RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/74
1 July 2002
(02-3640)
General Council
13-14 May 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 13-14 May 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Sergio Marchi (Canada)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Iran – Request for accession ................................................................................................. ...2
2. Equatorial Guinea – Request for observer status..................................................................33. Ethiopia – Request for extension of observer status..............................................................3
4. Dates of the Fifth Session of  the Ministeria l Conference ......................................................4
5. Review of procedures for the circulation and derestriction of WTO documents –
Draft Decision................................................................................................................. ...........5
6. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee ..........................................87. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the
Dedicated Sessions of the Committee on Trade and Development.......................................9
8. Committee on Balance-of -Payments Restrictions................................................................11
(a) Consultation wi th Bangladesh ................................................................................................ ..11
(b) Note on the meetin g of 27 February .........................................................................................1 1
9. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement..............................................................11
(a) Customs Valuation Agreement – Request by  El Salvador for ex tension of waiver .................11
(b) Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff
concessions – Request s for waiv ers..........................................................................................12
(i) Argentina – Schedule LXIV................................................................................................... ....12
(ii) Brazil – Sc hedule III ...................................................................................................... ...........12
(iii) El Salvador – Schedule LXXXVII ............................................................................................ .12
(iv) Israel – Schedule XLII ..................................................................................................... .........12
(v) Malaysia – Schedule XXXIX ................................................................................................... ..12
(vi) Morocco – Schedule LXXXI................................................................................................... ...12
(vii) Norway – Sc hedule XIV ..................................................................................................... .......12
(viii) Pakistan – Schedule XV ................................................................................................... .........12
(ix) Panama – Schedule CXLI ..................................................................................................... ....12WT/GC/M/74
Page 2
(x) Paraguay – Schedule XCI..................................................................................................... ....12
(xi) Switzerland – Schedule LIX ................................................................................................. .....12
(xii) Thailand – Schedule LXXIX................................................................................................. .....12
(xiii) Venezuela – Schedule LXXXVI .............................................................................................. ...12
(c) Transposition of schedules into the Harmonized System – Requests for extensions of
waivers........................................................................................................................ ..............13
(i) Nicaragua – Schedule XXIX ................................................................................................... ..13
(ii) Sri Lanka – Schedule VI.................................................................................................... ........13
(d) Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 changes into WTO Schedules of
Concessions – Draft Decision................................................................................................... 13
(e) Zambia – Renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII – Request for extension of waiver.................15
10. Proposal to remove and avoid inconsistencies in the texts of the WTO
Agreements – Communication from Chile ...........................................................................15
11. Review of the exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 .......................18
12. Internal transparency and effective participation of Members – Preparatory
process in Geneva and negotiating procedure at Ministerial Conferences –
Communication from Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, India,Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zimbabwe ..........................................................................................................19
13. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce - Progress report by the Chairman............32
14. Technical assistance and capacity-building – Second meeting of Heads of Agency
of the Integrated Framework – Report by the Director-General.......................................37
15. Schedule of WTO meetings - Statement by the Deputy Director-General ........................41
16. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Statement by the
Chairman of the Committee ..................................................................................................42
1. Iran – Request for accession (WT/ACC/IRN/1)
1. The Chairman drew attention to the communicat ion from Iran in WT/ACC/IRN/1, requesting
accession to the WTO Agreement.  He recalled that the General Council had last considered this
matter at its meeting in February/March, and had agreed to revert to it at the present meeting.
2. The representative of the United States said that her delegation did not have anything to add
to its statement at the February/March meeting.  The issue of Iran's accession to the WTO was under
review by her Government, and her delegation was not in a position to speak to this matter at thepresent meeting.
3. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing
Countries, said that he had taken note of the statement by the United States.  At the February/March
meeting of the General Council, these countries had expressed the hope that they would get a positive
response to Iran's request for accession as soon as possible.  This request had been on the agenda ofthe General Council for some time, and they were disappointed that the United States was still not
able to provide a positive response on the matter.  They strongly urged the United States to respond
positively to this issue at the next meeting of the General Council.WT/GC/M/74
Page 3
4. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
2. Equatorial Guinea – Request for observer status (WT/L/448)
5. The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Equatorial Guinea in WT/L/448,
requesting observer status in the General Council and its subsidiary bodies.  In the same
communication, Equatorial Guinea had also indicated its intention to apply for accession to the WTO
Agreement and had provided a brief description of its economy and foreign trade regime, in
accordance with the Guidelines for Observer Status for Governments in the WTO (WT/L/161,
Annex 2).  He proposed that the General Council agree to grant observer status to Equatorial Guinea.
6. The General Council so agreed.
3. Ethiopia – Request for extension of observer status (WT/L/445)
7. The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from Ethiopia in WT/L/445, requesting
extension of its observer status in the General Council and its subsidiary bodies.  He recalled that
under the Guidelines for Observer Status for Governments in the WTO (WT/L/161, Annex 2),
observer status in the General Council and its subsidiary bodies was granted initially for a period of
five years.  If, at the end of five years, an observer government had not yet initiated a process of
negotiation with a view to accession, it could request an extension of its observer status in writing tothe General Council.  Such a request should also be accompanied by a comprehensive, updated
description of its current economic and trade policies, as well as an indication of its future plans in
relation to initiating accession negotiations.  The Guidelines also provided that, upon receiving such a
request, the General Council should review the situation, and decide upon the extension of the
observer status and the duration of such extension.  In the case of Ethiopia, its initial period ofobserver status expired in October 2002, and it had accordingly submitted its request for extension of
this status.  In accordance with the Guidelines, Ethiopia had also submitted with its request an updated
description of its current economic and trade policies, as well as an indication of its future plans to
initiate accession negotiations.  Regarding the duration of such extension, Members had no precedent
to go by, since this was the first such request before the General Council for extension of observerstatus.  He proposed that the General Council agree to extend Ethiopia's observer status in the General
Council and its subsidiary bodies for a further period of five years.
8. The General Council so agreed.
9. The representative of Ethiopia, speaking as an observer , expressed appreciation to the General
Council for granting Ethiopia's request.  Extension of observer status would help Ethiopia build the
necessary human and institutional capacities and to better acquaint itself with the WTO Agreements.
In this connection, her Government had commissioned a study to assess the full implication of theWTO Agreements on Ethiopia's economic policy and sectoral strategies.  The findings and
recommendations of the study had been submitted  to the highest body of the Government for
decision.  In addition, in order to create awareness and to build understanding among different
stakeholders in the country about the multilateral trading system and the WTO framework, two
national workshops had been organized with th e support of the WTO and UNCTAD Secretariats.
Ethiopia was thus speeding up its in-house preparat ions and would start the accession process in due
course.
10. The General Council took note of the statement.WT/GC/M/74
Page 4
4. Dates of the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference
11. The Chairman recalled that under Item 3 of the Doha Ministerial Conference Agenda,
Ministers had requested the General Council to determine the venue and dates of the Fifth Session of
the Ministerial Conference.  At its meeting in December 2001, the General Council had agreed that
Mexico would be the venue for the Fifth Session.  Since then, he had held consultations with a largenumber of delegations on the matter of the dates of the Fifth Session, and had also sought Members'
advice in numerous individual conversations and meetings with delegations, including with
representatives from regional and other groupings in the WTO.  In addition, he had also been able to
use the opportunity of the previous month's Geneva Week to raise this and other issues with non-
resident delegations, as these issues were very pertinent to them as well.  At these meetings, he had
informed delegations that the Mexican Government 's own preference for dates would be the period of
mid-September to mid-October, and also that Mexi co had been considering the two sites of Acapulco
and Cancún for holding this meeting.  He had also indicated that Mexico's choice of the September-
October period had to do with practical considera tions, since at both of the sites under consideration,
Members would run into either the domestic or the foreign tourist season on either side of the
September-October period.  This, of course, had implications for both security and logistics, the ease
with which the Conference could and should be  conducted, block-booking of hotel accommodation,
and the higher cost and availability of both hotel accommodation and air transport.
12. Nearly all of the delegations he had consulted had said that they were comfortable with and
wished to respect the host Government's preferred pe riod for many different reasons.  In the view of
many of these delegations, the Fifth Ministerial Conference should be a substantive meeting, and
sufficient time should therefore be allowed for the ongoing negotiations and other work to progress toa meaningful level, as well as for technical assistance and capacity-building efforts to filter through.
