RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/59
13 November 2000
(00-4785)
General Council
Special Session on Implementation
18 October 2000
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 18 October 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Report by the General Council Chairman and Director-General on their
consultations on implementation-related issues and concerns, especially those
reflected in paragraph 21 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999 ........................1
(a) Sanitary and Phytos anitary Me asures ..................................................................................2
(b) Technical Barrie rs to Trade................................................................................................. .3
(c) Agric ulture ................................................................................................................. ..........3
(d) Customs Valua tion........................................................................................................... ....4
(e) Rules of  Origin............................................................................................................. ........5
(f) Subsid ies ................................................................................................................... ...........5
(g) Ser vices.................................................................................................................... ............6
(h) TRIPS....................................................................................................................... ............7
2. Discussion of other proposals on impl ementation, especially those reflected in
paragraph 22 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999 as well as others in
the compilation of proposals in document  Job(99)/4797/Rev.3 of 18 November 1999 .....26
1. Report by the General Council Chairman and Director-General on their consultations
on implementation-related issues and concern s, especially those reflected in paragraph
21 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999
1. The Chairman said that the report by the Director-General and himself was on their own
responsibility, setting out the situation as they saw it.  It was not intended to be a negotiated text or
claim to represent consensus on all issues, and he did not expect to engage in a drafting exercise at
this stage.  He was satisfied, however, that it faithfully reflected the results of the work thus far.
2. As Members were aware, he had been carrying out consultations, together with the Director-
General and his colleagues, in pursuance of the work programme agreed at the first Special Session onWT/GC/M/59
Page 2
22 June and 3 July 2000.  In accordance with the work programme the consultations had focussed
especially on issues and concerns reflected in paragraph  21 of the 19 October 1999 draft Ministerial
text (Job(99)/5868/Rev.1).
3. He had conducted open-ended consultations on these issues on 18, 19 and 25 September as
well as on 6 and 12 October.  During the previous two weeks, a number of smaller consultations onspecific subjects had been carried out.  He had reported on these consultations to the two open-ended
meetings held in October, and points made in the discussion at those meetings had been taken into
account.  He had also reported in detail to delegations at the previous day's informal meeting of the
General Council.  He wished to thank delegations most warmly for their co-operation with him, with
the Secretariat and – most importantly – with each other during this process.
4. He had outlined at the earlier informal meetings the approach they had followed in the
consultations, which was to focus first of all on those issues under paragraph 21 which seemed tooffer the greatest prospect of progress, and it was first and foremost the progress achieved he was
reporting to the Special Session.
5. He wished to emphasize, however, that structuring the work in this way did not at all imply
that the other proposals that had been made in these or other areas under paragraph 21 were being set
aside or ignored.  These were issues on which he and the Director-General would of course continue
to work hard.  In that connection, he assumed that delegations would wish the Director-General and
himself to continue their consultations in these areas, as foreseen in the Programme and Calendar of
Work adopted on 22 June, and to report to delegations before the third Special Session in December.
6. Equally, the way in which he and the Director -General had organized the consultations was
without prejudice to the possibility for delegations who so wished to put forward other concerns for
consideration, as some had indicated they wished to do.
7. This report, therefore, was to be seen as a progress report, bringing together the elements on
which he had reported at previous informal meetings and outlining the stage he believed had been
reached in each case.  In an encouraging number of these areas, the General Council was in a position
to take note of a high level of common understanding.   There were others he and the Director-General
would need to come back to, and in some cases there was assistance that the General Council could
ask other WTO bodies to give, particularly in clarifying technical parameters.  In all such cases it was
to be clear that the matter remained with the Gene ral Council;  but the Council should not deny itself
the opportunity to make use of other WTO bodies where it was appropriate.
(a) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
8. Consultations had thus far focused on Tirets 2, 3 and 5 of the proposals in paragraph 21 of the
19 October 1999 text.
9. Starting first with Tiret 2, the discussions had suggested that Members could consider dealing
with this by way of an understanding that, subject to the conditions set out in Article 10.2, the longer
time-frame referred to in that Article should be normally at least 12 months following the date of
publication of the measures decided upon.  It was understood that this was a Special & Differential
treatment provision and that, pursuant to Art. 10.2, it would be applicable on products of interest todeveloping countries in situations where the appr opriate level of SPS protection allowed scope for the
phased introduction of new SPS measures.
10. He wished to note that some delegations had indicated that they needed to consider this issue
further.WT/GC/M/59
Page 3
11. As regards Tiret 3, concerning international standard-setting organizations, discussions
suggested that Members could consider dealing with this on the basis of the following elements:
- First, encouraging international standard-setting organizations to ensure the
participation of Members at different levels of development and from all geographic
regions, throughout all phases of standard development;
- Second, requesting the Director-General to explore with the relevant international
standard-setting organizations and relevant intergovernmental organizations financial
and technical mechanisms to assist the participation of developing countries in
standard-setting activities;
- Third, requesting the Director-General to coordinate efforts with the relevant
international standard-setting organizations to identify SPS-related technical
assistance needs and how best to address these, taking into consideration theimportance of bilateral and regional technical assistance in this regard;  and
- Fourth, requesting the Director-General to make a progress report on his initiatives
regarding elements two and three above to the General Council at its Special Session
in December.
12. Regarding Tiret 5, on the basis of discussions, and taking into account that this issue would be
on the agenda of the 8-9 November meeting of the SPS Committee, he proposed that the SPS
Committee be requested to examine the concerns of developing countries regarding the equivalence of
SPS measures and to come up with concrete options as to how to deal with them, and that the
Chairman of the Committee be requested to report to the General Council before its Special Session in
December.
(b) Technical Barriers to Trade
13. Consultations had so far focused on both Tirets 1 and 2 of the proposals in paragraph 21.
14. As regards Tiret 1, which refered to international standard-setting organizations, discussions
had suggested that Members could consider dealing w ith this on the basis of elements similar to those
he had mentioned earlier with regard to the proposal in connection with the SPS standard-settingorganizations.
15. On Tiret 2, Members had noted that the TBT Committee had already taken up these issues as
part of its current Triennial Review, and also that the last meeting of the Committee in the conduct of
that review would be held on 6-10 November.  In this regard, on the basis of discussions, he proposed
that the TBT Committee be requested to examine the problems faced by developing countries in both
international standards and conformity assessment, and to explore possible solutions in the context of
the ongoing Triennial Review.  He further proposed that the Chairman of the Committee be requestedto report on the outcome of that review to the General Council before its Special Session in
December.
(c)  Agriculture
16. Consultations thus far had focused on four specific proposals in paragraph 21.  These were
the proposals that dealt with tariff rate quota administration, in Tirets 3 and 4, the proposal on theMinisterial Decision regarding net food-importing countries in Tiret 5, and the proposal in Tiret 6
regarding implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement.
17. Starting first with the two proposals on tariff rate quotas in Tirets 3 and 4, discussions had
suggested that Members could consider the following elements as part of a possible solution:WT/GC/M/59
Page 4
- First, that the administration of tariff rate quotas should be made more transparent,
equitable and non-discriminatory;  and,
- Second, that this might be achieved by ensuring that notifications submitted to the
Agriculture Committee include also details on guidelines and procedures on the
allotment of TRQs.  In order to do this, Members operating TRQs should submit, by adate to be set, addenda to the MA:1 notifications that were submitted to the
Agriculture Committee.
18. It was his understanding that supplementing and amplifying existing information on TRQ
administration by providing details on guidelines and procedures on the allotment of TRQs would
clearly enhance transparency of the operation of the TRQs and thus improve the possibilities,
particularly for new or small suppliers, to take advantage of the market access opportunities provided
through the TRQs.
19. With regard to Tiret 5, which refered to implementation of the Ministerial Decision on net
food-importing countries, Members had noted that implementation of this Decision was monitored
annually in the Committee on Agriculture, and that it was on the agenda of the regular meeting of the
Committee in November.  There was nonetheless wide support for pursuing consultations at the level
of the General Council at this stage, and Members had noted the intention of the net food-importingdeveloping countries to submit shortly to the General Council a proposal outlining ways in which the
implementation of the Marrakesh Decision might be enhanced.  The Director-General and he looked
forward to receiving this submission.
20. On Tiret 6, regarding the development of intern ationally agreed disciplines to govern the
provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes pursuant to Article 10.2of the Agreement, he proposed, on the basis of discussions, that the General Council instruct the
Committee on Agriculture to include in the agenda of its regular meetings an item on the
implementation of Article 10.2 and to report back on the Committee's progress on this issue to the
General Council at its last regular meeting of this year.
21. It was his understanding that in pursuing their work on export credits in accordance with
Article 10.2, Members would of course take into account the provisions of paragraph 4 of the
Marrakesh Decision on net food-importing countries, in which Ministers had agreed that any
agreement on export credits should ensure appropriate provision for differential treatment in favour of
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries.
(d) Customs Valuation
22. Consultations thus far had focused on all four Tirets of the proposals in paragraph 21.
23. Starting first with Tiret 1 regarding the id ea of information exchange between customs
administrations on export values in doubtful cases, discussions had indicated that while there seemed
to be no disagreement on the importance of the objective behind the original proposal, which was to
find effective ways to deal with customs fraud through fraudulent declarations of value to customs
authorities in an importing country, there was some concern regarding the means.
24. Some delegations had suggested that there might be a number of practical and technical
questions that might have to be addressed, including the question of possible confidentiality
constraints in providing the information that was being sought.  This was clearly an issue on which
further consultations were needed, and also input from customs valuation experts.
1
                                                     
1 See also paragraph 96 of the present Minutes.WT/GC/M/59
Page 5
25. As regards the proposals in Tirets 2 and 3, they appeared to raise a number of technical issues
that might need to be dealt with at a technical level.  In this regard, and on the basis of discussions, he
proposed that the Committee on Customs Valuation be requested to consider the proposals, and that
the Chairman of the Committee be requested to report on the outcome of that consideration to the
General Council before its Special Session in December.
26. Finally, as regards the proposal in Tiret 4, regarding the extension of the moratorium in
Article 20.1, Members had noted that the process of examination and approval, in the Customs
Valuation Committee, of individual requests from Members for extension of the five-year delay
period in Article 20.1 was proceeding relatively well, and that, as part of that process, the Committee
had thus far been able to grant 13 out of the 19 current requests for extension.  The view had been
expressed that the Committee should be encouraged to pursue this work and that no additional action
might be needed from the General Council at this stage.
(e) Rules of Origin
27. Consultations thus far had focused on Tiret 1 of the proposals, which concerned the deadline
for the completion of the remaining work on harmonizing non-preferential rules of origin.
28. The issue of the deadline for completion of the remainder of the harmonization work
programme had been on the agenda of the Rules of Origin Committee for quite a long time, and hadmost recently been discussed again at the Committee's meeting at the end of September.  At that
meeting, the Committee Chairman had made some suggestions regarding a new deadline for
completing the work on rules of origin.
