RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/20
8 May 2003
(03-2465)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6 FEBRUARY 2003
Chairman:  Mr. Jan Peter Mout (the Netherlands)
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN FOR 2003
1. The Committee re-elected Mr. Jan-Peter Mout of the Netherlands as Chairman for 2003 until
the end of his term in Geneva.1
2. The Chairman proposed the following agenda:
A. Modifications to the Appendices to the Agreement
B. Accessions:
(i) Applications:
- Jordan-E s t o n i a- Latvia- Chinese Taipei
- Panama
- Bulgaria- Slovenia- Albania-M o l d o v a
- Kyrgyz Republic
-G e o r g i a- Lithuania
(ii) Other newly acceded WTO Members
                                                     
1 By fax, dated 20 January 2003, the Chairman, Mr. Ja n-Peter Mout, advised that he was to be recalled
to the capital with effect from August 2003.GPA/M/20
Page 2
(iii) Streamlining of the accession process
C. Review of National Implementing Legislation
D. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7
E. Other Business
3. On a point of order, the representative of Bulgaria reiterated the request of his delegation for
information from GPA Parties pertaining to export opportunities to their markets for Bulgarian
suppliers.  He drew attention to the absence of a reference to this in the annotated agenda and the
2002 annual report and requested that it be reflected in the annotated agenda in future.  After a brief
discussion, Bulgaria confirmed that it was not seeking a separate agenda item on this issue.
4. The Chairman noted that his request would be reflected in the minutes of the present meeting.
With regard to the annotated agenda, the Chairman clarified that this was issued on his own
responsibility, and he would make a judgement at the appropriate time as to what was suitable for its
contents.
5. The Committee adopted the agenda as proposed.
A. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
(i) Modifications by the United States to Appendix I
6. The Chairman said that the proposed modificati ons to Annex 2 of Appendix I by the United
States which had been circulated in GPA/W/208 had become effective on 16 October 2002
(WT/Let/431).
(ii) Modifications by Switzerland to Appendix I
7. The Chairman said that Switzerland had proposed modifications to Annex 2 and the General
Notes of its Appendix I in GPA/W/225, dated 12 December 2002.  In a document circulated on
13 January 2003, Hong Kong, China had communicated its reservations on the proposed changes
(GPA/W/236).
8. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that her delegation had submitted a notification
expressing reservations on the grounds that the proposed modifications had a discriminatory effect,
having regard to paragraph 7(c) of Article XXIV of the Agreement on Government Procurement
(GPA), as Hong Kong, China had no sub-central entities and had been maintaining anon-discriminatory government procurement regime.  Following satisfactory bilateral consultations,
Hong Kong, China had received written confirmati on from Switzerland informing it of Switzerland's
decision to grant Hong Kong, China the benefit of access to its public authorities and public bodies at
the level of cities and districts;  she said this decision would be confirmed by Switzerland through a
written notification to the WTO Secretariat after Switzerland had gone through its relevant internalprocedures by June 2003.  On this basis, Hong Kong, China was pleased to lift its reservations on the
proposed modifications by Switzerland.
9. The Chairman said that the objection was accordingly lifted as of 6 February 2003 and the
modifications would become effective on 7 February 2003 (WT/Let/437.)GPA/M/20
Page 3
(iii) Modifications by the European Community to Appendix I
10. The Chairman recalled that the European Community had proposed modifications to the
General Notes of its Appendix I in GPA/W/226, dated 12 December 2002.  The modifications had
entered into force on 11 January 2003 (WT/Let/438).
(iv) Modifications by Iceland to Appendix I
11. The Chairman said that Iceland had proposed modifications to the General Notes of its
Appendix I in GPA/W/227, dated 12 December 2002.  The modifications had entered into force on
11 January 2003 (WT/Let/438).
12. In respect of the modifications by the European Community and Iceland, the representative of
Japan suggested that the two Parties also consider reviewing and updating their Annexes 1, 2 and 3 in
due course.
(v) Modifications by Norway to Appendix I
13. The Chairman said that Norway had proposed modifications to the General Notes of its
Appendix I in GPA/W/228, dated 12 December 2002.  The modifications had entered into force on
11 January 2003 (WT/Let/438).
(vi) Modifications by Canada to Appendix I
14. The Chairman said that Canada had sent a communication proposing modifications to
Annex 1 of Appendix I, dated 12 Septembe r 2002 (GPA/W/203).  In a communication, dated
7 October 2002, Hong Kong, China had sought clarification and further information regarding the
proposed modifications (GPA/W/218).  Canada's replies to the questions from Hong Kong, China hadbeen circulated in GPA/W/229.  The representative of Hong Kong, China referred to two further
follow-up questions, which had been transmitted to Canada, to which Canada's replies were awaited.
