RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/10
18 February 1999
(99-0635)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 7 OCTOBER 1998
Chairperson:  Mr Dick Mak (Hong Kong, China)
1. The following agenda was adopted:
A. Chairpersonship of the Committee
B. Application for observer statusC. Modifications to the Appendices to the AgreementD. Accessions:
(i) Iceland
(ii) Chinese Taipei
(iii) Panama(iv) Future arrangements for accessions
E. Newly acceded WTO Members
F. Review of national implementing legislation
G. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7H. Annual Report to the General CouncilI. Other business
(i) Korea - Procurement of International Airport Construction Corporation
(ii) United States - Measures affecting government procurement
J. Date of the next meeting.
A. C
HAIRPERSONSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE
2. As Mrs. Helle Klem (Norway) was not able to continue as Chairperson of the Committee for
the remainder of 1998, the Committee elected Mr. Dick Mak (Hong Kong, China) as its Chairperson.GPA/M/10
Page 2
B. APPLICATION FOR OBSERVER STATUS
3. The Committee agreed to grant observer status to the Government of Estonia, pursuant to the
decision it had taken on this matter (GPA/1, Annex 1) and in response to the request received from
that country (GPA/W/77).
C. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
4. The Chairperson said that, since the Committee’s June 1998 meeting, Japan had notified
proposed modifications to its Appendix I (GPA/W/74).  Since no objections had been raised within
the prescribed time-period, the modifications by Japan had entered into force on 14 August 1998
(WT/Let/238).
5. The representative of the European Community said that his delegation had communicated an
explanatory note, dated 7 October 1998, concerning the proposed modifications relating to its
Appendix I that it had notified on 13 August 1997 (GPA/W/51 and Add.2).  The  note had been
prepared in response to the questions that his delegation had received from the delegation of the
United States relating to some of the items in the proposed modifications in GPA/W/51.  However,
there had been no further amendments to the lists that had been previously circulated in GPA/W/51.
The representative of the United States said that his delegation had reviewed the modifications in
GPA/W/51 and had no objections to them in the light of the consultations it had held with the
European Community (GPA/W/51/Add.1) and the explanatory note in GPA/W/51/Add.2.  The
Chairperson suggested that the Committee accept the modifications proposed by the European
Community to its Appendix I in documents GPA/W/51 and Add.2 and that those modificationsbecome effective as of 8 October 1998 in accordance with the procedures of Article XXIV:6.  The
Committee so agreed.
6. In response to a question by the representative of Switzerland, the representative of the
Secretariat said that, in accordance with the procedures agreed by the Committee (GPA/M/8,
paragraphs 14 and 15), the draft loose-leaf sche dules in document GPA/W/35 dated 5 February 1997
would be revised in order to take into account the modifications to Appendix I of the European
Community which had been accepted by the Committee at the present meeting and the modificationsto the Appendices of other Parties since February 1997, and then circulated to Parties.  The revised
loose-leaf schedule would be certified after the expiry of a comment period of 60 days.
D. A
CCESSIONS
(i) Iceland
7. The Chairperson said that an application for accession to the Agreement together with a draft
offer had been received from Iceland on 22 June 1998 (GPA/W/73).
(ii) Chinese Taipei
8. The representative of Japan said that his delegation had held three bilateral meetings with the
delegation of Chinese Taipei since February 1996.  His authorities considered that the level of offers
of Chinese Taipei to Japan was sufficient.
9. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that no substantial progress had been made in the
bilateral consultations held with other interested Parties since the previous meeting.  His delegation
would continue to hold consultations with interested Parties in order to conclude the process of
bilateral consultations at an early stage.GPA/M/10
Page 3
(iii) Panama
10. The representative of Panama said that his delegation would hold consultations with
interested Parties regarding its offer in GPA/SPEC/3  in the near future.  Panama's replies to  the
additional questions put by one Party were still pending.  On the other hand, his delegation had not
received any follow-up questions or comments to the replies that it had provided to some otherdelegations.
11. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had received replies to some of
its questions and hoped to receive an early response to its requests for statistical information and for
clarification of certain points in Panama's initial offer.  His delegation had held two consultations with
Panama and expected to have further consultations prior to the next meeting of the Committee, by
which time it hoped to have resolved any outstanding issues with regard to Panama's accession.
12. The representative of the European Community said that her delegation had held a bilateral
meeting with the delegation of Panama.  The European Community had suggested that Panama should
improve its offer in certain respects.  It might also consider the use of new technologies for the
publication of information related to procurement.
13. The representative of Japan said that his delegation had  held two bilateral meetings with the
delegation of Panama.  Panama's initial offer did not include entities at sub-central levels of
government.
14. The representative of Switzerland said that her delegation had held bilateral consultations
with Panama in February 1998.  Her delegation's questions and comments  would be communicated to
Panama in writing.  The bilateral consultations be tween the two delegations would be resumed before
or at the time of the next meeting.
(iv) Future arrangements for accessions
15. The representative of Japan said that the process of accessions to the Agreement had lost its
momentum after the accessions of Singapore and Hong Kong.  Joined by the representative of the
European Community, he suggested that the Committee should discuss how the procedures for
accession to the Agreement might be made more operational.  The Committee agreed to revert to this
matter at its next meeting.
E. NEWLY ACCEDED WTO M EMBERS
16. The Chairperson said that there were no new developments to report on the accessions of
Bulgaria and Mongolia to the Agreement as of 7 October 1998.1
17. The representative of the European Community said that the negotiations on the accessions of
these two countries would be held in bilateral consultations.  Moreover, the  accession of a newly
acceded WTO Member to the Agreement on Government Procurement was a matter that related to thework in the WTO on accessions.  While recognizing that accession to a plurilateral agreement might
be a difficult issue, the European Community would continue to stress the importance of joining the
Agreement on Government Procurement for countries newly acceding to the WTO as an important
part of its efforts in the WTO accession process.  The European Community had offered technical
cooperation to some of the acceding countries.
                                                     
1 Mongolia applied for observer status in a communication dated 26 November 1998 (GPA/W/80).GPA/M/10
Page 4
18. The representative of Japan said that his Government would be prepared to provide technical
cooperation to promote accession to the Agreement of the newly acceded countries on the basis of the
requests to be formulated by them.
F. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
19. The Chairperson said that the arrangements and the schedule for the review of national
implementing legislation had been agreed by the Committee at its February and June 1998 meetings
(GPA/M/8, paragraph 23 and GPA/M/9, paragraph 12).  In accordance with these procedures, the
Committee would begin its review at the present meet ing by taking up the legislation of the European
Community (GPA/20) and Korea (G PA/12/Rev.1).  The written questions put by the United States
and Korea to the European Community (Job No. 4689) and the written replies by the European
Community (Job No. 69) had been circulated respectively on 4 September and 6 October 1998.  The
written questions put by the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Canada toKorea (Job Nos. 4690, 4868, 5052 and 5328) and the written replies by Korea (Job No. 5326) had
been circulated on 29 August, 7 September, 21 September, 5 October and 2 October 1998
respectively.   The Chairman suggested that each Party might provide an introduction to the responses
to the questions that had been put to it by other Parties.  He would then offer the floor to other Parties
for any other questions or comments.  Furthermore, Parties would be invited to submit any furtherquestions that they wished to put to these two delegations by 5 November 1998.
2  The delegations of
the European Community and Korea would provide written responses to these questions by
15 January 1999.  The Committee would revert to any outstanding points at its next meeting.
20. The Committee agreed to these procedures and carried out the review of the legislation of the
European Community and Korea on the basis of the written questions and answers and the oral
statements made by the two delegations.  The full record of the review of the legislation of the
European Community and Korea will be circulated in the GPA/- series of documents.
21. Following the reviews, the Chairperson suggested that the Committee take up at its next
meeting any outstanding points with respect to the legislation of the European Community and Korea.
At that meeting it would also initiate the review of the national legislation of Switzerland (GPA/15)and the United States (GPA/23).  In accordance with the agreed procedures for the review, Parties
would be invited to submit their written questions to these Parties by 7 December 1998 and copies
would be made available to the Secretariat which would circulate them to other Parties.