For some delegations, cost considerations were also important.  Several had urged the need to avoid
undue slippage in the dates
, for fear of not allowing adequate time to follow up on any decisions taken
by Ministers, especially in view of the 1 January 2005 deadline for the conclusion of the negotiations.
A few had expressed a preference for dates in either July/August or in October/early November, and
several had flagged the need to avoid clashes with either the UN General Assembly, which wasexpected to begin on 16 September 2003, or with Ramadan, which started in late October and lasted
for approximately one month.  Mexico had also informed him that it would have national holidays on
both 15 and 16 September 2003.  Delegations had made clear that a decision on the dates for the Fifth
Session should be taken at the present meeting, given the link with planning for the substantive work
that needed to be done under the Doha Development Agenda, and to allow Mexico to make all of thenecessary arrangements.
13. The representative of Mexico said that in determining the site of the Fifth Ministerial
Conference, Mexico had considered a number of cities which could provide the services and
infrastructure required to carry out such a meeting.  Its initial assessment had led to a short list that
contained Acapulco and Cancún.  Representatives of his Government and the Secretariat had visited
both cities a few weeks earlier in order to enable them to take a final decision.  While those visits had
indicated that both cities could host a Ministerial Conference, his Government and the Secretariat hadagreed that Cancún offered certain advantages over Acapulco.  He then made a brief slide
presentation of the facilities that Cancún offered, and highlighted three major advantages:  first, the
geographical location made security and logistics easier;  second, the fact that it was a tourist
destination guaranteed high-quality accommodation and transportation;  and third, the convention
centre offered the necessary elements for a productive and smooth conference.  Furthermore, asMexico intended that this Conference be hosted by Latin America and the Caribbean, Cancún had the
additional characteristic of being part of the Caribbean region.  Mexico had therefore taken the liberty
of suggesting that the Ministerial Conference be held in Cancún.
14. Regarding possible dates for the meeting, the Chairman had provided a description of the
views expressed in the consultations held thus far.  Mid-September was a date which no Member hadWT/GC/M/74
Page 5
suggested, but which appeared to be the most reasonable from the point of view of logistics, hotel
accommodations, flows of visitors and even the climate.  The latter aspect was important, given the
greater risk of hurricanes the closer one came to October.  Taking all of this into account, his
delegation proposed the dates of 10-14 September 2003 as the dates for the Fifth Session.
15. The General Council took note of the statements and of Mexico's choice of Cancún as the site
for the Fifth Session, and agreed that the Fifth Session would be held on 10-14 September 2003.
5. Review of procedures for the circulation and derestriction of WTO documents – Draft
Decision (WT/GC/W/464/Rev.1)
16. The Chairman drew attention to the draft Decision in WT/GC/W/464/Rev.1.  Since the
circulation of this text on 6 May, he had held further discussions with several delegations in the light
of some concerns that had been expressed by them.  Following these discussions, he wished to
propose two modifications to that text, both of whic h were intended to clarify the relevant provisions
of the draft Decision, and were not substantive.  He therefore sought Members' understanding in
incorporating the proposed changes into the text of the draft Decision.
17. The first change involved a revision of the first sentence of paragraph 2(b) in order to make it
clear that any WTO body requesting the Secretariat to prepare a document would also decide, at the
time it requested the document, whether that document should be issued as restricted or unrestricted.There were no other changes to the text of paragraph 2(b), other than editing changes to the second
sentence necessitated by the changes to the first.  The full text of paragraph  2(b), as amended, would
therefore read as follows:  "Any WTO body when requesting a document to be prepared by the
Secretariat shall decide whether it shall be issued as restricted or unrestricted.  Such documents which
are issued as restricted shall automatically be derestricted 60 days after the date of circulation, unlessrequested otherwise by a Member.  In the latter case, the document shall remain restricted for one
additional period of 30 days after which it shall be derestricted."
18. The second change involved the addition of a footnote to the first sentence of paragraph 2(a)
in order to ensure that a provision of the 1996 derestriction procedures would not inadvertently be
annulled by the new procedures.  The proposed footnote would read as follows:  "However, anydocument that contains only information that is publicly available or information that is required to be
published under any agreement in Annex 1, 2 or 3 of the WTO Agreement shall be unrestricted."
19. He recalled that the issue of circulation and derestriction of WTO documents had been under
consideration by the General Council for over four years.  It had first been taken up by former Deputy
Director-General Mr. Hoda in 1998, and subsequen tly by Deputy Director-General Mr. Rodríguez
Mendoza.  On behalf of the General Council, he expressed gratitude to Mr. Rodríguez Mendoza for
his long and committed efforts to take Members as far as he had on this issue.  It was clear that ifMembers sought perfection on every point, consultations  would likely continue for another four years.
In his view, there were no clear-cut opponents or proponents on this issue.  Rather, all Members were
working together to determine the right approach th at would ensure real progress.  His aim in his
recent consultations had been to try and find the appropriate accommodation with respect to
paragraph 2(a) on Members' own submissions, paragraph 2(b) on Secretariat documents, andparagraph 2(c) on minutes of meetings.  He believed that the draft Decision before the General
Council, as amended, was the best accommodation that could be made under the present
circumstances.  It represented considerable progress when compared to the current procedures, under
which most documents were not derestricted until eight to nine months after their circulation.  Under
the proposed draft Decision, both the time-periods before derestriction as well as the number ofdocuments subject to restriction would be reduced.  He recalled that at an open-ended informal
meeting on 1 May, he had explained in some detail the background to the text of each of the
paragraphs in the draft Decision, and suggested that he not do so again unless requested.WT/GC/M/74
Page 6
20. He then read out the following three points of clarification for the record:
- First, all documents prepared by the Secretariat would always make clear that they
were prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and that they were without
prejudice to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.
Such disclaimers should, in any case, be normal.  This was merely reinforcing and
generalizing the best current practice.  This also applied to publications by the
Secretariat, such as research papers, which were not, strictly speaking, official WTO
documents.
- Second, references in the draft Decision to the "date of circulation" of a document
denoted the date printed on that document, which was also the date when the
document was processed for distribution in the original language.  Based on currentpractice, distribution of the documents in  delegations' pigeon holes at the WTO took
place 24 hours thereafter, depending on the si ze of the document to be processed, with
a maximum delay of 48 hours.  The Secretariat had assured him that this was the
norm, although there might be an extraordinary situation where one or two documents
out of the many thousands that were processed each year might encounter a delayeddistribution.  Should this occur, Members should bring to the Secretariat's attention
any instances where documents might not have been distributed within these time-
frames, and the Secretariat would circulate a corrigendum to the document concerned
which would reset the date of circulation for the purpose of derestriction.
- Third, in response to concerns expressed in relation to the distribution of informal
"Job No." documents, the Secretariat would ensure that such documents were made
available to all Members via their WTO web-site.
21. With regard to paragraph 3 of the draft Decision, he said that it was unchanged from the draft
Decision that Members had considered in December 2001, and reflected a carefully worded solution
with respect to the translation issue.   In this context, he believed that the additional resources allocated
to translation had been a wise decision, and had had a positive impact on the existing backlog.
Finally, he noted that paragraph 5 provided for a review of the proposed procedures at an appropriate
time.  There had been a number of suggestions on when such a review should take place.  Some
Members had suggested one year after the adoption of the procedures, others that it should not be
until after the completion of the ongoing negotiations, and still others that it should be two years afterthe adoption of the procedures.  The intent of the la st suggestion was that a re view would start in two
years' time, and not that it should be completed with in that period.  He noted that the current review, if
successfully completed at the present meeting, would have taken four years.  Nevertheless, since there
had been no consensus on the timing of the review either in the consultations or at the open-ended
meeting, the term "at an appropriate time" had been retained in the text.  In concluding, he thanked allMembers for having worked so constructively to bring this issue to the present point.  He then
proposed that the General Council adopt the draf t Decision in WT/GC/W/464/Rev.1 with the two
amendments he had read out earlier, and take note of the points of clarification.