15. The representative of Canada said that her delegation anticipated providing responses in due
course.
(vii) Modifications by Korea to Appendix I
16. The Chairman said that Korea had proposed m odifications to Annex 3 of its Appendix I in
GPA/W/207.  The United States, the European Community and Canada had made communications
objecting to the entry into force of the proposed modifications and requesting additional time to study
and to seek clarification (GPA/W/210, GPA/W/2 14 and GPA/W/217, respectively).  Korea's response
to the communication from Canada had been circulated in GPA/W/222.  Further questions submitted
by the European Community had been circulated in GPA/W/244.
17. Referring to his delegation's statement at the October 2002 meeting, the representative of
Korea reiterated the point that a private entity should not be subject to the procedural requirements of
the GPA on account of its previous existence as a government entity.  He said that, with theconclusion of the sale of the Government's remaining shares in May 2002, Korea Telecom was now a
wholly-owned private company, which conducted its procurement solely on commercial
considerations.  Korea had provided specific written clarification in response to a specific question putby Canada, and would also provide responses to additional questions recently raised by the United
States and the European Community in due course.  With the completion of Korea Telecom's
privatization in August 2002, Korea sincerely hoped that this process would be expedited and
concluded as soon as possible.GPA/M/20
Page 4
18. The representative of Canada confirmed that Canada was reviewing Korea's response and was
not yet in a position to make a decision regarding the status of its objections.  The representatives of
the United States and the European Community  drew attention, respectively, to the questions they had
submitted and looked forward to receiving and reviewing Korea's responses in due course.
(viii) Modifications by Japan relating to NTT
19. With respect to the proposed modification by Japan to its Appendix I notified in
document GPA/W/91, the Chairman recalled that consultations had been held between Japan and the
delegations of the United States, the European Community and Canada on the basis of the questionsput to Japan by these delegations (GPA/W/ 97, GPA/W/99, GPA/W/100 a nd GPA/W/100/Add.1) and
Japan's answers thereto (GPA/W/104, GPA/ W/104/Add.1, GPA/W/107 and GPA/W/108).  The
United States had withdrawn its objection to the modifications proposed by Japan in October 2001
(GPA/W/166), and Canada in October 2002 (GPA /W/213).  At the October 2002 meeting, the
representative of the European Community had informed the Committee that his delegation wished to
maintain its objection for the time being and that it would provide written confirmation of its position
to Japan in this respect.  On 5 February 2003, Japan had made a communication regarding the status
of the consultations with the European Community (GPA/W/247).
20. The representative of Japan said that Japan had had ongoing consultations with the European
Community and deeply regretted not being able to re port an agreement with this Party at the present
meeting, despite efforts made during consultations over the past three years.  Japan realised that it
would be quite difficult to solve the matter bilaterally, and was submitting this report to enable other
Parties to better understand the matter at issue between it and the European Community regarding
interpretation of the current Article XXIV:6.  By submitting this communication to the Committee,Japan reserved its right to solve the matter through all procedures possible under the Agreement on
Government Procurement.
21. Since the submission of the notification relating to NTT in September 1999, Japan had had a
number of bilateral consultations with representatives of the European Community in Geneva,
Brussels and Tokyo.  After the withdrawal of object ions to this notification by the United States in
October 2001, Japan had intensified its bilateral contacts with the European Community with a view
to solving the matter as soon as possible.  Since October 2001 both delegations had conducted
intensive consultations – three times in Geneva, and once in Tokyo.  In August 2002, Japan had
requested, by way of a letter from Ambassador Haraguchi to Ambassador Trojan, that the European
Community present its position in writing, together  with reasons for maintaining its objection, should
this be the case.  In October 2002, the European Community had replied, by way of a letter from
Ambassador Trojan, that the European Community ma intained its objections to Japan's notification
for the time being.  As for the reasons for its objections, the European Community had raised three
issues:  shareholding;  NTT law;  and the market situation – particularly concerning the independence
of the telecommunications regulator in Japan, and on the lack of dominant carrier regulations over
NTT Communications Corporation.
