 
was established. These challenges create uncertainty as regards the future  of the WTO as a forum 
for negotiations.  We must, as a matter of urgency, make a bold decision to move away from an 
attitude based on defending our own trade interests to a common vision for moving forward together 
in a progressive and tangible manner towa rds achieving the WTO's goals and making the WTO a 
setting in which all Members, particularly developing countries and least developed countries, are 
able to find their place and increase their participation.  We support this declaration and call on 
Members  to take note of the WTO's current poor capacity for resilience and to commit to reforming 
our multilateral trading system.  The Twelfth Ministerial Conference should be an opportunity to 
establish a working group tasked with assessing the WTO's ability to discharge its duties and 
proposing an adapted framework that offers all Members equal opportunities to succeed and the 
means  to participate effectively in international trade.  
17.34.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement:   
17.35.   The WTO was established against  the backdrop of multilateralism, and in the words of the 
Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement, the Members re solved to develop an integrated, more viable 
and durable multilateral trading system. The WTO should therefore continue to play its envisaged 
role of not only providing a forum for negotiation of multilateral trade agreements, but should also 
ensure that d eveloping countries and LDCs secure a share in the growth of international trade. The 
WTO also ought to contribute solutions to the challenges of globalization and be a real means to 
growth and sustainable development. International trade should be a means  for promotion of global 
partnerships for sustainable development and the implementation of the SDGs. It is for these 
reasons that we support the upholding of the founding objectives of the WTO as highlighted in the 
paper by the African Group.  
17.36.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement:   
17.37.   The Philippines agrees with the elements contained in paragraph 7 of the proposal, 
particularly on the importance of restoring the two -tier dispute settlement system. This is indeed an 
important contribution of the African Group. It provides principles, alongside other initiatives 
mentioned today, and will certainly serve as a good foundation for a substantive MC12 outcome. We 
look forward to further engagement with the African Group and  other Members in the coming work 
ahead towards MC12.   
17.38.   The representative of Sri Lanka  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 137 - 
 
  17.39.   We value the contribution made by the African Group to this body. Though they are 
marginalized due to their inherent low level of deve lopment in many countries in the African region, 
it has always contributed significantly to enshrine and preserve the multilateral character of this 
institution. Today, we listened to many Members say that the Doha Agenda is dead and that the 
Doha Round is  at an impasse. If we look at the past trade rounds, there had always been such 
failures. Fortunately, due to the far -reaching thinking of the trade negotiators, such setbacks have 
been overcome and the rounds have been brough t back on track with the affir mative reiteration of 
the key principles of the multilateral trading system. In light of that, we recognize that the proposal 
enshrines all those key principles. Looking at the debate today, the African Group proposal reminds 
us why we are here and why we really need to look at the WTO as an institution which promotes 
development rather than only a rule -making institution , particularly we need policy space for 
development. We hope this proposal will be supported by as many Members as possible. Eventually, 
we wish to see some of these elements in a Ministerial Declaration, to remind all of us as to why we 
are here. This proposal captures all those principles.  
17.40.   The representative of South Africa  provided the following statement:   
17.41.   South Africa supports the statement delivered by Mauritius on behalf of the Africa n Group 
on the communication contained in WT/GC/825 and Jamaica on behalf of the ACP.  COVID -19 has 
reminded us of the importance of multilateralism as no country will be able  to respond to the 
pandemic on its own. The magnitude of the current crisis has resulted in an enormous setback to 
recent development gains, including the SDGs. The COVID -19 vaccine inequity is resulting in a two -
track economic recovery process with a disp roportionate impact on Africa given the region's limited 
policy space. We have seen in the context of the current pandemic that an effective response 
requires a coordinated multilateral response and global solidarity. The submission by the Africa n 
Group th erefore highlights the need to preserve multilateralism and the multilateral character of the 
WTO.  The credibility and continued relevance of the multilateral trading system is premised on 
mutual benefit from the system, as perceived by its Members, mutual  trust and responsiveness to 
core challenges facing humanity , as well as its ability to address the existing imbalances in WTO 
Agreements , that continue to hamper the effective participation of developing countries in global 
trade and which is key to build  resilience. The WTO is about people and it should prioritize the goals 
and principles that are set out in the Marrakesh Agreement , which recognizes that international trade 
is not an end in itself, but a means towards "raising standards of living and ensu ring full 
employment ". We share the view that WTO Members should strongly support the multilateral trading 
system  and seek to strengthen the WTO. This necessitates respecting the rules and mandates, 
especially those that are critical to the effective integ ration of developing countries in global trade.  
17.42.   When the DDA was launched, it heralded hope that the WTO would deliver on development 
and issues of importance to developing countries. The long -outstanding issues that are critical to 
developing countries a re now all the more urgent. Failure to deliver on these issues will result in an 
increasing backlash against trade , especially in the context of the pandemic.  It is in this regard that 
the Africa Group calls for development to remain at the centre of the M TS. On issues of sustainability , 
common but differentiated responsibility should be the underpinning principle.  Thus, building back 
better post this pandemic should be about re -anchoring ourselves on the principle of trade as not 
an end in itself, but a me ans towards uplifting the poor from poverty and underdevelopment and 
towards sustainable integration in the international trading system. This should be given expression 
in the negotiating outcomes that we strive for in the various areas by ensuring effect ive special and 
differential treatment and balanced, fair and equitable outcomes.  Special and differential treatment 
must therefore be embedded in the trade rules.  In promoting multilateralism, we also have to be 
mindful that the WTO consists of Members at  different levels of development. The Marrakesh 
Agreement states that "there is a need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing 
countries, and especially the least developed among them, secure a share in the growth in 
international trade com mensurate with the needs of their economic development. " The multilateral 
trading system is a collective responsibility , and all WTO Members have a stake in it. The principles 
of non -discrimination, predictability, transparency, and, most importantly, the commitment to 
development, must continue to underpin the multilateral trading system.  
17.43.   The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  provided the following statement:   
17.44.   This communication is relevant on more than one level and comes at an appropriate time in 
the context of preparing for MC12. This communication, from our point of view, grants the ability 
for the Organization to look at resuming the vocation of the WTO as a multilateral organi zation. The WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 138 - 
 
  WTO must, through the governance of global trade,  contribute to development for all, especially 
developing countries and LDCs. We are talking about placing the WTO at the very centre  of 
development. All the aspects underlined in this communication  have one single aim: for the WTO to 
play its role. From t his point of view, this communication  should enjoy favour from all Members 
because many Members think of the WTO as a symbol of development. We support this 
communication and ask that Members take note of the relevant elements  which have been 
underlined wi thin it.  
17.45.   The representative of Tanzania  provided the following statement:   
17.46.   I would like to align myself to the statement of the African Group and support the 
communication of the African Group. The founding and guiding principles that have built the WTO 
are what have made this organization highly respected over the years. Some of the key principles 
include its inclusivity in decision -making processes through consensus, the binding nature of  its 
decisions, the enforcement of its agreements through dispute settlement mechanism, special and 
differential treatment based on the development levels of Members, the non-discrimination principle, 
predictability, transparency through notifications and many other procedural issues elaborated in 
respective WTO Agreements. However, in recent years, some of these principles are slowly being 
eroded and undermined under the disguise of reform. This is highly concerning, particularly for 
weaker Members, of whi ch its continuation will further weaken the image and the relevance of the 
Organization in the long -run. The African Group communication should be a wake -up call and a 
reminder for Members to uphold key principles and procedures which have built the Organization. 
The WTO is irreplaceable , we cannot envisage another organization that could possibly take its 
position  or place and earn our full trust. That being said , we ought to strengthen trust and 
cooperation among Members to ensure a strong functioning WTO . Moreover, it is important we 
recogni ze and acknowledge that Members are at different levels of development, and it is crucial 
that the WTO continues to take into account the development needs of weaker Members with a view 
to minimise existing inequalities and gaps.   
17.47.   The representative of Uganda  provided the followin g statement:  
17.48.   We have asked these questions before and continue to ask them: What is the place of the 
WTO in development? How have multilateral systems/rules aided or stampeded structural 
transformation and industrialization for Members? How do the trade d istorting domestic supports 
employed by some major economies fit into the free trade narrative espoused by some Members? 
What should be of paramount importance in the political economy of a country? Should it be 
multilateral institutions or the needs and i nterests of a country? Would the WTO exist without the 
support of its Members? Can we write new rules when the decisions made by our Ministers and the 
General Council are not implemented? Should we write new rules when the enforcement mechanism 
of the organization is in dispute? The multilateral character of the WTO requires that every Member 
brings to the fore the best it has to offer in terms of compromise for the common good, it requires 
that Members stay the course because the benefit ultimately is mean ingful for all , especially the 
most disadvantaged . It also requires that every Member plays a role in decision -making because the 
decisions made have a real impact on the lives of ordinary people. As such, the consensus principle 
of decision -making must be especially guarded by all and in all circumstances.  
17.49.   The representative of Mauritius  provided the following statement:   
17.50.   I have listened carefully to all the statements made and I think that what we heard was 
everything from wholehearted support , to welcoming a constructive proposal from us. I have not 
heard any delegation say "no", perhaps some nuances were expressed. Generally, we hope that this 
paper can find its way to the Ministerial Declaration and to the elements paper that the Chair is 
putting  up for us to consider. I thank all delegations who have taken the floor today . I am very 
impressed that we are engaged in substantive discussions and proposals . I thank the commitment 
of the WTO to move forward and to recognize the importance of the multi lateral trading system.   
17.51.   The General Council took note of the statements.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 139 - 
 
  18  WAIVERS UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT  
18.1  European Union – Application of Autonomous Preferential Treatment to the Western 
Balkans – Extension of Waiver – Draft Decision (G/C/W/794)  
18.1.   The Chair  recalled that the item on the draft waiver on "European Union – Request for a 
Waiver Extension – Application of Autonomous Preferential Treatment to the Western Balkans" in 
document G/C/W/794 had be  taken up for consideration by the C ouncil for Trade in Goods at its July 
meeting. On behalf of Ambassador Lundeg P urevsuren  (Mongolia), Chai r of the Goods Council, he 
report ed that the CTG had considered the waiver request at its  July meeting and had agreed to 
forward it to the General Council for adoption.   
18.2.   The representative of European Union  provided the following statement:   
18.3.   We wish to thank all Members for the support they have shown regarding the extension of 
this waiver.  
18.4.   The Chair noted that u nless delegations wish ed to comment, he would propose that the 
General Council adopt the draft Decision in G/C/W/794 which relate d to the "European Union – 
Request for a Waiver Extension – Application of Autonomous Preferential Treatment to the Western 
Balkans".  
18.5.   The General Council so agree d18.  
18.2  Review of Waivers Pursuant to Article I X:4 of the WTO  Agreement  
18.2.1   Least -Developed Country M embers – Obligations under Article 70.8 and 
Article  70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to Pharmaceutical Products, granted on 
30 November 2015 until 1 January 2033 (WT/L/971)  
18.2.2   Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds, granted on 
26 July 2018 through 31 December 2024 (WT/L/1039)  
18.2.3   Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 28 July 2015 until 31 December 2023 
(WT/L/958, WT/L/1112)  
18.6.   The Chair referred to the review of waivers in sub -item (b), in accordance with paragraph 4 
of Article IX of the WTO Agreement,  that "any waiver granted for a period of more than one year 
shall be reviewed by the Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and 
thereafter annually until the waiver terminates." There were three waivers before the Ge neral 
Council for review, and they were listed in the proposed Agenda.   
18.7.   The Chair stress ed that th ose waivers ha d already been agreed to by the General Council and 
that they were in force. The General Council was not expected to take any new decision on th eir 
renewal or otherwise at th e meeting.   
18.8.   One of the waivers under review provide d that an annual report should be submitted by the 
Member concerned regarding the operation or implementation of th e waiver with a view to facilitating 
its annual review by th e General Council. The report from Canada ha d been circulated in document 
WT/L/1112.  
18.9.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement:   
18.10.   Recognizing the special relationship between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean, in 
1986 CARIBCAN was established to help improve the trade and economic development prospects of 
the region. In light of the continuing relevance of the considerations unde rlying CARIBCAN, the 
initiative's objectives, scope and coverage remain unchanged. Canada thanks those Members that 
have expressed support for the CARIBCAN program and the associated WTO waiver.  
 
18 The Decision was subsequently circulated in WT/L/1114.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 140 - 
 
  18.11.   The representative of Jamaica , provided the following stateme nt:  
18.12.   We wish to make a brief statement in Jamaica's national capacity on Agenda item 18.2.3 on 
the Canada – CARIBCAN waiver. We wish to thank Canada for its report and statement. We continue 
to appreciate this key trade instrument. As we have often said, 9 7% of Jamaica's products to Canada 
are granted duty -free access within this framework. A significant portion of that go es to businesses 
and mechanisms under MSMEs, many of which are owned by women and youth. We continue to 
appreciate Canada in this regard,  having been a longstanding strategic partner with Jamaica,  with a  
beneficial cooperation in a wide range of important areas including trade. As we move into a fourth 
pandemic economic recovery mode, Jamaica sees mechanisms such as CARIBCAN playing a criti cal 
role, and this may include further expansion in trade in goods and services as well as increased 
investment opportunities with Canada. Jamaica wishes to reaffirm its sincere gratitude to Canada 
for maintaining the CARIBCAN mechanism , which we view as a  clear demonstration of its 
commitment to a partnership for trade and development with its Caribbean  neighbours. We align 
ourselves with the statement to be made by Saint Lucia on behalf of CARICOM.  
18.13.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , provided the following statement:   
18.14.   The LDC Group supports this waiver and notes that its importance is ever greater given the 
pandemic. The measures that are in place should be recogni zed in all of the responses to the COVID -
19 pandemic.  
18.15.   The representative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of CARICOM , provided the following statement:   
18.16.   I am making this statement on behalf of the CARICOM Group. At the outset, we thank 
Canada for its submission contained in document WT/L/1112. While CARIBCAN was concept ualized 
in 1985 and enacted the following year, the constructive relationship between CARICOM countries 
and Canada goes back many decades before. We are grateful that this relationship still endures. 
Preferential access to the Canadian market, whether unde r CARIBCAN or the General Preferential 
Tariff (GPT) remains extremely important for CARICOM countries. This preferential access directly 
and indirectly supports jobs, including for MSMEs and women entrepreneurs, foreign exchange 
earnings and our further in tegration into the global economy. Our Member States are working 
feverishly to boost productive capacity and pursue economic  diversification to trade and take greater 
advantage of preferential access in important partner markets such as Canada. The near 10 % drop 
in exports from CARIBCAN beneficiary countries to Canada in 2020 , also demonstrates the impact 
of the COVID -19 pandemic on our economies and further highlight our immense vulnerability to 
exogenous shocks, thereby reinforcing the need for us to boos t economic resilience post -pandemic. 
Finally, Mr. Chairman, permit us again to thank the Permanent Delegation of Canada for its report.  
18.17.   The General Council took note of the report contained in documents WT/L/1112, and of the 
statements . 
19  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET , FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION – REPORTS ON THE 
MEETINGS OF APRIL, MAY, JUNE AND JULY 2021 (WT/BFA/194, WT/BFA/195, 
WT/BFA/196)  
19.1.   The Chair  drew attention to the reports from the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration in WT/BFA/194, 195, and 196.  
19.2.   Ambassador Bettina WALDMANN (Germany), Chair of the CBFA  provided the following 
statement:  
19.3.   Since my last report to the General Council, the C ommittee has meet on several occasions. 
In my remarks today, I will provide some highlights of the formal meetings of the Committee that 
took place on 25 May, 22 June, 1 July, and 12 July 2021. The reports of those meetings are contained 
in documents WT/BF A/194, WT/BFA/195, and WT/BFA/196.  
19.4.   My key priority is to ensure the timely passage of the 2022 -2023 WTO and ITC budget 
proposals. The WTO and ITC budget proposals were both formally presented to the Committee on 
22 June 2021. Both continue to be under consideration by the Committee. The goa l is to ensure WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 141 - 
 
  adequate time, for in -depth deliberations and to make a recommendation for approval before the 
end of the year.  
19.5.   At the meeting of the CBFA held on 12 July, Members considered the 2020 WTO Financial 
Performance Report, which comprises of the budgetary performance, trust fund performance and 
financial statements. I am pleased to report that the Independent External Auditors have placed an 
unqualified audit opinion on the WTO's Financial Statements for 2020. This means that, in the 
External Audi tors' opinion, the Financial Statements prepared by the Secretariat give a "true and 
fair view" of the financial performance and financial position of the organization and comply with 
applicable international accounting principles.  
19.6.   However, the Committee h as not yet endorsed that report or the Financial Statements for 
2020. Another matter that continues to be under consideration by the Committee relates to proposed 
utilization of the 2020 Budgetary Surplus, of approximately CHF 11.7 million.  
19.7.   Still on the q uestion of the WTO's financial performance, and looking ahead, let me draw your 
attention to the long -term pension and after service health insurance liabilities of the organization 
which are very significant, and increasing. Taking adjustments for these l ong-term liabilities into 
account the overall financial result obtained in 2020 is a deficit of CHF 37.1 million, even though the 
annual budgetary result is positive.  
19.8.   This topic is of key interest and came up during several Committee meetings in the previo us 
year. Further discussions are continuing in a small group process, open to all delegations. As 
mentioned at the last General Council meeting, Alicia Goujon, from Mexico, is helping me lead that 
process. Discussions have been constructive, and the target  is to agree to the text of a progress 
report by 30 July, and to submit recommendations to the CBFA in October.  
19.9.   At the meeting of the CBFA held on 1st July, Members discussed document WT/BFA/W/559 
regarding a request by the Secretariat for the endorsement of the revisions to Financial 
Regulations  4, 17, 26, 27, 29, 37, 38 and 42 that were agreed in 2019. That document envisions 
that a complete set of the revised Financial Regulations that could be tabled for approval by the 
General Council in October 2021. At the meeting of the CBFA held on 12 July, I summed up my 
understanding, that there is no disagreement with respect to the revisions to these Financial 
Regulations 4, 17, 26, 27, 29, 37, 38 and 42 set out in document WT/BFA/W/568.  
19.10.   Furthermore, consultati ons are ongoing among Members on Financial Regulation 19 
(regarding voluntary contributions to the WTO and trust funds). If agreement is reached on the 
revisions, Financial Regulation 19 could be included in the package of Financial Regulations that I 
hope can be endorsed by the CBFA and presented to the General Council for approval in October.  
19.11.   There is also the question of a possible revision to Financial Regulation 23 (which concerns 
use of any budgetary surpluses) and a revision to Financial Regulation 6 or 10 (regarding the 
continuity of operations pending approval of a budget). It is my impression however, that discussion 
regarding those revisions may require more time. I have encouraged Members to show flexibility 
and will provide you with updates.  
19.12.   I would be remiss if I did not mention the issue of the structural review, as this is one of the 
key issues going forward for both the WTO and for Members. Members had an opportunity to meet 
with the external consultants, McKinsey, earlier this month, to pro vide thoughts and share insights. 
The McKinsey report will most likely be presented to the DG in early August. I am grateful to the DG 
and to DDG Ellard for encouraging Members to engage in the structural review, as well as the DG's 
and the DDG's commitmen t to a full and transparent discussion with Members regarding next steps. 
I would also like to express appreciation to DDG Ellard for her updates to Members regarding this 
matter, including recently, at the 12 July CBFA.  
19.13.   The representative of India provide d the following statement:   
19.14.   We wish to draw to Members ' attention an important issue emanating from those meetings.  
During the financial year 2020, the WTO has accumulated a surplus of CHF 11,771,979.  The DG has 
proposed that an amount of CHF 9.8 million (amounting to 5% of the WTO budget) be adjusted 
against the Member contributions for 2022. India supports this proposal by the Director General to WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 142 - 
 
  pass on the savings realized during 2020 to the Members , by way of their reduced contributions for 
the next year.  This proposal is in line with India' s suggestion made at the October 2020 General 
Council meeting last year for a voluntary cut in WTO 's budget in solidarity with Members battling 
the grave economi c situation due to the ongoing pandemic. The proposal by the Secretariat to pass 
on part of the 2020 savings to Members is a win -win for everyone. These saving were realized 
without the Secretariat having to cut -corners last year and its operations were no t impacted.  Passing 
on that benefit to Members to reduce their burden, even if it 's not significant, sends a positive 
message to the membership and to the world that the WTO is sensitive to the Members ' current 
economic situation brought on by the pandemic . Particularly looking at the drop in GDP and revenue 
of respective countries, and an increase in debt and depreciation of currency, thereby resulting in 
higher contribution to the WTO in terms of local currency.  This is precisely what our intention was 
when we made the proposal last year.  The WTO certainly deserves credit for this gesture. I take this 
opportunity to complement the DG for the proposal and call upon all Members to support it whole 
heartedly.   
19.15.   The General Council took note of Ambassador Waldm ann's statement and of the other 
statement made and  adopt ed the reports in WT/BFA/194, 195 and 196.  
20  WTO PENSION PLAN  
20.1  Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ending 31 December 2020 
(WT/L/1111)  
20.2  Report of the Independent External Auditor on the A udit of the Financial Statements 
of the World Trade Organization Pension Plan (WTOPP) for the Year Ended 
31 December  2020 (WT/L/1113 AND WT/L/1113/CORR.1)  
20.1.   The Chair drew attention to the Annual Report of the Management Board for 2020 contained 
in document WT/L/1111, which was submitted to the General Council in accordance with Article 5(d) 
of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan. He also draw attention to the Report o f the Independent 
External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial Statements of the WTOPP in document WT/L/1113 and 
WT/L/1113/Corr.1.  
20.2.   Mr. Jean -Marc Van Dril  (Switzerland), Chair of the Management Board , provided the following 
statement:  
20.3.   I am pleased to pre sent to the General Council the 2020 Report of the External Auditor and 
the 2020 Annual Report of the WTO Pension Plan, which can be found under the document numbers 
WT/L/1113 and WT/L/1111. These reports, covering the period from 1st  January  to 31 Decembe r 
2020, have been prepared in accordance with Article 5 of the Regulations of the Plan for presentation 
to the General Council and to the Pension Plan participants.  
20.4.   On the Report of the external auditor: while accepting the 2020 financial statements with a n 
unqualified opinion, the new External Auditors issued a recommendation to adopt an external 
accounting standard for the preparation of the Pension Plan accounts starting from 2021. This will 
be looked into by the Management Board in the next months.  
20.5.   Turning to the 2020 Annual report, the spread of Covid -19 has created sharp movements in 
financial markets in the first quarter of the year. Nonetheless, the Pension Plan’s investment strategy 
delivered a nominal rate of return of 4.2% at end -2020, which is ab ove the 3.5% target rate of 
return used in the actuarial assumptions. Over the last five years, the Plan's portfolio generated an 
average annual nominal return of +5.4%. Let me here underline that variations in returns are 
normal, with years above and year s below the target. Despite the good performances in 2020, the 
uncertainty introduced by the C OVID -19 pandemic means the prospects for investors are likely to 
remain challenging in the near future. In any case, following a few years of above average return s, 
it will be normal to expect that markets might correct and that the Plan experiences some below 
average returns in the future. However, the WTO Pension Plan is a long -term investor. Its  strategy 
is designed to make use of the opportunities provided by m arket downturns, by purchasing at 
attractive prices assets that hold the potential for more sustained, even if modest, returns.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 143 - 
 
  20.6.   Regarding the actuarial matters, the process of completing the full actuarial valuation based 
on end -2019 data has been interru pted in late summer 2020. The reason for this was the sudden 
decision by the actuarial company (Mercer) to make the Plan's leading Consulting Actuary redundant. 
Consequently, the Management Board launched in late 2020 a competitive procurement exercise for  
a new Consulting Actuary. The recruitment process has been completed in the first half of 2021. The 
actuarial valuation is now under way and will be presented by the end of the year, based on new 
actuarial assumptions that adequately reflect current antic ipations about the future of the Plan. As 
mentioned earlier, near term economic conditions are expected to be challenging, a situation that 
can result in sustained below -average returns. Combined with unprecedentedly low (and even 
negative) interest rates and shifting staff demographics, we anticipate identifying  an actuarial 
imbalance. The Management Board will be closely monitoring these trends and - when necessary – 
will be making recommendations to address such an imbalance.  
20.7.   In 2020, the Management Boar d made important investment decisions that included: 
(i) revising the Plan's strategic asset allocation to include 50% equities, 30% fixed -income and 20% 
real estate investments; (ii) changing three investment vehicles; (iii) and introducing an additional 
rule for rebalancing. These decisions were followed by revising the Plan's Investment Guidelines 
accordingly. During the summer of 2020, a full renewal of Board membership was completed for a 
new three -years term ending in July 2023. Let me underline that the Management Board remains 
committed to full engagement in ensuring the continued good governance of the WTO Pension Plan 
and its long -term sustainability. I would like to conclude by acknowledging the excellent work of the 
Plan's Secretary and its team,  ensuring the daily operations of the plans and providing the necessary 
support for the Board to perform its duties.   
20.8.   The General Council took note of the Annual Report in document WT/L/1111, and of the 
Report in document WT/L/1113 and Corrigendum  1. 
21  CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT – AUSTRALIA; 
CANADA; THE EUROPEAN UNION; JAPAN; NEW ZEALAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; UNITED KINGDOM; AND THE 
UNITED STATES  
21.1.   The Chair  noted  that the item had been added at the request of the delegation of Japan on 
behalf of a number of Members as indicated in the agenda.  
21.2.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement:   
21.3.   As the representative of the United Kingdom, I am delivering this statement on behalf of the 
following Members: Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Japan, Montenegro, New 
Zealand, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Mats u (Chinese Taipei), 
the United Kingdom, and the United States. The GPA Committee started the selection process for 
the next Chair in January this year. As Members will recall, the GPA Committee is currently composed 
of twenty -one Parties. The Chair of the GPA Committee is to be selected only by these Parties. That 
Chair has a duty to act in an entirely impartial manner. Accession candidates or Observers are not 
entitled to participate in any decision -making process of the Committee. Under that selection 
process, two candidates were nominated by GPA Parties, one from the Chinese Taipei and the other 
from the European Union. We recall that Chinese Taipei, like all other WTO Members, retains all 
benefits and obligations associated with WTO Membership, including  the right to chair WTO 
Committees. During the consultative meetings held by the outgoing GPA Chair and GPA Parties, a 
significant majority of the Parties expressed a preference for the candidate from Chinese Taipei. We, 
as GPA Parties, take this opportuni ty to underline our full confidence in that process, which we 
believe was run with integrity. Therefore, with respect to the long -established convention across this 
organization, on 25 May, the European Union withdrew the candidate from Poland from the Cha ir 
selection process. This left Chinese Taipei's candidate as the only remaining candidate. In an effort 
to appoint the candidate from Chinese Taipei as the Committee's next Chair, GPA Parties met for an 
informal consultative meeting on 28 May, a formal me eting on 2 June, and then most recently, an 
ad hoc formal meeting on 16 July. The outgoing Chair departed from Geneva on 21 July. Despite 
the fact that there was only one candidate for the position, Hong Kong, China intervened, on each 
occasion, to block c onsensus on appointing the next Chair of the GPA Committee. Furthermore, as 
reflected in the Minutes of the GPA Committee's formal meeting on 2 June - where Hong Kong, China 
continued to block consensus - China, a GPA observer, made an intervention on the agenda item of 
chair selection, stating that "China hopes that the chair selected by the GPA Parties would play a WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 144 - 
 
  positive role in China's accession to the GPA," and that the chair selected by the Parties would "not 
cause unnecessarily negative impact on C hina's accession to the GPA."   
21.4.   We, in our capacities as both WTO Members and GPA Parties, would again recall the long -
established tradition of Chairs across this House acting with full impartiality. Against that context, 
and, given the statements made in C ommittee – combined with the nature and sequence of these 
events, and concerns about China's approach to Chinese Taipei chairing WTO bodies - a number of 
GPA Parties are deeply concerned that the GPA Committee's functioning is being undermined. We 
would li ke to again reiterate that a non -Party, including GPA accession candidates and GPA 
observers, is not entitled to participate in the GPA Committee's decision -making process. In order 
to avoid further disruption to the Committee's work and schedule we, as ex isting GPA Parties, believe 
that all GPA Parties should come together to ensure a smooth transition of the chairmanship. We 
urge Hong Kong, China – a WTO Member, and GPA Party that we consider has long played a central 
and constructive role in the GPA Comm ittee, including as one of the first ever Committee Chairs - 
to reconsider its position. We urge Hong Kong, China to join consensus to appoint the only remaining 
candidate as the next Chair of the GPA Committee.  
21.5.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement:   
21.6.   Switzerland is disappointed that a party to the Agreement on Government Procurement 
cannot join the consensus on the successful candidate for the position of Chair of the GPA Committee. 
The selection process was conducte d in a proper manner and the current situation sets an 
unfortunate precedent in the functioning of the Committee. Switzerland has taken good note of the 
concerns expressed by one party to the GPA. However, we would like to stress our full confidence in 
the ability of the selected candidate to perform this function with diligence and impartiality. 
Furthermore, moving the accession processes forward is first and foremost a matter of commitment 
by the acceding Members and the parties to the Agreement. We note that, as with other WTO 
Committees, the Chairmanship is renewed annually. The parties to the GPA therefore have the 
possibility, after one year, not to renew the Chair's mandate if she does not fulfil her responsibilities 
in a satisfactory manner. Switzerl and would therefore like to invite the party to the GPA opposing 
the consensus to take this into consideration and to reassess the situation. We hope that a consensus 
can be reached as soon as possible in order to ensure the proper functioning of this Comm ittee. 
21.7.   The representative of China  provided the following statement:  
21.8.   I am a little surprise d that  the GPA Chair selection issue has been raised separately on the 
agenda. We see the problems in the recent years ' WTO Chair selection processes and are open to  
discuss , but before new rules are reached, it is important for us to follow the existing guidelines and 
practices. We had difficult situations before, such as the C hair selection of the  Negotiating Group of 
Rules a couple of years ago and the Working Party on GATS Rules in 2020. With the relevant practices 
and guidelines, and Members ' flexibilit y, they were all well addressed. Among them, Members ' 
goodwill, flexibilit y and respect of other WTO Members ' sensitivities are the most important.  
21.9.   Regarding the specific issue of  the GPA Chair selection, I would like to take this opportunity 
to underscore the following points. First, as a plurilateral agreement under the WTO framework, the 
GPA Chair is selected only by GPA Parties. China, as an observer to the GPA, fully respects the GPA 
Chair selection process and outcome and has no intention to interfere. Second, any Member, 
including China, has the right to express its concern and sensitivities. Among those practices and 
guidelines regarding the C hair select ion of WTO bodies, one guiding principle is to respect Members ' 
sensitivities. Though the GPA Committee is a plurilateral agreement committee, it is still under the 
WTO framework. If any decision made in the GPA will have spill overs  on non -parties ' sensit ivities, 
the GPA Parties should also follow the above -mentioned guidelines and give attention and respect 
on such sensitivities of non -Parties.  
21.10.   We regret that the GPA Committee has not been able to select a new Chair. We noted that 
in order to solve the GPA Chair selection impasse, one GPA party has already submitted two specific 
proposals trying to find a solution  and other parties have also actively coordinated among Parties  to 
seek a way out. We appreciate the great efforts made by those Parties. As Chi na is at a critical stage 
of joining the GPA, we hope that all GPA parties could demonstrate flexibility, seek a solution in a 
pragmatic manner and solve the Chair selection impasse as soon as possible through consensus, WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 145 - 
 
  with the aim of ensuring the proper  functioning of  the GPA and promoting the accession of other 
Members, including China, to the GPA. 
21.11.   The representative of Israel  provided the following statement:   
21.12.   First, I would like to express our appreciation to the Chair of the GPA Committee for 
facilitating the selection process of the next Chair and for his extensive efforts to help find a qualified 
person to succeed him. Israel regrets that the Committee was n ot able to reach a consensus on the 
next GPA Chair, although it had conducted a complete consultative process which was supported by 
almost all Members. Israel attaches great importance to the GPA and believes it is imperative for all 
GPA Parties to select  a Chair as soon as possible by consensus.  
21.13.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  provided the following statement:   
21.14.   I would thank the United Kingdom and other proponents of this agenda item for sharing with 
us their observations and views relating to the matter of chairmanship of the Committee on 
Government Procurement. Early this year, when we learned that there is a need to select a new CGP 
Chair because the then incumbent Chair was leaving Geneva this summer, I personally met with the 
two candidates to discuss their candidacies. After thorough internal deliberations, Hong Kong, China 
informed the Committee Chair during the first round of consultations that we would only support the 
EU candidate as the next Chair and would object to the Chinese Taipei can didate. Although the EU 
candidate subsequently withdrew from the race, we informed the Chair before the informal 
consultative meeting held in late May that we were unable to join any consensus to designate the 
Chinese Taipei candidate as the next Committee  Chair. We have explained to all GPA Parties at a 
formal CGP meeting in June that Hong Kong, China's position was formulated with the WTO's broader 
interests in mind.  
21.15.   Let me explain. The Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) is a plurilateral 
agreemen t. Hong Kong, China, as a GPA Party, has all along been actively engaged in the businesses 
of the CGP and always has the best interests of the GPA at heart. Hong Kong, China does not support 
designating the Chinese Taipei candidate as the next Committee Ch air because we believe this 
proposal will not be conducive to advancing the various work programmes of the CGP and the 
accession of new GPA Parties. GPA Parties may recall that this is not the first time Hong Kong, China 
does not follow the herd. A few yea rs ago, when a Member had to seek a separate membership in 
the GPA as it was leaving a regional trade group, Hong Kong, China was the first to lend our strong 
support to that Member, notwithstanding the different views held by some other GPA parties. Back 
then as in the present case, Hong Kong, China's position is formulated based on our strong belief 
that smooth and early accession of interested economies, big or small, is in line with the interests 
of all existing and potential GPA Parties.  
21.16.   There is also  a broader consideration – we note there has been a much better working 
environment in the WTO since the appointment of the new Director -General early this year, and 
Members have been working earnestly on various fronts since then to pursue progress and 
deliverables by MC12. We strongly believe that we should strive to avoid introducing further divisions 
and unnecessary conflicts among Members at this critical time, which would inevitably distract us 
from our on -going efforts in the WTO. In the spirit of co nstructive engagement, Hong Kong, China 
has suggested to other GPA Parties earlier this month that we should try to identify another candidate 
on whom a consensus can be forged as the next Committee Chair, and invite the Deputy Director -
General or the Divi sion Director responsible for government procurement matters to stand in as an 
interim arrangement until the next Committee Chair is designated. Unfortunately, both suggestions 
were rejected by other GPA Parties without much discussion. Hong Kong, China al l along upholds 
WTO's long -established and important principle of making decisions by consensus. Although Hong 
Kong, China may be holding a minority view in this matter, we believe it is WTO's core value that 
even minority view should be respected. We will  not accept other GPA Parties imposing their 
preferences on us, doing so would mean yielding to the notion that a small economy's view is 
unimportant and that it should just step aside when its views are at odds with those of bigger 
players. Hong Kong, Chi na stands ready to work with other GPA Parties in the coming months to 
select the next Committee Chair in accordance with WTO's long -established tradition of making 
decisions by consensus.  
21.17.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:   WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 146 - 
 
  21.18.   I do not necessarily  believe that we, as Members, need to take non -Members' interest into 
account in this type of decision. I do want to push back on that. I also want to point out with deep 
sadness the comments that were made by Hong Kong, Chi na, basing their decision with the WTO's 
broader interest in mind. It is unclear to us whether or not we have any common interest. That is 
extremely disappointing. I don't know what those broader interests are , but this definitely speaks 
volumes about wher e we are as a membership.  
21.19.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement:   
21.20.   Japan, one of the GPA Parties , echoes the statements made by the United Kingdom and 
reiterate s the content of the statement. GPA Parties have important issues to discu ss in the 
Committee on Government Procurement , which include Member s' accession s. The Committee 's 
function must not be disrupted. Japan would like to urge Hong Kong, China, to reconsider its position 
and join the consensus as soon as possible.  
21.21.   The represen tative of Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement:   
21.22.   My delegation thanks those Members having taken floor on this agenda item and thanks 
China and Hong Kong, China for their statements. Frankly, on the sensitivity issue raised by China 
and on the i ssue of being not conducive to the work programs raised by Hong Kong, China, we have 
difficulty of understanding the meaning of these. If it is about the impartiality of the candidate, we 
must emphasize that no matter which Party takes the chairmanship, he or she needs to be neutral 
and impartial. China and Hong Kong, China can be assured of this from our delegation. As our 
candidate has indicated in her presentation to the Parties, if elected as the Committee's Chair, she 
will perform her d uties in a fair, impartial and transparent manner. We sincerely hope that H ong 
Kong, China  can reconsider its position and join the consensus on the election of new chairperson 
for the Committee.  
21.23.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
22  APPOINTMENT  OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN GOODS – REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS19 
22.1.   The Chairman  recalled that the statement20 he had delivered in  the Informal meeting of the 
General Council  would be part of the record s under th e current  item with the difference that it was 
not going to be the CTS and the CTG Chair s that w ould be facilitating  the consultations, but it would 
be he, as  Chair of the General Council , who w ould undertake the process. A  communication w ould 
come out in early September  in that regard.   
22.2.   Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren (Mongolia), Chairman of the Goods Council , provided the 
following statement:  
22.3.   I thank Members  for their efforts on what has been  an impasse for several months. I have 
asked my  predecessor , Ambassador  Mikael Anzén  (Sweden),  to conclude the process . He spent 
several months negotiating and consulting yet it was not possible. I thank the Chairman again for 
your leadership and for solving th is problem . I hope that with your initiative now concerning the  
guideline s, we are going to be in a better position to move our work forward in this organization . 
22.4.   The Chair  said that, o n the basis of his statement and related understanding that he had just 
mentioned, he proposed that the General Council t ook note of the consensus on the proposed slate 
of names for the appointment of officers to the subsidiary bodies of the Goods Council, as attached 
to the convening notice sent to all delegations on 27 July with the understan ding that he, as Chair 
of the General Council, would undertake consultations on the overall exercise on the appointment of 
officers to avoid a repeat of such a situation in the future.  
 