22. All representatives who spoke expressed appreciation to Deputy Director-General
Mr. Rodríguez Mendoza and to the Chairman for their efforts to bring Members to a decision on thisissue.
23. The representative of Malaysia thanked others for their understanding of his delegation’s
concerns, especially as regards an automatic derestriction mechanism.  The WTO was an
intergovernmental negotiating body, and the issue of confidentiality was paramount.  It was  therefore
important for Members to have time to scrutinize  documents to ensure that the information they
contained did not undermine national interests.  Malaysia had recognized that the six- to eight-month
derestriction time-frame for most documents under the current procedures was too long, and had beenWT/GC/M/74
Page 7
ready to accept a shorter time-period.  The proposal to shorten the restriction period to three months
was an acceptable compromise.  Another main concern had related to the need to allow a Member to
decide on the restriction status of its own documents.  The Chairman's proposal addressed that
concern, and gave Members the right to decide whether their own documentation should be
derestricted.  His delegation was therefore ready to accept the draft Decision, as amended.
24. The representative of the European Communitie s said that in the Community's view, this
issue had taken far too much time.  His delegation was not enthusiastic about the draft Decision, as
amended, which it felt had been considerably watered down from earlier versions.  There was a
contradiction in the draft Decision between paragraphs 1 and 2, as paragraph 1 stressed that as a
general rule all WTO documents should be unrestricted, and paragraph 2 provided for exceptions.
The Community believed that recourse to paragraph 2 should be had only in a restrictive way.  The
Community hoped that Members would not abuse recourse to the provisions of paragraph 2(a) to keeptheir own documents restricted.  It also hoped that  Secretariat documents would, as a general rule, be
unrestricted as provided for in paragraph 1, and that any Secretariat document issued as restricted
pursuant to paragraph 2(b) would be exceptiona l.  The Community would carefully follow the
implementation of these procedures, and reserved its right to request a review of the procedures as
appropriate.
25. The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation was prepared to accept the draft
Decision, as amended, as it represented a step forw ard and a compromise solution at the same time.
Paragraph 3 required that non-restricted official WTO documents be translated in all three official
languages before they were made available to the public via the WTO web-site.  This was a
backsliding from the current status quo and a deterioration of transparency.  Out of concern aboutpossible side-effects of some proposals, his delegation had made some suggestions which had been
taken into account with respect to the preparation of minutes and the availability of Job No.
documents on Members' web-sites.  In this regard, he sought confirmation that such documents would
be made available to Members via their web-site and that official WTO documents in the original
language would be available immediat ely to Members via their web-site, i.e. before the versions in the
other official languages became available.
26. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had listened to Members in the
consultations held by the Chairman and had follow ed the latter's advice to come together and move
ahead to ensure a greater degree of transparency.  Her delegation supported the draft Decision, as
amended, and suggested that Members support the Chairman’s statement regarding paragraph 5 that
provided for a review of this Decision on an ongoing basis in the future, as Members would hopefully
continue to make the WTO’s work even more transparent.
27. The representative of Panama said that his delegation supported the draft Decision, as
amended, which was the result of the work of several years and, even more, was a triumph of
Members' good faith and understanding.  He thanked the Chairman for the dynamic and effective way
in which he had conducted the consultations on this issue, and for remembering the interests of small
delegations, such as his own.
28. The representative of Honduras said that his delegation wished to make a reservation as to
any future review as suggested by the European Communities.  In his delegation's view, it was
important to see how the financial resources available for translation were being used.  Should there
be a review of these procedures at an appropriate time, the translation issue would have to be taken
into account, if translated documents were not being made available within 60 days of the circulationof the original version.
29. The representative of Canada said he wished to make clear that his Government would have
preferred a more direct decision, based on paragraph 1 of the current text, which would simply have
stated that all official WTO documents should be unrestricted.  He trusted that this would, in fact,WT/GC/M/74
Page 8
serve as the underlying principle for the vast majority of cases.  However, Canada recognized the
concerns expressed in the consultations and would go along with the draft Decision.  The draft
Decision represented an advance over existing practice in most areas and would contribute to more
openness and understanding of the WTO.  Canada attached particular importance to paragraph 5
which called for a review of these procedures at an appropriate time.
30. The representative of Colombia, speaking also on behalf of Chile , said that the draft Decision,
as amended, was well-balanced and went in the right direction.  His delegation would have preferred a
more ambitious decision but understood that the organization had to move as a whole.
31. The Chairman, in response to Bulgaria's request for clarification, confirmed that Job No.
documents would be made available to Members via their web-site.  As to documents in the original
language, it was his understanding that they would be made available to Members via their web-site
immediately when they were processed for distribution.
32. Mr. Alcoba, Director of the Language Services  and Documentation Division, said that certain
series of documents were made accessible to Members on their web-site only when available in all
three languages, such as documents related to dispute settlement.  Other documents were accessible to
Members on their web-site once the original language was available.
33. The General Council adopted the draft Deci sion in WT/GC/W/464 /Rev.1 with the two
amendments read out by the Chairman1, and took note of the statements, including the points of
clarification by the Chairman.
6. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee
34. The Chairman recalled that at its first meeting on 28 January and 1 February 2002, the Trade
Negotiations Committee had agreed that it would report to each regular meeting of the General
Council.
35. The Director-General, Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee, reported that the
Trade Negotiations Committee had held its second meeting on 24 April 2002.  The meeting had been
scheduled during Geneva Week so that non-resident delegations could be present, and he hoped that
the next Geneva Week could also coincide with a TNC meeting.  The first agenda item had coveredthe  reports to the TNC by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC.  The minutes of that
meeting had been circulated on 8 May 2002 in document TN/C/M/2, which listed the documents
containing the Chairs' reports.  These reports showed that Members were now approaching the end of
the immediate post-Doha phase of their work – the phase of establishment.  However, there was no
room for complacency.  Six months had passed since Doha, and Members were working under a very
tight deadline.  Ministers would meet in Mexico in 2003 to take stock of progress and to address some
important decisions.  Even before then, Members had a number of significant deadlines to meet,which were real, not negotiable, and formal instructions from Ministers.  In the start-up phase,
differences on procedural issues had emerged in some groups, which was perhaps not surprising.
However, Members had a collective responsibility to resolve these differences quickly so that they
could focus fully on substance, and he knew that the negotiating body Chairs were working hard to do
this.  They needed and deserved Members' collective support.
36. At the meeting, one participant had expressed disappointment with the lack of progress made
in developing the work programme and schedule of meetings in the Negotiating Group on Market
Access, and had urged the Chair of that Group to pursue further consultations.  He knew that the
Chair was working hard on this, and encouraged and thanked him for his efforts.  He reiterated his
call to all delegations to show the Chairs, and each other, the necessary flexibility in all areas.  Thanks
                                                     
1The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/452.WT/GC/M/74
Page 9
to the hard work of the negotiating body Chairs, work on substance had already started in parallel
with work on setting up the individual bodies.  However, by the time of the next TNC meeting in July,
Members would need to have a more precise picture of the road map to Mexico and beyond in each
sector and in the negotiations overall, bearing in mind the single undertaking.  While he was not at
present pushing the panic button, he was sounding the alarm.  Members needed to make substantialprogress by July.  The second agenda item had covered the questions of participation and
observership in the negotiating bodies.  Both of these issues had been raised in a number of the bodies
established by the TNC.  In the course of his regular meetings with the Chairs of those bodies, they
had asked him to consult on these issues with a view to finding a generally acceptable way of
proceeding.  He had thus undertaken consultations with Members with the assistance of Deputy
Director-General Mr. Rodríguez Mendoza.  These consultations had given Members a good sense of
possible avenues towards resolving these issues, and had allowed them to progressively develop aseries of elements.  On 8 April he had circulated to Members a letter accompanied by a paper setting
out some elements for possible inclusion in his statement on these questions at the 24 April TNC
meeting.  Following the circulation of this paper, he had undertaken further consultations, including
an open-ended informal consultation on 17 April.  Consensus had not been reached at the present
stage on one issue covered in his paper, namely, observer status for intergovernmental organizationsin the negotiating bodies.  He had encouraged delega tions to keep talking informally with each other,
as well as with the Chairs of the negotiating bodies and himself.  He hoped that the approach he had
suggested would help Members to reach a pragmatic so lution in the interest of all participants in the
negotiations.  On the two other issues addressed in these consultations – participation in the
negotiations and the status of observer governments for whom an accession working party had notbeen established – he was pleased to report good progress.  The TNC had taken note of
understandings on these issues on the basis of the suggestions he had made in his 8 April paper.