22. In December 2002, Japan had presented its position on the issues addressed in
Ambassador Trojan's letter, and had requested the European Community to review its position and to
consider withdrawing its objection.  It had also called upon the European Community to present its
final position by 25 January 2003.  In January 2003, both parties had made additional efforts in order
to explore ways for a mutually satisfactory solution.  However, a deal had not proved possible due to
the gap in the views regarding the level of market liberalization that should be proved by a Partywishing to withdraw an entity from its Appendix I.  In the end, both Parties had recognized that
neither could accept the position of the other.GPA/M/20
Page 5
23. On 30 January 2003, Japan had received a reply by way of a letter from Mr. Carl,
Director General for Trade, European Commission, that the European Community was obliged for the
time being to maintain its objection, seeing as the concerns raised in its letter of October 2002 had not
been satisfactorily addressed, despite the additional clarifications provided by Japan in its letter of
December 2002.  In conclusion, Japan had proposed accordingly that the Committee consider thefollowing issues in order to clarify and improve the procedures under the current Article XXIV:6:
(a) an objecting Party should not prevent a proposed notification from becoming effective for reasons
that were outside the scope of the GPA;  (b) an objecting Party should not utilise its position to link
the withdrawal of its objection to a solution or to progress in other trade issues;  and (c) as the GPA
was not a sector-specific agreement, but a general agreement on procurement, all entities notified
under Article XXIV:6 should be treated equally under the Agreement and examined under equivalent
criteria (for example, legal oversight, ownership of shares, voting rights, appointment of the managing
board, financial support, special or exclusive rights), and, therefore, an objecting Party should not
place sector-specific requirements on any entity notified under Article XXIV:6 which were not
equally applicable to entities in other sectors.
24. The representative of the European Community confirmed that his delegation maintained its
objection to the withdrawal of NTT Communications Corporation from the GPA.  He said it was clear
from the extensive discussions with Japan that the European Community and Japan had divergent
views on the meaning of Article XXIV:6.  The European Community maintained that its
interpretation was correct, and that its concerns in respect of NTT Communications Corporation were
within the scope of the GPA.  The European Community was willing to continue discussions with
Japan on this matter.  With regard to the issues fo r consideration at the end of Japan's statement, the
European Community viewed them to be matters of a general nature that did not affect the matter of
NTT Communications Corporation.
25. The representative of Korea recalled that the current GPA Article XXIV:6 provided that a
Party in exercise of its rights could withdr aw an entity from Appendix I on the grounds that
government control or influence over it had been effectively eliminated, and that allowance should bemade for the market opening effects of the removal of government control or influence.  Even though
the current provision did not provide the detailed criteria regarding the elimination of government
control or influence, it appeared that Japan had provided sufficient information to prove that
government control and influence had been eliminated, and that there had been market opening effects
from the privatisation of NTT Communications Corporation.
26. The issue of independent regulator and dominant carrier regulations raised by the European
Community, however, seemed to have different characteristics from the criteria stipulated in the GPA.He said objecting Parties should not place undue burden and demands that went beyond the rights and
obligations in the GPA, and it seemed more approp riate to tackle this issue in relation to the
implementation of the concessions and obligations under the GATS.  In addition, the privatization
process of Parties should be further encouraged as a means of enhancing its market opening effects,
and any burden of obligation on the process may rather impede the eager participation of otherdeveloping and newly acceded Members of the WTO to the GPA, considering that they were the ones
likely to be privatizing government-owned or government-controlled entities in the future.  Korea
reserved its right to revert to the matter after closer examination, given the specific concerns and
significance of the current situation.
(ix) Modifications by Japan relating to railway companies
27. With respect to the proposed modification by the delegation of Japan to its Appendix I in
GPA/W/144, 145 and 146, dated 29 August 2001, the Chairman said that communications had been
received from the delegations of the United States, Canada and the European Community
(GPA/W/151, GPA/W/155 and GPA/W/156) seeking cl arification and objecting to the proposed
withdrawal of the three Japanese railway companies, namely East Japan Railway Company, CentralGPA/M/20
Page 6
Japan Railway Company and West Japan Railway Company from the coverage of the GPA.  Relevant
notifications received from Japan had been circulated in GPA/W/152, GPA/W/152/Corr.1 and
GPA/W/179.  Additional questions had been received from the European Community and the United
States in 2001 (circulated in GPA/W/164 and GPA/W/165, respectively).  Japan's responses to these
questions were contained in GPA/W/180 and GPA/W/181.  In 2002, the delegations of the UnitedStates and the European Community had submitted further questions, which had been circulated in
GPA/W/204 and GPA/W/205, respectively.  An additional question received from Canada relating to
Central Japan Railway Company and West Japan Railway Company had been circulated in
GPA/W/212.  Japan's responses to these questions  were circulated in GPA/W/233, GPA/W/234 and
GPA/W/235, respectively, dated 7 January 2003.  Follow-up questions had been communicated by the
European Community in GPA/W/245.
28. In a communication dated 1 October 2002, Canada had withdrawn its objection to the
modification of Appendix I of the GPA related to the East Japan Railway Company (GPA/W/211)
and in a further communication dated 1 February 2003, had also withdrawn its objection to the
modifications related to the Central Japan Railway Company and the West Japan Railway Company
(GPA/W/246).