19 Before taking up this item, an Informal GC meeting was convened on 28 July to discuss the appointment 
of officers for subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods . The Chairs statement, the report of the CTG 
Chair and statements of Members who requested that those be reflected in the minutes of this meeting can be 
found in Annex 4.  
20 The Chair's statement at the 28 July Informal  GC meeting is incorporated in the minut es of this meeting 
and can be found in Annex 4.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 147 - 
 
  22.5.   The representative of India provided the following statement21: 
22.6.   First of all, we thank the efforts of all the parties – the Chairs of various bodies and the 
Members – to finalize the appointment of the officers for the WTO subsidiary bodies. India was fully 
engaged every step of the way in this process with a construct ive approach. We acknowledge the 
opportunity we received to engage and consult with all concerned during this process. However, the 
disagreement over the slate of Chairs is not of our making, but is a product of the non -inclusive and 
non-transparent proces s that was followed this year.  
22.7.   In this regard, it is with great disappointment that we wish to bring the following issues 
regarding the selection process for the benefit of Members:  
22.8.   Our experience this year revealed that the selection process is non -transparent and opaque. 
Often the process is left to the respective regional coordinators to decide, whom we can understand 
may have to follow their own approach, in the absence of a harmonized practice or a basic frame -
work.  
22.9.   Both during the selection of Chair persons to the main and subsidiary WTO bodies, our 
experience was that the role of the Regional Coordinators was non -transparent and non -inclusive, 
throughout the process. Often our position on the matter was not relayed to the concerned 
interlocuters, cre ating further confusion and contradictions.  
22.10.   It is also a normal practice for the Regional Coordinators to inform Members at every step 
of the process.  We are deeply disappointed to note that this has not been followed diligently during 
the process.  
22.11.   The sl ate of names should be drawn up taking into account the principle of balance, rotation 
and fairness – not just between the Groups but also among the Members of the Group. It is not 
adequate for the coordinator to satisfy himself or the Group that certain n umber of slots have been 
secured for the year, but rather see how many of the contested slots between the Groups were 
secured through negotiations, following the system of rotation and the balance needed.  
22.12.   We notice that the conventional practice of rotatio n of Chairs to WTO bodies is not being 
followed diligently and our analysis reveals that a transparent system of rotation among the four 
groups has been lacking. It is also a matter of concern that Chair shopping, future trading and short -
selling, among ot hers, take place, as a matter of routine in selection of Chairs in this organization. 
This is not a happy situation.  
22.13.   Our concern is also on the rotation sequencing system. While the system of rotation implies 
that the Chairmanship rotates sequentially amon g the four groups, we do not understand the basis 
why the rotation has been designed to be sequencing between the three developing country groups 
vis-à-vis one developed country group alternately. With this practice, the developed countries get 
the opportu nity to Chair a WTO Body every alternate year, whereas other regional groups will have 
to wait for six years for their turn. By no measure such a practice is fair and balanced or it is one 
more form of "reverse special and differential treatment" taken up by developed Members.  
22.14.   Finally, we believe that time has come for us to reflect on the practices and the process of 
selection of Chairs, so that the process becomes transparent. In this regard, India notes the directive 
by the General Council Chair to both the CTG and CTS Chairs during the Informal GC on 22 July, to 
work on the selection process, so that the situation we find ourselves today is not repeated in the 
future. However, Chair, we believe that what is required is a complete overhaul of the selectio n 
process for both selection of main and subsidiary bodies. That can be realized only with a rigorous 
exercise under your oversight that will result in a revised and detailed guideline that will replace the 
current document WT/L/510. Only then, we can hope  to ensure timely and smooth selection process 
each year.   
22.15.   Chair, we have noted your assurance to take the complete overhaul of the process under 
the General Council Chair's oversight and the outcome of which should replace the current document 
 
21 At its request, the statement of the delegation of India at the 27 July Informal GC meeting is 
incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in Annex 4.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 148 - 
 
  WT/L/510. We would also like to thank all coordinators and Members who had offered the 
Chairmanship of the TBT Committee for India in 2022. However, we politely decline this offer as we 
are against this practice of side deals and forward trading without involving al l stakeholders.  
22.16.   The Chair  once again proposed that  the General Council took note of the consensus on the 
proposed slate of names for the appointment of officers to the subsidiary bodies of the Goods 
Council, as attached to the convening notice sent to all  delegations on 27 July with the understanding 
that he, as Chair of the General Council, would undertake consultations on the overall exercise on 
the appointment of officers to avoid a repeat of such a situation in the future . 
22.17.   The General Council so agreed . 
22.18.   The representative of Mongolia  provided the following statement:  
22.19.   As a Group  Coordinator I must say a few words in my own responsibility. First, I express my 
appreciation for you , Chair,  and for your efforts to manage the situation with the appointment of  
officers of CTG subsidiary bodies. As a G roup Coordinator, for the last three years , I will have to 
reiterate my concerns and draw attention Members ' attention  on the repeated cases and uncertainty 
in connection with the appointment of the  officer of  regular and subsidiary bodies. Particularly, if the 
reference to the interventions is made by some Members and some Chairs about a gentlem an's 
agreement to reserve the TBT Committee Chairmanship  for someone in 2021, I would like to 
underline that , as a G roup Coordinator , I did not take part in that gentlem an's agreement and was 
not informed about it. In this regard , I would like to call other coordinators for the ir comments on 
it. This year , the candidate of the  AGDC , India, has not withdrawn its candidature f or the TBT 
Chair manship.  However , the issue was not addressed for unknown reasons. There were clear 
miscommunications therefore the situation that we are witnessing today a s well as  during the last 
years is showing the need to review the guidelines for app ointment of officers to WTO bodies  in 
document  WT/L/510 adopted in 2002. I would like to express my strong support to the Chairman's 
initiative on this and look forward to constructively participate in this process.  
22.20.   The representative of the Russian Federa tion provided the following statement:  
22.21.   I would like to stress that , while Russia joined consensus regarding the slate of names for 
CTG bodies , we are seriously disappointed both with the process this year and the result. We witness 
that this housekeeping p rocedure is getting worse and worse every year. In fact there is a very 
important principle in the existing rules of procedure for appointment of Chairs which is the capacity 
and availability of a Chairperson to undertake special responsibility required of  the post in the WTO 
system. It is unfortunate that many Members forget about this primary principle speaking about 
geographical rotation between developing and developed countries and other issues of such kind. I 
think that in improving the procedure , we should keep this principle as a primary one and it is already 
in the existing rules. My delegation would like to strongly support your proposal to launch 
consultation s on enhancing current approaches for appointment of officers to WTO bodies . We think  
that this will keep our organization relevant or make it relevant. It is my understanding that this 
consultation will not be limited to regional coordinators , but all interested Members would have an 
opportunity to participate in this process.  
22.22.   The Chair  clarified that the c ommunication that he would send, as Chair of the General 
Council,  would invite all  interested delegation s to share one's  point of view and participate in the 
consultations.  
22.23.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement:  
22.24.   Thank you Chair for convening a series of conversations that brought us to the resolution 
today. We have long expressed frustration with the existing process for Chair selection and we 
welcome the engagement of other Memb ers to review and revise this process. We welcome your 
suggestion for consultations and can assure you of the support of the United States in going forward 
in our engagement.  
22.25.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  provided the following statemen t: WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 149 - 
 
  22.26.   Chair, w e are lucky to have you with your long experience in this process so we are happy 
to see that your wisdom led us to reach consensus finally in the slate of names. We also welcom e 
your initiative to start the consultations in this regard. This is  a longstanding  issue time and we 
would like to say a few words to Members in this regard.  We can set rules and improve guidance 
from time to time and revisit them but honestly there is also a principle of this house that we have 
to respect. Rotation is al ready there so we call on Members to avoid circumventi ng it when we try 
to implement our guidance principles. We are sure that the consultations will lead us to satisfactory 
solutions and outcomes on this housekeeping issue.  
22.27.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement:  
22.28.   Mexico has never orchestrated a smear campaign against a WTO Member, and in this 
particular case against India. What we have pointed out in the Council for Trade in Goods are facts, 
which I will no t mention, but for the reference of the membership I request that my statement 
include the symbol of the minutes of the last meeting.22 
22.29.   The representative of Chile provided the following statement:  
22.30.   We would like to thank for your efforts to find a solution on this matter. We however regret 
the time that this process has taken , and the pressure put on the membership during the debate . It 
is not appropriate in this organization , especially as it does n ot help build the necessary confidence 
in the preparations for the Ministerial Conference at the end of the year.  
22.31.   The General Council took note  of the statements23. 
23  OTHER BUSINESS  
23.1.   The Chairman  recalled that t he General Council Procedures for Members and O bservers 
subject to Administrative Measures in WT/BFA/132  require d that, at the end of each meeting of the 
General Council, the Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration would provide 
information with regard to which Members and Observer s were under Administrative Measures.  
23.2.   Ambassador Bettina Waldmann (Germany), Chair of the CBFA, provided the following 
statement:  
23.3.   The Administrative Measures applicable to Members and Observers with arrears in 
contribution have been in place since 1st March 2013. In accordance with the decision of the General 
Council, I shall state all Members and Observers under all categories of administrative measures. As 
at 28 July 2021, there were 18 Members and 9 Observers under Administrative Measures.  
23.4.   The follow ing 7 Members are currently in Category I: Belize, Djibouti, Gabon, Mauritania, 
Papua New Guinea, Suriname and Yemen.  
23.5.   The following 2 Members are in Category II: Cuba and Guinea.  
23.6.   The following 9 Members are in Category III : Antigua and Barbuda, Burundi*, C entral African 
Republic*, Chad*, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea -Bissau*, Senegal, Venezuela 
[*Members not compliant with payment plan terms] . 
 
22 At its 31 March and 1 April meeting,  the Council for Trade in Goods took up t he agenda item on the 
"Appointment of Officers to the Subsidiary Bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods ". The minutes of  this meeting 
can be found in G/C/M/139. This agenda item was suspended.  At its 8 -9 July meet ing, the Council for Trade in 
Goods took up the agenda item on the " Appointment of Officers to the Subsidiary Bodies of the Council for Trade 
in Goods: Information from the Chair ". The minutes of this meeting can be found in G/C/M/140 (to be issued). 
The 31 March and 1 April formal meeting was then reconvened on 26 July to take up the suspended item. The 
minutes of this meeting can be found in G/C/M/140/Add.1 (to be issued).  An informal meeting of the Council for 
Trade in Goods also took place  on 26 July . 
23 The delegation of Thailand subsequently requested that its written statement under Agenda Item 22, 
"Appointment of Officers to the Subsidiary Bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods – Report by the C hair of the 
Council for Trade in Goods" b e incorporated in the minutes of this meeting. The statement can be found in 
Annex  4 of this document . WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 150 - 
 
  23.7.   The following 5 Observers are in Category I: Comoros, Iran, Iraq, Lebanese Republic and 
Sudan. Th ere is only one Observer in Category II: Syria. The following 3 Observers are in 
Category  III: Libya, Sao Tomé and Principe and Somalia . 
23.8.   The Chair  requested, as required by the General Council Procedures, Members and Observers 
in Categories II and III of t he Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment of arrears 
may be expected.  
23.9.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
 
_______________  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 151 - 
 
ANNEX 1  
STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL, THE CHAIR OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL AND 
THE CHAIRS OF THE NEGOTIATING GROUPS AT THE INFORMAL TNC AND INFORMAL 
HODS MEETINGS HELD ON 23 JULY 2021  
_______________  
 
 
STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL DR. NGOZI OKONJO -IWEALA  
 
I ask for your indulgence because I will speak at leng th today as there is a lot of ground to cover.  
You have all said that July would be the key moment to determine how we proceed in the final 
months before MC12. July is almost over.  
You just heard from the Negotiating Group Chairs that gaps remain in all areas – some wider than 
others. In fact, if you listen to the reports it looks like there are great difficulties.  
Today, we face a choice to either continue to bring everything to the table or to look for ways to see 
what we can realistically achieve.  
Pragmatism does not mean agreements for the sake of agreements or forgetting about issues that 
are less ripe for convergence. On the contrary. Our goal remains to deliver meaningful, quality 
outcomes that would positively impact people's lives and livelihoods  around the world. Pragmatism 
also means responding to the work of the Chairs and trying to be as constructive as possible. And 
pragmatism means working within the realm of what is possible to achieve our goals.  
If something cannot realistically be accomp lished by MC12, let's not give up on it. Let's find ways to 
keep these issues going and alive post -MC12. I love what the GC Chair wisely said that if we cannot 
finish it, let's find a way through a political statement, a framework or a work programme to mo ve 
these things forward.  
Conclusions about what is within reach depend heavily on what you will say today. This is why I 
requested you to come prepared to engage in a pragmatic and focused discussion. Again, I know 
that many of you may have difficulties. I  am not expecting easy answers. But what I do expect is 
for us to look forward and not backwards.  
At the same time, you – the Members – have entrusted me, as Director -General and TNC Chair, with 
the responsibility of being as honest a broker as I can, and  facilitator with emphasis on delivering 
results. This is the mandate I received from you. It is a mandate I take very seriously. Today is no 
exception.  
Let me therefore briefly touch upon some possible issues and deliverables for MC12 and beyond 
based on what I have been hearing from you and the Chairs. Again, this is not exhaustive, but we 
would not have time to go through everything.  
On fisheries subsidies, you were all present last week. You have heard Santiago's report and the 
next steps he has outline d, which I fully support. Some of you have since then come forward to say 
you have difficulties with lots of gaps in the text. We hear you. But what Santiago clearly said today 
is that there will be two stages of the work. In the first stage in September, we will all work to 
improve the text to make it the basis of which you can go on to line -by-line negotiations. In the 
second part, in October, you will start with the line -by-line negotiations. So, I hope this will meet all 
the concerns of all those who fe el that they have not been heard – that they want to do more work  
on the texts. So, this work is going to happen. As Santiago said, the gaps remain but we need to 
find a balance that all of you are calling for. And we cannot find it unless all sides are pr epared to 
give something. All delegations have to contribute something. So, the time to read statements is 
over. We are now called to move forward with the END in mind – Engage, Negotiate and Deliver.  
Flexibility and constructive engagement remain critical . Everyone has said they don't want to hear 
the same statements they have heard before.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 152 - 
 
  I also want to follow up on one issue on which several Ministers and Heads of Delegation emphasized. 
This is the importance of technical and financial support for deve loping and least developed countries 
to build fisheries management expertise to implement the WTO agreement. This is in Article 7 of the 
draft text. And I want to reiterate that such support should not be seen as a substitute for special 
and differential t reatment.  
In this regard, I refer you to a communication I jointly sent with Ambassador Wills on 19 July in 
document TN/C/21, regarding a concept note on a possible WTO Funding Mechanism geared towards 
financing technical assistance and capacity building i n support of implementing new WTO fisheries 
subsidies disciplines. We developed this note in conjunction with the FAO and IFAD as a team. In 
addition, the World Bank is the other partner willing to collaborate and cooperate with us on this. 
We are not a fi sheries management agency, but we have partners who have that capacity. And they 
are willing to work with us.  
As indicated in the communication, this week I started outreach to Members – including group 
coordinators, some potential beneficiaries, and pote ntial donors – to hear initial comments on the 
idea. At present the proposed size of the Mechanism is an indicative USD 20 million, with an 
indicative starting amount of USD 10 million.  
On Wednesday, I heard useful preliminary comments from both potential beneficiaries and potential 
donors, who are of course still consulting Capitals.  
While the idea of such a Funding Mechanism was welcomed in principle as a supplement to the 
disciplines being negotiated, potential beneficiaries raised several questions and concerns.  
These included the relationship with S&DT, which I have just touched on which delegations stressed 
could not be substituted for by the prospective Funding Mechanism. Other issues that arose were 
the timing of these discussions given the ongoing negotiation s on potential disciplines; the 
sustainability of a mechanism dependent on voluntary contributions; the scope and objectives of the 
Mechanism; and eligibility criteria – for instance, whether a per -capita income criteria would be 
employed. Delegations call ed for taking into account the experience with previous trust funds in the 
WTO, pointing to the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility and questions about the governance 
arrangements of the Standards and Trade Development Facility.  
They stressed the need n ot to overlap with existing mechanisms at the bilateral, regional and 
multilateral levels.  
From prospective donors, I heard positive interest and willingness to engage, and support for starting 
this conversation early. However, they cautioned that the Mech anism should be only to assist 
developing countries and LDCs to implement disciplines that they take on. They also stressed it 
should be based on need.  
I explained that the Fund will not indeed substitute in any way special and differential treatment and 
does not prejudge the negotiations on the document and is starting early due to budget cycles that 
need to be taken into account and is designed only for those who want to have access to it.  I look 
forward to hearing further views today, but let me state th e following:  
a. First, I have heard many developing and LDC Members – including at last week's 
Ministerial, say they will be unable to implement future disciplines without financial 
support. That is what informed the development of the concept note with our p artners.  
Capacity support is not intended to be forced on anyone but is meant for those who want 
to use it. Let me stress that it is neither a carrot nor a stick to get anyone to agree to 
anything. It is about putting in place the resources some Members sa y they may need to 
implement the disciplines they negotiate and strengthen their fisheries management 
capacity.  
b. Second, we thought that we needed to start early as I said, given budget cycles and 
constraints in many donor countries. That comes from my fin ance background.  Planning 
ahead makes it likelier they will be able to contribute. Let's give them as much time as 
they need.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 153 - 
 
  c. Third, I want to echo what many of you have said: I said it earlier, we are not a Fisheries 
Management Organization. Any assistan ce we offer will be within the ambit of the WTO's 
own work. However, partnering with the FAO, IFAD and the World Bank is eminently 
sensible. It would allow these organizations to contribute.  It is one of the things that you 
asked me to do which is to try t o work with other international organizations to strengthen 
our own work.  
d. Fourth, the comments on learning lessons from other Trust Funds and governance 
structures are well taken. Starting early will help us design a Mechanism that avoids 
previous pitfalls  and takes fully into account both beneficiary and donor perspectives.  
e. Fifth, on the size of the fund – the idea is to start modest. We debated it with the FAO 
and IFAD and decided to put the amount we have in and then we determine what the 
demand is. Base d on the level of demand, we will know how much further we go with the 
fund in terms of the size. This will also address the sustainability issue – so that the 
Mechanism, which will be funded only by Members who are able and willing to do so, does 
not run dry.  
I will continue my outreach to you on this issue in the coming days and weeks.  
Moving to agriculture, I have heard many Members – developed, developing and LDCs – say that in 
their view, a successful MC12 would have to include meaningful outcomes on agriculture. Whether 
your interest is driven by food security, livelihood security, development, or all of the above, a strong 
push to deliver at MC12 is evident. But what is also evident – and reflected in Ambassador Peralta's 
report today – is that you r emain far apart on every area under consideration. But I do not give up.  
I believe we can make progress, but it will require changes in how you engage with each other. It 
will require realism on what we can put together.  
• We must go beyond coordinating wi th like -minded Members and reach out to those with 
opposing positions, to find mutually agreeable solutions.  
• We should be clear about the issues Members are trying to address and be open to 
discussing different ways of resolving them.  
• And finally, we must be systematic and solution -oriented, taking one step at a time.  
I reiterate Gloria's call for all delegations to constructively participate in the discussions she is 
organizing between now and the summer break. These talks are about people's lives, livelih oods, 
and health – that is why you take them so seriously. If you were listening to Gloria's report, you 
know that she is working hard to develop a plan for MC12 and beyond. So please, let's help her and 
work with her.  
Turning now to special and differenti al treatment, Ambassador Hassan's report made it clear that, 
despite divergent views, S&DT remains a vital issue for Members to address. I do not think we can 
shy away from this issue by not responding. I want us to persevere, and I thank Kadra for her 
diligence and her own perseverance in trying to move this area forward.  
From my conversations with many of you – and what we just heard from Kadra – describing S&DT 
as a tough issue is an understatement of the century. In my view, in order to take meaningful  steps 
forward, we need to look back at the fundamentals.  
Why do we have S&DT?  
One thing is clear – S&DT remains an integral part of the WTO Framework. In the view of many, it 
is an essential tool to help Members fulfil their obligations and implement the ir commitments. Viewed 
through this prism, reaching meaningful outcomes on S&DT is in the interest of all Members, and 
we need to find space to converge on some of the elements in this area, if not all. Several proposals 
from the G90 are on the table. If w e could take a step forward, even on one or two; three or four of 
these proposals by MC12 – taking into account, for example, the needs of the most vulnerable – this 
might pave the way for greater traction.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 154 - 
 
  Easier said than done, I know – but as the Chines e say, "even a journey of a thousand miles begins 
with a single step".  
I really encourage all Members to engage with Kadra, and more importantly, with each other, to 
advance discussions. I stand ready to assist as needed. And this is a particular plea on S&DT – we 
have to find ways to deal with this area.   
We have also heard the report of Zhanar on Services. Given the growing prominence of services 
trade in the modern economy, I think this work has gone on for too long. So, it is time for us to 
come to gri ps with this and see how we can take concrete steps forward. This morning I met with a 
group of trade experts, Professors from some universities around us and beyond to talk about what 
is the future of trade. I was there with DDG Gonzalez. What they pointe d out is that services is it. If 
we do  not come to grips with what we need to do with services , we will be behind. So , I really want 
to urge Members to get to grips with this . 
Finally, Members continue discussions in other Negotiating Groups as well, which will evolve 
depending on Members' willingness to engage.  
In all areas of the negotiations, Members will have to give something to get something. If Members 
are serious about delivering meaningful results, you know that a tough road awaits.  
The question is, do you want to walk that tough road or not? What I have  been hearing so far is "yes 
but". You see obstacles, stones and potholes along the way. But we can fix this road together. So, 
let us try to bear in mind our common destination – making the WTO deliver meaningful outcomes 
for all people. Let us not consta ntly refer to what does not work. We can talk about it but let's also 
suggest how we can make it work.  
Turning now to the WTO's response to the pandemic. This is a priority for all Members. I commend 
the efforts of the General Council Chair, Ambassador Ca stillo, to bring together the different strands 
of work into one process and for appointing Ambassador Walker to facilitate it.  
I thank Ambassador Walker for his update at yesterday's Informal GC, and I look forward to his 
formal report at next week's Gen eral Council. I hope all Members will constructively participate in 
this process with a sense of urgency.  And I thank you for what you have done so far to participate.   
As the world seeks to scale up COVID -19 vaccine production and rollout to end the pande mic, the 
WTO is squarely in the middle of the debate. This is appropriate given the importance of trade and 
international supply chains to producing the vaccines the world needs. But it also raises expectations 
for us to effectively respond to this and fut ure pandemics.  
I remain optimistic that the WTO can come up with a strong response on aspects relating to trade 
policy. Many of you individual Members have made suggestions on this. And of course, some groups 
like the Ottawa Group have contributed. In thi s regard, let me recall the three angles that we looked 
at during the TNC/HoDs in June: supply chain issues; working with manufacturers to increase 
production and investment, particularly in developing countries; emerging markets and developing 
countries; and issues related to the transfer of intellectual property and technology and knowhow.  
First, keeping supply chains open and efficient is critical for vaccine production. The WTO has a well -
established role here with regard to trade facilitation and trade  restrictions. Manufacturers and other 
participants at the vaccine equity event we co -hosted with the WHO on Wednesday, which has 
received a lot of positive feedback, made clear they were looking to WTO Members for action on 
export restrictions and regulat ory issues.  
I will come back to this event in more detail. For now, I will say that Secretariat monitoring and 
analysis suggest that about 37 of the 50 COVID -19-related export restrictions we have on file could 
potentially affect vaccine inputs or supplies  needed to administer vaccines.  
Looking ahead, we need to think of what we can do on these supply chain issues in the case of future 
pandemics, so that we do not have to start from scratch. With regard to recent trade facilitating and 
trade restricting me asures, we will discuss my latest Trade Monitoring Report in document 
WT/TPR/OV/W/15 at the Informal TPRB Meeting on Monitoring next week, on 29 July.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 155 - 
 
  Second, also related to supply chains, there is a role for the WTO to work with all stakeholders to 
identify, at a very granular level, the bottlenecks and supply shortages in international markets for 
raw materials and vaccine components. This would help manufacturers increase production and 
investment. And we also heard from the ICC, John Denton and his col leagues, of a supply chain 
watchtower which they would like to collaborate with us.  
Related to this, the WTO on 29 June hosted a technical symposium on supply chain transparency, 
led by DDGs Angela Ellard and Anabel Gonzalez. The feedback I have received h as been uniformly 
positive. Working with the manufacturing sector to look at supply chain bottlenecks and shortages 
was viewed positively, as an incentive for manufacturers to invest in present and future capacity. 
So was the goal of putting together a vol untary mechanism for supply chain monitoring.  
The Third and final angle involves the transfer of technology and knowhow, and other issues around 
intellectual property. I am really hoping that by the end of this month, the negotiations in the TRIPS 
Council  would have made some progress and made enough for us to have a sese of what we might 
agree upon in this issue. We need to move with a sense of urgency here. I have always said it. 
People's lives are at stake. The outside world expects us to come up with a  practical and forward -
looking solution to these issues.  
By the General Council meeting next week, Ambassador Walker will hopefully be in a position to 
provide some clear indications on several of these aspects – and how we might bring them all 
together. I  encourage Members to actively engage and work together on shaping the WTO's response 
to this and future health crises.  
Let me come back to Wednesday's vaccine equity conference. It was organized as a follow -up event 
to the first one in April, to look at w hat has changed – and what needs to improve – on vaccine 
production, investment, and access.  In addition to WHO DG Dr. Tedros and WIPO DG Daren Tang, 
it brought together manufacturers as well as policymakers, public health activists, governments, 
philanthr opists, and development finance institutions. It was done under Chatham House Rules so 
that the CEOs would speak clearly and frankly. And I think this happened. To make the event 
inclusive,  we invited the group coordinators of all the formal groups within the institution.  CEOs from 
leading pharmaceutical companies participated,  underscoring the importance being given to the 
WTO's responsibilities in this space. In fact, I heard even some of the CEOs themselves said that 
they had not gathered together in thi s kind of event and this was a first for many of them.  
We heard that vaccine production has increased significantly, thanks both to efficiency gains within 
existing production facilities in developed countries and investment in new ones, including in 
developing countries. Total production could increase from 3.8 billion doses as of mid -July to 11 
billion doses by the end of the year. But concentration remains – according to the data provided by 
Airfinity, 75% of those doses will have been made in 5 of our Members. Even more significantly, the 
equity problems persist – and by some measures, are widening. Only 1.5% of people in Africa, and 
0.3% of people in low -income countries, are vaccinated, compared to over 42% in developed 
countries. And as new, more tra nsmissible variants spread, death rates are rising in many developing 
country regions.  
As I noted earlier, participants pointed to trade restrictions and onerous regulations, along with raw 
material shortages, as important obstacles to increased production .  
While there was general agreement on the need to keep markets open and predictable, and on the 
importance of technology and knowhow transfer, participants' views differed on the TRIPS waiver 
proposal. The important thing was that the CEOs had a chance t o listen to different views on 
intellectual property and Members had a chance to listen to the views of CEOs and were able to talk 
to them.  
Dr. Tedros and I will continue our collaborative efforts to work with manufacturers and other relevant 
groups for t imely and equitable access to vaccines and medicines across the globe.   
These meetings are not the only way we are cooperating with other organizations on the pandemic 
response. The IMF, World Bank, WHO and WTO have come together and created a Task Force – a 
"war room" to track, coordinate and advance the delivery of COVID -19 health tools to developing 
countries, and to mobilize the relevant stakeholders and leaders to remove critical roadblocks. This WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 156 - 
 
  is being done in collaboration with ACT -A and COVAX. We have called for $50 billion in up -front 
spending to vaccinate at least 40 percent of people in all countries by the end of this year and at 
least 60 percent by the first half of 2022. IMF research suggests that this could give a $9 trillion 
boost to the wo rld economy by 2025 and put us on the path to sustainable recovery.  
Separately, Dr. Tedros, WIPO DG Daren Tang, and I have agreed to collaborate on a series of 
workshops on technology transfer and IP issues. The goal here is to implement a joint platform for 
tripartite technical assistance for Members relating to their needs for medical technologies.  
On the subject of preparing for future pandemics, let me also note that I participated at the G20 
Finance Ministers Meeting in Venice this month. Together wit h my fellow co -chairs of the High -Level 
Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, we 
presented a report calling for a $15 billion per year increase in international financing for the next 
five years to plug m ajor gaps in preventing and preparing for global health threats. I am convinced 
that a WTO trade framework would be a useful complement to these international efforts to put in 
place financing and governance arrangements so that we are better prepared for future pandemics.  
The last topic on my list is dispute settlement. We have heard Ambassador Johnson's report. This is 
a critical issue, as I said at the informal GC yesterday. Ministers, Ambassadors and stakeholders 
continue to ask me to help us find a way  forward. I want to thank the DSB Chair, Ambassador 
Chambovey, and Ambassador Castillo, the GC Chair, who have been actively involved in this issue. 
My thanks also to DDG Ellard who is assisting me. I also refer you to the consultations that the GC 
Chair h as undertaken in this regard this week – as he reported at yesterday's Informal General 
Council meeting.  
In sum, we have a great deal of ground to cover between now and MC12. I urge all delegations to 
keep your interventions focused on building convergence  and on what each of you can contribute to 
progress in the two, three or four areas by MC12.  
I hope you will not reiterate longstanding positions but instead try to identify results that could be 
delivered in the 3 -month working period from 1 September. I want to end by saying that I am not 
trying to stop anyone from saying what they want to say, but I am just saying maybe we can frame 
it very constructively.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Let me pick up on one point the GC Chair  made – that we should aim for texts in the various areas 
of work by mid - to late October. I totally agree. We should use this as a marker and plan to allocate 
time accordingly.  You have now heard from the General Council Chair, the Chairs of the Negotiati ng 
Groups and myself. As you take the floor, I urge you to focus on ways all Members can converge 
towards a game plan for the three working months between now and MC12. Please listen to each 
other and take each other's views into account. Talking past each  other is a luxury none of us can 
afford.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 157 - 
 
  Conclu ding Remarks  
 
Let me begin by thanking you all onc e again for the patience  you have shown today. It's a really 
good marker because the agenda at next week's GC is very full and I hope we can also show the 
same patience to get through that agenda in the two days allocated. But thanks to all of you for 
going through this today and for your very constructive and forward -looking approach to how to 
prepare for MC12.  
We had a really good atmosp here here today, notwithstanding one or two hiccups. We had a good 
atmosphere with a  willingness to  move forward, to work together  and certainly a willingness to have 
a successful MC12. I note the concern s from  the LDCs in particular  about the logistics of MC12 and 
the need to make a decision on the matter. I note that concern including on possible vaccine 
certificates also mentioned by Ambassador Spencer. These are all very important issues, and we 
hope to have a better idea after th e summer break about the direction in which this is headed and 
be able to see if we can give a better indication that we all want, if at all possible, a presential 
meeting MC12, even if we have to limit delegation size. But let's see what the Swiss authori ties 
would say on the matter and how we could move forward in this regard.  
I believe that one thing that will help us to advance  and move forward is look ing at each negotiating 
area on its own merits and avoiding linkages to others that could hold us back.  I understand that 
we all want success in every area. But, if we have areas that are moving along well, we should try 
to progress them without holding them hostage to other areas.  
I believe that we all want success – not failure. I know that at this point,  some of you are probably 
seeing the glass as half empty. I see the glass as half full. We must aim to push forward in a realistic 
and pragmatic manner that does not take us backwards – as Ambassador Parola said earlier today.  
I would like to echo Ambassa dor Wills  that a number of things are within our reach. However, we 
must choose between sticking to our comfort zones or acting with boldness, pragmatism, and 
responsibility in order to achieve the success  we want . And hearing you today, I am comforted tha t 
basically, virtually all of us, want that success.  
I really b elieve in keeping our chins up. I heard Thailand and Canada today say they didn't know 
whether to be pessimistic, optimistic or in -between. And they chose optimism. I choose the same. 
When I l ook at things here it's very easy to become cynical or so mistrustful or pessimistic that you 
get stuck. And I just want to pledge that we are not going to do that. I want us to keep smiling, to 
keep working , to keep moving no matter the obstacles and the amount of pessimism thrown our 
way. Because it is o nly with a positive and realistic attitude that we will move t his organization 
forward. I am not being pol lyannish.  It is not pie in the sky. I think we actually ought to try to 
practice that.  
Now, let me touch on some of the themes that I heard today. And please forgive me because we 
were trying to summarize it as you were speaking. Let me first assure Members who are interested 
that the Minutes of the TNC Ministerial on Thursday, 15th July are being worke d on and will be ready 
shortly. The statements of all Ministers and Heads of Delegation that participated in the meeting will 
be attached and circulated  to all Members . 
On fisheries subsidies, I hear d a willingness to move forward. But let me say to all wh o have 
problems with the text that I hope you listened to Ambassador Wills  and I think many of you did 
and you reflected it in your statement . You and your Ministers and Heads of Delegation have been 
heard loud and clear. Santiago said it very clearly toda y, and I want to repeat it  – you have been 
heard – September's work will focus on the large macro issues and imbalances in the text. This is 
what he outlined. Following that, work in October will get more detailed, more focused, more line -
by-line, trying t o get to the finish line. I hope this will  provide  comfor t. 
Regarding technical assistance  and the Funding Mechanism , I note the discomfort of some 
delegations. We shall address these discomforts one by one. I want to make it clear that we think 
we are try ing to put it together to assist Members that need it to implement necessary disciplines 
when these disciplines are agreed and not before. We are very cognizant of the fact that the 
negotiations still have some way to go, and the Fund is in no way meant to  prejudge the outcome.  
We are just trying to prepare in case it is wanted. All those who do not feel they need it do not have WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 158 - 
 
  to apply or use it. It is not meant to substitute for structural issues . Those need to be sorted out as 
part of the work in September and October. And we have tried to be very modest on the size of the 
Funding Mechanism for those who asked about the size, because we want to be careful about 
demand. As we move along, hopefully, we will be able to find ways to  have sustainability and 
certainty of the funds coming in.  
I want to thank all those Members who have indicated that it could be possible for them to support 
such a fund and I want to send thanks to our partners at the FAO, IFAD and the World Bank who 
are excited to be working with us on this. I want to reiterate that we are not a Fisheries Management 
Agency, but these organizations have the capacity, and they are willing to help our Members in any 
way that they may deem necessary.  
With respect to the fis heries subsidies negotiations, no one is in a haste to negotiate a non -
meaningful outcome. It would be to the discredit of this organization and all its Members if we were 
seen to produce an outcome that did not have the necessary ambition or disciplines. I will keep 
repeating that. I myself do not want to be party to an outcome like that. And I know that all our 
Members do not. So, I want to underscore that point.  
But I also believe that we have what it takes as a group to negotiate a quality outcome and t o 
negotiate it  in adequate time. As many people have said, it has taken 20 years, our Leaders have 
asked us to deliver SDG 14.6 and all our Leaders participated. I will reiterate what I said sometime 
earlier because I was one of the high -level panels that actually worked on the SDGs.  We came up 
with 12 and then there are 17.  All our Leaders pledged to these universal goals. So, I think it would 
be meaningful if we do not drag it out longer. We must respect the views and opinions of all Members 
and try to ta ke that into account. But I do not believe that dragging it for another year or two will 
deliver anything more meaningful.  
We must also learn how to walk and chew gum. We can do quality and we can do it in adequate 
time. I hope you continue to work with Ambassador Santiago  Wills in a constructive and flexible 
manner . I just want to highlight the statement made by Ambassador Sørli in this regard. While 
keeping to his points, and I hope to have his statement, he declared that Norway will be flexible to 
consider all the views and opinions of all other Members with a view to trying to contribute to having 
this negotiation completed. Norway was not giving up its position. It was just saying it was willing 
to look at all the angles. With that in mind, I again urg e all delegations to work with the END in mind  
– Engage, Negotiate and Deliver.  
Second, on agriculture, it is clear that we have a long way ahead. If fish eries is tough, agriculture is 
certainly tougher. The good news is – we all want a package from agricu lture. T he bad news is  the 
different levels of ambition that we have. But I would like to ask, as I asked for fisheries, that we all 
work with Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta to put a package that is credible together because 
we have heard time and again  that getting to M C12 without a credible package on agriculture would 
be difficult.  
While we have a tough road ahead, I urge you to think of issues linked also to the recovery in this 
pandemic  – issues of food security that are vital to many of our Member s and especially the 
developing ones, issues of domestic support that many delegations have flagged that we should look 
at and issues such as SSM, Cotton, PSH, WFP exemption and transparency, among many others. If 
we look at all this and work with Ambassad or Peralta, we would be able to come up with a credible 
package because there seems to be a willingness to do so.  
Third, on the WTO's response to the pandemic, clearly, from every side, everyone has said this is 
an area where we need to have an outcome  – not only for now but for the future. As Alexandre said 
this morning, it would be embarrassing if we did not have a credible outcome in this area. The world, 
including business, governments , the international community, CSOs, they expect us to deliver. And 
I know and think we are getting there. The elements are becoming clearer, even though on the issue 
of IP we have a long road ahead. We need to work harder and come together to try to see if we can 
get to where Ambassador Pitfield said. Let us try to see how we can come together on all the 
elements including IP. With all the contributions made, we can find a continuum i f we sit down and 
are willing to negotiate and talk to each other. I hope we can progress on this in the days ahead.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 159 - 
 
  I want to thank all the contributors, individual countries like Chinese Taipei, Brazil, the EU and many 
other Members. The Ottawa Group has also put a lot of work into this. But I also want to thank 
Ambassadors Tan and Spencer  for the work that they have done – the excellent work they put 
together which they have handed over to Ambassador Walker. We are all looking forward to this 
facilitatio n process, as I said earlier, working with the GC Chair. The essentials are all there. I think 
they are before us. I am happy many of you found some meaningful outcome or learning from the 
21 July meeting that we had – the dialogue with the manufacturers. I believe there are also issues 
we can pull out from that in order to enable us to arrive at a credible package.  
Fourth, on dispute settlement, what I heard is that an outcome is needed which, at a minimum, 
should be a common understanding on the reforms of the dispute settlement system that we want. 
We cannot have a very high level of ambition on this, but everyone has said that as a rules -based 
organization, going to MC12, we need to have a minimum of understanding on what all Members 
want the dispute se ttlement system to look like. After that, perhaps we can then consider what type 
of a work programme or timeline we could put together post MC12. That is the basics that I have 
heard, and I hope we can get there.  
Fifth, on WTO Reform, of which the dispute  settlement system is a part of, it is clear that the desire 
to work on this remains. And the idea of a Working Group  that has been suggested  is a good one 
that we should think about. But I believe that Members need to come to a common understanding 
of wha t is meant by WTO Reform. I said the same to the Ottawa Group yesterday when they were 
reviewing it. We should a gree on what elements constitute this – even within the core functions of 
the WTO – monitoring, transparency, negotiations and, of course, dispute settlement because as I 
have listened to Members  there are different interpretations of what WTO reform is all about.  
So, I think the first job for  the Working Group if we can get that together is to actually try and make 
sure we have a common basis o f what we mean by the Reform. On issues of monitoring and 
transparency, let me just make one point that is very dear to me. We want to strengthen the 
monitoring and transparency function. But many Members do not allow the Secretariat to collect 
information or if they do, they do not allow the Secretariat to publish it. So, I really am puzzled 
about how we can strengthen transparency and do our monitoring in the absence of this.  
It is quite embarrassing when I see Heads of other organizations using or referring to trade statistics 
which we are not allowed to publish or collect. The IMF, the World Bank, even private places like St. 
Gallen are quoting statis tics which this organization is supposed to be an authority on. But our staff 
are not allowed to put that together and they are not allowed to publish them. So, if we want to do 
WTO Reform, I really do want people to reflect on this transparency and monito ring function. 
Transparency is a word we throw around a lot among the Membership. But I think it means different 
things to different people. We need a common definition on what we mean by transparency if we 
really want to reform.  
So, let me reiterate, that on WTO Reform, I believe that the first task is to figure out and make sure 
that we are all sharing the definition s of reform.  
Sixth, on S&DT, this is a central tenet of the WTO. Let us not stonewall th e issue but work together 
to try and make a go at it. I know this issue is difficult all around, but we cannot get away with it. 
We need to engage , and we need to work with Kadra and the G90 to see how practically we can 
move forward and what our approach should be to those proposals that have been made spec ifically 
– and we may have to come back to the issue of S&DT in a broader way.   
In closing, let me make a couple of remarks. This is our last TNC before the summer break. Over 
the past four months that I have been here, although it feels like 4 years alrea dy, you have worked 
very hard, and  you have worked  together . And  I think  together , we have gotten a lot done. So, I 
really want to thank you for your hard work.  
• We have moved on fish eries subsidies negotiations further than we have due to the brave 
work o f Ambassador Wills and the Secretariat team. Yes, it looks tough, but we have a 
fighting chance to conclude by MC12. This historic Ministerial meeting that we held after 
4 years of not having one has given  us, as many Members said, political boost and 
direction. Let 's not lose this. Let's seize this. Let  us show that we can complete the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 160 - 
 
  multilateral negotiations. That's what we are about, isn't it?  Multilateralism. If we want 
more of it, then we have to show  we can really do it. Otherwise, people won't beli eve us.  
 
