RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/182  
 
16 April 2020  
(20-3074) Page: 1/127 
General Council  
3 March 2020    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 3 MARCH  2020 
Chairperson: H.E. Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand)  
Following the tribute made by the Director -General at the Informal TNC and Informal HODs meetings 
on 2 March, the Chair added her words of sympathy for the demise of the former Director -General 
of the WTO, Mr . Mike Moore. She extended the General Council 's deep condolences to the 
representative of New Zealand and through him to his Government and to Mr . Moore 's family . The 
Chair and the Director -General also extended deep condolences to the delegation of Oman and 
through them to the Government and People of Oman for the demise of His Majesty Qaboos bin 
Said, Sultan of Oman. The representative of Oman spoke1.  
 
The Chai r and the Director -General welcomed H.E. The Right Honourable Elizabeth Truss, Secretary 
of State for International Trade of the United Kingdom who was present at the meeting. The Right 
Honourable Truss then  addressed2 the General Council.  
 
The Chair and t he Direct or-General bade farewell to  Ambassador Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic), 
Ambassador Diego Aulestia (Ecuador), Ambassador Shameem Ahsan (Bangladesh), Ambassador 
Carlos Mario Foradori (Argentina) and Dr. Yu -Ping Lien (Chinese Taipei)  and expressed appre ciation 
for their  valuable cont ribution during their time as Permanent Representative s. 
 
Subjects discussed3: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CH AIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITT EE AND 
REPORT  BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUT COMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IR ................................ ................................ ...............................  6 
3   WORK PROGRAMME O N SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TR ADE AND DEVELOPMENT ......................  9 
4   WTO ACCESSIONS: 2019 ANNUAL REPORT B Y THE DIRECTOR -GENER AL – 
STATEMENT BY DIRECTO R-GENERAL ................................ ................................ ..............  10 
5   TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL C ONFERENCE  ................................ ...........  16 
5.1   Election of Officers  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 16 
5.2   Request for Observer Status by Palestine  ................................ ................................ ..... 17 
5.3   Launch of the MC12 Logo – Statement by Kazakhstan  ................................ ...................  17 
5.4   Statement by the Chair  ................................ ................................ ..............................  17 
6   ACCESSION OF CUR AÇAO – REQUEST FROM THE KINGDOM OF THE N ETHERLANDS  . 18 
 
1 The full statement can be found in Annex  1. 
2 The full statement can be found in Annex 2.  
3 The proposed agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/797.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7   PROCEDURES TO ST RENGTHEN THE NEGOTIA TING FUNCTION OF THE  WTO – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ ..............  22 
8   PROCEDURAL GUIDE LINES FOR WTO COUNCI LS AND COMMITTEES AD DRESSING 
TRADE CONCERNS – COMMUNICATION FROM ALBA NIA; AUSTRALIA; CANA DA; 
CHINA;  OF MOLDOVA; NEW ZEALAND ; NORTH MACEDONIA; N ORWAY; P ANAMA; 
QATAR; SINGAPORE; SW ITZERLAND; THE SEPAR ATE CUSTOMS TERRITOR Y OF 
TAIWAN,  PENGHU, KINMEN AND M ATSU; THAILAND; TURK EY; AND UKRAINE  .............  30 
9   THE IMPORTANCE O F MARKET -ORIENTED CO NDITIONS TO THE WORL D TRADING 
SYSTEM – COMMUNICATI ON FROM THE UNITED S TATES  ................................ ...............  35 
10   KAZAKHSTAN – BORDER RESTRICTIONS OF  GOODS IN TRANSIT – REQUEST 
FROM  THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC  ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
11   UNITED STATES TRADE R EPRESENTATIVE REPORT  ON THE APPELLATE BO DY OF 
THE WORLD TRADE ORGA NIZATION – STATEMENT  BY THE UNITED STATE S .................  48 
12   APPOINTMENT OF OF FICERS TO WTO BODIES  ................................ ........................  55 
13   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 57 
13.1   Statement by the Chair on Administrative Measures for Members in arrears  ...................  57 
14   ELECTION OF CHA IRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ...................  58 
ANNE X 1 - STATEMENT BY THE SUL TANATE OF OMAN ON TH E DEMISE OF HIS 
MAJESTY  QABOOS BIN SAID BIN TAIMOR, SULTAN OF OM AN ................................ ....... 61 
ANNEX 2  - ADDRESS OF H.E. THE RT. HON. ELIZABETH T RUSS TO THE GENERAL 
COUNCIL OF THE WORLD  TRADE ORGANIZATION  ................................ ..........................  62 
ANNEX 3  - THE REPORTS BY THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAIRS OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC A ND INFORMAL HODS MEE TINGS 
HELD  ON 2 MARCH 2020  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 65 
ANNEX 4  - STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL 
HODS  MEETINGS HELD ON 2 M ARCH 2020  ................................ ................................ ..... 74 
 
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 the Informal TNC and Informal Heads of Delegation meetings held on 
2 March. At that meeting, the Director -General had provided a report on his recent activities and 
consultations, the Chairs of three Negotiating Bodies had made oral reports on progress in thei r 
respective areas, and 51 delegations had taken the floor.  
1.2.  The representative of Costa Rica  said that the WTO was the backbone of international trade, a 
fundamental engine of socioeconomic growth. Costa Rica had a long -standing policy of progressive 
trade  liberalization and FDI attraction, coupled with a committed support of a transparent and rules -
based multilateral trading system. As a small developing nation, Costa Rica believed that a strong 
system was crucial to ensure that the benefits of trade trans lated into development opportunities.  
1.3.  Costa Rica stressed that it was determined to continue playing an active role of constructive 
leadership in the WTO, and that it recogni zed the urgent need to address the challenges facing the 
system and the organizati on and also shared the generali zed frustration with the inability to deliver 
balanced and ambitious outcomes, despite the prevailing good will and efforts deployed.  
1.4.  Costa Rica  referred to the several initiatives undertaken in current negotiations that ill ustrated 
its endeavour. One of th ose initiatives was Costa Rica 's out-of-the-box bid to address the issue of 
growing domestic support and the way it could distort global agricultural markets, where Costa Rica 
was proposing to leave aside the debate on each  Member 's development condition to focus instead 
on each Member 's potential to affect th ose markets. Another initiative was the engaging role in the 
negotiations on electronic commerce, services domestic regulation and, with several Members, on 
climate cha nge, trade and sustainability – all key issues defying global trade. A third initiative was 
Costa Rica 's support of Members ' proposals to first ensure that dispute settlement procedures WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 3 - 
 
  continued providing certainty, while a more permanent fix was found an d, second, to warrant 
compliance of notification obligations and uphold transparency in the system.  
1.5.  In addition to the aforementioned, Costa Rica had decided to no longer seek S&DT  provisions 
in current and future negotiations and, instead, negotiate specific concessions to accommodate its 
sensitivities. Th at was a forward -looking action based on Costa Rica 's vision of what the future of 
international trade require d, and something Costa Rica was convinced would be conducive to 
construct the consensus that was so urgently needed at the WTO.  
1.6.  Costa Rica believed that generali sing flexibilities to address some Members ' specific needs, 
under cross -cutting S&DT  provisions, led t o a cumulative sum of sensitivities that severely hampered 
the possibility of finding balanced outcomes, given the availability of such provisions to a significant 
majority of the Members. While Costa Rica respected every Member 's view on WTO reform, it fe lt it 
was taking a step forward to re -invigorate the progress that the multilateral negotiations for trade 
reform demanded.  
1.7.  That decision did not imply that Costa Rica was, in any way, foregoing: (i) its developing 
country status at the WTO; (ii) its righ ts stemming from S&DT  provisions under current WTO 
agreements, which Costa Rica would continue to uphold and use; (iii) its right to aggressively pursue 
concessions from Members to properly and satisfactorily address its sensitivities, in current and 
future negotiations, either individually or teaming up with others that shared them, including those 
in agriculture; (iv) finally, its right to actively seek available sources of multilateral, regional and 
bilateral cooperation.  
1.8.  The clock was ticking. Positive  action to reshuffle the WTO 's capacity to build consensus 
towards a fairer and more inclusive trading system could not be delayed. By embracing th ose 
measures, Costa Rica hoped to help break the gridlock and foster a more fitting advancement of 
multilater al trade negotiations, lest the WTO became irrelevant, which was a dangerous idea 
especially for small, open economies such Costa Rica 's. 
1.9.  The representative of Gabon  stressed that Gabon  was a staunch defender of the multilateral 
trading system, and that it  was convinced that the best successes are those that were achieved 
collectively. To achieve th at, Members were obliged to ensure progress in their discussions in order 
to yield positive and concrete results. Gabon  congratulated the Chairs of the Negotiati ng Groups for 
their efforts deployed to date. Gabon had  no doubt that Members  would have beneficial discussions 
to come in view of the numerous challenges facing the organization.  
1.10.   With regard to Gabon 's priorities, it did not have to come back to all of th ose because th ose 
would not add value to the discussions. They ha d already been taken into account in the statement s 
of the African Group  and the ACP Group  which  Gabon  fully endorse d. 
1.11.   Nevertheless, Gabon remain ed concerned with regard to the nature of the agenda of MC12 
given the time left. It would seem essential in the lead up to MC12 to send out a signal to the 
multilateral international community by developing and progressing with the work under way. Gabon  
hoped that Members  could overcome current gaps for the benefit all.  
1.12.   The representative of Côte d 'Ivoire  recalled  that a report published by the International Centre 
for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) on 24 November 2009 titled "Strengthening 
Multil ateralism: A Mapping of Proposals on WTO Reform and Global Trade Governance ", which was 
focusing on institutional and governance issues linked to WTO reform, revealed that Members ' 
concerns regarding reform dated back to the time when the WTO had been esta blished. In recent 
years, however, Members ' desire for reform had intensified, resulting in the impasse in the Appellate 
Body, which had not been operational since 10 December 2019. The varied topics in th at paper were 
linked to questions raised in particu lar by developed country Members. It was important that 
subjects of interest for developing country Members were also addressed as part of the reform.  
1.13.   Better still, WTO reform should contribute towards achieving the Sustainable Development 
Goals (SDGs), in  particular SDG 1 (End poverty in all its forms everywhere), SDG 2 (End hunger, 
achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), SDG 8 (Promote 
sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive empl oyment and decent 
work for all), SDG 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries), SDG 12 (Ensure sustainable WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 4 - 
 
  consumption and production patterns), SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change and 
its impacts) and SDG 16 (Promote peaceful and i nclusive societies for sustainable development, 
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all 
levels), with a view to inclusive trade as a factor of development for all.  
1.14.   By adopting such a vision which  would inevitably contribute to achieving the above -mentioned 
SDGs in an integrated and dynamic way, the WTO would at the same time accomplish its goals as 
set out in the Marrakesh Agreement.  
1.15.   With th at in mind, Côte d'Ivoire  stressed that Members had to ru le out any dogmatic approach 
with paradigms that could restrict the discussion of certain subjects, and anything that could stand 
in the way of the discussion of topics relevant to the development of all LDCs and developing 
countries. Moreover, previous fa ilures in the context of implementation of certain development 
initiatives should not undermine any fresh endeavours. To do th at, account should be taken of the 
systemic and philosophical constraints at the root of th ose failures.  
1.16.   In that context, and in the quest for a WTO reform that took account of virtually all concerns 
and interests of the whole Membership of the organization, only the WTO 's contribution to achieving 
the SDGs and hence the development of its Members should be the driving force, since trade was 
not an end in itself. Hence , any idea that fit into th at dynamic of a WTO that sought to promote the 
attainment of the bulk of the SDGs should be welcomed, especially those referred to above. In other 
words, the reform should also encompass the g overnance of the institution, its functions as well as 
its principles and rules. Thus, all subjects relevant to the development of Members should be 
accepted, examined and taken into account.  
1.17.   Côte d'Ivoire  then referred to the need for inclusion in the Twe lfth WTO Ministerial Conferenc e 
agenda of the issue of Members dependent on agricultural commodity export earnings for financing 
their development, and to the characteristics of low -income developing countries dependent on 
commodity export earnings for financing their development.  
1.18.   In that respect, according to recent UNCTAD statistics, over 90 developing countries were 
dependent on commodity exports and almost all added hardly any value to commodities, i.e. they 
did not convert them into finished or semi -finished products, and they strug gled to establish 
operations in other manufacturing sectors, which limit ed the industrialization of their economies. 
Those countries depended on exports of unprocessed commodities such as agricultural products, 
amounting to at least 60% of the total value of their exports. In th at regard, UNCTAD figures 
revealed that in 61 of th ose countries over 80% of economic activity was based on commodity 
exports, resulting in serious economic, environmental and social consequences if only because price 
volatility disr upted their macroeconomic management.  
1.19.   The UNCTAD report on the trade in raw materials stated that dependence on commodity 
exports created a direct link between developments in international commodity markets (which 
individual developing countries could no t influence) and government revenues. In commodity 
dependent developing countries, where public revenues depended to a large degree on exports, 
price shocks on global commodity markets had a direct impact on governments ' policy space.  
1.20.   Dependence on commod ities also disrupted fiscal and monetary policies. Strong fluctuations 
in capital flows, such as those caused by commodity price volatility, had a negative impact on the 
balance of payments. In commodity -dependent developing countries, government revenues were 
also closely linked to commodity prices. If th ose prices were lower than expected, th at could 
undermine the fiscal balance and reduce authorities ' scope for action, causing cuts in public spending 
on key infrastructure and social programmes. Th at hamp ered national economic development and 
government efforts to reduce poverty. Commodity -dependent developing countries also faced the 
risk of imported inflation.  
1.21.   Thus, price volatility in th ose international markets created a fiscal imbalance that led to 
volatility in public spending. In many developing countries, such a situation undermined and 
hampered the continuity of social programmes, infrastructure development and other components 
of economic and social development plans. The report also indicated th at individual producers in 
developing countries who were dependent on commodities for their income and means of 
subsistence, just like the economy as a whole, felt the negative impact of commodity price shocks WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 5 - 
 
  and volatility. The unpredictability of revenu e made any financial planning difficult, especially for 
poor households without savings or access to credit to facilitate consumption or make the necessary 
investments.  
1.22.   However, in most of th ose countries, including Côte d 'Ivoire, the world 's leading coco a 
producer, agricultural activity was primarily carried out by small labour -intensive undertakings using 
unproductive, even archaic, manual methods, with limited prospects of mechanization. Moreover, 
the "World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Pover ty", which focused on three key areas 
for development and poverty reduction – namely, opportunity, empowerment and security –, showed 
that uninsured economic risks for poor people or low income countries tented to create poverty 
traps, which in turn severe ly restricted development prospects in both microeconomic and 
macroeconomic terms.  
1.23.   Furthermore, a World Bank study showed that economic instability was greater in low income 
countries with limited and undiversified exports. The study also showed that econ omic insecurity 
and instability had a negative impact on development prospects in low income countries. In addition, 
in conditions of instability and unpredictability of national revenues, it was particularly difficult to 
envisage long term policies, and h ence development policies, and especially to promote well 
managed agriculture which did not contribute to environmental degradation in a context increasingly 
marked by climate change. Th at last aspect of the question was so important that in the medium 
term, if no realistic, viable and achievable solution was envisaged in time, th at situation would 
inevitably result in accelerated environmental degradation and accentuate the effects of climate 
change, which would have a de facto effect on more than one cont inent. Consequently, in th at 
context, achieving the SDGs by 2030 would be difficult, if not impossible, if the reform under way 
at the WTO did not incorporate th ose vital issues linked to the trade in agricultural commodities in 
general, and tropical produ cts in particular. Th at included the nagging perennial question of 
commodity price volatility and the ensuing disequilibrium in the balance of payments.  
1.24.   Côte d'Ivoire  then made reference to an "Examination of inadequate or inappropriate solutions 
implement ed in relation to these issues ". With regard to the impossibility for commodity -dependent 
developing countries to stabili ze their export earnings, he stressed that, in terms of solutions, a 
number of measures and mechanisms had been implemented by countrie s exposed to such financial 
instability and by certain partners, but without any lasting success. Th ose included the Stabex and 
Sysmin systems for the stabilization of export revenue from agriculture and mineral products, 
respectively, two instruments esta blished by the Lomé Convention and abolished under the Cotonou 
Agreement governing EU ACP relations.  
1.25.   Moreover, product agreements that had been frozen had shown their limitations. Indeed, the 
oligopolistic and highly speculative nature of international mar kets in commodities, especially 
agricultural products, rendered any strategy based on mere application of the principle of price -
setting according to supply and demand, ineffective for resolving th at issue. Côte d'Ivoire  said that 
the large number of inter national stabilization agreements implemented clearly illustrated the 
inappropriate nature of th ose instruments for resolving th at issue.  
1.26.   As regards vertical diversification policies, th ose still proved to be a very ineffective solution 
for various reasons, even if they were to play a key role in future in reducing developing countries ' 
dependence on raw materials. In fact, tariff escalation meant that vertical diversification could not 
always be envisaged. The same applied to horizontal diversificat ion strategies, which utili zed 
competencies and resources available in the commodity sector in order to expand other sectors. 
Those were difficult to apply since the conditions for ensuring their success could not be completely 
fulfilled by th ose countries  in the current situation. Hence th ose long-term solutions, some of which 
were complex and required substantial resources, could  be envisaged once the countries concerned 
had sufficient resources for the purpose.  
1.27.   To th at end, it was vital that multilateral  solutions, supported by political will and resulting 
from consensus at the WTO, were adopted to enable the countries concerned to plan their 
development in a responsible and predictable manner, on the basis of trade in commodities in 
general, and tropical  products in particular.  
1.28.   In that regard, Côte d'Ivoire  emphasi zed that the preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture 
stated that: "[…] developed country Members would take fully into account the particular needs and WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 6 - 
 
  conditions of developing country Members by providing for a greater improvement of opportunities 
and terms of access for agricultural products of particular interest to these Members, including the 
fullest liberalization of trade in tropical agricultural products […] ". That question should theref ore be 
addressed as part of the reform with a view to finding a solution that was appropriate to the particular 
situation of the developing countries and LDCs concerned.  
1.29.   In concluding, Côte d'Ivoire  stressed that, as part of WTO reform, there was a need to  address 
long standing issues relating to commodity price volatility and to find relevant, appropriate and 
sustainable solutions. The Agreement on Agriculture instructed the Membership in th at regard. Th ose 
solutions, which were essential for the economic stability and inclusive development of th ose 
countries, had to take the form of self -enforcing measures that enabled commodity -dependent 
developing countries to systematically reduce the effects of excessive commodity price fluctuations 
that caused a decli ne in export earnings.  
1.30.   In that regard, the contribution of the WTO, which regulated world trade, was indispensable. 
All Members were invited to work on the basis of consensus towards a solution that enabled trade 
to be a genuine instrument for inclusive de velopment and attainment of the SDGs, especially for 
Members facing difficulties on account of the instability of export earnings due to commodity price 
fluctuations resulting from speculative international markets. Accordingly, Côte d 'Ivoire and a 
number of other Members would submit a proposal for a decision relating to MC12 in the very near 
future.  
1.31.   The General Council took note  of the report of Director -General on 2 March4, of the statements  
made , and of  the statements  delivered at the 2 March Informal TNC and Informal HODs meetings5. 
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IR 
2.1.  The Chair6 recalled that on 24 February  she had held a meeting with the Chairs of Regular 
Bodies, and she thanked them for their cooperation and engagement during her tenure as Chair of 
the General Council. As always, their updates on the implementation of the Ministerial mandates 
were the basis of her statement. She noted that a number of WTO bodies had not yet met since the 
last General Council meeting, and therefore her statement would focus on matters where there had 
been developments since her last report in December.  
2.2.  Starting with the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, she recalled tha t, following the 
adoption of the Decision (WT/L/1079) in December 2019, she had convened an informal open -ended 
meeting on 10 February to report on her consultations, and to hear Members ' views on how to 
structure the work ahead of MC12. At that meeting, s he had urged delegations to come forward with 
specific proposals and had stressed the need to be focused given the short time left before MC12. 
Delegations had reiterated their commitment to implementing the December Decision and had 
restated known diverge nt positions on the moratorium and its impact. There had also been a general 
agreement to have a workshop focusing on various aspects of the moratorium.  
2.3.  She was pleased to confirm that the workshop would be held on Monday 23 March and, in th at 
regard, a c ommunication had been sent to all Members. The workshop would bring together various 
stakeholders including Members, international organizations, research institutions and business 
 
4 The Director -General's report (also circulated in JOB/TNC/ 78) and the reports of the Chairs of Negotiating 
Bodies at the  2 March Informal  TNC and Informal HODs Meetings  are incorporated in the minutes of this meet ing 
and are  reproduced in Annex 3  of this document.  
5 The statements at the 2 March 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 4 of this  document:  Switzerland; 
Brazil; Botswana (African Group); Singapore; Chad (LDCs); European Union; Morocco; Canada (Ottawa Group) ; 
Angola; Iceland; Jamaica (ACP); Montenegro; China; Mexico; Japan; United States; New Zealand; Uruguay 
(Informal Working Group on MSMEs) ; India; Norway; Peru; Egypt (NFIDCs except Peru); Barbados (CARICOM); 
Afghanistan; Russian Federation; Malaysia; Republic of Korea; Turkey; Philippines; Costa Rica (Joint Initiative 
on Services Domestic Regulation) ; Nigeria; Argentina; South Afri ca; Pakistan; Thailand; Hong Kong, China; 
Indonesia; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; United Kingdom; Viet Nam (ASEAN); Nepal; Solomon Islands 
(Pacific Group); Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce) ; Cambodia; Panama (Article XII); 
Chinese Taipei ; Burkina Faso (C -4); St. Lucia  (OECS); Ecuador; Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment 
Facilitation for Development)  and Paraguay.  
6 The Chair 's statement was circulated in document JOB/GC/2 26. WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 7 - 
 
  representatives. As noted by Members at the informal meeting, the participa tion of capital -based 
officials would be beneficial to the discussion.  
2.4.  Looking ahead, she understood that some delegations were working on possible submissions 
to contribute to the discussions and that th ose might be submitted in the near future. In that r egard, 
an Informal Open -Ended meeting was tentatively scheduled for 12 March to consider any new 
submissions received by then. Further information would be provided in due course.  
2.5.  Regarding TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints, the Chair of the TRI PS Council had 
held a number of small group consultations in January to discuss the way forward in light of the 
short time -period until MC12. Delegations had discussed the item again at the formal TRIPS Council 
meeting on 6 February and had agreed to ask t he incoming TRIPS Chair -designate to hold 
consultations once the slate of chairs had been formally agreed by the General Council. Th ose 
consultations should begin as soon as the new Chair took s up her duties.  
2.6.  Regarding some of the Ministerial outcomes on Agriculture, with respect to the Nairobi Decision 
on Export Competition, the Committee on Agriculture would conduct the 2020 dedicated discussions 
on export competition at its September meeting.  
2.7.  With respect to the review of the operation of the Bali Decis ion on TRQ administration, the 
Committee on Agriculture would have its first meeting in 2020  at the end of March, and would take 
up the matter in light of the recommendations agreed by the General Council in December.  
2.8.  Regarding the implementation of the Tr ade Facilitation Agreement, since December 2019, the 
Committee ha d met on four occasions. Two of the meetings had been called over the previous two 
weeks, and they were linked to the implementation of the flexibilities in the TFA for least -developed 
countr ies. Two additional ratifications had been received since her last report, bringing the total rate 
of ratification to over 90% of the Membership.  
2.9.  And finally, on Aid -for-Trade, Members had been able to agree to the new Work Programme 
for Aid for Trade whi ch covered the period 2020 -2021. She understood that Ambassador Blackman, 
Chairman of the CTD, wished to introduce the work programme and offered him the floor.  
2.10.   Ambassador Chad Blackman (Barbados) , Chair of the C ommittee on Trade and Development , 
thanked Members for their positive engagement in  the discussions on the new biennial work 
programme. He had begun discussions on the new work programme at the final, formal meeting of 
the CTD Aid for Trade in November 2019. An informal open -ended consultat ion had followed in 
January. Members had then considered a draft text at the 11 February CTD formal meeting. A series 
of briefings had also been held with Members in different groupings. Th ose consultations had 
harvested a number of ideas and suggestions t hat were captured in the text.  
2.11.   On the basis of th at broad -based, inclusive process, he was pleased to inform Members that 
the new Aid -for-Trade work programme had been issued on 21 February. The 2020 -21 plan was 
themed "Empowering Connected, Sustainable Tr ade". It focused on the opportunities that digital 
connectivity and sustainability offered for economic and export diversification – and how Aid for 
Trade could help empower different economic actors to reali ze those opportunities.  
2.12.   Building on the success of previous events, the work programme envisaged a further Aid for 
Trade Global Review next year. Th at would be the eighth such Review since 2007. In closing, he 
thanked Members for their support, their suggestions and the endorsement of the work programme . 
Following past practice, the 2020 -2021 Aid for Trade work programme in WT/COMTD/AFT/W/81 was 
being issued under his own responsibility as CTD Chair.  
2.13.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , recalled the importance  of the 
operationalization of t he Decisions taken at previous Ministerial Conferences concerning Duty Free 
and Quota Free (DFQF) market access, the Services Waiver for LDC s' service suppliers, and 
Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs  for the economic and social development of the LDCs . The LDCs 
regarded th ose Decisions as successful outcomes to multilateral negotiations. They were, by their 
very nature, likely to contribute to the speedy integration into world trade, allowing the LDCs to gain 
further benefits for their societies.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.14.   The LD Cs thanked all the Members who had notified their preferences granted to LDCs, in line 
with th ose three Decisions. There was nevertheless much work to be done for local economic 
operators to take full advantage of th ose benefits. Th at would involve improve ments as regards both 
information and export capacities. To that end, the LDCs counted on the continued support of WTO 
Members, the Secretariat and other relevant actors and organizations to increase preference 
utilization, thereby enabling LDCs to follow a path of growth and sustainable development.  
2.15.   On Aid for Trade, the LDC Group  congratulated the Chair of the Committee on Trade and 
Development, Ambassador Chad Blackman of Barbados, for having successfully led the consultations 
with Members that led to th e adoption of the Work Programme for 2020 2021 entitled "Empowering 
Connected, Sustainable Trade ". The programme was a continuation of the LDCs ' objective to achieve 
more diversified economies and exports – which was synonymous with faster integration into world 
trade, the strengthening of the productive fabric and job creation.  
2.16.   The LDC Group regarded the Aid -for-Trade initiative as an important m eans of achieving 
empowerment and poverty reduction. The Group was therefore fully committed to Aid for Trade 
programmes that had a real, positive and effective impact. Thanks to the support and qualitative 
cooperation of the international community, bilat eral and multilateral donors, South -South partners, 
the World Bank, multilateral development banks, private sector partners and other international 
trade related organizations, the LDCs were able to carry out a number of projects that promoted 
their empowe rment and inclusion in the global trading system, with the expected positive social 
benefits. The Group had shared its thoughts on the aspects that were important to the LDCs in terms 
of the contribution of Aid for Trade to their development. The elements that the Group had mentioned 
during the meetings of the Committee on Trade and Development on Aid for Trade and the WTO 
biannual programme, had been set out in a recent communication that had circulated to all WTO 
Members in WT/COMTD/AFT/W/82. By means of that communication, the Group hoped to 
demonstrate its commitment to Aid for Trade and outline the key dimensions through which Aid for 
Trade could help to attain their development goals.  
2.17.   Overall, th ose dimensions concerned: the diversification of the LDCs ' production of goods and 
services, and the strengthening of the productive capacities; being more firmly grounded in regional 
and global value chains; the improvement of trade facilitation conditions; the acquisition and 
mastery of information and communi cation tools; the development of the private sector, in particular 
the micro, small and medium -sized enterprises; the inclusion of women and young people in value 
creation; and ensuring that Aid for Trade was granted under favourable conditions for both LD Cs 
and those that had graduated from th at status.  
2.18.   There were many challenges, but the Aid -for-Trade initiative, in tandem with cooperation with 
the international community, the WTO and its Enhanced Integrated Framework, helped to provide 
relevant solutions  for achieving sustainable results. The LDC Group therefore renewed its gratitude 
to WTO Members and to all stakeholders in the Aid -for-Trade initiative, of which the LDCs were 
beneficiaries.  
2.19.   The representative of Barbados  recalled  that, in December, Barba dos had joined other WTO 
Members in endorsing the decision on Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. The decision, 
among other things, mandated WTO Members to reinvigorate discussions on the Work Programme. 
Barbados had done so with the understanding that the structured discussions would include 
discussions on issues beyond the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic 
transmissions.  
2.20.   While Barbados appreciated the comments which spoke to prioriti zing th ose issues as well as 
those that sou ght to provide reassurance on the continued existence of the Electronic Commerce 
Work Programme post MC12, Members were reminded of the fragility of the Work Programme, and 
the continued belief among some that the exploratory work of the Work Programme was  exhausted. 
The ACP and the LDC Groups ha d been vocal on a number of elements within the context of the 
1998 Work Programme that were of interest to them, particularly in light of the acute challenges 
that th ose Members faced, including bridging the knowle dge and digital gap between WTO Members.  
2.21.   Barbados would continue to work with th ose and other developing country Members with the 
aim of bringing issues forward for discussion, and would continue to engage positively on the Work 
Programme with the aim of e nsuring that the interests of developing countries, particularly those WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 9 - 
 
  that were small, and whose peculiar circumstances could  often be overlooked, were a key part of 
the MC12 decision. Barbados looked forward to the continued participation in the ongoing 
consultations, as well as in future informal open -ended meetings on electronic commerce.  
2.22.   The General Council took note  of the Chair 's report and of the statements.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPO RT BY THE CHAIRMAN O F THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  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.  
3.2.  Ambassador Chad Blackman (Barbados) , Chair of the Dedicated Session of the CTD , recalled 
that in his previous report to the General Council, he had informed Members of two proposals by the 
SVE Group which had been conside red at the meeting of the CTD 's Dedicated Session on Small 
Economies in November 2019.  
3.3.  The first of th ose contained a proposed text for a Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme 
on Small Economies at MC12. With regard to future work, the submission by t he SVE Group proposed 
that the Dedicated Session looked at the impact of natural disasters on the trade of small economies, 
and at the integration of small economies into new forms of trade. The second proposal was for a 
seminar on the opportunities and ch allenges for small economies in attracting investments. On both 
proposals, it had been determined in November that further informal discussions among Members 
would be required in order to make progress. Since that time, he understood that the SVE Group 
had reached out informally to a number of delegations.  
3.4.  He said that he had also reached out recently to Members, by inviting delegations to submit 
any comments they could  have on either of the two proposals. The feedback he had received 
indicated that the proposed text for a Ministerial Decision was still unde r consideration, while it 
appeared that there were no objections to proceed with the seminar on attracting investments.  
3.5.  On th at basis, he had scheduled the next meeting of the Dedicated Session for 26 March. He 
said that hopeful ly, by the time of that meet ing, further informal discussions among Members would 
have allowed agreement to be reached on the text of a Ministerial Decision. Th at would permit the 
Dedicated Session to adopt its report to the General Council, which was the usual practice in the 
run-up to a Ministerial Conference. He reiterated that he stood ready to facilitate any additional 
informal discussions among Members that could  be required in order to allow th e process to be 
concluded as soon as possible. The meeting of the Dedicated Session o n 26 March would be 
immediately followed on the same day by the seminar on attracting investments. He was working 
with the Secretariat to identify speakers for the event, and a programme would be shared with 
Members in due course.  
3.6.  The representative of El Salvador , on behalf of the SVEs , recalled that the Group had presented 
a proposal for a Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on Small Economies at the Dedicated 
Session of the CTD on 1 November, which included new topics for the future work of the wo rk 
programme. The SVEs regretted that the decision could not be agreed yet, but hoped to come to an 
agreement at the next Dedicated Session on 26 March. The SVEs would continue the constructive 
discussion with Members, to advance the work.  
3.7.  Regarding the pr oposal to organi ze a session on investment attraction, the SVEs thanked the 
Chair for the consultations and all the Members for their support. Th at was a very important topic 
for the SVEs, as the y faced various challenges in the attraction of investment, a nd it could help small 
economies to integrate in the global value chains and to reduce trade costs; particularly important 
was investment in infrastructure, international sustainability certifications and standards, 
technology, research and development, an d other necessary means to improve competitiveness.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.8.  The representative of Barbados  recogni zed that decisions on the regular work of the WTO were 
a critical feature for outcomes at WTO Ministerial Conferences.  Over the years, the Work Programme 
on Small Ec onomies had come to be regarded as one of th ose salient features.  Barbados recogni zed 
that the discussions on the decision on the Small Economies Work Programme were ongoing, and 
thanked Members for their engagement in th at regard. Barbados looked forward to participating in 
those discussions, and to reaching an agreement to send the decision to the Ministerial Conference 
for Ministers ' consideration.  
3.9.  Barbados thanked Members for their support to the discussion on, "Investme nt attraction: 
Small Economies ' Opportunities and Challenges ". It looked forward to working with Members and 
the Secretariat on devising a programme on the role of investments in enhancing competitiveness 
and in reducing trade costs in small economies. Bar bados also wished to reiterate its concern that 
the issue of natural disasters and trade had not yet gained consensus for dedicated discussion on 
small economies, particularly as the relevance of the multilateral trading system and by extension 
the WTO, co ntinued to be hinged on its responsiveness to respond to the changing world; and the 
duty to compete the unfinished business of the Round of negotiations. In light of the importance of 
the issue to the trade and development prospects of Barbados and other small, vulnerable island 
States, Barbados would continue its advocacy to discuss th e issue.  
3.10.   The General Council took note  of the report of the CTD Chair and of the statements.  
4  WTO ACCESSIONS: 2019  ANNUAL REPORT BY TH E DIRECTOR -GENERAL ( WT/ACC/36 – 
WT/GC/20 7) – STATEMENT BY DI RECTOR -GENERAL  
4.1.  The Chair drew the General Council 's attention to the Director -General 's annual report on 
Accessions circulated in WT/ACC/36 – WT/GC/207 – and invite d the Director -General to present the 
report.  
4.2.  The Director -General  stated that 2019 had been another busy year for WTO accessions. At the 
end of the year, 14 out of the 22 ongoing accessions were in the "active " category. In particular, the 
year had seen four Working Party meetings for three accession processes – for Belarus,  the Bahamas 
and South Sudan.  
4.3.  He recalled that t he Working Party  on the Accession of Belarus had met twice and had made 
considerable progress. The Working Party on the Accession of The Bahamas had been very active 
until Hurricane Dorian in September had become  the worst natural disaster in the country 's history. 
The Working Party on the Accession of South Sudan had held its first meeting after it became the 
most recent LDC to seek WTO Membership in December 2017.  
4.4.  There was also movement in other acces sion processes. Ethiopia – the largest acceding LDC in 
terms of economic and population size – had reactivated its accession after a 7 -year pause. Its 
Working Party had officially resumed operations in January, and WTO accession was now a key driver 
for th e Government 's Homegrown Economic Reform Plan. Uzbekistan had reactivated its accession 
process after 14 years of dormancy, and had submitted an updated Memorandum on the Foreign 
Trade Regime and other documentation. Th at had provided the basis for officia lly resuming talks in 
its Working Party in the coming weeks. He also noted that accession talks for Algeria, Azerbaijan, 
Iraq, Lebanon, Serbia and Sudan could potentially be reactivated in 2020 and that Equatorial Guinea, 
Somalia and Timor -Leste had held t heir first Working Party meetings th at year.  
4.5.  He added that towards the end of 2019, a new application for WTO accession had been received 
from Curaçao – a constituent country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Under Agenda Item 6, 
Members would decide  whether to accept Curaçao 's request and establish a Working Party on its 
accession.  
4.6.  Looking ahead to the rest of 2020, he noted that the accessions of Belarus, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, and the Comoros were technically advanced and could enter into the fina l phases of 
the negotiations. Among the three, Bosnia and Herzegovina 's accession process was the most 
advanced. After 2 years of a low level of activities due to constitutional changes, the Comoros – an 
LDC – was now ready to resume its accession process.  Lastly, despite complexities linked to its 
membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, Belarus was expected to build on progress in 2019 and WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 11 - 
 
  work on resolving the bulk of outstanding issues in 2020, starting at its next Working Party meeting 
later that mon th.  
4.7.  He said that the WTO Secretariat in 2019 had also continued technical assistance and outreach 
aimed at building a better understanding of the accession process and associated benefits, and that 
new speciali zed training programmes focused on WTO rules in the context of accession talks, as well 
as on goods market access negotiations. The 8th China Round Table on LDC accession had taken 
place in Moscow and had focused on links among WTO accession, regional integration and WTO 
reform.  
4.8.  Looking ahead to the  rest of the year, Africa, which accounted for 40% of WTO membership 
applicants, would be a key focus of Secretariat technical assistance on accession. He stressed that, 
the previous month, a partnership had been initiated with the African Union Commission , the UN 
Economic Commission for Africa, the ITC and the World Bank. Finding synergies between WTO 
membership and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which was set to become 
operational on 1 July, would be one priority for th at work.  
4.9.  He also  recalled that every year, the Annual Report on WTO Accessions chose a thematic focus. 
That year, the report  highlighted the relevance of inter -agency cooperation in promoting efficiency 
and coherence in support to governments ' efforts on WTO accession. Fo r example, it pointed to the 
WTO's accession specific cooperation with the IMF and the World Bank.  
4.10.   In concluding, he thanked all Members for their continued engagement and support for the 
WTO's work on accessions, including their technical assistance to ac ceding governments. In 
particular, he expressed appreciation to the Chairpersons of Accession Working Parties for their 
commitment to th at important area for the WTO. He invited all Members to carefully review the 
report. Members ' comments and advice w ould be welcome to prepare for new challenges and 
opportunities.  
4.11.   The representative of Panama , on behalf of Article XII Members , thanked the Director -General 
for all the hard work and support that the Secretariat, in particular the Accessions Division, provided 
in the course of accessions. Each successful accession and additional Member brought the 
organization closer to universal membership and the ideal that trade could serve as a tool for 
development and bring prosperity for all. Article XII Members hoped that 2020 would see significant 
progress on ongoing accessions and for those about to begin. They were saddened by the death o f 
Chiedu Osakwe and recalled that he stood by acceding and acceded Members with encouragement, 
advice, friendship and good humour, and he would be sorely missed.  
4.12.   The representative of Afghanistan  thanked the Director -General and the WTO Secretariat, 
especi ally the Accessions Division, for their excellent work and good achievements.  Afghanistan 
encouraged Members to extend their support to acceding countries to conclude the accession process 
expeditiously and particular to support the efforts of the post -conflict acceding Members of the 
g-7+ WTO Accession Group, which Afghanistan proudly coordinated.  
4.13.   Afghanistan looked at the WTO accessions process, and after that at WTO membership, as an 
effective way to sustain peace, stability and prosperity; to conduct WT O-related legal and 
institutional reforms, trade integration and participation in the international trade and value chain. 
Afghanistan  therefore wished to call upon all Members to take into account the specific challenges 
of LDCs and conflict -afflicted Sta tes during their accession process. Afghanistan  commended the 
various activities and events organi zed under the "Trade for Peace " initiative led by the Accessions 
Division – some of them in collaboration with the g -7+ WTO Accession Group and expressed 
gratitude to DDG Alan Wolff for his support. Afghanistan  also welcomed Ambassador Ebyan 
Mahamed Salah of Somalia to Geneva and was happy to hear that Somalia wou ld submit their MFTR. 
As coordinator of the g -7+ WTO Accession Group, he extended the Group 's suppo rt to Somalia 's 
accession.  
4.14.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , thanked the Director General for the report 
on the status of WTO accessions and recalled that issue of WTO accession was of utmost importance 
to the Group since eight LDCs were c urrently in the process of joining the organization.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.15.   Accession to the WTO was a complex, multifaceted and demanding process.  Nonetheless, the 
acceding countries, and LDCs in particular, rightly believed that accession to the WTO represented 
an opportunity for economic development, an occasion to derive further benefit from the gains 
generated by the international trading system – for the social well -being of their populations. WTO 
membership was also an opportunity to adhere to certain values such as openne ss and good 
governance within an international regulatory framework.  
4.16.   Among the eight LDCs engaged in the accession process, several had recently shown signs of 
intensifying their efforts to advance their accession, to carry out internal reforms and to cons olidate 
the preparatory work phase with their respective Working Parties. Some LDCs were at the initial 
stage of th at work, while others were at the strategic priority stage, that was, relatively close to the 
conclusion of their accession processes. While one could consider the latest news on LDC accessions 
to be encouraging, th ose countries still faced tremendous challenges during the accession process 
and, on average, were those that take the longest time to become WTO Members. Th at was 
essentially due to existing constraints in terms of financial, institutional and human capacity, or 
other factors.  
4.17.   That was also due, from the perspective of LDCs, to the concession and commitment demands 
of negotiations, which exceeded the capacities  of LDCs and the fixed benchmarks in the 2012 General 
Council Decision concerning the average tariff binding on goods and market access for services. 
Against th at background, and in order to facilitate and speed up the accession of LDCs to the WTO, 
the LDC  Group called on Members to adhere to the 2012 guidelines, and to accept reasonable 
commitments, commensurate with the level of development and capacities of LDCs. The LDC Group, 
also thanked all those Members, as well as the Secretariat and its Accessions  Division, for their 
support and the accessions -related technical assistance they offered to LDCs.  
4.18.   The tailor -made tools for capacity building, which ha d been provided to LDC officials, 
parliamentarians, private sectors and other actors, as well as the pla tforms for the sharing of 
information and experience to help acceding LDCs, were especially useful and appreciated. The 
Group encouraged the continuation and development of th at type of collaboration with the 
Secretariat, the Accessions Division and the na tional programmes developed mainly by China, the 
European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Oman and the United States. The Group wished to warmly 
thank th ose Members and other actors that had contributed to building the accession -related 
capacity of LDCs, includ ing the Enhanced Integrated Framework.  
4.19.   The representative of the United States  said that the U nited States  was a strong advocate of 
the WTO accession process because of its proven ability to make important, long -term contributions 
to sustainable developmen t for Members at every stage of development. Fundamentally, the WTO 
accession process was a process of domestic reform in which applicants implemented market -
oriented and trade -liberali sing measures to align their trade regimes with WTO rules and principle s, 
and to provide commercially meaningful market access. Implementing WTO  provisions provided a 
predictable and stable legal framework that supported important national economic goals, such as 
achieving sustainable growth, promoting high -tech industry, att racting foreign investment, raising 
living standards, integrating into world markets, and asserting national trade interests worldwide.  
4.20.   That work produced results in practice, not just in theory. The Director -General ' s 2019 Annual 
Report on WTO Accessions  once again showed that Article XII Members outperformed the rest of 
Members in terms of growth in GDP, trade in goods and services, and inward investment in the years 
following their dates of accession, as traders and investors saw for themselves the impr ovements 
achieved through reform and liberalization. In short, countries that had the opportunity to accede 
under Article XII, by virtue of the reform process they undertook, would become stronger and more 
resilient.  
4.21.   The WTO accession process was important to the United States. The U nited States  was 
significantly involved in every accession, and often provided technical assistance to address specific 
needs that applicants brought to its attention. Like other Members, the U nited States  had commercia l 
interests to pursue through the accession process, and pursued them with appropriate attention. 
The U nited States  also had systemic interests at stake, to ensure that each accession upheld and 
strengthened the trading system. The United States saw the it erative Working Party process, 
including the questions -and-replies, as a critical tool for acceding governments to learn WTO rules 
and principles and to push through what could be difficult reforms. In th at way, the Working Party 
process itself delivered f ree technical assistance to reform minded  applicants.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.22.   The United States  had two other observations about the Director -General 's report. First, the 
report tried to quantify the work on WTO accessions, such as the number of Working Party meetings 
and the num ber of pages of documentation produced. The United States understood the inclination 
to quantify, but in its experience, the number of meetings and the number of pages were not of 
primary importance. Rather, it was the progress that applicants made between  Working Party 
meetings to implement WTO rules and principles, liberali ze trade, and pursue market -oriented 
measures.  
4.23.   Second, in its thematic section, the report outlined current forms of collaboration between 
the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank regarding  WTO accessions, including discussions that had 
occurred in 2019. In that regard, the United States had a factual correction to make to 
paragraph  121, which would be discussed with the Secretariat. The report then stated that 
institutional cooperation had been "generally successful, " but went on to suggest that existing 
cooperation was insufficiently effective. The United States was not convinced that cooperation or 
collaboration was lacking in any way.  
4.24.   In addition, in Paragraph 121, the report stated that better information sharing would "enable 
the WTO Secretariat to facilitate the conversation between WTO Members and acceding 
governments. " However, the United States  noted, with all due respect to the Secretariat 's important 
contributions to accessions wor k, that it did not agree that the role of the Secretariat was to facilitate 
conversation between Members and acceding governments. In a Member -driven body, th at was the 
responsibility of Members and applicants, and it was a responsibility that the United States took  
seriously.  
4.25.   The representative of Uruguay  thank ed the acceding governments and the Accessions Division 
for the ir hard work over the last year. Uruguay encourage d the 22 economies in the process of 
accession to redouble their efforts and to  finalize and con clude their accession proceedings. Progress 
in that area, looking to the next Ministerial Conference, would  be of benefit both to the new Members 
through the modernization of their domestic institutions and the promotion of their economic growth, 
and to th e organization as a whole – reiterating its legitimacy and its relevance in the current 
international context.   
4.26.   The representative of Botswana , on behalf of the African Group , was encouraged by the 
continued commitment and efforts to assist Members in thei r accession to the WTO, especially 
African Member States which, as the Director -General had noted , constituted 40% of applications 
for accession. The African Group however took note of the slow pace on the conclusion of accessions 
and wondered whether th at could be a reflection, among others, of lengthy complex procedures that 
were required from the acceding Members. The Group renewed its call to the WTO Membership to 
show some understanding in seeking concessions and commitments from acceding Members where  
they could  be inconsistent to their levels of development, particularly for the LDCs. In th at 
connection, the African Group pledged its support to the nine African countries that were in the 
process of WTO accession – Algeria, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Libya, São Tomé and 
Príncipe, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.  
4.27.   The African Group was encouraged to see such unwavering trust on the part of its Members 
and hope in multilateralism, despite the systemic challenges currently facing the WTO and the 
multilateral trading system that it supported. It was the Group 's sincere hope that the accession of 
those countries would carve a path to success and economic growth and usher in an era of 
development, stability and peace on the continent and in line with  the African Union 's Agenda 2063 
– The Africa We Want.  
4.28.   The representative of South Africa  supported the statement by Botswana on behalf of the 
Africa Group. In December 2002, the WTO General Council had adopted guidelines for LDC 
accessions, including the Addendum to document WT/L/508 adopted by the General Council 
stipulating that Members were to exercise restraint in seeking market access concessions from 
acceding LDCs, while the latter were expected to offer reasonable concessions commensurate with 
their individual development, financial, and trade needs. The text further stated that negotiations 
for the accession of LDCs to the WTO, should be facilitated and accelerated through simplified and 
streamlined accession procedures, with a view to concluding th ose negotiations as quickly as 
possible.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.29.   Those decisions established benchmarks on goods and services, as well as elements on special 
and differential treatment, transition periods, transparency and technical assistance. The Secretariat 
report stated that since the establishment of the WTO, nine Members had acceded as LDCs pursuant 
to Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO. Currently, eight LDCs were in the 
process of WTO accession. It was for th at reason that the G -90 had included in the 10 ASP the 
operationalization of  special and differential treatment for LDCs in the accession process in 
accordance with the Guidelines.  
4.30.   The report made interesting observation s about the impact of WTO accession on economic 
performance of A rticle XII Members, which was something to be applauded. South Africa wished to 
request the WTO Secretariat to also assess progress in terms of the impact on the structure of trade 
which was critical to the effective integration of countries in global trad e. Th at would assist in the 
development of target programmes to support acceding members.  
4.31.   South Africa also recommended that the WTO, in addition to working in close collaboration 
with the World Bank and IMF in the context of WTO accessions, also enhanced the collaboration with 
development -oriented institutions, such as UNCTAD. Accession to the WTO was a complex process 
and typically involved domestic structural reforms, encompassing a wide range of national trade and 
economic policies that were underpinned  by the development trajectory of a country. It was 
important to have a balanced and well -coordinated support programme for acceding countries in the 
context of promoting a fair, equitable and development -centred multilateral trading system. South 
Africa a lso welcomed the close collaboration between the WTO Secretariat, AUC and UNECA to 
ensure closer alignment between the WTO and the AfCFTA.  
4.32.   The representative of Turkey  said that Turkey  had always been a staunch support er of WTO 
accessions. Accessions not o nly contribute d to the universalization of the multilateral trading system , 
but they also bec ame the engines of domestic regulatory reform in candidate countries. MC12 w ould 
be hosted by an Article XII Member , and that was  very meaningful. The accessions o f Belarus, Bosnia 
and Herzegovina and Comoros were at an advanced stage. As the Chairman of the Working Party 
for Belarus, he was  happy to join the Director -General 's report that considerable headway ha d been 
achieved , and b elieve d that  all Members would  continue to engage constructively to make th at 
accession process a reality. Turkey  likewise welcome d Ambassador Ebyan Mahamed Salah of 
Somalia and wish ed Somalia a successful accession process.  
4.33.   The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked the Director -General for the report and 
the WTO Accessions Division for their excellent and tireless work. The United Kingdom  was a strong 
supporter of accessions while it was a Member State of the E uropean Union . Now that the U nited 
Kingdom  had left the E uropean Union , it planned to be an even greater champion for the ambition 
of governments to join the WTO. The United Kingdom firmly believed that the WTO was an excellent 
anchor for domestic reform, more open and safer trade, stronger international engagement and 
better livelihoods. One of the greatest achievements of the WTO – arguably matching the benefits 
of any GATT or WTO n egotiating round – was the expansion in its membership.  
4.34.   The United Kingdom  recalled that, since the WTO was established, thirty -six governments had 
joined. In many cases, behind those successful accessions were years of difficult, highly technical 
negotia tions. The Director -General 's report rightly saluted the "remarkable resilience and strong 
commitment " by acceding governments. The U nited Kingdom  fully agreed. Of course, the accessions 
story was far from over. Twenty -two governments were still in the pro cess of WTO accession. The 
United Kingdom  looked forward to engaging with acceding governments in Geneva and through its 
wide network of overseas posts.  
4.35.   In line with its commitment to be a champion of the voice of developing countries at the WTO, 
the U nited Kingdom  planned to be especially engaged in support of its developing and least -
developed country partners, particularly in Africa and the Commonwealth. Through its Aid -for-Trade 
instruments – in particular its Trade and Investment Advocacy Fund – the U nited Kingdom  had 
supported a number of LDC Chief Negotiators and senior officials to attend Working Party meetings, 
reform key legislative instruments, and prepare documents for consideration by the Membership. 
The U nited Kingdom  was also chairing the acce ssions Working Party of the Bahamas, and was proud 
to support its fellow Commonwealth member in Geneva. Th at support would not stop once the 
accession process was over. The U nited Kingdom  would continue to support governments once they 
became Members, to h elp them navigate the new landscape of negotiations, defend their interests 
in Committee meetings, and help shape a better WTO.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.36.   The representative of Benin  said that accessions  was a highly important matter as it 
corresponded to the very reality of the fun ctioning of the multilateral trading system. Benin endorsed 
the statement made by Botswana on behalf of the African Group and by Chad on behalf of the LDCs. 
Developing countries, particularly the LDCs, including SVEs and LLDCs, who were in the process of 
accession, encountered significant difficulties to meet the obligations that fell to them and the role 
they were expected to assume with regard to the package of measures that Members called for them 
to comply with, despite the constraints and difficulties that they encountered. That is why Benin 
wished to call for realism. Members should uphold the principles of inclusion and universality so that 
they could be carried forward and brought into reality by accelerating and facilitating the accessions 
processes  of that group of countries.  
4.37.   Those countries were not operating in isolation within the institutional framework and 
measures that they were currently establishing. They were also in sub -regional and regional 
groupings and the realities that they experience d in them corresponded to the situation of countries 
in terms of their small scale economies, the complexity of needs that they faced and of the 
expectations in different areas such as goods, services and intellectual property, among others. The 
Guidelines  on LDC Accessions had to be respected and that work in each of their accession processes 
should be followed up so progress in th at area could be made towards an acceleration and facilitation 
for the large number of countries trying to accede to the WTO.  
4.38.   The representative of Oman  expressed Oman 's condolences to the government of New 
Zealand and family of Mr. Moore on the passing of former Director -General Mr. Mike Moore. Oman 
had had very good relation s with Mr. Moore  – he had helped and supported Oman 's small mission 
during the accession process to the WTO and launching of the Doha Round.  
4.39.   Oman  thanked the Director -General for his annual report on accessions which was a very 
important document to update Members on progress made.   
4.40.   Oman  also welcomed Amba ssador Ebyan Mahamed of Somalia and noted that Oman and 
Somalia had a long strong political, economic and social historical relationship. Oman welcomed any 
efforts to facilitate and accelerate Somalia 's integration into the global trading system. As a coun try 
that was recovering from a long security battle, Oman congratulated Somalia for its determination 
to bring their country back to international community and for their efforts to integrate into the 
multilateral trading system by moving forward with thei r accession process. Oman welcomed 
Somalia 's submission of its MFTR and hoped that WTO Members would assist Somalia in its accession 
process and would give Somalia all the needed support for th e process to move forward smoothly.  
4.41.   The representative of Qatar  took note of all the achievements made thus far and look ed 
forward to participate actively in order to see the accession processes moving forward. Qatar  also 
thanked the WTO Secretariat and all of those who were participating in th e process for their hard  
work. It was important that the WTO continued to grow the number of its Members with the aim of 
achieving a fully global membership – thereby reinvigorating the multilateral trading system. Qatar 
also welcomed Ambassador Ebyan Mahamed Salah of Somalia and  her team, and was happy to see 
that Somalia 's accession process had made progress with its MFTR. Qatar wished Somalia all the 
success moving forward in its accession process.  
4.42.   The representative of Somalia , speaking as an Observer , said it was an honour to  address the 
General Council. Following on from the Director -General 's report on accession touching upon 
Somalia, she provide d an update on Somalia's state of play on accession.  
4.43.   She was delighted to announce that its Memorandum of Foreign Trade Regime woul d be 
deposited to the WTO Secretariat later that week. She thanked Somalia 's Chief Trade Negotiator and 
her team for their diligent effort to deliver the MFTR. All of th ose could not be possible without the 
support of H.E. Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo, Presi dent of the Federal Republic of Somalia, who had 
revived the accession after a period of inactivity. She thanked the Somali Government, the 
Parliamentarians and the Somali private sector for their continued support. WTO Accession was now 
the Government 's policy and a matter of priority included in the Ninth National Development Plan 
launched in January.  
4.44.   She asked Members to be mindful of the impact war had had on policies and legislations of a 
country  including in preparing questions on its MFTR – as some of the documents had been lost. To WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 16 - 
 
  that end, the Federal Government of Somalia had been working tirelessly to write, revise and amend 
all necessary legislations as it recovered and sustained its commitment to institutional economic 
reform and global in tegration. In February, the IMF had announced that Somalia was eligible for 
debt forgiveness under the enhancement heavy indebted poor countries known as HIPC Initiative. 
The power and the spirit of multilateralism could be seen in Somalia 's quest of debt forgiveness as 
the Government of Somalia worked day and night to reach the HIPC decision point. The previous 
week, one of the IMF Member States had in fact contributed to the historical financing milestone for 
debt relief. Th at could not have happened with out the financial pledges of many governments. On 
behalf of the Government and the People of Somalia, she thanked all Members and Observers who 
had contributed.  
4.45.   In concluding, she highlighted that the Government of Somalia was committed to economic 
reform and the WTO Accession was in itself a masterclass to achieve economic reformation. Somalia 
looked forward to continued support from WTO Members, bilateral partners and institutional 
partners. She thank ed the WTO Secretariat for its continued support and in  fact the efforts of the 
WTO Accessions Division Director, Ms. Maika Oshikawa, and DDG Alan Wolff. The DDG 's leadership 
had created a crucial platform for post -conflict States such as "Trade for Peace ". She look ed forward 
to seeing delegations at Somalia 's first Working Party later in the year.  
4.46.   The representative of Ethiopia , speaking as an Observer , associated with the statement made 
by Chad on behalf of the LDCs and by Botswana on behalf of the African Group. The Director -General 
had reported that 2019 ha d been the busiest year in WTO accessions  and significant work ha d been 
done by the Secretariat. However, no accession had been registered and it was not sure that there 
would be one by MC12. Since 1996 to 2016, on average, about two accessions had been re gistered 
per year. If the trend went well, eight accessions should have been expected. But no accession had 
been registered for the last four years. The report indicated that , recently , some accessions seemed 
to be activated positively.  
4.47.   Based on the princ iples of universality of the multilateral trading system  and of no one being 
left behind in the system , and to help specially the LDCs secure a share in the growth of international 
trade and benefit from the system in a balanced term consistent with their level and development 
and achieve their SDGs, Members should restrain from seeking concessions and commitments that 
could hamper the level of development of countries. To universali ze the multilateral trading system, 
Members had to facilitate speedy and sm ooth integration of countries on accession.  
4.48.   The General Council took note  of the Director -General 's report and of the statements.  
5  TWELFTH SESSION OF T HE MINISTERIAL CONFE RENCE7 
5.1  Election of Officers  
5.1.  The Chair recalled that the Rules of Procedure (Rule 12) for the Ministerial Conference 
established 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 en d of that 
session until the end of the next regular session. " She recalled that, at its meeting in October 2019, 
the General Council had agreed that MC12 would be chaired by His Excellency Minister Bakhyt 
Sultanov of Kazakhstan – the host country of MC12.  
5.2.  Regarding the three Vice -Chairs, in view of the fact that the Chair would come from the Asian 
region, and in line with customary practice, 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 in order to submit the names of the proposed Vice -Chairs.   
5.3.  Consultations had then been conducted by the Group Coordinators, and further to th e process, 
she had sent a communication to a ll delegations on 12 February, informing all Members of the three 
names for appointment as Vice -Chairs. In th e communication , she had also proposed that, if no 
objections were received by 20 February, the General Council would elect the proposed Vice -Chair s 
at that day's meeting.  
 