These understandings could be found in the minutes of that meeting.
37. Under "Other Business", the delegation of the Solomon Islands, also on behalf of Fiji, Papua
New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, had commended the WTO for the technical assistanceprovided thus far, and had informed the TNC of these countries' request for a technical assistance
mission to their region to identify other areas in which they might need technical assistance.  They
had also suggested that the issue of technical assistance be placed on the agenda of the next meeting
of the TNC, and he would ensure that the Secretariat responded to their points.  In closing the
meeting, he had informed participants that the next meeting was scheduled for 18-19 July.  After the
summer break, more TNC meetings would be necessary in the autumn and, most importantly, in
December, when the reports on outstanding implementation issues from the relevant WTO bodieswould be submitted to the TNC for appropriate ac tion, in line with paragraph 12(b) of the Doha
Declaration.  He was in contact with his successor, Dr. Supachai, about the TNC meeting schedule for
the latter half of this year, and to keep him up to date on the progress made thus far in the
negotiations.  He had also invited him to attend the July TNC meeting and was providing him with
regular briefings on the issues.  The transition would be seamless, proper and professional, asMembers could not afford to lose time or momentum because of the transition.  He would, of course,
also continue his close contacts with delegations as well as with Ministers at some important meetings
which were coming up in May.  Time was tight, and Members needed to move at a deliberate
constructive pace, because there was enough in the Doha Development Agenda for everyone.
38. The General Council took note of the report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations
Committee.
7. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated
Sessions of the Committee on Trade and Development
39. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting in February/March, the General Council had taken
note of a framework and procedures for the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies,
under which the Work Programme would be a standing item on the General Council's agenda.  TheWT/GC/M/74
Page 10
framework and procedures also provided that the Committee on Trade and Development would report
regularly to the General Council on the progress of work in its dedicated sessions on this subject.  In
this connection, the scheduling of the "Geneva Week" for non-resident Members and observers to
coincide with the most recent meeting of the CTD in dedicated session had been very valuable and
should be kept in mind in future.
40. Mr. Ouedraogo, Deputy Director-General, speak ing on behalf of the Chairman of the
Dedicated Sessions of the Committee on Trade and Development, recalled that the General Council,
at its meeting in February/March, had instructed the CTD to carry out a programme of work on small
economies in dedicated sessions and to report regularly to the General Council on progress of that
work.2  The present progress report was being made pursuant to that request.  The work on small
economies in the CTD had thus been mandated by the General Council which, in turn, drew on
paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration which stated, inter alia,  that:  "We agree to a work
programme, under the auspices of the General Council, to examine issues relating to the trade of small
economies.  The objective of this work is to frame responses to the trade-rela ted issues identified for
the fuller integration of small, vulnerable econom ies into the multilateral trading system, and not to
create a sub-category of WTO Members.  The General Council shall review the work programme and
make recommendations for action to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference."
41. The CTD had formally begun this work by holding its first dedicated session on 25 April.  A
submission for that meeting had been made jointly by Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Trinidad and Tobago, in document
WT/COMTD/SE/W/1, and had been introduced by Mauritius.  Members had welcomed thesubmission and some had made preliminary comments.  Interventions had been made by
25 delegations.  The first dedicated session had been scheduled to coincide with the Geneva Week for
non-resident Members and observers, some of whom had made statements in support of the
submission.  The first dedicated session on small economies had been an important step in fulfilling
the mandate given to the CTD.  The discussions had established the need for further consultations ondeveloping a work programme on small economies.  Representatives of the small economies had
requested the Secretariat to produce a compendium of references to "small economies" in WTO
documentation, and the Secretariat had already prep ared a draft of the compendium, which would be
circulated to all delegations as soon as it was finalized.  Representatives of the small economies and
other interested delegations might also consult on what additional contribution might be desired from
the Secretariat.  The representatives of the small economies had been requested to take the comments
on their paper into account, and also to develop a "road-map" to be presented at the second dedicatedsession.  Regarding the agreed calendar of meetings to complete the work under the mandate, each
regular session of the CTD would be followed by a dedicated session devoted to the Work
Programme on Small Economies.  As four to five more regular sessions of the CTD might be held
before the Fifth Ministerial Conference, the same number of dedicated sessions was envisaged.  In
addition, if the need arose, every attempt would be made to find time for additional meetings.
42. The representative of Mauritius, speaking on behalf of the co-sponsors of the Work
Programme on Small Economies, said that the co-sponsors of the Work Programme had been gratified
by the response received by their submission at the dedicated session.  Although there had been no
substantial discussion of the paper, the positive response to the paper was a good sign for the future.
He emphasized the need, where possible, to schedule the dedicated sessions of the CTD to coincidewith Geneva Week, as this would enable the non-resident delegations of small-economy Members to
participate actively in the discussions and to feel that they were part of the process.  As Deputy
Director-General Mr. Ouedraogo had noted, the co-sponsors of the paper were currently working on
concrete proposals and would be liasing with the Chairman of the dedicated sessions of the CTD so
that at the next dedicated session, Members could have a more substantive discussion.  Regarding the
                                                     
2 WT/L/447.WT/GC/M/74
Page 11
compendium being prepared by the Secretariat, individuals at the level of experts and Ambassadors
from the co-sponsor delegations would examine the compendium and would submit a complete list to
the Secretariat to be circulated as a WTO document, hopefully at the next dedicated session.
43. The General Council took note of the statement and of the report by Deputy Director-General
Mr. Ouedraogo on behalf of the Chairman of the Dedicated Sessions of the CTD.
8. Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions
(a) Consultation with Bangladesh (WT/BOP/R/60)
44. The representative of Romania, speaking on behalf of the Chairperson of the Committee on
Balance-of-Payments Restrictions, said that on 27 February, the Committee had resumed
consultations with Bangladesh and had agreed to extend balance-of-payments justification for
Bangladesh's remaining restrictions for an additional six months, pending approval by Members, of its
recourse  to Article XVIII:C of GATT 1994.
45. The General Council took note of the statement and adopted  the report on the consultations
with Bangladesh (WT/BOP/R/60).
(b) Note on the meeting of 27 February (WT/BOP/R/61)
46. The representative of Romania, speaking on behalf of the Chairperson of the Committee on
Balance-of-Payments Restrictions, said that on 27 February, the Committee had begun its work under
Paragraph 12 of the Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  The report
of that meeting was contained in  WT/BOP/R/61.
47. The General Council took note of the statement and of the information contained in
WT/BOP/R/61.
9. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement
(a) Customs Valuation Agreement – Request by El Salvador for extension of waiver
(G/C/W/300/Rev.2 and G/C/ W/300/Rev.2/Add.1/Corr.1)
48. The Chairman drew attention to the request from El Salvador for an extension of its waiver
from its obligations under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994, and to the
related draft Decision (G/C/W/300/Rev.2/Add.1/Corr.1).
49. Mr. Supperamaniam (Malaysia), Chairman of th e Council for Trade in Goods, reporting on
the Council's consideration of this request, said that the Council had agreed to forward the draft
Decision to the General Council for adoption.
50. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft Decision in docu ment G/C/W/300/Re v.2/Add.1/Corr.1.3
                                                     
3 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/453.WT/GC/M/74
Page 12
(b) Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions –
Requests for waivers
(i) Argentina – Schedule LXIV (G/L/528, G/C/W/362)
(ii) Brazil – Schedule III (G/L/511, G/C/W/348)
(iii) El Salvador – Schedule LXXXVII (G/L/514, G/C/W/350)
(iv) Israel – Schedule XLII (G/L/513, G/C/W/349 and Corr.1)
(v) Malaysia – Schedule XXXIX (G/L/535, G/C/W/364)
(vi) Morocco – Schedule LXXXI (G/L/512/Rev.1, G/C/W/358)
(vii) Norway – Schedule XIV (G/L/519, G/C/W/355 and Corr.1)
(viii) Pakistan – Schedule XV (G/L/526, G/C/W/365 and Corr.1)
(ix) Panama – Schedule CXLI (G/L/518, G/C/W/354 and Corr.1)
(x) Paraguay – Schedule XCI (G/L/525, G/C/W/357)
(xi) Switzerland – Schedule LIX (G/L/523, G/C/W/356)
(xii) Thailand – Schedule LXXIX (G/L/524, G/C/W/359)
(xiii) Venezuela – Schedule LXXXVI (G/L/517, G/C/W/353)
51. The Chairman drew attention to requests from Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Israel,
Malaysia, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Switzerland, Thailand and Venezuela for
extensions of waivers for the introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into schedules of
tariff concessions (G/L/511, 512/Rev.1, 513, 514, 517-519, 523-526, 528 and 535) and to the related
draft Decisions (G/C/W/348, 349 and Corr.1, 350, 353, 354 and Corr.1, 355 and Corr.1, 356-359, 362,
364 and 365 and Corr.1).
52. Mr. Supperamaniam (Malaysia), Chairman of th e Council for Trade in Goods, reporting on
the Council's consideration of these requests, said that the Council had agreed to forward the draft
Decisions to the General Council for adoption.
53. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft Decisions contained in documents G/C/W/348, 349 and Corr.1, 350, 353, 354 and
Corr.1, 355 and Corr.1, 356-359, 362, 364 and 365 and Corr.1.4
                                                     
4 The Decisions were subsequently circulated as WT/L/464, 454, 456, 455, 465, 462, 459, 466, 458,
461, 460, 463 and 457.WT/GC/M/74
Page 13
(c) Transposition of schedules into the Harmonized System – Requests for extensions of waivers
(i) Nicaragua – Schedule XXIX (G/L/515, G/C/W/351)
(ii) Sri Lanka – Schedule VI (G/L/516, G/C/W/352)
54. The Chairman drew attention to the requests from Nicaragua and from Sri Lanka for
extensions of waivers previously granted in connection with their implementation of the Harmonized
System, and to the related draf t Decisions (G/C/W/351 and 352).
55. Mr. Supperamaniam (Malaysia), Chairman of th e Council for Trade in Goods, reporting on
the Council's consideration of these requests, said that the Council had agreed to forward the draft
Decisions to the General Council for adoption.
56. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft Decisions in documents G/C/W/351 and 352.5
(d) Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 changes into WTO Schedules of Concessions –
Draft Decision (G/C/W/367/Rev.1)
57. The Chairman drew attention to the dr aft Decision in document G/C/W/367/Rev.1.
58. Mr. Supperamaniam (Malaysia), Chairman of th e Council for Trade in Goods, reporting on
the Council's consideration of the draft Decision, sa id that the Council had agreed to forward it the
General Council for adoption.
59. The representative of Romania said that her delegation was not objecting to the adoption of
the draft Decision.  However, she wished to inform Members of the reason for which Romania had
failed to be included in the Annex to this draft Decision, and to describe the next steps her delegation
was planning to take in the near future in order to promptly solve a residual procedural problem,which had already been solved from the standpoint of Romania's obligations.  Romania had sought
from the beginning to be covered by the collective waiver, and had submitted to the Secretariat on
30 April 2002 the documentation related to the introduction of Harmonized System 2002 changes into
its schedule of tariff concessions, as mentioned in  document WT/L/407.  At that juncture, Romania
had been informed that due to a technical error, one element was missing in the loose-leaf part of theschedule.  Although three days later, on 3 May, the submission had been completed, it had
unfortunately been too late for Romania to be deemed to be covered by the collective waiver, given
that on 2 May the draft Decision had been considered and approved by the Council for Trade in
Goods.  Thus, due to technical considerations, Romania had not been able to be covered by the
collective waiver in document G/C/W/367/Rev.1.  Under the circumstances, Romania's intention was
to ask immediately to be covered by an individual wa iver, and it was confident that parity of treatment
would be provided for all WTO Members.  It was Romania's understanding that its individual waiver
would be recommended for approval by the Committee on Market Access at its next meeting and
subsequently by the Council for Trade in Goods.  Given that all of the formalities and procedures
related to the submission of the required documentation were already completed, she hoped that
Members would take into consideration and evaluate in a positive manner the very specific situation
in which Romania found itself, and would adopt the draft Decision for its waiver when it wassubmitted to the next meeting of the General Council.
60. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation fully supported the efforts that had been
undertaken by Members with a view to ensuring expedited procedures for the multilateral review of
                                                     
5 The Decisions were subsequently circulated as WT/L/467 and 468.WT/GC/M/74
Page 14
the transpositions of national schedules to the Ha rmonized System 2002.  The draft Decision that was
before this Council was an important element of those new procedures and would hopefully avoid the
excessive delays Members were still experiencing with regard to the Harmonized System 1996
changes.  Brazil believed that it would be useful if the statement of the Chairperson of the Market
Access Committee on 15 March 2002, when the draft Decision had been approved by that body, betranscribed into the minutes of the present meeting, prior to the approval of the draft Decision.  The
text of that statement, as recorded in the minut es of the Market Access Committee's meeting, read as
follows:
"The Chairperson recalled that the subject of this waiver was first discussed at the
Committee's informal meeting of 11 December 2001.  There had been an exchange of views
on the question of a waiver for Members implementing HS2002 changes domestically on
1 January 2002, but not having undertaken the procedures to introduce such changes to theirWTO schedules of concessions.  It was agreed that the Chairperson would undertake
consultations on this subject, specifically on whether an individual or "collective" waiver
would be the best way to proceed for such Members.
"An informal meeting was convened on 14 January 2002 to pursue discussions on
this matter.  To assist in the discussions the Chairperson had requested the Secretariat to draft
a possible HS2002 waiver decision using the initial "collective" HS96 waiver decision
contained in documents WT/L/124 and Corr.1 as a basis.  A document containing a draft
HS2002 waiver decision was faxed to all Members along with the notice convening the
informal meeting of 14 January 2002.
"An additional informal meeting was held on 31 January 2002 on this subject.  A
revised draft HS2002 waiver decision, which had been amended in light of the discussions
held at the informal meeting on 14 January 2002 and further consultations, was circulated to
all Members along with the fax convening the informal meeting of 31 January 2002.
"Members present at that meeting approved the revised draft HS2002 waiver
decision.  In addition, in order to ensure parity of treatment for all Members it was agreed that
Members which implemented the HS2002 changes and made the required submission to the
WTO after 30 April 2002 would be given treatment no less favourable than Members having
submitted the required documentation prior to 30 April 2002.  Accordingly, a waiverrequested by such a Member (i.e. a Member having submitted the required documentationafter 30 April 2002) would be recommended for approval by the Committee on Market
Access at a subsequent formal meeting foll owing the submission of documentation by this
Member, and the waiver would be valid for twelve months starting from the date of
implementation of the HS2002 changes for this Member.
"The Chairperson proposed that the Committee approve the decision contained in
document G/MA/W/29 as well as her statement concerning the parity of treatment for all
Members.
"The Committee so approved.
"In terms of procedure, the Chairperson proposed that she send a letter to all
Members requesting those who would like to be covered by the draft waiver decision
contained in document G/MA/W/29 to indicate this to the Secretariat by a certain date.  The
Secretariat in turn would include their names in the Annex to this draft decision.  It beingunderstood that those Members not having submitted the required documentation by
30 April 2002 would not be considered part of the Annex at the time of adoption of this draft
waiver decision by the General Council.WT/GC/M/74
Page 15
"The Committee so agreed."
61. This statement reflected the understanding of th e membership that parity of treatment would
be ensured in the granting of waivers to those Members that submit the corresponding notification of
documentation after 30 April 2002, and thus not contemplated by the current Decision.  This wouldhelp to clarify any questions regarding this matter in future.
62. The General Council took note of the report and of the statements, including the statement by
the Chairperson of the Market Access Committee referred to by Brazil, and, in accordance with the
Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in
November 1995 (WT/L/93), adopted the draft Decision in document G/C/W/367/Rev.1.6
(e) Zambia – Renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII – Request for extension of waiver (G/L/537,
G/C/W/370)
63. The Chairman drew attention to the request from Zambia for an extension of its waiver, and
to the related draft Decision (G/C/W/370).
