RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/C/M/17
26February 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-0805)
Council forTrade inGoods
27January 1997
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on27January and12February 1997
Chairperson: Mr.S.Narayanan (India)
Theproposed agenda contained indocument G/C/W/69 wasadopted withtheinclusion ofan
itemunder "Other Business".
Page
1. Observer status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations (G/L/140) 1
2. Decision ontheadpersonam status ofTMB members (G/C/W/20/Rev.1) 2
3. Trade Facilitation (paragraph 21oftheSingapore Ministerial Declaration) 3
(WT/MIN(96)Dec)
4. FreeTrade Agreement between theGovernment ofCanada andthe 8
Government oftheState ofIsrael
5. Appointment ofOfficers fortheSubsidiary bodies oftheCouncil 8
6. Election ofChairperson fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods 10
Thefollowing itemwasincluded under "Other Business":
7. Dateofthenextmeeting 10
________________
TheChairman welcomed delegations tothismeeting convened byWTO/AIR/506.
1. Observer status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations (G/L/140)
1.1 TheChairman recalled thatatitsmeeting of18July1996, theGeneral Council hadapproved
the"Guidelines onObserver Status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations" (Annex 3of
document WT/L/61). However, there wasoneissue pending concerning thefinalization ofthe
Agreements withtheWorld Bank andtheIMFwhich wasresolved onlyinDecember 1996. DocumentG/C/M/17
Page2
G/L/140 contained alistoftheinternational intergovernmental organizations having observer status
onanadhocbasisintheCouncil andothers whose requests forobserver status werepending. Regarding
thefirstcategory oforganizations having observer status onanadhocbasis, these organizations had
submitted formal requests andhadbeeninvited tofollow thework oftheCouncil forthepasttwoyears.
Inthisregard, hedrew Members 'attention totheAgreements between theWTO andtheIMFand
theWorld Bank (WT/L/195). TheAgreements provided thattheWTO shallinvite theWorld Bank
andIMFtosendamember oftheirstafftothemeetings ofWTO bodies, including thesectoral councils.
Therefore, itappeared thatobserver status wasalready being granted tothese organizations byvirtue
ofthese agreements.
1.2 Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thatparagraph 4ofAnnex 3oftheRules of
Procedure forSessions oftheMinisterial Conference andtheGeneral Council require thatrequests
forobserver status shall beconsidered onacase-by-case basis taking intoaccount suchfactors as
reciprocity withrespect toaccess toproceedings, documents andother aspects ofobservership. He
sought confirmation thatthose international intergovernmental organizations which were requesting
observer status andforwhich noseparate agreement wasinplace would benotified ofthespecific
understandingthattheWTOreservedtherighttoexpectreciprocalobserverrightsinthoseorganizations.
1.3 TheCouncil tooknoteoftheinformation andstatement, andgranted observer status tothe
FAO, ITCB, OECD, UN,UNCTAD andtheWCO. TheCouncil alsoagreed thattheseOrganizations
benotified ofthebasisonwhich observer status wasbeing granted andofthefactthattheWTO reserved
therighttoexpect reciprocal observer rights inthese Organizations.
1.4 Asconcerned thesecond category ofinternational intergovernmental organizations (category
IIindocument G/L/140) whose requests forobserver status were pending, theChairman informed
theCouncil thatsome oftheseorganizations hadobserver status inGATT 1947, while others didnot.
1.5 Therepresentative ofMorocco stated thatconsultations onthese requests should becarried
outonthebasis ofnon-discrimination, andthatdecisions onobserver status should notbetaken in
anarbitrary way.
1.6 TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatement, andauthorized theChairman toholdconsultations
onthese requests.
2. Decision ontheadpersonam status ofTMB members (G/C/W/20/Rev.1)
2.1 TheChairmanstatedthaton26July1995,theChairmanoftheTextilesMonitoringBody(TMB)
hadwritten tothethenChairman oftheGoods Councils stating thefollowing:
"During itslastmeeting theTextiles Monitoring Body (TMB) formally adopted itsworking procedures.
When adopting itsworking procedures, theTMB invited itsChairman tosubmit thefollowing tothe
Council forTrade inGoods forappropriate action:
"WTO Members which, pursuant tothedecision oftheGeneral Council of31January 1995, appoint
TMB members under Article 8.1oftheAgreement onTextiles andClothing accept thatTMB members
serve intheiradpersonam basisandnotasgovernment representatives. Consequently, theyshallnot
giveTMB members instructions, norseektoinfluence them, withregard tomatters before theTMB.