29. It was clear from the discussions that Members needed to give serious consideration to
establishing a new deadline, in the interests of strengthening the credibility of the process.  It wasequally clear that a new deadline would be meaningless without the political will to redouble efforts
to complete this work, and without the necessary technical resources from capitals being devoted to
the large amount of very demanding technical work th at remains.  It would also appear to be useful
for Members, at the level of the General Council, to get a sense of the progress of this work on the
road to the new deadline, and to ensure that the process was on track.
30. In the light of the above considerations, the following elements had emerged which might
form a basis on which to deal with this issue:
- First, to consider as the new deadline the Fourth Session of the Ministerial
Conference, or at the latest the end of 2001, as had been suggested by the Chairman
of the Committee;
- Second, to urge Members to exercise the political will necessary to expedite the
remaining work on harmonizing non-preferential rules of origin;  and
- Third, to request the Chairman of the Committee to report to the General Council, on
his own responsibility, on the progress of work in the Committee;  the first such
report would be submitted to the Council at its first regular meeting next year, and
subsequently at each regular meeting until the completion of the work programme.
(f)  Subsidies
31. Consultations had thus far focused on Tiret 4 of the proposals on Subsidies, relating to
Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement, and had taken up both the broader implementation issue, as
well as the technical omission of Honduras – the only original Member of the WTO with a GNP per
capita below US$ 1000 that had not been included in Annex VII.WT/GC/M/59
Page 6
32. On the broader issue, the Director-General and he had suggested in their discussions with
delegations that one might try and meet, in a pragmatic way, the concerns of countries within the
existing provisions, and to reach an understanding along the lines of the following elements:
- First, pursuant to Article IX of the WTO Agreement, interpreting Annex VII to
include the countries that were listed therein until their GNP per capita reachedUS$1000 in constant 1990 dollars for three consecutive years;  one would of course
need to develop this approach in such a manner that no Member listed in Annex VII
would be treated less favorably as a result of these actions.
- Second, extending, in the Subsidies Committee, for an agreed number of years and
upon request under Article 27.4 from the countries listed in Annex VII, the 8-year
transition period for the phase-out of export subsidies;  and
- Third, reviewing the threshold of US$ 1000 in Annex VII (b) with a view to
considering the possibility of including in Annex VII Members in the low and lower-
middle income categories as classified by the World Bank.  This work could be taken
up by the Subsidies Committee.
33. Their understanding, on the basis of the brief discussions that had been held on this issue, was
that this was something that would need to taken up in further discussion.  He also suggested forMembers' consideration, as a means of allowing this issue to move forward, the possibility of seeking
a technical input from the Subsidies Committee on the proposals, and on the implications for national
legislations of the changes that might be involved.
34. With regard to the omission of Honduras from Annex VII, the Director-General and he had
suggested in discussions that Members' consideration needed to be based on the uniqueness ofHonduras' situation as the only original Member of the WTO with a GNP per capita below US$ 1000
that had not been included in Annex VII.
35. The omission of Honduras from the list in Annex VII was a technical error, and it had been
suggested that Members consider correcting it in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 79
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regarding the correction of errors in texts or incertified copies of treaties.
36. Under these provisions, in the case of a treaty for which there was a depositary, in this case
the Director-General of the WTO, the latter was to notify the signatory States and the contracting
States of the error and the proposal to correct it and specify an appropriate time-limit within which
objection to the proposed correction might be raised.  If, on expiry of the time-limit, no objection was
raised, the depositary made and initialed the correction and executed a procès-verbal of the
rectification of the text and communicated a copy of it to the parties.
37. Delegations had broadly indicated their willingness to consider this proposal in order to make
progress on this issue, and he believed that with some further consultations the Director-General and
he should be able to arrive at a solution.
(g) Services
38. Consultations had thus far focused on both Tirets 1 and 2 of the proposals on Services.
39. Starting first with Tiret 1, differences of view remained among delegations as to the need for
more, or less, precise or declaratory language to address this proposal, taking into account also that
other domestic administrative agencies were involved in the implementation of commitments under
Mode 4.  While some delegations would prefer a precise mention of administrative problems beingWT/GC/M/59
Page 7
faced, such as in visa requirements, economic needs tests and multilateral recognition of
qualifications, others preferred a more general text that would nonetheless be useful in promoting the
full and effective implementation of the commitments which had already been made under Mode 4.
With further discussions, he was hopeful that these differences could be resolved.
40. Regarding the proposal in Tiret 2, it had been their suggestion that, in respect of Article IV.2,
Members consider requesting the Services Council to review the operation of contact points
established pursuant to Article IV.2 with a view to assessing their effectiveness in promoting the
participation of developing countries in services trade.  He had also suggested that Members might
wish to revert to the broader issue of effective implementation of Article IV as a whole at a
subsequent discussion.  One possibility that nevertheless seemed to exist in this regard was to task the
Services Council to consider this issue in the context of its Assessment of Trade in Services, which
was a regular item on its agenda, and to request the Chairman of the Council to make a progressreport to the General Council at its Special Session in December.
41. It was their impression from the discussion thus far on these two elements that, taken
together, and with some greater precision as to what was to be requested of the Services Council in
regard to the broader issue of the effective implementation of Article IV, as well as the establishment
of specific time-frames, Members might be able to come to some understanding on how to address theconcerns that lay behind this proposal.  This then was another issue he should like to revert to at an
appropriate time in further discussions, on the basis also of delegation's comments in the present
meeting.
(h) TRIPS
42. Consultations had thus far focused on Tirets 2, 3 and 4 of the proposals on TRIPS.
43. Starting first with Tiret 2, the Director-General and he had noted in their consultations that the
issue of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD was already being discussed in
the TRIPS Council.  In this connection, Members could consider building on the following elements
as a possible response to the proposal in Tiret 2:
- First, urging the TRIPS Council to cont inue its ongoing work with a view to
clarifying the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD;
- Second, urging the TRIPS Council, in this connection, to give positive consideration
to granting observer status to the CBD Secretariat on an ad hoc basis pending the
conclusion of wider discussions on observer status for international organizations in
the General Council;  and
- Third, requesting the TRIPS Council to report to the General Council on progress on
the above points at its Special Session in December.
44. With regard to Tiret 3, they had noted in their consultations that discussion was also ongoing
in the TRIPS Council on the appropriateness of non-violation complaints in the TRIPS area, as well as
on the appropriate scope and modalities of such a recourse.  In this regard, and on the basis of
discussions, they had suggested that Members might consider the following elements as part of a
possible solution:
- First, urging the TRIPS Council to come to an early understanding on the scope and
modalities for non-violation complaints made pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement, and
to report to the General Council on developments in this regard at its Special Session
in December;  andWT/GC/M/59
Page 8
- Second, urging Members to exercise due restraint on this matter in the meantime, on
the understanding that this approach should be without prejudice to their rights and
obligations under the WTO and to their positions in this regard.
45. He wished to note that some delegations had indicated that they needed to consider this issue
further.
46. Finally, with regard to Tiret 4, many delegations had noted that the provisions of Article 66.2
were already mandatory in nature.  As regards areas where a positive outcome could be sought to
meet the concerns behind this proposal, and on the basis of the discussions so far, the following
elements appeared to be a good basis for building upon:
- First, requesting the TRIPS Council, with a view to facilitating full implementation of
Article 66.2, to give consideration to drawing up an illustrative list of incentives of
the sort envisaged by Article 66.2;  and
- Second, requesting the TRIPS Council to put on a regular and systematic basis its
procedure for the notification and monitoring of measures in accordance with the
provisions of Article 66.2.  In doing so, the Council would of course need to give
consideration to avoiding unnecessary burdens in notification procedures.
47. In addition, with regard to the broader question of technology capacity-building, they had also
suggested that the TRIPS Council be urged to invite other international intergovernmental
organizations to provide information on their activities aimed at technology capacity-building.
48. The representatives of Australia, Bolivia , Brazil , Bulgaria , Canada , Chile , Colombia ,
Costa Rica, Cuba , the Czech Republic , the Dominican Republic , Egypt , Honduras , Hong Kong China ,
Hungary, India , Indonesia , Israel , Japan , Korea , Mauritius , New Zealand , Nigeria , Pakistan , Panama ,
Paraguay, Singapore , the Slovak Republic , Sri Lanka , Switzerland , Thailand , Turkey , Uganda , the
United States and Venezuela  expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Chairman and the Director-
General in holding the consultations thus far.
49. The representative of Canada said that his delegation believed that the Chairman's leadership
in conducting open informal consultations supplemented by smaller group discussions had been
conducive to moving the issues raised in paragraph 21 forward.  The Chairman's report was an
accurate reflection of the outcome of the consultation process, and his delegation agreed with the
understandings and conclusions reached by the Chairman in almost all of the areas addressed in his
report.  However, his delegation could not agree with the approach he had put forward in relation to
tiret 2 under Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  As the Chairman had stated, some delegations had
indicated that they needed to consider this matter further and his was one of those delegations.  The
proposal in this area would commit Members to extend the time period for implementation of SPSmeasures from the date of their publication for products of interest to developing countries.  His
authorities had examined this proposal carefully and remained concerned that it would put trade
obligations ahead of food and health safety issues.  Members would understand that food and health
safety concerns were matters of intense public interest in Canada.  His authorities had advised that
regulations of this type did go into effect most often at the date of publication.  His delegation hadengaged in discussion in the SPS Committee on the most constructive ways to assist developing
countries in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  But delaying the implementation of food
and health regulations necessary to the well-being of Canadians, was not the best or even an
acceptable way of achieving this.  Senior Canadian officials would be present at the next meeting of
the SPS Committee to discuss this issue with any interested Member.  Finally, Canada supported theprocess the Chairman had set out in the previous day's informal meeting for the organisation of further
work on implementation.WT/GC/M/59
Page 9
50. The representative of Mauritius, speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that the
Chairman's report was welcome at this stage of the work, since it could serve as a useful working
document for further consultations.  The African Group believed that the report broadly reflected,
with perhaps a few omissions, the discussions and consultations on implementation issues.  The
outcome might not entirely satisfy all Members, but it was a good beginning in dealing with theseissues.  The results achieved thus far were relatively scant, if considered in relation to the large
number of issues at stake.  The least Members could do was to urgently bring these scant
achievements to closure, if concrete meaning was to be given to the do-ables, and the African Group
agreed with the Chairman that more work was needed on these results.  However, these achievements
were a good basis for building further momentum into the work ahead.
51. With regard to the sequencing to be used in addressing paragraphs 21 and 22 of the October
1999 draft Ministerial text, Members had indicated at the previous day's informal meeting why theyconsidered it important that implementation issues be addressed, whether separately, concurrently or
consecutively.  A dichotomy had been apparent in that discussion, but the African Group believed that
all the issues were of significance to Members.  Logically, paragraph 21 preceded 22, and this
indicated clearly which direction the work should proceed.  In formulating paragraph 21, it had been
recognized in the title that the issues listed called  for immediate action, as also in the text itself.