29. The representative of Japan thanked Canada for its decision to withdraw its objection to the
proposal concerning all three railway companies.  Sh e said Japan had, during the week, held bilateral
meetings with the United States and the European Community, respectively.  Japan believed that the
remaining two Parties objecting to its notification had come to an adequate assessment of its proposal,
and hoped that a mutual understanding could be reached as early as possible that the proposed
withdrawal of the three railway companies was consistent with Article XXIV:6(b) of the GPA.  Japanbelieved that it had provided the Parties concerned with extensive information on its proposal and a
time long enough for them to carefully review it.  To expedite this process, Japan had requested these
Parties to specify in writing the reasons for their continued objection to the proposal, and expected to
receive their replies in due course.  Japan also hoped to be able to focus on any remaining issues of
concern that an objecting Party might have in the light of Article XXIV:6(b).
30. The representative of the United States said th at her delegation was carefully reviewing all the
relevant material with a view to reaching a conclusion as to whether government control had been
effectively eliminated, but at present wished to maintain its objection (GPA/W/151).
31. The representative of the European Community  said that his delegation looked forward to
receiving Japan's responses to the questions it had submitted recently, and wished to maintain its
objection for the time being (GPA/W/155).
32. The representative of Canada confirmed the with drawal of Canada's objection to the removal
of the two entities West Japan Railway Company and Central Japan Railway Company from Japan's
Annex 3.  Canada noted that Japan had provided extensive assurances that it would not exercise
control over these two companies.  However, in Canada's view, Japan continued to have effective
control over these companies through its 100 per cent ownership of Japan Railway Public
Construction Corporation, which in turn was the si ngle largest shareholder in the otherwise widely
held West Japan Railway Company and Central Japan Railway Company.  Although Japan had not
undertaken to put in place legal measures to ensure that control was not exercised in the future,
Canada noted, and appreciated, the assurances that Japan would not exercise control of these
companies.
33. The Committee agreed to revert to this issue at its next meeting.GPA/M/20
Page 7
(x) Modification by the United States to reflect recent changes in the administrative
structure of its Federal Government
34. The Chairman said that, with respect to the proposed modifications of Appendix I by the
United States in GPAW/153, dated 25 September 2001, the delegations of Canada, the
European Community and Japan had made communications seeking further information from theUnited States and objecting to the proposed modifications entering into force at the end of the 30-day
period (circulated in GPA/W/167, GPA/W/163 and GPA/W/162, respectively).  The responses by the
United States to the questions raised by the three Parties had been circulated in GPA/W/183-185.
Further questions had been put by Japan (GPA/W /195) and the European Community (GPA/W/216).
The responses of the United States had been circulated in GPA/W/223 and 243.
35. The representative of the United States made reference to bilateral discussions that the United
States had had with Japan during the week.  She said her delegation hoped that its responses would
satisfy the Parties but was otherwise happy to answer  other questions with the view to bringing this
matter to a speedy conclusion.
36. The representatives of Japan and Canada  said that they were reviewing the United States'
responses.
37. The Chairman said that the Committee would revert to this matter at its next meeting.
B. ACCESSIONS
(i) Applications:
- Jordan
38. The Chairman announced that Jordan had submitted it's entity offer on 6 February 2003
(GPA/SPEC/29).
39. The representative of Jordan said that his country's offer had been previously approved both
by the National Committee set up for the purpose and also by the Cabinet.  Jordan looked forward to a
quick and favourable acceptance of its offer by Parties but was nevertheless ready to provide anyclarifications.  Jordan had set up a team to carry out the necessary negotiations.  If its offer was
accepted, Jordan would be one of the very few developing countries to accede to the GPA and the first
Arab country to do so.
40. The representatives of the United States, the European Community
, Israel , Canada , Japan ,
Switzerland and Korea , congratulated Jordan for the submission of its offer and said they looked
forward to giving it their careful consideration and entering into discussions with Jordan at an
appropriate stage.  The representative of Switzerland drew attention to certain aspects of the offer,
including the fact that Jordan had broadly the indicative timetable for accession negotiations
(GPA/W/109/Rev.2), and also that the offer had been approved by the Jordanian Cabinet, and hoped
that on its part, Parties to the GPA would move swiftly to respond to this offer.  This offer from
Jordan should also provide useful background information in the context of the ongoing negotiations
under Article XXIV:7 of the GPA.GPA/M/20
Page 8
41. The Chairman said that, in accordance with the indicative timetable for accession
negotiations, comments on the offer should be comm unicated to Jordan within two months, i.e. by
20 April 2003.2
-E s t o n i a
42. The representative of Estonia said that Estonia's Public Procurement Act was being reviewed
and it was expected that the changes would be adopted by the end of the third quarter of 2003,
following approval by the Government and debate and adoption by Parliament.  These changes
concerned mainly definition of contracting authority, exception procedures for procurement, and
dispute settlement.