Thesame applies toalternates."G/C/M/17
Page3
2.2 AttheCouncil meeting of31July1995, thethenChairman hadreferred tothisproposal and
indicated hisintention toholdconsultations onthismatter. Thisproposal withminor changes was
circulated indocument G/C/W/20. Theconsultations remained inconclusive. TheTMB inparagraph
107ofitsreport (G/L/113), senttotheCouncil on4October 1996, hadreferred tothismatter and
hadrequested theCouncil totakeappropriate action onthisproposal. Atitsmeeting of15October
1996, theCouncil hadagreed thattheChairman should resume consultations onthismatter atan
appropriate time. Attheinformal meeting oftheCouncil on14January 1996, thisissuewasaddressed
anditwasagreed thattheCouncil would adopt thedecision contained indocument G/C/W/20 with
thefollowing amendment proposed bySwitzerland: thethirdlinewhich read"TMB members serve
onanadpersonam basis", should read"TMB Members discharge theirfunction onanadpersonam
basis" which corresponded tothelanguage usedintheAgreement onTextiles andClothing. Therevised
version ofthedecision wascirculated indocument G/C/W/20/Rev.1.
2.3 TheCouncil adopted thedecision ontheadpersonam status ofTMB members contained in
document G/C/W/20/Rev.1.
3. Trade Facilitation (paragraph 21oftheSingapore Ministerial Declaration) (WT/MIN(96)Dec)
3.1 TheChairman recalled thatthismatter wasfirstraised intheCouncil atitsmeeting of1
November 1996. Ministers hadaddressed thisissue inSingapore andhaddirected theCouncil in
paragraph 21oftheSingapore Ministerial Declaration to:
"undertake exploratory andanalytical work, drawing onthework ofother international
organizations, onthesimplification oftrade procedures inorder toassess thescope forWTO
rules inthisarea".
3.2 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed gratitude forthesupport given
topursuing thistopicbothinthecontext ofthepreparation fortheSingapore Ministerial Meeting and
attheMinisterial Meeting itself. Hisdelegation 'sviewwasthatwork should startinalow-key manner.
Theoption ofestablishing aWorking Group should remain open, buthisdelegation didnotbelieve
thatthepresent timewastheappropriate moment todothat. Atthisstage therefore, hisdelegation
wished theSecretariat toundertake afactual survey ofwhatwasgoing oninthisareaofwork inother
internationalorganizations.Asurveyofthiskindwasanecessaryfirststepforexaminationandcollective
consideration oftheissues onwhatfurther action might beneeded. TheSecretariat incarrying out
thissurvey could consider whatwashappening notonlyininternational intergovernmental organizations
butalsoinnon-governmental organizations which alsohadorwereundertaking work inthisarea,for
example theInternational Chamber ofCommerce (ICC). InthelightoftheSecretariat 'ssurvey,
Members would thenbeabletoconsider inwhatwaytheWTO withitsrule-making capacity could
contribute totheexisting situation relating totrade facilitation. Hisdelegation alsowished torequest
thatthework becompleted inatime-frame oftwotothree months which would permit Members to
examine whatfurther action might beneeded wellbefore thesummer break.
3.3 Therepresentative ofMexico stated thatwork undertaken intheareaoftradefacilitation would
bebeneficial toall.Hisdelegation supported therequest fromtheEuropean Communities totheeffect
thattheSecretariat should carry outafactual compilation ofwhat wasdone inother international
organizations intheareaoftradefacilitation. Thiswould beafirststeptowards implementing paragraph
21oftheMinisterial Declaration. Hedrew attention tothefactthatintheDeclaration there was
reference to"trade facilitation" aswellasto"simplification oftradeprocedures". Therefore, anopen
mind would beneeded during thisphase ofcollecting, collating andcompiling information. Itwould
benecessary, atacertain stage, toexamine theappropriateness ofdrawing upWTO rulesinthisarea.