Paragraph 22 had been headed implementation review mechanism, and this paragraph addressed a
possible decision to establish an improved mechanism to examine and address implementation-related
concerns.  This had created a kind of a dichotomy, and the African Group believed that the work
should continue in the spirit of the formulations found in these paragraphs.  There was much to gain
by reaching an understanding which reaffirmed this and the sequencing should be more a unifyingfactor for Members than a divisive one.  The sequencing was not really a question of paragraph or
issue, but rather a hierarchy of immediacy of results.  Many Members had consistently underscored
the need for results and result-oriented actions.  While the African Group had no objection that work
on paragraph 22 be undertaken, it believed that:  1) the immediacy of results as agreed by all
Members should be respected if Members wanted to contribute to confidence building;  2) work onparagraph 22 should not unduly harm the progress of work on paragraph 21 and this should be seen
on its own merit and urgency;  3) the first results of the Chairman's process, even if they might be
seen to be relatively insignificant, should be re cognized as stepping stones towards building the
momentum needed on implementation issues;  and, 4) the Chairman's report gave, with a minor
omission here and there, a faithful account of the discussions and consultations.  What had been
achieved was a collective gain even if it was not as much as some Members would have expected.  On
this basis, the African Group was optimistic that the reasonable goals of the implementation processwould be achieved, and would help confidence bu ilding and the strengthening of the multilateral
trading system to the benefit of all.
52. The representative of the European Communitie s said that the current process was perhaps
cumbersome, but it was most of all useful and necessary.  The Chairman's report would turn collective
hard work into reality.  Every Member had had ample opportunity to contribute to this result, and hisdelegation was sure that they would all have similar opportunities to contribute to further results in the
months ahead.  His delegation concurred with the Chairman's assessment of the consultations.  His
report reflected the best possible understanding of do-ables at this stage.  It was important not to
jeopardize this considerable progress by putting at risk the achievements thus far.  One should look
ahead to the December Special Session which should deliver, both on the progress achieved thus farand beyond.  His delegation agreed with the Chairman that the process thus far had not been
exhaustive and that there were areas in paragraph 21 where work would have to continue.  His
delegation also agreed with the Chairman's suggestion to mandate subsidiary bodies to assist in the
process.  The implementation debate was about to enter a second phase until December which would
allow Members to deepen and widen their reflections.  This would cover the legitimate concerns ofdelegations, whether under paragraph 21 or 22.  A large majority of delegations seemed to have
concerns under both paragraphs and wished to see work proceed on them.  There was a lot of work toWT/GC/M/59
Page 10
do until December, and his delegation had confidence in the Chairman's methodology, but at the same
time it wished to move into a higher gear.  His delegation was open to further suggestions from the
Chairman on how to build on this new emerging momentum, and what really mattered was that
Members continue to discuss the issues in substantive terms.
53. The representative of Paraguay said that the task of the Chairman and Director-General in the
current process was a complex one, but his delegation was certain that their efforts would lead to full
implementation of existing commitments.  In the programme and schedule of work, in line with the
decision of 3 May, it had been agreed to take up initially paragraph 21 and then move on to paragraph
22.  His delegation believed that linking these two paragraphs would not make the work more
difficult, and would make it possible to have a mo re global view of the situation.  For this reason, it
was not against taking up the two paragraphs simultaneously.  His delegation was also certain that this
process would lead to the resolution of the concerns raised under each agreement.  Paraguay's mainconcerns in the area of implementation were under the Agreements on Agriculture and Services.  His
delegation hoped that appropriate solutions would be found to allow full implementation in these
areas, and was willing to join the Chairman  in any further work in this direction.
54. The representative of Indonesia said that her delegation believed that although some progress
had been made, further work on other issues in paragraph 21 was needed before proceeding to
paragraph 22.  As the Chairman had stated, there had been no intention to disregard or ignore those
issues which had not been fully discussed.  Members could build upon the progress outlined in that
statement.  As decided at the first Special Session, the present meeting was to act on the results of the
discussions and consultations on paragraph 21 in accordance with the decision of 3 May 2000.  Since
there were issues under paragraph 21 that had not been addressed in any consultation thus far, such astextiles and anti-dumping, her delegation believed that the General Council should discuss all the
remaining issues before addressing paragraph 22.  This did not mean that paragraph 22 was less
important than paragraph 21 – they were equally important to her delegation.  Her delegation
continued to believe that the issue of implementation was a high priority and it looked forward to
decisions being taken on these issues by December, as had been agreed.  The longer difficult issueswere avoided, the harder it would be to complete the task before the deadline of December.  Her
delegation had noted that in the section of the Chairman's report on the Agreement on Subsidies, no
mention had been made of Indonesia's proposal on Annex VII of the Agreement.  Indonesia had
suggested that the countries listed which were ex cluded from the Annex due to their GNP per capita
exceeding the threshold, should be automatically included in the Annex if their GNP fell back under
the threshold, and that this should be explicitly mentioned in the Agreement.  Her delegation wished
to reiterate that this was an issue that only needed clarification and was not going to change thesubstance of the Agreement, and which should not be difficult for Members to agree to.  With regard
to the issue of Honduras, her delegation would support any formulation that would ensure the
inclusion of Honduras in Annex VII.  Finally, the report had not mentioned some issues of importance
to her delegation, such as textiles and clothing and anti-dumping.  Her delegation looked forward to
participating in any future consultations on these issues, and it believed that the issue of anti-dumpingshould be seriously addressed and resolved in this context, particularly the question of repeated
investigations which constituted a form of tr ade harassment.  Her delegation encouraged the
Chairman to continue his commendable efforts, a nd was ready to work with him to build upon the
progress thus far, in order to meet the December de adline.  Such joint efforts to resolve the issue of
implementation would enhance confidence building a nd improve the credibility of the organization so
that Members could move on to discussing other is sues which were also of interest to Indonesia.
55. The Chairman recalled that all the issues in paragraph 21 had been addressed in informal
consultations held on 18 and 19 September, including the issues raised under the Agreements on
Textiles and Anti-Dumping.  Following that meeting, the consultations had focussed on those issues
where the distance between the points of view of Members was not insurmountable, which was whythe concept of "do-ables" had been developed.  The aim had been to aim for some areas of commonWT/GC/M/59
Page 11
understanding by the present meeting, but with the cl ear objective of returning to the more difficult
issues at a later stage.
56. The representative of Zambia said that his delegation appreciated the positive developments
in response to its proposal on the broad aspects of technology transfer in the TRIPS Agreement,
particularly under Article 66.2.  His delegation believed there was a consensus among delegations thatthis article imposed mandatory obligations on developed countries, and that it should be
operationalized.  For this reason, his delegation had proposed that the General Council adopt an
interpretive decision under Article IX.2 of the WTO Agreement on the modalities for the
operationalization of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In particular, the decision would set out
an illustrative list of incentives, as mentioned by the Chairman, for the purposes of Article 66.2, and
require that the reporting on the incentives provided be in accordance with stipulated formats.  The
formats would have to be consistent with the elements of the mandatory requirements of this article.While his delegation appreciated the positive developments on this issue, it believed that concrete
action by the General Council would provide some concrete results in favour of developing countries,
and enhance the credibility of the WTO in the eyes of developing countries and the general public.
His delegation would not support any suggestion which would remove this issue from the list of
issues under paragraph 21, since it believed that it should not be considered in isolation from the otherimplementation issues.  Indeed, that it had received such support should be the more reason for the
General Council to finalize the issues that it raised, rather than referring the matter to the TRIPS
Council or considering it under paragraph 22.  Like other issues, this remained an implementation
issue precisely because the modalities for its operationalization were not agreed, and the discussion
thus far had strongly suggested that its implementation by developed countries would be facilitated ifthe modalities were agreed.  Against this ba ckground, his delegation wished to re-emphasize its
proposal, and state that technology transfer involved the entire TRIPS Agreement since it was a
central objective stipulated in Articles 7 and 8.  Furthermore, the proposal had suggested that the
WTO invite other relevant international organizations, in a spirit of coherence and complementarity,
to work together to implement these provisions, and not merely to provide information onimplementation as suggested in the Chairman's report.  While these organizations could provide such
information, the obligation to comply with th e provisions remained on WTO Members.  His
delegation was aware of the comparative advantage of these other organizations in the area of
developmental issues such as technology transfer, but it still urged the WTO to work with them as
partners in this area.
57. The representative of Israel said that his delegation appreciated the approach adopted by the
Chairman and Director-General in the process thus far.  In particular, the open-ended consultations
and the focus on the do-ables had helped to create a good atmosphere and allowed the membership to
actively participate in the consultations and be aware of the work being undertaken.  It was difficult to
satisfy the expectations of all members in a multilateral forum, but the Chairman's report was
reasonable and balanced, and his delegation supported it, as also the Chairman's proposal on how to
proceed.
58. The representative of Thailand said that his delegation appreciated the way in which the
Chairman had conducted the consultations thus far,  and concurred with his report.  His delegation
could also go along with the suggestion by Chairman to take up specific issues and concerns reflected
in paragraph 22 at the present meeting.  However, since some issues in paragraph 21 remained to be
resolved, it encouraged the Chairman to hold consultations on issues in paragraph 22 in parallel withthose on the remaining issues in paragraph 21, so that progress could be made and solutions reached
in December.
59. The representative of Kenya said that implementation issues were of paramount importance to
his country, since it believed that the process of solving implementation problems was a means
towards integrating developing countries into the multilateral trading system, through redressing theWT/GC/M/59
Page 12
imbalances in existing WTO Agreements.  In this regard, his delegation supported the statement by
Mauritius on behalf of the Africa Group suggesting that priority be given to issues raised under
paragraph 21.  His delegation had noted that only a third of the issues raised under paragraph 21 had
been addressed in the Chairman's report, which left out a majority of issues important to his
delegation.  His delegation's understanding had been that all these issues were to be addressed, anddecisions taken, before embarking on the issues in paragraph 22 which required a longer time-frame.
While it appreciated the need to address paragraph 22 issues, his delegation believed that all issues
requiring immediate action should be given priority.  The issues for immediate action in paragraph 21,
such as special and differential treatment for developing countries, the first bullet under sub-paragraph
(k) on agriculture, the whole of sub-paragraph (e) on textiles, and the extension of the transition
period for developing countries under the TRIPS Agr eement were of utmost importance to Kenya if it
was to fully and equitably integrate into the multila teral trading system.  These issues needed to be
addressed immediately.  While his delegation concurred with the Chairman that special and
differential treatment had cross-cutting implications , it was afraid that deferring work on this issue
might prejudice immediate results and impact negatively on the confidence that Members had been
trying to restore.  Thus, his delegation did not see any urgency in moving to paragraph 22 issues, since
they required a longer time-frame.  However, should the General Council decide to discuss bothparagraphs 21 and 22 in tandem, there should be an assurance that paragraph 22 issues would not
crowd out those under paragraph 21.