7 See footnote 11 on the outbreak of COVID -19.  See also JOB/GC/227.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 17 - 
 
  5.4.  Since no objections had been received, she proposed that the General Council agreed to elect 
the following Vice -Chairs for MC12: H.E. Ms Amelia Kyambadde (Uganda), H.E. Mr Jerome Walcott 
(Barbados) and H.E. Mr Simon Birmingham (Au stralia).  
5.5.  The General Council so agreed . 
5.2  Request for Observer Status by Palestine (WT/L/1087)  
5.6.  The Chair drew the General Council 's attention to the request for Observer status at MC12 by 
Palestine, which had been circulated on 9 January in WT/L/1087. In ac cordance with customary 
practice, she had undertaken consultations with interested delegations, and she understood that the 
General Council was in a position to take action concerning th at request. Therefore, she proposed 
that the General Council agreed to  grant Palestine Observer Status at MC12 on an ad hoc basis.  
5.7.  The General Council so agreed . 
5.3  Launch of the MC12 Logo – Statement by Kazakhstan8 
5.8.  The Chair invited  the delegation of Kazakhstan, the MC12 host country, to launch the logo of 
the Twelfth Session of the Ministerial Conference , as part of the preparations for MC12 . 
5.9.  The representative of Kazakhstan  was pleased to announce that talented experts in 
Kazakhsta n, working in close coordination with the WTO MC12 Task Force, had been able to reali ze 
the logo for MC12 and was proud to present it in its two versions, with white background and with 
blue background. She expressed her satisfaction for the good progress of the preparatory works for 
MC12 and the excellent collaboration between the Permanent Representation in Geneva, the teams 
in Kazakhstan and the WTO Secretariat. Kazakhstan looked forward to welcoming all in Nur -Sultan 
and wished everyone a successful Con ference.  
5.10.   The Chair thanked the delegation of Kazakhstan,  the teams of experts in Kazakhstan and in 
the MC12 Task Force for their valuable work.  
5.11.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
5.4  Statement by the Chair  
5.12.   The Chair referred to the substantive pr eparations for the Ministerial Conference, and in 
particular on two issues: the Annual Reports to be transmitted to the Ministerial Conference; and 
the other substantive aspects of MC12, including a possible MC12 outcome document.  
5.13.   Concerning the Annual Rep orts, she recalled that at the General Council meeting on 
9-10 December 2019, she had noted that the Annual Reports that were considered under the 
relevant item on "Overview of WTO Activities " would be submitted to the Ministerial Conference, in 
line with the reporting obligations in WT/L/105. She had also noted that, since the Ministerial 
Conference was taking place later than usual, an update could be prepared for the information of 
Ministers, covering the first few months of 2020. In th at respect, and in  order to avoid unnecessary 
duplications, she suggested that past practice was closely followed and that, in addition to the 2019 
Annual Reports, the General Council would submit to the Ministerial Conference a brief update report 
describing developments s ince the December meeting. The Chairpersons of subsidiary bodies could  
present brief updates, on their own responsibility, concerning developments in their respective areas 
since December 2019, if they considered it appropriate. She had sent a communicatio n to the Chairs 
of subsidiary bodies to th at effect, and she trusted that th at was acceptable to delegations.  
5.14.   Regarding the other substantive aspects of MC12, and as the Ministerial Conference was less 
than 14 weeks away, it was essential to begin to think  through all the elements and dimensions of 
the work ahead, and how they linked to each other going forward. In particular, in addition to the 
work which was taking place in the negotiating bodies as well as in the regular bodies, which could  
 
8 This sub -item was taken up as the last sub -item under agenda item 5.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 18 - 
 
  include point s for action by Ministers, Members needed to start thinking about the kind of outcome 
document for the Ministerial Conference towards which they could  wish to work.  
5.15.   As it had also been mentioned by the Director -General at the HODs/TNC meeting, past 
experi ence showed that different Conferences had had different types of outcome documents – from 
fully-fledged Ministerial Declarations, to Chairs ' summaries, to "hybrid documents ", made of both a 
multilaterally agreed part and a Chair 's summary. The work toward s the elaboration of th ose 
outcome documents had normally been conducted within the General Council 's framework.  
5.16.   She stressed that, as always, it was the substance that dr ove the format, and not vice -versa. 
However, time was needed for any process towards the elaboration of an outcome document. She 
had been in close coordination with the incoming General Council  Chair, Ambassador Walker, with 
the Director -General and with the delegation of Kazakhstan, the MC12 host – and they had started 
preliminary discussions on the matter. She would leave it to her successor to consult with delegations 
on a way forward in th at regard. It was up to Members to shape MC12 into a Conference that  would 
address their needs and expectations. She encouraged all delegations to engage actively and 
constructively in the discussions going forward, and to work together in ensuring a smooth 
preparatory process that laid the ground for a successful Minister ial Conference.  
5.17.   The representative of Barbados  thanked GRULAC  for nominating Senator Dr The Honourable 
Jerome Walcott, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of Barbados for the Vice -Chairmanship 
of the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference. Barbados a lso extended its heartfelt appreciation to WTO 
Members for the confidence that they had placed in Minister Walcott by electing him as one of the 
three Vice -Chairs of the Conference. Barbados also congratulated the Ministers of Uganda and 
Australia on their  election. Minister Walcott was acutely aware of the circumstances under which the 
Conference would be held and looked forward to working to secure a successful outcome in Nur -
Sultan.   
5.18.   He thanked the Ambassador of Kazakhstan for her statement to mark the l aunch of the MC12 
logo and said that Barbados strived to work together to advance the work towards MC12. Barbados 
had taken good note of the report by the Director -General under Agenda Item 1, particularly 
regarding the possible issues for MC12. Whil e Barbados did not discount the importance of the 
shortlist of issues presented, th at should not be considered as a closed list. All Members had to be 
allowed to bring their issues forward, and th ose issues had to be given due consideration if Members 
were to en sure a balanced outcome at MC12, and that the issues of interest of all WTO Members 
were reflected. Barbados recogni zed that with limited time left before the Conference, discussions 
on the outcome document for the Ministerial would soon commence in earnes t. Such discussions 
should ensure that multilateralism remained at the heart and the raison d 'être of the work in the 
WTO. Th ose discussions should not only be transparent, inclusive and consensus -based but should 
also reaffirm th ose principles.  
5.19.   The Genera l Council took note  of the statements.  
6  ACCESSION OF CURAÇAO  (WT/ACC/CUW/1) – REQUEST FROM THE KINGD OM OF THE 
NETHERLANDS  
6.1.  The Chair recalled that, at its December meeting, the General Council had taken up the 
Accession of Curaçao at the request of the Kingd om of the Netherlands, and further to the 
communication from Curaçao, circulated on 1 November in document WT/ACC/CUW/1. In that 
communication, Curaçao was requesting accession to the WTO Agreement pursuant to Article XII. 
At that meeting, some delegations  had noted that they needed more time to further consult on the 
request. Subsequent to that meeting, she understood that further discussions and consultations had 
been held and that as a result, Members could  be in a position to take positive action on th e request.  
6.2.  She further recalled that, upon a request for accession and if th at was acceptable to all, the 
action for the General Council would be to agree to establish a Working Party. She therefore proposed 
that the General Council moved forward and formally took action on th e application.  
6.3.  She read out the terms of reference and c omposition that would form the basis of establishing 
the Working Party that would examine the request of Curaçao:  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. Terms of Reference: "To examine the application of the applicant to accede to the WTO 
Agreement under Article XII, and to submit to the Genera l Council recommendations which 
may include a draft Protocol of Accession ." 
b. Membership: "Membership would be open to all Members indicating their wish to serve on 
the Working Party. "  
c. Chairmanship: "In keeping with customary practice, the General Council w ould authori ze 
its Chairman to designate the Chairperson of the Working Party in consultation with 
representatives of Members and with the representative of the applicant. " 
6.4.  Therefore, with respect to the request of Curaçao in WT/ACC/CUW/1, she propose d that the 
General Council agree d to establish a Working Party with the terms of reference and composition as 
she had  just read out.  
6.5.  The General Council so agreed . 
6.6.  The Chair added that  further communications would be sent regarding the consultations for 
the cha irmanship of th at working party.  She then invited the delegation of Curaçao to enter the 
room and  welcome d Mr. Caryl Monte, Chief Negotiator, and the delegation of Curaçao . On behalf of 
all Members, she congratulate d the Government of Curaçao on the succes sful establishment of the 
Working Party.  She further invited the delegation of Curaçao to consult with the Accessions Division 
of the WTO Secretariat as to the further procedures and the basic documentation to be considered 
by the Working Party.  
6.7.  On behalf of the General Council, she then invited Curaçao to attend meetings of the General 
Council and, as appropriate, meetings of other WTO bodies as observer during the period of its 
accession process.  
6.8.  The representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands  thanked the General Council for the 
decision to establish  the Working Party  and said that  the request for a separate WTO membership 
by Curaçao was fully supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a whole. The Kingdom was 
constituted of four  countries, three of which were situated in the Caribbean,  namely Aruba, Curaçao 
and S aint Maarten and one in Europe – the Netherlands. Curaçao ha d been part of the original 
membership of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the GATT and subsequently  to the  WTO, and with 
the request for membership as a separate customs union, Curaçao underline d its commitments to 
the WTO.  
6.9.  Mr Caryl Monte, President of the Permanent Commission for International Trade and Foreign 
Economic Relations and Chief  Negotiator of Curaçao , speaking as an Observer , said9 that Curaçao 
was part of the so -called Leeward Islands, situated in the southern part of the Caribbean Sea about 
55 kilometres off the coast of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Curaçao was an autonomous 
country and sep arate customs territory within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.  
6.10.   He stressed that it was a historic moment for Curaçao which had been long in the making. 
That moment was historic  because it was the very first time Curaçao was formally addressing the 
General Council of the World Trade Organization in Geneva as an acceding separate customs 
territory, in effect after the decision to establish an accession working party, which was a great 
pleasure and honour for him, on behalf of his delegation and the country of  Curaçao. He expressed 
gratitude to the Permanent Representative as well as the Government of the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands for facilitating the transmission of Curaçao 's request for accession to the General 
Council.  
6.11.   He noted that, because of untraceable reasons, at the inception of the WTO in 1995, Curaçao 
had regretfully missed the boat that would have converted its GATT -membership in an original 
Article  XI membership on the basis of its status as a separate customs territory. However, Curaçao 's 
desire to join the WTO had been formally revived in 1998, when the Government of the predecessor 
 
9 The statement of Mr. Caryl Monte was subsequently circulated in document JOB/ACC/CUW/1.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 20 - 
 
  country, the Netherlands Antilles, had decided it should become a full member of the WTO as an 
independent customs territory.  
6.12.   As many knew and as indicated in Curaçao 's statement of economic policies, which had 
accompanied the request for accession on the basis of Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement, the 
former country of the Netherlands Antilles had constitutionally ceased to exist on 10 October 2010. 
However, it had left a legacy of great commitment to international trade for its successors, among 
which the autonomous country and separate customs territory of Curaçao. Their predecessors in the 
Netherlands Antilles had been a participant to GATT and all it s multilateral negotiation rounds, at 
least since 1949. Th at meant that Curaçao had a history of solid and deep commitment towards 
multilateralism and international organizations since the initial post -war period of international 
cooperation on global econ omic governance.  
6.13.   Curaçao believed in and would actively support the role of the WTO in organi zing and nurturing 
effective global economic governance especially where it concerned the interests of small island 
developing States like Curaçao within the WTO.  In that respect, its fundamental aspiration was to 
directly participate in the global trade dialogue and seek mutual economic progress by connecting 
to other trading partners, especially in the region, based on a transparent set of multilateral and 
plurilateral trading and other commercial rules, administered on the basis of equality, and 
irrespective of the size of the Members represented in the WTO.  
6.14.   Furthermore, the multilateral trading system and the WTO assisted them all in bringing their 
trade and ot her commercial policies, systems and practices, where necessary, in line with the global 
environment for import, export, investment and trade facilitation to attract much needed foreign 
investments. It was for th ose reasons that although very small in comp arison to many others, 
Curaçao was highly motivated to be directly involved in the rulemaking by, and reform of, the WTO.  
6.15.   He stressed that, although the institution faced different important challenges, and several 
alternatives for reform of the multilate ral trading system were being circulated by or debated upon, 
while not disregarding the differences of opinion among Members and group of Members, there was 
still significant support for the work of the WTO. According to many, including the Government of 
Curaçao, the WTO was still the world 's best bet in avoiding disrupting international trade wars. 
Therefore, although there was apparently no single path to address its main challenges, Curaçao 
urged WTO Members to continue to exercise solidarity and try the ir very best in protecting the 
present multilateral trading system from major interruptions and the frustrations that existed on 
both sides of the aisle.  
6.16.   From that unique and historic platform provided to Curaçao, he expressed warm greetings 
from the Gover nment and people of Curaçao to all WTO Members, Observer Governments and the 
people all of them represented, thereby conveying Curaçao 's deep appreciation for the cooperation 
and decision to establish the Working Party on the Accession of Curaçao.  
6.17.   In clos ing, he said that Curaçao committed itself to make a deep dive into the work of the 
Accession Working Party to complete the required procedures in the accession process as soon as 
possible, given the fact that, through its current shared membership with th e other countries within 
the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Curaçao should already be in compliance, or largely in compliance, 
with the main requirements imposed on Members on the basis of the Marrakesh Agreement and the 
other Agreements related thereto. Cura çao looked forward to Members participating in the Working 
Group to favourably reciprocate its commitment to the Article XII accession process.  
6.18.   The Director -General  congratulate d Curaçao on Members ' acceptance of its application to 
accede to the WTO  and wished Curaçao the best for a swift and successful accession process.  He 
said that Curaçao could  count on the Secretariat 's full support.  
6.19.   The representative of Panama , on behalf of Article XII Members , welcome d Curaçao 's 
application for an individual membership to the WTO and wish ed them an expedited and successful 
negotiating process for its accession. MC12 in Kazakhstan would  be the first Ministerial hosted by 
one of the Article XII Members , and the Group hoped  that th at milestone could  result in the accession 
of more than one new Member to the organization.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 21 - 
 
  6.20.   The representative of the European Union  congratulated the establishment of the Working 
Party to deal with Curaçao 's request to accede to the WTO as a separate cust oms' territory from the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands. The European Union looked forward to engaging fully with Curaçao in 
its accession negotiations.  
6.21.   The representative of St. Lucia , on behalf of the OECS , welcomed Mr Caryl M.C. Monte, 
Permanent Commission for International Trade and Foreign Economic Relations, and his delegation. 
Similar to OECS Member States, Cura çao was a small island developing state and a small and open 
economy. Cura çao also shared very close ties with many OECS Member States, given a r obust 
exchange of labour during the middle decades of the previous century. Today, the countries faced 
similar structural challenges.  
6.22.   In that regard, the OECS was of the view that the accession of Curacao to the WTO would 
lend an additional and important v oice on issues of common concern to small economies. A smooth 
and orderly accession would demonstrate that the WTO continued to be a place where the interests 
and concerns of all countries, including small island developing states, could be fully articulat ed and 
pursued.   
6.23.   Over the past five years, bilateral merchandise trade between the OECS and Cura çao had 
totalled approximately USD 24.5 million. Th at was not a huge sum but the OECS believed that trade 
relations could be enhanced if countries were able to trade on common terms such as those that the 
accession of Cura çao would facilitate. Based on the trade data and latent relative comparative 
advantages, there were a number of areas ripe for bilateral trade that could benefit both the OECS 
and Cura çao.   
6.24.   The OECS urged WTO Members to give favourable consideration to the accession of Cura çao 
on terms that were supportive of their sustainable development. The OECS welcomed the stated 
commitment of the Cura çao authorities to the principles of multilateralism an d were thus confident 
in their continued path towards long -term economic development and sustainable economic growth. 
The OECS looked forward to working with Cura çao and urged the establishment of a Working Party 
to speedily progress the accession of Cura çao. 
6.25.   The representative of Barbados  congratulated  the Government of Cura çao on the beginning 
of its accession process to the WTO and wished the delegation and the Government of Curaçao the 
very best on the way forward. Barbados recogni zed and praised the role of the Government of the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands in th e process. C uraçao and Barbados enjoyed strong business and 
economic ties . Curaçao could therefore count on Barbados ' support in its accession process.  
6.26.   The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked Cura çao for its statement and the 
colleagues from the Kingdom of th e Netherlands for their engagement. He wished to re -emphasi ze 
that, as the Chair of a Working Party in a neighbouring Caribbean island, the U nited Kingdom  
understood the challenges that small administrations faced during their accessions process. The 
United Kingdom  supported the establishment of a Working Party for Cura çao and looked forward to 
future discussions. The United Kingdom  wished Cura çao the best in its discussions with Members 
going forward.  
6.27.   The representative of Jamaica  congratulate d Curaçao on the commencement of the process 
of its accession to the WTO. Jamaica and Curaçao share d many similarities as small states. Further, 
Jamaica and Curaçao ha d excellent relations and long -standing economic linkages. Jamaica  assure d 
Curaçao of its support and wish ed them an expedited and smooth accession journey.   
6.28.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  warm ly welcome d the delegation of Curaçao , 
and the initiation of its formal accession process through the establishment of the Working Party.  
The Dominican Republic had  significant ties and friendship with Curaçao. Th at had been strengthened 
the year before  through the signing of the collaboration agreement to have greater  exchange of 
information with regard to maritime, cargo and cruise ship industries. They were  seeking to facilitate 
the exchange of information on th at industry in each port. The Dominican Republic  looked very 
positively on the initiation of th e process to gether with Curaçao and stood  fully ready to cooperate 
to ensure that Curaçao bec ame a Member of the World Trade Organization. The Dominican Republic  
express ed its full support to the process.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 22 - 
 
  6.29.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  PROCEDURES TO STRENGTHEN THE NEGOT IATING FUNCTION OF T HE WTO – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES (WT/GC/W/ 757/REV.1 AND WT/GC/ W/764/REV.1)  
7.1.  The Chair recalled that th e item had been included in the  agenda by the delegation of the 
United States, with the document WT/GC/W/757 /Rev.1 and the revised communication in 
WT/GC/W/764/Rev.1.  
7.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States  was pleased to continue 
the discussion of th at important reform initiative. The United States  recalled that, in January 2019, 
it had submitted a detailed paper on differentiation at the WTO. On that factual and analytic basis, 
the United States in February 2019 had submitted to the General Council a proposal to resolve the 
differentiation problem through a pragmatic approach that recogni zed the complexity of th e issue.  
7.3.  The US proposal established objective criteria for determining whether a WTO Member could  
continue to avail itself of blanket "special and differential treatment " (S&DT) in current a nd future 
WTO negotiations. The four criteria were: (i) a WTO Member that was a Member of the OECD, or a 
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 accounted for no less than 0.5 per  cent of global merchandise trade. For 
the "high income " and the "share of global merchandise trade " criteria, a Member had to meet the 
criteria for three ye ars prior to the date of decision or three years thereafter. Members who met at 
least one of the four criteria would forego blanket S&D T provisions in current and future WTO 
negotiations. However, they would retain the ability to negotiate the flexibilitie s they need ed to 
defend their interests.  
7.4.  Since the previous meeting of the General Council in December, the United States had 
continued to deepen its conversations with several Members across the development spectrum.  
Those included Members that would meet  at least one of the four criteria, as well as Members that 
would benefit if the more advanced, wealthy, or influential economies finally accepted responsibilities 
commensurate with their role in the global economy. The United States was encouraged by th ose 
conversations. The United States ' arguments in favour of reform enjoyed support from a diverse and 
deep cross -section of the Membership, even if some could not openly express their support in 
Geneva.  
7.5.  They agreed that certain Members were inappropriately seeking S&D T in WTO negotiations 
despite overwhelming evidence of economic strength, wealth or influence; that th ose Members ' rigid 
insistence on receiving special treatment intended for much poorer, less -integrated Members was 
damaging the WTO and Members ' collective ability to reach agreements; and that th e issue had to 
be addressed if the WTO was to be a viable forum for negotiations. The United States was also 
encouraged by the Members that were giving serious thought to th e reform proposal and stood re ady 
to continue its discussions with them.  
7.6.  The United States  discuss ed one of the four criteria in the US proposal – G20 membership. A 
few Members had asked why G20 members should forego S&D T in current and future WTO 
negotiations  – arguing that the G20 had been created to reflect the voices of developed and 
developing economies. In the United States'  view, the founding documents of the G20 told a different 
story which in an important respect mirrored the need for change at the WTO. In Decem ber 1999, 
in the communique of the inaugural meeting of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank 
Governors, G20 members had stated the following:  
"The G -20 was established to provide a new mechanism for informal dialogue in the 
framework of the Bretton W oods institutional system, to broaden the discussions on key 
economic and financial policy issues among systemically significant economies and 
promote cooperation to achieve stable and sustainable world economic growth that 
benefits all. " 
7.7.  In other words, a t the founding of the G20, every member had self -identified as a "systemically 
significant economy " that should be at the table to help solve global economic problems for the 
benefit of all, including the poorest among  them. Importantly, the creation of th e G20 had involved WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 23 - 
 
  a conscious decision by its members to adapt the international architecture to a changed world – an 
example that the WTO desperately needed to follow.  
7.8.  Previously, the roster of systemically significant economies had been narrower, with e conomic 
power concentrated in fewer hands. By 1999, tectonic shifts in the global economy had begun to 
disperse that power and influence to a wider group of countries. Each member of the new G20 was 
an important economic power  – domestic developments in ea ch could affect conditions far beyond 
its borders. Th ose tectonic shifts had continued and  had accelerated. Today, a diverse set of 
indicators confirmed that the self -declared developing members of the G20 had differentiated 
themselves from the poorest, le ast integrated Members of the WTO.  
7.9.  As just one example, the share of global merchandise trade for the ten self-declared developing 
members of the G20 had surged over the past three decades, from 9 per  cent to 24 per  cent. Yet, 
the share of global merchandi se trade for the African continent over that period had actually 
decreased from 2.8 to 2.7 per  cent, and the share for LDCs had nudged up to just 1.2 per  cent. 
7.10.   However, G20 membership was a criterion in the US S&D T reform proposal not simply because 
of eco nomic data. An important differentiating characteristic of G20 membership was influence; the 
opportunity and the capacity to shape the agenda for international engagement on a diverse set of 
issues, including globalization, aid, financial market developmen t, regional economic integration, 
reserves, and demographics. Amazingly, despite th ose gross advantages in economic weight and 
global influence, most self -declared developing Members of the G20 insisted on receiving the same 
special treatment as the poores t and least integrated WTO Members. The United States was pleased 
that two of the ten self -declared developing country G20 members had stated their intent to forego 
S&DT in current and future WTO negotiations, and hoped to see more step forward during Saud i 
Arabia 's G20 Presidency in the year.  
7.11.   The United States  also wished to explain another recent development. As Members could  be 
aware, the SCM Agreement required WTO Members to extend S&D T when applying their CVD laws 
to developing and least -developed coun tries. There were two S&D T provisions that were still in effect 
in the SCM Agreement: developing and least -developed countries were entitled to a higher de 
minimis threshold than developed countries, and they enjoyed a higher threshold for import volume 
negligibility.  
7.12.   US law, pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, required USTR to designate, and to 
update as necessary, which countries were developing and least developed , for purposes of US CVD 
investigations. On 10 February, the USTR had published a Notice in the Federal Register that updated 
the list of WTO Members that were designated as developing or least -developed countries for 
purposes of US CVD investigations. The previous list had been published in 1998. As a result of the 
update, some Members  were no longer eligible to receive the two forms of S&D T when the United 
States conducted CVD investigations on imports into the country from those Members. The CVD 
Notice did not affect in any way the approach laid out in the US S&D T reform proposal, whi ch was 
exclusively focused on S&D T in future WTO agreements. As stated in the CVD Notice, it "has no 
effect on how that Member may be classified with respect to any other law. " 
7.13.   The United States, through its S&D T proposal, was not asking any Member to chan ge its self -
declared development status, nor was the United States asking any Member to forego S&D T in 
existing WTO agreements. The CVD Notice did not affect the US approach.  
7.14.   Finally, the United States provide d a brief update to Members on the US President 's instruction 
to the USTR in July 2019 to 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 were asking  when 
the USTR would publish the list, and the USTR was actively consulting on th e issue.  
7.15.   In closing, the discussions that the United States was having with Members were constructive, 
sincere, and candid. The United States looked forward to continuing to e ngage with Members on 
that reform proposal.  
7.16.   The representative of the European Union  said that the E uropean Union  supported 
development as a central pillar of the organi zation. However, the current distinction between 
developed and developing countries no longer reflected the reality of the rapid economic growth in WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 24 - 
 
  some developing countries. Members should therefore continue to work on special and differential 
treatment with a view to ensuring that flexibilities were made available to those Members who 
actually needed them to enable them to fully benefit from their membership of the WTO.  
7.17.   If the organization was to prosper, S&DT  had to become much more granular in function of 
an individual Member 's demonstrated needs and capacities.  Future differentiation sh ould be 
designed in terms of specific individual country needs at the sectoral or activity level, rather than 
calling for a block exemption of a large category of Members. Furthermore, the European Union 
considered that each developing country 's need for S&DT should be assessed on a case -by-case 
basis and should be evidence -based. The notable exception should be the least-developed countries 
who deserved particular treatment.  
7.18.   In that respect, the E uropean Union  welcomed Costa Rica 's decision not to seek fl exibilities in 
current and future negotiations. The E uropean Union  was open to looking into special and differential 
treatment provisions in future agreements such as the ongoing negotiations in fisheries subsidies. 
The E uropean Union  expected to have a di scussion 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 agreement. It was only when special 
and differen tial treatment responded to a specific need that it could be truly effective.  
7.19.   The European Union  called on advanced WTO Members claiming developing country status to 
undertake full commitments in ongoing and future negotiations. Th at should particularly b e the case 
for members of the G20 which represented the world 's most important economies.  
7.20.   The representative of Australia  welcomed the ongoing discussion on th at important issue and 
the opportunity to once again express its views on the question of special and differential treatment, 
which was an important element of the collective efforts to strengthen and moderni ze the 
organization. Australia remained committed to fostering all Members ' participation in global trade – 
and continued to recogni ze the value of S&DT  in supporting developing countries, particularly LDCs, 
to integrate into the multilateral trading system . 
7.21.   S&DT  should not be an end in itself – rather, i t was part of a broader set of tools available to 
assist Members to move towards full implementation of WTO agreements. Members had to recogni ze 
that some of the approaches to S&DT  over the years had not helped in achieving negotiated 
outcomes – and in som e cases had not reflected developments in the global economy. Members ' 
needs clearly differed, including on particular issues, so S&DT  should not be applied in a one -size 
fits all fashion. Instead, S&DT  had to be tailored on a needs -basis to enable Members  to make 
commitments commensurate with their capacity to do so. Australia would continue to work with 
Members to find appropriate, targeted solutions to S&DT  in current and future negotiations – and 
looked forward to participating further in th e discussion . 
7.22.   The representative of Colombia  thanked the U nited States  for including th at item in the 
agenda, for its insightful background paper and for previous discussions on th e matter. Colombia 
understood the US position and its concerns about the impact that Special and Differential Treatment 
could  have in the negotiating function of the WTO. It was a fact that the world had changed since 
1995 and that the inclusion of S&DT  provisions in negotiations had increasingly proven to be a 
challenge. It was also a fact that development trajectories had in practice diverged substantively, 
and rigid categories could  not be able to adequately grasp the current differences among Members, 
to the detriment of the weakest of them.  
7.23.   In th at context, the future use of S&DT  provisions was a very important discussion and 
Colombia acknowledged the responsibility that lied upon all Members to tackle it on the pursuit of a 
greater systemic goal. Members should not avoid th at difficult discussion or hide it under the carpet. 
Although Colombia was eager to engage in such discussion, some of the elements in the proposal 
taken together with some recent decisions were making th at engagement increasingly more difficult  
for Colombia.  
7.24.   First, the criteria used in the document under discus sion could be undermining the discussion 
of S&DT  and its effects on the negotiating ability of the WTO since much of the attention shifts to 
the criteria themselves hindering the central point of the discussion. In Colombia 's case, for example, 
the OECD cr iterion had proven internally damaging in its efforts to move forward to a more integral WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 25 - 
 
  discussion. The background paper directly acknowledged that every criterion was inherently flawed. 
Colombia understood that, but it was also true that some criteria we re less accurate than others. 
Membership to the OECD was a particularly misguided proxy for S&DT  needs. In fact, the OECD 
reache d out to countries as a good -practices organization, not as an organization of fully developed 
countries. In Colombia 's perspect ive, much had been extracted from a simple preambular provision 
in the OECD Convention. For the Colombian Government, the OECD accession process was always 
meant to be a helping hand in Colombia' s development path, not a conclusion to it. The OECD 
criterio n had thus handicapped Colombia 's domestic and internal discussion on S&DT , particularly 
when th at was the only criterion that Colombia fulfilled in spite of being the less accurate  one. 
7.25.   Secondly, th e discussion had always been brought as a matter for the future: a solution was 
needed to strengthen the negotiating arm of the WTO for current and future negotiations. 
Unfortunately, however, the barrier between past rights  and current and future negotiations had 
started to be blurred by some recent additional measures, risking again the undermining of the 
ultimate purpose that Colombia shared. The recent changes to the US ' internal list of developing 
countries  for CVD purposes had had quite a harsh effect on Colombia 's internal politics. One thing 
was to discus s how to strengthen future negotiations, another was to potentially weaken hardly 
conquered rights in past agreements. Even though there had been assurances that the proposal was 
only forward -looking, when th ose more recent decisions were added to the mix,  an extra step could 
be seen that risk ed restarting settled discussions . That had made it more difficult for Colombia  to 
properly engage in a substantive discussion of the topics raised by the U nited States  under th at 
item. 
7.26.   In conclusion, Colombia invited the US Government to give a second thought on th ose two 
matters. Colombia felt that the issues that it had just raised could  not add to what was really needed 
to be addressed but, on the contrary, risked weakening the central point under discussion: it mad e 
it more difficult for countries like Colombia to engage in a pragmatic solution.  
7.27.   The representative of China  said that a fter extensive debate in the past year, China  request ed 
that the General Council kindly took note that its position on special and differential treatment stay ed 
unchanged.  
7.28.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , reaffirmed the importance of considering 
the development dimension, which was crucial for LDC Members. Th at was the only way to ensure 
the existence of a fairer and more equitable multilateral trading system.  
7.29.   The representative of Barbados  took note of the statement by the United States as well as 
the update on its recent actions on th at front. Barbados  continued to note the shortcomings of p er 
capita income as a measure, particularly if it was used to determine the development status of small 
vulnerable island states with small population sizes. Th at had long been recogni zed by international 
organi zations, including the World Bank.  
7.30.   Barbados continued to be of the view that special and differential treatment had to be afforded 
to all developing countries, particularly LDCs and SVEs.  Given the criteria used by the United States 
in its proposal, Barbados was classified as a High Income Country ( HIC) and therefore in accordance 
with such criteria, would be precluded from special and differential treatment in current or future or 
in the WTO agreements that resulted from such negotiations were such a proposal c ame to fruition.  
Such thinking was coun ter to Barbados ' growth and development prospects as well as to ensuring 
that Barbados and other developing countries became more fully integrated into the multilateral 
trading system.   
7.31.   Barbados  therefore wish ed to find out from the proponent the reason for excluding countries 
such as Barbados  from accessing special and differential treatment despite the shortcomings of per 
capital income  particularly as it related to small countries with small populations couple d with their 
high economic and environmental vulnerability . Barbados was open to engaging in dialogue on the 
above  with the United States and other interested partners.  
7.32.   The representative of India referred to the submission in WT/GC/W/765 by India and some  
other Members where they had dealt with most of the issues raised by the U nited States  and had 
underlined that S&DT  was a treaty embedded right at the WTO, an entitlement which developing WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 26 - 
 
  countries had paid for, and that it could not be taken away from th em, based on certain arbitrary 
assumptions, including creative interpretations of the basis of G20 membership.  
7.33.   The draft decision by the United States used parameters, many of them unrelated to 
development, to target certain Members. While some developing Members could  have made 
progress, old gaps in the levels of development persisted, and in some areas had even widened. 
Further, new divides, especially in the digital and technological spheres, were becoming more 
pronounced. The S&DT  in favour of developin g countries and LDCs was therefore as relevant and 
required today as it had been in 1995. The basis of S &DT was to give Members time and flexibility 
to integrate into the rules -based system. Members with huge differences in economic and social 
development could not be put in the same category. For instance, to put India, which had an annual 
per capita income of about USD 2 ,500 in the same development category as the United States, with 
a per capita GDP of more than USD 70 ,000, would be blatantly unfair.  
7.34.   India also wished to draw the attention of the Membership to the repeated assertions of the 
United States that its draft decision for the General Council as well as the US Presidential Memo 
related only to the Special and Differential Treatment in the curren t and future negotiations and not 
under the existing WTO Agreements. However, in complete negation of such repeated assertions, 
the United States had been unilaterally denying S&DT  to developing countries even under the 
existing WTO Agreements. A recent ex ample of such unilateral action was the Notice dated 
2 February 2020, wherein the United States Trade Representative, using the criteria mentioned in 
their draft decision for the General Council, had denied ten WTO developing country Members S&DT  
under Art icle 27.10 (a) and (b) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which 
dealt with rules for termination of countervailing duty investigations.  
7.35.   Similarly, with Presidential Proclamation 9902 of May 2019, the United States had unilaterally 
removed India and Turkey from the list of developing countries exempt from application of the 
safeguard duty on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and large residential washers, an S&DT  
provision for the developing countries under Article 9(1) of the A greement on Safeguards. Similarly, 
in the future, using arbitrary criteria the United States could deny S&DT  under the existing WTO 
Agreements to other developing countries and even to LDCs.  
7.36.   In fact, such actions on part of the United States fuelled India 's apprehensions that the real 
purpose behind the United States submission at the G eneral Council , the Presidential Memorandum 
on the issue and the draft decision for the General Council as to ultimately terminate S&DT  at the 
WTO altogether. To th at end, a so -called case -by-case approach was being proposed, dependent on 
providing evidence of the need for S&DT , sector -wise to start with, which would soon expand to 
requesting for and seeking S&DT , product -by-product and line -by-line. It would be so bur densome 
and impractical that it would make S&DT for developing countries and LDCs, extinct and a part of 
history of the WTO.    
7.37.   Furthermore, on the issue of the S&DT  in the WTO, the United States had been denying any 
discussion on the G -90 Agreement -specifi c proposals in the CTD SS, which inter alia , included a 
proposal that "importing developed country Members shall not ban the importation and marketing 
of products originating from a least developed country Member and developing county member 
facing capacit y constraints based on the rejection of shipments from one or a limited number of 
suppliers from that Member ". India found that the Economic and Trade Agreement between the 
United States and China of 15 January 2020 contained similar provisions for US expo rts to China of 
dairy products and infant formula; meat, poultry and processed meat; aquatic products; feed 
additives, premixes, compound feed, distillers ' dried grains, and distillers ' dried grains with solubles; 
pet food and non -ruminant derived animal f eed. Th at reflected the double standards of the U nited 
States . On the one hand the  United States , even as a developed country, had negotiated a flexibility 
for its exports to China, and on the other, it had been refusing even to discuss a similar flexibili ty 
under special and differential treatment for developing countries, including LDCs in the CTD SS, as 
part of the G -90 proposals for decades. Th at appeared to be a case of not only not practicing what 
one preached but also not preaching what one actually practiced.   
7.38.   The representative of St. Lucia , on behalf of the OECS , thanked the United States for its 
submission on an issue of priority and concern to many developing countries, including OECS 
Member States. The OECS was a strong supporter of the multilat eral trading system which for the 
past 25 years had provided a more equitable footing for all countries – the small, the large, the 
powerful and the weak, to advocate for and defend their interests. Today, everyone was better off WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 27 - 
 
  for subscribing to legally  binding rules which undergirded the core principles of the multilateral 
system. The foundation of the WTO as elaborated in the Marrakesh Agreement recogni zed the need 
for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially the le ast-developed 
among them, secured a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of 
their economic development.  
7.39.   It was true that in the past 25 years, OECS member States were generally better -off as 
evidenced by economic growth, and positive developmental trends in a number of critical spheres, 
including in measurements of national income. Notwithstanding th ose hard -fought gains, their small 
size and innate vulnerability rendered them helpless in the face of natural disast ers or global 
systemic shocks. In th ose events, their progress, and by extension the livelihoods of their people 
were severely and adversely impacted. Recent natural disasters demonstrated that an entire 
economy could be wiped out in less than 24 hours at a cost several times the size of national output. 
As a consequence, OECS member States continued to be challenged by high levels of debt, limited 
economic diversification, gaps in the trade infrastructure as well as regulatory gaps which hampered 
their abi lity to integrate fully into the global economy.  
7.40.   It was for th ose reasons that the OECS urged Members to pay attention to the realities that 
confronted in particular the small developing countries. For example, if one was to use World Bank 
criteria to re -classify WTO Members, a number of small economies would be classified as high -
income countries. However, behind th at classification would be a country with a population of less 
than 100,000 people, and an economy that relied on one or two sectors for econo mic growth and 
sustenance. Moreover, most if not all of them were constrained by virtue of their small size and 
untrammelled exposure to external threats including climate related events. In such cases, high -
income status would fail to provide a realistic profile of a country.  
7.41.   In closing, the OECS believed that now was the time to strengthen the cause of development 
at the WTO, especially for small vulnerable economies. For them, development, including special 
and differential treatment (S&DT), continued t o be the north star upon which the WTO was founded. 
The OECS therefore urged Members to seek to use a scalpel rather than a hammer to address 
development related concerns.    
7.42.   The representative of South Africa  recalled the submission that her delegation had  co-
sponsored with China, India and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in WT/GC/W/765, as well as 
previous statements that South Africa had made. Th ose continued to be South Africa 's response on 
the issue. S&DT  was a treaty -embedded right and the propose d criteria for determining which WTO 
Members should continue to access S&D T were not acceptable.  
7.43.   The only mandate that existed on S&DT  was to strengthen S&DT  and make it precise, effective 
and operational as entailed in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial  Declaration. The G -90's ten 
specific S&DT  proposals entailed in document JOB/GC/160  – JOB/TNC/65  and the room document 
RD/DEV/182 remained important departure points to deliver on th at mandate. The G -90 would be 
submitting its revised proposals with a vie w to get a meaningful outcome at MC12.  
7.44.   However, South Africa was  concerned with unilateral measures that t ook away rights of 
Members in covered agreements that upset the delicate balance reached in negotiations. The case 
in point were the  rights that Membe rs had under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures through the revised list of WTO Members designated as eligible for special de minimis 
countervailable subsidy and negligible import volume standards under the countervailing duty (CVD) 
law. The implementation of unilateral differentiation on the basis of arbitrary criteria was not 
supported.  South Africa remained of the view that the G20 had been established to provide a new 
mechanism for informal dialogue to achieve stable and sus tainable world economic growth that 
benefited all, and should not be a determinant for a development status of a country. The G20 had 
never been conceived as a grouping of developed countries.  
7.45.   As the WTO, Members had to ask themselves whether they were la ying the right foundation 
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2019 SDG Report stated that there was 
increasing inequality among and within countries. Therefore, while developing countries had made 
some progress, it was disingenuous to ignore the persistence of the enormous development divide 
between the developing and developed Members of the WTO. The development divide was reflected 
on a wide range of indicators. It was evident in levels of economic development, industrial structure WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 28 - 
 
  and competitiveness, such as GDP per capita, poverty levels, levels of under -nourishment, 
production and employment in agriculture sector, trade in services, receipts from IPR, share of trade 
in value -added under GVCs, energy use per capita, financial infras tructure, R&D capacity, company 
profits, and a range of institutional and capacity constraints, among other things.  
7.46.   Speaking at the "Make Poverty History " campaign in 2005 in Trafalgar Square in London, 
former President Nelson Mandela had identified areas  of global cooperation required to deal with 
poverty and had said  that, "The first is ensuring trade justice. I have said before that trade justice 
is a truly meaningful way for the developed countries to show commitment to bringing about an end 
to global poverty. The second is an end to the debt crisis for the poorest countries. The third is to 
deliver much more aid and make sure it is of the highest quality. " 
7.47.   Trade justice could be achieved by ensuring that developing countries had access to the same 
policy tools developed countries had used to industriali ze. It was by ensuring that there was 
appropriate and adequate policy space to achieve national development objectives within the 
parameters of global trade rules . It was by recogni sing the differences in  levels of development . And 
it was by preserving S&DT  and to ensure that in the context of the multilateral trading system, 
developing countries and LDCs took commitments commensurate with their levels of development. 
There was wisdom in the words of Thoma s Jefferson who had said "there is nothing more unequal 
than the equal treatment of unequal people ". 
7.48.   The representative of Indonesia  thanked the United States for its update on th e issue and 
noted that S&DT  was the reflection of the developmental perspecti ve in international trade. 
Development had been an integrated and inseparable core element of the organization. The fact 
that the founding Members had explicitly recogni zed the needs of positive efforts designed to ensure 
that developing countries and LDCs  secured a share in the growth in international trade 
commensurate with the needs of their development had been the DNA of the organization.  
7.49.   The commitment by Members through the Doha Development Agenda to integrate elements 
of development into the multila teral trading system in 2001 should also constitute a reminder that 
the effort to address those developmental needs had to be escalated, amid global challenges and 
economic disruptions, to ensure that no one was left behind in reaping the benefits of inter national 
trade. Those commitments that Members had agreed to in 2001 had been a longstanding homework 
that needed to be concluded, to prove to the outside world that the organization remained living its 
DNA. Hence, any effort to dilute the longstanding str uggle to address developmental issues while 
global challenges remained rising, would not be acceptable.  
7.50.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , thanked the United States for its 
statement and wished to reiterate its previous statements on th e matter. Since the establishment 
of the WTO, some Members had made progress economically, and on a range of development 
indicators. Yet, despite modest gains, some Members of the Group continued to fight the scourge of 
poverty and underdev elopment while others were hemmed in by structural constraints and 
vulnerabilities, flowing from, among other things, climate change and natural disasters. For many 
ACP Members, economic data and the realities on the ground remained far apart.  
7.51.   The ACP Group therefore wished to reiterate that it would be difficult to accept that some 
developing countries were not entitled to special and differential treatment and that they should be 
excluded upfront from claiming th at facility even before negotiation s began. The ACP Group urgently 
called for constructive and inclusive dialogue where the concerns of all Members could be addressed.  
7.52.   The representative of Thailand  agreed that Members had to take on obligations commensurate 
with their capabilities but was also aware of the importance and essentiality that developing country 
Members and LDCs retained the flexibility to S&DT , which was a vital tool for attaining sustainable 
and inclusive trade, economic, and social growth. Thailand continued to believe that f rank exchanges 
and compromise in the negotiations remained key to ensuring that Members achieved breakthroughs 
and ultimately meaningful outcomes. Thailand remained ready to engage in further discussions to 
find an appropriate approach to strengthen the ne gotiating function of the WTO.  
7.53.   The representative of Sri Lanka  recalled that S&DT  had emerged for the first time in the Tokyo 
Round as it had been believed to be an effective way to get less developed countries to participate 
in the multilateral trade roun ds. Since then, the importance of S&DT  had not disappeared, as it WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 29 - 
 
  continued to play an essential role in all the activities of Members, including in the trade rounds that 
they had embarked upon and were still unable to conclude.  
7.54.   S&DT  provisions in the WTO  Agreements were diverse. To illustrate, provisions concerning de 
minimis  thresholds in agreements relating to trade remedies already recogni zed the different levels 
of development such that some had not been granted equal treatment. That example showed th at 
some of the advanced developing countries were no longer beneficiaries of certain flexibilities in 
some of the provisions in WTO Agreements.  
7.55.   Over the years, the development concept had been incorporated into the WTO Agreements. 
The WTO did not permit it s Members to resort to unilateral measures and to deprive certain countries 
from availing S&DT . Some Members had made it clear that they would not seek S&DT  in future 
negotiations. Th at was their decision but it had not resulted into them being recogni zed as developed 
Members. It should likewise not result in depriving others from benefitting from S&DT.  In the 
multilateral forum, Members could take into account the various levels of development but in no 
case should they ignore S&DT . Sri Lanka therefore urg ed those Members to first exhaust all of their 
options within the multilateral framework before resulting to imposing unilateral measures.  
7.56.   On the proposal itself, Sri Lanka was very happy to note that the United States had slightly 
revised it taking into consideration some of the comments which Sri Lanka had made during a 
previous General Council meeting. Sri Lanka acknowledged in particular the introduc tion of  the 
concept of "graduation " so that whatever measures were plan ned to be impose d would not be 
imposed in a given period but would instead look at the development of the countries concerned. 
The US proposal had also included a sectoral c lause which could put Members in a situation where 
they would have to negotiate for S&DT  thereby putting small developing countries such as Sri Lanka 
in a weaker negotiating position. There was still not too much clarity as to how th at particular clause 
would be applied by the United States in current and future negotiations. Sri Lanka remained very 
worried about the sectoral approach.  
7.57.   As all Members believed in multilateralism, they should all work together and take into account 
the concerns of Members on  all sides of the development debate rather than resorting to unilateral 
measures. Otherwise, it would simply encourage policymakers to engage more in bilateral 
discussions which were not held in the context of the multilateral trading system.  
7.58.   The represen tative of Namibia  supported  the statement by the African Group. Namibia was  of 
the view that S&DT  should be addressed in a proper and transparent manner for all Member s to 
achieve the objectives of the WTO among others – to help developing countries benefi t fully from 
the global trading system. Looking ahead, with the period before MC12, there was a need to address 
the issue of S&DT  in a constructive and inclusive manner while preserving the rights of Member 
States under the WTO Agreements.  
7.59.   The representati ve of the United States  thank ed the membership and delegations  for their 
comments. The United States would  take them under consideration . With respect to  the CVD that 
had been  referenced a couple of times, he noted that US law require d the USTR to designate an 
update which countries were developing , and there  was no provision of the WTO Agreement that 
require d a Member to consider other Members ' self-declarations when administering its own 
countervailing duty law. The criteria were similar b ut they were not the same , so the United States 
invite d Members to review the federal register notice for more details.  
7.60.   On the issue raised by Colombia about OECD membership not being a good proxy for th e 
issue, the United States  respectfully disagree d. OECD membership was a self -chosen mark of 
differentiation supposed to be for economically more advanced economies who were willing take on 
more responsibilities. For sure, if one was  an OECD member , one could certainly call itself a 
developing country but it should not be entitled to automatic as -of-right SDT at the WTO.  
7.61.   Finally, he had heard yet again another reference for the second time to the Thomas Jefferson 
quote "nothing is more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people. " He said he was afra id 
that was not from Thomas Jefferson. According to the Monticello Trust which track ed spurious 
Jefferson quotes, th at one date d to a tax reform pamphlet in Colorado in 1902.  
7.62.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 30 - 
 
