RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/181  
 
24 February 2020  
(20-1427) Page: 1/150 
General Council  
9-10 December 2019    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 9 -10 DECEMBER 2019  
Chairperson: H.E. Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand)  
The Chair and the Direct or-General bade farewell to Ambassador Eduardo Gálvez  (Chile), and to 
Ambassador Junichi Ihara (Japan ), the 24th Chairman of the WTO General Council, and expressed 
appreciation for their  valuable cont ribution during their time as Permanent Representative s. 
 
Subjects discussed1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CH AIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITT EE AND     
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
2   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUT COMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IR ................................ ................................ ..............................  7 
3   REVIEW OF THE OP ERATION OF THE BALI DECISION ON TRQ ADMI NISTRATION – 
REPORT TO THE GENERA L COUNCIL  ................................ ................................ .................  9 
4   WORK PROGRAMME O N SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TR ADE AND DEVELOPMENT  ....................  10 
5   INFORMAL PROCESS  ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONING O F THE  
APPELLATE BODY – REPORT BY THE FACILITAT OR AND DRAFT DECISIO N ON THE 
FUNCTIONING OF THE A PPELLATE BODY  ................................ ................................ ...... 12 
6   THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ASPECTS O F COTTON – STATEMENT  BY THE 
DIRECTOR -GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 
7   TRIPS NON -VIOLAT ION AND SITUATION CO MPLAINTS MORATORIUM – 
COMMUNICATION FROM C ANADA, CHILE, COLOMB IA, GUATEMALA, NEW Z EALAND, 
PANAMA AND URUGUAY  ................................ ................................ ................................  36 
8   WORK PROGRAMME O N ELECTRONIC COMMERC E ................................ .....................  38 
8.1   Statement by the Chair  ................................ ................................ ............................... 38 
8.2   Reports by the Chairs of the Council for Trade in Goods and of the Council for Trade in 
Services  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 38 
8.3   Work Programme and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce – Communication from Chad on 
behalf of the LDC Group  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....38 
8.4   Work Progr amme and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce – Communications from    
Australia; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Georgia; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China;               
Iceland; Israel; Republic of Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Panama; Paraguay;            
Singapore; Switzerland; Thailand and Uruguay  ................................ ................................ .....38 
9   REQUEST FOR OBSE RVER STATUS BY THE A FRICAN UNION – COMMU NICATION    
FROM BENIN ON BEHALF  OF THE AFRICAN GROU P  ................................ .......................  51 
 
1 The proposed agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/793.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10   ACCESSION  OF  CURAÇAO - REQUEST FROM THE KI NGDOM OF  THE NETHERLANDS  .. 54 
11   PROCEDURAL GUID ELINES FOR WTO COUNC ILS AND COMMITTEES A DDRESSING 
TRADE CONCERNS – STATE MENT BY CO -SPONSORS OF WT/GC/W/777/REV.4  .............  55 
12   CHALLENGES POSE D TO THE WTO BY NON -MARKET POLICIES AND PRACTICES – 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  59 
13   PROCEDURES TO S TRENGTHEN THE NEGOTI ATING FUNCTION OF TH E WTO – 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE UNITED STATE S ................................ .............................  64 
14   LDCS' VIEWS ON WTO REFORM DISCUSSIO NS AND PROPOSALS – STATEMENT BY 
CHAD ON BEHALF OF TH E LDC GROUP  ................................ ................................ ............  71 
15   STATEMENT IN SU PPORT OF THE RULES -BASED MULTILATERAL TR ADING SYSTEM    
– STATEMENT BY SWITZ ERLAND  ................................ ................................ ....................  74 
16   TWELFTH SESSION  OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE - ELECTION  OF  OFFICERS  .. 82 
17   TRIPS COUNCIL M ATTERS  ................................ ................................ .......................  82 
17.1   Annual Review of the Special Compulsory Licensing System – Paragraph 7 of the Annex      
to the amended TRIPS Agreement and Paragraph 8 of the Decision on the Implementation of 
Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health –                      
Report of the Council for TRIPS  ................................ ................................ ............................ 82 
17.2   Proposal for a Decision on an Extension of the Period for the Acceptance by Members          
of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement   ................................ ................................ ....82 
18   REVIEW OF THE E XEMPTION PROVIDED UN DER PARAGRAPH 3 OF G ATT 1994   ...... 83 
19   WAIVERS UNDER A RTICLE IX OF THE WTO  AGREEMENT  ................................ .........  86 
19.1   Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 changes into WTO Schedules of                                      
Tariff Co ncessions – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ ....................... 86 
19.2   Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 changes into WTO Schedules of                                        
Tariff Concessions – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ ....................... 86 
19.3   Introduction of Harmonized System 2012 changes into WTO Schedules of                         
Tariff Concessions – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ ....................... 86 
19.4   Introduction of Harmonized System 2017 ch anges into WTO Schedules of                               
Tariff Concessions – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ ....................... 86 
19.5   Review of waivers pursuant to  Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement  ................................ ..87 
19.5.1    Preferential Treatment in favour of Services and Service Suppliers of Least Developed 
Countries, granted on 17 December 2011 until 31 December 2030  ................................ .......... 87 
19.5.2    Kimberly Process Certification Scheme for Rough D iamonds, granted on 26 July 2018       
to 31 December 2024  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 87 
19.5.3    Cuba – Article XV:6 – Extension of waiver, granted on 7 Decem ber 2016 until 31 
December 2021  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 87 
19.5.4    European Union – Application of Autonomous Preferential Treatment to the Western 
Balkans,  granted on 7 December 2016 until 31 December 2021  ................................ .............. 87 
19.5.5    United States – African Growth and Opportunity Act, granted on 30 November 2015               
until 30 September 2025   ................................ ................................ ................................ ...87 
19.5.6   United States – Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, granted on 7 December             
2016 until 31 December 2026   ................................ ................................ ............................ 87 
19.5.7    United States – Trade Preferences granted to Nepal, granted on 7 December 2016                
until 31 December 2025  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....87 
20   COMMITTEE ON BU DGET, FINANCE AND AD MINISTRATION – REPOR TS ON  
MEETINGS OF APRIL, J UNE, SEPTEMBER, OCTO BER AND NOVEMBER 201 9  ...................  87 
21   WTO PENSION PLA N MANAGEMENT BOARD – ELECTION OF A MEMBE R  .................  90 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 3 - 
 
  22   INTERNATIONAL T RADE CENTRE UNCT AD/WTO – REPORT OF T HE JOINT           
ADVISORY GROUP ON IT S 53RD SESSION   ................................ ................................ ...... 90 
23   REVIEW OF WTO A CTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ ..................  92 
23.1   General Council and Trade Policy Review Body   ................................ ............................ 92 
23.2   Sectoral Councils and Committees on Antidumping, Subsidies and Counterveiling     
Measures, Safeguards and Technical Barriers to Trade  ................................ ............................ 92 
23.3   Committees  on Trade and Development, Trade and Environment, Balance -of-Payments 
Restrictions, Budget, Finance and Administration, and Regional Trade Agreements  .................... 92 
23.4   Working Groups on Trade, Debt and Finance and Trade and Transfer of Technology  .......... 92 
23.5   Committees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements   ................................ ................... 92 
24   APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO WTO BODI ES – ANNOUNCEMENT BY  THE CHAIR 
PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 7.1(A) OF THE GUIDELINES  ................................ ................  93 
25   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 93 
25.1   Eighth China Roundtable on WTO Accessions – Statement by the Russian Federation  ........ 93 
25.2   Statement by the Chair on Administrative Measures for Members in arrears  ..................... 94 
ANNEX 1 – THE REPORT S BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND  THE CHAIRS OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC A ND INFORMAL HODS MEE TINGS                                               
HELD ON 6 DECEMBER 2 019 ................................ ................................ ...........................  95 
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENTS  BY MEMBERS AT THE I NFORMAL TNC AND INFO RMAL HODS 
MEETINGS HELD ON 6 D ECEMBER 2019  ................................ ................................ ....... 103  
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENT BY NAMIBIA ON THE RE PORT BY THE CHAIRMAN  OF THE     
TRADE NEGOTIATIONS C OMMITTEE AND  REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL               
(AGENDA ITEM 1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  149  
 
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENE RAL 
1.1.  The Chair recalled  that the Director -General  had convened Informal TNC and Informal Heads 
of Delegation meetings  on 6 December  where he had provided a report. The Chairs of Negotiating 
Bodies had also provided reports on the negotiating work where updates were available,  and 
45 delegations had taken  the floor.  
1.2.  The Director -General  recall ed that the Informal TNC and Inform al Heads of Delegation 
meetings on 6 December had coincided with the end of the week -long cluster on Fisheries Subsidies 
meeting. Ambassador Wills, Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules had therefore made a brief oral 
report to the TNC and HODs and  had immediately left to chair the meetings of the Rules Negotiating 
Group. He had noted he would  provide a more comprehensive written report for the General Council , 
which could be found in document TN/RL/32.  
1.3.  The representative of Barbados  said that Members  had reached a stage where they should  
engage in deep ref lection on the road ahead. Unfortunately, with little time before key deadlines, 
Members  did not have the luxury of engaging in a protracted exercise.  They should rather  focus 
their efforts o n ways in which they could bridge their varied interests by th ose Ministerial deadlines 
and commit to continue work with renewed vigour in instances where they could not achieve 
outcomes by the mandated deadlines. In so doing, the interest of all Members should  be duly 
considered. While tak ing note of the body of work that was being undertaken in the various 
negotiating bodies, Barbados express ed its  disappointment about the inaction which ha d plagued 
other negotiating bodies , particularly those whose work was of core interest to developing and LDC  
Members .  
1.4.  With the deadline for fisheries subsidies negotiations looming, Barbados  concur red with other 
delegations  that Members  would not be in a position to complete their mandated work in time. 
Barbados  therefore welcome d the Chair 's proposed work programme for 2020 . In so doing , Members  
should  be mindful that the provision of appropriate and effective S&DT for developing and LDC WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Members  remain ed an integral aspect of their work. While commend ing the new Chair and 
Facilitators for the leadership demonstrated, many issues  remained  to be resolved  – some of which 
had prove n to be highly controversial in the past – and there was little time to resolve them. 
Barbados  urged Members to work assiduously towards the kind of negotiations which would enable 
an outcome on fisheries subsidies in line with the Doha mandate and SDG 14.6.  
1.5.  Members  stood at the precipice of inflicting irreparab le damage to the rules -based multilateral 
trading system and with it, what set the WTO apart from its predecessor the GATT and other 
institutions like it. As 10 December  drew closer , Barbados regret ted to once again  express concern 
about the future of the WTO rules -based nature of the multilateral trading system. Barbados  thank ed 
Ambassador  Walker for his tireless efforts regarding the Informal Process on matters relating to the 
functioning of the Appellate Body and by extension towards unblocking the selec tion process of 
Appellate Body members. For the smallest among  the Members , the two -tiered dispute settlement 
system was all that they had as recourse to the vagaries of international trade. Barbados  urged 
Members to, as a matter of urgency, engage constru ctively with the aim to finding a solution that 
they could all unite around. Finally, Barbados associated with the statements made by the ACP and 
the CARICOM Groups.  
1.6.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that t he state of affairs seem ed to be t he 
gravest since the establishment of the WTO, and for sure since Russia' s accession in 2012. 
Regrettably, Members did little to avoid problems  – with some of them intentionally creat ing new 
ones. Every year , the stress -test for the WTO was raised to a new level. There was nothing to be 
proud of in the destruction of the universally accepted institutions , vital for the existence and proper 
functioning of the WTO and multilateral trading system. However, at th at moment , Russia  would 
rather not focus on particular dismals related to the budget of the WTO and the Appellate Body.  
1.7.  He noted that the previous  month , in Shanghai, Trade Ministers had agreed that the rules -
based multilateral trading system should be firm ly supported, and international trade should 
contribute to driving economic growth, job creation and sustainable development. They had 
supported the necessary reforms of the WTO, had urged that the selection of the Appellate Body 
members move on as soon as  possible, and had called for the work on issues such as fisheries 
subsidies to be carried out immediately.  
1.8.  Russia remain ed committed to preserving and strengthening the multilateral trading system, 
with the World Trade Organization at its centr e. History prove d that the absence of the rule of law 
in the global trading system br ought  a slide towards unilateral economic measures and an increase 
in protectionism.  
1.9.  Despite some Members turning their back on the multilateral trading system, Russia  still 
adhere d to the joint statements of their leaders who had acknowledged that protectionism le d to 
exacerbating global economic downturns and had placed the WTO at the centr e of the fight against 
all forms of protectionism and in promoting economic growth and develop ment.  
1.10.   Russia condemn ed the application of unilateral economic measures in international trade, 
including those used as an instrument of disguised and, more recently, undisguised protectionism 
and otherwise contrary to the WTO Agreements as well as those ap plied for political reasons, without 
approval by the UN Security Council.  
1.11.   That was  particularly true with respect to the restrictive measures against the Russian 
Federation by certain Members. The Russian Federation reserve d the right to apply special econ omic 
measures in response to unilateral restrictions. In exercising th at right, the Decree of the President 
of the Russian Federation No. 560 of 6 August 2014 and the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 778 of 7 August 2014, with all  modifications and amendments thereto 
including the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1292 of 25 October 2017, 
had been  adopted. While applying such special measures for the purpose of the protection of 
essential national security interests, the Russian Federation adhere d to the WTO rules, including 
Article XXI of the GATT  1994.  
1.12.   The multilateral trading system was unique by nature. Original drafters of the WTO rules had 
integrated such provisions into the WTO Agreements so that the system could be modified and WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 5 - 
 
  improved. There was however no regulation that provide d for the demolition of the WTO foundation 
under the disguise of the declared improvement.  
1.13.   The representative of  the Philippines  extended its  appreciation to the Director -General for the 
steady hand and his principled leadership of th e organization amid a t ime of great turbulence and 
unprecedented stress to the multilateral trading system.  
1.14.   Indeed, Members  had come to a fork in the road on the future of the dispute settlement 
system. The Philippines  fully associate d with the statement delivered by Thailand co nveying the 
ASEAN member  States' serious concern that the two -tier dispute settlement system could be 
rendered inoperati ve the following week.  
1.15.   On MC12, he said that Members should  pick up their pace. There was renewed momentum in 
the fisheries subsidies ne gotiations and the Philippines  thank ed Ambassador Wills for taking up the 
challenge of chairing the Negotiating Group on Rules. The facilitators ha d done excellent work in 
laying the groundwork for a potential outcome. The Philippines urged Members  to fully empower the 
negotiators to build bridges and seek solutions. Only through constructive collaboration c ould the 
Membership truly produce multilateral disciplines on fish eries subsidies.  
1.16.   The Philippines also urged Members to  give the WTO a boost in Nur -Sultan and to deliver on 
their Leaders ' mandate in SDG 14.6 to specifically by 2020: (1) prohibit certain forms of fisheries 
subsidies which contribute d to overcapacity and overfishing; (2) eliminate subsidies that contribute d 
to illegal, unreported and unreg ulated fishing; and (3) refrain from introducing new such subsidies, 
while recogni sing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and 
LDC Members  be an integral part of the outcome. The Philippines  also thank ed Argenti na and fellow 
co-sponsors for their statement at the TNC urging all  Members  to deliver on th at mandate.  
1.17.   Concerning  the Joint Statement Initiatives on e -commerce, investment facilitation, services 
domestic regulation and MSMEs, th ose discussions continue d to move forward and the Philippines  
was encouraged by the good progress. As  had been  seen over the course of th e year, the Joint 
Statement Initiatives and Members'  ongoing work on the DDA c ould indeed co -exist and even 
mutually complement each ot her. Delivering on those Joint Initiatives at Nur -Sultan would give the 
WTO another boost . 
1.18.   The Philippines  appreciate d the views shared at the HODs/TNC meetings . It was clear that 
Members  share d a deep and sincere commitment to th e organization and the pri nciples of the 
multilateral trading system. All Members  wanted what was best for the WTO and they all want ed it 
to succeed  – and they had the tools to make it so. They should all  work together and fully commit 
to delivering at MC12.  
1.19.   The representative of Haiti associated with the statements  made by CARICOM, the LDCs and 
the ACP  and thank ed all Members who ha d made proposals to live up to the new realities of world 
trade and  to unblock the situation  in the Appellate Body.  
1.20.   Regarding  agriculture,  Haiti took n ote of a greater interest by Members to help discussions 
move forward  and commend the CoA Chair for the work he ha d done as Members  had been 
witnessing a watershed  and as  there ha d been a speed up in the negotiations. Submissions ha d been 
made and others were in the pipeline. Such developments were important as a griculture was and 
remain ed the main activity of rural populations in developing countries in particular LDCs.  
1.21.   Regarding  TRIPS, Haiti had noted very little progress on geographical indications. Members 
were not particularly interested in implementing the provisions of the bilateral  and regional 
provisions to which they ha d committed themselves. Discrepancies still exist ed in their exchanges 
and Haiti  encourage d various Members to pick up discussions  on the matter  again to reach 
convergence.  
1.22.   Regarding electronic c ommerce, Haiti recogni zed the importance of electronic commerce in 
the current world trade. LDCs were however still confronting difficulties to respond to the 
requirement concerning  customs duties on electronic transmissions especially for data protection of 
consumers. In that regard, Haiti  joined the statement made by the ACP which encourage d Members 
to come to an agre ement that w ould benefit all while integrating development in the matter as far WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 6 - 
 
  as the moratorium and the broader discussions within the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
were concerned .  
1.23.   Regarding  S&DT, Haiti was still greatly attached to S&DT which e nhance d better integration 
of developing countries especially LDCs in the multilateral trading system. Recently, at an informal 
meeting of the CTD in Special Session, the G -90 had put forward  the idea of a review of the different 
S&DT proposals in agreemen t with the work programme of the Committee. Haiti consider ed that 
such process w ould be fundamental if Members we re to move forward in their discussions with a 
view to achieving significant results at MC12.  
1.24.   Regarding  Fisheries Subsidies, Haiti had taken note of progress made in the discussions since 
the appointment of Ambassador Wills to the Chairmanship of the Negotiating Group on Rules. It was 
quite clear that it was impossible to conclude the negotiations by the end of th e year. Haiti 
encourage d Members to pursue their constructive participation in 2020 to be able to adopt at the 
next Ministerial Conference an agreement on disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  
1.25.   The representative of Montenegro  express ed concern that Members  had not been able to 
comp lete negotiations on disciplines with respect to fisheries subsidies  on illegal fishing . Montenegro  
was pleased to have a new Chair on the Negotiating Group on Rules  and hope d that the period after 
the new year  would bring new energy  which would allow Memb ers to achieve the expected results 
by MC12 .  
1.26.   Montenegro remained  committed to preserving fish stock , especially given that the Adriatic 
Sea was one of the seas where there was an obvious decrease in the fish stock. Montenegro's  fleet 
was very old , making it necessary to renew it , but in a way that w ould not lead to additional 
endangerment of the fish stock. Special and differential treatment in th at area should likewise be 
considered depending on the specificity of the country and the state of the sector i n it. 
1.27.   Concerning the dispute settlement mechanism, Montenegro  joined those M embers that had 
express ed concern about the state of the WTO's basic mechanism involving its ability to effectively 
resolve disputes.  
1.28.   Montenegro support ed the extension of the mor atorium on imposing customs duties on 
electronic transmissions . The extension of the moratorium w ould support business  especially MSMEs 
by providing much -needed predictability – further promot ing the growth of digital trade.  
1.29.   As a signatory to the Joint Statement on Services Domestic Regulation, Montenegro 
reaffirm ed its commitment to make progress on outstanding issues and hope d to achieve an outcome 
that would allow Members  to improve the policy environment for trade in services.  
1.30.   As Members only had six months left until MC12 , Montenegro reiterate d its comm itment  to 
working constructively with other Members to reach a balanced and fair solution on  the ongoing 
negotiations.  
1.31.   The Director -General  remind ed delegations that the Informal  TNC and the Informal Heads of 
Delegation meeting s that they had on 6 December was supposed to cover Agenda Item 1 of the 
General Council meeting. That was the purpose of doing that , so that Members  would  not repeat 
statements . The Director -General underst ood the reasons why some Members  had asked for the 
floor to make their interventions or even additional interventions  at the General Council . There were 
multiple reasons , which could include the absence of the Permanent Representative at the Informal 
TNC and Informal HODs  meeting s and the Permanent Representative's preference of  personally 
making the intervention ; groups of Members  not finalis ing their joint intervention , or because there 
had been  new events between the Informal TNC and Inform al HODs meetings, among many others.  
1.32.   Despite those reasons,  the Director -General  urged all Members  to avoid taking the floor under 
Agenda Item 1 of the General Council meeting . Otherwise, they would  be frustrating what they had  
agreed to do with the Inform al TNC and Informal HODs meetings . Some suggestions  includ ed 
allowing the Deputy Permanent Representative or anyone from the delegation to intervene on behalf 
of the Permanent Representative in case of absence. If there were other reasons why one could not  
make a statement , there was always a possibility of circulating a written statement and give them 
to the Secretariat for inclusion in the minutes of  the General Council meeting.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.33.   As Members had  a long list of agenda  items  to take up , it was useful that Members  remind ed 
themselves of why they had decided to have the Informal TNC and Informal HODs meeting s at a 
different date. Th e Director -General reiterated  his appeal to all Members  not to use Agenda Item 1 
of the General Council  meeting  to make additional interventions.  
1.34.   The Chair  recall ed that as per past practice and as had been announced, the Director -
General's report and the reports of the Chairs of negotiating bodies w ould be included in the minutes 
of the General Council meeting. St atements delivered by delegations w ould also be included in the 
minutes under th e item unless delegations had indicated otherwise.  
1.35.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Director -General on 6 December2 and on 
the meeting, of the report of the C hair of the Negotiating Group on Rules contained in TN/RL/32 and 
of the statements3 made that day as well as those delivered at the 6 December Informal TNC and 
Informal HODs meetings4. 
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S (G/RO/89)  
– STATEMENT BY THE C HAIR  
2.1.  The Chair5 pointed out that matters related to the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration, the 
Work Programme on Small Economies,  TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints, and the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce w ould be taken up in the succeeding agenda items.  
2.2.  Concerning the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, the situation regarding the alignment 
of Members' schedules with its provisions ha d not evolved. Eleven Members with scheduled export 
subsidy commitments ha d currently had their revised schedules certified and two Members ha d 
circulated draft revised schedules for which the certification process was ongoing.  
2.3.  Moving to the Decision on Preferential Rules of  Origin for LDCs , the Committee on Rules of 
Origin ha d forwarded to the General Council its report (G/RO/89), in line with the provisions of the 
Bali and Nairobi Decisions. The report contain ed the annual review of the developments in 
preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs. A number of a reas were highlighted, 
including transparency , preferential tariff and import data , notifications , a new online tool called the 
"Origin Facilitator" , updates received from preference -granting Members and examination of the 
utilization of non -reciprocal pre ferences by LDCs.  
2.4.  Turning to the LDC Services Waiver , at its meeting at the end of October, the Council for Trade 
in Services had held a dedicated session to review the operation of the preferences notified under 
the Waiver. The dedicated session had been  organi sed in two parts: a workshop and a dedicated 
formal meeting of the Council.  
2.5.  The workshop on "Facilitating the Increasing Participation of Least -Developed Countries in 
Trade in Services"  had offered diverse and valuable presentations and contribution s. She underst ood 
that the dedicated formal meeting had been  equally rich and that it had provided a platform for 
constructive and stimulating interventions with the active engagement of LDC s and notifying 
 
2 The Director -General's report (also circulated in JOB/TNC/ 77) and the reports of the Chairs of Negotiating 
Bodies at the 6 December Informal  TNC and Informal HODs Meetings  are incorporated in t he minutes of this 
meeting and are  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  
3 At Namibia's request, its statement under this item is incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and 
can be found in Annex 3 of this report.  
4 The statements at the 6 December Informal TNC and Informal HODs Meeting s by the following  
delegations are incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in Annex 2 of this document:  
Argentina (Colombia, Iceland, New Zealand, Panama, United States, Uruguay and Argentina) ; Japa n; Benin 
(African Group); Paraguay; Costa Rica (Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation); Republic of Korea; 
Turkey; Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce); Thailand (ASEAN); Russian Federation; 
Chad (LDCs); India; Vanuatu ( ACP); European Union; Pakistan; United States; Egypt; Norway; China; Uruguay 
(Informal Working Group on MSMEs); Canada (Ottawa Group); Brazil; Singapore; Peru; Switzerland; South 
Africa; Mexico; Chinese Taipei; Indonesia; Iceland; Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela; Hong Kong, China; Nigeria; 
Solomon Islands (Pacific Group); Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development); 
Kazakhstan; Panama (Article XII Members); Israel; Malaysia; Trinidad and Tobago (CARICOM); Colombia; 
St. Lucia ( OECS); Nepal; Cambodia and Viet Nam.  
5 The Chair's statement was circulated in document JOB/GC/2 24. WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Members alike. The overall sentiment had been  that the dedicated session had been a useful and 
productive event.  
2.6.  Moving on to the Bali Decision on the Monitoring Mechanism on Special and Differential 
Treatment , a dedicated session on the Monitoring Mechanism had been  held on 22 November but 
the situation remain ed unchanged with divergent views persisting on how to proceed with the review 
of the Mechanism which was already long overdue.  
2.7.  At the November meeting of the CTD, the annual DFQF review had also t aken place. The CTD 
Chair  had noted that, in spite o f the informal consultations he had held, it had again not  been possible 
for the Secretariat to prepare the mandated report on Members' DFQF market access for LDCs – due 
once again to divergent views on the scope and coverage of the report.  
2.8.  In terms of th e process  leading to the establishment of the 2020 -2021 Aid for Trade Work 
Programme, at the request of the CTD Chair, the Secretariat had consulted with groupings of 
developing Members. An informal CTD meeting w ould be held in the early part of 2020 for M embers 
to exchange views, and the intention would be for a draft work programme to be then circulated for  
Members' consideration and subsequently discussed at a formal CTD Aid for Trade meeting in 
February.  
2.9.  Regarding the Bali Decision on Trade and Transfe r of Technology, at the recent meeting of the 
Working Group, a number of developing Members and LDCs had stressed the importance of the work 
and called for an evaluation to be undertaken to determine what ha d been accomplished by the 
Working Group and what  remain ed to be done.  
2.10.   Finally, regarding Trade Facilitation , for th at meeting, the Chair of the Committee on Trade 
Facilitation, Ambassador Mohammad Haqjo (Afghanistan), ha d asked to share with the General 
Council an update about the work that ha d taken place in the Committee.  
2.11.   Ambassador Mohammad Qurban Haqjo (Afghanistan),  Chair of the Committee on Trade 
Facilitation , said that  the Committee on Trade Facilitation ha d been working collectively and 
constructively to achieve tangible, concrete results in 2019  and had passed two significant 
milestones th at year. First, at its m eeting in June, the Committee had agreed on its Rules of 
Procedure after three years of negotiations. At its 14 November meeting , in accordance with 
Paragraph 6 Article 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement, the CTG had approved the Rules of Procedure of 
the Commit tee on Trade Facilitation.  Second, an important milestone had been  achieved on 
22 August. By that date, developing country Members had been  expected to have notified to the 
Committee their individual plans for the full implementation of the TFA based on th e unique flexibility 
provided by the Agreement. At present , 96% of developing countr y Members  had completed their 
notifications  – which meant  that in addition to those Members which were already implementing the 
TFA in full, the Committee also had  a roadma p for the implementation of the Agreement by all 
developing country Members. Th at was a very significant achievement.  
2.12.   Positive developments kep t coming. By 22 February 2020, there w ould be additional clarity 
about the implementation of the TFA when least -developed country Members w ould be required to 
have notified their definitive dates for the implementation of Category B provisions.  
2.13.   He stressed that i n such a  turbulent time for the multilateral trading system, the 
developments in the Committee on Trade F acilitation show ed that the WTO c ould deliver. Back in 
2013, Members had succeeded in constructing an agreement with unique and extensive flexibilities. 
By 2019, they were invoking those flexibilities in a considerate and serious manner. Members were 
currently  vindicating the extensive negotiations and compromises which deliver ed those flexibilities. 
That could be an opportune time to reflect on the value of that process. He noted that almost three 
years after its entry into force, the WTO's first-born agreement was then steady on its feet and 
would continue on a path to a successful implementation.  
2.14.   The Chair thanked  the Chair of the Committee on Trade Facilitation  for reporting on the 
positive developments in the Committee  and commend ed him and all oth er Chairs of WTO Bodies 
for their efforts in facilitating WTO work in 2019.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.15.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , noted that t he decisions concerning DFQF 
market access, LDC Services Waiver and Preferential Rules of Origin in favour of LDCs were the 
three main concerns of the LDC Group. A combination of an effective operationalization of th ose 
three decisions would  significantly increase the LDCs'  market share in global exports in goods and 
in services. The LDC Group therefore called  on Members  – and w ith the support of the relevant WTO 
Bodies  – to ensure the promot ion of the effective implementation on the ground to ensure the LDCs' 
increase in export capacity offered by the Ministerial  Decisions agreed upon in Nairobi.  
2.16.   Concerning the Nairobi Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin, the LDC Group welcome d that 
since the Ministerial Decision, Members offering their preferences ha d notified almost all their 
requirements in terms of rules of origin. Th at was essential , together with the transmission of import 
data from LDCs to assess exactly how effective the regulatory mechanism adopted was and in order 
to find responses to any difficulties that exporters from LDCs could  encounter in terms of their 
market access into d eveloping and developed countries.  
2.17.   The LDC Group  was ready to depend on the work of the Secretariat to promote the 
improvement of transparency on practices in terms of rules of origin and on preference utilization 
rates by LDCs. Similarly, the LDC Group  thanked Members offering their preferences and encourage d 
them to improve their practices in terms of rules of origin. The final objective sought was to promote 
the existence of a favourable climate to ensure better competitiveness of products from LDCs and 
to build production capacity to bring about better integration of their countries into the international 
trading system.  
2.18.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , said that it wa s important that 
Members  continue d to measure the results a chieved in terms of implementation whether with regard 
to Bali or Nairobi Ministerial Decisions and to ensure that they continue d to build upon those results 
particularly on agriculture and cotton.  
2.19.   The LDCs should be given the necessary tools in order to progress with measurable results in 
terms of DFQF market access, Preferential Rules of Origin and the Services Waiver as well as issues 
relating to accessions in terms on procedures, commitments and the necessary support.  
2.20.   Concerning  technical assistance and capacity building in terms of building production and 
export capacity, the African Group  encounter ed many limitations in the  tools used  in that regard  
such as Aid for Trade and EIF, among others. Th ose tools and mechanisms for cooperation and 
partnership should  be further activated in order to support the efforts and initiatives of African 
countries and in particular the LDCs among them.  
2.21.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement, of the re port of the Committee on 
Rules of Origin in G/RO/89 and of the other statements.  
3  REVIEW OF THE OPERAT ION OF THE BALI DECI SION ON TRQ ADMINIST RATION – 
REPORT TO THE GENERA L COUNCIL (G/AG/29)  
3.1.  The Chair  recalled that a t MC9, Ministers had instructed the Commi ttee on Agriculture to review 
and monitor the implementation of Members' obligations established under the Bali Decision on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration to promote a continuing process of improvement in the utilization of 
TRQs, commencing no later than  2017, taking into account experience gained up to that time. The 
Review discussions had started at the October 2017 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, and 
updates regarding the Review had been  regularly reported to the General Council since then. Further 
to the mandate in the Bali Decision, the General Council was expected to take a decision on the 
recommendations arising from the Review no later than 31 December 2019 – unless Members agree d 
otherwise.  
3.2.  Ms. Christiane Daleiden Distefano, Chair of the Committee on Agriculture , noted that t he 
Review of the Operation of the Bali Decision on Tariff Rate Quota Administration had commenced at 
the 27 October 2017 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  There had been  a very engrossing 
discussion among Members for about two years , which  had prove n to be rather challenging at times. 
In the end, discussions had been  fruitful and the Committee at its meeting on 31 October 2019 had 
been able to deliver and t o adopt the report of its Review circulated in document G/AG/29 and the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 10 - 
 
  associated recommendations contained in Annex 2 to the report that ha d been transmitted to the 
General Council for decision at t he current  meeting , pursuant to the Bali Decision.  
3.3.  The C ommittee had reached an agreement on a number of important measures and processes 
aimed at enhancing transparency and improving TRQ notification practices. Members ha d also 
agreed to conduct a triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision. Tim e had however  
not been ripe for Members to agree on definitive recommendations with regard to the future 
operation of Paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism , and so they had decided to extend the deadline 
for decision on th e subject matter by two years - which was the  end of 2021.  
3.4.  She acknowledge d Members' constructive engagement and flexible attitude during the review 
process to arrive at a valuable agreement on recommendations for the consideration of the General 
Council , and paid tribute to her predeces sor for her hard work. She likewise  wished to  place on 
record the tremendous effort and support that the Secretariat had provided throughout the review 
discussion to assist Members reaching an agreement.  
3.5.  Pursuant to paragraphs 13 -15 of the Bali TRQ Decisio n and further to the consideration of the 
matter in the Committee on Agriculture, the Chair propose d that the General Council took note of 
the report in G/AG/29 and approve d the recommendations contained in Annex 2 to the report.  
3.6.  The General Council so agreed . 
3.7.  The Chair  welcome d the decision and extend ed her  sincere thanks to the of Chair of the 
Committee on Agriculture as well as to previous Chairs for their efforts in relat ion to the Review and 
in facilitating consensus on th e matter.  
4  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPO RT BY THE CHAIRMAN O F THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TR ADE AND DEVELOPMENT  
4.1.  The Chair recalled that , in 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 reported regularly to the Council on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions. 
In Buenos Aires, Ministers had adopted a Decision reaffirming their commitment to the Work 
Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the overall 
responsibility of the General Council.  
4.2.  Deputy Director -General Yonov Agah, on behalf of the Chair of the Committee on Trade and 
Development , said that, at  the meeting  of the CTD's Dedicated Session on Small Economies on 
1 November , Members had considered a proposal by the SVE Group for a Ministerial Decision at 
MC12 on the Work Programme on Small Economies.  
4.3.  The proposed Ministerial Decision was similar in structure to previous Ministerial Decisions 
regarding the Small Economies Work Programme. In terms of references to past work, the proposed 
text not ed that the recently updated Secretariat compilation paper on the Work Programme on Small 
Economies – contained in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.9 – as well as previous versions of 
the paper, reflec ted the work of the Dedicated Session up to MC12.  With regard to future work, the 
submission by the SVE Group propose d that the Dedicated Session look ed at the impact of natural 
disasters on the trade of small economies and at the integration of small economies into new forms 
of trade.  
4.4.  A discussion had taken  place on the basis of the proposed Ministerial Decision, and some 
questions had been  posed to the proponents regarding the content of the submission. However, as 
a number of delegations had indicated th at they had not been able to share a position on the 
proposed Ministerial Decision, it had been  determined that further discussions among Members 
would be required.  
4.5.  He encouraged the proponents in particular to reach out to other Members, and had expressed  
his hope that, by the time of the next meeting of the Dedicated Session in the early part of 2020, 
the proponents w ould have undertaken all necessary consultations so that they w ould have a text  
ready  for a Ministerial Decision that was agreeable to all M embers.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.6.  That would be a particularly important step in the run -up to MC12 – not least because, at its 
next meeting, the Dedicated Session would need to approve its report to the General Council. As 
per past practice, the report to the General Council woul d not only contain a summary of work that 
had been undertaken since the last Ministerial Conference but would also contain the elements of an 
agreed text for a Ministerial Decision – including with regard to future work.  
4.7.  The 1 November meeting of the Dedic ated Session had also served as an opportunity for the 
SVE Group to provide an introduction to some of the challenges faced by small economies in 
attracting investments. On th at basis, the SVE Group had proposed that an in -depth discussion on 
the subject t ook place in the early part of 2020.  As it had not been possible to come to a decision 
on th e proposal at the meeting, it had been  determined that further informal discussions among 
Members would be required on th e matter as well.   
4.8.  The CTD Chair  would be keeping a close watch on how discussions advance d in the coming 
months on the two issues that had been  highlighted  and stood ready  to facilitate any informal 
discussions among Members, as necessary, in order to make progress on th ose issues.  
4.9.  The representative of El Salvador , on behalf of the SVEs , recalled the SVEs' statement  in the 
previous  General Council  meeting and noted that  the SVEs  had finalised a proposed text for a 
Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on Small Economies which had been  considered by 
Members in t he Dedicated Session of the CTD on 1 November. As had been highlighted in the report 
of the Chair, some Member s had needed more time to consider th e proposal and the SVEs  hoped 
that with several clarifications made and further consultation s, the draft Ministerial Decision c ould 
be adopted during the next dedicated session which w ould take place in spring.  
4.10.   On the other hand, the Group was proposing to hold a session on the topic concerning  the 
identification of opportunities available and challenges faced by SVEs with respect to investment 
attraction with long -lasting effects on development in the margins of the sp ring meeting. In th at 
occasion, presentations by experts from the WTO and other international organizations would help 
to inform the discussion of th at important issue for SVEs. The SVEs  would continue the ir constructive 
discussion with other Members on th ose two issues to advance the work of the dedicated session.  
4.11.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , said that  the Group 
associated with the statement made by the SVE s. CARICOM welcome d the discussions during the 
Committee on Trade and Development 's 2019 meetings on the Work Programme  on Small 
Economies addressing matters of particular relevance to the SVEs that were island States with 
specific reference to vulnerability to natural disasters and its impact on trade. As in previous 
occasions, CARICOM  emphasise d that natural disasters pose d a real and significant threat to efforts 
to achieve the beneficial integration of SVEs that were island States into the multilateral tra ding 
system.  
4.12.   CARICOM note d the proposed organi zation of a half -day session in early 2020 to examine the 
role investment c ould play in enhancing the competitiveness of small and vulnerable economies and 
reducing trade costs. CARICOM  welcome d that proposal even as it was being fine -tuned a s such a 
session could prove very beneficial. It would provide an opportunity for Members, and particularly 
SVEs, to gain key insights on investment attraction and the value of investment in particular areas, 
such as resear ch and development, technology and infrastructure. The proposed event would be a 
welcome step forward in the effort to achieve progress within the framework of the Work Programme 
on Small Economies.  
4.13.   CARICOM w ould also keenly follow developments related to  informal discussions on the 
proposal of the SVE Group regarding a Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on S mall 
Economies . In closing, in the context of the ongoing discussion on WTO reform, CARICOM  
underscore d the crucial nature of S &DT provisions for CARICOM and other SVEs.  
4.14.   The representative of St. Lucia , on behalf of the OECS , highlighted  the OECS ' disappointment 
at the slow progress towards mainstreaming development provisions relating to small, vulnerable 
economies into the architecture of WTO rulemaking. While December  marked the end of the 2019 
Atlantic hurricane season, th at period merely offer ed a temporary reprieve from the catastrophic 
threats of climate change -related events. In th at regard, the OECS  asked that more meaning be 
given to the Work Programme on Small Economies by deepening and intensifying the discussions on WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 12 - 
 
  the inextricable lin k between natural disasters and trade. The good work of the WTO Secretariat 
itself confirm ed that such disasters  were detrimental to the trade performance of their economies 
and continually derail ed their economic development prospects.  
4.15.   Technology -induced  commercial transactions were rapidly shaping the landscape of global 
trade and investments. Th ose changes include d modification of traditional value chains and supply 
chains as well as the switch to new digital and electronic products and services. Th ose changes were 
moving at a pace that require d small States to move with alacrity if they were to seize the new 
opportunities they present ed. In th at regard and in keeping with the objective of the work 
programme, the OECS  called for deeper conversation on th ose new forms of trade and the many 
challenges that accompan ied them. It was imperative for Members  to have  greater understanding 
of the inherent complexities that th ose new forms of trade pose d to small economies as they 
continue d to strive for fuller integration into the multilateral system and greater participation in 
world trade.  
4.16.   As the SVEs continue d to work towards advancing the text of the Ministerial Decision , the 
OECS  looked forward to intensify engagements on investment at traction ahead of the spring 
meeting. The OECS associated with the statements made by the SVEs and CARICOM.  
4.17.   The representative of Barbados  said that o ver the last few years, the rhetoric within and 
outside the WTO ha d focused on the threats to multilateral ism and by extension the multilateral 
trading system as well as the future of the WTO if th e organi zation remain ed unresponsive to the 
changing world. Th at rhetoric ha d been coupled with the retort that  Members we re duty -bound to 
comp lete the unfinished bu siness of the current  round of negotiations. Th ose viewpoints ha d brought 
to the fore issues like the relevance and reputation of th e organi zation.  
4.18.   The inextricable link between natural disasters and trade was an essential discussion for small, 
vulnerable island states like Barbados as th ose phenomena impact ed on every facet of their lives.  
They impact ed their social, environmental and economic development including their food security 
and their ability to trade  – both in import ing and export ing. It further exacerbate d the challenges 
posed by their insularity and remoteness and c ould significantly impact on their marine and air 
connectivity  – the means by which their imports and exports were traded.  
4.19.   In 2017, the total damage by Hurricane Maria on the island of Dominica had amounted to 
226 per cent of that country 's GDP. Th at could  not be significant in aggregate terms , but for 
Barbados, a small island of 166 square miles in totality  with 290,000 people and recogni zed as one 
of the most densely populate d countries in the world, it was a matter of its economic future  – of 
when, how and in what Barbados  and its people continue d to trade – and serve d as an existential 
threat to the livelihood of its people and the island of Barbados. It was therefore deeply  concerning 
that the issue of natural disasters and trade ha d not yet gain consensus for dedicated discussion on 
small economies. Barbados  reiterate d its gratitude to the Government of Australia for its generous 
contribution to bridging in part the statistical gap on th ose issues in the WTO.  
4.20.   Barbados thanked all  Members for their continued support on the Work Programme on Small 
Economies particularly on th e issue of "Investment attraction: Small Economies ' Opportunities and 
Challenges " and  looked forward to defining the programme and examining the role of investments 
in enhancing competitiveness and in  reducing trade costs in small economies.  
4.21.   The General Co uncil took note  of the report of the Chair of the CTD and of the statements.  
5  INFORMAL PROCESS ON MATTERS RELATED TO T HE FUNCTIONING OF TH E APPELLATE 
BODY – REPORT BY THE  FACILITATOR AND DRA FT DECISION ON THE F UNCTIONING OF 
THE APPELLATE BODY ( WT/GC/W/791)  
5.1.  The Chair  recall ed that  at the General Council meeting in October, Members had  had a fourth 
stocktaking of the work carried out in the Informal Process on matters related to the functioning of 
the Appellate Body. At that meeting, Ambassador David Walker, i n his capacity as Facilitator, had 
delivered his fourth report , which  had been  issued in document JOB/GC/222. The draft instrument 
that the Facilitator had put forward on his own responsibility – comprising the convergence points 
that he had reported to th e General Council in July – had been a nnexed to that report.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.2.  Since the October General Council meeting, the Facilitator ha d continued his consultations in 
different configurations and an Informal Open -Ended meeting had been  held on Friday, 
30 November, at which the Draft General Council Decision had been  re-introduced with slight 
adjustments to the text , based on comments received from Members at and since the October 
General Council meeting. Th at was the Draft Decision which was on the agenda of the curren t 
meeting for Members' consideration and action  which was circulated  in document WT/GC/W/791.  
5.3.  Ambassador David Walker, Facilitator of the Informal Process on matters  related to the 
Functioning of the Appellate Body , recalled that this was his fifth report6 to the General Council and 
that the General Council Chair and he r predecessor  had initiated th e Informal Process to undertake 
a discussion aimed at seeking workable  and agreeable solutions to improve the functioning of the 
Appellate Body and avoid deadlock come December. That was the purpose of his report t hat day. 
5.4.  As with his  previous  reports , his current report should be read in conjunction with his earlier 
reports  to the General Council on 28 February, 7 May, 23 July and 15 October, which had been  
issued as JOB/GC/215, JOB/GC/217, JOB/GC/220 and JOB/GC/222 , respectively.  
5.5.  As had been mentioned by the Chair, he had  continued his consultations and meetings in a 
range of formats, keeping in mind the solution -focused spirit of th e Informal Process.  That had 
included a further small group session – the eleven th in the small group -format – on 27 November, 
as well as a sixth open -ended Informal Meeting on 29 November to ens ure transparency and 
inclusiveness in the Informal Process.  
5.6.  As before, the informal small group meeting had comprised delegations and coordinators that 
had: (i) tabled written proposals; (ii) raised concerns about the functioning of, and the adherence 
to WTO rules by, the Appellate Body; and (iii) made alternative proposals and/or raised follow -up 
questions on the proposals, issues, convergence elements and the Draft General Council Decision 
annexed to JOB/GC/222.  
5.7.  He recalled that , based on the twelve  propo sals submitted to the Informal Process and the 
extensive discussions held until July, he had  identified and had reported to the General Council, on 
his own responsibility, a set of areas and issues where he had  detected convergence during the 
exchanges. Th ose convergence points had been  circulated in JOB/GC/220.  
5.8.  Thereafter, a draft General Council instrument had been  drawn up based on: (i) the 
convergenc e points reported in July; (ii) further comments he had  received from Members at and 
following the July meeting; and (iii) his continued consultations and discussions with Members in a 
range of formats. The draft instrument, which had been  put forward on his own responsibility as 
Facilitator, had been  annexed to the report he had  presented to the General Council in October, 
which had been  issued in JOB/GC/222.  
5.9.  In presenting the draft instrument at the October meeting of the General Council, he had  made 
four particular observations which he wished to  recall: First, the adoption of such a General Council 
Decision would constitute a shared assessment by Members that the Appellate Body ha d, in some 
respects, not been functioning as had been intended under the DS U. 
5.10.   Second, the adoption of such a Decision should be accompanied by agreement to launch the 
selection processes to fill vacant positions – that being on the basis that a Decision c ould only apply 
if there was a body to which it c ould apply.  
5.11.   Third, such a Decision would have implications for the actions of the Appellate Body, but it 
would also carry implications for how Members look ed to use the Appellate Body.  
5.12.   Fourth, to take such 'reset' action, Members would need to have sufficient trust and 
confidence i n each other that they w ould work together to implement any such Decision in the 
coming years.  
 
6 The Facilitator's report was circulated in document JOB/GC/225 . WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.13.   Since the October General Council meeting, he had  continued his contacts with Members, and 
the issues surrounding the Appellate Body – as Members  all kn ew – had been raised and discussed 
in various fora and settings, in and outside of Geneva.  
5.14.   Delegations ha d had sufficient time to carefully consider the draft instrument which had been 
attached to his report circulated in JOB/GC/222.  
5.15.   To that end, and in his capacity as Facilitator, he had  put forward, for Members' consideration, 
the Draft General Council Decision, which had been  issued in document WT/GC/W/791 as a stand -
alone General Council document on 28 November and was before Members under th at agenda it em 
for consideration and action.  
5.16.   With regard to the Draft Decision, he had  applied some further slight adjustments to the text 
of the draft instrument to take account of Members' feedback and comments received at and since 
the October General Council meeti ng. 
5.17.   First, on the basis of his engagement with delegations, he believed there was indeed a shared 
assessment that the Appellate Body ha d, in some respects, not been functioning as intended under 
the DSU. Th at had therefore been acknowledged in the preambul ar part of the Draft Decision.  
5.18.   Second, discussions in the Informal Process about Municipal Law ha d ranged more broadly 
across questions of law and fact, so it was more correct to describe that section as 'Scope of Appeal'; 
and he had  considered it would be  useful to reinforce the point Members ha d frequently made in the 
discussions, namely that:  "Article 17.6 of the DSU restricts matters that can be raised on appeal to 
issues of law covered in the relevant panel report and legal interpretations developed by  that panel."  
5.19.   In all other substantive aspects, the Draft Decision remain ed unchanged, and as Members  
had already seen it in JOB/GC/222.  
5.20.   At the October General Council, it had been  said that in order to take meaningful action, 
Members need ed to collectivel y understand how they had  arrived at th at point. Several hypotheses 
had been  advanced  – two of which had particularly caught his attention . 
5.21.   First, it had been  noted that when some DSU rules had begun to be breached , such as on 
90 days, some Members had sought to call that out but others  had sought to excuse the breach – 
to take a pragmatic approach for the purpose of a particular dispute and to preserve what they  had 
seen as the essentials of the system. Over time, the risk was pragmat ism bec ame practice.  
5.22.   Second, it had been  noted that Members were creative and that, over time, the efforts of 
enthusiastic and innovative lawyers to prevail in a particular dispute c ould lead to "institutional 
creep" beyond Members' collective intention.  
5.23.   Perhaps th ose points could  have caught Members' attention also, and to the extent that they 
were seen to have some descriptive resonance.  
5.24.   On that basis, he believe d the Draft Decision, as recast, d id indeed provide the basis for 'reset' 
action through which  to help ensure the system operate d according to the DSU rules as had been 
agreed by Members: (i) it set out upfront a shared acknowledgment that there was a problem; (ii)  it 
provide d instructions and guidance – for the Appellate Body and Members – across areas of 
convergence that ha d emerged from Members' discussion of issues identified as part of that problem; 
and (iii) it provide d a forum for Members to express their views to the Appellate Body on the 
implementation of the instructions and guidance it co ntained. 
5.25.   He thank ed the Chair of the General Council and all delegations for placing their trust in him 
as Facilitator. As with his previous reports, the current  report w ould be issued in the JOB/GC -series, 
with WT/GC/W/791 attached to it for ease of refer ence. As  he had  said in October, it was for Members 
to decide what action they wish ed to take.  
5.26.   Since the October General Council  meeting,  there ha d been other related developments that 
bore on th at: first, it ha d emerged that Members, through the appropriate body, could  wish to 
consider the adequacy of current procedures for transparency and accountability related to Appellate WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Body expenditures going forward; and second, it  then appear ed that Members who had filed appeals 
more than a year ago f ound themselves in the situation where those appeals were unable to be 
heard until the resumption of a functioning Appellate Body.  
5.27.   The second development ha d only added to the urgency of taking action on a situation that 
was material to the ability of Members to resolve their disputes.  
5.28.   As Facilitator, he could  only hope that the discussions they had been having since the start of 
the year, and in recent weeks in particular, w ould have generated the trust and confidence needed 
to take such action.  
5.29.   He commend ed the Draft Decision in WT/GC/W/791 to the General Council for adoption t hat 
day on the understanding that Members also agree d to launch the selection process to fill vacant 
Appellate Body positions at the earliest practica ble opportunity.  
5.30.   As always, he stood ready to assist the Chair of the General Council and Members, in whatever 
capacity could  be required.  
5.31.   The Chair  took the opportunity to once again sincerely thank Ambassador Walker on behalf 
of all delegations for his r eport and for his dedication in th e Informal Process.  
5.32.   The representative of Japan  recogni zed that the draft decision by Ambassador Walker focuse d 
on the areas and issues where there was convergence of Members' views. At the same time, implicit 
in Members'  discussions was the existence of the remaining issues on which their views were still 
apart. Such difficult issues include d, among others, appellate review of factual findings, the role of 
prior reports as well as the Appellate Body's interpretive approach and overreaching which hinder ed 
the Appellate Body from securing a positive solution to a dispute as Japan had underlined at a DSB 
meeting early in the year. Members should therefore  continue their discussions on the remaining 
issues either in the informal process or in any other suitable fora in order to find a long -lasting 
solution to the Appellate Body matter.  
5.33.   On the other hand, Members  needed to harvest what they had achieved through  the Informal 
Process and move on to the next chapter together. In th at respect, Japan agree d to adopt the draft 
General Council decision proposed by Ambassador Walker. The proposed decision reflect ed many 
points addressed in the proposal tabled by Japan, Australia and Chile in April th at year. Japan also 
share d the views expressed by Ambassador Walker that a solution to improve the functioning of the 
Appellate Body c ould only have effect if there was a functioning Appellate Body. Thus, once the 
General Cou ncil adopt ed the decision, the DSB should immediately launch the Selection Process to 
fill vacant positions so as to implement the decision.   
5.34.   On a personal note, he took the opportunity to express his deep gratitude to all delegations 
as well as to the Dir ector-General and the Secretariat for their support and friendship. As some of 
the formal colleagues had declared when they left Geneva, he also pledge d that after finishing his 
job as Ambassador of Japan to the WTO, he would work as Ambassador at large for the WTO. He 
wished everyone  all the very best.  
5.35.   The representative of Chile, on behalf of Argentina , Brazil , Colombia , Costa Rica , Guatemala , 
Mexico , Panama , Paraguay , Peru, Uruguay  and Chile, said that Ambassador Walker  had fulfilled his 
mandate as the Facilitator of the Informal Process on matters relating to the Functioning of the 
Appellate Body with full transparency in a participative and inclusive manner seeking to find viable 
solutions to the challenges raised in terms  of the functioning of the Appellate Body. Th at had been 
an effort which merit ed Members'  full recognition and which ha d achieved a concrete proposal – the 
approval of which w ould allow them to initiate the appointment process of new Appellate Body 
members  and meet the obligations put forward to Members  in accordance with the  Dispute 
Settlement Understanding. The Members making th at statement t hat day reiterate d their 
commitment to the dispute settlement system within the W orld Trade Organization  including a fully 
operational Appellate Body.  
5.36.   On a personal note, he thanked the Chair, the Director -General and colleagues for their words 
of farewell, support and friendship during his time in th e organization  as the Ambassador of Chile to 
the WTO.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 16 - 
 
  5.37.   The representative of Argentina  noted that t he focused discussions held throughout the year 
had been productive  as they had  drawn on specific proposals by Members which , in turn , had been  
supplemented by open, transparent and inclusive discussions. All interested Members  had had the 
opportunity to make suggestions, be involved in discussions and voice criticism  – as well as to make 
alternative proposals where deemed necessary.  
5.38.   Members curr ently already h ad a thorough assessment of the functioning of the Appellate 
Body and a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. Areas for improvement ha d come 
to light , requiring the commitment of all actors involved.  The draft decision presen ted to the 
Members reflect ed the matters discussed over the course of 2019 and the possible points of 
convergence in order to move forward in a positive manner.  
5.39.   Argentina was prepared to proceed with the adoption of the draft decision submitted for 
conside ration. As had been previously mentioned, the adoption of th e decision went hand in hand 
with another highly important decision that the General Council should  adopt , which concerned  the 
launch of the selection process for six Appellate Body members.  
5.40.   Argen tina had been  among the first seven Members (along with Brazil, Colombia, Chile, 
Guatemala, Mexico and Peru) to point out, in the Dispute Settlement Body in April 2017, the need 
to start the selection process to fill the vacancy that would arise upon the e xpiry of Ricardo Ramírez 
Hernández's term of office.  Therefore, t he fact that Members  needed to fill six out of seven possible 
vacancies put them in an excellent position to address some of the concerns that ha d been raised.  
5.41.   It would be up  to Members to se lect "persons of recogni zed authority, with demonstrated 
expertise in law, international trade and the subject matter of the covered agreements generally" , 
to ensure the system's continued success and to prevent any possible deviation from what had been  
agreed in 1994.  
5.42.   Argentina was  aware that the adoption of the proposed decision as well as the decision calling 
for the start of the selection process w ould not mark the end of the road. Other matters that had 
been discuss ed still require d Members'  ongoing attention. Just as what it  had been doing since th e 
crisis began, Argentina  stress ed the need for transparent, pragmatic and inclusive dialogue in which 
all interested Members c ould participate.   
5.43.   Maintaining a fully functioning Appellate Body was of paramount importance  as part of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system which Argentina  fully support ed. Multilateralism was based 
on the essential elements of cooperation and coordination, agreements and understandings. 
Argentina  did not believe in  a world in which the power of the strongest prevail ed over the law and 
existing commitments.  The dispute settlement system was therefore  of central importance. 
Argentina  would continue working to improve its functioning while maintaining its core attribut es. 
5.44.   Breaking the state of paralysis into which the Appellate Body w ould fall in two days' time 
continue d to be Argentina's  priority. Argentina was prepared to continue contributing to the 
discussions, taking a pragmatic and inclusive approach.  Argentina  placed its trust in the commitment 
of the Membership for the  organization to continue to have an effective dispute settlement system 
in which cooperation and the rule of law were central to its functioning.  
5.45.   The representative of Ecuador  recalled that o n numerous occasions,  Ecuador , both in its own 
capacity and as a co-sponsor  of a joint statement, ha d spoken of the severely negative impact that 
the absence of a dispute settlement system would have on the multilateral trading system.  
5.46.   Ecuador had  joined the  WTO without hesitation in the belief that fair rules of play would enable 
developing countries such as itself  to participate more fully in international  trade in goods and 
services. From the outset, it had been  established that a fundamental component of the multilateral 
system would be the existence of procedures preventing unfair and damaging trade policy practices 
based solely on the exercise of misplaced power.  
5.47.   Regrettably, Ecuador had witnessed  actions carried out in recent years  by a number of other 
Members which  had created a n unlevel  playing field. Th at situation was detrimental to the smallest 
countries  as they  remain ed defenceless against measures affecting their strategies to foster growth 
through enhanced international trade flows.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 17 - 
 
  5.48.   It was extrem ely paradoxical that while the current narrative proclaim ed the importance of 
international trade for development, in practice , Ecuador  saw nothing but the existence of greater 
restrictions that hamper ed exports and limit ed the legitimate domestic policy s pace of developing 
Members . Ecuador therefore asked where  the logic was in accepting new rules and obligations . 
5.49.   Ecuador support ed the adoption of the proposed decision and w ould continue to encourage 
frank and open discussion s that would  enhance multilater al mechanisms , but always within a 
framework of respect for all Members.  
5.50.   The representative of Nigeria  underscore d the importance of ensuring the effective functioning 
of the Appellate Body in order to uphold the integrity of the rule s-based multilateral t rading system. 
Since the inception of the WTO d ispute settlement system in 1995, there ha d been remarkable 
improvements in the multilateral trading system. The dispute settlement mechanism  had proven to 
be a very useful tool in resolving many trade disputes and ha d a high record of cases resolved.  
5.51.   Nigeria  appreciate d the Draft General Council decision presented by Amb assador  Walker 
which had confirmed some signal of convergence in many areas. Nigeria  particularly support ed the 
provisions for transitional rules for outgoing A ppellate Body  members, the scope of appeal, advisory 
opinions and the section on overreach. As to the substance of the draft decision , Nigeria  was in 
favour of the paragraph which state d that the A ppellate Body  should consider only matters raised 
before it and should not delve into issues of fact thus addressing the issue of overreach.  
5.52.   On the issue of Rule 15, Nigeria  support ed that the current provision of the Working 
Proced ures of the A ppellate Body  be maintained to allow for the outgoing A ppellate Body  members 
to complete pending cases in order  to avoid unnecessary delays in resolving a dispute, as a result 
of the fact that the incoming members would  have to be thoroughly b riefed and well acclimatised in 
their respective cases in order to carry on  with their functions . Nigeria  was likewise  in favour of the 
automatic launch of the Appellate Body selection process 180 days prior to the expiry of their term 
to enable efficiency  in the selection process and to prevent a vacuum in the A ppellate Body .  
5.53.   Nigeria  support ed Paragraph 17 of the draft paper which state d that precedence should be 
invoked if found to be relevant to a case. Th at would inspire confidence and further ensure t he 
strengthening of the judicial institution. On the issue of municipal law, Nigeria  welcome d the idea 
that municipal law should  be treated as a matter of fact and not law.  
5.54.   Despite th ose areas of convergence,  some areas where Members'  approach could  differ 
persisted . For instance , on the issue of 90 days, while Nigeria  agree d that the strict compliance with 
the deadline for the circulation of Appellate Body reports was useful  – however , for obvious reasons, 
Nigeria had  previously suggested an extension on th at timeframe. In the spirit of compromise, 
Nigeria  did not insist on th at especially where there exist ed a window in the draft document where 
an extension was still possible based on the agreement of the parties invo lved. Also , on 
Paragraph  20, on the issue of regular dialogue between the DSB and the Appellate Body, the 
independence of the A ppellate Body  should  be maintained to preserve some level of confidence in 
the dispute settlement  system.   
5.55.   The priority at th at critical time was for the impasse to be resolved . Considering the volume 
of work put in by all Members during the informal process in trying to address certain concerns, 
Nigeria  urged the DSB to fulfil its obligation under the DSU to urgently fill vacancie s as they ar ose 
to ensure the functioning of the A ppellate Body  in the near future.  
5.56.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that Members' priority should be to initiate the 
selection process immediately. The cost of the Appellate Body's dysfunction was already reflected 
on individual disputes. No Member w ould benefit from the prolonged impasse. In th at regard, 
Chinese Taipei  support ed Ambassador Walker's approach and was ready to join the consensus to 
adopt th e decision. Chinese Taipei  also support ed Members ' continue d discussion s on the 
improvement of the Appellate Body's function. The follow up discussion process should serve to 
review the implementation of th e General Council decision. In addition, the structure of the process 
should  be flexible enough to accommodate newly raised issues.  
5.57.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  said that t he draft decision reflect ed the 
convergent views on the Appellate Body issue at hand in a balanced and comprehensive manner . WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Korea therefore supported the draft decision. Since the informal process had been  initiated a year 
ago, Korea  had engaged in discussions on the Appellate Body issue in various configurations to come 
up with practical solutions and unblock the Selection Process of Appellate Bo dy members.  
5.58.   However, i t was regrettable that Members  had not found an agreeable solution to date – 
making  the paralysis of the Appellate Body imminent. All Members ha d a shared responsibility to 
resolve th e issue. Even if they would  not reach an agreement by 10 December, they should continue 
to make their utmost efforts to find a solution as soon as possible.  On its part, Korea would  strive 
to contribute to bridging the divergent views among Members in a constructive way.  
5.59.   The representative of Chad, on beha lf of the  LDCs, noted that t he LDC Group ha d registered 
to make a general statement on the matter under Item 14 of the agenda concerning  the reform 
process – understanding that the issue of the Appellate Body was just one aspect of WTO Reform. 
At that stage, the LDC Group simply  welcome d the efforts of Ambassador Walker for his regular 
interactions with Members even if the Group's  expectations ha d not been full y met.  
5.60.   The representative of Barbados  said that i t appear ed to be a good faith effort to present a 
document that the WTO membership could unite on while responding to the concerns of another  – 
all with the ultimate goal of unblocking the impasse in launchi ng the selection process for new 
Appellate Body members.  
5.61.   It had been deeply disquieting that despite th ose best efforts, Members  had been  unable to 
break the stalemate in launching the selection process and to thereby renew some normalcy to the 
proper func tioning of the Appellate Body. It was a foregone conclusion that , as at the end of 
10 December, the WTO 's two -step, dispute settlement system w ould become inoperable as the 
Appellate Body w ould be two persons shy of the minimum number of Members required t o adjudicate 
an appeal. Even if Barbados  would beg to the greater senses of the membership to come to an 
agreement t hat day, it would still take some time to launch and complete the selection process and 
appoint new members to the Appellate Body.   
5.62.   According to the records, Barbados was not a frequent user of the dispute settlement system.  
Its value was not however  always reflected on paper. The existence of a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system was what help ed in maintaining the balance betw een the powerful and what 
sometimes seem ed like the powerless. For the smaller and less powerful amongst Members , the 
two-step dispute settlement system was all that they had in a post -GATT modern day era of trade 
and litigation of trade disputes.    
5.63.   Barring of coming up with a solution t hat day, Members in seeking to come up with alternative 
dispute settlement solutions ha d found refuge in Article 25 of the DSU. Barbados  howe ver caution ed 
that such alternatives should  not detract from finding a tenable solution to the impasse and should 
not be seen as a replacement of the Appellate Body function. There was some disquiet that such 
forms of alternate dispute resolution could inf ringe on inclusivity in disputes, and the quality and 
fairness of outcomes in th ose processes.  
5.64.   Barbados was supportive of a decision which secure d the independence and impartiality of 
the Appe llate Body and its members, and maintain ed the rights and obliga tions of Members. While  
noting that the draft decision address ed some of the concerns outlined, Barbados  hoped that the 
commitment to continue working on other issues could unblock the selection process. In so doing , 
Members should however  recollect the is sue of broader dispute settlement reform where issues of 
interest to a wider cross -section of the Membership c ould be taken up.    
5.65.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , recall ed that the Appellate Body's 
legal and jurisdictional arse nal was cardinal to ensure the security and predictability of WTO rules, 
and the smooth functioning of the multilateral  trading system. Th at was why the stalemate in which 
an institution of th at size was confronted with wa s very worrying.  
5.66.   The African Group ha d participated in a committed and constructive manner in the work and 
consultations led by Ambassador Walker and  support ed the draft decision in WT/GC/W/791 dated  
28 November 2019 on the functioning of the Appellate Body . The African Group urged Members to 
adopt, preserve and save the  Appellate Body  even at the last hour  and for the United States to act 
in that direction.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 19 - 
 