60. The representative of Japan said that his delegation appreciated the Chairman's work on do-
able issues in paragraph 21, and the progress made had been evident from the Chairman's report.  The
question was what should be done until the next meeting in December – continue discussion of theremaining issues of paragraph 21 or proceed to a discussion of issues in paragraph 22.  At the
previous day's informal meeting, the Chairman had suggested that discussion of paragraph 22 issues
could start, but that did not mean that any Members who were interested in taking up some of the
remaining issues in paragraph 21 would not be able to raise them, and in a sense the Chairman's
suggestion was to take up the issues in paragraphs 21 and 22 simultaneously.  This was a reasonableand practical suggestion since some Members, even among the developing countries, attached
importance to starting discussions on paragraph 22 while others wished to continue to discuss the
issues in paragraph 21.  His delegation hoped that Members would show a sense of practicality and
realism in their consideration of the Chairman's suggestion.
61. The representative of Korea said that the Chairman's report should be considered to be a
progress report outlining the present situation of Memb ers' considerations for each issue.  It was clear
from the report that work on paragraph 21 was not completed, and for a number of issues, Membershad to continue to look for ways to come to an u nderstanding.  There were also other issues that were
not covered by the report, but which deserved serious deliberation by the whole membership.  His
delegation looked forward to the continued leadership of the Chairman and Director-General in
consultations on these issues.  Nevertheless, the report showed that a solid start had been made.  For
some important issues, Members were close to an understanding on how to deal with the concerns ofdeveloping countries.  The suggested solutions mi ght not be the most straightforward or clear-cut
ones.  But his delegation believe that they represented in their entirety an approach that should help
Members to address the concerns of developing countries in a pragmatic and realistic manner.  His
delegation hoped that such an approach would continue to guide Members in their further
consultations on paragraph 21.  His delegation also believed that the progress made thus far shouldallow Members to start to look at paragraph 22 i ssues.  The work programme adopted at the first
Special Session in June required the General Council to do so.  In addition, his delegation did not
believe that starting consultations on paragraph 22 issues would hinder or delay progress in
consultations on paragraph 21 issues, but rather a parallel consideration of issues under both
paragraphs might assist Members to find solutions in both areas by enabling them to have a broaderperspective.WT/GC/M/59
Page 13
62. The representative of Argentina said that in the present difficult exercise, which the Chairman
had conducted in such an effective manner, there seemed to be a risk that of moving away from
reality.  The reality of this exercise in fact had two components.  First, one had to re-balance the rights
and obligations of developing countries.  This was re-balancing because well after Marrakesh it had
become clear that developing countries had more obligations than rights, particularly rights that theycould effectively exercise.  The second component was to create confidence so that Members could
progress towards new frontiers in liberalization and trade globalization.  Over and above the valuable
work that had been done thus far, his delegation ha d the impression that this exercise did not yet have
the critical mass to allow Members to achieve these objectives.  On some issues in paragraph 21
virtually no progress had been made, such as special and differential treatment, balance-of-payments
problems and TRIMs.  His delegation suggested that Members should accept what there was in the
Chairman's progress report, and, without excluding the possibility of listening to any innovativeproposals under paragraph 22, concentrate until December on priority consultations on some of those
issues on which no progress had been made, in particular special and differential treatment and
TRIMs.
63. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation believed that the Chairman's report
accurately reflected the situation and Members' positions.  As the Chairman had stated, it was one step
in a process which would continue, and which would allow all the issues in paragraphs 21 and 22 to
be addressed.  His delegation believed that there was real potential for progress in the next phase, but
this did not mean that the progress made thus far should be minimized.  The work thus far had
allowed a series of actions to be elaborated which had found agreement among the Members, even if
their individual appreciation of the impact of thes e actions might differ.  Furthermore, the technical
analyses which the General Council had mandated should result in the necessary clarifications to
complex problems.  These steps augured well for the continuation of the work and for the results in
December.  With regard to the method of work, the Chairman's approach thus far had been the best
way to produce results and stimulate a productive dialogue between Members.  His delegation
believed this approach should be continued, in other words looking for agreement on the mostrealistic proposals in informal meetings or consultations on specific issues.  As the previous few
weeks had shown, this was the most promising way fo rward.  With regard to the future programme of
work, the Chairman's suggestion met his delegation's expectations on the appropriate treatment of all
the issues under both paragraphs 21 and 22, and it was for the Chairman to decide on the most
practical way of organizing the consultations.
64. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the progress reported by the Chairman
owed much to his skill and diligence, and to the excellent work of the Secretariat.  The process had
been effective, and was a successful example of the improvements made in terms of internal
transparency.  His delegation could generally go along with the substance of the individual items in
the report.  However, the Chairman had said that he  would revert to the issue of services on the basis
of any discussions in the present meeting, and his delegation wished to flag that it had some further
views in this area, and would like to be involved in future consultations.  The General Council wastaking only the first step on implementation issues, and there were still many important subjects and
proposals to discuss in the context of paragraph 21.  Some delegations had exercised restraint thus far
in not pressing various issues to which they atta ched importance.  Some had termed the elements in
the Chairman's statement "do-ables", and his delegation did not object to this, but it would certainly
reject any possible implication that the other elements of paragraph 21 were undoable.  His delegationbelieved that the issue of Textiles and Clothing should now be tackled in a meaningful way, and had
noted the statement by Indonesia on the lack of consultations on this issue and the Chairman's reply
on the nature of the discussions which had taken place.  Members should not argue about this.
Certainly statements had been made, but the important point was that there had not yet been any real
engagement on this issue.  Overall, a positive start had been made on paragraph 21, and his delegationbelieved that this should be built on by extending the spirit of constructive engagement which had
been apparent thus far into the remaining areas.  Hong Kong, China's focus was still very much onWT/GC/M/59
Page 14
paragraph 21, which was after all headed immediate action.  It had been noted in the previous day's
informal meeting that some 35 proposals in paragraph 21 had yet to be considered in depth, not to
mention any other work required on the 20 or so proposals that had already been considered.  His
delegation was willing to take part in consultations on paragraph 22, but any time scheduled for this
purpose should not be at the expense of time devoted to paragraph 21.
65. The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation believed that the thorough and
detailed nature of the Chairman's report testified to the serious consideration that Members had
accorded the consultative process on implementation issues.  The effective way in which the
consultations had been managed had allowed for a full and frank airing of views, and had yielded
results.  His delegation agreed with Hong Kong, China that the format for the consultations was
excellent and should continue to be followed.  His delegation recognized that a number of the
elements outlined in the Chairman's statement would be the subject of refinement and it wished toindicate, in relation to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures area, that it would welcome further
consideration being given to improving the form ulation under discussion on Article 10.2 of the SPS
Agreement.  Canada had made some observations on this issue earlier, but his delegation wished to
point out that some SPS measures, for example the introduction of standards that were genuinely
designed to permit and open up trade, were trade-enhancing not trade-inhibiting.  In these cases,enshrining the principle of a longer time-frame fo r the introduction of such measures could actually
penalize developing-country exporters.  In the informal consultations held on this issue, there had
been some suggestions of building in the notion that the longer time-frame could be considered on the
basis of a prior request from an affected developing country, and his delegation believed that this was
a useful idea to bear in mind as discussions progressed further.  Like Hong Kong, China, hisdelegation wished to indicate its interest in particip ating in further consultations regarding the services
issues referred to in the Chairman's statement.  Turning to the sequencing of paragraphs 21 and 22, his
delegation believed that the overall aim was to make progress wherever possible in relation to the
range of issues set out in those paragraphs and discussion of paragraphs 21 and 22 was not mutually
exclusive.  Good progress had been made by beginning with paragraph 21, and there was still somework to do in that area, but there were additional issues in paragraph 22 that some Members wished to
see discussed before the end of the year.  Accordingly, along the lines suggested by the Chairman, his
delegation believed it was necessary to proceed flexibly in order to make maximum progress.
66. The representative of Venezuela said that his delegation believed the report by the Chairman
and Director-General to be an adequate reflection of the consultations, and the progress achieved.  But
this was only a first step in the overall process to adopt appropriate action to meet the concerns of
developing countries on the implementation of some WTO agreements and decisions and to increaseconfidence in the organization.  This first step had not been an easy one.  It had required political will
on the part of all Members and this should continue if the process was to succeed.  The way in which
the Chairman and Director-General had conducted consultations had been effective and positive, and
should continue.  The work programme had been adopted by consensus and it was clear that those
Members wishing to raise proposals in paragraph 22 were entitled to do so.  It was equally clear inthat programme that the proposals on paragraph 21 should be taken up as a priority and this had been
done in part only.  For this reason, his delegation suggested that the consultations begin with
proposals under paragraph 21 that had not been the subject of substantive debate and those which the
consultations had revealed as needing greater effort to reach conclusions.  This was unfinished
business which needed to be concluded rapidly.  In parallel, an informal meeting could be held for afirst reading of paragraph 22 issues in order to identify the areas in which progress might be possible
through consultations.  His delegation believed that this approach would strike a balance between the
need to discuss and consider a wide range of problems and interests and the need for concrete results
in a short space of time.
67. Before turning to some specific issues, he wished to recall that his delegation understood the
present process to be aimed at meeting the concerns raised by developing countries onWT/GC/M/59
Page 15
implementation on the understanding that this would increase confidence within the organization.  It
would therefore be contradictory if this process were to involve additional requirements on these
countries.  With regard to tirets 3 and 4 under agriculture referring to tariff quota administration, his
delegation was concerned that the Chairman's report made no mention of the understanding reached in
the consultations that there would be no additional administrative burdens or other burdens placed ondeveloping countries.  Given the importance of agriculture to developing countries, in particular
effective market access, his delegation was open to any decision which would meet the concerns of all
Members.  In addition, his delegation believed that the implementation of the Ministerial Decision on
net food-importing countries should be pursued to improve its efficiency.  Furthermore, his delegation
supported the Chairman's suggestion on tiret 6 concerning the development of internationally agreed
disciplines governing export credits under Article 10.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.  In the area of
subsidies, little headway had been possible on this in the consultations which had been confinedmainly to Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.  His delegation found the elements suggested by the
Chairman to be satisfactory in this respect, but it believed that a political decision could be taken in
the General Council which would allow Members to analyse the alternatives available to implement
the necessary legislative changes, without sendin g this issue to the Committee on Subsidies.  The
omission of Honduras from the countries listed in Annex VII needed to be corrected as soon as
possible to prevent any further misunderstandings on the subject.  It was also important to focus on
how to proceed with the other issues under subsidies in paragraph 21.  The fact that the consultation
process had demonstrated that some major difficulties existed in the search for consensus on these
issues did not reduce the importance of them for developing countries.  Subsidies aimed at legitimate
development objectives such as financing for research and technological development, developmentof environmentally-safe production methods, and the manufacture of high technology and high value-
added products as well as regional development would all help to prevent the recurrence of
implementation problems in the future.  His delegation believed that the proposals aimed at giving
developing countries the necessary flexibility in their efforts to improve their production systems by
diversifying exports through increasing value-added products was important and would allow them totake advantage of the opportunities offered by the multilateral trading system.  He delegation would
cooperate fully with the Chairman and the Secretar iat in the search for solutions to implementation
problems, in accordance with the decision of 3 May.  It believed that the outstanding issues under
paragraph 21 should receive priority attention, and it encouraged the Chairman to pursue his efforts to
that end.