Thefactor oftime-frames wasnotonetowhich hisdelegation would attach priority to.Additionally,G/C/M/17
Page4
hisdelegation wished todraw attention tothetextinparagraph 22oftheDeclaration which readas
follows: "minimizing theburdens ondelegations especially those withmore limited resources, and
tocoordinating meetings withthose ofrelevant UNCTAD bodies". Thiswasanaspect which needed
tobekeptinmindatallstages ofthework. Although hehadnoobjection toinformation being collected
fromnon-governmentalorganizations,thisexerciseshouldnotsetapoliticalorpolicyprecedentregarding
WTO 'srelations withnon-governmental organizations. Astotheinformation fromnon-governmental
organizations, hisdelegation 'sview would betohavethistypeofinformation onlywhen itexisted
intheformofestablished conventions, tobeincluded inthesurvey. Inthisway,information onresults
stemmingfromspecificinstrumentsratherthantheopinionsoftheinstitutionsservicingtheseinstruments
would bepartofthefactual survey.
3.4 Therepresentative ofHong Kong agreed thatsome meaningful work could bedoneinthis
area. Hisdelegation shared theviewthataWorking Group wasnotneeded atthisstage, andthatit
wasnecessary tokeepanopenmind. ItwasclearfromtheMinisterial Declaration thatthefirststage
ofwork bytheCouncil would beexploratory. Thiscould bestbedonebygathering factsandcollecting
information. Asregarded theprobable involvement ofnon-governmental organizations, hisdelegation
hadnofixed views atthisstage except toindicate thatsome wayneeded tobefound toinclude private
sector thinking intothesubject matter.
3.5 Therepresentative ofNigeria welcomed theproposal from theEuropean Communities, and
supported theviews expressed byMexico andHong Kong. However, hewished tomake afewpoints:
1)while notlimiting thecompilation ofinformation ontrade facilitation toeither intergovernmental
ornon-governmental organizations, itwasnevertheless necessary toestablish some parameters and
guidelines forthecompilation ofthatinformation. Itwasclear withregard tosubparagraph 2of
paragraph 21oftheMinisterial Declaration that,whether ornotconclusions andrecommendations
should becontained inthisinitial factfinding study oftheSecretariat, theywould emerge atsome stage;
2)Specify acleartimetable forthecompilation offactual information; 3)Members needed toknow
thegeneral outline orplanofaction thattheSecretariat would use,andtheintergovernmental andnon-
governmental organizations thattheSecretariat would consult; thiswasinorder tokeeptrack ofthe
process; 4)within theperiod oftimeduring which theSecretariat would gather information, there
would beaneedforeither briefings bytheSecretariat onthework undertaken untilthatstage, orthe
circulation ofnon-papers orinformation notes sothatMembers would know whattheywerebecoming
involved in.
3.6 Therepresentative ofSingapore, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN Members, stated thatthe
proposal bytheCommunities waspragmatic andsensible. Hisdelegation would agree thatatthis
pointoftimeitwould notbeappropriate toformaWorking Group. Rather, theimmediate workshould
beexploratory innature. Astothetime-frame, hisdelegation feltthatitwould depend ontheoutcome
ofthesurvey. Healsowished toemphasize thatthiswasanexercise which wasbeneficial toall
Members.
3.7 Therepresentative ofPakistan shared theviews expressed bytheCommunities, Mexico and
Hong Kong. Hebelieved thatalotofuseful work hadalready beendoneonthesubject invarious
fora,andthatitwould therefore belogical tostartwiththesurvey ofexisting literature onthesubject.
Once thiswasdone, Members could determine whether further value could beadded tothework that
hadalready beendoneinthisfield.
3.8 Therepresentative ofMorocco shared theviews expressed bytheCommunities andMexico.
Thiswasanissue onwhich Members hadtobeverypragmatic. Itwasapoint onwhich notmuch
discussion hadtaken place priortoSingapore, probably asMembers wereuncertain astowhatexactly
encompassed theconcept oftradefacilitation. Therefore exploratory workshould becarried outbearing
inmind fromtheoutset whathadbeendonebyother international organizations withmore experienceG/C/M/17
Page5
thantheWTO inthisarea. ThiswasthefirsttimethattheWTO hadusedaconcept ofthisnature,
andMembers, therefore, hadtobeveryprudent andpragmatic. Astherepresentative ofMexico had
suggested, thecompilation bytheSecretariat should becarried outwithapriori averyopen mind
afterwhich itwould beforMembers toseehowthismatter could betaken further. Thesummer recess
would beagood deadline forthisfirstexploratory phase.