64. Mr. Supperamaniam (Malaysia), Chairman of th e Council for Trade in Goods, reporting on
the Council's consideration of this request, said that the Council had agreed to forward the draft
Decision to the General Council for adoption.
65. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
the General Council adopted the draft Decision in document G/C/W/370.7
10. Proposal to remove and avoid inconsistenc ies in the texts of the WTO Agreements –
Communication from Chile (WT/GC/W/473)
66. The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Chile in WT/GC/W/473.
67. The representative of Chile said that many problems encountered over the years in the
interpretation of WTO legal texts had been due to differences between the versions in English, French
and Spanish.  In the Uruguay Round agreements there were manifest inconsistencies, which included
both language discrepancies between the different versions as well as gaps, i.e., elements contained inone version and not in others.  Examples of such problems had been pointed out in document
WT/GC/W/473.  Moreover, in the context of the di spute settlement system, where a great deal of
attention was paid to the literal text, there was uncertainty as to which language version of the legal
texts applied.  In Chile, the Spanish version of these legal texts had been approved by the Parliament,
incorporated in its national legal system and implemented as national law.  Thus, the problem was
whether the legal texts applied by Chile were really those that governed international trade relations,
and whether they really reflected what WTO Members had negotiated and approved.  Although theproblem of discrepancies was not new, and had existed since 1947 and the GATT, the depth and the
coverage of the present legal texts were more  important, and the uncertainty regarding their
consequences was therefore worrisome.  Consequently, Chile proposed that an exercise be
undertaken, without time-limit, to deal with these problems.  Members could begin by drawing up a
list of discrepancies between the texts.  Based on its experience, the Secretariat could also participatein establishing that list, since it had already identified a number of such inconsistencies.  Once the list
was established, Members would have to determine how these problems could be solved.  They would
then have to try to reach an understanding on a single version of the legal texts, which would be
applied in a uniform manner by all Members.  It was not Chile’s intention to renegotiate these texts,
                                                     
6 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/469.
7 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/470.WT/GC/M/74
Page 16
and this would be clearly excluded from this process.  The purpose of this exercise was not to alter
Members' rights and obligations, but to have more legal certainty on these texts and to prevent future
problems.  Chile believed that the Chairman could carry out consultations to find the best way to do
this.  The assistance of the Secretariat, in particular the translation and legal divisions, would be
useful, and a group of legal specialists could be set up to compare the various texts, identify theproblems and help Members reach a common understanding.  Furthermore, as Members were
currently involved in a process of negotiations, a mechanism should also be set up so that at the end of
the negotiations Members would have legal texts that were consistent, thus avoiding a situation
similar to the one Members were currently confronting.  Since this was a matter under the competence
and responsibility of the Trade Negotiations Committee, his delegation would raise this point in that
body.
68. The representative of Colombia said that the substantial differences that might exist between
the different language versions of WTO legal texts were well illustrated in Chile's communication.  If
the three languages were to retain equal force in the organization, the exercise proposed by Chile was
indispensable.  It was clear that unless this was done, the English version of the texts would be
increasingly used, to the detriment of the texts in the other two languages.  On several occasions, the
English version had already been used by default in some discussions on the meaning of certain rulesand disciplines in the WTO agreements.  However, there would have to be careful study in this
exercise of the legal implications of any changes.  Furthermore, the Secretariat, and in particular the
legal division, could be asked to indicate the best way to deal with this problem and also to point out
what would not be possible and why.
69. The representative of Cuba said that the WTO's legal instruments, which had the force of law
in Member countries, might be interpreted in diff erent ways and hence create problems in future.
Therefore, a common understanding on these texts would have to be reached.  His delegation was
ready to participate in this exercise and welcomed the idea that the Secretariat, and in particular the
legal division, could provide important technical support to Members.
70. The representative of the United States said that her delegation was currently studying Chile's
proposal carefully.  The United States wished to give  further thought to that proposal, which raised a
number of complex issues, and looked forward to discussing this issue at a future meeting.
71. The representative of Canada said that as  a Member whose population spoke two of the
official WTO languages, Canada wished to thank Chile for drawing Members' attention to the issue of
inconsistencies that had been found in a number of the WTO agreements.  It was important to look
into this question, and his delegation supported the exercise of identifying the extent and seriousness
of the issue.  Canada was reassured by Chile’s statement that in making this proposal it was not itsintention to renegotiate any of the agreements.
72. The representative of the European Communities said that based on the Community's
experience, Members should be very cautious in reviewing official texts, as this might result in
opening a Pandora's box.  The Community would look into this proposal in a constructive way.
Although the discussion thus far had been about discrepancies between the three working languagesof the WTO, he wished to note that there were many delegations for whom none of these three
languages was their native language, and who therefore faced an additional difficulty.
73. The representative of Venezuela said that, as Chile had stated, the purpose of this proposal
was not to renegotiate the balance of rights and obligations established in the Uruguay Round
agreements.  Rather, its aim was to preserve this equilibrium and to avoid the use of the Englishversion by default, in particular by dispute settlement panels or by the Appellate Body.  A list of
inconsistencies should first be established in order to be able to determine the best procedure to
address them.WT/GC/M/74
Page 17
74. The representative of Uruguay said that Chile's communication clearly indicated the purpose
of the proposal.  The examples provided showed the problems faced by Members with respect to the
differences in the interpretation of the agreed texts.  One should bear in mind that the legal texts in the
three official languages had equal legal value.  Chile had suggested that Members be given time to
identify the inconsistencies between the different vers ions of these texts.  Despite certain complexities
involved, Members should be able to arrive at an understanding in order to apply all three versions of
the legal texts in a uniform way.  The Secretariat should help in identifying these inconsistencies so
that at a forthcoming meeting Members could have a clear identification of the problems and decide
how to solve them.  Raising this issue already had the merit of drawing Members' attention to this
problem in the context of the current round of negotiations.  In order to avoid a similar situation in
future, Members should ensure that any new legal texts were coherent, consistent and equal in the
three languages.
75. The representative of Costa Rica recalled that this type of exercise, the sole purpose of which
was to have clear rules, was not new and had already been carried out in the past.  The Parliament of
Costa Rica had ratified the Spanish version of the Uruguay Round agreements.  Should there be a
problem of interpretation, Costa Rica would clearly apply the legal texts in Spanish.  Therefore, the
exercise suggested by Chile would be useful.  Moreover, if one were to examine the legal texts fromone agreement to the other in the same language, be it English, French or Spanish, one would note
that there were inconsistencies between them.  In 1994, a harmonization exercise aimed at ensuring
consistency from the text of one WTO agreement to another in the same language had been led by
former Ambassador Lacarte Muro of Uruguay and had pr oved to be a very difficult task.  It was clear
that since the drafters of a text in one area were often not the same as those in another area, certaindiscrepancies were bound to arise.  In Costa Rica's view, the exercise proposed by Chile should be
initiated so that the texts in the three official la nguages, which legally had the same value, would be
coherent.
76. The representative of Argentina said that beyond the merits of Chile's proposal itself, he
wished to draw Members' attention to an inconsistency between the Spanish and English versions of
the document carrying that proposal.  In paragraph 1(a) of the proposal section of WT/GC/W/473, the
words "revisar los textos legales" in the Spanish version had been translated as "revise the legal texts"
in the English version.  From a legal point of view  the word "revise" meant to start with the aim of
modifying.  In his view, the word "revisar" in th e present context rather meant "review" in English,
and should have been translated as such.  If one could agree on the text of the proposal itself, one
would already have taken a big step forward.
77. The representative of Switzerland said that the matter raised by Chile was a legitimate
concern and deserved further reflection.  However, the complexity of such an exercise was
overwhelming.  The discussion thus far at the present meeting had already shown that this would not
be an easy exercise.  Addressing this issue had already had a positive result, which was to increase
Members' awareness of the importance of harmonization of the texts in the three official WTO
languages.  When examining inconsistencies that se emed to be contained in different texts that were
the result of negotiations, one should refer to the background history of the negotiations in order to
understand the meaning of these texts.  To try to find perfect concordance between different words
and expressions from one language to another on the basis of the dictionary or on the basis of the
expertise and the quality of translators would be far too ambitious.  His delegation was ready to
continue discussing this matter, particularly since Chile had clearly stated that its proposal did notintend to re-open texts that had been negotiated and adopted.