  8  PROCEDURAL GUIDELINE S FOR WTO COUNCILS AND COMMITT EES ADDRESSING TRADE  
CONCERNS – COMMUNICA TION FROM ALBANIA; A USTRALIA; CANADA; CH INA;  EUROPEAN 
UNION; HONG KONG, CH INA; ICELAND; REPUBL IC OF KOREA; REPUBLI C OF MOLDOVA; 
NEW ZEALAND; NORTH M ACEDONIA; NORWAY; PA NAMA; QATAR; SINGAPO RE; 
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARA TE CUSTOMS TERRITORY  OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU; THAILAND; TUR KEY; AND UKRAINE (WT /GC/W/777/REV.5)  
8.1.  The Chair noted  that the EU delegation had requested the Secretariat to add the item in the 
agenda of the meeting. That included  the revised communication in document WT/GC/W/777/Rev.5 
circulated by the co -sponsors.  
8.2.  The representative of the European Union  wished to address  a question that some could have 
concerning why Members should continue working on the proposal for "Procedura l Guidelines for 
WTO Councils and Committees Addressing Trade Concerns ", which some could think was of little 
relevance when the organization was facing existential challenges. As the European Union had been 
saying since the beginning, the proposal aimed t o allow the membership to agree on a small step to 
make the WTO more effective. Members would need time to address the more fundamental issues. 
But what the organization needed first was to re -build trust – and the proposal was about just that, 
in the cont ext of the WTO regular work which after all represented a significant share of their work.  
8.3.  Against that background, and following the update provided at the previous meeting, the co -
sponsors had circulated a second revision of the proposal for the meeting which incorporated 
constructive suggestions from many Members. The European Union expressed its appreciation of 
Members ' engagement and the good cooperation with the co -sponsors and welcomed Canada and 
China among them together with whom they currently for med a group of 20 Members.  
8.4.  As had been explained at previous occasions, the proposed guidelines were intended to be a 
practical contribution to making WTO regular work more effective. In trying to improve how Members 
dealt with each other 's trade concerns,  the co -sponsors had based themselves on existing practices 
and procedures. The proposal was carefully drafted to ensure that it did not put into question 
practices that worked well and that it did not hinder any WTO body from creating more sophisticated 
or ambitious arrangements for itself. Instead, the proposal aimed at creating a minimum platform 
of good practices.  
8.5.  Spelling the principle out more clearly was one objective of the changes in the second revision, 
for example in the preamble and by making fu rther reference to existing practices such as the 
existing guidelines on scheduling meetings.  There were also other changes. In paragraph 7, the 
concept that written questions and replies could complement and deepen oral exchanges in 
Committees remained. B ut several Members had pointed out that the envisaged 30 days to reply to 
written questions could be too challenging. The language had been softened to make it even clearer 
that that was a good practice that Members were encouraged to follow. The wording w as in line with 
the existing procedures such as in the Committee on Agriculture.  
8.6.  On paragraph 11, which aimed to make exchanges on trade concerns in the formal meetings 
more focused and efficient, a number of Members continued to be concerned that their ab ility to 
express themselves fully would be diminished. That had never been the intention. To make that 
clearer, the co -sponsors had taken out the reference to past statements and had replaced it with an 
invitation to focus, when making an intervention on t rade concern, on new developments since the 
last discussion. Some Members had also expressed concern that the proposal would give too 
significant a role to the Secretariat. In response, in paragraph 12, the co -sponsors had adjusted the 
participation of the  Secretariat to be the normal scenario, but not a mandatory requirement.  
8.7.  Some other concerns related to the fact that elements shared in the informal processes could 
be relied upon in dispute settlement procedures. The co -sponsors had complemented paragra ph 14 
to state explicitly that that could not be the case. Finally, the co -sponsors had responded to the 
LDCs' call to take account of their specific situation. Paragraph 15 then clarified that technical 
assistance from the Secretariat to help implement th ose guidelines would be available in particular 
to LDCs.  
8.8.  Over the next couple of weeks, several Committees and Councils were scheduled to meet which 
usually reviewed a long list of trade concerns. The European Union was very active in those bodies , WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 31 - 
 
  both ra ising and responding to trade concerns. The European Union had a real interest in making 
Members ' work in those fora more effective and saw that that interest was shared broadly – even 
by those Members who were still unconvinced about the proposal.  
8.9.  The Eu ropean Union encouraged those unconvinced Members to leave aside both individual 
concerns, of which they all had a few, and any reticence about past proposals from the times of 
active DDA negotiations, with which the proposal had minimal resemblance or not  at all. Rather, the 
European Union would appreciate engagement on the question of how to foster better engagement 
on trade concerns. The European Union looked forward to further concrete feedback on the proposal 
that day and stood ready to continue inform al exchanges with Members in the hope that the proposal 
would soon be mature enough for adoption.  
8.10.   The representative of Canada  was pleased to join the proposal as co -sponsor. As the European 
Union had just explained, several constructive suggestions from many Members had been 
incorporated into the revised version – a version that Canada believed solidified the proposal as one 
that would importantly contribute to strengthening the deliberative function of the organization.  
8.11.   As had been noted in Canada 's discussion paper circulated in JOB/GC/211, the deliberative 
function consisted of three separate but related activities: information sharing, policy deliberation 
and dialogue and discussing and seeking to resolve specific trade concerns. The revised proposal 
addressed all three areas. It encouraged information sharing to improve their knowledge of each 
other 's trade policies. It improved the environment to create substantive engagement by Members 
in the WTO 's Councils and Committees. It also created an additio nal tool for Members to voluntarily 
use in their efforts to resolve trade concerns in a collaborative and cooperative manner.  
8.12.   Canada appreciated the open and constructive engagement from the European Union and its 
co-sponsors in the lead up to the revision. Canada looked forward to the adoption of the proposal 
and continued improvements in the implementation, administration and operation of the WTO 
Agreements.  
8.13.   The representative of China  appreciated the efforts made by the European Union and other 
proponents for the improvements of the proposal and shared the objective and the suggestions 
reflected in the proposal. Reasonable and effective procedure could contribute to strengthening the 
WTO through facilitating adequate exchange of views and increasing the potential for resolving trade 
concerns. In light of that, China had joined the co -sponsors of the proposal. China would continue 
to engage on the issue constructively and was looking for ward to further collaborating with the 
proponents and other Members.  
8.14.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the European Union for leading the proposal 
on procedural guidelines which it co -sponsored and in particular for its continued efforts in re aching 
out to interested Members. As had been suggested in different fora in the WTO that small concrete 
steps could be important, Hong Kong, China continued to see value in making the day -to-day 
operation of WTO bodies more efficient and believed that the  proposal was a solid and practical 
contribution to the broader reform efforts. The latest revised version of the proposal had taken into 
account the constructive suggestions from many Members. Hong Kong, China reiterated its support 
for the proposal and h oped that the changes made would help address the concerns and comments 
raised earlier by some Members.  
8.15.   The representative of Switzerland  said that his delegation  co-sponsored the proposal because 
it was part of the logic of improving the functioning of WT O Committees , both from an organizational 
point of view and in the consideration of trade concerns. It also offered structured elements that 
promoted the resolution of trade disputes using a cooperative approach. For those reasons, 
Switzerland believed it was useful to support the initiative which proposed concrete measures in the 
interest of all Members. Like other co -sponsors, Switzerland stood ready to continue the discussion 
with all the Members to improve the proposal.  
8.16.   The representative of Chinese Tai pei said that, as a co -sponsor of the proposal and at a time 
when the WTO was undergoing transformation and reform, Chinese Taipei believed that more 
effective work in dealing with Members ' trade concerns would pave the way for the improved 
functioning of the WTO. As the European Union had said, the aim was to create a meaningful and a 
minimal platform of good practices. In the revised version, language was incorporated to that effect WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 32 - 
 
  in a more flexible and practical manner. For repeated, revised trade conc erns, more focus should be 
put on new developments. Chinese Taipei was also fully aware of the needs of the LDCs regarding 
implementation.  
8.17.   Overall, the procedural guidelines aimed to make regular work better respond to the needs 
of the stakeholders. Witho ut a doubt, Chinese Taipei recogni zed the importance of Members ' strong 
will to resolve specific trade concerns. The proposal just provided a starting point for all Members to 
moderni ze the organization. Though a small step, the contribution would be signi ficant because it 
would apply horizontally to WTO Councils and Committees. Chinese Taipei urged Members to support 
the proposal as one of the ways forward on WTO Reform.  
8.18.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , found the proposal useful as it set  out 
voluntary procedures that could assist Members to clarify and resolve trade concerns and conduct 
meetings in a framework of better transparency and efficiency. Providing all relevant information 
and documents in advance would be more logistically appr opriate given the constraints faced by 
LDCs.  
8.19.   However, although the procedures for trade concerns were voluntary, that did not mean that 
LDCs would be able to respond quickly to detailed lists of concerns even  if assistance from the 
Secretariat would be pr ovided. Those procedures could represent a significant capacity constraint 
placed upon the shoulders of LDCs. Another concern involved the scope of trade concerns which 
could be identified to make the guidelines more practical.  
8.20.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that his delegation  was a strong supporter of 
efforts to improve the functioning of the WTO 's regular Councils and Committees. Though less 
glamorous and headline -grabbing than the work that took place in negotiations or as part of dispute 
settlement, the work that happened in those bodies was just as important. It indeed seemed more 
important tha n ever.  
8.21.   When he was told by the media or others in the United Kingdom that the WTO was in crisis, 
he remind ed them that while the WTO faced significant challenges – not least with the Appellate 
Body – there was still a huge amount of important work going on in the organization every day, not 
least the process of Members monitoring each other 's compliance with the WTO agreements, and 
using the WTO 's regular bodies to de -escalate trade tensions before becoming more entrenched.  
8.22.   Because that work was so import ant, it was right that Members reviewed the functioning of 
those bodies to ensure they were still functioning in the interest of all Members. The proposals in 
WT/GC/W/777/Rev.5 constituted a sensible and pragmatic set of updates to the ways of working. 
While they would apply a common standard across most Committees and Councils, they would only 
apply a broad framework or minimum standard – there was still plenty of scope within them for 
individual Committees to develop their own tailored approach to other q uestions of committee 
operation.  
8.23.   Where needed, elements were voluntary, ensuring that Members remained in the driving seat. 
The proposed guidelines likewise recogni zed the additional challenges faced by developing countries 
and LDCs, encouraging Secretari at support where needed. The United Kingdom stood ready to 
support its developing country partners through its extensive aid -for-trade portfolio, including 
through partners based in Geneva. The United Kingdom looked forward to continuing to discuss that 
important topic with other Members.  
8.24.   The representative of Bangladesh  associated with the statement made by the LDC Group. 
Bangladesh noted that the proposed procedural guidelines submitted in document 
WT/GC/W/777/Rev.5 aimed to bring positive changes in the  working procedures of the Committees 
and Councils in general and welcomed the constructive ideas presented in the revised draft proposal.  
8.25.   In previous meetings, Bangladesh had consistently suggested changes in the existing 
convening notice templates which should include, inter alia, information like the date of the last 
meeting of the relevant Committee or Council, document reference of the minutes of the meeting of 
the previous one, and name of the Chair. Members should also review the suggested time -limit for 
serving a convening notice before the actual date of meeting and the time -limit for circulating the 
minutes of the meeting. Bangladesh also proposed that a summary note should go to the WTO WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 33 - 
 
  website immediately after the meeting. That would immensely h elp smaller delegations unable to 
attend all meetings in regularly updating their information repository.  
8.26.   The aim of the submission, as the proponents pointed out, was to strengthen the capacity of 
the regular WTO Councils and Committees to help Members fu nction more efficiently. In that respect, 
Bangladesh encouraged Members to reflect on the wider scope that the proposed guidelines had so 
that Members ' decisions would not create difficulties in the future. Paragraph 13 of the draft 
suggested that Members should involve capital -based experts. The prerogative in determining who 
would be involved in its affairs rested and should continue to rest on each Member. On the other 
hand, the participation of capital -based experts in informal meetings, in person or th rough 
videoconferencing, remained an issue of constraint for many Members. Bangladesh urged the 
proponents to re -think whether all Members were in a position to implement that call. Bangladesh 
would remain constructively engaged with the proponents and oth er Members on the issue.   
8.27.   The representative of Paraguay  fully agreed with the objective of improving the functioning 
of WTO Committees. In that regard, Paraguay had played and would continue to play an active part 
in discussions on improving the Committee s not only in that context but also in the initiatives headed 
by Brazil in the SPS Committee and by Hong Kong, China in the Goods Council, where it had 
contributed constructively to discussions.  
8.28.   Improvements to the Committees should focus on pragmatic solu tions to issues that 
delegations had to face in their daily work especially small delegations with few delegates whose 
effective participation was limited on numerous occasions. In that regard, much work remained to 
be done including with regard to improvi ng the scheduling of meetings. The current situation of 
overlapping meetings between Councils and their subsidiary bodies, between subsidiary bodies and 
certain negotiations, was a constant problem that obstructed its participation in many discussions 
of interest at the WTO. Consideration could be given on whether to modify the rules governing the 
scheduling of meetings and to provide a definitive, binding solution to that situation.  
8.29.   Focusing on the proposal, substantial improvements had been made to the cu rrent version, 
including removing the requirement that the presentation of trade concerns should be of a subjective 
nature, removing the encouragement to Members to refer to previous statements, and requiring the 
participation of capital -based  experts in c onsultations and meetings.  
8.30.   Paraguay however continued to have reservations regarding the reduction of time for the 
submission of agenda items to the Goods Council, to which Members should add the requirement to 
submit all documents to be considered by Comm ittees at least 15 days before the meeting, with the 
exception of room documents. That could be considered as a best endeavour clause encouraging 
Members to present documents within those deadlines in order to give others enough time for 
analysis, without it being binding, and to enable Members that had been unable to submit documents 
because of an excessive workload within that period to do so anyway . 
8.31.   Moreover, the possible effects of the bilateralization of multilateral discussions could have a 
negative i mpact on the flow of discussions and the process of enriching those debates. Although on 
several occasions dominant interests had indicated that those measures would not apply to the SPS 
and TBT Committees, that exclusion was not explicit in the reference document and there were also 
proposals from some co -sponsors of the document to harmoni ze the proposal with other initiatives 
that would specifically affect the said Committees. Although Paraguay appreciated the efforts made 
by the proponents, it still tho ught that the best way to resolve or avoid trade concerns was to align 
the measures from which they originated to Members ' WTO commitments.  
8.32.   The representative of the United States  recalled the US statements in previous meetings on 
that matter . The most essential element for successfully resolving trade concerns was political will 
– and the United States did not see that being addressed in the current proposal.  The United States 
could easily identify multiple longstanding trade concerns it had raised over  many years with several 
of the co -sponsors of the proposal. The United States had in fact reached out to clearly communicate 
and explain its concerns, had submitted questions in writing, had waited for written responses and 
had even been involved in Chair -led consultations.  The United States was not prepared to accept 
the premise that it was at fault for the lack of resolution of those trade concerns because it had not 
followed a particular procedural sequence. As the United States had stated before, resol ving trade 
concerns required political commitment and there were unfortunately no shortcuts for that.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 34 - 
 
  8.33.   With respect to the specifics of the proposal, the United States continued to question the 
desirability of imposing horizontal procedural guidelines on Co mmittees. The United States asked 
the proponents to explain why they believed that individual Committees should not be responsible 
for their own rules of procedures or for determining the most appropriate way to deal with items on 
their individual agendas or determining their own meeting arrangements.  
8.34.   Based on the United States ' conversations with some co -sponsors, it sounded as if 
dissatisfaction with the Council for Trade in Goods was the common denominator rather than failures 
of the many other Committee s the proposal sought to modify.  Canada and Hong Kong, China had 
recently initiated a conversation in the Council for Trade in Goods raising some specific suggestions 
to improve the functioning of the CTG. The United States asked why the proponents believe d that 
those kinds of initiatives should not be supported but rather replaced by a horizontal mechanism.  
8.35.   The proposal appeared to assume a homogeneity among Committees and bodies that the 
United States did not see nor necessarily agreed with. The United St ates asked the proponents to 
explain why they had taken a trade concern specific approach and had applied it across Committees 
that had a notification focus – and why they believed that an approach or procedure that could work 
for a trade concern would sup ersede or be more important than a procedure that facilitated review 
and discussion based on notifications.  
8.36.   With respect to the specific suggestions, the United States agreed that any Member truly 
serious about resolving an STC would notify the responding Member as soon as possible. The United 
States therefore asked the rationale behind the 20 days.  
8.37.   The United States was not sure why the Secretariat necessarily needed to be involved at all 
or 20 days before a meeting. The United States asked the proponents to explain why involvement 
of the Secretariat was needed when it was not the role of the Secretariat staff to get involved in the 
substance of a conversation between Members.  
8.38.   Paragraph 9 resurrected a concept that had already been discussed in other Commit tees and 
Councils and one the United States had disagreed with. The United States did not believe it was 
appropriate or conducive to resolving a trade concern to have the Chair or Secretariat providing their 
own views, interpretation or annotation of the i ssue at hand.  
8.39.   The United States had only been told that in the abstract any information would be neutral 
but it failed to see how that would work in practice. Characterizations of measures should be left to 
Members. That suggestion was only inserting a co mplication and obstacle to the process of dialogue 
and the United States failed to see how any Member would be served by that unnecessary process.  
8.40.   The United States also questioned the utility of paragraphs 12 to 14. The United States had 
a long history of  raising and resolving trade concerns through dialogue at the WTO and had never 
faced the situation where the missing variable had been a third party. The United States viewed 
those paragraphs as an attempt to remove unresolved issues from the agenda and s end them into 
an offline process.  
8.41.   The United States failed to see how a Member that had allowed an issue to become a 
longstanding and unresolved trade concern, where they had failed to involve capital -based experts 
in a Committee structure, would somehow modify their behaviour in an offline process. Those 
suggestions appeared to be a pathway to avoid peer pressure and multilateral scrutiny rather than 
an avenue to resolve issues.  
8.42.   The representative of India supported the need for the mechanism to a ddress specific trade 
concerns effectively. India therefore supported the idea of improving the meeting procedures of the 
WTO bodies with indicative yearly schedules of meetings for each of the WTO bodies for effective 
participation of Members particularly  those having limited resources. Timely circulation of the agenda 
and the minutes of the meetings and strengthening of the existing processes to address 
constructively the specific trade concerns were also welcome.  
8.43.   Though the joint proposal was being exami ned in its capital, it appeared to be an improvement 
over the earlier versions. The proposal however still contained certain unclarified issues on which 
India wished to make some preliminary comments. Given the fact that the WTO was a Member -WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 35 - 
 
  driven organiz ation and neutrality was the core principle embedded in it, Members should be cautious 
about any enhanced direct role of the Chair of any of the WTO bodies as well as that of the Secretariat 
in resolving trade concerns between the Members.  
8.44.   The opportunity to bring up a trade concern in every Committee could prompt Members to 
raise their concerns frequently across all relevant WTO bodies thereby crowding the agenda of each 
Committee – putting strain on the precious time of such bodies and on the resources of  smaller 
delegations. The requirement of submitting written responses within the strict timeline of 20 days 
could be burdensome on resource -constrained Members and those with multiple layers of federal 
structures. It was likewise not clear as to whether th e oral report of the Chair would involve any 
interpretation particularly on highly technical issues which could be beyond the capacity of the Chair. 
Having raised those issues, India was keen to further discuss the proposal and work to improve the 
function ing of the WTO bodies.  
8.45.   The representative of Indonesia  remained in the opinion that the proposal could create 
cumbersome processes in addressing trade concerns. Indonesia continued to question paragraph 12 
of the proposal concerning the right to request an  informal meeting to the Chair. Such a mechanism 
would not only raise a significant number of informal meetings which would drain resources of the 
parties but would also put more burden to the Chair without any guarantee of success.  Moreover, 
the Secretari at should not be involved in the bilateral meeting of the parties concerned especially by 
providing technical inputs to the issue of trade concern. The Secretariat need ed to maintain its 
independence and therefore should not provide any inputs that could p rejudice to the specific trade 
concerns.  
8.46.   The representative of South Africa  noted that some of the comments made by her delegation 
had been taken on board. In welcoming the provision for technical assistance in the proposal, South 
Africa underscored that t he core challenges facing Members were more in relation to institutional 
capacity at a country level including lack of systems that would facilitate a coordinate response to 
the STCs within the proposed timeframes. South Africa 's fundamental concerns with the enhanced 
role of the Chair and Secretariat still remained. While South Africa saw value in some elements of 
the proposals, there was a need for consideration of the proposals by the Committees and Councils 
on how those could be applied to the relevant institutions in view of their mandate and rules of 
procedure. South Africa remained concerned with the horizontal procedural nature of the guidelines 
but would continue to engage constructively in the discussions.  
8.47.   The representative of Ecuador  acknowledged  the efforts made by the co -sponsors to respond 
to the comments of other Members. The new revision  was still being considered in capital  and 
Ecuador would come back in due course with further comments. In any case, Ecuador remained 
ready to continue to wor k with the co -sponsors and all Members on the matter with the view to 
improving the processes of the Committees and Councils of the organization to resolve specific trade 
concerns without affecting the full enjoyment of Members ' rights – as each Member had  the right to 
deal with specific trade concerns in the various WTO Councils and Committees.  
8.48.   The representative of the European Union  thanked all delegations that had made comments 
and welcomed the engagement of all in supporting and in improving the propos al. The proposal 
suggested the setting up of a common platform of good practices that could be followed by 
Committees. It was not mandatory. Nothing impeded Committees from developing even better 
practices. The European Union saw the reflection that was on going in specific WTO bodies not as 
contradictory , but as a useful complement to what was envisaged in the proposal. The European 
Union and the co-sponsors would continue to engage with the membership at large to try to mature 
the proposal and to have it a dopted in the General Council.  
8.49.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
9  THE IMPORTANCE OF MA RKET -ORIENTED CONDIT IONS TO THE WORLD TR ADING 
SYSTEM – COMMUNICATI ON FROM THE UNITED S TATES (WT/GC/W/796)  
9.1.  The Chair noted that the item was included in the agenda by the United States with the 
communication circulated in document WT/GC/W/796.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 36 - 
 
  9.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the agenda item had been requested to 
discuss the centrality of market orienta tion – one of the core principles of the WTO – in Members ' 
collective efforts to achieve meaningful WTO reform. The United States  had circulated  a draft 
decision in which Members would reaffirm that market -oriented conditions were fundamental to a 
free, fa ir and mutually advantageous trading system to ensure a level playing field for their workers 
and businesses.  
9.3.  Any reform conversation should begin with some basic questions  concerning the purpose of 
the organization  and the values it upheld.  Members had he ard the United States emphasi zing in 
previous statements that those who had founded the WTO had the goal of moving all economies 
toward greater market openness and free market competition.  The Marrakesh Declaration had set 
out Members ' collective intention  to establish the World Trade Organization to promote participation 
in a world trading system "based on open, market -oriented policies and the commitments set out in 
the Uruguay Round Agreements and Decisions. " They had also collectively noted their "desire to 
operate in a fairer and more open multilateral trading system for the benefit and welfare of [our] 
peoples. " 
9.4.  Many accession protocols concluded over the past 25 years reflected those core principles by 
reaffirming a commitment to the Marrakesh Declara tion or more explicitly stating that the goal of 
WTO accession had been to achieve economic reform "based fully on market principles " or to 
"transition from a centrally -planned to a market based economy. " The importance of an acceding 
party 's adoption of m arket-oriented reforms was evident in reviewing the historical record of WTO 
accessions, to ensure that it and existing Members fully benefited from reciprocal and mutually 
advantageous commitments.  
9.5.  In May 2018, the Trade Ministers of the European Union, J apan and the United States had 
agreed that non -market -oriented policies and practices created unfair competitive conditions for 
their workers and businesses and undermined the proper functioning of international trade. Those 
statements further reaffirmed t hat market -oriented conditions remained fundamental to a free, fair 
and mutually advantageous global trading system.  It was because market -oriented conditions were 
crucial to ensure a level playing field for all Members ' workers and businesses. Put differe ntly, if 
workers and businesses were subject to market constraints and disciplines, it was fundamentally 
unfair to force them to compete with another Member 's enterprises that were not subject to those 
same constraints and disciplines.  
9.6.  For the United State s, the WTO was and should be a place where countries came together to 
work towards developing and enforcing rules that promoted the common goal of free and fair trade 
on the basis of openness and market principles.  To put it another way, it was as if all M embers had 
agreed to join the same swimming club, using the same pool together, with all of them agreeing to 
swim in the same direction. As in any swimming club, there would be those who swam faster or 
slower, some who preferred different strokes, and some  who needed to take a short break on the 
side of the pool. On occasion, they would bump into each other and could even swim outside their 
respective lanes. But, in that club, there was a fundamental, shared understanding that they should 
all be swimming in  the same direction toward a common destination.  
9.7.  A shared commitment to open, market -oriented policies across the WTO membership was 
critical to restoring and building confidence in the organization as a defender and promoter of free 
and fair trade. The draft decision would help them accomplish that important goal.  The importance 
of market -oriented conditions to the world trading system could seem obvious to many of them. But 
sometimes restating the obvious and asserting their shared values was a necessar y step on the path 
to progress. With the WTO in crisis, it seemed that then was an appropriate time to do so.  
9.8.  The United States noted some key elements that indicated that market -oriented conditions 
existed for market participants:  
a. Decisions of enterprises  on prices, costs, inputs, purchases and sales were freely 
determined and made in response to market signals;  
b. Enterprise decisions on investments were freely determined and made in response to 
market signals;  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 37 - 
 
  c. The prices of capital, labour, technology and o ther factors were market -determined;  
d. Capital allocation decisions of or affecting enterprises were freely determined and made in 
response to market signals;  
e. Enterprises were subject to internationally -recogni zed accounting standards, including 
independent accounting;  
f. Enterprises were subject to market -oriented and effective corporation law, bankruptcy 
law, competition law and private property law and could enforce their rights through 
impartial legal processes such as an independent judicial system;  
g. Enterpr ises were able to access freely relevant information on which to base their business 
decisions.  
h. Moreover, in all of those areas, there should be no significant government interference in 
enterprise business decisions.  
9.9.  The absence of market -oriented conditions in one or more WTO Members could have 
devastating consequences for others. The distortions were not mere ripples that crossed into other 
Members ' lanes. In a global economy, they could build into cresting waves that swamped other  
Members ' economies, threatening to undermine the social compact between a government and its 
citizens. The adoption of non -market policies and practices could lead to severe overcapacity in 
certain industrial sectors, create unfair competitive conditions for workers and businesses that led 
to massive job displacement and lost business opportunities, and hinder the development and use 
of innovative technologies.  
9.10.   Existing WTO rules went some way to ensuring fair competition that benefited all of their 
citizens as producers and consumers. Commitments such as most -favoured nation treatment, 
national treatment, subsidy disciplines, intellectual property rules and others were designed to 
ensure fair play for all. But the existence of non -market oriented condition s tilted the playing field 
in the direction of those Members that sought to unfairly determine economic outcomes.  
9.11.   As WTO Members considered new initiatives and rules – such as on fisheries subsidies, 
industrial subsidies, State Enterprises or other issues – which could be key elements of achieving 
meaningful WTO reform, the importance of market -oriented conditions only increased. A shared 
understanding of and commitment to the market -oriented norms upon which the WTO was 
established would significantly incr ease the prospect that those rules, once implemented, would be 
both effective and durable.  
9.12.   The United States was currently engaging with interested WTO Members on initiatives to 
support market -oriented policies and outcomes and to reinforce the values the United States had 
endorsed when it had helped create the institution. In the coming months, the US delegation would 
be speaking with many Members on that critical issue so that they could jointly endorse the draft 
General Council decision and increase thei r citizens ' confidence that the WTO fully supported 
providing a level playing field for all.  
9.13.   The representative of Canada  understood the motivation behind the proposal and agreed with 
the principle that the world trading system should be based on open, mar ket-oriented policies. For 
example, Canada strongly affirmed that the decisions of enterprises on purchases should be freely 
determined and made in response to market signals. In addition, situations where governments ' 
policies and practices played a signi ficant role in directing or influencing business decisions by 
commercial enterprises were of concern to it. Canada also shared the desire to create conditions 
that ensured a level playing field for Members, workers and business. Canada remained open to 
engaging all Members in that regard including on discussions that could eventually lead to new 
disciplines.  
9.14.   The representative of Japan  said that the draft General Council decision proposed by the 
United States was made based on the principles that WTO Member s had repeatedly confirmed among 
themselves and clearly delineated the elements of market -oriented conditions. The proposed WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 38 - 
 
  elements comprised necessary pre -conditions for free and fair multilateral trade which heavily 
depended on the functioning of the pr ice adjustment mechanism in an efficient market.  
9.15.   Nowadays, the multilateral trading system was challenged in various ways and the need for 
WTO reform was widely recogni zed. In order to undertake reform, the time seemed to be ripe for 
Members to share a co mmon recognition on the market -oriented conditions that formed the basis 
for securing free and fair trade and a level playing field. Japan therefore supported the draft General 
Council decision by the United States.  
9.16.   The representative of Brazil  recogni zed the need to improve rules so that the multilateral 
trading system was able to effectively foster free trade and by doing that, promote higher standards 
of living and of development. That was not something new. In the Marrakesh Declaration of 1994, 
Members had stated that "the establishment of the WTO ushers in a new era of global economic 
cooperation reflecting the widespread desire to operate in a fairer and more open multilateral trading 
system for the benefit and welfare of all people. " Members had also agreed in the Preamble that 
they had been "determined to build upon the success of the Uruguay Round through the participation 
of our economies in the world trade system based upon market -oriented policies. " 
9.17.   Joining the WTO was a necessary step but was not  sufficient by itself to ensure development. 
Members should remain committed to trade liberalization and strengthen rules. Brazil agreed with 
the United States that it was essential that market -oriented conditions prevailed in Members ' market 
in order to g uarantee a level playing field. Brazil was looking at the proposal carefully and would 
provide more comments later.  
9.18.   The representative of Colombia  said that his country share d the principles mentioned in the 
proposal  and had always based its participation in international trade on them. Since 1995, Colombia 
had maintained a market economy model. Colombia had participated in the WTO 's establishment 
and had consistently asserted its agreement and satisfaction with the preamble to the Marrakesh 
Agreement and with the provisions that anchored global development firmly in market principles. 
Colombia was able to concur with the content of the proposal and would even extend it to other  
domains beyond those explicitly mentioned. Members were not discussing principles and orientations 
that applied only to industrial subsidies as they also affected other WTO areas such as agriculture.  
9.19.   Colombia understood the interest in reiterating some of  the founding principles, especially at 
that time of introspection for the organization. Nevertheless, Members should not draw any 
particularly firm conclusions from the exercise. The principles that they shared that day belonged to 
a larger body of princi ples and provisions that had garnered consensus and balance over time at the 
multilateral level. A few differences regarding the re -establishment of a single principle should not 
put the existing balance in the total body of WTO Agreements at risk. Moreove r, Colombia drew 
attention to the need to maintain a horizontal view of the WTO and its benefits, which sometimes 
ran the risk of getting lost in the animosity of discussions on specific issues.  
9.20.   Colombia regarded the WTO as a forum, which, apart from the p roblems it faced, offered tools 
and solutions to Members in their daily participation in international trade. Colombia appealed to all 
Members to apply the principles mentioned in the proposal in a broader manner that embraced the 
entire scope of trade bet ween their economies and to consider the total positive impact that the 
WTO had on its Members. Colombia would be ready to further those discussions with both the United 
States and other delegations concerned. There was much that united Members in the WTO.  In that 
bond, they should join forces to maintain, promote and improve the multilateral trading system.  
9.21.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  had always championed the view that the WTO had been 
established to uphold the rules -based trading system to ensur e a level playing and to promote trade 
as an instrument of economic development. Having said that, it was equally important that the whole 
system functioned properly allowing business and workers to prosper in a free and fair competitive 
market. That depen ded crucially on Members having a common understanding of the rules of the 
game and respecting them. A market -oriented trading environment was therefore an essential 
condition for underpinning the key elements of fairness in the WTO 's multilateral trading system.  
9.22.   The representative of Nigeria  said his remarks were  preliminary while the draft General 
Council Decision was being reviewed in its capital. Nigeria had concerns on the likely scope of 
application of a draft decision and its potential implication on  the rights of a State to regulate WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 39 - 
 
  economic activities within its sovereign territory especially during market failures. There was also 
no clarity as to the meaning of the term "market -oriented condition ". An assessment of existing 
market -oriented conditio ns in developed economies depicted a system of massive subsidy schemes 
that did not only provide financial support for domestic producers to enterprise but also ensured that 
the world market price of products to commodities remained low. Developing countri es were still 
struggling to cope with the economic losses and social dislocation by those policies.  
9.23.   Furthermore, Nigeria had not understood the broad objective of the draft decision. If the 
objective was for the WTO to impose a specific economic model onto  its Members, that would 
constitute an infringement on the sovereignty of Members. The aforementioned notwithstanding, 
Nigeria was open to further discussions on the issue with the United States to enable Nigeria to gain 
greater insights and better underst and its scope and the meaning of terms such as "market -
oriented ", "freely determined " and "market determined ". 
9.24.   The representative of Australia  shared the view that the WTO represented a fundamental 
commitment by Members to an open trading environment under pinned by market -oriented 
principles. Australia stood ready to contribute to constructive discussions with all Members to support 
an effective WTO that remained fit for purpose and continued its unparalleled contribution to 
liberalising global trade.  
9.25.   The representative of the European Union  thought it was important that businesses operated 
under market -oriented conditions. Like the United States, the European Union had 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 level  playing field.  
9.26.   The European Union 's aim through the work in the trilateral group had been to identify the 
negative spill -overs into the trading system that could result from non -market ba sed economic 
practices. That kind of reflection would allow Members to identify the kinds of future rules that could 
help address and minimi ze the impact of those negative spill -overs. That was the process the 
European Union was going through in the field of industrial subsidies for example, where having 
reflected on the kinds of rules needed, it was beginning to discuss its ideas with other WTO Members.  
9.27.   The representative of South Africa  said her comments on the matter  were preliminary  and 
noted that the submission was currently being considered in capita l. As a principle, South Africa 
agreed with optimal functioning of markets. The paper introduced a number of terms that were not 
clearly defined making engagement on the issue a challenge. It was  not clear whether Members had 
the same view of what significant government interference was.  
9.28.   Countries had a number of policies that were implemented in the public interest to address 
market failure or achieve developmental objectives, including in South Africa 's case addressing 
historical exclusion of especially black people in the mainstream economy. South Africa was 
wondering whether those policies would be seen as creating non -market conditions in terms of 
creating a level playing field for workers and  businesses even though they achieved a Constitutional 
mandate.  Markets and the way they operated led at times to unintended consequences. That 
included market concentration, rising unemployment and inequality. Policies and regulations were 
essential for t heir proper functioning and to promote a range of public policy outcomes.  
9.29.   Almost all WTO Members had mixed economies where Governments intervened in the 
economy or had State -owned enterprises wh ich carried out specific functions to achieve a 
developmental  mandate. That included certain kinds of research and development incentives that 
supported industries that developed new technologies that were then commerciali zed, a range of 
non-tariff measures that were not based on science, price controls on agricultu re and pharmaceutical 
products, interventions taken in the context of the global economic crisis and interventions for 
national security imperatives.  
9.30.   South Africa was sensitive to any proposal that challenged the right to regulate in the public 
interest. G overnments needed to balance a broad set of interests and concerns including those of 
investors, workers, the unemployed, young people and others as they forged social pacts within 
their societies to promote sustainable growth and deeper economic inclusion .  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 40 - 
 
  9.31.   In addition, the WTO membership consisted of Members  at different levels of development. 
It was for that reason that the Marrakesh Agreement had a number of objectives including: 
conducting trade and economic relations with a view to raising standards o f living, ensuring full 
employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, 
expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, and enhancing the means for doing so 
in a manner consistent with their respective n eeds and concerns at different levels of economic 
development.  
9.32.   It further recogni zed the need for positive efforts to ensure that developing countries, and 
especially LDCs secured a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs 
of their economic development.  Countries developed at uneven rates, the reasons for which were 
complex. Those complexities necessitated the implementation of policies suitable to their 
development objectives and to address their specific challenges. The WTO s hould not attempt to 
determine the economic model of countries. Members needed a multilateral trading system that 
supported inclusive growth and enabled national authorities to pursue steps to achieve national 
developmental objectives and outcomes based on  their peculiar circumstances.  
9.33.   South Africa agreed with the need to promote a fair and more open multilateral trading system 
for the benefit and welfare of their people and that that should start with addressing agricultural 
subsidies which also impacted on food production and SDG 1 and 2 which was a long outstanding 
issue in the WTO. South Africa looked forward to further engagement with the United States.  
9.34.   The representative of Uruguay  recalled that after the failed experience of industrializatio n due 
to the imports in the 40s and 50s, Uruguay had defended the market -oriented conditions where 
prices and the assigning of capital and other factors of production were determined freely thanks to 
the interaction of the different economic agents and not  because of orders derived from central 
planning. Introducing the necessary corrections that took into account the interest and welfare of 
the public was the best way to assign resources given that they were always scarce. Uruguay had 
therefore conveyed th e proposal to its capital for consideration.  
9.35.   Given the features and the current circumstances that the organization was currently going 
through, Members should focus their discussions on the effective implementation of existing 
agreements and on new disci plines to improve the global trading system. Those principles of free 
market were already enshrined in the fundamental text of the World Trade Organization and Uruguay 
would defend them as it had always done in current and future negotiations.  
9.36.   The represen tative of Indonesia  noted that the proposal emphasi zed the importance of 
promoting market –oriented conditions to the world trading system . His delegation would 
appropriately study it. Indonesia recogni zed that it was essential to have a multilateral tradin g 
system that allowed the smooth flow of global trade in goods and services and that provided certainty 
to business and investments and predictability and opportunities in conducting their activities. The 
multilateral trading system should also have a deve lopmental perspective to allow Members to serve 
the larger interests of their people.  
9.37.   International trade would always need the efforts of Members for it to be used as a tool to 
achieve Members ' development objectives in particular as regards the SDGs. Th e future agenda of 
the WTO should therefore integrate all dimensions of SDG 2030 – economic, social and environment 
protection – as a reflection of trade as a tool for development particularly on matters the WTO had 
been clearly expected to deliver through  global partnership envisioned by the SDGs. In that regard, 
Members should continue their discussion on how they could improve the WTO 's relevance including 
in addressing future development challenges of its Members.  
9.38.   The representative of the United Kingdo m said that the WTO Agreements recogni zed the 
importance of market -oriented conditions to the world trading system. The United Kingdom sought 
to ensure fair competition by guaranteeing all Members upheld their obligations under the 
agreements. The world tr ading system could only succeed if Members continued their endeavour to 
tackle unfair practices when those occurred. The United Kingdom therefore thanked the United 
States for enabling that discussion. It was important that Members made progress on issues such 
as industrial subsidies, state -owned enterprises and forced technology transfer. Unfair practices had 
real-life impacts on their citizens – innovation was stifled, communities were damaged and 
uncompetitive businesses were bolstered. All Member s benefited from advancing market principles.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 41 - 
 
  9.39.   The representative of Norway  had listened carefully to the statements made and agreed that 
items listed in the US paper were important conditions for a well -functioning market economy to 
which Norway subscribed  to. The first seven items currently described how the Norwegian market 
functioned and item 8 covered the policy of the Norwegian Government when addressing both 
private and state -owned enterprises. With that said, the multilateral agreements did accommoda te 
Members with a variety of economic systems.  
9.40.   What was important was that Members ensured that their divergent systems did not harm 
other Members ' businesses and that there was full transparency on how governments and businesses 
functioned. If WTO Agreeme nts and Members ' commitments did not ensure that, they needed to 
turn to the Agreements themselves, ensure that they were fully implemented in a timely manner 
and negotiate amendments when needed. Norway agreed that there was a need for such 
adjustments. T hose were challenging times for the WTO. Members needed to work together in a 
constructive manner in order to reduce further tensions and update the rulebook when needed.  
9.41.   The representative of Pakistan  said that it was ironic that while Members debated mar ket 
orientation, they were contemplating regulations in the wake of a pandemic that threatened to have 
a lasting impact on the global economy. At a relatively small level, Pakistan was intervening in the 
market for protective masks in some countries and wo uld need to intervene in the market price for 
medicines as well at some stage – as was quite often done in many otherwise market -oriented 
countries. Market -orientation was an ambiguous concept. Pakistan asked whether there was such a 
thing as a free market  and whether any country could claim to have always been a completely free 
market economy.  
9.42.   Economic history was replete with examples of countries relying heavily on government 
support to develop their economies – relaxed patent rules, protection of textil e industries through 
quota regimes, hugely subsidi zed agricultural commodities, often further protected under tariff rate 
quotas, development of aircraft, steel, automobiles and arguably even the internet and global tech 
giants were all examples not very d istant in history. Within the last ten to fifteen years, several 
countries otherwise claiming to be market -oriented had resorted to state intervention in the wake 
of the financial crisis – billions of dollars ' worth of taxpayers ' money had been used to nat ionali ze 
mortgage lenders, bailout large companies and clean up so -called 'toxic assets '. 
9.43.   Members ' own rules formulated in the GATT condoned government intervention – evidenced 
by the incidence of antidumping and countervailing duties. Complete free market  economics would 
allow trade to flow freely and for dumping to be preferred in the name of consumer welfare and the 
lowest price determining who could buy and by how much.  
9.44.   Indeed, Members were already contemplating new regulations to save the planet from a n 
environmental catastrophe. It was because they understood the value of market intervention. In 
other words, they acknowledged market failure that often deterred States and Governments in 
achieving the aspirations of their people. Otherwise, if people had  wanted to drive more polluting 
cars or if enterprises had found polluting production methods more profitable, Governments would 
not have to prevent them from expressing such free choice.  
9.45.   There was no perfectly free market or a perfectly market -oriented co untry or economic model. 
To borrow from a famous British Economist, "… some markets look free, only because we totally 
accept the regulations that are propping them up such that they become invisible ". Moreover, it was 
not for the organization to impose a particular model of running economies on its Members. Each 
Member had its own history, culture, development trajectory and methods of policy -making.  
9.46.   The preamble of the Marrake sh Agreement recogni zed the need for Members to raise 
standards of living and en sure full employment in a manner consistent with their respective needs 
and concerns at different levels of economic development. Needless to say, accepting a one -size-
fits-all approach in the organization as the proposal intended would only further impede  progress in 
the organization. Allowing and accepting more diversity in economic models would allow the 
organization to function better.  
9.47.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that, concerning the question of the 
relationship between national ec onomic policies and WTO rules, none of the current WTO provisions 
imposed on Members cleared benchmarks with respect to internal economic governance unless WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 42 - 
 
  certain policies and measures directly affected trade. Moreover, and there the Russian Federation 
agreed with Pakistan, fully market and fully non -market economies did not exist. There was always 
a certain degree of state regulation and intervention in the economy even if policies were generally 
market -oriented. State participation in the economy was nec essary to compensate market failures 
for the benefit of the people – the aim enshrined in the Marrakesh Declaration.  
9.48.   On the trade policy dimension of state activity, trade was influenced by various aspects of 
state intervention and internal support polici es represented only one facet of those aspects. Another 
one, and equally important, was trade protectionism that distorted trade and squeezed foreign 
players from the market, for example, by use of trade defence policies, measures implemented with 
recourse  to national security considerations. The US paper was silent about such aspects of policies 
provided by the State.  
9.49.   Regarding the question of balance, the Russian Federation understood that the paper 
represented the views of the United States with respect to how Members ' economies should operate 
"to ensure a level playing field for workers and businesses ". Obviously, the United States cared 
mainly of its own workers and companies. But the Russian Federation asked how much policy space 
the United States was ready to provide to other Members ' workers and businesses, for example, 
regarding agricultural support reduction or strengthening multilateral rules of trade defence 
instruments. The Russian Federation further asked whether the United States intended to li ft its 
numerous protectionist barriers especially on steel and aluminium and to commit not to introduce 
them anymore. Without positive answers to those questions, the call of the United States to other 
Members to change their policies seemed to be quite on e-legged.  
9.50.   The bilateral trade deals between Members should also fall within the scope of the proposal. 
When concluding such deals, the parties should abstain from encouraging or pressuring other 
Members to agree to terms and conditions that went against ba sic market principles. Such bilateral 
deals should not contribute to further disruption of the international trade and market conditions. It 
seemed that a deal recently concluded between the US and another major Member of the WTO did 
not meet those criteri a. The Russian Federation did not see benefit from the selective approach to 
promoting market -oriented conditions.  
9.51.   The Russian Federation hoped that the United States would be able to engage in the discussion 
on the above points in a meaningful way. Otherw ise, the document would only trigger useless 
debates about economic models and internal policies of Members which would be far beyond the 
mandate of the organization.  
9.52.   The representative of Sri Lanka  said that the WTO promoted fair and balanced trade. Members 
adopted different economic models such as Sri Lanka 's market -oriented policies with a human face. 
It could mean many things to everyone. The United States had said that there were already some 
provisions in the WTO Agreements with some principles which came from 1947 such as MFN and 
national treatment. Members also had trade remedies particularly on antidumping and on subsidies 
– those that caused such a distortion within the market -oriented conte xt could be adequately 
addressed given the current provisions. They also had been, under the Agreement on Agriculture, 
targeting to frame disciplines on state owned enterprises. Having such instruments at Members ' 
disposal, Sri Lanka wondered why some coun tries still considered that such emphasis was necessary 
again after 1947.  
9.53.   As the proposal was being considered at national level in detail, Sri Lanka sought some 
clarifications from the United States. Sri Lanka asked whether the proposal meant that there c ould 
be no role for the State to regulate. Sri Lanka further asked what would happen if some sectors were 
heavily regulated because the private sector could not deliver or participate in those areas such as 
education and health care given their essential n ature and that government intervention was 
forthcoming or in case government intervention was necessary particularly in the services sector. 
Sri Lanka questioned the effect of the proposal such that one could be deemed to have a market 
economy at the expen se of the government not intervening in the market in case of market failures 
that could result in socio -economic unrest within a country. There was always the question on 
whether a Member could be deemed to have a market economy if it only heavily regulat ed one 
sector, because of its essential nature, but not the rest. Sri Lanka inquired on the practical 
implications of the proposal – particularly on whether it gave Members the right to take action on 
any State intervention involving investment or capital allocation decisions.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 43 - 
 
  9.54.   Sri Lanka further inquired whether a Member that had government intervention regulations 
on its economy meant that Members could impose tariffs beyond the bound level with impunity and 
whether that would constitute the end of the rule s-based system. Sri Lanka also asked what types 
of enterprises would be covered – whether it would cover public entities or all enterprises, 
enterprises engaged in commercial activities or all activities, only profit -making enterprises or all 
enterprises, or enterprises that had public functions such as those that ran hospitals, the media and 
utilities. Sri Lanka would constructively engage with the United States to seek answers to those 
questions.  
9.55.   The representative of India noted that the proposal was bei ng examined in capital and would 
revert with detailed comments. Like many others, India was curious about the intention behind the 
proposal which at that stage was not clear. Some of the terms used in the proposal were not clearly 
defined. The nature of a State 's actions and the category of enterprises falling under its scope were 
also not elaborated. Because of its prescriptive nature, the proposal had stirred up the old market -
versus -State debate.  
9.56.   The debate over market -versus -State had been settled a lon g time ago and State intervention 
in economic activities occurred in every country of the world , without an exception. While it was not 
its intention to go into that debate, India drew attention to some of the questions it had raised. The 
proposal seemed t o assume that all state interventions were bad for markets and overlooked 
instances where state interventions had enabled markets to function better. India asked whether 
Members needed markets only for market 's sake or they needed markets that worked for w elfare 
and development. India also questioned whether the WTO should be making prescriptions and 
monitoring development models and economic systems of its Members who could be at different 
levels of development. Those were important questions which needed to be answered.  
9.57.   India had been striving over the past three decades to pursue pro -market, pro -competition 
and transparent policies. State interventions had however been warranted to address market failures 
given the significant need to pursue pro -poor, pro -welfare and pro -equity policies and bring more 
than 250 million people out of poverty. While doing so, India had been mindful of the need to achieve 
a fair balance between the market and state interventions.  
9.58.   As a founding Member of the WTO, India believed  that the WTO 's core objective remained 
promoting sustainable development "in a manner consistent with the needs and respective levels of 
economic development " of its Members. State or market were only the instruments for achieving 
that objective and the d ecision of which one to choose when should be best left to the wisdom of 
the Members. The focus of the WTO should be to use trade to create conditions of welfare and 
development.  
9.59.   The representative of Mexico  was grateful to the United States for the draft decision which 
was currently being considered in capital. Mexico took note and understood the need to reiterate the 
fundamental principles underscoring the organization. That was a relevant discussion. It was true 
that Members needed fair and balanced comp etition among their market -based economies. Mexico 
was willing and looked forward to discuss ing that in a constructive fashion with Members.  
9.60.   The representative of Switzerland  said that the text set out a number of principles that should 
direct the function ing of a market economy. Switzerland recogni zed various elements in it that 
characteri zed its economy and had long been firmly established in its policies. WTO Agreements 
were at the same time geared to the liberalization of trade and acted as a lubricant for market forces. 
It was however true that Members had economic models that could vary greatly.  
9.61.   What mattered was that the different models could co -exist in line with the letter and the 
spirit of the multilateral trading system. If certain practices or policies had been to distort exchanges 
or cause major disruption to trade, they should be brought into line with existing rules and the latter 
should be reinforced. Switzerland was ready to participate constructively in efforts to moderni ze the 
WTO rules to take account of contemporary economic realities.  
9.62.   The representative of China  noted he was reading the novel La Parure (The Necklace) by the 
French writer Guy de Maupassant and he had noticed something interesting. When Mathilde had 
approached Madame Forestier to borrow some jewellery to attend the ball, the necklace that she 
had picked – supposedly costing forty thousand francs – had simply been kept in a box with other WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 44 - 
 
  jewellery: "Mme Forestier alla vers son armoire à glace, prit un large coffret, l 'apporta, l 'ouvrit, et 
dit à Mme Loisel: Choisis, ma chère. " At the end of the story when i t had been revealed that the 
necklace had been an imitation worth at most five hundred francs, he had immediately thought of 
that scene, which at the beginning of the novel, had already given a clear hint – in a few words – 
that the necklace had not really  been precious. Guy de Maupassant had demonstrated what was a 
good foreshadowing or scene -setting: which was to suggest what was to come later in the story but 
did it in such a natural and subtle way.  
9.63.   At the December General Council meeting, China had had a debate with the United States 
about the so -called non -market policies and practices. That had already been quite an obvious scene -
setting by the United States. As had been said in that meeting, what the United States, the European 
Union and Japan really wanted was to introduce a proposal on the revision of the subsidy rules. If 
that was the case, China said at that time to just drop the other shoe so that other Members would 
not have to be kept in suspense for so long.  The answer was that because China kn ew – and perhaps 
the proponents also knew – that no matter how elaborate the scene -setting was, no matter how 
many times they foreshadowed, a proposal that was inconsistent with the fundamental principles of 
the WTO and that went beyond the institution 's mandate was unlikely to gain support and consensus 
from the membership.  
9.64.   All Members had a common sense about market economy. There was really no need to debate 
about it. It was just like Members did not have to debate if they needed to eat when they were 
hungry or bring an umbrella when it was raining. That being said, whatever development path a 
Member could choose, whatever model a Member could adopt for its own economy, it was entirely 
up to that Member, and the WTO was in no position to interfere with th at decision.  
9.65.   China thanked the United States for reminding Members of the Marrakesh Declaration. If 
China needed to pick one sentence from the Declaration that was most relevant to current global 
trade, it would be: "Ministers express their determination t o resist protectionist pressures of all 
kinds. " Members should also not forget in their relations in the fields of trade and economic 
endeavour those words from the Marrakesh Agreement: "for doing so in a manner consistent with 
their respective needs and c oncerns at different levels of economic development. " 
9.66.   The document could look straight -forward yet it was anything but. China asked what the 
United States meant with the terms "non-market -oriented policies and practices ", "internationally 
recogni zed accoun ting standards ", "freely access relevant information " and "significant government 
interference ". Any of those concepts could lead to an endless debate. Considering that Members only 
had three months before MC12, perhaps their limited time and resources cou ld be best spent on 
resolving the crisis of the Appellate Body and pushing for possible outcomes at the MC12. Time was 
not on their side to debate on the issues that could lead to a philosophical discussion but were not 
directly relevant for the outcome of  the Ministerial meeting. After all, the world was watching the 
WTO and Members had to deliver concrete results.  
9.67.   The representative of the United States  was amazed by some Members ' ability to say what 
they thought. Although some of them had said that they had to consult with their capital, they still 
offered preliminary observations that were far ranging. He was impressed by that. As he had not 
understood the story told by his Chinese colleague at the beginning of his intervention, he asked 
him whether they  could talk about that offline. The United States thanked delegations  for their 
comment s on the draft decision.  
9.68.   The representative of China  clarified that China did not want to discuss the issue of market 
economy and did not think that the WTO had the mandate to do that. China did not likewise want 
to discuss the amendment of the SCM Agreement, but if there was a proposal, China would be read y 
for a debate with the objective of persuading the proponents to give up their unnecessary efforts.  
9.69.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 45 - 
 