  5.67.   The representative of Zambia  associated with  the statements made by  the ACP, the LDCs and 
the African Group. Regarding th e impasse in the appointment of members of the Appellate Body, it 
was regrettable that  Members  were only two days away from having a complete paralysis of a critical 
component of the dispute settlement system which would deny Members access to a fair and 
effective system to review trade disputes. It was however Zambia's  sincere hope that the Facilitator -
driven informal process w ould manage to find a positive resolution to th at impasse that was 
acceptable to all Members. Th at was important if Members  were to safeguard the relevance and 
credibility of the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
5.68.   It remain ed important that Members  continue d to pursue the development agenda to ensure 
that developing Members , particularly the LDCs, had a commensurate share of eco nomic growth and 
development in line with their aspirations as had been outlined in the 2030 agenda on Sustainable 
Development. Zambia  therefore strongly support ed the call to work towards outcomes at MC12 and 
to effectively address issues on S&DT . As such, Zambia  support ed the G -90 proposal which w ould 
provide sufficient basis for it to work towards the agreement -specific outcomes at MC12.  
5.69.   With respect to Agriculture, it was again regrettable that Members  had failed to beat the 
deadlines they had set for fisheries  subsidies  and public stockholding for food security purposes . The 
lack of sustainable progress in other areas of agriculture particularly on domestic support remain ed 
a serious concern.  Zambia  reiterate d the critical importance of agricul ture to Members'  economies 
and would like to see strong efforts made towards addressing imbalances and distortions in global 
agriculture trade. Zambia  could not overemphasise the importance of having a substantial reduction 
of OTDS, elimination of AMS as w ell as more clear disciplines on product -specific support to avoid 
subsidy -concentration on support products.  Zambia underscore d the importance of constructive 
engagement, dialogue and flexibility to ensure that Members  kept the WTO system alive for 
develo pment and inclusive growth for all.  
5.70.   The representative of Ukraine  contributed to the discussions on  the issue of launching the 
selection process of the members of the Appellate Body and reiterate d its willingness to work towards 
finding a mutual solution o n the issues concerned. The main problem was not the fact that the 
Appellate Body could  depart from the current language of the DSU a s some Members d id not see 
the problem in those actions  – but rather in that the dispute settlement system as such c ould not 
operate as had been agreed upon by Members.  
5.71.   In order to find an appropriate solution in an expeditious manner and to allow for the new 
appointments to take place, Ukraine share d and appreciate d proposals put forward in the Draft 
General Council Decision  on the Functioning of the Appellate Body and assure d its willingness to 
work jointly thereon and was calling upon Members to engage in the negotiations in developing 
relevant amendments to the DSU which should respond to the current state of affairs. Ukra ine stood 
ready to engage constructively and collaboratively to help resolve the impasse.  
5.72.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of  CARICOM , viewed the impasse in 
appointments to the Appellate Body with concern. If the impasse was not  resolved in time to facilitate 
appointment by 10 December, the looming paralysis of the Appellate Body w ould damage the 
enforcement mechanism of the rules -based multila teral trading system. Th at ran contrary to 
Members'  expectations of an open, transparent and rules -based multilateral trading system and was 
simply unacceptable, particularly for the small and vulnerable amongst them that depend ed on the 
presence of an eff ective and fully functional dispute settlement system to secure the balance 
between the large and the small , and the powerful and those that were less powerful.  
5.73.   CARICOM  took note of  the proposals which s ought  to address concerns raised about the 
functioni ng of the Appellate Body and believe d that any reform adopted should  promote the rule of 
law, independence, impartiality , consistency and predictability of the appellate process.  
5.74.   The representative of South Africa  support ed the statements made by the  ACP a nd the Africa n 
Group . South Africa was grateful to Ambassador Walker for the manner in which he ha d conducted 
the process and support ed his efforts. Over the last two years , the membership  had worked hard to 
overcome the impasse on the appointment of A ppellate Body  members . Despite a valiant effort to 
do so, it seem ed consensus remain ed elusive. On 11 December, the appeals process of the WTO 
would be dysfunctional and w ould lead to existential crisis of the  dispute settlement system . All the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 20 - 
 
  components of the multilateral trading system  were critical to ensure its effectiveness, including the 
dispute settlement mechanism .  
5.75.   South Africa's  TNC statement emphasi sed that at the heart of a well -functioning multilateral 
trading system  was an ef fective dispute resolution mechanism. Without the A ppellate Body , the WTO 
dispute settlement system w ould lose much of its predictability and could  eventually collapse. Th at 
in turn ha d serious consequences for future rulemaking efforts in the WTO as the v alue of negotiated 
outcomes depend ed on the ability of signatories to enforce them.  
5.76.   The A ppellate Body' s most important function was to prohibit any Member from making 
unilateral determinations as to whether another Member ha d violated its obligations und er WTO law 
and stop ped trade disputes from escalating into trade wars. It w ould be important that Member s' 
rights were preserved during th at difficult period and that pressure was not exerted on countries to 
implement panel rulings and give up the right to  appeal.  
5.77.   The areas of convergence Ambassador Walker ha d identified while reflective of the hard work 
of the membership to unlock the impasse were not sufficient on their own and ha d to be part of a 
package that require d agreement to launch the process for  the selection of A ppellate Body  members. 
Any of the options currently available under the DSU were not ideal alternatives to the current 
system.  
5.78.   Article 25 ha d certain limitations . It had been  foreseen as an alternative for "certain disputes 
that concern issues clearly defined by both parties ". Parties to the dispute would  agree on procedures 
to be followed which could  lead to the fragmentation of the dispute settlement system. There were 
therefore no alternatives to the two -stage system as they w ould limit rights of Members to appeal, 
would subject disputes to power dynamics and were likely to fragment the system.  
5.79.   Without adding to the doom and gloom, on 10 December,  the term of two of the remaining 
three Appellate Body members  would  expire, leavi ng a single member in office.  The A ppellate Body  
would effectively be dysfunctional with the possibility of using Rule 15 being put in question. 
Members should  ask themselves what the consequences of th at development w ould be. South Africa 
asked whether th ey had come to the end of history as had been once famously proclaimed  and how 
an institution described as the crown in the jewel of the WTO bec ame a poster child for all the ills 
that beset th e organi zation.  
5.80.   The demise of the A ppellate Body  held severe c onsequences for the multilateral trading 
system  including on whether  might ma de right. South Africa asked whether Members were returning 
to a pre -WTO dispute settlement system where power relations w ould override considerations of 
rule of law, fairness and  justice . South Africa wondered about the implications for smaller Members 
when justice was dispensed on the basis of unilateral decisions and coercion without consideration 
of binding multilateral rules . The A ppellate Body  impasse was certainly symptomatic of the 
challenges facing an inclusive, developmental rules -based trading system. There was a need for a 
further reflection by the Members on what th at mean t for the process they had embarked on.  
5.81.   Members  needed to adopt a pragmatic a pproach to restore the dispute settlement system  
and to preserve its credibility and integrity.  The immediate task should be the prioritization of the 
launch of the selection process and South Africa  support ed the call by 116 Members to launch the 
selectio n process. There was a need to strengthen the dispute settlement system . Such a discussion 
should  include the issues raised by the Africa Group on accessibility, costs and representation.  
5.82.   The process to strengthen the dispute settlement system  should be u nderpinned by the 
following principles: ensure independence and impartiality of the A ppellate Body ; preserve the 
current architecture of the dispute settlement system  and the two stage dispute settlement system ; 
preserve negative consensus and ensure an ef fective and efficient dispute settlement system.  
5.83.   It would therefore serve the membership well if they could have a proposal from the 
concerned Member as to what it would take to unblock the impasse. South Africa remained  ready to 
engage constructively with  Members as they navigate d those turbulent waters.  
5.84.   The representative of Uruguay  consider ed that the draft decision that  Members  had reached 
had found important points of convergence among the majority  of the Members hip while taking on WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 21 - 
 
  board the systemic c oncerns of other  Members. Whatever the outcome, it was certain that th e 
informal process  had been a positive exercise  and w ould serve as a basis for future negotiations if  
Members  would not to reach consensus th at day.   
5.85.   Even if Uruguay  agree d that there was a need to review some aspects of the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding  – and it had listened closely to the concerns aired on the Appellate Body 
– many of th ose concerns seem ed reasonable. But to deprive Members of the dispute settlement 
system and to impede its full functioning was not the appropriate way to improve it. 
5.86.   Members wer e a few hours away from a n unprecedented situation – the impossibility for the 
Appellate Body to function. Th at was a fact which introduce d uncertainty regarding t he functioning 
of the dispute settlement system. All Members w ould be impacted by th at. Most certainly, those who 
would suffer most would be  the small countries which, such as Uruguay, ha d in international law a 
guarantee that agreements w ould be respected  and that the dispute settlement mechanism of the 
WTO was a shield against abuse in the trade arena.  
5.87.   Uruguay reiterate d its full commitment to work in a constructive way with other Members to 
seek solution to ensure the full operational functioning of the dispute settlement system  and urged  
Members  to immediately  launch the selection process to fill the vacant positions.  
5.88.   The representative of Pakistan  noted that t he efforts and contribution of Ambassador Walker 
towards resolving the crisis of the Appellate Body merit ed appreciation and so d id the resolve of the 
remaining Members who ha d supported the efforts to restore the effective functioning of the dispute 
settlement system. Pakistan  welcome d the draft General Council decision in document 
WT/GC/W/791 which it fully support ed with the aim of ending the crisis. The value of an effectively 
functioning two -tiered dispute settlement system in the WTO particularly for developing countries 
and Pakistan's  support for it were well-documented. It was that system  that differentiate d the WTO 
from most multilateral organizations.  
5.89.   That then  was the end game. In less than two days, t he Appellate Body w ould go into 
indefinite paralysis and Pakistan  was concerned that allowing th at step ha d the potential to rock the 
entire system at its core and would cause irreparable harm. Pakistan  deeply regret ted that Members  
were in th at situation and urged the Membership to make th at last effort fruitful by accepting the 
draft decision and instructing the DSB to launch the process to fill the A ppellate Body  vacancies 
immediately.  
5.90.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  fully accept ed the draft decision 
contained in document WT/GC/W/791 to guarantee  the continuity of  the functioning of the dispute 
settlement  system . Bolivia was ready to continue working to pursue th at end. 
5.91.   The representative of India said that an effective dispute resolution mechanism was a t the 
core of a functioning multilateral trading system. In the last 24 years, the WTO 's two -stage, binding 
dispute settlement system ha d adjudicated hundreds of cases between Members. Although not 
perfect, the dispute set tlement system ha d led to meaningful reductions in unfair trade practices 
and ha d helped to strengthen the rules -based international trading system. As one of the leading 
users of the WTO 's dispute settlement system, the United States ha d been one of the b iggest 
beneficiaries of th at public good.  
5.92.   Unless the Membership act ed in concert t hat day to lift the block on A ppellate Body  vacancies, 
Members would  lose th at public good which ha d served all of them so well. Th at would be a 
tremendous loss for the major ity of Members who lack ed the political and economic clout to enforce 
their rights and protect their interests in a system governed by power and not rules.  
5.93.   For the past two years, Members ha d engaged constructively and rigorously and had put forth 
several proposals to address the concerns expressed by the United States with the functioning of 
the Appellate Body. India thank ed the Facilitator of the Informal Process for his efforts in trying to 
find common ground among a wide range of proposals and positions  and for presenting the draft 
decision in document WT/GC/W/791.  
5.94.   With just one day to go before the curtains would come down on the Appellate Body, India 
called upon all  Members to fulfil their treaty -obligations under Article s 17.1 and 17.2 of the DSU and  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 22 - 
 
  to adopt the draft decision put forth by the Facilitator with a view to urgently unblocking the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
5.95.   As a responsible and concerned Member of the multilateral trading system, India was willing 
to join the consensus in adopting t he draft decision so that it would lead  to the end of the current 
impasse.  
5.96.   The choice that Members would make that day w ould have lasting implications for the future 
of the rules -based trading system. Members  all ha d the collective responsibility to choose  the long -
term stability of the rules -based trading system over brinksmanship aimed at short -term gains. If 
Members  failed to act t hat day to save the Appellate Body, history w ould not judge them kindly.  
5.97.   The representative of Egypt  said that t he draft decision focuse d on areas of convergence . In 
that regard, Egypt's position was to maintain a comprehensive approach focusing on all elements of 
developing countries' interest as contained in the African Group documents TN/DS/W/42 and 
TN/DS/W/92. Members  should continue their discussions in all other areas of importance to enhance 
the dispute settlement system.  
5.98.   Resolving the crisis of the Appellate Body had been  the immediate priority for the WTO. In 
that vein, Egypt  support ed the adoption of the draft Gene ral Council decision on the functioning of 
the Appellate Body  as it represent ed a good basis for resolving the current crisis. In that regard, 
Egypt  also stress ed the urgency of filling all current vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
5.99.   Egypt was co-sponsoring the statement to be made by Switzerland under Item 15 of the 
agenda in support of the multilateral trading system and reaffirm ed that the  dispute settlement 
system wa s a central element in providing predictability to the rules -based system. Egypt  reiterate d 
its commitment to continue supporting its main principles  and noted that  Members  were the master s 
of their own faith.  
5.100.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the Facilitator  for his considerable efforts 
to date and for his report to Members. The United States was disappointed that  it did not see 
convergence among Members with respect to an understanding and appreciation of the concerns 
raised. The United States  did not support  adoption of the draft decision.  
5.101.   He said that r eaching th at conclusion was not for lack of effort by the United States.  No 
Member ha d been more constructively and consistently engaged on th ose substantive issues than 
the United States.  For more than sixtee n years and across multiple US Administrations, the United 
States ha d been raising serious concerns with the Appellate Body 's disregard for the rules set by 
Members. Over the past two years, the United States ha d outlined its concerns in exhaustive detail.  
The United States  had not avoided discussion . Rather, it had laid out in the clearest possible terms 
the US position on the issues raised.  
5.102.   While the DSU text was straightforward and clear, the Appellate Body ha d ignored that text, 
and many Members had not  focused on just how far the Appellate Body 's practice had strayed from 
that text.  And beyond its detailed DSB statements, the United States  had made clear its willingness 
to discuss th ose concerns further with any Member in order to deepen each other 's understanding 
of those substantive issues. Several Members ha d participated in th ose dialogues and in many 
instances the United States  had found the discussions to be frank and productive.  
5.103.   As engagement  was a two -way street , for nearly a year, in the General  Council and the 
Dispute Settlement Body, the United States had sought to deepen Members ' collective understanding 
of the concerns raised and had asked Members to engage on a fundamental question: "why did the 
Appellate Body feel free to disregard the clear text of the agreements? " 
5.104.   The United States had not pose d the question as part of an academic exercise. Rather, th at 
question was critical in the context of any solution -focused discussion . Without an accurate 
diagnosis, Members  could not assess the l ikely effectiveness of any potential solution.  
5.105.   A fuller understanding of the cause was particularly important. As the United States ha d 
explained, the rules of the DSU were clear. Where ambiguity or uncertainty over the meaning of the 
treaty text ha d not caused the problem, then simply re -affirming the rules that ha d been persistently WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 23 - 
 
  broken c ould not resolve the concern. Remarkably, nearly one year later, the United States  had yet 
to hear Members engage d with it on that question.  
5.106.   Notwithstanding Members ' public silence, at the October meeting of the General Council, the 
United States had offered several potential explanations based on conversations and on its own 
reflections. For example, one cause could be the ongoing challenges facing the WTO negotiating 
function and its oversight function, leading to unchecked institutional creep by the Appellate Body.  
5.107.   At the same meeting, the United States had  suggested that another cause could be that 
some Members believe d that the Appellate Body was an independent inte rnational court and its 
members were like judges who inherently ha d more authority to make rules than the focused review 
provided in the DSU. A related cause could be that some Appellate Body members view ed themselves 
as "appellate judges " serving on a "World Trade Court " that was the "centrepiece" of the WTO dispute 
settlement system,  rather than one component of it. Such an expansive vision of the Appellate Body 
was not reflected in the DSU and had not been agreed to by the United States.  
5.108.   The United State s had also commented at that meeting that it had been  possible that some 
explanations for why the Appellate Body  had felt free to depart from the clear text of the DSU could  
be specific to the concerns that ha d been raised. For example, with regard to the Appellate Body 's 
repeated breach of Article 17.5 of the DSU, the United States had  noted that while some Members 
had raised concerns about the Appellate Body 's exceeding 90 days, particularly without consulting  
the parties, a few Members had excused the breach of their agreed rules. The United States had  
asked whether the attitude of those Members had contributed to a mindset among the Appellate 
Body that the WTO 's rules and deadlines did not need to be respecte d. 
5.109.   Similarly, in that statement, with respect to so -called cogent reasons, the United States  had 
noted the Facilitator 's report which suggest ed that Members agree d that precedent had not been 
created through WTO dispute settlement. And so the United States  had asked at that meeting why 
some Members advocate d for the Appellate Body to assert that its interpretations should  be followed 
by panels absent unidentified cogent reasons. The United States had  also asked why then d id the 
Appellate Body assert a prece dential value for its reports like an authoritative interpretation that 
only Members in the Ministerial Conference or General Council c ould give. 
5.110.   More recently, at the November meeting of the DSB, the United States had  sought to discuss 
with Members system ic concerns regarding the compensation of Appellate Body members. It had  
sought to further Members ' understanding of the compensation structure as a general matter, and 
to consider the possible consequences of that structure. In that statement, the United States had 
commented that a system that provide d a financial reward for violating DSU rules and prolonging 
the duration of an appeal would appear inconsistent with the objective behind the DSU rule of 
providing for the prompt resolution of disputes. And the United States had  asked Members whether 
the current structure create d the correct incentive, or a negative one ; whether  that structure 
encourage d prolonged appeals at the expense of clear WTO rules  and whether, w ithout debate or 
effective oversight, Memb ers had acquiesced in a compensation structure that could  undermine, 
rather than promote, the prompt resolution of a dispute . 
5.111.   Those repeated attempts over many months by the United States to provoke a meaningful 
conversation among Members in the DSB, in th e General Council, and in the Informal Process ha d 
proven unsuccessful. Accordingly, Members  were no closer to an understanding of how they had 
arrived at th at point.  
5.112.   Despite US concerns with Members ' failure to discuss th at fundamental question, the United 
States continue d to engage in the Informal Process, including through detailed reactions to the 
Facilitator 's reports and draft decisions. The United States had  raised a number of questions at the 
General Council meetings in July and October. Members ha d yet to engage and the United States'  
questions remain ed relevant. Even Ambassador Walker himself admit ted that the adjustments to 
the draft decision from October to t hat day ha d been slight.  
5.113.   With respect to the issue of App ellate Body members whose terms ha d expired, the draft 
decision would appear to depart from the DSU and permit ted Appellate Body members to serve 
beyond expiration of their terms.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 24 - 
 
  5.114.   Regarding the 90 -day deadline for Appellate Body reports, the DSU text was already clear, 
and yet the Appellate Body ha d failed to respect it. The United States asked whether there was a 
reason to think th at that  language would ensure a different result . 
5.115.   With respect to the issue of appellate review of questions of fact, the Unite d States  was 
concerned that the Appellate Body would say it was already abiding by the text in the Facilitator 's 
Report, especially since the Appellate Body ha d interpreted DSU Article 11 to convert questions of 
fact into questions of law. And some Members  would even support the Appellate Body 's approach to 
Article 11 despite real -world consequences everyone could  see such as a current appeal with dozens 
of Article 11 challenges to panel fact -finding – an appeal that ha d been going on for 17 months and 
for which the Appellate Body ha d held not one but two oral hearings lasting weeks.  
5.116.   With respect to advisory opinions, similarly, the Appellate Body presumably consider ed that 
it was already abiding by the text in the Facilitator 's report. The United States ask ed for the basis to 
consider that t hat language would have a different result . 
5.117.   Regarding the issue of precedent, the Appellate Body ha d relied on the reference in the DSU 
to security and predictability to justify its cogent reasons approach and the United States  was 
concerned that the proposed language in the draft decision d id not address the issue.  
5.118.   With respect to the issue of overreach, it was clear that the Appellate Body would say that 
it already abide d by the text of Article 17.6 of the Anti -Dumping A greement and, in turn, the text in 
the Facilitator 's Report. The problem was that the Appellate Body ha d adopted an erroneous 
interpretation of Article 17.6 that render ed it inutile. The United States  had not yet seen convergence 
on how to address th e issue or other instances in which the Appellate Body ha d departed from the 
plain text of other covered agreements.  
5.119.   The United States  had heard some Members claim ing that a regular dialogue between the 
DSB and  the Appellate Body w ould ensure that the clear rules would be  respected going forward.  
The United States  question ed the utility of such a dialogue when Members h eld different views on 
the issues raised.  
5.120.   For instance, some Members believe d that Appellate Body reports should  be followed by 
panels absent cogent reasons . Other Members disagree d. A regular dialogue would only allow for 
further airing of those differences ultimately to be resolved by the Appellate Body.  
5.121.   But the experience of the past years g ave the United States  no reason to believe the 
Appellate Body would willingly change its invention that Appellate Body  reports should  be treated as 
precedent when that approach – though contrary to WTO rules – enhance d the Appellate Body 's role 
and power in t he dispute settlement system.  
5.122.   In sum, the United States  appreciate d that – as a result of engagement by the United States 
and other Members and the efforts of the Facilitator  – some progress ha d been made as more and 
more Members were willing to admit the Appellate Body ha d departed from what Members had 
agreed.  
5.123.   Despite that limited progress, some Members refuse d to acknowledge a problem even 
existed, and there ha d been no discussion of why the Appellate Body ha d departed from its agreed 
role. Moreover, the United States  failed to see convergence on how to ensure that the limitations 
imposed by Members in the DSU were respected going forward and what the consequences were for 
continued failure to adhere to those limitations.  
5.124.   To find an appropriate and effect ive solution, it was imperative for Members to engage in a 
discussion on how they had come to th at point.  
5.125.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the  ACP, had been monitoring  developments 
closely with the expectation that the areas of convergence in th at draft decision would resolve the 
concerns held by some Members and would allow for the immediate launch of the Appellate Body 
Selection Process. It was not an overstatement to offer the view that the WTO and the multilateral 
trading sys tem was facing the deepest crisis since its establishment over two decades ago. To look 
back even further from the GATT to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, the established view held WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 25 - 
 
  by Contracting Parties was that common trade rules buttressed by an ef fective governance structure 
would support global peace and security. Th at normative view was confirmed by the fact that 
countries with commercial and trade ties were more likely to find peaceful solutions to disagreements 
that ar ose.  
5.126.   Indeed, it was that view that had led to the integration of the global economy through 
common rules underpinned by effective enforcement. The convergence of common rules and for the 
first time a binding mechanism for the adjudication of disputes had provided a platform for 
transparency and predictability in the conduct of international trade. Any adverse impacts on th at 
adjudicative mechanism c ould negatively affect the functioning of the multilateral trading system. It 
was for th at reason that the ACP Group continue d to expre ss deep concern that the blockage of the 
Selection Process for Appellate Body members could have adverse impact on the integrity of the 
dispute settlement system. Th at mean t that a period of hibernation as it had been  was inevitable. 
That was a sobering re ality that Members  currently  faced. 
5.127.   On the substance of the draft decision, the ACP Group note d progress on the transitional 
rules for outgoing Appellate Body members, the 90 -day timeframe for appeal, the meaning of 
municipal law, advisory opinions, preced ent and overreach in the interpretation of the WTO 
Agreements. In addition, the draft decision call ed for the Dispute Settlement Body to establish in 
consultation with the Appellate Body a mechanism for regular dialogue between Members and the 
Appellate Bo dy where Members c ould express their views on issues including in relation to 
implementation of the draft decision. While the ACP Group would have preferred a more substantial 
approach to improving the functioning of the Appellate Body, the ACP Group  endor sed the draft 
decision with the hope that it would lead to unblocking the appointment process while leaving other 
important outstanding issues to be taken up at a later date.  
5.128.   Some delegations ha d floated the idea that a paralysed Appellate Body c ould be replaced by 
an alternative appeals mechanism under Article 25 of the DSU concerning expeditious arbitration. 
Should Article 25 arbitrations become the default appeal mechanism, there would be  a risk of, inter 
alia, a fragmentation of approaches to the settlement of disputes in absence of a common framework 
for Article 25 appeals a nd issues of inclusivity, access and confidence in the delivery of equity and 
fairness. Th ose were real concerns es pecially from small economies. The ACP Group therefore c ould 
not support any replacement of the Appellate Body as had been constituted by the DSU with any 
permanent or alternative mechanism. There was also fear that discussions on the establishment of 
an alternative appeals mechanism albeit temporary create d a risk that attention would be diverted 
away from finding a long term workable solution to the current Appellate Body crisis and restoring 
a fully constituted and functioning Appellate Body.  
5.129.   The ACP was composed of small economies, LDCs, landlocked developing countries, small 
island developing States, post -conflict countries and post -colonial societies – all of which were 
grappling with multi -fold development challenges. The multilateral trading system supported by a 
workable dispute settlement system was critical to not only preserving the rules but allow ed for the 
equality of Members under the rules. If Members  did not resolve th e crisis, they would  create the 
conditions where economic and political fo rce and coercion w ould replace rules -based adjudication. 
Members  stood the real possibility of the rollback of the trend towards consensus and collective 
rulemaking. The ACP therefore support ed the draft decision and urge d Members to find a speedy 
resoluti on to th e impasse before it was too late.  
5.130.   The representative of the European Union  said that the  Informal Process ha d lasted for 
almost a year. Faced with the blockage of Appellate Body appointments by the United States, the 
rest of the Membership ha d very clearly and very concretely demonstrated, by the many proposals 
that ha d been made and by their open engagement in th e process, its willingness to address the 
concerns raised by the United States.  
5.131.   The European Union  commend ed the outstanding work done by  the Facilitator . His draft 
decision could have been the right basis for unblocking the appointments. However, as Members  
had just heard, the United States was not ready to unblock on the basis of the revised draft decision 
as had been  presented t hat day. At the same time, the United States ha d not formulated any single 
proposal or counterproposal of its own.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 26 - 
 
  5.132.   Members should be  clear t hat day as to where th at left the WTO Membership.  In two days ' 
time, they would  have an unprecedented situation in the World Trade Organization which w ould no 
longer be able to deliver binding resolution of trade disputes and w ould no longer guarantee the 
right to appeal review. Th at was in clear breach of the WTO contract in force since 1995.  
5.133.   Members  should be clear abou t what in fact w ould happen in two days. The actions of one 
Member w ould deprive other Members of their right to a binding and two-step dispute settlement 
system even though th at right was specifically envisaged in the WTO contract. The actions of one  
Memb er would have that result for the rights of all other Members.  
5.134.   More fundamentally, the very idea of a rules -based multilateral trading system was at stake. 
The European Union firmly believe d in a multilateral trading system where rules c ould be enforced, 
where disputes c ould be submitted to adjudicators, and where rulings of ad hoc panels c ould be 
appealed before a standing appeal instance that g ave guarantees of quality and independence.   
5.135.   While the European Union itself was the world 's largest trading bl ock, it w ould not support, 
and w ould not condone, a system slipping into power -based economic relationships.  
5.136.   There ha d been almost 600 disputes brought to date before the WTO. The immense majority 
of those disputes ha d been positively resolved, either thr ough consultations or through adjudication. 
Those 600 cases were only the tip of the iceberg. The very existence of an effective dispute 
settlement system ha d helped to prevent countless breaches of the rules.  While some Members ha d 
in fact never availed themselves of the dispute settlement system, and many Members ha d only 
litigated a few cases since 1995, the system had clearly benefitted all Members, including the smaller 
economies.  
5.137.   While th e agenda item focuse d on the dispute settlement function of th e WTO, the stakes 
were obviously higher and cut across all functions of the WTO. It ha d sometimes been said that the 
dispute settlement crisis was merely a manifestation of the concerns with the inadequacy of the 
substantive WTO rules to address current  challenges.  
5.138.   The E uropean Union  support ed the reform and upgrade of the WTO in all its functions. But 
Members  should remedy the current situation b y boosting the WTO 's negotiating arm rather than 
chopping off its dispute settlement arm.  
5.139.   At th at juncture, the E uropean Union  convey ed a clear message of openness and 
determination  and continue d to support all efforts leading to the unblocking of Appellate Body 
appointments  – as it wanted a system that work ed for and that include d all Members.  
5.140.   The European Union ha d always been open, and remain ed open, to discuss constructive 
proposals to improve t he functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism and, in particular, of the 
Appellate Body. Nevertheless, at th at point, where the Appellate Body was about to become non -
operational as a result of the actions of one Member, the E uropean Union  emphasise d that it ha d 
served well all Members in an independent, highly professional and, given the circumstances, very 
efficient manner. The European Union therefore commend ed all the present and past members of 
the Appellate Body on their work as well as the staff  working on the Appellate Body 's secretariat.  
5.141.   Pending such resolution, the E uropean Union  was also determined to preserve its rights as  
enshrined in the WTO Agreements, notably the right to an appeal review. The European Union  would 
therefore continue prep aring contingency measures that would apply in case the appointments 
remain ed blocked. Members  owed it to their citizens and their businesses because it was ultimately 
them that benefit ed from the system.  
5.142.   The representative of Indonesia  said that t he draft  decision presented by Ambassador Walker 
had the potential to address the concerns allowing Members, in parallel and in good faith,  to embark 
on the selection process. Regardless of the many imbalances with the rules that Members had  agreed 
in the Uruguay Round, Indonesia always place d its faith in the rules and the institution that the 
international community ha d created. Undoubtedly, the dispute settlement mech anism, the 
Appellate Body  in particular , was the standout achievement that had served as the equalizer among 
states allowing Members to stand on an equal footing regardless of their size and power.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 27 - 
 
  5.143.   Indonesia ha d long affirmed the importance of an independ ent and impartial Appellate Body. 
It was a major scaffolding of the two-tiered dispute settlement system that had been created at the 
time when the World Trade Organization  had been established  in 1995. Indonesia  also maintain ed 
that an independent and imp artial Appellate Body was vital for enforcing and implementing trade 
agreements. Developing Members  had always looked for a robust Appellate Body to resolve trade 
disputes without fear or favour  and I ndonesia  did not want might to become right  when it came  to 
deciding disputes between Members.  
5.144.   Members should intensify their efforts to ensure that the Appellate Body remain ed functional 
after 11 December. At th at late hour, it was important for Members to demonstrate flexibility in 
breaking the impasse of the  Appellate Body Selection Process expeditiously. Indonesia was  willing 
to support efforts to find an amicable solution to th at grave crisis. Otherwise, Members w ould lose 
the most important arm of the multilateral trading system at a time when they were em barking on 
new trade agreements.  
5.145.   Without the Appellate Body, existing and future trade agreements c ould hardly be enforced. 
Although t ime was not on their side anymore , Indonesia w ould keep its slight optimism alive and 
hoped that there would be a slight probability for the General Council to take the decision in ending 
the blockage during the course of th e meeting or at the foreseen future. Indonesia  remain ed hopeful 
that Members would  be able to prove to the world that the deliberate process as we ll as the spirit of 
flexibility to reach consensus still remained  in the heart of th e organization . 
5.146.   The representative of Turkey  said that there were no words to describe  the gravity of the 
situation concerning the  current deadlock. Members' d iscussions fo r almost a year ha d revealed in 
certain areas the need for more clarity on their understanding of the DSU.  The draft decision of 
Ambassador Walker outline d main areas of convergence among Members , clearly reflect ed Members'  
discussions and served as a good  basis to follow.  
5.147.   On the issue of transitional rules for new appeals, Turkey could  go with the direction of the 
draft decision including  Ambassador Walker 's recommend ations in th at area. However, f or current 
appeals, the only rule Members  had as of t hat day was Rule 15  which had been  adopted in 1996 by 
the Appellate Body for transitional arrangements. The current rule in its wording and as had been 
practiced by the Appellate Body d id not differentiate  between the appeals based  on whether oral 
hearings ha d been held or not. Members were however  faced with  uncertainty on th e matter  since 
the Appellate Body was currently prepared  to apply Rule 15 only to  selected cases  – leaving other 
appeals unaddressed. It was unacceptable, unfounded and inconsi stent with current practice  and 
under the Appellate Body's  Rules of Procedure. The Appellate Body  should  treat all pending appeals 
in the same manner  – without discrimination. Any contradiction with th at would have no legal basis.  
5.148.   All dispute settlement pr ocesses were central elements in providing security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system. As the embodiment of that system, t he Appellate 
Body should not therefore cause unpredictability and uncertainty. Turkey remain ed committed to 
resolv ing th e impasse and was ready to work with all Members in crafting workable solutions.  
5.149.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that d uring the last General Council 
meeting in October, Ambassador Walker had presented his report in the form of a draft General 
Council decision. After careful consideration, the Russian Federation noted that it g enerally  
support ed the ideas and principles contained in the suggested draft d ecision. It had however  serious 
shortcoming s as it was silent in respect of the key issue – the date for the launch of the A ppellate 
Body selection proces s. The draft d ecision  should  be precisely clear in th at regard.  
5.150.   The existence of the Appellate Body ensure d the predictability and consistency in the 
application  of WTO provisions. Its non-existence, de jure or de facto, was clearly in contradiction 
with the Dispute Settlement Understanding and impede d the attainment of the objectives of not only 
the Understanding itself but of the WTO Agreement in general. The disruption of the Appellate Body 's 
work or even its non -functioning was not a solution to any of the concerns  the U nited States  had 
deigned to vocali se to date unless  the Appellate Body's mere existence,  as enshrined under Article  17 
as it ha d been agr eed and as it had been included in the DSU , was the real concern of the U nited 
States . WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5.151.   The Russian Federation thanked  all Members that had contributed their sincere efforts to 
finding a resolution to the Appellate Body crisis  and called upon the urgent launch of the appointment 
process of the Appellate Body members.  
5.152.   The representative of Brazil  said that it  was unfortunate that Members  had not reached a 
consensus on th e issue in a timely manner and th at the  Appellate Body  was becoming non -function al. 
Brazil  was still prepared to engage and discuss solutions with all Members.  Members  needed those 
discussions to focus on a clear endgame, to build trust among  themselves  and to restore the dispute 
settlement system as had been envisaged in the DSU.  
5.153.   The representative of Singapore  noted that Members already knew  which side of history they 
were unfortunately  on. It was deeply disappointing that , despite the best efforts of Ambassador 
Walker in the Informal Process as well as the many proposals tabled by v arious Members, they would 
not have a fully functioning Appellate Body on 11 December because the United States ha d blocked 
the consensus on the way forward.  
5.154.   Together with the vast majority of Members, Singapore ha d a systemic interest in the 
maintenance o f the two -tier binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism that was underpinned by 
negative consensus. It was a little known fact but the first ever WTO dispute – DS1 – had been  filed 
by Singapore in 1995. As its pioneer user, Singapore  continue d to cherish the security and 
predictability accorded by compulsory dispute settlement to small States like Singapore and 
reaffirm ed the importance of th at fundamental principle.  
5.155.   Despite an earlier warning that winter was coming, Members  had not been able to find a 
solution to avoid its cold blast. That said, there was still life after 10 December. All Members should 
not cease in their efforts to address the Appellate Body impasse. Singapore  called on Members to 
adopt a constructive approach bearing in mind  that the ultimate aim should  be the unconditional 
unblocking of the Appellate Body Selection Process. Singapore also call ed on all Members to act 
responsibly and in good faith in ensuring the prompt settlement of disputes within the WTO 
framework.  Given t hat it was  Ambassador Ihara's last General Council meeting, Singapore  found it 
apt to recall that he had been  responsible for kickstarting the Informal Process at an Informal G eneral 
Council  meeting on 17 January.  
5.156.   The representative of Mexico  recogni zed Ambassador Walker's highly valuable attempts as 
Facilitator in the Informal Process initiated in order to address the concerns raised by the United 
States with the sole objective of unblocking the process to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. 
The acti ve involvement of Members in th e process with more than twelve individual and joint 
proposals submitted by more than ninety proponents was a clear testament of the interest of the 
Membership to find a solution to th e impasse. However, to date, th at continu ed to be insufficient for 
the Member who ha d raised concerns.  
5.157.   Mexico deeply regret ted that consensus ha d not been reached and that Members  were in 
the imminent situation that in two days they would see the day that they had  never wanted to see 
arrive. They were facing an unprecedented situation where they would no longer have a second 
instance in the dispute settlement mechanism with an incomplete Appellate Body clearly to the 
detriment of the rights of all Members whether or not they were users of the system. Th at was a 
tool to which they would no longer have a ccess. Mexico sincerely trust ed that that  situation w ould 
be brief.  
5.158.   As with many other Members, Mexico  had without any doubt benefitted from the dispute 
settlement system since the establishment  of the WTO. Like many others, Mexico had a firm 
conviction th at the dispute settlement system should  guarantee the rights of its Members to access 
an appeal s stage and that the system  should  function effectively and efficiently. Mexico reiterate d 
its commitment to the dispute settlement system and to the multilatera l trading system as a whole. 
Mexico  continue d to stand ready to work constructively seeking the objective of unblock ing the 
impasse and of address ing that critical situation.  
5.159.   The representative of Switzerland  extend ed its heartfelt thanks to Ambassador Wal ker for 
his commitment and his work.  Switzerland  regret ted that, despite the efforts of a great many 
Members as well as their receptiveness to addressing the concerns raised, they had not yet managed 
to find a solution that would unblock the Appellate Body  member appointment process.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 29 - 
 
  5.160.   The WTO dispute settlement mechanism was vital for the security and predictability of the 
multilateral trading system. It was therefore essential that Members continue d to engage in good 
faith with a view to the prompt and defi nitive settlement of their disputes.  
5.161.   Switzerland hope d that th e period of uncertainty w ould be as brief as possible. To th at end, 
it was essential to continue working together under the auspices of th e General Council in order to 
find concrete solutions. For th ose efforts to have a chance of succeeding, it would be  important that 
all Members engage d constructively in the discussions.  
5.162.   The representative of Guatemala  noted that Members, through their proposals and  
engagement in the informal proces s had demonstrated their support to the rules -based multilateral 
trading system.  For more than two years, the United States ha d been providing detailed statements 
in the DSB and the General Council outlining its positions and articulating its concerns with  the 
functioning of the Appellate Body.  
5.163.   During th at time, Members ha d actively and constructively focused on understanding and 
considering the concerns expressed by the U nited States  on the functioning of the Appellate Body. 
The international trade commun ity ha d been discussing those concerns for more than twenty -four 
months already . Hundreds of papers, editorials, workshops, seminars  and round tables ha d been 
published and organi sed around the world. The United States'  concerns were by then crystal clear.   
5.164.   It was evident that Members ha d been readily offering solutions to those concerns. Pro of of 
that wa s the draft decision presented by Ambassador Walker t hat day. Th e draft decision was the 
result of the informal process on Appellate Body matters held under the auspices of the General 
Council. Both the informal process and the draft decision were test aments  of Members ' determination 
to find a prompt resolution to the current impasse.  
5.165.   It was worth mentioning that the draft decision was the result of a process that had taken 
place with the notable absence of proposals and active engagement of the United States. Instead of 
participating in the result s-oriented exercise led by Ambassador Walker, the United States ha d 
limited itself to require Members ' agreement with its own positions as a prerequisite to start 
discussing possible solutions.  
5.166.   Members had  run out of time. In two days, they would all be witnesses to the paralysis of  
the Appellate Body. Without the willingness of the United States to compromise, not much c ould be 
done. The United States was an important player in the international arena. It remain ed Guatemala's  
hope that, in the near future, the United States w ould again take up its leading role in promoting 
and enhancing the core values of th e organization.  
5.167.   The Appellate Body and the dispute settlement mechanism ha d been fundamental in 
preserving the rules -based multilateral trading system. Unless Members  agree d on pressing 
temporary measures, they would stand to  lose two of the main features of that mechanism: the 
binding nature of its decisions and the possibility to have a review of issues of law covered by panel 
reports and the legal interpretations developed by p anels.  
5.168.   Guatemala, like a  great majority of Members, c ould not afford to lose a system which relie d 
on the rule of law and due process. The rule of law and due process were particularly important for 
developing and LDC Members . A coordinated response by all  Members to the absence of a functional 
Appellate Body w ould be fundamental in the weeks and months to come. Only th at would ensure 
the preservation of the foundations of the multilateral trading system.  
5.169.   Guatemala remain ed committed to take positive steps to have a fully function ing dispute 
settlement system including the Appellate Body. In the meantime, Guatemala w ould contribute 
constructively in the search for alternatives to preserve the main features of the dispute settlement 
mechanism. Guatemala look ed forward to working with all interested Members in th at regard.  
5.170.   The representative of Canada  value d the efforts made to date to promote a solution -oriented 
dialogue and note d that over the past year, many Members ha d engaged and had taken a 
constructive a nd flexible approach. Unfortunately, owing to the approach taken by the United States 
that ha d expressed concerns without making proposals to address them yet, Members  were unable 
to reach consensus t hat day and unblock the Appellate Body appointment process.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 30 - 
 
  5.171.   Canada deeply regret ted that th e impasse ha d reached the point where it w ould have serious 
consequences on an institution that overall ha d served all Members well. Canada  did not deny that 
change was needed but strongly believe d that blocking the full functioning of the Appellate Body 
was neither appropriate nor necessary as a means to achieve reform.  
5.172.   Canada ha d been and continue d to be prepared to play an active role in supporting effective 
appellat e review that met the needs of Members and fully respect ed the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding. Canada  remain ed open to forward -looking discussions with Members , but Members 
likewise needed the United States' meaningful engagement.  
5.173.   In the meantime , and t o safeguard stability in the dispute settlement system while the 
Appellate Body was unable to hear new appeals, Canada was considering temporary mechanisms 
including the Canada -EU interim appeal arbitration arrangement and other approaches.  
5.174.   Despite t hat day's unfortunate outcome, Canada remain ed committed to th e institution  and 
would continue to engage on all issues and to promote WTO reform and modernization t hrough  the 
work of the Ottawa Group.  
5.175.   The representative of Australia  support ed the adoption of th e proposed decision which 
affirm ed Members' expectations of Appellate Body practice. Australia  saw an urgent need to build 
on that work and find concrete solutions to remaining issues including the review of factual findings 
and on overreach. Australia wou ld continue to work hard to resolve the impasse and launch the 
Appellate Body Selection Process as soon as possible. Australia strongly value d an efficient and 
effective dispute settlement system that safeguard ed Members'  interests operating as they had  all 
intended.  
5.176.   The representative of China  said that , due to the opposition by the United States, the General 
Council had failed to adopt the dra ft decision on improving the functioning of the Appellate Body, 
which was expected to be the outcome of consultations among Members led by Ambassador  Walker . 
Members'  failure to agree on the decision had paved the way for the Appellate Body, an important 
component of effective WTO dispute settlement mechanism, to temporarily go lights out. Th at 
undoubt edly dealt the most severe blow to the multilateral trading system since its establishment.  
5.177.   He had foreseen that result and had therefore chose n to wear a bla ck tie t hat day. Th at tie 
had been  prepared by his wife for him to attend funerals. Nevertheless, he did not want to show 
even the slightest frustration since the setback could help Members  stay cool  and reflective and 
could push them to  move forward.  
5.178.   Over the past 25 years since the establishment of the WTO, the dispute settlement system 
had played an outstanding role. Panels and the Appellate Body ha d rendered decisions in almost 200 
disputes – most of which  had been settled smoothly and effectively. China could still remember 
those disputes regarding bananas, cotton, airplanes, beef, tuna, trade remedies  and gambling , 
among others , just like they had  happened yesterday . Being  regarded as the crown jewel, the 
Appellate Body had seized the limelight for quite a while.  
5.179.   The current backlash on globalization experienced  throughout the world  would  however  
inevitably spread to the multilateral trading system. Unilateralism and protec tionism were on the 
sharp rise. It was therefore not surprising that someone  would  attempt  to use its might rather than 
WTO adjudication to change trade polices of other Members. One Member 's persistence to go on its 
own way could finally lead to paraly sing the whole Appellate Body  – reveal ing the fragility of the 
multilateral trading system.  
5.180.   China asked what t he Appellate Body 's worth was for Members.  For those who uph eld 
multilateralism, the Appellate Body  was an invaluable asset. For those who prefer red the laws of the 
jungle, they deemed it  worthless. For the world trade order, the paralysis of the Appellate Body 
could  bring irreparable damage and unintended consequences. The security and predictability 
Members  had enjoyed c ould not be taken for granted . 
5.181.   The international community c ould not afford to lose justice. China was confiden t that the 
Appellate Body w ould restore its functioning sooner or later. Even if the jewel f ell from the crown 
into wild grass, its brilliance c ould not be missed. In that reg ard, 117 Members ha d called on the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 31 - 
 
  immediate launch of the selection process which was a strong test ament  of majority of the 
Membership 's political will to restore the Appellate Body. China  therefore renew ed its support to 
Ambassador Walker to continue the informal process. More importantly, when reflecting on the 
improvement of the Appellate Body, Members  should consider how to protect it from future systemic 
sabotages.  
5.182.   In future dispute settlement , besides the panel proceedings, Members would  still be entitled 
to use arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU regardless of whether a Member was happy or not. 
Although a rbitration was not the same as appellate review , it nevertheless could be utili sed to 
preserve the two-tier dispute settlement system before the restoration of the Appellate Body and 
the essentials of the current system could be preserved in spite of differences in formalit ies. 
5.183.   The burning of Notre -Dame de Paris was a tragedy . Fortunately , most of its c ultural relics 
had been  salvaged from the fire and the French people w ould restore it.  To preserve institutional 
memory was therefore vitally important. Regarding Appellate Body members and experts within the 
Appellate Body Secretariat, from its Director t o each and every staff attorney, their knowledge, 
expertise and experience were of exceptional value which constitute d the common treasure of the 
multilateral trading system. Members  should be truly grateful to their excellent work, outstanding 
performance  and prominent contributions. At the same time, China  wished them to take good care 
of themselves and encourage d them to further contribute to enhance and improve the multilateral 
trading system.  
5.184.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the  African Group , noted that the African Group 
had listened closely to the interventions made under  item 5 of the agenda  and recall ed that the 
Appellate Body's legal and jurisdictional arsenal was cardinal to ensure the security and predictability 
of WTO rules and the smooth functioning of the multilateral  trading system. Th at was why the 
stalemate  in an important pillar of the WTO  was very worrying.  
5.185.   The African Group ha d participated in a committ ed and constructive manner in the work and 
consultations led by Ambassador Walker and  support ed the draft decision in document 
WT/GC/W/791 dated  28 November 2019 on the functioning of the Appellate Body . The African Group  
urged Members to adopt, preserve a nd save th e pillar  even at the last hour  and for the United States 
to act in th at direction.  
5.186.   The representative of Japan  deeply regret ted that the General Council had been  unable to 
adopt the draft decision proposed by Ambassador Walker and to instruct the  DSB to launch the 
selection process to fill the vacancies. Th at would mean, together with the failure of the DSB to 
agree on the issue of pending appeals, that the Appellate Body w ould cease to function at least for 
now. Having said that, as the one who , as the then General Council  Chair, had asked Ambassador 
Walker to take the role of the Facilitator, he wished to  see the discussion of th e agenda item end on 
a more positive note.  
5.187.   Thanks to the Informal Process and the draft decision reported t hat day, Members  had a 
good groundwork on which they could build their future work. Although they were entering a realm 
of uncertainty, such uncertainty would also provide them with a rare opportunity to experiment a 
variety of means to resolve disputes which could in turn give them tools to build a viable and 
sustainable dispute settlement system that would work to the benefit of all Members. Members 
owned the system, not vice versa. Through their continuous effort, Members should  make tangible 
progress of th at discussion to resolve th e deadlock in the lead up to  MC12. Japan st ood ready to 
further proactively contribute to th ose efforts.  
5.188.   The representative of Colombia  fully support ed the declaration read by Chile t hat day on its 
behalf and that of several other  Latin American delegations. The informal process had been  led by 
Ambassador Walker with a great deal of discipline seeking results and with an enormous amount of 
transparency. Colombia likewise reiterated its deeply rooted  support for the multilateral tra ding 
system including  all the elements that went with it.  
5.189.   As Members were aware, as of the following day, the Appellate Body w ould go into deep 
sleep. Colombia  hoped that it would  just be a power nap. Members should therefore continue working 
immediately – perhaps  even harder to be able to wake the Appellate Body through multilateral WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 32 - 
 
  understanding. In th at regard, Colombia  invite d all Members to look for solutions with a pragmatic 
vision that they should  also show rigor without making th at discussion even more polarised.  
5.190.   The representative of Cameroon  associate d with the statements made by the African Group 
and the ACP  and welcome d the contribution of all parties to find an immediate solution to the  
Appel late Body  impasse . As had been indicated by the African Group and other delegations, the draft 
decision d id not reflect all the concerns mentioned by Cameroon,  but it offer ed an opportunity to 
consolidate convergence points while avoiding any breakage in t he dispute settlement system. The 
proposal was a reasonable starting point which Cameroon  fully support ed. 
5.191.   The gaps observed in the functioning of the Appellate Body were not to the benefit of only 
one Member. Appellate Body members should be able to solel y perform their duties in order to apply 
the instruments of the WTO with impartiality. Cameroon  therefore welcome d the quality of the 
decisions made by the Appellate Body since its establishment.  
5.192.   Although it was undeniable that Appellate Body members were selected  by the Membership  
and therefore their opinions should be limited to the questions raised by the parties, the Appellate 
Body and its operation should strengthen the independence of its members, strengthen the 
participation of developing countries and encourage the improvement of its procedures without 
altering the quality of their decisions. Appellate Body members should be respected  while bringing 
in the necessary flexibilities.  
5.193.   There was a grave risk of seeing the blockage observed as a prevalenc e of the law of force 
where the Appellate Body represent ed the force of law. Cameroon reiterate d its availability to work 
constructively for the fair and swift resolution of the Appellate Body issue and remain ed confident in 
the wisdom of all parties to en sure th at the force and the rule of law would prevail in the near future.  
5.194.   The Chair stress ed once again that th e draft decision emanate d from nearly one year of 
discussions and that it represent ed the collective effort and good will of the entire membership to 
address the concerns that ha d been raised with regard to the functioning of the Appellate Body and 
its adherence with the DSU. It remain ed up to Members on how th at work w ould be taken forwar d 
in the future. The Chair and Ambassador Walker w ould be looking to assist Members in th ose efforts 
going forward.  
5.195.   The Director -General  said that, as Members all knew, a  well-functioning, impartial, binding 
dispute settlement system was a core pillar of t he WTO. Rules -based dispute resolution prevent ed 
trade conflicts from ending up in escalating tit -for-tat retaliation which was very difficult to reverse 
once it start ed becoming intractable political quagmires. A well-functioning dispute settlement 
mechan ism therefore reduce d economic uncertainty – giving  businesses the confidence they need ed 
to make long -term investments. Members, on their side, w ould also feel more confident about 
negotiating and implementing new rules if they kn ew that th ose new rules w ould be somehow  
enforced  – the opposite w ould likewise apply.  
5.196.   Obviously, the paralysis of the Appellate Body d id not mean that the rules -based, dispute 
settlement ha d stopped at the WTO altogether. Members w ould continue to resolve WTO disputes 
through consultations, panels and other means envisaged in the WTO Agreements such as arbitration 
under Article 25 or his good offices under Article 5 or any other provisions. They were all there  and 
available to all Membe rs. Although Members  could devise all sorts of interim mechanisms and stop 
gaps, they could not abandon what should  be their priority – finding a permanent solution.  
5.197.   In the long term, Members  needed an effective, predictable dispute settlement system to 
which all Members could subscribe. Most Members sa id that they want ed an effective and efficient 
two-step review process based on automaticity and impartiality. If th at was what they wanted then 
it was their duty to deliver.  They could not simply sit back a nd expect that an answer w ould present 
itself. He said that he did not think Members  could outsource th at task to academics, lawyers, 
thinktanks or anybody else. He did not think they could rely solely on Geneva experts either. Th at 
was undoubtedly a very sensitive political issue that require d a political approach in Geneva and in 
capitals. Members should  dig deeper.  
5.198.   After hearing a number of Members  individually and after hearing th e discussion t hat day, 
the he had a very strong feeling that Members  would  need to explore a broader spectrum of issues. WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Ambassador Walker's process ha d certainly produced important elements for their path forward.  He 
commend ed his determination, commitment, creativity and the progress th at he  had managed to 
get from Members. A lot ha d been achieved and Members  should  build on th at.  
5.199.   Having said all th at, Members  could  be missing some pieces to complete th e puzzle. There 
could  be other aspects of the dispute settlement mechanism that ha d not yet been properly 
examined and that need ed to be considered if they were to find a truly permanent solution. He did 
not know for sure whether they actually need ed a somewhat broader investigation. And he did not 
know for sure what such an investigation could cover. But he had no doubt that Members  needed to 
dig deeper.  
5.200.   Members  should go further and discuss all th at with an open mind at a more political level – 
at the Heads of Delegation level. He hoped that Members w ould intensify their engagement in tr ying 
to find solutions of a more permanent nature. Members w ould always be on the driver's seat as it 
was always the case in th e organization. The Facilitator and the General Council Chair ha d just 
indicated that they w ould continue their efforts.  
5.201.   For his part, he would very shortly start more intensive consultations with Members both 
individually and in groups trying to figure out initially: (i) whether they were already discussing all 
the elements that need ed to be address ed in their solution -finding efforts – because if they were 
not, it  did not matter how long it would take  for them to be discussing about th ose things that they 
had already under the Walker Process – they would never get to a solution; (ii) they needed to 
discuss what basic concepts they should  agree on to make progress – and he was  not sure that they 
were looking at those things. He was therefore inviting Permanent Representatives to get personally 
acquainted with the particulars of the issue before them, with everything they were discussing as 
well as to get more clarity on what their overarching political parameters or circumstances were so 
that they could contribute as much as possible to their common endeavour. So that was  an invitation 
that he hoped Members  would follow up.  
5.202.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Facilitator and of the statements.  
6  THE DEVELOPMENT ASSI STANCE ASPECTS OF CO TTON – STATEMENT BY THE 
DIRECTOR -GENERA L 
6.1.  The Chair recalled that i n 2004, the General Council had instructed the Secretariat to continue 
to work with the development community and to provide the Council with periodic reports on the 
development assistance aspects of the Cotton Initiative. The Council had also instructed t he Director -
General to consult with the relevant international organizations, including the Bretton Woods 
Institutions, the FAO and the ITC, to direct effectively existing programmes and any additional 
resources towards development of the economies where c otton ha d vital importance. The Bali and 
Nairobi Decisions had reaffirmed th e mandate and had invited the Director -General to continue to 
provide periodic reports.  
6.2.  The Director -General  report ed that on 7 October the WTO had hosted the Launch of World 
Cotto n Day. That same day, a Partners' Conference  had also been held . The World Cotton Day launch 
had been hosted at the request of the C -4 – Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali. The WTO Secretariat 
had organi sed the event in collaboration with the Secretariats of FAO , UNCTAD , UNIDO , ITC and the 
International Cotton Advisory Committee.  The WTO  had been  honoured by the participation of eight 
Ministers and four Heads of International Organizations. Over 850 participants had gathered  there 
including Geneva -based Amb assadors and delegates, international civil servants and a cross -section 
of the global cotton community.  
6.3.  The event  had highlighted cotton 's economic contributions, particularly in terms of the links 
among cotton, trade and development. It had also offered a unique opportunity for participants from 
all over the world to build relationships and share perspectives. Members and participants had 
praised the event and had expressed support for the C -4's formal request for an official United 
Nations W orld Cotton Day.  
6.4.  The launch had underlined the need to create a more level playing field for trade in cotton, and 
to increase development assistance on cotton and cotton -related products, in particular for least -
developed countries.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 34 - 
 
  6.5.  The Partners ' Confere nce held on World Cotton Day had focused on new initiatives in favo ur of 
cotton, including a joint WTO -UNCTAD -ITC project to foster the production of cotton by -products in 
African LDCs. He was  pleased to report that donors had committed to support the cott on sector in 
beneficiary countries, particularly for the development of cotton by -product value chains in LDCs.  
6.6.  Cotton by -products – like cottonseed oil for human consumption or cottonseed meal for 
livestock – present ed untapped economic potential in LDCs  and developing countries, particularly in 
Africa. Value addition foster ed local transformation and generate d additional revenue. So Members  
should look  forward to continuing reporting on the progress and outcomes of th e Joint WTO -
UNCTAD -ITC initiative.  
6.7.  He then invite D eputy Director -General  Wolff to report on the recent work under the Director -
General's Consultative Framework Mechanism on Cotton as he chaired that mechanism on his behalf.  
6.8.  Deputy Director -General Alan Wolff , on behalf of the Director -Genera l, report ed that work on 
the Director -General's Consultative Framework Mechanism on Cotton  had continued to make 
progress during 2019.  
6.9.  The latest revision of the Evolving Table capture d the development assistance projects and 
programmes conducted by Membe rs and other organizations which they ha d reported in the context 
of the Consultative Framework.  The update had been  circulated on 11 November 2019  in document 
WT/CFMC/6/Rev.27.  The figures and information show ed an increase in active cotton -specific 
devel opment assistance. The total number of projects listed in Part I ("Cotton Specific Development 
Assistance") ha d increased to 30, for a total value of committed resources of US D 247.5 million.  
6.10.   For "agriculture and infrastructure -related development assista nce", where assistance related 
to cotton was provided under more general agricultural or infrastructure support programmes, a 
new project had been  notified bringing the total number of active projects to 44.  
6.11.   He reported that p articipants regard ed the discussions in the Consultative Mechanism as being 
productive, dynamic and inclusive.  In those discussions, beneficiaries  had highlighted key elements 
in their new projects for feedback by potential partners, and donors had shared the results and 
lessons learned from ongoing and concluded projects. In addition, important presentations had been  
made by partner organizations, companies and other institutions in which they had shared their 
experiences and best practices.  
6.12.   He encourage d all Members, especia lly those with a variety of smaller projects in the pipeline 
or ongoing, to notify them to the Secretariat for proper inclusion in the Evolving Table. Th at would 
greatly enhance transparency and further reinforce the role of the Evolving Table as a compreh ensive 
monitoring tool of updated project information focused on cotton.  
6.13.   He thanked  the Members and multilateral agencies who ha d active cotton specific projects 
recorded in the Evolving Table. Th ose were: Australia, Brazil, the European Union, France, Ger many, 
India, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework, FAO, ITC and UNCTAD. Further , he commend ed Brazil, China, India and Pakistan for 
their significant contributions on the platform of South -South Co-operation for Cotton Development 
Assistance.  
6.14.   The sustained engagement of th ose partners in cotton development assistance was very 
encouraging, particularly in th e area of WTO cooperation where results c ould generate an immediate 
and positive impact for millions of people in cotton -producing developing countries and LDCs.  
6.15.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the C -4, reiterate d the C -4's profound gratitude  to 
Ambassador Deep Ford for his efforts, initiatives and helpful interactions and support ed his approach 
aimed at steering the negotiating work in agriculture, in general, and cotton, in particular, towards 
achieving significant and measurable outcomes by MC12 . 
6.16.   The C -4 also thanked the Cotton Quad + members for their renewed commitment to 
continuing the consultations with a view to enhancing the transparency and monitoring of cotton -
related trade measures affecting the global cotton market. It was particularly grateful to those who, 
at the last Quad+ meeting held on 26 November 2019,  had commented on the C -4's proposal WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 35 - 
 
  circulated in document JOB/AG/165 – TN/AG/SCC/GEN/21.  The C -4 urge d Members to work with a 
view to adopting the draft decision amended at the last Quad+ meeting held on 26 November 2019.  
6.17.   Regarding development, the C -4 express ed its profound thanks to the Members involved in 
financing the development component of cotton fo r their active and marked contribution to the 
successful organization of the first World Cotton Day held in Geneva on 7 October 2019.  
6.18.   The C-4 urged Members to ensure that the outcomes were implemented, and to contribute to 
the financing of projects for the  strengthening of cotton production and processing capacities, within 
the framework of the Cotton Roadmap programme and its "cotton by products" component.  
6.19.   Finally, the C -4 inform ed Members that its Seventh  Ministerial Meeting w ould take place in 
Koudougou , Burkina Faso, on 29 January 2020. It w ould be preceded by the experts' meeting on 27 
and 28 January 2020. The International Cotton and Textile Fair and the International Salon of 
Cotton/Textiles w ould be held on the same occasion. Members were invited to  take part in th ose 
events in Koudougou.  
6.20.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , thank ed the Director -General, all Members 
and the Secretariat for all of their efforts in favour of development in the cotton sector for LDCs. 
They also thanked  their bilateral and multilateral partners for their assistance. Cotton offer ed a 
special opportunity to increase agricultural productivity, revenues and welfare for millions of LDC 
producers. It was a major social and economic issue and play ed a decisive role  in the development 
of their countries.  
6.21.   Cotton represent ed some 12% to 30% of GDP and 40% of export revenues for the C -4 
countries which were all LDCs. A drop in global cotton production and prices as well as a lack of local 
processing tools constitute d a major concern for the LDCs  which were seeking the means to 
overcome their situation which undermine d the development of th at sector. Th at was why the 
development dimension of the cotton sector should  remain at the heart of their work.  
6.22.   The LDC Group endors ed the decision taken by the Ministers of the C -4, particularly the need 
for C -4 countries to carry out modernization programmes for their production system and to 
strengthen their productivity through the development of services in terms of mainstreaming, 
research, access to inputs and financing as well as structural transformation of the cotton sector.  
6.23.   The LDC Group was committed to multilateral negotiations to find fair, balanced, substantial, 
measurable and sustainable solutions to th at issue with regard to domestic support which create d 
distortions i n the international cotton market. The LDC Group hope d that Members  could see and 
encourage further discussion within the WTO in th at issue through to a happy outcome on the issue 
of cotton between then and MC12.  
6.24.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had committed 
considerable resources to cotton development assistance  and continue d to support a range of 
initiatives designed to address production problems in West Africa. Millions of US dollars ha d been 
committed to capacity bui lding efforts for cotton. From 2005 -2018, the United States had provided 
to African countries approximately USD 42 million in cotton -specific development assistance projects 
and approximately USD 1.2 billion in agriculture and infrastructure -related projec ts. Currently, the 
United States ha d an active programme – the West -Africa Technical Assistance Programme for the 
C-4 and Senegal.  
6.25.   The representative of India joined other delegations in congratulating the Director -General , 
the WTO Secretariat and the C -4 for the success of the first World Cotton Day on 7 October 2019. 
India ha d been providing assistance to strengthen both the agriculture and textile part of the cotton 
value chain in Africa. In a spirit of South -South cooperation, India had implemented a la rge Cotton 
Technical Assistance Programme in six African countries, namely – Benin , Burkina Faso, Chad, 
Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda over a period of seven  years from 2012  to 2018. Th e programme had 
led to the training and capacity building of thousands of A frican farmers, scientists and government 
officials on the use of better agronomic practices. It had also led to the creation of cotton -related 
infrastructure.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 36 - 
 
  6.26.   At the Partners ' Conference held on the first World Cotton Day, India had announced its 
decision  to launch a second phase of the Cotton Technical Assistance Programme based on the 
success of Cotton TAP -1. In its second phase, the programme w ould be scaled up in size and 
coverage and w ould be introduced in five additional countries, namely Mali, Ghana , Togo, Zambia 
and Tanzania. The Cotton TAP programme w ould thus cover a total of eleven  African countries 
including the C -4. The programme w ould focus on increasing cotton production and improving the 
post-harvest and plant residue -based industry in the participating countries, as well as building the 
capacity of the cotton -based textile sector in th ose countries. India remain ed committed to build ing 
on its longstanding development partnership with Africa in the field of cotton.  
6.27.   The representative of China  suppor ted the  WTO Programmes on cotton -related development 
assistance. China also supported  the C -4's proposal on reducing and eliminating the m ost trade -
distortive factors to create an impartial environment for trade and development which were also 
essential elements of China and India's proposal. Cotton ha d always been prioritised in South-South 
Co-operation and China -African Cooperation as a ke y area of development assistance programmes. 
In the last five years, China ha d invested over hundreds of millions of USD in C -4 and other African 
countries in the form  of joint business farms, technology demonstration farms and capacity building 
to improve  the African Cotton industry and livelihood.  
6.28.   Looking ahead, China w ould continue to implement the action plan adopted by the China -
Africa Cooperation Forum Summit and promote comprehensive economic and technological 
cooperation with African Cotton countri es. China w ould help them develop a cotton industry 
development plan to achieve high quality cotton production and to establish their own cotton value 
chain.  
6.29.   The General Council took note  of the statements by the Director -General and the Deputy 
Director -General, and of the other statements.  
7  TRIPS NON -VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLA INTS MORATORIUM – 
COMMUNICATION FROM C ANADA, CHILE, COLOMB IA, GUATEMALA, NEW Z EALAND, 
PANAMA AND URUGUAY ( WT/GC/W/790)  
7.1.  The Chair recalled that t he delegation of Chile and the other  co-sponsors had requested the 
Secretariat to include th at item in the agenda of the meeting – together with the communication 
circulated in WT/GC/W/790. In that regard, she noted that after a number of consultations led by 
the TRIPS Council Chair and an o pen-ended informal meeting of the TRIPS Council on 19 November, 
it had emerged that consensus around an extension of the moratorium until MC12 could be possible, 
and that a group of Members had intended to make a proposal for extension in the context of the 
General Council – which had been  item 7 of the agenda. In the absence of a further request for 
discussions, the meeting of the TRIPS Council had therefore been closed without a recommendation 
on the issue.  
7.2.  The representative of Chile noted that, c oncerning the proposal put forward by Chile, Canada, 
Colombia, Guatemala, New Zealand, Panama and Uruguay, their communication had proposed  for 
the General Council to decide  to maintain the moratorium on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation 
Complaints under the TRIPS Agreement until the next Ministerial Conference.  Maintaining th at 
moratorium, just as the moratorium on electronic commerce, had been a historical balance struck 
by the Ministerial Conference.  That was why the proponents  consider ed that it was important to 
maintain a constructive dialogue between delegations and to give themselves time to try and find 
joint understandings on th ose matters.  
7.3.  Those formal and informal discussions on th e subject in  the TRIPS Council ha d shown the need 
to have more time to try and come up with joint understandings and consensus on the different 
aspects contained in the mandate of Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement. To th at end and considering 
the historical positions of the Members on th e matter, the decision on the extension of both moratoria 
should be taken together given their importance and the balance that it represent ed in the House.  
7.4.  The representative of Panama  said that it  co-sponsor ed the proposal in the hope that Members 
would pick up substantive discussions in the TRIPS Council or in other appropriate fora concerning 
the scope and modalities of th ose cases. Given the importance of the possible consequences of 
substantive results in favour or against extending  the moratorium, Panama consider ed that th at be WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 37 - 
 
  extended until the next Ministerial Conference so that their Ministers would decide on th at matter. 
Panama  hoped that the proposal would  be accepted by all Members.  
7.5.  The representative of Guatemala  co-sponsor ed the proposal with the idea of extending the 
moratorium to MC12 with the view to having more time to try and come to consensual  agreements 
on the different aspects contained in Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement a nd to continue having a 
constructive discussion on the scope and modalities in th at area. 
7.6.  The representative of Uruguay  co-sponsor ed the proposal because it consider ed that if 
Members  would not extend the moratorium, they would be opening the door to a ver y vague legal 
concept and its implementation  on such types of cases  would be a problem. Th at could be a systemic 
risk because it could lead to the adjudication of different issues in the area of intellectual property 
and would limit the use of flexibilitie s especially for developing countries.  
7.7.  The TRIPS Agreement  called upon Members  to have a discussion on the scope and modalities 
of that type of complaints. However, for more than ten years, Members  had not had an in -depth 
discussion on th e matter  because consensus was difficult to reach  in that area . As such, th e 
moratorium should become permanent and Uruguay  support ed the proposal to find a consensual 
solution on the matter.  
7.8.  The representative of Bangladesh  noted that its position on the matter  was well -known. 
Bangladesh  was in favour of establishing a permanent moratorium . During the previous meetings of 
the G eneral Council  and the TRIPS Council, Bangladesh ha d always invited views and ideas of 
Members who had been  proponents of the application of  the non -violation and situation complaints 
on the scope and modalities of the proceedings as had been required by Article 64.3 of the TRIPS 
Agreement. The Council need ed to be better informed and only then w ould Bangladesh  be in a 
position to examine and consider the proposal.  
7.9.  In the General Council, a proposal for the temporary extension of the moratorium ha d been 
tabled. However, the TRIPS Council should have been the forum used so that the issue would be 
discussed wi th deeper engagement of all concerne d. The concept of non-violation and situation 
complaints  appear ed to be still an unknown territory, and unless the scope and modalities were 
outlined first, Members  could not go any further in th eir discussion. If non -violation and situation 
complaints were made applicable to TRIPS, any issue in the universe c ould be brought as case s 
under th at umbrella. Clear delimitations should therefore be conceived, defined and thoroughly 
examined first.  
7.10.   Since the moratorium would end  in December 2019 and before Minis ters would take a further 
decision on th at matter  at MC12, there w ould be a period of  uncertainty. Bangladesh therefore joined 
the proponents in calling for  a temporary extension of the moratorium on TRIPS N on-Violation and 
Situation Complaints until  MC12.  On th at issue, Bangladesh reiterate d its readiness to constructively 
engage with Members.  
7.11.   The Chair then said that she would move to the item on the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce and that  she would open the floor at the end , including on the possible action on the 
draft decision in document WT/GC/W/7907. 
 