78. The Chairman invited Members and the relevant divisions of the Secretariat to further reflect
on this issue and proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and revert to this issue
at a future meeting.
79. The General Council so agreed.WT/GC/M/74
Page 18
11. Review of the exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 (WT/L/444)
80. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 3(a) of the GATT 1994 provided an exemption from
Part II of GATT 1994 for specific mandatory legislat ion that prohibited the use, sale or lease of
foreign-built or foreign-reconstructed vessels in commercial applications between points in national
waters or waters of an exclusive economic zone.  On 20 December 1994, the United States hadinvoked the provisions of paragraph 3(a) with respect to specific legislation, known as the "Jones
Act", that met the requirements of that paragraph.  Paragraph 3(b) of the GATT 1994 called for a
review five years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement in order to examine
whether the conditions which had created the need for the exemption still prevailed, and for a review
every two years thereafter for as long as the exemption was in force.  He  recalled that the five-year
review of the exemption under paragraph 3 had been on the agenda of the General Council at its
meetings in July, October and November 1999, and again in February, May and July 2000.  At theGeneral Council meeting in December 2000, the Chairman had noted that no conclusions could be
agreed during the discussions on this matter.  He had also informed Members that one Member did
not consider that the review had taken place.  The Chairman therefore had noted that in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph 3(b), this exem ption would have to be reviewed again in 2001 and
that a further opportunity for discussion of the substantive issues surrounding this exemption wouldtherefore be provided by that review.
81. He recalled that at the General Council meeting in December 2001, his predecessor had
informed Members that owing to the pressures of  time resulting from preparations for the Doha
Ministerial Conference, this review could not be c onducted in 2001 as foreseen, and that the General
Council would have to revert to it in 2002.  Accordingly, this item was on the agenda of the presentmeeting.  He also recalled that the exemption car ried with it an obligation to provide Members with
annual statistical reports, pursuant to paragraph 3(c).  In this connection, he drew attention to the
communication from the United States in WT/L/444, circulated on 10 January 2002, which contained
the most recent information provided by the United States relating to the operation of the exemption.
82. The representative of the United States said th at her delegation was ready to participate in a
review of the exemption under paragraph 3 of GATT 1994.  This was the second review of that
exemption.  As the Chairman had recalled, the Ge neral Council had conducted a lengthy review from
July 1999 until December 2000.  Since the time the United States had invoked this exemption in 1994,
there had been no statutory or other changes in any way decreasing the conformity of the notified
legislation with Part II of GATT 1994.  The United States had continued to provide Members with
annual statistical reports pursuant to the requiremen ts of paragraph 3(c) of the exemption submitting
reports for 1999 in WT/L/341, for 2000 in WT/L/387 and for 2001 in WT/L/444.  These reportsprovided detailed annual reporting of vessel orders and deliveries from US shipyards as had required
by paragraph 3(c) of GATT 1994.
83. The representative of Japan said that the exemption under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 was
a deviation from the fundamental GATT disciplines.  In Japan's view, it was a serious deviation with
wide implications since it was an exemption enjoyed by the most influential player of the internationaltrading community.  It was quite natural therefore for a number of Members, including Japan, to
attach great importance to conducting the substantial review with a view to examining whether the
conditions which had created the need for the US exemption still prevailed.  Although the five-year
review had started in 1999 and had continued throughout 2000, Japan regretted that responses
provided by the United States on those occasions had not been sufficient to convince Members of theneed for continuation of the exemption.  Japan believed that Members needed to conduct periodic
reviews for the substantial examination of whether the conditions which necessitated the exemption
still existed.  Japan was ready to participate actively in such a review together with other interested
Members.WT/GC/M/74
Page 19
84. The representative of Panama said that his delegation wished to express its concern over the
way in which the legislation notified by the United States pursuant to paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994
was being interpreted and implemented.  Panama reaffirmed its willingness to examine the
interpretation and implementation of the notified legislation, and believed that seven years since its
notification, no substantial review had been initiated, nor had any progress been made in sectoralagreements or in other fora, in accordance with paragraph 3(c) of the GATT 1994.  Panama believed
it was necessary to start review processes that took into account specific issues related to the
interpretation and implementation of the notified legislation affecting the interests represented by its
delegation.  It invited the United States to initiate the reviews provided for under paragraph 3 of the
GATT 1994 and to seek solutions to the specific issues raised by the legislation that had been notified
in other fora or even at the bilateral level.
85. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC attached great importance
to a substantive review.  As the Chairman had recall ed, the first review of this exemption could not be
satisfactorily concluded due to the divergent views of Members as to its appropriate scope and
content.  The EC's position on this issue remained as had been expressed during the earlier exercise.
In essence, the EC considered that it was incumbent on the United States, as the sole beneficiary of
this provision, to respond on the substance of the issue identified in paragraph 3(b), namely, whetherthe conditions that had given rise to the need for the exemption still prevailed.  In addition, the United
States had to show that any modification to the le gislation had not decreased the level of conformity
of its regime with the GATT 1994.  It was not enough for the United States to state simply that in its
view these requirements were satisfied.  The EC hoped that the United States would prove more
willing to engage in a discussion of this point in the present follow-up review than it had been duringthe five-year review launched in 1999 and, as a consequence, that it would be able to substantiate its
case for continuing to benefit from this exemption.
86. The representative of Hong Kong, China said his delegation believed that there had to be a
substantive review in order to examine whether the conditions that had created the need for the
exemption still prevailed.  Hong Kong, China look ed forward to that substantial and substantive
review.  On the statistical information provided by the United States in document WT/L/444, Hong
Kong, China asked if the United States could provide more information relating to the revenue
incurred in the deliveries of those vessels in addition to the gross tonnage figures.
87. The representative of Australia said that, as Japan had noted, this was a significant derogation
granted to one very important WTO Member.  Paragraph 3(b) of GATT 1994 required a proper
review of the derogation every two years.  Australia's concerns were not only those of important
issues of principle, but also those of important commercial opportunities as well.  In Australia's view,there should be an opportunity in the General Council to examine in a substantive way the ongoing
justification for the exemption.  Australia looked forward to the opportunity to participate in that
examination.
88. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
12. Internal transparency and effective participation of Members – Preparatory process in
Geneva and negotiating procedure at Ministerial Conferences – Communication from
Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya,
Malaysia, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe
(WT/GC/W/471)
89. The Chairman recalled that at the General Council meeting in February/March, the delegation
of India had suggested that transparency and effective participation of Members in both the
preparatory process and the proceedings of Ministerial Conferences could be improved and that it
would be useful to agree on certain parameters on this subject, and had asked that this item be placedWT/GC/M/74
Page 20
on the agenda of the present meeting.  He drew attention to the communication from Cuba,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, India, I ndonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe in WT/GC/W/471, and invited the co-sponsors
to introduce the paper.
90. The representative of India said that at the General Council meeting in February 2000,
internal transparency and effective participation of Members had been identified as one of the priority
issues for consultations among Members.  Followin g this, the then Chairman of the General Council
had held consultations on this issue in 2000.  In his interim report of 17 July 2000, the Chairman had
stated that:
"Members seem to recognize that interactive and open-ended informal consultation
meetings play an important role in facilitating consensus decision-making.  As a complement
to, but in no way a replacement of this open-ended consultation process, consultations mayalso take place with individual Members or groups of Members.  In such cases, in order to
ensure that the consultations contribute to the achievement of a durable consensus, it is
important that:  Members are advised of the intention to hold such consultations;  Members
with an interest in the specific issue under consideration are given the opportunity to make
their views known;  no assumption should be made that one Member represents any otherMembers except where the Members concerned have agreed on such an arrangement;  and the
outcome of such consultations is reported back to the full membership expeditiously for their
consideration."