  10  KAZAKHSTAN  – BORDER RESTRICTIO NS OF GOODS IN TRANS IT (G/C/W/774 - 
G/TFA/W/20) – REQUES T FROM THE KYRGYZ RE PUBLIC  
10.1.   The Chair noted that the  item was requested to be added in the agenda by the delegation of 
the Kyrgyz Republic which  include d document G/C/W/774 – G/TFA/W/20. She underst ood that an 
Addendum to th e document ha d already been circulated to delegations  the previous day. 
10.2.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  said that it was unfortunate  that Kyrgyzstan had 
to raise the issue on the trade restrictive measures by its neighbour Kazakhstan  at the General 
Council . But Kyrgyzstan highly trusted in the impa rtiality and integrity of the multilateral instrument 
provided by the WTO , and in that respect had brought that issue to the attention of Members in the  
General Council meeting.  
10.3.   Kyrgyzstan recalled that a similar situation had occurred  at the end of 2017 , when its export 
and transit goods had encountered severe trade restrictions in the form of unilateral measures 
imposed by Kazakhstan which had resulted in hundreds of Kyrgyz cargo carriers stuck at the border 
as well as in serious, unrecoverable damage to  the Kyrgyz economy. In the wake of those trade 
distortive actions by the Kazakh authorities, the IMF in 2017 had estimated the damage for 
Kyrgyzstan to be around USD 200 million.  
10.4.   Kyrgyzstan was a landlocked country which had managed to liberali ze its econ omy and  
recogni zed as a market economy back in 1998. At present, Kyrgyzstan was deeply integrated in the 
regional trade relations , as proven by the fact that the country 's current trade turnover was 
approximately 85% of its GDP. Kyrgyzstan 's high degree of integration in regional trade flows had 
been achieved largely thanks to its early membership in the WTO and to its geographical location 
between fast growing economies. That had led to the situation where more than 15% of the country 's 
active labour had been involved in the wholesale and retail trade business sector within the last 
twenty years.  That geographical , fact along with a liberal trade regime , posed as an opportunity and 
as a major vulnerability for Kyrgyzstan. The vulnerability s temmed from the existing potential of 
arbitrary policies from other countries of the region and from actual ones such as those imposed by 
Kazakhstan whose actions deviated from the multilateral norms and principles and had put under 
threat the major retail  trade business of Kyrgyzstan.  
10.5.   Kyrgyzstan had been  raising its concerns on the trade restrictive measures imposed by 
Kazakhstan since March 2019 with respect to goods in transit from Kyrgyzstan to third countries , 
which was described in document G/C/W/774 . For almost the past twelve months, its cargo carriers 
had encountered significant obstacles and delays caused by stricter inspection at the border by 
Kazakh authorities conducted in a very burdensome and excessive manner.  Moreover, the excessive 
and unju stified inspections by Kazakh inspection bodies were not carried out in a transparent way 
which had provided no clear explanation on why they took place. The Kyrgyz delegation had informed 
Members about those developments and the suffering of the Kyrgyz ca rgo carriers as well as the 
inappropriate behaviour of the Kazakh fiscal bodies on Kyrgyzstan 's last communication and at the 
meeting of the Committee on Trade Facilitation on 11 February.  
10.6.   The trade distortive border measures applied by Kazakhstan with res pect to Kyrgyz 
transporters had been causing enormous and irrecoverable economic damage and exerting negative 
impact on trade between Kyrgyzstan and third countries. The consequences of those unilateral 
actions by Kazakhstan was the congestion of cargo tra nsport amounting to up to 250 units, and with 
a length of up to 10 kilometres.  According to the State border service of the Kyrgyz Republic, the 
passage of cargo vehicles through the "Ak tilek avtodorozhnyi " checkpoint in 2018 amounted to 
93,612 units, and  73,652 units as of 2019. The decline of the passage in comparison to 2018 and 
2019 represented 22%. Those measures at the border by Kazakh authorities had virtually forced 
many Kyrgyz transport carriers to move into Kazakhstan 's cargo market and to regist er their 
business there – for example in the Union of Authori zed Economic Operators whose vehicles had no 
problem in transiting through the territory of Kazakhstan to third markets.  
10.7.   In the addendum of the document recently circulated, Kyrgyzstan had broug ht to the attention 
of Members some statistics which showed the decline of Kyrgyz exports as a result of said trade -
restrictive actions by the Kazakh authorities. The volume of exports of goods from the Kyrgyz 
Republic for 2019 had amounted to USD 270.8 mi llion. In comparison to 2018, the volume of export 
had decreased by 24.4%. The largest decline in volume of export had been registered in export of WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 46 - 
 
  garments, knitwear and footwear. For eleven months in 2019, the volume of export of those products 
had been USD 36 million which was 70% less than in the same period in 2018. It should be noted 
that the average volume of decline for those products had been 88.4%. The said measures by 
Kazakhstan had likewise targeted the transit goods passing through the territor y of Kazakhstan and 
which had no relation to the market of Kazakhstan itself.   
10.8.   To address the situation in a constructive manner, he stressed that Kyrgyzstan had 
undertaken all necessary steps throughout 2019 by holding several bilateral consultations at 
different levels. Kyrgyzstan had informed Kazakhstan in detail about the critical situation of the mass 
congestion of vehicles due to the unjustified inspections by Kazakh inspectors. As bilateral talks had 
been fully exhausted with no success, Kyrgyzstan h ad been left with no choice but to raise it at the 
last meeting of the Committee on Trade Facilitation on 11 February when Kyrgyzstan had urged 
Kazakhstan to eliminate their applied trade restrictions and to act within the established WTO rules.  
At present , because of even harsher measures imposed by Kazakh authorities, the Kyrgyz goods 
transporters had remained stuck at the border in difficult wintery weather conditions. Some trucks 
had been staying at the border for one week. At the end of February, there  had even been cases 
where passenger cars had been stuck at the border.  
10.9.   He noted that Kazakhstan justified its actions by mentioning inadequate customs 
administration allegedly carried out by Kyrgyzstan with regard to the VAT collection losses and 
customs duties as well as statistics on the improper execution of documents which Kyrgyzstan had 
heard about during the mentioned CTF meeting two weeks ago. Kyrgyzstan anticipated that 
Kazakhstan would again mention those reasons in its statement. Kyrgyzstan was q uestioning the 
validity and sincerity of the reasons behind the said actions of Kazakhstan – moreover, they raised 
even more questions. Kyrgyzstan drew Members ' attention not to the reasons and justifications of 
those developments but on the scale, method,  nature and motives of those controlled checks as well 
as significant negative consequences of those devastating measures which could have been easily 
avoided had Kazakhstan carried out those controlling measures in full accordance with its obligations 
under WTO rules with respect to freedom of transit and trade facilitation provisions.  
10.10.   Taking into account the current critical situation at the border of the two countries, despite 
all the efforts and appeals by the Kyrgyz side on a bilateral basis, Kyrgyzsta n considered the 
measures taken by the Kazakh authorities as trade restrictive and violating the following basic norms 
of the WTO Agreements, inter alia, GATT Article III on "National Treatment ", Article V on "Freedom 
of Transit "; Article X on "Publication  and Administration of Trade Regulations " and Article XI on 
"General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions " and TFA Article 7 on "Release and Clearance of 
Goods " and Article 11 on "Freedom of Transit ". Given all of those, Kyrgyzstan strongly urged 
Kazakhstan to abide by WTO rules and respect its WTO commitments.  
10.11.   The representative of Kazakhstan  responded to the complaint submitted by the Kyrgyz 
delegation to the relevant WTO Committees and to the statement just made by the Kyrgyz Republic 
by emphasi sing that the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic were Members of the single 
customs territory of the Eurasian Economic Union. According to Article 25 of the Treaty on the 
Eurasian Economic Union, free movement of goods between the territories o f Member States were 
ensured without the use of customs declarations and without application of state control including 
customs, transport, sanitary and veterinary sanitary control.  
10.12.   The Kyrgyz Republic had joined the Eurasian Economic Union in August 2015 . Since then, 
all the goods which entered Kazakhstan from the Kyrgyz Republic as well as transiting through 
Kazakhstan were exempt from customs control procedures applied to third countries that 
represented separate customs territories. In accordance with the Customs Code of the Eurasian 
Economic Union, transit of goods was defined as the movement of goods under customs control 
while ensuring payment of duties and identification of goods and with the final destination to a third 
country. That definition was  in line with Article V of the GATT and the provisions of the TFA.  
10.13.   The following conditions of placement of foreign goods under the Customs Procedure for 
Transit should be met: (i) ensuring the financial guarantee in the amount of VAT and customs duty 
for transported goods or customs escort of the goods; (ii) enabling identification of goods by applying 
seals and stamps; and (iii) compliance with safety related regulations. As financial guarantee, 
Kazakhstan also applied the Convention on International Tran sport of Goods Under Cover of TIR 
Carnets of 1975 particularly when transit took place through several countries.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 47 - 
 
  10.14.   Since all of those requirements were applied to transit from third countries outside the single 
customs territory of the Eurasian Economic Uni on and were not applicable towards the transit from 
the Kyrgyz Republic, the complaint of the Kyrgyz Republic was purely related to the enforcement of 
the EEU regulations and did not fall as such under Article V of the GATT.  
10.15.   Authori zed bodies of Kazakhstan  carried out verification activities along the route of cargo 
vehicles with respect to cargo couriers of all EEU Member States for monitoring and ensuring the 
VAT payments to the national budget of Kazakhstan. It should be noted that motor vehicles of 
Kazakhstan as well as other EEU Member States were subject to the same inspections. Moreover, 
only cargo vehicles identified in accordance with the risk management system were subject to 
inspection measures.  
10.16.   During the period of November -December 2019, out of  2,470 Kyrgyz vehicles, only 194 were 
subject to inspection while violations were detected in 191 cases. It should also be noted that in the 
course of 2019, only 2,600 cases of entry of goods from the Kyrgyz Republic to fictitious residents 
within Kazakhst an had been identified from which VAT remained unpaid. During the same period, 
4,800 cases had been identified as false transit which had been documented as goods destined to 
third countries but actually withheld on the territory of Kazakhstan.  
10.17.   She noted t hat all measures applied by Kazakhstan were in full conformity with Article I on 
MFN Treatment, Article III on National Treatment and Article V on Freedom of Transit under the 
GATT 1994 and relevant provisions of the TFA. Currently, there was no national l aw or government 
resolution in Kazakhstan that was in violation with any of the above -mentioned or other WTO norms. 
The communication by the Kyrgyz Republic did not therefore contain any references to the official 
legislative document of Kazakhstan or meas ures applied by Kazakhstan which reflected such 
violation.   
10.18.   Kazakhstan stood ready to work with the Kyrgyz Republic to address those outstanding 
issues through bilateral consultations as well as existing institutional mechanisms within the Eurasian 
Economic Union. In particular, four meetings had taken place between May and July 2019 between 
the heads of fiscal authorities of their countries. The Head of Kazakhstan 's Committee on Internal 
Revenue was sitting there and could also answer the questions if necessary. In the course of those 
meetings, concrete agreements had been achieved and the roadmaps had been developed in order 
not to allow false transit and imports to fictitious residents through use of navigation seals, daily 
exchange of information and monitoring mechanisms. No enforcement or implementation follow up 
actions had been done. In 2020, those issues had also been discussed at the meeting of the Eurasian 
Intergovernmental Council on 31 January and the Meeting of the Eurasian Council at the  level of 
Prime Ministers on 20 February. No agreements had been reached.  
10.19.   Considering that the Kyrgyz Republic was its neighbour and strategic partner, Kazakhstan 
called on the Government of Kyrgyzstan to implement the commitments undertaken by the Kyrgyz  
Republic upon joining the Eurasian Economic Union and respect the legitimate national interest of 
its partners.  
10.20.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  underlined that Kyrgyzstan considered,  from the 
statement by Kazakhstan and from the failure of all b ilateral talks that had been held before, that 
this illustrated that Kazakhstan was not showing any interest towards resolving the existing problem 
at the border in accordance with WTO norms and principles. That gave Kyrgyzstan no other option 
but to refer  the problem to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body and initiate the process within the 
DSU. Given Kyrgyzstan 's difficult situation which had been lasting for a long time, it was high time 
for the DSB to evaluate the actions of Kazakhstan.  
10.21.   The representative o f Kazakhstan  said that her delegation stood ready to defend its case in 
the DSB. In response and for information sharing purposes, Kazakhstan would also be bringing a 
complaint about the measures applied by the Kyrgyz Government with regard to Kazakhstan 's 
exports on the application of the minimum level of control prices, on VAT exemption for agricultural 
machinery produced in domestic enterprises as well as on the draft resolution on the ban for imports 
of goods for which Kazakhstan applied exemptions in a ccordance with its accession protocol to the 
WTO.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 48 - 
 
  10.22.   The representative of Japan  appreciated the detailed explanation from Kyrgyzstan as well as 
the response from Kazakhstan surrounding the case and looked forward to having an amicable 
solution through contin uous bilateral consultations.  
10.23.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  thanked the Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan 
for the detailed explanation of the concerns raised and encouraged both Members to engage in a 
constructive dialogue in order to solve th eir economic and trade issues in a mutually acceptable and 
bilateral manner.  
10.24.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
11  UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE REPOR T ON THE APPELLATE B ODY OF THE 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZA TION – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
11.1.   The Chair noted  that the item was on the agenda at the request of the delegation of the 
United States.  
11.2.   The representative of the United States  recalled that on 11 February, the United States Trade 
Representative had issued a Report on the failure of the Appellate Body of the World Trade 
Organization to respect WTO rules. The Report detailed how the Appellate Body had repeatedly failed 
to interpr et the rules of the WTO agreements consistent with the text of those agreements, as 
negotiated and agreed by WTO Members. In so doing, the Appellate Body had undermined a rules -
based trading system by persistently breaking those rules.  
11.3.   The Report discussed  the following examples of the Appellate Body 's failure to follow WTO 
rules:  
a. The Appellate Body consistently ignored the mandatory 90 -day deadline for deciding 
appeals set out in the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU);  
b. The Appellate Body allowed indivi duals who had ceased to serve on the Appellate Body 
to continue deciding appeals despite the fact that only WTO Members in the Dispute 
Settlement Body had the authority under the DSU to set the term of appointment for a 
person to the Appellate Body;  
c. The Ap pellate Body had made findings on issues of fact, including issues of fact relating 
to WTO Members ' domestic law, although the DSU explicitly limited appeals to issues of 
law and legal interpretation;  
d. The Appellate Body had issued advisory opinions and had  otherwise opined on 
unnecessary issues even though the DSU limited panel and AB findings to those 
necessary to assist the Dispute Settlement Body in making recommendations to resolve 
the dispute;  
e. The Appellate Body had insisted that dispute settlement pan els treated prior Appellate 
Body interpretations as binding precedent absent cogent reasons despite express text 
giving the exclusive authority to issue authoritative interpretations to the Ministerial 
Conference and General Council;  
f. The Appellate Body had  asserted that it could choose not to issue a recommendation 
despite explicit DSU text that mandated such a recommendation to a WTO Member to 
bring a WTO -inconsistent measure into compliance with WTO rules; and  
g. The Appellate Body had overstepped its author ity to address the matter at issue in a 
dispute and had instead opined on matters within the authority of WTO Members acting 
through the Ministerial Conference, General Council and Dispute Settlement Body.  
11.4.   The Report also discussed how the Appellate Body h ad altered Members ' substantive rights 
and obligations through erroneous interpretations of WTO agreements. The Appellate Body had 
attempted to fill in gaps in those agreements, reading into them rights or obligations to which the WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 49 - 
 
  United States and other W TO Members had never agreed. Examples of the Appellate Body 's 
erroneous interpretations highlighted in the Report included the following:  
a. The Appellate Body 's erroneous interpretation of the term "public body " threatened the 
ability of Members to counterac t trade -distorting subsidies provided through SOEs, 
undermining the interests of all market -oriented actors;  
b. The Appellate Body had intruded on Members ' legitimate policy space by essentially 
converting a non -discrimination obligation for regulations into a "detrimental impact " 
test; 
c. The Appellate Body had prevented WTO Members from fully addressing injurious 
dumping by prohibiting a common -sense and historically widespread method of 
calculating the extent of dumping that was injuring a domestic industry (z eroing);  
d. The Appellate Body had invented a stringent and unrealistic test for using out -of-country 
benchmarks to measure subsidies that weakened the effectiveness of trade remedy 
laws in addressing distortions caused by state -owned enterprises in non-market 
economies;  
e. The Appellate Body 's creation of an "unforeseen developments " test and severe 
causation analysis prevented the effective use of safeguards by WTO Members to 
protect their industries from import surges; and  
f. The Appellate Body had limit ed WTO Members ' ability to impose countervailing duties 
and antidumping duties calculated using a non -market economy methodology to 
address simultaneous dumping and trade -distorting subsidization by non -market 
economies.  
11.5.   The United States had been raising those concerns about the Appellate Body 's disregard for 
WTO rules for many years. Unfortunately, the problem had only worsened as too many WTO 
Members had remained unwilling to do anything to rein in that conduct. Worse, some Members still 
refused to admit  there was a problem.  
11.6.   But those failings did not impact the United States alone – they had dire consequences for all 
WTO Members. And the Appellate Body 's failure to follow the agreed rules had undermined not only 
WTO dispute settlement but the effectivene ss and functioning of the WTO more generally. For 
example, the Appellate Body 's failure to follow the agreed rules had undermined the World Trade 
Organization as a forum for negotiation of new rules and for discussion to reach a deeper 
understanding of the  meaning of existing rules.  
11.7.   The United States had published the Report – of about 170 pages – to examine and explain 
the problem, not to dictate solutions to the membership. Members should first come to terms with 
the failings of the Appellate Body if they  were to achieve lasting and effective reform of the WTO 
dispute settlement system. That would require WTO Members to engage in a deeper discussion of 
why the Appellate Body had felt free to depart from the role Members had assigned to it. Without 
that und erstanding, there was no reason to believe that simply adopting new or additional text, in 
whatever form, would solve those endemic problems.  
11.8.   The United States had brought forward some ideas and some Members and commentators 
had begun to contribute their i deas as well. For example, some had noted that Appellate Body 
members had not been more familiar than panellists with the subject matter of the WTO agreements, 
and could have been even less familiar. Some had pointed to the difficulties an institution coul d have 
in admitting that it had made an error. Others had pointed to the type of Secretariat support received 
by WTO adjudicators. The United States welcomed further thoughts and deepening their 
conversations on those issues.  
11.9.   The United States looked forwa rd to discussing the Report with the membership. As had been 
stated in the Report, the United States would engage with any WTO Member committed to restoring 
the WTO dispute settlement system to the role given to it by WTO Members and ensuring that the WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 50 - 
 
  dispute settlement system supported rather than weakened the WTO as a forum for discussion, 
monitoring, and negotiation.  
11.10.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , recogni zed the usefulness of laying out 
the details of the United States ' position on those issues in a single document so that Members could 
take them into consideration. The LDC Group invited the United States to express its opinion on the 
specific and practical measures it believed were necessary to resolve the Appellate Bod y impasse. 
The LDC Group likewise invited the United States to further elaborate on its opinion on requiring 
Members to engage in a deeper discussion of why the Appellate Body had felt free to depart from 
the role they had assigned to it. Considering that the "why" question was of vital importance, the 
LDC Group asked the United States if it would be prepared to share its response on it.  
11.11.   As had been stated in the LDC Group 's recent communication in JOB/GC/223, a well -
functioning dispute settlement system, i ncluding fair and effective appellate review, was essential 
to the WTO 's role. Fair and effective appellate review provided the credible foundation for a rules -
based system that served all Members, including LDCs. The LDC Group therefore called on the Unit ed 
States to provide a practical and specific road map for resolving the issues regarding the functioning 
of the Appellate Body.  
11.12.   The representative of Canada  said that the report presented the most comprehensive 
compilation to date by the United States of its concerns with the operation of the Appellate Body. 
The report did not however present any concrete proposals to address those concerns. Canada 
reiterated its deep concern that the Appellate Body had had to cease operation as a result of the 
impasse ove r new appointments. Indeed, the background section of the new US report demonstrated 
clearly how important the new dispute settlement system had been and remained to Members.  
11.13.   The suspension of last week 's DSB meeting was a direct result of the disabled app eal function 
and represented a worrisome further degradation of the dispute settlement system. That reminded 
Members again how critical it was that they redoubled their efforts. Canada remained open to 
engaging in any further in -depth discussions on the co ncerns outlined in the report as well as the 
steps that could be taken to restore appellate review in the WTO as soon as possible.  
11.14.   The representative of Benin  highlighted  the importance of the Appellate Body. The 
institutional architecture of the WTO had b een shattered due to the damage caused to one of its 
important pieces. The LDCs, SVEs and the rest of the Membership needed the Appellate Body given 
the importance of its harmonious functioning to the rules -based multilateral trading system. 
Members should  break out of the impasse that had significantly strained the Appellate Body since 
10 December due to the lack of sufficient members who could deal with the appeals brought before 
them.  
11.15.   In that regard, the substance of intense work which had been carried out over many months 
in 2019 through an informal process facilitated by Ambassador Walker should be used. Members 
should work in a spirit of openness and should be constructive enough to be able to take the 
necessary and relevant measures to relaunch the A ppellate Body. The first stage of the process was 
of course the appointment of its members.  
11.16.   The representative of Thailand  believe d that the binding, two -tier dispute settlement  system 
was one of the core elements of the WTO. Thailand had been a regular pa rticipant in the system, 
both as complainant and defendant, and considered that the system provided Members like it with 
an essential means of securing the outcomes of its negotiated rights and obligations. As long as the 
Appellate Body impasse continued a nd the selection process blocked, there would be uncertainty not 
only on the status and future of the dispute settlement system but also on the rules -based 
multilateral trading system.  
11.17.   The current inability of the Appellate Body to function affected the ab ility of Members to 
secure a positive solution to their disputes. As one of the Members with pending appeals, Thailand 's 
rights under the DSU were at risk and had felt the impact that was being generated as a result of 
the impasse. The longer the impasse c ontinued, the greater the risk would be for the multilateral 
trading system and the greater the risk that Members would begin to ignore the DSU and start to 
take the kinds of unilateral actions the DSU was designed to prevent.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 51 - 
 
  11.18.   With regard to the membership 's efforts to find a solution to the impasse, Thailand did not 
see huge differences between the conceptions of Members as to how the Appellate Body had been 
intended to and should work. Thailand therefore strongly encouraged all Members involved to 
redoubl e their efforts with a view to finding a solution to the situation as soon as possible.  
11.19.   The representative of the Philippines  said that the concerns of the United States had been 
heard loud and clear. As a responsible Member of the WTO and a prudent user o f the WTO dispute 
settlement system, the Philippines would continue to engage in constructive discussions with the 
United States and other Members in order to address all areas of concern.  
11.20.   The Philippines continued to study the report carefully and wished to express some 
preliminary views. The Philippines agreed that the prompt settlement of disputes was a cornerstone 
of WTO dispute settlement. The USTR Report correctly cited Article 3 of the DSU in which Members 
had agreed that the prompt settlement  of disputes "is essential to the effective functioning of the 
WTO and the maintenance of a proper balance between rights and obligations. " Moreover, the 
principle of prompt settlement was enshrined in other provisions of the DSU, including Article 17.5, 
which limited the length of appellate proceedings to a maximum of 90 days.  
11.21.   When the 90 -day rule was not kept, the rights of Members were diminished, particularly that 
of the complainant in a dispute, since the other party 's unfair trade practices – which ha d already 
been ruled by the original panel or a compliance panel as WTO -inconsistent – persisted during the 
pendency of the dispute, which in itself took several years to resolve. As a result, delays in appeals 
reduced the benefits for a complainant a nd embolden ed erring Members to continue disrespecting 
their WTO obligations. Indeed, justice delayed was justice denied. That, in turn, could diminish the 
Members ' confidence in the WTO 's rules -based trading system, and could even cast doubt on the 
ability of leaders of the relevant bodies to decide and act. That was indeed the time for the friends 
and guardians of the rules -based dispute settlement system to act with leadership and to preserve 
the integrity of the WTO.  
11.22.   The Philippines would continue its intern al review of the USTR Report and could revert with 
further comments in due course. A meaningful and careful consideration of the concerns raised was 
integral to resolving all matters before the WTO dispute settlement system. The Philippines stood 
ready to participate in future discussions constructively on the reform of the Appellate Body in hopes 
of moving forward towards a more effective multilateral economic dispute resolution mechanism.  
11.23.   The representative of China  said that it was extremely worrisome th at the Appellate Body 
had stumbled into paralysis in December. Like any other mechanism, the Appellate Body was not 
perfect but its imperfection could not be used as the mere excuse to block the Selection Process of  
Appellate Body members and paralyse the system. The United States had repeatedly asked Members 
to reflect on the "why" question. Members surely could and should reflect on issues of their concern. 
In that sense, the USTR report could be used as an instrument for their reflection.  
11.24.   The purpose of  such reflection should not however be to degrade the system or to deny its 
value. Over the past decades, many disputes had been effectively resolved through the Appellate 
Body and Members could not simply override its credit. From the institutional perspe ctive, it was 
indisputable that the WTO needed a two -tier, impartial and independent mechanism for dispute 
settlement. The discussion on the why question was not the only part of the story. Members should 
come back to and focus on the how question.  
11.25.   He had just come back from Pune in India for the Asia Economic Dialogue. The trip reminded 
him of a book on Buddhism. The book had talked about the parable of the arrow in which the Buddha 
had used a metaphor to answer the philosophical questions raised by a youn g monk. If a man had 
been wounded by an arrow smeared with poison, the most urgent matter was not to investigate the 
background of the man responsible or studied the underlying intent of the attack. Rather, the priority 
should be the treatment. Learning fr om the parable, Members should take immediate and concrete 
action to unblock the paralysis rather than dwelling on philosophical discussions on the "why" 
considering that the WTO was a trade institution and there was a more pressing crisis.  
11.26.   The representat ive of Argentina  noted that the report, the objective of which was not to 
suggest specific solutions to the problems identified, provided important information on the vision 
of the United States regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body and the WTO d ispute settlement WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 52 - 
 
  system. The WTO dispute settlement system faced an unprecedented crisis. Since 11 December, its 
Appellate Body had ceased to function due to a lack of consensus to launch the selection process for 
its members.  
11.27.   The situation was of great concern to Argentina. Therefore, during 2019, Argentina actively 
participated in different discussion formats aimed at finding a solution to the concerns raised. At the 
meeting of the General Council in December 2019, Argentina had been prepared to support  the draft 
decision circulated by Ambassador Walker, the Facilitator of the Informal Process, which addressed 
some of the concerns raised and to join the consensus to start the selection process for Appellate 
Body members. Unfortunately, that had not happe ned. 
11.28.   Multilateralism was based on essential elements of cooperation and coordination, on 
agreements and understandings. Argentina regretted not seeing all those elements present in the 
discussions around the Appellate Body, which undoubtedly had a decisive impact in reaching the 
situation Members currently found themselves in. For Argentina, the restoration of the operational 
functions of the Appellate Body was of absolute importance. The Appellate Body agreed by Members 
in creating the WTO was part  of the multilateral trading system that Argentina endorsed and 
supported.  
11.29.   Any potential change in the dispute settlement mechanism should preserve the essential 
characteristics of the system: independent, two -tiered, inclusive and efficient, and quality o f legal 
work. Argentina remained ready to hold constructive discussions to reach the necessary consensus 
to restore the functioning of the Appellate Body which could hopefully happen in the not too distant 
future. As it had always been, Argentina remained flexible to reach, by consensus, the solutions that 
the current serious situation demanded. Argentina trusted the Director -General 's leadership to reach 
a political agreement that would allow Members to move in the right direction.  
11.30.   The representative of th e European Union  noted that the report provided additional clarity 
and detail on the nature of the US concerns with respect to WTO dispute settlement. The issues 
addressed in the report were well known to all. The United States had raised them before in ot her 
documents or statements. The European Union had taken a position on the specific issues on other 
occasions including in the DSB but it was always useful to have clarity as much as possible on the 
concerns raised.  
11.31.   As it had indicated on previous occasi ons, the European Union was open to engage in 
forward -looking discussions on specific issues of concern to find a way out of the current blockage. 
In that respect, the European Union noted that the report did not shed more light on what the United 
States w anted to achieve or how it proposed to move forward from the current blockage including 
the blockage of appointments to the Appellate Body.  
11.32.   The European Union, together with other Members, had made formal proposals to address 
a number of the US concerns. That had been the objective behind the informal process led by the 
Facilitator, Ambassador Walker. The Facilitator had produced a draft decision that would effectively 
and efficiently address those concerns, and that had been submitted to the General Counc il last 
December. The United States had not agreed with the decision. In those circumstances, the logical 
step forward would be to receive counter -proposals. Yet the United States had made none to date – 
and one could ask why.  
11.33.   Without prejudice to their po sition on the substance, the European Union and other Members 
had also clearly signalled in the General Council in December 2018 their openness to discuss matters 
with respect to which , in the United States ' view, overreach had occurred and which could potentially 
benefit from amendments or clarifications through authoritative interpretations by the Membership. 
The European Union looked forward to proposals, not dictated but constructive proposals, and 
reiterated i ts willingness to discuss them constructively and in a solution finding mode.  
11.34.   The representative of India said that, as a major user of the WTO dispute settlement system, 
India was gravely concerned about the continuing crisis in the Appellate Body. With four appeals to 
which India was a party to stuck in limbo, the paralysis was a concrete example of the nullification 
of its negotiated rights under the WTO agreements. The resolution of the Appellate Body crisis 
deserved utmost priority and should precede other reforms. Any interim arrangement that was not 
multilateral in nature and did not ensure the same standards of impartiality and automaticity as the WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 53 - 
 
  Appellate Body system was vastly inferior to the restoration of the Appellate Body as envisioned in 
the DSU. 
11.35.   India was disappointed that the conclusion in the recently issued USTR report on the 
Appellate Body stated that "the purpose of this Report is not to propose solutions to the problems 
facing the WTO 's dispute settlement system but to have an honest a nd candid dialogue about how 
and why the WTO arrived at the current situation. " The WTO Membership had in fact been engaging 
on the "why" question. India did not agree with the assertion that "the Membership has so far not 
touched upon 'why' the Appellate Body digressed from the clear text of the DSU. " Members ' 
comprehensive discussions over a year as part of the Informal Process had considered the "why" 
question.  
11.36.   Under the Walker Process, Members had agreed that the increase in the frequency and the 
comple xity of appeals had been the main reason for the Appellate Body not being able to deliver its 
report within the 90 -day period. The solutions suggested in the Walker Report were based on the 
identification of that problem. Regarding transitional Rule 15, it  had been noted that the reason why 
the Appellate Body 's Working Procedures had been used to fill -in the gap had been because the DSU 
had been silent on how to ensure an orderly transition of Appellate Body members and the WTO 
Membership had not stepped in  to make rules regarding that. The draft General Council decision 
proposed a solution which would ensure that the right to appoint Appellate Body members rested 
only with the WTO Membership.  
11.37.   It was therefore clear that when the Walker Process had suggested  solutions to the issues 
the United States had raised, it had been based on the identification of the problem and its cause – 
the "why" of it. In other words, the "how" or the solution proposed had been based on an 
understanding of the "why" or the cause o f the problem. Thus the "why" and "how" questions were 
not divorced and the "how" embraced the "why".  
11.38.   India remained committed to ensuring an effective, multilateral resolution of the Appellate 
Body crisis and asserted that that needed to be done before M C12. To that end, India was willing to 
further discuss the "why" question provided that there was a definite scope to it, a solution -focus, 
and the discussion would not devolve into an unending conversation to fill the time from then until 
MC12. Any negoti ated solution to the Appellate Body crisis should preserve the essential features of 
a two -tier dispute settlement system, negative consensus and independence of the appellate 
mechanism.    
11.39.   The representative of Barbados  noted that the rules -based multilateral trading system was 
critical to the proper functioning, relevance and continued existence of the WTO. Such a system 
however existed only if the two -step dispute settlement system was operable and Members had 
recourse  to utili ze it. According to the US statement and what had been outlined in the report, the 
United States ' intention was not necessarily to dictate a solution to the problems that it considered 
to have plagued the Appellate Body but to help the Membership examine and explain the problem.  
11.40.   Barbados was in agreement that the Appellate Body should not be allowed to add to, or 
diminish Members ' rights and obligations. Barbados however remained deeply concerned that the 
Appellate Body had gone into abeyance and t hat Members to date had been unable to break the 
stalemate in launching the selection process for new Appellate Body members.  
11.41.   Over the past few months, Barbados had heard reports about the initiative by some WTO 
Members aimed at establishing a multi -party  interim appeal arrangement intended to permit 
participating Members to maintain the operability of the two -step dispute settlement system as 
disputes arose among them. Barbados however continued to be cautious about such alternatives 
which could potential ly stymie Members ' efforts aimed at finding a reasonable solution to the 
Appellate Body impasse.  
11.42.   Barbados took note of the US comments in the report with regard to non -market economies 
as well as the US draft decision regarding the "importance of market -oriented conditions to the world 
trading system. " Barbados was therefore curious as to whether achieving a decision on market -
oriented conditions was a precondition to resolving the impasse on the Appellate Body. While 
discussions on breaking the impasse on  the Appellate Body were ongoing in various formats in the WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 54 - 
 
  WTO, such discussions should remain open, transparent and inclusive. Barbados remained open to 
a dialogue to bring the matter to a resolution.  
11.43.   The representative of Switzerland  said that the WTO di spute settlement system was vital for 
the security and predictability of the multilateral trading system and the Appellate Body was a pillar 
of the system. As Switzerland had already pointed out at previous meetings of the General Council, 
it was essential  that all Members engaged in joint efforts to find the means to rectify the current 
situation and reactivate the Appellate Body. Switzerland would continue to participate constructively 
in discussions to be held under the auspices of the General Council an d hoped that concrete solutions 
could be found as soon as possible.  
11.44.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , stood by its previous statements on  
the issue of the functioning of the Appellate Body and reiterated the urgent need for Members to 
find a speedy resolution to the Appellate Body impasse. The establishment of alternate appeals 
mechanisms was a concern for small developing countries such as those of the ACP Group as that 
approach raised questions of inclusivity and access and could create  conditions for attention to be 
diverted away from restoring a fully constituted and functioning Appellate Body. Restoring the 
Appellate Body as embedded in the DSU should be a priority. That was critical for the proper 
functioning of the multilateral trad ing system on which all Members relied for predictability and 
stability. The ACP Group stood ready to continue to engage constructively on that important issue.  
11.45.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that Members should not pretend that 
there ha d been no problems with the operation of the Appellate Body before 10 December 2019. 
There was no benefit in doing so either for the Appellate Body itself or for the Membership. Problems 
had existed including several of those identified by the United State s. Some of them had resulted 
from the conduct of the Appellate Body, some from the rules as they had been set in the books or 
rather different reading of those rules by various Members.  
11.46.   Destruction was easier than creation. The United States, who had been  among the Members 
that had actually created the rules as they were at present, should know that well. Russia was highly 
disappointed that the United States, in particular in the USTR report on the matter, still evaded 
proposing any solution to the concern s that it raised. The blockage of the Appellate Body work did 
not facilitate finding the necessary solutions but to the contrary created more problems.  
11.47.   The United States advocated for faster adjudication in the WTO, for adherence to the 
established rules,  including at the appellate stage. At the same time, the United States increased 
the period for resolution of disputes involving a number of Members including Russia from the 
number of days set by the Appellate Body for each respective dispute to indefinit e number of days 
due to the suspension of the Appellate Body work. The number of days set out by the Appellate Body 
could exceed 90 days set out in the DSU. That number was however still limited and less than the 
eternity that the behaviour of the United S tates had doomed Members to.  
11.48.   Moreover, the blockage of the Appellate Body work impeded to the attainment of the 
objectives of not only the Dispute Settlement Understanding but of the WTO Agreement as a whole 
by undermining its stability, predictability an d any progress achieved since 1995. Russia called on 
all Members including the United States to engage constructively in work in any format regarding 
the improvement of the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism including the 
Appellate Body an d to urgently launch the Appellate Body selection process.  
11.49.   The representative of Japan  noted that the report explained the US views on the Appellate 
Body which should be conducive to concrete discussion on the problem. Japan shared many of the 
concerns dep icted by the report regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body including the issue 
of overreach. At the same time, the Appellate Body should restore and discharge its proper function 
to serve an ultimate goal of the system to secure a prompt, positive  solution to a dispute under the 
WTO Agreement. Although provisional measures could be needed to secure a resolution to pending 
cases, Japan 's priority was to find a longstanding solution to the Appellate Body matter. Japan stood 
ready to engage in a deepe r and constructive discussion and would continue to work with other 
Members to that end.  
11.50.   The representative of Botswana , on behalf of the African Group , remained concerned about 
the status quo. Members had been engaged in the Informal Process on matters re lated to the WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 55 - 
 
  functioning of the Appellate Body led by Ambassador Walker – making legitimate efforts to address 
the concerns raised by the United States,  some which were shared among the membership. To date, 
however, Members had not had concrete proposals from the United States on the best way forward. 
The presentation that day regrettably did not take them any further on that path. That said, the 
African Group reiterated that all Members should engage in a multilateral, solution -based approach 
that would help them move forward and unlock the impasse in the interest of all Members. It would 
therefore be desirable that all Members put their views on the table to enable discussions to find a 
solution on the issue. The African Group stood ready to pla y its part in that regard.  
11.51.   The representative of South Africa  noted that the report did not attempt to provide solutions 
but was rather a more comprehensive articulation of concerns. The absence of the Appellate Body 
meant that the dispute settlement syste m had lost a mechanism to review panel reports, a quasi -
automatic adoption of reports, and a mechanism to provide consistency between disputes. If the 
impasse was not resolved soon, traders and Members would lose faith and trust in the multilateral 
trading  system as it would increasingly fail to promote predictability in trade, reign in on unilateral 
and protectionist measures and promote compliance with agreed rules.  
11.52.   There was a need for a speedy resolution of the impasse and for the Membership to build o n 
the Walker process. South Africa remained available to engage in a solution -oriented process that 
preserved an independent, impartial two -stage dispute settlement system that was in the interest 
of all Members. Such a process should address the concerns of all Members including accessibility, 
costs and representation. It should also result in the selection of the members of the Appellate Body.  
11.53.   The representative of Australia  acknowledged that the recent USTR report had 
comprehensively outlined the US conc erns. The United States had raised those concerns for over 
20 years including in the General Council. As Members would be aware, Australia had raised a 
number of those issues in previous discussions about the dispute settlement system and had been 
actively  engaged in efforts to reform the system for many years. Australia was committed to 
ensuring an efficient and effective multilateral dispute settlement system that was faithful to the 
DSU and worked in Members ' collective interests.  
11.54.   The representative of Mexico recalled that since the beginning of the Appellate Body crisis, 
Members had taken great interest in understanding the concerns raised and had been open 
throughout the informal process to discussing and addressing them. That had been reflected in many  
of the proposals presented. As with many Members, Mexico remained open to constructive 
discussions to resolve the impasse. Mexico hoped that beyond technical discussions, Members would 
find the political will in order to arrive at a solution to the curren t crisis.  
11.55.   The representative of Indonesia  regretted what happened with the Appellate Body which 
would impact Members ' rights and obligations under the WTO. Indonesia hoped that the report could 
be used appropriately for future dialogue and discussion in th e organization to reactivate the 
Appellate Body. Resolving the Appellate Body impasse was crucial to rebuild trust in the organization. 
Indonesia hoped that Members could have a clear pathway ahead  towards the reactivation of the 
Appellate Body and MC12 co uld be used in that regard.  
11.56.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
12  APPOINTMENT OF OFFIC ERS TO WTO BODIES  
12.1.   The Chair recalled that in  accordance with the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO 
Bodies  approved by the General Council in 2002 (WT/L/510), and the related practical steps to 
improve their implementation (JOB/GC/22) , she, together with the Chairman of the Dispute 
Settle ment Body, Ambassador David Walker, had conducted consultations on a slate of names for 
the appointment of Chairpersons to WTO regular bodies listed in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the Annex 
to the Guidelines.  
12.2.   At the General Council meeting in December, she ha d noted that she would be meeting first 
with the coordinators of the four broad groups, namely: (i) developed countries; (ii) Latin America 
and the Caribbean (GRULAC); (iii) African Group; (iv) Asian Group of developing Members and the 
Pacific. They had fi rst met with the coordinators in early January. The coordinators had subsequently 
conducted rounds of consultations and discussions within their respective groups with a view to WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 56 - 
 
  submitting candidates for the various positions. They had then met with the Gr oup Coordinators at 
regular intervals over a period of some five weeks. She thanked the coordinators for the constructive 
cooperation that they had received from them during the process.  
12.3.   The process had included an Informal General Council meeting which h ad been held on 
21 February where she had shared with delegations a partial slate of names where there appeared 
to be consensus – those had been for the General Council; the DSB; the TPRB; the Goods, Services 
and TRIPS Councils; and the Working Groups on T rade, Debt and Finance and Trade and Transfer of 
Technology. She had also noted that, for the other bodies, consultations had still been ongoing with 
the respective groups to finali ze the slate and that she had been confident that a solution was within 
reach. Those consultations had continued until that morning, and as a result, they were in a position 
that day to present a complete slate of names for the General Council 's consideration. She hoped 
that all Members would consider it favourably and that it co uld be agreed.   
12.4.   The full slate of names for the WTO regular bodies in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 resulting from the 
consultations read as followed:  
General Council  H.E. Dr. David Walker ( New Zealand ) 
 
Dispute Settlement Body  
 
 H.E. Mr. Dacio Castillo ( Honduras ) 
Trade Policy Review Body  
 
 H.E. Mr. Harald Aspelund ( Iceland ) 
 
Council for Trade in Goods  
 
 H.E. Mr. Mikael Anzén ( Sweden ) 
 
Council for Trade in Services  
 
 H.E. Mr. Tan Hung Seng ( Singapore ) 
 
Council for TRIPS  
 
 H.E. Ms. Xolelwa Mlumbi -Peter ( South Africa ) 
 
Committee on Trade and Development  
 H.E. Mr Mohammad Qurban Haqjo ( Afghanistan ) 
Committee on Balance -of-Payments 
Restrictions  
 H.E. Mr. Refiloe Litjobo ( Lesotho ) 
 
Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration  
 H.E. Mr Manuel Teehankee ( Philippines ) 
Committee on Trade and Environment  
 H.E. Mr Chad Blackman ( Barbados ) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
 H.E. Mr. Mārtiņš Kreitus (Latvia)  
Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance  
 H.E. Dr. Rashidi Said ( Malaysia ) WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 57 - 
 
  Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology  
 Mr. Stephen Fevrier ( Saint Lucia ) 
12.5.   Appointments for those bodies would be for one year and they would be made formally by 
the WTO bodies concerned at their subsequent meetings in 2020. She noted that an adjustment had 
been made concerning the chairmanship of Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance with respect 
to what she had announced on 21 February, further to the additional consultations within the groups.  
12.6.   She had also noted that, as Mem bers had heard from the names that had just been read out, 
there was agreement on the appointment of the current Chairman of the TRIPS Council in Special 
Session, Ambassador Castillo (Honduras), as the new Chairman of the DSB. Therefore, consultations 
would be conducted by her successor to appoint a new Chair for the TRIPS Council in Special 
Session.10 
12.7.   With those words, she invited the General Council to take note of her statement and of the 
consensus on the slate of names for the appointment of officers in the WTO bodies that she had 
mentioned.  
12.8.   The General Council so agreed . 
12.9.   The Chair congratulated the colleagues on their selection and wished them well in the year 
ahead. She recalled that a subsequent process of consultations would be conducted by the outgoi ng 
Chairpersons of the Council for Trade in Goods and the Council for Trade in Services to select Chairs 
for the bodies established under their respective Councils. Ambassador Cancela (Uruguay), the 
outgoing Chair of the Goods Council, and Ambassador Muyll e (Belgium), the outgoing Chair of the 
Services Council would soon begin their consultations in their respective areas. Relevant 
communications concerning those consultations were going to be sent out shortly. She understood 
that for the Goods Council it h ad already been sent.  
12.10.   The representative of the United States  paid tribute to  Ambassador Kangvalkulkij  and 
thanked  for her leadership over the past year. She had been very fair and steady during a very 
difficult period at the WTO and the United States ext ended its appreciation to her.  
12.11.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
13  OTHER BUSINESS  
13.1  Statement by the Chair on Administrative Measures for Members in arrears  
13.1.   The Chair, speaking under "Other Business ", noted that the revised Administrative Measur es 
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 Admi nistrative Measures.  
13.2.   Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli (Norway), Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , reported that the Administrative Measures applicable to Members and Observers 
with arrears in contribution had been in place since 1 March 2013. In accordance with the Decision 
of the General Council, he should state all Members and Observers under all ca tegories of 
administrative measures. As at 3 March 2020, there had been 20 Members and 7 Observers under 
Administrative Measures. The following 7 Members were currently in Category I: Plurinational State 
of Bolivia, Cuba, Ghana, Guinea, Tanzania, Tonga and  Zambia. The following 5 Members were in 
Category II: Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Senegal, Yemen and Zimbabwe. The following 
8 Members were in Category III: Antigua and Barbuda, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, 
Guinea -Bissau, Niger, Sie rra Leone and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The following 3 Observers 
were in Category I: Equatorial Guinea, Iran and Syrian Arab Republic. Comoros was the only 
 
10 On 3 and 5 April, the newly -elected General Council Chairman sent a communication to the Group 
Coordinators concerning consultations for the chairmanship of the TRIPS Council in Special Session.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Observer in Category II. The following 3 Observers were in Category III: Libya, Sao Tomé an d 
Principe and Somalia.  
13.3.   The Chair said that she was also 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.  
13.4.   The General  Council took note  of the statements.  
14  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
14.1.   The Chair said that it had been both an honour and a privilege to serve as the General Council 
Chair.  While it had been a challenging term with the multilateral trading system and the WTO facing  
unprecedented challenges throughout the year, it had nevertheless been a challenge that she had 
been ready to confront alongside with the Membership. The privileged position of a Chairperson, not 
just of the General Council but also of all other WTO Bodie s, entailed trust and confidence of the 
Membership. She had therefore taken to heart that the primary role of the Chairperson was to live 
up to that trust – to listen and hear the concerns and interests of all Members with the view to 
arriving at outcomes acceptable to all.  
14.2.   Her tenure had certainly proven to her that, in the consensus -based organization, trust often 
led to engagement, flexibility, compromise and ultimately fair and mutually advantageous results. 
She thanked all Members for the support and cooperation they had provided to her during her tenure 
which enabled them to maintain the functionality of the WTO as well as to achieve tangible results 
that ensured continuous stability and predictability in relation to the extension of the e -commerce 
and TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints moratoria and to MC12.  
14.3.   She thanked the Director -General for his friendship and the valuable advice he had offered to 
her over the course of the year. She also expressed her appreciation to Victor do Prado, Ste fania 
Bernabe and the whole Secretariat for their support. Their hard work and assistance had enabled 
her to perform her duties in a smooth and efficient manner.  
14.4.   As her term as the Chair of the General Council came to an end, issues that were important 
to all Members still remained – whether it was fisheries subsidies, Appellate Body matters, 
agriculture or WTO Reform. Some would require more time to resolve than o thers but all would 
require trust and action especially in that unique organization driven by 164 Members.  
14.5.   Throughout 2019, one thing that she had always heard was that all Members reached for the 
same goal – for the WTO to continue to deliver meaningful and tangible results, results that entailed 
stable, predictable and fair trade. Thus, no matter how divergent the views and positions, if Members 
still wanted to reach the same goal, they needed to immediately act. They could not allow the words 
flexibilit y and compromise to only remain on paper.  
14.6.   While Members ' active engagement were fundamental to their success, she could not 
underscore enough the importance of the guidance and leadership from the Director -General and 
the professional support from the Secr etariat whose profound institutional knowledge and expertise 
would be indispensable in achieving their goals. She had no doubt that concerted action from all 
sides would help meaningfully address the challenges before them. As a WTO Member, there was 
nothing that she would like to see more than the continued success of the WTO starting with a 
successful MC12 in Nur -Sultan.  
14.7.   She likewise thanked all the Chairs of regular bodies for their close working relations and the 
support they had provided to her during  her term, and wished Ambassador Walker every success in 
his Chairmanship of the General Council.  
14.8.   She then proposed to move to the election of the new Chairperson. On the basis of the 
understandings that had been reached on the appointment of officers to W TO bodies, she proposed 
that the General Council elected by acclamation H.E. Dr. David Walker (New Zealand) as the next 
Chairperson of the General Council.  
14.9.   The General Council so agreed . WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 59 - 
 
  14.10.   The Director -General  said that the leadership and judgment demonstra ted by Ambassador 
Sunanta Kangvalkulkij during her term had helped the General Council carry out its functions 
throughout a challenging year. 2019 had been a year of records at the General Council. Under her 
leadership, the General Council had dealt with a n unprecedent number of issues over some of the 
longest meetings in the body 's history. Tackling those issues had often required them to work in 
close coordination. He therefore thanked her for her support and wise advice.  
14.11.   He thanked her as well for her t ireless efforts to help Members find solutions, whether on 
extending the moratoria on e -commerce and TRIPS non -violation complaints, or on selecting new 
Chairs for WTO bodies – not to mention the many other challenges they had had to tackle, often 
together . He also acknowledged her personal contribution in helping Members lay the groundwork 
for a successful MC12. She could be leaving that Chair that day, but he hoped to continue counting 
on her support and wisdom in the way ahead from her national seat. Following the tradition, he then 
presented Ambassador Sunanta Kangvalkulkij with the engraved gavel as a memento of her time as 
Chair of the General Council.  
14.12.   He then congratulated Ambassador Walker on his election. His appointment stood as 
testament to his c ontributions to the organization as DSB Chair at a challenging moment for the 
system and as New Zealand 's Permanent Representative to the WTO not once but twice. He recalled 
that Ambassador Walker had served as New Zealand 's Permanent Representative from 2 009 to 
2011, before returning to Geneva for his current term.  As Members looked ahead to MC12, his skills 
and extensive experience would be essential to keeping Members on track to deliver in Nur -Sultan, 
a critical event of systemic value to the organizati on. He did not doubt that his wise judgment would 
be called upon many times between then and June. He could count on his full support, and that of 
the Secretariat, to that end and wished him all the best in his new role.  
14.13.   The newly -elected Chairman  noted  that it was  a great honour to serve the WTO membership 
as Chairperson of the General Council. He thanked all colleagues for their trust and confidence in 
appointing him to that position. He also thanked the Director -General for his warm words of welcome 
and looked forward to working with him closely in the year ahead. He likewise paid tribute to the 
outgoing Chair, Ambassador Sunanta Kangvalkulkij. He had learnt a lot in observing her leadership 
and working with her over the past year. He looked forward to co ntinuing to benefit from her wise 
counsel in the challenges ahead, including in preparing for the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  He 
paid tribute to his wife Fredericka for her unwavering support including over the many years they 
had spent together in Ge neva. He expected to be drawing even more heavily on that support in the 
coming months.  
14.14.   Over the past 25 years, New Zealand and New Zealanders had made many varied 
contributions to advancing the WTO system. Successive Ambassadors had served as Doha Round 
Negotiating Group Chairs. And over those past days they had been remembering the contribution of 
Rt. Hon. Mike Moore as the WTO 's third Director -General. Like him, some delegations could recall 
that early in the WTO 's history two New Zealand Ambassadors – Wade Armstrong and Roger Farrell 
– had served as Dispute Settlement Body Chair. Neither had been able to take the General Council 
Chair so he thought particularly of Wade  Armstrong  and the memory of Roger Farrell at that moment.  
14.15.   As was the ca se with all Members, those past weeks had become increasingly weighed with 
thoughts of the challenges of the new coronavirus. First and foremost, the situation with COVID -19 
was a public health issue with already too many personal tragedies and hopefully n ot too many more 
to come. But, as they had started to understand, the potential effects of a virus such as that also 
risked to significantly impede connectivity between people and markets thus threatening to imperil 
livelihoods and prosperity more broadly.  
14.16.   In the WTO – referring to the longer term, not the measures being taken to fight the global 
health emergency of COVID -19 – they were Members of an organization whose purpose was exactly 
the opposite: to contribute to enhancing employment, incomes, prosper ity and sustainable 
development through progressively opening markets and eliminating discriminatory treatment in 
international trade relations between Members.  
14.17.   The Director -General the previous day and Ambassador Sunanta at the start of the meeting 
that d ay had paid tribute to the contribution of Mike Moore to the organization, as had many 
delegations throughout the meeting. He therefore urged Members to redouble their efforts to work WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 60 - 
 
  together over the next twelve months – in preparation for MC12 and beyon d – to further that 
common purpose as Members of the WTO. It would be a most fitting way to honour his legacy.  
14.18.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , thanked Ambassador Kangvalkulkij for 
her leadership, sympathetic ear and her efficient manner in which she had led Members ' work during 
her term as Chair of the General Council. The LDC Group recalled the intense discussions that had 
taken place on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and other matters where she had 
shown great patience which the LDC Group paid tribute to. The LDC Group hoped that the spirit 
embodied by Ambassador Kangvalkulkij could lead Members towards tangible outcomes for the good 
of the global trading community – as they all needed a spirit of understanding.  
14.19.   The LDC Group likewise wished Ambassador Walker every success as he assumed his new 
role as Chairman of the General Council. As the Director -General had mentioned, that was no easy 
task. It was a challenging role but the future offered possibilities and the LDC Group wa s certain 
that Members would be able to achieve tangible outcomes under his Chairmanship. The LDC Group 
assured Ambassador Walker that he could enjoy the support of all Members of the LDC Group as he 
undertook his task.  
14.20.   The representative of Seychelles  congratulated Ambassador Walker on his election and 
wished him success. Seychelles also thanked Ambassador Kangvalkulkij for her leadership during 
her term.  
14.21.   The representative Benin  expressed profound gratitude to Ambassador Kangvalkulkij for the 
major contri bution she had made to Members ' work in the course of her term. It had been a great 
pleasure to work with her as Benin had coordinated the African Group in 2019. During that time, 
Benin had engaged in consultations and conversations with her. She had facil itated their work and 
was very grateful for her for that. Benin also welcomed and congratulated Ambassador Walker to 
his new role as Chairman of the General Council and wished him every success.  
14.22.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , congratu lated Ambassador Walker on 
the assumption of the Chairmanship of the General Council. He could count on the support and 
constructive engagement of the ACP Group and from Jamaica as well from a national perspective. 
The ACP Group likewise thanked Ambassador  Kangvalkulkij for her service and leadership for the 
past year. As a group coordinator, Jamaica knew first -hand how tirelessly and effortlessly she had 
worked in trying to foster cooperation to achieve consensus and to manage the whole process that 
Member s had gone through in 2019. She had also managed to remain cool under all of that. The 
ACP Group wished Ambassador Kangvalkulkij and Ambassador Walker well.  
14.23.   The representative of the Philippines , on behalf of ASEAN , welcomed Ambassador Walker to 
his new ro le as Chairman of the General Council. He could count on ASEAN 's continued collaboration. 
To ASEAN 's pride, Ambassador Sunanta Kangvalkulkij who, apart from being the General Council 
Chair, also chaired ASEAN in 2019, ASEAN thanked her for all her hard wor k which ASEAN Members 
fully appreciated.  
14.24.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
14.25.   The newly -elected  Chairman recalled that, a s Members had  heard, during the course of th e 
meeting, Ambassador Kangvalkulkij had announced that he, as incoming Chair , would be looking to 
engage with Members on preparations for MC12 and he would be in touch with Members  very shortly 
on consultations in that regard.11 
 
_______________  
 
 
11 On 12, 17 and 19 March, following the outbreak of COVID -19 and the WHO declaration of a pandemic 
the Director -General and the General Council Chairman, Ambassador David Walker, sent communications to 
delegations concerning MC12 date and venue. In consultation with the Delegation of Kazakhstan, it was their 
consid ered view that holding MC12 as had been previously agreed would not be feasible. Conference call 
consultations were held on 23 March by the Director -General and the General Council Chairman. The report on 
the consultations can be found in JOB/GC/227.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 61 - 
 
   
ANNEX 1  
STATEMENT BY THE SUL TANATE OF OMAN ON THE DEMISE O F HIS MAJESTY  QABOOS 
BIN SAID  BIN TAIMOR , SULTAN OF OMAN  
 
I would like to thank you Madam Chair and thank Director -General Azevedo, the DDGs and all WTO 
Members for expressing their condolences and sympathy with the Government and the P eople of 
Oman for the passing of His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said bin Taimor. His Majesty Sultan Qaboos 
was a supporter of multilateralism especially of the multilateral trading system. Under his leadership, 
Oman joined the WTO, chaired the accession of Seychelles and provided support for the accession 
of Comoros and some other countries.   
 