3  T h e
delegations of Switzerland and the United States would provide written responses to these questions
by 31 January 1999.
22. The Committee so agreed.
G. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV:7
23. The Chairperson said that informal consultations had been held on 5 October 1998 on the
negotiations under Article XXIV:7 on the basis of a revised informal checklist of issues, the most
recent version of which was dated 8 September 1998 (circulated with footer "gpa60"), and the non-
papers presented by the delegations of Hong Kong, China relating to the Articles of the Agreement
(Job No. 5269) and the timetable and work programme for the elimination of discriminatory measures(Job No. 5270) and by the delegation of Singapore relating to methods of procurement
(Job No. 5295).  In the light of those consultations, it had been agreed that a further informal meeting
                                                     
2 No questions had been submitted as of 3 February 1999.
3 The questions from the European Community put to the United States and Switzerland were
circulated on 13 January 1999 and the reply by Switzerland on 16 February 1999.GPA/M/10
Page 5
would be held on 9-10 December 1998 and that, at that meeting, the work would be carried forward in
the following way:
(i) delegations would revert once more to the issues of information technology,
statistical reporting and enforcement and monitoring mechanisms on the basis of a
note that the Chair would draw up attempting to crystallize the state reached in thediscussions and to identify the key questions that needed to be pursued;
(ii) the European Community was invited to pr ovide any further information that it might
have on its suggestions regarding the use of information and communications
technology for the compilation of statistical data in the light of the questions put to
that delegation at the meeting (Job No. 3869);
(iii) delegations would revert to the issue of procurement methods on the basis of the
paper presented by the delegation of Singapore (Job No. 5295) and any other papersthat might be submitted;
(iv) delegations would revert to Articles I to XV and also take up the remaining Articles
of the Agreement;
(v) with respect to the elimination of discriminatory measures, there was an agreement
that this matter related to provisions that discriminated between Parties, it beingunderstood that there was a close link between this issue and that of coverage under
which issues relating to the extension of the scope of application of the national
treatment principle would be taken up;
(vi) delegations would further revert to the issue of the timetable and work programme for
the negotiations on the elimination of discriminatory measures and practices and theexpansion of the coverage of the Agreement having regard to the non-paper
submitted by Hong Kong, China (Job No. 5270);
(vii) delegations would discuss the issue of the coverage of services on the basis of a note
to be prepared by the Secretariat listing the services presently covered in the
Schedules of Parties.
H. A
NNUAL REPORT (1998) TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
24. The Committee adopted its Annual Report for 1998 to the General Council on the basis of a
draft prepared by the Secretariat which was amended in the light of the discussion at the meeting and
circulated in document GPA/25.
I. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Korea -  Procurement of International Airport Construction Corporation
25. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had submitted questions to the
delegation of Korea relating to the status of the Korean Airport Construction Corporation under the
Agreement (GPA/W/76).  His delegation disagreed with the view held by Korea that the Korean
Airport Construction Authority was not covered by the Agreement.  His authorities considered that
this was an important issue for the United States with respect to the balance that had been established
pursuant to the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the Agreement.GPA/M/10
Page 6
26. The representative of Korea said that his delegation had not yet been able to respond to the
questions put by the United States under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XIX due to the complexity of
the questions.  Korea continued to believe that the Korean Airport Construction Corporation was not
subject to the GPA.  If necessary, Korea would be willing to hold bilateral consultations so as to
resolve the matter in a satisfactory manner.
(ii) United States - Measures affecting government procurement
27. The representative of Japan said that his Government had requested the establishment of a
panel regarding the sub-federal measures affecting government procurement in the United States at
the DSB meeting of 22 September 1998 but that no consensus had been reached at that meeting to
establish a panel (WT/DS95/3 and WT/DSB/M/48).4
J. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
28. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting on 23 February 1999.
__________
                                                     
4 Following the requests by the European Community (WT/DS88/3) and Japan (WT/DS95/3), a single
panel was established at the DSB meeting of 21 October 1998 (WT/DSB/M/49).