• We have placed the WTO squarely at the centre of the solution to COVID -19. This is the 
second thing I think we have done through your work on the WTO's response including 
all the submissions that I referred to earlier. The WTO is now seen as a cr itical entity in 
monitoring supply chains and working with manufacturers to scale up output. It was not 
always that way. I think you all remember when I came and I shared with you how I 
would be participating in meetings with WHO, CEPI, GAVI and all other organizations 
dealing with the response to the pandemic . And they would be talking about these issues 
without mentioning the WTO. Today , this is not the case . We have made clear that we 
are part of the solution to this problem – and our name is being menti oned. Beyond being 
mentioned, we are actually expected to help solve problems. So, I urge us again to seize 
on this new momentum where we are seen as being part of the global common solution 
to a global common problem. And let's work with it.  
 
• We have als o strengthened ties with international organizations . This is the third thing 
we have done , working with WIPO , WHO, IMF and World Bank on a whole series  of issues.  
We have strengthened outreach to the manufacturers, to the private sector and we have 
continued to reach out to civil society. We are even planning to do some work with the 
private sector on voluntary monitoring, if it is possible. So that outreach that many of 
you asked for, that working with other international organizations, I think it i s beginning 
to happen and is the third thing that I think we have made progress on.  
 
• And of course, due to your good work, we have advanced discussions on a number of 
issues that you mentioned today such as MSMEs, Gender, E -Commerce, Trade and 
Climate, Ser vices Domestic Regulation, Investment Facilitation and  so on . And I could 
sense the excitement in the voice s of Member s including Ambassador Cancela  of Uruguay 
as he talked about MSMEs which was palpable. So, thank you all for bringing this sense 
of passio n to all that work.  
 
Let me close by saying that I remain hopeful that, together, we can deliver meaningful, quality 
outcomes for the people we serve. For all the differences of opinion we heard today, it is clear that 
this noble objective is one that eve ryone shares. So, I invite you to always keep that in mind. If we 
keep in mind that we are here to serve people, it really helps us to overcome the seeming differences 
that we have. I want to reiterate that I am here to help. My door remains open to all . I am willing 
to work as hard as it takes, and I hope to see many of you coming forward so that we can work 
together.  
My statement today will be circulated as a JOB/TNC document. I also plan to provide a report of our 
15 July Ministerial Meeting and two Info rmal TNC/HoDs in June and in July to the G eneral Council  
on Tuesday under Agenda Item 1.  
With that I end my statement. Thank you very much . 
 
_______________  
 
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 161 - 
 
   
STATEMENT BY  AMBASSADOR DACIO CASTILLO, CHAIR OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL  
 
 
Thank you very much Director -General for convening this TNC and Heads of Delegation meeting 
which is helpful as we find a collective way forward from now until MC12. I commend you DG for 
placing a high value on delivering meaningful outcomes and for your earnest efforts in this regard.  
As I have provided a report on my recent consultations at the Informal General Council meeting 
yesterday, I will just highlight a few points.  
  
We are appro aching a crucial moment – with MC12 just around the corner. We have to start paving 
the way now for the various areas to move forward.  
 
We have heard the reports of the NG Chairs today and of Ambassador Walker's and mine yesterday. 
A lot of work needs to b e done and we do not have much time.  
 
This calls for us to focus our work on the key priority issues – and begin preparing possible outcomes. 
And for our Ministers to be in a position to consider the results before they meet at MC12, we need 
to conclude o ur work early.  
 
With this in mind, as I said yesterday, we should aim for texts as soon as possible in the various 
areas of work that Members are aiming to deliver. So, I intend to resume work immediately after 
the summer break.   
 
Next week's formal GC is considered by delegations as a marker in the lead up to MC12. Your 
interventions today will inform those discussions. So, I encourage all of you to participate in this 
spirit and to remain constructively engaged in the intense processes ahead.  
 
And in conc luding, allow me as GC Chair to sincerely thank the Director -General for her tireless 
engagement, efforts and determination in continuously bringing Members together towards a 
successful MC12. I also thank you, DG, for your leadership in bringing together key stakeholders 
and participants in a series of high -level events; and for being at the helm of the constructive 
collaboration between relevant agencies. I very much look forward to continuing working in close 
collaboration with you in the second part of this busy year as we sketch together with Members the 
path forward towards MC12.  
 
 
_______________  
 
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 162 - 
 
   
ORAL REPORT BY AMBASSADOR SANTIAGO WILLS (COLOMBIA),  
CHAIR OF THE NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES  
 
 
Since my last report on 3 May, the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR) has continued to work 
intensively leading up to the Ministerial -level meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) 
that took place last week on 15 July.  
Let me first thank all of you and your delegates for the dedication and flexibility de monstrated during 
this intense period of work. You engaged almost non -stop, including on some weekends, early 
mornings and late evenings, and sometimes at short notice. The Ministerial meeting last week was 
productive, and it would not have been possible w ithout your hard work.  
Shortly after making my last report to the TNC on 3 May, and based on the meetings and 
consultations held with delegations, on 11 May, I introduced a further revision of our draft working 
text, in document TN/RL/W/276, with an introd uction explaining each element of the draft text in 
document 276/Add.1.  
Following the circulation of the text, I held consultations with over forty delegations and groups of 
delegations representing nearly the full Membership of the WTO. The objective of these consultations 
was to hear the key reactions and concerns of delegations.  
A number of common themes emerged from these consultations, which then served as a basis for 
structuring work in the NGR for the rest of May and June. This work was based on eac h of the pillars, 
that is: subsidies to IUU fishing; subsidies to fishing overfished stocks; and subsidies contributing 
to overcapacity and overfishing; as well as cross -cutting issues such as notifications and 
transparency, and dispute settlement. In addi tion, special and differential treatment was integrated 
throughout the discussion of the pillars, as well as being discussed during a dedicated session.   
The meetings were held at the Heads of Delegation (HoDs) level in various configurations. To ensure 
transparency and inclusiveness, the work was structured such that everything discussed in smaller 
groups was also discussed in open -ended meetings.  
Let me also take this opportunity to thank the DG for following our work closely during this period 
and makin g a lot of time in her schedule to join us for a number of these discussions.  
This work was productive and on 30 June I presented to the Negotiating Group a revision of the 
draft text, in document TN/RL/W/276/Rev.1. As you know, this is the version of the text on which 
Ministers based their remarks at the Ministerial -level meeting of the TNC on 15 July.  
As you no doubt listened in carefully to our Ministers on 15 July at the TNC meeting at the Ministerial 
level, I will not repeat what was said during th at meeting. Instead, let me highlight some key political 
guidance from our Ministers that will help us plan our next steps.  
First, Ministers said that the current status quo of not having any disciplines is not an option, and 
that we need to bring the negoti ations to a meaningful, balanced and credible conclusion as soon as 
possible, well ahead of MC12. To make this happen, we need to develop as quickly as possible a 
clean text that all Members will be in a position to adopt. In practical terms, this means co mpleting 
our work by early November at the latest.  
To get to this point, Members need to engage in a solution -oriented mode, with the authority to 
engage flexibly in order to get to landing zones, efficiently.  
Another key message from last Thursday is th at the draft text is not perfect – many Ministers raised 
issues with specific aspects of the text. On some issues, gaps are larger than on others. But it was 
encouraging to hear Ministers engaging on the draft text. Clearly, as many Ministers said, we need  
to move to Member -led, text -based negotiations. Of course, that is the purpose of the draft text, 
something Members can use to pursue their positions in seeking amendments, additions or deletions.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 163 - 
 
  So, we have an instruction to finish as soon as possible; we were told that Heads of Delegation 
should use the necessary flexibility to do so; and we have a draft text, which we now need to 
collectively improve to use on line -by-line negotiations. This brings me to my last point on our next 
steps.  
As we all are w ell aware, MC12 begins on 30 November and whatever outcome we produce here, 
Capitals will need enough time to review and deliberate about it. So effectively, we have September 
and October for this work. Given this short time, we can expect that our work du ring the fall will be 
intensive and at times uncomfortable.  
Clearly there is no time to lose. I am still consulting with delegations and groups on the details of 
how best to structure work in the fall, and I will circulate a communication on that toward th e end 
of next week. For today, I will provide a general outline of my ideas based on what I have heard so 
far. 
First, I intend to start work from 1 September with consultations in different formats with interested 
delegations; then commence the intensive t ext-based work not later than the week of 13 September, 
i.e., following Jeûne Genevois.  
Our engagement will have to be very different from what it has been to date if we are to deliver as 
Ministers expect. This means no more conceptual exchanges of views or reading of written 
statements of positions. The positions of all delegations are well -known. To make progress, we now 
must work exclusively on the basis of specific suggestions to add, delete or amend the language in 
the draft text, in ways that will in crease convergence and ultimately lead to a final consensus 
outcome. This work will be at the HoDs -level, to ensure that the needed authority to make 
compromises is present in the meeting room, bearing in mind that HoDs may need technical support 
from thei r experts. As Chair, I will be there to facilitate the discussions; but ultimately, it will be up 
to Members, in a 'give and take ' exercise, to find the landing zones that everyone can live with.  
Clearly, some parts of the current draft require more work t han others and I suggest that we start 
with these bigger -picture issues, and work on them until early October. Given the nature of these 
issues, I expect that we will need to work in different formats with different groups of Members 
depending on the issue . In order to ensure transparency, I would suggest holding open -ended 
meetings, also at the HoD -level, once or twice a week during this phase. At those meetings I would 
report on the ongoing work in smaller formats, and all delegations would have the oppor tunity to 
discuss all of the issues raised.  
On the specific issues to be addressed during this period, it is premature for me to suggest a 
definitive list but they will include the issues raised by many Ministers on 15 July, such as the issues 
of balance, special and differential treatment, and dist ant water fishing, as well as some elements 
not currently reflected in the draft text.  
The objective of this first stage would be to improve collectively the draft text to be used in the next 
stage, starting in early October, of line -by-line negotiations.   
From this point on, I expect we will be meeting in open -ended format every day to go through the 
text clause -by-clause with an aim of producing a clean text well before MC12. When I say "line -by-
line" or "clause -by-clause" I do not necessarily mean start ing with the first line of Article 1. Which 
clause we start with will depend on work in September. To leave enough time for Capitals to consider 
the results of the work, I suggest that we aim to finish this second stage by late October.  
I would just recall  here that I am still consulting with delegations on how we proceed in the fall, so 
what I have just outlined is subject to further refinement. And of course, how we proceed also 
depends on COVID -related developments and meetings of other WTO bodies. With that said, my 
plan is to distribute a suggested detailed work plan with a schedule of meetings for the first stage 
of work toward the end of next week.  
More broadly, let me underscore that this phase of the work will be time -intensive and will require 
flexibility and a high degree of engagement, particularly by HoDs. We will need to adapt our 
processes to be able  to deliver "as soon as possible, ahead of MC12" as Ministers affirmed. This 
means using our time efficiently to make the needed progress on each i ssue and then move on. WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 164 - 
 
  Given this, whatever the anticipated schedule, we will need to be prepared to adjust it as we go 
along, and in accordance with the pace of our progress on different issues.  
To conclude my report, let me highlight that all delegation s have worked extremely hard to get to 
where we are today, but we are not done yet. Time is running out and there is still difficult work to 
be done, so we have a very busy schedule ahead of us. As I see it, this is good news. It means that 
we are close to  getting it done and that we are in the final lap, where every step you take is harder 
than the one before.  
Our Ministers have given us the guidance on how to get there. I am confident that Members are up 
to the task of finally concluding these negotiation s.  
Before I conclude, let me share a personal thought. Unfortunately, the lack of recent successfully 
negotiated outcomes in the WTO, and several deadlines missed on these particular negotiations, 
seems to have contributed to creating a sense of comfort w ith failure; in my view, to a degree that 
we now fear success more than we fear failure. As I mentioned earlier, despite the ongoing need to 
bridge gaps amongst Members ' positions, a positive conclusion of the fisheries subsidies negotiations 
is within rea ch. We have two options in front of us: we either stick to our zones of comfort and fail 
yet again; or we act with boldness, pragmatism, and responsibility and reach success. In engaging 
in the upcoming stage of the negotiations, I would like to invite you  to choose the latter . 
 
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 165 - 
 
   
ORAL REPORT BY AMBASSADOR GLORIA ABRAHAM PERALTA  (COSTA RICA),  
CHAIR OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON  
AGRICULTURE AND SUB -COMMITTEE ON COTTON  
 
 
I would like to say a few words on the latest developments in the agricultural negotiations.  
As you are aware, I circulated under my own responsibility my report on the state -of-play and way 
forward on 17 June in document JOB/AG/202 in which I sought to identify under each topic elements 
that could po tentially form the basis for an agreement at MC12.  The report was discussed at our last 
CoA SS meeting on 21 and 24 June and was generally well received.  
As stated on many occasions in recent months, my intention remains to circulate a first draft text 
for a possible outcome at MC12 before the summer recess.  
In that regard, I intend to convene a last meeting of the CoA Special Session before the summer 
break on 29 July. The purpose of this meeting would be to introduce this first draft text, which will 
be prepared under my own responsibility.  
This draft text is intended to be a first step in the cr eating  of a Ministerial agricultural outcome at 
MC12 to help Members embark on a focused text -based negotiation from September onwards.  
Therefore, the text is boun d to evolve with the discussions of Members.  
Following the indication by many Members in June that they were still in the process of preparing 
new submissions, I convened a CoA  SS meeting and the Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM earlier 
this week to give  them the opportunity to present these submissions and also to enable me to take 
them into account as I prepare my draft text for the consideration by Members.  
Not less than 11 submissions were on the agenda of these meetings that finally took place over 
3 days - 19, 20 and 22 of July.  The discussions were so intense and we did not have time to go 
through all the topics and I plan to reconvene next week the SSM dedicated discussion.  
The number of new submissions to which we should add a few others that Members have announced 
they would submit soon, and the intensity of the discussions constitute, without any doubt, an 
encouraging signal of Members' engagement.  
I am also encouraged by  the 15 July Formal TNC meeting at Ministerial level on Fisheries Subsidies 
that demonstrated Members ' commitment to seriously engage to deliver multilateral outcomes by 
MC12.  
And it is fair to say that all Members also agree on the need for a credible an d meaningful agricultural 
outcome at MC12. Such an outcome would demonstrate WTO's ability to respond to key challenges 
facing the agriculture sector and prepare the ground for an intensive and successful post MC12 
continuation of the agriculture negotiati ons. 
However, several major gaps in negotiating positions still need to be narrowed and, in particular, on 
the two priority issues: Domestic Support and PSH.  
This makes the finalization of a first draft text by the end of the month an extremely challenging  
task. 
My assessment of the state of play and possible way forward which will be reflected in this draft text 
and its subsequent revisions will be based only on Members' inputs and discussions.  
I will therefore need the support and cooperation of all of yo u in this exercise before and after the 
circulation of this  draft text, to narrow the gaps  and find balance, identify trade -offs and strike 
compromises.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 166 - 
 
  To paraphrase Elon Musk, "if you are trying to produce a text, it is like baking a cake. You have to 
have all the ingredients in the right proportion." I am only the cook, but I need the proper ingredients 
and in the right proportion.  
In other words, this draft text will be more your collective text than mine.  
I will continue my consultations in the coming days and I call on Members to engage without any 
further due in a spirit of compromise and with a heightened sense of urgency.  
 
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 167 - 
 
  ORAL REPORT BY AMBASSADOR KADRA AHMED HASSAN (DJIBOUTI),  
CHAIR OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE  
ON TRAD E AND DEVELOPMENT  
 
As you are aware, earlier this year, I launched a series of informal, open -ended meetings of the CTD 
SS. The purpose of these meetings, of which there were five in total, was to explore how to move 
forward on the ten proposals on special  and differential treatment submitted by the G -90. In each 
meeting, delegations were asked to focus on two proposals, so that over the course of the five 
meetings, an in -depth discussion would have taken place on all ten proposals.  
In order to have a const ructive and focused series of meetings, I requested delegations to approach 
the discussion on each proposal on the basis of two questions. Delegations were firstly asked for 
their views on which elements of each proposal might convergence be found. They we re also asked 
to consider where the difficulties lie in each proposal and why, and how could these be overcome.  
The first in this series of meetings was held on 8 February and focused on the proposal concerning 
the Enabling Clause and the proposal concerni ng LDC accession.  
The second meeting, held on 12 March, focused on the proposals concerning the TRIMs Agreement 
and Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
The third meeting was held on 27 April and focused on the proposals concerning the TBT Agreement 
and the Customs Valuation Agreement.  
The focus at the fourth meeting, held on 17 May, was on the proposals concerning the SPS 
Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
And finally, on 18 June, the Committee focused on the proposal  concerning Sections A and C of GATT 
Article XVIII, and the proposal concerning Section B of GATT Article XVIII.  
Though the discussions that took place in these meetings were useful to some extent, they triggered 
little in terms of substantive exchange  on these proposals . I think that a greater engagement 
amongst Members would have been more fruitful.  I therefore regret to report that, over the course 
of the five meetings, I did not see the level of engagement that I had hoped on the substance of the 
propo sals. On the one hand, the delegations that have concerns with these proposals are not willing 
to engage in discussions on substance, as they have stated that these proposals have already been 
considered before. On the other hand, while shedding further li ght on their proposals, the G -90 – 
along with some other Members – continue to believe that their proposals provide a good basis for 
taking the discussion further.  
At each of the five meetings, I strongly stressed the importance of finding a way forward in  these 
negotiations, and in this light I encouraged delegations to work together to identify a new approach 
to the work in the CTD SS which would be acceptable to all. I also stressed that it is in the hands of 
Members to find this way forward. As Chair, I  remain committed to convene meetings and facilitate 
as many discussions as are needed, but it is ultimately up to Members to show the necessary 
flexibility and political will to collaborate, so as to collectively determine how the work in the CTD SS 
can a dvance.  
In terms of next steps, my intention is to convene a formal meeting of the CTD SS soon after the 
summer break  in September . This will allow Members to take stock, in a formal setting, of the work 
that took place in the first half of th is year. Such a meeting would also provide Members an 
opportunity to discuss what would need to be done in order to make progress in our discussions in 
the CTD SS.  
I would urge all Members to use the summer break to consider this stalemate seriously. It is my 
assessment that, unless there is real engagement on the substance by all Members, we will not be 
able to make the progress we need to see in order to have a concrete outcome on the G -90 proposals 
by MC12.  I reiterate my call to Members.  I am sure that t hey heard me in the informal meetings 
that it is important that they contribute to finding solutions on the way forward in these negotiations.  
_______________  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 168 - 
 
   
ORAL REPORT BY AMBASSADOR ZHANAR AITZHANOVA (KAZAKHSTAN),  
CHAIR OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES  
I am pleased to provide this report to the TNC in my capacity as Chair of the Special Session of the 
Council for Trade in Services.   
In June, I invited delegations to consult with me so that I could hear their views on how  they see 
our work on services addressed in the context of MC12.  In those consultations, I discussed with 
groups and individual delegations representing over half of the Membership.   
I reported on those consultations at an informal meeting of the Special S ession on 30 June.  My 
report was subsequently circulated as JOB/SERV/309.  
The consultations yielded three general take -aways, in my view:  
• First, there seemed to be a good level of convergence on the importance of GATS 
commitments and of working towards i mproved commitments in the context of the built -in 
agenda;  
• Second, the consultations revealed a good appreciation of the exploratory discussions that 
have taken place since MC11 and that there was good support for market access discussions 
to continue and  even intensify after MC12.  
• Third, I heard a significant level of support for seeing services trade well addressed in a 
ministerial outcome document at MC12.   
On this last point, many delegations said they wished to see a specific paragraph on trade in se rvices . 
Elements mentioned by delegations in that regard included the following:  
• Underscoring the relevance of exploratory market access discussions undertaken;  
• Recognition of the pandemic's impact on services trade and of the role of services trade in 
facilitating resilience and supporting the economic recovery;  
• And, in that context, reaffirmation of the built -in agenda to improve commitments and 
revitalize work.  
At our meeting of 30 June, I invited interested delegations to put forward drafting suggestio ns as 
soon as possible, and indicated that I would convene a meeting early in September to allow Members 
to discuss any suggestions received.  
Chair, I hope that the membership will be able to find elements of convergence.  That would of course 
depend on the  type of language contemplated, and would only happen if a good dose of realism and 
pragmatism is exhibited.  Naturally, I will continue to stand ready to assist as appropriate.  
 
_______________  
 
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 169 - 
 
   
ORAL REPORT BY AMBASSADOR KOKOU YACKOLEY JOHNSON (TOGO)  
CHAIR OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY  
 
 
I will be very brief as my statement is not a report as such. However, it seemed important to remind 
delegations that the circumstances around the work of the DSB in Special Session have  remained 
unchanged since my last report to the TNC in October 2020. At that time, I reported my assessment 
that delegations recognized it was unlikely to be productive to discuss improvements to D ispute 
Settlement  procedures generally, as long as issues wi th the overall functioning of the dispute 
settlement system, arising from the debate around issues relating to the functioning of the Appellate 
Body, remained unresolved. I think all delegations will be aware that we are still awaiting concrete 
progress in  this area, so the basic situation remains unchanged.  
That said, I would like to stress that I remain available to meet with any delegation wishing to 
discuss any issues relating to the work of the DSB in Special Session. If there is interest in such 
discussions, my door is open.   
To conclude I take this opportunity to appeal to all interested delegations on the need to reflect on 
finding a way to move forward on the work of DSB SS in connection with Appellate Body issues.  
 
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 170 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEM ENTS BY MEMBERS AT THE INFORMAL TNC AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS 
HELD ON 23 JULY 2021  
Following the General Council Chairman's statement under Item 1 of the agenda of this meeting – 
"Report on Informal TNC and Informal HODs Meetings", the statements delivere d by: Uruguay 
(Informal Working Group on MSMEs) ; Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce  
and CAIRNS Group) ; Switzerland; Singapore; Ecuador; Pakistan; Japan; Nigeria; Mexico; Barbados  
(CARICOM) ; Argentina; Iceland (Informal Working Group on Trade and Gender) ; European Union; 
Indonesia; Brazil; Republic of Korea; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  (Arab Group) ; Norway; Panama  
(Article XII Members) ; China;  New Zealand; Mauritius  (African Group) ; Honduras; Costa Rica (Joint 
Initiative on S ervices Domestic Regulation) ; Russian Federation; Moldova; Chile (Structured 
Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development) ; Nepal; United States; Sierra Leone; India; 
Canada  (Structured Discussions on Trade and Environmental Sustainability and Ot tawa Group) ; 
Chinese Taipei; South Africa; Paraguay; Colombia; United Kingdom; Malaysia; Jamaica  (ACP) ; 
Turkey; Bangladesh; Egypt; Chad  (LDCs) ; Viet Nam; Peru; Vanuatu  (Pacific Group) ; Thailand; 
Uganda and Cameroon;  are included below as part of the Minute s of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
I make this statement as coordinator of the Informal Working Group on MSMEs. Since our last HoDs 
meeting, the MSME Group met twice in an open -ended format on 4 May and 24 June. I am pleased 
to report that good progress has been achieved on the MSMEs draft Ministerial Declaration. We hope 
to finalise the declaration at our next meeting on Monday next week. The Declaration will take stock 
of the progress achieved since the establishment of the Group, in particular on the adoption of our 
December 2020 Package which is, in itself, a deliverable. It will also pave the way for future work. 
The implementation of the package is clearly a priority, but we are also thinking about new issues. 
Good discussions have taken place since the beginning of the year on various topics, including  on 
innovation policies and how they can help MSMEs grow and trade, rural MSMEs ', trade digitalisation, 
MSMEs ' cyber -readiness, and low -value shipments.  
 
Besides the MSMEs Ministerial Declaration, a concrete MC12 deliverable will be the l aunch of the 
Trade4MSMEs platform. The platform looks to support MSMEs and policymakers by bringing trade 
related information together in one place and linking to reliable information resources. The platform 
will include guides for MSMEs and policymakers. The MSME group also launched a Digital Champions 
for Small Business initiative on MSME Day in June, with the partnership of the International Chamber 
of Commerce and the International Trade Centre. The initiative aims to support small business 
participatio n in international trade by helping them to go digital. Industry associations, chambers of 
commerce and NGOs with MSME and digitalisation focus, have been invited to submit proposals. The 
winners will be announced at MC12. These two initiatives reflect wel l the spirit in which we work. 
That is a spirit of pragmatism and a solution -oriented mode.  
 
As I have often said, the MSME Group is both a think -tank — incubator of ideas — but it is also a 
"do-tank". Our objective is to generate concrete deliverables th rough recommendations, soft law 
and tangible solutions to improve the participation of MSMEs in international trade. MSMEs are key 
economic actors, representing the vast majority of businesses in every economy, but they struggle 
to participate in internati onal trade and the current pandemic has had a devastating impact on them. 
Our next meeting will take place on Monday 28 July and is open to all interested Members. We hope 
that many of you will join us and support our work and our Ministerial Declaration. On this occasion, 
we will be honoured with the participation of WIPO Director -General, Mr. Daren Tang, to explore 
together synergies to help MSMEs. The more Members support our Ministerial Declaration, the 
stronger the message that we send to the world wil l be that the WTO and we, the governments, 
really care about small businesses, our economies and our people.  
 
2. Uruguay    
 
Uruguay thanks the Director -General, the Chair of the General Council and the Chairs of the 
negotiating groups for their reports. I wis h to refer to what was said in the area of agriculture. As WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 171 - 
 
  we said in our meeting held on 21 June, the WTO cannot grant itself the luxury that agriculture 
simply be forgotten at MC12. We cannot come back with empty hands once again. That is the reason 
why I wish to launch an appeal to all Members, especially to the largest and most influential ones, 
to demonstrate the political will and constructive spirit needed if we want to go beyond the logjams. 
We want to be able to arrive at a result that is significa nt and credible to continue moving forward 
to reform the three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture. Without prejudging the importance of 
transparency, we recogni ze that improvements must be part of a broader package at MC12. As we 
see it, the various p rerequisites and the formats for notifications would not be a significant 
breakthrough required from this organi zation, after six years without having a breakthrough in 
agriculture. Especially, looking at the situation, some Members are adjusting the requi rements to 
their own needs without contributing in a very effective way to heighten transparency. Uruguay does 
not believe that the presentation of proposals which are unbalanced or maximalist, at this time of 
the process, would be conducive to arriving at  a consensus to bring a home a multilateral result; a 
result which is absolutely necessary for developing countries. On domestic support, we must have 
an agreement that sets forth an objective that has clear principles and parameters , so that we can 
have a  limitation and reduction of the levels that are authorized for domestic support. Of course, 
this is distorting production and trade, as it was already agreed upon a long time ago.  
 
On JOB/AG/177/Rev.2, this is the strongest basis through which we can arr ive at such a result. We 
stand ready to work together with other Members to find the way forward and to address all the 
various concerns and needs within this approach. At the same time, we hope that MC12 will also be 
the time when we can lay the foundatio n to give a new impetus to negotiations on market access in 
the run up to MC13. To have the framework for negotiations presented by Uruguay and other 
Members , is the proper basis to bring forward negotiations on this theme. That is a high priority to 
our d elegation.  
 
Another theme that should be part of the package is a decision on purchases for humanitarian 
purposes and the application of restrictions for exports. This initiative was defended by the 
authorities of humanitarian agencies and it should not, in any way, stand in the way of an agreement 
on the basis of the breakthroughs reached in 2020, without linking this to other themes. This is a 
modest package, but this is the minimum level of ambition that we need, as we see it, to be seen 
as being credib le and taken seriously by the rest of the international community.  
 
When it comes to the other areas, any advancement on public stockholding and a special safeguard 
mechanism must have a level of ambition which is in keeping with market access and domestic 
support. In the current situation, it seems it will be difficult to  have a permanent solution for public 
stockholding in the time we have ahead of us between now and November. The divergence of views 
that we see, and the lack of sufficient information on the programmes that are in force, have been 
pointed out time and tim e again. Uruguay considers that we can have a lasting solution that would 
give rise to a broadening of what was agreed upon in Bali. This perpetual clause , without robust 
measures on safeguards or transparency , would be a blank check because there can be d istortion 
for both production and trade. Finally, we wish to underscore the fact that any results on agriculture 
at MC12 must presuppose steps forward and not back -pedalling when it comes to the reform 
mandated in the Agreement on Agriculture, and seeking to set up an agriculture system that is well -
adjusted to the market and fair regarding the progressive reduction in the level of support and 
protection.  
 
I wish to refer to the theme of fisheries subsidies. With regard to this negotiation, we have the 
strong commitment of Members that posited their commitment to be able to finish up the 
negotiations, and this before MC12. This means reconciling different technical, legal and political 
differences. This is a very arduous undertaking. We will have to get rea dy for an intensive period of 
line-by-line negotiations. We wish to support the work programme of Ambassador Wills to arrive at 
a text which, in fine, will make it possible for the negotiations to be successful. We can only find a 
viable solution if we dec ide to eschew very extreme positions. We have to comply with our mandate. 
It is only by shared dissatisfaction that we can give rise to success.  
 
3. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce)  
 
Co-Convenors ' Report on E -Commerce  
 
I will first provide a report on work under the Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce on 
behalf of the co -convenors: Australia, Japan and Singapore.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 172 - 
 
  Momentum in the negotiations remains strong, and we have made good progress since our last 
report in May.  
 
We have now cleaned or virtually cleaned six articles. At our most recent plenary meeting, just 
yesterday, participants welcomed clean text achieved in e -contracts, and nearly clean text achieved 
in online consumer protection and in open gove rnment data. We also ‘parked’ text on transparency, 
subject to the final legal structure.  
 
We also met on 20 May and 21 June. Our 20 May meeting included constructive discussions on data 
flows and localisation, and reflected broad recognition that these i ssues should be addressed in the 
JSI.  
 
Our 21 June discussion included positive discussions on legal architecture. There was wide 
agreement that a range of viable legal pathways exist for integrating outcomes into the WTO 
framework, including the use of G ATS and GATT schedules and Annex 4. The plenary meetings also 
included updates from small groups to ensure transparency.  
  
Looking ahead, we will issue an updated consolidated text in coming weeks, and will hold monthly 
plenary meetings in the second half of the year. Small groups will remain an important tool for 
driving progress.  
  
The JSI remains open, transparent and inclusive: meetings are open to all WTO Members and papers 
are available on the WTO portal.  
  
I would like to thank all JSI participants for their hard work and the progress achieved so far this 
year, and I look forward to more good progress as we approach MC12.  
 
4. Australia ( Cairns Group ) 
 
Reform in agriculture is a priority for the majority of WTO Members, as seen today and as we have 
seen for many years. On 23 June, Australia' s Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment chaired a 
meeting of Cairns Group Ministers.   
 
Cairns Group Ministers underlined that it is essential for MC12 to deliver an ambitious, concrete and 
equitable outcome in ag riculture.  Ministers reinforced their commitment to making progress in all 
three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture – domestic support, market access and export 
competition – with a view to ensuring a balanced and progressive reform process and a leve l playing 
field for trade in agriculture.   
 
Cairns Group Ministers called for a Ministerial Decision at MC12 that addresses agricultural trade - 
and production -distorting domestic support.  Ministers noted that the Ministerial Decision must be of 
sufficient ambition and specificity to enable meaningful reform of trade - and production -distorting 
domestic support entitlements. To this end, Ministers of the Cairns Group underscored that the 
Framework for Negotiations on Domestic Support should be the basis for t his Decision.  
 
5. Australia  
 
There is no question that MC12 represents the best chance in several years to secure some 
significant wins on the board for our organi zation.   
 
For Australia' s part, we 're confident that a multilateral package on fisheries subsidies negotiations, 
agriculture, COVID -19 response and a new process on WTO reform is well within our reach.  
 
On agriculture, beyond the Cairns Group statement just made now, we look forward to the Chair 's 
draft text next week and are committ ed to working with other Members to ensure MC12 makes a 
meaningful step forward on domestic support.  We will be pragmatic, but our patience is not 
unlimited.  
 
On our COVID -19 response, at this week 's successful High-Level Dialogue on vaccines, stakeholders 
again made clear that there are several trade barriers that are impeding the global pandemic 
response, particularly the manufacture and distribution of crucial vaccines, including tariffs, exports 
restrictions and trade facilitation. The recently revised Trade and Health Initiative makes a significant WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 173 - 
 
  contribution to the MC12 package on this subject and we urge all members to join the growing list 
of cosponsors.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we are committed to reaching an out come ahead of MC12 – for the sake of 
global fish stocks, which are declining rapidly.  For this same reason we must ensure that the 
disciplines on harmful subsidies do not include significant carve -outs, to ensure they will help rebuild, 
rather than worsen,  global fish stocks.  
 
In addition to these multilateral outcomes, the joint statement initiative on services domestic 
regulation is now very close to conclusion, particularly in light of the recent positive announcement 
from the US this week.  We can and s hould reap that harvest.  
 
Of course , MC12 also needs to set up the organi zation for a stronger future.  We need to chart a 
reform path that will ensure we can restore a fully functioning and binding dispute settlement system 
as soon as possible.  We need a r eform path that establishes rule making through plurilaterals as a 
central part of our work.  A new process on these issues is essential, and we should ensure it is an 
inclusive one, to ensure we can all contribute our voice in this organi zation's future.  
 
6. Switzerland  
 
Today, we have less than three months to work until the 12th Ministerial Conference. Great efforts 
are still needed in all areas to achieve concrete results.  
 
Under these circumstances, it is important that we agree now on the objectives and priority issues. 
Our goal should be to achieve meaningful results on a limited number of issues and to provide a 
positive perspective for the future work of the WTO. This will allow us to refocus on the most 
promising issues and objectives after the summer  break.  
 
There are two priority issues for the Ministerial Conference:  
 
First, finalizing an agreement on fisheries subsidies to implement a critical sustainable development 
goal and second, to develop a tangible and sustainable WTO response to the global health crisis that 
has severely affected our lives and economies. In our view, this response is a holistic approach to 
effectively address the pandemic and fend off future health crises.  
 
On the other issues, the levels of ambition need to be adjusted in l ight of progresses achieved so 
far. Decisions at the Ministerial Conference could take the form of immediate outcomes, political 
commitments or work programs. A common understanding of the way forward after MC12 will also 
be particularly important for syst emic issues, including WTO reform and dispute settlement. We also 
support making permanent the tariff moratorium on electronic transmissions.  
 
In addition, we look forward to making concrete progress on all Joint Statement Initiatives. The 
conclusion of ne gotiations on domestic regulations in services is within reach and would send a 
strong and positive signal.  
 
Since we do not know the conditions under which the Ministerial Conference will take place, basic 
foresight requires that we present the Ministers with mature and stabilized draft decisions.  
 
In summary, Madam Chair, we need to prioritize and focus our work after the summer break on the 
most crucial issues. In a pandemic context, we must also strive to finalize draft decisions as soon as 
possible.  
 
7. Singapore  
 
Thank you Chair, for providing clear direction and focus for today’s meeting. I recall that during one 
of your first meetings at the CBFA in May 2021, you quoted an old Nigerian proverb, which I will 
attempt to paraphrase as follows: “if you do not know your destination, you would not know what 
road to take”.  
 
Fortunately for us, we do know the destination. The short -range destination for the WTO is MC12 
while the long -range destination for Members is to ensure that the WTO remains re levant and fit -
for-purpose to address 21st century challenges. But to get to these destinations, Members must WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 174 - 
 
  answer two key questions honestly. One, does every Member agree that these are the destinations 
that we are all committed to arrive at. Two, what are the roads or pathways that will lead us to these 
destinations? In other words, how do we get there? Let me share three thoughts.  
 
First, I would like to believe that every Member agrees that the success of MC12 should be our short -
term destination. Of  course, much will depend on how we define “success”, but as DG Ngozi has 
consistently emphasised, there must be deliverables in at least two key areas, namely, fisheries 
subsidies negotiations and WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic. It is evident from the 15 July 
Ministerial TNC Meeting that while deep differences remain among Members, there was also a 
palpable sense of purpose to deliver an outcome in fisheries subsidies negotiations. It is equally 
clear that Members must deliver a meaningful outcome o n WTO response to the COVID -19 
pandemic. We have in place a process in the form of Ambassador David Walker as Facilitator, and 
we also have a sound foundation in room document RD/GC/14. As the crisis of a generation, 
Members must realise that not having an y outcome at MC12 will be the worst outcome of all as it 
will further call into question the relevance of the WTO.  
 