Our late Sultan was a man of vision and a man of peace. He focused his efforts on building and 
development of Oman and its people. He made all the efforts to guarantee  that Oman becomes a 
friend of all nations in the world. He was known for his efforts and initiatives to bring peace and 
stability around the world. Today, Oman is one of the most peaceful countries in the world. May his 
soul rest in peace.  
 
Our new Sulta n His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tariq pledged to continue on the same path and 
policies of the late Sultan of bringing stability and peace around the world. Thank you again for your 
sympathy and support.  
 
_______________  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 62 - 
 
   
ANNEX 2 
ADDRESS OF H.E. THE RT . HON. ELIZABETH TRUSS  TO THE GENERAL COUNC IL OF THE 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZA TION  
 
Introduction  
 
We meet a month after the sad passing of former WTO Director -General Mike Moore – a pioneer of 
world trade liberalization and the Uruguay rou nd. 
 
I am delighted to be the first Trade Secretary to represent the UK 's independent voice at an 
international meeting since Peter Walker, almost half a century ago.  
 
The UK has now, following its exit from the EU, resumed its independent membership of the WTO, 
taking back control of our trade policy, our sovereignty, and our future.  
 
Free Trading Nation  
 
The UK is and always will be, an open, liberal, outward looking nation.  
 
We are the home of Adam Smith and his 'invisible hand '… 
 
…. of D avid Ricardo and his theory of comparative advantage…  
 
…. of the abolition of the Corn Laws, seeing ports like Liverpool, Glasgow and Teesside flourish with 
new commerce, trading cheaper goods more efficiently, and overcoming the objections of vested 
interests and wealthy landowners to the benefit of the majority and levelling up Britain in the 
19th century.  
 
The UK was one of the original signatories of GATT, cementing the most favoured nation principle in 
international commerce, and ushering in a wave of industrial tariff reductions and trade liberalisation.  
 
And this year, Britain is back, as an independent  trading nation.  
 
I believe that we retake our seat at an opportune moment.  
 
World trading volumes are lagging behind global growth, which is itself anaemic, 2019 being the 
slowest year since the 2008 recession.  
 
The rate of decline in global poverty is also beginning to slow.  
 
And in some cases , we are seeing a worrying retreat fr om market principles.  
 
Now that the UK has left the European Union,  I know some of you are wondering what kind of 
member we are going to be.  
 
First of all, the UK wants to turn the rise in protectionist measures around. We are at our heart a 
free trading n ation and we see the WTO as central to this vision.  
 
We know that human ingenuity has limitless potential.  
 
The more we allow people to shape their own lives, remove barriers to enterprise within and between 
nations, and allow human ingenuity to flourish, the more rewards we will all reap.  
 
The greatest economic advances from steam engine to the internet, have resulted from increasing 
international trade and connectedness, the ideas chain reaction.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 63 - 
 
  So we will work with all nations t o share this multilatera l vision, to lead the defence of free, fair, 
rules-based international trade, pioneering a route to prosperity that lies through working together, 
not through protectionism. That is why the MC12 in June is so important.  
 
And I am delighted to announce today that the UK is contributing £50,000 through our TAF 2 project, 
to ensure that Trade Ministers from developing countries can attend.  
 
WTO reform  
 
Secondly, we will work to make sure the rules -based system is based on open, market orientated 
policies and is transparent and fair.  
 
When it works, the multilateral system allows  for us to deliver outcomes that are better in aggregate 
for all of us.  
 
And as we retake our independent seat at the heart of world trading, the UK is more committed than 
ever to ensuring that, the WTO, is forward looking, moderni zed and reformed.  
 
The UK will, like every other sovereign country, assert its ability to set its own laws and regulations 
in line with our WTO commitments, reflecting our own circumstances and ideas, while working 
tirelessly alongside other WTO Members to drive reform.  
 
We will make the case to update the WTO rulebook to tackle underlying trade tensions such as 
industrial subsidies, state -owned enterprises and forced technology  transfer.  
 
We will encourage and empower small countries to play a role in shaping the global trading system, 
to trade their way out of poverty, and seek a fairer deal.  
 
And we will support WTO negotiations wherever we can by providing quality data analys is and policy 
research  – and above all, the full political weight of the UK.  
 
Leaders in services, tech and the environment  
 
Thirdly, we will seek to advance trade for the modern era.  
 
The WTO and GATT has had many successes.  
 
Average import tariffs global ly have fallen by two -thirds.  
 
Global trade has tripled in volume.  
 
And 75% of global merchandise trade takes place on WTO 's most favoured nation terms.  
 
But the stark reality is the system of rules -based trade has not moved on since the Uruguay round, 
while non -tariff barriers have proliferated.  
 
Meanwhile the world has experienced a revolution in technology and automation.  
 
This revolution itself came about through an 'ideas chain reaction '… 
 
From the invention of numbers in ancient India…  
 
…through Ada Lovelace and Alan Turing 's pioneering conception of the first computers in Britain…  
 
…to the development of the modern World Wide Web and Silicon Valley in America…  
 
And while these services changed our world and account for close to half of t he value of international 
goods and services, the barriers to trade in services are around three times higher than the barriers 
to trade in  goods.  
 
As a services orientated economy, a world leader in sectors ranging from tech to finance, and the 
world 's second largest services exporter, this is a huge opportunity  for the United Kingdom.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 64 - 
 
   
So we  will push to ease restrictions on cross -border data flows…  
 
… preventing unnecessary data localisation requirements…  
 
…and ensur ing customs duties do not apply to electronic transactions.  
 
We will do this through multilateral or plurilateral groups at the WTO, a coalition of the willing, such 
as the JSI on e -commerce…  
 
… And through wider reform to trade in services, the UK seeks to b e a future leader in these areas.  
 
Free trade is allowing us to use resources better and find new ways of producing energy and 
managing resources.  
 
We will take the lead in tackling climate change, not least as hosts of COP26.  
 
The UK has already cut our c arbon emissions by 44% since 1990 while growing our GDP by around 
70%.  
 
And w e are proud the UK has undertaken to become carbon neutral by 2050.  
 
We will stand up to end environmental wasteful practices that arise from state subsidies, such as 
illegal, unr eported, and unregulated, fishing, and press for successful conclusion of the fisheries 
subsidies negotiation at MC12.  
 
Conclusion  
 
After almost 50 years of EU membership, Britain is back as a fully independent Member  of the World 
Trade Organization . 
 
Our vision is of a newly independent UK, championing the cause of free, fair, and rules-based trade.  
 
I am proud of the UK 's record in p ioneering, firstly, the liberali zation of agricultural tariffs with the 
abolition of the Corn Laws, and secondly, industrial tariffs with GATT.  
 
A UK that explores the new frontiers of the 21st century global economy, pushing for that same 
liberalisation i n trade in services and data, helping to turn around the recent protectionist trends 
and to help deliver the benefits of the global digital revolution for all Members, large and small.  
 
To push for a WTO that not only retrains its role as the repository of  the rules that govern our global 
economy, but one that does so while continuing to enjoy the confidence of all  of its Members.  
 
 
 
_______________  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 65 - 
 
   
ANNEX 3 
THE REPORTS BY THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAIRS OF THE NE GOTIATING 
GROUPS AT THE INFORM AL TNC AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS HELD O N  
2 MARCH  2020 
 
The Director -General's Tribute to Former Director -General  Mike Moore  
 
Good morning everyone.   
 
Welcome to these informal TNC and H ODs meetings – the first in what will be an eventful year.   
 
I want to start by taking a moment to pay tribute to Mike Moore, the WTO 's third Director -General, 
who passed away last month.  
 
I did not know Mike Moore well, but I know  that he was committed to a just and equitable trading 
system that delivered for all its Members – and especially for poor and disenfranchised people. He 
worked tirelessly to rebuild trust among Members after the Seattle Ministerial Conference, and 
served as the first Chair of the TNC. Both before and after his time at the WTO, he also had a 
distinguished career in the service of New Zealand, including as Prime Minister.  
 
Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and the people of New Zealand.   
 
I understand that New Zealand has asked to say a few wor ds. Ambassador Walker, you have the 
floor:  
 
"On behalf of New Zealand, let me thank the Director -General for those thoughtful and 
generous remarks. Thank you also to all those colleagues, delegates a nd Secretariat 
staff – current and former – who have expressed their thoughts and condolences on 
the passing of Rt. Hon. Mike Moore. New Zealand appreciates also that the WTO was 
represented at Mike Moore's funeral, fittingly by John Adank, Director of the  Legal 
Division and also a New Zealander.  
 
On a personal note, I had the privilege of knowing Mike Moore from the very outset of 
my time in this business. Literally one of the first things I did, in early 1987, was to 
help take the summary record of a meet ing of Trade Ministers that Mike hosted in 
Taupo, New Zealand to talk about progressing the then newly initiated Uruguay Round 
– a gathering which would be termed now as a 'mini -Ministerial'.  
 
From Trade Minister, Mike Moore went on to be Prime Minister of  New Zealand, 
Director -General of the WTO at the time of the launch of the Doha Round, and New 
Zealand's Ambassador to the United States at the time of the conclusion of the Trans -
Pacific Partnership negotiation.  
 
Throughout all of these many contributions  he made to New Zealand and 
internationally, Mike Moore was a great believer in the multilateral trading system and 
in the power of trade and opening markets to contribute to the betterment of people's 
lives. Let us hope we can appropriately honour his leg acy in the work we continue to 
do in this house."  
 
Thank you. Let us observe a moment of silence in honour of DG Mike Moore.  
 
[The Director -General and the Membership paused for a moment of silence.]  
 
Thank you.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 66 - 
 
  Report by the Director -General1 
 
I have had useful exchanges with many Members since the start of the year.  
  
In January, during the World Economic Forum in Davos I attended the traditional informal ministerial 
gathering on WTO issues hosted by Switzerland. I was also invited to speak to groups of Members 
negotiating on Electronic Commerce and Investment Facilitat ion for Development.  
 
I shared views with representatives from the private sector and labour groups, and met bilaterally 
with several Ministers. I also had a useful exchange with US President Donald Trump.  
 
Since Davos, I have been to Washington, where I  participated in the Washington International Trade 
Conference, and met with senior government officials including US Trade Representative Robert 
Lighthizer.  
 
The ACP Group invited me to Evian for their retreat.  
 
Here in Geneva, in addition to regular con tact with Members, I met with a number  of Ministers  who 
were in Geneva  for the Human  Rights  Council  meeting.   
 
In every one of these discussions, MC12 featured prominently.  
 
One thing I was repeatedly  told was that delivering  in Nur-Sultan  is critical  for the credibility  of the 
WTO.  A successful  MC12  would  position  the WTO to be a predictable  anchor  for cross-border  
economic  cooperation  in the years  ahead.  
 
As you well know,  what we accomplish  at MC12  is entirely  in the hands  of Members.  
 
I would like to share  a few words  on how I see the process  between  now and Nur-Sultan.   
 
I have prepared  for several  WTO Ministerial  Conferences  (actually  all of them,  except  Cancún),  both 
as a delegate  and as Director -General.   
 
From my experience,  every  Ministerial is different.  No ready -made  template  exists  for pre-
conference  preparations  - or for what happens  after Ministers  arrive.   
 
But there  are important  lessons  we can draw from the past. 
 
One such lesson  is that what is achievable  at a Ministerial  is shaped to a great  extent  by the 
substantive  progress  negotiators  make  in Geneva  before  the conference.   
 
So the road to MC12  needs  to be substance  driven.   
 
Looking  at Nur-Sultan,  there  are broadly  three  baskets  of issues  as I see it. 
 
First, the multilateral  track – that's the first basket  – where  our top negotiating  priority  must remain  
an agreement  on fisheries  subsidies  by MC12.   
 
I share  Ambassador  Wills' concern  that we are well behind  where  we need to be, lacking  even a text 
to serve  as the basis for negotiation.  The main protagonists  in these  discussions  must work to agree,  
particularly  on approaches  to overcapacity and overfishing. Political sensitivities are the major factor 
impeding progress. Negotiations must be raised to a higher politi cal level. I strongly urge you to 
support Ambassador Wills in his efforts to develop a consolidated draft negotiating text based 
entirely on elements you have created, without prejudice, of course, to any Member 's position.  I 
intend to attend Friday 's clos ing session of this week 's fisheries cluster to get a sense from the Chair 
and from you on how we are progressing. Also, Ambassador Wills and I are considering the best way 
forward, especially on how to engage more directly with decision -making authorities . We may 
explore that with you as we conclude this week 's cluster.  
 
 
1 Also issued as JOB/TNC/78.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 67 - 
 
  We must also advance  on agriculture  – an issue of enormous  significance  to many  – if not most – 
Members.  I agree  with Ambassador  Ford's assessment  that Members  need to narrow  and focus the 
discussions,  first classifying  elements  based  on their prospects  to generate  outcomes,  and then 
devising  ways to get there.   
 
Development  is another  area in which  Members  will have to bridge  different  perspectives  and 
sensitivities  to find a way forward.  As we heard,  Ambassador  Hassan  is continuing  to consult  with 
Members.  
 
In Nur-Sultan,  we will also have to decide  on the future  of the moratoria  on e-commerce  and TRIPS  
non-violation  complaints,  which  you extended  through  to MC12.  I look forward  to tomorrow 's 
discussions  on the ongoing  work on these  two moratoria.  
 
The second  basket  of issues  potentially  on the table in Nur-Sultan  comes  from the Joint Statement  
Initiatives  that groups  of members  have been taking  forward  on issues  such as investment  
facilitation  for development,  services  domestic  regulation,  MSMEs  and e-commerce.  I understand  
from the coordinators  and participants  that concrete  outcomes  – and in some  cases  even full 
agreements  – are envisa ged by MC12.  I will leave  it to the coordinators  to report  to the membership.  
And finally,  in our third basket,  we have a number  of institutional  issues  and proposals  for improving  
our regular  work in areas  such as transparency,  committee  operations,  and small economies.  This 
basket  also includes  the most pressing  institutional  challenge  at the moment,  which  is of course  
dispute  settlement.   
 
As I promised last December, I have been consulting with Members both here and in capital to find 
a way forward on a ppellate review of WTO dispute rulings. Unfortunately, I have not come away 
from these discussions optimistic about a clear path forward. In light of these circumstances, I do 
not believe that any kind of more intensive process trying to find a fix for the  Appellate Body itself 
would make sense at the present time.  
 
In the meantime, several Members are exploring multi -party interim arrangements for second -step 
review of dispute panel decisions. In a similar vein, I would also like to remind delegations tha t my 
good offices are open to any Member that wishes to make use of them.  
 
Turning  more specifically  to MC12,  one thing that stands  out is the sheer  number  of issues  you have 
been considering.  But while the array  of topics  before  you is wide,  your time in Nur-Sultan  will be 
very limited.  Ministers  will simply  not have the time to discuss  and resolve  differences  on each issue 
under  consideration.  
 
Past experience  shows  us – and I have seen this happen  very very often – that leaving  inadequately  
prepared  issues on the table for Ministers  to determine  is, more often than not, a recipe  for getting  
nothing.  
 
Making  the agenda  for MC12  manageable  would  enhance  our prospects  for success  there.   
 
This means  determining  now – well in advance  of the Conference  – which issues  can realistically  be 
harvested  with Ministerial  input in Nur-Sultan.   
 
On all other  issues,  we should  work to finalize outcomes  here in Geneva,  probably  bringing  to Nur-
Sultan  roadmaps  for post-MC12  work.  
 
Let us save Ministerial  engagement  for where  we need it most – and where  it will be most productive.  
For example:  getting  an agreement  on fisheries  subsidies . 
 
I also want to address another issue that many of you have raised with me: the question of how we 
capture outcomes from MC12.  
 
Experience points to at least three possible options for a Ministerial outcome document:   
 
• First, we could have a fully agreed multilateral document, with consensus negotiated text 
– what we typically call a Ministerial Declaration.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 68 - 
 
  • The second possibility is a Chair 's Summary capturing key issues discussed at the 
Ministerial. This is what we had at our last Conference in Buenos Aires. This summary 
would be done in the personal responsibility and capacity of the Chair of the Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
• The third option is a hybrid of the first two: namely a document that is part consensus text, 
and part Chair 's summary.  
 
The conversation about the MC12 outcome document is one that we will have to start soon. I have 
been consulting with member s on this, and will continue doing so together with the new General 
Council Chair as a priority over the coming days. As with previous Ministerials, I am committed to a 
preparatory process that is transparent and open, where all members will have the oppor tunity to 
put forward their views.  
 
As we embark on this conversation, let me be very clear about one thing: the measure of our success 
in Nur -Sultan will not be whether we have a Ministerial Declaration. Success will be measured by 
the substance of what w e deliver there. If we deliver new rules that curb overfishing and foster 
greater certainty and inclusiveness in the 21st century global economy, it does not matter what the 
outcome document is called. If we do not deliver any of these things – well in tha t case the 
document 's name will not matter, either.  
 
Finally, many of you have approached me to ask how our ongoing efforts on WTO reform will fit in 
to MC12.  
 
As you know, I am open to any reform that improves and strengthens the system. That said – and 
this will sound familiar – I do not think that it will be useful to have a negotiation to try and define 
what 'reform ' is. Based on what each of you tell me about how you think reform should look, I am 
pretty sure you will not agree.  
 
But even without see ing eye to eye on every aspect of the future of the multilateral trading system, 
you can agree on meaningful updates to the WTO rulebook, and the way in which we do our work. 
These improvements would help governments, businesses, workers and consumers bett er adjust to 
changing economic conditions. This is all part of the reform process. And that is why we should focus 
on concrete deliverables, not on time -consuming theoretical debates that may prove inconclusive.  
 
Now, this does not mean we cannot attempt to provide some guidance to reform efforts. And one 
logical place to do this is precisely in the context of the discussions on the Nur -Sultan outcome 
document that I think we have to start very soon. But WTO reform has been, and always will be, 
the product  of your ultimate decisions here.  
 
In conclusion, let me say once again that MC12 will be a critical landmark for the future of this 
organization.  
 
The weeks ahead are a window of opportunity. It is within your hands to prove that multilateral rule -
making is still feasible. To deliver outc omes that will help prepare the WTO for the next 25 years.  
I believe this is within reach. But only if we all take an open -minded, creative and compromise -
oriented approach.  
 
I therefore urge you to be pragmatic, realistic and flexible as we search for co mmon ground.  
This concludes my report.  
 
One last point on MC12: we are now in the process of updating our website for the Ministerial. In 
addition to practical information on travel and accreditation documents, and background notes on 
the issues under neg otiation, there will be a section for Members to provide any information that 
you deem relevant to MC12. Please let the Secretariat know if you would like anything added to that 
section.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 69 - 
 
  Reports by the Negotiating Group Chairs : 
 
1. Negotiating Group on Rules  
 
This is my second report to the TNC on the activities of the Negotiating Group on Rules, all of which 
have been in the area of fisheries subsidies, since I took the job as the Chair of the Group in 
November last year. Since my f irst report there has been a lot of activity and several new proposals. 
Therefore, for the purposes of this brief report I would like to divide my comments into two parts, 
the first on process and the second on substance.  
 
Process  
 
On process, two week -long clusters of meetings were held in the weeks beginning 13 January and 
6 February, with a third starting at 11h00 this morning. However, the negotiations have essentially 
been continuing without a pause since the end of the Christmas break and I do not exp ect this to 
change until the Ministerial Conference in Nur -Sultan is over, hopefully with an agreement.  
 
At the meetings of the Negotiating Group at the Head of Delegation that I held last November, I was 
asked to keep Heads of Delegation informed about the negotiations, and I was told that I should 
meet with you in various formats to get political guidance a nd practical assistance. To this end I held 
a meeting of the Negotiating Group on 13 February at HoD level where I reported on the work 
undertaken since the previous such meeting in November. I also outlined how I intended to work 
toward MC12.  
 
At that me eting everyone agreed that time was short and that all Members have to be flexible and 
pragmatic. Many of you also supported the idea of having a meeting of senior officials, while 
indicating that to be useful there would need already to be a single consol idated text that narrowed 
down some of the many options still being discussed, so that the senior officials could make 
decisions.  
 
With that in mind I held consultations with nearly thirty delegations or groups of delegations during 
the week beginning 17 February. In those consultations we discussed the timetable to MC12, 
including necessary steps along the way. I also sought views on how to move forward on overfishing 
and overcapacity, which is widely acknowledged to need particularly focused attention, g iven that 
the work in this pillar is much less mature than in the other pillars.  
 
Once again, everyone said they were aware of the limited time left, of the amount of work we have 
to do, of the need for compromise, and of the need to move immediately to te xt-based negotiations. 
On this last point, I informed delegations that I intended to distribute a consolidated document in 
the middle of this month that could be used as the starting point for the text -based negotiations. 
Interestingly, I also noted that i n some cases when the meetings involved ambassadors there was 
more flexibility and openness to compromise than I sometimes detect from delegates.  
 
Still on process, on 27 February I also held a short meeting with a small group of Heads of Delegation 
– mainly proponents – to discuss some ideas on overfishing and overcapacity. I did not circulate 
discussion questions in advance, as I wanted the attendees to be spontaneous and to react on the 
spot to issues that I raised in the room. It turned out to be a good  first exploratory discussion of 
some ideas for moving forward the negotiations on this pillar.  
 
Finally, as you know this week is another cluster of meetings for the Negotiating Group. I have 
reserved all day today up to 9 p.m., plus Friday morning, for p lenary meetings of the Negotiating 
Group on Rules at the usual technical level. The three days in the middle are reserved for bilateral 
and other meetings organized by delegates, and by facilitators. In addition, to close out the cluster, 
as I wrote in my e-mail of 25 February to the NGR, Friday afternoon has been reserved for a meeting 
at the HoDs level where you, Chair, also have been invited to join us.  
 
Substance  
 
Turning to substance. Obviously, I cannot report on the work to be done this week because  today 's 
plenary session of the Negotiating Group has not started yet. I hope that when we meet again on 
Friday afternoon, I will be able to tell you about good progress in all areas over the course of the WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 70 - 
 
  week. I can only urge you to provide your delegate s with the necessary flexibility to fully engage in 
and contribute to our collective quest for bridging solutions that can be acceptable to all.  
 
Concerning contributions from Members, I can say that there has been a lot of activity since the 
start of the  year. Several new proposals were received, distributed and discussed – or will be 
discussed this week. These include:  
 
– one from Canada on overcapacity and overfishing;  
 
– three from the ACP group on scope, IUU fishing and overcapacity and overfishing;  
 
– one from the EU, Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei on overcapacity and overfishing; and , 
  
– one from Brazil, also on overcapacity and overfishing  
 
The facilitators have also been busy with meetings and have made progress in some areas.  
 
That said, however, progress is insufficient. From where we are now, we need to move immediately 
to the consolidated text that I mentioned at the beginning. And this  text needs to be built from what 
Members have created in our collective work, including the facilitators ' working documents. Yet we 
still have many different ideas and approaches on the table for outcomes in the different pillars of 
the disciplines, while  the final outcome will reflect only a single compromise in each area. So, to get 
from here to there, we need a vehicle, namely a consolidated text that is as simple as possible, 
which will be amended through the final, text -based phase of negotiations. Th is simple, initial 
document is the sort of text that I intend to put together and circulate by the middle of this month.  
 
For this to work, all delegations will have to exercise restraint. If Members insist that the starting 
point text needs to contain th e full details of every Member 's preferred drafting on each issue, we 
will fail – for sure. We already have such a document, and we know from experience that it is simply 
not usable as a basis for negotiation.  
 
So I would ask for the support of delegation s in giving me the latitude to apply common sense and 
assemble in a logical order well -known elements that we have before us, in a document that is as 
simple as possible – and that will be used as a starting point. The time for introducing additional 
eleme nts would be the negotiating phase, not while creating this stripped -down starting point text. 
Everything in the document will look familiar – there will be no surprises. And of course, by definition 
such a document will be without prejudice to any Member 's position – it will only be the starting 
point.  
 
As we then move forward into the text -based phase it will be important for delegations, in bringing 
forward new elements, to focus on those that they believe could lead to compromise.  
 
Conclusion  
 
In conclusion, there is no doubt that we need to move to a text -based discussion, and we need to 
have a meaningful outcome by MC12. Many delegations are calling for a senior officials ' meeting, in 
the near future, which would have a clear set of points for de cision. For such a scenario to be feasible, 
we need a great deal of flexibility and pragmatism in our work here – much more than has been 
evident to date. I hope to see this demonstrated this week.  
 
2. Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session  
 
In my last report to this body in December 2019, I informed Members of a room document submitted 
by the G90, which was considered at an informal, open -ended meeting of the CTD SS last November. 
I had explained that the room document contained the same ten pr oposals submitted by the G90 in 
2017, since the issues raised in these proposals remained of relevance and concern to the 
proponents. In addition to listing the ten proposals, the new submission attempted to explain the 
rationale behind each of the proposa ls.  
 
Since then, I have been in touch with the G90 coordinators. I have also continued my bilateral 
outreach efforts with other Members to explore the possibilities that may exist to advance the work 
in the Special Session.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 71 - 
 
   
It was in continuation of thes e efforts that, last week, I held two rounds of informal consultations 
with the G90, and with different configurations of Members.  
 
The discussions in these small group consultations were useful in allowing me to get a better idea 
of the positions of Memb ers, the level of ambition in certain areas, and the nature of the concerns 
expressed by some. This will also help me in identifying the elements that could help to take the 
work forward in the CTD SS in the coming months.  
 
During the consultations, the G90 once again explained the rationale for their proposals. Other 
delegations, once again, said that it would be difficult to make progress in the CTD SS if the same 
G90 proposals are the basis for discussions.  
 
The represent atives of the G90 indicated that they were willing to consider further revisions to their 
proposals. However, for this to happen, they would need to have substantive engagement and text -
based responses from other Members.  Only such a collective effort woul d help break the impasse 
and help to arrive at an outcome that is acceptable to all.   
 
The short time that remains until MC12 was also touched upon in the consultations. In this context, 
some Members did express doubt as to whether it would be realistic to expect a concrete outcome 
on S&D T in time for Nur -Sultan. However, other Members expressed their willingness to make all 
efforts so as to allow a positive outcome on S&D T to be possible at MC12.  
 
I will continue to meet with Members in order to explore the possibilities that may exist to advance 
the work on these proposals before MC12. I will also be seeking views from Members as to how the 
work of the Special Session could be structured after MC12.  
 
In the coming weeks, I will be convening a formal meeting of the CTD SS. This will allow the G90 to 
introduce their proposals in a formal setting. It will also provide Members with the opportunity to 
take stock of where things stand at the moment, and to look ahead to MC12 and beyond.  
 
3. Committee on  Agriculture in Special Session and Sub -Committee on Cotton2 
 
There are three key words in my report this morning. Those three words are: urgency, complexity 
and sequencing.  
 
As envisaged, I circulated on 14 February 2020 a new Report entitled "Elements a nd processes for 
a possible outcome in agriculture at MC12 " (JOB/AG/180).  This Report is a follow -up to my July 2019 
Report entitled "Working towards doable elements for meaningful outcomes " (JOB/AG/163).  
 
The July Report provided the options that were being considered in respect of the seven areas in the 
Agriculture negotiations. The new Report goes further by identifying elements and processes related 
to the options in each of these areas, essentially those that might be considered for agreement at 
the Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12).3 
 
Members had the opportunity to discuss my February Report at the last meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA SS) and at the Dedicated Sessions on Public Stockholding for 
Food Security Purpo ses and Special Safeguard Mechanism held on 24 -25 February 2020.  
 
In addition to my Report, two new submissions on Domestic Support - one by the United States of 
America (JOB/AG/181) and another by the Russian Federation (JOB/AG/182) - were introduced and  
discussed. The C -4 also presented the Koudougou Ministerial Declaration on Cotton (TN/AG/GEN/50 
and TN/AG/SCC/GEN/22).  
 
 
2 The report was delivered by Deputy Director -General Karl Brauner, on behalf of the Chair of the Special 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture and Sub -Committee on Cotton. This report was subsequently circulated 
in document JOB/A G/183.  
3 The elements referred to in this document are within the seven areas of the agriculture negotiations, 
namely, Domestic Support, Market Access, Export Competition, Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, Cotton, 
Special Safeguard Mechanism and Public  Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. An element is, for example, 
AMS in Domestic Support or T ariff Rate Quotas in Market Access. Processes refer to the engagement and work 
that needs to be undertaken to increase the possibility of reaching agreement.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Some important points emerged from the discussions.  
 
In Domestic Support , the need to tackle trade distorting domestic support was unan imously 
recogni zed. One recent submission suggested a numerical target to cap and reduce the sum of global 
agricultural trade distorting domestic support (TDDS) entitlements by at least half by 2030. 
Submissions by other Members have also introduced ideas on how trade distorting domestic support 
may be addressed. These ideas give us the opportunity to achieve the overarching objective of 
reducing TTDS. Nonetheless, many divergences remain, including which sub -categories of Domestic 
Support should be earmark ed for reduction.  Against this background, I invited Members to engage 
on the proposals on the table and agree on a shared objective towards capping and reducing trade 
distorting domestic support with numerical goals, commitments on key elements and how to  achieve 
them. I will continue to hold cons ultations with Members to agree on principles and parameters as 
well as processes and approaches towards achieving this shared objective.  
 
In the Market Access  discussions, certain specific elements are being considered in the context of a 
possible MC12 outcome; these include transparency of changes in applied tariffs and the treatment 
of consignments  en route;  transparency of TRQ administration; and reporting o f ad-valorem  
equivalents (AVEs) of tariffs bound in non -ad valorem  terms.  These elements, also included in my 
February Report, are principally in the spirit of enhanced transparency and facilitating agricultural 
trade. Simultaneously, some Members have sta rted working on a possible agreed framework and 
principles to guide market access negotiations post -MC12.   
 
In Export Competition, the proponents are working on more specific proposals aimed at enhancing 
and making more effective the current monitoring and  transparency mechanisms in this area. The 
clear intention is that additional information and understandings reached among Members will 
facilitate further discussions on reform addressing what can be considered as unfinished business in 
this export competi tion pillar.  
 
In Export Restrictions, the discussions confirmed that exemption of foodstuffs purchased for non -
commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Programme from the application of Export 
Restrictions is on the table for MC12. Further work i s expected on the other issues related to 
notification requirements and clarification elements.  
 
An outcome on Cotton  is supported by a large group of Members, but it is also the case that according 
to available notifications Cotton Trade Distorting Support is provided by a few Members only. Several 
Members also confirmed their support for the cotton -related development efforts.  
 
In SSM, the linkage made between an SSM and market access continues to constrain progress in 
the discussions. I have urged both the proponents and non -proponents to redouble their efforts and 
engage constructively so that they can fully understan d each other 's positions and concerns to take 
the discussions forward.  
 
The PSH issue remains a priority issue for many developing country Members and the call for a 
Permanent Solution by MC12 has been renewed in recent communications4 and discussions. I have 
therefore called upon Members to develop proposals based largely on the elements discussed before 
MC11 and invited Members to reflect on whether there is room for treating differently some country 
groups (e.g. LDCs) or some types of programmes (e.g. n ew programmes, small programmes).  
 
The last CoA SS meeting showed – as expected – that as our discussions focus more on specifics, 
they become more difficult, the discomfort of Members is more apparent and their positions are 
expressed more forcefully. Th e agricul ture negotiations have always been complex, and as we move 
closer to MC12, it is to be expected that we will have to urgently facilitate the increasing complexity 
being better understood and negotiated.  
 
At the same time, I also sensed a real com mitment on the part of Members who are convinced that 
further reforms are necessary. This commitment is being used as a foundation on which to build a 
process toward meaningful outcome at MC12 and beyond. This is now urgent.  
 
All the areas under the agricu lture negotiations are priorities. All do not have the same breadth of 
interest or commitment to find a solution before or at MC12. All do not have the same level of 
 
4 JOB/AG/173 and JOB/AG/179.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 73 - 
 
  maturity in terms of convergence around some elements. For this reason, I mentioned the wo rd 
sequencing at the beginning of this statement. It is now urgent, recogni sing the complex work to be 
done and the little time between now and Nur -Sultan, that Members agree to sequencing the 
treatment of issues and elements. We need to sequence our work,  focusing more over this coming 
period on the issues and elements that have a better chance to be part of an outcome at MC12. 
Sequencing for treatment now does not imply any hierarchy between the elements but rather given 
the urgency of time Members decidi ng to focus on those elements which are more mature and have 
the greatest chance to attract consensus among Members.   
 
To repeat, time is short, we have to move forward with an increased urgency. The next meeting of 
the CoA Special Session is scheduled for  23-24 March, and the one after for 23 -24 April, including 
the Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM, as mandated. After these meetings, we will have only one 
month left before MC12.  
 
Many important suggestions were made during the February CoA  SS and the con sultations since 
then. In the next few weeks before the March CoA SS further efforts will be made to build on the 
just circulated 14 February  Report to see how we can sharpen the engagement around the possible 
options to increase the chances of an incremen tal balanced meaningful outcome at MC12. More 
specifically, to urgently accelerate our work in a more focused and sequenced manner towards an 
objective of having a final draft document in May, at the latest, that would be as precise as possible 
for conside ration by Ministers at MC12. This document will arise from an enhanced process between 
now and May  based on the feedback I would be receiving from my consultations with Members as 
well as my reports and submissions by Members.  
 
I continue to encourage Mem bers to submit new proposals and ideas to complement my Reports, 
especially those that attempt to bridge the remaining differences and build consensus.  
 
I also urge Members to engage with each other in a constructive and more focused manner before 
the next  CoA Special Session.  
 
I will continue my own consultations with Members in several formats. I remain committed to 
working with all Members towards a meaningful outcome at MC12. Despite the complexity of the 
agriculture negotiations we are all committed to reducing distortions in global agriculture and food 
markets. We need to act with urgency and realism, we must sequence our work between now and 
June, and beyond Nur -Sultan.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 74 - 
 
   
ANNEX 4 
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS  AT THE INFORMAL TNC  AND INFORMAL HODS M EETINGS 
HELD ON 2 MARCH  2020 
 
Following the Director -General 's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by: Switzerland; Brazil; Botswana (African Group); Singapore; Chad (LDC s); European Union; 
Morocco; Canada (Ottawa Group); Angola; Iceland; Jamaica (ACP); Montenegro; China; Mexico; 
Japan; United States; New Zealand; Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs); India; Norway; 
Peru; Egypt (NFIDCs except Peru); Barbados (CARICOM) ; Afghanistan; Russian Federation; 
Malaysia; Republic of Korea; Turkey; Philippines; Costa Rica (Joint Initiative on Services Domestic 
Regulation); Nigeria; Argentina; South Africa; Pakistan; Thailand; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; 
Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela; United Kingdom; Viet Nam (ASEAN); Nepal; Solomon Islands 
(Pacific Group); Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce); Cambodia; Panama 
(Article XII); Chinese Taipei; Burkina Faso (C -4); St. Lucia (OECS); Ecuador; Chile (Structur ed 
Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development) and Paraguay  are included below as part 
of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Switzerland  
 
In my statement, I would like to give a summary of the Informal Ministerial Gathering on WTO issues 
hosted by the Swiss government on 24 January in Davos. The aim of the informal meeting was to 
discuss challenges facing the WTO, including ideas for reforming the organization.  
 
The Informal WTO Ministerial Gathering was  attended by Ministers and high officials from 
35 Members representing a broad spectrum of the WTO membership, including the coordinators of 
the WTO Least -developed countries Group, the WTO African Group, and the WTO African, Caribbean 
and Pacific Group.  
 
For the information of the wider Membership, I will read out the Personal Concluding Remarks by 
the Chair, Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin. He summari zed his impressions from the discussions as 
follows:  
 
• "Ministers stressed their commitment to a successfu l outcome of the 12th Ministerial 
Conference in Nur -Sultan (MC12). They expressed their resolve to preserve the credibility 
of the rules -based multilateral trading system. The need to reform the WTO and to improve 
its functioning was also widely acknowledg ed. 
 
• Ministers emphasi zed the need to adopt by MC12 a comprehensive and effective agreement 
on fisheries subsidies consistent with the commitment made at MC11. Given the 
significance of these negotiations for sustainable development and the WTO, Ministers 
instructed negotiators to step up efforts to ensure the WTO delivers on the Sustainable 
Development Goal 14.6 and contributes to the long -term sustainability of global fisheries.  
 
• Ministers recalled that the WTO dispute settlement system is a central eleme nt in providing 
security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. They therefore underlined the 
urgency of taking the necessary actions to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system in line with its fundamental principles. Some par ticipants indicated that they were 
working towards contingency measures that would allow for appeals in their trade disputes, 
in the form of an interim appeal arrangement, until the Appellate Body returns to be 
operational.  
 
• Several participants addressed  the diverse development levels of Members and how these 
should be taken into account in order to advance multilateral negotiations.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 75 - 
 
  • Many interventions supported tangible headways in negotiations on longstanding issues 
relevant to a range of Members, incl uding developing and least developed countries. 
Several participants called for further progress in agricultural trade policy reform at MC12. 
Among these, many wanted to address the issue of domestic support.  
 
• Numerous interventions stressed the necessity to foster greater transparency of trade 
policy measures and to stimulate the deliberative function of the WTO. Several participants 
highlighted the importance of adapting WTO rules and commitments to today 's realities.  
 
• While multilateralism remains the p referred option, many considered that it is important 
to continue to apply new approaches that allow Members to pursue, in an open and 
inclusive manner, initiatives of interest to them.  
 
• In this context, many Ministers welcomed the progress achieved in the  Joint Statement 
Initiative negotiations such as on E -commerce, Investment Facilitation, Micro, Small and 
Medium -Sized Companies as well as Services Domestic Regulation. Some also called for 
an extension of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic tr ansmissions, while others 
considered that they needed to deepen their understanding of these issues.  
 
• Furthermore, Ministers heard the reports on the work of the "Ottawa Group ", the JSI on E -
Commerce and Investment Facilitation. The G20 Presidency made a p resentation of the 
"Riyadh Initiative on the Future of the WTO ". 
 
• Ministers undertook to remain involved in the preparations for MC12 in order to advance 
key issues. " 
 
These personal concluding remarks – made under the Chair's own responsibility – have bee n 
published on the website of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) as well as on 
the WTO 's website, along with a list of attendees.  
 
With this, I conclude my report on the Davos gathering.  
 
I would like now to make a few comments on behalf of the Swiss delegation.  
 
• As the Director -General has mentioned, about three month s ahead of the Ministerial 
Conference in Nur -Sultan, Members need to rapidly agree on the nature and scope of the 
expected results in order to focus efforts on realistic objectives.  
 
• There is, however, one objective that leaves no room for ambiguity: the co nclusion of a 
meaningful agreement on fisheries subsidies. This is our utmost priority. It is high time to 
focus work in this area on efficient disciplines that prohibit subsidies contributing to 
overcapacity and overfishing. Without a solution to this iss ue there will be no success in 
Nur-Sultan.  
 
• Apart from an outcome on fisheries subsidies, it is also important, that the trade community 
take further action to implement the SDGs. Switzerland strongly supports the work 
currently underway on a statement on trade and environmental sustainability to be adopted 
in Nur -Sultan. We invite any other interested member to join this initiative.  
 
• The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element for the security and 
predictability of the multilateral tradin g system. It is necessary that all Members engage 
collectively to find solutions to overcome the present situation.  
 
2. Brazil  
 
We finished 2019 at a critical juncture. I wish I could say now that progress has been made in these 
few months of 2020, but the re ality is quite the opposite.  We still have a lot to do and only three 
months left before Nur -Sultan.  
 
On the A ppellate Body  process, Brazil has always been prepared to engage in an open -minded and 
constructive manner. Our position has not changed. As my de legation indicated in Davos, the sooner 
specific reform proposals are presented the better.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 76 - 
 
   
At the same time, Brazil sees the convenience of an interim solution that can enable interested 
Members to bring their disputes to a resolution. We are actively pa rticipating in discussions aimed 
at reaching agreement on such a multi -party interim arrangement.  In that exercise, Brazil is seeking 
to ensure that, whatever is done, an interim solution helps, not hinders, the process of finding a 
long-term, multilateral  solution for the functioning of the A ppellate Body . 
 
Reform of agricultural trade rules is imperative for the success of MC12 and key to a package in Nur -
Sultan.  Domestic support seems to be the area where more convergence and a meaningful outcome 
can be achieved.  Through the "Framework for Negotiations on Domestic Support ", circulated in 
January as JOB/AG/177, Brazil, along with a wide and diverse group of Members, advocated for the 
reduction of current agricultural trade -distorting domestic support entit lements by at least half until 
2030.   
 
Combined with the proportionality principle, this framework can promote fairness and a levelled 
playing field, by requiring commitments that are consistent with each Members responsibilities.  
Transparency is a central part of a solution in Agriculture, but it is only a tool that will help us along 
the way - not an end in itself. By itself, it is not enough.  We need meaningful progress in agriculture.  
 
On fishery subsidies, we missed the deadline and there is, no w, very little time left. This is an 
important issue with trade, environmental and systemic repercussions for the WTO.  Brazil remains 
fully committed to a result in the fisheries negotiations. We have recently circulated a text with a 
suggestion of a possi ble mechanism to limit and reduce subsidies. We believe this mechanism can 
help us build strong disciplines on fisheries subsidies, in line with our mandate.  
 
We would like to thank Canada and the United States for their collaboration in elaborating a 
Ministerial Declaration on SPS that we expect will be endorsed in Nur -Sultan.  We do believe that this 
declaration is an opportunity for all Members to recall the central role of the SPS Agreement in 
promoting a fairer and more predictable international agricul tural trade for the last 25 years.   
 
It is also a unique opportunity for all WTO Members to identify and to address implementation issues 
with some of the provisions of the Agreement. Moreover, it is a chance to strengthen the application 
of the WTO SPS Ag reement in order to face new challenges that lay ahead for agricultural production 
and trade.  We hope that this initiative will be met with the engagement of all Members in the SPS 
Committee.  
 
Brazil is prepared to work plurilaterally and multilaterally to wards outcomes that constitute a realistic 
and substantial package for MC12 – in agriculture; industrial and agricultural subsidies; 
sustainability; fisheries subsidies; e -commerce; investment facilitation; domestic regulation; 
transparency notifications; development and S&DT.  
 
3. Botswana (African Group)  
 
I deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group. At the outset we would like to thank the 
Director -General  for his report and  the Chairs of the Negotiating Group s for their updates.  
 
With about fourteen weeks ahead of the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference, the African Group 
would like to stress the importance of advancing our work and identifying priorities for substantive 
deliverables in Nur -Sultan. We hold the v iew that for the WTO to deliver, then it would need to 
deliver for the majority of its Membership. This means that it must address the needs, concerns and 
priorities of the developing Members, and least -developed countries. These are the smallest and 
vulne rable Members whose plight is further exacerbated by trade tensions, and the rise in 
protectionism that undermine multilateralism.  
 
As we transition to the Ministerial Conference, the Group would like to highlight a number of issues 
of high interest to our  economies:  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture is the main unfinished business of the Uruguay Round. Reforming the global landscape 
on agriculture trade, per Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Doha mandates is a top WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 77 - 
 
  priority for Africa. In this cont ext we would like to express our appreciation to Ambassador Deep 
Ford for his report in document JOB/AG/180, and we wish to underscore the following:  
 
• Substantial reduction of trade distorting domestic support shall be a priority for MC12. The 
first step o f such reduction should be correcting the historical imbalances of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and eliminating the AMS beyond de minimis. This reform should take into 
account the special needs of Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) and LDCs, 
who are increasingly confronted with the challenges of food security, with negative 
implications on livelihoods;  
 
• The agreement on a permanent solution for Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
(PSH), and the establishment of a special safeguard mechanism – are of importance to 
developing and least -developed countries, and shall thus be among the MC12 deliver ables; 
and, 
 
• With regard to our long -standing mandate on cotton, the African Group supports the 
proposed modalities for the reduction of domestic support with trade -distorting effects on 
the international cotton market, as introduced by the C -4 in document  
TN/AG/GEN/49/Rev.1.  
 
• We commend the efforts of the C -4 in this regard and welcome the Koudougou Ministerial 
Declaration on Cotton. We also support the request by the C -4, for the members of Quad -
plus to get more involved in the cotton negotiations, with a view to achieving a concrete 
and meaningful outcome on cotton in Nur -Sultan.  
 
Development  
 
The Group holds the view that discussions on development should be aimed at bridging the 
development divide. In this connection, Special and Differential Treatmen t provisions were enshrined 
in the WTO Agreements to specifically help the developing countries to better integrate into the 
global trading system.  
 
However, developing countries, particularly in Africa, continue to be marginali zed in international 
trade,  as is self -evident in our decreasing share in global trade. More than eighteen years down the 
line, the Ministerial mandate, which called for strengthening of S&D T provisions to make them more 
precise, effective and operational, remains outstanding and re levant for our development needs.  
 
With that said, we call on Members to engage constructively with the G -90 on the Agreement Specific 
Proposals on S&D T, under the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session. It would 
be remiss of me not to unde rline that for the African Group, an outcome on this issue is of priority 
for us in Nur -Sultan.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
The African Group reaffirms its commitment to reach an effective, equitable and balanced outcome 
that conforms to the mandate. As we have stated previously, it is our understanding that the 
mandate seeks to address IUU, overfishing and over -capacity all of which contribute to the depletion 
of fish stocks around the world. Therefore, it is our Group 's view that the disciplines to be agreed 
must target harmful subsidies in line with the mandate. In addition, it must target large scale 
industrial fishing with appropriate special and differential treatment for developing Members and 
LDCs.  
 
The African Group is exploring its landing zones and has already indicated its strong opposition to 
discipline fisheries management at the WTO or to transform this body into a fisheries management 
organization.   
 
We look forward to engaging with Members, with the view to draft a text that can serve as basis for 
negotiations.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 78 - 
 
  Appellate Body Crises 
 
The African Group is concerned by the protracted stalemate on the launching of a selection process 
to fill vacancies in the Appellate Body which by attrition has led to the disfunction of the WTO 
Appellate Body with effect from 11 December 2019.  
 
We also n ote the positive efforts by some WTO Members in agreeing on an alternative appeal 
mechanism around the arbitration procedure envisaged under Article 25 of the DSU. However, we 
would like to highlight the African Group 's preoccupation and interest to contri bute to the resolution 
of the impasse and the reconstitution of a fully operational Appellate Body.  
 
The African Group therefore continues to support the Facilitator -led process under the auspices of 
the General Council, with a view to move towards a mutu ally acceptable outcome in the interest of 
all Members. We call on the G eneral Council Chair to continue this process and encourage all 
Members to contribute substantively to ensure that we move forward with a solution -oriented 
multilateral process that se eks to find landing zones on this matter urgently.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
We are concerned with the lack of a structured approach that would enable the African Group as 
well as lesser resourced delegations to effectively contribute to discussions on finding possibl e ways 
to improve the operation and effectiveness of the WTO. In this connection, we hold the view that 
the principles of inclusivity, transparency, multilateral approach and consensus should frame the 
discussions on WTO reform.  
 
The African Group will not  be in a position to support any outcome on WTO reform that either directly 
or indirectly dilutes our core developmental negotiating mandates and objectives.  
 
4. Singapore  
 
As we are just three months away from MC12, I would like to share three thoughts as we  prepare 
for Nur -Sultan. As this is also the period of Lent, allow me to borrow some wise words from the book 
of Ecclesiastes, which tells us that "to everything there is a season ". 
 
First, there is "a time to plant, and a time to harvest that which is pla nted". In the WTO, we have 
sowed the seeds and tended the fields for many years, and MC12 should be an opportunity to harvest 
some of the fruits of our labour. Fisheries subsidies is a prime example. The seeds for today 's 
fisheries subsidies negotiations w ere sowed almost two decades ago, when the 2001 Doha Ministerial 
Conference launched negotiations to "clarify and improve " existing WTO disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies. Much work and effort have since gone into the fisheries subsidies negotiations. While the 
pace of the negotiations may not be as fast as we would have liked, it is timely to quicken the pace, 
exercise flexi bility and put our shoulders to the plough in order to harvest a meaningful outcome at 
MC12.  
 
Second, there is "a time to keep, and a time to cast away ". With the clock ticking, we must zoom in 
on the deliverables that we want our Ministers to adopt at MC1 2. We cannot take a kitchen sink 
approach and bring every pet issue to Nur -Sultan. This will require the WTO Membership to exert 
discipline and cast away unrealistic goals. Equally important, we must identify potential deliverables 
for the Ministerial Conf erence in a realistic and pragmatic manner. The sooner we reach agreement 
on what is achievable the better so that Members can focus our minds on identifying the outstanding 
work that must be done over the next three months to transform these potential del iverables into 
tangible outcomes. As the Director -General  had said earlier, the road to MC12 must be substance 
driven.  
 
Third, there is "a time to break down, and a time to build up ". For a small trade -dependent Member 
like Singapore, MC12 presents a golde n opportunity to build up the WTO. The rules -based 
multilateral trading system, as embodied by the WTO, is critical to Singapore and all other small 
developing Members because it has provided the foundation for our countries to trade freely and 
fairly, to grow our economies and most important of all, to improve the livelihoods of our people. 
Hence, Singapore is absolutely committed to strengthening the WTO and the rules -based multilateral 
trading system.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 79 - 
 
  A small example is Singapore 's proposal to exempt f oodstuffs purchased for non -commercial 
humanitarian purposes by the World Food Programme, from the application of export restrictions. It 
is a non -controversial and well -intentioned proposal that is aimed at addressing Sustainable 
Development Goal No. 2, w hich is to combat hunger and help the most vulnerable among us.  
 