3.9 Therepresentative ofZimbabwe stated thathisdelegation supported thesuggestion thatthe
Secretariatgatherinformationfortheexploratoryphase.However,hewouldbeconcernedifthequestion
ofpossible rulesweretoberaised atthisstage. Discussion onrulesatthisstage waspremature, and
itwasaquestion thatMembers would lookintooncesufficient material hadbeengathered. Thesecond
issuerelated tothereferences thathadbeenmade toaWorking Group, which hisdelegation feltwas
amatter which should notbeaddressed atall.Hisdelegation wasalsooftheview thatitwasfirst
important toexamine whatneeded tobedoneprior tosetting uptime-frames forthisexercise.
3.10 Therepresentative ofNew Zealand supported theproposal submitted bytheEuropean
Communities thattheSecretariat undertake asurvey ofafact-finding nature. Hisdelegation didnot
assume thatthere wasarolefortheWTO intheareaoftrade facilitation. Ontime-frames, Members
should beflexible, nodeadlines should beestablished atthispoint.
3.11 Therepresentative ofEgypt stated thatthemandate given byMinisters totheCouncil wasclear.
Itwascomposed oftwotasks anexploratory one,followed byananalytical one.Itwasnotpossible
toembark onthesecond phase without completing thefirst. Asstated bytherepresentative ofMexico,
Members hadtobeveryflexible about thisquestion, butitwasveryclear thatthere should beno
WorkingGroupestablished.ThreeWorkingGroupshadalreadybeenestablishedthroughtheMinisterial
Declaration tocover newareas. Themultiplicity ofmeetings wasofconcern tohisdelegation andother
delegations fromdeveloping countries. When theSecretariat hadcompleted itssurvey ofwork carried
outinother relevant international organizations ontrade facilitation, Members could decide whatthe
nextstepshould beregarding theanalytical work tobeundertaken.
3.12 Theobserver from theWorld Customs Organization (WCO) welcomed thedecision bythe
Council togrant observer status totheWCO. Heassured Council Members thatthisobserver status
would beonthebasis offullreciprocity. TheWCO alsowelcomed theMinisterial Declaration on
trade facilitation. TheWCO wereveryconcerned about trade facilitation andsought toensure that
customs procedures werecarried outinaveryefficient waysothatborder controls tookintoaccount
theneeds oflegitimate trade. TheWCO hadbeenworking onharmonization, standardization and
simplification ofcustoms procedures foralongtime. TheKyoto Convention hadcome intoforce in
1973 toharmonize andsimplify customs procedures. Unfortunately ithadnotbeenassuccessful as
would havebeendesired. Though therewerefifty-five contracting parties, many ofwhom wereWTO
Members, mostofthemhadadopted onlyoneortwoofthethirty annexes covering international customs
procedures. Inaddition, there were alsoalmost fifteen hundred reservations made inrelation tothe
Convention. Therefore, theConvention hadnotbeensuccessful inactually achieving standardization
andharmonization intrade procedures. TheWCO hadbeenreviewing theKyoto Convention, with
other organizations suchastheInternational Chamber ofCommerce. TheWCO welcomed theWTO
interest inthisarea, andwasprepared toassist theWTO initsinitial exploratory study. Hehoped
thattheexploratory andanalytical phases would leadMembers totheconclusion thatsome ruleswould
benecessary. Rules ontradefacilitation werenecessary asmore andmore companies wereregarding
theworld asasingle market fortheirsupplies andsales. Hehoped thatthesame sortofagreement
asthose existing oncustoms valuation andonintellectual property rights issues would betheoutcome
ofthisexercise ontrade facilitation.
3.13 TheChairman insummarizing thediscussion stated thatthetwopoints emerging from the
discussion werethatwork should startonalow-key basis, andthattheSecretariat should berequestedG/C/M/17
Page6
tostartaninformation gathering exercise onthesubject oftradefacilitation fromrelevant andimportant
organizations. Certain questions weretoopremature toaddress atthisstagesuchastheneedtoestablish
aWorking Party orwhether theWTO could usefully contribute tothework currently existing inthe
areaoftradefacilitation. Onthematter oftime-frames, theSecretariat hadindicated atentative deadline
ofMayinwhich tocomplete thisinformation gathering exercise. Members should show flexibility
inthisrespect iftheneed arose. With respect toinformation gathered from nongovernmental
organizations, there wastheviewthatthestudy should include decisions taken orprocedures already
decided upon inthese organizations andnotopinions, views oradvice thatmight begiven bythese
organizations.