43. The Chairman invited Estonia to communicate the changes to the Committee with an
explanation of their impact on Estonia's offer.
- Latvia
44. The representative of Latvia said that, since the October 2002 meeting, Latvia had continued
to have bilateral consultations with the European Community, during which several issues had been
raised.  These issues involved substantial technical effort on the part of Latvia, as well asmodifications to its national legislation.  Followin g the election of a new Parliament, as previously
reported, the legislative process was now gaining speed, and Latvia's capital-based experts were
involved in the process of alignment of the relevant  national legislation to that of the European Union.
The representative assured the Committee that Latvia continued to progress all issues raised in the
bilateral consultations.
- Chinese Taipei
45. The Chairman said that, since the October 2002 meeting, Chinese Taipei had held bilateral
consultations with interested delegations.  Furthermore, in his capacity as Chair, he had also held
informal consultations with Chinese Taipei and interested delegations regarding the issue ofnomenclatures in Chinese Taipei's draft offer.  These consultations had not yet been completed.
46. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, in order to honour its WTO accession
commitment, the Government of Chinese Taipei ha d shown very strong readiness to accede to the
GPA since its accession to the WTO.  In December 2002, with the support of the Chairman and other
GPA Parties, his delegation had successfully completed all the bilateral consultations on the
substantive issues.  Chinese Taipei regretted that the issue of nomenclature had become a barrier for
completing its accession, and took the opportunity to reiterate its policy of utmost flexibility on thismatter, with the view to achieving adoption of its accession decision as soon as possible.  He said that
this issue should not continue to be a barrier, and called on the Chairman to use his good offices – and
solicit all GPA Parties to render the necessary support – so as to facilitate the satisfactory and speedy
conclusion of Chinese Taipei's accession.
47. The representatives of Singapore and Israel
 confirmed that their delegations had completed
bilateral consultations with the delegation of Chinese Taipei in December 2002.  The representative of
Israel expressed disappointment that Chinese Taipei's accession could not be completed at the present
meeting, and hoped that this would be achieved at the next meeting.
                                                     
2 Questions and requests for information received subsequently from the United States have been
circulated in GPA/SPEC/30.GPA/M/20
Page 9
48. The representative of China said that any concerns relating to any accession of Parties to the
GPA were relevant to the process, and hoped that all such issues could be solved through the bilateral
and plurilateral consultations.
49. The Chairman drew attention to the important progress achieved in this accession, leading to
the satisfactory conclusion of the bilateral market access negotiations.  It was unfortunate that there
had not been enough progress on the issue of nomenclatures to complete this process at the present
meeting.  If, however, the outstanding issue was resolved, a meeting of the Committee could be
convened at short notice to approve the accession of Chinese Taipei.  The Chairman, on his own
behalf, expressed the hope that this moment would come soon, and also echoed the views that had
been made by various delegations, that all necessary efforts should be made to resolve the outstanding
issue.
- Panama
50. The Chairman said that no developments had been reported in relation to Panama's accession
process since 2001.
- Bulgaria
51. The Chairman said that, at the October 20 02 meeting, the Committee was informed that
Bulgaria expected to be able to provide additional detailed information shortly regarding amendments
to the national public procurement legislation, which had been passed in April 2002.  A follow-up
question by Canada in respect of Bulgaria's accession had been circulated in GPA/W/219.3
52. The representative of Bulgaria reiterated the request of his delegation for relevant information
from GPA Parties pertaining to export opportunities in their markets for Bulgarian suppliers.  He said
that, as part of its GPA accession process, Bulgaria had liberalized autonomously, aligning its
procurement legislation to the requirements of the Agreement, and opening its government
procurement market to foreign suppliers.  By the same token, to ensure that this delivered mutual
benefits, it sought, through its accession process, to gain access to the government procurementmarkets of Parties, and the information it was requesting was to help it to assess the benefits.
53. The representative of Switzerland, supported by the representatives of the United States
 and
Canada, provided guidance to Bulgaria by reference to available information sources such as the
statistics on government procurement reported under Article XIX:5 of the GPA, and published trade
statistics.  The representative of Switzerland said that the export opportunities open to Bulgaria was
dependent on that country's export potential.  He offered the bilateral assistance of Switzerland in
providing relevant statistics pertaining to Switzerland to Bulgaria.  The representative of Canada drewattention to the wealth of information available from its schedules and also offered to meet with
Bulgaria on a bilateral basis to review the schedules and other data.