Singapore has also been working with Australia and Japan on the Joint Statement Initiative on E -
Commerce, to make "substantial progress " by MC12. This is no mean task given that there are st ill 
several complex issues, including those concerning data, that must be addressed. But we must not 
be daunted by the challenges given that E -Commerce has become a fact of life and has attracted 
intense interest from the business community. More important ly, it will be a litmus test of whether 
the WTO can keep pace with technological advances and remain relevant.  
 
It is easy for Members to highlight problems without proposing solutions at the WTO. We therefore 
welcome the efforts of other WTO Members who have been working tirelessly to table creative 
solutions to move discussions forward, including by fellow small a nd medium -sized Members like 
Paraguay and Costa Rica. We encourage all Members to take on a problem -solving approach as we 
work towards MC12 and seek to build up the WTO together.  
 
To conclude, there is "a time to mourn, and a time to dance ". Let us work together to achieve 
meaningful outcomes so that MC12 will be a time to dance rather than mourn.    
 
5. Chad (LDCs)  
 
I am making this statement on behalf of the LDC Group  and thank the Director -General and the 
Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their useful a nd informative updates.  
 
There are only three months left before MC12. With this in mind, the LDC Group wishes to achieve 
concrete results which will on the one hand help to strengthen and accelerate our integration into 
global trade with sustainable devel opment in mind and on other hand, concrete results that will 
serve to strengthen multilateralism as the one and only system for moving towards a fairer, more 
equitable and more inclusive trade.  
 
The LDC Group is impacted by the collateral effects of the Ap pellate Body impasse even though we 
are not frequent users of the system. We therefore support all initiatives that have been put forward 
to try to solve this blockage in a sustainable way.  
 
Turning to our expectations for results at MC12, we think that we  should be focused on several 
priorities.  
 
Agriculture  
 
There is no point in reminding us the extent to which agriculture, agricultural production and the 
possibility to trade in agriculture is a very important matter for us to create job s, for food security, 
for contributing to rural development and in terms of safeguarding the small farmers. It gives us a 
real and fair opportunity to ensure that these farmers can develop and access global markets. It is 
therefore essential for us to reach  an agreement which has been long time coming that will help to 
reduce drastically levels of domestic support that distort markets and that have a negative impact 
on LDCs ' farmers.  
 
Concerning domestic support particularly in terms of the linkage with the  trade in cotton, the LDC 
Group fully supports the position of the C -4 which is to achieve a result at MC12 that eliminates 
domestic support to cotton production. This is a crucial issue for jobs, national wealth within C -4 
countries and by extension to an y other LDCs.  
 
On public stockholding for food security and SSM, the LDCs wish to ensure that there is a solution 
found to public stockholding that will encompass the ability of LDCs to develop non pre -existing 
programmes and on the other hand to ensure th at there is a special safeguard mechanism that will 
protect small, vulnerable farmers against market volatility.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 80 - 
 
  Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
Another priority important for the LDCs in relation to MC12 is the negotiations on fisheries subsidies. 
These are difficult negotiations but the LDCs hope that a result will be found and that will take into 
account the preservation of marine resources as well as the application of special and differential 
treatment that will ensure that food secur ity goals are protected, create employment and more 
generally, preserve the rights of fisheries communities in LDCs as well as LDCs that are currently 
graduating.  
 
We believe that the position of the LDCs on fisheries subsidies make sense and is in line wi th 
SDG 14.6 of the United States.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
S&DT is a very important principle for LDCs. It is essential and it is within the WTO 's DNA and in its 
agreements. S&DT should be applied adequately and effectively – this is the same as ensuring there 
is a fair contribution towards our integration into global trade as well as our social and economic 
development. We therefore see S&DT as an instrument that helps to consolidate the multilateral 
trading system. It allows those economies t o which it benefits the position to meet their obligation. 
We do not see any antagonism between S&DT and these obligations. In fact, we see that they are 
complementary.  
 
The LDC Group calls upon all Members to take a constructive consideration of our propo sals for S&DT 
measures. Furthermore, when it comes to negotiations that are being held within the framework of 
the CTD SS, we call upon all Members to have an open mind and to make their contribution to ensure 
that discussions on the G -90 proposal move for ward with a view to a result at the upcoming 
Ministerial Conference.  
 
Turning to S&DT and the particular importance that the LDC Group attaches to countries that are 
currently in a process of graduation, we call on Members to allow the graduating LDCs to c ontinue 
to benefit from flexibilities for a reasonable period after their graduation. This will ensure that there 
is a smooth and long -lasting transition towards economic development. This was the goal that was 
set out by Ministers at MC11 in Buenos Aires.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
The LDC Group is in favour of a more effective and transparent WTO. But that cannot be done to 
the detriment of the potential of LDCs to positively benefit from its healthy functioning. There is no 
point in recalling that LDCs all face signif icant constraints in terms of their institutions, infrastructure, 
human resources and available financial resources. Therefore, any new measures that penali ze LDCs 
by adding to their administrative burden or exposing them to financial sanctions would not b e 
sustainable.  
 
With that said, we take a constructive and positive view and we would like to thank the Secretariat 
and the Members for their support which has ensured the official representation of our capitals at 
fisheries subsidies negotiations.  
 
The LD C Group would like to reassure the Director -General that he has our ongoing support with the 
view to MC12 as well as to the benefit of all Members and to securing a fair, equitable and inclusive 
multilateral trading system.  
 
6. European Union  
 
The European Un ion remains alarmed about the state of affairs at the WTO. The Appellate Body has 
come to a halt and it is an entire pillar of our organi zation that is under existential threat. The EU is 
determined to find structural solutions. The foremost priority shoul d be to ensure a meaningful and 
productive Twelfth  Ministerial Conference.  
  
As far our negotiation agenda is concerned, and this is the focus of my intervention today , this 
means that WTO Members need deliver on the Fisheries  Negotiations, E-commerce Moratorium, 
transparency and discussions of trade concerns, as well as the Joint Statement Initiatives. We WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 81 - 
 
  moreover welcome the ongoing work of the Friends of Advancing Sus tainable Trade toward raising 
sustainability within the WTO.  
 
The EU lays great emphasis on fisheries subsidies negotiations. A successful outcome would be 
favourable for marine fishing resources, would strengthen the WTO and showcase that the WTO is 
able to deal with sustainability issues. The EU has recently taken important steps to achieve a 
successful outcome. In the revised version of our proposal on subsidies contributing to overcapacity 
and overfishing we made significant moves. We have considerably tightened the criteria that 
determine whether a subsidy is har mful or not. We have addressed the difficult question of special 
and differential treatment in a meaningful way. And we also indicated our readiness to support 
proposals prohibiting subsidies to fishing vessels not flying the Member 's flag and subsidies 
contingent upon fishing in areas beyond national jurisdictions. Now it is time for other WTO Members 
to also move.  
 
EU fisheries subsidies reform implemented some 15 years ago consisted in putting sustainability at 
the core of our common policy on fisheries,  moving from harmful to beneficial subsidies and 
implementing proper fisheries management. This brought tangible positive results on the ground. 
We cannot and will not accept that this reform is jeopardi zed through some obscure insistence that 
all subsidie s are bad. We will never accept results that would motivate Members to move from 
positive to bad subsidies in order to squeeze within a cap. We all must acknowledge that harmful 
fisheries subsidies must be treated differently than positive subsidies. Prope r fisheries management 
must have a place in the negotiations because it can neutrali ze any negative effect a subsidy might 
have. A large group of WTO Members advocates this. Any attempt to ignore such a group is doomed 
to failure.  
 
Finally, let us reitera te the importance of the mandate. Indeed, SDG 14.6 directs us toward a 
prohibition of harmful fisheries subsidies. Let 's remind ourselves of that mandate and work with 
proposals that comply with that mandate.  
 
We thank the Chair of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture for his report on 
"Elements and processes for a possible outcome in agriculture at MC12 ". We appreciate his efforts 
to define elements for possible outcomes at MC12 and beyond. Large divergences remain among 
Members on key agri cultural issues. A realistic outcome might include some transparency 
improvements and a statement on the future work.  Our goal on agriculture for MC12 should be to 
avoid a repeat of the failure at MC11 and to contribute positively to the overall efforts on  WTO 
reform.  
 
The European Union will continue to engage towards the best possible preparation for the Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
7. Morocco  
 
My delegation endorses the A frican Group  statement delivered by Botswana and would like to give 
additional comments.  
 
We thank the Director -General  as well as the Chairs of Negotiating Groups  for their valuable reports. 
We also thank  the Secretariat for their hard work.  
 
The economy and trade are threatened because of not only the ongoing protectionist measures but 
also s everal factors such as currently the Coronavirus which could have serious effects particularly 
for the developing countries with limited capacities. Some are already predicting that the global 
economic growth will fall from 3% to 1 .5% in 2020 with severe i mpact on vulnerable economies as 
I said before.  
 
In this context, the challenges that the WTO is facing are monumental while all of us recogni ze that 
there are things that can be done in the WTO that cannot be done unilaterally, bilaterally or 
regionally . It is therefore in our common interest to engage fully and constructively in order to 
convene  at MC12 and reach  a meaningful and concrete outcome.  What could this meaningful and 
concrete outcome  be like ? The responses are several, but let us recogni ze that: 
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 82 - 
 
  • A critical mass of Members are insisting as we heard this morning on the priority of 
adjusting domestic support 's programs in agriculture, this should be taken as major 
element for MC12.  
 
• Almost all concerned Members are fully engaged in the discussion on fisheries subsidies 
within our view an obligation to conclude.  
 
• Almost all Members plead for an acceptable solution by consensus regarding the Appellate 
Body, while preserving its fundamental characteristics.  
 
Morocco remains committed in fav our of transparent, inclusive, equitable and relevant multilateral 
trade system.  
 
• Concerning transparency, my country has submitted last year its notification on fisheries 
subsidies to encourage other Members to do so.  
 
• About inclusivity, my delegation wil l spare no effort to contribute in a constructive manner 
in order to move forward.  
 
• As for equity, we understand that this principle should go hand in hand with pragmatism 
in order to reach a consensus. With this spirit, concern ing fisheries, my delegation  has 
proposed a text on overcapacity and overfishing to bridge the gaps. We have shown 
flexibility in this respect. However, we are insisting on the necessity of focusing the 
disciplines mainly on the large -scale industrial fisheries. We insist also on the  necessity to 
avoid extreme positions such as so -called "S&DT case by case " or any differentiation based 
on irrelevant criterion.  
 
• Regarding the relevance of our multilateral trade system, we are of view that its updating 
should be undertaken by improving the understanding. In addition, any step should be 
taken based on the consensus; hence from a win-win perspective. In this respect, we would 
like to recall that  Morocco is organi zing on 17 March 2020 an African conference on e -
commerce  which  hopefully  the Members and the Director -General could come  given the 
circumstances.  
 
We assure Members and the Director -General of  our support in order to reach a meaningful outcome 
at MC12.  
 
8. Canada (Ottawa Group)  
 
Ottawa Group Ministers met on the margins of the World E conomic Forum in Davos and underlined 
their common commitment to strengthening the WTO and ensuring its continued relevance. Ministers 
agreed on the importance of achieving a meaningful outcome on fisheries subsidies by MC12. They 
also noted the opportunit y at MC12 to demonstrate progress on the joint statement initiatives, 
including on e -commerce and investment facilitation for development.  
 
Ministers also discussed the importance of transparency, including ensuring notification 
requirements are followed. Finally, the Ottawa Group Ministers expressed disappointment that the 
Appellate Body had ceased to fully function and agreed that the only w ay to resolve the situation 
will be through constructive discussions involving all WTO Members. They also noted that there are 
options available to those members interested in preserving their rights in the interim and discussed 
the possibility of a multi -party interim appeal -arbitration arrangement. Ottawa Group Ministers also 
discussed enhancing engagement with business communities on the importance of a well -functioning 
WTO.  
 
On the various initiatives discussed in the Ottawa Group, Brazil circulated in mid-February a revised 
version of the proposal it has been coordinating on strengthening the consultative function of the 
SPS Committee. The document will be discussed in the next informal SPS Committee meeting on 
17 March.  
 
On Rules of Origin, the co -sponsors presented a revised version of the proposal at an informal 
committee meeting in December last year. At the meeting, no WTO Member raised any objection to WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 83 - 
 
  the proposal. The co -sponsors decided to put the proposal for adoption on the agenda of the next 
formal meeting of the Committee on Rules of Origin on 5 March 2020.  
 
With respect to fisheries subsidy negotiations, the Group has continued to share perspectives on 
how to reach a successful conclusion to these negotiations, and treat the group as a "sounding 
board " for ideas.  
 
9. Canada  
 
Canada is pleased that the two WTO moratoria were extended to MC12, but Canada trusts that 
Members can agree to further extend the two moratoria beyond MC12. Renewing both moratoria 
would help ensure predictability of the sy stem and increase certainty for Members, businesses and 
stakeholders.  
 
On the agriculture negotiations, Canada welcomes the report from Ambassador Ford in J OB/AG/180 
and his efforts to advance the discussions. In our view, the report accurately reflects th e state of 
play across all areas under discussion and provides directions for Members to intensify their work to 
develop an outcome on agriculture. For our part, Canada will continue to play a constructive role 
and plans to bring forward pragmatic proposal s across the negotiations as we approach MC12. In 
our view, the framework for negotiations on domestic support that was agreed by 19 Members at 
the Cairns Group Ministerial meeting in January of this year should form the basis of an outcome on 
domestic sup port. In addition, Members should take steps forward to increase transparency in 
agriculture. Such outcomes would place the agriculture negotiations on a solid footing moving past 
MC12.  
 
In the fisheries subsidies negotiations, Canada recently tabled a pro posal on overfishing and 
overcapacity that offers a middle ground solution that is simple but would also produce a meaningful 
result. Recent discussions have been constructive, but we must intensify our dialogue on this 
discipline, as well as on IUU fishin g and Overfished stocks, to produce outcomes that we can all get 
behind by MC12.  
 
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 further advanc e these discussions. 
Canada is pleased with the new pace and is confident that we will have consolidated text by MC12.  
 
On services domestic regulation, Canada is pleased with the level of ambition expressed through the 
scheduling process.  Canada encourage s all participating and interested Members to submit draft 
indicative schedules.  Canada is looking forward to work with all interested Members to resolve 
outstanding issues and ensure we have a result at MC12.  
 
We are pleased that the supporters of the Bu enos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women 's Economic 
Empowerment are working on defining next steps in our work on this important topic. We look 
forward to achieving new momentum at MC12 and to meaningfully advancing this work.  
 
We are also pleased to be working with likeminded partners in developing a ministerial statement 
on trade and environmental sustainability that will be launched at MC12. We will be ramping up our 
outreach efforts shortly and look forward to your support.  
 
The MSME Informal Working Group has made great progress in the last few months.  Canada is fully 
committed to the multilateralization of this discussion, and I encourage those members not yet part 
of the Informal Working Group to reach out to Uruguay, our coordinator, or to the othe r Working 
Group members to discuss how to participate.   
 
Canada would like to thank Brazil and the United States for their efforts in spearheading a 
multilateral Ministerial Declaration on SPS measures for endorsement at MC12. Such a declaration 
would highlight the benefits that have accrued to all WTO Members since the SPS Agreement 's 
adoption in 1995 and will reaffirm the continuing importance of adhering to its obligations. The intent 
of the declaration will not be to launch negotiations on new SPS o bligations or to reopen the SPS 
Agreement, but rather to commit to future work to enhance the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement in light of the evolution of the global agricultural landscape. The Ministerial Declaration 
will be presented at the upcoming SPS Committee in March and we are hopeful that this draft 
statement will garner support from the Membership.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 84 - 
 
   
Finally, we are very concerned by the Appellate Body 's inability to hear appeals due to the 
appointment blockage. We value the solution -oriented d ialogue that has taken place between 
interested Members. We remain open to engaging in constructive discussions with Members.  
 
Canada will continue to contribute to the establishment of a multi -party interim appeal arbitration 
arrangement amongst Members wanting to preserve their rights to binding two -stage adjudication 
between them.  
 
10. Angola  
 
I would like to thank the Director -General and the Chairs of the Negotiations Groups for their 
comprehensive and informative report on the state of negotiations o n priority issues.  
 
Angola aligns itself with the statement s made by Chad, Jamaica and Botswana on behalf of the LDCs, 
the ACP and the African Group , respectively.  
 
My delegation therefore supports any proposal for a reform of the multilater al trading system on the 
condition that this reform reinforces the objective of "raising standards of living of our population 
everywhere " as set out on preamble of Marrakesh Agreement. Indeed, any reform that allows the 
development of our countries deserv es our support.  
 
With regard to the DDA negotiations, allow us to highlight the importance of S &DT, which must be 
an integral part of any future multilateral outcomes and be precise, effective and operational to 
enable developing countries, particularly LD Cs, to effectively address their development needs.  
 
We agree with those Members that expressed the view that negotiations should remain guided by 
the mandates of Ministers who have been constantly explicit in several issues and maintained that 
S&DT must b e an integral part of all WTO Agreements, as well as, that future multilateral outcomes 
should be operationally effective so as to enable developing countries, in particular LDCs, to succeed 
on responding to their development challenges. The framework for trade reforms must continue to 
support the economic development needs including technical assistance requirements of all  
Members.  
 
Domestic support continues to be a priority in negotiations and are needed to prevent subsidies from 
distorting agricultural trade. We need to reduce drastically or, at least, eliminate subsidies that 
distort agricultural trade. The Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) is the most important 
component of this distortion and needs to be eliminated.  
 
Access to markets, particula rly in the context of unilateral preferences, is also of paramount 
importance in achieving the objectives of a more diversified economy, including in the trade sector 
(export diversification). We congratulate the Members that have been granting preferences  in a 
rational way and without applying technical barriers.  
 
On cotton, we consider unacceptable to continue to observe that the levels of domestic support 
provided to it, remain high, and they continue to create distortion to cotton trade in the internati onal 
market so, we will continue to support C -4 and other Members ' positions in this area, mainly for the 
fact that Angola is revitali sing its industry sector including cotton production to supply national 
emerging textiles factories.  
 
On the fishery clust er, we are concerned about ideas or methods that will place the sovereign rights 
of our coastal and island nations in peril/jeopardy while aiming at prohibiting subsidies that 
contribute to depletion of our resources and might downgrade the objectives of S DG 14.6. Those 
methods are also prejudicial as they highlight special and differential treatment targeting our food 
security and sustainable development of our fisheries industry that is mainly artisanal and of 
subsistence. We cannot accept subsidies disci plines that make it very difficult for us to support our 
fishery communities. Angola agrees to preserve ACP coastal state determination of the IUU fishing 
violations, overfishing and overcapacity in waters under their jurisdiction. In this line, we conside r 
essential to fulfil the mandate of the Ministers to conclude the negotiations on fisheries subsidies.  
 
We all can see that the current impasse in the appointment of Appellate Body members is a matter 
of concern  as it weakens the multilateral trading system . The preservation of the rules -based system WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 85 - 
 
  requires the quickest resolution of the deadlock over the selection of the Appellate Body members 
and the issues that the Dispute Settlement Body is currently facing. The tenuous light brought to 
this issue by some countries needs further discussion.  
 
Finally, we appeal to all Members to continue a frank and constructive dialogue, and not to lose the 
focus that "developing countries ' needs and interests " should always be at the heart of this Round.  
 
11. Iceland  
 
Fisheries  
 
Regarding the negotiations on fisheries subsidies – Iceland c onsiders it an absolute priority that the 
Membership concludes an agreement in time for the Ministerial meeting in Nur -Sultan. Once again, 
we should not forget that the WTO was mandated to conclude an agreement delivering on 
Sustainable Development Goal 14 .6 by the end of 2019. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the 
clock, and the deadline is already behind us.  
 
There have been positive developments in the last weeks – and we thank Ambassador Wills for his 
constructive efforts. Iceland remains engaged to re ach our common goal.  We need a meaningful 
end-product that answers the mandate that we are working towards fulfilling. We need an agreement 
that is focused and answers the core concerns – that is to prohibit subsidies that contribute to 
overcapacity and ov erfishing.  
 
WTO is not on fisheries management organi zation, and our agreement should target subsidies.  
Again, Ambassador Wills has our full support and we remain confident that under his leadership we 
will achieve the progress needed to reach a conclusion  before the MC12.   
 
Trade and Women 's Economic Empowerment  
 
I would like to give you an update on the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women 's Economic 
Empowerment.  As set out in the Declaration the Trade Impact Group will report back on the work 
done under the Declaration at the MC12 in Nur -Sultan. A publication with these results is being 
prepared.  
 
We hope to see the issue of Trade and Women 's Economic Empowerment gaining more visibility in 
the WTO.  The co -chairs of the Trade Impact Group held a meeting for WTO members on the review 
of the Buenos Aires Declaration on 5 February 2020. In the meeting , support was given to the work 
established under the Buenos Aires Declaration.  Further, Members expressed support for the 
establishment of a framework for following -up the work of the Buenos Aires Declaration beyond 
MC12.   
 
An informal group of WTO Members is currently developing a proposal for such a framework focusing 
on trade and Women 's Economic Empowerment. The meetings are open to all Members that wish to 
contribute or observe the development.  
 
12. Jamaica (ACP)  
 
I would, on behalf of the ACP Group, convey my thanks to the Director -General and the Chairs of 
the Negotiating Groups for their reports.  
 
The ACP Group wishes to begin by identifying what has unfortunately become the practice of 
scheduling negotiation meetings at the same time as the Informal TNC and the General Council 
meetings. This raises serious concerns for the ACP Group due to the small  size of our delegations 
which makes it impossible to cover these meetings simultaneously. Our understanding is that this is 
not the first time such concern has been raised. We call on the Director -General and the Chair of the 
General Council to address th is issue in a time sensitive manner and with the seriousness it deserves. 
The reality is that we have ACP delegations in Geneva with only one delegate covering all WTO 
issues. This organization should accommodate these inescapable realities if it is to be regarded as 
inclusive.  
 
MC12 is only 3 months away. Yet, significant divergences exist among Members on key issues. As 
we advance our preparation for the Conference, we will have to agree on areas of priority and doable WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 86 - 
 
  elements. MC12 provides an opportuni ty for the WTO to exhibit its relevance and reassure the 
Membership of its ability to produce inclusive outcomes for the benefit of all. At the same time, while 
MC12 will help to shape our future engagement in the WTO, its results should be seen as a mean s 
to an end and not an end in itself. These are difficult times which require diplomacy, flexibility and 
accommodation.  
 
For us to achieve a progressive and balanced package in Nur -Sultan, the WTO must deliver fisheries 
subsidies, agriculture and developme nt. 
  
Importantly, also, we must, in the shortest time possible, restore the full functioning of the Appellate 
Body to preserve the WTO 's dispute settlement mechanism as embodied by the DSU. This should 
begin with the urgent unblocking of appointments to t he Appellate Body.   
  
On fisheries subsidies, the ACP Group remains committed to a high ambition outcome in line with 
the mandate of SDG 14.6. Our legitimate expectation is for a comprehensive outcome on Fisheries 
subsidies, in Nur -Sultan, one which covers  all the pillars including S &DT. We stand ready to work 
towards that goal.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment remains an important issue for Members of the ACP Group. We 
support the reissuing of the G90 proposals for further discussion in the CTD  SS. We s hould continue 
working hard to find a constructive way forward. Addressing the challenges faced by developing 
countries and LDCs is becoming more urgent in order to enable the social and economic 
transformation required to achieve the Sustainable Developme nt Goals and to ensure that no one is 
left behind. The ACP Group believes that the next Ministerial Conference should deliver on this very 
critical issue.  
  
On Agriculture, the ACP Group wishes to thank the Chair for his document on the elements and 
processes for a possible outcome at MC12. Agriculture is of fundamental importance for our 
members. Correcting the imbalance in the Agreement on Agriculture and addressing the impact of 
trade distorting support on our farmers and societies remain a priorit y for the ACP Group. So, too, 
is the need to fulfil our Ministerial mandates on PSH and SSM. We are in the process of preparing a 
submission to contribute to this endeavour. Further, the ACP Group expresses its support for the 
efforts of the C -4 on cotton.  
 
Moving to the amorphous question of WTO reform, the ACP Group convened a high -level retreat 
earlier this year during which we had a reflection on the issue. The ACP Group concluded that WTO 
Reform is not new. The Uruguay Round was predicated on the need for reforms although it resulted 
in deepening the imbalances faced by developing countries and LDCs. Again, the ACP Group 
supported reform as outlined in the Doha Declaration. Unfortunately, we are yet to implement the 
Doha mandate almost 20 years later. T he ACP Group is not opposed to discussions on Reform. 
However, any such discussion be structured, holds development at its core, and be inclusive, 
transparent and fair. In this regard, we are concerned with the fragmented and largely opaque 
process through  which these discussions are being pursued, especially given the small size of our 
delegations. The Group stands ready to play its role in this process.  
 
Regarding e -commerce, the ACP Group continues to have substantial interest in the E -commerce 
Work Prog ramme, particularly as it relates to its development dimension. The ACP Group notes the 
convening of a workshop to look at different aspects of the moratorium.  In fulfilment of the 
December decision, we would wish to indicate that in addition to the three issues itemi zed in the 
decision on the Work Programme, we also would want to have discussions on the treatment of other 
duties and charges; any discriminatory treatment between physically traded goods and the digital 
version of those goods; the consequence s of the digital divide; costs to developing country and LDC 
consumers and businesses  and the application of internal taxes on electronic transmissions.  
 
In concluding, the ACP Group wishes to reiterate its commitment to the preservation of an inclusive, 
transparent, predictable and rules -based multilateral trading system with the WTO as its core 
institution. While not discounting the challenges we face, we have to collectively redouble our efforts 
to ensure that the WTO deliver on the trade and development  goals of all its Members, especially 
the most vulnerable among us.  
 
We continue to reiterate that no one should be left behind.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 87 - 
 
  13. Montenegro  
 
At the outset, I would like to welcome the progress made in the negotiations on illegal fishing 
subsidies. I hope that the negotiations in parallel with this meeting, and lasting until Friday, will 
bring new convergence and that we will continue to move towards a common understanding of the 
need to limit illegal subsidies to protect and preserve the Fisheries Fund. We want to reiterate our 
position that our fleet is old and needs to be rebuilt, but in a way that will not bring in additional fish 
supplies. We also believe that specific and different treatment in this area should be considered 
depending  on the specificities of the country and the situation in the sector.  
 
Montenegro supports the extension of the moratorium on the introduction of customs duties on e -
commerce. We believe that extending the moratorium will support business, especially MSME,  with 
the necessary predictability and further promotion of digital commerce growth. We commend work 
on the e -commerce session on finali sing a consolidated text for the future work for MC12.  
 
As a signatory to the Joint Declaration on the Domestic Regulati on, Montenegro reaffirms our 
commitment to moving forward on unresolved issues and hopes to achieve results that will allow us 
to improve the political environment for trade in services.  
 
Montenegro is a beneficiary of the WTO and a framework of rules that  help promote and protect an 
open global trading system, and we join the members concerned about the state of the WTO 's 
underlying mechanism, which is its ability to effectively resolve disputes.  
 
In conclusion, let me emphasi ze the need of continue our wo rk in good faith and shared strong 
commitment to working together to deliver meaningful outcomes at MC12.  
 
14. China  
 
At the outset, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those Members who have provided 
generous support to China in fighting agains t the outbreak of the coronavirus disease. China is 
committed to working with all others to uphold global public health security.  
 
Back to our business. We should bear in mind that, the multilateral trading system is faced with 
multiple unprecedented chall enges, including the paralysis of the Appellate Body. A positive and 
successful Ministerial is much needed. To make it happen, we should keep a reasonable level of 
ambition for the conference. And I tend to agree to what Director General just suggested: a 
"substance -driven " approach should be taken and our limited resources should be concentrated on 
what is achievable at MC12. We should spare no efforts in Geneva to wrap up the deliverables so as 
not to ask our Ministers to engage in too much detailed negot iations in Nur -Sultan.  
 
Undoubtedly, the issue of fisheries subsidies is a touchstone of a successful Ministerial, and should 
be the top priority for MC12. And no matter what will be the final approach of disciplines, an 
indispensable element of a meaningf ul outcome must include significant reductions on current fishing 
subsidies. All major subsidizers shall commit to make substantial reductions. In this regard, Norway 
has set a good example for us.  
 
There is one issue I would like to clarify that, fish res ources in the high seas are in the possession 
of all members. We can 't simply presume that all fishing activities in the high seas contribute to 
overcapacity or overfishing. We must bear in mind that the issue of the high seas fishing is very 
complicated. Many members, including China, have serious concerns on the RFMO quota allocation. 
It will be difficult for us to accept any additional disciplines on high seas on the top of such 
disadvantageous quota allocation. For China, high seas fishing is very impor tant to the nutrition of 
1.4 billion people. A blanket ban on subsidies for high seas fishing is beyond our mandate and 
unreasonable by itself.  
 
For MC12, outcomes are also touchable for some joint statement initiatives (JSIs), among which, 
investment facilitation for development is currently in a good shape. We are pleased to see the 
tremendous progress in the past three years. Particularly, more and more members are interested 
and actively engaging.  
 
China will also work closely with others to make breakthroughs on e -commerce, MSMEs, services 
domestic regulations, etc. While we are advancing those initiatives in a pro -multilateral approach, WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 88 - 
 
  we should never forget our commitment to keeping the process o pen, inclusive and transparent to 
all. 
 
On the broader reform of the WTO, in China 's view, the reform should reinforce the centrality of the 
multilateral trading system in international trade liberalization and facilitation.  Macroeconomic 
issues, such as m arket practices, industrial policies or economic models, are by no means within the 
functions or capabilities of the WTO as stated in Marrakesh Agreement. The moon is simply too far 
to reach.  
 
15. Mexico  
 
Although I am a recent arrival in this city, I have bee n involved in multilateral topics since the start 
of the Doha Round, and since then there have been very few opportunities for reaching agreements 
of major impact and importance.  
 
The forthcoming Ministerial Conference (MC12) once again gives us a great op portunity to show that 
despite differences we are able to reach agreements, not only in terms of negotiations but also, as  
have been clearly indicated, in a ministerial document that expresses our vision of our organization 
now and in the future.  
 
With reg ard to negotiations, the priorities and mandate at the highest level relate to fisheries 
subsidies. We are looking forward to the text to be presented by Ambassador Wills, which could 
identify differences and give rise to agreements that make the presence of high -level officials in 
Geneva relevant before MC12.  
 
This would provide a template for Ministers to have a negotiating scenario in Nur -Sultan that is both 
reasonable and possible.  
 
In agriculture, it is encouraging that there is renewed interest in mov ing forward in the negotiations 
on domestic support, which is reflected in the discussions that some Members are holding to seek 
innovative options for reducing such support. In this regard, we agree that all of us who are granting 
subsidies must assume a proportionate amount of responsibility for this issue of our making.  
 
With regard to joint initiatives, we welcome the fact that the one on domestic regulation in services 
is at a very advanced stage. This gives us clear indications that we could reach an agreement in 
Nur-Sultan. However, more Members need to present their draft schedules of commitments. With 
regard to electronic commerce and facilitation of investment, we are satisfied with the work done 
and the progress made. We trust that concrete outcom es will be achieved at MC12.  
 
For all the above and other topics, we only have three months to go. At all costs we need to avoid 
MC12 becoming another meeting at which ministers are faced with a full and complex negotiating 
agenda. This has occurred at pre vious ministerial meetings and we ended up with unsatisfactory 
outcomes.  
 
Understandably, we would all like to have the most perfect and ambitious agreements possible. 
However, in order to create a multilateral consensus we must act with flexibility and pr agmatism, 
taking counterparties into consideration , otherwise we will continue reaching outcomes below what 
is expected of this organization.  
 
We all have the distinction of representing our economies vis-à-vis the WTO. This privilege entails 
the primary r esponsibility of safeguarding the interests of those we represent but it inevitably implies 
contributing to strengthening the tasks and objectives of the WTO.  
 
It is the shared responsibility of us all to help bolster the relevance of this institution, built with the 
talent, tenacity and vision of those who came before us. It is time for us to contribute towards 
preserving and reforming what is relevant. The upcoming MC12 is a good opportunity for doing our 
utmost in terms of effort and poli tical will, showing that the cooperation and trust on which the WTO 
is built will continue to strengthen international economic governance.  
 
Lastly, it should be emphasi zed that this heads of delegation meeting is, regrettably, the first in the 
entire history of the WTO where the dispute settlement system does not have a functioning Appellate 
Body.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 89 - 
 
   
Our country negotiated and agreed the outcomes of the Uruguay Round as a balance between rights 
and obligations, and one of these rights is that our private sector could have recourse to a second 
body for resolving disputes.  
 
Even though Mexico and other Members are working on finding an interim option, we must not lose 
sight of the primary objective to restore the functioning of the Appellate Body. On  no account must 
what we are experiencing today become "our new reality ". It will be important that energy is found 
for the constructive work needed to find an effective and reasonable solution to the current crisis.  
 
16. Japan  
 
This is the first time for me t o attend the TNC/H ODs meeting as Ambassador of Japan. I am pleased 
to join the discussion at this very important juncture for the WTO. MC12 is fast approaching, and we 
must accelerate our efforts to achieve meaningful outcomes at MC12.  
 
For the multilater al negotiation function of the WTO, much depends on the ongoing fisheries 
subsidies negotiation. We have not made much progress since the last TNC/H ODs meeting in 
December. As Japan repeatedly said, in order to agree upon a meaningful outcome at MC12, we 
need to stick firmly to our mandate; that is, to prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which 
contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsides that contribute to IUU fishing. In 
line with this mandate, Japan and other co -sponsors su bmitted and revised a joint proposal that 
prohibits only harmful subsidies, while allowing non -harmful subsidies with proper fisheries 
management. In this regard, we would like to stress that when shaping our new discipline we have 
to take into account the  reality of fisheries, including fisheries management for sustainability, since 
this reality is deeply linked to the effects of subsidies.  Japan will continue consultations with all 
Members going forward.  
 
On agriculture, we appreciate the efforts by the C hair to advance discussion in a realistic and 
progressive manner from the mid - to long -term perspective. Japan believes it essential to aim for a 
balanced outcome in terms of the broad issues for agriculture. We will continue to actively take part 
in the d iscussion.  
 
Japan very much appreciates progress in the areas of joint statement initiatives (JSIs), and we 
believe these JSIs will add important values to MC12 and contribute to its success.  
 
In particular, we welcome good progress on e -commerce negotia tions. In order to develop a 
consolidated negotiating text, as agreed by Ministers at Davos, and to achieve substantial progress 
in the negotiations by MC12, we should further intensify our efforts through active and dedicated 
discussions. We also reiterat e the importance of maintaining the current multilateral practice of the 
customs duties moratorium. Japan stands ready to make further contributions to discussion on the 
moratorium in order to allow our Ministers to reach consensus at MC12.  
 
As for the joi nt statement initiative on investment facilitation, Japan would like to contribute to 
formulating advanced rules in this area based on our experience of concluding high -quality bilateral 
investment treaties.  We also welcome progress in services domestic re gulations, and we will 
continue to contribute to the discussion in the aim of agreeing on the reference paper by MC12.  
 
There are also other issues that we place much importance on. Japan and many other Members 
have repeatedly stressed the need to strengt hen international rules on industrial subsidies. This 
January, the trade ministers of the EU, the US and Japan discussed ways to strengthen existing WTO 
rules and agreed on specific measures for that purpose. Japan continues to emphasi ze the need to 
addres s market -distorting government supports and subsidies by taking further steps to eliminate 
them, including through coordinated actions with like -minded Members.  
 
Transparency and notification is an important part of the WTO reform. We are working on revisi ng 
the proposal with co -sponsors to garner wider support and reach consensus at the WTO at the 
earliest possible juncture.  
 
Last but not least, I would like to touch upon the Appellate Body issue. No one denies the urgent 
need to restore the proper functio ning of the dispute settlement system. Notwithstanding this 
common recognition, it appears we are losing momentum, at least for now.   WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 90 - 
 
   
Our priority has always been and continues to be to find a long -lasting solution to the Appellate Body 
matter.  The Appellate Body was established by WTO Members acting as the DSB. It is the Members ' 
responsibility as the creators of the Appellate Body to resolve the issues associated with it. Building 
on the groundwork we have done so far through the Walker Process, we should focus our next step 
on outstanding issues, including the fundamental ones, however difficult they may be to address.  
 
To conclude, Japan will continue to work hard to achieve meaningful outcomes at MC12. I look 
forward to working with you all.  
 
17. United States  
 
I would like to use today 's meeting to highlight the importance of mean ingful WTO reform to the 
United States given the publication this past weekend of the US President 's Trade Policy Agenda. 
This important report provides direct guidance to me and the rest of the Executive Branch in the US  
Government on trade policy priorit ies. 
 
The WTO and WTO reform feature prominently in the Agenda. This is a significant development and 
demonstrates the attention paid to this institution at the highest levels of our Government.  
 
The Trade Agenda highlights current shortcomings of the WTO,  including its inability to keep pace 
with changing global realities over the past 25 years and to negotiate new rules in response. These 
changing realities include the rise of large emerging economies, the growth of non -market practices 
and policies, and technological advances fostered by the evolution of the Internet.  
 
Equally important, the Agenda also sets out some of the reforms the United States believes would 
bring about a WTO that can deliver on its initial promises.  
 
These reforms include reaffirmi ng our original mandate to promote trade liberalization based on free 
and fair competition through the adoption of market -based policies across the WTO 's Membership.  
 
We are also focused on reform that will repair the WTO 's negotiating function by addressi ng 
imbalances created by outdated special and differential treatment for advanced economies as well 
as improve transparency and compliance with existing rules to ensure we can negotiate based on 
the most up -to-date information.  
 
We have already advanced pr oposals in these areas. Members are familiar with our proposals on 
differentiation and transparency, and tomorrow I will introduce a draft General Council Decision on 
the importance of market -oriented conditions to the world trading system.  
 
These are all essential building blocks that would allow the WTO finally to move forward with some 
important negotiating objectives – reducing tariff disparities that have been left unaddressed since 
the Uruguay Round; creating new rules to respond to trade -distorting i ndustrial subsidies; and 
finding a means to alleviate forced technology transfer and other deeply concerning practices.  
 
Despite the serious challenges facing the WTO, the U nited States  continues to value this institution 
and we are working to find solutio ns. 
 
I also want to spend some time today emphasi sing the critical state of the Fisheries Subsidies 
negotiations. It is incumbent on all of us to recogni ze that the negotiations are in serious trouble.  
With just three short months to Nur -Sultan, the WTO re mains far from delivering on what Ministers 
directed us to do at MC11 – that is, to reach an "agreement on comprehensive and effective 
disciplines. " 
 
The impasse we face is both significant and familiar here at the WTO:  
 
• On the one hand, certain Members are working to create meaningful new prohibitions on 
fisheries subsidies that will actually change the way governments have been irresponsibly 
providing government support over the years; and  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 91 - 
 
  • On the other hand, another group of Members is fiercely  defending its right to continue to 
subsidi ze – or to develop subsidies policies in the future – and advocating little, if any, 
meaningful change to the WTO rules.  
 
If we want the WTO to be taken seriously, we must produce fisheries subsidies rules that ar e strong 
and clear and that will meaningfully change the status quo that has led to the current, dire situation 
in which nearly 90 per  cent of the world 's fish stocks are "fully exploited, overexploited or entirely 
depleted. " 
 
Lastly, I wanted to echo the comments made by Brazil and Canada concerning a new SPS initiative, 
and that it is our shared intention to seek a ministerial declaration at MC12 reaffirming the vital role 
of the SPS Agreement and calling for its enhanced implementation. We appreciate  our collaboration 
on this effort and welcome the support of other Members.  
 
18. New Zealand  
 
We have three months before Ministers gather at MC12. I need not underscore the  importance of 
MC12 in demonstrating that this organisation can still function and deli ver, despite the global and 
systemic challenges facing the multilateral trading system.  
 
I will briefly outline New Zealand' s multilateral priorities for MC12. New Zealand' s key  multilateral 
priorities for MC12 ar e securing a concluded outcome on fisheries  subsidies  in fulfilment of SDG  14.6, 
reaching an outcome on agricultural domestic support and  renewal of the moratoria.  
 
Conclusion of fisheries subsidies remains our number one priority. The time for repetitive  debates is 
over. We must negotiate landing zones now. This includes prohibitions on  subsidies contributing to 
overfishing and overcapacity which are the most harmful  subsidies. We fully support the Chair 's 
efforts in this regard, and will continue to take a  constructive and pragmatic approach to en suring 
that we fulfil SDG 14.6.  
 
On agriculture, an outcome at MC12 is essential. We failed to do so at MC11 and cannot  afford to 
do so again. As Members will know, reducing trade distorting domestic support  is a key priority for 
New Zealand and a large nu mber of Members including developing  Members. We welcome 
Ambassador Ford 's recent report setting out potential elements  and processes for an agricultural 
outcome at MC12. On trade distorting domestic support  we welcome the Chair 's recommendation 
for Members to fully engage the proposals on  the table and agree "on a shared objective towards 
capping and reducing trade distorting  domestic support ". 
 
We also continue to enthusiastically support outcomes for JSIs at MC12 and beyond, and  emerging 
work on trade and environment. MC12 however must deliver substantive  multilateral outcomes.  
 
Finally, we must continue and strengthen our efforts to restoring a fully functioning  dispute 
settlement system without delay.  
 
19. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
I make this statement as Coordinator of the Informal Working Group on MSMEs.  
 
The Informal Working Group has hit the ground running in 2020 as we get ready for MC12. The 
Group is working on its draft ministerial package which will include a general Ministerial Declaration 
and several non -binding texts on specific issues.  
 
Since MC11, the Group has worked towards developing concrete outcomes linked to MSMEs, which 
I think are evident in the group 's draft ministerial package. We are r eady to show that MSMEs truly 
matter for the WTO and that the WTO can matter for MSMEs. From supporting the publication of 
relevant and verified trade information, to promoting MSMEs ' inclusion in trade rule -making, the 
Informal Working Group is actively l ooking for ways to support the world 's largest business 
demographic to trade.  
 
Our efforts aim at making trade rules work for MSMEs and promote MSME -friendly implementation 
of trade agreements. Another important part of our work is to develop concrete tool s to help MSMEs 
access information, through the development of a MSMEs platform and the Global Trade Helpdesk, WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 92 - 
 
  for example. Our approach is anchored in the sharing of good practices and the development of 
concrete tools.  
 
The Group held its first open -ended meeting of the year on 25  February. A series of informal 
consultations will be held in the coming weeks to finetune language prior to our next open -ended 
meeting on 26 March.  
 
Our aim is to stabili ze our ministerial package by the end of March to have t ime to build further 
support for our initiative before MC12. The more Members we have on board, the more successful 
we will be in helping our MSMEs. I hope that many of you will join us in this endeavour in the months 
ahead. Please come to our meetings and  do not hesitate to reach out to me or to Members of this 
Group to better understand the spirit in which we work. The dates of our next open -ended meetings 
are: 26 March, 29 -30 April and 18 -19 May.  
 
Making trade work for MSMEs means making trade work for development and for our economies. 
We count on your support in the lead up to MC12 – and beyond.  Small business is a big issue.  
 
20. Uruguay  
 
Agriculture  
 
Uruguay would like to thank Ambassador Ford for his report and his ongoing efforts to ensure 
progress in the agriculture negotiations.  
 
A little over three months away from the  Twelfth Ministerial Conference, we have a lot of work to do 
to bring positions closer together and achieve a tangible outcome that is needed on this subject of 
vital importance for the vast majority of WTO Members.  
 
The outcome to which we aspire can include improvements regarding transparency in relation to the 
different pillars, but primarily it should include unequivocal steps in the direction of the long -term 
goal established in the preamble and Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, to establish a fair 
and market -oriented agricultural trading system by means of su bstantial progressive reduction in 
support and protection.  
 
In this regard, Uruguay invites all Members to work together on establishing specific arrangements 
that allow the objective proposed in document JOB/AG/177 to be achieved, namely to reducing the 
sum of trade -distorting domestic support entitlements by at least half by 2030.  
 
Furthermore, we invite them to work on establishing the basis for negotiations aimed at gradually 
and substantively removing or reducing the considerable obstacles to market ac cess for agricultural 
products, and to make a commitment to apply only sanitary and phytosanitary measures that are 
scientifically justified and not more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective.  
 
Two consecutive Ministerial Confer ences without outcomes in agriculture would be a very poor 
indicator of the state of health of this organization.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
With regard to the situation of the Appellate Body,  it is a source of concern for us that one the 
fundamental pillars of this  Organization cannot function properly, a situation that has systemic 
consequences and that will be especially detrimental to the smallest economies, should it continue 
over a period of time.  
 
Nevertheless, and without losing sight of this objective, we ar e working with other Members 
interested in a multi -party interim appeal arbitration arrangement to try to alleviate this situation. 
This is a solution that is not perfect but seeks to replicate and in some ways improve on the second 
arbitration body. In th is regard, we invite other interested Members to support this initiative which 
we regard as sending an important political signal on the systemic level.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 93 - 
 
  21. India  
 
We thank the  Director -General  for convening this informal meeting of the TNC and for his report and 
assessment as the Chair of the TNC. We also thank him for the anti -Corona virus measures 
implemented by the WTO for preventing its spread and suggest that Members consider adopting the 
traditional Indian greeting of Namaste instead of shaking hands, without a detailed discussion on 
the "why" question related to the Corona virus spread. We also thank the Chairs of the Negotiating 
Groups on Rules, Agriculture and Development for their repo rts. 
 
State of Play  
 
The collapse of the Appellate Body, the attack on the principles that we have held dear, like non -
discrimination and special and differential treatment, have cast a pall of hopelessness on the WTO. 
MC12, provides us an opportunity to a ddress these grave challenges, if we can only get our act 
together.  
 
Appellate Body  
 
As a major user of the WTO 's dispute settlement system and with four appeals involving India 
awaiting adjudication by the Appellate Body, we are gravely concerned. We believe that the 
resolution of the Appellate Body crisis deserves the utmost priority and it should precede all other 
reforms.  We would, therefore, suggest t hat the US consider the solutions developed under the 
Walker Process seriously unless they have better alternatives to offer.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
We must work rapidly to conclude the negotiations on ending harmful fisheries subsidies.  Discip lines 
should focus on distant water and large -scale industrial fishing, provide exemption and carve outs 
for the needs of small and subsistence fishermen who operate in the territorial seas and EEZs and 
seek greater contribution from those who provide larg e subsidies, both in value and on per capita 
basis.  We also need to quickly converge the various approaches for O&O on the table and start 
negotiating the consolidated text covering all pillars.  Further, we need to be mindful that concluding 
this negotiati on would be difficult without S&DT for developing countries who need it and for LDCs 
as agreed to by our Leaders in SDG 14.6 and by our Ministers at MC11. This is a very sensitive issue 
involving livelihood of millions of marginal fishermen and there could  be nothing more unequal than 
an equal discipline for unequals. Without appropriate S&DT, these negotiations would be doomed to 
end in a deadlock.  
 
Agriculture  
 
There has been a recent push, including in the Chair 's Report of 14 February 2020, for advanc ement 
of negotiations on domestic support with the narrative of capping and reducing all forms of trade 
and production distorting domestic support.  Our views on this issue are the following:  
 
• First, we are proponents of a sequential approach where FBT AMS entitlements are capped, 
reduced and eliminated first. Only once the playing field is levelled, should we have a 
discussion on disciplining other forms of domestic support. It needs to be kept in mind that 
FBT AMS is far more trade distorting than de minim is entitlements and reasons for this are 
clear.  FBT AMS does not have any product specific limitations. All FBT AMS of a Member 
can be channelled into a single product, say cotton, thereby greatly distorting global trade 
in cotton. Further, members with FB T AMS entitlements can provide domestic support well 
over 10% of the value of production. In other words, the absence of a ceiling and flexibility 
of its application, make FBT AMS hugely more trade distorting than de minimis and, 
therefore, it needs to be disciplined on priority.  
 
• Second , I would like to emphasi ze that Article 6.2 support is meant for low -income and 
resource -poor farmers in developing countries. This is a S&DT flexibility to support rural 
development, food and livelihood security of margin al farmers, therefore, by its very 
definition, it is minimally trade distorting. Therefore, there can be no question of accepting 
any limits or reduction in Article 6.2 support.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 94 - 
 
  • Third, is the issue of proportionality.  It is high per capita support that ha s the most trade -
distorting effect on the global markets as it incentivi zes large scale commercial production 
mostly for exports.  Equating subsidies of 200 dollars per capita that Indian farmers receive 
with 60,000 dollars per capita in many developed coun tries is absurd. Therefore, domestic 
support disciplines need to be guided by per capita numbers as well.  
 
To our mind, other mandated issues in Agriculture, like the permanent solution on public 
stockholding for food security, for which we have missed dea dlines, need to be prioriti zed for MC12.  
 
Conclusion  
 
To conclude, we are at a critical juncture, only a few months away from the MC12. The results we 
achieve at Nur -Sultan, especially on fisheries subsidy disciplines and resurrection of the Appellate 
Body, can increase the trust that the world reposes in the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
In order to succeed, we need to prioriti ze a balanced agenda that is inclusive and development -
oriented. I hope that all delegations will seize th is opportunity with both hands . 
 
22. Norway  
 
Ninety -eight days. That is what is available to us until Ministers gather in Nur -Sultan. Luckily, most 
of them are working days. We will need all of them. Today, I will devote my allotted time to fisheries 
subsidies - the most urgent negotiations in the lead up to MC12. We have been instructed to fix it 
and should have done so already.   
 
Many have pointed to the importance of the fisheries subsidies negotiations for the credibility of the 
WTO. But the organi zation cannot negotiate any deal. Only the Members can do that. The 
responsibility rests with us. I would like to congratulate the Chair of the Negotiating Group for having 
initiated an intensified process.  
 
Furthermore, the Chair has focused our attentio n on subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and 
overfishing. This is the most important part of the mandate. On this point, we still have a way to go.  
The goal line is in sight. It is time to start talking about what a possible solution may look like.  
 
First of all: The solution has to be meaningful. It must pass "the red face test ". 
  
• A solution, which does not reduce the total amount of global subsidies, will not pass the 
test.  
 
• A solution, which allows major subsidizers to continue as before, will n ot pass the test.  
 
• A solution, which does not include clearly operationali zed instructions to "eliminate " and to 
"prohibit ", will not pass the test.  
 
Secondly: The solution has to be balanced. Without balance, no agreement.  
 
This is obvious. The million -dollar question is how we find that balance. Agreements are made on 
the basis of trade -offs. In this case, there are no trade -offs available between fisheries subsidies 
and other areas of negotiations. Nor should we look for su ch linkages. It would be a recipe for failure.  
 
Finding trade -offs within the fisheries subsidies file is no easy task either. The primary beneficiaries 
of an agreement on fisheries subsidies are future generations. Future generations are unfortunately 
not represented at the negotiating table in the same way as those who worry about losing income 
due to reform of existing subsidy schemes.  
 
When concessions in one area cannot easily be balanced by gains in another, how can you explain 
concessions made? The  only way out is that everybody ends up contributing something. Then one 
party can defend its concessions by pointing out that the others are contributing too. If we cannot 
balance contributions with gain, we have to balance the contributions. Not in a num erical way, but 
politically.  
 
It is time to reali ze that any proposal that foresees a major contribution from the others, while 
leaving some completely off the hook, will never achieve consensus. Major subsidizers should show WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 95 - 
 
  leadership and visibly cut subsidies, immediately or over a certain period. We w ill all have to 
contribute. Norway is ready to do its part.  
 
Those who do not subsidi ze today but wish to subsidi ze in the future, will have to accept limitations 
to their policy space.  Furthermore, we will all have to accept that our fisheries subsidies will be 
reviewed by our peers.  
 
We have shifted gear. We are in continuous negotiations. This is indeed welcome. Now is the time 
to change our positions as well. If we continue to repeat old proposals and old talking points, we will 
not get anywhere. Not in Nur -Sultan. Not anytime. It is time to leave "my way " behind and start 
looking for "our way ". Ninety -eight days - and counting.  
 
23. Peru  
 
The WTO play s a fundamental role in promoting growth in trade and resolving our disputes in this 
area, fostering bette r levels of development in its Members ' economies. The incomplete state of the 
WTO's dispute settlement system is regrettable. In a constructive spirit, we have given our attention 
to all initiatives that have been implemented to resolve the current situat ion, and we are maintaining 
constant follow -up in the matter. We note that there appears to be growing convergence on the 
need to include the subject of better functioning of the Appellate Body on the Organization 's agenda 
of pending issues. On the other h and, we note that the US Trade Representative has recently put 
forward a more complete view of the United States ' concerns in the matter. Furthermore, we have 
been considering initiatives that some Members have been preparing among themselves in order to 
establish an interim appeal arbitration arrangement, and we welcome the fact that these initiatives 
are open to the whole membership. This development should not mean that the need to work on 
renewing the full capacity of the dispute settlement system as so on as possible is forgotten.  
 