Second, Members must cast our eyes beyond the MC12 horizon and look at the long -range 
destination of what a WTO, which is fit -for-purpose f or the 21st century, will look like. In my mind’s 
eyes, I envisage a WTO that can do three things. One, a WTO that can formulate trade rules in new 
and emerging areas like digital trade, trade and environmental sustainability and trade and health. 
Two, a W TO that has an effective and efficient two -tier dispute settlement system so that it can 
discharge its adjudicatory function. Three, a WTO that can effectively carry out its monitoring 
function by promoting transparency and expanding free and fair internat ional trade. This is the only 
way for the WTO to continue to remain as the backbone of the multilateral trading system.  
 
Third, if Members agree that these are our short -range and long -range destinations, then we must 
commit to an intensive post -Summer wor k programme, exercise real flexibility and avoid 
megaphone negotiations to achieve meaningful deliverables as soon as possible, ahead of MC12. In 
the longer term, Members must avoid sacrificing the systemic interests of the WTO at the altar of 
narrow natio nal interests. Ultimately, Members must build greater trust among ourselves and avoid 
adopting a zero -sum approach in our negotiations. Instead of win -lose, we should strive to achieve 
win-win outcomes that will deliver concrete benefits to our citizens an d strengthen the WTO.   
 
Time is running out, and we must redouble our efforts ahead of MC12. The road ahead may be long 
and winding, but we can get to our destinations if we work together.  
 
8. Ecuador  
 
Director General, Ecuador expects results from the Mini sterial Conference in November, we must 
prove that the multilateral trading system is relevant in the current international context, where the 
economy and trade are suffering from the impact of COVID -19. Our priorities:  
 
Fisheries subsidies  
 
We thank and c ongratulate the Chair of the negotiating group, Ambassador Santiago Wills, for the 
work he has done.  
 
With respect to these negotiations, Ecuador reiterates its commitment to them and its willingness 
to reach an agreement that fulfils the mandate as soon as possible. Therefore, in order to be 
constructive, it supports the use of document RD/TN/RL/276 /Rev.1 as the basis for future work.  
 
The issues must be addressed in a holistic and inclusive manner since all the elements covered by 
these negotiations are interlinked. Thus, given the short time we have to reach an agreement, we 
call for work to begin promptly on the phase of genuine, text -based negotiations in which concrete 
and effective decisions are taken.  
 
When developing the discipline s, Ecuador considers it essential that the specific realities of each 
Member should be taken into account, particularly of those which, like Ecuador, see fisheries as a 
development tool and an opportunity to improve the lives of many people, men and women,  mainly 
with limited resources, who make a living from this activity. Therefore, equitable and effective special 
and differential treatment, as well as adequate technical and capacity building assistance, are 
indispensable elements for the final outcome of  these negotiations.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 175 - 
 
  It is well known that Ecuador considers it fundamental that the disciplines of this agreement include 
guarantees for artisanal fishing, given the high socio -economic sensitivity of the fisheries sector in 
all countries and considering that it has been demonstrated time and again that the harmful subsidies 
granted to industrial fishing have led to the critical situation of the seas.  
 
Agriculture  
 
We congratulate the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (COA SS) on the  work 
done in the complex task entrusted to her.  
 
Currently, making progress in the negotiations is largely dependent on Members' political choices 
and ability to listen to other people's opinions. Despite our efforts, it is still like talking to a wall.  
It is not realistic or constructive that, after months of intensive work, the focus remains on achieving 
only transparency outcomes.  
 
We must remain ambitious, there is sufficient technical evidence on the need for a genuine and 
thorough review of all the s ubparagraphs on domestic support, including Annex II.  
 
The mandates are clear and market access is part of one of them. This pillar, which is this 
organization's raison d'être, must not be neglected.  
 
As has already been pointed out by Uruguay, the proposa l for a framework for negotiations 
(JOB/AG/198), submitted by Ecuador together with other Members, is a suitable basis for further 
discussions on this issue, which is a top priority for my delegation.  
 
Health and Trade  
 
We thank Ambassador Walker, as the f acilitator of the WTO response to the pandemic, as well as 
Ambassadors Tan and Spencer for their work in support of this important process.  
 
Ecuador advocates the active management of the organization and its reform so that it can play a 
leading role in th e recovery of international trade in the post pandemic era and, of course, we must 
first address the immediate public health emergencies.  
 
This is a matter for all WTO Members and we therefore hope that any discussion on this topic will be 
inclusive and tr ansparent, and that the views of vaccine importing countries, like Ecuador, will be 
reflected in any document.  
 
In the short term, we need to try to remove any trade barrier that prevents access to medical 
equipment, and in particular to vaccines against COVID -19. It will take us years to beat this health 
crisis; by thinking about future pandemics we are dealing with this crisis, in the short term.  
 
In addition to other points already raised by Ecuador and other countries of the region on several 
occasions, I would like to stress the need for the immediate or prompt elimination of all restrictions 
on exports of COVID -19 vaccines and their components. Those that are in place must be notified.  
 
There must be full commitment to prohibit any future rest riction on COVID -19 vaccine exports and 
their components. The current proposals on this issue are not sufficient and should be strengthened, 
in line with the language used to avoid agriculture export restrictions.  
 
Joint initiatives and Working Groups  
 
Ecuador values the different negotiating approaches that, in this forum, have enabled us to move 
forward on issues on the current global agenda and, in this connection, we note with great interest 
the evolution of the negotiations on investment facilitation, SMEs, e -commerce and gender.  
 
9. Pakistan  
 
Chair, given recent events, it would be appropriate for us to address the issue of fisheries first. We 
appreciate all efforts to bring together Ministers and their representatives in a virtual Ministerial 
meeting to  take stock of the negotiations and discuss a way forward. Reports from the event 
especially in some of the press, tend to celebrate a move towards conclusion and showcase elements WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 176 - 
 
  suggesting an agreement on various elements. While it is no doubt good to b e optimistic, such 
reports tend to gloss over some fundamental issues that the Ministers have highlighted in their 
responses to the questions. Speaking for my own Minister and having heard many others, some of 
those fundamental issues, if not resolved, hav e the potential to threaten any outcome on this 
subject. To quote from my Minister’s statement, "without effective, unconditional, and undiluted 
flexibilities in all areas of disciplines, except for illegal fishing, a conclusion of the agreement would 
be in jeopardy. Unfortunately, the present draft text makes special and differential treatment 
conditional upon transparency requirements and dilutes it to something only notional in effect. This 
approach can severely limit our progress ". 
 
Chair, while recogni sing that small scale and artisanal fishermen are important, reports from the 
Ministerial suggest this was agreed as a form of special and differential treatment . To be sure, we 
heard many voices in the room calling for this type of fishing to remain outsi de the scope of 
disciplines as they do not fall within the mandate and are not harmful.  
 
Allow me to seek clarity today from the membership, as my Minister did on the 15th, on what exactly 
do we mean by the oft -quoted "sustainability mandate "? We find that  it is used quite often to limit 
the scope of special and differential treatment but also to create allowances for large -scale, industrial 
fishing activities that are actually harmful. To be sure, no such mandate of allowing subsidies for 
overcapacity and overfishing in the name of sustainability has been mentioned in SDG 14.6 or in 
any other mandate. Sustainability requires polluters to pay, and pay first. It requires the harmful to 
be limited and the not  harmful to be allowed for the sake of sustainable l ivelihoods and a sustainable 
environment.  
 
To conclude on fisheries Chair, while we seem to be getting a text together for agreement, 
imbalances in the text are quite stark, differences on fundamental issues remain, and disagreement 
on core disciplines fo r sustainability and development is still entrenched. We, therefore, believe that 
if we are to conclude a meaningful and high -quality agreement on fisheries subsidies, which is 
definitely Pakistan' s objective, we should listen to everyone and thrash out th e sticking points in a 
realistic manner. Ignoring not one, but several elephants in the room, will not lead to a good 
conclusion and we must not let our haste at this stage make waste of the progress made.  
 
At the same time , Director -General , Pakistan appreciates your proactive initiative on TA for 
implementing whatever disciplines we might eventually come up with, and your efforts to design an 
instrument in consultation with both potential beneficiaries and donors. But as I mentioned earlier 
no amount of TA, no matter how well designed can overcome any structural impediments that an 
agreement may create in the development of such sectors in developing countries.  
 
Turning from saving fish to saving human lives, Chair, we remind Members that desp ite the high 
rate of vaccination and apparent return to normalcy in a few countries, the pandemic is far from 
over. The new delta variant is proving to be deadlier than all those before it. The need for immediate, 
affordable, and equitable access to C OVID -19 vaccines, along with other essential medicines and 
equipment can no longer be ignored. Cosponsors had presented a comprehensive revised proposal 
for a waiver from certain TRIPS obligations that would allow scaling up of production and availability 
of such vaccines and products. It was heartening to note that the membership had agreed to enter 
into text -based negotiations in order to pass this waiver. Unfortunately, certain delegations still 
seem reluctant to engage with the text and continue to stall the  discussions with preliminary 
questions which have been answered in writing and orally in a thorough manner.  
 
At the same time, Chair, we wish to appreciate your attempts as Director -General to provide 
leadership on this issue and find every possible solu tion to the current situation. On our part, we 
have maintained that Pakistan is open to all solutions that would help contribute to the scaling up, 
and affordable and equitable access of vaccines and other equipment. We feel that each proposal 
must be valu ed and examined on its merit and a combination of approaches is workable.  
 
Similarly, in agriculture, Pakistan remains concerned that the existing anomalies in the Agreement 
must be addressed. Without very large subsidisers agreeing to cut domestic support first, movement 
will be difficult. Livelihood and food security concerns in developing countries continue to mount in 
wake of the pandemic and, therefore, the need for levelling the playing field in agriculture trade 
remains paramount. Spe cific entitlements for developing countries and interests of NFIDCs must not 
be swept away and should rather constitute the main element.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 177 - 
 
  In conclusion Chair, we remain hopeful and extend our faith in the membership to deliver on the 
objectives of sustain able development – manifested in higher standards of living, achieved through 
a structural transformation of our economies, greater technological capabilities, and production 
capacities. This, leading up to MC12, must remain the cornerstone of our activiti es and the end result 
of our endeavours. This is true for all negotiations and discussions on reforming the organi zation. 
We hope that we make 2021 truly memorable by following a more developmental approach at the 
WTO.  
 
10. Japan  
 
Fisheries negotiation  
 
At the Ministerial TNC Meeting on fisheries subsidies, WTO Members successfully expressed their 
commitments toward concluding the negotiation as soon as possible before MC12. Based on these 
commitments, it is our task to go back to text -based negotiations immed iately to narrow down the 
gaps in the text. Our time is limited. We have to find a landing zone, with the mindset that all 
Members should contribute appropriately to marine sustainability through disciplines on fish stocks 
that each Member is responsible f or. Japan is ready to continue intensive negotiations toward 
achieving this goal.  
 
Pandemic  
 
It is crucial for the WTO to deliver a concrete outcome on its response to COVID -19 at MC12. We 
greatly appreciate Ambassador Walker’s efforts as the facilitator. At MC12, we should agree on a 
Ministerial Declaration as well as a Ministerial Decision on health that holistically include important 
factors, in particular, trade facilitation, export restrictions, production expansion of C OVID -19 
vaccines and therapeutic s, and intellectual property. This will ensure that the WTO can contribute, 
not only to responding to the current crisis, but also to preparing for future pandemics.   
 
We believe that the draft General Council Declaration on Trade and Health (WT/GC/W/823),  with 
fifty-two co -sponsors including Japan, will be a good basis for the MC12 outcome. We call for 
Members to support this draft Declaration.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Addressing export restrictions on foodstuffs is critical in our response to the global crisis. As t he 
world 's second largest net food importer, Japan has serious concerns that export restrictive 
measures negatively affect other Members ' food security and global agricultural trade in time of 
crisis. Japan, with like -minded Members, submitted a concrete p roposal (JOB/AG/207) to enhance 
transparency and clarify rules on export restrictions at MC12. We must work hard to ensure that the 
WTO plays a leading role in building a more crisis -resilient world economy.  
 
Achieving an outcome in the area of transparenc y at MC12 is another priority. Some say it lacks 
ambition, but I can say that it is a basis for ambition. Transparency -related issues are a cross -cutting 
prerequisite to negotiations. Any negotiations on new rules would require, as a first step, the buildi ng 
of common understanding based on available transparent data and facts. Today, the E uropean 
Union, the U nited States, Canada and Japan will submit a proposal for transparency improvements 
in agriculture, and we strongly hope it will be the basis for a re alistic and ambitious outcome at 
MC12.  
 
Transparency/Notification  
 
As for the WTO reform, enhancing transparency and strengthening notification requirements is one 
area where we hope to achieve a concrete outcome by MC12. As one of the proponents, Japan h as 
put forward a draft General Council Decision (JOB/GC/204/Rev.6) to the General Council next week. 
The proposal incorporates a series of improvements in response to Members ' comments, and we 
invite Members to give it their consideration and support it to  improve transparency.  
 
Dispute settlement  
 
The reform of the WTO dispute settlement system remains a matter of urgency. At MC12, we must 
show progress toward restoring the proper functioning of the dispute settlement system. Members WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 178 - 
 
  should soon restart discussions to this end, including on how to a ddress the concerns surrounding 
the Appellate Body.  
 
JSIs 
 
Japan has high hopes for achieving tangible results on the Joint Statement Initiatives at MC12. We 
can expect to conclude negotiations on services domestic regulation. On e -commerce, Japan, as one  
of the co -conveners, would like to facilitate and intensify negotiations on key issues such as cross -
border data flow, while bearing in mind various challenges faced by developing Members. We also 
hope to see substantial progress in investment facilitatio n.  
 
Other issues (environmental sustainability, LPF)  
 
Trade and environmental sustainability is one area that will require greater attention from Members 
in the run up to MC12. Japan believes that the WTO should contribute to global carbon neutrality, 
including through both tariff elimination and rule -making on regulatory issues.  
 
Last but not least, Japan continues to place emphasis on ensuring a level playing field, including 
strengthened rules on industrial subsidies, SOEs, and forced technology transf er. We would like to 
promote this important agenda here at the WTO.  
 
11. Nigeria  
 
Nigeria wishes to thank you and the Chair  of the  General Council  and the Heads of respective 
negotiating Group for your respective reports and efforts in advancing respective ne gotiations. At 
the outset, we wish to associate ourselves with the statements delivered on behalf of the African 
Group and the ACP.  
 
Chair, let me begin by congratulating you, and the Membership for successfully organizing the 
15 July Ministerial Trade Negotiations Committee virtual meeting (TNC) on Fisheries Subsidies. We 
believe with intensified engagement in respective negotiations, Members would be able to make the 
progress that is required to deliver MC12 outcomes on respective iss ues that would speed up post 
COVID economic recovery, and support building of resilient economies. Nigeria looks forward to fair, 
balanced, and equitable MC 2 outcomes on issues such as Fisheries Subsidies, Agriculture, C OVID -19 
response, WTO Reform, DSU, TRIPS, E -Commerce, Trade and Development and other JSIs such as 
MSMES, Services D omestic Regulation  at MC12. However, we envisaged that some of these issues 
will have ministerial decision outcome while others will have developed work programme for post 
MC12. The outcomes should reflect a balance of the issues of interest to Members and views; balance 
in terms of political perspectives; and Members ' development priorities.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we will continue to show requisite flexibilities so we can co llectively achieve 
balanced outcomes consistent with SDG 14.6 and our mandate. We have taken note of some positive 
modifications in the revised Draft Consolidated Text of 30th June 2021. Though the text is not 
perfect, we believe the basic elements of the landing zones contained therein would foster requisite 
discussions towards timely delivery of outcomes consistent with the mandate. On the issue of special 
and differential treatment , we believe artisanal and small -scale fishers are not responsible for the  
rapid depletion of global marine fish stocks, and in our view, they should be excluded from the scope 
of application of the discipline. However, we are flexible on this issue, and we share the views of 
some Members that a key component of special and diff erential treatment is for poor and vulnerable 
artisanal fishers in developing country Members and LDC Members. Nevertheless, the final outcomes 
should also take into account the need for policy space for some developing countries to develop 
their fisheries  sector.  
 
On agriculture, we are of the view that the negotiations should be approached from a development 
perspective, so we can achieve outcomes that address  the structural causes of food and livelihood 
insecurity and foster the building of resilient agricultural sector. The African Group ha s tabled some 
proposals in the COA -SS that we believe will foster discussions towards the delivery of balanced and 
development -oriented outcomes. These proposals are: (i) COVID -19 and the Food Security Crisis 
Calls for  urgent Action at the WTO - Elements of a Food Security and Livelihoods Agenda; (ii) Draft 
Ministerial Decision on Domestic Support: Disciplines on Final Bound AMS Entitlements; (iii) Draft 
Ministerial Decision on Permanent Solution on Public Food Stockhol ding (Peace Clause Plus) and (iv) 
Draft Ministerial Decision for Delivering on a Special Safeguard Mechanism for Developing Country WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 179 - 
 
  Members. We call on Members to engage constructively so we can collectively achieve fair, equitable 
and balanced MC 12 outco mes on agriculture.  
 
On development, we wish to register our appreciation for the tireless efforts of the Chair of the CTD 
SS in advancing the discussions on the 10 Agreement -specific special and differential treatment  
proposals of the G -90. We believe the  revised special and differential treatment  proposals tabled by 
the G90 are critical to increasing trade opportunities of developing countries and LDCs, speed up 
their post -COVID economic recovery, and support building resilient economies. We therefore cal l on 
developed countries to engage constructively in the discussions of this proposal and refrain from 
frustrating the discussions as well as the adoption of the proposal. We encourage the membership 
to engage constructively on these issues so we can achie ve meaningful outcomes.  
 
Madam Chair, Members must do everything possible to address the impasse of A ppellate Body and 
ensure that the DSU is fully back to function very well.  
 
Regarding the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce , Nigeria look s forward to the adoption of 
an inclusive MC12 agenda that is geared towards addressing the difficulties undermining the gains 
of developing countries from global digital trade.   
 
In conclusion Chair, Nigeria is pleased with the progress being recorded in t he ongoing open, 
transparent, and inclusive discussions under the respective Joint Statement Initiatives. We are 
confident that the outcomes of these initiatives will take into account our development priorities and 
avail us the requisite tool s to further unlock our economic potentials.  We therefore call on all 
Members , especially developing countries , to join these initiatives so we can collectively shape the 
discussions and deliver development -oriented outcomes.  
 
12. Mexico  
 
Let me begin by thanking the Chair s of the various negotiating groups and the coordinators of the 
Joint Initiatives for their reports on the status of the discussions.  
 
I would also like to thank you, Madam Chair, for your report and your analysis of the situation. We 
agree with you that, less than three months before MC12, we need to work with real pragmatism 
and devote our efforts and limited time, to issues that enjoy a greater degree of convergence. We 
cannot allow ourselves the luxury, yet again, of a Ministerial Conference with no out come, even 
more so when we had four years to work on it.  
 
In this regard, the recent Meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee at Ministerial Level on 
Fisheries Subsidies has provided us with a number of lessons, including:  
 
• While the text is considere d the basis for the negotiations, there are still major, if not 
conflicting, differences of opinion among some Members on particular topics;  
 
• If we do not show the necessary flexibility and limit ourselves to pointing out only what is 
impossible for us t o accept, we will not be able to move forward and conclude these 
negotiations before MC12; and,  
 
• The virtual format meant that real interaction among ministers, which might have allowed 
us to find common ground, was not possible. This is something about what we need to reflect 
on in the run up to MC12.  
 
I think it is timely and necessary to commend the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules, 
Ambassador Santiago Wills, who has persevered and made considerable efforts to provide us with a 
text which, as I said, is a good basis for the negotiations.  
 
With regard to agriculture, despite the efforts of both Ambassador Abraham and the various 
facilitators, it has become clear that the divergent positions expressed mean that we must lower our 
expectations of an outcome at MC12 and that we should perhaps think about how to shape a future 
agenda.  
 
On services, Mexico is in favour of any Ministerial outcome that includes a statement recognizing the 
importance of trade in services and the fundamental role it plays in  supporting economic growth, WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 180 - 
 
  which is key to efforts to build resilience and stimulate the economic recovery in the wake of the 
pandemic.  
 
On the matter of Joint Initiatives, we believe that services domestic regulation is a serious contender 
and that it is time to clean up the few square brackets that remain in the text. Major progress has 
also been made on e -commerce and investment facilitation.  
 
Madam Chair, Mexico cannot envision an MC12 without a clear commitment to solving the current 
dispute settlem ent system crisis. It is time to take a step forward on this issue, which has already 
lasted for more than two years and at each DSB meeting, 121 WTO Members request that the 
processes to fill the Appellate Body vacancies be launched. It is time to act res ponsibly. The dispute 
settlement mechanism puts all of us in this organization on a level playing field.  
 
It is undeniable that trade has an important role to play in the post pandemic economic recovery 
and the fight against COVID -19, and MC12 offers an op portunity to demonstrate that. The Trade 
and Health initiative, which is already sponsored by 53 members, together with the elements that 
emerged from consultations led by Ambassadors Spencer and Tan, which will be combined with 
Ambassador Walker's consult ations, are an important step in this direction and can form a good 
basis for multilateral discussions.  
 
Lastly, the summer break offers us an opportunity to reflect on what each of us from our trenches 
can do to promote the system and seek ways to transla te political commitments into concrete actions 
in Geneva.  
 
You can count on our delegation to work, as we have always done, to strengthen our system and 
deliver positive results.  
 
13. Barbados  (CARICOM)   
 
This statement is delivered on behalf of the CARICOM Gr oup. The Group aligns itself with the 
statement to be delivered by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Group. We wish to thank the various 
Chairs for their reports and updates. We appreciate the efforts of Ambassador Santiago Wills in 
steering our work in the Neg otiating Group on Rules to advance these longstanding negotiations as 
we look ahead to MC12. We also wish to applaud the leadership of the Director -General in convening 
the TNC Ministerial meeting held on 15 July and for providing our Ministers with the ti mely 
opportunity to address the Membership directly on their priorities, core  concerns and commitments 
in these negotiations. We reiterate the commitment of our Ministers to continue our proactive and 
constructive engagement in these negotiations as we press towards a balanced agreement that is a 
win-win for all of us. In this regard, we wish to underscore some of our key concerns. CARICOM 
member states rely heavily on the maritime jurisdictions and require policy space to ensure that all 
their marine resources contribute to their current and future sustainable economic growth and 
development, given the small landmass of the region. Small and vulnerable economies (SVEs) are 
not amongst the major subsidisers and have a negligeable impact . CARICOM states continue to 
strongly advocate for the inclusion of an appropriate de minimis exception from the Article 5 
prohibitions for small developing fishing nations. Also, CARICOM's artisanal and small -scale fishing 
take place both within and beyon d twelve nautical miles. Thus, an exemption granted to artisanal 
and small -scale fishing should extend beyond the territorial seas to include EEZs.  
 
On agriculture, we acknowledge and applaud the work of the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture 
in Special  Session, for the dedicated and steady work in this critical area. Agriculture continues to 
make vital contributions to the economies of CARICOM states with respect to GDP, employment, 
exports, food and security, and livelihood. The ongoing pandemic, our p ersistent exposure to natural 
disasters and the effect of climate change continues to expose the vulnerability of our agriculture 
sector and the need for adequate policy space to build the sector's resilience. Looking towards the 
Ministerial, we fully supp ort an outcome which allows us to maintain the status quo with respect to 
Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Moreover, whilst we appreciate the importance of 
achieving outcomes in the areas of transparency and notifications, our interests are muc h broader 
than these areas. Accordingly, having recourse to a special safeguard mechanism which responds 
favourably to our desire to increase domestic production to improve food security is critical. 
Furthermore, we call for progress on public stockholding  for food security purposes and trade 
distorting domestic support. We will continue our constructive engagement on all issues and remind 
Members to take into account the unique circumstance on which countries like ours operate.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 181 - 
 
  Regarding e -commerce, we th ank the Chair of the General Council for consulting extensively with 
Members in recent months, paving the way for us to begin constructive discussions on the Work 
Programme and the moratorium in the lead up to MC12. The issues selected for discussion at 
Structured Discussions held on 5 July are important and timely. We thank the WTO Secretariat for 
the presentations on considerations on electronic transmissions under the Work Programme for the 
last two decades, as well as those Members who shared their nati onal experiences relating to their 
internal non -discriminatory taxes on electronic transmissions. The CARICOM Group is also pleased 
to have the opportunity to share perspectives on e -commerce challenges and opportunities in the 
context of the COVID -19 pand emic and also to identify specific areas on which support would be 
welcome. We look forward to the resumption of these structured discussions following the summer 
break and commit to fully engage in this important dialogue. The group is cautiously optimist ic that 
a good faith dialogue in the period ahead can lead to tangible progress and, at the first instance, 
mutually agreeable recommendations on the Work Programme and the moratorium for the 
consideration of Ministers at MC12.  
 
On services, the services s ector contributes approximately up to 75% of the GDP of CARICOM states. 
However, some of the subsectors on which the region heavily relies on, such as tourism, are sensitive 
to the impacts of natural disasters, climate change and other exogenous shocks, su ch as the 
pandemic that we are currently facing. Any outcome which emanates from MC12 must focus on 
positioning and repositioning the services sector of developing countries and LDCs on a path of 
recovery and growth. We therefore call on Members to share t heir experiences with a view to 
identifying areas of good practices with respect to recovery, growth and resilience. We also call on 
Members to be open to provide technical assistance and capacity building (TACB) to support 
developing countries and LDCs in  strengthening their services sector.  
 
On reform, we reiterate the importance that CARICOM assigns to preserving the principle of Special 
and Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries that are Members of the organi zation. Our 
interest is in mai ntaining access to SDT within the WTO. In this regard, we cannot support any 
proposal which seeks to weaken our access to SDT, including limiting SDT almost exclusively to 
income -based criteria, transition periods and TACB. We also wish to renew our call f or the urgent 
resolution of the blockage to the appointment process of the Appellate Body. We are prepared to 
play a constructive role in discussions on proposed reforms to strengthen the functioning of the 
appellate mechanism and broader dispute settlemen t reform. Other areas of reform such as the 
strengthening of the legislative and transparency aspects of the organi zation also remain important 
to us. We take note of the work being done under the responsibility of the Director -General as well 
as Member -led discussions.  
 
The ongoing COVID -19 pandemic is unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime. CARICOM member 
states are still reeling from the impact of the pandemic. We look on with dismay, as rates of 
vaccination remain as low as 6% in some of our membe r states. The WTO has a role to play in 
ensuring that all countries have access to vaccines, therapeutics and treatments for COVID -19. 
CARICOM calls on WTO Members to be open to all possible solutions to combat the pandemic, 
including unblocking supply cha ins, enhancing manufacturing capacity and also invoking appropriate 
intellectual property flexibilities. Members should uphold their transparency and notification 
obligations and refrain from imposing export and other restrictions which deny other countrie s fair 
and equitable access to COVID -19 vaccines, therapeutics and treatments. We should also be mindful 
that the solutions that we identified to combat the current pandemic are likely to serve as a blueprint 
for a response to future health crises. Finally , CARICOM stands ready to work with the Director -
General and the entire Membership to deliver meaningful outcomes at MC12. We have to 
demonstrate to the rest of the world that the WTO remains relevant and that it belongs rightfully 
alongside other importan t multilateral bodies in global governance.  
 
14. Barbados  
 
At the outset, we wish to thank you, Director -General, for your constructive report and to applaud 
you on the excellent work that you are doing with Members to ensure that MC12 is a success, and 
also in promoting the continued relevance of the WTO. Barbado s looks forward  to join ing other 
Members on 15 July, ensuring our commitment to conclude a multilateral agreement on fisheries 
subsidies by the end of the year. We think that this would send a powerful message to the global 
community regarding the WTO and the state of our fisheries stocks as well as to concretise the 
relevant ability of the WTO to get the job done. I must say that it is unacceptable for Members to 
allow the status quo to continue for us to allow it to be institutionalised in the Agreement w ithin the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 182 - 
 
  WTO under the guise of sustainability. The focus of any prohibition in a WTO Fisheries Subsidies 
Agreement in the area of overcapacity and overfishing , must be on subsidies to large -scale industrial 
fishing , which statistics show can contribute m ost to the types of fishing outlined in our mandate. 
We must also seek to ensure that those that are not responsible for the problem of overcapacity and 
overfishing do not pay the price for others that do; I really wish to reiterate that point. We therefor e 
believe that, with some amendments to the draft text, we could arrive at a landing zone that could 
allow us to reach consensus before the Ministerial. Such amendments would include, inter alia, the 
reflection of a de minimis threshold in line with what h as been promoted by the CARICOM and the 
ACP groups for some time, as well as critical adjustment to transparency, notifications and due 
process elements.  
 
We thank you for the initiative in developing the concept note for the establishment of a WTO fundin g 
mechanism to finance technical assistance and capacity building , in support of implementation of 
new WTO fisheries subsidies disciplines. We wish to stress that we fully agree that the proposed 
fisheries subsidies funding mechanism and broader concept of  technical assistance and capacity 
building can in no way be seen as a substitute for Special and Differential Treatment for developing 
countries. Barbados' position is clear and continues to be that TACB under any fisheries subsidies 
agreement must be inc luded, and that  the proposed fisheries WTO funding mechanisms must be 
accessible to all small and developing states (SVEs). 
 
On services, Barbados welcomes the opportunity to work with others in finding possible language on 
services market access for the M inisterial. Such language should be reflected ensuring that any 
future work in the area include the vulnerable sectors for countries like Barbados and others which 
were severely impacted by the pandemic , as well as those which have proven to be opportuniti es 
for us to ensure recovery and sustainable growth. Our position, for the most part, ha s been outlined 
in the ACP submission to the Council for Trade in Services in Special Session in March.  
 
We are cognisant of the limited time that we have left between  now and the Ministerial and the 
myriad of issues that we would need to cover in the WTO, and the wider international context . 
Despite this, Barbados stands ready to work with the Director -General and all Members to ensure 
that MC12 is a resounding success  and that we set an ambitious work programme for the post -MC12 
period.  
 
15. Argentina  
 
I would like to touch on four matters: fisheries subsidies negotiations, the WTO's response to the 
pandemic, agriculture, and dispute settlement.  
 
With regard to fisheries s ubsidies negotiations , Argentina reaffirms its commitment to continuing to 
do its utmost to ensure that, before the WTO's Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12), we can 
conclude a multilateral Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. Argentina, as a coastal country with an 
extensive maritime coastline, has participated actively and will continue to do so in the negotiations. 
It has done so through specific proposals, in order to identify elements of convergence among the 
membership , to enable it to reach an ambitious agreement that contributes to the sustainability of 
the oceans and their resources. We shall not repeat what we stated a few days ago , our position is 
well known. We believe it is essential to have ambitious disci plines, particularly in relation to illegal 
fishing and fishing by large distant water fleets. In addition, there are certain safeguards that we 
deem essential (regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and territoriality).  
 
We believe that we h ave reached a point at which we must now move to a text -based approach , to 
negotiations between Member s, in an inclusive and transparent way. Regarding the concept note on 
a WTO Funding Mechanism  that was circulated , we see technical assistance as positive . However, 
we note a great deal of detail in certain points, such as point 4.2 and point 6.B. We understand that 
we need to work within the remit of the WTO, and we note that the document contains a number of 
references, including to fisheries management a nd surveillance or monitoring of waters, which could 
go beyond the mandate. We will follow the discussions, but would seek a clarification of the scope 
of such initiatives.  
 
With regard to the WTO's response to the pandemic , we would like to take this oppo rtunity to thank 
Ambassador Walker for the report he presented yesterday and to convey Argentina's full support for 
his work.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 183 - 
 
  It is crucial for Argentina that the WTO's response to the pandemic is one of the outcomes of the 
upcoming MC12.  
 
The process to reach such an outcome must be guided by the principles of transparency, openness 
and inclusiveness, and must promote consensual solutions while respecting and promoting the rules -
based multilateral trading system.  
 
Several proposals linking trade policy an d health have been put forward over the past months by 
groups of countries and by individual delegations. All of them are valuable and there is much overlap 
between them, as we all understand that international trade and the WTO have a central role to play  
in the production, distribution and access to the vaccines, treatments and diagnostics needed to 
combat COVID -19. It is therefore necessary and logical to channel these individual efforts towards 
a collective outcome.  
 
Nonetheless, we recognize that these initiatives only appealed to a fraction of the membership and 
we understand that they contain elements that we are not all in a position to accept.  
 
Argentina considers that all the proposed solutions need to be analyse d in light of an imbalance in 
access to vaccines and treatments. We must therefore be able to reach achievable and realistic 
agreements that will bring us closer to the ambitious goal of ensuring equitable access to vaccines 
and treatments to end the pande mic. 
 
For Argentina, any outcome that is reached must be consistent with WTO rules, without altering 
acquired rights or prejudicing future agreements or negotiations, while reaffirming the existing trade 
policy tools to address the pandemic. Valuable aspec ts of this matter have been discussed in the 
G20 and could serve as a reference point. The various circumstances, efforts and challenges faced 
by developing countries must also be taken into account.  
 
Finally, we consider that the calls, suggestions and/or  recommendations that emerge must not be 
addressed solely to states. The private sector has a central role to play in all aspects related to the 
production and distribution of goods and inputs, including access to health technologies.  
 
On agriculture , for Argentina the agricultural negotiations are not only important because they relate 
to the most distorted international market sector and the slowest to demonstrate substantial 
progress, but also because for developing countries, producers and exporters of agricultural goods, 
agriculture is a fundamental means of rebuilding our economies in the post -pandemic period.  
 
Moving forward with a domestic support reduction programme involving all aspects of Article 6 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture and all Members, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, 
is a priority for Argentina. We consider that the framework for negotiations presented in 
January  2020 in document JOB/AG/177 provides a sound basis for entering into the se negotiations.  
 
My country note s that as much as the pandemic imposed exceptional circumstances on all Members, 
we are concerned about the establishment and implementation of new, large scale domestic support 
programmes, which we hope will be temporary and consistent with multilateral r ules. 
 
Furthermore, we consider it essential to make progress on market access, an area in which we have 
also been constructive, through the proposal contained in JOB/AG/198. We could work on tariff 
simplification, strengthening transparency and removing t he special agricultural safeguard. We could 
also consider moving forward with a work programme under this pillar for MC13.  
 
On export competition, we could work to strengthen transparency by monitoring all forms of export 
subsidies and all measures with eq uivalent effect, ensuring that the historic elimination of export 
subsidies agreed in 2015 is not undermined.  
 
We are open to listen and negotiate in good faith with all Members on concrete proposals under each 
of the pillars with the aim of advancing an a mbitious, realistic and balanced negotiating package for 
the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
However, notwithstanding our preferences, given the time constraints and divergent positions, we 
believe that energy should be directed towards reaching an outcome o n domestic support, as it was WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 184 - 
 
  identified by the chair of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA SS) as the area most 
likely to achieve an outcome at the next MC12.  
 
Finally, regarding the dispute settlement system , Argentina, as a developing country and a frequent 
user thereof, believes that a rule -based system is the best alternative to facilitate economic growth, 
confidence building, predictability and stability in our trade relations . Such a system exists and is 
the fruit of our decades lon g multilateral experience.  
 
We are aware of the systemic concerns of some Members, but we also believe that there needs to 
be sufficient flexibility on this matter to be able to build a collective way forward.  
 
Argentina again reiterates its openness to di scuss proposals to strengthen the agreed system to 
invigorate the Appellate Body, as part of the outcomes of the upcoming MC12.  
 
16. Iceland (Informal Working Group on Trade and Gender)  
 
Trade and Gender  
 
As co-chair of the Informal Working Group on Trade and Gender I would like to report on the ongoing 
work. The Informal Working Group is based on the objectives of the 2017 Buenos Aires Declaration 
on Trade and Women’s Economic Empowerment and of the Interi m Report establishing the Group 
(WT/L/1095/Rev.1). The Group has been designed as an open and transparent body and does not 
intend to create a new set of agreements or rules.  
 
Members agreed to focus their work on 4 key pillars: 1) experience sharing;  2) how to apply "gender 
lens" to the WTO; 3) review of analytical work done by the WTO Secretariat and other WTO 
stakeholders; 4) and contribute to the Aid -for-Trade Work Programme. This substantial technical 
work will form the content of an MC12 outcome.  
 
On 30 April, the Co -Chairs proposed a framework supporting the concrete actions and the substantial 
focus that would be included in the MC12 outcome of the Informal Working Group (INF/TGE/W/3). 
The Co -Chairs also met with the D irector -General  on 1 June and the discussion showed alignment 
between the Co-Chairs' and the Director -General's  ambitions for MC12 on trade and gender.  
 
Following the 23 June meeting, some Members and Observers, which we call the "Friends of Gender ", 
started working on a first draft. This work of the Friends remains open to all Members wishing to 
participate.  
 
So far, the MC12 outcome on trade and gender would include a Joint Ministerial Statement, a recap 
of what has been accomplished since 2017 and a Roadmap.  
 
The ne xt regular meetings of the group are scheduled to take place on 23 September, 18 October 
and 24 November. They will continue to serve as platform for Members and Observers to exchange 
technical work and experience on trade and gender.  Priority will however  be given to MC12 
discussions given the tight schedule towards the Ministerial meeting.  
 
Lastly, during the Public Forum, the Co -Chairs will organi ze a session titled "Women in international 
trade: the fastest economic recovery ". This session will bring t ogether a spectrum of businesswomen 
to discuss the gender specific challenges that they are facing when dealing with international trade. 
The results of the discussion will then be compiled into recommendations that will be presented to 
the Informal Workin g Group on Trade and Gender.  
 
17. Iceland  
 
And now putting on my Icelandic hat I would like to say a few words on Fisheries subsidies. Iceland 
would like to congratulate the Director General as well as Ambassador Wills for the successful 
Ministerial meeting on  July 15. The Ministerial meeting was an important milestone and met our 
expectations in many respects. The level of participation clearly showed how important the 
negotiations are and how critical it is that the WTO deliver s an agreement ahead of MC12.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 185 - 
 
  As a fisheries nation , Iceland has for decades put responsible fishing practices and sustainable 
fisheries at the core of national policy. Concluding an effective agreement which successfully puts 
an end to harmful subsidies practices in fisheries , is like wise a matter of national priority.  
 