7 See discussions under Item 8 – Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 38 - 
 
  8  WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
8.1  Statement by the Chair  
8.2  Reports by the Chairs of the Council for Trade in Goods and of the Council f or Trade 
in Services (G/C/66 and S/C/58)  
8.3  Work Programme and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce – Communication from 
Chad on behalf of the LDC Group (WT/GC/W/787)  
8.4  Work Programme and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce – Communications from 
Australia; Canada; C hile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Georgia; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; 
Iceland; Israel; Republic of Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Panama; Paraguay; 
Singapore; Switzerland; Thailand and Uruguay (WT/GC/W/782/Rev.2, WT/GC/W/792)  
8.1.  The Chair  drew attention to t he reports submitted by the Chairs of the Council for Trade in 
Services and the Council for Trade in Good s contained in documents S/C/58 and G/C/66, 
respectively.  
8.2.  Deputy Director -General Yi Xiaozhun, on behalf of the Chair of the Services Council , stated  
that, as had been  outlined in the relevant written report, the Council for Trade in Services had 
discussed the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce at its formal meeting on 30 October. At 
that meeting, the United States had provided additional clarificatio n on various questions that ha d 
been posted about its submission on the economic benefits of cross -border data flows and a couple 
of delegations had offered further observations under the US submission. China had presented a 
case study on e -commerce and po verty alleviation which had highlighted that digital technologies 
could play a role not only in the urban context but also in rural areas. Noting that the moratorium 
on customs duties on electronic transmissions had been  crosscutting in nature, one delegat ion had 
recalled the interventions and submissions it had made on the issue in th at body . 
8.3.  Ambassador José Luis  Cancela (Uruguay), Chair of the Goods Council , referred to  his factual 
report to the General Council contained in doc ument G/C/66 and recalled that the Goods Council , in 
accordance with the 2017 Ministerial Decision, had included the issue of the Work  Programme  on 
Electronic Commerce on the agenda of its meetings o f March , July and November 2018, and April 
and July 2019. At th ose meetings, he had  invited delegations to express their opinion and make 
suggestions on their work in  that area particularly in preparation of the mandated periodic review s 
to be held at the Ge neral Council meetings of July and December 2018 , and July 2019.  
8.4.  Since the Twelfth Ministerial Conference w ould be held in June 2020, the Goods Council had  
considered it useful to include the issue of the Work Program me on the agenda of its meeting on 14 
and 15  November 2019.  At that meeting , he had reminded the Goods Council  of the mandate 
contained in document WT/L/1032 and had invited delegations to express their ideas and opinions, 
and to make suggestions regarding the revitalization of the Work Program me and  the question of 
the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. However, despite 
his call, no delegation had taken  the floor at that meeting.  
8.5.  The Chair  recalled  that the delegation of Chad on behalf of the LDC Group had requested the 
Secretariat to add the third  sub-item under  item 8 of the  agenda  which included  a communication 
from the LDC Group  circulated in document WT/GC/W/787.  
8.6.  The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that t he LDC s had submitted its 
contribution with the  aim of highlight ing the  LDCs' interest on electronic commerce as well as their 
concerns regarding the need for concrete action to respond to the LDCs' situation in th at area. The 
content of th e communication had already been  presente d to the Council for Trade in Goods as well 
as to the Council for Trade in Services. The LDCs had mentioned a number of important elements 
that should  be discussed. For example, they  would like to look into the costs and benefits of e -
commerce for LDCs in a more in -depth fashion  and t he various possibilities for improving LDCs' 
integration into the e-commerce  platform.  
8.7.  In their communication, the LDCs had  drawn Members' attention on certain challenges they 
were faced with. By genuinely taking on board thos e challenges , the WTO  would enable the LDCs to WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 39 - 
 
  better develop and use electronic commerce. Th ose challenges include d: limited knowledge by 
companies, government agencies and e -commerce regulatory bodies; lacking mechanisms to 
support the creation of enterp rises in the e -commerce sector; concerns relating to the potential 
negative effects of e -commerce and the way they could be mitigated; the lack of affordable 
infrastructure in the ICT area and the access to credit cards and the very high number of non -
banking consumers w ith very limited experience of online purchasing and the lack of appropriate 
systems to ensure the physical delivery of online purchases; the mistrust of users vis -à-vis quality 
and efficiency; inadequate online payment systems and funding o f LDC enterprises in th at sector 
and limited knowledge of enterprises wishing to use electronic trade and ICTs in a strategic way to 
buy goods and services through trade among enterprises, those between enterprises and final 
consumers or those between ente rprises and the government; lack of statistical data on e -commerce 
in LDCs; very weak legal frameworks where consumer protection was necessary and the lack of 
clarity regarding the nature of electronic transmissions and the LDCs' capacity to levy domestic taxes 
as opposed to customs duties when appropriate.  
8.8.  The Chair said that c oncerning the fourth sub -item under item 8 of the agenda , the delegation 
of Switzerland and the other co -sponsors had requested the Secretariat to include th at sub-item on 
the agenda of t he meeting  which include d communications circulated in documents 
WT/GC/W/782/Rev.2 and WT/GC/W/792.  
8.9.  The representative of Switz erland , on behalf of the co -sponsors , recalled that, a t the General 
Council meeting o n 15 October, Switzerland  had introduced a communication on the Work 
Programme and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce on behalf of a number of Members. T hat day,  
twenty  Members were co-sponsoring the proposal in document WT/GC/W/782/Rev.2.  
8.10.   The co -sponsors note d that, since 1998, Members ha d periodically taken decisions at 
Ministerial Conferences to continue their practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmis sions.  
8.11.   Recogni sing the potential implications from the moratorium lapsing prior to the next 
Ministerial Conference, the co -sponsors were proposing an extension of the moratorium until the 
Twelfth  Ministerial Conference. They also propose d to continue the w ork under the Work Programme 
on Electronic Commerce during th at period.  
8.12.   The co -sponsors  also underline d that the moratorium was without prejudice to Members' right 
to impose internal taxes, fees or other charges in a manner consistent with WTO Agreements.  The 
co-sponsors were therefore proposing that the General Council adopt ed the decision to th at effect 
as had been  drafted in document WT/GC/W/792.  
8.13.   They underst ood that consultations on th ose issues were still ongoing and they were ready to 
engage constructively in th ose talks with a view to working out a mutually agreed solution.  
8.14.   The Chair  noted that  consultations on a possible way forward were still ongoing and proposed 
to suspend the consideration of agenda items 7 and 8  and revert to them  later in the meeting and 
in the meantime, to take up the rest of the items under the agenda.  
8.15.   At the resumption of the meeting the following day, on 10 December, the Chair  recall ed that, 
throughout th e year, work on e -commerce ha d been guided by the mandat e given by Ministers at 
MC11. In their Decision, Ministers had agreed to reinvigorate the Work Programme , to hold periodic 
reviews and to continue the practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions  until 
the Twelf th Ministerial Confere nce in 2019.  
8.16.   The General Council ha d periodically reviewed progress of work on e -commerce based on the 
reports from the Chairs of the respective bodies. Members  had heard the most recent reports from 
the Chairs of the Goods Council and the Services Counci l under the earlier sub -item. She once again 
encourage d all Members to contribute to the work in the relevant bodies.  
8.17.   Given the December 2019 expiry date of the moratorium which had been  confirmed by the 
General Council at its meeting in July 2018, she had begun consultations with delegations on the 
Work Programme and the Moratorium. Th ose consultations, in different configurations , had been  
aimed at reaching an agreement on a draft decision for the consideration of th e General Council. In WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 40 - 
 
  addition to the bilateral and small group meetings, she had convened two informal open -ended 
meetings to report back to the wider Membership and thus ensuring a transparent and inclusive 
process.  
8.18.   On the basis of th at extensive process of consultations, she was pleased to inform Members  
that there seem ed to be convergence on a draft decision for the General Council's consideration at 
that meeting. Th e draft, which was before them in document WT/GC/W/794, was the result of 
delegations' constructive engagement throughout th e process of consultations, including in the last 
few intensive days and up until the previous evening . It was the result of a considerable effort of 
flexibility and spirit of compromise for which she was grateful. She was putting forward th at 
compromise text based on her assessment and on her consultations  and urged all delegations to 
give it positive consideration.  
8.19.   She therefore  propose d that the General Council adopt ed the Decision on the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce as contained in document WT/GC/W/794 and the Draft Decision 
on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints as contained in document WT/GC/W/790.  
8.20.   The General Council so agreed8. 
8.21.   The Chair  thanked all delegations for their flexibility and readiness to compromise. In adopt ing 
the two decisions, Members had given a much -needed positive message about their ability to work 
together and deliver multilateral outcomes. She then opened the floor under Items 7 and 8 of the 
agenda.  
8.22.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the Afric an Group , intervened under items 7 and 8.  
He said that t he two moratoria submitted for Members' consideration ha d their own logic and w ould 
have to be treated separately.  
8.23.   Regarding the Moratorium on TRIPS N on-Violation and Situation C omplaints  (NVCs) , the 
Africa n Group continue d to maintain the position that NVCs should not apply to the TRIPS 
Agreement. Furthermore, the flexibilities provided to developing countries under th e Agreement 
were fundamental including in relation to public health.  Since the scope and modalities of NVCs had 
not yet been determined, the African Group support ed the extension of the moratorium on th e issue.  
8.24.   Regarding  the Moratorium on Electronic Commerce, the African Group appreciate d that, as a 
result of the consultation s under the Chair's leadership and her facilitation of the process , Members 
had been able to reach a text of  a decision urging the reinvigoration of work under the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce contained in document WT/L/274 dated  30 September 1998 .  
8.25.   The African Group  called for the consideration of all issues of interest, including the scope, 
definition and impact of the Moratorium on Customs Revenue Losses resulting from operations 
carried out by electronic transmissions. The African Group remain ed concerned about the 
implications of the moratorium on revenue losses related to electronic transmissions, and 
recommend ed that appropriate modalities for the treatment of such losses be sought, including 
through compensation. The African Group  urged the membership to engage in structured discussions 
on those issue s in good faith as they w ould be critical to decision -making at MC12.  
8.26.   With the above prerequisites, and the granting of flexibilities to  Members including the LDCs, 
the African Group adhere d to the consensus Members  had just achieved by adopting th e decision.  
Members should therefore  work with a view to contributing to improving the capacities of populations 
in developing countries and LDCs  and to effectively use the digital tool as a lever of development.  
8.27.   Apart from the implications of the moratorium, t he other technical aspects to b e addressed  
that aimed to promote participation of developing countries and LDCs in the digital economy 
included : the development of digital infrastructures , access to payment instruments by the largest 
number of people , consumer protection and cybersecuri ty, the processing of data flows and their 
location , the protection of intellectual property and start -ups and the training of individuals and 
enterprises, including functional literacy, in rural, peri -urban and urban areas.  
 
8 The decisions were subsequently circulated in documents WT/L/1079 and WT/L/1080, respectively.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 41 - 
 
  8.28.   The representative of India9 said that  India' s position on the issue of TRIPS Non-Violation and 
Situation Complaints remain ed unchanged. Introducing NVCs  into the TRIPS Agreement was 
unnecessary. As such, any benefits arising from the Agreement c ould be adequately protected by 
applying the text of the Agreement in accordance with accepted principles of international law 
without any need for introducing the legally uncertain notion of NVCs. 
8.29.   Serious concerns remain ed on the debilitating impact that NVCs in TRIPS c ould have on the 
regulator y policy space of Members and on TRIPS flexibilities. They c ould not only have a chilling 
effect on Member 's exercise of their TRIPS flexibilities but also severely restrain the ability of 
Members to achieve other public policy objectives.  
8.30.   India look ed forward to working with likeminded Members in making NVCs  inapplicable to 
TRIPS. Pending that, India support ed the proposal for extension of the moratorium on  the 
applicability of NVC s to the TRIPS Agreement until MC12.  
8.31.   Concerning item 8, India thank ed the LDC s for their proposal which sought  Members ' 
engagement under the Work Programme on some key challenges identified by them in the context 
of electronic commerce.  
8.32.   As the digital revolution was still unfolding, India ha d on a number of occasions reiter ated 
that it was important to first understand the complex and multi -faceted dimensions of issues related 
to e-commerce. India still d id not comprehend the full implications of effects of e -commerce on 
competition and market structures, issues related to t ransfer of technology, automation and 
robotization and its impact on traditional jobs and the gaps in policy and regulating frameworks in 
developing countries. India ha d therefore  been a proponent of strengthening the multilateral work 
under the non -negoti ating and exploratory Work Programme on Electronic C ommerce.  
8.33.   Under th e multilateral work programme  and with the intention of understanding the 
implications of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, India along with South 
Africa ha d introduced two submissions in July 2018 and in June 2019.  
8.34.   India therefore support ed the communication from Chad on behalf of the LDC Group and 
suggest ed that all aspects concerning the e -commerce moratorium , being cross -cutting issues , 
should be deliberated  in the G eneral Council . 
8.35.   India was aware that the Ministerial Decision on the moratorium would expire th at month 
unless the G eneral Council  decide d to renew it for another six months up to the Twelf th Ministerial 
Conference. An extremely important issue hi ghlighted in its two recent submissions on the 
moratorium made jointly with South Africa in the G eneral Council  was the need of providing clarity 
and arriving at a common understanding of what the moratorium cover ed. Without such an 
agreement on the scope of the moratorium and the definition of electronic transmissions, it would 
be very difficult to assess the impact of the moratorium on the economy not only in terms of loss of 
tariff revenue but even the broader impact on efforts at digital industriali zation. India reiterate d that 
much more serious and dedicated work was required to examine more deeply the scope of the 
moratorium, the definition of electronic transmissions  and to identify the categories of products 
which were covered under the moratorium.  
8.36.   India had also been repeatedly highlighting in the various meetings of the G eneral Council  in 
2018 and 2019 that the developing countries b ore the brunt of the potential tariff revenue loss due 
to the moratorium. The UNCTAD Trade and Development Report of 2019 confirm ed that the 
moratorium result ed in a loss in tariff revenue of more than USD10 billion globally, 95 per cent of 
which was borne by developing countries. It was also important to keep in mind that the estimate 
of USD10 billion as the potential tariff revenue loss per annum was only the tip of the iceberg as 
that estimate was based on  only a small number of 49 HS -6-digit products. Further, as more 
products were getting digiti sed due to technological advancement, th at estimate of fiscal revenue 
foregone would snowball.  
8.37.   With the advent of industry 4.0 and the advance of 3D printing techn ologies in the near future, 
the moratorium w ould also erode the existing GATT bound rates which were typically higher in 
 
9 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 42 - 
 
  developing countries, and bring them to zero for digiti sed products. Th at could have a catastrophic 
effect on the ability of developing  countries to protect their nascent domestic digital industries 
resulting in loss of jobs and destitution.  
8.38.   The above issues need ed to be well understood for enabling developing country Members to 
make more informed policy decisions. In the various meetings  of the General Council  held in 2018 
and 2019, India had been suggesting that the General Council intensif ied and accelerate d work 
under the multilaterally mandated work programme and convene d dedicated discussions to find 
answers to the key issues highlig hted in its submissions as well as any other issue related to the 
moratorium which would ensure that Members ha d sufficient time to reflect and consult with their 
stakeholders before the decision on the moratorium due in December 2019.  
8.39.   In fact, more than t wo months back during the informal, open -ended meeting of the G eneral 
Council  held on 1 October 2019, India had  suggested that the WTO Secretariat organi sed another 
workshop on the moratorium on the lines of what had been  organi sed in April 2019 wherein al l the 
leading researchers and experts on th e issue were provided a common platform to deliberate on the 
key issues relating to the moratorium. India's  proposal for even a workshop had not however been 
agreed to.  
8.40.   Despite repeated submissions and discussions on th ose critical issues, namely scope of the 
moratorium and definition of electronic transmissions , a comprehensive understanding of the impact 
of the moratorium and on imposing custom s duties on electronic transmissions , India had not seen 
focused engagement on the part of the Membership to try and find answers to th ose pressing 
questions.  
8.41.   In recent times , the WTO ha d been unable to address the issues of unilateral measures by 
certain Members, attacks on the core principles of non -discriminati on and S&D T, disciplines on 
fisher ies subsidies, asymmetries in the Agreement on Agriculture or deliver on a number of mandates 
such as on a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security purposes. All of th ose 
issues w ould undoubtedly  be on the WTO agenda for the next six months. The issue around the 
moratorium should be addressed along with all th ose issues at MC12 with the Membership 
proactively and constructively engaging on them over the next six months.  
8.42.   In the spirit of working together,  when the WTO was in turbulent waters, India w ould not 
therefore, at that time, come in the way of a consensus on the issue of a six -month extension on 
the moratorium and c ould join the consensus on the Chair 's text as had been outlined in document  
WT/GC/W /794. The Work Programme on Electronic Commerce at the WTO should however  be 
reinvigorated. It should  be structured and prioriti sed and work on it need ed to begin early in 2020 
with a commitment of the Membership to engage on topics brought forward by Memb ers including 
on scope, definition and impact of imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions. Without 
clarity on th ose issues, especially the scope of the moratorium on customs duties, there c ould be no 
predictability and certainty even for busines s, trade and industry.  
8.43.   India would continue to closely watch developments over the next six months and the 
commitment of the Membership to addressing its concerns which were shared by a number of 
Members from developing countries and LDCs in determining its position on th e issue at MC12.  
8.44.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , said that the Group fully recogni zed that 
Members  lived in a technologically advanced era and that developments in technology were evolving 
at an astronomical rate. Big data, cloud computing, 3D printing, the internet of things, artificial 
intelligence and augmented reality were just a few examples of how the world ha d changed since 
the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  
8.45.   While the ACP  took note of th ose changes, what ha d not changed or at least not at a significant 
enough rate was some Members' challenges concerning  access to basic electricity and inf rastructure 
which would enable their economies to benefit from those advancements or enable them to benefit 
from e -commerce and improve their ability to move from being mere buyers to becoming suppliers 
of their products on the internet.  
8.46.   Far too many times  had some Members  been unaware of the implications of some of the 
technological advances on their economies, their businesses or their consumers. The ACP Group ha d WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 43 - 
 
  therefore been chief among those who ha d insisted that for them, work under the current work  
programme was not exhausted, particularly its development dimension. The  Work Programme  on 
Electronic Commerce  and the M oratorium therefore remain ed of critical importance and serve d as 
an essential feature of the WTO landscape.  
8.47.   While the remit of the wor k programme was broad in terms of the issues that could be 
covered, it would be remiss of  Members  to discount the incessant calls for their continued 
conversation on unfinished business on issues under the work programme and on the moratorium 
concerning the application of customs duties on electronic transmissions. As the ACP Group had 
indicated in its previous statement at the General Counci l, in arriving at an agreement around which 
Member s could all coalesce, they should  fully take into account of and integrate the development 
dimension as it relate d to the moratorium and wider discussions within the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce.  
8.48.   The ACP Group support ed the continuation of the Work Programme and the moratorium until 
MC12. Though the ACP Group  would have preferred the identification of a more elaborate listing of 
issues for future discussions and that Members address ed any recommenda tions on th ose issues by 
April 2020, the text of the draft decision was wide enough to incorporate all of th ose issues. The ACP 
Group therefore join ed the  consensus on the draft which ha d been presented for  Members'  approval.  
8.49.   The ACP Group  however wish ed to place on record a few of the issues of interest to the Group 
of further importance which include d: the nature of electronic transmissions, feasibility of imposing 
duties, treatment of other duties and charges, the impact of the moratorium on developing c ountry 
and LDC revenue, any discriminatory treatment between physically traded goods and the digital 
version of those goods, consequences of the digital divide, costs to developing country and LDC 
consumers and business es, discrepancies between traditional  goods or products and electronic 
equivalence and the application of internal taxes on electronic transmissions.  
8.50.   The ACP Group w ould continue to engage positively in the discussions on the work programme 
with the aim of ensuring that their interests as dev eloping country Members particularly the LDCs 
and the SVEs were fully reflected in th ose discussions.  
8.51.   On behalf of Jamaica , she associate d with the statements made by the ACP Group and 
CARICOM. Further to the decision taken by CARICOM Trade Ministers at a  recent meeting of their 
Regional Council for Trade and Economic Development, Jamaica placed on record its support for 
renewing the 1998 exploratory mandate of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and to 
temporarily continue the practice of not imposi ng customs duties on electronic transmissions until 
MC12.  Jamaica however  did not think th at time was ripe to give consideration to a permanent 
moratorium on  the imposition of customs duties on  electronic transmissions especially not until the 
impact of su ch a move ha d been studied and assessed particularly for developing country Members.  
8.52.   Electronic Commerce represent ed a growing and evolving medium of international trade with 
estimates ranking its value at 2.3 trillion in 2017 and the expectation was for it to reach 4.5 trillion 
by 2021 – almost doubling in value. Th at underscore d the growth potential of the sector whic h 
needed to be properly studied and assessed. Jamaica therefore  looked forward to working with 
Members in the lead up  to MC12 on the specific issues identified in the ACP statement.  
8.53.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , noted tha t, mindful of the 
negative implications of allowing the moratorium relating to customs duties on electronic 
transmissions to lapse prior to the June 2020 Ministerial Conference, the CARICOM Group join ed 
with the broad consensus regarding the retention of t he current practice, namely refraining from 
imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, until MC12.  CARICOM noted the distinction 
between adherence to the moratorium and exercise of the right of Members to impose internal taxes 
in a manner that was consistent with WTO Agreements.  
8.54.   The CARICOM Group  had taken note of the efforts of the four designated WTO bodies 
responsible for the implementation of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce to comply with 
the MC11 mandate regarding the reinvigoration  of the Work Programme. The CARICOM Group 
acknowledge d that there ha d been limited progress in respect of implementation since 1998 and 
welcome d efforts to achieve meaningful steps forward in th at regard.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 44 - 
 
  8.55.   The CARICOM Group join ed the rest of the ACP Group  in advocating for particular attention 
to be paid to addressing a number of issues raised by Members within the framework of the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce. Th ose include d the impact on developing country and LDC 
revenue of the moratorium on th e imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions and 
consequences of the digital divide. The clear identification of specific areas of work for the four WTO 
bodies responsible for the implementation of the work programme could bring impetus to th eir 
implementation efforts.  
8.56.   The representative of Chinese Taipei10 was pleased to see that Members ha d shown flexibility 
to avoid suspension of the morator ia on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints and on 
Electronic Commerce before MC12 to protect t he interest of the global enterprise and consumers. At 
the same time, Chinese Taipei  welcome d more discussion s on the issues such as scope, definition 
and implication of the moratorium on customs duties – and would jointly participate in that.  
8.57.   The representative of Thailand11 commend ed the General Council Chair and the TRIPS Council 
Chair for their efforts in relat ion to facilitating consensus on the respective moratoria  and 
congratulate d all Members for their contributions and flexibility leading to the consensus for the 
temporary extension of the two moratoria. Th ose decisions put a stamp on Members'  achievement 
that had produced a much needed positive signal to all stakeholders in maintaining certainty and 
predictability in the global trade community. The adoption of the extension of the two moratoria 
would be vital in fostering trust and cooperation between the M embers which were essential 
elements for further success in their future discussions.  
8.58.   The representative of South Africa12 associated with the statement made by the  Africa n Group  
and agree d with the view that as a matter of principle each moratorium should be considered on its 
merits. The linkage between the two was at best artificial.  
8.59.   In relation to the TRIPS NVC s, NVCs should not apply to the TRIPS Agreement. South Africa  
urged the p roponents of the application of NVCs under the TRIPS Agreement to provide  concrete 
examples of the kind of scenarios under which an otherwise TRIPS consistent measure would impair 
or nullify benefits beyond those arising from the obligations set out in the Agreement. It could 
therefore  be useful to clarify what situations the proponents wish ed to avoid by having a non -
violation remedy available under the TRIPS Agreement and, on the other hand, to ensure that non -
violation remedies in the TRIPS context would not be so broad as to have the effect of expanding 
the existing TRIPS ob ligations or nullifying flexibilities that ha d accrued to Members in th at regard. 
The moratorium should be permanent. Alternatively, until the modalities and scope were agreed, 
the Membership should agree that NVC s should not be launched.  In the interest o f consensus , South 
Africa  could however  support the draft decision as  had been  proposed by Chile.  
8.60.   In relation to the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and the Moratorium, South Africa  
noted the content of e -commerce reports submitted by the Chairpersons of the Council for Trade in 
Goods and the Council for Trade in Services contained in documents G/C/66 and S/C/58 respectively. 
It was evident from th ose reports that little or no discussion had taken  place on the Work Programme 
on Electronic Commerce in the respective bodies as  had been  envisaged in Section 1.1 of the General 
Council Decision establishing the programme for the relevant WTO bodies as set out in Paragraphs  2 
to 5 of document WT/ L/274. Furthermore, in line with Paragraph 1.2 of the same document, South 
Africa  took good note that all aspects of the work programme concerning the imposition of customs 
duties on electronic transmission sh ould be examined in the General Council. In th at respect, despite 
a call by their Ministers at MC11 to reinvigorate  Members'  work in line with the mandate contained 
in WT/L/274, Members had not heed ed that call to do so.  
8.61.   South Africa ha d consistently advocated for further discussion on the implications  of the non -
imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. There was no consensus on the scope and 
definition of electronic transmissions . The debate since 1998 ha d focused on whether electronic 
transmissions  should be treated as goods and be ex posed to custom s duties as defined under 
Article  II of GATT 1994 or as services where GATS schedules appl ied. When the decision on the 
moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions  had been  taken, the scope of electronic 
transmissions  had been  identified as digiti sed products. Th at evolved into digitizable  products as per 
 
10 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  
11 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  
12 Intervention made under Items 7 and  8. WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 45 - 
 
  the WTO Note of 2016. The recent debate seem ed to attempt to expand the scope to digitizable  
products and services. There was a further attempt to define electronic transmission s as digital 
deliveries which cover ed along with digitizable  products, digitally delivered business services. It was 
clearly in the interest of the Membership to engage in a structured discussion to clarify the definition 
and scope of electronic transmissions  to enable Members to fully assess the implications and inform 
decision -making.  
8.62.   According to UNCTA D, the potential tariff revenue loss per annum was estimated at 
USD 10 billion per annum using bound duties. At USD2.6 billion, the potential tariff revenue loss to 
Sub-Saharan African countries was almost ten times that of the WTO High Income countries, 
whereas for the WTO LDC Members, the potential tariff revenue loss was five times that of the WTO 
High Income countries. For South Africa, the loss was at USD 36 million per annum if one would  look 
at bound rates and USD 25 million per annum based on applied  rates. A study by UNCTAD show ed 
that developing country Members c ould generate 40 times more tariff revenue by imposing customs 
duties on electronic transmissions  as compared to developed countries, many of which ha d almost 
zero bound duties on physical i mports of digitizable  products.  
8.63.   While there were benefits to electronic commerce , there were many challenges for developing 
countries arising from the digital divide, concentration in digital trade, tax avoidance by digital firms 
and revenue and digital in dustrialization implications. The decision on the e-commerce moratorium 
was not a procedural matter but an important decision due to growing trade in digitizable  products 
which ha d significant implications for developing countries who were the net importer s of th ose 
products. The moratorium as South Africa  had said on a number of occasions was asymmetrical to 
developing countries. Th at was  a significant concession by developing countries without any 
compensation in return.  
8.64.   The implications of the moratorium  were not only limited to revenue . There were significant 
industrial development implications especially with the technological advancement on 3D printing. 
The broader implications were therefore in terms of losing policy space to develop digital capabilities 
and infrastructure which c ould have important implications for manufacturing and industrialization.  
8.65.   Any decision to further extend the E -commerce Moratorium to June 2020 c ould not be rolled 
over automatically without considering how Members  could reinvigorate their discussions. It was not 
business as usual. The key issues that were critical to decision -making going forward were: the 
scope and definition , technical feasibility of imposing customs duties and the impact of the 
moratorium. While South Africa  had agreed to join the consensus for a short -term extension of the 
moratorium by a further six months until MC12, it w ould be important for the Membership to use 
that time wisely to ensure structured discussions on th ose issues to facilitate in formed decision -
making by their Ministers at MC12. Without clarity on th ose issues, the moratorium would  
increasingly be difficult to maintain . 
8.66.   The representative of Barbados  said that t he 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 
was an indispensable asp ect of the regular work in the WTO. In an age of rapid technological 
expansion, the work programme serve d as a vital discussion forum on issues and topics of relevance 
to electronic commerce, the sharing of experiences, understanding the challenges faced b y 
developing and least -develop ed countries in advancing their e -commerce bases and bridging the 
knowledge gap among Members. Barbados  therefore strongly support ed the reinvigoration of work 
under the work programme.  
8.67.   It would be essential to continue discus sions in the four bodies outlined in the 1998 decision 
as well as in the cross -cutting discussions under the remit of the General Council. Barbados  
commend ed the LDC Group for identifying issues of interest to them and which could benefit from 
future discu ssions within  those configurations. Many of th ose issues were also of interest to Barbados 
and it looked forward to receiving and contributing to proposals for discussions on th ose and other 
issues in the lead up to MC12.  
8.68.   On the issue of the moratorium, Barbados support ed the continuation of the current practice 
of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until MC12 and was supportive of further 
discussions on its impact on developing and LDC revenue, economic and social aspects  of the 
economy, businesses and consumers as well as the application of internal taxes on electronic 
transmissions.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 46 - 
 
  8.69.   Barbados support ed the draft decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce which 
was before Members  for approval. Barbados  looked forward to reinvigorated and productive 
discussions within the context of Members'  exploratory work under  the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce and st ood ready to engage in Members'  continued work in th at regard.  
Barbados a ssociated with the statements m ade by the ACP Group and CARICOM.  
8.70.   The representative of St. Lucia , on behalf of the OECS13, said that, regarding  agenda item 7, 
the OECS was  mindful that since the founding of the WTO, Members ha d maintained the practice of 
not imposing NVCs  under the TRIPS  Agreement. At MC11, Ministers had agreed to extend until the 
end of 2019 the moratorium on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints. In the interest of 
allowing Members to pronounce themselves on th e matter, as ha d traditionally been the case, the 
OECS support ed an extension of the moratorium until MC12 . 
8.71.   On agenda item 8, the OECS associated with the statements made by the  ACP Group  and 
CARICOM . Since 1998, the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce ha d been a feature of the 
multilateral trading system.  The OECS Member States  were mindful of the development benefits of 
electronic commerce because it c ould assist them in lowering trade cost, democratising competitive 
relationships among firms and furthering their integration into the global economy. They we re also 
mindful of the limitations which prevent ed them  from benefiting fully from electronic commerce. 
Those incl uded nascent regulatory regimes and slowness in deploying the latest network and 
infrastructure which would enable them to engage in the digital economy.  
8.72.   The OECS  agree d to continue the work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 
until the next M inisterial Conference  and to maintain the current practice of not imposing customs 
duties on electronic transmissions until MC12. The OECS  had taken th at decision because as ha d 
been the practice since 1998, Ministers should ultimately pronounce themselves  on th ose matters.  
Discontinuing the work under the work programme as well as not renewing the moratorium at th at 
time could potentially be disruptive to digital trade.  
8.73.   Notwithstanding t hat day's decision, both the work programme and the moratorium, the O ECS 
concede d that Members should  do more to assist developing and LDC Members to reap the benefits 
of digital transformation. In the case of the OECS, legislation with respect to data protection, 
cybersecurity and online consumer protection were either lac king or severely underdeveloped. 
Furthermore, the OECS Member States  had gaps in respect of financial inclusion, information and 
communication technology infrastructure, education and trading as well as acceding and accessing 
capital and technology which p revent ed them from fully benefitting from the global digital economy.  
8.74.   The legislative and infrastructural gaps previously outlined were fundamental building blocks 
in a digital society and for th at reason, the OECS  Member States put it to the Members that any 
reinvigoration of the work programme should  address th ose issues and their needs. They asked all  
Members, particularly their developed country partners, to reflect on the kinds of assistance that 
they c ould provide to countries like them to ensure that  Members'  work under the work programme 
would lead  to meaningful development enhancing outcomes.  
8.75.   The representative of Switzerland14 said that, with respect to  the Work Programme  on 
Electronic Commerce  and the Moratorium, Switzerland  was convinced that the discussions foreseen 
early 2020 would demonstrate the merits of having a moratorium.  
8.76.   Regarding the Moratorium on Non-Violation and Situation C omplaints under the TRIPS 
Agreement, Switzerland' s position ha d not changed. No additional mod alities were needed for NVCs 
in the TRIPS context. Extending the moratorium until the Twelfth  Ministerial Conference w ould allow 
Ministers to take a decision on th e matter at MC12. Th at was the reason why Switzerland had been  
in a position to join the cons ensus on the extension of th e moratorium until MC12.  
8.77.   The representative of Indonesia15 was delighted that Members were  able to secure consensus 
on the extension of the Moratoria on Electronic Commerce and on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation 
Complaints unti l MC12. On the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, the period in the lead up 
to MC12 c ould be used to enhance Members' understanding on the impact of the moratorium since 
 
13 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  
14 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  
15 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 47 - 
 
  the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmission s should be observed th rough a holistic 
perspective that include d, among others , potential of revenue loss, the need for trade statistics on 
digital goods, risk assessment related to digital trade and maintaining certain degree of flexibility 
for future adjustment if required. I ndonesia likewise looked forward to continuing discussing the 
Moratori um on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints in the TRIPS Council.  
8.78.   The representative of Japan  noted that t he moratorium of not imposing customs duties on 
electronic transmissions ha d provided certainty and predictability for business and trade thus 
contributing to the development of the digital economy that Japan was promoting through  the Osaka 
Track Initiative. Thanks to the intensive consultations conducted by the G eneral Council Chair, 
Members  had reached a compromise solution which extend ed the moratorium until MC12 and Japan 
was pleased with th at interim arrangement. Japan continue d to engage in discussions on various 
aspects of the e -commerce moratorium so that t he Ministers w ould be able to make an informed 
decision on th e matter. In th at regard, Japan appreciate d the communication from the LDC Group 
which would contribute to reinvigorating the work programme.  
8.79.   Japan  had taken into account the unique challenges fa cing the developing countries in 
particular LDCs through their open -ended discussions and a number of studies  – and Japan  would 
continue to do so. In the bilateral context, Japan had provided in the last three years the total 
amount of USD 350 million as d evelopment assistance in the field of ICT. Japan w ould continue to 
support developing countries for the sake of inclusive development of the digital economy.  
8.80.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that,  as the LDC Group had left to go 
to the informal meeting  the previous day , it had been filled  with doubt. There  had been no certainty 
on whether or not Members  would  reach consensus on the text with what they had added given the 
specificities and constraints of LDCs. The LDC Group therefore welcome d the consensus from 
developed and developing Members. An assessment by the WTO of the moratorium and the 
feasibility of imposing customs duties relying amongst others on various contributions were 
essential. Regarding taxes, for example t he digital tax suggested by France, the LDC Group would 
like to know a little more on the implications of such a tax as well as on the taxes levied by certain 
developed countries on goods and services. It was important for the LDC Group  to understand the 
implications for LDCs of the use of such taxes to be able to respond to their concerns regarding loss 
of revenue while the moratorium was extended. The LDC Group  would also like to better understand 
the feasibility issues.  
8.81.   The representative of Australia16 was very pleased that Members  had agreed to extend the 
two moratoria to MC12. The e -commerce moratorium was a critical element of the modern trading 
system that by providing certainty and predictability for business particularly MSMEs ha d promoted 
the growt h of digital trade  – provid ing their businesses with better access to customers and 
customers with more choice. While Australia's  clear preference was for a permanent moratorium, 
that decision was a pragmatic compromise that took into account the concerns expressed by some 
delegations and reflect ed a longstanding practice that Ministers decide d on those issues.  
8.82.   The representative of Chile17 said that  the adoption of the decision on the extension of the 
two moratoria was significant given the importance they had and the balance they represent ed for 
Members . Chile ha d supported and co -sponsored both moratoria and had in particular submit ted to 
the General  Council a proposal regarding the extension of the  moratorium on TRIPS Non -Violation 
and Situation Complaints.  
8.83.   The representative of Argentina18 was pleased that  consensus ha d been reached beyond the 
current limitations  and conditions  and was  satisfied with th e decision  Members had just taken . Never 
had the world been so big for  the smallest  among them . The decision could provide  many 
opportunities to those with fewer resources. Argentina  appreciate d the flexibility of many Members 
that ha d chosen the path of consensus  and hoped that, for the organization's  sake, th at approach 
could be mirrored by other delegations on other matters.  
8.84.   The representative of Pakistan  agree d that the 1998 Work Programme should  be reinvigorated 
in a focused way with structured discussions . Given that new research and realities ha d surfaced on 
 
16 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  
17 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  
18 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 48 - 
 
  the issue in recent times , a thorough examination on the scope and definition of electronic 
transmissions was warranted. Members should likewise  develop a deeper and clearer understanding 
of the revenue, industrial and developmental implicatio ns from the moratorium for developing 
countries. Pakistan  appreciate d that reinvigorating the work programme accompanie d the temporary 
extension of the moratorium and would provide more  time to carry out th at exercise in earnest.  
8.85.   The representative of the United States  thanked the  Chair for her leadership on th e issue and 
Switzerland for putting forward the original proposal to extend the customs duty moratorium.  Since  
Members had first established the prohibition on customs duties  on electronic transmissions in 1998, 
the moratorium ha d supported the development of digital trade as an engine for global growth.  
8.86.   There was a growing body of research that demonstrate d the significant economic benefits of 
the moratorium for developed and  developing countries alike.  In light of th at evidence, the United 
States continue d to believe that all  Members should be prepared to agree to a permanent 
moratorium on customs duties on digital transmissions.  
8.87.   While the United States  remain ed committed to th at long-term goal, it recogni zed that th e 
issue ha d always been addressed at the Minister s' level and it was happy to resolve the ambiguity 
around the deadline agreed to at MC11 by agreeing to the decision  extending the moratorium until 
MC12. The decision  also continue d the Work Program me on Electronic C ommerce under which the 
United States  looked forward to continuing discussions.  
8.88.   The representative of Mali said that the  e-commerce problem was a development problem. It 
was difficult to carry th at out due to  very low levels of  relevant services such as  banking. Although 
Mali ha d already reached a rate of 23% of banking services – showing some  progress from 2018 
where it only had  18% – that level was not yet sufficient for Mali to embark upon  e-commerce. 
UNCTAD was assessing  Mali's e -commerce readiness – the results of which would soon be available.  
Upon getting that diagnosis,  Mali would  be able to move further in the  area of electronic commerce . 
At the same, it was also important for the four WTO Bodies that ha d been  entrusted with the 
monitoring of the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce to carry out assessments and look 
at the results and developments in th at area. Based on the results, they should draft documents to 
be circulated to Members so that they would know whether the development objectives ha d been 
met or not.  
8.89.   If development partners  would only  respect their commitments , Mali would already be able 
to start engaging in e-commerc e. But the current situation  resembled someone w ho did not know 
how to swim  being forced to do so by  throw ing them into a rough sea and telling them to just  swim. 
Mali therefore asked the Membership to help it to first learn and be acquainted with electronic 
commerce  and its surrounding issues before moving forward because it  was still quite far away from 
all the objectives currently being discussed in th at area. Members  all ha d ambitions. Mali also  wanted 
to be a developed country  – but it should b e given the means for that to happen. Members should 
help Mali progress and move forward.  
8.90.   The representative of the European Union19 was very pleased that the draft decision that had 
been put forward extending the e -commerce moratorium by six months to MC12  was approved. The 
European Union  could also support the parallel extension of the TRIP S Moratorium on Non -Violation 
and Situation Complaints.  
8.91.   The E uropean Union  thank ed the  Chair for the intensive consultations she had  carried out in 
the last few days. I t was only thanks to her efforts that Members had  managed to develop and agree 
on the compromise text.  
8.92.   A six-month extension would  not however provide sufficient predictability and security that  
consumers and businesses – both in developed and developing countries – needed when engaging 
or planning to engage in e -commerce. The European Union  therefore hope d that their Ministers 
would be in a position to consider a longer term – if not permanent – extension at MC12.  
8.93.   The European Union  was also pleased to be in a position to agree with the extension of the  
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and appreciate d the renewed interest of Members t o have 
 
19 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 49 - 
 
  dedicated discussions in th at forum in early 2020. The E uropean Union  was open to engage in 
balanced discussions on the trade -related issues that Members would  wish to bring forward also 
taking into account the recent economic studies that provided scientifically solid new evidence on 
the economic implications of the moratorium.  
8.94.   The representative of Malaysia  viewed the importance for the WTO to give a positive  signal  
to the business community and the public society at large. There should not be a g ap between 
December 2019 and MC12. That was why Malaysia  welcome d the consensus reached  on the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce. On an important note, Malaysia appreciate d the efforts  made  
by Members to engage in an intellectual dialogue to further di scuss e -commerce moratorium issues. 
Through such initiatives, Malaysia  hoped they would help Members especially developing countries 
and LDCs to better comprehend issues and discuss the subject constructively in future meetings.  
8.95.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated, a s a staunch supporter of digital trade 
and e -commerce, the importance of maintaining the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions on a permanent basis. Korea welcome d and support ed the General Council's decisio n 
made under the spirit of constructiveness and cooperation among Members. The moratorium w ould 
provide certainty to the business climate while adding to the credibility of the multilateral trading 
system.  Korea look ed forward to a positive outcome from th e discussions so as to assist Trade 
Ministers in making objective and positive decisions at MC12.  
8.96.   The representative of Canada20 welcome d the decisions agreed by consensus based on the 
proposals submitted by Chile and co -sponsors to extend the moratorium on the application of Non -
Violation and Situation Complaints to the TRIPS Agreement and to extend the moratorium on 
customs duties on elec tronic transmissions both to MC12. Th at pragmatic outcome w ould ensure 
predictability and certainty until th ose moratoria c ould be considered by Ministers at MC12. In 
particular, Canada was looking forward to continuing its engagement on various aspects un der the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce including discussions on the broad benefits of the 
moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions for developed and developing country 
Members.  
8.97.   The representative of Israel  welcome d the decision to ex tend the moratorium on e -commerce 
to MC12. Th at was an important decision that sen t a positive message of certainty and predictability 
to the international business community.  
8.98.   The representative of Nigeria21 said that  the scope of application of NVCs under Article XXIII 
(b) and (c)  of the GATT continue d to be examined by the TRIPS Council. In the absence of any 
concrete decision made in that regard, Nigeria  welcome d the proposal by Chile, Colombia, New 
Zealand and Panama and thank ed them for introducing thei r paper  which  sought  the extension of 
the moratorium of the TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints . Nigeria  support ed that 
proposal. The next logical step Nigeria would like to propose was for th at moratorium to be extended 
until Members  would be able to agree on the scope . Furthermore, that  extension should not be linked 
to any other issue. A s Members had  reached  end of th e year, it was high time for them to seriously 
suggest a concrete direction o n that issue with MC12  in mind . 
8.99.   Concerning item 8, Nigeria thank ed the LDC Group for its submission on the Work Programme 
and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce circulated in  document WT/GC/W/787.  Trade arrangements 
including e -commerce generate d benefits a nd cost with the welfare of parties depending on the 
balance of the two eﬀects. It was therefore pertinent that parties undert ook the assessment of the 
impact of such arrangement on their economies to enable them to take informed decisions.  Nigeria 
therefo re support ed the call by the LDC Group for the four designated bodies under the Work 
Programme to delve deeper into the benefits and costs of e -commerce for LDCs given that some 
LDCs lack ed the capacity to independently undertake such analysis.   
8.100.   Such asses sment should not however only focus on the static effects of e -commerce 
especially the moratorium on electronic transmission s but should  also include the opportunities the 
arrangement avail ed LDCs and developing countr y Members . A multilateral e -commerce 
arrangement w ould not only encourage niche specialization given the growth in the demand and 
 
20 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  
21 Intervention made under Items 7 and 8.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 50 - 
 
  supply of digital products in  Members'  econom ies but w ould also foster the integration of their 
econom ies into the global digital value chain.  
8.101.   The challenges identi fied by the LDCs in their  paper which  could undermine their abilit y to 
optimi se their gains from an e -commerce arrangement were also true for most developing countries. 
Nigeria  therefore  urged Members to prioriti se work under the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce in line with the 2017 Ministerial Decision contained in document WT/L/1032 and develop 
clear and actionable programmes that t ook into account the concerns and challenges of developing 
countries. Such a programme should have measurable d eliverables and timelines.  
8.102.   Nigeria thank ed Australia and other proponents of the draft General Council  decision 
circulated in document  WT/GC/W/792.  E-commerce was an economic reality that was unlocking the 
potentials of economies by triggering growth and c reating wealth and jobs.  Nigeria was likewise  
mindful of the supply side constraint that was undermining e-commerce  gains for developing 
countries .  
8.103.   Some of th ose constraints include d those highlighted by the LDC Group in its submission. 
The lack of progre ss of work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce since the last 
twenty -one years further promote d scepticism  in some quarters as to whether key players in global 
e-commerce were committed to the development of a multilateral e -commerce work progr amme 
that w ould be beneficial to developing countries.  
8.104.   As had been stated in its earlier intervention, Nigeria  urged all Members to prioriti se work 
under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and develop clear and actionable programmes 
that t ook into account the concerns and challenges of developing countries. In  that regard, Nigeria 
supported t he draft General Council decision which state d that "Members agree to continue the work 
under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, based on the existing m andate as set out in 
WT/L/274 ". 
8.105.   With regard to the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic 
transmissions , Nigeria  was mindful of the legitimate concerns on the effect of the moratorium on 
tariff revenue especially given the results of some static analysis that were in the public domain. In 
modelling the impact of trade arrangements on economies of parties, static analysis alone d id not 
however  tell the whole story given that it exclude d economy -wide dynamic effects of such 
arrangements. Nigeria  was also conscious of the benefits and opportunities that e -commerce 
provided  in terms of fostering the integration of its economy  into the global digital value chain and 
associated productivity gains. Time was therefore  needed for Members to undertake the requisite 
detailed assessment of the economic impact s of the moratorium on their respective economies to 
guide informed decision -making .  
8.106.   In the interim, the need to extend the moratorium until MC12 in or der to forestall the 
distortionary effects of unpredictable global e -commerce environment for business and consumers 
from the moratorium lapsing prior to MC12 c ould not be overemphasi sed. In that regard, Nigeria 
support ed the draft General Council decision  which state d that "Members agree to maintain the 
current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until the Twelf th 
Ministerial Conference ". 
8.107.   The representative of China  support ed the G eneral Council  decision to maintain the curr ent 
practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until MC12. In the meantime,  it 
was importan t to have meaningful structur al discussion s in early 2020. In th at regard, China thank ed 
the LDC Group for its proposal which identifie d a series of key challenges for LDCs in the utilization 
of e-commerce. It was an important and shared obligation for all Members to bridge the digital divide  
and to  allow all developing Members in particular the LDCs to benefit from e -commerce. China look ed 
forward to working closely together with Members to fulfil th at historical task.  
8.108.   The representative of Uruguay  noted that Uruguay had co-sponsored the proposals f or the 
extension of the two moratoria as they  would undoubtedly have systemic and transcendental effects. 
Uruguay  hoped that the spirit of cooperation and joint efforts among Members w ould multiply from 
that day with the aim of achieving concrete and defin itive outcomes at MC12 on that and on other 
matters of relevance to the organization.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 51 - 
 
  8.109.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that, a s a co -sponsor of the two 
communications led by Switzerland on th e matter, H ong Kong, China  had been  pleased to support  
the decision to extend the moratorium so that  their Ministers would  make an informed decision at 
the coming Ministerial Conference.  Meanwhile,  the existing mandate of the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce, as set out in WT/L/274, was broad enough to c over all the relevant topics for 
future discussions . Hong Kong, China  would be pleased to engage constructively in it.  
8.110.   Hong Kong, China  was a longstanding supporter for making the moratorium  permanent as 
it had provided certainty and predictability to the global business community for e -commerce to 
thrive in the past twenty  years.  The WTO and the multilateral trading system were facing challenges 
at various fronts. Members  should act responsibly and extend the moratorium so as to avoid sending 
a negative si gnal to the world that the WTO was backtracking on its good work and adding 
uncertainties to the business community.  
8.111.   The representative of Colombia  said that,  as a co-sponsor of the proposals for the extension 
of the two moratoria, Colombia was delighted of the fact that Members ha d been able to reach th at 
point of convergence especially taking into account the turbulent time they were going through. Th at 
was one am ongst many of the positive messages coming out of the General Council which 
undoubtedly should be highlighted.  
8.112.   The representative of the Russian Federation  welcome d the decision on the technical 
extension of the moratorium until the Twelf th Ministerial Conference while continuing the work under 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Members  should likewise continue the discussions 
on the nature and implications of the moratorium.  
8.113.   In the meantime, Members  needed to make it clear that the e-commerce moratorium sh ould 
not preclude the imposition of internal taxes, fees or other charges in a manner consistent with the 
WTO Agreements. The Russian Federation  was looking forward to further d iscussions on resolving 
the moratorium issues until the Twelf th Ministerial Conference.  
8.114.   The representative of Brazil  support ed the search for a consensual decision concerning the 
follow up of the 2017 Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on Electroni c Commerce. It was 
a complex issue and  Brazil appreciate d the efforts made by the Chair to promote a constructive 
discussion among Members in the General Council. Brazil  underst ood that different perspectives 
could  remain but Brazil favoured the continuati on of the moratorium which Members ha d been 
renewing for two decades. In that regard, Brazil  was also  fully aware of the needs of  the LDCs.  
8.115.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement, of the reports in S/C/58 and G/C/66, 
and of the other statements.  
9  REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS BY THE AFRICAN UNION – COMMUNICATION FROM 
BENIN ON BEHALF OF THE AFRICAN GROUP (WT /GC/W/789)  
9.1.  The Chair said that the  item had been  placed on the agenda at the request of the delegation 
of Benin on behalf of the African Group , together with a communication circulated in document 
WT/GC/W/789  concern ing a request for Observer Status by the African Union. In th at regard, she 
recall ed that the  process for granting Observer Status to IGOs was governed by Annex 3 of the Rules 
of Procedure (WT/L/161) – which provide d that "requests for observer status shall be made in writing 
to the WTO body in which such status is sought" and "shall be considered  on a case -by-case basis 
by each WTO body to which such a request is addressed." Members  were therefore considering th at 
request for the General Council.  
9.2.  The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , recall ed that about thirty years 
earlier , the Commission of the former Organization of African Unity, now the African Union, had 
submitted the request for observer status to the World Trade Organization.  In his letter dated  
17 November 2019 addressed to the Chair  as well as to the Director -General of the WTO, the Chair 
of the African Union Commission, His Excellency Mr. Moussa Faki M ahamat , had renewed th at 
request.  
9.3.  Indeed, in its vision to structurally transform its economy, through industrialization and 
economic  and social development, Africa was committed to reali sing economic and commercial WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 52 - 
 
  projects that were truly action -oriented and results in all areas of intervention  including international 
trade.  It share d and promote d the goals and objectives of internati onal trade supported by 
multilateralism.  The launch in Niamey  on 07 July 2019 of the African Continental Free Trade Area 
was part of th at commitment and the major objective of promoting economic growth and inclusive 
and sustainable development.   
9.4.  That was why, with its forty -four current WTO Members and nine WTO Observers, comprising 
53 out of 55 of the African Union Membership and one-third of the WTO Members hip, the African 
continent ha d, through the intermediary of the Chair of the Commission of the Afric an Union, His 
Excellency Mr. Moussa Faki M ahamat , renewed the request for observer status of the African Union 
at the WTO. It strongly recommend ed that its application receive d the expected legitimate 
favourable outcome.  The whole Africa was looking to Gen eva and the WTO t hat day. 
9.5.  The representative of Egypt  fully support ed the statement made by the African Group . The 
African Continental Free Trade Area w ould cover a market of 1.5 billion people and GDP of 
USD 2.5 billion across all 55 Member States of the African Union out of which 44 were WTO Members 
and 9 African countries were in the accession process. In terms of numbers of participating countries, 
the African Continental Free Trade Area w ould be the world's largest free trade area since the 
formation of the WTO. Consolidating the African  continent into one trade area provide d great 
opportunities for trading enterprises, businesses and consumers across Africa.  
9.6.  The Economic Commission for Afric a estimate d that the A fCFTA ha d a potential both of boosting 
intra-African trade by 52.3% by eliminating import duties and to double th at trade if non -trade 
barriers were also reduced. Egypt  urged the whole Membership to agree on granting the African 
Union  observer status in the WTO. Egypt  was positive that th e decision w ould enable the African 
Union to better formulate the common Africa trade policies as well as better coordinate the position 
of the African countries into the international trade negotiatin g fora.  
9.7.  The representative of Nigeria  associat ed with the statement made by the African Group. U nder 
the auspices of the African Union, regional integration which ha d always been at the heart of Africa' s 
strategy for economic transformation ha d progressed from geopolitical Regional Economic 
Communities to  the Africa n Continental Free Trade Area being  operationali sed at the Twelf th 
Extraordinary Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union in Niamey, Niger 
on 7 July 2019. The A fCFTA was a major steppingstone towards the creation of an Africa Customs 
Union and the attainment of the African Union Agenda 2063: "The Africa We Want".  
9.8.  In order to enhance the participation of the 44 Africa n Union Member States that were Members 
of the WTO and 9 o thers that were in the process of acceding to the WTO in the multilateral trading 
system, the need for effective coordination c ould not be overemphasi sed. Consequently , African 
Union Member States ha d mandated the AU to coordinate and harmoni se the position of African 
countries and regions in international trade arrangements especially within the multilateral trading 
system . Furthermore, as Africa progressively deepen ed and upscale d its economic integration, it 
was likely  that African Union Member States could  cede part, if not all of the administration of their 
trade and other economic policies to the A frican Union . 
9.9.  In view of the role of the A U in shaping the WTO positions of African States that were Members 
of the WTO and enhancing their part icipation in the multilateral trading system, it was pertinent that 
the AU was granted WTO observer status to enable the organization participate in the activities of 
the WTO and its technical sub -committees.  
9.10.   Nigeria  called on Members to favourabl y consid er the application of the A frican Union  by 
grant ing Permanent Observer Status to the African Union in all WTO bodies.  
9.11.   The representative of Argentina  was pleased to be considering the request by the African 
Union a s it wa s new and irrefutable proof of the interest and significance that the WTO ha d managed 
to attain in th at case not only for one country but for an entire continent.  The African Union g ave 
Members  two examples to follow : (i) by setting such an ambitious goal as becoming the world's 
largest sin gle market  and (ii) that goal involve d every one of its countries.  
9.12.   Argentina  would even go as far as to say that it actually set three examples. As well as the 
two previous elements, there was also the fact that regional integration was sought by means of,  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 53 - 
 
  inter alia, coordinated cross border outreach.  In other words,  the request could be beneficial, not 
only for the African Union, but also for the multilateral trading system itself.  
9.13.   Argentina  was confident that the African Union w ould be able to express it s positions in a 
constructive manner enhancing the discussions and contributing to the strengthening of a rules -
based trading system.  
9.14.   The representative of South Africa  support ed the statement made by the African Group. The 
African Union  was advancing its integration agenda on the basis of what was outlined in Agenda 
2063. At the core of th at vision was a development integration agenda that combine d market 
integration with industrial a nd infrastructure development. In advanc ing that agenda, it was 
important to ensure the alignment between WTO Agreements and the AfCFTA so as to ensure the 
commitments African countries ma de at the WTO support ed Africa's  integration Agenda. The request 
for Observer Status was therefore critical to ensure Members  achieve d those objectives.  
9.15.   The rational for th at request was that the AU ha d just established the AfCFTA, that w ould 
once functional be the biggest single market with 1.5 billion people and a combin ed GDP of 
USD 2.5 trillion. In addition, 44 of the WTO Members were AU Member States. The Abuja Treaty 
outline d Africa' s vision for regional integration which w ould start with the operationalization of the 
AfCFTA. South Africa  urged Members to consider th at request favo urably. The establishment was a 
significant milestone in the integration agenda of Africa. The AU was responsible for the 
implementation of the AfCFTA and the request for Observer Status was a clear commitment by Africa 
to a rules -based multilateral trading system . 
9.16.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , on behalf of the Arab Group , said that t he 
participation of all qualified international intergovernmental organization in the WTO Bodies was very 
crucial and every effort should be made to facilitate it. Th at would help Members  in their outreach 
efforts and also to build the consensus globally o n the issues in the House of Trade. The Arab Group 
remain ed strongly committed to supporting the WTO Members' consensus to welcome each qualified 
IGO as observers to the WTO. In th at regard, the Arab Group  strongly support ed the request of 
observer status by the African Union.  
9.17.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , noted that, gi ven the daily struggle to 
increase inclusivity and that the vast majority of LDCs were from the African Continent, the LDCs  
called on all Members to look favourably to t he legitimate request presented by Benin for the African 
Union to become an Observer within the organization.  
9.18.   The representative of Haiti support ed the request presented by Benin on behalf of the African 
Union for Observer Status in the big family of the WTO. Such a decision could benefit the LDC Group.  
9.19.   The representative of Cameroon  fully support ed the statement made by the African Group. 
The reform  undertaken by the Heads of Government of African States ma de the African Union 
Commission an important development actor for trade policy in the continent. The creation of the 
African Continental Free Trade Area demonstrate d that will. It would therefore be fair and advisable 
for the request for Observer Status by the African Union to receive a warm and consensus -based 
welcome  from the Members . 
9.20.   The representative of the European Union  noted that t he European Union's  trade and 
investment partnership with Africa was a priority. The E uropean Union  support ed the African Union 's 
efforts to implement the African Continental Free Trade Area and welcome d Africa' s commitment to 
the rules -based multilateral trading system with  the WTO at its core. On the request that  Members  
had in front of them by the African Union for observer status, the European Union  would need more 
time to reflect and discuss internally before it could be in a position to share its position.  
9.21.   The represent ative of the United States  said that the United States wa s currently not in a 
position to agree that any supranational regional group be granted permanent Observership to the 
General Council and its affiliated bodies. The United States  looked forward to co ntinuing the work 
alongside African countries as individual WTO Members with their own rights and obligations.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 54 - 
 