3.14 Therepresentative ofArgentina stated thattradefacilitation, inhisview, wasanexercise aimed
atensuring thatprocedures andother mechanisms ofinternational trade became evenmore dynamic,
andtofacilitate trade intheprivate sector. Forthisreason, hisdelegation would notliketodiscard
anideaduetoitssource, forexample anideafrom theprivate sector should beassessed onitsown
merit. Heshared theviews oftherepresentative ofMexico withrespect tonotsetting apolitical or
policy precedent regarding WTO 'srelations withnon-governmental organizations. Butthisdidnot
mean thatideas from theprivate sector should berejected because theyhadcome from theprivate
sector. What wasrequired inthisexercise wasthebestavailable information andalsotoknow exactly
whattheprivate sector thought.
3.15 TherepresentativeofNigeriastatedthattradefacilitationprocedureswerenotentirelyasharmless
astheyappeared. Theremarks bytheobserver fromtheWorld Customs Organization pointed tothe
ramification ofthisissue. Itwasforthisreason thathisdelegation wasconvinced thattheinformation
tobegathered bytheSecretariat ontrade facilitation procedures would influence policy discussions
thatwould inevitably takeplace onthisitem. Thiswasalsowhyhisdelegation strongly desired to
havesome sortofparameter established fortheinformation thattheSecretariat would gather ontrade
facilitation procedures, i.e.anidentification oftheissues ormatters onwhich information would be
gathered. Itdidnothavetobeahighly formalized process, however, anopportunity should begiven
todelegations tomake responses orsuggest additions totheparameters which theSecretariat would
useinthissurvey. Itwould alsoenable hisdelegation tobewellprepared fordiscussions relating
tothesecond phase ofthework, i.e.thedesirability ofrules inthisarea.
3.16 Therepresentative ofKorea appreciated theconcerns voiced bytherepresentative ofNigeria
relating totheparameters tobeusedbytheSecretariat initscompilation work ontrade facilitation.
However, hedoubted whether theSecretariat could drawupsuchparameters before theactual survey
hadbeencompleted; thiswasamatter which could bediscussed atalaterstage. What wasimportant
wasthatwork should getstarted intheareaoftrade facilitation.
3.17 Therepresentative ofMexico stated thatthework oftheSecretariat would notbeafinalresult.
Itwasaninput tothewhole exercise ontrade facilitation, andhisdelegation would expect tohave
comments oncethisinitial work hadbeencompleted bytheSecretariat.
3.18 Therepresentative ofNorway stated thatnodefinition oftheterm"Trade Facilitation" had
beenestablished, andthatthesurvey bytheSecretariat should befactual andconducted inanopen-
minded manner. Hisdelegation didnotseetheneedtomonitor thisphase ofthework.
3.19 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thattheCouncil hadformal instructions
fromMinisters thattheCouncil should undertake exploratory andanalytical work ontradefacilitation.
Hisdelegation hadproposed thattheSecretariat beinvited todraw upaninventory ofwork going on
orhaving been done inthisareainother international organizations, andtomake itavailable to
Members. Members could thendiscuss whether theybelieved ittoconstitute anadequate basis for
further work, orwhatother aspects should beexamined. Further action could consist inanadditionalG/C/M/17
Page7
study and/or animprovement orrefinement ofanyinventory orfactual information thathadbeen
obtained. However, theapproach tocollecting thisinformation should benon-selective sothatthefullest
picture could beobtained.
3.20 Therepresentative ofPerustated thatthemandate tostartwork inthisareawassetoutin
paragraph 21oftheMinisterial Declaration, andtheinitial work being proposed wastohaveafactual
survey andcompilation ofallinformation existing onthissubject. Itwasnotaquestion ofelaborating
guidelines orsetting priorities.
3.21 Therepresentative ofArgentina supported thepointmade bytherepresentatives oftheEuropean
Communities andPeru.
3.22 Therepresentative ofMorocco stated thatonesolution might befortheSecretariat toprovide
aninterim progress report ofthework being undertaken sothatMembers could seethegeneral direction
oftheSecretariat 'swork. Members could, possibly atthattime, alsoindicate whether theSecretariat
hadtaken therightdirection andmake areassessment, ifnecessary.