68. The representative of Brazil said that much remained to be done on paragraph 21, and due
consideration should be given to the outstanding issues in this paragraph.  With regard to the
sequencing of the two paragraphs, there was perhaps a false dichotomy in this issue, and his
delegation believed that all of the issues under the two paragraphs were important and enriched the
implementation agenda.  They were even fully complementary in ceratin cases.  As the Chairman had
recognized in his report, more work was needed on paragraph 21 issues, and he wished to indicate the
interest of his delegation in the issue of textiles in particular.
69. The representative of Chile said the Chairman's report accurately reflected the work which
had been undertaken thus far.  The results were perhaps modest, but were a first step and his
delegation was sure further progress could be made.  They represented the easier parts of an agenda
which was not easy, and it was important to continue work on the other paragraph 21 issues.  The
Chairman's approach to this work was acceptable to his delegation, and the work method wasadequate and transparent, allowing wide participation and was constructive and positive.  This process
was aimed at confidence building, and progress was being made in this respect.  In particular, with
regard to the functioning of the organization, Members were learning to work in an efficient manner
and achieve constructive results.  Turning to the question of the sequencing of paragraphs 21 and 22,
his delegation would be willing to participate in work on paragraph 22 issues, but like Hong Kong,China it believed that this should not be at the expense of further progress on issues under paragraph
21.  With regard to the mention of the Subsidies Agreement in the Chairman's report, his delegationWT/GC/M/59
Page 16
was concerned at the possibility that the number of countries which could subsidize exports might be
extended.  His delegation had serious reservations at the possibility that the organization could follow
such a path.  Chile had a high level of trade with many of the countries in the category mentioned by
the Chairman, and opening the floodgate to the use of subsidies by these countries would result in a
distortion of trade and the industry of his country would have to face the resulting subsidizedcompetition.  This was not the appropriate way to resolve the concerns of some countries.  However,
the inclusion of Honduras in the list of countries in Annex VII was legitimate and this technical error
should be resolved as rapidly as possible, as outlined by the Chairman.
70. The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation was looking forward to participating in
the next steps in the present process – the discussion of outstanding issues as well as the drafting of
the texts, which would reflect the final outcome of the work.  As his delegation had indicated on
previous occasions, at that stage of negotiation and drafting it would insist that new special rights or
privileges and certain flexibilities in the implementation of obligations be granted on the basis of
objective criteria and not to subjectively defined broad categories of countries.  The question of which
issues belonged to the category of "do-ables" would become clear when the final package of actions to
be taken on implementation issues was agreed.  Such an agreement would only be possible if there
was something in it for all participants.  One issue to which his delegation attached particularimportance, and on which no work had been done thus far in the course of the implementation
exercise, was the extension of the additional protection for geographical indications to products other
than wines and spirits.  His delegation believed that this was a genuine implementation issue, not
simply because it had been included as the first tiret of paragraph 21(g), but because the negotiations
mandated under Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement had thus far been disappointing.  Thesenegotiations were as mandated as those on agriculture and services, and nominally they should have
started much earlier.  It was, therefore, quite logical to expect that the negotiations on geographical
indications should yield results before those on agriculture and services.  And since the present
implementation exercise was conceived as preceding the negotiations, his delegation believed it to be
the most appropriate framework in which to seek solutions to the issue of geographical indications.Some delegations had stated that this issue reopened the agreement, implying that this was not an
implementation issue but an issue for negotiations.  It was indeed true that his delegation sought a
change in the TRIPS Agreement, which would redress an existing imbalance in it.  But this was no
more a reopening of the agreement than the negotiations on agriculture or on services.  The problem
was that some delegations did not recognize that the negotiations under Article 24.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement were mandated negotiations, like those under Article XIX of the GATS and Article 20 of
the Agreement on Agriculture.  Furthermore, these delegations did not see this extension as beingpossible in the negotiations under Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  These were problems of
implementation, and his delegation wished to have them addressed in the present exercise.  They were
not difficult to deal with technically, and could t hus be included in the category of "do-ables".  His
delegation was aware of the practical difficulties of sending partial amendments to the Uruguay
Round Agreements to national parliaments, but such difficulties had existed on previous occasions.In place of early ratification, another way of approaching the issue would be to take the political
decision in the framework of the present implemen tation exercise and to instruct the TRIPS Council
to work out the modalities of such an extension.  The extension could then enter into force legally
together with a broader package, such as one includ ing agriculture and/or services.  Such an approach
would place the political decision in the category of the immediate action foreseen in paragraph 21,and work on the modalities would fall under paragraph 22.  His delegation believed that such an
approach could contribute to building confidence and preparing the ground for progress in other
negotiations.
71. The representative of India said that his delegation appreciated the efforts by the Chairman
and the Director General, as well as other delegations, to address the implementation proposals in a
meaningful way.  The Chairman's report was a reasonably accurate reflection of the state of play in
the consultation process, perhaps requiring only a few minor clarifications.  However, his delegationWT/GC/M/59
Page 17
could not do otherwise but express its disappointment at the lack of substantial progress in resolving
the implementation issues and concerns raised by a large number of developing countries.  Paragraph
21 contained 54 tirets reflecting proposals made more than two years previously.  From the
Chairman's progress report, it was clear that he had undertaken intensive consultations on 20 out of
the 54 tirets.  This meant that he had yet to hold such consultations on as many as 34 tirets.  Withregard to the 20 tirets on which intensive consultations had been held, 12 proposals were being sent to
the subordinate bodies for further consideration.  With regard to six tirets, the Chairman had indicated
that he would hold further consultations, since there was still divergence among delegations.  With
regard to the remaining two tirets, the Director-General would be holding consultations with the
relevant international organisations.  All of this meant that, even in respect of these 20 tirets, the
General Council was far from resolving the problems and the convergence achieved thus far mostly
related only to the modality of dealing with these tirets further.  It was also clear that proposals
relating to important agreements such as those on Textiles and Clothing and Anti-Dumping had not
been taken up for intensive consultation by the Chairman.  By this, he wished only to highlight the
factual situation and not to criticize anybody.  The Chairman had clearly indicated that his report had
been made on his own responsibility and that it was no t a negotiated report.  This implied that even in
the convergence achieved on these 20 tirets with regard to the procedure for taking the respectivesubjects forward, the General Council was not taking a consensus-based decision.  His delegation was
aware that the report was morally binding on Members, if not legally.  Therefore, from a qualitative
point of view also, the progress achieved was far from satisfactory.
72. In his report, the Chairman had indicated with respect to the first tiret under customs
valuation that there was no convergence regarding the manner to proceed.  In the informalconsultations, his delegation had expressed its reservations on the Chairman's suggestion that this
issue should be referred to the Customs Valuation Committee.  He wished to indicate that, as an
indication of its flexibility, his delegation could ag ree to this matter being referred to the Committee.
His delegation was showing this flexibility with a view to achieving an early solution to the proposal
and the Customs Valuation Committee was scheduled to meet on 7 November.  The proposal in tiret 1also had some links to the proposals contained in tirets 2 and 3.  However, his delegation requested
the Chairman to ensure that the report of the Committee was received by the General Council well in
advance of the December Special Session so that an appropriate decision could be taken at that
meeting.
73. The legitimate expectation of his delegation had been that, at least in respect of some of the
proposals contained in paragraph 21, decisions would be taken in the present meeting with a view to
resolving the concerns raised.  It recognized that this expectation was not going to materialize.  His
delegation would acquiesce to this situation because it had taken into account the sensitivities of some
other delegations on the timing of these decisions.  However, it would be unfair for any delegation to
suggest that the present session had not been meant to take decisions.  At the 3 May meeting of the
General Council, the Chairman had emphasized that the purpose of the present exercise was to resolve
implementation issues and concerns, and that this had been reflected in the decision.  The Chairmanhad also reassured his delegation by emphasising the fact that the purpose of the exercise was to take
decisions.  At the Special Session of  22 June, the General Council had agreed to the Chairman's
suggested text regarding the organisation of work and indicative schedule of meetings where, in the
third bullet, it was foreseen that the present meeting would begin by acting on the results of the
discussions and consultations on the issues referred to in the earlier bullets, in accordance with thedecision of 3 May.  Therefore, the present Special Session was clearly aimed at taking decisions.  His
delegation was thus surprised and disappointed by the Chairman's suggestion that work should move
on to paragraph 22 issues.  More than 90 per cent of the proposals contained in paragraph 22 had been
made by a group of countries including India.  Therefore, it was obvious that more than anybody else,
this group of delegations was interested in these proposals.  His delegation had made it clear on anumber of occasions that it intended to pursue all the implementation proposals contained in both
paragraphs.  But it had also made it clear that there was a hierarchy between the proposals in the twoWT/GC/M/59
Page 18
paragraphs.  Paragraph 21 reflected proposals capable of being decided on immediately, while the
paragraph 22 proposals required a little more time.  Furthermore, the proposals in paragraph 21 were
relatively simple while those in paragraph 22 were a little more complex.  In this light, his delegation
was surprised at the enthusiasm of some delegations which were not sponsors of the proposals in
either paragraph to move to the paragraph 22 proposals when in-depth consultations had not beencompleted on even half of the paragraph 21 proposals.  His delegation believed that it would not be
productive to have detailed presentations of the paragraph 22 proposals when the General Council had
not taken even a single decision on the proposals in paragraph 21.  His delegation urged the Chairman
to complete his consultations on all the paragraph 21 proposals so that the General Council could take
appropriate decisions on them.  If necessary, the Chairman could convene another meeting in
November to discuss the paragraph 22 proposals and, in the meanwhile, complete his consultations on
paragraph 21 proposals.  His delegation was concerned that some Members might want theproponents of the paragraph 22 proposals to present them so as to take the focus of work away from
paragraph 21.  This was not something his delegation could accept.  For his delegation, all the
implementation proposals were "do-ables".  However, it was not the intention of his delegation to
deprive any other delegation of the opportunity to present paragraph 22 proposals in the present
meeting, if they so desired.  In order to enhance the credibility of the organization and to promoteconfidence among developing countries, progress on these issues should be made in an orderly way,
and for this purpose it was necessary to observe the proper sequence.  Finally, his delegation
supported the statement by Bulgaria on the issue of geographical indications.
74. The representative of Turkey said that his delegation believed that the report by the Chairman
and the Director-General was an important step forward.  It was true that the report had limited scope
and that important issues in paragraph 21 were outstanding.  Nevertheless, this was a new beginning
on which it would be possible to build.  Members should recognize that they had stopped turning
around and were moving ahead.  Indeed, the process should move on to paragraph 22 so that
delegations could also have an idea about where they stood with regard to the issues it contained, and
to allow a broader and better view of implementation issues.  Paragraph 21 bore the title immediateaction, but this had been written more than a year previously.  In the meantime, some of the paragraph
22 issues might have become equally urgent.  But the possibility of revisiting all issues should remain,
and his delegation was against the implicit notion of "undoable".  Delegations should have the
opportunity to continue discussion of all outstanding issues before concluding the work in this
process.
75. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation appreciated the positive efforts by the
Chairman and the Director-General to carry out the mandate given to them by the General Council.
The process thus far had been constructive, and this could not be so if there had not been focussed
discussions on some of the issues under consider ation.  The organization of work and indicative
schedule of meetings had foreseen discussions of implementation-related issues and concerns,
especially those reflected in paragraph 21.  The genuine expectation of his delegation had been that all
the issues in that paragraph would be seriously discussed and resolved.  This had not happened andhis delegation would not comment on the results of the consultations, but it appreciated the sense of
engagement that the Chairman had been able to mobilize.  How satisfactory this engagement had been
was a separate but related question, but was perhaps self-evident.  A major proportion of the proposals
had failed to attract the much-needed political will and engagement by some trading partners to move
forward.  The response thus far had been silent or indifferent.  His delegation insisted that, inaccordance with mandate of the 3 May decision, all remaining issues under paragraph 21 should be
seriously discussed before moving on to paragraph 22.  It was necessary to bear in mind the sense and
level of urgency in the two paragraphs, the proposals in paragraph 21 having been identified by the
proponents as priority issues, as indicated by the title of that paragraph – immediate action.  The
intention of the 3 May decision was to seek solutions to or resolution of these issues.  His delegationwas concerned that moving on to paragraph 22 without substantive discussions on all of paragraph 21
would effectively place paragraph 21 on the back burner.  This would not be acceptable to many,WT/GC/M/59
Page 19
including Pakistan, and this was not the objective of the exercise.  His delegation believed that the
Chairman should hold consultations on all the remaining proposals in paragraph 21, before moving on
to paragraph 22, and that he should elaborate on his plans in this respect in the present meeting.
Furthermore, the General Council should take decisions on the paragraph 21 issues.  His delegation
wanted to move forward, but did not want to jump.  With regard to the Chairman's report, his
delegation supported the inclusion of Honduras in th e list of countries in Annex VII of the Subsidies
Agreement.  On the other issues in paragraph 21, his delegation believed that further substantive work
was needed in all areas, also including those ar eas which had not been the subject of substantive
discussions.  Without this, efforts toward s confidence building would be diluted.
76. The representative of Cuba said that his delegation appreciated the efforts by the Chairman
and the Secretariat to find constructive solutions to the issues in paragraph 21, however the results
were scant and his delegation was concerned by this.  Intensive work was required to consider all theremaining proposals in paragraph 21, some of which had not been the focus of the consultations, such
as textiles and clothing and anti-dumping.  The aim of the consultations was to achieve concrete
results, which had not been achieved in the work thus far.  Like others, his delegation believed that it
would not be realistic to move on to the more complex issues in paragraph 22 before resolving the
issues in paragraph 21.  With regard to the Chairman's report, his delegation could agree with theChairman's suggestion to send the proposal on Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement to the
subsidiary body.  The decision to extend the possibility of using certain subsidies to middle-income
developing countries could only be a political decision by Members, and this would not be achieved
through discussions in the committee.  Subsidies were development instruments and had been used by
developed countries to promote their industries.  Developing countries should not be refused theirright to development.  His delegation agreed with Indonesia that the Chairman's report had failed to
mention the proposal on the principle of automaticity, whereby countries listed in Annex VII which
were excluded from the Annex due to their GNP per capita exceeding US$1000, should be
automatically included in the Annex if their GNP fell back under this threshold.  His delegation also
supported the technical solution suggested by the Ch airman to correct the technical error which had
omitted Honduras from the list of countries in the Annex VII.  Finally, his delegation believed that
ways to make the decision on net food-importing developing countries more effective should be
considered and adopted in the General Council, and not in the Committee on Agriculture.
77. The representative of the United States said that her delegation appreciated the work of the
Chairman, the Director-General, but also of the ot her delegations aimed at moving the discussions on
implementation issues to the point where progress could be shown.  The Chairman's report reflected
her delegation's understanding of the situation, and although some of the items did not enjoyconsensus, there was much to build on.  Her delegation had concerns in some areas, and further
discussion would be needed as indicated by the Chairman.  The Chairman's report included actions
requiring examination of some issues by the subsidiary bodies, and her delegation believed that this
was a necessary step.  The discussions in the consultations had also shown that additional input might
be useful in some other areas, and this could be considered in the work leading up to the DecemberSpecial Session.  With regard to the score being kept by some delegations, her delegation believed
that the most important point was the results of the work, since results were a win for all Members.  In
the present meeting, there was a win, there was a start, and this could be built on.  Turning to the
sequencing and subject-matter of the future work, her delegation was prepared to discuss the serious
implementation concerns of all Members, but not to debate the order of precedence of the paragraphs.The aim was to make progress, and her delegation agreed with others that an expansive discussion
was needed on all issues.  The progress reflected in the Chairman's report had been widely noted by
delegations, but something else had also been accomplished in the present process.  No delegation had
raised any objection to the manner in which the consultations had been held, and this meant that
progress had also been made on in internal transparency and effective participation of Members.Consultations had been held at many levels, which had given everyone the chance to give their input.WT/GC/M/59
Page 20
In the next period, this should continue to allow the additional issues raised by some delegations to be
addressed.
78. The representative of Singapore said that the Chairman's intensive and constructive approach
to the consultations he had held was a realistic way to move forward.  His delegation agreed with the
Chairman's assessment of the present situation a nd that further technical work by the subsidiary
bodies would be needed on some issues to contribute to the process.  Good progress had been made,
and goodwill had been shown by all delegations.  The Chairman's report might not have addressed
every concern at this stage, but it represented some positive results.  Members should build on this
progress, and work towards a package where decisions could be taken by the General Council at the
Special Session in December.  With regard to the relationship between paragraphs 21 and 22,
delegations should recall that the division between the two paragraphs had been made in the context
of the preparations for the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  Two concepts had been involved in thisdivision:  first, in paragraph 21 was that of priority or immediacy; and second, in paragraph 22, was
the idea of providing a fair opportunity for delegations to discuss all proposals relating to the more
difficult implementation concerns.  Two questions seemed to arise from consideration of the two
paragraphs.  First, had discussion on paragraph 21 exhausted?  Obviously, the answer was no.
Second, should a fair opportunity be offered to discuss proposals in paragraph 22 so that a full view ofthe range of issues could be available?  As suggested by Turkey, some of the proposals in paragraph
22 might have acquired new significance and importance since that time.  Furthermore, the advantage
in moving on to discussion of the proposals in paragraph 22 was that agreement might be reached on
some issues which would contribute to the list of results and which could form part of the package for
the December Special Session.  His delegation was open to any process that would take the workforward in the coming weeks, and could support su ggestions for a parallel process dealing with both
paragraphs 22 and 21.  This would be a flexible and realistic approach.
79. The representative of Hungary said that his delegation believed that the results of the work
carried out by the Chairman and the Director-General spoke for themselves.  The Chairman's report
was a clear indication that real progress was possible even within the present complicated and delicateprocess.  The results also confirmed that the approach used by the Chairman of concentrating on the
do-ables was the right one.  With his report, the Chairman had created good momentum, laying out a
good basis for results in December.  This was just the first step but his delegation was confident that
more progress could be made.  Work on both paragraphs 21 and 22 could go ahead in parallel, using
the informal flexible approach of the Chairman.  His delegation supported the suggestion by the
Chairman at the previous day's informal meeting in this respect.
80. The representative of Panama expressed the appreciation of his delegation for the Chairman's
efforts over the previous weeks and for the very comprehensive agreement that had been achieved.
As the Chairman had noted, his report reflected the state of play in the consultations and his
delegation found it to be detailed and very commendable.  His delegation had taken note that the
discussions had focused on those issues on which delegations' points of view allowed the solution of
certain issues or do-ables.  His delegation believed that this did not mean that responses could not befound to the proposals in other areas of paragraph 21 that had not been addressed thoroughly, or that
these areas should be given lesser priority or less effort because they were more difficult.  His
delegation also believed that the fact that a particular issue had been taken up or a particular proposal
put forward did not necessarily mean that a solution had been found to the concerns of developing
countries.  The Chairman had acknowledged this by not excluding further discussions on those issues,and by stating that his report was on his own res ponsibility and did not attempt to provide consensus-
based solutions.  The Chairman had made a series of proposals on the do-ables in his report which
seemed to cover the full range of areas of concern of developing countries.  One example was the
proposal to resolve the omission of Honduras from  Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement, which his
delegation supported and which should be accepted promptly because it seemed to be the issue withthe least complications.  At the other end of the scale, one example of the issues requiring furtherWT/GC/M/59
Page 21
consideration was the question of the TRIPS Council being instructed to consider the preparation of
an illustrative list of the type of incentives that could be covered under Article 66.2.  His delegation
hoped that the future work would be aimed at finalizing these proposals.  His delegation had doubts
on the usefulness of transmitting issues to the subsid iary bodies in this context but it could be flexible
on this matter.  With regard to future work, his delegation would prefer the focus to be first on theissues in paragraph 21 and then the work could move on to paragraph 22 without prejudice to the time
available to resolve the issues in paragraph 21.  Wi th regard to internal transparency, considerable
efforts had been made in this process, but his delegation believed that the date and time of further
small group meetings should be communicated to delegations, so that those delegations which had an
interest in the areas under consideration would be able to participate in all possible meetings.
81. The representative of the Slovak Republic said that much progress had been made in the area
of implementation, particularly on the issues in paragraph 21, however many issues still remained to
be addressed.  The Chairman's report was a good starting point for further work on implementation
which was an important element of the confidence-building process.  For this reason, her delegation
supported any work which could lead to satisfactory results for all.  Paragraph 21 issues were clearly
the priority in this process, however the issues in  paragraph 22 could also be addressed if the approach
was constructive and effective.  In this respect, her delegation supported the Chairman's suggestion onhow to move the process forward.
82. The representative of Costa Rica said that his delegation believed that the contents of the
Chairman's report represented forward movement in  the present process, and a modest but important
step towards further progress.  His delegation agreed  to the Chairman's suggestions in his report.  He
wished to indicate the importance of the issue of subsidies and countervailing measures to his country.This issue was related to the competitivity of the exports of his country and its ability to attract
investment.  For this reason, his delegation wished to participate in any discussions on this subject.
On the question of discussions on paragraph 22 issues, his delegation could be flexible, but it would
prefer the Chairman himself to decide how to pr oceed on this issue, following his discussions with
other delegations.  The Chairman was best placed to understand the usefulness of taking up thisparagraph either after or in parallel with paragraph 21, and to decide on the best approach.