Chair, the Ministerial meeting has given the WTO renewed momentum to conclude an effective 
agreement that will successfully put an end to harmful subsidies in fisheries.  
 
Iceland recogni zes that special and differential treatment will be a key component of our agreement, 
providing needs -based and temporary flexibilities for artisanal fisheries in poor and vulnerable 
communities in developing and LDC Member countries.  
 
In the last decades, a conside rable part of the Icelandic development cooperation has been in the 
field of sustainable fisheries. We want all fisheries to be responsible and sustainable, despite the 
capacity restraints that some Members have raised during these negotiations. Accordingl y, Iceland 
welcomes the proposal for the creation of a "Fisheries WTO Funding Mechanism" to support the 
targeted implementation of new fisheries subsidies disciplines by developing and least developed 
countries (LDCs), in cooperation with other internation al institutions.  
 
18. European Union  
 
MC12 is four months away and we still have a great amount of work to do, with Members quite 
divided on many of the key files. The E uropean Union is committed to reaching MC12 outcomes that 
would set us on a path towards the kind of deep reform of the rules -based trading system that is 
needed if the WTO is to survive as a relevant body. But, clearly, this can only be achieved if all WTO 
Members are  committed.  
 
As of September, we need to be ready to be in full negotiating mode and have a clear, intensive 
process of engagement in place in Geneva, which will allow Members to coalesce and focus on 
achieving compromises on the key elements of an MC12 p ackage that would be both reasonable and 
meaningful.  
 
The European Union' s priorities for MC12 are four -fold: concluding the fisheries subsidies 
negotiations, achieving an outcome on trade and health, finding some progress on agriculture and 
improving the  overall functioning of the WTO.  
 
Firstly, on fisheries subsidies, the 15 July Ministerial meeting usefully reconfirmed our shared 
objectives to reach a meaningful agreement. Unfortunately, big gaps remain on some key issues. 
This should be a wake -up call to the membership. Reaching a deal will require intense work to find 
a balance on the core provisions based on sustainability and using fisheries management measures 
as well as targeted special and differential treatment. We thank Ambassador Wills for his work 
programme , but would want to stress that when designing the autumn negotiating programme , we 
have to recognize that small group discussions are the only way real progress can be made, while 
of course ensuring transparency to keep the whole membership engaged. This is true for any line-
by-line discussions too. Despite the challenges, we are optimistic that we can make this happen by 
MC12.  
 
I would also note that the E uropean Union is supportive of a funding mechanism to provide technical 
assistance that  is focused specifically on helping developing countries to implement commitments 
they have taken.  
 
Second, on trade and health, the E uropean Union and co -sponsors of the revised draft Declaration 
on Trade and Health have provided a contribution to the pro cess on the multilateral response to the 
COVID -19 crisis. We believe that the prospective MC12 declaration can build on that. Various 
Members have recently made proposals on how WTO Members can build crisis resilience from a 
trade perspective. The recent U S proposal on trade facilitation is also an element of the puzzle. We 
hope that Ambassador Walker will find a point of convergence of all these proposals and propose a 
way forward on that basis.  
 
Third, on agriculture we are worried about the prevailing ga ps and hardening of positions as 
demonstrated in the last CoA -SS meeting. At this stage, we see any outcome extremely challenging 
to achieve. Putting aside a few totally unrealistic proposals notably tabled this week, there are 
several issues which could b e ripe for a decision at MC12 and could be part of a credible agricultural WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 186 - 
 
  package. The E uropean Union sees a possibility of immediate deliverables on transparency on which 
the European Union will submit today to the CoA -SS a co -sponsored proposal; in addi tion on export 
restrictions including on the World Food Programme decision, and on the Bali TRQ decision review. 
These are areas that can be ripe for an outcome at MC12 if Members are committed to deliver on 
these. They could be part of a broader agricultu re package for MC12. As regards domestic support, 
we support a work programme for pursuing work post -MC12 on trade distorting domestic support 
that sets the direction of travel, as well as on the issue of public stockholding.  
 
MC12 should also launch a se rious process of discussion on how to improve the functioning of the 
negotiating, monitoring and deliberating functions of the WTO. The WTO needs to be able to update 
its rules in a more flexible manner and provide a service to its Members through better m onitoring 
of trade policies. In order to deliberate on these matters and set a path towards reform by MC13, 
we should set up a Working Group that looks into institutional improvements of the functioning of 
the WTO.  
 
Linked to this, MC12 must include an ou tcome on dispute settlement. For this, we need to find 
convergence by MC12 on a time -limited work programme for agreeing on a package of reforms of 
the WTO dispute settlement system necessary to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system. The ob jective should be to achieve this goal, including a reformed Appellate Body, within a 
defined time period and in any event no later than by MC13. This is absolutely imperative for the 
credibility of the WTO.  
 
Finally, the European Union attaches great imp ortance in making a significant progress in the Joint 
Statement Initiatives ahead of MC12. We in particular look forward to concluding the well-advanced  
domestic regulation negotiations. The U nited States joining these negotiations earlier this week will 
certainly facilitate reaching our objective. The European Union strongly encourages other Members 
who have been considering joining this JSI, to take a prompt decision.  
 
19. Indonesia  
 
During the last TNC meeting in May, we send our condolences to India for the spike of COVID -19 
infection that has taken many lives. Today, my country and many other countries are experiencing 
the same devastation. I need to say it again: this pandemic is f ar from over. But in countries with a 
significant roll -out of vaccines, the rise of infection no longer parallels the mortality rate. For others 
facing inequality of access to vaccines, we are defenceless against this crisis.  
 
Nothing is more important for  the world at the moment than addressing this crisis. We must take 
bold action to address this pandemic. Addressing export restriction s, tariff s, or non -tariff barriers 
alone will not be sufficient to address this pandemic.  We need open cooperation, not de pending on 
market mechanism to protect the interest of few companies. Knowledge and know -how are global 
public goods that need to be shared to increase the production of vaccines and essential medical 
products to counter this crisis.  
 
The WTO needs to fina lize the temporary TRIPS waiver without much delay. The TRIPS may not be 
the ultimate solution. But it leads to a real change in ramping up diagnostics, therapeutics, and 
vaccines across the globe.  Global economic recovery squarely depends on the ability t o overcome 
the pandemic. Clearly, a solution -oriented conversation is urgently needed on securing timely, 
affordable, and equitable access to vaccines and therapeutics. We must, therefore, find a balanced 
outcome on the TRIPS waiver.  
 
The next important ag enda in our table is to finalize the mandated issues at MC12.  
 
Indonesia continues to reiterate that we need to deliver critical mandated issues in agriculture in 
this Ministerial Conference. Therefore, a permanent solution for PSH, and operable SSM are h ighly 
important to take part as outcomes in MC12. Indonesia and G33 co -sponsoring Members are drafting 
a realistic and reliable permanent solution for PSH as a basis of discussion towards MC12, of which 
the proposal is underway. Indonesia requests all Memb ers to sincerely consider the proposal and 
look at the document that will be circulated shortly. The outcomes on PSH and SSM are being delayed 
for almost 10 years. If the priority of resolving mandated issues that have been long overdue is still 
not taken seriously in good faith , to find a solution in the form of a landing zone proposal, we need 
to reconsider support for the achievement of other agricultural pillars, including the fisheries WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 187 - 
 
  subsidies.  Therefore, we urge other Members to work towards a const ructive outcome on the 
permanent solution.  
 
On fisheries, we note that much work needs to be done to resolve imbalances and other technical 
issues to move forward with the negotiation. Respecting the principle of common but differentiated 
responsibility in  this discipline is a key ingredient to achieve a balanced discipline  
 
On e-commerce , emanating from the 1998 Work Program me, Indonesia strongly believes that the 
outcome on the e -commerce moratorium at MC12 will depend on our ability to clarify the scope and 
definition of electronic transmission.   
 
More so, at a time when governments are facing the worst fiscal and economic crisis due to the 
pandemic, a clear assessment can help governments on deciding the continuation of the moratorium.  
 
On special and differential treatment , we support the G90 agreement -specific proposals. Indonesia 
strongly believes that special and differential treatment  is a treaty -embedded right, and the Doha 
mandate emphasizes making special and differential treatment  provisions precise, effective, and 
operational.  
 
Madam Chair, our next priority is to restore the Appellate Body, which is at the core of the two -stage 
dispute settlement system. Without a functional Appellate Body, there is little purpose in negotiating 
new trade agreements. Indonesia would once again call on Members to renew political will to resolve 
this issue.  
 
20. Brazil  
 
Brazil is strongly committed to the multilateral trading system and supports a reform to modernize 
and revitalize the WTO.  We need to s tart by achieving concrete and meaningful results at MC12.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
One of these deliverables is the conclusion of the fisheries subsidies ' negotiations. The Chair 's text 
offers a good basis for the core disciplines of the future agreement. Brazil continues, however, to 
consider that basic prohibitions combined with exceptions based on management measures might 
not be enough to decrease the pressure on maritime fish stocks. It is important that the Chair 's text 
contemplate, in some  way, complementary approaches, such as "cutting and capping " mechanisms. 
That would send a strong message to the world that WTO Members are committed to ambitious 
sustainability goals.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Another issue closely linked to sustainability objectiv es is agricultural domestic support. The current 
pandemic has shown how excessively loose agricultural rules and limits allow for sudden increases 
in global trade -distorting domestic support, especially for those Members that already concentrate 
most of th e expenditures in agricultural subsidies. Reforms have stalled in the past ten years. Worse, 
some countries have rolled back earlier reform efforts. MC12 must deliver a framework for capping 
and proportionally reducing trade -distorting domestic support alo ng with a working program clearly 
defined for MC13. Brazil maintains that transparency is not enough as an outcome on domestic 
support for MC12, nor as a sound basis for post -MC12 work. We also strongly support the Ministerial 
Declaration on SPS, which is a way forward in helping farmers worldwide to thrive.  
 
Dispute Settlement System  
 
Another priority for Brazil is the Dispute Settlement System. The WTO Membership should, at a 
minimum, agree at MC12 on launching negotiations to re-establish  a fully operati onal Appellate Body 
no later than MC13. This could be done, for instance, in a MC12 Ministerial Understanding on the 
role and procedures of the Appellate Body. Any multilateral solution should encompass the 
unblocking of appointments of new Members of the Appellate Body, as well as the preservation of 
two levels of “adjudication” and the negative consensus.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 188 - 
 
  MC12 Package  
 
In Brazil's perspective, the MC12 package should also contain:  
 
• a Ministerial Declaration on trade and health;  
• an agreement on a pathway  that leads to the flexible geometry of plurilateral negotiations 
at the WTO;  
• deliverables on subsidies across all sectors;  
• the conclusion of negotiations on investment facilitation and domestic regulation, a 
multilateral outcome on MSMEs, a stock -taking declaration on e -commerce and its way 
forward; and  
• an agreement on enhanced transparency and notifications.  
 
MC12 can be a turning point for the WTO. I am confident that we can find pragmatic solutions to 
achieve concrete results.  
 
21. Republic of Korea  
 
Importance of a successful MC12  
 
We have waited 4 years for this biennial Ministerial meeting to be materialized. It would be a big 
mistake if we fail to grasp this opportunity for meaningful outcomes for MC12, not least because the 
credibility and future of the WTO is at stake.  
 
As you said, Chair, it is high time we concentrate our efforts to identify items which are achievable 
by MC12 and others that need more time to reflect on.  
 
From my delegation 's perspective, I would like to highlight some of the ar eas of negotiations where 
we should work together to obtain successful outcomes for MC12.  
 
Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies  
 
First, on Fisheries Subsidies, Korea appreciates the efforts you and Amb assador  Wills made for a 
successful Ministerial meeting that took place on July 15th. As you said, Chair, we were able to 
witness the entire membership 's collective willingness to engage in the negotiations to reach a 
long-awaited conclusion of the negotiations, hopefully in advance of MC12.  
 
I welcome Amb assador  Wills' plan to proceed with the process of text -based negotiations based on 
the draft text in front of us from early September. I would like to assure you and Amb assador  Wills 
that while Korea has a few a reas of concern, it will engage in upcoming intensive negotiations in a 
constructive and responsible manner so that a balanced text could be produced at the end of the 
day. 
 
Agriculture  
 
With regard to agriculture, my delegation appreciates Members' collec tive efforts through CoA -SS 
to build bridges in the run -up to MC12. The 3 -day long intensive CoA -SS meetings this week showed 
that wide gaps still remain on some core issues, such as domestic support, export competition, and 
PSH. In spite of a bumpy -lookin g road ahead to MC12 in agriculture, Korea welcomes the C hair's 
efforts to introduce the first draft text by the end of July and to have a last CoA -SS meeting before 
the summer break.  
 
On Ministerial agricultural outcomes, Korea would like to reiterate the  importance of transparency 
all across the pillars, and in particular, in the domain of export restrictions. Enhanced transparency 
in export restrictions will contribute to food security in global markets, which is of critical importance 
for developing cou ntries and net -food importing countries. Exempting WFP food procurement from 
export restrictions should also be a part of MC12 deliverables.  
 
JSIs 
 
It is encouraging that in many different areas of JSI negotiations progress is being made. JSIs are 
critical  for updating the WTO 's rulebook and making the WTO more relevant to the priorities of today. WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 189 - 
 
  I would like to reiterate the standing invitation for the broadest possible engagement of Members in 
the ongoing JSI negotiations.  
 
Korea is pleased that the Unit ed States announced its intention to formally join the Services 
Domestic Regulation Joint Initiative. My delegation also welcomes Peru's decision to be part of the 
Joint Initiative on Investment Facilitation.  
 
On substance, we believe that the formal parti cipation by the United States in the Services Domestic 
Regulation Joint Initiative will help generate the momentum needed for us to bridge the gaps in a 
few remaining outstanding issues. Korea strongly supports the goal of concluding D omestic 
Regulation  negotiations by MC -12. 
 
Significant progress has been achieved on Investment Facilitation. I look forward to working toward 
the cleanest possible text before MC -12. 
 
On e-commerce, I am encouraged by the fact that this week we have now two more clean texts, 
namely on e -contracts and transparency, and look forward to having some further progress before 
the summer break. Korea stands ready to contribute to helping produce as many clean texts as 
possible by MC12.  
 
Trade and Environment  
 
Tackling climate c hange and achieving carbon neutrality is an urgent task today. My delegation 
believes that the WTO should play an important role in environmental sustainability.  Liberalizing 
trade in environmental goods and services and ensuring transparency and predictab ility of 
trade -related environmental measures are one of the most effective ways to facilitate our transition 
to low -carbon economy. WTO Members are encouraged to strengthen discussions on trade and 
environment for potential MC12 deliverables. To this end,  a joint proposal by Australia, Singapore 
and Korea is on the table for consideration.  
 
DSB 
 
Last but not the least, the dispute settlement system. Restoring the two -tier dispute settlement 
system of the WTO should be a main priority for the entire members hip as part of our collective 
efforts to make the WTO a better functioning organ. By MC12, I believe, we should come up with a 
concrete work plan to deal with this matter. My delegation remains flexible as regards the way 
through which this vital issue can  be addressed, as long as constructive discussions among Members 
with specific timeline s are ensured.  
 
22. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arab Group)  
 
The Arab Group would like to thank you Madam Director -General for your report including your 
assessment and suggest ions to Members on the way forward. We also would like to appreciate the 
valuable efforts of you Madam Director -General and the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules to 
make the Ministerial meeting of 15th July a successful one. Let me also extend our th anks to the 
Chairs of Negotiating Bodies for their reports and assessments.  
 
In the coming few months and after the summer break, we need more than ever to intensify our 
efforts and to engage in a solution -oriented mode with the sense of urgency and necess ary flexibility 
to achieve a consensus that lead s to positive outcomes for MC12.  
 
Looking ahead towards MC12, allow me to highlight the Arab Group views on some certain areas 
that we see as priorities for MC12:  
 
The first one is COVID -19 pandemic and the vaccines. The Arab Group believes that the WTO can 
play an important role in ensuring the global supply chain of critical medical products and in making 
vaccines available for all Members in need. We emphasize the importance of equitable worldwide 
access t o COVID -19 vaccines for economic growth and trade to bounce back from the pandemic, 
especially in developing and least developed countries. We urge countries to come together and 
avoid the temptation of "vaccine nationalism ", because the health of people a nd the economy will 
not be safe until everyone, everywhere has access to the tools necessary to end this pandemic. We WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 190 - 
 
  commend all recent calls and initiatives reached between international organizations including WTO 
to enhance their support to Members bat tling COVID -19. 
 
The second area is fisheries subsidies . We were encouraged by the constructive engagement among 
Ministers and Heads of Delegations during the Ministerial meeting on fisheries subsidies last week.  
We observed a clear boost of momentum towar ds concluding the negotiations on fisheries subsidies 
with the aim to have a meaningful and balance d outcome for each Member. We believe that the 
meeting provided us with the necessary political guidance on how to move forward with this 
important issue. We believe that the instructions provided by our Ministers during that meeting 
should be taken as the basis of our future  work to narrow the gap of differences and to find common 
ground and landing zones, in order to generate consensus before MC12. We also think that allowing 
more policy space for developing Members to develop their domestic fisheries in these negotiations 
will lead to a successful conclusion.  
 
The third are a is agriculture . We welcome the Chair 's recent report in which she outlined the contours 
of a possible deal on agricultural trade in the run -up to the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12). We 
think it repre sented an accurate assessment of the situation. We also emphasize the urgency of 
achieving progress at MC12, and encourage all Members to engage constructively in the technical 
discussions in order to achieve a successful outcome on this crucial issue.  
 
The fourth area is the WTO reform. We believe that an active engagement, a strong political will and 
a full understanding of the scope and elements of proposed reform are required to advance WTO 
reform. We also underscore the importance of a well -functionin g Dispute Settlement Body. We 
therefore encourage all Members to double their efforts to find ways to restore and improve the 
functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
 
In the area of accession to the WTO: Accession to the WTO can present a window of opportunity to 
acceding countries to integrate beneficially into the global economy. The Arab Region is one of the 
areas of the world with the largest number of countries outside the  multilateral trading system. Of 
the 22 Members of the Arab League, 13 countries are WTO Members and eight countries are in the 
process of accession. We hope that MC12 should be an opportunity to deliver in this area to ensure 
more universality of the orga nization, particularly for those who still in the process of accession. We 
also underline that the accession of LDCs should be conducted under a "fast track " approach  
 
23. Saudi Arabia  
 
Before I conclude, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the Kingd om of Saudi Arabia on 
WTO reform. In this regard, I would like to refer to the Riyadh Initiative on the future of the WTO, 
which was launched by the Saudi Arabian G20 Presidency and annexed to the G20 Trade and 
Investment Ministers Communiqué that was circ ulated as a WTO document (WT/GC/221), and 
gained the recognition of the G20 Leaders at the Riyadh Summit as indicated in their declaration 
that was circulated as a WTO document (WT/L/1101). In light of this, we believe that the Riyadh 
Initiative could form  a good basis for further discussion among the entire membership towards the 
necessary reform of the WTO and we request to add it to the list of initiatives on the WTO reform 
discussions and consultations.  
  
In conclusion, the Arab Group stands ready to wo rk constructively with WTO Members towards 
successful outcomes at MC12.  
 
24. Norway  
 
Norway has for quite some time identified the WTO response to the pandemic, fisheries subsidies 
and WTO reform as the key areas for delivery at MC12. Today, I will however li mit my comments to 
the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, as this is the most important and urgent issue before us on 
the agenda of the Trade Negotiations Committee.  
 
Results are long overdue. The world's oceans , as well as fishermen and women everywher e, need a 
meaningful agreement that answers the call for more sustainable fisheries. It is about much more 
than saving fish. It is about securing a healthy marine environment for the sake of people of this 
generation, and for generations coming after us.  We need to conclude the negotiations this year. 
Kicking the can down the road as we have done so many times in the past is not an option.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 191 - 
 
  We heard and acknowledge the various views voiced at last week 's Ministerial. We noted that many 
Ministers said that no outcome would be the worst of all results, because the current unsustainable 
practices will continue to deplete our common resources. We must not let the perfect become the 
enemy of the good.  
 
We also heard that a result that seems to cement the status quo is not an acceptable outcome. We 
agree. We do however believe that the Chair's draft text contains elements of a realistic landing 
zone that can be built upon so that the end result will be significant changes in current practices.  
Let us therefore eng age directly with each other in text -based negotiations so that we can conclude 
a deal that will make a difference.  
 
To get to a deal will require all sides to compromise. Permit me in that context to make a couple of 
comments specifically on overcapacity  and overfishing. To us the most important thing is to 
immediately discipline the largest fisheries nations, the top 25 or so, and Norway being among them.  
 
We heard the call for a de minimis. Norway is ready to discuss how we can accommodate the 
requests  from the smallest fisheries nations for more lenient disciplines for them, including on 
transparency and on invocation of the flexibilities.  
 
We have also noted the concerns regarding the core discipline in 5.1.1. Norway is ready to look at 
whether the t ext should include greater commitments by some Members, especially the largest 
fisheries nations which also includes the biggest subsidizers, to ensure that subsidies do no harm, 
while at the same time accommodating other Members with the necessary flexibi lities to be able to 
make use of 5.1.1.   
 
Norway agrees with the Chair 's proposal for a two -staged, intensive negotiation in September and 
October. We will continue to engage constructively in our common search for a meaningful deal that 
can be concluded a nd accepted by all members as soon as possible.  
 
Finally, Chair, allow me to suggest that we consider reinstating the informal time limit for 
interventions in the TNC as a means of streamlining our proceedings.  
 
25. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
I am making this short statement on behalf of the Group of Article XII Members.  The Group would 
like to reiterate our previous calls for the need of levelling the playing field in the ongoing 
negotiations, not just in agriculture. We look forward to receiving t he first draft text for a possible 
outcome on agriculture next week and hope that our Group 's messages will have been considered 
and integrated.  
 
Chair, our Group has been actively engaging with the informal Sub -Group on the WTO response to 
the pandemic as  well as the General Council Facilitator -led process. Many Members have applied 
trade restrictive measures on essential health -related goods and services, that were nevertheless 
consistent with their WTO commitments. We believe our Group 's agenda of levell ing the playing field 
in access and other commitments could have facilitated a more coordinated response to the COVID -
19 pandemic, by keeping open markets and supply chains for essential medical supplies and 
services. Higher levels of commitments by the or iginal Members, to the level required of our Group, 
can for the same reasons be an important ingredient in a multilateral trading system that can better 
respond to future pandemics.  
 
Lastly, Chair, we take note of the recently circulated document on the S tate-of-Play of Accessions 
and reiterate our support to the ongoing accessions. We hope to welcome new Members to the WTO 
by MC12.  
 
26. Panama  
 
Panama would like to thank you, Ambassador Santiago Wills and the Secretariat for organizing the 
Ministerial Meeting  on fisheries.  We are pleased that following this meeting we will launch text -based 
negotiations in order to conclude an agreement with effective and ambitious disciplines. We support 
your intention and that of the Chair to organize meetings of various kin ds, respecting transparency 
and inclusiveness, and rapidly informing Members of any meeting that is not open -ended, and also 
of the results achieved.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 192 - 
 
  One lesson we must learn from the fisheries Ministerial meeting is that negotiations for MC12 – in 
terms o f both topics of negotiation and declarations or decisions – must be concluded well before 
the Ministerial Conference. The hybrid format is not well suited to high level negotiations. We must 
also make arrangements for post MC12 work in order to revive the  WTO's negotiating function. Here 
we must at least agree to establish work plans – with timelines, milestones, etc. – throughout the 
integrated agenda and multilateral negotiating groups, not only in agriculture.  
 
In agriculture, Members need to agree on c omprehensive reform across all pillars of agriculture. A 
thematic balance is required with respect to Members' concerns and priorities. Those who insist on 
looking at only a limited aspect condemn us to continued paralysis at the multilateral level.  
 
The s ervices negotiations, part of the integrated agenda, are also essential to move from impasse 
to outcomes. Perhaps we will have more incentive to give the attention that these negotiations 
require, in view of their importance for the recovery and sustainabi lity of trade in the post COVID 
era. Also in services, the negotiations call for a balance between the access and rules aspects.  
 
So, it is of the utmost importance that during the Ministerial Conference we Members establish the 
role of the WTO in relation  to COVID -19 and its contribution to the economic recovery of Members.  
 
We also call for time to be devoted to discussions on other topics such as the extension of the 
moratorium on the cases of non -violation under the TRIPS Agreement, pending a substantiv e 
discussion of the topic. We must find the political will to resume substantive work on e -commerce, 
and to extend the moratorium on tariffs on electronic transmissions.  
 
27. China  
 
Please allow me to join others to sincerely commend you, Ambassador Wills, as well as the dedicated 
Secretariat staff who have worked tirelessly to make the 15 July TNC Ministerial meeting happen. 
We thank the Chairs of the different negotiating groups for  their reports.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, China supports Ambassador Wills' workplan for autumn. We believe that such 
a clear roadmap will help us prepare for the final stretch after the summer break. It will translate 
the strong, critical message we have h eard last week, into constructive engagement and the 
demonstration of flexibilities in the text -based discussions. After last week's successful meeting, 
hopefully we can all sense a positive signal and a new momentum for our negotiations. As stated by 
our Minister Wang Wentao, China will continue to participate in the negotiation and contribute to its 
swift conclusion. To this end, we should avoid introducing new elements into this final stage of 
discussions. As Fiji mentioned, we are closer than ever to su ccess in the history of this negotiation , 
but we still have many difficulties to overcome. Various concerns , including ours, need to be 
addressed in a very short period of time. Adding new elements which are not covered by our mandate 
and have not been tes ted in the last twenty years will only overload our already very heavy work 
and drive us away from a possible success.  
 
This is the last TNC meeting before the summer break. Many colleagues previously called upon 
having a reality check or a stock take of progress in order to clarify next steps after the summer. I 
hope that through today's engagement, Members could come to an understanding to make 
subtractions rather than additions.  As we have only three working months left before MC12, we 
should pragmatica lly identify possible deliverables and devote our energy and resources after the 
summer break to have them materialised. Last minute surprises are not an option , be it with new 
agenda item s for the Ministerial, or additional elements in specific negotiatio ns, we should bear in 
mind that we should not overload the agenda. China, in a pragmatic and objective point of view, 
expects MC12 with outcomes on the following areas :  
 
1. Restoring the Appellate Body, or at least having a workplan which explicitly outli nes the next 
steps and basic principles for restoring and improving the A ppellate Body.  
 
2. Completing the fisheries subsidies negotiations.  
 
3. Reaching critical commitments on pandemic -related issues, including  the way forward and specific 
decisions on  certain areas such as the TRIPS waiver.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 193 - 
 
  4. Achieving a PSH solution on agriculture. In this regard, we could add a statement made by 
Indonesia on behalf of the G33.  
 
5. Making progress in existing JSI discussions, including investment facilitation, e -commerce, trade 
and health, trade and the environment , women empowerment, MSMEs.  
 
Lastly, China supports the start of a consultation  process on a Ministerial  outcome document 
immediately after the summer break under the G eneral -Council  Chair's capable leade rship. The 
document should deliver a positive and encouraging signal to the international community , 
demonstrating solidarity instead of a split of the membership.  
 
28. New Zealand  
 
On fish, we too take heart from the Ministerial meeting last week, and let m e express our thanks to 
you Director General for your leadership in this respect. It was a technically impressive meeting , 
and we commend those working behind the scenes who made it happen. Substantively , it was not 
what we hoped for. We, along with other APEC economies, hoped to be concluding in July. It is 
imperative that we now work intensively and line by line to ensure a quality outcome is concluded, 
in line with our mandate in SDG 14.6, as soon as possible ahead of MC12. Technical assistance and 
capac ity building as needed for implementation should be one part of an overall package of 
disciplines, with discussions on the mechanics rightly taking place in tandem.  
 
The negotiations on fish eries subsidies must be concluded ahead of MC12. We commend Chair Wills 
for his determination, and the indications he has given today for our work in September to conclude 
in October.  
  
Achieving an earlier outcome on fish delivers on the overdue SDG 14.6 deadline and will allow MC12 
to focus on other pressing global mat ters. For New Zealand, as for all other delegations who have 
spoken today, COVID -19 and the WTO 's Response to the Pandemic is clearly one of those issues.  
  
As you said Chair, in my systemic Facilitator capacity , I provided an update on that multilateral 
process to General Council Members yesterday and will report formally at the General Council 
meeting next week.  
  
As current APEC host, New Zealand can report strong recognition from Ministers of Trade on 5 June 
and from Leaders in an unprecedented additional informal retreat held on 16 July on the importance 
of using trade as a tool to respond to the pandemic.  
  
Beyond the pandemic response, MC12 must deliver on agriculture. We look forward to CoA -SS 
Chair 's first draft text in that regard. We agree with Brazil that transparency will not be enough. We 
must at least agree on the negotiating parameters to guide us towards a meaningful outcome on 
domestic support. As Ambassador Mina reported from Cairns Group Minist ers, the Framework for 
negotiations on domestic support is a realistic and achievable starting point.  MC12 needs to set clear 
parameters and timeframes for domestic support negotiations that build on the principles of the 
framework and which reflect the vi ews of the WTO membership.  
  
You have asked us, Chair, to discuss the way forward. There is work we must do before MC12, work 
for MC12 itself and work beyond MC12. The way forward will involve discussions in a range of 
formats. There are issues that we mu st continue to work on collectively after MC12. Here, New 
Zealand has not lost sight of the need for WTO Reform, and the urgent need for restoration of a fully 
functioning binding dispute settlement system.  
  
The Joint Statement Initiatives, grounded with  a clear goal of multilateralism and based on principles 
of inclusion and transparency, are also an important feature of our way forward.  
 
29. Mauritius (African Group)  
 
The African Group remains committed to constructive discussions and a meaningful outcome at 
MC12.  On specific issues, Chair, I start with fisheries subsidies and commend you for the successful 
holding of the Ministerial Conference on 15 July 2021.  We heard some 104 Ministers and that in 
itself is comfort about the continued engagement of Member s in the WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 194 - 
 
  The message from African Ministers is clear. The text on the table will serve as a useful basis for 
discussions after it has been balanced. This balance will best be measured by the responsiveness of 
the text to the mandate which ha s been given to us for the negotiations.  
 
The African Ministers also clearly articulated that special and differential treatment is not only about 
artisanal and small -scale fisheries but about policy space to develop their fisheries sector.  They also 
highlighted the need for any outcome to deliver on sustainability and to disallow any flexibilities that 
will oppose the achievement of sustainability.  Indeed, the mandate is about eliminating harmful 
subsidies in the direction of achieving sustainability.   
 
The African Group looks forward to resuming negotiations with other Members in September to 
re-balance the Fisheries text consistent with all aspects of the mandate.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Turning to agriculture, I note that FAO data shows that already 174 million pe ople across 58 
countries, mostly from Africa, are grappling with serious food consumption gaps or above -usual 
acute malnutrition.  
 
Food security remains of high importance to the African Group and we are glad you specifically 
mentioned this in your stateme nt, Director -General.  We unfortunately note that there has been little 
to no progress made on special safeguard measures and public stockholding.  A critical, but yet long 
standing mandated issue that also remains unresolved is the curbing of trade distorti ng domestic 
support measures to ensure a level playing field towards fair and equitable trade. This has a direct 
implication on the development of lesser developed countries that not only rely on agriculture for 
their livelihood , but also lack the means to  subsidise their farmers to compete in markets.  
 
With a view to concretely advancing the discussions towards a meaningful outcome for MC12, the 
African Group has tabled proposals on (i) domestic support; (ii) public food stockholding; (iii) special 
safegua rd mechanism; and (iv) COVID -19 and the food security crisis. We trust that Members will 
earnestly engage on the ideas proposed by the African Group in these proposals, and we stand ready 
to interact in meaningful discussions.  
 
TRIPS Waiver  
 
There is no doubt that recovery from the pandemic will be long and tedious.  In fact, we are not even 
out of the pandemic, let alone the first phase of recovery.  Due to the inequitable distribution of 
vaccines, the African continent is struggling to manage the health c risis. The percentage of 
vaccination in Africa stands at a mere 2% in comparison to the global average of around 40% which 
is twenty -fold more than Africa.  There will be little economic recovery if the problem of vaccine 
accessibility is not addressed. We therefore reiterate our support for the proposed TRIPS waiver to 
allow the ramping up of vaccine production, especially in developing areas of the world.  
 
In this regard, while we are glad that text-based  negotiations have begun, we realise that there is 
still resistance from a few.  We would like to highlight that the TRIPS waiver proposal is a necessary 
and crucial component to a WTO response to the pandemic and that this is critical to boost and 
diversify production.  We therefore look forward to the addit ional collaborative work that is required 
from us, such as providing access to raw materials in the manufacturing of vaccines and the transfer 
of know -how and technology that will be required to achieve the desired outcome.  
 
LDCs waiver  
 
On a more positive note, we welcome the decision of the TRIPS Council (in document IP/C/88) to 
extend the transition period under TRIPS Article 66.1 for LDCs until 1 July 2034. We commend the 
TRIPS Council Chair for his stewardship in reaching this encouraging outco me. We also rejoice that 
the TRIPS Council could eventually recognize the special economic, financial and administrative 
constraints that LDCs continue to face, and their need for flexibility to create a viable technological 
base, particularly exacerbated by the long -term social and economic impacts of the COVID -19 
pandemic. Finally, on this point, we would like to recall that the LDC Group's request contained a 
post-graduation element on which the understanding between Members is that the post -graduation 
element of the LDCs request would be best pursued under the other LDC proposal being considered 
by the General Council. We call upon Members to engage in that discussion constructively, in good WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 195 - 
 
  faith and to reciprocate the flexibility the LDC Group demonstr ated to build the necessary consensus 
for adopting the extension decision.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
I now turn to the discussions on special and differential treatment.  Special and differential treatment 
remains crucial to dealing with existin g structural imbalances and for providing a level playing field 
to developing Members and LDCs.  
 
We thank the Chair of the CTD  SS for all her efforts to advanc e discussions and seek the support of 
Members for the G90 proposals on special and differential t reatment . 
 
E-commerce Work Programme  
 
Lastly Chair, let me touch upon the concerns of the African Group with regards to the digital divide , 
which became even more apparent during the pandemic.  E-commerce, tele -working, tele -schooling 
and home delivery serv ices present a huge challenge across the continent.  We firmly believe that 
the WTO can play a leading role in harnessing institutional coherence and helping bridge the gaps 
so that we may substantially address the digital divide. With the needs of modern s ociety being 
increasingly incumbent on digital technologies, we request that the 1998 Work Programme on E -
commerce be accelerated and reviewed , taking into account th e developmental benefits that flow 
from such advances and the benefit to the global e -comm erce community.  
 
Before I end, Chair, let me thank the Ambassador of Iceland for his report on Trade and Gender and 
recall that we had proposed that the Committee look at how unpatented technology can be accessed 
and be made available through programs such  as She Trades of the ITC to empower women 
entrepreneurs to improve their efficiency and the quality of the products.  I do believe that working 
on this issue with the Working Group on Transfer of Technology could lead to a real outcome in 
favour of women e ntrepreneurs.  
 
In conclusion Chair, COVID -19 has affected African countries in significant ways, we firmly believe 
that development should remain at the centre of the work of this institution and we need to ensure 
that the WTO contributes to the economic r ecovery efforts of our Members. This is crucial to the 
continued relevance of the WTO to developing countries.  
 
30. Honduras  
 
Honduras thanks you for your report and the report submitted by the Chairs of the various 
negotiating groups.  As you have mentioned ea rlier, time is not on our side. After the summer break, 
we will have only three months to complete the necessary work for the Ministerial Conference, which 
should not prevent us from achieving meaningful results, but it is imperative to be pragmatic and 
focus on a realistic and viable number of outcomes.  
 
For Honduras, the WTO response to the pandemic is a priority, and we agree with a number of 
Members that the subject of trade and health must be integral and central to MC12.  The challenges 
associated with the pandemic are many and highly complex, starting with the most urgent: the 
equitable distribution of vaccines.  
 
We strongly believe that trade is a necessary conduit for the socio -economic recovery of our 
countries, not only to help us br ing this pandemic to an end but also to be well prepared for the 
future.  In this regard, we welcome the efforts made by the Chair of the General Council and his 
facilitator, Ambassador David Walker, as well as the document circulated by Ambassador Spencer 
and Ambassador Tan yesterday. Honduras stands ready and is committed to work towards an 
effective and equitable solution to this issue.  
 
In the fisheries subsidies negotiations, we consider it a priority to achieve convergence on the 
outstanding issues, we  must therefore pursue the technical discussions.  We also believe that we 
must all make efforts and show willingness and flexibility to recognize the importance of an effective 
and adequate special and differential treatment (SDT), without undermining the objective of 
improving the sustainability of the oceans. Furthermore, there is a need to recognize the importance 
of the topic in terms of food security, employment, poverty reduction and livelihoods for poor 
artisanal fisheries in our countries and to ena ble us to develop our fisheries sector.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 196 - 
 
  On agriculture, we believe that we should continue our efforts to narrow the gaps in the negotiating 
positions and achieve a balanced and credible outcome, which addresses the current imbalances and 
reduces and limit s trade and production distorting support on the basis of proportionality.  
 
We must also focus our negotiations on the core issues of the unfulfilled agriculture mandate, by 
retaining the flexibilities and producing a meaningful result with a permanent sol ution on public 
stockholding (PSH) and a comprehensive and balanced outcome on the special safeguard mechanism 
(SSM).  
 
With regard to the reform of the WTO, we believe that MC12 is a key opportunity to update the rules 
of the organization. We welcome the e fforts made by various Members on this issue, and agree that 
Ministers at MC12 should provide clear guidance on how to proceed on this matter.  
 
To conclude, Madam Director -General, Honduras would like to thank you and the Chair of General 
Council for your proactive engagement aimed at ensuring a successful Ministerial Conference. It is 
now up to us, the Members, to work towards achieving effective and necessary outcomes, that are 
in the interest of each and every Member of this organization.  
 
31. Costa Rica (Jo int Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation)   
 
I welcome the opportunity to provide an update on the open -ended negotiations in the context of 
the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.  Since my last report, the Initiative has moved 
a very important step closer to achieving a meaningful outcome in time for the next Ministerial 
Conference. At the last open -ended meeting on 20 July, the United States announced its decision to 
join the Initiative and to actively support the conclusion of t his negotiating process by MC12.  With 
the participation of the United States, the total number of Members committed to an outcome stands 
at 64. These Members comprise most of the 50 largest services traders, as well as some small 
developing economies, whic h all together account for more than 85% of world services trade.  
 