  9.22.   The representative of Uruguay  support ed the incorporation of the African Union as an 
Observer as Uruguay  consider ed that th at would contribute to  strengthening the multilateral trading 
system  – the WTO in particular.  
9.23.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , noted that t he message that the 
African Group  had heard from the different delegations who ha d spoken at the meeting show ed that 
there was legitimacy,  that it ma de sense and that there was need to use the WTO as a forum to 
promote inclusion. The African Group therefore thanked  those delegations who ha d expressed their 
interest and support with regard to its request.  
9.24.   The African Group clarified to the  United States that it was not the African Union's intention 
to establish a supranational position in terms of its request. As the African Group  had explaine d, the 
request was made to help  the African WTO Members and Observers organi se themselves  by having 
coherence and consistency in their interventions, establish ing synerg ies and remain ing constructive 
as they always were. That was what they had wanted to pu t across as a first message after the 
discussions they had had that day. The African Group  hoped that Members  would soon arrive at a 
positive conclusion on th e matter so that Africa c ould know that it was heard throughout the WTO.  
9.25.   The Chair said that g iven what she had heard from delegations during the meeting , she 
underst ood that more time was needed for Members to consider th e request. She remain ed available 
to consult with delegations who wish ed to further discuss th e matter.  
9.26.   The General Council took not e of the statements.  
10  ACCESSION OF CURAÇAO  (WT/ACC/CUW/1)  – REQUEST FROM THE KINGDOM OF THE 
NETHERLANDS  
10.1.   The Chair recalled that t he item was included in the agenda at the request of the delegation 
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and further to the communi cation from Curaçao circulated on 1 
November in document WT/ACC/CUW/1. In th e communication, Curaçao was requesting accession 
to the WTO Agreement pursuant to Article XII.  
10.2.   The representative of the  Kingdom of the Netherlands  introduced the request for acce ssion of 
Curaçao in document WT/ACC/CUW/1 and  through the General Council Chair, invited the  Minister of 
Economic Development of Curaçao – H.E. Giselle McWilliam  to speak on behalf of the Government 
of Curaçao .  
10.3.   Upon taking the floor, t he Minister of Economic Development of Curaçao said that the 
Government of Curaçao appreciate d the opportunity to briefly motivate its application to become an 
independent WTO  Member as a separate customs territory and autonomous country within the 
Kingdom  of the Netherlands.  
10.4.   Curaçao was already an original Member of the WTO because it share d a common membership 
within the Kingdom of the Netherlands with three other countries: Aruba, Sint Maarten and the 
Netherlands. However, the country of the Netherlands,  the European part of the Kingdom , was part 
of the European Union, whereas Curaçao  was a small island developing country in a region far away 
from Europe. The request for an independent WTO membership was based on a decision by the 
Government of the Kingdo m of the Netherlands in 2015. Since then , Curaçao  had conducted 
consultations with several Members.  
10.5.   As a small island developing country, like for example Barbados, the Dominican Republic and 
St. Lucia , Curaçao eagerly want ed to integrate more in its own r egion. Th at integration was only 
possible based on WTO rules which was being demonstrated by the negotiations currently being 
conducted with Colombia and the Dominican Republic as well as the consultations with Trinidad & 
Tobago. Consequently, the WTO would provide Curaçao  with the required passport to conduct 
bilateral trade agreements with other countries especially in its region for its people.  
10.6.   In addition, Curaçao  had been a participant to the GATT at least since 1949 which mean t that 
it had a history o f deep commitment towards multilateralism and international organizations. In th at 
respect, its aspiration was to directly participate in the global trade dialogue and to contribute to the 
further inclusion of smaller countries into the world economy.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 55 - 
 
  10.7.   The WTO system  moreover  provide d transparency to all  countries,  small and large alike,  
based on its system of multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral agreements. Although it face d many 
practical challenges, as Members  had witnessed that day, the WTO was the world 's best bet in 
avoiding disrupting international trade wars.  
10.8.   In a more local c ontext, the WTO provide d them with a good body of knowledge and best 
practices in international trade. The WTO therefore help ed them to bring their systems and practices, 
where necessary, in line with the global environment for investment, services and tra de facilitation 
to attract much needed foreign investments.  
10.9.   Those were the main motivations for its application to become a Member of the WTO in its 
own right as a separate customs territory. Curaçao st ood ready to initiate the process of accession 
negotia tions and remained in the hands of the Membership  to continue the process . 
10.10.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  noted  the transmission by the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands of the formal application of the Government of Curaçao for accession to the WTO, 
pursuant to Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement. Trinidad and Tobago  welcome d that 
development  and the consensus arrived at among Members regarding the placement of th e matter 
on the agenda for th e General Counci l. Trinidad and Tobago also expressed  gratitude regarding the 
details outlined in WT/ACC/CUW/1 relating to the current economic policies and the foreign trade 
regime of Curaçao.  
10.11.   Trinidad and Tobago  had taken note of the rationale put forward by the Government of 
Curaçao in expressing its preferenc e for an accelerated process based on its longstanding 
membership first of the GATT and then of the WTO as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 
Trinidad and Tobago w ould monitor developments related to th at request for accession of its 
neighbour and fel low Caribbean country and hope d that the accession process w ould be smoot h. 
10.12.   The representative of Uruguay  welcome d the request for accession to the WTO presented by 
the Minister of Curaçao t hat day. 
10.13.   The representative of the European Union  noted the request circulated to the Membership. 
The European Union  welcome d the statement , but regret ted not to be in a position t o express its 
opinion yet  due to several legal issues that ha d to be examined and consultations t o be carried out.  
10.14.   The representative of the United States  thank ed Curaçao for submitting its request for 
accession to the WTO pursuant to Article XII and for i ts statement of the current economic policies 
and the foreign trade regime. The United States was a strong advocate of the WTO accession 
process. For every applicant , the accession was fundamentally a process of trade liberalising 
domestic reform. The Unit ed States was reviewing Curaçao's request and statement carefully and 
would ask to meet with Curaçao bilaterally to seek clarity on certain elements before it would be  in 
a position to make a decision.  
10.15.   The Chair  understood that more time was needed to furt her consult on the request. As 
General Council Chair, her door remained open to delegations who wished to further discuss the 
matter. She thanked the delegation of Curaçao for its application and for being at the General Council 
that day.  
10.16.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
11  PROCEDURAL GUIDELINE S FOR WTO COUNCILS AND COMMITTEES ADDRESSING 
TRADE CONCERNS – STATEMENT BY CO -SPONSORS OF WT/GC/W/777/REV.4  
11.1.   The Chair  recalled that t he European Union had  requested the Secretariat to include th at item 
in the agenda  which included  a statement of the co -sponsors of document WT/GC/W/777/Rev.4. A 
room document ha d also been made available concerning th at item. 
11.2.   The representative of the European Union  said that , on behalf of all co -sponsors of the 
proposal for "Procedural Guidelines for WTO Councils and Committees Addressing Trade Concerns", 
the European Union provided  a brief update of their ongoing efforts to improve the proposal since 
the previous General Cou ncil meeting in October.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 56 - 
 
  11.3.   The objective of th e proposal was to make a modest yet practical contribution to increasing 
the effectiveness of the WTO in general , and Members'  dealing with each other's trade concerns in 
particular. Without changing a coma in M embers ' rights and obligations, the proposed guidelines 
could help WTO regular work become more user -friendly, respond better to the expectations of their 
stakeholders, and contribute to strengthening the WTO as the basis of their trade relationships.  
11.4.   The gist of what the co -sponsors had heard at the last General Council and in exchanges with 
Members had been  encouraging especially that several small delegations consider ed the proposal 
beneficial. Overall, feedback suggest ed that they were on the right trac k. The co -sponsors  had been 
working with Members bilaterally and in small groups to clarify some remaining questions and to 
explore how to accommodate concerns.  
11.5.   Some Members had expressed concern that the proposal could put into question or jeopardise 
what work ed well in certain committees. In fact, the co -sponsors  were aiming for the opposite and 
had taken inspiration from existing good practices for bodies that lack ed such practices.  
11.6.   The co -sponsors  had circulated a room document t hat day which compare d existing rules and 
practices in a selection of WTO Councils and Committees with the suggestions that were in their 
proposal. The table was a factual compilation and h ad benefitted from valuable input by the 
Secretariat. It illustrate d that t he suggestions in their proposal d id not jeopardise existing good 
practices because they either were about making work easier for Members , for example through the 
earlier circulation of agendas , or had no interference with Committee practices.  
11.7.   Numerous Me mbers ha d pointed out that the envisaged 30 days to reply to written questions 
in Paragraph 7 could  be too challenging.  The co -sponsors  were looking into ways of addressing th at 
issue as part of the next revision.  
11.8.   The co -sponsors had  heard that the suggest ion in Paragraph 11 to be economical in repeating 
known argument s which pick ed up an existing practice for the sheer sake of increasing efficiency 
could be misunderstood as intended to limit the possibility of expressing concern. As th at was clearly 
not th e objective, the co -sponsors  were reflecting on how to improve the drafting.  
11.9.   Finally, the co -sponsors  wholeheartedly agree d with a remark made at the last meeting that 
"political will is more important than procedures ". That said, a framework for dialogue could 
nevertheless facilitate engagement in situations where political will could not be obvious 
immediately. The co -sponsors  were not naively assuming that the guidelines would end all concerns 
and avoid all disputes  but we re confident that it could help resolve the "resolvable " trade concerns.  
11.10.   As Members kn ew well, the E uropean Union  was equally active in raising and responding to 
trade concerns which was probably normal for an economic actor of th at size. The European Uni on's 
interest rested  in making engagement in both directions more constructive and effective.  
11.11.   The representative of Nigeria  noted that, alt hough the Nigerian delegation  had earlier 
forwarded Rev .3 to its capital for consideration, Rev .3 and Rev .4 were pra ctically the same document 
except for the inclusion of Iceland and North Macedonia as co -sponsors.  As it had stated  at the 
previous General Council meeting,  Rev.3 and Rev .4 contain ed some good elements that if well -
developed w ould enhance the process of ad dressing trade concerns without necessarily increasing 
the burden for developing countries.  Nigeria  stood ready to engage proponents to explore further 
flexibilities for developing countries especially LDCs who could  encounter difficulties to respond to a 
trade concern or to implement th ose Procedural Guidelines.  
11.12.   The representative of Argentina  agree d with the co -sponsors that the regular WTO Council 
and Committee meetings provide d an opportunity to discuss and resolve concerns about trade 
related measures adopted by the Members.  Argentina  had seen how and  had played a part in 
ensuring that the Council and Committee agendas ha d increased the component dedicated to 
discussing specifi c trade concerns.  
11.13.   The situation was particularly noticeable in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures and in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade in which the Membership ha d recently 
become increasingly concerned about the trade pract ices of a small number of Members.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 57 - 
 
  11.14.   Dialogue and openness were key to working effectively. In th at regard, the WTO Agreements 
provide d important tools in order to make progress in a constructive manner.  Argentina however 
remain ed concerned about any type of  initiative that aim ed to curtail Members' rights to express 
their concerns freely, when necessary and to the appropriate extent, regarding other Members' trade 
practices. Members  could not promote freedom while simultaneously trying to curb it.  
11.15.   Argentina  was not sure that a horizontal  approach such as the one suggested was the best 
way of addressing the specific and diverse functions of the various Councils and Committees. 
Argentina did however look positively on the fact that the initiative aim ed to impro ve the system of 
communication between Members and the availability of existing information for each meeting.   
11.16.   As some Committees ha d already drawn up their meeting schedule for the whole of 2020, 
the General Council could formally request that all the reg ular Councils and Committees do likewise  
– seeking to avoid meeting overlap.  It was also important to keep in mind that each Member  was 
speaking on behalf of the People whom it represent ed and that they were not therefore merely 
referring to a representative's wishes but to the demands of the people being represented until the 
issue would cease to be of concern.  
11.17.   The representative of Ecuador  was grateful to the European Union and the other co -sponsors 
for their work and  for holding consultations with the rest of the Membership so that their comments 
on th e proposal c ould be heard.  Improvements could be made to the way in which the Committees 
operate d and could facilitate the effective resolution of trade con cerns.  
11.18.   Nevertheless, the procedures suggested in the proposal could inadvertently combine to 
restrict the full exercise of the right of Members to raise their trade concerns in the various bodies. 
Ecuador  had repeatedly expressed th at concern not only in t he General Council  but also within the 
framework of the consultations with the E uropean Union  and other proponents.  For instance, the 
document contain ed a proposal that the agenda include d a report on which bodies ha d addressed 
trade concerns regarding the  same measure and how often , in that case, there was some concern 
as to the question of interpretation and the possible negative emphasis that could  be given to the 
reiteration.  
11.19.   The text also propose d that when a particular trade concern was repeatedly rai sed before a 
WTO body, each Member should try to refer back to its most recent statement on record. Although  
it was a best endeavour provision , it could  still give rise to  the over-simplification of the matter in 
question – affect ing the possibility of including new elements in a concern.  Ecuador  saw the merit 
and usefulness of wanting to establish uniform procedures for the various Committees. The proposal  
should however  continue to  be developed with flexibility to balance it out for those Members whose 
concerns which were regrettably increasing need ed to be heard and addressed.  
11.20.   The representative of Canada  fully support ed the need for improvements to meeting 
arrangements as a valuab le contribution to strengthening the WTO's deliberative function overall. 
Canada w ould soon provide the co -sponsors with some drafting suggestions and look ed forward to 
constructively engaging on th e proposal.   
11.21.   The representative of Uruguay  reiterated the  importance of  not impact ing Members' 
possibility to includ e concerns on the agenda of regular bodies and not prejudg ing each Member 's 
right to decide what matters they could put forward or positions and arguments they could present 
in a meeting – bearing i n mind their legitimate interests and concerns and the political value that 
could be given to repeating the same concerns in a multilateral setting. Uruguay  remain ed ready to 
have open and constructive discussions with interested Members to improve the reg ular functioning 
of the Committees and Councils of th e organization a nd their results particular ly concerning  the 
effective resolution of the numerous trade concerns brought before the m. 
11.22.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that the LDC Group w ould be making 
comments on th at matter  under item 14 of the agenda.  
11.23.   The representative of Paraguay  noted that t he room document presented by co -sponsors 
would help Members see a crosscutting overview of the modifications that the ir proposa l would imply 
including  its impact on the different Committees and their functioning. Paraguay  fully agree d with 
the objective of improving the functioning of the Councils and  Committees of th e organization. Those WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 58 - 
 
  improvements should focus on finding a pragmatic solution to the problems that the delegations 
faced on a daily basis in taking part in meetings and should not create new procedures which could 
pose more obstacles to the participation of small delegations in them. 
11.24.   While recognising the positive elements contained in the proposal such as the annual 
programming of meetings, the circulation of minutes earlier before each meeting and questions and 
answers in writing to delegations, among other things, Paraguay was not i n a position to go along 
with any proposal which w ould limit the time Members ha d to introduce items on the agenda that 
create d the expectation of compliance of subjective requirements for the submission of trade 
concerns and encourage d Members to limit th e exercise of their right to make statements under 
trade concerns . Those measures would make discussions more bilateral when they should be 
multilateral. Paraguay  therefore urged the proponents to make the appropriate adjustment t hat 
would  make it possible  to reach  the necessary consensus to approve a proposal which contain ed 
elements w ith a potential to achieve the objective sought.  
11.25.   The representative of Indonesia  asked the proponents to closely identify and take into 
account the comments and observations on the proposal before presenting it to the General Council. 
Indonesia remain ed enlightened on the effectiveness of the method proposed by the co -sponsor s in 
resolving trade concerns.  However, Indonesia  was uncertain on the assurance that th e proposed 
method would not put unnecessary burden to the Members, Chairs and the Secretariat. Indonesia 
was therefore  not in a position to support th e proposal  but remain ed open to further discussions . 
11.26.   The representative of South Africa  recall ed her delegation's  statement s delivered in previous 
meetings of the G eneral Council  on th at matter.  South Africa  emphasised that it had identified a 
number of elements in the proposed procedural guidelines that could improve the functioning of the 
Committees and  Councils. Some of th ose elements ha d been recently discussed and agreed in the 
various Committees . For instance,  convening notices were sent well in advance of the meetings . 
Agenda s indicate d items raised for the first time and those that ha d been previou sly raised . The 
Secretariat was also in the process of establishing a database to manage trade concerns. South 
Africa  found those measures  to be working well within the framework of the Committees concerned.  
11.27.   While there was value in some elements of the pr oposal, there was a need for consideration 
of the proposal by the Committees and Councils in relation to whether they were in line with the 
mandate and rules of procedure of the various institutions and for each institution to identify what 
could be applicable based on its mandate. South Africa  remain ed concerned with the proposed 
horizontal procedural nature of the guidelines. The Councils and Committees carr ied out the 
functions assigned to them by the ir respective agreements and by the General Council. The 
wholesale modification of the rules of procedures in various Committees w ould be indiscriminate and 
would fundamentally affect the operation and the purpose for which they had been  established.  
11.28.   Moreo ver, South Africa  had not heard any responses on the following concerns it had raised 
in the past: how the proposed procedural guidelines w ould ensure that the role of the Chairpersons 
of the Councils and Committees including the Secretariat was not overly  enhanced and how to ensure 
that the report of the Chairperson would  not divert Members' attention away from resolving a  specific 
trade concern  to a discussion of the Chair's report. The co -sponsors should also ensure that the 
proposal would  not impose add itional obligations and was onerous especially  to developing countries 
– in particular to LDCs . South Africa  was not convinced that th e proposed guidelines  would lead to 
the effective resolution of specific trade concerns .  
11.29.   The representative of Guatemala  said that the  document include d information that had been  
asked for at the beginning of the year concerning the procedures that would be replaced in the 
Committees by th e proposal. Guatemala highlight ed the importance of improving the functioning of 
the Committees particularly the organization of meetings, circulation of documents and minutes, 
and the option of putting questions and answers in writing. Th ose would make it possible to better 
coordinate things between Membe rs and missions including their capit als and  take part in meetings.  
11.30.   Establish ing new procedures w ould however  create a limitation in the participation of 
Members in the different discussions in the various Councils and Committees  such as those relating 
to specific trade concerns in the SPS and TBT Committees. Th at was of great concern because the 
list of trade concerns was growing and that certain Members ha d particular interests in them.  
Guatemala  was ready to improve the procedures in the different Commi ttees and Councils to resolve  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 59 - 
 
  trade concerns while respecting the rights of Members t o intervene in th ose bodies . Guatemala  was 
not in a position to support the document  but remained  ready to continue discussing th e matter  to 
ensure transparency in the functioning  of WTO Councils and  Committees.  
11.31.   The representative of the United States  reiterated that t he position of the United States on 
the proposal remain ed unchanged. The United States  encourage d the European Union in particular 
to focus on resolving the l ongstanding specific trade concerns  that the United States and others ha d 
been raising in multiple WTO Councils and Committees for years.  
11.32.   The representative of Bangladesh  associate d with the statements made by the LDC Group.  
The proposed procedural guidelines aim ed to bring positive changes in the working procedures of 
the Councils and C ommittees . Bangladesh  welcome d the constructive ideas in the draft proposal . 
Although it was already in its fourth revision,  no change s had been made  from the third revisio n 
apart from the  inclusion of two additional co -sponsors.   
11.33.   In previous General Council meetings, Bangladesh ha d consistently suggested changes in 
the existing convening notice templates which should include, inter alia, information like t he date of 
the last meeting of the relevant  Council or Committee , document reference of the minutes of the 
previous  meeting and  the name of the Chair. Members should also review the suggested time-limit 
for circulating  a convening notice before the actual date of  the meeting and the time-limit for 
circulating the minutes after each meeting. Bangladesh  also propose d that a summary note should 
be published on  the WTO website immediately after each meeting.  That would immensely help 
smaller delegations  who wer e unable to attend all meetings in regularly updating their information 
repository.    
11.34.   The aim of the submission  was to strengthen the capacity of the WTO Councils and 
Committees to help Members function more efficiently. In th at respect, Bangladesh encour aged 
Members to reflect on the wider scope that the proposed guidelines ha d so that their decisions would  
not create difficulties in the future. For example, Paragraph 13 of the draft suggest ed that Members 
should ensure the participation of capital -based experts in person or through video conferencing. 
The co -sponsors should  re-think whether all Members would be in a position to implement th at call 
for all informal meetings. Bangladesh would continue to constructively  engage  with the co -sponsors  
and other Members on th e issue.   
11.35.   The representative of the European Union  had taken good and careful note of all the 
comments. The co -sponsors would  continue to engage across the board to try to explain the 
background, the reasons and  the benefits that their proposal c ould bring to the Membership to 
continue with improving the working of the WTO Councils and Committees.  
11.36.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
12  CHALLENGES POSED TO THE WTO BY NON-MARKET POLICIES AND PRACTICES – 
UNITED STATES  
12.1.   The Chair  noted that the  item was on the agenda at the request of the delegation of the 
United States.  
12.2.   The representative of the United States  said that the agenda item  had been requested  to 
discuss an important systemic issue that was critical for the continued vitality – and the very 
relevance – of the WTO. Th e issue was the challenges posed by non -market policies and practices 
to the WTO. The distortions caused by non -market practices threaten ed the goals Members  share d 
for a free, fa ir and mutually advantageous trading system.  Non-market practices in which 
governments intervene d to distort competition and dr ove preferred outcomes to benefit certain 
domestic actors undermine d the public 's confidence in the WTO.  
12.3.   He said that i t was hard  to imagine Members' citizens supporting the WTO if the trading 
system c ould not ensure that Members'  citizens, workers and businesses c ould both compete on a 
level playing field and  could  enjoy the benefits of innovation, hard work and fair competition.  
12.4.   Members  had known th at from the time they had  entered into the WTO Agreement. In the 
Marrakesh Declaration, the parties declaring their intention to establish the World Trade Organization WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 60 - 
 
  had stated that they had  wanted to promote their economies ' participa tion in a world trading system 
based on open, market -oriented policies and the commitments set out in the Uruguay Round 
Agreements and Decisions.  Members had also collectively noted their desire to operate in a fairer 
and more open multilateral trading sys tem for the benefit and welfare of their peoples.  And when 
new Members ha d acceded to the WTO, their protocols of accession had also confirmed their efforts 
to embrace market -oriented policies. Market -oriented conditions had been  a key element to ensure 
that the acceding and existing  Members would fully benefit from reciprocal and mutually 
advantageous commitments.  
12.5.   But when the State put its thumb – or even its fist – on the scale to distort competition and 
drive preferred outcomes to benefit certain domest ic actors, that was unfair. The United States  had 
seen governments exercise d control over the allocation of resources such that key factors of 
production as land, labo ur, energy and capital were not allocated or priced according to market 
principles  – resulting in huge distortions in international trade.  
12.6.   The United States  had seen State Enterprises being developed into national champions – often 
behind the walls of restrictive market access barriers – and then set loose on global markets. And 
the non -market advantages that had fuelled the domestic development of State Enterpri ses could  
continue to flow – often shielded from view through lack of transparency and market discipline – 
and drive their international operations.  The United States  had seen forced technology transfer 
practices, through which a government could  obtain fo reign technologies through non -market -based 
transactions to benefit domestic actors.  And the United States  had seen non -market policies and 
practices led to massive excess capacity, which businesses ha d reported in sectors as varied as steel, 
alumin ium, ce ment, chemicals, refining, flat glass, shipbuilding, paper, solar panels and modules  
and others.  
12.7.   And so, the United States  had continually seen how non -market -oriented policies and 
practices not only harm ed the interests of the particular workers or busine sses directly involved.  
They also undermine d confidence in the world trading system as a whole and that the WTO support ed 
fair, market -oriented outcomes.  
12.8.   Members  needed to return th e institution to its core mission of promoting fair, market -
oriented outco mes. In the past, several Members  had expressed a shared view that market -oriented 
conditions were fundamental to a free, fair and mutually advantageous global trading system, 
leading to a level playing -field between all operators in the market. The United  States  had also in 
the past expressed the view that forced technology transfer policies create d unfair competitive 
conditions for workers and businesses and undermine d the proper functioning of international trade.   
12.9.   The United States hope d that other  Members too share d that vision.  A shared commitment to 
open, market -oriented policies remain ed critical to ensure a level playing field for their workers and 
businesses. To build confidence in th e organization as promoting free and fair trade, Members should  
discuss and reinforce their commitment to market -oriented values.  
12.10.   In sum, the current challenges posed to the WTO by non -market policies and practices call ed 
for Members  to recommit the WTO to promoting a world trading system based on open, market -
oriented policies. Th at recommitment was especially important as they consider ed WTO reform and 
what it could  look like. Reform w ould only be effective and durable if Members  had a shared 
understanding of the principles underlying th e organization.  
12.11.   In conclusion, he said that t he United States w ould be seeking to engage with any interested 
Member in initiatives to support market -oriented policies and outcomes and to reinforce the values 
Members  had endorsed when they had helped create th e institution.  
12.12.   The representative of China  had heard the term " non-market policies and practices " referred 
many times  and asked what that term meant. For China,  it was the ban of foreign products an d 
companies from normal trade under the disguise of national security without any substantive proof. 
Reference had also been made to distortion of trade  – which for China was  the blatant disregard of 
the WTO rules and one 's own commitments and the unilater al raising  of tariffs.  
12.13.   Every Member ha d its unique economic system and no one should have a monopoly in 
determining  what a market economy was and was not . China did not think any Member would allow WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 61 - 
 
  others to dictate how Members  should run their own econom ies or model s not because it was good 
for it but because it was good for them.  
12.14.   China' s market economy system was evolving and improving constantly. China  welcome d 
comments, suggestions and even criticisms from the international community on how to deepen its 
reforms. China  would adopt those suggestions that could contribute to its economic growth and 
would say "thank you but no thank you " to those that w ould undermine it. For what was within the 
jurisdiction of the WTO, China  should adhere to those rules a s it had done in the past. For what was 
outside of the scope of the WTO, Members ha d full right to make their own decisions. As a large 
trading nation, China w ould responsibly consider the externalities of its economic policies.  
12.15.   As such, China  had amended its Foreign Investment Law to explicitly prohibit forced 
technology transfer, although its government ha d never implemented such policies whatsoever. 
China  had fully complied with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB in all disputes despite its 
disag reement to some decisions. China  had hosted the China International Import Expo to spur 
imports for two consecutive years regardless of the accusation that China  was a  mercantilist . 
Concerning that event, t he exhibition space taken up by American companies  that year ha d reache d 
47,500 square meters ranking first among all participating countries.  
12.16.   China  had voluntarily lifted restrictions on foreign equity cap of securities companies, 
securities investment fund companies, futures companies, and life insuran ce companies beyond its 
WTO commitments, although some blame d that its services sectors were not open. Although it was 
not true that its industrial policies distort ed market competition claimed by some, China  had still 
explicitly requested that greater pro gress be made in creating a market -based, rule s-based and 
internationali sed business environment when preparing the fourteenth five -year plan. Although the 
notion that a ll its state-owned enterprises were public bodies contradict ed both the facts and the 
rules, China  was still stepping up the formulation of a three -year action plan for the market -oriented 
reform of state -owned enterprises.  
12.17.   In the current  world, being loud would not  make one right. China  had heard so much about 
subsidies but asked  who the main supplier of subsidies was in the world . It could  be natural that 
China p opped  up in someone 's mind because it had been bombarded with the rhetoric about its 
massive subsidies. However, a ccording to the Global Trade Alert databas e of the University of Saint 
Gallen, in May 2019, of all non -agricultural imports into the U nited States , 45% ha d to compete with 
products produced by companies receiving subsidies from the US government. Th ose subsidies 
include d financial aid, state loans , and reduction or waiver of taxation or social insurance. Even that 
45% d id not represent the full picture of the US subsidies because it only t ook into account domestic 
subsidies to the manufacturing companies but d id not include agricultural subsidies a nd export 
incentives. One could  wonder what the percentage was for China.  It was 23.9%  which was roughly  
half of that of the U nited States . China asked again who the  largest subsidizer was in the world . 
12.18.   The United States  had also mentioned about the recent  Global Forum on Steel Excess 
Capacity. The Forum could have served as a communication and cooperation platform for relevant 
countries to address the excess capacity issue. But regretfully, it ha d been hijacked by some 
countries as a tool to pressure and a ttack China, the biggest contributor to global capacity reduction, 
and ventured into a dead -end. China clarified that  the Forum 's mandate ha d been set by all 
participating countries for three years which expire d in December 2019. Therefore, its end was not 
a question of minority versus majority but a natural course of expiration. That question however  
arose in the current Appellate Body crisis where Members  had a situation of 1 versus 163  – where  
a single Member 's blockage had failed all other Members ' obligation to fill the Appellate Body and 
had jeopardi sed the whole multilateral trading system.  
12.19.   That being said, it d id not necessarily prevent ed Members  from reaching possible 
agreements in the process of WTO refo rm. For example, China asked whether Members should or 
could  improve rules on subsidies  – to which it responded on the affirmative . The massive agricultural 
subsidies provided by developed countries including the U nited States  had been distorting trade in 
agricultural products for decades which should have been eliminated long ago. What else was 
urgently needed was putting a stop to the abuse of trade remedies and restor ing Article 8 of the 
SCM Agreement to allow non -actionable subsidies to the disadvantage d regions and for education, 
research and environmental purposes. China  would however firmly oppose any proposal of new 
subsidies rules that were discriminatory in nature.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 62 - 
 
  12.20.   China wanted to be open -minded about all trade -related issues  but made it  clear that  the 
WTO's mandate was to regulate international trade , not to dictate any Member 's model for 
development. The only linkage between trade policies and economic models was that if a Member's 
economic system was coordinated and adapted to its international t rade obligations, it could  better 
facilitate its economic development.  
12.21.   China's accession into the WTO was a good example. On its accession, China had adopted 
extensive reforms to align its trade laws and regulations with the multilateral trade rules that 
embod ied some general requirements of the market economy such as non -discrimination, 
transparency and national treatment. At the same time, China had also adopted a series of market -
oriented initiatives in many other areas autonomously to promote the overa ll economic reform. 
Those reforms ha d put China onto a path of rapid and sustained economic growth which  had also 
contributed significantly to the development of the global economy.  
12.22.   One could  ask whether China should continue to take reference of the international rules 
and norms on its course of further reforms  – to which China responded on the affirmative . What 
China  had however heard t hat day was nothing like that. What the previous statement  aimed to 
advance was not international rules representing the general interest of Members but rather a set 
of biased and discriminatory requirements based on the self -interest of a small group of Members. 
It went against the principles and purposes of the WTO and w ould lead to n othing but discrimination 
and disruption.  
12.23.   The greatness of the sea lie d in its capacity in taking in all the rivers. The multilateral trading 
system was also expected to be as inclusive to embrace Members with different economic systems 
and models where th ey could coexist and learn from one another. China  wanted to cooperate with 
other Members on the basis of mutual respect and on equal footing and work together to improve  
international economic governance. Nevertheless, China  did not  want any hat to be thr own onto its 
head for things it had never done. In the reform of the WTO rules, China would  never let anyone 
put a straitjacket  on it and give it a stick.  
12.24.   The difference between  the United States  and China  was not on whether the WTO  should 
update the rules  on subsidies but rather on the underlying assumption that was fundamentally 
flawed. The assumption the U nited States  was trying to establish was that the cause of t he current  
tension in international trade was the so -called non -market economy of China and  the so -called 
trade distortive industrial subsidies . Hence, t here was a need to target China with a set of tailored 
multilateral rules to constrain th ose subsidies.  
12.25.   Looking back at the past decades, it was true that developing Members , including China,  
had increased their share in global trade. Two factors had played fundamental roles in th e process: 
innovation and dissemination of technologies and development of global value chains of the 
multinational companies. The two factors combin ed ha d enabled developing Members to participate 
in the economic globalization and become part of the supply chain of the multinational companies. 
The significance of developing their own development strategy and implementing relevant industrial 
policies f or developing Members was to seize the opportunity of integration into the global value 
chain and create necessary conditions for such integration.  
12.26.   However, the membership should also see that developing Members were at the lower end 
of the value chains. W hat they c ould gain and how they c ould make  an impact were limited. 
Developing Members ha d legitimate rights and tools to support their domestic economic growth but 
compared with the developed ones their capacity to provide support to domestic industries a nd 
effectiveness of th ose supports were simply dwarfed. China was no exception.  
12.27.   The root of the social tension in some developed Members t hat day was that the 
governments had failed to adjust domestic policies to keep up with the pace of economic 
globaliza tion. Corporations were gaining tremendous profits from globalization while the costs of 
globalization were borne by the working class , and governments were not providing sufficient redress 
to those negatively impacted by globalization.  
12.28.   That domestic tensi on ma de its way into the multilateral system and was threatening to 
collapse it. Therefore, the greatest risk Members  faced that day was not subsidies, not insufficiency 
of rules, but rather trade -bashing by some Members to ease their domestic tensions. Th e primary WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 63 - 
 
  objective of WTO reform  should therefore be to fight against trade protectionism and to uphold the 
basic principles and core values of the WTO  – and Members  should not waste their time on 
scapegoating, trade -bashing and fence -building.  
12.29.   Delegations  in the Council Room that day were  not the only ones in the world concerned 
about the reform of the WTO and they were not the only ones who kn ew about the reform. With 
regard to China' s economic model and the WTO, China  had had a thorough debate  with the United 
States  in July 2018 on the matter. China then referred to an article published in the Financial Times 
entitled "The WTO has become dysfunctional: Trade rules must acknowledge the benefits of 
divergent economic models such as China' s" autho red by Professor Danny Rodrick from Harvard 
University , a prominent development economist well -known in the trade circle .  
12.30.   In that article, Professor Rodrick had provided an insight worth contemplating in Members'  
efforts to improve the WTO system. He said  that, "[a] fair world trade regime would recogni ze the 
value of diversity in economic models. It should seek a modus vivendi among these models, rather 
than tighter rules ". On 18 October, Professor Rodrick along with thirty -five prominent Chinese and 
US economists, including five Nobel Prize winners, had released a Joint Statement o f the US -China 
Trade Policy Working Group. They had argued that neither decoupling nor forced convergence were 
options to address the differences in the economic policies and ec onomic models. Only by respecting 
the differences, consultation on equal ground and coexistence with competition c ould they find a 
way out.  
12.31.   On the path to reform ing the WTO, before they sparred themselves to the edge of the cliff, 
Members  should remember the advice  that if the WTO ha d become dysfunctional it was because the 
trade rules ha d over-reached.  
12.32.   The representative of the European Union  thought  it was important that  businesses operate d 
under market -oriented conditions and ha d repeatedly expressed its concerns with non -market -
oriented policies and practices that ha d resulted in damage to the world trading system and a lack 
of a level -playing field.  Market-oriented conditions were fundame ntal to a free, fair and mutually 
advantageous global trading system, ensuring a level -playing field for all market participants.  
12.33.   As Members were  aware, in the context of the EU -US-Japan trilateral cooperation process , 
the E uropean Union  had already identi fied a list of market -oriented conditions as th ose had been  
expressed in a Joint Ministerial Statement in May 2018. The European Union ha d been working 
towards identifying where there were gaps in the rules of the WTO to address non -market -oriented 
practic es and ha d called for an update of the rulebook in th at respect.  
12.34.   The representative of Japan  welcome d the statement made by the United States and share d 
the recognition that market -oriented conditions were fundamental to a fair, mutually advantageous 
global trading system and therefore non -market policies and practices should  be addressed. Japan 
would actively contribute to the discussion to address th ose challenges.  
12.35.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  recall ed that the WTO ha d been built to ensure fair and 
free trade as indicated in the Marrakesh Declaration. Sustaining a level -playing field and fair and 
free trading environment was not only the purpose th e organization but also essential for the 
business world. Without a level -playing field, there was no certainty for business es to make 
continuous investments in new technology or in innovation which was crucial for creating and 
sustaining employment. It wa s therefore  important that Members  recommitted to those principles 
as they we re well -aware that the WTO need ed necessary reform. It was essential to enable the WTO 
to carry its primary role of ensuring a level -playing field and fair trade for all its Member s.  
12.36.   The representative of the United States  thank ed all delegations including China for their 
interventions and look ed forward to continuing th at discussion the following year . 
12.37.   The representative of China  said that t he purpose behind th at agenda item was to set the 
scene for a future proposal on industrial subsidies  – like thunder before a storm. Although everything 
took its time to ripe n, he was curious as to why, after two whole years , the proposal ha d not yet 
been unveiled. He had not been sl eeping  well lately  perhaps  because the wait for the other shoe to 
drop was simply too long. He had prepared himself for a civili sed debate and if the proponent was 
convincing enough, he could  be persuaded. He asked the proponents to not  leave him hanging.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 64 - 
 
  12.38.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
13  PROCEDURES TO STRENG THEN THE NEGOTIATING  FUNCTION OF THE WTO  – 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES (WT/GC/W/757/R EV.1 AND 
WT/GC/W/764/R EV.1) 
13.1.   The Chair said that the  item was included in the agenda by the d elegation of the United States 
with the document WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1 and the revised communication in WT/GC/W/764/Rev.1.  
13.2.   The representative of the United States  said that his delegation was pleased to continue the 
discussion of th at important reform initiati ve. The United States in January had submitted a paper 
on the lack of differentiation at the WTO and why th at was damaging the WTO 's negotiating function.  
On that factual and analytic basis, in February, the United States had submitted to the General 
Counc il a proposal to resolve the differentiation problem through a pragmatic approach that 
recogni zed the complexity of th e issue.  
13.3.   The US proposal establishe d objective criteria for determining whether a WTO Member could  
continue to avail itself of blanket, open -ended S&D T in current and future WTO negotiations.  The 
four criteria were: (i) a WTO Member that was a member of the OECD, or a WTO Member that ha d 
begun the accession process to the OECD;  (ii) a WTO Member that was a member of the G20;  (iii) a 
WTO Member that was designated as a high income country by the World Bank; or  (iv) a WTO 
Member that account ed for no less than 0.5 percent of global merchandise trade.  
13.4.   Since the General Council  had last met in October, the United States  had deepened its 
conversations with Members across the development spectrum.  He noted that t he United States  was 
engaging Members who would meet at least one of the four criteria in the US proposal. The United 
States  was also engaging other M embers  such as the LDCs who would benefit if the more advanced, 
wealthy,  and influential economies among the Membership finally accept ed responsibilities 
commensurate with their role in the global economy.  
13.5.   Those conversations ha d been candid, thoughtful, a nd detailed. Members were listening to 
the United States  and the United States  was listening to them.  For example, a  growing number of 
Members recogni zed that S&D T reform was necessary for the WTO to be a viable forum for 
meaningful negotiations. Many Memb ers share d the  goal of reserving blanket S&D T provisions for 
those  that were the relatively less developed of the over 100 Members claiming developing country 
status.  Many Members ha d confirmed that the current situation d id not lead to equitable outcomes. 
An increasing number of Members indicate d they were giving serious thought to the US proposal.  
13.6.   Importantly, in late October, Korea had committed to not seek S&DT  in ongoing and futu re 
WTO negotiations in line with the US proposal. Korea had noted the importance it attache d to 
maintaining the WTO 's key role in creating rules that led to increased trade and prosperity. In taking 
that step, Korea had stated that its access to S&D T in existing WTO Agreements remain ed unchanged 
and that it retain ed the ability to negotiate priority interests such as flexibilities for agricultural goods 
that Korea consider ed sensitive. The United States  fully agree d and applaud ed Korea for 
demonstrating sor ely-needed leadership to reform the WTO 's negotiating arm.  
13.7.   In its many conversations with Members th at fall, the United States had  heard several 
suggestions on how to improve its proposal. To its ears, th ose suggestions had been  offered in a 
true spirit of  reform. The United States had  reflected on th ose suggestions and had made several 
changes to its proposal in light of them.  
13.8.   As found in WT/GC/W/7 64/Rev.1, the United States outlined the changes made. First, several  
Members had asked that the United State s made explicit in the text a point that it had emphasi sed 
all along. That was that  the US proposal d id not preclude any Member from negotiating the 
flexibilities it need ed in current and future WTO negotiations. Rather, the proposal require d that 
certain Members fore went blanket S&D T provisions in th ose negotiations.  
13.9.   The United States  agree d that th e clarification would be helpful so it had  added th e following  
sentence: "Nothing in this Decision precludes a Member seeking to address particula r needs during 
a current or future WTO negotiation ". To say it another way , any Member that for went blanket S&D T WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 65 - 
 
  provisions in a future WTO Agreement still retain ed the ability to negotiate into the agreement text 
the flexibilities it need ed to defend and advance its interests.  
13.10.   Second, several Members had observed that, according to the language in the US proposal, 
if a Member had met the high income criteria or the share of global merchandise trade criteria one 
year but had not met that criteria the next y ear, that Member would still have to forego S&D T in 
current and future WTO negotiations. In other words, the proposal had not account ed for the 
possibility that a Member could fall below a criteria threshold.  
13.11.   That had been  a helpful observation. To address  that concern, the United States had  clarified 
that a Member would need to meet the relevant threshold for either of those criteria for three 
consecutive years immediately prior to the date of decision, or for a third consecutive year or any 
three consecut ive years after the date of decision.  In practical terms, th at change mean t that the 
United States  had eliminated the possibility of unwelcome surprise. To meet the criteria, a Member 
should  exceed the relevant threshold for a sustained period. If a Member  fell below the threshold for 
either criteria, it would not meet the criteria again until the Member ha d exceeded the threshold for 
a sustained period.  
13.12.   Importantly, th ose changes to the US proposal ensure d that eligibility for blanket, open -
ended S&D T in current and future WTO negotiations w ould stay current with the times. The criteria 
would reflect the world Members  lived in at the moment, not the vanished world of decades past.  
That would be an important step forward from where Members  were that day. 
13.13.   The United States said it would  provide  a few examples of how th at would work in practice 
for a hypothetical Member – Member A. For th at discussion, the United States had stipulate d that 
the date of the decision for the US proposal was 8 June 2020.  To meet  the high income criteria as 
of the date of  the decision, Member A would need to have been classified by the World Bank as high 
income on 1 July 2017, 1 July 2018, and 1 July 2019.  
13.14.   If Member A had been  classified as high income on 1 July 2019, but not on 1  July 2018, 
Member A would need to be classified as high income on 1 July 2020 and 1 July 2021 to meet the 
high income criteria.  If Member A had been  classified as high income on 1 July 2017 and 1 July 
2018, but it had been  classified as upper middle incom e on 1 July 2019, Member A would not meet 
the high income criteria as of the date of the decision. The earliest possible date that Member A 
could meet the high-income  criteria was 1 July 2022, if Member A had been  classified as high income 
on 1 July 2020, 1 July 2021, and 1 July 2022.  To meet the share of global merchandise trade criteria 
as of the date of decision, Member A 's share would need to be no less than 0.5 percent for 2017, 
2018, and 2019, according to WTO data.  If Member A had met the share thres hold for 2019 but not 
2018, Member A would need to meet the threshold in 2020 and 2021 to meet the criteria.   
13.15.   If Member A had met the share threshold in 2017 and 2018 but had not met the threshold 
in 2019, Member A would not meet th at criteria on the date of the decision. The earliest possible 
date that Member A could meet th at criteria was early 2023 when WTO data would show that Member 
A had met the share threshold for 2020, 2021 and 2022.  
13.16.   He stressed that t he United States  stood ready to continue its discussions with Members and 
answer any questions they could have. The United States  appreciate d Members ' engagement and 
their willingness to consider how they c ould show leadership in improving th e organization for the 
good of all.   
13.17.   He further noted that t he United States  would also provide an update on the memorandum 
to the USTR from the President of the United States in July.  The President had instructed  the USTR 
to no longer treat as a developing country for the purposes of the WTO any self -declared developing 
country that, in the USTR 's judgment, c ould inappropriately seek S&D T in current and future WTO 
negotiations. Some Members ha d asked how the USTR w ould carry th at out. 
13.18.   The USTR had consulted with the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee on th e issue.  
The interagency had agreed that if a n S&DT provision was introduced in a WTO negotiation, the 
United States w ould indicate that it w ould not agree to that provision unless certain Members 
forewent use of that provision. The United States w ould also use the TPR process to continue to WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 66 - 
 
  press countries that it believed  should not be claiming blanket S&D T in future agreements.  In 
addition, the USTR was conti nuing to review additional steps that c ould be taken.  
13.19.   The President  had issued two other instructions to the USTR. The USTR w ould not support 
the application for OECD membership of any self -declared developing country that, in the USTR 's 
judgment, c ould inappropriately seek S&D T in current and future WTO negotiations. Also,  the USTR 
should publish on its website a list of all self -declared developing countries that the USTR believe d 
could inappropriately seek S&D T in WTO negotiations.  Members ha d asked when the USTR w ould 
publish the list. The USTR was consulting on th at issue. The memo had not require d the  USTR to 
publish the list b y a specific date.  
13.20.   The United States wished to  emphasi se two important aspects about the memo and the US 
proposal that it would like Members to keep in mind.  First, the President 's memo had not instruct ed 
the USTR to ask any Member to change its self -declared development status. The US proposal d id 
not ask th at of any Member either.  Second, the President 's memo had not instruct ed the  USTR to 
ask any Member to forego S&D T in existing WTO Agreements. The US prop osal d id not ask th at of 
any Member either.  In closing, the United States thank ed Members for their constructive dialogue 
with it. That work was important as th at issue and the US proposal w ould not go away.  The United 
States  looked forward to continuing t o engage with Members and to making new progress on th at 
reform effort.  
13.21.   The representative of China  said that by  revising its proposal , the United States had at least 
met the procedural requirements of the General Council which was to not discuss the same document 
repeatedly.  With regard to substance, direction was more important than effort. In 2018, Canada  
had made a good movie named The Hummingbird Project. It t ook the hummingbirds about sixteen  
milliseconds to wave their wings once. If one reduce d the n etwork delay of the financial exchange 
by sixteen  milliseconds, one could  make a lot of money. So, two operators had begun to dig trenches 
and build fibr e optic cables. But due to the wrong technology direction, the market had already 
adopted more advanced technology when they had achieved the expected reduction in delay. Their 
efforts had been  in vein.  
13.22.   Coming back to the revised US proposal, the World Bank 's high -income standards were not 
necessarily linked with a country's stage of development. For example, Antigua and Barbuda ha d 
only 100,000 people. If there were one or two billionaires on the island, th at country c ould be 
counted as a high -income one ev en if everyone else was poor. But it was by no means a developed 
country. Some Middle Eastern countries mainly rel ied on the single product of oil. Due to climate 
issues and the fact that almost all agricultural products need ed to be imported, fluctuations  in 
international markets w ould have a huge impact on the single -structured and vulnerable economy. 
It was hard to label them all as developed. In addition, the G20 was not a measurement of a 
country's level of development, but only a platform for develope d and developing Members to jointly 
cope with the global crisis.  To sum up, some artificially formulated standards c ould not solve the 
numerous challenges and problems facing the developing Members. The right direction was to 
respect each country's right o f self -declaration based on their own development situation and 
encourage them to make international contributions within their capabilities.  
13.23.   He said that r ecently China ha d submitted its indicative draft schedule of Specific 
Commitments in the D omestic Re gulation  JSI negotiation s which cover ed all the committed sectors. 
China had  not claim ed any special and differential treatment, including the transition period, 
although it believe d that S&DT was an integral part of domestic regulation negotiations and was vital 
to some other developing Members. In other WTO negotiations in the future, China w ould continue 
to deal with S &DT in a pragmatic and responsible manner without pursuing flexibility it d id not need. 
But China w ould not give up its due institutional rights in advance.  
13.24.   The representative of Uruguay , on behalf of Argentina , Brazil , Chile, Colombia , Panama , 
Paraguay , Peru and Uruguay , recall ed their past interventions at the General Council on the same 
topic reiterating once again that development was a multifaceted phenomenon that Members ha d 
incorporated in the WTO Agreements seeking to promote trade translating itself into a true engine 
for inclu sive economic development for their people . 
13.25.   Special and differential treatment was one of the tools that developing countries ha d to 
achieve a swifter and better integration into the multilateral trading system. He said that t hose Latin WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 67 - 
 
  American Members  reiterate d their call for reflection which would allow for the implementation of 
special and differential treatment in a pragmatic way according to the needs of each Member and 
the specific issue under negotiation. The Latin American Members endorsing the st atement 
unders tood that at th at critical stage that the WTO was going through, open, respectful multilateral 
dialogue was required. It should be reflective and constructive looking into development and S&DT. 
That was  a dialogue that w ould revitalise, unite  and strengthen the organization, protecting it 
towards the future, seeking the benefits that greater liberalization of trade in goods and services 
offered. 
13.26.   The representative of the European Union  confirm ed that development was a central pillar 
of the organization. The current distinction between developed and developing countr y Members  no 
longer reflect ed the reality of the rapid economic growth in some developing countri es. Members  
should therefore continue to work on special and differential treatment w ith a view to ensuring that 
flexibilities were made available to those Members who actually need ed them to enable them to fully 
benefit from their membership.  
13.27.   He stated that, i f the organi zation was to prosper, special and differential treatment should  
become much more granular, in function of an individual Member's demonstrated needs and 
capacities. Future differentiation should be designed in terms of specific individual country needs at 
the secto ral or activity level rather than calling for a block exemption of a large category of Members. 
Furthermore,  each developing country  Member 's need for S &DT should be assessed on a case -by-
case basis and be evidence -based. The notable exception should be th e LDCs who deserve d 
particular treatment and who in any case ha d graduation mechanisms.  
13.28.   The European Union  was open to looking into special and differential treatment provisions 
in future agreements  such as the ongoing negotiations in fisheries subsidies.  The European Union  
expect ed to have a discussion with Members as to what development concern was raised by the 
provisions under discussion and what flexibility was necessary in order to eventually allow the 
affected Members to fully implement the agreemen t. It was only where special and differential 
treatment respond ed to a specific need that it c ould be truly effective. In th at context, the European 
Union  called on advanced WTO Members claiming developing country status to undertake full 
commitments in on going and future WTO negotiations.  The European Union  welcome d the 
clarifications added by the U nited States  that link ed S&DT to needs. The European Union  would be 
interested to get clarifications about the meaning of "particular needs " in the following ph rase: 
"Nothing in this Decision precludes a Member seeking to address particular needs during a current 
or future WTO negotiation ". 
13.29.   The representative of Barbados  took note of the revised proposal that ha d been circulated 
in WT/GC/W/764/R ev.1 and that was the subject of the current  discussions. The heightened interest 
surrounding development and therefore the continued placement of th e item on the agenda of the 
General Council reinforce d the centrality of development in the WTO.  
13.30.   At the risk of sounding repetitive in th ose discussions, Barbados wished to  remind  Members 
that per capita income as a measure d id not adequately take into consideration the special needs 
and vulnerabilities of small island developing States like Barbados and those in  the Caribbean and 
the Pacific regions. Barbados  therefore reiterate d the need for serious consideration to be given to 
environmental and economic vulnerability indices when assessing the development status of th ose 
Members.   
13.31.   Barbados  took note of those Me mbers who, while maintaining their right to self -designate 
as developing countr y Members , had committed to not availing themselves of special and differential 
treatment in current and future WTO negotiations. Barbados  commend ed those delegations  as it 
was their prerogative to make such commitments  – which should  however remain voluntary.  
13.32.   The representative of South Africa  recall ed the submission that South Africa had  co-
sponsored with China, India, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in document WT/GC/ W/765 
– which  continue d to be its response on th e issue.  
13.33.   South Africa  noted the amendment s which did not however  address its fundamental 
concerns. The core elements of the original US proposal still remained  as the proposal still 
maintain ed the arbitrary criteria for determining which Members should continue to access S&DT.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 68 - 
 
  The proposal d id not clarify the basis for the criteria except to highlight that Members that f ell within 
any of the following categories w ould not avail themselves of special and differential treatment in 
current or future WTO negotiations.  It further add ed that Members that f ell within any of the 
categories w ould not avail themselves of S&DT in the WTO Agreements resulting from current and 
future negotiations.  
13.34.   While South Africa  noted the additional clause that "Nothing in this Decision precludes a 
Member seeking to address particular needs during a current or future WTO negotiation ", the 
proposal change d the architecture of S&DT from a treaty -embedded right to an issue to be 
negotiated and to be granted on a case -by-case basis. S&DT was a hard  worn right that was part of 
the architecture of WTO rules to calibrate trade agreements in accordance with the level of 
development of Members. It should  continue to underpin existing rules as well as current and future 
negotiations if Members  were to strengthen the negotiating function of the WTO. All developing 
countr y Members we re entitled to S&DT and c ould not be excluded upfront from claiming the 
flexibilities that they were entitled to even before negotiations beg an. The US Proposal still 
maintain ed the ineligibility of other Members in sector -specific negotiations for S&DT which mean t 
that even Members that d id not fall within any of the four criteri a were not guaranteed S&DT.  
13.35.   She said that South Africa  did not support any attempts that aim ed to introduce 
differentiation in the WTO and limit ed the flexibilities available to developing countries. Such 
attempts aim ed to alter the balance of rights and o bligations of developing countr y Members  in the 
WTO and reverse d the earlier gains made by developing countr y Members  which were an outcome 
of long and hard negotiations which had resulted in Part IV of the GATT recogni sing differences 
between developed and developing countr y Members . The S&D T flexibilities were critical to achieve 
SDGs and to deliver on the Doha Development mandate.  
13.36.   The Doha Ministerial Declaration ha d provided a clear mandate in Paragraph 44 to review all 
S&DT provisions with  a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and 
operational. The mandate of the CTD  SS remain ed important and ha d not been concluded . It was 
the proper forum for S&DT negotiations.  It was for th at reason that the G -90 ha d tabled a room 
document  that outline d the rationale for the ten specific S&DT proposals entailed in documents 
JOB/GC/160/ - JOB/TNC/65 in the form of a draft Ministerial Decision. The  room document  was a 
discussion document that serve d as a basis for a structured discussion with Members.  
13.37.   The ten proposals d id not give the Members a blanket approach to opt out of commitments 
but provide d policy space within clearly defined parameters to promote industrialization, 
diversification and to achieve developmental objecti ves. In addition, where there were requests for 
deviations, th ose were temporary to allow developing and LDC Members  to build the necessary 
capacity and take into account the objectives of the covered Agreements.  
13.38.   South Africa  appreciate d the constructive engagement in the consultative process they had 
initiated with Members as  the revision of th ose proposals require d input from WTO Members. South 
Africa  encourage d Members to make specific proposals on amendments or improvements they would 
like to see for c onsideration by the G -90. Such a process w ould provide a firm basis for a meaningful 
outcome towards MC12 that deliver ed on the mandate of Paragraph  44 of the Doha M inisterial 
Declaration.  
13.39.   The representative of India referred to the submission  in document  WT/GC/W/765 wh ich 
had dealt with some of th ose issues and had underlined that S&DT was a treaty embedded right  and 
entitlement for which Members  had paid and it c ould not be taken away from them. 
13.40.   The draft decision by the Uni ted States use d arbitrary parameters  – many of them unrelated 
to development  and target ed certain Members. While some developing Members could  have made 
progress, old gaps in the levels of development were far from being bridged  and in some areas ha d 
even widened. Further, new divides, especially in the digital and technological spheres, were 
becoming more pronounced.  
13.41.   In the case of a country like India which was home to about 35.6% of the global poor and 
24% of global under -nourished, was ranked at 102nd among 117 countries in 2019 Global Hunger 
Index and 130th in the 2017 United Nations Human Development Index, ha d less than 36% of the 
population having access to internet, ha d 81 times more farmers per hectare and less than 0.4% WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 69 - 
 
  domestic support per farmer  as compared to the United States and ha d per capita income of about 
USD 2 ,500 – India could not be placed in the same development category as the United States with 
a per capita GDP of more than USD 70 ,000. 
13.42.   The draft decision by the United States recogni zed that reserving flexibilities for thos e 
Members with the greatest difficulty integrating into the multilateral trading system c ould open new 
export opportunities for such countries. However, what it fail ed to accept was that developed country 
Members, in cluding the United States, need ed to consider foregoing flexibilities available to them 
under various existing Agreements and Decisions, including AMS and green -box subsidies, Special 
Safeguard Mechanism and flexibilities under the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, which 
provide d reverse S&D T – none of which were generally available to developing countr y Members  
and hurt exports from developing country Members.  
13.43.   Depriving developing countr y Members  like India of their rightful policy space in future 
agreements, a policy space that ha d been enjoyed by developed Members in their process of 
structural transformation and economic growth, would be a gross violation of the basic tenets of 
equity and justice, and would strike at the very legitimacy of the rules -based system and delay the 
achievement of th e SDGs. Th at would compound the wrong resulting from non -completion of the 
Doha Work Programme which had sought to mainstream development in the multilateral trading 
system and make S&DT provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements more precise,  operational and 
enforceable.  
13.44.   He said that India could agree with the premise that developing country Members who 
consider ed themselves in a position to do so could voluntarily decide to forgo S&DT in current and 
future negotiations. However, a so -called case -by-case approach depend ent on providing evidence 
of the need for S&DT, sector wise to start with, which w ould soon expand to requesting for and 
seeking S&DT, product -by-product or line -by-line, w ould be so burdensome and impractical as to 
make S&DT for developing and LDC  Members  a part of history of the WTO and was therefore not 
acceptable.  
13.45.   The representative of Ecuador  welcome d the slight modification of the original US proposal  
but was disappointed to see that the criteria originally proposed for determining which WTO Members 
were not developing countries and therefore not entitled to special and differential treatment 
remain ed essentially the same.  Upon the creation of the WTO, the principle of special and differential 
treatment had been  included as a central element of the multilateral trading system, one forming 
part of the balance of obligations and rights that Members accept ed when joining the organization. 
Any change to th at principle could  upset the balance of the entire system.  
13.46.   Ecuador was a developing country with an economy that ha d not yet achieved a sufficient 
level of diversification . Its economy was highly concentrated on primary products with a low level of 
industrialization and was therefore still very vulnerable. For countries such as Ecuador , not being 
entitled to special and differential treatment would, to all intents and purposes, turn the cu rrent and 
future negotiations into a new accession process . 
13.47.   Such would lead  each developing Member to individually negotiate the flexibilities to which 
it would have access, with uncertain outcomes that would perhaps have less to do with the true 
needs of each Member and more to do with their individual political weight. Th at would undoubtedly 
constitute a substantial change to the system that had been  promised to it when it had  joined the 
WTO in 1996.  
13.48.   The elimination of special and differential treatment w ould not energi se current and future 
negotiations . On the contrary, it would exacerbate the current climate of mutual distrust between 
Members which cause d some to take refuge behind rigid red lines that distance d them from 
convergence and consensus.  Speci al and differential treatment was one of the basic tenets of the 
multilateral trading system and should  be maintained.  
13.49.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , noted that t he Group was internally 
reviewing the proposal with the view to assessin g whether the revised text adequately addresse d 
the needs of its members. So far, the ACP Group regard ed the revisions put forward by the proponent 
as a work in progress and w as pleased that comments from Members were being taken into 
consideration. Th at was an important aspect of  their work. There were concerns expressed by the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 70 - 
 