83. The representative of Colombia said that his delegation was flexible on the sequencing of
paragraphs 21 and 22.  His delegation was, of course, interested in having a second round of
consultations on several of the outstanding issues in paragraph 21, such as subsidies, TRIMs, textiles
and special and differential treatment, since it believed that all these issues should be discussed
thoroughly.  However difficult discussions of these issues might be for some delegations, the
approach of dividing the first round into do-ables and others had been adopted for pragmatic reasonsrather than because of the substance.  His delegation could not agree to some issues being categorized
as issues which could not be discussed because progress was not possible.  For this reason, work on
these issues should continue.  However, his delegation believed that consideration of paragraph 22
issues raised by delegations in the present meeting could start, and his delegation would raise a
number of issues in this respect.  Turning to the Chairman's report, the suggestion had been made thatthe Subsidies Committee could review the possibility  of including the countries in the lower-middle
category of the World Bank in Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.  His delegation saw no need
for an extensive technical debate on this issue because the principle elements of this proposal had
already been accepted during the Uruguay Round, when it had been recognized that low levels of
income justified a longer time-period for the dismantl ing of the subsidies in such countries.  If the
implications of this proposal needed to be examined, all that was needed was to know which Members
were in this category, what was their share of world trade and the possible effects of this change.
Finally, like others, his delegation full supported the inclusion of Honduras in Annex VII, and it was
surprised that a technical error of this nature required so much discussion.  This issue should be
resolved as expeditiously as possible, especially since it was simply a matter of justice.WT/GC/M/59
Page 22
84. The representative of Uganda said that his delegation believed in internal transparency and
the Chairman and the Director-General had endeavour ed to ensure that internal transparency was
adhered to in the consultations which they had conducted thus far.  The Chairman's report accurately
reflected what had been achieved, but there was still a long way to go with regard to paragraph 21.
With regard to the sequencing of the paragraphs, his delegation agreed with others that paragraph 21should continue to be addressed.  His delegation was willing to be flexible on this question, if other
delegations were flexible on the issues in paragraph 21.  Turning to paragraph 21 and the proposal in
tiret 4 under TRIPS, his delegation welcomed the wide acceptance that provisions of Article 66.2 of
the TRIPS Agreement were mandatory.  The problem was how to operationalize these provisions by
defining the incentives that should be used.  The TRIPS Council had been requested to continue to
work on this issue, but his delegation would have preferred clearer guidelines to be laid out.  His
delegation believed that, in operationalizing Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, Article XVI.4 ofthe WTO Agreement was relevant, and the laws, regulations and administrative procedures of
Members would need to be reviewed.  His delegation hoped that the TRIPS Council would consider
some kind of notification to that effect.  Furthermore, any incentives should be designed to achieve
the transfer of technology and while there was no obligation on Members to compel enterprises to
transfer technology, it would be important to be aware of the incentives being provided.  Certaincountries were able to provide special provisions for individual inventors, enterprises and non-profit
organization in terms of inventions and technology.  His delegation hoped that similar incentives
would be given for the transfer of technology to LDCs.  His delegation hoped that the TRIPS Council
would report to the General Council on its work in this area, since the understanding on the
implementation of Article 66.2 that his delegation sought should finally be adopted in the GeneralCouncil.
85. The representative of the Dominican Republic said
2 his delegation appreciated the efforts of
the Chairman, the Director-General and all the Members who had worked so strenuously since June.
His delegation took note that the Chairman's report had been submitted under his own responsibility,
but did not believe that its position had been reflected in the major part of the report.  It would appearthat the report was the outcome of a process in which only some delegations had specifically
communicated their positions in the form of conc rete proposals, and which his delegation had not
seen.  He wondered, therefore, how certain issues co uld be considered to require appropriate action in
subsidiary bodies.  Once again, this was a case of negotiation by proxy, which would not help to
enhance confidence in the organization, and was further evidence of a lack of will to resolve the most
urgent problems.  This had occurred despite the considerable efforts the Chairman had made, which
received the full support of his delegation.  Unfortunately, this climate of immobility would bedecisive for the outcome of future Ministerial Conferences.  Only the adoption of concrete decisions
to resolve implementation problems would show that Members had really begun the process of
rebuilding confidence.  His delegation supported the inclusion of Honduras in the list of countries in
Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.  Nevertheless, the Dominican Republic formally objected to
issues concerning subsidies being referred to the subsidiary body, in particular the proposal on AnnexVII, which had wide support.  Furthermore, his delegation believed it would be difficult to start work
on issues in paragraph 22 before the problems that required urgent attention in paragraph 21 had been
resolved satisfactorily.  His delegation had full confidence that, under the proven leadership of the
Chairman, the process would be able to reach a situation in which his delegation could give
consideration to removing its objections.
86. The representative of Nigeria said that his delegation supported the statement by Mauritius on
behalf of the African Group.  He wished to recall the goodwill, flexibility and assurances with which
the discussions on implementation had begun as part of the confidence building effort.  This had
raised the hopes and aspirations of countries such as his, which was why they were surprised that only
marginal progress had been made on these issues thus far.  Their expectations had not been met,
                                                     
2 The text of the statement was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/W/417.WT/GC/M/59
Page 23
which explained the reactions that what had been achieved was insignificant.  When the proposals on
implementation had been submitted prior to the Seattle Ministerial Conference, many Members had
displayed understanding and flexibility on the issues.  This had led developing countries to expect that
decisions would have been possible on them before now, especially on those classified as do-ables.
Hope delayed was hope denied.  With regard to the sequencing of paragraphs 21 and 22, hisdelegation's main interest was in results and it encouraged the Chairman to proceed progressively to
consider the outstanding issues of paragraph 21, perhaps alongside those in paragraph 22.  It was,
however, only logical that issues for immediate action in paragraph 21 should receive attention before
those in paragraph 22, in particular since they had not all been fully dealt with.  His delegation was
concerned at the lack of any progress on proposals to make S&D measures effective and concrete.  It
was important for the WTO to provide a level playing ground for all Members in view of the fact that
they were at different levels of development.  His delegation was looking for adequate progress onimplementation issues by December.
87. The representative of the Czech Republic said that much work had been done on
implementation and many proposals had been submitted, but differences still remained among
delegations, including on how to proceed further.  More work by all would be needed in this process,
but also a result-oriented approach would be necessary, along with a balance of Members interests inthe outcome.  Examining the technical aspects of the proposals was important, but this would be
productive once political solutions had been reached.
88. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation supported the suggestion by Mauritius on
behalf of the African Group on the immediacy of paragraph 21 issues, since it believed that the
remaining issues in that paragraph should be addressed before moving on to paragraph 22.  Hisdelegation also supported the suggestions by Hong Kong, China and others on the need to address
some important issues in paragraph 21, in particular textiles and clothing, anti-dumping and balance
of payments.  Finally, his delegation supported the inclusion of Honduras in the list of countries in
Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.
89. The representative of El Salvador said that her delegation took note of the Chairman's report
on his own responsibility, and believed that while it reflected the results of the consultations, it had
not taken into account all the positions of Members.  Progress had been made to a certain extent in the
discussions on paragraph 21, but more than half of the proposals of this paragraph remained to be
discussed and the work on these issues should be intensified.  Turning to the Chairman's report, in the
section on subsidies the concerns of the delegations that had submitted the original proposal had not
been taken into account.  The three elements suggested by the Chairman did not reflect the objectives
of that proposal, which had been submitted by her delegation and others.  For this reason, herdelegation did not agree that this issue be referred to the Subsidies Committee, since it did not require
technical analysis, but rather a political decision to resolve the problems raised.  Her delegation
supported the suggestion to include Honduras in the countries listed in Annex VII of the Subsidies
Agreement to correct the technical error.  With regard to the sequencing of the paragraphs, her
delegation believed that work on paragraph 21 should be finished before moving on to paragraph 22,as had been agreed in the decision of 3 May.  All the issues were important, but the procedure that had
been agreed was based on the hierarchy in the propos als and the work should follow the logic of this
if productive results were to be achieved.  For this reason, her delegation support the proposal by
India to continue with consultations on paragraph 21 to the maximum extent possible, and then start
consultations on paragraph 22.
90. The Chairman said that the positions of many delegations were not reflected in the report by
the Director-General and himself, because this exercise had not been aimed at that.  This had been an
exercise in attempting to find common ground, which meant that flexibility was necessary on all
sides, including on the results.  It was important to realise that this was an effort on behalf of all
Members to try to come to an understanding on forward movement.WT/GC/M/59
Page 24
91. The representative of Honduras thanked the Chairman and the Director-General for their
work in producing their report, as also the delegations which had supported the inclusion of his
country in the list in Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.  The Chairman had suggested in his
report that the omission of his country should be corrected as soon as possible, and had also laid out a
solution under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.  This was the easiest of all the issuesaddressed in the report and its resolution would be proof of the goodwill within the organization to
solve the problems faced by developing countries.  His delegation was concerned that a decision on
this matter was being constantly deferred.  Furthermore, his delegation believed that, in accordance
with the 3 May decision, the issues in paragraph 21 should be resolved rapidly through concrete
decisions to allow the process to move on to the paragraph 22 issues and to be concluded by
December.  Finally, his delegation was concerned that if the implementation issues and concerns
raised by a majority of developing countries were not resolved, there would be delays in other areas inthe coming year.
92. The representative of Bolivia said that the progress made by the Chairman and the Director-
General had been achieved through an effective mechanism of bilateral and multilateral consultations,
and if continued, this could improve the work of the organization and produce results to the benefit of
all Members.  However, several issues were outstanding, some of which had been described asdifficult and, for this reason, the political will of Members had to prevail to allow practical solutions
to the problems to be found.  One proposal to which his delegation attached importance was on
Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  This proposal suggested that sanitary and phytosanitary measures
should be introduced gradually.  These measures should not be used as obstacles to trade, but rather to
encourage the implementation of international rules and standards by developing countries.  Withregard to the sequencing of paragraphs 21 and 22, his delegation believed that it was necessary to
complete the work on issues in paragraph 21 and then move on to paragraph 22.
93. The representative of Ghana supported the statement by Mauritius on behalf of the African
Group.  The Chairman's report had been acknowledged by many delegations to be an accurate
reflection of the state of play regarding the consultations thus far, and his delegation commended himfor this.  The report showed that a number of issu es in paragraph 21 remained to be resolved, while
the whole of paragraph 22 was pending.  The ideal approach would be to resolve all the outstanding
issues in paragraph 21 before moving on to paragraph 22, but the fact that many issues in paragraph
21 remained unresolved testified to the difficulty of resolving them.  This did not mean that they
could not be resolved with perseverance and time.  The Chairman had suggested continuing the work
on paragraph 21 while also allowing for discussion of any other issues as necessary.  His delegation
could agree to this, but suggested that the emphasis should be clearly on the paragraph 21 issues.Focussing only on paragraph 21 would exclude the possibility of agreement on some issues in
paragraph 22 by December.  Finally, his delegation supported the inclusion of Honduras in the
countries listed in Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.
94. The representative of Sri Lanka said that the report presented by the Chairman and the
Director General provided the basis for further consultations to move the process forward.  In line
with the 3 May decision, the objective of the consultation process on implementation issues was for
Members to be able to take decisions as appropriate, at the present meeting as well as at the December
meeting.  His delegation recognized progress had been made on some issues, which was encouraging.