The high level of commitment of services -trading Members is testament to the importance of this 
negotiation.  Above all, as we all know , enhancing transparency and predictability of regula tory 
frameworks to harness the potential of services trade is a crucial element in the post -COVID 
economic recovery.  Let me emphasize that the positive economic impact of an outcome will spread 
to all WTO Members, as services suppliers from all Members – including non-participants  - will benefit 
from the reduced trade costs that the negotiations will bring about.  Nonetheless, JSI participants 
are working hard to persuade as many Members as possible to join the Initiative. This is because it 
is evident that  the greatest benefits will come from each Member implementing the disciplines at 
home, thereby benefitting particularly their own small and medium sized services suppliers.  
 
Let me report also that, from our last meeting, it emerged clearly that the Initi ative has moved 
closer to concluding work on the text -based pillar of the negotiations. Participants have expressed 
their readiness to exercise the necessary flexibility and pragmatism to solve the remaining 
outstanding issues in the negotiating text.  With MC12 only 4 months ahead, agreeing on a clean 
Reference Paper will represent a crucial milestone and will facilitate the preparation and exchange 
of revised draft schedules incorporating improved commitments on services domestic regulation.   
 
Madam Chair , just a few weeks ago, the Global Services Summit outlined the clear expectation of 
hundreds of services businesses around the world that WTO Members deliver a long due outcome 
on services domestic regulation by MC12.  The Initiative has a real opportunity  to achieve a result 
that will have a concrete impact on the operations of services suppliers and will contribute to 
reinvigorate stakeholders' confidence in the negotiating function of this Organization. We will not 
squander this opportunity.  
 
To conclud e, in keeping with the open, transparent, and inclusive nature of this process, the Initiative 
is ready to engage with all interested Members, to address any questions, needs, and concerns. I 
invite all Members not already part of this process to engage ac tively in the discussions and consider 
joining the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.  
 
32. Russian Federation  
 
We wish to thank the Director -General for convening this meeting and for her assessment as Chair 
of the TNC regarding the current situation and her suggestion for our work ahead. I would agree WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 197 - 
 
  with the Chairs of the negotiating bodies and the previous spea kers that we have, indeed, a  very 
intense working schedule for the fall session. MC12 will take place in only three working months and 
we have to do our utmost in order to deliver a meaningful  package for the Conference.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, Russia hi ghly appreciates the Director -General's devotion and her personal 
efforts as well as those of the NGR Chair, to bring us to a successful conclusion of the negotiations. 
As our Minister said during the 15 July TNC meeting, Russia is ready to actively and co nstructively 
engage in overcoming the remaining difficulties, although some of them still are of a systemic nature. 
We suggested to Ambassador Wills some particular ideas regarding technical and organi zational  
arrangement s of our work in September and Octo ber and we hope that those will be taken on board 
in the detailed working plan he is going to deliver next week.  
 
What we need now is to make a sober and objective assessment of the state of play in the negotiating 
process, especially when it relates to public outreach. Upon the press conference held on 15 July, 
the media quoted the following statement made by the Director -General: "We have a text that has 
been agreed and blessed by all the Ministers and Heads of Delegations". Of course, this phrase was 
taken out of the overall context of the Director -General's intervention. However, several 
international media made it central in describing t he outcomes of the event. That was quite confusing 
and misguiding in the view of my capital, and perhaps in others as well. We admit that there is need 
for a certain level of optimism regarding the perspective of our negotiations. In fact, there is a 
famou s joke amongst scientists that, in order to make a breakthrough in scientific discovery, one 
needs three persons in their team: an optimist, a pessimist and a person with creative thinking. I 
think we have enough optimists on our team, some of us would also agree to play pessimists. But 
we now require people with creative ideas.  We believe that exaggerated optimism may seriously 
harm our work at this stage; let us not artificially inflate optimistic expectations, at least publicly . 
 
On agriculture, we wish to thank all the delegations that tabled proposals for the CoA -SS meeting 
held last week. Russia, along with other Members, is looking forward to considering the documents. 
We hope that over the summer break the membership can explore all the initiatives a nd begin text -
based negotiations in the fall. In our view, the most realistic outcome at MC12 on this negotiating 
track would be the adoption of a clear and detailed roadmap for further negotiations accepted by all 
Members.  Such a roadmap should contain an  understanding on key principles for further 
negotiations, a base for reduction and a list of support programmes subject for future reductions. At 
this stage, we believe that any figures of quantitative parameters would not be helpful as the 
outcome of the  negotiations should not be predetermined. Since the negotiations  are unlikely to be 
successful without a clear and timely understanding of the current situation regarding agriculture, 
an outcome on enhancing transparency is critically needed at MC12 as we ll.  
 
On other MC12 outcomes, we are looking forward to a balanced result and, in the long term, ensure 
that the rules -based multilateral trading system responds adequately to the challenges posed to the 
global economic environment. Russia has put forward a number of specific proposals to improve the 
deliberative function of the WTO. In particular, we have tabled an initiative on transparency in 
applied tariffs as well as a communication reflecting our main priorities and expectations for decision -
making to  be done at MC12. We observe that many of the points we have outlined – in particular 
regarding WTO reform, the resumption of the work of the Appellate Body, the strengthening of the 
negotiating function – coincide with the views expressed by many other WT O Members.  
 
33. Moldova  
 
Moldova supports the ongoing discussions for MC12 preparations and for WTO response to the 
pandemic.  While we appreciate the Chairs and Facilitators -driven work in keeping this process 
transparent and inclusive, we also share the view  of many other colleagues that we have to focus 
on priorities, and concrete achievable results.  Besides an outcome on fisheries, one of these refers 
to the discussions on WTO response to pandemic.  
 
Moldova is committed to the ongoing work through supportin g the draft Declaration on C OVID -19 
and Beyond: Trade and Health Initiative , document WT/GC/W/823, which we believe contains the 
most relevant and important elements for trade policy related actions designed to contribute to the 
WTO response to the current  COVID -19 pandemic and what is most important to enhance resilience 
against future pandemics.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 198 - 
 
  Furthermore, speaking about deliverables, on Joint Initiatives, Moldova fully supports and commends 
the high level of engagement and hard work of members within all JSIs. As many other Members, 
we see these Joint Initiatives as potential deliverables by MC12 and beyond. We also welcome very 
intensive activity and discussions within the TESSD (trade and environmental sustainability 
structured discussions).  
 
On e-moratorium, the Republic of Moldova continues to support the extension of the moratorium on 
electronic transmissions with a view to mak ing it permanent. We also support the necessity of 
extension of the moratorium under the Article 64.2 on TRIPS non -violati on complaints.  
 
Generally, on the services dimension , we are very pleased to support the ongoing discussions within 
the Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) on the improvement of transparency and technical 
accuracy of specific commitments through condi tional commitments. Moldova is interested in 
engag ing and support ing proposals/activities aim ed at enhancing clarity, predictability in Members ' 
Schedules of specific commitments, as well as those targeting a higher liberalization of trade in 
services.  
 
On SPS discussions, Moldova would be interested in any activities focusing on issues related to the 
transition to sustainable food systems with a view to support the process, while – at the same time 
– preventing any disguised restrictions on international trade.  
 
In the negotiations on agriculture, we commend the active work of Members based on submitted 
proposals , and we look forward to rec eiving the first draft text for a potential outcome on agriculture, 
planned to be presented next week. At this point we align to the statement delivered by Panama on 
behalf of Article XII Members. Additionally, the Republic of Moldova considers it a priori ty to address 
the existing imbalances between the commitments of Members that acceded to the organization 
under Article XII and those of the original Members in all 3 pillars of agriculture negotiations, 
particularly focusing on market access and domestic support.  
 
Furthermore, we would like to express our concern related to the impasse created on the 
appointment of officers for the subsidiary bodies of the CTG, as well as other committees within this 
house. It is essential that we, as Members of this orga nization , ensure a smooth work of its assisting 
bodies in a responsible manner.   
 
Equally, along with other 120 members, the Republic of Moldova, reiterates its concern on the 
paralysis of the Appellate Body. This issue must remain a priority for all Membe rs and we will 
continue to support the necessity and to call upon the resolution of the issues affecting the Dispute 
Settlement Body.   
 
Finally, we reiterate our support for the ongoing accessions and we would be happy to welcome new 
Members on board.  
 
34. Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development)   
 
Let me first report on the latest developments regarding the Joint Initiative on Investment 
Facilitation for Development, in accordance with its open, inclusive, and transparent natur e. I would 
like to focus on the outcome of the last meeting, held on 12 -13 July, during which participating 
Members took stock of the progress achieved since the beginning of the year and planned for the 
work ahead up to MC12.  On the occasion, participatin g Members expressed satisfaction with the 
significant progress achieved in the negotiations. They highlighted the importance of the "Easter 
Text" circulated last April, which was deemed a milestone in the process , as it allowed negotiations 
on the basis of  a single text and to focus on those matters that need further work.  In particular, 
participants' dedication and constructiveness allowed the group to make progress in two key pillars 
of the future Agreement, namely Sections II on Transparency of Investmen t Measures and III on 
Streamlining Administrative Procedures – as well as in most of Section IV on Focal Points, Domestic 
Regulatory Coherence, Domestic Supplier Databases and Cross-Border Cooperation. Likewise, 
participants were able to find common langua ge on the "firewall " provision – an issue on which 
Members have exchanged in length.  
 
While participants agree on the importance of promoting sustainable investment, further discussion 
on Responsible Business Conduct and Measures Against Corruption is still needed.  In addition, Small 
Discussion Groups on Scope and Movement of Business Persons for Investment Purposes, which are WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 199 - 
 
  open to all Members, have made important progress, with notably two text contributions from the 
Group on Scope.  
 
Regarding the priorities for the months ahead, participants have emphasized the need to focus more 
on the scope of application of the future Agreement, as well as on Section V on Special and 
Differential Treatment, including technical assistance and capaci ty building , which is key to help 
developing and least -developed country Members implement the future disciplines. Reflecting this – 
Dominica and Grenada submitted a comprehensive proposal on special and differential treatment 
this week.  
 
Before the end o f July, I will circulate a first revision of the "Easter Text ", which will reflect the 
progress achieved since April and lay the groundwork for intensive negotiations in the second 
semester. The aim of participating Members is to further clean up the text with a view to achieving 
a concrete -substantive outcome by MC12.  
 
The process will continue to be Member -driven and result -oriented. More than 36 proposals have 
been submitted by a wide array of Members, including several developing countries as well as so me 
least-developed countries - a case in point is Cambodia, who just recently submitted a proposal on 
anti-corruption.  
 
Investment facilitation can play an important role in supporting economic recovery at this challenging 
time. Mindful that this initiati ve is "pro-multilateral " we will continue our outreach efforts.  Last week, 
Peru announced that it will also join the initiative and we hope more Members will follow so we can 
develop the text with a "bottom -up" approach , taking into account the interests and concerns of all, 
particularly developing countries and LDCs . I want to thank once again participating Members for 
their commitment and constructiveness.  
 
35. Chile  
 
In your meeting invitation you asked us to focus on two points. First, a preliminary assessment of 
the Ministerial level meeting held on 15 July; second, the topics that could form part of an outcome 
at MC12.  
 
Fisheries subsidies negotiations  
 
On fisheries , we would like to congratulate you and the Chair of the negotiations for the Ministerial 
level meeting last week. The fact that it was the first exercise of its kind in four years and that 
almost two thirds of our Ministers participated , is in itself an a chievement. Second, the meeting 
reaffirmed Members' commitment to conclude the negotiations and inject political capital in order to 
do so by MC12, using the latest version of the Chair's negotiating text. Third, it was also clear from 
most of the statemen ts that the current text still lacks an adequate balance while giving importance 
to some considerations that contradict the sustainability of our marine resources. If we want to limit 
the flexibilities and the political space of all, the major subsidizers must show their readiness to 
reduce their subsidies. The logic of trying to technically link special and differential   treatment to 
the hybrid approach will not bring us closer to the conclusion of the negotiations.  
 
We welcome the report by the Chair of the negotiations and support his outline of the intensive work 
programme for the coming months.  
 
Madam Director -General, we welcome the reports by the Chairs of the negotiating groups and 
coordinators. We have less than 60 working days before MC12. We need  to be realistic and 
collectively agree that we will not be able to bring to the negotiating table all the topics that we 
would like. The Ministerial Conference will take place in a complex scenario. Only the most urgent 
issues should be resolved and be pa rt of the outcome of the Conference – above all, the response 
to the pandemic, particularly in areas that fall within the competence and functions of the WTO. This 
response must be holistic, ambitious and balanced , and must provide Members with the tools t o deal 
with the different challenges arising from the pandemic, while providing a lesson for future 
pandemics. The world is watching and will judge us for what we are able to achieve. Other 
organizations have played their part; the WTO must do the same.  
 
We need to agree on a process at MC12 to discuss WTO reform without prejudging Members' vision 
of what that means or what should be included in the reform.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 200 - 
 
  Apart from the decisions to be taken by Ministers on the moratoria and on key issues in agriculture, 
beyond transparency, not much more can be expected by November. But as you pointed out this 
morning, limiting deliverables does not mean that we leave behind or forget the other topics. On the 
contrary, we must collectively agree on post -MC12 work programm es, in some cases with clear 
parameters and a clear commitment to embark on these processes. This is not what Chile would 
have liked as an outcome of the Ministerial meeting, but it is what we now see is realistically possible.  
 
Finally, the Ministerial me eting last week highlighted the limitations of virtual meetings. Considering 
that at this stage a face-to-face MC12 cannot be guaranteed, we must work on its preparation 
assuming that it will be virtual, which means that the heavy work must be done here in  Geneva. We 
cannot assume that we will be able to rely on our Ministers at the end of November to resolve the 
issues that we are unable to settle here.  
 
36. Nepal  
 
I also thank you for the comprehensive briefing on the state of the play in trade negotiations. I 
commend the Chairs of Negotiating Bodies for their updates.  
 
In the context of the upcoming MC12, the 15 July Ministerial meeting has become an early signal of 
positive outcomes with some expectations that our Ministers have shown with enha nced level of 
commitment.  
 
I wish to associate our statement with the statement delivered by Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group, 
Mongolia, on behalf of the LLDC Group and Panama, on behalf of the Article XII Group. In the context 
of the MC12, I would like t o briefly highlight three priority areas as follows:  
 
First, responding to the COVID -19 pandemic in a timely manner, by ensuring access to affordable 
vaccines and medications for all , specially LDCs and LLDCs , should be our priority at this critical 
situation. Concluding the text -based negotiation on TRIPS waiver proposal, strengthening trade 
facilitation, avoiding export restriction, and increasing support in LDCs and LLDs , among others , 
would be highly desired.   
 
Second, bridging the huge gaps in the existing WTO laws and system , in particular between the 
founding and acceding Members , has become essential for a fair, rule -based, predictable and 
inclusive world trading system through a meaningful WTO reform. In this context, I would like to 
recall my v iews expressed in earlier meetings and reiterate  my call to  constituting a working group 
to deal with the reform agenda , with a special mandate and a fixed timeline through MC12 , to make 
needful reforms of the WTO laws and system , to deliver result s for pe ople at large across the globe 
in a just and inclusive manner.  
 
Finally, LDCs and LLDCs have been facing unique challenges and difficulties in their development 
endeavours and these groups have been the hardest hit by the pandemic. Therefore, a clear road map 
with a special package of additional support measures for LDCs and LLDCs , has become absolutely 
necessary for levelling the playing field. Expediting the implementation of existing supports for LDCs, 
technology transfer, support for bridging the huge d igital divide to benefit from the digital economy 
through the E -commerce Work Programme, an effective implementation of the service s waiver, 
simplified rules of origin, capacity building for enhancing export competitiveness, adopting the LDC 
Group's submis sion on Trade  Related Challenges of the LDCs and Way Forward: a Draft for MC 
Decision , contained in document WT/GC/W/807 ; and adopting an LLDC-specific work programme by 
the MC12, among others would be some areas of our priority for LDCs and LLDCs.   
 
37. United States  
 
I would like to begin by highlighting our call for realism as we undertake our work during a pandemic, 
which will impact our ability to prepare for MC12.   
 
We see little scope for negotiated outcomes and caution against a host of new work p lans or working 
groups on issues where there is little chance of consensus.  
 
The United States urges a targeted approach focused on the WTO 's contribution to recovery from 
the pandemic, and addressing a manageable set of WTO institutional issues.   
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 201 - 
 
  Specifi c MC12 outcomes could include accelerating the implementation of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement and proposals on transparency and notifications and on the SPS Agreement.  
 
We will also continue to work diligently on special and differential treatment  reform and will look for 
ways that we can use the WTO to make trade a force for good, a means to raise wages and achieve 
greater economic equality and security for all.  
 
We look forward to working with Members on these and other important issues that can make the 
WTO more relevant to the everyday lives of our people and make MC12 a success.  
 
Turning to the fisheries subsidies negotiations, I would like to underscore the statement of my 
Minister during the WTO Ministerial meeting on July 15.  
 
The United States i s committed to working with Members to reach a conclusion to the negotiations, 
but it must be a meaningful conclusion.  
 
While the current negotiating text can serve as the basis for a Member -led, text -based negotiation, 
it does not yet contain the elements  required for reaching conclusion.  
 
The United States has proposed a targeted approach to ensure that highlighting and addressing the 
use of forced labour  on fishing vessels are part of any outcome. This is an important way for the 
WTO to positively impact  the lives of our fishers and workers.  
 
There are other key elements missing from the negotiating text, and significant shortcomings must 
be addressed.  
 
This includes the approach with respect to special and differential treatment. A blanket approach to 
special and differential treatment with permanent carveouts is neither appropriate nor effective. It 
also does not reflect the reality that some self -declared developing country Members are among the 
largest producers and subsidizers, or among the wealthiest Members of this organization.  
 
The United States is committed to continuing to work constructively with Members to reach an 
agreement that can make a se rious and credible contribution to ending harmful fisheries subsidies.  
 
As some Members have noted the proposed funding mechanism, I wanted to comment that we are 
reviewing the concept note, but have serious concerns with respect to this approach from both  a 
substantive and institutional perspective.  
 
Substantively, Members are already providing technical assistance on these matters through a 
variety of mechanisms, both bilaterally and through other institutions. We question the value of 
duplicating such ef forts.  
 
Moreover, it is difficult to assess the purpose or need for this funding mechanism given the number 
of open questions remaining in the negotiating text, including the shape of the actual disciplines or 
the approach to special and differential treat ment. In certain respects, the concept note appears to 
overstate what is currently contemplated by the Chair 's text.  
 
Institutionally, we are greatly troubled with the approach taken by the WTO with previous funding 
mechanisms, and we are concerned a mecha nism of this nature for fisheries will yield the same 
result.  
 
38. Sierra Leone  
 
Thank you, Madam Chair, for all the work you have been doing for the global community, particularly 
on COVID -19 and on various issues that are extremely important and dear to us. The most urgent 
and burning issue for us is the global pandemic. We have been speared with some of the most severe 
consequences of the COVID -19 pandemic. It has been very destructive in our region; quite a number 
of people have died, and it has disrupted t he economic activity. I am extremely grateful  for the work 
that you have been doing in pushing the TRIPS waiver. Sierra Leone immensely support s the TRIPS 
waiver to allow for the ramping up of vaccine production , especially in developing countries. 
Develop ing countries are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. We, as an LDC, have only 
been able to vaccinate up to 2% of the population. The virus is spreading very fast. The recent WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 202 - 
 
  variant has been very deadly – regarding the previous variant, people go t infected but not sick , but 
currently people are getting sick on a very large scale and actually dying. We are happy that you 
have been pushing very strongly on this TRIPS waiver.  
 
We believe that sharing know -how behind making COVID -19 vaccines is key not only to scale up 
produc tion, but also to address emerging variants. It is also the case that the TRIPS waiver may 
accelerate the scaling of some COVID -19 vaccines. It may also encourage existing vaccine products 
businesses to step up their technology transfer efforts.  In this co ntext, we welcome text -based 
negotiations over a TRIPS waiver at the WTO and call on all Members to exercise flexibility during 
the negotiations , as the TRIPS waiver can lay an important foundation to an innovation ecosystem.  
 
We also would like to thank t he Chairs of the WTO negotiating groups for their reports. I would like 
to begin with the recently concluded Ministerial TNC meeting held on 15 July. My delegation 
welcomes the WTO Members' commitment to conclude the negotiations before MC12 in December. 
The negotiation should state the case that there is consensus on the importance of food and 
livelihood security of artisanal fishers in developing countries and LDCs like ours. I wish to 
congratulate the Director -General and Ambassador Santiago Wills for th e successful organi zation 
and outcome of this meeting. Sierra Leone looks forward to participating constructively  in text -based 
negotiations to this end. We reiterate our commitment to support efforts for a balanced text and an 
outcome that ensures the sus tainability objectives of the negotiations.  
 
Sierra Leone is obviously very much interested  in the issue of agriculture. It is an extremely 
important issue for us. We look forward  to receiving a text that is balanced. We continue to 
encourage discussion s to be Member -driven. In this regard, we believe that support for the African 
Group's proposal tabled with a view to concretely advance discussions towards a meaningful 
outcome for MC12 is imperative.  
 
In concluding , I wish to talk about WTO reform. Sierra Leone supports the WTO reform agenda and 
reiterates its commitment to the principles of inclusiveness, fairness and equity as well as the 
balance of rights and obligations; to the advancement of the interests of developing countries; to 
the application of differential and more favourable treatment. We look forward to a fair, balanced 
and development -oriented MC12 package.  
 
We reiterate our support for the leadership of the Director -General, for the WTO and for some of the 
great innovative steps you have been taking to revive this extremely important  organization.  
 
39. India  
 
Chair, the loss of life and livelihood caused by the pandemic need tangible and meaningful solutions. 
Solutions that allay the concerns of all and most importantly, address the need s of the developing 
including least developed Members. In that regard, we have an important task today, to agree on 
the key deliverables for MC12, that is expected from this organization.  
 
COVID -19 is mutating and producing new deadly variants and unfortun ately it is not going on 
vacation. Vacation/Summer break is needed for healthcare and other frontline workers throughout 
the globe; not for Geneva diplomats.  Can we resume after 2 weeks of break?  We need to work and 
need to deliver.   
 
WTO's Response to the Pandemic  
 
Chair, in the wake of the pandemic there have been many proposals on the WTO's response to the 
current pandemic as well our preparedness for future pandemics. We need to work and deliver on 
some of these proposals quickly.  At the same time, we should not try to push market access agenda 
and take away policy space available for Members and impose cumbersome obligations that serve 
to benefit a few in the name of pandemic.  No doubt, we need to work on supply chain bottlenecks. 
However , doing away with the legitimate policy instrument of export restrictions or aiming for 
making temporary elimination of tariffs a permanent measure , or calling for stringent transparency 
obligations , will not guarantee access to vaccines, therapeutics or d iagnostics, or access to food for 
the most vulnerable. In fact, such a step is likely to lead to a flight of these critical final finished 
products to the highest bidder, making them inaccessible to the resource -poor, further aggravating 
the current divide  which we are seeing.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 203 - 
 
  Chair, the proposal on a waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement has been discussed 
threadbare for the past ten months in the TRIPS Council. Despite the agreement among Members 
in early June to start the text -based nego tiation, it is unfortunate that a few Members have failed to 
engage in the text-based  negotiation.  Few Members ensured that we are unable to meet the deadline 
set by the TRIPS Council Chair for reaching the necessary landing zone by end -July. During 
COVID -19, only a robust response by the WTO for the pandemic, of which the TRIPS waiver is an 
integral part, can restore the credibility of this organization. Therefore, it is high time this 
organization prioritizes saving human lives and livelihoods over all ot her priorities. Even though 
there are estimates for manufacturing of 11 billion doses by the year end, the doubts remain. In the 
21 July event,  in order to increase manufacturing, three areas were identified by the Director -
General of the  World Health Orga nization , and these were technology transfer, supply chain 
resilience and intellectual property  waiver.  Chair, let me also point out that we have learnt certain 
lessons during discussions in the TRIPS Council. While we continue to hear about the importance  of 
a rules-based organi zation, what we are seeing  is that the rules and procedures are conveniently 
and selectively interpreted. Doing so may help few Members on a particular subject, but these 
selective interpretations are creating precedence which may a lso be used by other Members.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Chair, millions have regressed deeper into poverty during this pandemic and their food security is 
another critical issue for this organization. A simple, efficient, and a permanent solution on extending 
PSH for food security purposes to new programs and new products is therefore a key deliverable. In 
this regard, I suggest that the new submissions by the Africa Group and the proposal being worked 
upon by G33 are a good basis for CoA  SS to take the process forward . 
 
Services  
 
Movement of healthcare professionals : a multilateral outcome in this regard will be appreciated, 
particularly in view of the current pandemic.  We need to be aware of new forms of trade barriers in 
the name of a "selective use of vaccine certif icates".  
 
Special & Differential Treatment  
 
Madam Chair, let us give a chance to G90 proposals on special and differential treatment . 
  
We must show progress on restoring the two-stage dispute settlement system.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
The Ministerial TNC on 15 July provided us a good opportunity to take stock of where we are in the 
negotiations. Listening to the Ministers, it was evident that Members agreed that status quo is not 
the preferred option because irrational subsidies and overfis hing by many countries is hurtin g the 
interest s of our fishermen; but it was also evident that significant gaps still exist. I am sure 
delegations would have analysed and taken note of what the Ministers said. Speakers representing 
more than 80 delegations  said they did not believe the draft consolidated text is balanced to call it 
a landing zone for them. We heard Minister after Minister calling the text imbalanced and requiring 
it to be reworked to make it a negotiating text. On the issue of special and d ifferential treatment , 
once again speakers representing more than 80 delegations said that what the text offers on special 
and differential treatment  is grossly inadequate and they rejected the notion that special and 
differential treatment  should be restr icted to artisanal fishing and that too within 12 nautical miles. 
They also demanded the text should provide sufficient policy space for developing their future fishing 
capacities for achieving equitable growth. Ministers/Members emphasized that, if this a greement is 
about sustainability, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, biggest 
subsidizers who are responsible for the present state of marine resources , should take greater 
responsibility and to reduce their subsidies and fishing capacities.  
 
Chair, if we truly desire that the WTO should deliver this outcome at MC12, we should admit that it 
requires huge amount of work to close the gaps and also flexibility on part of Members.  Expecting 
flexibility only from others may not lead us to an end . Any narrative that we have an agreed text 
would be self -defeating and erodes Member 's trust in the process.  Chair, we request that all the 
statement s made by the Ministers/Members at the 15 July TNC giving the political guidance should WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 204 - 
 
  be released quickly as part of the minutes of the meeting and the Chair 's concluding reports be 
added as an addendum to it.  
 
Global Recovery  
 
Chair, it is ironical how differentiated the path to a global recovery is today. The world seems to be 
moving on tw o separates tracks what is being called K -shaped recovery.  Experts have given the 
economic rationale for accelerated provision of vaccine to the world population. This could be the 
highest return on public investment.  We have made similar economic argument s earlier, but I hope 
Members will pay heed to the assessment by the experts.  
 
Finally, Chair, the WTO must act as a catalyst to minimise the loss of life and livelihood and aid in 
the acceleration of global economic recovery. MC12 must deliver on critical  areas like permanent 
solution on PSH, TRIPS waiver and a balanced outcome on fish subsidies. This balanced agenda will 
ensure that while we rebuild and recover, we also restore the waning credibility of this institution.  
 
40. Canada (Structure d Discussions on  Trade and Environmental Sustainability ) 
 
I will provide a report of the work under the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured 
Discussions (TESSD), an update on the Ottawa Group, and some thoughts on behalf of Canada.  
 
TESSD co -sponsors, other WTO Members, and outside stakeholders met on 19 July to discuss 
elements for a draft MC12 Ministerial statement on trade and environmental sustainability and to 
seek feedback on whether this paper contains the right elements. As co -Chairs, Canada and Costa  
Rica will reflect on the input received and come back to co -sponsors and interested Members with 
guidance on next steps. Time is short, and we must work efficiently to finalize the text of the 
Ministerial statement.  
 
The objective of the statement, which  we hope will be supported by as many Members as possible, 
is to articulate a desire to advance our understanding of issues at the nexus of trade and 
environmental sustainability; to lay out a roadmap for our work after MC12; and to underline the 
importanc e of working transparently and collaboratively with outside stakeholders and experts.  
This concludes my update on the Structured Discussions.  
 
41. Canada (Ottawa Group)  
 
On the Ottawa Group, Ministers met virtually on July 22  to continue discussions on WTO reform with 
a view to helping ensure a successful MC12. Ottawa Group Ministers discussed trade and health, 
including a reaffirmation of their commitment to working with co -sponsors of the proposed Trade 
and Health Declaratio n to continue to build support for it. Ministers also reiterated their support for 
pragmatic approaches to address issues of importance to both developed and developing Members, 
including through plurilateral negotiations.  
 
Ottawa Group Ministers also had  an opportunity to discuss priorities for MC12 with the US Trade 
Representative, Ambassador Katherine Tai. The fisheries subsidies negotiations and pandemic 
response were key topics of discussion. Many Ministers recalled the importance of continuing to 
advance work in agriculture. Ministers also discussed other initiatives and negotiations. Many 
Ministers welcomed the U nited States to the negotiations on domestic regulation of services and 
emphasized the importance of concluding them by MC12.  
 
In the last few months, the Ottawa Group has advanced work on critical issues and continued to 
push forward on WTO reform. We are firmly committed to carrying on this work ahead of MC12 and 
beyond to ensure action on issues of systemic importance.  
 
42. Canada  
I would  also like to share some thoughts on behalf of Canada.  With regard to fisheries subsidies 
negotiations, Ministers have recently given us their support to conclude a meaningful agreement 
before MC12. The next step is therefore to deepen our understanding of  the issues underlying our 
different positions, and then identify concrete ideas to bridge the remaining differences between us.  
 
In agriculture, Members must move forward on domestic support by agreeing on a framework for 
negotiations subsequent to MC12. We also need to agree on concrete results in agriculture, which WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 205 - 
 
  will include improvements in transparency on applied tariffs, domestic support and export 
competition. Members should also agree on the exemption of World Food Programme humanitarian 
purchases  from export restrictions. On public stockholding for food security purposes, we remain 
constructively engaged and have recently presented a technical submission. For Canada, any 
outcome on this issue for MC12 will need to be commensurate with the level of  ambition regarding 
domestic support.  
 
In addition, on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, we need to move forward with a Ministerial 
Declaration to ensure that the SPS Agreement and Committee are well placed to address emerging 
challenges.  
 
On trade and health, Canada remains committed to contributing to the WTO's efforts with respect 
to COVID -19 and future pandemics. We support the facilitator's work. We will also continue to 
promote the proposed declaration on trade and health, a revised version of whic h was circulated last 
week and will be discussed next week in the General Council.  
 
On discussions at the TRIPS Council, we note that the TRIPS Council will report at the General Council 
next week that it will continue its discussions.  
 
Recognizing the imp ortant role that services play in the global economy and recovery, Canada 
welcomes the level of engagement in exploratory market access discussions in the CTS -SS and is 
looking to move these forward.  
 
On the three negotiating JSIs, Investment Facilitation , Services Domestic Regulations and 
E-commerce, Canada would like to thank the coordinators, co -conveners, facilitators, and the 
Secretariat for their hard work. We will continue to engage constructively to make progress by MC12. 
On Services Domestic Regulation, a conclusion by MC12 is possible, and the recent announcements 
by the U nited States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia bring us closer.   
 
Canada remains ready and willing to engage on reform of the dispute settlement system.  
 
To conclude, Chair, Canada sees the next M inisterial Conference  as a focussed meeting that sets us 
on track for the future and has a targeted set of outcomes.  
 
43. Chinese Taipei  
 
Let me first thank you for convening this meeting to take stock of the work and to discuss the next  
steps. We also thank the reports by the Chairs of various negotiation groups.  
 
On fisheries subsidies negotiation, the constructive responses from Ministers at the TNC meeting on 
15th of July have provided political guidance and support needed for Members to start a new stage 
of negotiations. We look forward to the intensive two -stage discussions in September and October 
respectively as arranged by Am bassador Wills.  
 
There is a reminder in regard to the fisheries subsidies negotiation: When conducting further 
discussions, the Chair and Members might want to consider discussing the possible introduction of 
preambular paragraphs for the instrument. It w ould be unimaginable for such an important 
instrument without a preamble to guide its future operation.  
 
On the issue of the WTO's response to the COVID -19 pandemic, Members generally agree that it 
should be one of the highest priorities for MC12. We suppo rt the thematic discussion led by 
Ambassador Walker as early as possible. Concerning the themes to be discussed in the initial stage 
of discussions, we would suggest to also include the livelihood -related economic recovery aspect of 
disadvantaged Members a ffected by the pandemic. In addition, considering the cross -cutting nature 
and the high complexity of the issues, it would also be important for us to reflect whether the current 
WTO's institutional framework is sufficient to address these issues or whethe r Members should 
consider creating a new Committee on Trade and Public Health , so as to tackle the related issues in 
a horizontal and holistic manner.  
 
For the remaining months leading to MC12, we would be very pleased to see substantial progresses 
on JSIs . Particularly, we look forward to finalizing negotiations on Services Domestic Regulation and 
making substantial progresses on E-commerce and Investment Facilitation Negotiations. These will WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 206 - 
 
  demonstrate to the world that the WTO is able to introduce comme rcially meaningful new rules to 
respond to the rapidly changing economic environment.  
 
On the issues of the WTO and the Appellate Body reform, we share the views that these are amongst 
the areas of highest importance and that we have to show progress at MC 12. Practically, since we 
only have three working months left to engage in discussion s on these important issues prior to 
MC12, it would be unrealistic to produce substantive results. However, it should be possible and 
important that we start discussing ce rtain detailed work programs as early as possible so that 
Ministers can adopt them at MC12 to launch the negotiations and that Members can immediately 
start substantive negotiations on the reform issues thereafter.  
 
Chair, we are still optimistic on the me aningful outcomes for some issues at MC12 and stand ready 
to continue constructively participating in negotiations.  
 
44. South Africa  
 
We associate ourselves with the statement by the ACP and the Africa Group.  
 
South Africa wishes to reiterate that the develop ment agenda from which the TNC derives its 
mandate should remain the cornerstone of our work towards MC12. The vaccine inequity is resulting 
in a two -track recovery process. The AfDB estimates that economic growth in Africa shrank by 2.1% 
in 2020 due to CO VID-19. The hardest hit were resource -dependent regions . Africa must build better 
by prioritizing health outcomes and economic recovery that is centred  on structural transformation. 
The long -outstanding issues must remain the focus for the membership and t he Secretariat if we 
are to achieve the Ministerial mandates and deliver on the WTO developmental imperatives.  Over 
the last 18 months, we experienced socio -economic challenges of alarming proportion, the road to 
recovery is go ing to be difficult. To get m eaningful and credible outcomes at MC12, we must get our 
priorities right.  
 
In this regard, for South Africa the WTO response to COVID -19 is key. It is however, disappointing 
that we are still not in solution mode in the text -based negotiations on the TRIP S waiver. This is a 
necessary , temporary, targeted and proportionate component for any outcome on a WTO response 
to COVID -19. We want to reiterate that the cost of inaction by the WTO is measured in human lives. 
We must move beyond ideological debates towa rds a balanced outcome underpinned by a 
people -centred  approach. To make progress we must focus on (i) how to come up with a waiver that 
addresses the interests and concerns of all and (ii) get out of the binary between the waiver and the 
European Union proposal. The two are not substitutes but contribute from different perspectives and 
should both be welcomed with a view to find landing zones on both. A WTO response to COVID -19 
is fundamental to a meaningful outcome at MC12. The credibility of the outco me will be judged on 
the basis of whether it is boosting and diversifying production across the world.  
 
Second is agriculture, we need to work on a food security and livelihoods package and in this regard, 
our views are well articulated in the submissions that the Africa Group recently tabled. The outcome 
cannot be limited to transparency and a work programme. We will continue to advocate for 
substantial reform of trade distorting domestic support; including on cotton; as well as PSH and 
SSM. A decision on the WFP is possible if the ACP proposals are integrated. We underscore that 
special and differential treatment must be integral to any outcome on agriculture, and must preserve 
policy space, including under Art 6.2.  
 
Third is the Fisheries Subsidies Negot iations, the Chair 's text could form the basis of an outcome , 
but remains unbalanced in respect of various elements. In order to make progress, the text needs 
to be reconfigured to more closely align to the mandate to address harmful subsidies and to provi de 
appropriate special and differential treatment . The flexibilities provided to big subsidizers under the 
sustainability approach is extraordinarily wide, while special and differential treatment  flexibilities 
that are mandated are narrow in application. Common but differentiated responsibility is going to 
be critical. The disciplines must target large scale fishing and the biggest subsidizers  must take the 
greatest responsibility.  
 
Fourth, we must preserve the principles that underpin the WTO both in ter ms of consensus decision 
making and special and differential treatment . Multilateralism is important now more than ever. 
Regarding special and differential treatment , this is a treaty -embedded right and remains important 
in ensuring fair and equitable outc omes in the WTO. The CTD -SS must deliver on its mandate on WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 207 - 
 
  the G90 A greement Specific Proposals if we are to move forward. The level of ambition cannot be 
lowered further. We continue to be concerned by the lack of constructive engagement by some 
Members o n multilaterally agreed mandates.  
 
Regarding development, we reaffirm the importance of implementing WTO Ministerial and G eneral 
Council  Decisions, that keep development at the centre of the work program.  
 
Further, on e -commerce, the multilaterally mandated work is the Work Programme and the outcome 
on the e -commerce moratorium at MC12 will depend on clarifications with regard to the scop e and 
definition of electronic transmissions . We reiterate  our position on the TRIPS NVC moratorium.  
 
The dysfunctionality of the Appellate Body remains a concern, MC12 must agree on a framework or 
at least a pathway towards an urgent resolution of this. T his will need to be in its own track given 
its systemic nature and not be linked to WTO reform discussions. A dysfunctional A ppellate Body 
renders further negotiations pointless since new and current outcomes cannot be enforced.  
 
In relation to WTO reform,  the paper on Strengthening the WTO to promote development and 
inclusivity (WT/GC/W/778/Rev.3) remains our departure point. We must recognize that trade is not 
an end in itself, it is a means to enhance livelihoods, employment and sustainable development. 
WTO reform does not mean accepting either inherited inequities or new proposals that would worsen 
imbalances. Reforms must be premised on the principles of inclusivity and development.  
 