We have the collective responsibility to place viable proposals for the next Ministerial Conference 
before our ministers for consideration. With regard to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, we 
welcome and support the eff orts of Ambassador Wills to ensure that the process moves forward. 
Peru considers that the consolidated text that has been announced will be beneficial for focusing 
negotiations and is essential in relation to the holding of a meeting of senior officials b efore the 
Ministerial  Conference. We reiterate the call for flexibility on the part of the membership. Peru 
maintains its commitment to the negotiations and will continue to participate constructively in the 
group of six Latin American countries (6LAT).  
 
Secondly, Peru supports and is grateful for the notable efforts of Ambassador Deep Ford to ensure 
progress on one of the major pending issues of this Organization: the agriculture negotiations. We 
welcome his last report on the status of the negotiations an d agree on the need to focus our work 
on the search for areas of convergence. The importance attached by the membership to substantial 
progressive reduction in trade -distorting domestic support is encouraging. Identifying shared 
principles and common tasks  in relation to this pillar should draw us closer to achieving a concrete 
outcome in Nur -Sultan.  
 
Thirdly, Peru trusts that at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12) the WTO will be able to reach 
an agreement to make the moratorium permanent on customs duties on electronic transmissions. 
Bilateral and regional trade agreements of a significant number of Members contain this provision 
on account of its importance and appropriateness.  
 
In the area of joint initiatives, we see signs of progress that  it will be important to emphasi ze in 
Nur-Sultan. For example, in the joint initiative on the national regulation of services, we recogni ze 
the good prospects that exist for achieving an outcome at the next Ministerial Conference. Moreover, 
Peru recogni zes the progress achieved in the negotiations on e -commerce and will continue to 
support this important process.  
 
We trust that the initiatives being put forward by the Informal Group on Micro, Small and 
Medium -Sized Enterprises will take practical shape in s pecific statements and in a work plan that 
facilitates more extensive and effective involvement  for these enterprises in international trade.  
 
Lastly, on the subject of trade and economic empowerment for women, we believe that this 
Organization can contrib ute towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5, which promotes the 
economic empowerment of millions of women who in many cases live in conditions of violence and WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 96 - 
 
  poverty, in my own country and certainly in many other countries too. Peru is committed to analysing 
with you all the best way to drive forward the work begun with the Buenos Aires Joint [Ministerial] 
Declaration on Trade and Women 's Economic Empowerment in the post -MC12 context.  
 
24. Egypt (NFIDCs except Peru)  
 
I deliver this statement on behalf  of the members of the NFIDCs group excluding the delegation of 
Peru. 
 
Agriculture is a vital sector for our group, not only due to food security challenges facing our 
countries, but also for the intensive labour force involved in agriculture, which is the main employing 
sector in the majority of our group members. Therefore, the multi -functionality of agriculture makes 
it a matter of utmost importance for achieving food security, poverty alleviation, inclusive economic 
growth, as well as enhancing nutri tion, human health and social stability.  
 
In this regard, our group reiterates its strong interest in the continuation of agriculture negotiations, 
and remains committed to reforming the Agreement on Agriculture in line with Article 20 of the 
agreement and  the Doha Development Agenda, pursuing the long -term objective of the agreement 
"to establish a fair and market oriented agricultural trading system ". 
 
However, caution should be made along the reform process, so that our group members would not 
be exposed  to additional risks, or subject to further challenges.  It would be feasible only if due 
consideration is given to the needs of our countries in the course of negotiations. This should go in 
line with the acknowledgement of our Ministers in Marrakesh Decis ion to the possible negative effects 
of the reform process on LDCs and NFIDCs, and their reaffirmation in paragraph 25 of Nairobi 
declaration to fully implement the Marrakesh decision on NFIDCs.  
 
The Marrakesh decision recogni zed the need of LDCs and NFIDC s to improve their agricultural 
productivity and infrastructure. We emphasi ze that an important tool to pursue that objective is to 
keep an appropriate level of policy space enabling our countries to adopt the required policies to 
develop their agricultura l sectors and meet their increasing domestic demand for food.  
 
I would like hereby to share some statistics on the evolution of the NFIDCs status. In the first WTO 
list of NFIDCs in document JOB/AG/5 of 1996, 63 countries were listed. However, the number o f 
NFIDCs increased in the following years to reach 76 countries in 2005, and 78 countries as per the 
tenth revision of the aforementioned document in 2012.  
 
Despite the rising number of NFIDCs, the evolution of production and trade figures give negative 
signals. The share of NFIDCs in world food production has actually decreased from 5.1% in 2006 to 
4.8% in 2016, in spite of the increase in the NFIDCs share in world population from 15.5% to 17% 
during the same period, resulting in an accelerated food trade deficit from 15 billion USD in 2006 to 
32.5 billion USD in 2016. We believe that if such figures persist, it would be highly unlikely to meet 
our global commitment of ending poverty and hunger by 2030 as per SDGs 1 and 2 respectively.  
 
Against this backgro und, and in the light of the 2020 UN International Year of Planet Health stressing 
the multiple impacts of climate change, including desertification, hunger and mal nutrition, there is 
a dire need to address the concerns of the NFIDCs encumbered with rapid ly growing, low - income 
populations, and to put Non -Trade Concerns - on the top of which is food security - at the heart of 
the Agreement on Agriculture reform process as per Article 20.  
 
To conclude, I would like to reiterate the position a number of our group members expressed in the 
Joint Ministerial Statement released during MC11 that any outcome on agriculture negotiations 
should accord specific measures and flexibilities to NFIDCs, in order to effectively pursue our 
objectives of food security and sus tainable development as recogni zed by 2030 Agenda within a 
rule-based multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO.  
 
25. Egypt  
 
I thank the Director -General and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their reports, and would 
like to endorse the statement made by Botswana on behalf of the African Group.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 97 - 
 
  We are very close to MC12 and there is an urgent need to work towards convergence on various 
issues, particularly ones where we have prior Ministerial mandates, in order to achieve concrete 
outcom es in Nur -Sultan and reinforce our rules -based system.  
 
In this context, I would like to enumerate Egypt 's priorities.  
 
Agriculture  
 
We support having a fair and development -oriented outcome in Nur -Sultan, addressing the 
imbalances of the Agreement on Agriculture and level the playing field in agriculture trade.  
 
We would like to express our appreciation for the work done by H.E Ambass ador Ford. We take good 
note of the increased commitment of Members since last November , however , we are still concerned 
that such engagement has not really led to more convergence, and that some issues of interest to 
developing countries have yet to recei ve the aspired level of engagement.  
 
We stress, once again, that due consideration should be given to the flexibilities needed by NFIDCs 
and LDCs. We reiterate our position that the reduction of trade distorting domestic support, the 
conclusion of negotiat ions on a permanent solution to Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
and the establishment of a Special Safeguard Mechanism are Egypt 's priorities for MC12, in addition 
to accelerating negotiations on cotton with the view to address the various f orms of trade distortions 
in this vital sector. In this vein, we welcome the Koudougou Ministerial Declaration on Cotton.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
We support Ambassador Wills call for developing a consolidated legal text for an agreement to curb 
harmful fishe ries subsidies as soon as possible for our ministers to consider in Nur -Sultan, based on 
the mandate fixed under the Ministerial Decision from MC11, and the UN Sustainable Development 
Goal (14.6). We continue to believe that any future outcome should fully  consider the needs of the 
developing countries for appropriate and effective special and differential treatment.  
 
We also reiterate our position that disciplines on fisheries subsidies should be applied only to marine 
capture and large -scale industrial fi sheries. Disciplines shall also apply to subsidies as defined in 
Article 1.1 and Article 2 of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement.  
 
Special & Differential Treatment and G -90 Agreement -Specific Proposals  
 
We would like to thank Ambassador K hadra Hassan for her efforts to help resume discussions in the 
CTD SS. As we all know this is one of the long -standing issues on the agenda of our ministerial 
meetings for a very long time now. We urge our development partners to view the ten proposals by 
G-90 in the context that they aim to provide concrete means to contribute to the achievement of 
SDGs through socio -economic, industrial and structural transformation of LDCs and developing 
countries by operationali sing the existing S&D T provisions in the W TO Agreements.  
 
The G -90 proposals do not seek blanket, permanent, unconditional carve outs. On the contrary, they 
seek effective implementation of existing S&D T provisions, including through the provision of 
assured technical assistance and capacity buil ding, policy space, commercially meaningful export 
opportunities, and implementation timelines. They seek to provide stability, predictability and 
transparency in the implementation of existing S&D T provisions.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
We believe discussions must co ntinue in an inclusive and transparent manner towards a realistic 
reform agenda, encompassing the variant perspectives of all Members. Reform should promote 
development aspects in its core and consider the flexibilities, capacity building and technical 
cooperation needed by developing countries, while preserving the basic principles and fundamentals 
of the organization. We also urge the membership to take collective action to build confidence and 
provide an enabling environment for resolving the appellate b ody crisis and start immediately filling 
its vacancies.  
 
To conclude, Egypt encourages all Members to work together on the progress of the WTO with keen 
emphasis on advancing the aspirations of developing countries, and intensify our efforts to make WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 98 - 
 
  sure t hat MC12 will be fit to serve the interests of all Members. We need also to be clear which issues 
will be moved to a post MC12 work program – and how.  
 
26. Barbados (CARICOM)  
 
This statement is being delivered on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Group.  
 
We wish to express our gratitude for the reports presented by the Chairpersons of the Negotiating 
Groups and for the report on the Director -General 's activities. The TNC and Heads of Delegations 
Meeting affords greater transparency to the  WTO Membership, and the CARICOM Group therefore 
appreciates the convening of this Meeting.   
 
Investment Facilitation  
 
The Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development took on added significance 
for the CARICOM Group since four of our Members cosponsored the Joint Ministerial Statement in 
Shanghai in November 2019. Even prior to this, our Geneva -based delegations followed the 
discussions closely because, whether in the context of the Joint Statement Initiative, our own 
individual effort s or through the adoption of non -binding principles promulgated in other 
international fora, creating a more enabling domestic framework for investment is critical to the 
health of our economies. We are net seekers of investment, particularly investment th at contributes 
to decent work, resilient infrastructure, the transfer of technology, know -how and best practices, as 
well as sound and sustainable levels of economic growth and development.  
 
The CARICOM Group calls on the participants in the JSI to keep t he process open to all Members 
and transparent. We also call on them to aim for a highly ambitious outcome on development, 
technical assistance and capacity building, bearing in mind that undertaking new commitments on 
investment facilitation, particularly  binding rules, can be onerous for developing countries and LDCs. 
Some of our Members are also keenly aware that, notwithstanding the significant momentum that 
appears to be accompanying these Structured Discussions, an attendant level of momentum and 
dedication should also be applied to our work in areas where we have significant interests, such as 
in Agriculture. Therefore, we call for a balance of interests and momentum regarding the so -called 
new issues and the long -standing issues on the multilateral n egotiating agenda.  
  
Agriculture  
 
In relation to Agriculture, allow me to express our gratitude to Ambassador Ford for his continuing 
efforts in moving the negotiations on agriculture forward, given the complexity of the task.  
  
Food and nutrition securi ty continues to be of utmost importance to our economies. Agriculture is 
one of the key drivers for the export diversification programmes in our region. Our agricultural 
sectors are, however, very fragile, both in respect of our ability to compete with glo balized and often 
highly -subsidized trade, as well as our susceptibility to natural disasters. At the multilateral level, as 
we continue to make the push towards meaningful disciplines on domestic support, the need to 
maintain the flexibilities currently a fforded to SVEs and LDCs in the Agreement on Agriculture must 
be taken into account. The CARICOM countries are not significant subsidizers of our agriculture 
sectors, and even when we are able to provide some support, it is almost always targeted to our 
smallest and most vulnerable operators.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
Global electronic commerce is already valued at trillions of dollars and that figure will only grow in 
the period ahead. As the multilateral and plurilateral processes on e -commerce advance at the  WTO, 
CARICOM Member States continue to consider the challenges and opportunities associated with 
possible WTO rules on the trade -related aspects of electronic commerce. In the last few months, 
CARICOM Member States have been consulting, both among ourselv es and each of us internally, 
regarding these processes and their implications for our pursuit of development.  
 
With MC12 quickly approaching, and notwithstanding the imperative to be realistic about what is 
achievable before then, it is important to reca ll the December 2019 General Council decision on the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. The decision spoke to "structured discussions in early 
2020 on all trade -related topics of interest brought forward by Members, including LDCs, including WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 99 - 
 
  on scope, definition and impact of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions ". 
It is hoped that, despite the fact that the informal open -ended meeting held on 10 February focused 
primarily on the moratorium, the approach to the Work Programme in t he months ahead will duly 
reflect the broader dimensions of the Programme and take into account the topics highlighted by 
developing countries to date. These include consequences of the digital divide and any discriminatory 
treatment between physically tra ded goods and the digital version of those goods. The development 
dimension remains, for us, integral to the work under the Work Programme.  
 
Fisheries Negotiations  
 
With respect to the Fisheries negotiations, we acknowledge the efforts of the Chair and the  work of 
the Negotiating Group on Rules to maintain the momentum needed to conclude the negotiations by 
MC12.    
 
The CARICOM Group notes the importance of facilitator and bilateral consultations in moving this 
process forward. In this regard, we take the o pportunity to underscore that transparency and 
inclusiveness should remain at the core of the process, and that the negotiations should be 
accommodating of the views of smaller delegations, bearing in mind our capacity constraints.  
 
In order to deliver on the mandate of these negotiations, it is important to focus our discussions on 
subsidies disciplines and not on fisheries management. We maintain that the WTO has no mandate 
or competence to make pronouncements on the latter. Our ambition is to achieve binding disciplines 
that will hold major subsidizers accountable for the harm that their subsidies cause in respect of 
large-scale industrial fishing.  
 
It is important to ensure that any outcome on fisheries incorporates effective special and diff erential 
treatment for LDCs and small economies, such as those in CARICOM. Given the importance of the 
blue economy to food security and development in our region, we must be allowed space to grow 
our fisheries resources in a sustainable manner, in keeping  with SDG target 14.6. Our shared 
mandate here at the WTO is to prohibit and eliminate certain forms of subsidies that contribute to 
overcapacity, overfishing and IUU fishing. However, we must ensure that our efforts do not also 
result in the elimination o f beneficial subsidies. Any landing zones that may be explored must take 
these dynamics into account.  
 
We remain hopeful for good progress in the months ahead, in line with the Buenos Aires decision, 
and reaffirm our commitment to working with all other Me mbers to arrive at our goal by MC12.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
The discussions on Special and Differential Treatment remain important to the CARICOM Group. We 
firmly believe that special and differential treatment should continue to be afforded to developing 
countries, particularly LDCs and SVEs, in current and future WTO negotiations, as we seek to 
integrate more fully into the multilateral trading system.  
 
The CARICOM Group remains attached to paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Decla ration, which 
states that all Special and Differential Treatment provisions shall be reviewed with a view to 
strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational. The Group believes 
that the efforts of the G90 in this regard constitut e a constructive way forward on this issue.  
 
The CARICOM Group encourages members to continue consultations in order to facilitate common 
understanding on these issues, with the objective of reaching a meaningful outcome for MC12.  
 
Services  
 
The CARICOM Gr oup is disappointed with the lack of progress to date. Notwithstanding some 
exploratory discussions on market access in the Council for Trade in Services in Special Session, 
work in other important areas in recent times has suffered from inactivity.  
  
WTO Reform/Appellate Body  
 
The future of the multilateral trading system and by extension the WTO is of critical importance to 
the small, vulnerable developing countries of CARICOM. We therefore place great stock on the WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 100 - 
 
  deliberations in the WTO which speak to reforming the organization. We recogni ze that, while WTO 
Reform is now more mainstreamed in terms of the number of WTO Members putting proposals on 
the table, the discourse continues to be fragmented. In our view, this does not allow for small 
delegations to be fully involved in, or fully aware of, all the aspects of the discussions that 
fundamentally impact them. CARICOM is cognizant that there is a reluctance by some to have a 
dedicated discussion on developing a structure for negotiations on WTO Reform. However, we 
strongly believe that such discussions would facilitate the effective participation of small delegations 
in these discussions and genuinely ensure that the negotiations on WTO Reform are open, inclusive 
and transparent, taking into account the interests of all WTO Members.  
 
We reiterate our concern with the inoperability of the two -tiered dispute settlement system in the 
WTO and consequently the inability of the Appellate Body to take on new cases. We remain cautious 
regarding any alternative t hat could detract from finding a solution to the impasse and could 
potentially become a de facto replacement for the Appellate Body. We therefore continue to urge 
WTO Members to seek an urgent resolution to the impasse regarding the launch of the selection  
process for new Appellate Body Members and the rekindling of the function of the Appellate Body.  
 
In closing, CARICOM reiterates its strong commitment to a rules -based multilateral trading system 
that is transparent, inclusive, and consensus -based.  
 
27. Afghanistan  
 
I would like to thank the Director -General  for convening this meeting, as well as for the 
comprehensive report. We express our appreciation to the Chairs of the Negotiating Committees for 
their respective updates on the current state of negoti ations.  
 
Afghanistan recogni zes WTO as the only global institution for international trade and is of the view 
that the work of this Organization impacts all countries and their populations disregard of their 
different economic sizes. Hence, we believe that  if this organization functions well, it will positively 
contribute to the economic development of Members and in particular to the livelihoods of the people 
living in the most vulnerable economies and conflict -affected countries like mine.  
 
Hence, with th e MC12, Nur -Sultan, in the horizon, we hold the view that we must overcome our 
organizational challenges and do our homework to deliver the substantive work to achieve concrete 
outcomes for all members and help them to reap the benefits of the global trade  and development, 
based on fair, balanced, transparent, inclusive, sustainable and rules -based multilateral trading 
system.  
 
My delegation supports the current negotiations, subscribe to the call to all Members to engage 
constructively to achieve possible convergence on the key and important issues such as G90 
10 proposals, agriculture, fishery subsidies, cotton; based on solution -targeted and result -oriented 
approaches and efforts.  
 
To this end, Afghanistan is committed to engage in these efforts and we ar e of the view that the 
current pace of the negotiations needs to be accelerated by prioriti sing them based on their 
mandates and urgency for balancing the benefit of global and inclusive trade for all members, 
especially LDCs.  
 
Special and Differential Tre atment is an essential part of the WTO Agreements for a fairer, more 
equitable, inclusive and transparent system. All S &DT measures must also be made more effectively 
- in compliance with the paragraph 44 of the Doha mandate - in line with the founding pri nciples of 
the WTO.  
 
We encourage Members to engage in a constructive manner with the G -90 on the substance of the 
10 ASPs. Acknowledging the fact that there is room for further improvement, we should focus on 
text-based discussion of the proposals. In lin e with the position of the G -90 and LDC Group, we 
envision a political declaration by Ministers reaffirming the centrality of development in the WTO as 
the outcome for S&D T at MC12, with the hope that negotiations on the G -90's 10 ASPs before 
conclude before MC13.  
 
Regarding to the DSB, Afghanistan is of the view that a well -functioning dispute settlement body is 
an imperative to the multilateral trading system  and to the WTO itself to insure a full and fair WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 101 - 
 
  enforcement of rules and obligations  by members, and Afghanistan reiterates the importance of DSS 
in promoting rules -based, open, transparent, inclusive, non -discriminatory and equitable 
international trade.  
 
Afghanistan regrets that, we, the Members of the WTO, were not able to save the sy stem. As 
indicated by LDC Group, LDCs are not the frequent users of the DSS but we can still be impacted 
negatively.  
 
Hence, for my delegation, giving the importance of the dispute settlement system  in the multilateral 
trading system, resuming the two -pillar dispute settlement system is an urgent and essential issue. 
We therefore call on all Members to engage constructively and find a pragmatic solution to the 
Appellate Body  impasse before or during MC12. My delegation is ready to engage with all Members 
to overcome this challenge.  
 
My delegation echoes the Article 12 -Members ' view. We expect that the commitments on domestic 
support, market access, and export competition of original Members with those who acceded the 
WTO under the Article XII Marrakesh Agre ement and undertook significantly larger commitments 
and liberalization should be levelled. We expect that negotiations lead to closing these gaps.  
  
On the joint initiatives, Afghanistan supports the work of Investment Facilitation, MSMEs and women 
empowe rment through trade. Afghanistan subscribe to the work of the informal groups on the build -
up of the respective frameworks and their inputs towards a multilateral working program under the 
WTO.  
 
Particularly, regarding the Investment Facilitation, we thank Members for their efforts on developing 
a streamline text where further improvement is still required; but we are sure that members can 
achieve it through constructive discussions. Reaching to 1 00 Members, we call upon other Members 
to join this initiative.  
 
We appreciate discussion on these initiatives and commend their proponents, coordinators and 
members for their extensive works and we acknowledge the opportunity through open, transparent 
and inclusive discussions where all members can participate and engage.  
  
In conclusion, Afghanistan affiliates itself with the statements of the LDCs Group delivered by Chad 
and the statement of the Group of Article XII Members delivered by Panama.  
 
28. Russia n Federation  
 
We thank the  Director -General for convening this meeting and for his report and assessment as the 
Chair of the TNC. Let me also thank the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their reports.  
 
At the outset, I would like to express concern abou t potential outcomes of the upcoming Ministerial 
conference in Kazakhstan. MC12 will take place in three months from now. Time is running out fast. 
We believe we have to do our utmost in order to prepare a meaningful package for the Conference 
and agree on  it before we leave to Nur -Sultan.  
 
Fisheries subsidies negotiations have a systemic importance for the WTO. Failure to meet the MC12 
deadline would literally mean our inability to ever reach an agreement on this issue.  
 
For these negotiations it is now e xistentially important to build a common understanding of the 
agreement 's overall structure and general features of the disciplines. This decision must be 
elaborated with participation and full engagement of all main players potentially affected by the 
disciplines. Inclusivity and transparency are key principles to be observed.  
 
On IUU pillar it is high time to explore alternative approaches to so -called "determination -based 
prohibition " that we have been discussing with no success for several years.  
 
The mandate regarding overfishing and overcapacity can be fulfilled by carefully crafted disciplines 
with due appreciation of Members ' efforts to manage their fisheries sustainably.  
 
Caps ap proach has both political and technical drawbacks that unfortunately have not been resolved 
throughout a year and a half since the first proposal. Spending precious time on discussion of caps WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 102 - 
 
  from now on may be an inexcusable luxury. Let me stress that the  Russian Federation will not agree 
to limit its own policy space on the basis of historical volumes of subsidies.  
 
It is our task to ensure that the rules -based multilateral trading system responds adequately to the 
challenges of the global economic enviro nment. In Russia 's view, we should primarily focus our 
efforts on restoring smooth and effective functioning of the dispute settlement system, including the 
Appellate Body. All Members have agreed to a two -tier system, and it is important that it be 
mainta ined. We hope that Members ' active engagement on this issue in various formats, as well as 
personal efforts by the Director General, will bring us to the resolution of the problem by MC12.  
 
Russia has also put forward a number of specific proposals to impr ove the deliberative function of 
the WTO. In particular, we have tabled an initiative on the enhancement of transparency in applied 
tariffs. Russia held a Round Table at the WTO on this issue at the end of January. We appreciate 
Members ' engagement in this  event and are looking forward to achieving a balanced result by MC12.  
 
One of the key priorities for Russia remains agriculture. We have proposed a new formula approach 
to the reduction of trade distorting domestic support. We believe that the "openness " of agricultural 
markets and the level of currently applied domestic supp ort within the "Amber Box " are those 
instruments that could give Members enough policy space during the process of reduction. 
Flexibilities provided in our proposal could bridge the positions of the WTO Members and lead to a 
meaningful outcome in agricultu re negotiations. In addition, we have put forward two initiatives on 
TRQ administration and transparency.  
 
While multilateralism is a preferred option, it is important to continue to apply plurilateral approaches 
to allow Members to pursue initiatives of i nterest to them, in an inclusive and transparent manner.  
 
Russia is proud to participate in the e -commerce initiative that supports progressive trade agenda. 
Developing new e -commerce rules requires striking the right balance between digital trade barriers  
removal and protection of Members ' right to regulate. The most sensitive issues, like flow of 
information, access to data or security issues, must be addressed with jewellery caution. A balanced 
approach has the potential to attract more participants to t his initiative.  
 
An outcome on investment facilitation can be one of the deliverables at Nur -Sultan. We need to 
engage in textual discussions, with the view to establish the scope and structure of future Investment 
facilitation arrangements by MC12.  
 
MSME s issues are systemically important for the WTO. Given the complexities of the main 
negotiating tracks, MSMEs Working Group may well be among those few to deliver at MC12. We call 
upon members of the group to engage immediately and constructively in finali zation of drafts of 
non-mandatory decisions and recommendations for their prompt presentation to those who are yet 
to join our initiative.  
 
In conclusion, let me stress that we have an opportunity to ensure that the WTO continues to play 
a pivotal role in international trade for another 25 years.  
 
29. Malaysia  
 
At the outset, Malaysia associates itself with the ASEAN Statement to be delivered by Viet Nam. We 
also would like to thank the Director -General and the Negotiating Groups Chairs for their reports . 
 
Malaysia takes cognisance of the challenges facing the multilateral trading system . We appreciate 
Member 's efforts in continuing to preserve the system in ensuring that this house continues to stand.  
 
Malaysia believes that the WTO has been effective in ensuring that global trade governance remains 
open, predictable and transparent, benefitting all Members. There is still however, a few key 
challenges that we need to address in light of MC12. We need to address them expeditiously.  
 
Dispute Settlement Mechanism  
 
Malaysia would like to re -emphasi ze that the full functioning of the dispute settlement system is 
fundamental to this organi zation. Malaysia stands ready to work with all Members towards finding a WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 103 - 
 
  solution for the Appellate Body Impasse in "any possible way " to ensure this fundamental pillar is 
preserved . 
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Malaysia commends the efforts made by Ambassador Wills and is encouraged by the active 
engagement in fisheries subsidies negotiations.  
 
Malaysia believes for an outcome in Nur -Sultan, we need to shift to the text -based negotiations as 
soon as possible. I welcome Ambassador Wills ' remark that the consolidated text will be available 
middle March. It is high time that Members truly demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism to bridge 
the gaps in the negotiations, so that we can have draft texts to progress. Senio r Official 's 
engagement is important, but only if there is substance.  
 
Our negotiations should follow the existing mandate to prohibit certain harmful fisheries subsidies 
with development as an integral part of the negotiations.  
 
Joint Statement Initiativ es 
 
We welcome the various on -going discussions on the Joint Statement Initiatives on MSMEs, 
Investment Facilitation, and eCommerce. We see these initiatives as potential deliverables at some 
stages for MC12 and look forward for continued engagements.   
 
Development  
 
WTO Members should assume a more constructive role in narrowing the gaps in key areas of 
negotiations. Greater political will and flexibility are crucial if we want to see this through, bearing 
in mind that time is against us.  
 
Having said that , we must recogni ze the foundation upon which this multilateral institution was built, 
that is development.  
 
Before I conclude, the year 2020 presents us with challenges that we have never faced before. With 
the weakening of global trade in the first quar ter of 2020 it is critical that Members cooperate and 
exercise flexibilities to resolve the bigger issues. We need to join hands to ensure that the credibility 
of the multilateral trading system is not undermined.  
 
30. Republic of Korea  
 
Various indices on wor ld economy and finance including the WTO Goods Trade Barometer 
demonstrate a continuous downward trade overall. In such times, major economies and multilateral 
institutions such as WTO must play a key role for recovery with a prompt and coordinated respons e. 
 
The most important part of this for the WTO and its Members would be to garner multilateral 
outcomes at MC12, which will matter greatly to the wider public and the business community. It is 
true that the level of ambition or expectation for the result might vary, but the fact that this 
multilateral organization can still deliver a concrete outcome will send a positive signal to all.  
 
For the time being, my assessment is that we still have a long way to go. In this respect, I would 
like to emphasi ze the importance of seeking an appropriate balance between the level of ambition 
and the possibility of reaching consensus.  
 
Fisheries subsidies negotiation is an area where such a balancing act is much needed We should 
work to set an achievable and realistic goal that implements the mandate.  
 
In particular, regarding the discipline on overfishing and overcapacity, we need to take into account 
two elements positive subsidies and fisheries management.  
 
Let us keep in mind that the goal of these negotia tions is not to prohibit all kinds of subsidies, but 
to prohibit certain forms of harmful subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. In this 
vein, "beneficial subsidies " should not be prohibited nor limited.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 104 - 
 
  In addition, considering the ul timate goal of promoting the sustainability of fish stocks, combining 
fisheries management with the subsidies issue is inevitable for fulfilling the mandate.  
 
Another important multilateral outcome is the extension of the moratorium on customs duties for 
electronic transmission. Korea aligns itself with many other Members calling for a permanent 
moratorium. Yet, Korea also welcomes structured discussions to assist all Members to better 
understand this important matter as was agreed at the last GC meeting.  
 
In addition to working towards multilateral outcomes, Korea also supports the work in Joint 
Statement Initiatives and is actively participating in each area.  
 
On services domestic regulations, Members made positive progress by finding a middle ground on 
more disciplines. Korea is committed to making necessary contributions in the run up to the MC12. 
The concerns or hesitations expressed by some Members are also well -noted, and Korea will maintain 
its active engagement with a view to addressing them to reach  an appropriate balance.  
 
On e-commerce, Members are making good progress. In particular, Members showed great flexibility 
and maintained a sincere approach to the drafting exercise. I have high hopes that this cooperative 
spirit will be maintained towards  a successful and significant outcome before the MC12.  
 
A meaningful outcome on investment facilitation is also important. Korea welcomes the streamlined 
text and appreciates the constructive engagement of one hundred Members.  
 
Korea will continue to engag e actively with other Members in all Joint Statement Initiatives including 
MSMEs, Women and Trade.  
 
Almost three months have flown by after the paralysis of the Appellate Body without much, if any, 
progress on finding a solution.  
 
On the one hand, as a sto pgap measure, Korea, EU and other Members are working together to 
develop a multi -party interim arrangement (MPIA), which seeks to preserve a functioning two step 
dispute settlement system.  
 
Nevertheless, Korea sees that restoring a functioning Appellate B ody must remain our number one 
priority. Korea stands by its firm commitment to finding a solution to this urgent issue.  
 
It is true that time is not on our side. But with an appropriate balance between ambition and flexibi lity 
combined with Members constr uctive engagement, concrete deliverables will be within our reach. 
Korea will continue to play an active role in this process with a realistic, pragmatic, and balanced 
approach.  
 
31. Turkey  
 
We thank the Director -General for holding this meeting and for sharing his views on the current 
state of play at the WTO. Let me also thank all Chairs of N egotiating Groups  for their intense efforts.  
 
Recent developments proved once again that multilateral cooperation is vital for glo bal trade. As we 
said before, unilateral actions do not provide the answers we need to face the challenges of our 
times. On the contrary they risk crumbling the entire edifice of international trade, carefully built 
over decades.  
 
We recogni ze that WTO is  not perfect and some adaptation to current realities is needed. However, 
we should not underestimate that the WTO has been a success story. It has helped liberali ze trade 
over the years. All members bear responsibility in continuing this role of the WTO.   
 
As time is running out towards MC12, getting some concrete results will help send a rather positive 
message about the WTO and its agenda.  
 
We should be focused in our goals. We must achieve our goal on fisheries subsidies. Frankly, we 
have been disheartened by rigidness in the positions of delegations. We all should rise above 
technicalities. Having a draft text soon may help move us forward. In this regard we support the 
Chair's proposed program.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 105 - 
 
   
We continue to believe that we should achieve a n outcome on agriculture. Any outcome in agriculture 
should address the imbalances in the Agreement on Agriculture and deal with trade distorting 
domestic support. We must also derive a roadmap on Special Safeguard Mechanism, which is critical 
for liveliho od and food security and rural development for many developing countries.   
 
We are hopeful for the JSI 's. Having a draft text for after MC12 on e -commerce presents a realistic 
picture. We commend the work on Investment Facilitation and MSMEs. We are lookin g forward to 
getting a concrete outcome on domestic regulation.  
 
In the meantime, we should continue our efforts to overcome the crisis of the Appellate Body. Not 
resolving this issue will not only hurt the dispute settlement system, it will also damage t he 
predictability of whole trading system. Turkey believes that a comprehensive multilateral solution is 
still possible. But this requires political will from all parties and active engagement towards a solution 
in addition to only registering complaints. Turkey remains open for a dialogue on what is required 
to fix this situation.  
 
Finally, development remains a key concern for Turkey and for many members. Less developed 
countries are more fragile in face of the challenges of the current dynamics. Turkey is willing to 
engage discussions on this important issue, but in a constructive way. In this process, we need to 
keep the necessary policy space open for further industrialization needs for developing countries. 
Clearly, this entails a long discussion, and  it cannot be a one -sided discussion.  
 
32. Philippines  
 
At the outset, the Philippines associates itself with the statement of ASEAN, to be delivered later by 
the Ambassador of Viet  Nam. 
 
With MC12 just around the corner, my delegation extends our appreciation  to the Director -General 
and to the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their patience and hard work in advancing progress 
on all negotiating issues. Your collective efforts and able leadership will pave the way for a successful 
Ministerial Conference wit h meaningful outcomes.  
 
The positive momentum in the fisheries subsidies negotiations and the facilitators ' diligence have 
laid the groundwork for a potential outcome in MC12. The Chair 's plan to circulate a draft 
consolidated text at the end of this month is another step in the right direction. In this regard, we 
must continue to fully empower our negotiators to build bridges and seek solutions, because it is 
only through constructive collaboration that we can produce multilateral disciplines on fish subsidies, 
as well as deliver on the Leaders ' mandate in SDG 14.6.  
 
The Philippines also takes note of the subst antial output and good progress in the various MC11 Joint 
Statement Initiatives, specifically on MSMEs, electronic commerce, and investment facilitation, which 
could result in possible deliverables at Nur -Sultan. In Davos, our Minister was pleased to offic ially 
announce our full participation in the e -commerce and investment facilitation Joint Initiatives as 
concrete tools to enable development outcomes at Nur -Sultan. As we have noted at the last GC 
meeting, these Joint Statement Initiatives and our ongoing  work on the DDA can co -exist and even 
mutually complement each other.  
 
I truly appreciate the views shared by my fellow HODs who have spoken before me. It is clear that 
all Members share a deep and sincere commitment to this organization and the principle s of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system. We all want the WTO to succeed. Ensuring the WTO 's 
relevance, however, would require political will and a readiness to transcend legitimate national 
interests. As such, Members must work hard and hand in ha nd, and be fully committed to delivering 
at MC12.  
 
33. 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 Regu lation.  
 
In the most important development since my last report, 26 delegations have circulated their 
indicative draft schedules in which they propose to inscribe the draft Reference Paper on Domestic WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 106 - 
 
  Regulation into their schedules of commitments. They c ount for 53 WTO Members, out of the 
60 participants of this Joint Initiative.  
 
The exchange of indicative draft schedules constitutes an important milestone in these open -ended 
negotiations. In this context, several participants with fewer commitments hav e already indicated 
that they might be ready to apply the disciplines also to sectors not currently covered by their 
services schedules. This is a crucial step to further enhance the participation in this process and to 
ensure a meaningful outcome.  
 
In addition, the group has recently started working on improving the legal clarity and the consistency 
of the draft Reference Paper. The objective is to finali ze the text as soon as possible with a view to 
providing Members with enough time to prepare for the n ext Ministerial Conference.  
 
Only a few outstanding issues in this process remain to be solved. All this demonstrates that 
participants ' commitment to deliver a meaningful outcome for all Members, regardless of their level 
of development.  
 
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, therefore benefiting a ll Members 
without diminishing in any way their established rights under WTO Agreements.  
 
Crucially, participants are committed to continue working in an open, inclusive and transparent 
manner, and to address the concerns and interests of all WTO Members. Facilitating services trade 
and promoting economic growth and development is the key driver of the participants.  
 
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.  
 
34. Nigeria  
 
Nigeria wishes to thank the Director -General f or providing effective leadership and for his excellent 
report. We also wish to thank the Chairs of various Negotiating Groups for their report. At the outset, 
we wish to associate ourselves with the statement delivered by Botswana on behalf of the African 
Group and Jamaica on behalf of the ACP.  
 
As we approach MC12, the question on our mind is how we sieve through respective Mem bers and 
Groups conflicting and divergent positions on issues at the front burner at the WTO and achieve 
MC12 outcomes that are fair, balanced and equitable.  In our view, it 's of critical importance that 
MC12 does not deliver a Zero Sum outcome. We believe  it is in the interest of all that we work 
collectively to salvage and strengthen the WTO, a key institution that underpin the integration of 
our economies.  
 
Under the Agriculture negotiations, Ambassador John Ford, in his report contained in document 
JOB/AG/180 identified some commonalities that could enhance our engagement on how we can work 
towards balanced and meaningful outcomes at MC12. We commend him for his effort. However, for 
us, sustainable development of Agriculture is not just about enhancing t he sector 's contribution to 
our GDP, it 's also about Survival. We believe no one is in doubt that whereas attaining SDG 1 on 
poverty and SDG 2 on food security is no more an issue for most Developed Countries, it still remains  
an uphill task for Africa giv en the incidence of poverty and hunger in the region. In our view, all it 
takes to foster inclusive growth and development of the Agricultural sector is a multilateral 
framework that enable all parties to compete fairly. Trade distorting subsidies by large  economies 
incentivi zed by the imbalance and inequities of the current rule under the Domestic Support Pillar, 
are such that erode the competitiveness of Developing Countries in their domestic and export 
market. In order to achieve meaningful outcomes in N ur-Sultan, the suggestion of the Chair of the 
COA in his report to the informal TNC and HOD meeting of 14  October 2019 that some issues should 
be prioriti zed and phased for a meaningful outcome at MC12 and other issues post MC12, is one that 
is likely to g uide us towards a meaningful outcomes in Nur -Sultan. In our view, priority should be 
given to addressing the imbalance and inequities of the current rule under the Domestic Support 
Pillar by eliminating AMS beyond de -minimis. We believe that this category of support has the most 
trade distorting effects. Priority should also be given to addressing mandated issues such as Public WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 107 - 
 
  stock holding for foods security purposes (PSH), and Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) that are 
of critical importance to Developin g Countries.  
 
On the Fisheries Subsidies negotiations, Nigeria is committed to achieving outcomes at MC12 in the 
ongoing negotiations that delivers on SDG 14.6. We believe SDG 14.6 which is consistent with the 
existing mandate is clear on the need for appr opriate and effective S&DT for developing and least 
developed countries to be integral part of any outcome on fisheries subsidies negotiation. We 
therefore look forward to a balanced outcome at MC12 that will reduce unsustainable fishing 
practices, as well  as take into account the development needs of Developing Countries. However, 
we are concerned that with only three months to MC12, Members are yet to come up with a 
streamlined text that will guide our discussions towards fruitful outcomes in MC12. Though  we noted 
in the Chairs report that a streamlined text will soon be available for Members to commence a text -
based negotiations, the question remain whether it is feasible to negotiate a text within three months 
for Ministers to adopt at MC12. This notwith standing, we will continue to engage constructively with 
Members to achieve win -win outcomes under this file in MC12.  
 
On WTO Reform, our position has always been that if WTO is to remain relevant in this 21st Century, 
the need for reforms cannot be overe mphasi zed. However, such reforms should also take into 
account some of the unresolved 19th Century issues that are of critical importance to Developing 
countries especially as it relates to apparent imbalance in the current rules. We therefore look 
forward  to outcomes under WTO reforms that is balanced, equitable, and take into account the 
unique challenges and needs of developing countries . 
 
In conclusion, our delegation noted the report by the D irector -General  on the Joint Statement 
Initiatives and wishes to state that Nigeria is committed to the ongoing discussions under all the 
JSIs especially E -Commerce, Investment Facilitation for Development and Domestic Regulations. We 
look forward to fruitful outcomes un der the JSIs in MC 12.  
 
35. Argentina  
 
I feel bound to express my concern at the situation of the dispute settlement system since it has 
been reduced to a single body. This has a clear systemic impact on the rights of WTO Members.  
 
I regret to repeat myself bu t "fortunately " (to use quotes) this prerogative is not subject to 
consensus. It is natural to experience disagreements in a collegiate body – and these may even be 
welcome and appropriate if they stimulate positive discussion.  
 
However, under no circumsta nces can we accept that the impasse is an appropriate way to express 
concerns. If that was the case, we wonder how many WTO bodies would continue to function.  
 
Let me be clear: I am not talking – and I do not think anybody is talking – about abandoning nat ional 
interests. Rather, I am referring to collective work that inevitably calls for a degree of flexibility.  
 
Of course, no less dubious are certain trends that we observe relating to the trade in agriculture, 
which is distorted by vast subsidies and affe cted by a growing number of non -tariff barriers whose 
compatibility with the WTO Agreements is questionable.  
 
The figures for agricultural trade may give some Members a feeling of serenity. We and certain 
others consider that in reality these figures merel y reflect the relevance of the sector in our exports 
and the potential for exploring whether exports can operate with greater fluidity.  
 
With regard to harmful practices, we think that the negotiations on fisheries subsidies are an 
accurate gauge of Members ' true commitment to free, fair and sustainable trade and, moreover, of 
the coherence between their statements and the form in which these are expressed on the ground.  
 
Thinking of the 12th Ministerial Conference, perhaps we are not in a position to  demonstrate the 
activism of other delegations but I do not think that Argentina 's constructive spirit can be doubted. 
I invite all to undertake an honest self -assessment regarding the correlation between our positions 
and the outcomes that we would like t o see in Nur -Sultan.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 108 - 
 
  We hope that this Organization will succeed in finding itself, in returning to its roots, origins and 
objectives. To do this, we must reflect deeply on the steps taken recently and look ahead together, 
with everyone involved in workin g out our own destiny.  
 
36. South Africa  
 
We thank the Director -General  for his report and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their 
updates.  
 
We align ourselves with the Statement by the A frican Group  and the ACP.  
 
We are just over three months away from MC12. It is important that we clearly define outcomes to 
be achieved and these must be meaningful, balanced and development -oriented with priority put on 
issues with Ministerial mandates.  
 
In our view the key outcomes for MC12 should include agricultu re, a long outstanding issue for which 
we need a meaningful outcome which should include substantial reform of Domestic Support that 
addresses historical imbalances, concentration, preserve the architecture in Article 6 and deliver on 
the spirit of Article  20 of the AoA. Further, we need an outcome on cotton as advanced by the C4, a 
permanent solution for Public Stockholding that makes provision for new programmes and advance 
discussions on SSM. We underscore that S&D T must be integral to any outcome in agr iculture. 
Transparency while important cannot be the only outcome.  
 
On Fisheries Negotiations, to get an outcome, we need to narrow the approaches on the table to 
those that truly deliver on the mandate which is to prohibit harmful subsidies.  The outcome should 
not constrain the use of beneficial subsidies. Disciplines must therefore target large scale industrial 
fishing, safeguard food security and livelihoods of coastal communities and allow members policy 
space to develop marine resources. The outcome m ust deliver on all the pillars of the mandate, 
S&DT must be an integral part of the outcome. Text -based negotiations will need to be inclusive and 
Member -driven.  
 
In relation to S&D T, the G -90 will table its revised proposals for a meaningful outcome at M C12. 
Delivering on the G -90 proposals will contribute to the achievement of SDGs through socio -economic 
development, industrial and structural transformation of LDCs and developing countries by 
operationalising the existing S&D T provisions in the WTO Agree ments in accordance with 
paragraph  44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. We look forward to text -based discussions on 
S&DT and we will continue to engage constructively with a view to have an outcome on this important 
issue.  
 
In relation to the reform of  the WTO. The reform must promote inclusivity, address historical 
imbalances, enhance integration of developing countries in global trade and deliver on the 
development mandate. The lack of a structured discussion on reform is resulting in unilateral 
imple mentation of measures that undermine the core principles of the WTO, including consensus 
decision making and S&D T on the basis of arbitrary criteria. These affect rights of Members under 
covered agreements and not only in current and future negotiations. T he recent call for reform is 
selective since it cherry picks only certain issues, while mandated issues are ignored.  
 
On the E -commerce and TRIPS moratoria, each moratorium must be considered on its merit as their 
mandates and contexts are different.  
 
In relation to 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. We welcome the structured discussions on the scope of the moratoriu m and feasibility 
of imposing customs duties which should enable Members to fully assess its implications. MC12 will 
need to assess all these issues to make an informed decision.    
 
On the TRIPS NVC, we remain of the view that NVCs should not apply to the TRIPs Agreement. At 
the minimum, Members should agree not to launch NVC claims under the TRIPS Agreement until the 
scope and modalities are agreed.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 109 - 
 
  The impasse on the appointment of AB members has significant implications for the preservation of 
rights and obligations of Members. We need a solution -oriented multilateral process to restore a 
two-stage DSS and unlock the impasse in the selection process of AB members.  
 
The multilateral trading system  is in crisis. We are witnessing an erosion of the WTO through a 
number of measures, including the impasse in the AB, preference for bilaterals, rise in unilateralism 
and the plurilaterali zation of the MTS. These are all contributing to the rise in trade barriers, loss of 
predictability and certainty for trade rs and governments alike, and the absence of a credible venue 
to mediate trade disputes and serve binding decisions. The crisis is taking place under an already 
fragile global environment that is facing pressures including from the corona virus. We need to  
promote global cooperation to find compromises, under win -win scenarios. If we allow the crises in 
the WTO to deepen, all will suffer, but the weaker, will suffer more. We must preserve the multilateral 
nature of the multilateral trading system  to ensure that it delivers outcomes that serve the interests 
of all. The plurilaterali zation of the multilateral trading system  does not result in an outcome that 
ensures that no one is left behind.  
 
37. Pakistan  
 
This is our first TNC meeting of 2020 and one where we h ave begun to contemplate outcomes for 
MC12. Unfortunately, if the case of our Appellate Body is anything to go by, it speaks volumes about 
our collective ability to agree on tangible, gains. Pakistan has always supported efforts to keep 
multilateralism ali ve and has striven for outcomes that deliver shared prosperity, especially for 
developing members. We remain hopeful that the two -tiered Dispute Settlement Mechanism will be 
restored to its proper functioning state soon and we will support interim efforts to maintain some 
semblance of it till it happens.  
 
On Agriculture, while positions remain entrenched, we have seen Ambassador Ford work very hard 
to find some convergence. Pakistan supports cuts in Domestic Support to remove existing anomalies 
and to leve l the playing field in global agriculture trade. This will be possible only if bigger cuts are 
made by those with extremely large entitlements and expenditures. At the same time, specific 
entitlements for developing countries under Article 6.2, effective S pecial and Differential Treatment 
and the interests of NFIDCs are critical and need to be safeguarded. We hope to work towards a 
balanced outcome at MC12 that will be beneficial for the system, and for food security of every 
country and sustainability. As always, we continue to support an ambitious outcome on Cotton. We 
believe that the C4 have put forth a meaningful and useful proposal which can contribute in a big 
way to our cotton farmers.  
 
Similarly, on fisheries subsidies, while progress is slower tha n ideal, we should not let the urgency 
brush aside fundamental concerns regarding the sustainability of small -scale and artisanal 
fishermen. Effective S &DT for all developing countries is a fundamental pillar in these negotiations 
and can ensure a balanced and effective outcome.  
 
The moratorium on electronic transmissions is approaching a critical juncture. Rapidly evolving 
technologies dictate that indebted  developing countries cannot ignore serious revenue and industrial 
implications. Any future decision on extending the moratorium must be taken after thorough 
deliberation and assessments.  
 
Discussions on WTO reform will gather pace as we approach MC12. Con sistent with our earlier 
stance, we feel it is imperative that reforms keep developing countries at the centre and are geared 
towards addressing their needs. Reforms should address our past failures and not create new 
avenues to repeat the same mistakes. T hat is the only way we can contribute to achieving realistic 
and effective progress on the Sustainable Development Goals to reduce hunger, poverty and 
inequalities; and ensuring sustainable economic growth and industrialisation.  
 
38. Thailand  
 
Thailand associa tes itself with the statement made by Viet Nam on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
We thank the Director -General  for his report as well as the reports by the Chairs of the Negotiating 
Group.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 110 - 
 
  Given the disheartening downward trend of trade growth in 2019 and the economic  and trade 
conditions so far this year, there is a real risk that things may get worse for the global economy.  
 
The WTO is an important force to soften such economic blow and reverse this downward spiral by 
delivering meaningful outcomes in negotiations and WTO reform to ensure stable, predictable, and 
fair trade for all stakeholders. The pace and progress of our discussions suggests that this will be an 
uphill task, but if there is ever a time for Members to show real collaboration, it is no w. 
 
In terms of negotiations, the greatest signal that we could send out to our stakeholders would be to 
seal the long -overdue conclusions for Fisheries Subsidies and Agriculture negotiations.  
 
While we are encouraged by the intensified efforts in the Fish eries Subsidies negotiations, substantial 
progress and demonstration of compromi se remain lacking. Thailand supports an immediate start of 
a text -based negotiations and will put our utmost efforts with a view to ultimately finding 
convergence and deliverin g a meaningful outcome at MC12.  
 
Agriculture remains a priority for Thailand, as a result of the Cairns Group Ministerial Meeting held 
in Davos on 23 January 2020, Thailand along with 18 other Members have submitted the Framework 
for Negotiations on Domes tic Support for Members ' consideration at the meeting of the CoASS in 
January, where it was received with a number of positive feedbacks. We note the need for continued 
discussions in this regard and urge Members to join us so that the WTO can deliver a ba lanced and 
meaningful outcome at MC12, which will positively impact global agricultural trade.  
 
On the extension of the two Moratoria, it is imperative that we build on our success at the previous 
General Council Meeting and use the opportunity created to  engage in a serious and constructive 
discussions with a view to delivering concrete outcomes on the extensions by MC12.  
 
Resolving the Appellate Body impasse remains of critical importance, and has affected the full 
functioning of the Dispute Settlement System, Members ' rights and obligations, and the overall 
credibility of the WTO. Thailand therefore urge Members to provide the needed flexibility to find a 
solution to the impasse as soon as possible.  
 
Lastly, we must find ways to strengthen the WTO thro ugh gradual, inclusive, and meaningful 
reforms, consistent with key objectives of the WTO. We remain encouraged by the rising 
engagement from diverse range of Members on WTO reform and welcome further discussions in this 
area. 
 
39. Hong Kong, China  
 
I would li ke to thank the Director -General  and the Negotiating Group Chairs for their comprehensive 
reports.  As many colleagues have pointed out, MC12 is only three months away, and it is of 
paramount importance for Members to focus on what is realistic and pragmati c in our preparation 
for the Ministerial Conference.  
 
On negotiations, I would reaffirm HKC 's commitment to working constructively with other Members 
to achieve a meaningful outcome on fisheries subsidies rules by MC12, which would not only ensure 
the sust ainability of our fisheries resources, but also demonstrate that the negotiating arm of the 
WTO is alive and well.  We simply cannot afford to miss the negotiation deadline again.  
 
Another important area where the WTO can demonstrate that it is able to make  new trade rules 
corresponding to the evolving needs of international trade is for Members to continue to make 
headway under the various Joint Statement Initiatives, including e -commerce, investment 
facilitation for development, services domestic regulatio ns and MSMEs. In this regard, HKC will 
continue to participate constructively in the relevant discussions.  
 
On the Appellate Body issue, HKC is concerned that there has been no sign of progress in resolving 
the impasse even after the AB had lost its quorum  to hear new appeals. Some Members have agreed, 
in good faith, not to appeal against panel reports to avoid holding up the dispute cases in the future, 
which is an honourable act, but it cannot and should not be a substitute for the appeal mechanism 
agreed  to by Members and enshrined in existing WTO agreements.  The AB is an essential element 
of the WTO 's dispute settlement system, safeguarding the rules -based multilateral trading system 
and Members ' fundamental interests.  It is therefore important that the vacancies in the AB should WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 111 - 
 
  be filled as soon as possible to restore a proper two -stage adjudication system for settlement of 
trade disputes among Members.  
  
We must not take the current situation as the new norm of the WT O and must continue with our 
constructive engagement to find solutions. It is in this same spirit that HKC initiated last year some 
discussions on improving the functioning of the Council for Trade in Goods and its subsidiary bodies. 
During those discussio ns, it was clear that there were plenty of interests among Members and the 
Secretariat to streamline and enhance the operation of the organi zation. We also saw a stronger 
connection developing between Members and the Secretariat, and we believe this will p rovide a solid 
basis for greater collaboration as we move forward.  
 
We have considered a number of small steps to make operational improvements, e.g. a year plan 
of meetings to help smaller delegations to plan their attendance at various meetings, and to ensure 
that meetings of subsidiary bodies would be scheduled before their respective council meetings.  
 