  ACP Group in previous statements in the General Council on other versions of the proposal which 
remain ed valid for its members.  
13.50.   The ACP Group was particularly concerned about any m ovement of the WTO in a direction 
that s ought  to classify Members based on pre -defined criteria conceptualised outside the WTO 
without a thorough assessment and accommodation of the realities that lie d behind th ose numbers. 
It could create unintended conse quences if some developing countr y Members  were arbitrarily 
excluded upfront from S&DT in WTO Agreements when internal conditions require d those flexibilities. 
Additionally, a preliminary analysis of the proposal suggest ed that, if adopted, it could inadvertently 
produce the effect of deviating from and contradicting the agreed principle of S&DT which was 
enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement and form ed an integral part of the WTO Agreements.  
13.51.   In the interest of progress on t he issue, the most appropriate way forward would be  to create 
a conducive environment in which Members who so wish ed could voluntarily opt out of S&DT in 
current and future WTO Agreements and if their internal policy assessments led to that decisio n. 
Any discussion on S&DT going forward should preserve and promote adherence to the basic 
principles of inclusivity, transparency, development and particularly S&DT for developing and LDC 
Members. The ACP Group  reiterate d the S&DT principle embodied in Paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Declaration which form ed an integral part of the WTO Agreements. S&DT in the WTO should seek  to 
further the mandate of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
13.52.   The representative of Turkey  said that his delegation had been clear from the very b eginning 
on its position regarding the use of macro -economic data to determine the level of development. 
The approach of determining the level of development by a mere interpretation of some selected 
macro -economic data was arbitrary. Development was multi -dimensional and was greater than the 
sum of its parts.  
13.53.   On the other two criteria of the United States – membership to the G20 and OECD  – Turkey  
said that  the aim of establishing the G20 was in fact to include developing countr ies more into global 
economic  governance. As for the OECD, it was a policy research organization to determine policies 
for ensuring and with the aspiration of sustainable economic growth and development. Turkey saw 
no reason why membership or bid for membership to th ose organizations should constitute a 
rationale behind being deemed a developed country.  
13.54.   Turkey  underst ood that the motivation behind the US proposal was to reinvigorate the 
negotiatin g function of th e organization. Like most of  the Members, Turkey  recogni zed the need to 
take action on that matter.  Members could  not however  improve any function of the WTO at the 
expense of development concerns of certain Members. The WTO was genuinely significant for 
developing Members as it st ood out as an organization giving  equal say to its Members. Th e WTO 
owed its ground -breaking  achievements of trade liberalization in the past to its utmost adherence 
to the delicate balance among the concerns of Members at different levels of development.  
13.55.   As in the past, Turkey remained  ready to discuss any reform proposal including those that 
would necessitate broader undertakings. That d id not mean however that Turkey  was ready to hand 
in the right of designating its development status to other  Members. Development was an 
entrenched prin ciple and objective of the WTO . And as integral and indispensable part s of the 
system, S&D T provisions should  be maintained. Turkey  stressed its  readiness to work with all 
Members to strengthen the multilateral trading system.  
13.56.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , once again urge d Members to 
act in order to ensure substantive outcomes at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference. Members  should  
be guided, during their negotiating work, by the primary objective  of succeed ing in introducing the 
development aspect into the desired outcomes.  The African Group therefore  recommend ed that, 
under the terms established in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration of 
20 November  2001, the S&D T provisions should be  made more precise, effective and operational. 
Existing and future agreements should  heed the reality of the situations, constraints, needs, 
priorities and specificities of developing and LDC Members.  
13.57.   The represen tative of the United States  thank ed delegations for their sincere engagement  
and strongly support ed automatic as of right S&DT for LDCs and other developing countries that WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 71 - 
 
  truly need ed it. The United States  did not seek to reopen S&DT in existing agreement s. Its proposal 
would only apply to current and future negotiations.  
13.58.   He said that n othing in the proposal w ould prevent any Member from negotiating for 
flexibilities in current and future negotiations. Yet it was apparent to the United States  that the 
negotiating arm of the WTO w ould continue to underproduce as along as more tha n two-thirds of 
the Membership c ould claim automatic as of right S&DT. It was also apparent to the United States 
that there was a group of advanced economies who were fully capable of negotiating flexibilities on 
their own behalf without claiming automatic S&DT.  
13.59.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
14  LDCS' VIEWS ON WTO REFORM DISCUSSIONS AND PROPOSALS – STATE MENT BY 
CHAD ON BEHALF OF THE LDC GROUP  
14.1.   The Chair  recalled that the item was requested to be included in the agenda by the delegation 
of Chad on behalf of the LDC Group.  
14.2.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , reiterate d the LDC Group’s  engagement 
at that critical time for the WTO to encouragin g discussions and proposals relating to WTO reform. 
The crisis of the Appellate Body was the most visible symptom of the need for WTO reform but 
Members ha d identified other areas which require d urgent attention.  
14.3.   With the questions linked to the Appellate  Body, the LDC Group  would  also like to express its 
opinion on that and other matters such as transparency and notifications a nd the new and 
strengthened procedures for WTO Council s and Committees.  The proposal of the LDC Group on th ose 
three areas had been  submitted in  document  JOB/GC/223 dated 6 December 2019 and a 
corrigendum circulated that day in document JOB/GC/223/Corr.1. The LDC Group  intend ed to place 
that submission on the agenda of the first General Council meeting of 2020 for a comprehensive 
discussion by Members. Given the crucial importance of th ose issues, the LDC Group  wished to  
present the main points of its submission . 
14.4.   Two fundamental principles should be observed in any progress made in terms of WTO reform. 
Any reform  should (i) take fully into consideration the extent of the capacity constraints of LDCs in 
determining the level of obligations and requirements for the implementation required of th ose 
Members; and (ii) ensure that the negotiating and decision -making pro cess remain ed inclusive and 
consensus -based at all time s. 
14.5.   Concerning Appellate Body reform, the LDC Group recogni zed that an equitable and effective 
process for dispute settlement was essential for the proper functioning of the WTO. A dispute 
settlement sy stem that was based on rules also benefit ed the LDCs.  The LDC Group  urged all 
Members to continue with their efforts to allow the Appellate Body to come out of th e impasse and 
to immediately launch  the Appellate Body Selection Process through a General Cou ncil Decision.  
Having said th at, with regard to possible amendments to A ppellate Body  procedures, the LDC Group  
recall ed the importance of not creating rules which would lead to disproportional administrative 
burden for LDCs – if they had been  party to a dispute or involved as third party. With regard to the 
envisaged temporary stoppage of work in the Appellate Body, the LDC Group  drew attention to the 
opportunity for fully considering candidates from LDCs in the appointment of A ppellate Body  
members.  
14.6.   Considering the proposals aiming to improve notifications and transparency, the LDC Group 
admit ted that current requirements for notifications were very important and that all Members, 
including developed one s who should lead by example, should improve their practices for proper 
implementation of th ose requirements.  
14.7.   The LDC Group was not in favour of adding transparency and notification requirements which 
would pose additional burdens for LDCs. Th ose new obligations d id not duly  take into consideration 
the capacity constraints of the LDCs which for the majority c ould not be resolved through simple 
technical assistance in the short term from the Secretariat. Furthermore, the LDC Group was  
opposed in all cir cumstances to the implementation of punitive measures for LDCs. Other WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 72 - 
 
  encouraging measures should be envisaged such as the simplification of notification forms or the 
extension of implementation time scales.  
14.8.   Finally, on the reform of procedures in Councils  and Committees following the submission of 
the European Union, the LDC Group recogni zed the potential benefits which would stem from 
improving the meeting procedures which would be better adapted and better structured. The LDC 
Group was not however  in fav our of more stringent timeframes and written exchanges for 
information between Members on measures linked to trade and associated process with regard to 
consultations with the respective Chairs.  Those amendments w ould lead to a proportionally greater 
burde n for LDCs.  
14.9.   The LDC Group nevertheless could support the practical proposals such as strengthening 
transparency, avoiding scheduling conflicts between various Committees and Councils, limiting the 
proliferation of open meetings which d id not have written minutes and ensuring that an annotated 
agenda be circulated before the meetings of the Council for Trade in Goods. Given the linguistic 
profile of a number of LDCs, the LDC Group also attache d great importance to ensuring complete 
translation and interpret ation services. With regard to Ministerial Conferences, the LDC Group was 
in favour of total transparency and real inclusivity in their preparation and organization.  
14.10.   The representative of Canada  said that as Members  continue d to work together to strengthen  
and modernise across the deliberative, dispute settlement and negotiatin g areas of WTO work, it 
was important that Members provide d their views on how best to achieve th at objective. Canada 
thank ed the LDC Group  for its communication and share d many of th e principles outlined in the 
document  – from the simplest efforts of avoiding scheduling conflicts between various Councils and 
Committees to the long -held support for inclusive negotiating processes and consensus -based 
decision -making to the foundational aspect of the two -stage review process of the WTO dispute 
settlement system . 
14.11.   Many of the principles set out in th e communication also f ound common cause with elements 
included in Canada's two discussion papers on WTO reform – JOB/GC/201 and JOB/GC/211. Canada 
would seek early engagement with the LDC Group on its communication and on ways they could  
collaborate with each other to address the challenges facing the multilateral trading system.  
14.12.   The representative of the European Union  welcome d the contribution of the LDC Group to 
the ongoing discussions about WTO reform. It was important that the LDCs ma de themselves heard 
in that debate.  Quite understandably, the challenges of capacity constraints and the necessity to 
mitigate them through techni cal assistance were vital for LDCs. In its own deliberations about WTO 
reform, the E uropean Union  was fully cognisant of how capacity constraints limit ed in particular LDCs 
from fully benefitting from WTO rules. Technical assistance was not a panacea,  but it could mitigate 
capacity constraints and help LDCs meet their WTO obligations as well as benefit from opportunities.  
14.13.   As several of the issues raised in the LDC statement were the subject of individual agenda 
items of th e meeting, the European Union  would not go into details on those but would thank the 
LDC Group for its constructive engagement in various informal discussions. As co -sponsors of the 
proposals on notification compliance and guidelines for trade concerns, for example, th ose 
discussions were helpful for better devising ways to finetune the proposals.  
14.14.   The E uropean Union  encourage d the LDC Group to view WTO reform from a wider 
perspective than just the current proposals on the table. For keeping the WTO effective and relevant, 
WTO Members w ould need to do more than restore the functioning of the Appellate Body and 
improve the way they worked in Councils and C ommittees. Most importantly, Members w ould have 
to come up with ways to reinvigorate the negotiating function of the WTO in order to adjust t he 
rulebook to t he current  economies and challenges.  
14.15.   The representative of South Africa  appreciate d that the LDCs were proposing a detailed 
discussion on WTO reform in the G eneral Council in 2020  and welcome d constructive discussion on 
the issues raised.  WTO reform discussion ha d to take into account differences in levels of 
development. WTO reform  should  fundamentally promote development and inclusivity  and the  
negotiations should  take into account capacity c onstraints.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 73 - 
 
  14.16.   On transparency, the sentiments shared by the LDC Group were entailed in the paper entitled 
"An inclusive approach to transparency and notification requirements in the WTO " circulated in 
document  JOB/GC/218 – a communication from the Africa n Group, Cuba, India and Oman  advancing 
a developmental and cooperative approach to transparency and notification obligations in the WTO. 
South Africa  looked forward to further engagements with the LDC Group on the issues raised.  
14.17.   The representative of Afghanis tan associate d with the statement made by the  LDC Group. 
As the global economy was undergoing unprecedented changes and the multilateral trading system 
had come under pressure, there was a growing need to improve and adopt the rules and operation 
of the WT O accordingly. Being mindful of the existence of the unprecedented changes facing the 
WTO and with a general overview of ongoing WTO reform discussions including transparency, 
notification obligations, differentiation and S&DT and the functioning of the di spute settlement 
system, Afghanistan welcome d effort s to improve WTO functionality and positive measures to 
address current  global trade challenges. WTO Reform should aim at the development and economic 
growth of Members particularly of LDCs and most vulne rable economies who were left behind.  
14.18.   Against th at background, Members should  take into account several matters as they  engage d 
further into WTO Reform discussions. During WTO reform discussions, the fundamental principles of 
the Marrakesh Agreement should be preserved , and development should be at the centre of any 
reform discussions and possible measures. WTO reform sh ould not replace the priority programmes 
which  were focusing on LDCs' mandated works and programmes, fisheries, S&DT, marke t access, 
waivers and the Appellate Body issue. Members particularly the LDCs should not be marginalised as 
a result of any reform measures. Flexibility should be at the core of WTO reform and should 
strengthen S&DT for LDCs. Reform should address the capa city constraints that kep t Members 
especially LDCs from raising their global trade share both in goods and services.  
14.19.   In the area of creating new obligations and implementation of new measures as a result of 
any reform, capacity constraints of LDCs should b e properly considered. Proposed reform measures 
should  help LDCs to address their capacity constraints to enable them to meet their WTO 
commitments. Discussions on WTO reform should be inclusive, transparent and open to all Members 
and any possible discuss ion and decision should be made based on consensus. Afghanistan offer ed 
its full support and readiness to positively and meaningfully contribute to the WTO Reform discussion 
to achieve concrete and positive outcomes and results.  
14.20.   The representative of Cambo dia associate d with the statement made by the LDC Group  and 
urged Members to seriously take into account the concerns that the LDCs had raised in the proposal. 
On the reform of the negotiating function, the reforms process should basic WTO principle s including 
providing S&DT and it should address the challenges and difficulties faced by the LDCs in integrating 
into the multilateral trading system. On Appellate Body reform, Cambodia  called on Members to 
establish rules and procedures which w ould allow LDCs t o easily use and defend their interests by 
fully accessing the system.  
14.21.   On the reform of notification and transparency, Cambodia  support ed making necessary 
reform in th ose areas as it was Members ' obligation to ensure transparency and predictability. Such 
reform should however  seriously take into account the capacity constraints and ability of LDCs to 
fulfil the notification requirements. Reform should avoid any restriction and administrative measure 
to be imposed to LDC s. To make WTO Reform successful, the  LDCs should be granted the financial 
and technical assistance to help improve the capacity for notification.  
14.22.   With regard to the procedural guidelines for  Councils and Committees, Cambodia  joined 
others in supporting the initiative to make better and more structured meeting procedures. Since 
Cambodia  had a small delegation, it was  however  concerned on its ability to respond to the questions 
and issues raised by Members. Any conditions in that rega rd including deadlines  should therefore be 
removed . Cambodia wished to further  consult with Chairs  and get the Secretariat’s  full assistance  
on the matter . 
14.23.   The representative of the United States  noted  that Chad and the United States share d 
common ground i n striving for improved WTO transparency. The notification process was central to 
the effective functioning of the WTO as an institution since it provide d the information about 
Members' trade regimes that allow ed them to engage productively in the WTO's co re work areas. 
While compliance was currently quite poor, the United States  wanted it to be better.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 74 - 
 
  14.24.   The United States recogni zed that a ll Members face d compliance challenges none more so 
than the LDCs which need ed special consideration. The United States therefore  encourage d the LDCs 
to take advantage of capacity building resources available to Members and make suggestions for 
ways to better target assistance to meet deficiencies which hinder ed their ability to provide 
notifications in a timely manner.  
14.25.   The United States was a co -sponsor of the proposal on "Procedures to Enhance Transparency 
and Strengthen Notification Requirements under WTO Agreements " circulated in JOB/GC/204/Rev.2 . 
The proposal  recommend ed tools, resources and assistance to enable Members to meet their existing 
notification obligations  and focus ed on existing obligations, not the imposition of new o nes. The 
United States ha d appreciated the opportunity to meet with many LDC Members  to bette r understand 
the challenges LDCs faced and hear their ideas for improving the functioning of th e institution  – and 
welcome d future opportunities to do so.  
14.26.   The representative of India welcome d the decision of the LDC Group to put for ward a WTO 
reform propos al. India hoped it would help to contribute to a balanced reform agenda at the WTO  – 
which could lead to strengthen ing the WTO to promote development and inclusivity. India looked 
forward to working with them on th at important subject.  
14.27.   The representative o f Benin , on behalf of the African Group , stress ed the importan ce of the 
discussions and proposals on WTO reform.  As several LDCs were members of the African Group , the 
Group though t that it was  important to take into account the needs and concerns of  the LDCs. The 
African Group would  continue to interact with the LDC Group to make things move forward.  
14.28.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , said that the proposal  was a valuable 
contribution to the discourse on WTO reform and a strong sign al from the LDC G roup of its desire to 
engage on the important issues under consideration within the WTO. Naturally, a number of the 
points raised by the LDCs resonate d with the full membership of the ACP Group which included 
taking into account capacity c onstraints and the different and varying levels of development. The 
ACP Group  was studying the submission and w ould engage with the LDCs very shortly with the view 
to working together to see how best th e WTO could work better for all its Members.  
14.29.   The repre sentative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , thank ed all the delegations who had 
reacted on the LDC  proposal as they had all provided useful comments. The LDC Group remained  
open and ready to hold discussions with Members to be able to help the LDCs  to better  and more 
fully integrate into the multilateral trading system.  
14.30.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
15  STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE RULES -BASED MULTI LATERAL TRADING SYST EM – 
STATEMENT BY SWITZERLAND  
15.1.   The Chair recalled that the  item was placed on the agenda of t hat day's meeting at the request 
of the delegation of Switzerland.  
15.2.   The representative of Switzerland , on behalf of Afghanistan ; Argentina ; Australia ; 
Bangladesh ; Benin ; Brazil ; Brunei Darussalam ; Burundi ; Cambodia ; Cameroon ; Canada; Chad; 
Chile; Colombia ; Costa Rica ; the Dominican Republic ; Egypt ; El Salvador ; Grenada ; Guatemala ; 
Guyana ; Hong Kong, China ; Iceland ; Jamaica ; Kenya ; the Republic of Korea ; the State of Kuwait ; 
Lao People's Democratic Republic ; Liechtenstein ; Malawi ; Malaysia ; Mali; Mauritania ; Mexico ; the 
Republic of Moldova ; Mongolia ; Montenegro ; Myanmar ; New Zealand ; Nigeria ; North Macedonia ; 
Norway ; Pakistan , Panama ; Paraguay ; Peru; Qatar ; Saint Kitts and Nevis ; Saint Lucia ; Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines ; Senegal ; Singapore ; Switzerland ; Thailand ; Trinidad and Tobago ; Turkey ; 
Ukraine ; Uruguay ; Vanuatu  and Viet Nam , said22 that a group of 60  developing and developed 
Members  were concerned about the challenges that the WTO was facing.  
15.3.   They greatly  value d the WTO and reaffirm ed the central and indispensable role of the 
institution within the rules -based multilateral trading system. They remain ed committed to full 
participation in the important ongoing, regular work of the WTO. They would continue working 
 
22 The statement was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/203.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 75 - 
 
  together with all Members towards delivering meaningful outcomes, including through the WTO's 
negotiating function. They would intensify their efforts to ensure that the Twelft h Ministerial 
Conference was a success.  
15.4.   They reaffirmed thei r commitment to abide by the WTO's binding rules in the conduct of their 
trade relations which ha d helped to foster international trade and development, had provide d 
predictability, had facilitated the effective settlement of trade disputes and had served as a bulwark 
against protectionism. Th at had contributed to the strength and stability of the global economy.  
15.5.   The dispute settlement system of the WTO was a centra l element in providing security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system. They therefore deeply regret ted that as of 
11 December 2019, the Appellate Body was no longer able to perform its full functions.  
15.6.   They reaffirm ed their strong commitmen t to the fundamental principles of the WTO dispute 
settlement system, notably the adoption of reports by negative consensus and the two -tier nature 
of the system. They noted that the WTO's dispute settlement system continue d to offer mechanisms 
for the set tlement of disputes among Members. They reaffirm ed their commitment to resolve their 
trade disputes in accordance with the Dispute Settlement Understanding. They called on all Members 
to engage in dispute settlement proceedings in good faith and to act in a manner conducive to the 
prompt and final settlement of disputes.  
15.7.   They recall ed their strong resolve to finding concrete solutions, to identified concerns, under 
the auspices of the WTO's General Council and stress ed the urgency of filling all current va cancies 
on the Appellate Body.  
15.8.   The representative of Mongolia  associate d with the statement  made by Switzerland on behalf 
of a number of Members . As a developing country with a small economy , Mongolia had been and 
continue d to be a strong supporter of the multilateral trading system. The rules -based multilateral 
trading system was an institution and fora which was used to level the playing field for all Members, 
big and small, and foster ed development in all countries.  
15.9.   Mong olia regret ted the current situation that the multilateral trading system currently faced  
putting it in an uncertain condition and constrain ing the smooth operation of the WTO. That situation 
was becoming a stumbling block which hinder ed the potential deve lopment of all Members. Members  
were wasting time.  Mongolia ha d one of the most liberal trade and economic regimes with 
comparab ly open commitments  and had not been a party to any trade dispute so far.  Mongolia 
however  remain ed concerned about the impact of the Appellate Body impasse on the whole system  
including Members’ beliefs in it.  Mongolia remain ed committed to the multilateral trading system . 
For the sake of achieving greater objectives and development for all, Members should work together 
in good fa ith to resolve the impasse.  
15.10.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  said that it wa s no secret that the predictability 
of a rules -based multilateral trading system was of particular importance and value for small and 
vulnerable economies like Trinidad a nd Tobago, as they sought  to leverage trade in their pursuit of 
sustainable development. It was their certainty regarding the value of the WTO that dr ove their 
efforts to engage meaningfully with Members in th at context. Trinidad and Tobago  was resolute and 
committed in th at regard notwithstanding the fact that, like many other SVEs with representation in 
Geneva, its mission was small and its resources were limited.  
15.11.   In the context of some critical challenges facing the WTO, Trinidad and Tobago  reaffirm ed 
its commitment to th e institution  and had every intention to continue to engage meaningfully with 
the work of the WTO despite its resource constraints. Trinidad and Tobago remained  committed to 
working in good faith alongside other Members to de vise solutions to the challenges that threaten ed 
key WTO mechanisms such as the dispute settlement mechanism. As on other occasions, Trinidad 
and Tobago  express ed concern  regarding the delay in the launch of the process for filling vacancies 
in the Appella te Body.  
15.12.   In light of the centrality of the WTO to the rules -based multilateral trading system and, in 
turn, the centrality of the WTO dispute settlement system to the effective functioning of the WTO, 
Trinidad and Tobago urge d all Members to engage, urgen tly and in good faith, in the effort to arrive 
at a concrete solution to what was an untenable and undesirable situation.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 76 - 
 
  15.13.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  commend ed the WTO on its vital role in the world 
economy and in the economy of every single Membe r since its inception in 1995. At the same time, 
Chinese Taipei  share d the concerns voiced on 6 December at the Informal TNC and Informal HODs 
meetings on the growing crisis affecting the multilateral trading system. Th e organization w ould 
continue to func tion as long as Members remain ed committed to it.  
15.14.   Chinese Taipei  was pleased to see that th at was the case as far as the Members in th e room 
were concerned. More importantly however was the fact that the WTO urgently need ed to adapt to 
the global cha llenges that they were all currently facing . At that critical point in time, Chinese Taipei 
therefore  welcome d all possible and credible efforts dedicated to make the WTO more relevant and 
effective  and stood ready to work with fellow Members to th at end. 
15.15.   The representative of Japan  recogni zed that the WTO play ed a central and indispensable role 
in the rules -based multilateral trading system and support ed the joint statement by Switzerland and 
other Members. It was important for all Members to share a sense  of urgency to address the concerns 
that the Appellate Body should improve and restore its proper function in order to ensure a prompt 
and positive settlement of dispute s and to fill its vacancies. Japan continue d to work closely together 
with all Members who share d those concerns.  Japan  echoe d the joint statement in reaffirming the 
commitment to fundamental principles of the WTO's dispute settlement system and in intensifying 
the efforts to deliver meaningful outcomes at MC12.  
15.16.   The representative of the European Union  concur red with Switzerland and the group of co -
sponsors on the central and indispensable role of the WTO as the centre of the rules -based 
multilateral trading system. The WTO was at the centre stage of the global governance of economic 
relation s and the European Union was determined to ensure that the WTO maintain ed that position.  
To reinforce th at role, and in light of the recent developments, the European Union  called upon 
Members to consider a thorough review with a view to reinforce the moni toring, negotiating and 
dispute settlement functions of the WTO.  As a next step, the European Union  agree d that Members  
should gear all their efforts towards ensuring that MC12  was a success.  
15.17.   The representative of Uruguay  associate d with the statement made by Switzerland on behalf 
of a number of  Members. Members  already had the opportunity during the meeting to hold a lengthy 
discussion on the situation of the Appellate Body. The setting up of the Appellate Body had been  the 
main nov elty of the dispute settlement system that had stemmed from the negotiations of the 
Uruguay Round twenty -five years ago. Members  could not lower themselves.  
15.18.   The impasse that the Appellate Body w ould be falling into in the coming hours was a very 
harsh blo w to the organization  – it was  not however a deathblow. Work w ould continue in the regular 
bodies of the organization and in the negotiations. Members w ould continue to seek to solve their 
disagreements through dialogue and negotiations. They would resort to the other instruments of the 
Dispute Settlement Understanding when necessary.  Law should  continue to underpin relations 
between nations and w ould help overcome the conflicts and conflicts of interest which c ould arise. 
Otherwise, Members could  run the risk of becoming exclusively subject ed to the desires and wishes 
of the most powerful.  It was Members’  collective obligation to stand firm in the face of the 
threatening winds that bl ew in their faces and to commit themselves in words and facts and to show 
that they were fully committed to the multilateral trading system based on rules enshrined in th e 
organization.  
15.19.   The representative of Thailand  associated with the statement made by Switzerland on behalf 
of a number of  Members. Thailand reaffirm ed its support to the rules -based multilateral trading 
system and  to the WTO  and reiterate d its commitment to WTO rules with a view to providing 
continuous stability and flexibility as well as ensuring the promotion of inclusivene ss in global trade. 
Thailand w ould continue to exert effort to find concrete solution s that would strengthen the dispute 
settlement system and to expeditiously resolve the Appellate Body impasse.  
15.20.   In the meantime, n umerous WTO work should continue includin g ongoing regular work, 
negotiations and further strengthening the WTO which w ould require strong commitment from all 
Members. Thailand remained  committed to constructively engage in all areas to ensure meaningful 
progress and outcomes including at MC12.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 77 - 
 
  15.21.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  commend ed Ambassador Walker for his dedicated 
work in leading the consultations under the informal process on the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. Hong Kong, China was likewise  appreciative of Members’ contributions to the discussions 
which ha d led to the draft decision presented to the General Counci l. The draft decision had 
demonstrated Members’ resolution in finding ways to end the current impasse in the Appellate Body.   
15.22.   It was therefore regrettable that Members were unable to reach a consensus on preserving 
that important function after months of intensive discussions earlier th at year, and as a result, the 
Appellate Body w ould soon be unable to perform its full functions for an indefinite period of time.  
That would inevitably undermine the dispute settlement system of the WTO and pose a serious 
challenge to the multilateral trading system.  
15.23.   The world would be watching closely how Members would respond to the uncertainties 
associated with the non -operation of the A ppellate Body. It was therefore timely for Switzerland to 
put forward the statement under th at agenda item to reaffirm Members’ strong commitment to 
supporting a properly functioning WTO. The statement sen t a clear message to the public that 
Members were serious and determined in upholding the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
Hong Kong, China  fully support ed Switzerland’s statement and thank ed Switzerland for its initiative. 
Hong Kong, China  encourage d other Members to support th e statement and reaffirm ed its 
commitment to abide by the WTO’s binding rules in the conduct of its trade relations.  
15.24.   While the Appellate Body w ould stop to operat e soon, constructive dialogues on its reform 
should continue. Nev ertheless, reform would not  be achieved through creating an impasse in the 
appointment of members in the Appellate Body . Hong Kong, China therefore  urged Members to 
commence actions to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body without further delay.  
15.25.   The representative of Malaysia  associate d with the statement made by Switzerland  on behalf 
of a number of Members . Malaysia  reiterate d its position as a strong advocate of the multilateral 
trading system and the WTO.  The WTO ha d been effective in ensuring an open, predictable, and 
transparent global trade governance w hich benefit ed developed and developing countries 
particularly the LDCs. The effective functioning of the dis pute settlement system was a fundamental 
aspect of th e WTO. It was therefore crucial  that Members continue d to engage and exercise 
flexibilities to enable the unblocking of the Appellate Body Selection Process expeditiously.  
15.26.   The representative of Cambodia  joined other Members in voicing out against protectionism 
and unilateralism as they would  cause more uncertainty and unpredictability in the WTO and in 
global trade. Since its accession to the WTO in 2004, Cambodia was a great supporter of the 
multilateral trading system and trade libera lization.  Although t he system was not perfect , it had 
been fostering the growth of the global economy . 
15.27.   Cambodia join ed other Members in  their intent  to preserve and defend the multilateral 
trading system. It was regrettable that the Appellate Body which ha d been in place since 1995 w ould 
temporarily stop operating soon. Cambodia  once again support ed the informal process led by 
Ambassador Walker  and urged Members to compromise and find the best way to unblock the 
Appellate Body impasse.  
15.28.   The representative of  Norway  recalled the Norwegian saying – there was no such thing as 
bad weather, only bad clothing. The implication being that it was possible to survive and thrive even 
in wintery conditions. Every metaphor ha d its limits and th at one was not an exception.  In that 
regard, Norway referred to the "The WTO Agreements: The Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization and its Annexes".  
15.29.   Norway was deeply concerned by the Appellate Body crisis especially since th at crisis could 
easily have been a voided if one Member had agreed to the launching of the nomination process. 
Nevertheless, Norway remain ed committed to address the various concerns raised with the view to 
restore the full functioning of the Appellate Body. The deliberate crippling of the dispute settlement 
system mean t that one extremely valuable tool ha d been removed from Members  – and nobody 
knew how long that situation would last . The long -term consequences could be severe but what th e 
book remind ed Members  was that a toolbox was far fr om empty. The rules which Members had  
negotiated and had agreed to for more than seventy years remain ed in place.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 78 - 
 
  15.30.   Relevant laws and regulations adopted by governments around the world were based on 
principles embedded on th at book. Businesses around the world trust ed that th ose principles were 
upheld, adhered to and responsible governments across the world knew that predictability and 
stability in the policy framework was required for businesses to invest and grow as a basis f or 
sustainable social and economic development. The rules -based multilateral trading system was a 
public good that was in the long -term interest of all – big and small. At the end of the day, it was 
up to  the Members to hold on to, to live by and to protec t the fundamental principles and values 
underpinning th e organization. Norway was honoured to be associated with the statement made by 
Switzerland on behalf of a large group of Members in support of the rules -based multilateral trading 
system.  
15.31.   The represen tative of South Africa  expressed support  for a rules -based multilateral trading 
system  with the WTO at its centre to promote predictability in trade. The WTO was clearly at an 
important moment in its evolution  as it faced m any challenges.  At the top of the  list was the impasse 
in the Appellate Body. In the absence of a resolution of th at issue, the Appellate Body,  a cornerstone 
in the WTO’s enforcement function, w ould be entirely disabled. If the impasse continue d, the 
underpinnings for multilateral rules w ould fray and there was little basis to consider new rules.  
15.32.   In supporting the multilateral trading system , Members  should  resolve unilateral and 
protectionist measures that ha d resulted in the rise in trade tensions between Members. Th ose 
measures undermine d the core principles of the WTO, including the principle of non -discrimination 
and MFN. Coupled with th at was a rise in bilateral agreements  – some of which d id not meet WTO 
standards.  
15.33.   In supporting the multilateral trading system , Members should  preserve the core principles 
of the WTO including consensus decision -making and S&D T. South Africa  was concerned by the 
implications of the Joint Statement Initiatives. The claim tha t those initiatives were transparent, 
open-ended and that outcomes w ould be extended to all d id not bridge the substantive policy 
divergences amongst Members. In th at regard, plurilateral agreements should  follow the established 
rules set out in the Marrak esh Agreement and S&D T should  be strengthened in line with 
Paragraph  44 of the Doha Declaration.  
15.34.   S&DT was one of the cornerstone s of an inclusive and development -oriented multilateral 
trading system and was not the main or only reason for Members’  negotiat ing difficulties. Recent 
proposals to narrow its scope, irrespective of objective differences in levels of economic development 
between developed and developing countries w ould only compound their negotiating difficulties. 
Attempts to alter the Marrakesh A greement architecture seem ed to be futile, and South Africa  
recogni zed that future commitments on any issue w ould be an outcome of negotiations.  
15.35.   A meaningful and constructive discussion on the future of the WTO was required. The US -
China Trade Policy Work ing Group Joint Statement could  offer some thoughts in th at regard. 
Members  needed a system that preserve d a rules -based system and at the same time allow ed 
countries policy space to design the policies and institutional arrangements that best fit their 
circumstances. Th at include d the right to make what other nations could  consider policy mistakes. 
On the other hand, individual nations should  also acknowledg e how their choices could  entail adverse 
implications for the well -being of other nations. A one size fits all approach was not always ideal in 
all circumstances and on all issues.  
15.36.   At the centre of th at was that technological advancement was taking place in the context of 
an economic system that ha d not promoted inclusion and Members  were witnessing a rise in 
inequality and anti -globali zation sentiments. Trade policy ha d also become more political as 
countries face d increasing pressure from the electorate arising from the need to balance an open 
economy with the needs of the domestic economy.  
15.37.   The solution lie d in a multilateral trading system  that promote d development and inclusivity. 
That require d that Members  respect ed mandates and previous Ministerial d ecisions, especially those 
that were embedded in the developmental objectives entailed in the Doha mandate. Support for the 
multilateral trading system  should not imply simple defen ce of current rules as they st ood. Members  
needed more multilateral dialogu e and negotiations on addressing the historical imbalances in the 
covered agreements that result ed in the marginalization of developing countries in global trade.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 79 - 
 
  15.38.   Discussions on the WTO should  address the long -outstanding issues and take into account 
the interests of all Members. The core objective should  be to promote development and inclusivity. 
For Africa, policy space for industrial development was paramount. South Africa  was particularly 
concerned at proposals that would further narrow space for indus trial policy, S&D T, including 
disciplines on SoC and industrial subsidies. Th ose were vital developmental areas of interest that 
were critical to advancing inclusive growth and sustainable development.  
15.39.   Members should  also assess the impact of the shift for m a package approach in negotiations 
and a single undertaking. Having a package facilitate d trade -offs among Members. Harvesting what 
they could or issues -based negotiations could  not give Members enough room for meaningful trade -
offs and could  constrain the negotiating function of the WTO.  Members  also need ed to foster an 
appreciation and understanding that respect ed ‘difference’: difference in economic policies, policy 
imperative s, economic history, culture and institutions, as well as levels of economic development. 
Those should not be seen as problems but realities that c ould be a source of economic resilience.  
15.40.   The representative of Chad associate d with the statement made by Swi tzerland  on behalf of 
a number of Members . Chad co-sponsor ed the statement  as it sought  to improve the multilateral 
trading system. The truly multilateral nature of the WTO c ould be explained through the principle of 
consensus in the development of regulat ions for global trade  and the best forum in which to express 
Members’  concerns was the WTO. Chad therefore  called on all Members to preserve and to improve 
the efficacy of the multilateral trading system in the interest of all Members.  
15.41.   The representative o f the United States  underst ood that Switzerland and its co -sponsors had 
intended their statement to be one of hope for the institution so the United States  focused on that 
aspect. The United States ha d made clear through words and actions – the WTO ha d enormous value 
and c ould serve as a helpful negotiating forum. What the United States  hoped for was change  to 
ensure that Members  could actually use that negotiating function successfully. Members  could not 
negotiate successfully when the WTO ha d lost its essential focus on making agreements and ha d 
instead become a litigation -centred organization.  
15.42.   Members  could not negotiate successfully in a situation in which new rules c ould only apply 
to the few and that others w ould be given a pass in the na me of self -proclaimed development status. 
Members  could not negotiate new rules without transparency on current practices. And Members  
could not create effective rules absent a shared understanding of and commitment to the market -
oriented conditions necess ary for free, fair and mutually advantageous global trading system.  
15.43.   The United States  hoped to continue to work with all Members who share d its goal of using 
the WTO to create market -oriented rules that w ould lead to more efficient markets, more trade and  
greater wealth for their citizens. Such outcomes w ould build public support not only for open markets 
but for the WTO itself.  
15.44.   The representative of Israel  said that it  was Israel's interest to have a healthy and well -
functioning WTO – one that was able to  deliver outcomes that were beneficial to all Members and 
that promote d liberalization and certainty in world trade. A functioning dispute settlement 
mechanism was an important element of the multilateral rules -based trading system. Israel 
therefore  contin ued to hope that a solution to t hat matter that satisfie d the needs of all Members 
would be reached in the not too distant future.  
15.45.   Israel attache d great value to the WTO and reaffirm ed its commitment to the rules -based 
multilateral trading system. Israel  remain ed committed to full participation in the important ongoing 
work of the WTO to the multilateral negotiations as well as to those that were conducted under the 
joint initiatives.  Israel  looked forward to continuing working with all Members towards de livering 
meaningful outcomes including through the WTO's negotiating function and towards MC12.  
15.46.   The representative of Jamaica  associate d with the statement made by Switzerland  on behalf 
of a number of Members . Jamaica reaffirm ed the primacy of a fully func tioning and effective 
multilateral trading system. In that context, the dispute settlement mechanism represent ed the 
badge of enforceability while undertak ing to implement current rules and negotiate new ones. Th at 
was particularly true for small, vulnerab le economies like Jamaica whose sole comfort and protection 
was to be found in a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism as embodied in the DSU.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 80 - 
 
  15.47.   Jamaica  was profoundly disappointed that Members ha d neither been able to unblock the 
appointment of Ap pellate Body members nor at a minimum agreed to an arrangement for a 
functioning Appellate Body pending completion of the appointment process.  What was further 
concerning was the fact that small and vulnerable economies were exposed to serious systemic ris ks 
that were not of its own volition.  
15.48.   Small economies like Jamaica d id not have the financial, political and other resources that 
could  be deployed to settle trade disputes through alternative arrangements including through 
arbitration.  Alternative arrang ements such as arbitration could create issues of inclusivity, access 
and confidence in the delivery of equity and fairness especially as it relate d to guarantees of third -
party rights. Th ose were real concerns especially from smaller economies.  
15.49.   Jamaica w ould not belittle any concern raised by any Member in respect of the functioning 
of the Appellate Body or indeed of any Committee of the WTO. There were however viable alternative 
approaches that ha d been raised that w ould not create potentially irreparabl e damage to the heart 
of the multilateral trading system. Undoubtedly, the multilateral trading system ha d bestowed 
benefits to all Members – small and large alike.  
15.50.   Members  still ha d the opportunity to correct course. Jamaica  urged all Members to continue 
their engagement to that end  – which should begin  with the unblocking of the appointment process. 
It was also not too late to have a frank, open, transparent and constructive discussion on how to go 
about conducting the diagnosis o f the problem and how to do so without creating unintended 
consequences.  
15.51.   Time was of the essence. Jamaica st ood ready to continue playing a constructive role and in 
contributin g to the efforts aimed at restoring the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism as envisaged 
by the DSU. The highest duty of the WTO was to protect its Members who rel ied on its rules. Small 
and vulnerable economies such as Jamaica were particularly dependent on  a strong, rules -based, 
predictable, fair, inclusive and transparent multilateral trading system.  
15.52.   The representative of Afghanistan  said that  a well -functioning Dispute Settlement System  
was imperative to the multilateral trading system and to the WTO itse lf to ensure a full and fair 
enforcement of rules and obligations by Members. Afghanistan reiterate d the importance of the 
dispute settlement system in promoting rules -based, open, transparent, inclusive, non -
discriminatory and equitable international trad e. Afghanistan therefore thanked  Switzerland and all 
co-sponsors for placing th at item on the agenda and providing a statement to support the rules -
based multilateral trading system and to find concrete solutions to the current Appellate Body 
impasse and i mmediate launch of the selection process.  
15.53.   Afghanistan join ed the co -sponsors who support ed the statement  and called upon all 
Members to engage constructively and find a pragmatic solution to the Appellate Body impasse to 
prevent the possible unpleasant da mages to the  dispute settlement system. Afghanistan was  ready 
to engage with all Members to work on th at challenge without further delay.  
15.54.   The representative of Argentina  associated with the  statement  made by Switzerland on 
behalf of a number of Members. WT O Membership and participation was not simply based on 
attending a sort of "ritual without mass" but that with the right amount of resolve, prudence, 
imagination and courage, Members  would  overcome all existing and any impending obstacles. 
Argentina  was reluctant to believe that they were limited to managing the stalemate as efficiently 
as possible.  
15.55.   Members  aimed to further th e organization's modernization but they did not need to put it 
on ice in order to do so. They should harness the legendary skill of those who once had the vision 
to create th e organization so that it met their objectives while working together to improve people's 
lives because that was what was mos t important  on the basis of the principles, rules and values that 
inspired the organization's foundation.  
15.56.   The representative of India found resonance with the words and sentiments expressed by 
Switzerland and  other co-sponsors  in their statement in support  of the rules -based multilateral 
trading system. India placed great value on the WTO and the central and indispensable role of the 
institution within the rules -based multilateral trading system. The dispute settlement system of the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 81 - 
 
  WTO was a central elemen t in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system . 
India therefore regret ted the withering away of the Appellate Body.  
15.57.   India reaffirm ed its support for all the pillars of the rules -based multilateral trading system 
with the WTO  at its centre. Principles like non -discrimination, decision by consensus and S&DT for 
all developing countries and LDCs and mandates need ed to be respected and supported by all.  India 
hoped that at MC12, Members  would see the WTO multilateral negotiating system deliver outcomes 
which were balanced, development -focused and inclusive and by the y would also be able to see the 
resurrection of the A ppellate Body . 
15.58.   The representative of Honduras  noted  that Members were facing  a very complex period for 
the multilateral trading system  and had  the responsibility to address th ose issues. It was in the 
interest of all Members to ensure  effective modernization which t ook into account  the various levels 
of development. Honduras there fore reaffirmed  its full commitment to the multilateral trading 
system and to the principles which govern ed it particularly as  it was a small, vulnerable economy.  
15.59.   The WTO g ave small, vulnerable economies  the opportunity for better integration into the 
international trading system. Honduras therefore reiterate d its willingness and readiness to work 
together with all Members with the aim of achieving concrete outcomes and a solution to the current 
situation at the next Ministerial Conference.  
15.60.   The representati ve of Qatar  associate d with the statement made by Switzerland  on behalf 
of a number of Members . Qatar  reaffirm ed its commitment to the multilateral trading system and 
the core pillars which preserve d that system that exist ed within th e rules-based organiza tion. Qatar  
firmly believe d in the importance of having a properly functioning dispute settlement mechanism 
which provide d an avenue to resolving trade disputes. In th at regard, it was imperative that Members  
found a concrete solution to the dire situation  facing the Appellate Body's functioning.  
15.61.   Qatar  commend ed Ambassador Walker and the process that he ha d undertaken and w ould 
continue to support that process and build up on the work achieved thus far. The State of Qatar was 
a firm believer in the international rule of law. Since its establishment, the DSB ha d proven to be a 
reliable and effective mechanism for resolving disput es. Qatar would therefore work tirelessly with 
all Members to resolve the current impasse with the aim of restoring the full functioning of the 
Appellate Body.  
15.62.   The representative of Cameroon  associate d with the statement made by Switzerland  on 
behalf of a number of Members . Members  had seen the questioning of the decision -making process 
which s ought  to find a consensu s-based  solution to the Appellate Body impasse. The multilateral 
trading system and the WTO were progressively being eroded and it was getting  worse.  
15.63.   The Appellate Body impasse had arisen  in an organization  where attempts by numerous 
Members especially those from developing countries ha d been regrettabl y set aside from the 
objectives pursued. The African Group  proposals  in TN/DS/W/42 and TN/DS/ W/92 include d a fair 
focus which should allow Members  to increase the rule of law in th e organization because Members  
needed a fair system to ensure that the parties concerned were able to access necessary justice.  
15.64.   Since the establishment of th e organizat ion, the world ha d seen unprecedented growth in 
terms of international trade and liberalization of economies of developing countries. Cameroon, like 
many Members, ha d committed to reforms to adopt its economy to WTO rules with the hope of 
achieving an appr eciable level of competitiveness.   
15.65.   The resistance to observe the reduction of domestic support measures , the multiplication of 
technical barriers to trade , the questioning of S&DT and the  Appellate Body  impasse  were all causing 
the multilateral trading sys tem to become ever more fragile. Th ose were various issues which were 
of interest to Cameroon and require d satisfactory results. It was therefore high time to address 
those concerns and reinforce the rule of law t hrough multilateral  dispute settlement and ensuring 
that consensus was fully employed.  
15.66.   Cameroon  remain ed attached to a fair and equitable rules-based multilateral trading system  
and Members  should  avoid its crumbling. At the same time,  the Appellate Body which was the legal 
pillar that bound everything together through  Members’  commitments should  be made functional in WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 82 - 
 
  the days to come. In doing so, Members should encourage multilateralism  and ensure that it 
remain ed the raison d'être of the organization.   
15.67.   Members should take  into account the expectations especially of developing and LDC 
Members to ensure that all decision s were inclusive and that international trade was fairer. Members 
should  ensure that their decision s had a human face  and we re taken timely . Members should li kewise 
bear in mind that Africa and Africans ha d a right to development and th at was worthy of just 
consideration in a multilateral system.  
15.68.   Cameroon reiterate d its attachment to  respect ing WTO rules  and the rule of law and 
reiterate d its readiness to work  in a constructive fashion for the edification of an inclusive multilateral 
trading system which w ould provide developing countries a successful solution to their concerns.  
15.69.   The representative of the Russian Federation  support ed the statement made by Switzerland  
and share d the views outlined.  
15.70.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
16  TWELFTH SESSION OF T HE MINISTERIAL CONFE RENCE – ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
16.1.   The Chair  recall ed that the Rules of Procedure (Rule 12) for the Ministe rial Conference 
establish ed that "During the course of each regular session, a Chairperson and three Vice -
Chairpersons shall be elected from among the Members. They shall hold office from the end of that 
session until the end of the next regular session."   
16.2.   At the October General Council meeting, His Excellency Minister Bakhyt Sultanov of 
Kazakhstan had been  formally appointed as the Chairman of MC12. Regarding the three Vice -Chairs, 
since the Chair w ould come from Asia and the Pacific, and in line with cus tomary practice, at that 
meeting she had  invited the representatives of the other three broad groupings – i.e. Africa, Latin 
America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) and developed countries – to consult with their constituents.   
16.3.   On 19 November, she had  sent a c ommunication to the group coordinators inviting them to 
inform her, once their consultations had been  concluded, of the proposed Vice -Chairs for their 
respective groupings. She underst ood that in some cases those consultations were still ongoing, and 
she urged the Group Coordinators and all delegations to redouble their efforts so that the names 
could be submitted without delay and that the General Council c ould appoint the three Vice -Chairs 
at its first meeting in 2020 . 
16.4.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement.  
17  TRIPS COUNCIL MATTER S 
17.1  Annual Review of the Special Compulsory L icensing System – Paragraph 7 of the 
Annex to the amended TRIPS A greement and  Paragraph 8 of the Decision on the 
Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS A greement and 
Public H ealth  – Report of  the Council for TRIPS (IP/C/84)  
17.2  Proposal for a Decision on an Extension of the Period for the Acceptance by Membe rs 
of the Protocol A mending  the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/83)  
17.1.   The Chair  recalled that i n August 2003, the General Council had adopted a Decision on the 
Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. 
In addition,  the General Council had adopted in December 2005 a Protocol amending the TRIPS 
Agreement which had been  submitted to Members for acceptance. In accordance with Article 10:3 
of the WTO Agreement, the Protocol had entered into force on 23 January 2017 upon acceptance by 
two-thirds of the WTO Members who had accepted it on or before that date.  
17.2.   Both the amended TRIPS Agreement and the 2003 Decision provide d that the TRIPS Council 
should review annually the functioning of the system and should also report on it s operation to the 
General Council. Those Members who were yet to accept the Proto col amending the TRIPS 
Agreement currently ha d until 31 December  2019 to do so. However, since not all Members w ould WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 83 - 
 
  be in a position to complete their domestic procedures by  that deadline, the TRIPS Council ha d 
agreed to submit to the General Council a proposal for a decision to extend the period for the 
acceptance by Members of th at Protocol for another two years.  
17.3.   Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren (Mongolia), Chair of the TRIPS C ouncil , recall ed that  the 
Amendment to the TRIPS Agreement entered into force in January 2017. The amendment provide d 
a special compulsory licensing system for the benefit of countries which rel ied on imports of medical 
technologies because of insufficient  or no domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing capacities. It 
made permanent the related rules already contained in the earlier waiver decision.  
17.4.   At its meeting of 17 -18 October, the TRIPS Council had completed its annual review of the 
functioning of the Syst em, pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the amended TRIPS Agreement and 
Paragraph  8 of the Decision of 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha 
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  
17.5.   The TRIPS Council's report on th at review t o the General Council ha d been circulated in 
document IP/C/84, which was sub-item a of that agenda item. It include d information about the 
implementation and use of the System, as well as on the status of acceptances of the Protocol 
Amending the TRIPS Agreement. The record of the discussion that had taken place during the 
Council's review of the System was also attached  to the report.  
17.6.   Pursuant to the General Council’s decision in 2017, the Protocol was open for acceptance by 
the remaining Members until 31 December 2019 or such later date as could  be decided by the 
Ministerial Conference (WT/L/1024). Despite indications t hat a number of Members were making 
domestic efforts in th at regard, there were still 36 Members that were yet to accept the Protocol.  
17.7.   The TRIPS Council  had therefore agreed to propose to the General Council a decision to extend 
the period for acceptance by two more years, i.e. until 31 December 2021. Th at proposal was set 
out in document IP/C/83 which was sub-item b of that agenda item. On behalf of the TRIPS Council, 
he was  submitting th at to the General Council for a decision t hat day. 
17.8.   He called upon th ose Members who ha d yet to accept the Protocol to expedite action. A 
practical guide on how to do so had been  attached to his letter that he had  sent in September, and 
was also available on the WTO's webpage on TRIPS and public health. He and his Secretari at team, 
as always, w ould be happy to provide further assistance if necessary.  
17.9.   The General Council took note  of the report of the TRIPS Council in document IP/C/84 and 
adopted  the draft decision23 in document IP/C/83 extending the time -period for acceptanc e by 
Members of the Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement until 31 December 2021.  
18  REVIEW OF THE EXEMPT ION PROVIDED UNDER P ARAGRAPH 3 OF GATT  1994 
(WT/L/1055, WT/L/107 8) 
18.1.   The Chair recalled that Paragraph 3(a) of GATT 1994 provide d an exemption from Part II of 
the GATT 1994 for measures under specific mandatory legislation – enacted by a Member before it 
became a Contracting Party to the GATT 1947 – which prohibit ed the use, sale or lease of foreign -
built or foreign -reconstructed ve ssels in commercial applications between points in national waters 
or waters of an exclusive economic zone.   
18.2.   In 1994, the United States had invoked th at provision with respect to specific legislation that 
had met the requirements of that paragraph. Paragr aph 3(b) of the GATT 1994 call ed for a review 
of that exemption five years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement – and thereafter 
every two years for as long as the exemption was in force – to examine whether the conditions for 
the exempt ion still prevail ed. 
18.3.   She recalled that t he General Council  had last considered th e matter at its meeting in 
February. Statements, questions and responses from interested delegations and the United States, 
together with the annual reports provided by the Un ited States circulated in documents WT/L/1055 
and WT/L/1078 were the basis for th e 2019 review. The General Council had also agreed that it 
 
23 The decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/1081.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 84 - 
 
  would consider th e matter again at t hat day's meeting and that normally the subsequent review 
would be held in 2021.  The exemption was without prejudice to solutions concerning specific aspects 
of the legislation covered by th e exemption negotiated in sectoral agreements or in other fora.  
18.4.   The representative of the United States  welcome d the opportunity to once again par ticipate 
in the review of the exemption under Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994. Th e exemption had been  agreed 
to by all Members. It had been  an essential part of the Uruguay Round results and was an integral 
component of the GATT 1994. As set forth in Paragrap h 3(b) of the GATT 1994, the purpose of th e 
review was to examine whether the conditions which had created the need for the exemption still 
prevail ed.  
18.5.   The United States confirm ed the conditions that had created the need for th e exemption 
continue d to exist including the US Navy's reliance on commercial shipyards for day -to-day 
maintenance of naval and surge fleet vessels. It also remain ed critical for US shipbuilders to build 
commercial ships for trade in order to ensure the mai ntenance of viable industrial base to meet 
future US naval requirements. In short, the United States ha d very much the same need as it had 
had in 1994 to maintain its shipyards' readiness to build and maintain naval vessels.  
18.6.   The United States ha d continued  to provide Members with annual statistical reports pursuant 
to the requirement of Paragraph 3(c) of the GATT 1994 including the most recent report submitted 
in November 2019. Th ose reports provide d detailed annual reporting of vessel orders and deliver ies 
from US shipyards. Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 was drafted and included in the Uruguay Round 
package to deal with non -conforming provisions of domestic legislation of a non -discretionary 
character in a specific area addressed by the exemption.  
18.7.   Under Paragraph 3(a), as long as the legislation that the United States had notified had 
remained in force and had not been modified to reduce its conformity with Part II of the GATT 1994, 
the US legislation had remained exempt and Part II of the GATT 1994 had not applied to it. Since 
the United States had invoked the exemption in 1994, there ha d been no amendments or measures 
adopted by the United States that w ould alter the US position in conforming to cover the exemption.  
18.8.   The legislation covered by the exemption had remained in force and its conformity with Part 
II of the GATT 1994 ha d not decreased. The United States  thank ed the Members who ha d 
participated in its consultations and st ood ready at any time  to continue to answer Members' 
questions on the topic as n eeded.  
18.9.   The representative of Norway  noted  that t he exemption from the GATT 1994 rules was an 
important subject  and thank ed the United States for having been invited to informal consultations 
on the Jones Act. Norway  had voiced its concerns as in previous r eviews  as its  focus was as always 
on the salient point of Paragraph 3(b) of the GATT 1994 on whether the conditions which had created 
the need for the exemptions still exist ed. Norway took note of the United States' emphasis in the 
consultations on national security and humanitarian emergency reasons, that the Jones Act was 
critical for US shipbuilding and military vessels and for maintaining enough qualified American 
mariners. It was however not cl ear whether the United States ha d considered alternative measures 
for stimulating activity in the US shipbuilding sector.  
18.10.   The representative of Japan  noted that  exemption was a deviation from the fundamental 
WTO principle  and attache d great importance to its periodic review . Japan  expect ed that the United 
States duly share d the information and clarif ied any relevant updates. Japan unders tood that the 
United States was currently looking into the possibility of modifying its interpretati on and 
implementation of the Jones Act. It would be  important that such modification w ould not affect fair 
competition. Japan further expect ed that th e review process provide d an opportunity to conduct a 
substantial examination to address whether th e exemp tion was still necessary.  
18.11.   The representative of China  noted that t he exemption had been  reviewed for a long time . 
The review should focus on examining whether the conditions creating the need for the exemption 
still prevail ed rather than a purely data shar ing process. China join ed others in expressing strong 
commercial and systemic concern with th at unjustified exemption  and looked forward to further 
clarification and justification by the United States on the necessity and rationale of the exemption.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 85 - 
 
  18.12.   The re presentative of the Republic of Korea  noted that Korea continue d to have systemic 
and commercial concerns regarding the US exemption under Paragraph 3(a) of the GATT 1994. The 
exemption was a deviation from the fundamental principle of the WTO restricting fair competition 
on shipbuilding and shipping market. The United States need ed to provide reasonable and updated 
explanation on the necessity to continue th e exemption with the focus on whether the conditions 
which had created the need for such exemption still prevail ed. Korea look ed forward to participating 
in any further discussion on th e issue.  
18.13.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  was disappointed that th e eleven th review of the 
Jones Act exemption conducted under Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 again d id not lead to any 
meaningful results.  Hong Kong, China’s  concerns remain ed that th e exemption which ha d been in 
existence since the establishment of the WTO was a major derogation from the fundamental principle 
of national treatment and was not conducive to open trade.  
18.14.   Hong Kong, China  all along support ed the  liberali zation of maritime transport which was a 
major mode of transport for trade and a crucial part o f the logistics supply chain. Hong Kong, China  
was concerned that the exemption would represent a major impediment to the Member concerned 
in making market access commitments in the maritime transport services.  
18.15.   The purpose of the review was to examine whet her the conditions under which the exemption 
had been  introduced in the first place still prevail ed. Hong Kong, China  encourage d the United States  
to critically consider whether the Jones Act would still serve its original purpose t hat day and the 
possible  benefits that its abolishment could  bring. Hong Kong, China  looked forward to more positive 
outcomes in the next review.  
18.16.   The representative of the European Union  took note  of the US notification and share d the 
view expressed that the examination should fo cus on whether the circumstances that had given  rise 
to the exemption were still applicable. The European Union asked h ow the U nited States saw  those 
exemptions in light of ongoing efforts to propose policies that contribute d to sustainable fishing, in 
particular in the context of the negotiations . 
18.17.   The representative of Australia  appreciate d the information provided by the United States 
as part of th e review. While Australia  recogni zed the particular sensitivities of the Unite d States in 
relation to cabotage and coastal shipping, there were potential economic benefits to US businesses 
and consumers of liberalising th at sector.  Australia  unders tood US Customs and Boarder Protection 
was considering amendments to its guidance on a pplication of certain aspects of the Jones Act and 
encourage d the United States to consider as part of th at review whether the liberalization of aspects 
of the Jones Act c ould occur in whole or in part. 
18.18.   The representative of Panama  thank ed the United State s for the report it had submitted and 
for the further consultations it had held bilaterally. As it continue d to be an issue of interest for 
Panama , it would want to continue to be taken on board in future consultations.  
18.19.   The General Council took note  of the  statements made in the course of the review in 2019 
and also that the subsequent review under the two -yearly cycle provided in Paragraph 3(b) of the 
GATT 1994 would be held in 2021.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 86 - 
 
  19  WAIVERS UNDER ARTICL E IX OF THE WTO AGRE EMENT  
19.1  Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 changes into WTO S chedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/768 ) 
19.2  Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 changes into WTO S chedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/76 9) 
19.3  Introduction of Harmonized System 2012 changes into WTO S chedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/7 70) 
19.4  Introduction of Harmonized System 2017 changes into WTO S chedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/7 71) 
19.1.   The Chair said that the draft waiver decisions listed in sub -items (a) to (d) of the current 
agenda item had been taken up for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods at its November 
meeting. For those items, the Chairman of the Goods Council was required to report to the General 
Council.  
19.2.   Ambassador José Lui s Cancela (Uruguay), Chair of the Goods Council , reported that the  Goods 
Council , at its meeting on 14 November had approved four collective requests for extension of waiver  
related to the introduction of changes to the Harmonized System of 2002, 2007, 201 2 and 2017, 
respectively, in the WTO schedules of concessions. The  Goods  Council  had also recommended that 
those draft decisions be referred to the General Council for adoption.  
19.3.   The draft decisions for consideration by the General Council that ha d followed  the procedures 
provided for in Article IX (b) of the Marrake sh Agreement were contained in the documents listed in 
the airgram of that day's meeting and c ould be found in G/C/W/768; G/C/W/769; G/C/W/770; and 
G/C/W/771.  
19.4.   The Chair said that u nless delegatio ns wish ed to comment on the draft decisions, she  
propose d that the General Council adopt ed tho se four draft Decis ions referred to by Ambassador 
Cancela  in his report, and which relate d to the Introduction of Harmonized System 2002, 2007, 2012 
and 2017 chan ges into WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions.  
19.5.   The General Council so agreed24. 
 