On JSI, the paper (WT/GC/W/819) on The Legal status of JSIs and their Negotiated Outcomes 
captures our views, including the new systemic challenges presented by JSIs. We look forward to a 
further discussion in the G eneral Council  on this.  
 
In conclusion, success at MC12 will depend on the delivery of multilateral outcomes. We stand ready 
to work constructively with Members in this regard.  
  
45. Paraguay  
 
We appreciate the reports presented by you and the Chairs. My delegation would like to focus on 
the following priorities:  
 
First, the WTO's response to the pandemic. We thank Ambassador Walker for his report. Paraguay 
has participated in GRULAC's consultations with Ambassadors Tang and Spencer aimed at moving 
forward in the Working Subgroup established for this purpose. We believe that the declaration 
presented jointly  by Colombia and Paraguay, on behalf of several Latin American and Caribbean 
delegations, at the General Council in May represents a good contribution with ideas and deliverables 
that could be explored by the WTO, particularly in the area of export restric tions, trade facilitation, 
services and regulatory harmonization, to ensure better and more equitable access to vaccines. We 
will be circulating a communication within the next few days for inclusion in Ambassador Walker's 
report.  
 
We have also followed wi th great interest the discussion in the TRIPS Council on intellectual property 
responses. We repeat , we are a country that does not have local vaccine production capacity, and it 
is therefore imperative for our delegation to find a consensus solution that allows us to have 
immediate and effective access to the importation of vaccines against COVID -19. 
 
Second, agriculture is a priority topic for Paraguay. The reform cannot continue to expand. Four 
months away from the Ministerial Conference, the submission of extreme proposals that will not lead 
to consensus will only benefit those Members seeking to maintain the status quo.  
 
Regarding domestic support, we consider that document JOB/AG/117/Rev.2 is the most realistic and 
feasible basis for a Ministerial outc ome in this pillar. We reiterate our call to Members who are really 
interested in advancing the reform to explore joint avenues for the incorporation of their interests 
with consideration of their sensitivities in this context.  
 
On market access, we reiter ate that this pillar is absolutely a priority for my delegation, and any 
Ministerial outcome should include the way to revitalize these negotiations, which can deliver greater 
trade benefits. As mentioned by the delegations of Uruguay, Ecuador and Argentin a, we believe that WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 208 - 
 
  document JOB/AG/198 is a realistic contribution towards moving forward on this pillar, with a view 
to the development of post -MC12 modalities.  
 
With regard to other topics, we understand that in order to achieve a balanced and consensus -
oriented outcome , they should be part of the agenda. However, the level of ambition of these should 
be comparable to the overall level of ambition in the negotiations. In this regard, and as we did in 
CoA SS recently, we note that a permanent solution on p ublic stockholding would not appear to be 
a realistic and achievable outcome for this Ministerial Conference. The recently submitted proposals 
cannot form the basis for our negotiations, since they do not address the concerns of non-proponents  
and would no t lead to the consensus required. We remain open to discussing constructive ways to 
move forward on all the mandates.  
 
We reiterate that transparency is not and cannot be an end in itself, and a Ministerial outcome that 
adjusts certain notification formats or makes improvements to computer systems without addressing 
improvements in the rules would not be sufficient for us.  Moreover, we once again note that attempts 
to accommodate the rules and behaviour of Members would generate additional obstacles to the 
advancement of outcomes on transparency for MC12.  
 
On the SPS Ministerial Declaration, of which we are proponents along  with almost 40 Members, we 
hope that it can be adopted multilaterally and that the work programme we seek to establish can 
contribute to advancing discussions on the challenges that we face today and will have to face in the 
future. We invite all Members to join these efforts and hold constructive discussions on the scope of 
the proposal.  
 
In conclusion, we reaffirm our commitment to moving forward on the Joint Initiatives on 
E-commerce, Investment Facilitation for Development, MSMEs, Services Domestic Regulation, and 
Trade and Environment. We would like to emphasize that in the plenary of yesterday's E commerce 
initiative, together with Ecuador and Guatemala, and supported in the room by a number of countries 
in the region, we focused on the importance of development issues. Hence , we are exploring the 
possibility of presenting a discussion paper on the development dimension soon in the context of 
this initiative.  
 
46. Colombia  
 
I am making this statement on behalf of Ambassador Santiago Wills, who in this sess ion is focusing 
on his work as Chair of the fisheries subsidies negotiations.  
 
The delegation of Colombia thanks the Chairs of the negotiating groups for their reports and for their 
dedicated work, and also recognizes the direct engagement and dedication o f the Director -General 
in the various matters, with the aim of achieving concrete outcomes for the Ministerial Conference 
(MC12).  
 
I will mention four specific points in this statement that are of fundamental importance for Colombia, 
relating to the ongoing negotiations from which we hope to have positive outcomes for MC12, without 
prejudice to the fact that we would like to make progress on many other topics, which we do not 
mention expressly in this statement.  
 
First, in the fisheries subsidies nego tiations, we welcome the very positive results of the Ministerial 
level meeting on 15 July. Not only the large number of high-level participants but also the 
commitment and willingness of Ministers to conclude the agreement before MC12 , reaffirm that we 
are very close to achieving an outcome with the level of ambition that the present time calls for. 
Colombia supports the work plan for the month of September onwards, presented today in the 
report, and is committed to moving forward vigorously with text-based negotiations and finding 
points of convergence.  
 
Second, in agriculture, as is known, it is a priority for Colombia to move forward on the domestic 
support pillar. Indeed, state subsidies to agriculture have a trade distorting effect that prevents a 
level playing field in international markets, to the detriment of medium sized and small countries, in 
addition to the harmful effects of subsidies in terms of environmental sustainability. Members must 
make ambitious and proportional contributions to reduce t hese distortions. The domestic support 
framework sponsored by multiple Members offers an ambitious and flexible path that we hope will WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 209 - 
 
  serve as a point of reference, will create more and more convergence and will allow the negotiations 
to be intensified in  the second half of the year.  
 
Third, with regard to trade and health, we are grateful for Ambassador Walker's work in facilitating 
these discussions and for his report. This is a highly relevant issue in the current pandemic situation 
and requires concret e outcomes. Colombia, together with a group of Latin American countries, has 
expressed on several occasions its deep concern about a number of trade practices that hinder and 
limit the importation of vaccines, and therefore deprive our citizens of timely a nd equitable access 
to these goods. We have also put forward ideas to improve the collective response to the pandemic 
using the tools of the multilateral trading system, for example through deeper actions to avoid export 
restrictions, discussion of common regulations and standards, dialogue on the temporary movement 
of health professionals, and mechanisms for facilitating trade in essential goods.  
 
The General Council will address a number of initiatives on these matters and endorse the 
methodology proposed  by Ambassador Walker. Colombia is ready to participate actively in the 
thematic dialogues and sessions, with a view to achieving convergence between the views and 
proposals. The joint work to be undertaken from September must lead us to a multilateral res ponse 
to this pandemic, which, far from coming to an end, continues to affect the economic and health 
systems of developing countries.  
 
Lastly, with respect to the initiatives for WTO reform, Colombia considers that this is a key issue for 
the relevance an d future prospects of the rules-based  trading system. A frank and determined 
dialogue is required to lay the foundations for this process, which must place the WTO at the forefront 
of global trade trends and prevent further delay in the development of glob al rules. This involves 
addressing issues such as trade in services, e -commerce, investment, and of course trade related 
environmental issues. Moreover, and without further delay, MC12 must find a practical and 
pragmatic solution with respect to the two -tier dispute settlement mechanism.  
 
Of course , Colombia is ready to participate actively and constructively on an ongoing basis in this 
process.  
 
47. United Kingdom  
 
Thank you very much, D irector -General  and thanks also to the Chairs of the various Committees 
and Negotiating Groups, Informal Working Groups and the rest who have briefed us on their work 
in the course of the day. As you and indeed the Chair of the General Council reminded us , we have 
a part icularly long agenda for the General Council next week which allows us to spend even more 
time in this marvellous building. Now, I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. On 
the bad side, I suspect it shows that we have probably got too mu ch on the table for MC12 and that 
we need to narrow down that agenda after the summer break and certainly my delegation will be 
ready to be here on 1st September, ready, able and a little tanned from the Genevois sun and keen 
to make progress.   
 
I think th ere is also a good side to it because I think it shows that delegations right across the 
membership see the WTO as a vehicle to tackle some of the big issues of the day. That is a good 
thing for us. We want to address the economic and human cost of the pan demic of which so many 
people here today have spoken, and rightly, countries which are right in the thick of the pandemic 
right now. A 100 days away from the COP26 summit in Glasgow , it reminds us that we need to play 
a role in addressing climate change. J ust this week our own country released a border trade report 
on green trade , and we have also announced our plans for our own new developing countries trading 
scheme consultation , which inspires to be more sustainable as well as simpler and more ambitious 
and more pro -growth. We have a choice as to whether we wish in this organization to be enabling 
the green revolution in the global economy or merely to watch from the side -lines. And third , the 
other good point I think is that there is a widespread recogni tion, as our Icelandic colleague and 
others have commented, that this organization has a role to play in helping the 10 million plus 
women -owned MSMEs across the globe. We have a role to play, if we want, in empowering those 
businesses and inseminating  the global economy.  
 
I take positives away from the fisheries subsidies Ministerial the other week. Not least the 
extraordinary commitment that you have shown, that Santiago has shown to bringing us to a 
solution.  And as others said , the failure of this orga nization to reach agreement on this negotiation 
after 20 years would be a pretty bad blow to multilateralism in this organization. More broadly it WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 210 - 
 
  would show that we can't actually meet the sustainable development goals that are own leaders 
have signed up to and it's not good news for our fish or our fishing communities . We really do need 
to make an effort and I pay tribute to Santiago for his plans to really knuckle down on this in 
September.  
 
Secondly, we pay tribute to you , indeed , to Dr Tedros and Da ren Tang at WIPO , for bringing us 
together in the symposium on Wednesday. There are clearly still issues that divide us here, but I 
think your attempts to focus on practical solutions  and practical ways in which through greater 
public/private collaboration  and greater international collaboration we can really address quickly and 
effectively this issue about vaccine equity , is to be commended and we will work with you and others 
to that end.  
 
Third, the other positive I take from today and from recent weeks  is the dynamism of the plurilateral 
negotiations in this house, and I would really like to offer my own warm welcome to the decisions 
by the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia this week to join the Services Domestic 
Regulation effort. I think t hat it is a really important piece of work and one which should be taken 
forward.  As others have said , there is an important piece of work that we need to be taking forward 
on WTO reform , including clearly dispute settlement but also issues like market dis torting practices. 
So, the question is how do you find common ground between all these different ideas , between the 
bad and the sometimes good ? By recognising partly that all these issues are important to some or 
all of the delegations here, but also that they can be taken forward in different ways at different 
speeds and in different ways.  
 
Director -General,  as you said at our informal meeting yesterday, some, we hope , are going to be 
substantive outcomes for MC12.  Some may be the subject of new work prog rammes, new processes. 
Some will be taken forward multilaterally, some will be taken forward plurilateral, that is the nature 
of this organization as it has developed over the years.  I think our job when we come back in 
September and indeed at the G eneral Council meeting  next week is to listen to each other, respect 
each other's priorities, ask ourselves some hard questions about how different issues can best be 
taken forward in this organization and at MC12. But also to focus on another controversial idea in 
this house, to focus on substance over process and to try and really work out how MC12, how this 
organization , could add real value to this work.  And in the competition between Chinese and Nigerian 
proverbs and the works of Wittgenstein let me add the w ords of the great Scottish Poet, Rabbie 
Burns , "now's the day and now's the hour".  
 
48. Malaysia  
 
Firstly, I must thank all the negotiating group Chairs for their reports. After listening to Chairs ' 
reports and Members ' remarks this morning, allow me to share  my delegation 's views and 
perspectives on the following:  
 
Concluding the Fisheries Subsidies negotiations is an immediate priority for all of us. From the 
Ministerial Level TNC on Fisheries Subsidies held last Thursday, it was obvious that no Members had 
disputed that we need to conclude these 20 long years of negotiations. However, while Malaysia is 
committed to conclude the negotiations as soon as possible, the importance of positioning fisheries 
in the context of food security and national economy for m any Members cannot be overstressed. For 
this reason, we hold the view that the outcome of this negotiations must reflect the WTO principles 
of non -discriminatory trade, predictability and transparency, fair competition, and encouraging 
development and econ omic reform.  
  
On agriculture, it is imperative to make meaningful progress in agriculture for a fair agriculture 
trading system. The d omestic support pillar remains a priority for many Members , including Malaysia. 
We need to start text -based negotiations as soon as possible after summer break.  
 
On the dispute settlement mechanism, we truly hope that the Appellate Body impasse could be 
resolved expeditiously, and to restore the WTO 's two -stage dispute settlement function before the 
Ministers meet in Decembe r. 
 
On the WTO's response to the COVID -19 pandemic, I commend the General Council Chair on the 
appointment of Ambassador Walker as the facilitator. It is our hope that the various works on 
response to pandemic to be further streamlined as we are approachin g MC12 in a couple of months ' 
time. WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 211 - 
 
  Overall, Madam Chair, we must begin prioritising key issues and focus on the low hanging fruits. We 
also hope that the facilitator -led process would help streamline our work in various areas in a 
transparent and inclusiv e manner.  
 
On logistics, we are quite concerned as we are still not able to firm up on the arrangements on the 
format of meeting  
 
49. Jamaica (ACP  Group ) 
 
The ACP Group thanks you for your report. We also thank the Chairs of the WTO negotiating groups 
for their reports.  As we move closer to MC12, it is important that we accelerate the consolidation of 
the package to be presented to Ministers.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
We thank you for an excellent job in the organization of the Ministerial TNC of 15 July.  The A CP 
Group considers it a useful session. We listened to Ministers ' commitment to concluding negotiations 
as soon as possible. We heard Ministers reiterating that we adhere to the mandate of MC11 and 
raised concerns with regards to the imbalances in the text . Particularly, we take note that Ministers 
have ruled out the option of  special and differential treatment being limited to artisanal and 
small -scale fishing or transition period s with technical assistance and capacity building. We listened 
to the majorit y of the 104 Ministers who took the floor calling for special and differential treatment 
in the form of policy space to facilitate the responsible development of the fisheries sectors in 
developing countries and LDCs.  We will participate constructively in text-based negotiations to this 
end, especially in light of Ministers overwhelming conclusion that a lot of work is needed to bring 
balance to the consolidated text.  
 
It is our goal to ensure that an outcome is effective in the global fight against IUU fi shing and global 
fish stock depletion , target major subsidizers and large -scale industrial fishing , provide policy space 
for smaller fishing nations, and not contain loopholes that can be easily used as a pretext to maintain 
the status quo. Common but diff erentiated responsibility should underpin the outcome.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Turning to agriculture,  the ACP Group takes note of the Chair 's intention to circulate a draft text 
next week. This could assist us in advancing our work for MC12. We await its content an d will engage 
in a solution -seeking mode. Agriculture is too important for ACP Group Members to allow for yet 
another Ministerial to pass without an outcome on this file. We expect the text to pursue balance, 
inclusivity and we believe discussions should b e Member -driven. Our priorities in the negotiations 
are PSH, SSM, cotton and trade distorting domestic support. Given the thrust towards rural 
development and agricultural reform , we expect a maintenance of Article 6.2. We expect these 
elements to be refle cted in the text to be circulated. An outcome package based only on transparency 
does not reflect the critical role that the WTO plays in global agricultural trade.  The WTO must do 
more.  
 
Services  
 
MC12 provides an opportunity for the WTO to play an impor tant role in the rebuilding process and 
in our quest for bolstering the resilience of the services sector in developing countries and LDCs. As 
is well known, the services sector is significantly impacted by the pandemic. In that context, 
engagement  with a view to promote the recovery of the sector and address the negative impact of 
the pandemic on the services sector, including through the in -built flexibilities for developing and 
least developed countries , will be critical.  
 
E-commerce  
 
As it relates to th e e-commerce moratorium, we need to continue discussions on issues surrounding 
the moratorium as well as issues relating to the digital divide. We are working on technical papers 
on various issues. We need to focus on how we can reinvigorate the Work Progr amme given our 
specific interest on the development dimension of this longstanding area of work in the multilateral 
framework of the WTO , and believe that MC12 provides an avenue to pursue these objectives.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 212 - 
 
  Development  
 
On special and differential treatme nt, the ACP Group aligns itself with the Declaration by the G90 
contained in WT/GC/234, which will be discussed under agenda item 13 of the General Council 
meeting. Special and differential treatment is a fundamental pillar of the WTO and should not be 
dispensed with in current nor future agreements.  We believe that an outcome for MC12 based on 
the G90 proposals would assist our national efforts to stabilize our trade imbalances, including those 
arising from the COVID -19 pandemic,  build back better and successfully integrate into the global 
economy and global trading system. We therefore call for constructive engagements on this file.  
 
Intellectual Property  
 
Turning to TRIPS -related issues, Chair, vaccination remains the most durable solution to the 
COVID -19 pandemic. Yet, our Members do not have equitable access, while there are Members in 
possession of more than required to inoculate  their entire population. With this in mind, we have 
already seen an emergence of measures prohibiting the entry of unvaccinated  people in some 
economies. Undoubtedly, this will negatively impact the ACP Group 's economies with our low level 
of vaccination due to lack of access to vaccines. Our economies are highly dependent on international 
trade, and our nationals, inclu ding those who travel to provide services, are wi tnessing restrictions 
on their participation in international trade.  The WTO has an important role to play in facilitating 
swift, timely, affordable and equitable access to the vaccines and therapeutics to c ombat the 
pandemic. The proposals in IP/C/W/669, we believe,  seek to respond to these issues. We have 
consistently supported its general objectives. We must resolve the issue of access. We also think 
our approaches should assist us in using the TRIPS to de al with future pandemics.  
 
WTO's response to COVID -19 
 
We take note of ongoing work in various formats on the WTO 's response to the impact of the COVID -
19 pandemic. Our governments have had a very painful experience with the virus, both from an 
economic a nd social perspective. We look forward to seeing these efforts progress to maturity , so 
that a decision can be taken by Ministers at MC12.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
On reform, the ACP Group remains committed to the principles of inclusiveness, to fairness, and 
equity i n the balance of rights and obligations , to the advancement of the interests of developing 
countries through the application of differential and more favourable treatment , and seeking to 
ensure that trade functions at all times as an instrument for raising  standards of living and 
employment, and for promoting sustainable development. The ACP Group believes that the vital 
interests of Members would be greatly compromised should the reform and modernisation sought 
not be anchored in these enduring values. Loo king towards MC12, the ACP Group continues to 
prioritize the restoration of the proper functioning of the two -tier Dispute Settlement System. 
Ministers should also be presented with a Reform Work Programme consistent with the principles 
that we have outlin ed. 
 
In closing, Chair, we look forwards to these developing interests being a part of an outcome package 
for MC 12. We will engage positively and do so in a solution -seeking mode. The WTO will miss a 
golden opportunity, presented by the environment in whi ch we operate, if we ignore or minimise the 
views of others that emanate from their unique circumstances. The crafting of an MC12 package 
should be done in a fair, balanced and development -oriented  manner. Resolving these issues by 
MC12 is critical to our stabilization and rebuilding efforts in light of the COVID -19 impact on our 
trade capacity and development goals.  
 
50. Turkey  
 
We thank you, D irector -General , and the Chairs of Negotiating Bodies for the updates and 
information provided on recent activities a s well as suggestions for the way forward. Let me share 
the issues that Turkey believes we should further focus our attention on in the run up to MC12.  
 
First, fisheries subsidies negotiations; the sustainability of fisheries resources is indeed crucial fo r 
all our nations. It is our debt for next generations and to our planet to conclude these negotiations 
as soon as possible.  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 213 - 
 
  Last week 's meeting at Ministerial level confirmed the high -level commitment among Members. We 
all acknowledge that significant gap s still remain in substantive areas which require hard and intense 
work ahead. To this end, we are ready to work in every configuration, as long as transparency and 
inclusiveness is ensured. In this regard, we support the workplan announced by Ambassador W ills 
this morning.  
 
Second, the pandemic. In this area also, a lot of work is needed to bridge the gaps and find a possible 
landing zone. Members continue to be divided between different approaches and we believe that 
each proposal has its own merits.  
 
To secure an outcome, all sides should show flexibility and good -will, act constructively and seek 
common ground. Addressing concerns raised about the existing proposals in a swift manner is 
equally important. The potential outcome must make a significant and  real contribution to the daily 
fight against the pandemic in every country. Due to the urgency of the actions needed, we believe 
we should focus on common denominators where all membership can come around and discuss 
long-term agendas after we deal with t his urgency.  
 
Madam D irector -General , we fully support your third way approach and believe that it significantly 
contributes to the WTO 's relevance.  
 
Third, Appellate Body. We will have a M inisterial Conference  when this organization lacks one of its 
strongest features. Its absence has a devastating effect on the rules-based multilateral trading 
system. The Appellate Body is a must for trade in a predictable environment.  
 
We should restart discussions as early as possible to restore the two -tier dispute settlement system.  
 
Fourth, agriculture. Turkey is committed to reach an outcome in this field , with a priority on domestic 
support pillar. Current methodology , which provides some Members huge flexibility , has been 
impeding  the level playing field for a long time now.  Turkey also supports  the PSH proposal for food 
security purposes , which was submitted by the G33. Another priority is SSM , to protect agricultural 
markets from import surges that may lead to devastating results  for poor and vulnerable farmers.  
We need meaningful and balanced outcomes in agriculture. We hope that Members will be able to 
bridge the gap in these areas before MC12.  
 
Apart from the multilateral agenda, I will also touch upon very briefly on plurilate rals. We are pleased 
with the good progress in respective JSIs and very much welcome outcomes during MC12.   
 
On your question about how to move these issues forward from September to MC12, let me just 
mention a few keywords, some of them was also highlight ed by you, the Chairs of the negotiating 
bodies and Members : using the time more wisely, an excellent planning, inclusiveness, transparency,  
a further focused work, a result and solution -oriented approach,  constructive engagement,  flexibility 
and compromis e. 
 
51. Bangladesh  
 
First of all, I thank you, Madam Chair, for convening the informal TNC meeting. Holding this after 
the Ministerial level meeting is very timely. I hope this will help spe ed up the negotiation process on 
various important trade issues as we  strive to achieve some tangible outcomes at MC12. I would 
reiterate what you said in your introduction, if we want concrete outcomes, we have to utilize this 
very little time and every little opportunity that we have at our disposal before MC12.   
 
We than k the distinguished Chairs of the different negotiating groups for their comprehensive 
presentations on the status of negotiations in their respective areas. I cannot agree more that we 
need to make further progress in order to contribute to the deliverabl es of MC12 and thereby 
strengthen the multilateral trading system.  
 
We echo the views of others on the ongoing negotiation of fisheries subsidies. I believe that the 
15 July Ministerial level TNC meeting gave us some directions to work for reaching consen sus, taking 
due care of the concerns of developing countries, particularly of the LDCs. In this regard, a summary 
reflecting the views expressed by our Ministers during the Fisheries TNC would be highly appreciated. 
It would help us navigate in the right d irection and find convergence. Let me reemphasize  that if we 
want to have the fisheries subsidy document as a possible deliverable of the forthcoming MC12, we WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 214 - 
 
  have to limit our debates within the mandate. Any deviation or derogation will only make things 
complicated and our job difficult.  
 
On the proposal to create a trust fund for the fisheries discipline, we are considering the concept 
note that we received recently. Countries like ours need technical assistance and capacity building 
in various areas. So,  we look at this proposal from that perspective. However, such funds have to 
be adequate, predictable, effective and beneficial. Moreover, such fund should not substitute the 
broader demand for special and differential treatment for certain categories of c ountries on the basis 
of development. In this regard, we have heard your reassuring voice.   
 
As you are aware, the LDC group has a submission under consideration by the General Council of 
the WTO. Before commenting on that, I like to take this opportunity to thank the Members once 
again for approving the LDC submission on the extension of transition under TRIPS Article 66.1.  
 
Now, the other submission of the LDC Group, as you know, is at the General Council seeking 
extension of LDC specific special and differential treatment  and other support measures for a certain 
period after graduation. Again, we are most thankful to the G eneral Council  Chair Ambassador Dacio 
Castillo for his informal consultations with different groups and individual delegations. The LDC group 
has recently received some inputs f rom different delegations and we are working on these. We hope 
that Members will favourably consider this submission as  an achievable outcome for the forthcoming 
Ministerial Conference .  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic is continuing its devastation around the world with second and third  waves , 
and we are not sure when we will have a respite. Some countries are opening up their eco nomies 
with substantial progress in vaccination , whereas most others are struggling to control the pandemic 
with very little vaccine coverage. This unequal and inequitable situation with regard to vaccination 
is not going to secure us as nobody is safe, if  everybody is not safe. The production and distribution 
of vaccines, therapeutics and other medical equipment necessary for the prevention, containment, 
and treatment of COVID -19 should be available to all, irrespective of who we are, where we are. In 
the immediate term, we need to scale up vaccine production through the sharing of technology and 
formulas with those pharmaceutical industries who have the capacity to produce vaccines , located 
in various parts of the world.  
 
We appreciate your role Madam D irector -General  in brin ging important stakeholders , including the 
WHO across the table to discuss possible way forward. We want to see tangible progress. In our 
view, TRIPS or any other instruments should not hinder unconditional, affordable, equita ble and 
timely access to medical advances made in fighting this deadly virus. Therefore, we would like to 
see completion in the negotiations of the waiver proposal at the TRIPS Council. We thank 
Ambassador Walker for his informal consultations with differe nt groups and individual delegations 
to find an early outcome.  
 
Finally, we look forward to working closely with all Members and engaging constructively in all the 
pending negotiations in the coming days.  
 
52. Egypt  
 
Thank you, Madame Director -General, for gi ving me the floor and for your sincere efforts to achieve 
concrete deliverables in MC12. We also thank the Chairs of the WTO negotiating groups for their 
thorough reports.  
 
Egypt would like to associate itself with the statements delivered by Mauritius and  Saudi Arabia on 
behalf of the African and Arab Groups, respectively.  
 
Time remaining till MC12 is very short. That is why I believe , like many of us , that we must be 
rational about the deliverables we can achieve on the multilateral level during the Ministerial, taking 
into consideration the limitations imposed by the pandemic.  
 
We need to urgently decide on the format of MC12 in a realistic manner that would ensure equal 
participation for all Members, given that we cannot predict how the pandemic will evo lve in the 
upcoming months.  
 WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 215 - 
 
  Speaking of the current global health crisis and its severe impact on the global economy, especially 
on developing countries, we should work towards an agreement during MC12 on a set of support 
measures highlighting the importa nt role the WTO can play in facilitating timely, affordable and 
equitable access to vaccines and therapeutics to combat the pandemic.  
 
We reiterate that WTO Members should collectively reach a comprehensive response package that 
includes a consensus reach ed on the TRIPS waiver proposal, and addresses all the broader concerns 
pertaining to supply -side constraints hampering vaccine production. In this regard, I would like to 
highlight the constructive contribution of the Joint WTO -WHO Meeting held last Wedne sday, and we 
commend you Madame D irector General  for your continued efforts in bringing together all relevant 
stakeholders, including international organizations and the private sector, to help Members further 
understand the relevant challenges, such as th ose related to financing, incentivizing research and 
production, raw material availability, and export restrictions, and the list goes on . 
 
I need not repeat our negotiating position on fisheries subsidies that was stated during the TNC 
Ministerial on 15 July, which we believe was a good opportunity to mobilize political will towards 
reaching an outcome on this long overdue issue. In addition, we thank you Madame Chair and 
Ambassador Wills for sharing the concept note entitled "Fisheries Subsidies WTO Fundi ng 
Mechanism " and welcome this initiative , as long as it is not a substitute for special and differential 
treatment in the text of the Agreement. We look forward to further constructive engagement with 
you and the membership on finalizing its elements.  
 
On agriculture, the number of new proposals and communications presented in the COA  SS meetings 
this week testifies the interest of Members to achieve an outcome come MC12. We refer to the 
proposals by the African Group regarding the historical imbalances in this important sector of 
international trade. We hope that a concrete outcome can be achieved, particularly in the mandated 
issues , and we urge Members to give priority to proposals that will contribute to improving food 
security in developin g countries during the pandemic.  
 
On development, we highlight that the impact of the current pandemic on developing countries and 
LDCs has exacerbated the economic and developmental challenges they face, and thus we call upon 
our development partners to t ake a fresh look at the G90 agreement -specific proposals in the 
CTD-SS in the context of the pandemic , and away from the political debate about special and 
differential treatment.  
 
On WTO reform, we believe that MC12 offers a good opportunity to give struc ture to our reform 
efforts. We need to engage in a serious dialogue on the wider balanced reform agenda that addresses 
the three intertwined core functions of this organization; namely we must restore the dispute 
settlement function, revitalize the negotia ting function, and activate the deliberative function with 
improved transparency. Needless to say, we must construct such an agenda with development at 
its core. Hence, adopting a visionary work program to that effect at MC12 would contribute to 
restoring credibility in the multilateral trading system and empower the WTO to face the 
unprecedented global challenges it faces. Scoring wins on individual negotiating subjects is no doubt 
needed. At the same time, we need to also address systemic challenges that hinder the functioning 
of this organization.  
 
To conclude Madame Chair, we stand ready to work constructively and in good faith with all Members 
towards meaningful and balanced outcomes at MC12 and beyond. Finally, I wish you all a well-
deserved summer break after the G eneral Council  meetings.  
 
53. Chad (LDCs)  
 
On behalf of the LDC Group, I would like to thank you for convening this meeting and for presenting 
your report on the status of the WTO negotiations. I would also like to thank t he Chairs of the 
negotiating groups who have reported to us on the work of their respective bodies.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, the LDC Group welcomes your engagement and congratulates you on the 
success of the TNC meeting at Ministerial level. We need to con tinue with this momentum. We 
believe it is essential to take account of the concerns expressed by the LDCs.  
 
Responding to the expectations of artisanal fishers, including poor and vulnerable fishers, is a key 
element of special and differential treatment.  From this perspective, an exemption from the main WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 216 - 
 
  ban on subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, as contained in Article 5.5(a) of 
the Chair's revised text, is an equally important component of special and differential treatment. We 
also reaffirm the importance of technical assistance to LDCs and welcome the idea of a trust fund to 
support and complement the fisheries agreement.  
 
With regard to the discussions on COVID -19 vaccines, the LDC Group welcomes the text -based 
process for initia ting negotiations. Indeed, the urgency is increasing due to the proliferation of new 
variants.  
 
Our Group also welcomes the fact that, in less than nine months after the onset of the COVID -19 
pandemic, the scientific community has developed vaccines. It is  difficult to accept  that 18 months 
after the outbreak of the pandemic, we are still not in a position to make this discovery accessible, 
and thus provide the basis of a response to help address this global public health challenge. The 
relevance of the mul tilateral trading system and the significance of the World Trade Organization 
are at stake.  
 
We take this opportunity to commend you for your efforts and for holding a high-level dialogue with 
the World Health Organization and the World Intellectual Proper ty Organization as part of discussions 
with industry and other stakeholders , to explore solutions to accelerate production and access to 
vaccines.  Such solutions should be brought into line with the waiver proposal in order to respond to 
the global emergen cy situation.  We welcome the approach to integrate possible solutions within a 
multilateral framework, with transparency and inclusivity as fundamental principles in the process.  
 
With regard to agriculture, the growing impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on o ur food security, as 
a result of the surge in food prices, underscores the relevance of the African Group submission 
contained in JOB/AG/206, which highlights a number of important areas where agricultural trade 
rules require reform.  We are in favour of tr ansparency and encourage transparency in the area of 
export competition. However, the notification requirements must be commensurate with the level of 
development of Members and should not add to the workload of LDCs in particular. In addition, we 
must giv e priority to the current challenges of reducing domestic support.  The negotiating framework 
to discuss reductions in domestic support must be fair and balanced. On the issue of cotton, we urge 
Members to take into account the next C -4 submission aimed at providing modalities for negotiations 
on the three pillars of export competition, domestic support and market access.  
 
We support the work of Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta, which will facilitate a possible text on 
agriculture for MC12.  The LDC Group al so wishes to congratulate Ambassador Kadra Ahmed Hassan 
for his effective management of the work in the Committee on Trade and Development in special 
session. Our Group stands ready to engage constructively and pragmatically on issues in the G 90 
context o n specific proposals submitted.  
 
The LDC Group reaffirms its full commitment to the ongoing negotiations and other work of the WTO. 
We support a strong, equitable and inclusive multilateral trading system that respects the rule of 
decision making by consen sus in the WTO.  We look forward to Members having a constructive state 
of mind with a view to achieving fruitful outcomes in relation to the 12th Ministerial Conference.  
 
The LDC Group will soon submit its consolidated proposals for MC12 on its priorities,  including LDC 
graduation, technology transfer, agriculture, implementation of preferential rules of origin and WTO 
reform.  We hope to provide relevant elements with a view to strengthening the important role that 
the WTO can play in global governance, in particular on trade regulation in terms of rulemaking , 
deliberations and implementation.  
 
Lastly, Madam Chair, regarding the Ministerial Conference, we thank you and the Chair of the 
General Council for your commitment and efforts to ensure an efficient organization of the Ministerial 
Conference this year.  From this perspective, we would need to have more information on travel, 
COVID -19 testing, vaccines and quarantines, which may be necessary to attend the Geneva -based 
event.  
 
On virtual access  to the Conference, it is important to ensure the proper functioning of connections 
and facilities, including drawing up a "plan B" for any possible difficulty when LDC ministers take the 
floor.  We found that the Ministerial meeting on fisheries subsidies seemed to work well in virtual 
mode. However, the WTO could begin now to gather information to assess the difficulties, if any, WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 217 - 
 
  experienced by Ministers from the LDCs. We should anticipate all possible issues that could arise for 
LDCs that have connection problems.  
 
Whatever the approach in trade negotiations, there is a need for understanding and flexibility in 
order to move in the same direction towards a positive and constructive outcome for all. We are 
aware that there is still a lot of work to be done for Members to reach agreements. However, we 
maintain a positive approach, and we remain committed, as far as possible, despite our numerous 
constraints. We are wholehearted in our willingness and we will continue to work constructively.  
 
54. Viet Nam  
 
First, I would like to thank you, Madam Director -General, for convening this meeting which is a very 
good opportunity for the membership to reflect on the TNC Ministerial meeting held on 15 July and 
on the preparations for MC12. We also thank the Chairs of the negotiating bodies for their respective 
reports.  
 
Second, with regard to fisheries subsidies negotiations, we share the assessment made by the Chair 
of the Negotiating Group on Rules. While the answers to both questions are mostly affirmative – 
which gives us confidence in the process – gaps between positions remain among a number of 
Members remain concerning key elements in the negotiating text. In this regard, we also share the 
stance of urgenc y to work harder to find a landing zone so that the negot iations can be concluded 
before MC12. Hence, we support the workplan that Ambassador Wills outlined to deal with the key 
differences , before coming back to line -by-line textual negotiations . Given that Ministers at the 
15 July TNC Ministerial meeting autho rised Heads of  Delegations to move the negotiations forward, 
we suggest that delegations be immediately involved in resolving the key issues when the 
negotiations resume after the summer break.  
 
Third, on agriculture, we agree that agriculture is critical ly important in terms of livelihoods and food 
security, poverty eradication and socio -economic development. We support agriculture reforms for 
sustainable development, ensuring a fair and undistorted agriculture production and trade. We call 
for continued support and constructive engagement to discuss the work on negotiations on domestic 
support in agriculture, humanitarian purchase of food for the World Food Programme, and our joint 
proposal on an SPS Declaration at MC12.  
 
Fourth, we highly appreciate the  High-level Dialogue co -hosted by Madam Director -General and the 
WHO Director -General, to step up efforts to increase COVID -19 vaccine production and equitable 
access. We are of the view that the demonstration of the WTO's concrete and effective response t o 
the pandemic by MC12 is a common goal of the membership , as t he WTO is a part of the global 
efforts in coping with the pandemic as mentioned in many ASEAN/APEC Leaders and Ministers' 
statements. We thank the facilitator of the multilateral process, Ambas sador Walker, for sharing 
with us his response ideas in a structured manner. We support his outline noting that the response 
contains a great deal of substance. We support having an independent document as well, in the form 
of a decision, to be action  -oriented , but it can also be flexible in the form of a declaration to achieve 
consensus. Given the pressing need for an effective response to the pandemic, we support pushing 
forward text -based discussions on the proposed TRIPS waiver and start text -based dis cussions on 
the WTO's response to the pandemic as soon as possible.  
 
Fifth, we support continuing the WTO reform discussions to ensure the WTO's relevance, especially 
on dispute settlement to restore the full operation of this very important function of t he WTO. It is 
also one of the greatest desires of Viet Nam and almost all Members. Of course, we support resuming 
discussions on this issue at the General Council level for results at MC12.  
 
Finally, Viet Nam reaffirms its commitment to working closely an d constructively with you, Madam 
Director -General, and with other Members for the preparations towards a successful MC12.  
 
55. Peru  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
My delegation would like to reiterate its gratitude to you and Ambassador Wills for your hard work 
in organizing the successful ministerial meeting we had last week in the context of this committee, 
which without doubt gave a fresh boost to these negotiations.  It has been encouraging to hear from WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 218 - 
 
  the membership that while there are a number of issues to be  discussed, the current consolidated 
text contains the basic elements that can lead us to consensus. I have also been pleased to hear 
recognition for the importance and cross cutting value of artisanal fishing for all.  
 
Regarding how to address the princip le of special and differential treatment, I would like to reiterate 
that Peru as a developing Member is aware of the need for the implementation of such treatment in 
this process. However, it is also aware that this implementation should not affect the amb ition and 
utility of any agreement we reach in the coming months. This balance will not be simple to achieve, 
and perhaps it will be the most complex task that we have ahead of us, but I am convinced that 
with the necessary flexibility we will be able to a ddress this challenge.  
 
Agriculture  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statement made  by Ambassador Mina from Australia on 
behalf of the Cairns Group. I would also like to thank Ambassador Abraham for her report and her 
hard work in coordinating the negotiations.  My delegation is aware of the gaps that still divide us in 
various aspects of the negotiations, but as a member of the Cairns Group, we believe that we must 
intensify our efforts to achieve concrete outcomes at the Ministeria l Conference this year, seeking 
to make progress of some kind on all three pillars of the negotiations . 
 