54. The representative of Bulgaria said that his authorities would have technical difficulties in
making this assessment and sought practical assistance, for instance in the form of a technical
assistance project.
55. The Chairman said the Committee would revert to this issue at its next meeting.
                                                     
3 Bulgaria's answer thereto has been circulated in GPA/W/249.GPA/M/20
Page 10
56. With regard to the follow-up question by Canada to a reply previously given by Bulgaria in
GPA/SPEC/23/Rev.1, dated 29 January 2002, the representative of Bulgaria clarified that
Article 41(4) of the Public Procurement Law did not  provide for automatic extension of preferences to
SMEs participating in public procurement.  Such enterprises had the same rights to participate in
public procurement procedures as other Bulgarian or foreign natural or legal persons.  Priority wasaccorded if and only if, at the evaluation stage, two or more tenders were ranked equal including in
price and one of those tenderers was either an SME or had an SME as a subcontractor.  He said the
national statistics showed that this preference did not have substantial practical meaning and value,
given that contracting authorities applied it in only 0.1 per cent of the procurement procedures
conducted over the last three years.
- Slovenia
57. The representative of Slovenia reiterated the interest of his Government to accede to the GPA,
and apologized for the delay in the process.  He said that, though the national legislation was in full
accord with the both the Agreement and EU Directives, it did not give a mandate to the Government
to prepare the initial offer that would meet expectations of Parties in its scope – namely, that a number
of entities that performed public utilities and other activities in the national interest with exclusiverights both at central government and local community levels were established in Slovenia under
private law, irrespective of whether they had public or private ownership or government
arrangements.  The legislative changes and amendments which were deemed necessary in order to
streamline the practice based on the Slovenian Public Procurement Act were being drafted and were
expected to be submitted for the consideration of the Parliament shortly, and Parties would be keptabreast of subsequent developments.
- Albania
58. The Chairman said that Albania's responses to questions put by the European Community;
Hong Kong, China;  Switzerland;  and Canada had been circulated in GPA/W/238-241.
-M o l d o v a
59. The Chairman said that the questions received from Hong Kong, China;  and the European
Community had been circulated in GPA/W/206 and GPA/W/231, respectively.
- Kyrgyz Republic
60. The Chairman said that the replies to the Checklist of Issues had been circulated in
GPA/W/197, dated 10 June 2002.  Further questions rais ed by the delegation of the United States and
the European Community had been circulated in GPA/W/201 and GPA/W/230, respectively.  The
replies of the Kyrgyz Republic to the questions raised in GP/W/201 had been circulated in
GPA/W/248.
61. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that the questions received from the European
Community were under review by capital-based experts.  While the Government of the Kyrgyz
Republic attached due importance to the work of the Committee concerning the accession of the
Kyrgyz Republic, his delegation wished to stress the need for adequate time for the necessary work to
be done in order to bring its national legislation in to conformity with the requirements of the GPA.
On the basis of the questions posed by the United States and the European Community, as a follow-upto the Checklist of Issues, it appeared that delegations were concerned about some measures found in
several articles of the Law on Government Procurement of Works and Services – especially those
contained in Articles 3, 41 and 39 and 40 concerning  the method of quotations and procurement from
a single source.  In this respect, his delegation wished to echo the statement made by its Korean
counterpart that some flexibility needed to be accorded to developing countries and those economiesGPA/M/20
Page 11
in transition to accommodate the necessary requiremen ts to their national legislation so as to avoid
any ambiguity between the GPA requirements and their national law.
-G e o r g i a
62. The Chairman said that questions received from Canada and the European Community
regarding Georgia's replies to the Checklist of Issues had been circulated in GPA/W/220 and
GPA/W/232, respectively.  Georgia's responses to Canada's questions had been circulated in
GPA/W/237.
63. In respect of the answer to question 1 in Georgia's replies to Canada's question, Hong Kong,
China noted that Georgia's law providing 15 per cent preferential privilege to Georgian suppliers
constituted discriminatory treatment in favour of local goods and suppliers.  Similarly, in respect of
the answer to question 2, the requirement that 70 per cent of the personnel be citizens of Georgiaoffended against the non-discrimination principle in Article III of the Agreement and prohibition
against offsets in Article XVI.  Hong Kong, China considered, accordingly, that these should be
rectified before Georgia's accession to the GPA, and, in that connection, was pleased to note that
Georgia had confirmed its willingness to consider making appropriate amendments in the Georgian
state procurement legislation if so requested during the accession process.