24 The decisions were subsequently circulated in documents WT/L/1082, WT/L/1083, WT/L/1084 and 
WT/L/1085.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 87 - 
 
  19.5  Review of waivers pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO A greement  
19.5.1   Preferential Treatment in favour of Services and Service Suppliers of Least 
Developed Countries, granted on 17 December 2011 until 31 December 2030 (WT/L/847, 
WT/L/982)  
19.5.2   Kimberly Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds, granted on 
26 July 2018 to 31 December 2024 (WT/L/1039)  
19.5.3   Cuba – Article XV:6 – Extension of waiver, granted on 7 December 2016 until 
31 December 2021 (WT/L/1003, WT/L/1076)  
19.5.4   European Union – Application of Autonomous Preferential Treatment to the 
Western Balkans, granted on 7 December 2016 until 31 December 2021 (WT/L/1002, 
WT/L/1077)  
19.5.5   United States – African Growth and Opportunity Act, gran ted on 30 November 
2015 until 30 September 2025 (WT/L/970, WT/L/1073)  
19.5.6   United States – Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, granted on 
7 December 2016 until 31 December 2026 (WT/L/1000, WT/L/1074)  
19.5.7   United States – Trade Preferences granted to Nepal , granted on 7 December 2016 
until 31 December 2025 (WT/L/1001, WT/L/1075)  
19.6.   The Chair recalled that in accordance with Paragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO Agreement, 
"any waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the Ministeria l 
Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until the waiver 
terminates." There were seven waivers before the General Council for review, and they were listed 
in the proposed Agenda. Five of the waivers under review pr ovided that an annual report should be 
submitted by the Member concerned regarding the operation or implementation of those waivers 
with a view to facilitating their annual review by the General Council. The three reports from the 
United States and the rep orts from Cuba and the European Union had been circulated in documents 
WT/L/1073, WT/L/1074, WT/L/1075, WT/L/1076 and WT/L/1077.  
19.7.   The General Council took note  of the reports contained in documents WT/L/1073, WT/L/1074, 
WT/L/1075, WT/L/1076 and WT/L/1077 an d of the Chair's statement.  
20  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE A ND ADMINISTRATION – REPORT S ON MEETINGS 
OF APRIL, JUNE, SEPTEMB ER, OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2019  (WT/BFA/179, 
WT/BFA/180, WT/BFA/1 81, WT/BFA/182 AND WT/BFA/183)  
20.1.   The Chair  drew attention to the reports of the Budget Committee in documents WT/BFA/179, 
WT/BFA/ 180, WT/BFA/ 181, WT/BFA/ 182 and WT/BFA/ 183. 
20.2.   Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli  (Norway), Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , reported  that since his  last report to the General Council, the CBFA ha d met on 
several occasions, both formally and informally. He had  present ed the reports of the CBFA for 
meetings that had taken  place in April, June, September, October, November and December. He 
would be focusing on the items recommended for the approval of the General Council.  
20.3.   Concerning the 2018 Financial Performance Report and Audited Financial Statements , the 
Secretariat had presented the WTO Financial Performance Report for the year ended 31 December 
2018 and the External Auditor's Report.  
20.4.   The Committee was submitting the following recommendation to the General Council: "The 
Committee recommends that the General Council approve the transfers between budgetary sections 
as outlined in paragraph 2.31 of the document WT/BFA/W/482. The Committee further recommends 
that the General Council approve the WTO Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 
31 December 2018."  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 88 - 
 
  20.5.   Concerning the 2017 Financial Performance Report and Audited Financial Statements , before 
the start of the General Council meeting in July 2018, a recommendation related to the 2017 
Financial Performance Report and Audited Financial Statements had been  taken off the agenda.   
20.6.   The CBFA had re-endorsed the following recommendation to the General Co uncil and was 
herewith submitting it: "The Committee on Budget Finance and Administration recommends that the 
General Council approve the transfers between budgetary sections as outlined in paragraphs 2.29 
and 2.34 of document WT/BFA/W/450. The Committee f urther recommends that the General Council 
approve the WTO Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2017."  
20.7.   Concerning the Proposed Utilization of the 2018 Budgetary Surplus , in keeping with Financial 
Regulation 23, a proposal had been  presented to the Committee that the Budgetary Surplus for 2018 
be transferred to the Working Capital Fund.  
20.8.   The Committee was submitting the following recommendation to the General Council: "The 
Committee on Budget Finance and Administration recommends to th e General Council that the WTO 
Budgetary Surplus as at 31 December 2018, amounting to CHF 1.32 million, be transferred to the 
Working Capital Fund."  
20.9.   Concerning the Selection of External Auditors , the CBFA had delegated the process for the 
selection of the next External Auditor to a Working Group. An Invitation to Bid, including a selection  
criteria, had been  sent to all Members in July and the assessment of bids had taken  place in 
September and October. The CBFA had endorsed the recommendation from the Work ing Group that 
the Auditor General of France be appointed.  
20.10.   The Committee was submitting the following recommendation to the General Council: "The 
Committee recommends to the General Council to appoint the Office of the Auditor General of France 
as External  Auditor of the WTO Secretariat and the WTO Pension Plan as from the audit of the 2020 
financial statements and for a period of six years subject to the condition that either party, i.e. the 
Auditor General of France or the WTO General Council, may termina te the arrangement with a notice 
period of one -year." 
20.11.   Concerning the Policy for the Management of the Working Capital Fund , the CBFA had 
delegated the consideration of how best to manage the Working Capital Fund to a Working Group. 
The Report from the Working Group had been  favourably received by the CBFA.  
20.12.   The Committee was submitting the following recommendation to the General  Council:  "The 
Committee recommends to the General Council that A Policy for the Management of the Working 
Capital Fund (WT/BFA/W/505) be approved ." 
20.13.   Concerning the WTO 2020 -2021 Budget Proposal , as Members were aware, t he approval of 
the WTO 2020 -2021 Budg et had been the subject of unprecedented differences amongst Members. 
There ha d been many informal meetings, consultations with him and the Secretariat, formal 
meetings and meetings among Members in different formations.  
20.14.   Some Members had indicated their p reference that the outcome of discussions at the Dispute 
Settlement Body, pertaining to the pending appeals, be received before agreeing a recommendation 
on the budget.  The CBFA had met again on 5 December, following on from the DSB meeting that 
had taken  place on 3 December.    
20.15.   After further deliberations, the Committee was submitting the following recommendation to 
the General Council: "The General Council, HAVING CONSIDERED The guidelines on biennial 
budgeting (WT/BFA/W/105/Rev.1) approved by the General Council through document 
WT/GC/M/82; and The 2020 -2021 WTO Consolidated Budget, which amounts to CHF 197,203,900 
for 2020 and 2021, respectively, as set forth in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 annexed to the CBFA Report 
with the reference WT/BFA/183; resolves tha t the 2020 WTO Consolidated Budget, be financed as 
follows: (1) Contributions from Members in the amount of CHF 195,500,000; and (2)  Miscellaneous 
Income of CHF 1,703,900 and further, in light of exceptional circumstances in 2019, takes note of 
the propose d 2021 WTO Consolidated Budget of CHF 197,203,900 which will be subject to finalization 
in 2020. "  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 89 - 
 
  20.16.   Concerning the ITC Budget Proposal for 2020 -2021, the CBFA had reviewed and had 
endorsed the budget proposal for the ITC for the 2020 -2021. Th e budget was a distinct line item in 
the budget of the WTO Secretariat.  
20.17.   The Committee was submitting the following recommendation to the General Council:  "The 
Committee recommends to the General Council that the budget for 2020 -21 of the International 
Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO be approved in the amount of CHF 36,486,250.  The amount to be 
provided by the WTO to the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO budget for 2020 and 2021, 
respectively, shall be CHF 18,243,125. " 
20.18.   The General Council was further informed that the a mount for the 2021 budget of ITC was 
noted and w ould be subject to finalization in 2020.  
20.19.   Concerning the Biennial Technical Assistance and Training Plan for 2020 -2021, the TA Plan 
incorporate d activities geared towards responding to the needs and priorities  identified by Members 
and was to be largely funded from the WTO regular budget, with complementary funding from the 
DDAGTF and other Trust Funds.  
20.20.   The Committee was submitting the following recommendation to the General Council:  
"Pursuant to paragraph 40[ 1] of the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the Fourth Session of the 
WTO Ministerial Conference, the Committee recommends to the General Council that:  Secure and 
predictable financing be provided for the implementation of the 2020 -2021 Biennial Technical  
Assistance and Training Plan, as approved by the CTD;  The target level of extra budgetary resources 
intended to fund the TA Plan include CHF 12,580,000 for 2020 and CHF 12,580,000 for 2021 to 
come from the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund (DDAGTF ) and CHF 2,451,000 for 2020 
and CHF 2,451,000 for 2021 from other Trust Funds;  Members be reminded that, on 
19-20 December 2001, the General Council approved the following periodic benchmarks for 
contribution receipts to the DDAGTF: (i) by December of the year preceding the funds' revolving 
annual target period, 25 per cent of the annual total should be in the bank;  (ii) by 31 March, another 
50 per cent for an overall 75 per cent of the total;  (iii) by 30 June, 100 per cent of the funds;  In 
this context, Members be informed that the projected year -end balance of the Fund is likely to be 
sufficient to cover the 25 per cent of the target amount; and  Governments be urged to make financial 
contributions in a manner which would preserve the glob al nature of the programme and facilitate 
the management and reporting with a view to greater transparency (i.e. making un -earmarked 
contributions) and pledge multi -year contributions to create more predictability in terms of 
financing. " 
20.21.   The General Counci l took note  of the statement of the Chair of the Budget Committee, 
approved  the Budget Committee's specific recommendations contained in paragraph 3.37 of 
WT/BFA/180; paragraphs 4.6 and 7.3 of WT/BFA/181; paragraphs 1.24 and 2.4 of WT/BFA/182 and 
paragraph s 3.11, 4.13 and 1.100 of WT/BFA/183 and adopted  the five reports as a whole.  
20.22.   The representative of China  said that t he tabled budget proposal was the worst one China 
had ever worked on. It had unfortunately c ome into being a political tool which ha d reversed the 
relation between policy implementation and fiscal guarantee, had affected the Appellate Body’s 
functions and had undermined the independent administrative authority of the WTO Secretariat.  
20.23.   China  had every reason to say no to th at budget proposal . China had however no reason to 
punish the diligent staff of the WTO Secretariat, making them empty -handed and down hearted  for 
the Christmas holiday s. If Members  could dock the pay of those who ha d been sabotaging the 
multilateral trading system, China  would be all for it.  China’s  only wish was that the ugly truth behind 
the budget proposal could raise sufficient alarm and strong aversion so as to avoid falling into the 
same old trap again.  
20.24.   The representative of the European Union  deeply regret ted the develo pments concerning 
the Appellate Body despite the efforts of the overwhelming majority of the membership to find a 
solution and launch the process for appointing new Appellate Body members in line with the rules.  
20.25.   The EU also firmly believe d that the budget process should be kept separate and not used 
for policy or indeed structural changes to the organization. The European Union  trusted that the 
deplorable process Members had  witnessed th at year w ould not be repeated.  The European Union  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 90 - 
 
  nonetheless  support ed the adoption of the budget for 2020, as th at was indispensable for the 
organization to continue to function, and urge d all Members to work together for its modernization.  
20.26.   The Director -General  thank ed the Members for approving the WTO Budget. He recogni zed 
that th at year's budget exercise had been  quite extraordinary – simply meaning not ordinary. The 
compromise reached ha d been a product of flexibility and cooperation in Geneva as well as in 
capitals. It could  not be everything each of the Membe rs had been  hoping for but he was  glad to 
note that the bulk of the original budget proposal had been  approved with no amendments. Th at 
ensure d that the WTO w ould continue to implement its mandate as efficiently as before , despite the 
uncertainties regardi ng the operation of the Appellate Body.  
20.27.   Even where the Appellate Body's approved budget include d expenditure limitation, there 
would be adequate funding once Members  resolve d the questions they had about the appeals stage 
of disputes. The compromise achie ved was a pragmatic solution, one that preserve d WTO work at a 
moment of great turbulence in the wider international order , when the WTO was more fundamental 
than ever. The Director -General again thanked all Members  as well as  the Chair of the CBFA for his 
diligent and successful efforts , and express ed his hope that the same spirit of pragmatism and 
compromise w ould mark all of WTO work in the months ahead.  
20.28.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
21  WTO PENSION PLAN MAN AGEMENT BOARD – ELECTI ON OF A MEMBER  
(WT/GC/W/786 )  
21.1.   The Chair recalled that Article 4(a) of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan provide d for 
the election by the General Council of a Chair, four members and four alternates to the WTO Pension 
Plan Manageme nt Board.  
21.2.   Following a vacancy arisen in the Board, the Management Board Chair had sent out a 
communication inviting all Members to submit expressions of interest in serving on the Board. He 
had then consulted with those individuals who had expressed intere st in serving on the Board and 
had subsequently announced that Mr. Rob Cook (United Kingdom) had agreed to have his name put 
forward. The Chair then had another opportunity for Members to consult on the proposed candidate.  
21.3.   As a result of th e process, docum ent WT/GC/W/786 had been  circulated on 18 November, 
where she had  indicated her intention to propose Mr. Rob Cook for election to the Management 
Board at t hat day's meeting, and had invited those still wishing to do so to submit any comments 
they could  have regarding the proposed nomination to her by close -of-business on 25 November.  
21.4.   As she had  received no comments or questions, she proposed  that Mr. Rob Cook (United 
Kingdom) be elected to the Management Board as a Member.  
21.5.   The General Council so agreed25. 
22  INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE UNCTAD/WTO – REPORT OF THE JOINT ADVISORY 
GROUP ON ITS 53RD SESSION (ITC/AG(LIII)/276)  
22.1.   The Chair recalled that i n connection with th e item, the Chairman of the CTD provide d the 
General Council with a report on the CTD's considera tion of the report of the Joint Advisory Group 
on the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO.  
22.2.   Ambassador Chad Blackman, Chair of the C ommittee on Trade and Development , reported 
that t he ITC's Joint Advisory Group had held its 53rd Session on 2 July. The re port on that meeting 
was contained in document ITC/AG(53)/276.  
22.3.   The report had been  presented to the CTD at its 110th Session on 2 2 November by the 
Chairperson of the Joint Advisory Group, Ambassador Terhi Hakala of Finland.  
 
25 The decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/1086.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 91 - 
 
  22.4.   Ambassador Hakala had informed the CTD that the Joint Advisory Group had reviewed the 
ITC's Annual Report for 2018. Some of the key results for 2018 included: the generation of 1.1  billion 
dollars in exports and investment as a result of ITC support; a total of 232 million dollars in ex tra-
budgetary funds secured for 2019 and beyond; and the delivery of 86 percent of country -specific 
interventions to LDCs, sub -Saharan Africa, landlocked developing countries, small island developing 
States, small vulnerable economies, and post -conflict an d fragile States.  
22.5.   Appreciation had been  expressed by the Joint Advisory Group for several areas of the ITC's 
work. In th at context, some of the areas highlighted concerned the organization's suite of tools and 
solutions – including the Global Trade Helpdes k and the Rules of Origin Facilitator – as well as the 
ITC's work on national export strategies and on measuring and addressing non -tariff measures.  
22.6.   Other elements highlighted included the organization's initiatives in fostering South -South 
trade; in raising climate resilience and climate adaptation for micro, small and medium -sized 
enterprises; and in encouraging youth entrepreneurship in fragile cont exts. The ITC's advocacy and 
thought leadership on women's economic empowerment, in particular through the SheTrades 
initiative, had also been appreciated.  
22.7.   In terms of financing, the ITC’s funders had welcomed the organization's leveraging of its 
financial  resources – as well as its efforts to diversify its funders base, and its continued emphasis 
on partnerships. To ensure the long -term sustainability of results, it had been  recommended that 
the ITC continue d to foster local ownership and to further develo p its existing risk management 
framework.  
22.8.   The Joint Advisory Group had additionally  been presented with the 2019 Annual Evaluation 
Synthesis Report. The key learning theme in the 2019 edition of the report was the issue of 
complexity. With the introduction of complexity in the analysis of the ITC’s interventions, the 
organization w ould be mov ing from a project -focused approach to a process of constant adjustment, 
flexibility and long -term interaction with stakeholders.  
22.9.   As was the practice, the CTD had taken  note of the report of the 53rd Session of the Joint 
Advisory Group, and had agreed to forward it to the General Council for adoption.   
22.10.   The General Council adopted  the report of the Joint Advisory Group in document 
ITC/AG(LIII)/276  and took note  of the CTD Chair's statement.  
22.11.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , noted that  the report of 
the Joint Advisory Group on its 53rd Session had illustrate d the Session had been  an important 
opportunity to reflect on the value and the effectiveness of the work of the ITC. CARICOM express ed 
appreciation for the work of the Inte rnational Trade Centre which ha d been a key source of support 
for members of th e Group.  
22.12.   For example, the coconut industry in its region ha d benefited from the mobilization efforts 
and the partnership of the ITC over the last period of time . CARICOM  looked forward to the further 
strengthening of th at partnership in the years ahead  and highlight ed the valuable expertise and tools 
that the ITC offer ed. CARICOM  recogni zed in particular the Centre’s important contribution to efforts 
to break down gender barrier s related to trade.  
22.13.   CARICOM commend ed the ITC on its valuable contribution and affirm ed its  keenness to 
further strengthen engagement with the Centre in the period ahead.  
22.14.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , congratulate d the Executive 
Director of the ITC and her team for the important activities that  had been carried out  by the ITC . 
The African Group  underscore d the high -level results achieved with the use of tools and instruments 
that were relevant. All of t hose activities and initiatives ha d assisted developing countries and in 
particular African countries, LDCs and SVEs to improve their competitiveness.  
22.15.   The assessment tools ha d been presented throughout the year and the African Group  fully 
appreciate d them including the activities gear ed towards supporting the projects and initiatives in 
its various countries and regions with the focus on women and youth. The African Group also  thank ed WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 92 - 
 
  the development partners that contribute d to ensuring that th ose activit ies were carried out thanks 
to their expertise, competencies and financial resources.  
22.16.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he International Trade Centre was a 
valued partner to the E uropean Union . The E uropean Union  was pleased with its cooperation to date 
and hope d to continue to work on projects and exchange information in response to emerging 
priorities and needs.  The E uropean Union  congratulate d the  ITC on its impressive performance in 
2019 and noted in particular the increasing focus of the ITC's assistance to LDCs , its work on market 
intelligence tools for MSMEs and its work on women's economic empowerment.  On th at last point, 
the E uropean Union thanked  the ITC for the excellent work on the study on the barriers faced by 
women in international trade which had been  presented by ITC Executive Director Arancha Gonzalez 
at the Trade for Her Conference organised by the E uropean Union  in September. The Europea n Union  
looked forward to continuing its good cooperation with the ITC on th at important theme and beyond.  
22.17.   The representative of the International Trade Centre , speaking as an Observer , thanked all 
Members for their continued support to the ITC. In a time when multilateralism was under crisis,  
Members ha d continued to recogni ze the importance of aid for trade and supporting developing 
countries and their MSMEs through inclusive trade. In 2019, the ITC ha d delivered the highest dollar 
amount of technical ass istance and capacity building in its history and had delivered its most 
impressive results. Its aim was to again best th at in 2020, and on behalf of the Executive Director 
and the ITC Team, the ITC  thank ed again all Members for  their commitment to trade fo r impact.  
22.18.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
23  REVIEW OF WTO ACTIVI TIES  
23.1  General Council (WT/GC/W/788) and Trade Policy Review Body (WT/TPR/440)  
23.2  Sectoral Councils (G/L/1343, S/C/59, and IP/C/85) and Committees on 
Antidumping (G/L/1344), Subsidies and Counterv ailing Measures (G/L/1341), 
Safeguards (G/L/1346) and Technical Barriers to Trade (G/L/1340)  
23.3  Committees  on Trade and Development (WT/COMTD/99) , Trade and Environment 
(WT/CTE/26), Balance -of-Payments Restrictions (WT/BOP/R/117), Budget, Finance and 
Administration (WT/BFA/184), and Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/30)  
23.4  Working Groups on Trade, Debt and Finance (WT/WGTDF/18) and Trade and 
Transfer of Technology (WT/WGTTT/21)  
23.5  Committees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements (GPA/AR/2, WT/L/1071)  
23.1.   The Chair recalled that t he reports under that item had been prepared in line with the Decision 
concerning Procedures for an Annual Overview of WTO Activit ies and for Reporting under the WTO 
(WT/L/105). Th ose reports were listed in the agenda for t hat day's meeting.   
23.2.   The Committees on Antidumping, Subsidies and Countervailing  Measures, Safeguards and 
Technical Barriers to Trade had met after the November Go ods Council meeting. For th at reason, 
the Annual Report of th ose Committees ha d been forwarded directly to the General Council.  
23.3.   Delegations ha d already had a substantive discussion on th ose reports in the respective bodies 
where they had been  adopted and she would therefore suggest that they did not repeat those 
discussions in the General Council.   
23.4.   She would also note that, in line with the reporting obligations, reports from the respecti ve 
bodies w ould be forwarded to the Ministerial Conference. Since MC12 was taking place later than 
usual, she suggest ed that, for the respective bodies, the reports for the Conference consist ed of the 
2019 Annual Reports, together with an addendum or a par tial Annual Report covering the remaining 
months before MC12. Th at was in line with what had been  done in the past, in those instances when 
Ministerial Conferences had not take n place at the end of the year. She trusted that was acceptable 
to delegations.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 93 - 
 
  23.5.   She propose d that, in accordance with past practice, the General Council  took action on th ose 
reports.  She invite d the General Council to adopt the report of the Committee on Trade and 
Development in document WT/COMTD/99, and to take note of the reports of  the other WTO bodies, 
including the reports of the Committees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements, listed in the 
Proposed Agenda.  
23.6.   The General Council so agreed . 
23.7.   The Chair propose d that the General Council adopt ed the draft Annual Report of the General 
Council contained in document WT/GC/W/788, on the understanding that the Secretariat w ould 
make the necessary adjustments to that Report to include matters that ha d been considered at th at 
meeting.  
23.8.   The General Council so agreed26. 
24  APPOINTMENT OF OFF ICERS TO WTO BODIES – ANNOUNCEMENT BY TH E CHAIR 
PURSUANT TO PARAGRAP H 7.1(A) OF THE GUID ELINES  
24.1.   The Chair recall ed that the relevant Guidelines provide d that the outgoing General Council 
Chair conduct ed consultations on the appointment of Chairpersons to t he WTO Bodies in Groups 1, 
2, 4 and 5 of its Annex. The guidelines also stipulate d that the selection process should start with 
the Chair's announcement at the last regular General Council meeting of the year. She would be 
assisted in the selection process  by the serving DSB Chair – Ambassador Walker.  
24.2.   A list of past Chairs of major bodies was available to delegations at th e meeting. She stress ed 
that in accordance with the Guidelines, representatives of Members in financial arrears for over one 
full year c ould not be considered for appointment.  
24.3.   They would begin the consultations early in January. She therefore encourage d the four group 
coordinators – (i) Africa, (ii) Asia and the Pacific; (iii) Latin America and the Caribbean, and (iv) 
developed countries – to already begin their process of internal consultations so that they c ould be 
in a position to present names in early January.  
24.4.   They would begin the process with a collective meeting of group coordinators as soon as 
possible, and would subsequently also indicate a specified time -period in which they would be 
available to hear the views of all interested delegations.  
24.5.   She urged all delegations  to work with group coordinators with a constructive spirit. As the 
guidelines clearly stipulate d, the process of appointment of Chairs was a routine annual 
"housekeeping'' function, whose purpose was to ensure that the organization continue d to be able 
to handle its business in a smooth and seamless way, and which should be approached in a way 
conducive to the smooth conduct of ongoing business.    
24.6.   Recent processes of appointment ha d proven to be exceptionally and unnecessarily difficult 
and ha d had seriou s repercussions on the conduct of the business of the organization in key areas. 
She trusted that all delegations would not want to repeat th at experience. She count ed on everyone's 
co-operation and positive engagement.  
24.7.   The General Council took note  of the  Chair's statement.  
25  OTHER BUSINESS  
25.1  Eighth China Roundtable on WTO Accessions – Statement by the Russian Federation  
25.1.   The representative of the Russian Federation , speaking under "Other Business" , share d27 with 
the WTO membership information on the Eight h China Round Table on WTO Accessions , which had 
taken place in Moscow from 4 to 6 December. Russia expressed its special gratitude to China and 
the WTO Secretariat for organising the event.  The Moscow Round Table had been  the eighth in the 
 
26 The 2020 Annual Report of the General Council was subsequently circulated in WT/GC/ 205. 
27 A report on this event was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/204.   WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 94 - 
 
  China Accession Round Table dialogue. The thematic focus of th e Round Table had been  threefold: 
(i) to have a dialogue on  the role and contribution of WTO accessions in the discussions on WTO 
reform and joint initiatives, (ii) to reflect on the implications of r egional integration efforts on WTO 
accessions; and (iii) to discuss the specific proposals of WTO acceding governments on their role 
and possible contribution to the outcome of the Twelfth  WTO Ministerial Conference that w ould take 
place in Nur -Sultan, Kaz akhstan, in June 2020. On the first day of the Round Table, participants had 
also debated on the state of play in ongoing accessions, discussed accession negotiation strategies, 
and shared best practices.  
25.2.   The Moscow Round Table had been  attended by Chief N egotiators and representatives of ten 
acceding governments, eight Article XII Members, including at Minister, Deputy Minister and 
Ambassador level. Representatives of several other WTO Members, current and former accession 
Working Party Chairpersons, and p artner institutions had also participated.  The Round Table had 
demonstrated the sense of responsibility for the multilateral trading system. Accessions ha d made, 
and continue d to make, significant contributions to the evolution of the multilateral trading system. 
WTO accessions c ould provide a source of inspiration and valuable lessons that would help the 
multilateral trading system to develop a systemic response to the rapid changes of the global 
economy and new challenges to the multilateral trading syste m. 
25.3.   The representative of China  congratulate d the Russian Federation for successfully hosting the 
Eighth China Roundtable. Since its inception in 2012, the event ha d provided an opportunity for 
acceding governments to better understand the WTO and help seve ral of them join the big family. 
As the Russian Federation had stated, during th e roundtable the previous  week, participants had 
had an extensive exchange of views on various topics particularly  on the  immense difficulties fac ed 
by acceding governments suc h as domestic coordination, capacity gaps, lengthy process as well as 
high requests raised by demanding WTO Members. In th at regard, China register ed its constant 
support to the work of LDCs' accession to the WTO and w ould continue to provide ready effecti ve 
public boost such as the China Programme to help acceding governments to address those 
challenges. The enlargement of the Membership could be one of the possible outcomes at MC12.  
25.4.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
25.2  Statement by the Chair o n Administrative Measures for Members in arrears  
25.5.   The Chair, speaking under "Other Business ", noted that the revised Administrative Measures 
for Members in arrears in WT/BFA/132 required that, at the end of each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should provide 
information with regard to which Members and Observers were under Administrative Measures.  
25.6.   Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli  (Norway), Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administ ration , reported that  the Administrative Measures applicable to Members and Observers 
with arrears in contribution had been in place since 1 March 2013. In accordance with the Decision 
of the General Council, he should state all Members and Observers under  all categories of 
administrative measures. As of 9 Decem ber 2019, there had been  12 Members and 5 Observers 
under Administrative Measures.  The following 5 Members were currently in Category I: Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Senegal, Yemen and Zimbabwe. The following Member was in 
Category II: Congo. The following 6 Members were in Category III: Antigua and Barbuda, Burundi,  
Guinea -Bissau, Niger, Sierra Leone and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The following 2 Observers 
were in Category I: Com oros and South Sudan. Somalia was the only Observer in Category II. The 
following 2 Observers were in Category III: Libya and Sao Tomé and Principe.  
25.7.   The Chair  said that she was required at each Council meeting to request Members and 
Observers in Categories  II and III of the Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment 
of arrears could be expected.  
25.8.   The General  Council took note  of the statements . 
 
_______________  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 95 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
THE REPORTS BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND  THE CHAIRS OF THE N EGOTIATING 
GROUPS AT THE INFORM AL TNC AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS  
HELD ON 6 DECEMBER 2 019 
Report by the Director -General1 
 
Before my report this morning, I want to provide an update on the WTO budget. As you probably 
know, the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration agreed yesterday on a favourable 
recommendation for the 2020 budget. This has been forwarded to the General Council for 
endorsement.  
 
The proposed budget compromise is the result of flexibility and  cooperation among Members, both 
here in Geneva and in capital. It represents a pragmatic response that preserves the WTO system 
amid turbulence in the wider international system – turbulence that we cannot wish away.  
I am counting on your help with appro val in the General Council.  
 
I would like to start my report with a few factual observations about the Appellate Body, the 
multilateral trading system, and the choices before you in the months ahead.  
 
Observation one: as of next week, the WTO Appellate Bo dy will be left with only one member. And 
as such, it will be unable to take new appeals, or even address most of the pending issues. This 
represents a serious challenge to the dispute settlement pillar of the WTO's work.  
 
Observation two: the effective p aralysis of the appeals function does not mean the end of the 
multilateral trading system. Existing WTO rules still apply. WTO disciplines and principles will 
continue to underpin world trade. And Members will continue to use WTO rules to resolve trade 
conflicts - in regular WTO bodies, through consultations, via dispute settlement panels, and through 
any other means envisaged in the WTO agreements. I will be there to help you, and I intend to do 
so even more intensively over the coming weeks.  
 
Observation  three: where we go from here is in your hands. What we do – or just as significantly, 
what we fail to do – will define the trajectory of this organization.  
 
On rule -making, your choices could contribute to restoring certainty in the global economy, and h elp 
governments manage interdependence in a fast -changing world.  
 
On the implementation of existing commitments, you have scope to make regular committee work 
an even more effective vehicle for fostering compliance and addressing concerns about each other 's 
trade policies.  
 
And on dispute settlement, you could restore the impartial, effective, efficient two -step review that 
most Members say they want.   
 
Alternatively, your choices could open the door to more uncertainty, unconstrained unilateral 
retaliati on – and less investment, less growth, and less job creation.  
 
Let me turn now to the global trading environment. The situation remains downcast.  In October, I 
said that our economists had downgraded forecasts for world trade growth in 2019 to 1.2%. That 
would be the slowest increase since the crisis a decade ago.  
 
Our newest trade monitoring report – which we will discuss in the Trade Policy Review Body next 
Thursday – showed similar trends. In the twelve months before mid -October 2019, WTO Members 
introduced new import -restricting measures covering an estimated $746.9 billion dollars' worth of 
traded merchandise – the highest figure since 2012, and a 27 per cent increase over the year before. 
Even more seriously, these measures are adding up  over time, covering a growing share of world 
trade.  
 
 
1 Also issued as JOB/TNC/77.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 96 - 
 
  But this same report notes that during the same twelve -month time period, the ongoing 
implementation of the 2015 expansion of the Information Technology Agreement continued to 
deliver positive results. Participating Members lowered tariffs on merchandise worth hundreds of 
billions of dollars, adding to the impact of the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. 
This is an example of the powerful impact that our decisions have in the real world.  
 
Turning now to our negotiating work, you have just heard from the chairs.  In some areas, we have 
seen new proposals and serious engagement.  This is encouraging, and I thank you all for your 
efforts.  
 
Nevertheless, the stark reality is that we remain we ll short of where we need to be.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, our instructions from Ministers in Buenos Aires was to reach an agreement 
by the end of this year. But as you just heard from Ambassador Wills, despite hard work by 
negotiators, Members are unlikel y to be able to meet that deadline.  
 
You all know how important these negotiations are – for the WTO to meet its Sustainable 
Development Goal target; for marine conservation; and to demonstrate that multilateral rulemaking 
is still possible.  
 
In some cor e areas, delegates are close to a draft agreement text that would be ready for 
engagement at a higher political level. In other areas within the fisheries subsidies negotiations, 
progress is still tentative.  
 
So, I hope that Members will reach common under standings on key concepts and issues as well as 
on a process that can deliver a fisheries subsidies agreement by MC12. This has to be our top 
negotiating priority in the coming months.  
 
On agriculture, I would like to echo the words of Ambassador Ford in welcoming the increased 
engagement and new submissions. I agree with his assessment that you need to build on this 
momentum. I urge those still working on submissions to circulate them as soon as possible so that 
delegates can deepen discussions in areas w here there is potential for agreement.  The critical 
challenge now is to turn "engagement" into "concrete doable elements."  
 
Now, this focus on what is realistic and what is doable would be useful in thinking about all 
prospective outcomes at MC12 and als o, of course, for guidance for post -ministerial work. Achieving 
meaningful substantive outcomes will demand flexibility, contributions, and political will on the part 
of all Members. Let me reiterate that the Chairs and I are, of course, at your disposal t o facilitate 
your search for clarity on different issues.  
 
I also know that progress has been made in the joint initiatives, but I will leave any comments here 
to the participants.  
 
Let me now update you on my own activities since October.  
 
• I attended a mi ni-ministerial gathering hosted by China in Shanghai on the sidelines of the 
China International Import Expo;  
 
• I also participated in the trade ministers' meeting of the West African Economic and 
Monetary Union in Ouagadougou;  
 
• And finally, in Geneva and elsewhere, I met bilaterally with Ministers from Members 
including Kazakhstan, the United States, the European Union, China, Mexico, Egypt, Lao 
PDR, Namibia and Sweden.  
 
Across these discussions, I heard deep concern about the Appellate Body sit uation. Several Ministers 
offered their full backing for the Walker process. And I am looking forward to Ambassador Walker's 
report next week.  
 
In addition to dispute settlement, Ministers also voiced support for wider reforms at the WTO, 
including a succ essful MC12.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 97 - 
 
  I repeated to Ministers what I have told you before: the shape of WTO reform is in Members' hands 
to determine. As you know, it is my belief that attempting to define a precise reform "package" is 
likely to result in paralysis. Pragmatic imp rovements, harvested where opportunities present 
themselves, offer a much more promising way forward.  
 
The issues to address, and how discussions are structured – that is entirely up to you. What is critical 
is that all discussions should be transparent an d open to all Members.   
 
Looking back, reform has been about what Members accomplish, from the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement to all the other outcomes we have delivered so far.  
 
And looking ahead to next year and beyond, reform will continue to be the coll ective result of the 
choices you make - and, it must be said, the decisions you do not make.  
 
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that strengthening the trading system would help deliver stability 
in the world economy today, which is much needed, and enhanc e our respective capacities to tackle 
new problems tomorrow.  
 
Doing nothing, in the hopes of preserving what we have, is also not an option: the ground is shifting 
beneath our feet, and paralysis could in fact mean losing all we have.  
 
As I conclude my rep ort, I urge you to use today's meeting to have a focused, business -like 
conversation about the system and where you want it to go.  
 
The upcoming holiday period is an opportune moment for Members to reflect on the compromises 
they are willing to make to ach ieve their goals. The months ahead will be consequential for the 
system and for the future of international economic cooperation. I hope you will come back to 
Geneva ready to engage in earnest.  
 
That concludes my report. Thank you for your attention.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Reports by the Negotiating Group Chairs : 
 
1. Negotiating Group on Rules  
 
As I am currently in the middle of the last cluster of the Negotiating Group on Rules for this year, it 
would be premature to provide final concluding remarks on our work. However, I will provide a 
slightly detailed written report2 to be circulated and referred in the minutes of the General Council 
that starts on Monday.   
 
Although this week's meetings have not finished, this is a good opport unity to give a brief summary 
to the Trade Negotiations Committee of my activities since I took on the role of the Chair of the 
NGR.  
 
As you know, I took the position as Chair of this Group a month ago, on 8 November, and started 
bilateral consultations w ith interested Members right away. I also called an informal open -ended 
meeting the Heads of Delegation level for 15 November. At that meeting I:  
 
• reported back on the consultations;  
  
• sought views on the current state -of-play in the negotiations on fishe ries subsidies; and  
 
• asked for guidance on how best to move these negotiations forward.   
 
I continued with consultations and convened a subsequent informal open -ended HoDs meeting, 
which was held on 28 November, where I posed five substantive questions on scope, exclusions, 
 
2 See TN/RL/32.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 98 - 
 
  special and differential treatment, and how the fisheries subsidies dis ciplines could be incorporated 
into the WTO system.  
 
From the interventions in these meetings, one thing was clear; we were not going to meet the 
December deadline to conclude these negotiations. That is a serious setback. But, on a positive note, 
Members strongly expressed their commitment to conclude the fisheries subsidy negotiations by the 
12th Ministerial Conference. Furthermore, they are willing to commit to an intensive work 
programme, including intersessional work and the facilitators were also told  to continue their work, 
to engage with delegations in a variety of formats, and to come up with suggestions for text in areas 
where they think it would help build convergence.  
 
This week, the facilitators circulated draft working papers. These are in roo m documents 
RD/TN/RL/113 to 119 and subsequent revisions. Of course, each of these papers is on each 
facilitator's responsibility, some of them have a greater level of maturity than others and they differ 
in style and approach. Although they do not replace  proposals delegates engaged in a constructive 
discussion on their contents. It was also encouraging to hear that in two areas, subsidies for IUU 
fishing and to fishing overfished stocks, delegates stated they were ready to engage with the 
facilitators usi ng their working papers, including the elements of texts under discussion for the new 
year. 
  
By the end of today, we hope to have these working papers revised and noted by the Negotiating 
Group and to have a work programme from January to June 2020, with the aim of delivering a draft 
to MC12 that Ministers can adopt.  
 
I am also happy to note that at my last HoDs meeting, there was support for the basic working 
structure for the coming months, including starting start work as early as the second week in Ja nuary 
with another fisheries cluster.  
 
So, the process moving forward sounds promising. However, it is only as promising as the progress 
on substance. I have to say, for someone entering these negotiations this late, it is quite worrying 
to note that the advances in the facilitators' working papers are quite modest. They are still not the 
"clean consolidated" texts that the Negotiating Group had been instructed to develop before the 
summer break.   
 
What is evident is that Members are still holding on to t heir well -known positions, even at this 11th 
hour, or should I really say, 11th and a half hour. I would really like to avoid this cliché as I am aware 
that my predecessors have said it time and time again, but everyone needs to get out of their 
comfort zo nes. This is not a war, compromise does not mean defeat – indeed everyone is going to 
have to move away from their existing position because this is the only way to find common ground. 
It does not mean leaving the trenches and going into no man's land.  
 
In my opening remarks of this week's cluster, I said that in order to get to a text -based negotiation, 
each delegation will need to become very uncomfortable. In the context of negotiations, 
uncomfortable is good. We had a taste of that this week in IUU and  overfished stocks and indeed 
several Members expressed their discomfort with the need to separate themselves from their strict 
and rigid positions. But that is negotiations, and that is the only way to move forward – Members 
can no longer hold onto positi ons that remain dear to them, even if they have held on to them for 
several years.   
 
Some of you have suggested holding a senior officials' meeting by next Easter, which gives us four 
clusters to get there. Without a significant level of progress, there w ould be no point in having such 
a meeting. I will have to make a judgement call as work progresses.   
 
Also, if we want to meet our SDG 14.6 mandate, which is a clear instruction from our Heads of State 
and repeated by our Ministers, then we are ALL demand eurs meaning that we should all want a 
meaningful outcome. So, lets really roll up our sleeves during the next coming months and do what 
we are supposed to do – be flexible and negotiate.  
 
As mentioned in our last RNG HoDs, I will be calling on you as Hea ds of Delegations as needed. You 
have also given me the flexibility to call meetings at different levels and all types of configurations. 
So be ready, from today onwards I have you all on speed -dial. 
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 99 - 
 
  2. Committee on Agriculture in Special Session and Sub -Committee on Cotton  
 
1. The key message of my report today is that we have reached the turning point towards an 
increased pace and intensification of the discussions towards negotiations on the agriculture file.  
 
2. Since the last TNC meeting, on 14 October 2019, the CoA SS has witnessed a significant 
increase in the level of engagement. In the two CoA SS meetings and the Dedicated Sessions on 
PSH and SSM held since then (on 28 October and on 25 -26 November), numerous  new submissions 
have been tabled, and several imminent submissions were announced.   
 
3. In October, two submissions were introduced: one on the pillar of Market Access, by the United 
States (on "Tariff peaks") and one on Cotton, by the C -4.   
 
4. It is the November meetings however, that saw a real increase in engagement. Eight additional 
submissions were made:  
 
• two in the Market Access pillar - one by the United States (on Tariff Rate Quotas) and the 
other one by Australia and Canada (on the treatment o f shipments en route);  
  
• one in the export competition pillar focusing on transparency was tabled by Canada (co -
sponsored by Norway and Switzerland); and  
 
• four in the Domestic Support pillar:  one from Australia and New Zealand and one by 
Canada (on the e volution of the future domestic support entitlements); one by Russia 
(introducing a new formula for the reduction of Trade Distorting Support); and one by 
Costa Rica (suggesting an approach that calls for the contributions to be proportional to 
the trade d istorting potential).   
 
• The eighth submission, made by the African Group was cross -cutting and covered Domestic 
Support (including for Cotton) and transparency related issues, PSH and SSM.  
 
In short, some Members have pursued their analytical work and ne w creative ideas and approaches, 
related to both transparency and substantive disciplines, and added them to the list of ideas already 
on the table.  The discussions and submissions also confirmed the priority of Domestic Support for 
the majority of Member s, and the growing interest by several Members in various Market Access 
issues. The exchanges on PSH, SSM, Export Restrictions and Export Competition confirmed the 
interest of the proponents. However, a continuing low -level engagement on PSH and SSM reinfo rces 
the difficulty in these two areas. I also held a Cotton Quad Plus meeting on 26 November to address 
Cotton which also is a priority for many Members.  
 
In light of the flurry of submissions, some Members stressed the need to pursue work towards 
buildin g consensus and operationali sing our collective commitment for agricultural reform.  
 
I see this increased level of engagement as a turning point towards a higher gear in the pace and 
intensity of the discussions. I see it also as a strong signal about Memb ers' willingness to start 
debating on what may be feasible at or for MC12. My intention is to make every effort to build on 
this momentum.   
 
I have therefore called upon Members, especially those who informed me that are still working on 
their submissions , to put them forward as soon as possible, preferably, before the Christmas break. 
I have also urged Members who have submitted papers to share more information, especially the 
numbers reflecting the implications and the insights, with the rest of the memb ership and 
encouraged all Members to engage with each other and take full advantage of the coming weeks to 
transform the various ideas on the table into concrete potential doable, negotiable elements. I expect 
the additional inputs signalled to be delivere d soon, and I expect them to help in framing the way 
to a meaningful outcome.  
 
Therefore, I expect that before the end of the year, early in January, we would hopefully be working 
around a platform that leads us to texts around which we hold our negotiatio ns.  It remains to be 
seen what it would look like and what it would apply to, but it must be framed in such a way that 
negotiated outcomes might be possible.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 100 - 
 
  As from January, we will have only five months till MC12. The next meeting of the CoA SS is 
scheduled to take place on 27 and 28 January. In the intervening period, I will have intensive 
consultations in various configurations and in particular with groups representatives and members 
of those groups as well as bilaterals.  
 
I renew my call to all Members to work together to see how we can achieve our goals and move 
towards increased prosperity resulting from a stable, predictable, fair agricultural trading 
environment.  
 
With greatly reduced trade -distorting capacity and practices, I remain committe d to finding a path 
that takes us to a meaningful outcome by MC12.  
 
3. Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session  
 
After my election as Chair of the Special Session of the CTD at a formal meeting of the Committee 
held on 25 October, I reached out t o several Members for some bilateral one -on-one meetings, with 
the objective of listening to views and thoughts on where we stand, and how we could move forward 
in our work. These conversations were particularly useful for me to better appreciate the 
persp ectives of various Members on the work of the CTD SS.  
 
With regard to substance, a new submission by the G90 was made available to Members on 20 
November in the form of a room document. The document reference is RD/DEV/182.  
 
I convened an informal, open -ended meeting of the CTD SS on 27 November, in order to allow the 
G90 to introduce its new submission in the CTD SS, and to hear initial views from Members.  
 
My understanding of the new submission is that it is meant to serve as a discussion document. As 
explained by the G90, the same ten proposals submitted in 2017 remain on the table for the 
proponents, since the issues raised in these proposals remain of relevance and concern to them. In 
addition to listing the ten proposals, the new submission attempts to  explain the rationale behind 
each of the proposals.  
 
I will be frank. Members' reactions to the new G90 submission were mixed, at best. Although there 
were some indications of willingness to engage, there was also an expression of disappointment 
from seve ral delegations, who shared the view that having the same conversation as in the past, on 
the basis of the same proposals, will not contribute to advancing the work of the CTD SS.   
 
I must say that the reactions to the G90 submission did not come as a sur prise to me, especially 
since the delegations that I had met bilaterally had earlier shared their positions with me.  
 
Nevertheless, the discussion at the informal, open -ended CTD SS meeting served as a reality check 
for all of us. Indeed, if there is to be  any chance at all to have an outcome on S&D at MC12, it is 
clear that Members must move beyond their well -known positions, and find ways to be creative. 
This is the message I shared with Members in closing the meeting on 27 November.  
 
I will still need to  decide how to proceed with the next phase of work in the Special Session.  
 
The intention would be to facilitate discussions in informal settings. But before coming to any specific 
determination about next steps, I intend to first meet with the G90 represe ntatives, to hear their 
views on how they see the process going forward. I will also be continuing to reach out bilaterally 
to other Members for conversations on a one -on-one basis.  
   
I will, of course, be keeping Members informed of how I intend to proce ed. This concludes my 
statement.  
 
4. Council for TRIPS in Special Session  
 
As you know, despite various efforts, for some time now there has been little activity in the TRIPS 
negotiations on a multilateral register for wine and spirit GIs for some time now. While there had 
been some signs of active reflection on the part of the demandeurs last year – these have not 
resulted in any concrete initiative or declaration in the TRIPS Special Session. I have also not been 
able to detect any movement in Members'  positions over the course of this year.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 101 - 
 
   
In small group discussions held on 1 May, I once again pointed out that this lack of activity in the 
TRIPS Special Session stands in marked contrast with the dynamic activity on GIs in Bilateral and 
Regional Trade Agreements. These are creating multiple new protection regimes for GIs. 
Unfortunately, this outside momentum has not translated into increased initiative in this negotiating 
group, which has not engaged in the substance of its mandated work on a GI Registe r for wine and 
spirit GIs for some time now. At the consultations, I suggested that an exchange between 
delegations on relevant developments in recent bilateral trade agreements and domestic GI 
protection systems could be useful for the work in the TRIPS S pecial Session, where negotiating 
positions date from as far back as 2008. However, while all delegations promised to raise my 
suggestion with their capitals, their substantive positions remained the same.  
 
Equally, at the open -ended informal meeting of t he TRIPS Special Session on 4 December, the 
delegations supporting the modalities proposal in document TN/C/W/52 reiterated once again the 
importance they attached to the TRIPS issues and confirmed their view that the WTO was the right 
forum to discuss the se questions. They emphasi sed their commitment to the parallel advancement 
of all three TRIPS issues – the GI register, GI extension and the relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD – however, they judged that the current negotiating context wa s, in their 
view, not conducive to engaging substantively at this time.  
 
The delegations supporting the Joint Proposal reiterated their position that while they were open to 
considering negotiating proposals, any activity in the TRIPS Special Session neede d to respect the 
negotiating mandate that was limited to wine and spirit GIs. One delegation argued that the 
longstanding divergence of views meant there was little likelihood of an outcome, and it was 
therefore opposed to any intensification of work in an y of the Doha negotiating groups.  
 
In light of the above, I am compelled to report once again that the situation remains unchanged, 
and that there is no appetite for substantive engagement in the TRIPS Special Session on either side 
of the debate.  
 
It is m y personal view that this state of affairs represents a lost opportunity for useful multilateral 
work in the area of GIs. I am aware that the increasing number of bilateral agreements on GIs, and 
the impending entry into force of the Geneva Act of the Lisb on System, are signs of success for the 
legitimate users of GIs protected under these systems. However, this increasing multiplicity of 
protection systems also means, that to establish the exact nature and scope of protection of an 
individual GI in a given  jurisdiction is becoming more difficult, not less. The relevance and need for 
accurate information on GI protection is reflected in the increasing number of initiatives for GI 
registers by business associations that struggle to collect and present this in formation that is so 
important for traders and users of GI -protected products. At a time when Members are increasingly 
considering how to enhance transparency, this strikes me as a compelling area where a combined 
effort to improve information can deliver concrete benefits for businesses and producers across the 
Membership.  
 
I believe that in this context, a reliable multilateral register for wine and spirit GIs, that reflects the 
actual details of protection in individual jurisdictions, could effectively c omplement bilateral and 
plurilateral GI developments, and make a real contribution to addressing the practical needs of 
traders in products that are covered by the GIs in such a register.  
 
Although recent experience is not positive, it remains my hope tha t delegations will eventually return 
to substantive discussions in the TRIPS Special Session and work towards a useful multilateral 
contribution in this area.  
 
As always, I will be ready to help them once they do.  
 
I will conclude by saying that I shall c irculate a written report under my own responsibility before 
the end of the year.  
 
5. Dispute Settlement Body in Special Session  
 
As I mentioned at our previous meeting, I have been consulting informally with interested 
delegations to hear their views on the work of the DSB in Special Sessions.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 102 - 
 
  On 27 November 2019, I also held an informal open -ended meeting to report on these consultations 
and to provide an opportunity to all participants to express their views on the work of the group.  
 
As I reported at that meeting, the delegations I have met with expressed support for the work of 
the DSB in Special Sessions. At the same time, concern has been expressed that resuming intense 
work in the Special Sessions may not be fruitful at this time, as th e attention of participants is 
focused on more pressing issues relating to the functioning of the dispute settlement system. Certain 
Members believed that the group should continue to work ahead despite these challenges.  
 
For now, I have informed participa nts that I do not propose to schedule further meetings before the 
end of the year, but remain available to meet with them and hear their suggestions.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
 
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 103 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS 
HELD ON 6 DECEMBER 2 019 
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by: Argentina (Colombia, Iceland, New Zealand, Panama, United States, Uruguay and Argentina) ; 
Japan; Benin (African Group); Paraguay; Costa Rica (Joint Initiative on Services Domestic 
Regulation); Republic of Korea; Turkey; Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic 
Commerce); Thailand (ASEAN); Russian Federation; Chad (LDCs); India; Vanuatu (ACP); European 
Union; Pakistan; United States; Egypt; Norway; China; Uruguay (Informal Working Group on 
MSMEs); Canada (Ottawa Group); Brazil; Singapore; Peru; Switzerland; South Africa; Mexico; 
Chinese Taipei; Indonesia; Iceland; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Hong Kong, China; Nigeria; 
Solomon Islands (Pacific Group); Chile (S tructured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development); Kazakhstan; Panama (Article XII Members); Israel; Malaysia; Trinidad and Tobago 
(CARICOM) ; Colombia; St. Lucia (OECS); Nepal; Cambodia and Viet Nam are included below as part 
of the Minutes  of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Argentina (Colombia, Iceland, New Zealand, Panama, United States, Uruguay and 
Argentina)  
 
Our delegations commit to continue to engage constructively in the fisheries subsidies negotiations 
in order to ad opt an agreement on comprehensive and effective disciplines as called for by Ministers 
in the Buenos Aires Decision of 13 December 2017 in document WT/MIN(17)/64 – WT/L/1031.  
 
We welcome the appointment of Ambassador Santiago Wills (Colombia) as the new C hair of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules and are confident that his leadership will help us meet our mandate by 
the Twelfth Ministerial Conference in Nursultan, Kazakhstan on 8 -11 June 2020.  
 
The health of our oceans and the credibility of the WTO depend on our success. We welcome the 
progress made this year in the Negotiating Group on Rules including consideration of a range of new 
and updated proposals aimed at finding common ground in the negotiations.  
 
We are committed to building on this proposal to reac h a meaningful outcome that will prohibit 
subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and overfished stocks, and 
we further support targeted prohibitions on subsidies that benefit large, industrial fishing fleets as 
well as fur ther constrain on subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.  
 
We note recent proposals by some of the largest fishing nations and subsidizers and call upon all 
Members to contribute to a successful and meaningful outcome commensurate with t heir roles in 
the fisheries sector.  
 
We further welcome the submissions by 71 Members of updated subsidies notifications pursuant to 
the Buenos Aires Ministerial Decision and in accordance to Article 25.3 of the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing M easures in order to strengthen transparency in the fisheries subsidies 
negotiations. These updated subsidies notifications were due on 30 June 2019. We call upon those 
that have not yet notified to do so by the end of this year.  
 
As we near the successful conclusion of the negotiations, we further recogni ze that appropriate and 
effective special and differential treatment may include transition period for individual Members with 
specifically identified needs in the context of their implementations of discip lines under negotiation.  
 
We commit to continue to work constructively with the Chair and Members under his leadership in 
order to lock in convergence, narrow differences and reach an agreement that represents new, 
meaningful constraints on harmful fisheries subsidies which can ser ve as the WTO's contribution to 
the long -term health and sustainab ility of our oceans.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 104 - 
 
  2. Argentina  
 
As a country with a coastline that suffers from illegal fishing because of incursions into our 
jurisdictional waters by foreign fleets of subsidized fishing vessels, we regret that the WTO is facing 
yet another missed deadline. We trust that Ambassador Wills, with the help of Members, will inject 
new life into these negotiations.  
 
We cannot be petty in our contribution to the furtherance of SDG 14.6. In the same way that "justice 
delayed" is not always effective justice, "contribution delayed" can also be rendered useless.  
 
With respect to the agricultural trade reform, almost 20 years have passed and we have seen no 
evidence that time has cl osed the gap in the divergent approaches to the issue of subsidies that 
distort production and agricultural trade. We urge Members to review their positions and to broaden 
their scope of flexibility.  
 
As regards the joint initiatives launched in Buenos Air es, we are pleased to note that 2019 has been 
a year that significantly built on the progress achieved in 2018, and we hope that more delegations 
will decide to join in.  
 
3. Japan  
 
This is the last TNC/HODs that I attend as Ambassador of Japan. I arrived here  soon after MC10 in 
Nairobi, where Members achieved certain outcomes such as the elimination of agricultural export 
subsidies, but disagreed over the way forward for multilateral negotiations. Since then, my 
impression is that we have still been stuck in s oul-searching mode. But today, facing daunting 
challenges in which the survival of the multilateral trading system  is at stake, we need to act and 
move forward on the important agendas including the WTO reform.  
 
On the dispute settlement mechanism , Japan s upports the adoption of the draft decision proposed 
by Ambassador Walker, which is based on the points of convergence, and simultaneous initiation of 
the selection processes to fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body. On the other hand, the proposed 
decision does not address all the issues. We must therefore continue our discussions on remaining 
issues either in the Informal Process or in any other suitable fora in order to find a long -lasting 
solution to the Appellate Body matter.  
 
Japan continues to plac e emphasis on transparency and notification as an important part of the WTO 
reform. Together with the other proponents, Japan will continue to work to reach a consensus at the 
earliest possible juncture.  
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies negotiations, despite  firm commitment by Members, there are still 
many issues we have yet to resolve. Now, under the new Chair, all Members need to shift gear and 
push this negotiation forward. Japan welcomes the start of a text -based discussion in some areas. 
Our mandate is c lear. We need to work on creating meaningful rules to prohibit certain forms of 
fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that 
contribute to IUU fishing. In line with this mandate, Japan stands ready to ma ke a constructive 
contribution to finding common ground in this negotiation.  
 
I am heartened to see progress made in several joint statement initiatives. We welcome, in 
particular, the recent development on e -commerce negotiations and reiterate the importa nce of 
deepening discussion with a wide range of stakeholders in the aim of achieving substantial progress 
by MC12. As to the extension of the customs duties moratorium, Japan strongly believes that we 
should extend our current multilateral practice of the  moratorium, at least until MC12. We are 
prepared to engage ourselves in meaningful discussions on the moratorium towards MC12.  
 
On services domestic regulation, Japan welcomes the steady progress in negotiation of domestic 
regulation disciplines within th e joint statement initiative. Japan submitted its indicative draft 
schedule in October, and we acknowledge that 51 Members have already submitted their draft 
schedules. Japan will continue to contribute to the discussion, aiming for a concrete outcome by 
MC12. 
 
As for the joint statement initiative on investment facilitation, Japan believes that the meaningful 
outcome of this initiative will lead to promoting economic growth by improving the environment for WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 105 - 
 
  inbound direct investment including in developing countr ies and the LDCs, and by enabling MSMEs 
to better access foreign markets.  
 
To conclude, Japan will continue to work hard to contribute to overcoming the challenges facing the 
WTO and achieve meaningful outcomes at MC12.  
 
4. Benin (African Group)  
 
The African Group thanks the Director -General  for his report, as well as the Chairs of the Bodies for 
the status reports they have presented to us.  
 
We would like to stress the need to accelerate our work with a view to achieving results that take 
into account the nee ds, concerns and priorities of developing Members, and least developed 
countries (LDCs), in particular, as reflected in recommendations made by the African Group at the 
end of its Retreat held in Geneva on 23 November 2019.  
 
The Group would like to highlig ht, in particular:  
 
• The need to work towards achieving, by the time of Nur -Sultan, meaningful outcomes 
towards reduction of domestic support that affects international trade in agricultural 
products, including cotton, by reducing the Aggregate  Measurement of Support (AMS), and 
to address the historical imbalances of green box supports, as well as introducing more 
effective disciplines for the blue box.  
 
• Effectively addressing the situation of Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs), 
many of whom ar e LDCs, which are increasingly confronted with the challenges of food 
security and impacts of climate change  to their livelihood . 
 
• Similarly, a permanent solution must be obtained for the management of public stocks for 
food security purposes. Appropriate modalities for the establishment of the Special 
Safeguard Mechanism will need to be agreed. We are concerned with regard to impact of 
domestic regulation of trade in services on countries ' ability to regulate their markets. The 
preferential rules of origin  for LDCs, and the duty -free and quota -free access regime for 
products exported by LDCs, should be made effective for this category of countries, 
including those in accession.  
 
• With regard to Special and Differential Treatment, the Group urges Members to t ake action 
to implement the mandate contained in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, 
aimed at making the S&D T provisions more precise, more effective and more operational.  
 
• In addition, the African Group stresses the importance of WTO Members  to adopt measures 
to eliminate subsidies contributing to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as well as 
subsidies to large scale fisheries that are harmful to the sustainable fisheries as instructed 
in SDG 14.6, while allowing appropriate S&D T for developing countries, and LDCs in 
particular as outlined in the MC11 decision. Disciplines will need to focus on large -scale 
fisheries and target subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity.  
 
• The African Group urges other WTO Members to work  towards relaunching the process of 
selecting Appellate Body members. The aim should be to reach by consensus solutions that 
are acceptable to all, while preserving the fundamental characteristics and integrity of the 
legal and jurisdictional system embodi ed by the Appellate Body.  
 
• Ongoing consultations on WTO Reform should result in effective consideration of the needs, 
constraints and priorities of developing countries, in particular those of LDCs, through the 
adoption of special and differential treatment in the current and future agreements, 
including for the strengthening of productive capacities and to ensure that developing 
countries move up value chains.  
 
• The African Group remains concerned about the implications of the Moratoriu m on 
Electronic C ommerce on revenue losses related to electronic transmissions, and 
recommends that appropriate modalities for the treatment of such losses be sought, 
including through compensation.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 106 - 
 
   
• Regarding the Moratorium on Non-Violation and Situation Complaints under the TRIPS 
Agreement, the flexibilities provided to developing countries under this Agreement are 
fundamental, including those in relation to the promotion of public health. Since the scope 
and modalities of non -violation complaints have no t yet been determined, the African 
Group supports the extension of the Moratorium.  
 
• Finally, the African Group informs the other WTO Members that the African Union renewed, 
on 21 November 2019, its request for observer status with the WTO. We urge Members to 
respond favo urably to this request, which will concretely and effectively reflect the principle 
of inclusion, defended within the organization. This is a step after the launching of the 
African Continental Free Trade Area.  
 
5. Paraguay  
 
Paraguay, as a supporter of the multilateral trading system, reaffirms its commitment to the WTO 
as a forum in which we hope to achieve concrete results in respect of several  areas.  
 
Regarding reform, Paraguay believes that the discussions should continue to be inclusive and 
transparent, and respect the development component as a fundamental principle and right of 
Members. We must preserve special and differential treatment for those Members who really need 
it. Furthermore, the discussion on improving trans parency and notifications should move away from 
the punitive approach and focus on finding a solution that would make it possible to identify not only 
appropriate incentives, but also the most effective mechanisms for enabling Members to fulfil their 
outstanding obligations.  
 
Turning to the Appellate Body, we reiterate our deep concern regarding the current situation, and 
are grateful to Ambassador Walker for all his efforts. The dispute settlement system is vital for the 
security and predictability of the multilateral trading system. We therefore deeply regret that the 
Appellate Body will cease to function as of 11 December 2019. The Membership's priority must be 
to fill the vacancies without further delay, and pragmatic decisions are called for now that th e 
deadline has been reached.  
 
As regards the agriculture negotiations, we would like to thank the delegations that presented new 
proposals during the most recent Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture. We believe that 
there is sufficient material on which to reflect. Paraguay reiterates that it is seeking a package 
outcome, one containing important elements from the market access pillar. We will be working with 
the delegations that are interested in our contributions to make progress within this pi llar. 
 
With regard to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, we would like to congratulate the Ambassador 
of Colombia, Santiago Wills, on his recent appointment as Chairman. Paraguay urges Members to 
redouble their efforts to deliver on the Ministerial m andate and conclude the negotiations, without 
prejudice to the rights that international law bestows on landlocked WTO Members.  
 
As a signatory to the Joint Statement on Services Domestic Regulation, we reaffirm our commitment 
to making progress on outstan ding issues, and hope to achieve an outcome that will enable us to 
improve the regulatory environment for trade in services.  
 
Paraguay faces enormous challenges on account of its geographical position. We are faced not only 
with a lack of logistical connec tivity and cost overruns in the transport of goods, but also, in this 
new digital era, with an obstacle that has an even greater impact on our development: our status 
as a digitally landlocked country. For this reason, Paraguay supports the extension and r enewal of 
the moratorium at least until the Twelfth Ministerial Conference in June 2020, as well as the 
continuation of the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  
 
With respect to participation in the various Joint Initiatives, we view with much enthusiasm the 
WTO's potential to generate new disciplines that are linked in a cross cutting manner to trade 
facilitation. This is why we firmly support the work of the Initiatives on Electronic Commerce, 
Facilitation of Investment for Development, and MS MEs. We hope that the discussions will remain 
open and transparent, as they have been up to now, and we call upon Members, in particular LDCs 
and landlocked developing countries that have not yet participated in the Initiatives, to make their 
concerns and interests known, so as to enhance the inclusive nature of these discussions.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 107 - 
 
   
As a signatory to the second Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, we reaffirm our commitment 
to the current negotiating process. Paraguay hopes to continue participating activ ely in the 
forthcoming sessions with concrete proposals that reflect our digital needs and interests, and, in 
particular, the interests of landlocked developing countries.  
 
We would also like to announce that we signed the Joint Statement on Investment Fac ilitation for 
Development in Shanghai on 5 November. We are determined to step up our efforts to further 
develop the multilateral framework for facilitating foreign direct investment, while working towards 
a concrete outcome for MC12.  
 
My delegation is rea dy to actively contribute to the discussions held in the run up to the next 
Ministerial Conference. We hope to work constructively with Members in order to achieve tangible 
outcomes in the next few months.  
 
6. Costa Rica  
 
I would like to reiterate the value o f the WTO and the importance my country places on its proper 
functioning so as to ensure that the organization retains its fundamental role in the global economy. 
In times such as these, it is even more important for this organization to continue respondin g to 
economic developments, thereby reaffirming its central role as a guarantor of market access 
opportunities and non -discriminatory treatment.  
 
I would therefore like to reaffirm Costa Rica's commitment to the WTO and to the reform process 
that is needed  to strengthen the organization. For instance, we are co -sponsoring initiatives to 
improve the fulfilment of transparency obligations, and are participating in joint initiatives to 
facilitate progress in a number of areas that call for joint action within the WTO, such as electronic 
commerce and the domestic regulation of services. We are pleased with the progress achieved in all 
these areas.  
 
Costa Rica has promoted and supported pragmatic solutions to the concerns expressed on the 
functioning of the dispu te settlement mechanism. We are concerned by the current situation and 
thank Ambassador Walker for his work . We endorse the report and the solutions proposed, which 
we see as a good basis for quickly moving forward in the process for selecting members of t he 
Appellate Body.  
 
We also need to conclude and fulfil our mandate concerning critical global issues such as fisheries 
subsidies. We regret that it was not possible to meet the deadline set by our Ministers to conclude 
the negotiations in December, and we  are committed to beginning the new year with renewed vigour 
and political will to resolve the issues under discussion.  
 
Reforming the agricultural trade distorting support pillar is still a priority for Costa Rica. Looking 
ahead to MC12, in order to arriv e at a successful outcome, a pragmatic approach is required in the 
current context, without lowering the level of ambition that is needed for a gradual process of reform. 
Costa Rica is prepared to work with all Members in exploring new ideas that might ach ieve a balanced 
result; that limit the spread of trade distorting support, and that incorporate the principles of 
proportionality and progressivity into the disciplines, so that those with the greatest distorting 
potential, will contribute proportionately to finding solutions.  
 
Our organization and the multilateral trading system are facing many challenges. However, MC12 
offers us a unique opportunity and shared responsibility to change the course of things. We must 
persevere on this path in search of under standings and agreements . We must also strengthen 
mechanisms that foster understanding and create confidence among us all. Costa Rica is ready to 
take up this challenge.  
 
Now, if you will allow me, I would like to give the floor to Jaime Coghi, Chairman of  the Joint Initiative 
on Services Domestic Regulation.  
 
7. Costa Rica (Joint 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.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 108 - 
 
   
In the most important development since my last report, 24 delegations have circulated their 
indicative draft schedules in which they propose to inscribe the draft Reference Paper on Domestic 
Regulation into their schedules of commitments. They count for 51 WTO Members.  
 
The exchange of indicative draft schedules constitutes an important milestone in these open-ended 
negotiations. Several participants with fewer commitments have already indicated that they might 
be ready to expand the sectoral coverage of the disciplines in their schedules of specific 
commitments.  
 
In addition, participants have been able to  resolve some of the outstanding issues in the Reference 
Paper at their last meeting, moving the text closer to finalization.  
 
All this demonstrates that participants remain committed to delivering an outcome at the next 
Ministerial Conference in June 2020  in Kazakhstan.  
   
The outcome of these open -ended negotiations will be consistent with GATS obligations and follows 
well-established WTO procedures. The disciplines that Members would inscribe as additional 
commitments in their schedules would apply on an  MFN basis. The adoption of these disciplines 
would hence bind only participating Members but benefit all Members without diminishing in any 
way their rights under the GATS.  
 
As key next steps, the Group will work towards finalising the text of the Refere nce Paper in early 
2020. Furthermore, participants are committed to continue conducting their deliberations in an open, 
inclusive and transparent manner, and to address the concerns and interests of all WTO Members. 
Participants are convinced that their wo rk is a valuable contribution to facilitate services trade and 
promote economic growth and development.  
 
To conclude, I invite all Members not already part of this process to engage actively in the discussions 
and consider joining the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.  
 
8. Republic of Korea  
 
The WTO celebrated the 30th anniversary of the TPRM last week. TPRM plays a crucial role in 
strengthening transparency in the WTO making the mechanism one of the critical components of the 
organization 's monitoring function. Unfortunately, the two other key pillars of the WTO are facing a 
more negative situation.  
 
First, I echo the concern raised by other delegations about the urgent need to find a solution to the 
Appellate Body issue. We are less than one week away from a paraly sed Appellate Body. The 
Members should put in best efforts despite the little time that remains. I will defer a more detailed 
statement for a relevant agenda at the General Council meeting next week.  
 
Second, the negotiating function  of WTO has not been productive for some time. The Members 
should ratchet up its effort in the run up to the MC12. In this regard, I would like to touch on some 
topics of importance to Korea.  
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies negotiations, it is regrettable that we cannot meet the deadline, which 
is given to us by MC11. We cannot afford to miss the deadline again . This negotiation should be 
successfully concluded by MC12 in order to ensure the sustainability of fisheries as well as to prove 
the re levance of  the WTO's negotiating function. To this prove the relevance of the WTO's negotiating 
function. To this end, meetings should be transformed to a constant negotiating mode by making 
accelerated efforts.  
 
Next year, all Members should do their utmost to move the negotiation forward according to the 
working scheme under the new Chair's leadership. In particular, to make progress on the disciplines 
on "Overfishing and Overcapacity ", we should bear in mind that differentiatin g between beneficial 
subsidies and harmful ones is crucial.  
 
Regarding e -commerce, we have achieved extensive progress through six rounds of negotiations. 
We were able to review and revisit all areas of concern presented in various proposals on an equal 
footing. In the run up to MC12, I believe that we can reach an important milestone through additional WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 109 - 
 
  rounds of intensive engagements for a consolidated text that is more succinct and less divergent in 
the key areas of interest. I call for continued efforts to accelerate this progress.  
 
Korea reiterates its support for a permanent moratorium on customs duties for electronic 
transmission. It is evident from our twenty year long experience and from the many studies 
published that the benefits of continuing the moratorium outweigh any potential risk being posed by 
constraining a nation 's digital industrial policy.  
 
On services domestic regulation, Korea is pleased to be an active player in the negotiations. More 
and more disciplines are being agreed upon in the r eference paper and twenty -four indicative draft 
schedules have already been submitted. This is the kind of progress we need to keep up the 
momentum for a concrete outcome. Korea, along with other MIKTA members, organi sed a workshop 
on "Regulatory Framework s to Facilitate Trade in Services " in an effort to reach out to other Members 
on this important subject. I appreciate the close coordination among the MIKTA members, and also 
would like to thank the Director -General  for his participation to the event.  
 
I encourage all other Members to join in the negotiations on services domestic regulation as the 
regulatory framework built on transparency and coherence will certainly lead to sustainable growth 
and development for all Members regardless of where they stand.  
 
Last but not least, Korea also continues to support the future work in other Joint Statement 
Initiatives including the preparation of a streamlined text on investment facilitation, a Ministerial 
Decision on MSMEs, and discussions on Women and Trade.  
 