3.23 TherepresentativeofHongKongstatedthathisimpressionwasthattheSecretariatwasrequested
toundertake research ofafactual nature inorder toenable thisCouncil toundertake thework mandated
byitintheMinisterial Declaration. Astherepresentative ofMexico hadpointed out,delegations would
havetheopportunity torevert tothisinformation compiled bytheSecretariat.
3.24 Therepresentative ofNigeria, stated thathisdelegation wasnotopposing theproposal that
theSecretariat startwork oncollating information ontrade facilitation procedures. However, his
delegation stillinsisted onseeing alistofissues which related tothescope oftradefacilitation procedures
onwhich theSecretariat would orhadcollected information. Hisdelegation reserved itsrighttocome
backtothislistatasubsequent meeting oftheCouncil.
3.25 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thatamandate, hadbeengiven inthe
Singapore Ministerial Declaration tostartwork intheareaoftrade facilitation. Thatwasthebasis
onwhich Members wereproceeding, andthebasisonwhich theSecretariat wasbeing asked tomake
aninventory ofwhat other organizations were doing orhaddone inthisarea. Thework inthose
organizations would define what theissues were, thenature oftheproblems aseachindividual
organization perceived them. ItwasnotforMembers, tocorrect ortoqualify that. Once thiswas
done, Members would havetoassess what, ifany,further action wasappropriate. Hisdelegation had
nostrong feelings about theSecretariat providing interim reports.
3.26 Therepresentative ofNew Zealand stated thatashehadunderstood thesituation, the
representative ofNigeria reserved hisposition tocome backtotheareas oftrade facilitation being
covered intheSecretariat study, andtheapproach being taken inthisexercise. Atthenextmeeting
oftheCouncil, ashadalready beensuggested, theSecretariat could provide aprogress report asto
theinstitutions ithadcontacted, andgiveanoutline astowhere thework washeading atthatstage.
3.27 Therepresentative ofNorway stated thatwhen reference wasmade toaninventory ofissues,
itcould bemisleading. Hehadunderstood thattheSecretariat hadbeenrequested tocollect information
about work which hadbeendonebyother organizations intheareaoftrade facilitation, which would
automatically encompass allissues. Itwasnottocollect information ononlycertain issues. The
Secretariat could berequested togiveastatus report oraninterim report atsome stage.
3.28 TheChairmanproposedthatfirstly,theSecretariatberequestedtostartaninformationgathering
exercise inrespect ofthework done orbeing done onthesubject oftrade facilitation invarious
organizations. Secondly, atitsnextformal meeting, theCouncil would beinformed bytheSecretariatG/C/M/17
Page8
oftheorganizations fromwhich information hadbeengathered untilthatpoint intimeaswellasareas
oftradefacilitation inrespect ofwhich those organizations hadundertaken orwereundertaking work.
Thirdly, theresults oftheinformation gathering exercise bytheSecretariat should bepresented tothe
Council sometime inMay.
3.29 TheCouncil soagreed.
4. FreeTrade Agreement between theGovernment ofCanada andtheGovernment oftheState
ofIsrael
4.1 TheChairman drew attention tothenotification from theparties (WT/REG31/N/1) tothe
Agreement (WT/REG31/2).
4.2 Therepresentative ofCanada, speaking onbehalf oftheparties totheCanada/Israel FreeTrade
Agreement, informed theCouncil thatthisAgreement hadentered intoforce on1January 1997 and
thatitsprovisions wereinfullconformity withtheWTO provisions. Theparties wereready toprovide
further information ifrequested andwould cooperate fullywiththeCommittee onRegional Trade
Agreements.
4.3 TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee onRegional Trade Agreements carry outthe
examination ofthisagreement inaccordance withthefollowing terms ofreference:
"toexamine, inlightoftherelevant provisions oftheGATT 1994, theFreeTrade
Agreement between theGovernment ofCanada andtheGovernment oftheState of
Israel andtosubmit areport totheCouncil forTrade inGoods."
4.4 Itwasunderstood thattheunderstanding readoutbytheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade
inGoods under item7oftheAgenda ofthemeeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods on
20February 1995, ascontained indocument WT/REG3/1, would apply mutatis mutandis tothis
examination. Itwasalsounderstood that,during theexamination, dueaccount would betaken ofthe
intrinsic differences between customs unions andfree-trade areas.