64. The representative of Canada said that her delegation may have additional follow-up
questions.  The representative of the United States said that her delegation looked forward to
receiving the responses of Georgia to its questions.
- Lithuania
65. The Chairman said that no developments had been reported in relation to the accession of
Lithuania since the May 2002 meeting.
(ii) Other newly acceded WTO Members
- Oman
66. The Chairman said that no developments had been reported in respect of Oman's accession to
the GPA since the February 2002 meeting.
67. The representative of the United States said th at the United States had submitted questions to
Oman in GPA/SPEC/25 and looked forward to receiving responses as soon as possible.
- Croatia
68. The Chairman said that no developments had been reported in respect of Croatia's accession
to the GPA since the February 2002 meeting.
- China
69. The Chairman said that no developments had been reported in respect of China's accession to
the GPA since the October 2002 meeting.
- Mongolia
70. The Chairman said that no developments had been reported in respect of Mongolia's
accession to the GPA since the September 2001 meeting.GPA/M/20
Page 12
(iii) Streamlining of the accession process
71. The Chairman said that informal consultations on streamlining of the accession process had
been held in October 2002.  For the present meeting, he drew attention to a communication circulated
by Chinese Taipei (GPA/W/224) and a note by th e Secretariat summarizing the points made at the
October 2002 meeting (Job No. 967).
72. Referring to paragraph 5 of GPA/W/224, which read:  "Any pending issues that cannot be
resolved during bilateral and plurilateral consultations shall be set aside for further consultations,
provided that the issues are related to a specific Party only.  The acceding country's offer may be
adopted by setting such pending issues aside.", the representative of China said that the proposal
involved changing the GPA accession procedure as well as impacting on the overall accessionprocedures of the WTO, and required clarification.  In the view of his delegation, there was no basisyet for changing the accession procedure in this way.
73. The representative of Chinese Taipei clarified that, as a plurilateral Agreement, some of the
market access provisions were concluded on the basis of reciprocity, and this proposal was meant to
deal with that.
74. The representative of the United States, supported by the representative of Switzerland ,
suggested that the Committee's work pertaining to the streamlining of the accession process be
undertaken in the context of the revision of the Agreement, and scheduled, accordingly, as part of that
ongoing work.  The representative of Switzerland added that it would shortly be necessary to translate
the outcome of the streamlining work into an approp riate text in the context of the revision of the
Agreement, taking into account the accession of countries at different levels of economicdevelopment, given the fact that, as compared with several other WTO agreements, the Agreement
had a very substantial impact on domestic legislation.
75. The Committee agreed to revert to the issue of streamlining of the accession process in the
wider context of its work on the revision of the Agreement.
C. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
76. The Chairman recalled that Iceland had notified its national implementing legislation on
7 October 2002 (GPA/69).  In accordance with the procedures agreed for the review of implementing
legislation, the Committee had agreed at its October 2002 meeting that delegations that wished to put
questions to Iceland should do so by 16 December 2002, and that Iceland should provide its answers
by 16 February 2003.  No questions had been put to Iceland to date.
77. The Committee agreed that the review of Iceland's implementing legislation had been
completed.
78. At the October 2002 meeting, the delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect
to Aruba had been invited to submit its notification of national implementing legislation in accordance
with the requirements in GPA/1/Add.1.
79. The representative of the Kingdom of the Nether lands with respect to Aruba said that there
were no new developments to report.
80. The Committee agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting.GPA/M/20
Page 13
D. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV :7
81. The Chairman reported on the informal meeting held on the Article XXIV:7 negotiations on
4 February 2003.  The Group had carried forward the work on the revision of the text of the GPA by
taking up the issues in basket 1 (basic principles, scope and coverage and related definitions,
exceptions, developing countries and accessions) foll owed by a discussion of the issues in basket 3
(information and review as regards obligations of  entities, information and review as regards
obligations of Parties, enforcement, institutions, and statistical reporting) and basket 2 (tendering
procedures, technical specifications and related definitions), respectively.
82. On basket 1 issues, the Group had had before it a joint submission by the European
Community, the United States and Canada (Job No. 746);  a proposal by Norway on the Note to
Article I, paragraph 1 (Job No. 10232);  and the late st revision of the Secretariat document "Suggested
Drafting Changes to 1994 Agreement" (Job No. 8957), dated 7 November 2002.  The group had had adetailed discussion on the Articles related to basket 1 focusing mainly on the joint proposal.  A
revised text for the Preamble contained in the joint proposal had also been taken up.  Moreover, there
had been a preliminary exchange of views on the proposal by Norway suggesting the deletion of the
Note to Article I on tied aid.