It is not a secret that the WTO is in a serious crisis. Some commentators even go one step further 
to question whether this organization can survive in the years ahead . Frankly speaking, these 
alarming remarks are no longer something we can sweep under the ru g. 
 
Unlike the commentators that have the luxury to stay pessimistic, I believe we are all here to work 
together and to find a solution to this crisis. We, the Members, should take the first step by coming 
together in a cooperative spirit, in support of th e WTO and the rules -based multilateral trading 
system.  
 
9. Turkey  
 
In the last General Council meeting of the year, we regret that current tensions continue to present 
a seri es challenge to the WTO, which in turn hurts the effectiveness of the multilateral tr ading 
system. With the de facto disabling of the Appellate Body , we are adding yet another dimension to 
the current negative picture.  
 
We also regret that the Appellate Body selection process cannot begin as there is now even more 
uncertainty on how to ad dress the pending appeals. As we said before, we acknowledge that some 
Members have concerns regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body. Turkey has clearly shown 
its readiness to address these issues. We expect all Members to show a similar level of c ommitment 
and engagement, so that the organization can move forward. Otherwise, we will be risking the gains 
for the multilateral trading system achieved by the Marrakesh Treaty.  
 
Turkey recogni zes there is room to update the WTO rulebook. There are a num ber of proposals and 
initiatives to that effect. We hope that this exercise can be translated into some actions and concrete 
outcomes for the Ministerial in Nur -Sultan.  
 
I also would like to recall that the WTO is a unique platform for developing Members and LDCs as it 
stands out as an organization giving equal say to all its Members. It also stands out as an 
organization that has managed to keep the delicate balance betwe en Members with different 
development levels. S&DT  provisions, in a sense, is an entrenched principle and a key objective of 
the WTO. In our view , reform discussions should accommodate the development needs of Members.  
 
Reform discussions do not mean we s hould  not aggressively pursue our current negotiation topics.  
 
On agriculture , fruitful discussions took place in recent C oA SS meetings. We see there is 
convergence among Members that agriculture should be one key outcome at MC12. We believe that 
any outc ome should push existing discussions forward, especially on domestic support and SSM.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 110 - 
 
   
Domestic support is one of the priority issues not only for Turkey but also for the overwhelming 
majority of Members. Any outcome on domestic support should focus on cor recting the existing 
imbalances in the Agreement on Agriculture and should result in a fair and development -oriented 
outcome.  
 
Considering the increasing volatility in agricultural markets, an effective and operational SSM 
remains critical to provide pred ictability and to address the challenges resulting from import surges 
and price volatilities.   
 
For fisheries, we have underlined three priorities for which there is convergence mainly on the scope 
of the agreement and crosscutting issues.  
  
• First, inlan d fisheries and aquaculture should be kept out of the scope of the new discipline.  
 
• Second, negotiations should focus on disciplining specific subsidies within the meaning of 
the SCM Agreement and non -specific subsidies should be kept out of the scope.  
 
• Third, as set out by our mandate, appropriate and effective S&D T should be an integral 
part of the negotiations. The ongoing negotiations should result in a fisheries subsidies 
discipline that is practical and simple considering Members ' different situations and 
development levels.  
 
For services, specifically on services domestic regulation, Turkey welcomes the fact that in the 
current state of play , the Reference Paper is getting closer to be finali sed. We submitted our draft 
indicative  schedule in October, indicating our intention to subscribe the disciplines contained in the 
Reference Paper as additional commitments.  
 
We have also demonstrated our commitment to apply the domestic regulation  disciplines to some 
additional sectors. We wi ll continue to support the work in this initiative with a view to adopting the 
domestic regulation  disciplines by MC12.  
 
On the joint statement initiatives, we consider them to be proof that the WTO can respond to the 
rapidly changing nature of the global economy. Turkey has been actively participating in all 
initiatives. Since Buenos Aires, some extensive work has taken place under these initiatives and we 
are looking forward to seeing results by MC12.  
 
MC12 will be hosted by an Article 12 Member. This is  meaningful in terms of accessions. Accessions 
contribute to the universalization of the multilateral trading system. In our view, the processes of 
Belarus and Bosna -Herzegovina have reached a level of maturity.  
 
We are also looking forward to registering progress on all these issues in the new year.  
 
10. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce)  
 
I will first provide a report on negotiations under the Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic 
Commerce on behalf of the co -convenor s: Australia, Japan and Singapore.  
  
We have worked actively to achieve the objective agreed by our Ministers in Davos to achieve a high 
standard outcome on the trade -related aspects of electronic commerce that builds on existing WTO 
Agreements and framewo rks with the participation of as many WTO Members as possible.  
 
Since the October HOD s/TNC:  
 
• we have welcomed two new Members, Indonesia and Cameroon, bringing the number of 
signatories to 82 ; 
 
• held two negotiating rounds (22 to 25 October and 19 to 22 No vember) ; and, 
  
• the co -convenors have conducted Ambassador -level consultations.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 111 - 
 
  The October round covered – digital trade facilitation and logistics, data flows and locali zation, 
privacy, cybersecurity and telecommunications. The November round covered – customs duties on 
electronic transmissions, access to the internet and data, source code, ICT products that use 
cryptography, capacity building, legal issues and market access.  
 
At both rounds, negotiations were structured around "streamlined texts " drawn from proposals made 
by Members. Facilitators also circulated updated comparison tables to inform discussions.  
  
Throughout the year, our negotiations have been constructive and useful in highlighting areas of 
convergence; where further streamlining of the text could be possible; and identifying specific points 
of difference where further work was needed.  
 
An organi zational meeting is scheduled for 16 December, where we will discuss the Work Plan for 
next year and the format of future meetings.  
 
We continue to work to ensure this initiative is transparent and inclusive: all meetings have been 
open to all WTO Members; and all proposals and reports are available on the WTO 's online portal.  
  
And we continue to encourage Members, particularly developing  countries and LDCs, to highlight the 
opportunities and challenges they face to ensure these are taken into account in the negotiations.  
 
Our negotiations have been complemented by seminars run by stakeholders in the margins, open 
to all WTO Members, which  have provided valuable real world perspectives on issues such as online 
consumer protection, the e -commerce moratorium, the value of digital trade for small business and 
electronic payments.  
 
We look forward to a continuation of the constructive engageme nt and momentum demonstrated in 
this initiative this year into 2020 with the aim of achieving substantial progress by MC12.  
 
11. Australia  
 
Like many others, Australia is a major beneficiary of the WTO and its framework of rules, which help 
to promote and prot ect an open global trading system.  
  
We are at a crucial moment in the history of this organization.  In three weeks ' time, we will celebrate 
the WTO 's twenty -fifth birthday.  As the Director -General  has noted, we are facing many serious 
challenges but also  have the opportunity to shape an organi zation that can respond to the changing 
nature of modern trade while continuing to provide a rules -based system that benefits all.  
  
The task ahead will not be easy but we have been encouraged by the strong engagemen t and the 
numerous initiatives that have come forward in recent months.  
  
An immediate concern is the need for a properly functioning dispute settlement system . We need to 
intensify our efforts to find concrete solutions to identified concerns on the Appe llate Body and to 
resolve the appointments impasse quickly. We urge Members to work together to maintain a binding 
dispute settlement system that enforces the rules to which we are all committed and benefit from.  
  
Another urgent priority is to find a mea ningful outcome on fisheries subsidies. We welcome the 
active leadership of Ambassador Wills since his appointment as Chair, and strongly support the 
statement delivered by Argentina.  We believe we can design disciplines that target harmful subsidies 
while leaving appropriate policy space for Members ' national priorities. This, combined with a capping 
approach to ensure real reductions in global levels of fisheries subsidies, would be a meaningful and 
necessary outcome, and we look forward to working with M embers to achieving this.  
  
Of course, Australia is firmly committed to making progress in agriculture, particularly on domestic 
support, and we thank Ambassador Ford for his guidance and energy throughout the year. Together 
with fellow Cairns Group Membe rs, we will bring forward new ideas to cap and reduce growing 
agricultural subsidy entitlements. This we believe is a matter of urgency. Our most recent analysis 
shows that WTO Members will amass entitlements of more than US D 2 trillion in trade -distorting  
agriculture subsidies by 2030 with the vast majority of US D 1.7 trillion of this in the hands of just 
10 WTO Members.  
  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 112 - 
 
  We will also continue to contribute actively to the Joint Statement Initiatives and seek substantial 
progress on these by MC12. We see these initiatives as integral to the future of the organi zation, 
focusing as they do on issues of core interest to business and the community. The WTO must be 
working on e -commerce, services domestic regulation, investment facilitation, MSMEs and women 's 
economic empowerment – this is where our business sector and communities are focused and we 
must be as well.   
  
In particular, we now have a clear pathway for a concrete outcome on services domestic regulation 
by MC12 and are pleased that, to date, 51 W TO Members have submitted draft indicative schedules 
incorporating the negotiated domestic regulation disciplines on an MFN basis.   
  
We strongly support the e -commerce moratorium. We believe the six-month extension to MC12 that 
we propose is a modest but pragmatic step that fulfils the intent of the original MC11 decision.  
  
Finally, we reiterate the importance of improving transparency and the overall operation of WTO 
Committees to ensure the effective functioning of this organi zation.  
  
In closing, I would like to underline that the challenges this organization is facing are not approaching 
on the horizon – they are here.  
  
We have an o pportunity to ensure that the WTO continues to play a pivotal role in international 
trade, for all our benefit, for another 25 years.  
 
12. Thailand (ASEAN)  
 
Thailand delivers this statement on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
We, the ASEAN Member States, reaffirm our full su pport for the open, non -discriminatory and rules -
based multilateral trading system , embodied by the WTO, which must be maintained and 
strengthened. We believe in the primacy of the WTO and its objective of "open trade for the benefit 
of all" as well as ens uring security and predictability in global trade.  
 
We view the two -tier dispute settlement system , with its fundamental principle of negative 
consensus as an indispensable pillar of the multilateral trading system . 
 
In this regard, ASEAN expresses our ser ious concern that the Appellate Body could be rendered 
inoperati ve within the next week and therefore urges all Members to exercise the necessary flexibility 
to enable the unblocking of the Appellate Body selection process expeditiously as well as the adop tion 
of the decision regarding this matter at the upcoming General Council Meeting.  
 
To ensure continued security and predictability in world trade, ASEAN reiterates our firm 
commitment to the multilateral trading system and its rules . We also stress our continued support 
to strengthen the dispute settlement system , including through addressing concerns raised by 
Members.  
 
13. Thailand  
 
Thailand believes that the WTO is now at a critical juncture and there is a clear need for Members 
to take action, through ma king key decisions and delivering meaningful outcomes in negotiations 
and WTO reform, to ensure the smooth functioning and the further strengthening of the WTO and 
the multilateral trading system .  
 
In light of the looming deadlines of some critical issues, crucial decisions will need to be made at the 
upcoming General Council Meeting next week.  
 
Particularly, decisions pertaining to the functioning of the Appellate Body as well as the extension of 
the two Moratoria, namely the TRIP S Non-Violation and Situation Complaints and the Moratorium 
on electronic transmissions, which can have profound impact on the credibility of the WTO and the 
confidence in global trade as a whole.  
 
Resolving the Appellate B ody impasse remains of critical importance . Thailand therefore urge s 
Members to provide the needed flexibility to adopt the Draft General Council Decision on the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 113 - 
 
  Functioning of the Appellate Body at the upcoming General Council Meeting and to fill the vaca ncies 
in the  Appellate Body without further delay.  
 
On the extension of the two Moratoria until MC12, Thailand would like to highlight the crucial 
importance of achieving consensus on these items at the General Council Meeting to avoid the 
unnecessary unc ertainty and unpredictability for stakeholders that would result from the lapsing of 
both Moratoria.  
 
With regard to the ongoing negotiations, Thailand would like to highlight Fisheries Subsidies and 
Agriculture as two key areas where outcomes must be del ivered.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, while we are disappointed that the negotiation could not be completed within 
this year as intended, we are encouraged by the intensified efforts and heightened level of 
engagement by Members in the ongoing negotiations. In any case, we must now focus on finding 
convergence and delivering a meaningful outcome at MC12.  
 
Agriculture remains a priority for Thailand, and we see domestic support as the pillar with the most 
momentum for a possible meaningful outcome at MC12, which  will positively impact global 
agricultural trade and food security. We therefore support all efforts to intensify the negotiations in 
this area with a view to achieving a substantive outcome by MC12.  
 
Lastly, we must find ways to strengthen the WTO throu gh gradual, inclusive, and meaningful 
reforms, carried out in a manner that is balanced and in line with the WTO 's key objectives. We 
believe that pragmatism, constructiveness and an openness to listening to the perspectives of others 
are key to reaching a n outcome on this issue. We remain encouraged by the rising engagement from 
diverse range of Members on WTO reform and welcome further discussions in this area.  
 
This will render  the WTO more relevant given disruptive changes in global economic landscape.  
 
14. Russian Federation  
 
I would like to thank the Director -General  for his comprehensive report. My thanks also go to the 
Negotiating Group Chairs for their respective reports and their hard work.  
 
Yesterday , the CBFA approved the budget for next year. We welcome the consensus reached by 
Members and are looking forward to its adoption by the General Council next week.  
 
Last month in Shanghai, our Trade Ministers agreed that the rules -based multilateral trading  system 
should be firmly supported, and international trade should play a role in driving economic growth, 
job creation and sustainable development. They supported the necessary reforms of the WTO, 
demanded that the selection of the Appellate Body members move on as soon as possible, and 
appealed that the work on issues such as fisheries subsidies should be carried out soon.  
 
Russia remains committed to preserving and strengthening the multilateral trading system, with the 
World Trade Organization at its centre. Today, however, the organization is in deep crisis. Many do 
not believe in its ability to make rules on international trade and effectively resolve trade disputes. 
Nonetheless, history teaches us that the absence of the rule of law in the global trading system is 
fraught with a slide towards unilateral trade measures and an increase in protectionism.  
 
The WTO reform, including in the lead up to MC12, should ensure the effectiveness and relevance 
of the organization and its capaci ty to better address current and future challenges. Russia will work 
with all WTO Members to advance a process for necessary reform that is balanced, open, transparent 
and that promotes inclusivity and development. The reform must, inter alia, preserve the  centrality, 
core values and fundamental principles of the WTO, and consider the interests of all Members.  
 
Maintaining the dispute settlement function is a key priority. The current situation with the Appellate 
Body is simply inadmissible. The presence of  this body ensures predictability and consistency in the 
application of WTO Agreements. All Members of the organization have agreed to a two -tier dispute 
settlement system, and it is important that this system be maintained. Let me underline the urgency 
to overcome the impasse in the appointment of AB members.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 114 - 
 
  Russia has put forward a number of specific proposals for the reform of the organization. In 
particular, we have recently tabled initiatives in the area of MSME s and on approaches to reduce 
trade -distorting domestic support in agriculture. We also strongly support the gradual removal of 
burdensome technical barriers to trade in services. I am confident that disciplines in domestic 
regulation will help to improve the situation in this area. Let me also  mention, without going into 
much detail, the need to advance negotiations on fisheries subsidies, e -commerce and investment 
facilitation. Accession of new members, including the Republic of Belarus, is another important area 
of WTO work.  
 
In conclusion, l et me emphasi se the need of a shared strong commitment to working together to 
deliver meaningful outcomes at MC12.  
 
15. Chad (LDCs)  
 
The LDC Group has listened to the Chairs of Negotiating Groups and it would be useful to ask whether 
we should cry or laugh. Be cause we are adults, we are not going to cry. But I am wondering whether 
we should laugh though it might also not be appropriate . The work that we have been doing this 
year is coming to an end as we commence the final stretch in the lead up to MC12. 2019 h as been 
a difficult year filled with tensions for the multilateral trading system.  
 
But it has also been a productive year to the extent to which Members have tirelessly invested in 
discussions, deliberations and negotiations with a number of different pr oposals made on issues on 
trade relating to fisheries subsidies, agriculture and WTO reform. That demonstrates the resilience 
that the system can call on even on the most difficult situations. In that, we should see a glimmer 
of hope and have a positive at titude. This means that despite everything that has happened, we are 
able to reach arrangements among us.  
 
The LDC Group is a fervent defender of multilateralism and we consider that the World Trade 
Organization is the best arena in which to express our c oncerns and which is tasked to ensure fair, 
transparent and equitable regulation of global trade. This is why, without reservation, we call on all 
Members to preserve the WTO and ensure and strengthen its effective functioning.  
 
Unblocking the Appellate B ody impasse is imperative in order to preserve the relevance of the WTO 
and the multilateral trading system. We need a viable system – one that is rules -based – so that we 
provide the best possible conditions for international trade. It is however very reg rettable that we 
have not been able to arrive at a solution before the next General Council and that we have been 
confronted with the risk of the collapse of the Appellate Body.  
 
The LDC Group is made up of countries whose share in global trade is very lo w for the moment. But 
we are looking to become better integrated and so we face significant institutional, structural, 
financial and human resources constraints. This is why our countries count on the support of the 
Members and of the Secretariat to benefi t both from S&DT as appropriate in the development and 
implementation of rules and from effective technical assistance to allow us to catch up our economic 
and trade delay and to, in the end, benefit from our rights. This is a path in line with the goal to  
consolidate and ensure the ability of the multilateral trading system to last.  
 
Concerning the negotiations, the principle of S&DT for LDCs and the recently graduated LDCs should 
be fully taken into account by Members especially in fisheries subsidies fo r which an outcome is 
expected by MC12. For other negotiating pillars such as agriculture, we would like to reiterate the 
need for a solution on trade distorting domestic support and the need to eliminate domestic support 
on cotton production – which is of  vital importance for the LDCs and the C -4 in particular.  
 
16. India  
 
State of Play  
 
The cynical strangulation of the Appellate Body and the attack on the principles of non -discrimination 
and special and differential treatment have cast a pall of hopelessness on the WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 115 - 
 
  Appellate Body  
  
With four days to go before curtains come down on the WTO Appellate Body, it is clear that the 
binding, two -stage, independent dispute settlement mechanism, that gave teeth and credibility to 
the rules -based multi lateral trading system is well and truly dead. This will undo one of the biggest 
achievements of the Uruguay Round and trade will rapidly regress to an era of power politics. While 
we agree that the dispute settlement system does require improvement, we be lieve that the 
systematic assault on its very existence is neither appropriate nor was necessary. Moreover, it is in 
direct contravention of the treaty -obligations of WTO Members, and is a far more serious lapse than 
anything that the Appellate Body can be  charged with . It is also distressing to note that every effort 
of almost the whole WTO Membership to find solutions has been rebuffed. This kind of brinksmanship 
apparently originating in pique and prejudice rather than in a desire to reform is leading to  a total 
breakdown of trust within the WTO and will have a debilitating effect on its other pillars as well.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
Coming to ongoing negotiations, we must be mindful of the need of rapidly progressing the 
negotiations on discip lines in harmful fisheries subsidies. The mandates by SDG 14.6 and the MC11 
decision on fisheries subsidies must be honoured in both letter and spirit. We would like to caution 
Members that in sensitive areas like fisheries and agriculture, where the livel ihood of a large number 
of the poor and marginali sed are at stake, reneging from a commitment to provide special & 
differential treatment to Members like India will derail these delicate negotiations. We will look 
closely at the Chair 's report, on fisherie s subsid ies negotiations, Facilitators ' working texts, proposed 
process and work programme up  to June 2020 through this lens.  
 
E-Commerce Moratorium  
 
In the era of digitization, it is important to significantly update the 1998 Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce and to understand the scope of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions , its potential impact on revenues and domestic industry of developing Members. 
Business as usual will not suffice and an updated Work Programme which can lead to focused 
engagement to provide clarity on these issues, is the need of the hour. Reluctance or inability to 
engage sincerely on these issues now is likely to jeopardi se any chances of consensus on extending 
the moratorium at MC12. More on this i n the G eneral Council . 
 
WTO Reforms  
 
On WTO reforms, our view is that they should be premised on the principles of inclusiveness and 
equity, and not serve to widen existing asymmetries in the covered agreements. We look forward 
to an active engagement lead ing up to MC12 in this area and a balanced outcome.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture negotiation outcomes have the potential of being like the proverbial incoming tide that 
could lift all boats and meet the needs and aspirations of a large number of Members. For progress 
in agriculture, it is important that we engage in earnest to build upon and advance the work of the 
last several years and to implement existing decisions and mandates.  
 
Conclusion  
 
To conclude, we are at a critical juncture, as challenges have am plified and the multilateral rules -
based trading system is facing grave threats. Keeping in view the aspirations of the large majority 
of Members, our priority should be to balance our agenda and make it inclusive, transparent and 
development -oriented. Fir st and foremost, we must continue work to address the impasse in the 
Appellate Body appointments and not clamber onto second rate solutions. Winston Churchill said, 
"we should not waste a good crisis" and I believe this is the time to continue putting pres sure on 
the recalcitrant by pressing the draft decision emanating from the Walker process. If we do not 
persevere and stand together to preserve what we have, we are unlikely to succeed in shaping the 
future we seek and aspire for.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 116 - 
 
  17. Vanuatu (ACP)  
 
I take the floor on behalf of the ACP Group and, in so doing, wish to thank the Director -General  for 
his report. We further extend appreciation to the Chairs of the various Negotiating Groups for the 
updates provided on the work which has been undertaken s ince our last TNC.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, it is clear that negotiations will not be completed by December 2019. The 
ACP would wish to encourage Members to continue to work to find appropriate frameworks and 
landing zones to guide our discussions during 2 020 leading up to the next Ministerial Conference in 
Nur-Sultan. We confirm that our room document  revisions of July 2019 and our 2017 proposals in 
conjunction with TN/RL/W/274/Rev.6 remain the basis of our engagement and that special and 
differential trea tment remain at the heart of these negotiations. We commend the facilitators for 
their work so far.  Any suggested text and these papers must remain open. They cannot be closed 
or replace our texts.  However, we are ready to work on the documents as a tool  for our engagement 
and to see how we find convergence. The ACP welcomes the efforts of the Chair of the Negotiating 
Group on Rules  to establish a work programme for next year. The ACP remains committed to achieve 
an outcome in fisheries by June 2020 in li ne with the Ministerial mandate and on the basis of SDG 
14.6.  
 
S&DT  remains a priority of the ACP Group. The ACP together with the G90 has introduced a room 
document that takes the work of the CTD  SS forward through a consultative process. We thank 
members  that have engaged constructively with us and we hope that their input will assist towards 
a review of the Agreement Specific Proposals in a manner that will be acceptable to all. We intend 
to continue with consultations and an assessment of what is doable  for a meaningful outcome in 
MC12.  
 
Agriculture continues to be a key policy driver in the development objectives of ACP members. 
Unfortunately, the imbalances and distortions in global agricultural trade remains one of our major 
obstacles.  Particularly, o ur focus is on increasing value addition, enhancing our international 
competitiveness, increasing the use of research and development, undertaking sectoral upgrade and 
boosting export performance. The success of our policy initiatives relies heavily on add ressing these 
imbalances and distortions. We, therefore, attach high priority to an outcome on agriculture in Nur -
Sultan in line with the Doha mandate. Appropriate, effective and operational flexibilities for 
developing countries, especially as it relates to LDCs, SVEs and NFIDCs, must be a part of any 
package. The ACP Group remains in a solution -seeking mode and stands ready to contribute to 
Ambassador Deep Ford's effort to facilitate an outcome. We will be making a submission in this 
regard in the near fu ture.  
 
On the Appellate Body, we regret that Members have not been able to find a resolution to the 
blocking of appointment of Appellate Body members. For ACP members, the WTO 's dispute 
settlement system represents a badge of enforceability in our efforts  to negotiate new rules and 
implement current ones. ACP members do not have an alternative to the dispute settlement 
mechanism, embodied in the DSU. Our inability to appoint members to the Appellate Body in time 
for 11 December will have irreparable conseq uences for the functioning of the WTO, the effects of 
which will be felt by large and small countries alike in the foreseeable future. We therefore reiterate 
our call on Members to unblock the appointment process urgently in order to limit further 
reputati onal and other damage to the WTO. We stand ready to engage constructively in all initiatives 
to this end.  
   
In respect of services, it continues to be an important contributor to the socio -economic development 
of many ACP countries. We therefore continue to pay careful attention to the developments in this 
area in the WTO. These discussions must stay true to the letter and spirit of the GATS including 
GATS and particularly as it relates to flexibilities for developing countries and the right to regulate.  
 
On e-commerce, the WTO decision, established in 1998, is up for renewal the end of our work this 
year. While we agree that the remit of the Work Programme is broad in terms of the issues that 
could be covered, we believe that it would be remiss of us to di scount the incessant calls for a 
continued conversation on unfinished business on issues under the Work Programme and on the 
moratorium concerning the application of customs duties on the electronic transmissions. As we 
indicated in our last statement in t his forum, in arriving at an agreement that we can all coalesce 
around, we must fully take into account of and integrate the development dimension as it relates to 
the moratorium and wider discussions within the Work Programme  on Electronic Commerce . WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 117 - 
 
   
The preservation of an effective, rules -based and inclusive multilateral trading system is in the 
interest of all Members. The ACP is of the view that progress can only be made through constructive 
and meaningful dialogue and diplomacy towards finding meaningf ul outcomes.  
 
18. European Union  
 
Since our last meeting, the situation of the WTO has further deteriorated. Not only the 
discontinuation of the Appellate Body 's work has become an evident prospect, but attempts to 
obstruct the functioning of this organization  through the budget discussion have shattered Members' 
confidence in the WTO. This has diverted us from progressing our negotiation agenda or from finding 
ways to resume nominations of the Appellate Body members, which should be the priority. While 
the Eur opean Union is alarmed about the current state of affairs at the WTO, we remain strongly 
determined to address the challenges in front of us.  
  
• First, we remain resolute to find ways to restore a two -step dispute settlement system at 
the WTO, and resume nomination of Appellate Body members as soon as possible. Next 
week's General Council will be crucial in this respect and we invite all Members to  engage 
constructively in finding solutions.  
 
• Second, the best option we have available to demonstrate the WTO 's relevance is to deliver 
on the negotiating function of the organization. As a consequence, all our efforts should be 
devoted to ensure that nex t Ministerial Conference delivers results on the ongoing 
negotiations. We are therefore grateful to the Chairs, Co-Conveners and Facilitators for the 
reports they have made today.  
 
• We note that the Joint Statement Initiatives are well on track and the E uropean Union  is 
very supportive of all of them. This is a unique opportunity to advance issues on their own 
merits. Those initiatives are supportive of the multilateral trading system and we see no 
valid reason to further challenge that.  
 
• With respect to Fisheries Subsidies,  
  
o We regret that despite all efforts and the looming deadline, we have achieved no 
outcome this year on prohibiting subsidies contributing to overcapacity and 
overfishing and on eliminating subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing.  
 
o Fortunately, the WTO has been given another chance to finish the work on 
fisheries subsidies. That chance is Nur -Sultan. This must be our focus. We must 
show to the world that the WTO is capable of delivering a multilateral outcome, 
and on trade and sustain ability related issues.  
 
o The E uropean Union  greatly appreciates the renewed impetus that the Chair of 
the Negotiating Group on Rules, Ambassador  Wills from Colombia,  has injected 
into the negotiations. This was needed to move the negotiations forward. The 
European Union  fully supports Ambassador Will 's efforts. The E uropean Union  also 
supports Ambassador Wills ' plans for the period before the Ministerial Conference. 
Such a roadmap is certainly needed and we appreciate that no Member objected 
to it at the re cent HOD s meeting. Time for exploring and discussing is over. All 
WTO Members now need to show necessary flexibilities and be able to make 
concessions to achieve our joint goal.  
 
o As regards the outcome in Nur -Sultan, for the E uropean Union , the negotiation s 
must fulfil the mandate. The mandate talks about eliminating subsidies to IUU 
fishing and about prohibiting subsidies contributing to overcapacity and 
overfishing.  These are areas on which negotiations need to focus on.  
 
There is lots of work ahead of us, but also a chance to achieve something meaningful despite the 
current context. Let me assure  the Director -General that the European Union remains determined 
to seize this opportunity.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 118 - 
 
  19. Pakistan  
 
Pakistan has consistently supported efforts of all Members who are striving to preserve and 
strengthen the multilateral trading system. It is unfortunate that at the last TNC meeting of 2019, 
we still have not been able to resolve the matter of the Appellate Body. It is a matter of grave 
concern for the fu ture of the system and we regret that we have reached this situation.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we wish to welcome the Ambassador of Colombia as Chair and assure him of 
our support. In the negotiations, we feel that there is some progress though divergences  in views 
on ways in the various pillars persist. Pakistan remains concerned with the minimal progress made 
in the area of S&DT for developing countries. Effective S&DT of all developing countries is a 
fundamental pillar in these negotiations and can ensur e a balanced and effective outcome. Similarly, 
we are keen to safeguard the interest of small -scale and artisanal fishermen in developing countries.  
 
Concerning agriculture, we have noted some new developments and we are ready to engage 
constructively to f ind meaningful solutions on all issues in the interest of our farmers. For Pakistan, 
specific elements such as Article 6.2, effective S&DT and the interest of NFIDCs are critical 
components during negotiations. We intend to continue working with the Chair and like -minded 
Members on these issues to find meaningful solutions. As always, we continue to support an 
ambitious outcome on cotton. We believe that the C -4 has put forward a meaningful and useful 
proposal which can contribute in a big way to our cotton  farmers.  
 
Consistent with our earlier statements, we maintain that discussions on WTO Reform should have 
developing countries at its centre and must be geared towards addressing their needs. That is the 
only way we can contribute to achieving realistic an d effective progress on the Sustainable 
Development Goals to reduce hunger, poverty and inequalities and ensuring economic growth and 
industrialization. Reform should not at any cost alter the fundamental principles of the WTO. We 
need to support a develop ment-friendly process and not one that makes participation more 
burdensome for developing countries.  
 
As we approach MC12, our haste to find outcomes should not make waste by ignoring crucial issues 
of developing countries which can only be counterproduct ive for the system.  
 
20. United States  
 
The United States associates itself with the joint statement on fisheries subsidies as delivered by 
Argentina. I want to use my time today to offer views on five key elements where the WTO must 
take action as we move tow ard MC12.  
 
First, the WTO 's negotiating pillar remains stymied, and we must utili se the next few months to 
identify the root causes of our current paralysis. Critical to this effort is reaching a new understanding 
on special and differential treatment in t he context of current and future negotiations. S&D T should 
be a tool in our negotiations, deployed constructively to ensure successful implementation of 
multilateral outcomes. Currently, it remains an obstacle, raised by some to deflect engagement on 
subst ance and by others to maintain outdated asymmetries.  
 
We have only to look at the slow progress in fisheries subsidies negotiations and on agricultural 
issues to see how the absence of a shared understanding on the appropriate use of S&D T has become 
an obs tacle.  
 
We are unable to evaluate how to deliver effective S&D T to Members who need it most, because the 
specific needs of those who truly lack capacity are crowded out by those who insist it is an 
unquestioned right, regardless of individual capabilities.  
 
Second, we have spent much of this past year discussing necessary improvements in Members ' 
compliance with basic transparency obligations, and yet, many Members continue to be reluctant to 
fulfil their existing commitments. The current compliance record is poor: for example, more than 70 
percent of Members have not met their import licensing obligations, and over a quarter of agriculture 
notifications from 1995 -2016 remain outstanding. We commend those Members who have provided 
updated subsidy notificatio ns related to fisheries; however, more than half the Membership has yet 
to submit notifications for 2019.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 119 - 
 
  If we are to have a realistic hope for future negotiations, we must substantially improve notification 
compliance in order to have the information ne cessary for an accurate assessment of current trends 
and relative capabilities.  
 
Third, committee functioning and engagement remains a critical component of our work.  
Committees need the full engagement of all Members. Reform also requires a closer examination of 
how this organization manages and allocates its resources.  
 
Fourth, with respect to dispute settlement, the United States has engaged constructively over the 
past year, providing detailed statements in the DSB and the General Council outlini ng clear positions 
and articulating our longstanding concerns with the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
Unfortunately, we have yet to see the same level of engagement from other Members. We have 
asked repeatedly, if the words of the DSU are already clea r, then why have the practices of the 
Appellate Body strayed so far? This is not an academic question . We will not be able to move forward 
until we are confident we have addressed the underlying problems and have found real solutions to 
prevent their recur rence.  
 
Fifth, we need to return the institution to its core mission – that is – promoting a world trading 
system based on open, market -oriented policies and commitments. Non -market oriented policies 
and practices are damaging the world trading system, lea ding to severe overcapacity and unfair 
competitive conditions for our workers and businesses. They are also hindering the growth of 
innovation and undermining the benefits of trade.  
 
To remain relevant, we need to reinforce the importance of market -oriente d conditions for the world 
trading system. These conditions matter for our businesses, industries and workers. We need to 
work together to find ways to ensure the WTO helps achieve fair and mutually advantageous 
outcomes and restore public confidence in th e trading system.  
 
21. Egypt  
 
Egypt associates itself with the statement made by Benin on behalf of the African Group.  
 
We believe the reports we have heard today reflect positive progress in certain areas that may 
provide solid basis for our work in preparati on to MC12. However, we believe that there are two 
pressing needs we have to focus on in order to make the best use of the limited time available before 
MC12.  
 
• First, we need to concentrate on areas with high levels of convergence among Members and 
maybe achievable in due time.  
 
• Second, we need to eliminate tensions and create an environment conducive to bringing 
Members' views closer on the priority issues.  
 
Having said that, we would like to share our views on some of these areas which we consider 
priorities for our work to ensure that MC12 is a success.  
 
On the Appellate Body, we reiterate our position that it is not in the interest of this organization to 
make any linkage between urgently resolving the Appellate Body crisis and the broader discussion 
on WTO Reform. We urge the Membership to take collective action to build confidence towards 
resolving this issue and immediately filling the current vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
 
On agriculture, it remains a major priority for Egypt. We highly commend the work done by 
Ambassador Ford and took good note of the recent developments in the last CoA SS meeting as well 
as the number of submissions circulated prior to it which reflects the importance Members attach to 
agriculture and their commitment to achiev e a meaningful outcome in Nur -Sultan.  
 
We are thankful for the fruitful discussion regarding the African Group proposal which addresses the 
elements that would constitute a real and meaningful reform to the Agreement on Agriculture. In 
this regard, we strongly encourage Members to intensify the ir work to achieve the long -term 
objective of a fair, market -oriented agriculture trading system taking into consideration the 
developmental needs of developing countries and the flexibilities needed by LDCs and NFIDCs as WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 120 - 
 
  per our Ministers' mandate that an y reform should take into account non -trade concerns particularly 
food security. We look forward to deepening our discussion on the basis of this proposal in 2020.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we appreciate the work of Ambassador Wills and commend the Facilita tors 
for their commitment and the valuable work under their areas of responsibilities. We believe that in 
order to narrow the gap and reach meaningful outcome s by MC12, much remains to be done. We 
should engage more to direct the negotiators to focus their  work in a transparent and realistic 
manner.  
 
We must ensure that any future outcome on fisheries subsidies shall fully consider the needs of 
developing and LDC Members for appropriate and effective S&DT. We would like to reaffirm the 
exclusion of aquacul ture and inland fisheries from the scope of any future agreement on disciplines 
on fisheries subsidies. It is important to avoid using the failure of meeting the December deadline 
as a reason to diminish and neglect integral parts of the outcome or to reop en topics that are neither 
subject to the negotiations nor the mandate.  
 
On special and differential treatment, we thank Ambassador Hassan for her efforts to help resume 
discussions in the CTD SS and would like to refer to the positive step taken by the G -90 in presenting 
a room document last November. We hope this document will serve as a basis for constructive 
discussions involving the entire Membership in order to pave the way for more focused process next 
year. The outcome of this process will enable th e G-90 to update and improve the agreement -specific 
proposal in order to achieve convergence on it or some of its elements by MC12.  
 
To conclude, I believe we should continue our work in good faith and have frank discussions reach 
a common understanding on  issues where we can have deliverables at MC12. We need to be realistic 
in assessing what can be done and what could be further developed in the longer -term taking into 
consideration capacity constraints of developing and LDC Members.  
 
22. Norway  
 
Norway deepl y regrets that we have not been able to conclude the  negotiations on fisheries subsidies 
within the established deadline. We  should, however, not dwell on our collective shortcomings. We 
should rather  focus our energy on the task ahead of us.  
 
First, we need a process that enables us to make progress. We are delighted  that we have a new 
Chair, and we support the process that he has outlined.  We agree that the process must be 
intensified with continuous negotiations  under the guidance of the Chair, with th e able assistance of 
the Facilitators  and the Secretariat. Our clear objective is to celebrate in Nur -Sultan that the  fisheries 
subsidies negotiations are successfully concluded, and that the WTO  has delivered on SDG 14.6.  
 
Secondly, we need to focus on th e area that is of the greatest importance in  order to fulfil the 
mandate, namely subsidies that lead to overcapacity and  overfishing. In this context, we need to 
remind ourselves that the mandate is  to prohibit and eliminate certain fisheries subsidies, no t to 
establish sound  fisheries management.  
 
This leads to my third point, which is that we need substantial reductions of  subsidies that lead to 
overcapacity and overfishing. We are concerned that  disciplines that are designed with a strong 
emphasis on fis heries  management and a generous green box may give the largest subsidizers the  
possibility to increase their subsidies rather than reducing them. This would  run counter to what is 
needed in order to fulfil the sustainability objective of  the mandate.  
 
Large fishing nations and big subsidizers should start real negotiations about  substantial reductions 
of their fisheries subsidies. We urge large fishing  nations and the proponents of capping to show 
leadership and indicate what  reductions they are prepared t o undertake as their contribution to 
meeting  our mandate on overcapacity and overfishing. Norway is ready to do its part  and stands 
ready to commit to reducing our fisheries subsidies, based on the  2018 subsidy notification.  
 
Norway is encouraged by the in creased participation and engagement of  Members in the Joint 
Statement Initiatives. This demonstrates that, despite  the many challenges facing this organization,  
a substantial number of  Members are committed to the system. They are eager to move forward  – 
impatient and willing to engage in improving and updating the rulebook.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 121 - 
 
  More than 80 Members, small and large, developing and developed, are actively taking part in the 
discussion under the Joint Initiative on E lectronic C ommerce. This reflects the fact t hat the 
digitalization of our societies, economies and international trade generate a need for global rules for 
Electronic Commerce.  
 
The number of participants in the structured discussion on Investment Facilitation for Development 
is now close to 100. Progress has been encouraging, raising expectations for a substantial outcome 
for MC12.  
 
Similarly, the Services Domestic Regulation initiative is making significant progress towards a 
meaningful outcome in Nur -Sultan.  
 
Development is a horizontal iss ue that needs to be addressed in all areas under negotiation. Norway 
continues to believe in the guiding principles we outlined in our paper to the General Council earlier 
this year: Let us stay pragmatic, identify the needs and address them in a practical  manner, rather 
than continuing abstract debates.  
 
We are only a few days away from when the Appellate Body ceases to function in accordance with 
what was agreed 25 years ago. This is not only regrettable. It could also have been easily avoided.  
 
Let me as sure you that Norway supports the efforts to constructively address the various concerns 
raised about the functioning of the Appellate Body. We should not, however, lose sight of the ultimate 
goal of this exercise which is to unblock the nomination process  and restore the full functioning of 
the Appellate Body.  
 
Let me finally lend support to the Director -General's  point that this does not mean the end of the 
multilateral trading system , unless we, the Members, let it happen. I will refrain from repeating this 
line of argument, but limit myself to paraphrasing Elton John: "We're still standing ." 
 
23. China  
 
As my Ambassador is out of town, I make this statement on his behalf. I would like to begin by 
thanking the Director -General  and Chairs of negotiating bodies for  their reports and hard work for 
the whole year.  
  
Next week, the Appellate Body will not be able to h ear new cases due to the continued impasse over 
the selection process. To make matter s worse, the budget has been used as a leverage to further 
stifle the system which brings more uncertainties to solve the AB impasse and also could cause a 
new systemic ch allenge to th e organization.  
 
The whole world is closely watching us here in Geneva, not only for the concrete deliverables for 
MC12, but more for our collective ability to preserve the multilateral trading system.  
 
On 5 November, the Mini -Ministerial mee ting was held in Shanghai where Ministers reiterated strong 
support for the multilateral trading system and emphasi sed the rules -based multilateral trading 
system is essential in ensuring a stable and predictable framework for world trade.  
 
I am not going to repeat China' s position already on the record  but will j ust share China' s views on 
some new developments.  
 
On the Appellate Body, China remains committed to the informal process led by Ambassador David 
Walker. Members have done their part to accommodate  the United States'  concerns while preserving 
the system by tabling a dozen proposals and engaging in discussions. We urge the United States to 
be responsive and constructive, and the selection process should be launched as soon as possible.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, everyone said that we must aim at a "meaningful outcome ", but may mean 
different things when they were saying that. In our view, the agreement must be meaningful to the 
fish, who cannot speak for themselves. Fuel subsidies, specific  or not, are having the same effect on 
fish and must be treated in the same way under the disciplines.  
 
On Investment Facilitation for Development, we are happy to see that as the discussions dive deeper, 
Members have shown growing interests and support. O n 5 November , 98 Members co -sponsored a WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 122 - 
 
  new Joint Ministerial Statement, calling for intensified work towards a concrete outcome at MC12. 
In this regard, China is more confident that this topic reflects the common interest of the broad 
Membership and we wi ll continue working with others to further shape the future framework.  
 
On Development, discussions in the General Council meetings throughout this year demonstrate 
that challenging developing country status and seeking to differentiate developing Members is 
unrealistic and by no means the way out. The right for developing Members to self -designate their 
own development status and enjoy S&DT should be respected. In the meantime, developing 
Members should assume obligations commensurate with their capabiliti es and level of development.  
 
24. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
The Group held four open -ended meetings during 2019, the first on 22 February, followed by 28 
June, 29 October, and 27 November. I am pleased to report that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabi a joined 
the Group at our last meeting, bringing the number of members of the Group to 91. Our work focuses 
on developing concrete recommendations for MC12. The annual report describing our activities and 
the topics discussed this year is contained in docu ment INF/MSME/R/13.  
 
The objective of the Group is to identify horizontal and non -discriminatory measures that can help 
our MSMEs trade internationally and benefit from trade rules.  
 
With this in mind, we are now working on a Declaration of the Group cont aining a set of 
recommendations to promote MSMEs ' inclusion in rulemaking in the area of trade, a recommendation 
on trade facilitation to promote MSME -friendly implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, 
and a recommendation to promote the implemen tation of the newly adopted IDB decision. We are 
also inviting Members to submit information on MSMEs as part of their TPR to improve the quality 
of information we have at hand. Likewise, we are working on a decision to support the Global Trade 
Helpdesk, a nd through it facilitate MSMEs ' access to information, as well as a decision to develop an 
online webpage that would include links to relevant MSME information and recap good practices that 
have merged from our discussions with a view to helping MSMEs part icipate in international trade.  
 
An additional informal meeting will take place on 12 -13 December to review our complete package, 
including our draft declaration for MC12, the various recommendations I just mentioned, and our 
post-MC12 work programme.  
 
We hope to have a stabili sed text by the time our first 2020 meeting on 25 February.  
 
MSMEs matter. They matter to us all. They play a critical role in all economies around the globe in 
terms of employment and in terms of economic activity. So helping our M SMEs means helping our 
economies.  
 
But we also know that MSMEs struggle to trade internationally. So we have a duty to help them. The 
WTO is a rules -based organization, and we all know that trade rules matter for trade. They can either 
facilitate or inhib it trade. So making sure that WTO rules work for MSMEs is critical if we want to 
help our MSMEs.  
 
What we are trying to do is to make trade rules work for MSMEs and promote MSME -friendly 
implementation of trade agreements. Another important part of our wo rk is to develop concrete tools 
to help MSMEs access information, through the Global Trade Helpdesk for example.  
 
In short, our approach is a developmental one: by supporting our MSMEs, we support development. 
It is an approach anchored in the sharing of good practices and the development of concrete tools.  
 
The more Members we have on board, the more successful we will be in helping our MSMEs. Making 
trade work for MSMEs means making trade work for development and for our economies. It is a win-
win situation . 
 
We count on your support in the lead up to MC12.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 123 - 
 
  25. Uruguay  
 
Uruguay once again wishes to extend its thanks to Ambassador Ford for his ongoing efforts to move 
the agriculture negotiations forward.  
 
The presentation, at the most recent mee ting of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, of 
eight analytical papers and proposals concerning the various negotiating pillars, and the active 
participation of Members in discussions inside and outside the meeting room, show a growing level 
of commitment and bring us closer to the more intensive and focused discussions that we will need 
to have in the coming months if we want to achieve concrete outcomes at the next Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
And yet, despite this, we still have a very long way to go.  
 
Trade in agricultural goods remains the most distorted form of trade worldwide, and a vast array of 
restrictive trade measures and instruments impeding effective market access are available to 
Members. We must take concrete steps towards substantiv e negotiations aimed at progressively 
reducing or removing these barriers, so as to ensure that trade in agricultural products is integrated 
into the international trading system on an equal footing with trade in other types of goods.  
 
At the same time, we  see very high levels of production and trade distorting subsidies that depress 
international prices and act as entry barriers to the markets of the countries applying them, making 
the products of these countries artificially competitive in external market s, which is doubly harmful 
to producers in many of our countries, who do not often have the capacity to deal with such levels 
of distortion. The potential levels of these subsidies and their growth are of particular concern when 
we look at current trends, which is why we must take urgent steps to limit and reduce them. If we 
want to achieve meaningful outcomes, all Members must be prepared to contribute to the solution 
in a manner proportional to their contribution to the problem.  
 
Our country is ready to m ove on to the next stage of the pre MC12 negotiations, and will continue 
working to ensure we make progress in the three pillars that will bring us closer to the long -term 
objective of establishing a fair and market -oriented agricultural trading system thr ough substantial 
progressive reductions in levels of support and protection.  
 
At this critical time for the organization, it falls to all of us to support its negotiating function and 
show flexibility and commitment with a view to achieving tangible outcomes in an area that has long 
been overlooked; this area is an absolute priority for the large majority of Memb ers, given its 
fundamental importance not only for their economies and the livelihoods of their populations, but 
for combatting hunger and poverty worldwide – targets that all of us have pledged to meet within 
the framework of the Sustainable Development G oals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.  
 
26. Canada (Ottawa Group)  
 
I will provide an update on the work of the "Ottawa Group " WTO reform initiative.  
 
The Ottawa Group is continuing to engage at the Vice -Ministerial level on the question of 
modernization and reform of the organization, especially in the lead up to MC12.  
 
In Geneva, informal discussions among the Members have continued and the work on how to 
improve the work of the four previously identified WTO bodies is still underway.  
 
Brazil has been coordinating within the Ottawa Group an effort to improve the work of the SPS 
Committee. From March to November, Brazil held five informal "open-ended " meetings to exchange 
ideas with Members. On 23 September, the Secretariat circulated docume nt G/SPS/W/319, 
submitted by Brazil, and a revised version was circulated on 18 October. This document compiles 
the main outcomes of those five informal meetings and aims at improving the regular work of the 
Committee, in ways that do not add to the Member s' substantive obligations. The proposal provides 
guidelines for themes such as STCs, agenda, thematic sessions, notifications, and document 
translations, based on the contributions presented by the Membership. It complements the 
Committe e's Working Proced ures in terms of both transparency and the enhancement of Members ' 
ability to take part in the discussions of specific SPS issues brought before the Committee. At the 
latest informal meeting of the SPS Committee, Brazil presented its revised proposal and r eceived WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 124 - 
 
  feedback from Members. All Members are invited to send comments and suggestions until 24 January 
in order for Brazil to elaborate a third version of this document to be presented in a sixth informal 
open-ended meeting in February. Discussions will continue during the SPS Committee week in 
March. We hope to have an outcome document approved inside the SPS Committee at the latest in 
the first semester of 2020, as a positive sign of WTO achievements on the road to MC12.  
 
On Rules  of Origin , Switzerland  notes that the co -sponsors circulated a revised version of the 
proposal on Tuesday , 3 December. With the revised version, co -sponsors reduced divergences on 
the substance. The Chairperson of the Committee on Rules of Origin will hold informal consultation s 
before the holiday break.  
 
Concerning TBT, Singapore continues its consultations with Members.  
  
Concerning Trade in Services, Australia is continuing to explore ideas for strengthening the WTO 's 
monitoring and transparency function for services trade me asures, and assessing whether it can get 
broader support for the concepts.  
 
With respect to fisheries subsid ies negotiations, the Group has continued to share perspectives on 
how to reach a successful conclusion to these negotiations, and treat the group a s a "sounding 
board " for ideas.  
 
Finally, we note that the co -sponsors of the proposal on Procedural Guidelines for WTO Councils and 
Committees addressing trade concerns have also engaged and consulted with the Ottawa Group in 
the fall. 
 
27. Canada  
 
Canada is  pleased to co -sponsor the communications on the two WTO moratoria (WT/GC/W/782 and 
WT/GC/W/783) that were circulated in advance of the next General Council meeting, and which 
propose to extend these two moratoria to the Twelfth Ministerial Conference. It is important that the 
General Council considers and takes a decision on the extension of these two moratoria in parallel, 
recogni sing the balance between these two moratoria.   
 
In the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session last week, we contributed t echnical analysis and 
options to advance our discussions on enhancing transparency in export competition, enhancing 
predictability in applied tariffs, and in estimating the domestic support entitlements of all Members.   
On the agriculture negotiations, Ca nada wholeheartedly supports Ambassador Ford 's approach to 
seek "doable elements for meaningful outcomes " at MC12. Engaging in such an approach should 
not, however, be construed as a lowering of the level of ambition in agriculture. Canada continues 
to see k ambitious and meaningful outcomes in the WTO agriculture negotiations and particularly on 
creating new rules on domestic support. To this end, Members should seek outcomes at MC12 that:  
 
• reflect current global agriculture trade and production patterns;  
 
• contribute to the ongoing reform in agricultural trade in the years to come; and,  
 
• set us on a path to future success in the agriculture negotiations post MC12.  
 
Canada supports continuing our negotiations on fisheries subsidies with a view to concluding an 
agreement by the next Ministerial Conference. We want to recogni ze the significant work that has 
been done, and express our deep gratitude to the facilitators f or their efforts. This work needs to 
continue.  
 
Canada would also like to thank the three co -conveners of the JSI on e -commerce, and the 
facilitators of the focus groups, for their leadership and efforts to advance these discussions forward. 
Canada is comm itted to this initiative and to working with all interested Members to continue making 
further progress by MC12.  
 
On services domestic regulation, Canada welcomes the progress made in the scheduling process this 
far. Canada encourages all participating and  interested Members to submit draft indicative 
schedules.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 125 - 
 
  Canada also welcomes the progress made by proponents on the structured discussions on the JSI 
on investment facilitation for development. Canada will continue to engage in this process 
constructiv ely.  
 
We are pleased that the supporters of the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women 's Economic 
Empowerment have successfully held all of the workshops called for under the Declaration. We 
continue to call on all WTO Members that have not yet signe d on to the Buenos Aires Declaration to 
do so.  
 
I would also like to highlight the significant ongoing efforts by the MSME Informal Working Group in 
preparation for MC12.  Canada is fully committed to the multilateralization of this discussion and I 
encou rage those Members not yet part of the Informal Working Group to reach out to Uruguay, our 
coordinator, or to the other Working Group Members to discuss how to participate in this work.  
   
Finally, we deeply regret the persistent blockage of the Appellate Body appointment process. We 
value the efforts made to date to promote a solution -oriented dialogue, and Canada is prepared to 
play an active role in supporting effective appellate review that meets the needs of Members and 
fully respects the Dispute Settl ement Understanding. We remain open to engaging in forward looking 
discussions with Members.   
 
28. Brazil  
 
We finish 2019 at a critical juncture in the WTO.  
 
We came very close not to approve next year 's budget . We did so under exceptional circumstances. 
The compromise reached buys us one year to move the reform process forward.  
 
MC12 is six months away and we have challenges in the three functional pillars of the WTO reforms.  
 
On the judicial pillar, the A ppellate Body  is now clearly paraly sed. The Walker process provided the 
benchmark for guidelines to be adopted, as we all collectively decide how to resurrect the A ppellate 
Body. 
 
We need to: rebuild trust in the A ppellate Body ; make sure that the causes that led to the current 
situation wi ll not be repeated; establish an appropriate process to enhance transparency on 
expenditures. But, in the meantime, we need to make sure that an interim arrangement is in place 
for appeals.  
 
On the negotiating pillar, the definition of a package to Nur -Sultan still eludes us.  
 
We missed the deadline for fisheries, which has trade and environmental repercussions. We must 
push this issue forward to MC12, together with e -commerce and investment facilitation. We also 
need to make sure agriculture will be part of that package.  
 
Domestic support disciplines in agriculture represent an opportunity, but they must reflect today 's 
reality.  
 
The world 's top subsidizers no longer belong exclusively the developed world. Some of their policies 
distort trade and affect no t only other major agricultural exporters, like Brazil, but also small 
economies. Trade -distorting agricultural subsidies damage the interest and development prospects 
of most developing countries, especially LDCs, regardless of whether the support is gran ted by 
developed or developing countries.  
 
Top subsidizers – be they developed or developing countries – must contribute proportionally more 
to reduce distortions in agricultural trade.  
 
A plurilateral initiative on SPS should also be explored. We have now  25 years of experience dealing 
with SPS issues both in the committee and in the dispute settlement system – clearly, there is room 
for improvement.  
 
We must be flexible, creative and result -oriented in WTO decision -making.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 126 - 
 
  We should be inclusive and seri ously and constantly strive for multilateral results. If, however, they 
prove to be impossible, paralysis should not be an option, as inaction is the surest way to weaken 
the WTO to the detriment of all Members, especially developing ones.  
 
On transparency , Brazil is ready to support initiatives that enhance notification compliance and 
support for capacity building.  
 
We also believe that all accession processes, which are ready to be concluded, should be part of the 
MC12 package.  
 
In a nutshell, the survival of the WTO is at stake. Those that consider that things should not remain 
as they are must collectively push the system in a different speed.  
 
29. Singapore  
 
As this is our last TNC/HODs for the year, it is timely to review the work that we have done in the 
WTO in 2019. In this context, I would like to make three observations on the good, the bad, and the 
ugly. 
 
Let us start with the good. Solid progress has been made, particularly in our Regular Committees 
and the various Joint Statement Initiatives ( JSIs), and we must continue to build on these efforts. 
Members submitted a record number of notifications this year in agriculture, subsidies and trade 
facilitation, and we encourage the Membership to keep breaking such record highs. Members are 
also contr ibuting actively in discussions to strengthen the WTO. In this context, Singapore tabled a 
discussion paper on good practices in the TBT Committee, and co -sponsored the EU 's paper on 
Procedural Guidelines for WTO Councils and Committees Addressing Trade Co ncerns.  
  
We just celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, which has played 
an important role in promoting transparency, accountability and predictability in the multilateral 
trading system. Some Members are also tabling creat ive approaches aimed at breaking deadlocks, 
such as Costa Rica' s latest paper on a more sustainable negotiation framework in agriculture. 
Additionally, the JSI on E -Commerce, which Singapore, Japan and Australia co -convenes, has made 
good progress, with si x negotiating rounds this year and Members moving from tabling proposals to 
discussing streamlined texts. Going forward, we will intensify our efforts to further narrow the 
differences in the text, with the goal of achieving "substantive progress " in the JSI on E -Commerce 
by MC12.  
 
Turning to the bad. Outside of the Joint Statement Initiatives, the negotiating arm of the WTO is 
barely moving, and the dispute settlement mechanism is being crippled. In the meantime, world 
trade growth has stalled du e to the indiscriminate use of tariffs. WTO Members implemented 102 
new trade restrictive measures between October 2018 and October 2019. The trade coverage for 
import -restrictive measures during this period is the highest since 2012. Undoubtedly, these ne w 
trade restrictions and increasing trade tensions have led to a global "synchronised downturn ", which 
has slowed economic growth, dampened business confidence, and most importantly, affected the 
livelihoods of people across the world.   
 
Before yesterday,  the CBFA was unable to recommend a budget to the General Council, causing 
much anxiety and uncertainty. We also had innumerable meetings over the course of this year to 
try to save the Appellate Body. Many proposals have been tabled in an attempt to addre ss the US ' 
concerns. Yet, we are still unable to avoid the Appellate Body from going inquorate next week. On 
fisheries subsidies, it is disappointing that we will not meet the deadline of December 2019, agreed 
to by our Ministers, to conclude negotiations.  It did not help that we took four months just to decide 
on a Chair with all the blocking that went on. Hence, it is crucial that we get the work done by MC12. 
We should avoid grand -standing and political posturing. Instead, we should engage constructively  
and substantively to develop effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  
 
Now, for the ugly. The ugly is the worrying tendency of some Members to engage in brinkmanship 
at the expense of the WTO 's larger objectives. In fact, it appears that there are no  limits to 
brinkmanship in this organi zation, as even the livelihoods of the WTO Secretariat staff are up for 
play. We saw brinkmanship on full display in the way the Appellate Body impasse has been handled, 
as well as in the manner in which a small minori ty dragged out the discussions on the moratorium 
on customs duties on electronic transmissions, which will expire this month. Rather than sei zing the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 127 - 
 
  ample opportunities to find a pragmatic solution, some Members seem to prefer creating new hoops 
for other s to jump through at every corner.  
 
As we look towards 2020 and MC12, it is incumbent on all of us, the entire WTO Membership, to 
resist protectionist tendencies, reduce trade tensions, and refrain from hostage -taking tactics. After 
all, everyone stands t o lose from a weak and ineffective WTO. Instead, let us focus on what each of 
us can do to strengthen the WTO to advance common goals to provide much needed stability to the 
multilateral trading system. As the Director -General  had said in his statement, wh at Members will 
do, or fail to do, will define the trajectory of the WTO.  
 
30. Peru  
 
Peru would like to share its concern at the difficult situation that our organization is encountering. 
The WTO is a fundamental piece in terms of encouraging trade, resolving trade -related disputes and 
improving the levels of development in Members' economies.  
 
Peru laments the current status of the dispute settlement mechanism whose appellate function will 
cease in practice in a few days' time. Understanding the importance of  this fundamental piece in the 
multilateral trading system's machinery, we have demonstrated flexibility and cooperation at all 
times during the process led by the General Council and by Ambassador Walker and we regret the 
fact that we still have not been able to overcome the situation despite the significant efforts 
undertaken by the Facilitator. Based on this situation, we reiterate our call for constructive dialogue 
in a quest for a multilateral solution. We need to know all these reasons that have led t o the situation 
but the reasons should be accompanied by proposals for concrete solutions.  
 
In addition, although Peru enthusiastically welcomes the fact that a report was adopted containing 
the draft budget for next year, we regret the fact that there was delay in finding consensus on this 
which has provoked uncertainty with regard  to the consideration of our duties as well as for the 
workers of the organization.  
 
Without prejudice for the foregoing, there are also some positive signs that this or ganization can 
continue to remain valid and to achieve its goal of ensuring higher levels of liberalization in favour 
of all its Members.  
 
On the Joint Initiative on Domestic Regulation in Services, recently, many Permanent 
Representatives recogni zed the positive outlook in terms of achieving an outcome at the next 
Ministerial Conference. It is true that this time, the outcome is being led by only several Members 
but that does not  mean  that other Members cannot align themselves with it. That is why the ini tiative 
has always been open and transparent. With the aim of achieving better participation, I would like 
to call on representatives from other Members of the WTO to consider the disciplines that we have 
been working on whose implementation will only serv e to ensure better levels of transparency and 
certainty in the procedural requirements which will apply to service providers who are seeking 
licences or other types of permits such as this. Peru will continue to participate with the aim of 
resolving the is sues of other Members and the few pending questions which remain to be addressed 
before we achieve a final text.  
 
Peru recogni zes the progress made in electronic commerce and will continue to support this very 
important process. We would like to thank the countries and the Facilitators who have been involved.  
 
Another important sign that there is hope for the multilateral trading system is the effort to 
constructively address the topic of trade and the economic empowerment of women within the WTO. 
We strong ly believe that this organization can help us to examine to what extent Members are able 
to contribute to complying with the SDGs particularly SDG 5 which promotes the economic 
empowerment of millions of women who are in many cases live in conditions of vi olence and poverty 
such as in my country and in many others as well. In this regard, I would like to recall the efforts of 
the Secretariat led by the Director -General on this topic. Peru, together with the rest of the 
Membership, is committed to look at a way we can re -launch work which was started in the Joint 
Ministerial Statement on Trade and Economic Empowerment of Women in Buenos Aires and I would 
like to invite all Permanent Representatives here to align with this aim.  
 
I would also like to demonstra te my satisfaction at the election of Ambassador Wills as Chair of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules who comes from GRULAC. In this regard, we convey our support to the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 128 - 
 
  efforts which he is undertaking and with regard to the work done which has been submitted for the 
negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Peru trusts that, under his leadership, the work will be able to 
get back up to speed in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome for all Members of the WTO for the 
next Ministerial Conference. Peru is however co ncern on how some Members are mistreating other 
Members in the process involving the appointment of the Chairmanship of the Negotiating Group on 
Rules.  
 
Peru would like to reiterate its support for the work of the Informal Group on MSMEs to promote and 
improve the participation of small and medium -sized enterprises in international  trade  and would 
like to invite Members who have not yet done so to align themselves with this very important 
initiative.  
 
Finally, Peru would like to reiterate its commitment to  the process of reform provided for under 
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture. We welcome the efforts by the Chair of the Negotiating 
Group, Ambassador Ford, and we will continue to work together with the rest of the Membership 
towards the aim of ac hieving convergence in the substantial and progressive reduction of trade 
distorting domestic support. We hope that with the renewed impetus and concerted efforts by all 
Members, we will able to achieve a concrete outcome in agriculture for the next Minist erial 
Conference.  
 
31. Switzerland  
 
The multilateral trading system is under pressure. The challenges facing the WTO are multiplying. 
Today, I will not dwell on these setbacks, which have been mentioned so many times before.  
 
Economic operators and other stake holders would like to see our organization move forward, be 
brought up to date and, above all, overcome its most immediate challenges. Today, I will focus on 
responses and actions that will enable us to address the situation and strengthen the WTO.  
 
Fisher ies subsidies is one area of negotiation in which failure is not an option. It is imperative that 
these discussions be brought to a successful conclusion at the next Ministerial Conference. We view 
this as a top priority. Renewed efforts are required, incl uding through increased commitment from 
heads of delegation. We endorse the work plan of the new negotiating group Chair and wish to 
assure him of our support.  
 
The customs moratorium on electronic transmissions constitutes an important achievement for the  
multilateral system. For more than 20 years now, it has contributed to the stability and predictability 
that are so dear to investors. The moratorium favours the development of the digital economy – an 
area that holds real potential for all WTO Members. C hanging the rules of play midstream could 
cause serious disruption.  
 
The WTO dispute settlement system is a central element in providing security and predictability to 
the framework conditions for world trade. It is vital that Members continue to resolve their disputes 
in good faith, while seeking to ensure a prompt and final settlement. The WTO Dispute Settlement 
Understanding provides sufficient opportunities for preserving these principles.  
 
We also stand ready to contribute constructively to wo rk on issues that form a long standing part of 
the multilateral agenda.  
 
Regular WTO bodies have an important role to play in the implementation of trade rules, and their 
potential has not yet been fully exploited. We welcome the proposals that seek to imp rove how these 
bodies function, and will continue to contribute to efforts made in this regard.  
 
We are also encouraged by the progress made in respect of the initiatives stemming from joint 
statements. The participants are engaged in intensive and serious  work. They have taken concrete 
steps on the path towards the Nur -Sultan Ministerial Conference and are seeking realistic solutions. 
In our view, these initiatives provide promising avenues for moderni sing the trading system and 
adapting it to the needs of  the modern day economy.  
 