4.5 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods soagreed.
4.6 TheCouncil agreed tosuspend themeeting andresume notlaterthan7February 1997inorder
toconsider thelasttwoitems oftheagenda.
5. Appointment ofOfficers fortheSubsidiary bodies oftheCouncil
5.1 TheCouncil resumed itsmeeting on12February 1997. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil
hadmetinformally on6February 1997when ithadbeenagreed thatitwould beappropriate topostpone
further theformal meeting oftheCouncil which hadbeenscheduled toresume immediately afterthe
General Council meeting of7February 1997 inorder todiscuss theremaining items 5and6ofthe
agenda.
5.2 Hestated thatthe"Guidelines fortheAppointment ofOfficers toWTO bodies" contained in
document WT/L/31 andapproved bytheGeneral Council on31January 1995, provided thatthe
Chairperson oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods would conduct consultations ontheappointment of
thechairpersons ofbodies toGroup 6(A)which comprised thesubsidiary bodies oftheCouncil for
Trade inGoods. Accordingly, hehadconducted consultations andhadaslateofnames torecommend
totheCouncil asChairpersons ofthefollowing bodies:G/C/M/17
Page9
Committee onAgriculture: H.E. Mr.Nestor Osorio Londoño
(Colombia)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices: Mr.Kajit Sukhum
(Thailand)
Committee onCustoms Valuation: Mr.Tullio DiPietro
(Italy)
Committee onImport Licensing: Mr.Tomasz Jodko
(Poland)
Committee onMarket Access: Mr.Moha Ouali Tagma
(Morocco)
Committee onRules ofOrigin: Mrs. Lourdes A.Berrig
(Philippines)
Committee onSafeguards: Mr.Seiichi Nagatsuka
(Japan)
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures: Mr.AlexThiermann
(United States)
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures: Mr.Gilles Gauthier
(Canada)
Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade (TBT) Mr.Timothy H.M. Tong
(Hong Kong)
Committee onTrade-Related Investment Measures: Mr.Javier Paulinich
(Peru)
Working Party onState Trading Enterprises: Ms.Vibeke Roosen
(Denmark)
Working Party onPreshipment Inspection: Mr.Chiedu Osakwe
(Nigeria)
5.3 TheChairmanpointedoutthatwhilealltheothersubsidiarybodiesoftheCouncilhadprovisions
intheirrespective Agreements orintheirrulesofprocedure requiring themtoelectchairpersons, neither
theAgreement onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures northeWorking Procedures oftheCommittee
onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures contained suchprovisions. TheWorking Parties onState
Trading Enterprises andonPreshipment Inspection alsodidnothaveanyprocedural rulesorprovisions
onelection ofchairpersons. Asaresult, heproposed thatinthecaseoftheCommittee onSanitary
andPhytosanitary Measures, theWorking Party onStateTrading Enterprises andtheWorking Party
onPreshipment Inspection, theCouncil appoint thenominated persons asChairpersons. Inthecase
ofallother subsidiary bodies heproposed thattheCouncil takenoteoftheconsensus onthenominated
persons forelection asChairpersons.
5.4 TheCouncil soagreed.G/C/M/17
Page10
5.5 TheChairman stated thathehadnotaddressed thequestion ofVice-Chairpersons ofsubsidiary
bodies oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Hisunderstanding wasthatitwould befortheCommittees
todecide iftheyneeded aVice-Chairperson incases where theoption existed, andfortherespective
Chairperson toholdconsultations ifthatwasfound tobethecase.
5.6 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods tooknoteofthestatement andagreed toproceed onthat
understanding.
6. Election ofChairperson fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods
6.1 TheChairman recalled theChairman oftheGeneral Council hadcarried outinformal
consultations onaslateofnames forappointment aschairpersons tothedifferent WTO standing bodies
inaccordance withtheestablished Guidelines forAppointment ofOfficers. These proposed nominations
were approved bytheGeneral Council atitsmeeting on7February 1997.
6.2 Onthebasis oftheunderstandings reached, heproposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods
electH.E. Ambassador Johannessen (Norway) asChairman ofthisbody byacclamation.
6.3 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods unanimously elected Ambassador Johannessen asChairman
fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods for1997.
7. DateofNext Meeting
7.1 TheCouncil tooknotethatitsnextmeeting wasscheduled for11March 1997.