However, from the perspective of many developing countries including his, these achievements were
far from satisfactory as they did not reflect what was desired.  A large number of issues had beenreferred to subsidiary bodies and a number of others would be subject to further consultations, which
was also cause for concern to these countries.  His delegation thus expected that the continuing
consultation process would lead to meaningful decisions at the December meeting.  The issues in
paragraph 21 had been identified as priority issues for immediate action since they were of a less
complex nature.  On the other hand, the issues in paragraph 22  needed detailed discussion and acomplete review of the relevant agreements.  Wh ile his delegation recognized the importance of theWT/GC/M/59
Page 25
issues in paragraph 22, it believed that all the issues in paragraph 21 should be given priority.  If the
paragraph 22 issues were addressed in parallel, they should not overcrowd the agenda and reduce the
focus on paragraph 21.  Addressing these issues in a meaningful manner and taking decisions on
them, in particular paragraph 21, was part of the confidence building exercise, since it would send a
positive message to domestic constituencies that genuine attempts were being made to correct theasymmetries and imbalances in the multilateral trading system.  Finally, his delegation supported any
solution aimed at rectifying the omission of Honduras  from the countries listed in Annex VII of the
Subsidies Agreement.
95. The representative of Australia said that the report submitted by the Chairman and the
Director-General marked a considerable step forward in the present process.  In their consultations,
the Chairman and the Director-General had clearly focussed on issues that did not undermine or
weaken the existing WTO rules or involve further re-negotiations of WTO Agreements, and this hadbeen adroit.  With regard to future work, his delegation saw no reason for a debate over whether to
continue with paragraph 21 or move on to paragraph 22.  As the Chairman had stated, there were
elements of paragraph 21 which needed further work and refinement, such as the question of the
inclusion of Honduras in the list of countries in Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.  His
delegation was sympathetic to the situation with respect to the inclusion of Honduras, but his countryhad certain legislative impediments in this respect.  His delegation had some creative ideas how to
move ahead on this issue, and further consultation would be necessary.  Further work on paragraph 21
should not impede discussions on paragraph 22, as foreseen in the work programme.  These were
different sets of issues, and while his delegation respected the view that there was a hierarchy, it had
not been established that one set of issues was dependant on the other.  His delegation believed that itwas possible to move forward while still addressing some issues in paragraph 21, as suggested by the
Chairman.
96. The Chairman said he noted that India could support the suggestion made during the
consultations that Tiret 1 of the Customs Valuation proposals might also be referred to the Committee
on Customs Valuation for consideration of the technical aspects.  Since he believed that India hadbeen the only delegation to have expressed reservations on this suggestion, he proposed that his report
be adjusted accordingly, and that this item also be referred to the Committee and the Chairman of the
Committee be requested to report on the outcome of that consideration to the General Council before
its Special Session in December.
97. He then proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and of the report by
himself and the Director-General, refer to the relevant WTO bodies the issues identified in that report,
as adjusted, as being appropriate for their action, with the mandates and time-frames suggestedtherein, and invite him and the Director-General to continue consultations on the issues reflected in
paragraph 21 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999, in a transparent manner, with a view to
identifying ways needed to resolve these issues in accordance with the decision of 3 May on
implementation-related issues, and to report to Members in advance of the next Special Session in
December.
98. The representative of the Dominican Republic requested a clarification as to whether the
proposals regarding Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement were among the items identified by the
Chairman for referral to the Subsidies Committee,  since her delegation formally opposed this issue
being referred to the technical committee.
99. The Chairman clarified that this was not the case.
100. The General Council agreed to the proposals by the Chairman.WT/GC/M/59
Page 26
101. The representative of the Philippines said that the report by the Chairman and Director-
General contained a factual statement that the omission of Honduras from the list of countries in
Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement was a technical error, and noted that Article 79 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties set out what should be done in the case of such errors.  His
delegation believed that, if it were clearly recognized by Members that the omission of Honduras wasa technical error, there should be no need for a decision by the General Council, and the Director-
General could and should comply with the provisions of Article 79 of the Vienna Convention, and
proceed with the correction to include Honduras in Annex VII forthwith.  All Members were bound
by the Vienna Convention.
102. The Chairman said that some delegations had indicated in previous informal meetings that
they needed to refer this issue to their authorities.  It would thus be necessary to wait until it was
agreed that the omission was a technical error before proceeding.
103. The representative of the United States noted that her country was not a signatory to the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, although it did adhere to the principles of that Convention
to the extent that it reflected customary international law.
104. The General Council took note of the statements.
2. Discussion of other proposals on implem entation, especially those reflected in
paragraph 22 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999 as well as others in the
compilation of proposals in document Job(99)/4797/Rev.3 of 18 November 1999
105. The Chairman said that he wished to make a fe w remarks in the light of the discussion in the
previous day's informal meeting on the sequencing of work on the issues reflected in paragraphs 21
and 22 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999.  He recalled that the Programme and Calendarof Work agreed on 22 June clearly recognized the sequence of work on issues under paragraphs 21
and 22.  This was why the work thus far had focusse d on the issues under paragraph 21.  It was clear
from the work programme that after a first period of work on those issues, the General Council should
turn to the issues under paragraph 22.  It had never been understood that the issues under paragraph 21
would be left aside when work started on paragraph 22.  He believed that the paragraph 22 issuesraised under the present agenda item should be added to the list of issues on which consultations
would be conducted.  He understood the concern of some delegations about the paragraph 21 issues
which remained to be addressed, to the effect that adding issues to the consultation process might
overcrowd it.  Some delegations had suggested that any consultations held on paragraph 22 issues
should not be at the expense of paragraph 21 issues, and he fully agreed with this.  Others had
underlined that some issues under paragraph 22 might be considered as priority issues by some
delegations.  It would be useful for the him to have an indication of the areas in which those issueswould be, and he was looking to delegations to provide such indications in the discussion.
Identification of such issues by delegations would allow him to plan with the Secretariat the
consultations to be held in the coming weeks.  By this, he was not saying that work on all the
paragraph 21 issues would be finished before starting on paragraph 22 issues, but rather that a certain
degree of flexibility would be needed on all sides.  He reiterated that work on paragraph 22 issuesshould not be at the expense of paragraph 21 issues, which had always been understood to have
priority in the sequencing of the work programme.
106. The representative of India said that his delegation appreciated the clarification by the
Chairman that he would not allow the issues rais ed under paragraph 22 to overcrowd the process on
paragraph 21.  The majority of the proposals reflected in paragraph 22 had originally been submittedby a group of developing countries, including hi s, and these proposals were important, but their
priority came after the issues in paragraph 21.  His delegation would prefer to take up the issues inWT/GC/M/59
Page 27
paragraph 22 after completing the work on paragraph 21, but it would not stand in the way of any
delegation which wished to identify any issue as being of immediate priority.
107. The representative of Brazil said that, in line with the Chairman's suggestion, he wished to
indicate that Brazil's priorities among the issues in paragraph 22 were anti-dumping, subsidies and
TRIMs, and at a later stage he might be able to reduce this to a number of tirets.  His delegationrequested the Chairman to envisage informal consultations regarding these points.
108. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation believed that it would be important to
take up all the issues relating to special and differe ntial treatment and the issue of TRIMs in paragraph
22, which would also be a continuation of work on paragraph 21.
109. The representative of Colombia said that, with regard to the issues in paragraph 22, his
country had submitted several proposals with respect to provisions for special and differential
treatment.  One proposal had suggested an increase in de minimis provisions, in particular under the
Anti-Dumping, Safeguards and Subsidies Agreements.  This proposal had been reflected in the third
tiret of the section on anti-dumping in paragraph 22.  In addition, the sixth tiret under anti-dumping,
referring to the time-frame to be used in determining the volume of dumped imports was of particular
interest to his delegation.  Turning to the section on subsidies, the sixth tiret, referring to the urgent
need for technical corrections to the definition of the term "inputs consumed in the productionprocess" in footnote 61 was also of particular interest to his delegation.  His delegation believed that
the inclusion of capital goods in this definition should be considered.  Furthermore, with the aim of
achieving the objective of the multilateral trading system that obligations should be reciprocal and
beneficial to all Members, it was important to analyse the results achieved in the transfer of
technology to developing countries and how to enhance existing instruments in order to attain thisobjective.  With respect to the section on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, his delegation believed
that the second tiret should be discussed with a view to clearly differentiating between mandatory
standards and voluntary guidelines and recommendations.  Finally, the issue of the compatability of
development objectives with trade policy and the protection of traditional knowledge, which could not
be considered unconnected to the work of this organization, should also be included in theconsultations, as reflected in the second tiret in the section on TRIPS.
110. The representative of the United States said the work programme adopted in June provided
the possibility in footnote 1 for delegations to raise any other implementation-related issue at the
present meeting, and she wished to indicate the interest of her delegation in the issues of textiles,
market access, rules of origin and balance-of-payments, and she would indicate more issues at a later
stage.  Her delegation looked forward to the consultation in these areas.
111. The representative of Bolivia said that, in line with the Chairman's suggestion, he wished to
indicate the interest of his delegation in the issues of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and the
protection of innovations by indigenous and local farming communities under TRIPS.
112. The representative of Paraguay said his delegation had an interest in the issues of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures, and tariff quota administration in the section on agriculture, which should be
transparent, fair and non-discriminatory.
113. The representative of Venezuela reiterated the suggestion by his delegation that informal
meetings could be held to allow all delegations to present their proposals as reflected in paragraph 22.
His delegation believed that a serious approach to these issues was necessary if progress was to be
made.  The issues raised under paragraph 21 should be addressed first, and delegations would need
sufficient time to evaluate the progress in this area before moving on and presenting their interests inother areas.  He could indicate Venezuela's priorities in the present meeting, but he was unsure
whether this would help the exercise in any wa y.  His delegation believed the present discussionWT/GC/M/59
Page 28
should conclude with a recognition that the whole issue of implementation was a priority and that a
meeting would be held at a later stage on the issues in paragraph 22.  This would be more constructive
and would allow progress to be made to the benefit of all Members.
114. The Chairman said that the work programme se t out the meetings to be held until the end of
the year, and his intention in asking delegations to indicate their areas of interest was to allow the
Director-General and himself to plan their work until the next Special Session.
115. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation sought to advance
the work on implementation and was ready to address any concern raised under either paragraph.
Time should not be spent on debating the sequence in which to address the issues, but rather on
addressing the issues themselves.
116. The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements, and invite him
and the Director-General to also hold consultations, in a transparent manner, with a view to
identifying ways needed to resolve these issues  in accordance with the decision of 3 May on
implementation-related issues, and to report to Members in advance of the next Special Session in
December.
117. The General Council so agreed.
118. The Chairman said that many delegations had expressed satisfaction at the way in which the
consultations had been conducted thus far, and for this reason the Director-General and he intended to
follow the same basic procedure in the further consultations they had been mandated to hold.  They
would communicate to delegations as soon as possible the schedule of work in this respect.
119. The General Council took note of the statement.
__________