The joint initiative approach might also be suitable for addressing other issues concerning the nexus 
between trade and sustainable development.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 129 - 
 
  The challenges are well known, and work is ongoing. It is now important to move up a  gear, as time 
is short. We must step up our efforts to ensure that the Twelfth Ministerial Conference is a success.  
 
32. South Africa  
 
We associate ourselves with the Africa n Group and ACP Statements.  
 
The challenges facing the multilateral trading system  are unprecedented and deepening.  The 
immediate threat to the system is the impasse on the appointment of A ppellate Body  members. At 
the heart of a well -functioning multilateral trading system  is an effective dispute resolution 
mechanism which is critical in providing security and predictability in trade. Most importantly, it 
prohibits any WTO Member from determining unilaterally whether another Member violates its 
obligations under WTO law and  stops trade disputes from escalating into trade wars.  
 
It is not the usual practice of the DSB to require consent for the selection process to be launched, 
merely that when Members of the A ppellate Body  are to be appointed that consensus prevail as to 
such appointments. Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly states that: "vacancies shall be filled as they 
arise". It is for this reason that we associate ourselves with 116 Members that call for the launch of 
the selection process.  
 
We thank Ambassador Walker and s upport his efforts towards the resolution of the impasse. The 
Membership worked very hard over the last two years to find a landing zone. The areas of 
convergence were a genuine attempt to unlock the impasse. The areas of convergence are not 
sufficient on their own, they are part of a package that requires agreement to launch the process 
for the selection of AB Members. Any of the options currently available under the DSU are not ideal 
alternatives to the current system. They will limit rights of Members to  appeal, will subject disputes 
to power dynamics and are likely to fragment the system. The biggest risk is that powerful countries 
may exert pressure to make smaller Members to implement panel rulings. We urge Members to 
continue efforts to address the im passe and restore an independent, impartial two -stage system 
that is based on negative consensus.  
 
Times like these require that we remain level headed and collectively work towards resolution of 
issues in the interest of all. Nelson Mandela once said, "w e must use time wisely and forever realise 
that the time is always ripe to do right ".  
 
On WTO reform, we would like to emphasise that reform must promote development and inclusivity 
and address the long -standing issues of interest to developing countries as entailed in the Doha 
Development Agenda, as well as preserve the principles that underpin the multilateral trading 
system . 
 
In relation to S&D T, we reiterate that this is a treaty -embedded right available to developing 
countries and LDCs. We need to deliver on the mandate as set out in Paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration which calls on Members to make S&D T more precise, effective and  
operational. The G90 room document  is a discussion document that aims to facilitate a constructive 
discussion with the Membership in order to respond to the mandate in an inclusive manner and we 
encourage the Membership to make proposals as we work toward s the revisions to be submitted 
early in 2020 which will be an outcome of a consultative process in order to reach a meaningful 
outcome at MC12. The flexibilities entailed in covered WTO agreements are not only of importance 
to developing countries in thei r own right but also in the achievement of the SDGs. It is ironic that 
during a Development Round, S&D T and flexibilities which are critical to integrate developing 
countries in global trade, change the structure of their economies and achieve the SDGs are  put to 
question.  
 
On the E -commerce moratorium, we remain concerned that the moratorium is asymmetrical to 
developing countries from a revenue, economic and trade and industrial policy perspective. The 
extension of the moratorium is not just a procedural  issue, it has significant implications for our 
economies. With information available on its impact, differences in understanding on what it applies 
to, the moratorium is increasingly difficult to maintain. We call for a structured discussion under the 
Work Programme with clear milestones, timeframes and deliverables to resolve issues such as scope 
and definition, feasibility to impose duties, revenue and digital industrial policy implications which 
remain unresolved. We urge the Membership to work with us towards resolution by committing to WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 130 - 
 
  engage in good faith through the Work Programme on these priority issues to facilitate informed 
policy making.  
 
Turning to agriculture, we need a meaningful outcome in MC12 and it should include substantial 
reform of Tr ade Distorting Domestic Support; including on Cotton; a permanent solution for Public 
Stockholding; and advancing the discussions on a Special Safeguard Mechanism. We underscore 
that S&D T must be integral to any outcome in agriculture.   
 
On Fisheries Nego tiations, we must work towards delivering comprehensively on all the pillars of the 
mandate by MC12. Disciplines must target and prohibit harmful subsidies, safeguard food security 
and livelihood of coastal communities and allow Members policy space to dev elop their marine 
resources and implement their Blue oceans economy strategies. We are also concerned that 
discussions on S&D T are not at a mature stage and this has to be an integral part of the outcome.  
 
On TRIPS Non-Violation and Situation Complaints , we remain of the view that NVCs should not apply 
to the TRIP S Agreement as we are concerned with any NVC remedy that would have the effect of 
expanding existing TRIPS obligations or reduce flexibilities that Members currently have. In addition, 
until the s cope and modalities have been decided, Members should agree not to launch NVC claims 
under the TRIPS Agreement. Our view is that the two moratoria are not linked and each should be 
considered on its merits. We are therefore supportive of the extension of t he TRIPS  Non-Violation 
and Situation Complaints  moratorium.  
 
We are committed to work constructively with the Members to navigate these difficult times.  
 
33. Mexico  
 
Our organization is in an unprecedented situation.  
 
Despite the various attempts under the Wal ker process and the constant insistence of now 118 
Members on filling the vacancies in the Appellate Body, everything would seem to indicate that we 
will find ourselves in a situation in which we no longer have a body of second instance in the dispute 
settlement system.  
 
Without  a doubt, we are sailing into wholly unchartered and potentially stormy waters, requiring 
greater cooperation and understanding among us all. Otherwise, this potential paralysis of the body 
of second instance could prevent us from ev er managing to settle our disputes within an equal and 
reliable rules -based framework.  
 
While we fully agree with the Director -General  that this paralysis in no way signifies the end of the 
multilateral trading system, or of this organization's work, we wi ll certainly be obliged to redouble 
our efforts, at all levels, to reinstate the Appellate Body without delay. This situation must, under 
no circumstances, become our "new reality". Our producers and exporters will demand that we 
honour the commitment that  we all made, which is to give them a chance to appeal in any trade 
dispute before the WTO.  
 
We also thank the Director -General  for informing us that a consensus was reached on the budget 
yesterday. In this regard, we stress that, to avoid finding ourselve s in a similar situation, we must 
create the mechanisms needed to ensure the continued functioning of the organization. No matter 
how valid the reasons, we cannot allow them to lead us into a state of paralysis due to a lack of 
budget.  
 
Concerning matters for negotiation, establishing disciplines on fisheries subsidies continues to be a 
priority. We are only a few months away from the Ministerial Conference in Nur -Sultan and we still 
have a long way to go. To achieve a positive outcome, it is important that  next year, meetings are 
held at all levels and that we do not rule out the possibility of having at least one meeting at Deputy 
Minister level.  
 
With regard to agriculture, the exchange of views was undoubtedly enhanced by the ideas, 
information and assessments presented at the last meeting of the Negotiating Group. Clearly, we 
still have a significant amount of work to do if we are to come up with  concrete proposals that enjoy 
consensus and meet the objective of continuing with the reform process provided for in Article 20 of WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 131 - 
 
  the Agreement on Agriculture. We must therefore step up our efforts in the coming months and 
show the necessary political wi ll in order to move forward.  
 
Our delegation has been saying for several years that, when undertaking commitments, the principle 
of proportionality must govern any outcome in this area. For my country, proportional reductions in 
domestic support are clearl y a priority, and any new commitment must start at the bound levels. 
Similarly, we are open to examining and discussing proposals that seek to discipline trade distorting 
support, for which there is currently no limit under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
At the same time, we welcome the intensive work carried out as part of the joint initiatives. A clear 
illustration of such work is the submission of indicative schedules of commitments relating to 
domestic regulation of services. We are pleased that, to dat e, more than 50 Members, including 
Mexico, have submitted their respective schedules, which speaks to the interest in this matter. The 
negotiation on  electronic  commerce and the discussions on investment facilitation are also enjoying 
the same momentum. Me xico reiterates its commitment to these initiatives and to a positive 
outcome of the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
 
We will start next year with significant challenges and will navigate very rough waters. Now more 
than ever, we need to act with pragmatis m and the sense of urgency that our organization requires. 
Rest assured that our delegation will continue in this vein.  
 
34. Chinese Taipei  
 
The fact is  that we are deeply concerned about the unprecedented situation that the multilateral 
trading system is facing right now. If no moratorium on TRIPS and E -commerce, as well as no 
selection of Appellate Body members were materiali sed, there will be massive un certainty in the 
world of business. While we appreciate there is no easy solution to the crisis, we remain extremely 
worried about the impact on the multilateral trading system and on the WTO itself.  
 
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinm en and Matsu remains a strong supporter 
of the rules -based trading system. In our view, it is vitally important to the health of the world 
economy, and indeed to the economy of every single Member. We simply cannot risk losing the 
multilateral trading syst em. Equally, we are convinced that WTO reform is absolutely essential for 
the future sustainability of this organization, especially at this critical moment in time. Of course, 
WTO reform is not something that can be done quickly. It takes time. Some impro vement, or 
progress, is already being made. We are working with Members right now on proposals. For example, 
on transparency and improving Members' Compliance with Notification Requirements. Also, on the 
Procedural Guidelines for WTO Councils and Committee s addressing trade concerns. Modest steps 
perhaps, but important ones for this organization nonetheless. My delegation calls on Members, as 
a matter of urgency, to engage more constructively in the dialogue, and work to find ways to resolve 
the differences  that still exist.  
 
As for the Appellate Body issue, we believe our first priority remains to initiate the selection 
processes immediately. We continue to support the approach suggested by Ambassador Walker, and 
we are hoping to see the impasse resolved v ery soon. And, importantly, to engage in the disputes 
in good faith and resolve them eventually.  
 
MC12 next year is fast approaching, and we do want to see some outcomes. I would just like to 
briefly share with you our own views on some the items presently  on the agenda.  
 
On the Fisheries Subsidies negotiation, to which my delegation attaches great importance, we 
welcome the new dynamic brought by Ambassador W ills. Given the wide divergences that exist 
among Members, we are ready to adopt the work program me proposed by the Chair  of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules  in order to intensify our work in all necessary forms of the negotiations. 
We would also urge Members to give favourable consideration on our textual suggestion on the 
Disciplines Attaching to Subsi dies Contributing to Overcapacity and Overfishing, which was jointly 
presented by the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and my own delegation, this 
November.  
 
On the subject of the joint initiatives, I would just like to emphasi se that Members  could explore 
different ways to address their stakeholders ' concerns through the work that we have already 
undertaken here. While we are pleased to see the progress made on the joint initiatives so far, we WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 132 - 
 
  should also be mindful of whether the possible ou tcome can meet the high expectations of business. 
In the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation, it is good to see that 24 Members have 
submitted their indicative draft schedules, which is a significant achievement. We would encourage 
participant s who have not yet submitted their indicative draft schedules to do so as soon as possible.  
We are looking forward to a meaningful outcome at the MC12.  
 
As for E -commerce, while we are encouraged by the fact that more participants are joining the 
initiativ e, we are also aware that this initiative aims at a high standard outcome, as described in the 
Joint Statement at Davos this January. If the outcomes turn out to be low -hanging, the stakeholders 
will definitely be disappointed. Our hope is that we will ach ieve a high -standard and ambitious 
outcome that includes the free flow of data.  
 
As crises approach, this is a testing time for us all. No  one wants to see this organization fall apart. 
All of us, as Members, have the responsibility to maintain the dialog ue, and find ways forward.  
 
We certainly stand ready  to work with fellow  Members to this end.   
 
35. Indonesia  
 
I would like to associate my delegation 's position with ASEAN' s statement delivered by Thailand and 
wish to convey further some observations and concerns over  issues  of importance  to our delegation.  
 
There are three main issues that my delegation wishes to raise in this important meeting.  
 
First, on Appellate Body Issues , as stated by many already, my delegation also wishes to rei terate 
its grave concern over the upcoming dysfunction of the Appellate Body. The absence of the two-tier 
dispute settlement system has impinged the rights of Members and, in broader context, will question 
the relevance of the multilateral trading system.  
 
We would like to reiterate our conviction that Member s' concerns over the work of the Appellate 
Body and the launch of A ppellate Body  Selection Process should be done in parallel. Our General 
Council meeting next week might be a moment of truth for the n ext path of the WTO – whether this 
organization would still be relevant as the most authoritative organization that relates to 
international trade or not.  
 
Second , on agriculture negotiation , Indonesia reiterates the necessity to deliver a meaningful 
outco me for the both mandated negotiations: the permanent solution for Public Stockholding for 
Food Security Purposes and Special Safeguard Mechanism. Agreeing on these will give a strong 
signal that the WTO has not turned a blind eye to issues of importance to  majority of its Membership 
and remains relevant in addressing inequities and imbalances left as a result of the Uruguay Round.  
 
Furthermore, addressing the domestic support issue is also of paramount importance for us. In this 
regard, Indonesia is encoura ged by the development in the most recent Special Session of the 
Committee on Agriculture and will continue to engage in finding a balanced approach in bridging the 
gaps in the negotiation and our work towards MC12 serves as a good momentum to optimi se the 
engagement of Members in the on -going discussion and negotiation process on these important 
agricultural issues. To this end, Members need to set utmost priority and be more responsive to the 
needs of small -scale and resource -poor agriculture produce rs in developing and LDC Members as 
well as by being more responsive in ensuring access to food for the poor and the most vulnerable.  
 
Lastly , on Fisheries Subsidies Negotiation , we welcome the effort by the new Chair in trying to 
consolidate proposals and  ideas on the table as well as to pave the way of the next process of 
negotiation s. In this regard, Indonesia wishes to reiterate the importance of having a discipline that 
is in line with the overall objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals. The fa ct that the overall 
goals of SDGs are interlink ed and mutually reinforce d shall be the basis to deliver a balance d 
discipline on Fisheries Subsidies in this House.  
 
Indonesia is of the view that we need to take careful consideration to the mandate of the negotiation. 
Having observe d the ongoing negotiation process, I believe the right interpretation of mandates is 
needed for us to have a landing zone on approach of the discipline. Moreover, we also need to ensure 
that effective flexibilities for subsistenc e, artisanal, small -scale fisheries need to be provided in order 
to reach balance between Members ' obligation to contribute to sustainable fisheries and their WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 133 - 
 
  development rights. Indonesia is committed to engage positively in the negotiation and remains 
open in considering approaches offered on the table.  
 
36. Iceland  
 
Dispute Settlement  
 
Iceland supports the draft proposal by Ambassador David Walker and thanks him for his efforts. It 
is urgent to unblock the Appellate Body selection process and fill the vacant  seats without delay.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
First and for the record – it is a disappointment for Iceland that we did not manage to meet the end 
of year deadline.  
 
The WTO was mandated to conclude an agreement on fisheries subsidies which delivers on 
Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 by the end of 2019.   
 
It is important that we fulfil the mandate and conclude an ambitious agreement.  
 
From Iceland, the negotiations need to meet two underlying principles:  
 
• First, the outcome needs to meet SDG target 14.6 and the MC11 mandate by establishing 
a clear  prohibition on subsidies that harm the sustainability of fisheries.  
 
• Secondly, the WTO is not – and should not – become a fisheries management organi zation.  
 
I want to thank Ambassador Wills for taking on the chairmanship and fully support his approach 
which was outlined at the HODs meeting last week.  
 
We have confidence that under his leadership we will achieve the progress needed to reach a 
conclusion before MC12.   
 
Trade and Women 's Economic Empowerment  
 
And to conclude, I would like to use this oppor tunity to give you a brief update on the follow -up on 
the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women 's Economic Empowerment.  
 
The number of Members and Observers supporting the Declaration is now close to 130.  
 
The Declaration set concrete objectives. On e was to deliver 6 seminars on a range of topics relating 
to women 's economic empowerment which has been fulfilled.  
 
Additionally, Members were encouraged to use their Trade Policy Reviews to highlight policy 
developments contributing to women 's economic empowerment. We now have 17 TPR reports where 
this has been done. Finally, as set out in the declaration we will report back on our findings at the 
MC12 in Nur -Sultan.  
 
37. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We thank the Director -General  and the Chairs  of the negotiating groups for their reports and for all 
their hard work.  
 
Regarding the negotiations in progress, our delegation is committed to the work proposals that have 
been presented in relation to the negotiations on fisheries and agriculture, with  the expectation of 
being able to present an outcome at the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
Concerning the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, our delegation is playing an active and 
constructive role in fulfilling the negotiating mandate reflected in Targe t 14.6 of the Sustainable 
Development Goals, especially the inclusion of appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment for developing and least -developed countries. We therefore hope that more flexible rules WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 134 - 
 
  for artisanal and small scale fis heries can be adopted. We also agree that topics that do not come 
within the competence of this organization should be excluded from the negotiations.  
 
We express regret at the situation of the Appellate Body and the polarization of positions on matters 
of vital importance to the organization, such as special and differential treatment. It is a source of 
concern that despite already having a clear diagnosis of the problems and of Members' divergent 
perceptions, we are unable to reach agreements that take ac count of everyone's interests and, 
especially, of the needs of the most vulnerable. We have an obligation to be creative.  
 
We hope that this December break will provide an opportunity for reflection on the historic moment 
facing us and on the responsibilit y placed on our shoulders.  
 
On this occasion I would like to share some thoughts with other Members regarding the impact of 
the use of unilateral coercive measures as an instrument of pressure to prevent a country from 
freely exercising its right to determ ine its political, economic and social system.  
 
This is about limitations that not only impact the country exposed to them. In the case of Venezuela, 
this is a matter with extraterritorial implications that also affect transnational companies and other 
governments that have traditionally maintained sound trade relations with Venezuela, impacting 
access to food, medicines and raw materials and thereby adversely affecting domestic and 
international trade through financial and commercial restrictions.  
 
The pro longed implementation of these measures directly affects the economic and social 
development of the country and therefore constitutes a flagrant, massive and systematic violation 
of the human rights not only of the country's nationals but also of foreign c itizens residing in the 
country.  
 
The collateral damage of these measures is incalculable and, in most cases, irreparable. They have 
arbitrary effects on innocent people. History has shown clearly that they are not even an efficient 
mechanism for crushing a people's will. So it begs the question: what is the logic behind such an 
attempt at domination?  
 
Our delegation has been working hard, in the most constructive manner possible, albeit facing 
obstacles to paying our debts to the organization, without access to the necessary cooperation for 
fulfilling our existing commitments, and also without access to the Members' webpage for consulting 
documents needed for our day to day work, and carrying the burden of being under constant siege.  
 
Despite al l this, you can be certain that we remain committed to a rules -based, strong, just and 
equitable multilateral trading system that promotes inclusivity and development.  
 
38. Hong Kong, China  
 
I am going to focus on three issues that are at the forefront of many Members ' minds: the fisheries 
subsidies negotiations, WTO reform and the Appellate Body impasse.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
Hong Kong, China  reiterates our full support for the work to establish, as soon as possible, a set of 
new disciplines on fisheries subsidies contributing to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, as 
well as overfishing and overcapacity.  
 
Members are now looking to reaching an agreement by MC12, but it is clear that Members ' positions 
on many major issues  remain divergent, and we would need to put in much more work before we 
could get a consolidated draft text. The reality is that we will have only six more clusters of meetings 
in the run -up to MC12, so we should carefully consider how best we may focus th e negotiations to 
achieve progress within the limited time left.  
 
Moving forward, Members will need to exercise greater flexibility and make compromises. H ong 
Kong, China  remains committed to working constructively with other Members to achieve a 
meaningfu l outcome on fisheries subsidies rules, which is essential to demonstrate that the 
negotiating arm of the WTO is alive and well. We are ready for a more intense, proactive and result -
oriented phase of negotiations in the run -up to MC12.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 135 - 
 
   
WTO Reform  
 
We wou ld submit that reform is a continuous process . It is not about reinventing the wheel and it is 
not reasonable to expect to complete the entire reform process once and for all. To make a solid, 
substantive and sustainable difference, Members will need to wo rk together with a positive mind -
set and a fresh perspective.  
  
During the past year, H ong Kong, China  has been supporting the idea of taking small and concrete 
steps to improve the functioning of the Council for Trade in Goods and its Subsidiary Committee s.  
During this time, we have heard many Members ' calls in different WTO fora for better coordination 
with the Secretariat . We are also encouraged by instances where Members and the Secretariat think 
out of the box to streamline existing operations, make b etter use of technology, and collaborate in 
various configurations to create a conducive environment for Members ' participation at meetings 
and more efficient operation of this organi zation in general.  
 
We hope that this "can-do" spirit will continue to fl ourish and be translated into useful ideas and 
practices benefitting the entire organi zation. We look forward to exploring with Members further how 
this organi zation could be made more effective and more prepared to respond to the emerging 
challenges to th e multilateral trading system.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
Hong Kong, China  commends Ambassador Walker for his effort in leading the consultations under 
the informal process and producing a draft decision for discussion at the General Council.  
 
Nevertheless, notwiths tanding the goodwill and hard work of many delegations, it seems inevitable 
that the Appellate Body will stop to be operational very soon. This will inevitably undermine the 
dispute settlement system and pose a serious challenge to the multilateral trading  system. Just as 
Members have benefited from the system, it is in Members ' fundamental interest to work together 
to preserve and defend the system. We welcome constructive proposals to reform the Appellate 
Body, but we do not believe that this has to be ac hieved through creating an impasse in the 
appointment of Members to fill the vacancies in the Body.  
 
The WTO will have been in operation for 25 years by the end of this month. Surely, we can look back 
and find many hard -earned achievements that we can take pride in. There have also been lost 
opportunities and difficulties . We have overcome some of those and are still struggling with some 
others. Stepping into the 26th year of the WTO, we hope all of us will continue to be creative and 
constructive in ou r search for convergence.   
 
39. Nigeria  
 
Nigeria wishes to acknowledge the Director -General's  exemplary leadership in piloting the affairs of 
this Committee. We commend you and your team for your detailed report on the status of the 
ongoing negotiations. We a lso wish to thank the Chairs of various Negotiating Groups for their 
reports. We associate ourselves with the statement made by Benin on behalf of the African Group.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Sustainable development of our Agricultural sector is in the heart of our strategy for economic 
transformation given its contribution to GDP and job creation in our economy. However, the effects 
of heavy trade distorting subsidies by large economies incentivi sed by the imbalance and inequities 
of the current rule under the domes tic support pillar, are such that erode the competitiveness of 
developing countries in their domestic and export market. The wider implication of these effects on 
output, jobs, poverty and insecurity in developing countries cannot be overemphasi sed. It is 
therefore pertinent that priority is given to addressing the inequities of the current rule under the 
domestic support pillar . We believe the suggestion of the Chair of the C oA in his report to the informal 
TNC and HOD meeting of 14 October, 2019 for "some  issues (…) to be prioriti sed and phased for a 
meaningful outcome at MC 12 and some issues will be addressed post -MC12 " is one that is likely to 
guide us towards meaningful outcomes.  The African Group has keyed into this initiative and 
circulated a documen t titled "African Group Elements on Agriculture for Meaningful Development 
Outcomes at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference " Ref. JOB/AG/173. The document provide s a clear WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 136 - 
 
  pathway on issues such as the current imbalance in the domestic support pillar, Public Stockholding 
for Food Security Purposes, Special Safeguard Mechanism and Transparency. These issues are 
critical to sustainable development of African economies and expansion of agricultural trade. The 
document did not only take into account the concerns of Africa, but also that of other developing 
countries. We therefore urge Members to favourabl y consider the elements of the African Group 
Paper.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
We wish to reaffirm our earlier stance that special and differential treatm ent must be an integral 
part of any outcome on fisheries subsidies in line with the mandate. We appreciate the questions 
posed by the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules – Fisheries Subsidies at the informal open 
ended meeting of 28 November 2019. We h ope responses provided by Members will guide us to 
meaningful outcomes in MC12. We wish to remind this Committee that part of the mandate of our 
Ministers in Doha is to clarify and modify rules on fisheries subsidies within the rules negotiations. 
Towards this end, we wish to suggest that negotiations should be centred on the prohibition of 
harmful subsidies as opposed to the various capping and green box approaches, as these are unlikely 
to reduce harmful subsidies for large scale fishing . We support a lis t based approach previously 
proposed by the ACP Group.  
 
My delegation takes note of the various facilitator's working papers and wish to place on record that 
these documents should not in any way replace the working document TN/RL/ W/274/Rev.6 that 
contain s our various positions. We also wish to reiterate that small scale fishing should not be subject 
to any discipline of fisheries subsidies. Furthermore, we wish to underscore the need for future 
negotiations to be properly structured and organi sed in a way  that shall enable the full participation 
of small delegations and other s to achieve tangible outcomes by MC12.  
 
Conclusion  
 
We want to re -affirm our well -known position that S&D T is crucial to achieving an acceptable balance 
of rights and obligations amo ng WTO Members. In our view, S&D T must be an integral part of all 
current and fu ture negotiations. We look forward to constructive engagement on this issue to achieve 
a win -win outcome in MC12.  
 
40. Solomon Islands (Pacific Group)  
 
I make this statement on behalf of the Pacific Group.  
  
Our Group wishes to thank the Director -General  for convening this meeting to assess the state of 
play in the WTO negotiations and to provide direction for the way forward to MC12 in June 2020. 
We also wish to tha nk the Chairs of the various Negotiating Groups for their reports.  
 
We also support the statements made by the ACP and LDC Groups. In this statement we will confine 
our statement to two issues.  
 
The first is fisheries subsidies. The Pacific Group commends the active and constructive work of the 
Chair in injecting new momentum to the discussions. We also commend the excellent work of the 
Facilitators in ensuring that discussions continue.   
 
As evi denced in the Facilitators ' reports and discussions this week, many critical issues – both 
technical and cross -cutting – remain to be resolved as we come to the deadline of December 2019  
set by Ministers at MC11 to conclude this Agreement. While discussion s are more advanced i n some 
pillars such as IUUF and OFS, more work is needed in the Overcapacity and Overfishing pillar and 
the cross -cutting issues, including special and differential treatment.  
 
In line with our Leaders ' commitment to the Blue Pacific initiative and our region 's shared 
stewardship of the Blue Continent, the Pacific Group has always stressed the critical importance of 
this negotiation to us as Small Island Developing States, highly dependent on the fisheries sector.   
 
We reiterate that this Agreement should deliver the two dimensions of the mandate. These are:  
 
• to provide strong disciplines on harmful fishing subsidies and  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 137 - 
 
   
• to provide appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing 
countries including Small Island Developing States, SVEs and LDCs.  
 
The fisheries subsidies disciplines, including the complementary approaches should be proportional 
i.e. must target certain subsidies that are harmful and target the main subsidisers.  It would not be 
fair, in our view, that Members like us that contribute little to overfishing are made to pay for the 
crime of others. Therefore, consideration should be given in this Agreement for small Members that 
do not currently have the capacity to fish, and have the fish, to bu ild their capacity, and to help 
diversify our economies. This Agreement should also help us deliver on SDG  14.7 for Small Island 
Developing States  and LDCs.   
 
Our Group therefore remains committed to engaging constructively with Members to conclude this 
Agreement by MC12.  
 
On the second issue of development, we underline the importance of the G -90 proposals to our 
Group. These proposals will help us diversify our economies. This will also help reduce our 
vulnerability stemming from our dependence on a few  exports that are susceptible to external 
economic shocks. This has been exacerbated in recent years by the frequency and intensity of 
natural disasters. We therefore appeal to Members to support this work in the CTD  SS in order to 
find meaningful solution s.   
 
The Pacific Group reiterates its commitment to the open rules -based multilateral trading system that 
provides stability and predictability for all Members including our Group.  
 
41. Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development)  
 
In keeping with the open, transparent and inclusive nature of the Joint Initiative on Investment 
Facilitation for Development, I am pleased to update Members on the latest developments since my 
last report to the HODs in October.  
 
Since my last report, the Structured Discussions held three substantive meetings. Discussions were 
based – and focused – on the Working Document that had been circulated to all Members in July.  
 
As you may remember, the working document is a distillation of the areas of convergence and 
common interest regarding the possible elements of an investment facilitation framework that 
emerged from the example -based discussions held earlier in the year.  
 
The three meetings in October and November provided an oppor tunity for participating Members to 
provide their concrete views, positions and textual preferences for further developing the elements 
of the future framework. I would like to thank all participating Members for their engagement and 
active participation i n those meetings.  
 
In line with our structured and outcome -oriented approach, I have complemented the usual 
summary of meetings with my own assessment of the discussions, trying to shed further light on 
the areas of potential convergence to help Members mo ve forward their discussions.  
 
It has been clear during our discussions that participating Members want to deliver a framework for 
the facilitation of investments that would not only benefit investors, but that could also assist policy -
makers in mobili sing investment.   
 
The recent Joint Ministerial Statement adopted in November, co -sponsored now by 98 Members 
(WT/L/1072/Rev.1), attests to the widening support from Members.  
 
These 98 Members committed themselves to "work towards a concrete outcome on Inves tment 
Facilitation for Development at MC12". This expectation that the initiative should lead to a 
meaningful or "concrete" outcome for the next WTO Ministerial Conference is widely shared among 
participating Members.  
 
At our next meeting on 12 December, we will take stock of the substantive progress made and 
collectively decide on the best way to move the discussions forward next year – keeping MC12 on 
the horizon.  WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 138 - 
 
   
42. Chile  
 
I now take the floor on behalf of Chile.  At these special times facing the WTO, a c ontext involving 
the imminent paralysis of the Appellate Body in the dispute settlement system combined with events 
in the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration and unilateral trade measures that have 
been adopted by some Members and are undermin ing the foundations of the rules -based multilateral 
trading system.  
 
This meeting is taking place against the background of a substantial loss of dynamism in international 
trade, signs that the economic processes of relevant markets are slowing down, and clear indications 
of growing protectionism in trade.  
 
Nevertheless, Chile remains optimistic. We have sufficient strength to continue collaborating with 
the multilateral trading system and to support any consensus that emerges.  
 
The WTO will maintain its key role in the future of multilateral trade, its discussion and negotiation 
functions will continue, dispute settlement will remain operational, and proposals already exist for 
maintaining a two level procedure, in accordance with the commitm ent made in the Marrakesh 
Agreement.  
 
Chile reiterates its commitment to an efficient, reformed and modern WTO, with capacity to lead the 
way in the 21st century.  
 
I would like to highlight the broad participation and progress made in the joint initiative on electronic 
commerce and urge the continuation of work with an eye to the Twelfth Ministerial Conference. We 
also highlight the progress made in negotiations on domestic regulation in services, with a call for 
further efforts towards reaching a final out come at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
 
Furthermore, at the last session of the General Council, our delegation and others proposed that we 
should begin discussions on the renewal of moratori a, taking account of the timeline envisaged 
within the manda te of the Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference.  
 
Indeed, for our delegation, formal and informal talks have pointed, in our view, to the need for more 
time to seek common understandings and consensus on the various aspects contained in the 
mandate of Articl e 64 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
 
Considering the historical positions of countries on this matter, our delegation has proposed to 
extend the moratorium until the Twelfth Ministerial Conference and continue to study the scope and 
modalities for this type of co mplaint.  
 
For Chile, the extension of this moratorium together with the extension of the moratorium on 
electronic  commerce constitutes a historic balance achieved in the Ministerial Conferences. We 
therefore think it important to maintain the constructive dialogue between delegations and give 
ourselves time to continue seeking common understandings on the matter.  
 
We consider that the decision on the extension of both morator ia should be taken with due regard 
for their importance and the balance that they r epresent in this organization.  
 
In agriculture, Chile reiterates its position: namely, we attach special importance to the agricultural 
reform programme, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
For Chile, it is impo rtant to be able to make balanced progress on the three pillars of negotiation, 
seeking a greater level of commitment and ambition in negotiations. Considering that this matter is 
of the greatest interest for Members, we place a special focus on any outcom es that can be achieved 
regarding domestic support.  
 
Concerning the latter, we advocate a broad approach which includes all trade distorting support. All 
Members should contribute to the negotiation, especially those that distort trade the most. In this 
regard, we note with interest the proposals aimed at ensuring that reductions in domestic support 
are made on the basis of proportionality.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 139 - 
 
  Chile considers that, together with the negotiations on domestic support, there is a consensus on 
working towards imp rovements in transparency. This task is pending for many Members and there 
is a need to comply with the notification obligations contained in the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
43. Kazakhstan  
 
The Appellate Body impasse poses a serious threat to the multilateral t rading system. In this regard, 
we strongly support the reforms of the organization in order to make it more responsive and relevant 
to today's realities. With regard to the dispute settlement mechanism, we believe it is important to 
preserve the two -tier system and take actions to improve the operation of the Appellate Body. We 
commend the informal process led by Ambassador David Walker to resolve the current situation and 
we support the unblocking of the Appellate Body Selection Process.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we welcome the appointment of the new Chair of the Negotiating Group on 
Rules and wish Ambassador Wills every success in his important role. Now, since we reached and 
missed the December deadline, we need to put all efforts to compl ete the negotiations by MC12. It 
is vital to deliver this multilateral endeavour in order to restore the confidence of the international 
community in the negotiating pillar of the WTO.  
 
On transparency requirements, we strongly believe that notifications are important for the effective 
functioning of the WTO.  
 
We also hope that the accession of new Members to the WTO, including Belarus, should be one of 
the outcomes of MC12.  
 
Kazakhstan welcomes plurilateral joint initiatives that are currently being activ ely discussed by many 
WTO Members. In this regard, we see some potential deliverables especially relating to domestic 
regulation in services trade. We expect the adoption of domestic regulation in services trade at 
MC12. At the same time, we like to emphas ise the existing imbalance in the level of commitments 
in terms of services sectoral coverage. We need to make the service regulatory framework 
enforceable and effective. However, some WTO Founding Members in their services schedules in 
particular on Mode 3 commitments have sectoral coverage of less than twenty sub -sectors while 
other Members particularly those who joined recently committed in over sixty services subsectors. 
This clearly demonstrates substantial imbalance in the level of services commitment s hence do not 
provide level playing field and reduce effectiveness of application with domestic regulation rules. In 
order to provide effective and enforceable service regulatory framework, we believe the final text of 
the agreement on domestic regulation  rules should address this imbalance in its coverage.  
 
On electronic commerce, Kazakhstan welcomes the completion of the second round of discussions 
over the proposals on the table. The scope of the issues is rather extensive and complex and we 
clearly obs erve different levels of readiness of Members to discuss certain issues. Now we need to 
quickly decide on the next steps and try to guide the discussion in a more results -oriented mode. 
We would like to encourage proponents of this initiative to look into creative approaches and consider 
employing a flexible model of agreement that will consist of two parts: (i) a multilateral part that 
will contain basic provisions that facilitate e -commerce where all Members especially developing 
ones will be comfortable to undertake commitments and (ii) a plurilateral part that will contain 
provisions that go beyond the trade -related aspects of e -commerce. Given the complexity of the 
issues, we also believe that certain technical assistance provisions should be carefully crafted in 
order to address concerns of developing countries.  
 
On investment facilitation, Kazakhstan supported the Shanghai Ministerial Statement which commits 
us to intensify work to further develop the multilateral framework on Investment Facilitation a nd 
work towards concrete outcomes on the issue at MC12. Kazakhstan supports all efforts of the 
Members that will lead us to move into the next phase which is to share a global rulebook on 
investment facilitation.  
 
We also believe that given the limited ti me left before MC12, instead of calling each other to resolve 
these and other outstanding issues at every Informal TNC and Informal HODs meetings, maybe it is 
high time to ask ourselves individually what we are doing and what is our contribution to address ing 
these outstanding issues and to reaching these agreements. And then at the next Informal TNC and 
Informal HODs meetings, Members should report to the TNC Chair on what has been done on the WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 140 - 
 
  progress made individually and collectively by us within the Ne gotiating Groups to address these 
issues.  
 
To conclude, our hope is that Nur -Sultan will be the place where we take the necessary concrete 
steps to revitalise multilateral cooperation on trade and sustainable development.  
 
44. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
We are delivering this statement of behalf of Article XII Members.  
 
We reiterate once again that the Group has no notion of sitting passive during ongoing negotiations, 
rather we seek to push new ideas in how all Members should undertake commitments that can lead 
to more fair and balanced agreements for MC12. We do not seek to backtrack on commitments we 
undertook on accession at the request of Members with much higher levels of entitlements and 
flexibilities. This means however that in order to reach a level playing field, all Members and 
especially those who currently have the highest levels of entitlements and flexibilities will have to 
make significant adjustments.  
 
During our accessions, Article XII Members undertook significantly greater commitments libe ralising 
our agricultural sector compared to original Members. These steps were taken at the request of 
Members here present who cited the benefits of this greater liberalization. These included extensive 
reductions in the various forms of domestic support . As we see it, most statements and proposals 
on the table seek to preserve the proponent 's entitlements and propose others to reduce theirs. We 
must strive for new ideas to balance the field for all Members and not just accommodate the few 
who secured ent itlements in the Uruguay Round.   
 
Ongoing negotiations must also attend the imbalances in market access, not just levels of support.  
The average bound tariff in agriculture of the original Members is four times higher and three times 
higher in NAMA than the average of our Group. Furthermore, Article XII Members underwent a 
significant process of tariff simplification and 100% binding coverage that many original Members 
have not. Policy predictability is essential for promoting economic growth.  
 
While our Group has remained active at the CoA SS, we stress the need to work in parallel with 
reforms to level the playing field in NAMA and Services as well, where Article XII Members undertook 
more commitments in virtually every sector. These must there fore be included in our current 
discussions and proposals of reforms going forward for Nur -Sultan and further.  
 
We would once again remind the Members present our openness to dialogue and work together to 
achieve substantial results towards a fairer and balanced WTO.  
 
45. Panama  
 
Panama regrets that Members have not been able to conclude negotiations to eliminate fisheries 
subsidies and therefore to fulfil the mandate given by our Heads of Delegation and Ministers to 
eliminate subsidies by the end of 2019.  
 
However, we recogni ze that progress has been made and are pleased to note that, despite the 
current challenges, Members remain committed to achieving a balanced and fair outcome at the 
forthcoming Ministerial Conference.  
 
In January, we must begin negotiati ng the text. Once again, we call upon delegations to refrain from 
introducing elements that do not fall within the remit of the WTO or the negotiating mandate. We 
should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the valuable work carried out by the Chai r and 
Facilitators.  
 
With regard to negotiations on agriculture, Panama supports reform in all the pillars. This is 
necessary to achieve fairer results, with proportional commitments from all Members. We should 
also like to reiterate our support for mainta ining special and differential treatment for developing 
country Members as part of any outcome and future negotiations.  
 
As a co -sponsor of proposals relating to the work programme and moratorium on electronic 
commerce and to cases of non -violation under t he TRIPS Agreement, Panama considers it important WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 141 - 
 
  that both Buenos Aires decisions be postponed until the next Ministerial Conference so that our 
Ministers are the ones to decide on this matter. As we have stated previously, it is important for my 
delegati on that next year's Work Programme on Electronic Commerce move swiftly from the 
discussion and presentation of experiences to a substantial phase, in pursuit of concrete multilateral 
outcomes.  
 
We welcome the development of the discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development. 
Convinced of its value, we are co -sponsors of the Joint Ministerial Statement on Investment 
Facilitation for Development, dated 5 November 2019. We reiterate our commitment to continue 
contributing actively and constructively to  shape the future multilateral framework.  
 
Likewise, we recogni ze the work being carried out by the Working Group on MSMEs with the aim of 
having possible deliverables at the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference.  
 
Lastly, we should like to restate that Panam a supports the development of a more pragmatic and 
transparent WTO. Together with 17 other Members, we are co -sponsors of document WT/GC/W/777, 
with a view to improving the regular functioning of the Committees and facilitating the settlement 
of trade disp utes between Members.  
 
46. Israel  
 
As we are reporting about activities at the end of 2019, it is good to take stock of where we are and 
where we are heading.  The world has changed and we are now testing the boundaries of the 
multilateral trading system. People around the world are watching and we cannot afford to send the 
wrong message. It is Israel's priority to have a healthy WTO with a strong negotiating fun ction, one 
that is able to deliver outcomes that are beneficial for all.  
 
In this regard and without prejudice, please allow me to refer to areas where we see the 
conversations that could lead to a positive direction.  
 
On the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation, the signatories are in the process of 
submitting their indicative draft schedules demonstrating their commitment to a meaningful outcome 
by MC12. Although there are some important outstanding issues to be finalised in the draft referen ce 
paper, interested Members are working hard towards concluding it in good time. For Israel, this 
means engaging with our stakeholders and we look forward to progressing on these matters ahead 
of MC12.  
 
On electronic commerce, we have been a strong suppor ter of the moratorium and view this as an 
integral part of developing a strong digital ecosystem which is beneficial to both developing and 
developed Members. On the joint statement initiative, we just concluded the last substantive round 
and we have seen some progress – but there is still some way to go. In Israel, we develop many 
innovative technologies that are used in e -commerce and we have seen the value it brings to our 
economy. This is why we support the advancement of these negotiations so that ever yone can 
benefit from e -commerce.  
 
On fisheries, Israel is happy to welcome Ambassador Wills as the new Chair of the Negotiating Group 
on Rules. Even though fisheries is in fact not a big sector in our economy, we believe that we should 
stick to the guidel ines and we should conclude these negotiations at MC12 because of the systemic 
implication they have on the WTO in general.  
 
On dispute settlement, we believe that a functioning dispute settlement system is vital for the well -
functioning of the rules -based  multilateral trading system. This is however only one of the parts of 
the WTO. Keeping the negotiating agenda functioning is now more vital than ever and we should not 
lose sight of this.  
 
Finally, I would like to note the agreement we had last night on the Committee on Budget, Finance 
and Administration which does allow us to continue our work.  
 
These are hard times. Let us remain pragmatic, open -minded, inclusive and multilateral.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 142 - 
 
  47. Malaysia  
 
At the outset, Malaysia associates ourselves with the ASEAN St atement delivered by Thailand.  
 
As we face the final curtain in 2019, Malaysia appreciates Members efforts in continuing to preserve 
the multilateral trading system and ensuring that this House continue to stand.   
 
Malaysia would like to reiterate our pos ition as a strong advocate of the multilateral trading system , 
we believe that WTO has been effective in ensuring that global trade governance remain open, 
predictable and transparent, benefitting all Members. There is still however a few key challenges.  
 
Dispute Settlement Mechanism  
 
Malaysia would like to re -emphasi se that the effective functioning of the dispute settlement system 
is a fundamental aspect of this institution.  
 
On this note, we take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Ambassador David Walker for his 
leadership in steering the discussion to unl ock the impasse in A ppellate Body  issue. There is still 
unfinished business, hence, we encourage all Members to continue to work on this area in months 
ahead.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
We commend the efforts made by Ambassador Santiago Wills of Co lombia and acknowledge the 
active engagement in fisheries subsidies. We note that there is a need for a convergence to ensure 
an outcome can be achieved.  
 
We welcome the various ongoing discussions on the Joint Statement Initiatives on MSMEs, 
Investment F acilitation, and Electronic Commerce. We see these initiatives as potential deliverables 
at some stages for MC12 and encourage Members to be part of these initiatives.  
 
Development  
 
WTO Members should assume a more constructive role in narrowing the gap i n key areas of 
negotiations. Greater political will and flexibility are crucial if we want to see this through, bearing 
in mind that time is against us.  
 
Having said that, we must recogni ze the foundation upon which this multilateral institution was built, 
that is development.  
 
Conclusion  
 
It is critical that Members exercise flexibilities to resolve the bigger or pending issues to ensure that 
the credibility of the multilateral trading sy stem is not undermined. We should keep going in months 
ahead.  
 
48. Trinidad and Tobago  (CARICOM)  
 
This statement is being delivered on behalf of the Caribbean Community  Group in Geneva.  
 
We thank the Director -General  for the reports presented by the Chairpersons of the Negotiating 
Groups and the report on his activities. The CARICOM Group continues to appreciate the 
demonstration of transparency that the TNC delivers to the WTO Membership.  
 
Special and Differential T reatment  
 
The CARICOM Group has on numerous occasions reiterated the importance of Special and Differential 
Treatment mechanism for developing and least -developed countries, as it constitutes an integral 
part of the architecture of the multilateral trading  system . Development is a core principal of the 
WTO as recogni zed in the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO. We firmly believe that special 
and differential treatment should continue to be afforded to developing countries, particularly LDCs WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 143 - 
 
  and SVE s in current and future WTO negotiations as they seek to more fully integrate into the 
multilateral trading system.  
 
The G -90 has recently reviewed the various Special and Differential Treatment proposals. The 
CARICOM Group believes that this process will be  key to move discussions forward by finding ways 
to converge toward meaningful outcomes at MC12.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
On the Appellate Body impasse, the CARICOM Group is concerned that thus far, despite our best 
efforts, we have not been able to unblock the im passe in launching the selection process for new 
Appellate Body members and that in four days ' time, notwithstanding any decision to the contrary, 
the WTO Appellate Body will be rendered inoperable. We sincerely hope that during our deliberations 
in the up coming General Council, we can exercise the necessary political will to arrive at a solution 
we can all coalesce around.   
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
Since the last meeting of the TNC on 14 October, much has happened in the fisheries negotiations, 
not least of which is the very important appointment of a new Chair of the Negotiating Group on 
Rules  by the conclusion of the last Fisheries cluster meetings on 8 November.  
 
In this regard, we wish to thank Ambassador Wills for advancing a rigorous, open and transparent 
schedule of work to achieve the much needed progress required for us to be able to deliver on the 
mandate in the negotiations. We therefore thank him for his progress report.  
 
While we are all realistically resigned to the fact that the Dec ember 2019 deadline is no longer 
tenable for the successful conclusion of the negotiations, CARICOM will remain very much engaged 
and actively so within the ACP Group in the months ahead leading up to MC12.  
 
Our fisher y resources are very important to the food security and sustainable livelihood of our small 
economies in the Caribbean and these negotiations are no small matter for us. Naturally, we aim for 
an agreement that will safeguard our right to our resources as well as secure our capacity to protect 
those resources for future generations.  
 
We nevertheless wish to emphasi se that small countries such as ours are not the ones that have 
caused the problems that we face with global overfishing. The onus should therefore be placed on 
large industrial nation s to eliminate the subsidies that contribute to unsustainable and damaging 
fishing practices.  
 
We appreciate the sterling work and commitment of the various facilitators and negotiators. They 
can be assured of our full support. We urge that the negotiation s be carefully focused and phased 
so that a comprehensive outcome can be achieved.  
 
We look forward to working closely with Ambassador Wills in the new year so that together the WTO 
can deliver a good agreement for the global community in the fisheries sub sidies disciplines.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
As the multilateral and plurilateral processes related to electronic commerce continue in parallel, the 
momentum of the latter is particularly noteworthy. CARICOM representatives in Geneva continue to 
actively monitor the negotiations as observers. In addition, we continue to take note of the 
developing countries joining the initiative as the rounds of negotiations progress.  
 
On the subject of the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electr onic transmissions, 
CARICOM would want to join in the general consensus regarding retention of the moratorium until 
MC12.  
 
Investment Facilitation  
 
The Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development have taken on added 
significance for t he CARICOM Region since four of our Member States co -sponsored the Joint WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 144 - 
 
  Ministerial Statement emanating from the Shanghai Mini-Ministerial Conference on 
5 November  2019. CARICOM Member States not part of the initiative continue to assess the 
feasibility a nd desirability of binding international disciplines on investment facilitation. Among other 
things, our assessment is taking into account what comprises our investment facilitation goals and 
needs, as well as the extent to which an international framework  can support identified goals and 
needs.  
 
CARICOM Member States continue to monitor the discussions closely and we encourage Members of 
the JSI to maintain openness which is critical in allowing all non -participants to evaluate the potential 
benefits and challenges of the disciplines being proposed. We also encourage Members to keep 
development at the core of this initiative and to bear in mind that it is an Investment Facilitation for 
Development framework, the operative term here being "for development ". Therefore, Members 
should strive to advance an ambitious developmental package as a core objective of this framework.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture remains a major economic sector for the Caribbean Community. Food and nutrition 
security and agricultural exp orts have been identified as key drivers of economic growth and critical 
to building our economic resilience. It is therefore our desire for the Membership to agree an outcome 
that allows for inclusiveness and equity. We therefore reaffirm our desire to ha ve the development 
dimension invoked in the Preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture and repeated in Article 20 of 
the negotiating mandate reali sed.  
 
In this context, the preservation of existing special and differential treatment, including specific 
flexibilities for SVEs and LDC should remain central to any outcome. We welcome the increase in 
submissions on the key pillars and elements of this file, and their overall thrust towards deepening 
Members ' understanding of those key issues that continue to hin der our ability to find convergence. 
The Community remains committed to focused and solution -oriented discussions aimed at a 
balanced outcome in Nur -Sultan.  
 
Services  
 
The WTO's continued deliberations on services remains of prime importance to the CARICO M Group.  
We were therefore pleased to see some activity, though not substantive in nature, in the Working 
Party on Domestic Regulation earlier this week. We look forward to continued discussions in that 
format of our work, particularly as we examine the p otential linkages and synergies could be 
developed between the multilateral work in the WPDR on the one hand and on the other hand the 
Joint Statement Initiative on Domestic Regulation.  
 
49. Colombia  
 
This statement will cover three specific issues of importance to Colombia. These issues relate to 
certain areas of the ongoing negotiations that promise to deliver positive results in Nur -Sultan.  
 
First of all, in agriculture, we wish to highlight the technical process undertaken this year, and 
welcome the  new proposals and papers that have recently been submitted. As everyone knows, 
Colombia's priority is the domestic support pillar. Members must ensure that their contributions have 
two key characteristics: firstly, they must be ambitious; secondly, they m ust be proportional to the 
distorting effect of existing subsidies on world markets.  
 
Turning now to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, we support the statement delivered by 
Argentina on behalf of a group of Members  interested in achieving a high ambition outcome. 
Colombia would particularly like to emphasi se the importance that we gi ve to a strong and ambitious 
outcome in the area of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Given the implications and 
characteristics of this type of practice, the prohibition of subsidies in this area should apply without 
any exceptions or flexibili ties that undermine the discipline's core objective. We also wish to reiterate 
the importance of ensuring that any final agreement reflect the prohibition of fisheries subsidies in 
areas outside the national jurisdiction of Members. High seas resources are  a public good that we 
must work together to safeguard, and by eliminating subsidies for high seas fishing we will be making 
a highly significant contribution to compliance with the mandate of Sustainable Development Goal 
target 14.6.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 145 - 
 
  Lastly, regarding th e joint initiatives, we would like to express our support for the progress made 
following this year's discussions. We are greatly encouraged by the increased participation and 
support of Members in the discussions on e -commerce and investment facilitation for development, 
and, above all, would like to highlight the sharing of indicative draft schedules in respect of services 
domestic regulation. We reiterate our interest in ensuring the future multilateral adoption and 
implementation of the three initiative s, which will help strengthen this organization.  
 
50. St. Lucia (OECS)  
 
I am making this statement on behalf of the members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean 
States (OECS).  
 
In the previous statement of the Director -General to the TNC, he reminded Membe rs that the world 
is counting on us to deliver a stronger, rules -based system that unlocks opportunities for trade, 
development and inclusiveness. You also cautioned us that time is not on our side in this regard. 
Based on today's reports and soundings bei ng received from news sources, it is clear that the crisis 
has deepened and the existential moment that we once feared is now upon us.  
 
Today, we are now on the cusp of a non-functioning dispute settlement system – the crown jewel of 
the multilateral tradi ng system. The OECS Member States are deeply concerned because while the 
Membership of this House is actively engaged in negotiating rules to govern international trade, we 
have failed in custodial duty to secure the viability of the dispute settlement sys tem that supports 
these rules.  
 
OECS Member States have not been extensively engaged in dispute settlement. However, as small 
and highly vulnerable island States, we are firm believers in the multilateral trading system as we 
believe that it is essential to a more beneficial integration of our economies into the global trading 
system. In order to prevent ourselves from walking over the cliff, we call on all Members to 
demonstrate flexibility in addressing issues which can affect the good functioning of the  Appellate 
Body.  
 
What is certain is that the rules -based system anchored by a two -step dispute settlement process 
has supported the conditions for the expansion of economic output lifting communities across the 
globe out of poverty. The WTO has contribute d to the global economy and economic stability and 
has provided an opportunity for the development concerns of all Members – big and small – to be 
discussed in a cordial and constructive fashion. It has put an end to the economic welfare and the 
beggar thy  neighbour policies that once plunged the world into conflict.  
 
We must collectively heed the lessons of the past and work towards and with dispatch to resolve the 
impasse that threatens our system.  
 
Concerning special and differential treatment for devel opment, the OECS continues to register its 
disappointment at the slow progress towards mainstreaming development provisions relevant to 
small States into the architecture of WTO rulemaking. While November marks the end of the Atlantic 
hurricane season, thi s period merely offers a temporary reprieve from the catastrophic threats of 
climate change related events.  
 
In this regard, we ask that more meaning be given to the Work Programme on Small Economies by 
deepening and intensifying the discussions on the in extricable link between natural disasters and 
trade. The good work done by the WTO Secretariat itself confirms that such natural disasters are 
detrimental to the trade performance of our economies and continually derails our economic 
development.  
 
With res pect to fisheries subsidies, we are grateful for the appointment of Ambassador Wills as Chair 
of the Negotiating Group on Rules. While we are satisfied with the purposeful engagement that the 
Chair has pursued since he has taken on that role, we also ackno wledge that the end of the year 
deadline will not be met. Nonetheless, we are encouraged by Ambassador Wills' determination in 
moving the discussions forward. We are hopeful for a balanced outcome in Nur -Sultan – one that 
secures global fish stocks by limi ting the harmful excesses of major subsidizers while also preserving 
sufficient policy space for countries like ours to sustainably grow our sector.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 146 - 
 
  On agriculture, we note and welcome the increase in submissions particularly under the domestic 
support an d market access pillars. Agriculture stimulated economic growth and food security 
continue to be of high priority to us and therefore we can only urge Members to be pragmatic and 
solutions oriented in the deliberations.  
 
In closing, I wish to associate with the statements already delivered by Vanuatu on behalf of the 
ACP and Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the CARICOM Group in Geneva.  
 
51. Nepal  
 
We wish to align our statement with the statement delivered by Chad, the LDC Group Coordinator.  
 
As a strong supporter of fair, inclusive and rules -based multilateral trading system, Nepal 
underscores the need of strengthening the fundamental principles and objectives of the Marrakesh 
Agreement, and emphasi se our shared responsibility to safeguard multila teralism for the interest of 
all WTO Members.   
 
In this context, my delegation would like to highlight some specific issues.  
 
Dispute settlement mechanism is a core component of the WTO, which we should all safeguard to 
uphold the rules -based order. The v acancy of Appellate Body members adversely affects the 
credibility and functioning of the organization. We appreciate Ambassador David Walker 's efforts for 
reaching consensus -based proposal. We stress on for immediate resolution on this issue.  
 
On WTO refo rm, we view that the substance of the reform should be comprehensive, able to address 
global challenges including increased inequality, properly incorporate the emerging issues and 
opportunities of global trade, and support to weaker economies to integrate  meaningfully into the 
global trading system. The process in this respect should be transparent, participatory, bottom up 
and Member -driven.   
 
Development dimension must remain our prime negotiating agenda. A clear road map on 
mainstreaming the developmen t dimension in the multilateral trading system and S&DT is 
fundamental in support of achieving the SDGs especially for the LDCs.  
 
Nepal stresses upon the importance of implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement as it aims 
to reduce the time and cos t of cross -border trade. Without external technical and financial support, 
implementing the Category C Commitments pose severe difficulties for us . We encourage 
development partners to provide enhanced and additional level of support to implement the 
agree ment.  
 
In view of having potential impacts on revenue posed by the question of moratorium of customs 
duty on electronic transmission, it is of foremost importance that a comprehensive study be 
undertaken on the impact of such a moratorium. We underline tha t all rulemaking on e -commerce 
should follow the existing mandate.  
 
Finally, pertaining to Aid for Trade including EIF, we reaffirm that the work programme on aid for 
trade is a priority for the LDCs. Additionally, LDCs focused support measures should be f urther 
strengthened not only to enable them to graduate from the LDC status but also to ensure that their 
graduation is more inclusive and sustainable.  
 
52. Cambodia  
 
Cambodia associates itself with the statement made by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group and 
Thailand on behalf of the ASEAN.  
 
While we are expressing the serious concerns with regard to the challenges we have faced with the 
smooth function of multilateral trading system , my delegation appreciates the great efforts made by 
Members and Facilitators in making text proposals and work ing together in finding concrete solutions 
to achieving meaningful outcomes including the reform.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 147 - 
 
  Appellate Body  
 
As the Director -General  has reported , the Appellate Body  will be inactive after next week. My 
delegation would like to reiterate our concern on the crisis of the Appellate Body as it is extremely 
important to resolve trade disputes. We wonder whether or not the WTO will be handicapped after 
the Appellate Body i s inactive.    
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
We have a long journey of the discussion on Special and Differential Treatment which has mandated 
to grant to developing countries especially to LDCs without condition. My delegation would like to 
express  our views that the Special and Differential Treatment are an utmost important dimension to 
develop our trade policies in pursuit of legitimate development goals. In this regard, we welcome 
proposals and initiatives submitted by Members. The special and di fferential treatment must be 
integral part of all negotiations and we therefore re -urge Members of this organization to find 
consensus in providing it to developing countries especially to LDCs.  
 
Whereas Members are negotiating in various areas including fisheries, services domestic regulation, 
moratorium, e-commerce moratorium, investment facilitation and so on so forth, my delegation re -
desires Members  at the same time to fully implement previous mandates and Ministerial decisions 
in favours of LDCs incl uding full implementation of DFQF, services waiver and preferential rules of 
origin . 
 
Finally, my delegation look s forward to hearing from Members through the G eneral Council  to be 
held on 9 -11 December , some compromising positions and tell where we stand and how we go 
forward to MC12 which will take place six months from now . 
 
53. Viet Nam  
 
We associate with the statement made by ASEAN delivered by Thailand.  
 
In light of recent significant developments, we would like to also share our views . 
 
We are pleased th at discussions on various aspects of WTO Reform continues steadily. We welcome 
efforts of many proposals and proponents to consider and actually revise their hard proposals to 
take in to account comments from Members' concerns aiming at convergence to ultim ately achieve 
consensus. We reinstate that reforms need to be comprehensive and consistent with the goal of 
preserving an inclusive, open, non -discriminatory and rules -based multilateral trading system while 
making it more responsive to the changing trade and business environment. We encourage reform 
proponents to continue to listen and adequately address concerns of Members.  
 
We share the deep concerns of majority of Members that just in four days, the Appellate Body will 
stop functioning as it did despite  of the calls of more than two -thirds of the Membership to launch 
the AB Selection Process. We look forward to substantive discussions next week on how we can deal 
with this situation temporarily and whether we can chart our way out of here.  
 
In the area of fisheries subsidies, we again welcome the appointment of Ambassador Wills as the 
new Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules and would like to commend his steady, thoughtful and 
energetic steering that gives enormous momentum to the negotiations in  a very relatively short 
period of time. We sincerely thank him for the intensive consultations with the Heads of Delegation 
twice last month both in the organizational and the substantial matters of the negotiations – not to 
mention numerous other meeting s which really progressed the negotiations and set out the work 
plan to meet our mandates at MC12. We note the communication in TN/C/W/75 by some Members 
yesterday which recogni zes the need for special and differential treatment though its forms require 
further reflection.  
 
In the context of divergences, with regard to other mandates, with the year -end deadlines, we 
consider that while our understanding of the substantive matters needs to be deepened , we likewise 
need to  ensur e a stable and predictable env ironment for doing business  and international t rade. 
Hence, we encourage Members to equally show their respective flexibilities.  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 148 - 
 
  We are consistently of the view that it is time for WTO Reform issues to be consolidated and a clear 
roadmap to Nur -Sultan to be presented. The WTO and the multilateral trading system as the 
powerful force supporting economic growth, development, stability and peace should continue to be 
viewed that way.  
 
_______________  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 149 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
STATEMENT BY NAMIBIA  ON THE REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE 
NEGOTIATIONS COMMITT EE AND  REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERA L 
(AGENDA ITEM 1)  
 
At its request, the statement of Namibia  is included below as part of the Minutes of the General 
Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Allow me to register Namibia's confidence in the Chair's  leadership as she direct s these proceedings 
in a constructive manner.  
 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee , 
the Director -General , for his report on the  current ongoing work and progress made thus far.  
 
I am taking the floor to make Namibia's intervention by recalling the Preamble of the Marrakesh 
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization:  
 
"Recogni sing that their relations in the field of trade  and economic endeavour should be conducted  
with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing 
volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods 
and services, while allowing for the optimal use of the  world's resources in accordance with the 
objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to 
enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respectiv e needs and concerns at 
different levels of economic development."  
 
Rules negotiations (Fisheries subsidies)  
 
Natural environment and biodiversity resources are indispensable assets for food security and 
sustainable economic development. Hence the need to give prime attention to the conservation of 
marine resources in more sustainable manner.  
 
The SDG 14.6, as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by all United 
Nations Member States, targets that, by 2020:  
 
"prohibit certain forms o f fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and 
eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing, and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, 
recognising that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment f or developing and least 
developed countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation".  
 
Namibia has one of the most productive fishing grounds in the world along the Benguela Current 
System. One of the four eastern boundary upw elling systems in the world. These systems support 
rich populations of fish, which form the basis for the Namibian marine fisheries sector. Making it a 
very important sector within Namibian economy.  
 
It is against the above that Namibia is among the countr ies with the best fisheries management 
program in world. The programs also serves as a catalyst towards the implementation of SDG 1 (end 
poverty) and SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security) in the context of coastal communities that 
rely on fisheries for  economic survival and a dependable food source.  
 
Hence, Namibia wants to see the outcome on fisheries subsidy negotiations that would address the 
capacity constraints and the need for policy space to build and develop domestic fishing industries. 
This cou ld be achieved through a negotiated outcome on Special and Differential Treatment (SDT). 
Furthermore, we are of the view that, National authorities should be allowed to determine IUU and, 
situation of overfished stock, in their respective EEZ and through R egional Fisheries Marine 
Organizations (RFMOs).  
 WT/GC/M/181  
 
- 150 - 
 
  Appellate Body  
 
With regard to the issues pertaining to the appointment of Appellate Body members, Namibia wishes 
to re-emphasi se that priority must be given to resolve the impasse on the appointment of Appe llate 
Body members. The appointment will ensure continued functioning of the DSB as while maintaining 
independence, integrity as well as impartiality in resolving disputes.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  (S&D T) 
 
S&DT is an integral part of the Marrake sh Agreement establishing the WTO. It promotes active 
participation of developing countries in international trade as well as addressing challenges that may 
be encountered in the implementation of WTO Agreements. During the Doha Declaration, "WTO 
Member go vernments agreed that all special and differential treatment provisions are an integral 
part of the WTO Agreements and that these provisions should be reviewed with a view to 
strengthening them and making them more effective and operational."  
 
Hence, the n eed to address the issue of Special and Differential Treatment in proper and transparent 
manner for all Member States to achieve the objectives of the WTO amongst others, to help 
developing countries benefit fully from the global trading system in order to  ensure that no Member 
should be made worse -off. 
 
In looking ahead to the period before the Twelfth Ministerial Conference in 2020, to be held in 
Kazakhstan, there is a need to conclude these negotiations well before MC12.  
 
 
__________