But such benefits would be limited if these facilitating practices are confined to the CTG and its 
subsidiaries only.  In fact, soon after the WTO was es tablished, Members put in place guidelines on 
the scheduling of meetings throughout the organisation.  It is perhaps time for us to implement what 
we have agreed, and see for ourselves what a difference this could make.  
 
We have pressing challenges on multi ple fronts, but we also have opportunities for achievement on 
multiple fronts – opportunities for meaningful outcomes and positive changes, big or small. We 
believe that in the next three months before MC12 convenes, Members must demonstrate our 
determinat ion to make progress, pursue concrete actions and exercise flexibility, if we are to further 
our common goal of safeguarding and strengthening our rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
40. Indonesia  
 
My delegation would like to thank  the Director -General a nd the  Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for 
their reports and take note of the updates that have been provided.  
 
While associating with ASEAN Statement which will be delivered by Viet  Nam, our delegation would 
like further to make observ ations  and share so me views in this critical juncture.  
 
We continue to pose serious concern over the dysfunction of the Appellate Body. The absence of the 
Appellate Body, which has last for nearly 3 months, has put severe stress to the Dispute Settlement 
System, led this sys tem into an unpredictable situation, and fetches turmoil in the multilateral 
trading system.  
 
We note that it becomes less possible for us to resolve the impasse of the AB. While options seem 
exhaustive, my delegation will always keep its door remained ope n for initiative towards permanent 
solution of the Appellate Body impasse that acceptable to all members.  
 
The non -existence of AB is not the only thing that strains our effort in safeguarding the multilateral 
trading system and global economic development . The recent outbreak of COVID -19 has also wreak 
havoc to global supply chain and weakening the global trade. Looking at the scale and the situation, 
it would be wise for us to also assess how this situation will impact to the WTO 's program of work in 
foreseeable future.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, we support the effort to have a consolidated draft text as a basis for 
negotiation. Indeed, this is not an easy task. To this end, a strict observance to the SDGs and 
Ministerial mandate, including maintaining the r ights and obligations of coastal States under the 
1982 UNCLOS are required.  
 
My delegation also wishes to emphasi ze on the need to ensure a strong discipline to the large -scale 
industrial fishing vessels. Studies show 90% of the global overcapacity and ove rfishing problem 
caused by large industrial fishing vessels operated deep in oceans beyond national jurisdiction. From 
overall SDGs perspective, our position is not without merit. Compare to small -scale and artisanal 
fishing vessels operated closer to the shore, the industrial fishing vessels provide negligible impact 
to the socio -economic of coastal communities, but in the other hand, appalling environmental impact 
to the ocean sustainability.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 112 - 
 
  On the agriculture negotiation, we would like to reiterate the  urgency to deliver outcome for MC12, 
in particular to establish a permanent solution for Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
and operable Special Safeguard Mechanism. The fact that these longstanding, mandated issues have 
not been resolved in t his organization should be a morning bell to all of us to engage more in the 
discussion. In this regard, proposals on PSH and SSM have been submitted and should be a decent 
point to move forward towards a successful outcome in MC12. The time is no later th an now to prove 
to the world that the members of this organization have not turn a blind eye to the developmental 
needs.  
 
Recalling to the history of the establishment of this organization, the founding members have clearly 
recogni zed and stated the necess ity of sustainable development within the global trade. Today, we 
live in an era where sustainable development has become a common goal for all, while this 
organization, along with all of its Members, be the major players to bring the effort to achieve 
Sustainable Development Goals into success. Hence, the outcome in MC12 should integrate the key 
components in building success towards the achievement of SDGs, particularly in the area of where 
this organization has been expected to deliver.  
 
Therefore, to conclude, MC12 should be an avenue for all of us to renew the political commitments 
so that trade be the major contributor to the development. Global trade should not only be the oil 
well for the major players, but also an oasis to the develo ping countries seeking for their 
developmental needs leaving no one behind.  
 
The MC12 is around the corner. We need to consolidate our works and increase our engagement on 
the issues of common concern.  
 
41. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We endorse the statement made by Egypt on behalf of food importing countries, describing the 
particular issues that this group of countries is facing. For these reasons we ask that the agriculture 
negotiations incorporate specific areas of flexibility to enable us to eff ectively achieve our objectives 
with regard to food security, security of the means of subsistence and rural development.  
 
With regard to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, our delegation reiterates its commitment to 
participate actively and construc tively, concentrating on the elements established in the negotiating 
mandate, reflected in target 14.6 of Sustainable Development Goal 14, especially the inclusion of 
special and differential treatment, which is appropriate and effective for developing cou ntries and 
least developed countries. We hope to achieve more flexible regulations relating to small scale and 
artisanal fishing. In view of the little time remaining until the next Ministerial Conference, we consider 
it necessary to move on immediately to  text-based negotiations.  
 
We are perplexed regarding the impossibility of finding a solution to the situation of the Appellate 
Body on account of one single Member, despite the efforts of the vast majority of WTO Members. 
This same Member is now distracti ng us with proposals that do not come within the competence of 
this Organization and violate the principle of sovereignty of States.  
 
Once again, we denounce the ongoing harassment of our country by the Government of the United 
States. The most recent inst ance of this occurred on 7 February 2020, when the US Government, 
through its Treasury Department, included the Conviasa airline in entities on the Specially 
Designated Nationals (SDN) list of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).  
 
This arbitrary me asure is illegal and is designed to obstruct the supply of fuel and the provision of 
airport services, namely services providing maintenance, spare parts, hardware, software and 
insurance for Conviasa aircraft, and to force the suspension of the airline 's operations.  
 
In this way the programme for the repatriation of thousands of Venezuelan men and women who 
wish to return voluntarily to their country is being sabotaged.  
 
These new actions form part of the systemic and generali zed attack on the Venezuelan c ivilian 
population that is being carried out by the Government of the United states. On 13 February 2020, 
these facts were referred by the Venezuelan State to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International 
Criminal Court for an investigation into crimes  against humanity, with a view to prosecution and WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 113 - 
 
  apportioning of liability to the relevant authorities of the United States, and in order to uphold 
international law and multilateral institutionalism in the quest for justice.  
 
Since 2014, the Government o f the United States has adopted more than 300 unilateral coercive 
measures in order to affect the functioning of the economy and prejudice the human rights of the 
Venezuelan people. This has caused losses of over USD 120 billion to our country. These crimi nal 
actions are a flagrant violation of international law and international humanitarian law.  
 
The renowned United States economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot have stated that these 
genocidal measures have caused over 40,000 deaths in Venezuela.  
 
The multilateral trading system must defend itself against the imposition of a hegemonic philosophy; 
it must defend the principles that govern healthy coexistence between Members and it must also 
defend Members ' right to have their own resources for meeting s ocial needs, with the economic 
system that they decide to adopt on the basis of their own sovereignty.  
 
42. United Kingdom  
 
We thank the  Director -General for his summary and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their 
updates.   
 
I wanted to start by joining the New Zealand Ambassador David Walker and others in paying tribute 
to Mike Moore. He was the nearest thing we have had to a British Director -General for a long time, 
and we in the United Kingdom are very proud of him, and of his legacy here in the World Trade 
Organization.  
 
With the kind permission of the Chair of the General Council, my Secretary of State for International 
Trade will be here to address the General Council tomorrow, and so I will keep my remarks today 
brief.  
 
As Members will be aware, the United Kingdom has circulated a document contained in WT/GC/206, 
which sets out some of the implications of our departure from the European Union. I would like to 
take this opportunity to thank all Members, as well as the Director -General and his team in the WTO 
Secretariat, for all of the constructive support we have received in this process.  
 
I would now like to say a few words about the United Kingdom 's approach to the ongoing negotiations 
in which we are all engaged , and our ambitions for 2020 and beyond.  
 
We agree with the Director -General that success at MC12 will be measured by the substance of what 
we agree. And as others have said, starting with the Swiss Ambassador Didier Chambovey, the 
principal metric of that  success will be whether there is a fisheries deal, one that leads to meaningful 
reductions in harmful subsidies.    
 
The Chair, Ambassador Wills, set out the challenges and the way forward, and we agree with him.  
We need to move to a consolidated text by m id-March. Members need to examine their own long -
held positions critically, exercise restraint, and rally around compromises instead of sticking to 
incompatible national positions. The dire conditions of many of the world 's fish stocks dramatically 
highlig hts the need to deliver on this Sustainable Development Goal target. We stand ready in the 
UK, as do our ministers, to help the Chair and the Director -General  get a deal across the line at Nur -
Sultan.  
 
More broadly, as upcoming COP26 hosts, we warmly welco me other discussions in this House aimed 
at facilitating green growth and a more sustainable global economy.    
 
On agriculture, I wanted to thank Ambassador John Deep Ford for his detailed report. The United 
Kingdom is committed to a fair and market orient ated agricultural trading system, and we look 
forward to working with Members to address the challenges that we face and progress negotiations.  
We know how important this issue is for so many Members of this House.  
 
Regarding the second tranche of issues for MC12, the United Kingdom has long supported the Joint 
Initiatives. They represent perhaps the most significant reform to the WTO in recent years. If they 
succeed, these initiatives will advance digital trade and trade in services, open up new opportuni ties WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 114 - 
 
  for Micro, Small and Medium Size Enterprises, and facilitate global investment for development. But, 
in addition to that, they will strengthen the negotiating function of the WTO, upon which the health 
of the global trading system depends.  
 
On wider WTO reform, the United Kingdom supports efforts to strengthen the rules on subsidies, we 
support efforts to improve compliance around transparency and notifications, and we do need to 
discuss questions around non -market policies and practices. The WTO cann ot afford to ignore these 
issues.  
 
Finally, allow me to turn to the dispute settlement system. We view a fully -functioning, compulsory, 
binding and impartial system, with two -tier review as crucial to ensure the rules that we have 
negotiated can be enforce d. We are committed to finding solutions that all Members can support in 
order to reinstate a fully effective dispute settlement system.  
 
By way of closing, let me just reiterate that the United Kingdom stands ready to help, in any way 
the Director -General  would find useful, to achieve a meaningful outcome at Nur -Sultan that both 
reconfirms the WTO 's central role, and opens up new opportunit ies and prosperity for our businesses 
and citizens.   
 
43. Viet Nam (ASEAN)  
 
Viet Nam delivers this statement on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
ASEAN Member States reaffirm our full support for the open, non - discriminatory and rules -based 
Multilateral Trading System, embod ied in the WTO, which must be maintained and strengthened. 
We view the two -tier Dispute Settlement System, with its fundamental principle of negative 
consensus as an indispensable pillar of the Multilateral Trading System. We call for continued 
engagement and consultations to find a solution for the Appellate Body impasse.  
 
ASEAN is concerned with the further weakening of global trade in the first quarter of 2020 due to 
the aggregate impact of trade tensions in previous years and the COVID -19 outbreak in va rious 
regions that severely affect supply chains. In this context, it is of critical importance that the WTO 
membership cooperates to the maximum extent possible to maintain business predictability and 
confidence that can enhance trade growth for the benef it of all Members.  
 
Considering the significance of an outcome in the multilateral negotiations for fisheries subsidies 
disciplines to the WTO as well as the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, ASEAN fully 
supports the Fisheries Chair 's call to redouble efforts towards the twelfth Ministerial Conference and 
to devote the necessary negotiation resources to this joint endeavour. In addition to the need to 
have a consolidated text, compromises and possible landing zones for critical negotiation issu es 
must also be considered as soon as possible.  
 
While discussions are on -going on WTO Reform, we note with appreciation that its deliberations have 
gone a long way and enriched Members ' understanding of emerging issues and challenges that need 
to be addre ssed to ensure that the WTO remains relevant for all Members. ASEAN Member States 
have actively engaged and contributed to a number of these discussions. Members also need to 
demonstrate greater commitment in the implementation of WTO agreements and previo us WTO 
ministerial decisions, especially those in favour of Least Developed Countries.  
 
44. Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam would like to express gratitude to the Director -General and Chairs of Negotiating Bodies 
for the detailed and comprehensive reports. We would like to highlight that the economic situation 
of many Members including Viet Nam is becoming very difficult in recent months. Many industries 
have been severely affected including tourism, travel, hospitality and manufacturing. Hardship and 
uncertainty spi ll over due to economic and trade interdependence are not supportive factors for the 
WTO. Nurturing a friendly, cooperative environment through inclusive and impartial proposals, open 
and willing engagement are critically important to facilitate our work t owards MC12 and beyond.  
 
In the area of fisheries subsidies, Viet Nam welcomes the collective determination to accelerate the 
negotiation in response to the Chair 's call. We support intensive dialogue and engagement. At the 
same time, we share the view tha t Members need to demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism so that WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 115 - 
 
  we can quickly and efficiently identify acceptable landing zones and have the corresponding legal 
text in all areas. We are committed to achieving meaningful outcomes and ready to work intens ively 
and continuously towards an agreement by the Ministerial Conference.  
 
On WTO Reform, while Viet Nam is open to new proposals and ready to engage, we would like to 
underscore the need to stocktake on ongoing discussions with necessary observatory asse ssment. 
We also welcome efforts of some proponents to dialogue and actually revise their proposal to take 
into account comments from concerned Members. We reiterate that reforms need to be 
comprehensive and consistent with the goal of preserving an inclusi ve, open and non -discriminatory 
rules-based multilateral trading system while making it more responsive to the changing landscape 
of world trade and business environment. We continue to encourage reform proponents to listen and 
adequately address concerns of Members.  
 
45. Nepal  
 
At the outset, my delegation would like to extend sincere thanks to the Director -General for his 
comprehensive briefing on the state of the play in trade negotiations. We would like to commend 
the Chairs of Negotiating Bodies for their updates.  
 
We wish to align our statement with the statement delivered by Chad, the LDC Group Coordinator.  
 
As a staunch supporter of fair, inclusive and rules -based multilateral trading system, Nepal 
underlines the necessity of timely WTO reforms for safeguarding multilateralism in the interest of all 
WTO Members.   
 
In this regard, my delegation would like to h ighlight some specific seven issues to be addressed in 
the context of achieving concrete deliverables of the upcoming MC12:  
 
• Nepal underscores the functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism to uphold the 
rules-based order. The vacancy of Appellate Bod y members affects the credibility in the 
works of the Organization. Nepal has, therefore, supported the joint initiative for launching 
its selection process; and we call for the immediate resolution of this issue.  
 
• WTO reform is an important issue for all  of us. We need to deliberate the reform agenda 
thoroughly.  I would like to emphasi ze that substance of the reform should be 
comprehensive; able to address global challenges including increased inequality; properly 
incorporate emerging issues and opportuni ties of global trade; and support to weaker 
economies to integrate meaningfully into, and benefit from, the global trading system. The 
reform outcome should not be burdensome to LDCs and weaker economies rather facilitate 
their development process.    
 
• Development dimension must remain our topmost negotiating agenda, as it is the key 
concern of all developing countries, particularly LDCs. A clear road map on mainstreaming 
development dimension in the multilateral trading system and S&DT is critical to achiev e 
SDGs, especially for LDCs and weaker economies.  
 
• Nepal puts strong emphasis on the implementation of Trade Facilitation Agreement, as it 
aims to reduce time and cost of cross -border trade. I am pleased to share that Nepal has 
recently notified the defini tive date of Category B implementation of the agreement within 
a given timeline. However, implementing the Category C commitments pose severe 
difficulties for us; therefore, we encourage our development partners to provide enhanced 
and additional level of support to implement the TFA in a timely manner.  
 
• In view of having possible impact on revenue posed by the moratorium of customs duty 
on electronic transmission, I would like to stress that a comprehensive study on the impact 
of such a moratorium should b e undertaken before taking any decision on it.  
 
• Various negotiations are gaining a momentum with a view to concluding them in the run 
up to the upcoming Ministerial Conference in Nur -Sultan. We expect that such negotiations 
would ensure just and equitable  share of benefit to all members, particularly LDCs and 
within them the landlocked LDCs. International support measures for landlocked LDCs need WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 116 - 
 
  to be discussed, explored and incorporated while concluding the ongoing negotiation on 
fisheries subsidies.    
 
• All LDCs -focused support measures including Aid for Trade and Enhanced Integrated 
Framework, DFQF, technological support and flexibilities in implementation, among others, 
are highly important not only to enable us to graduate from the LDC status but also  to 
ensure their graduation more inclusive and sustainable in terms of meeting SDGs by 2030 
and fulfilling their development agenda beyond 2030.  
 
46. Solomon Islands (Pacific Group)  
 
I make this statement on behalf of the Pacific Group and we align our views w ith the statements of 
the ACP and the LDC groups.  
 
Firstly, the Pacific Group thanks the Director -General  for his comprehensive report and also to the 
Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their reports.   
 
Turning to Fisheries Subsidies, the Pacific Group commends the Chair and the Facilitators in assisting 
members to advance the negotiations. With the Facilitator 's text on Overcapacity and Overfishing, 
we now have texts on three disciplines. However, much work remains in the little time we have left 
before MC12 in June to agree on approaches and technical issues as well as the cross -cutting issues 
which have been less  advanced.   
 
For the Pacific Group the two sectors that form the backbone of our economies are tourism and 
fisheries. Tourism is a very fragile sector, highly susceptible to international economic and other 
shocks as well as climate change. With any global  health threat like coronavirus, tourists do not 
come to our shores. Fisheries is therefore the only productive sector that many Islands depend on. 
In fact, fisheries since 2015 remains a priority of the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders and is also part 
of the Blue Pacific adopted by Leaders in 2017. The Pacific Group has therefore always underlined 
the vital importance of the fisheries sector to our economies - in providing food and livelihood 
security and economic opportunities. In fact, in 2016 tuna caught in the Pacific accounts for over 
50% of global catch, and around 60% of that catch is from the waters of the Pacific Islands state. 
Stock assessments for the Pacific in 2018 indicated that all commercial tuna stocks are in good 
health. However, most of the  Members of our group do not have the capacity to fish because we do 
not have fishing fleets.  
  
Therefore, as small island states whose EEZs are much bigger than the size of our lands, the fisheries 
subsides agreement should not repeat the distortions in the agriculture agreement and prevent small 
countries like us from exploiting our fisheries resources and diversifying our economies. In addition, 
Members like us that are managing their fisheries resources well, should not be made to pay for the 
bad behav iour of those that are running down stocks, with heavy subsidies. There has to be some 
proportionality, ensuring that the Agreement targets those that are causing over -fishing, that is, the 
large subsidi zers and the large industrial fleets and that appropr iate policy space must be given to 
developing Members, especially, small island states that have little to no capacity at present. This 
would be in line with fulfilling the two dimensions of the SDG 14.6 and MC11 mandates – namely, 
strong disciplines for h armful subsidies and appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment for developing countries.  This would also ensure that the SDG 14.6 also delivers on the 
SDG 14.7 which is to support the fisheries development in small island developing stat es and LDCs.  
Chair, the Pacific Group remains committed to working with Members to deliver a meaningful 
Agreement on fisheries subsidies at Nur -Sultan.  
 
On Agriculture, the Group continues to support discussions on reduction of trade distorting domestic 
support and finding solutions to public stockholding and special safeguards mechanism.   
 
On Development issues, the Pacific group urges Members for constructive discussions on the G90 
proposals particularly those proposals that support economic diversificat ion and industrialisation and 
the situation of LDCs.  
 
Finally, in terms of process, our Group expresses concerns on the clashes in meetings this week 
between the Negotiating Group on Rules  and the HODs and the GC. Small delegations like us do not 
have suff icient staff to cover parallel meetings and we hope that in future such clashes will be 
avoided.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 117 - 
 
   
47. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce)  
 
I will first provide a report on negotiations under the Joint Statement Initiative on Electroni c 
Commerce on behalf of the co -convenors: Australia, Japan and Singapore.  
 
I will start with a short summary of the informal meeting of Ministers on the Ecommerce JSI held in 
Davos on 24 January.  
 
At this meeting, Ministers underscored the importance of this initiative both commercially and 
systemically for the WTO and affirmed their commitment to a high standard outcome, with the 
participation of as many WTO members as possible.  
 
Ministers welcomed the good progress achieved over the first year of negoti ations, including the 
range of proposals received, the diversity and growing number of participants, and the strong levels 
of engagement in negotiating rounds.  
 
Ministers emphasi zed the need to keep working hard to ensure substantial progress by MC12 and 
agreed to develop a consolidated negotiating text by MC12 and a pathway for the future conclusion 
of the negotiations.  
 
The Philippines also announced it would join the JSI, bringing the number of signatories to 83, 
representing over 90% of global trade.  
 
Since our last report at the December HODS/TNC, we have held an organisational meeting, on 16 
December, that set a work plan leading up to MC12.  
 
We also convened a negotiating round from 11 -14 February, which covered electronic transactions, 
non-discrimination and liability, consumer protection, transparency, domestic regulation, 
cooperation and telecommunications. These negotiations were structured around revised 
streamlined texts drawn from proposals made by Members, and made further progress on 
streamlining text.  
 
Two more rounds are scheduled before MC12: 17 -20 March and 28 April -1 May.  
 
We look forward to a continuation of the constructive engagement and momentum demonstrated in 
February with the aim of developing a consolidated negotiating tex t by MC12.  
 
The co -convenors continue to ensure this JSI is transparent and inclusive: meetings are open to all 
WTO Members; and all proposals and reports are available on the WTO 's web portal.  
 
48. Australia  
 
As many delegations have noted today, we are three  months from Nur -Sultan and are focusing 
intently on what we, collectively, can achieve at this important meeting. Australia is optimistic yet 
realistic. We recogni ze that we must focus our efforts on those areas where we have the best 
prospects of reachin g convergence.  
  
We consider a multilateral outcome on fisheries subsidies should be within our grasp. But we agree 
we will need to step up the pace of compromise if we are to achieve this. For Australia, we will 
carefully and constructively engage with t he consolidated text, which we heard from the Chair today 
will be released mid -March, and to elevating discussions, possibly with senior officials in Geneva, if 
viewed appropriate. We believe it is possible to reach a meaningful outcome that accommodates t he 
interests of all Members provided we are pragmatic, creative and willing to compromise.  
 
On agriculture, Australia, together with Cairns Group Members has presented a new Framework for 
Negotiations on Domestic Support, which contains a set of fair and c omprehensive principles that 
reflect current trade realities. We have been pleased with the positive initial reactions we have 
received to date and note that many of the issues and concerns raised by Members would be 
considered as part of future negotiatio ns post -MC12. We should not miss the opportunity presented 
by MC12 to reset agriculture negotiations in the WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 118 - 
 
  We also consider agreement to extend the two moratoria a priority outcome from MC12. We look 
forward to engaging in structured discussions on  the ecommerce moratorium, as envisaged by the 
December 2019 General Council decision to extend it to MC12.  
 
Chair, Australia is an active participant in all the Joint Statement Initiatives and we consider this a 
promising area for meaningful outcomes in Nur-Sultan. We have a clear pathway for a concrete 
outcome on services Domestic Regulation by MC12 building upon the existing commitments in the 
GATS with 53 Members having submitted draft indicative schedules. We urge Members that have 
not yet joined to l ook closely at the commitments being made and consider the benefits that joining 
this initiative would bring to their service suppliers.  
 
Australia welcomes the progress to date on e -commerce and considers that negotiations are well 
placed to deliver a co nsolidated text at MC12. We are also pleased that the JSI on investment 
facilitation is moving to negotiating mode and that the MSMEs Group is actively working on stabilising 
texts for MC12.  
 
We look forward to contributing to outcomes on trade and women 's economic empowerment and 
the trade and sustainable development agenda.  
 
The value of the WTO lies not only in these concrete outcomes, important and welcome as they will 
be. The value of the WTO lies also in its function in maintaining the rules-based system and Members ' 
adherence to those rules. Australia has long believed that it is not only others ' adherence to those 
rules which benefits our economy, but our own adherence to those rules.   
 
To maintain this role in the current challenging times, we are focused on the work of committees, 
transparency and the proper functioning of the dispute settlement system. We should not forget the 
very significant contribution the WTO 's dispute settlement system has made to the multilateral 
trading rules to whi ch we are all committed and benefit from. We must also be clear -eyed about 
what we need to improve - to ensure the health of the system and that it delivers the key objectives 
we collectively ascribe to it.  
 
We also think it important Members continue to c onsider how we can most effectively incorporate 
special and differential treatment in current and future negotiations. Australia recogni zes the value 
of S&DT in supporting developing countries ' integration into the multilateral system, particularly 
LDCs, b ut we must also remember that S &DT should not be an end in itself, and should only be 
available to those Members who truly need it. We look forward to contributing further to this 
discussion.  
 
49. Cambodia  
 
Cambodia associates itself with the statement made by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group and by 
Viet Nam on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
We express our appreciation to all Members for their active participation and their contribution in 
making progress in most of the negotiating areas. We commend the grea t efforts of Members to 
move forward the negotiations on fisheries subsidies and on agriculture – which are important 
priority areas for all of us. We also commend Members ' tremendous commitment to find convergence 
on other areas such as e -commerce and WTO  Reform.  
 
As reiterated in the past through the LDC Group and our national statement, S&DT must form an 
integral part of our negotiations whether we are negotiating on existing provisions of the WTO 
Agreement or on current negotiating issues. We have had l ong discussions on S&DT and have been 
debating the matter for a very long time already. At this stage, in order to share a prosperous world 
to make trade work for all, S&DT should be granted to developing countries and shall be 
unconditionally granted to L DCs so as to provide us the opportunity and possibility to develop trade 
policies and fulfil the sustainable development goals based on our individual developmental needs.  
 
We applaud the current negotiations as they are conducted in an open and transpare nt manner. We 
are however concerned on the LDC 's capacity to participate in meetings particularly those that do 
not have enough resources to follow up on all the negotiating issues. We therefore encourage 
coordinators to keep the practice of reporting to t he TNC and if possible send their report or relevant 
documents to Members in advance to allow them to prepare for succeeding discussions. We thank WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 119 - 
 
  Members for the inclusive interest and taking into account of the resource constraints faced by the 
LDCs.  
 
Cambodia urges Members to fully implement previous WTO Ministerial Decisions especially on DFQF, 
Preferential Rules of Origin and Services Waiver. We also urge Members to avoid actions or usual 
political issues to impede the development of LDCs. We look forw ard to work closely with Members 
to discuss further on issues and overcome challenges in the search for meaningful outcomes at 
MC12.  
 
50. Panama (Article XII)  
 
At the onset, we would like to thank the Director -General and the Chairs of Negotiating Groups  for 
their reports on the state of play of negotiations this morning.  
 
As have said in the past our Group expects that current negotiations should result in level ling the 
imbalances that have accumulated in members Commitments as a result of Accessions to the WTO. 
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 those who currently have the highest levels of entitlements and flexibilities 
will have to make more significant adjustments.  
 
Our group is supportive of a substantial reform in trade d istorting domestic support and market 
access, where the evidence is clear Article XII Members went through a broader liberalization 
reducing subsidies, entitlements and tariff barriers . We expect the original Members would follow 
suit as we carry out our w ork under the built -in agenda.  
 
We remind the Members that built -in agenda is not limited to A griculture . While there has not been 
much activity in the NAMA we reiterate that wide gaps remain in the average bound tariff levels and 
coverage levels of the A rticle XII Members and the original Members. This is also evident in Services 
where Article XII Members have undertaken more commitments in every subsector in comparison 
to the original Members. We expect that Nur -Sultan and negotiations lead to closing th ese gaps.  
 
We would also like to express our Grou p's continued support of the ongoing discussions on 
transparency, improving compliance and the quality of notifications that would allow us to depict the 
realistic state of play on negotiations.  
 
Our Group s tands ready to work with other Members towards achieving incremental, balanced and 
meaningful results for MC12.  
 
51. Panama  
 
Three months away from the Twelfth Ministerial Conference, my delegation calls on Members to 
show commitment, pragmatism and flexibility in the various negotiations that are taking place at 
the WTO if we wish MC12 to be successful with major outcomes achieved.  
 
We wish to thank Ambassador Wills for his efforts to ensure that the negotiations on fisheries 
subsidies are concluded in time for MC12. Unless we Members drastically change our negotiating 
methods and show greater commitment to achieving an outcome, we will again fail to meet not only 
the deadline imposed by our Heads of State but also the second deadline set by ourselves  after 
failing to meet the first one.  
 
Delegations must move beyond outgrown extreme positions that do not have sufficient support, as 
well as proposals that show no adjustment, effort or commitment on the part of sponsors who seek 
to maintain the status q uo. This applies in particular to proposals that do not come within the 
mandate and achieve nothing more than to create new disputes, in insurmountable cases, in 
negotiations where all details are complex.  
 
In agriculture, Panama thanks Ambassador Ford for  his report today and for circulating document 
JOB/AG/180. We support a comprehensive outcome in all pillars of agriculture that will result in 
levelling out the commitments between Members and reducing barriers to trade. We support 
Ambassador Ford 's call to maintain consultations at ambassadorial level in order to move the 
negotiations forward and achieve a substantial outcome in Nur -Sultan.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 120 - 
 
   
With regard to services, we wish to remind Members that we are at the WTO, not the GATT. 
Multilateral outcomes in s ervices are of the utmost importance for my country. We underline the 
need for a more active approach to the negotiations on access to services in order to ensure the 
balance of benefits and responsibilities resulting from the various negotiations. Panama supports 
and promotes the exploratory discussions on access for this purpose.  
 
We are co -sponsoring proposals relating to the work programme and moratorium on electronic 
commerce and to cases of non -violation under the TRIPS Agreement. Panama considers tha t both 
moratoriums should be permanent and urges the launching of relevant discussions to enable our 
ministers to take decisions in this regard at MC12.  
 
Panama congratulates the coordinator of the structured discussions on facilitation of investment for 
development for the work done to achieve a simplified text and a working method that will enable 
the next steps to be taken. We acknowledge the work done by the coordinator in the Working Group 
on MSMEs, where much is also being done to stabili ze the propos als on the table and have possible 
deliverables at MC12. Panama reiterates its commitment to continue contributing actively and 
constructively to shape the future multilateral framework.  
 
Lastly, we would like to reiterate our support for document WT/GC/W/777, with a view to improving 
and harmon ising the functioning of the committees.  
 
52. Chinese Taipei  
 
We would first like to th e Director -General and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for the report s 
and updates which are most informative and are no w starting to shed some light on a possible profile 
for the future evolution of this organization.  
 
After 25  years in its role of facilitating global trade through predictable rules, the WTO is now entering 
an era of maturity and transformation. We see an urgent need for WTO reform in the institutional 
or disciplinary aspects in order to cope with new commercial trading models and market conditions. 
Of course, we recogni ze that Members have different definitions and expectations. We would agree 
with the D irector-General  that we should make every effort to progress gradually with reform, 
instead of being too hasty. In fact, even at this early stage we can already see some improvement 
being made, which my delegation has also been involved in.  
 
Undoubtedly, for  the WTO to be fully operational, the strengthening of the monitoring and 
transparency of Members ' trade policies is a top priority. We strongly urge Members to continue to 
comply with their notification obligations under the WTO agreements. The other pillar, the daily work 
of WTO bodies, is functioning more efficiently, but requires some procedural Gu idelines for WTO 
Councils and Committees addressing trade concerns. My delegation calls on more Members to 
engage in the dialogue, and to work together to find feasible ways for all Members to implement the 
suggested rules.  
 
As we count down the days towar ds the upcoming MC12, my delegation would like to echo the 
Director -General's words, and those of other Members, in calling for us to identify the doable 
subjects, and start to work on the possible outcome documents as early as possible.  
 
For the agenda on  the table, Members all agree fisheries subsidies is currently the only multilateral 
deliverable that the WTO can convey to the world to show its negotiating function can still work well. 
As we have limited time to reflect a wide range of approaches and op tions, we should prioriti ze our 
efforts, and the priority should be driven by our Mandate in IUU fishing, overcapacity and overfishing 
with appropriate and effective S &DT. In our view, we should immediately start to use the facilitator 's 
consolidated text merging from the proposals aiming at prohibiting harmful subsidies.  
 
On the other hand, my delegation joins with other groups of Members in working towards new rules 
on a range of issues through Joint Statement Initiatives (JSIs). While we are pleased to s ee the 
progress made so far, we should also remind ourselves that the possible outcome has to truly meet 
the high expectations of businesses.  
 
On e-commerce, we are encouraged by the more active discussions through small group meetings, 
and the flexibiliti es shown by participants. We should spare no effort in working towards a WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 121 - 
 
  consolidated negotiating text by the MC12, while maintaining a high standard outcome. Similarly, 
we support reinvigorating the work under the e -commerce Work Programme, as well as an extension 
of the moratorium, so as to unleash the potential of e -commerce for all WTO Members.  
 
On Services Domestic Regulation, it is good to see that 26 Members have submitted their indicative 
draft schedules, which is an impressive achievement. We look forward to more draft schedules being 
submitted by participants, and to a possible outcome, such as a reference paper at the MC12.  
 
In addition, we also work with like -minded Members to enhance the synergy between trade and 
environment for sustainability g oal. 
 
On the setback being suffered in the area of dispute settlement, regarding possible reform of the 
Appellate Body itself, we still believe our first priority is to re -initiate the selection processes. We 
would urge more Members to engage in constructi ve dialogue with a view to finding innovative 
solutions to overcome the current impasse. Meanwhile, it is equally important for all Members to 
engage in the disputes in good faith, by using the bilateral non -appeal agreements or resorting to 
bilateral appe al-arbitration under DSU 25, to avoid appeals being void.  
 
Only when Members take pragmatic steps and show flexibility in negotiations and dialogue, can we 
deliver meaningful results at the MC12. My delegation restates our commitment to work with  the 
Director-General  and all Members, to produce fruitful outcomes in the form of new agreements or 
frameworks in Nur -Sultan, and to show that the WTO is more important, and is needed more than 
ever before.  
 
53. Burkina Faso (C -4) 
 
I am making this statement on behalf of the group of Co -Sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour 
of Cotton (C -4), all African countries, and least -developed countries (LDCs) that are producers 
and/or exporters of cotton and cotton by -products.  
 
The C -4 thanks the Director -General for his introductory remarks and the C hairs of the Negotiating 
Groups for their reports on the status of negotiations, including in relation to agriculture and cotton, 
and for the efforts made to reconcile Members ' positions.  
 
The C -4 Group endorses the de clarations of the African Group, the LDC Group, the ACP Group and 
the G -33 Group.  
 
The C -4 would like to reassure the Director -General and Members  that it supports all constructive 
initiatives from WTO Members based on proposed texts, which are extremely w elcome for facilitating 
useful interaction in order to achieve a significant outcome on cotton between now and the Twelfth 
Ministerial Conference (MC12).  
 
The C -4 expresses its gratitude to all partners for their renewed commitment to continuing the 
negoti ations on cotton and funding development projects in the cotton sector in developing countries 
and especially in LDCs.  
 
The Group reiterates its commitment to continuing the work with all WTO Members in order to find 
concrete and measurable responses to t he thorny question of domestic support for cotton.  
 
This commitment of the C -4 is consistent with the position of all countries in favour of agricultural 
reforms enabling the distorting effects on the international cotton trade of unfair competition from 
domestic support to be eliminated.  
 
Rectification of the dysfunctional aspects of all forms of domestic support for cotton is essential to 
enable LDCs that produce and export natural cotton fibre to take effective action against 
unauthori zed migration, unem ployment, loss of revenue and poverty.  
 
This is why the C -4 will stay mobili zed, committed and open in order to achieve the expected 
outcomes in negotiations based on a precise schedule.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 122 - 
 
  After more than 17 years of difficult negotiations without satisfact ory results, millions of small cotton 
producers in LDCs hope for the adoption of a ministerial decision on the pillar of domestic support 
for cotton between now and MC12.  
 
This is very important for strengthening the credibility of a WTO that is capable of helping to find 
appropriate solutions to its Members ' problems, especially those that account for less than 1% of 
the world market in goods and services.  
 
The C -4 simply asks for strict observance of the WTO rules and a determined commitment fro m all 
Members to achieve development goals through an "ambitious, expeditious and specific " solution for 
the cotton dossier, which has been on the negotiating table since June 2003.  
 
It is in the context of this approach that the C -4 submitted a comprehensive proposal in September 
2019 for procedures that can serve as a basis for negotiating a consensual outcome for reducing the 
support that adversely affects the international cotton trade.  
 
With regard to the cotton development component, namely actions and initiatives aimed at 
improving and reinforcing production and export capacities for cotton and cotton by -products, the 
C-4 urges its technical and financial partners to continue their cooperation to ensure that the goals 
sought in this sphere a re achieved, especially to ensure the effective implementation of the Cotton 
Roadmap Project.  
 
The C -4 requests that this statement and the statement made in the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session (CoA SS) on 24 February be taken into account in t he report of the General Council 
of 3 and 4 March 2020.  
 
54. St. Lucia (OECS)  
 
My delegation takes the floor on behalf of the WTO Members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean 
States (OECS). We thank the Director -General for his Report and for providing us with his own 
perspective on where things stand on a range of issues of common and systemic concern.  Through 
the Director -General , we extend our appreciation to the Chairs  of the various Negotiating Groups 
who have provided updates.  
 
On the subject of Fish eries Subsides, we acknowledge the commitment of Ambassador Wills and the 
respective Facilitators in enabling and overseeing purposeful engagement on this important and 
evidently complex negotiating file. In that context, we reaffirm our desire to construc tively engage 
towards a balanced outcome in Nur -Sultan – that is, an outcome that secures global fish stocks by 
limiting the excesses of major subsidizers while providing sufficient policy space for countries like 
ours to sustainably grow our fisheries sec tor. That being said, we, as small States, must remind the 
membership that we primarily engage in small scale fishing within our territorial waters, and for this, 
and other innate capacity related reasons, our share in global marine capture remains negligi ble, if 
not minuscule. Therefore,  it is only fair that any multilateral trade agreement that seeks to discipline 
the use of harmful fisheries subsidies must contain Special and Different Treatment provisions that 
take into account this reality. We simply c annot be treated the same as those responsible for large -
scale resource -depleting fishing. In this context, we ask that the negotiations remain true to the 
mandate by holding accountable those Members that are truly responsible for the delicate condition 
of our global fisheries resources. Chair, we reiterate our commitment to negotiations based on the 
principles of fairness, inclusiveness and transparency.  
 
Effective Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO rulebook remains a priority to the OECS. In 
this regard, we are deeply concerned over recent attempts to diminish the importance of 
Development enhancing provisions. One area of particular interest is the 'Work Programme on Small 
Economies ', given that it was born out of our Ministers ' recognition th at our deliberations must take 
into account the specific circumstances that SVEs face in trying to fully integrate into world trade. 
We therefore urge that more meaningful attention be given to the link between natural disasters 
and trade.  It is beyond que stion that the flexibilities embedded in the covered agreements are 
inadequate to support SVEs recover from severe and frequent natural disasters.  We continue to 
applaud the Secretariat for its meaningful contributions on this most important theme.   
 
Agriculture has always been an integral part of our economies and we continue to view it as a major 
policy tool for reducing rural poverty, achieving food security and improving the overall nutrition of WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 123 - 
 
  our citizenry. We take note of the efforts of Members in e lucidating some of the complexities inherent 
in the discussions. We are also hearing a louder appeal for us all to work towards achieving a 
balanced, incremental and meaningful outcome at the next Ministerial. However, these will amount 
to nothing if we ar e not pragmatic, empathetic and sincere in our deliberations. The Members States 
of the OECS are simply looking for a package that recogni zes and addresses the imbalances that 
inhibit us from better integrating into global agricultural trade. To this end, we desire an outcome 
that preserves our existing de minimis entitlements, attenuate preference erosion and effectively 
operationali zes existing special and differential treatment for SVEs.   
 
Turning to the question of institutional reform, the OECS co ntinues to express deep concern at the 
opaque nature of the discussion. How can we have confidence in the outcome if a group of mostly 
powerful countries continue to lead these discussions? How can progress be made when the countries 
that will be most affe cted by changes to the system have little, or no say? How can the outcomes of 
these ad hoc fragmented discussions allow small delegations to properly participate? Why have we 
moved away from the core principles of transparency, fairness and inclusivity in seeking to make 
the WTO more relevant to the challenges of tomorrow? While much has been said on Reform, allow 
me to remind the membership, that our strength is not in creating barriers to participation, but in 
harnessing the collective wisdom of each and every member of this house.  
 
With respect to the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development, two OECS 
Member States are now part of this Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) while the others continue to 
assess and monitor these negotiat ions closely. Regardless of the position of our Member States on 
the JSI, each recogni zes the important role of investment, especially sustainable investment, in 
bringing about economic growth and development, creating quality jobs, enabling technology 
transfer and supporting capital accumulation. We take note of the desire of participants in the JSI 
to achieve a meaningful outcome at MC12, possibly in the form of a clean or final text. With 
100 Members now on board, there is also a real chance that the pro cess can shift to a plurilateral 
phase in the near future. We commend the Members for their work and remind them to always bear 
in mind that the goal of investment facilitation is not for the sole sake of investments, but for us as 
developing countries, it  is also "for development " as the nomenclature of the Structured Discussions 
suggests.  
 
On e-commerce, we are not yet part of the JSI discussions. However, we continue to assess and 
review the possible benefits and implications. We also note that there is  an existing multilateral 
mandate through the Work Programme on e -commerce which we support. At the last General Council 
in December, we were pleased to join other Members in renewing the moratorium on customs duties 
on electronic transmissions until Minis ters pronounce at the twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
 
Allow to say that there is a need for us to inject more energy and redouble our efforts to progress 
the Work Programme and focus on issues of concern to developing Members. For us, a thriving 
digital economy necessitates certain infrastructural, legal and regulatory solutions and we ask 
Members to focus on how we can strengthen these areas, especially for developing Members, to 
allow them to benefit more fully from e -commerce and digital trade.  
 
In closing, my delegation endorses those statements delivered by Barbados  on behalf of the 
Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Group.  
 
55. Ecuador  
 
We echo what was said by Panama on behalf of Article XII Members.  
 
Although there is very little time before MC12, we as Members can still pull our efforts, work 
intensively and achieve a substantive package that reflects the importance of the multilateral trading 
system particularly for developing countries, LDCs and SVEs. It is pivotal a cross all negotiating areas 
and disciplines to take into account the specific needs of each Member.  
 
Ecuador sees trade as a tool for development and an opportunity to improve living standards where 
resources are scarce. As Members, we should help to solve  problems proportionally taking into 
account our past contributions to the system and our respective levels of developments. Outcomes 
should balance commitments and benefits for all Members.  
 WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 124 - 
 
  In agriculture, although there are still divergences, we still think it is still possible to achieve a 
package across a number of pillars. Concerning domestic support, we should take into account the 
level of distortion in line with the principle of proportionality. In market access, we should at least 
agree on tariff s and on other areas such as tariff peaks. Although other areas are not of priority for 
this Ministerial Conference, we think that they could be included in a potential package and that 
could lead to a balanced outcome.  
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies negot iations, Ecuador feels it is necessary to define the documents 
that will form the basis for negotiations as quickly as possible. Disciplines should clearly include 
elements to protect artisanal fisheries as well as effective S&DT. Ecuador welcomes the prog ress 
made under the Joint Initiatives on investment facilitation and MSMEs and we will work on these so 
that we can reach Nur -Sultan with balanced solutions that reflect the needs of developing countries 
in both those areas.  
 
Let us not forget that we have  a pending obligation. Unfortunately, we have not managed to meet 
the deadline to ensure that the Appellate Body could continue working. However, we still face an 
obligation as a Membership to find a way out of this stalemate. Not having an Appellate Body is not 
an option in the long -term. The WTO 's two -stage dispute settlement system is key to ensuring 
compliance with WTO rules and it is a fundamental part of the system that we are all Members of.  
 
Nur-Sultan presents a unique opportunity for Members to s how the importance that the WTO has in 
the world and we hope that we will take that opportunity.  
 
56. Chile (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development)  
 
I am delivering this statement on behalf of Ambassador Eduardo Gálvez, former Coordinator of the 
Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development. As you  all may be aware, 
Ambassador Gálvez finished his posting in Geneva last Friday and his successor, Mr. Mathias 
Francke, will be in Geneva next week and then permane ntly as of April.  
 
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 the 
last report to the HODs in December.  
 
Since that HODs meeting, the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development 
held a successful 'stock-taking and next steps ' meeting in December, at which participating Members 
took important decisions. First, they tasked the coordinator wi th the preparation of a Streamlined 
Text, taking as a basis the previous working document and reflecting the views and positions 
expressed by Members during the discussions in the second half of 2019. Second, the group decided 
to move into negotiating mode  as of March this year. The Streamlined Text was circulated in 
January  2020, so as to give a 'warm -up' period to all delegations before engaging in substantive 
negotiations as of March.  
 
The decision to move into negotiating mode was reaffirmed in an info rmal ministerial gathering 
convened by Chile on the occasion of the WEF Annual Meeting in Davos.  Furthermore, a high -level 
session on "Easing Investment Worldwide " took place as part of the Davos Annual meeting, 
gathering ministers, CEOs and other stakehol ders. At that meeting, business gave a strong 
endorsement to the initiative.  
 
A schedule of meetings and a working methodology were adopted at our organizational meeting last 
week. Three substantive meetings are foreseen, in March, April and May, and an additional meeting 
to prepare for MC12 at the end of May. The negotiations will be based on the Streamlined Text and 
proposals submitted by Members. In that connection, we are pleased to announce that the European 
Union submitted a proposal last week, and we are expecting additional ones from other Members. 
The objective is to achieve a concrete outcome by MC12.  
 
The initiative has gained increasing momentum over the last months. With the Philippines and 
Bahrain recently joining, the initiative has reached 100 participants. This increasing support serves 
as clear evidence of the importance that a majority of WTO Members attach to investment 
facilitation. We will redouble our outreach efforts in the run -up to Nur -Sultan, persuaded – as we 
are – of the clear l ink between trade and investment, and the substantive contribution that an WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 125 - 
 
  investment facilitation framework will make to the development of Members and to the 
modernization of the WTO framework.  
 
In keeping with the open, inclusive and transparent nature of the initiative, which has been a core 
feature of this initiative, all Members are invited to participate.  
 
The next meeting, which will mark the actual start of the substantive negotiations, will be held on 
12 and 13 March.   
 
57. Chile  
 
This meeting is tak ing place at a time when the challenges faced by the WTO are piling up from 
different directions, especially because of the urgent need to produce concrete outcomes as 
deliverables at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12) in Nur -Sultan next June.  
 
We have the uncomfortable feeling that there is some delay in our Organization 's work and we now 
wish, before MC12, to convey a feeling of urgency with regard to significantly improving our capacity 
for understanding in order to facilitate the agreements neede d by the WTO.  
 
Chile will never lose its spirit of cooperation or give up on the search for consensus. We are friends 
of the system and of multilateralism, and we believe in the WTO as a key institution for rules based 
international trade.  
 
We continue to be part of the processes that seek a permanent solution to the impasse affecting the 
Appellate Body 's capacity to be fully operational. We believe in all the bodies of the dispute 
settlement system and we also think that modifications are necessary.  
 
Regarding the specific topics on the trade agenda and referring to the agriculture negotiations, we 
wish to say that we remain committed to achieving an outcome on domestic support, based on the 
framework document presented by the Cairns Group, and also on  the use of the criterion of 
proportionality in seeking ways to reduce trade distorting domestic support. In this area, we note 
with concern not only the lack of flexibility expressed by certain Members with regard to moving 
forward towards realistic agree ments but also, frankly, the apparent lack of interest in achieving an 
outcome with a view to Nur -Sultan, which gives the impression that some feel comfortable with the 
current situation.  
 
The above elements have signified a harmful entrenchment of positio ns, which, in our view, is 
causing serious immobility. Since the status quo appears not to entail costs for certain parties, we 
must be capable of finding the proper incentives to move forward together in these complex 
negotiations.  
 
The lack of an outcome  in agriculture for MC12 would no doubt deepen the crisis currently facing 
the WTO even further, and Chile therefore reiterates its commitment and willingness to achieve 
results in these negotiations.  
 
With regard to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies , our country reiterates its commitment and its 
work to achieve an ambitious objective in line with the mandate of the Buenos Aires Ministerial 
Decision and target 14.6 of the Sustainable Development Goals. We would like to thank the 
Ambassador of Colombia  and the facilitators for the commitment that they have shown to these 
negotiations and we reiterate our support for the work programme that has been presented. We are 
looking forward to the presentation of the consolidated negotiating text and the "landin g zones " to 
be identified soon. We call for these documents to be made available as soon as possible and we 
hope that these will enable us to reach consensus in the various pillars of the negotiations.  
 
Chile continues to be strongly committed to the initiatives based on joint declarations. On the way 
towards MC12, we call for the best efforts to be made to achieve a final outcome on domestic 
regulation in services and a concrete outcome on facilitation of investment for development and to 
show substan tial progress on electronic commerce.  
 
Moreover, we reiterate the significant value that we attach to the moratoriums in force regarding 
intellectual property and e commerce and we invite the whole Membership to work with the goal of 
renewing both moratori ums at MC12.  WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 126 - 
 
   
Lastly, allow me to pay tribute to the contribution made by Ambassador Eduardo Gálvez as 
coordinator of the structured dialogue on facilitation of investment for development.  While 
Ambassador Gálvez was in office, Members ' support increased t o 100 signatories and tangible, 
concrete progress was achieved in a atmosphere conducive to consensus. We hope that this progress 
will continue in the near future and culminate in a substantive agreement on this important matter.  
 
58. Paraguay  
 
As a defender o f the multilateral trading system, Paraguay wishes to emphasi ze its commitment to 
the work of the WTO. In this regard, we would like to underline the urgency that we feel as regards 
restoring credibility in the Organization.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
Paraguay considers  that discussions should continue to be inclusive and transparent and respect the 
development component as a principle and as a fundamental right of Members. We should preserve 
special and differential treatment for those Members that really need it. In ad dition, discussions on 
improving transparency and notifications should cover all agreements equally and not treat Table 
DS:1 notification requirements under the Agreement on Agriculture any differently, this being a key 
notification for the elaboration of disciplines that reflect the current reality of the protection of 
agricultural products. Moreover, the discussion should be based on appropriate incentives, and also 
on effective mechanisms that enable Members to meet their outstanding obligations.  
 
Appell ate Body  
 
we reiterate our deep concern regarding the current impasse. The dispute settlement system is a 
vital element for providing legal certainty and predictability to the multilateral trading system. The 
membership 's priority should be to fill vacanci es without further delay, and any solution should be 
negotiated and aim for the restoration of the dispute settlement system with its fundamental 
principles.  
 
Agriculture Negotiations  
 
We would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA SS) 
for his efforts to seek progress in the current discussions. We continue to maintain that a package 
outcome is essential for balanced commitments and we will continue to work for the presentation of 
a framework document to guide di scussions on market access. With regard to domestic support, we 
are convinced that the way ahead towards achievable and fair outcomes lies in making progress on 
the basis of the principle of proportionality with discussions that comprise all the elements o f Article  6 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. Mr Chairman, all Members of this Organization must recogni ze 
their share of responsibility for agricultural subsidies and contribute towards a solution for them; we 
are ready to do our part. We also think that a ny outcome regarding transparency would be a plus 
and in no way a prerequisite for achieving a substantive outcome or an outcome worthy of 
submission to ministerial authority.  
 
We cannot fail to mention the importance to our country of the application of non -tariff barriers for 
agricultural products. The current limited market access for agricultural products is increasingly 
affected by non -tariff barriers that have a negative impact on our producers. We therefore fully 
support the initiativ e put forward by Brazil, Canada and the United States which we hope can be 
approved as a multilateral initiative at the forthcoming Ministerial Conference.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations  
 
Paraguay encourages Members to renew their efforts to fulfil the ministerial mandate and conclude 
the negotiations, without prejudice to the rights conferred by international law on landlocked WTO 
Members.  
 
Moratoria on Electronic Commerce and on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints  
 
We have always su pported their extension and renewal, and also the continuity of informed technical 
discussions in the context of the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Let us intensify WT/GC/M/182  
 
- 127 - 
 
  the technical discussions in the coming months so that ministers have sufficie nt input to take an 
informed decision that takes account of the impact of the moratoriums on our economies.  
 
Joint Initiatives  
 
We are very enthusiastic about the WTO 's potential for creating new disciplines that are transversally 
linked to trade facilitat ion. We therefore support the work of the initiatives on e -commerce, 
facilitation of investment for development, and MSMEs. We hope that the discussions will continue 
to be open and transparent as they have been so far, and we call on Members, especially L DCs and 
landlocked developing countries that are still not participating, to convey their concerns and interests 
so as to strengthen the inclusive aspect of these discussions.  
 
My delegation is ready to contribute actively to the discussions to be held wit h a view to the 
forthcoming Ministerial Conference. We hope to work constructively with Members to achieve 
tangible outcomes and we encourage Members to be constructive with their contributions and 
distance themselves from extreme positions that do not ena ble progress in the discussions.  
 
__________