Regarding the domestic support pillar, Peru considers that the framework for negotiations put 
forward by some members of the Cairns Group contains the basic minimum elements for consensus 
on the subject. In this regard, we appreciate the recent incorporation of Lao PDR as a sponsor of 
the proposal and encourage other Members with similar interests to do the same.  
 
Electronic Commerce   
 
We support the wor k being done by the Informal Group. We believe that progress can be made in 
areas where there is a high degree of convergence, as demonstrated by the results of some small 
format working groups, and we support the commitment to intensify work to narrow the  gaps in 
those areas where consensus has not yet been reached. Our delegation believes that achieving a 
high-level outcome on e -commerce is crucial for promoting economic development, advancing the 
digital transformation of our economy, increasing the part icipation of our companies in our countries 
and improving access to goods and services in the new digital economy.  
 
Micro, small and medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs)  
 
My delegation supports the work being done by the Informal Group, in particular the packa ge of 
statements adopted by the Group, which we hope will have the broad support of WTO Members. The 
COVID -19 pandemic has had a severe impact on all our countries, especially developing countries, 
not only in terms of human lives but also in terms of live lihoods and life projects. We are fully 
convinced that international trade represents a unique opportunity for our MSMEs to quickly resume 
their activities and contribute to the necessary economic recovery process, and that the WTO can 
make a significant c ontribution to facilitating these opportunities and making them viable.  
 
The Path to MC12  
 
The return of the summer break will leave us in a race against time to achieve the deliverables that 
we consider feasible by the end of the year.  Peru remains commit ted to all WTO negotiating 
processes, and considers that with increased efforts and commitment , together with flexibility , we 
will be able to achieve an agreement on fisheries subsidies, outcomes in agriculture and progress in 
restoring the Dispute Settlement Body.  
 
56. Vanuatu  (Pacific Group)   
 
I deliver this statement on behalf of the Pacific Group and we associate ourselves to  the statements 
made by the ACP Group and the LDC Group. Our Group thanks the Chairs of the various negotiating 
groups for their reports and for their efforts in assisting Members to move the negotiations forward 
in preparation for MC12 in November.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, this remains a top priority for the Pacific Group. We commend the Chair of 
the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR) for his continuing work and the release of a revised text on WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 219 - 
 
  30 June. We also commend the Director -General and the Chair of the NGR for successfully convening 
the Ministerial TNC meeting on 15 July 2021. O ur Ministers  stated that the draft text that was issued 
is a good basis for negotiations going forward. They have encouraged delegations to engage, 
negotiate and deliver an ou tcome before MC12. Our Ministers also recognized that there is much 
work to address the imbalances in the draft text which must focus on the disciplines on the reduction 
in harmful subsidies , and not discipline fisheries management. This agreement must not  bring 
fisheries management under scrutiny and must not undermine the rights of Members, especially 
coastal states , under international agreements . Special and differential treatment  is critical. We must 
deliver meaningful special and differential treatmen t for those that do not have yet sufficient 
capacity, especially for small island states that depend on fisheries. We note your reference, 
Director -General, to the technical assistance and capacity building concept and some of the 
understandings from the i nformal consultations held earlier this week. We commend your initiative 
for technical assistance and capacity building to establish a mechanism, and we look forward to 
further discussions on this. We note in your statement that this funding is not a subst itute for special 
and differential treatment . Notwithstanding, our priority is to complete the negotiations on the text 
so that we can be clear on our commitments before we frame the scope of the funding. Our view is 
that technical assistance and capacity building must not contemplate the WTO coming anywhere 
near a fisheries management system as we have consistently maintained. We note the timeframe 
being proposed for the completion of the fisheries subsidies agreement and we support this proposal. 
We will commit ourselves to that engagement.  
 
On development issues, the Pacific Group thanks the Chair for continuing to take this work  forward , 
to deepen discussions on the ten G90 proposals.  
 
On services, we support intensified discussions to find solutions to  the adverse economic impact of 
COVID -19 on Members' services sectors, especially for those most vulnerable and disproportionately 
affected due their dependence on one or two sectors. In terms of the services sector itself, we 
believe that many Members rec ognize the significant contribution of services to their economies , but 
the emphasis in the WTO is  not yet  there.  We hope that a new focus on services be considered so 
that there is an outcome on this at MC12.  
 
We consider the work on the WTO's response to COVID -19 as a priority for MC12. We are already 
witnessing a third wave of infections of COVID -19 and new variants. This will continue to affect our 
economies, economic recovery and rebuilding. We need to work to prioritize our negotiations on 
elements of available WTO policy tools that can ensure equitable access to affordable vaccines and 
medical supplies , which are required to help us all to combat COVID -19. The Pacific Group looks 
forward to engaging in the various process, including the horizontal process established by the Chair 
of the General Council and led by Ambassador Walker to deliver an outcome.  We reiterate our 
engagement to engaging constructively in negotiations and work towards concrete outcomes for 
MC12.  
 
57. Thailand  
 
I have heard there are a number of differences here, but I am still not losing hope.  Thailand has a 
number of issues that we believ e should be shown in the MC12 package. As I stated at the previous 
TNC meeting, the past (legacy issues such as fisheries subsid ies and agriculture), present (the WTO 
response to the pandemic), and future issues (WTO Reform) are still on the table, and we remain to 
adhere to this expectation.  
 
In the interest of time, I would like to highlight 3 issues that we consider are important to our future 
work:  
 
First, on the agriculture issue, while we support the transparency element and recent proposals, we 
are looking for an agriculture package for MC12 that includes Domestic Support. We are not yet 
ready to give up. We also appreciate the Chair of COA  SS' statement that the draft text will be 
circulated next week, and we are willing to participate. As members of the Cairns Group, we will 
reach out and engage with other Members who have not been our like -minded in order to turn them 
into like -minded friends.  
 
Second, on fisheries subsid ies, I would like to show my thankfulness to Madame Chair and 
Ambassador Will  for your tireless efforts and leadership in convening the Ministerial TNC Meeting. 
Thailand  is strongly supportive on the Chairman 's current text. We agree with nearly 80% of the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 220 - 
 
  text, and for the remaining 20%, we are preparing to engage with other Membe rs in order to reach 
a mutually agreed outcome.  
 
However, we do not want to see any new elements or issues introduced into the text at this stage, 
as we are talking about a 20 -year negotiation. If any new issues arise, we should work on them as 
part of a work program. We also can hear a lot of support in the Chair 's text, and we are looking 
forward to support ing the Chair to reach the possible landing zone.  
 
Third, the WTO response to the pandemic. This is an issue that is dear to our heart, and we cannot  
thank you enough for Madame Chair initiative on the WTO and WHO High Level Dialogue. Such a 
dialogue is really useful and informative, and I hope you will hold it again in the future to help 
Members gain a better understanding of the technical aspects.  
 
On the substance, based on the things that I heard from many consultations in many configurations, 
there is common ground that Members need to do as much as possible to accelerate access to 
vaccines and nobody in this room has disputed that.  
 
I heard from the WTO and WHO High Level Dialogue that there are a lot of trade related issues that 
the WTO can deal with in the future, but since we have a milestone at MC12, I am not confident that 
we can take up everything at this moment. However, this is the one are a that the WTO can engage 
positively with the world economy in the future. While we have to be more practical in finding 
outcomes that we can achieve at MC12, we can do more work program related to trade and health 
issue.  
 
Finally, all of the issues we nee d to work on in the future are text -based on the entire package by 
October at the latest. Otherwise, if the Ministerial TNC Meeting is held in a virtual format, the 
Ministers will be able to make statements but will not be able to engage in any meaningful discussion. 
Therefore, if we have virtual MC12, the text must first be agreed upon by Ambassadors in Geneva 
before being further presented to capital s. 
 
I am confident that Madame Chair and the distinguished Chairs of Negotiating Bodies will establish 
the text that will assist us in reaching a meaningful MC12 in November.  
 
58. Uganda  
 
At the outset, my delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by Mauritius, Chad and 
Jamaica on behalf of the Africa, LDC and ACP Groups.  We thank you very much for your report. We 
thank the Chair of the General Council for his report and the Chairs of the negotiating groups for 
their reports.  
 
Madam Director -General, MC12 is months away now. While the format and other modalities are yet 
to be agreed upon, it can be agreed that it is critical that any outcome of MC12 is meaningful, not 
just to a  few Members but to the entire membership. This means that those issues that are of 
common interest to all Members must be prioritized to allow us to make the most efficient use of 
our time.  
 
After close to four years since the last Ministerial Conference in 2017, the world is watching, much 
more than ever before, eagerly waiting for the contribution of the WTO in improving the livelihoods 
of its Members especially the developing and least developed among them.  
 
Addressing trade distorting domestic support , reinvigorating the 1998 Work Program on Electronic 
Commerce as mandated by our Ministers at various Ministerial meetings and reconsideration of the 
Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions , reviewing the provisions on special and 
different ial treatment in line with the existing Ministerial mandate , and ensuring effective market 
access under the LDCs services waiver, in pursuit of trade policy instruments that will promote 
industrialization for structural transformation , remain our prioritie s. Indeed, reform of the WTO for 
us encompasses addressing many of these longstanding issues.  
 
Madam Director -General, it is almost impossible to imagine moving forward on these and other 
important issues when the COVID -19 pandemic is still raging on , bringing about new challenges 
every day. It is important that the WTO is seen to deliver and indeed delivers a solution or solutions 
to help in overcoming the pandemic and recovering from its impact. We applaud the progress in the WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 221 - 
 
  facilitator -led process in t his regard and stand ready to work with all Members to achieve a 
meaningful result.  
 
Finally, Madam Director -General, we very much welcome the work being done in fisheries subsidies 
negotiations in pursuit of SDG 14.6. In the same vein, because it is of c ritical importance to us, we 
invite Members to exhibit the same level of ambition in completing the Doha Round pursuant to SDG 
target 17.10 , as one of the key means of implementation of the Agenda 2030.  
 
59. Cameroon  
 
Cameroon associates itself with the statem ents delivered by Mauritius on behalf of the African Group 
and Jamaica on behalf of the ACP  Group . From the outset, we congratulate you on the quality of the 
organi zation of the TNC meeting of 15 July on fisheries subsidies and reiterate our constructive 
commitment to making the 12th Ministerial Conference a success.  
 
Madam Chairperson, you have highlighted the considerable differences between the Members  on the 
issue of fisheries subsidies negotiations and indicated the interest of all Members in showing 
flexibility if we are to reach a fair and equitable agreement at the 12th Ministerial Conference. As so 
well-elaborated by you, the outcome of the said negotiations will have to duly respond to the 
mandate which calls for: prohibiting certain subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing , 
eliminating subsidies to IUU fishing , and granting special and differential treatment that takes into 
account the development needs of countries. Be assured that Cameroon will work with all Members  
towards a text that effectively prohibits harmful subsidies, ensures effective sanctions against 
operators engaged in illegal fishing and takes into account the development needs of developing 
countries, as well as the polluter -pays principle that governe d any sustainability instrument. 
Artisanal fisheries cannot be held responsible for the much -maligned actions of industrial fisheries, 
on which the instrument should focus. The outcome of these talks will largely depend on the 
willingness of subsidising Members to reduce their subsidies.  
 
We welcome your efforts to establish a trust fund and your willingness to take into account the 
remarks made by Members in the establishment and operation of this fund. 
 
With regard to agriculture, we welcome the concrete proposals made by the African Group , which 
are a solid basis for concluding discussions on domestic support measures, sanitary and 
phytosanitary rules and the holding of public stocks. It would be desirable to see the same drive to 
reach a minimum agreemen t in the area of agriculture as observed on another subject. Our 
populations have been waiting for concrete answers on agriculture for a very long time and the 
relevance of this organization at MC12 will be judged by its capacity to respond to these 
expect ations. Though we commend the efforts of Members in moving forward negotiations on 
agriculture, it may be wise not to limit our ambitions to the adoption of a work programme whose 
outcome remains uncertain.  
 
Concerning the response to the COVID -19 pandemic , we reiterate our appreciation for the decision 
of the President of the General Council, Ambassador C astillo , who has appointed Ambassador Walker 
to coordinate this action and renew our support for them. The WTO cannot remain silent at a time 
when humanit y is facing a pandemic with multifaceted consequences. The waiver of certain rules on 
intellectual property rights, the limitation of export restrictions, and the support for financing small 
and medium -sized enterprises proposed by Côte d'Ivoire,  are all n ecessary measures from which we 
will gain by giving our approval. This is why we welcome the textual discussions on the various 
related proposals and intend to work with all Members to bring them to a rapid conclusion.  
 
Finally, speaking of development, Ca meroon draws the attention of all to the fact that any reflection 
on the future and the reform of this organi zation cannot be without an effective special and 
differential treatment. For this reason, we remain attentive to the discussions underway in the 
Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session , and share the concerns of the Chairman 
of this Committee, Ambassador K adra, who invite d the Members to truly listen to the proposals of 
the G90 and to show a constructive commitment. We are open to any new approach that allows 
developing countries to meet their development needs and address systemic inequalities.  
 
 
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 222 - 
 
  ANNEX 3 
STATEMENT S JAMAICA (ACP GROUP) AND CHAD (LDC GROUP) AT THE E-COMMERCE 
STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS HELD ON 5 JULY 2021  
Following the requests of Jamaica and Chad under item 6 , the statement s made by Jamaica on 
behalf of the ACP Group and by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group at the Structured Discussions on 
E-Commerce held on 5 July 2021, are  included below as part of th e Minutes of the General Council 
meeting.  
 
1. Jamaica (ACP Group)  
 
On behalf of the ACP Group, as many would be aware, we have been solid supporters of 
reinvigorating the exploratory discussions elaborated in the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce and have been consistent in the General Council meeting in not only supporting 
structured discussions, but also by requesting that such discussions cover all issues within the scope 
of the Work Programme.  
 
In addition to the question of customs duties and  electronic transmissions, other issues raised in the 
Work Programme should also be discussed within the structured discussions, including data 
localization, data flows, source code, and other issues pertinent to the digital divide that hinder the 
full par ticipation of ACP countries. These discussions would encompass goods ordered online and 
delivered physically as well as goods and services ordered and delivered online. Issues regarding 
infrastructure also need to be discussed.  
 
Deliberations under the Wor k Programme should explore solutions that support the inherent needs 
of all the WTO Members, particularly those amongst us that need to be enabled  if we are to advance 
in closing the digital divide. The Group is aware that some Members are seeking to defin e electronic 
transmissions in the JSI plurilateral negotiations. While such a definition may appear to be a 
negotiated position, we are cognizant that over time a lot of debates would have taken place in the 
name of the E -commerce Work Programme in both th e Council for Trade in Goods and the Council 
for Trade in Services.  
 
Setting aside the divergences in views on whether electronic transmissions are a good or a service. 
We are interested in a clear and concrete review of some of the positions put forward by South Africa 
and India, for example, and other Members in a manner that helps us resolve this issue before 
MC12. We must keep in mind that there are revenue loss concerns, as well as the impact on 
consumers in developing countries, who would bear the co st of tariff. The same considerations will 
also be necessary for internal taxes, and the resolution on the issue of electronic transmission. We 
need not only take into account the present situation and activities of our economies, but also the 
future of wh at digital goods and contents will realistically become for all countries, as well as the 
level of technology that would ensure a level playing field, as the digital divide begins to close.  
 
2. Chad (LDC Group)  
 
E-Commerce: Challenges and opportunities  
 
I take the floor on behalf of the LDC Group. Thank you for organizing this discussion on a very topical 
issue, which is the relevance of electronic commerce in the present and the challenges and 
opportunities that go along.  
 
Chair, as you may recall the LDC Group submitted a communication in November 2019 
(WT/GC/W/787) highlighting a number of obstacles, barriers and challenges that impede electronic 
commerce from flourishing in our economies. We can highlight for instance lack of affordable ICT 
infrastructur e; limited use electronic payments; weak regulatory frameworks, and lack of digital 
skills among enterprises.  
 
According to ITU indicators for 2019, only 25% of LDC urban areas have internet connectivity in the 
home and 35 % using the internet overall, in cluding mobile telephony. In contrast, only 10% 
connectivity at home in rural areas, with 19 % use of the internet overall, including mobile telephony. 
These figures are in stark contrast with those of developed countries and many developing countries. 
Internet connectivity is part of the bedrock of e -commerce -based infrastructure, without which we WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 223 - 
 
  cannot have e -commerce. Following the outbreak of the pandemic, the electronic commerce wave 
provided a significant lift to established players, such as platform s and third -party marketplaces, 
while traditional bricks and mortar companies seeking to sell online did not achieve the same 
success. This reflects the challenge in adapting business models in the short term related to 
operational costs, supply chain, reg ulatory approvals.  
 
On the consumer side, habits and trust represent the other side of the coin to enable e -commerce 
to develop. Here we note that a change of mindset cannot occur overnight, even in a particular 
context such as the pandemic. For instance, preference for cash on delivery represents one aspect 
of a lack of trust in online payment solutions.  
 
More fundamentally, lack of internet remains a critical hurdle for a successful increase in electronic 
commerce for LDCs. Towards the end of last year 2020, UNCTAD reported  that only 19% of people 
in LDCs used the internet, in contrast this figure stood at 87% in developed countries. This is a 
challenge, which could not be addressed or be tackled in the two decades of the E -commerce Work 
Programme. Moreover, LDCs require ass istance in building the necessary infrastructure for the 
internet to take root and spread. There may be signs that such an endeavour could be achieved 
faster than we could have imagined. Indeed, one clear principle in the field of information 
communication  technology is that progress is not linear as shown by Moore's law and the power of 
ever faster processors. Recently, the founder of SpaceX, announced the launching of Starlink, an 
internet broadband service capable of covering all corners of the world, ex cluding the polar region. 
This would seem like science fiction for LDCs, yet it is not. It is the present future of our world. Yet 
we all must be included.  
 
Certainly, on the infrastructural side, public -private partnership type initiatives can be more co st-
effective given the high and if not prohibitive cost of the initial expenditure needed to build an 
internet network from scratch. Where governments can play a more active role is on the regulatory 
side, by for instance promoting an electronic commerce s trategic framework. A national and regional 
strategy can streamline initiatives across different sectors, enable best practice sharing and 
contribute towards achieving scale. This can pertain, for instance, to data and data protection. With 
a clear sense o f the rules around data protection, confidence can be increased among consumers 
and businesses on how, for instance, privacy is protected. This of course requires technological 
assistance and also adaptation to the realities of each country. A strategic ou tlook must also look 
into the issue of fees and taxes. We note that a certain number of countries such as Canada and 
Australia are pioneering systems to considerably simplify collection of taxes on MSMEs and cross 
border trade carried out online. We can de finitely take inspiration from such initiatives to support 
cross border digital trade, and in particular that of our own enterprises, which by our nature of LDCs 
are all MSMEs. We would be keen to learn more how the systems put in place by these pioneers c an 
support enterprises from LDCs and women entrepreneurs, to tap into new opportunities and facilitate 
their exports.  
 
With regard to skills, the pandemic brought to light the power of online learning and education. 
Innovative learning tools could be adap ted to the needs of entrepreneurs and aspiring start -ups to 
acquire the knowhow in running an online business. Given that language can constitute a barrier, 
adapting existing learning manuals and guides to e -commerce by universities, trade associations 
and professional bodies into languages of LDCs, could render the knowledge and information more 
accessible.  
 
The pandemic has forced us all to rethink how businesses operate including sectors that can be 
regarded as viable, as fast growing and rapidly evolvi ng, electronic commerce has gradually come 
to make inroads in countless sectors. From music, books to news and movies, we see that even 
content can be digitalized raising concerns about revenue loss from customs. More fundamentally, 
this raises the questio n of what sort of business models can thrive in such an environment?  
 
This is a significant challenge, but at the same time we are presented with a unique opportunity that 
must be seized to support the growth of our businesses and in particular MSMEs. To be able to assist 
in this, we must adopt an empirical approach, mindful not to simply replicate what has already been 
done elsewhere, since each country has unique assets and comparative advantage. Carrying out 
needs assessments at country level can suppor t better understanding where to begin in rolling out 
a strategic electronic commerce reform programme. Such assessments in LDCs need financial 
assistance. So, we also reach out to our trading partners to support us in this regard. To conclude 
Chair, unlike  previous waves of globalization that mainly lifted the large boats, electronic commerce WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 224 - 
 
  can support smaller boats, benefit from the rising tide. For this, we still need to fulfil certain 
prerequisites as has already been touched upon such as greater inter net access, upgrading skills, a 
coherent regulatory framework and an integrated financial and logistics system to name a few. These 
are all relevant to the development dimension underlying the electronic work programme, which 
form an integral part of the d iscussions. We are hopeful that these issues will receive the adequate 
attention.  
 
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 225 - 
 
  ANNEX 4  
STATEMENTS AT THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL ON 2 8 JULY 2021  
Statement by the General Council Chair  at the 2 8 July Informal General Council Meeting  
 
Opening Statement  
 
Good morning and welcome to this informal meeting of the General Council. Thank you for attending 
at such short notice.  I have convened this urgent meeting to discuss the matter of the appointment  
of officers of subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  As you know, this matter is included 
in the agenda of our meeting – that is Item 2 2. Before I begin my statement on this issue, I would 
kindly ask the CTG Chair, Ambassador Purevsuren of  Mongolia, to report in this informal setting on 
the CTG consideration of this matter.  
 
[The Chairman of the Goods Council provides his report .] 
 
Thank you very much, and I would like to place on record my sincere appreciation to the CTG Chair 
for his tireless efforts and engagement on this issue. Let me recall at this point that, on my part I 
held consultations regarding this matter, further to the call made to me as GC Chair. I met with 
group coordinators on 28 June and 1 July, and I then sent a commu nication to all delegations on 
2 July in which I attached a proposed slate of names that was emerging from the consultations, 
together with two additional understandings. It was then brought to my attention that additional 
time was needed for some further consultations due to concerns expressed on the process.  
 
At the Informal Meeting of the General Council on 22 July, I provided a brief update and noted that 
unfortunately a solution had still not been found. As the Goods Council Chair has just noted, the CTG 
meeting reconvened on 26 July and resumed the item on the appointment of officers, but regrettably 
the impasse could not be overcome.  
 
Yesterday, the Director -General and I called for a meeting with group coordinators and some 
delegations.  At that me eting, the Director -General and I emphasized our deep concern about the 
systemic and institutional repercussions that this continuing stalemate bears for the Organization. I 
think it is fair to say that we had a frank exchange of views on this matter.  
 
I think it is also to be noted that strong concerns on the overall process on the appointment of Chairs 
were reiterated. In this context, I heard repeated calls for reforming the overall exercise. Specifically, 
I took note of the call for increased transparen cy in the appointment process, and of the need to 
avoid the miscommunication at different levels  and unnecessary confusion that have occurred. As 
General Council Chair, it is my strong view that every effort should be made to avoid such situation 
in the f uture.   
 
It is with this in mind that I am instructing the Chairs of the Goods Council and of the Services 
Council to immediately begin consultations on the overall process of appointment of officers in the 
respective subsidiary bodies so that the process  can be reformed, and that this situation does not 
arise again. I would also ask the Chairs to report on their consultations at the next General Council 
meeting.   
 
At this moment, and on this basis, I appeal to your sense of shared responsibility in givin g positive 
consideration to the slate that I attached to my communication convening this Informal General 
Council meeting.  I very much hope that we can formally agree on it under Item 22. Let me stress 
that this is an exceptional situation, that called fo r an unusual/exceptional response. Let us all ensure 
that this does not happen again in the future. This slate comes with the additional understanding 
that the CTG and CTS Chairs will undertake consultations on the overall exercise on the appointment 
of officers to avoid a repeat of such a situation in the future.  
 
Closing Statement  
 
Given our discussion today, I will make a proposal to the delegations once we resume in Formal 
Mode. The proposal would be for the General Council to take note of the consensus  on the proposed 
slate of names for the appointment of officers to the subsidiary bodies of the Goods Council, as 
attached to the convening notice sent to all delegations on 27 July with the understanding that I, as WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 226 - 
 
  Chair of the General Council, would unde rtake consultations on the overall exercise on the 
appointment of officers to avoid a repeat of such a situation in the future.  If this is agreeable, we 
can move forward.  
 
Statement by the Goods Council Chairman at the 2 8 July Informal General Council Mee ting 
 
The exercise on  the Appointment of Chairs to the subsidiary bodies of the Council on Trade in Goods 
is the cornerstone of the functioning of a large number of regular bodies at the WTO. Although the 
Guidelines for Appointment of Officers of WTO bodie s in document WT/L/510 expressly states that 
Members should regard the appointment exercise as a relatively routine level and housekeeping 
function, the truth is that Members do not seem to see the election in this way and as a result , it 
has been increasi ngly difficult to conclude this routine function.  
 
My predecessor , Ambassador Mikael Anzén (Sweden ), launched the process at the CTG level 
immediately after the new General Council Chairperson was elected in February of this year. Despite 
a large number o f consultations with the regional group coordinators, Members were not able to 
agree on the slate of names for the Formal CTG meeting o n 31 March and 1 April. As a result, the 
CTG agreed to suspend agenda item 3  concerning the  appointment of officers to th e subsidiary 
bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods to allow the outgoing Chairperson, Ambassador Anzén, to 
continue his consultations on the slate of names of the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies.  
 
On 23 June, Ambassador Anzén sent a communication to the regional group coordinators indicating 
that despite numerous meetings and consultations it had not been possible to reach agreement on 
a slate of names and that two group coordinators have recommende d that he request the 
Chairperson of the General Council, Ambassador Dacio Castillo (Honduras ), to seek a solution to the 
current impasse. Ambassador Anzén had made the request and Ambassador Castillo ha d accepted 
to oversee the process.  
 
On 2 July, after  the consultation with the regional group coordinators, Ambassador Castillo sent the 
communication informing Members that the group coordinators had reached an agreement and 
transmitted to agree the slate of names to their Members for their consideration. As part of 
Ambassador Castillo 's consultations, a future understanding was reached, namely that the CTG and 
the CTS Chairs would undertake as soon as possible consultations on the overall exercise on the 
appointment of officers to avoid a repeat of such a situation in the future. He noted that there was 
an additional understanding regarding the allocation of the Chairpersonships for 2022 and he would 
inform accordingly the succeeding General Council Chair. Finally, Ambassador Castillo noted that it 
has been  an extremely difficult process and the proposed slate has reflected a very delicate balance. 
For this reason, he has requested Members' collaboration and utmost flexibility for adopting the slate 
and allowing the 14 subsidiary bodies to continue operating  normally in the coming months.  
 
On 7 July, Ambassador Castillo sent a second communication noting that it has been brought to his 
attention that additional time was needed for some future consultations and that, as a result, the 
issue of the appointment of officers would remain suspended to allow those future consultations to 
take place. In addition, he indicated that it would be resumed at the appropriate moment by the 
CTG Chair. On 14 July, Ambassador Castillo held another meeting of the group coordinat ors, but 
agreement was still not possible. At the same evening, I convened an Informal CTG meeting with 
the objective of reporting on the situation. I did not make a report, but instead noted that  it had 
come to my attention that future consultations were needed. I followed up with additional 
consultations with the group coordinators on 22 and 26 July and unfortunately consensus was still 
not possible.  
 
In a communication dated 23 July, I also informed the Membership that the EU Member States ' 
nominee to Chair the Committee on TRIMs, Mr . Tamás Vattai (Hungary ), was in the process of 
moving and would no longer be available to Chair the Committee for which he had been nominated. 
As a consequence, EU Member States nominee to Chair the Committee on  TRIMs is now Ms . Vilma 
Peltonen (Finland ).  
 
On Monday, 26 July, two days ago , I convened an Informal CTG meeting to report on the situation 
including the fact that no consensus was possible on the slate of names. A number of Members took 
the floor to exp ress their disappointment that a solution had not been found and they voiced their 
systemic concerns about the blockage in this routine exercise. The formal meeting of the CTG, which 
had been suspended on the subject, namely agenda item 3, since 31 March a nd 1 April was WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 227 - 
 
  reconvened immediately afterwards . It was agreed that my report as well as the statement of the 
Members who so wished would be recorded in the minutes. The Council for Trade in Goods agreed 
to conclude agenda item 3 and took note that I woul d make a report to the General Council.  
 
It is quite distressing and a sad reflection of what seems to be a systemic inability of this organization 
to agree on anything. Five months after a housekeeping procedure was launched and after multiple 
efforts by  many, including the Chairperson of the General Council, consensus remained elusive and 
Members have yet to agree on the slate of names of the 14 CTG subsidiary bodies. Furthermore, it 
is an unprecedented situation . This is the first time that Members have  been unable to agree on a 
slate of names at the CTG level and that has come to the General Council for resolution. I cannot 
overemphasize the importance of finalizing this task.  
 
To my knowledge, there are already two subsidiary bodies that lack a Chairp erson . We run the high 
risk of facing serious organizational problems with regular committee s being placed under such a 
situation  if this is not sorted out immediately. In addition, I would like to remind Members that the 
continued lack of agreement will b ring serious repercussions to the organization during a Ministerial 
year. I urge Members not to underestimate the negative impact that this may have on the WTO. For 
this reason, I call all Members to exercise maximum flexibility and urge them to continue e ngaging 
with the view to solving this issue as soon as possible. I will be requesting the Secretariat to record 
this statement as my report on the agenda item 22 in the minutes of the meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
At their request, the statements by India on  the 2 8 July Informal General Council Meeting and by 
Thailand on the Appointment of Officers to the Subsidiary Bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods 
– Report by the Chair of the Council for Trade in Goods (Agenda Item 22) are incorporated in the 
minutes  of this meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Statement by India  at the 2 8 July Informal General Council Meeting  
 
For the purpose of transparency , let me be very clear that it is  India which has faced this problem 
of mistrust, lack of communication or misinformation. Therefore, it is my duty to explain to the 
Membership what has happened because most of the Membership  were are n ot part of these 
deliberations during at least last one month.  
 
At the CTG meeting on 26 July , an attempt was made by some Mem bers from a particular group to 
portray that India's position on the issue was aimed at targeting a particular Member that is Mexico 
and the GRULAC Group. Nothing can be far from the truth than that . We have been clear an d 
unequivocal throughout this proce ss that our  concern  is on systemic issues with respect to 
appointment of Chairs for WTO bodies in this organization not only for subsidiary bodies but also for 
the regular bod ies. Therefore, we completely reject the statements made by some Members of the 
GRULAC delegations and Member of the Mexican delegation at the CTG meeting on 26 July.  
 
If our objection is to Mexico or GRULAC as it was portrayed on 26 July then India could have objected 
to Mexico becoming CTS Chair this yea r and also could have objecte d to the GRULAC Chair s of TBT 
and SPS in the earlier years. Members may note that GRULAC has held the TBT Chairmanship twice 
since 2015 and the SPS Committee four times since 2015. Incidentally , one of our good friend s from 
Costa Rica, Ambassador Gloria  Abraham Peralta , is the sitting CoA  SS Chair . So, this notion of trying 
to create that India is against GRULAC Members is very unfortunate.  
 
As the CTG Chair has said, for India , the Chairmanship of these Committees is a housekeeping issue 
whereas for some delegations it is due to pressure from their capital and unfortunately pressure 
from private business interests . They have stated this on several occasions. Therefore, it is clear  
who is taking it as housekeeping job and who is taking it as some other thin g – trying to use every 
tool and pressure possible to get the Chairmanship of TBT. This is  most unfortunate during  this 
entire process which most of the Members are not aware of, and if they are aware of , I will plea to 
them to please come out and speak th e truth. We politely request colleagues in the Mexican WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 228 - 
 
  delegation to stop this misinformation campaign and also appeal to our friends from GRULAC not to 
fall into this trap or campaign being led by some individuals.  
 
Narrating a story a hundred times will  not make it become a fact . India has good, cordial and friendly 
relationship with both Mexico and the GRULAC region, and an attempt by some individuals to portray 
it otherwise does not benefit neither them nor the countries they represent. The recent exam ples 
during COVID pandemic which had shown how we have helped each other is one more example 
contrary to the narrative being built in the CTG and in the WTO. Few individuals are trying to portray 
their leadership in Geneva showing Geneva highlights and coming on the way of bilateral 
relationships of Members . These are highly deplorable. So called "Friends of the System" should 
guide correctly people who are being basically misled and misguided . People who are talking about 
transparency should be more transparent in their narrative and behaviour.  
 
For us , the concern is not one Member . Our issue is with the process. Let me illustrate the procedural 
fallacy we have encountered during this process and bringing that out to the large Membership is 
the sole purpose of our position on this matter. Nothing that I am not going to say will be new to 
the GC Chair, the CTG Chair, the former CTG Chair, and incidentally the CTG Chair who is my 
coordinator. This is for dissemination to the larger Membership . In March  2021, the outgoing CTG 
Chair had clearly communicated to the GC Chair at that time that  he has not been able to finali ze 
the names for the two subsidiary bodies because of objections from India and one another Member.  
 
However, during the consultation that you undertook to finali ze the slate , you were not informed of 
our objection and you w ere given that only the Committee on Agriculture was left to be finali zed and 
this reinforced what the CTG Chair has just now stated that the former CTG Chair has communicated 
to you that two coordinators approached you, that means out of four , two coordin ators approached 
you to resolve that issue which was on the C ommittee on Agriculture involving developing countries 
and GRULAC. This was a clear failure of the process and if I may use the strong word  – hiding 
information to the judge while asking the judg e to deliver justice in this matter. The entire process 
was conducted by regional coordinators , and our regional coordinator was aware of our objection . 
But it is unfortunate that they have not relate d them in that meeting and I would be hoping that the 
regional coordinator will at least enlighten other Members on the reason for not think ing that India 
has not withdrawn from this.  
 
It has also been mentioned that there was a gentlem en's agreement last year on the TBT 
Chairman ship for Mexico this year and t hat should be honoured. It seems that this gentlem en's 
agreement has only taken place between the outgoing CTG Chair, incidentally he was from GRULAC, 
and Mexico or at least known only to them and not to other regional coordinators. My request here 
would b e that if it is known to any regional coordinator who are present here representing other 
groups to please come out with the truth if they are aware of this . India, which I have narrated 
before, the Director -General  and the GC Chair as well as regional coordinators, India will take it as 
new facts on the table and move on, but hiding that information and spreading that there was a 
gentlemen 's agreement, if we had known this , they could have informed us right at the beginning 
of the process and we would not have wasted what they are saying we have wasted five months or 
seven months, in the beginning itself we would not have wasted this time that if regional coordinators 
would have said that yes this deal was done last year and TBT is not on offer for any Membership 
except Mexico then we would have moved on and we would have withdrawn our candidature . This 
lack of communication has created this impasse for seven months.  
 
Due to this lack of transparency on the part of everyone i nvolved, that is the regional coordinators, 
the Chair of the concerned bodies , we have landed in the situation. Our primary concern here is the 
lack of a transparent system . Many Members have been in the receiving end of this non -transparent 
process and it  has continued for many years . I am new to the system so I checked the record s. Last 
year, we also had the same thing . The slate , I was told , was cleared just before the summer break . 
So it is not a new thing for this organization to ponder . Everyone  has bilaterally talk ed about the 
system but they have not tried sincerely to solve this impasse for future years. And there is a reason 
for that, because it is said it helps interests of very few here  – interests of some who conveniently 
fix Chairs at these bod ies for their convenience and I am using strong words here because we have 
seen this process now for six months very closely and we have seen how people talk to each other 
and try to communicate misinformation.  
 
It is because of this that we see some indi viduals repeatedly taking Chairmanship of one or another 
Committee year after year or what is called " committee shopping" . Some of them are senior WT/GC/M/19 2 
 
- 229 - 
 
  colleagues . This w ould have  encourage d younger colleagues for Chairmanship s and mentor them . 
Unfortunately , we do not see that happening in the WTO. Similarly, we also see this practice of 
Chairmanships being exchanged and traded for future years . Side deals and so -called gentlemen 's 
agreement even when there are no established rules of procedures for doing so . What we call as 
future trading and, in this case, it was short selling of chairmanship because the 2020 chairmanship 
for TBT was not up for developing countries, it was a slot for developed countries. Therefore, the re 
was the  candidate from Russia which then went to Australia  – so this argument of Mexico that it was 
their turn in 2020 and they have been given this comfort to get it in 2021, in  an equity market it is 
called short selling, which is not there, and you are selling it. Any other regulato r would have 
intervened in this process . Unfortunately , in this case the regulator became party to that. Other 
Ombudsman in the form of reginal coordinators kept quiet in this entire episode.  
 
Because of these non -transparent practices , when they want to deny someone , all arguments and 
logic are used including the principles of rotation and balance  – yet we know th at the  system of 
rotation is hardly being followed when you look at any Committee nor the principle of balance. 
Similarly, on the question of ba lance or representation, one Member taking two chairmanship s – one 
is CTS and now in TBT, I do not know whether this is the true representation or wider representation . 
When they want to accommodate someone , suddenly some gentlemen 's agreement which no one  
knows surfaces. And does this practice give us any sense of pride in an organization which talks 
about rules -based and transparency?  
 
So Chair, to conclude , our concern is systemic . Therefore , at the formal General Council meeting 
today during the discus sion on Agenda Item 22, if there is going to be an acknowledgement of the 
lack of transparency and miscommunication expanding on what you have now reported in the 
process which has led to this impasse this year, and if the  GC Chair can assure Members that you 
will undertake a comprehensive overhaul of the selection process for appointment of Chairs for WTO 
bodies not leaving it to the CTG and CTS Chair s, both for regular and subsidiary bodies, as contained 
in the document WT/L/510 – we would consider accept ing the slate of names proposed .  
 
Let me make it clear that we are not here to secure Chairmanship of any Committee for this year 
nor seek any guarantee for subsequent years. At the end , I humbly reject the option or offer given 
to us in informal meetings  or deliberation s to have the TBT Chair manship  for the 2022 slate, as we 
do not believe in Chair shopping, future trading and sub selling of Chairs. Certainly, I would like to 
thank Members who have offered us.  
 
Statement by Thailand on Agenda Item 22  
 
Thailand is glad that we were able to conclude this agenda and we would like to thank all the 
Members concerned for their great flexibility. We are confident that with your great experience and 
your impartiality, as well as your capability, you will hold a  consultation that will make everyone 
happy on this issue in the future. We are now close to MC12. Therefore, we should focus the 
discussion on substance rather than procedural issues. We look forward to working closely and 
positively with everyone in the future.  
 
__________