83. On basket 3 issues, the discussion on each of the relevant Articles had been carried out on the
basis of a draft text by the Chairman suggesting possible revised provisions relating to the issues in
this basket (Job No. 341).
84. As regards basket 2, the delegation of Canada had introduced a submission commenting on
the Article on negotiation procedures (Job No. 826).  The Group had been informed by a number of
delegations that, since the last meeting, they had been  working together in order to seek to narrow the
differences between the drafting proposals that had been made on basket 2 and that they would share
the results of their work in the near future with other delegations.
85. The Group had also considered elements 2 and 3 of the work programme, relating to
expansion of coverage and elimination of discriminatory measures.  Pursuant to the requirement in the
work programme on this aspect of the Article XXIV:7 negotiations (GPA/M/17, Annex), thedelegations of Japan and Canada had introduced non-papers entitled "Expansion of Coverage and
Elimination of Discriminatory Measures and Practices" (Job No. 8223) and "Modalities - Questions
for Consideration"(Job No. 825) that they had tabled, respectively.  Clarifications had been sought by
a number of delegations on a number of issues covered in these papers.
86. The Group had also held an informal drafting meeting on 5 February to consider further
comments of the Parties on the joint submission on basket 1 made by Canada, the European
Community and the United States (Job No. 746).  At the request of the Chairman, the representativeof the United States provided a brief report to the Committee on this informal drafting meeting.
87. The representative of the United States said th at this meeting had allowed Parties to exchange
views on a number of issues and to continue to narrow  their differences.  Three sets of issues had been
addressed in the drafting session.  First, issues had been identified that Parties had concluded could
only be taken up after the Cancun Ministerial Conference, and which would be considered as part ofthe market access discussions on elements 2 and 3 of the work programme.  Those issues included
references to build-operate-transfer or public concession contracts, found in both the definition in
Article I and in a provision in Article II:1;  a threshold proposal in Article II, labelled II bis;  and the
definition of procurement in Article I.
88. Continuing on his report on the informal meeting, the Chairman said that a second category of
issues pertained to provisions currently in basket 1 that, due to linkage, could not be resolved until
those in baskets 2 and 3 had been appropriately addressed.  One such area involved standards thatGPA/M/20
Page 14
related to the technical specifications provisions in basket 2, whilst definitions proposed in Article I in
basket 1, included international standards, standards, technical regulations, and technical
specifications.  A second area concerned a number of bracketed definitions of tendering procedures
(selective, limited and open tendering) in the definitions section in basket 1.  Other areas concerned
the definition of conditions for participation in Article I, which would have to be taken up in thecontext of the qualification and conditions for participation provisions in basket 2;  and references in
Article III:1 and III:2 to procuring entities that related to the national treatment obligations of entities,
and which linked back to basket 2.  Finally, the current Article IV "Publication of Laws and
Regulations", needed to be integrated with basket 3 issues;  this was more by way of re-location,
rather than a substantive issue.  All of these would have to be addressed in the context of the work on
basket 2.
89. A third category related to specific drafting proposals in basket 1.  These included changes in
several definitions, as well as in various provisions in Articles II-IV.
90. Overall, Parties had had good discussions and made progress in terms of the drafting of
definitions, work on Article II in the valuation provisions, as well as some drafting in Articles III and
IV.  Several issues had been raised in the course of the meeting which would require further
consideration in the context of the revision of the text.
91. The Chairman said that The Group had agreed to hold further informal meetings to further
progress the work pertaining to this agenda item – during the periods of 5-8 May 2003,
16-18 June 2003 back-to-back with the meetings on tr ansparency in government procurement, and in
the week of 28 July 2003.4
92. As regards elements 2 and 3 of the work programme, the Chairman suggested that the Group
revert to these at its May 2003 meeting.  In addition to the papers that the delegations of Canada and
Japan had already submitted, he encouraged other delegations to put forward, before the May
meeting, any further ideas on possible approaches to  the negotiations in these areas.  Given the
difficulties they would encounter in devoting adequate time to both the work on the revision of the
text and to the other two elements and to undertaking substantive work on all the elements in abalanced way, the Group would need to give priority to the revision of the Agreement in the period up
to the Cancun Ministerial Conference.  Notwithstanding this, delegations had agreed that the Group
would need to come back to these issues on a re gular basis in order to maintain the momentum of
work if the objectives of the negotiations on the ot her two elements were to be met within the time-
frame of the work programme.
93. The Committee agreed to proceed as set out above.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Date of next meeting
94. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting in the week of 28 July 2003.5
__________
                                                     
4 Subsequently postponed to 11 August 2003.
5 Subsequently postponed to the week of 11 August 2003.