91. In the discussion that had followed this statemen t, Mexico had said that it was imperative to
ensure that the absence of a Member at a small-group consultation did not disadvantage that
delegation in any way.  It had also believed it important to emphasize that smaller-group consultations
could never pretend to be reaching a consensus, and that consensus could only be secured through the
participation of the full membership.  Jamaica and Uganda had also emphasized that inclusion in such
consultations should be a matter of choice for each delegation.  At the General Council meeting inDecember 2000, the then Chairman had presented his report on the consultations, in which he had
observed that there was broad recognition of the need to establish an efficient, Geneva-based
preparatory process that would allow for solutions to be worked out for most issues in advance,
particularly when decisions by Ministers were required.  He had further observed that Members had
reiterated that Ministerial Conferences should be held at the WTO headquarters unless the Ministerial
Conference or the General Council decided to accept a Member's offer to host a Ministerial
Conference.  The Chairman had also said that it remained clear that a strong, inclusive and transparentprocess leading up to and including Ministerial Conferences was fundamental in order to ensure a
successful outcome.  Since the consultations in 2000, Members had had the benefit of their experience
at Doha and in the run up to it.
92. The preparatory process for the Doha Ministerial Conference had, in many ways, been
marked by transparency and inclusiveness.  Howeve r, there were aspects of that process with which
many developing countries were not comfortable.  These had been articulated in the various meetings
prior to Doha.  The consultation process at Doha, wh ile largely transparent, had fallen short in the
areas of transparency and inclusiveness at crucial phases.  Many developing countries had been
unhappy at being excluded from crucial meetings.  In some cases, such exclusion had been despite a
specific request to be involved in some meetings.  It was necessary for the long-term health of the
organization and the multilateral trading system it sought to promote and preserve that Members
collectively addressed the issue of transparency and inclusiveness in the decision-making process.
93. From their experience at the various Ministerial Conferences, the co-sponsors of the paper
had identified the following issues for focussed attention:  (i) the general issue of procedures to be
adopted for Ministerial Conferences and the Geneva process leading up to the Ministerial Conference:different procedures had been followed at Singapore, Geneva, Seattle and Doha;  (ii) the preparationWT/GC/M/74
Page 21
of the draft Ministerial Declaration:  different views had not been fully and clearly reflected, and
options for decisions had not been precisely laid out;  (iii) there had been no discussion by the General
Council or the Committee of the Whole on the procedures to be followed by the Ministerial
Conference:  a decision on the selection and appointment of facilitators appeared to have been taken
prior to the meeting and then communicated to the Committee of the Whole, and there had been noinclusiveness or transparency in this process;  (iv) the organization of meetings:  Ministers had had to
sit for more than 40 hours at a stretch;  and (v) last-minute drafts on important issues, which left no
time for consultations with stakeholders and other Government departments, or for proper reflection
on implications.  In his delegation's view, Members would agree that the procedures adopted at the
various Ministerial Conferences thus far had not been uniform.  This uncertainty made it difficult for
many Members to prepare for the Conferences.  Many developing countries were of the view that
some basic principles and procedures needed to be agreed for this Member-driven organization, sothat both the preparatory process for and the conduct of Ministerial Conferences were efficient,
transparent, inclusive and predictable.  It was with a view to starting a debate on this issue that India,
along with Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt,  Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia,
Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe had circulated the paper in
WT/GC/W/471.
94. He then highlighted the main suggestions in the paper, which was in three parts:  the first
addressed the preparatory process in Geneva, the second addressed the process at Ministerial
Conferences, and the third addressed the question of the venue of future Ministerial Conferences after
the Mexico Ministerial Conference.  It was suggested in the paper that the Geneva process should aim
to finalize a draft Ministerial Declaration which reflected the priorities and interests of the entiremembership.  All consultations aimed at finalizing su ch a declaration should be held in a transparent
and open-ended manner.  There should be frequent formal meetings of the General Council to take
stock of the progress in the preparatory work.  It was further suggested that most of the work on the
Ministerial Declaration should be completed in Geneva, and that the draft Declaration to be forwarded
to Ministers for consideration should be endorsed by consensus by Members.  Ministers should be leftto deliberate and decide at Ministerial Conferences only on those issues reflected either as options in
the draft Declaration, or those where the Chairperson had reflected different positions of delegations.
This suggestion was not made with a view to limiting Ministers' authority to decide on any issue, but
rather to ensure that they would have sufficient time to focus on issues on which lack of consensus
was discernible in the Geneva process.
95. Regarding the process at Ministerial Conferen ces, it was suggested that a Committee of the
Whole, open to participation by every Member, should be established at all Ministerial Conferencesand should be the forum for decision-making.  The Chairpersons, including facilitators appointed to
deal with specific subjects, should be identified by consensus in the preparatory process in Geneva.
Consultations by such Chairpersons/facilitators shou ld be at meetings open to the entire membership.
To facilitate effective participation by all Members, the schedule of meetings should be announced
well ahead of the time of the meeting.  Consultations at Ministerial Conferences should be transparentand inclusive, with opportunities provided to all Members to express their views.  The negotiating text
and draft decisions should be introduced only in open-ended meetings.  Where a fresh draft was
required for some sections of the Ministerial Declaration, such redrafting should be done by a drafting
committee, as was done in Doha for the Declarati on on TRIPS and Public Health.  Any new draft on
specific issues should be circulated to all Members well in advance, so that Members had sufficienttime to reflect on it.  These suggestions were aimed at ensuring that Members felt fully involved in the
decision-making process which would inevitably mean rights and obligations for them.
96. On the question of venue of Ministerial Co nferences, it was suggested that all future
Conferences after Mexico should be held in Geneva itself.  Apart from convenience, this would result
in savings in cost and effort.  He recalled that in the consultations held by the Chairman of theGeneral Council in 2000, many Members had suggested that future Conferences be held in Geneva.
As he had maintained earlier, the paper was intended to start a debate on this issue.  It drew largely onWT/GC/M/74
Page 22
the statements by the then Chairman of the General Council on this issue in 2000, the debate that
followed his report and to some extent the experiences since then.  The co-sponsors of the paper
looked forward to a constructive exchange of views on the various aspects touched upon in the paper,
with a view to arriving at an agreed procedure for both the preparatory process and the procedures at
Ministerial Conferences.
97. Many delegations thanked the co-sponsors of the paper for tabling it, and the delegation of
India for its comprehensive presentation of the paper.
98. The representative of the United States said that her delegation appreciated the efforts the
authors of this paper had made to share their thoughts with others in detail.  The United States agreed
with the co-sponsors' overarching goal that pr eparations for Ministerial Conferences, and the
Conferences themselves, should be transparent, inclusive and predictable.  Her delegation also noted
that to some degree the paper simply strove to codify best practices that had already been developed.The United States agreed on a number of the specific points made in the paper, such as the importance
of minutes of formal meetings as a means of keeping capitals informed, the central role the General
Council had to play in preparations, and the importance of completing Ministerial Declarations in
Geneva to the maximum extent possible.  However, it was important to recognize that Ministerial
Conferences had different objectives and would, therefore, have different characteristics andprocedural needs.  Whether a Ministerial Conference intended simply to take stock of ongoing work,
or involved the launch or conclusion of a negotiation, would determine in large part what kind of
process was required.  Therefore, the United States had serious doubts about trying to craft highly
detailed one-size-fits-all rules to govern this work.  Members needed to leave themselves the
flexibility to deal with the different situations  they would face in preparing for and conducting
Ministerial Conferences in future.  It was hard to imagine how Members would have achieved success
in Doha without such flexibility.
99. The representative of Norway said that his delegation had considerable sympathy for many of
the points raised in the paper, as well as some questions.  Norway shared India's view that it was
pertinent to refer back to the work the General C ouncil had spent so much time on in 2000 to provide
some guidelines for the working procedures of the WTO and also to come up with some ideas on how
Ministerial Conferences could be organized.  The points which had been outlined at the
December 2000 meeting of the General Council had been carefully negotiated and were rather
general, given the intent at that stage to elaborate on them further.  One now had the experience of
Doha, both the preparatory process and the Conference itself, which provided an opportunity to look
at these issues from a perspective other than of Seattle.  One issue which had seemed from the
December 2000 discussion to be paramount in delegations' minds was the need for a certain amountof flexibility, and that Members should not be too strict in outlining every detail of the preparations
for and conduct of Ministerial Conferences.  That was perhaps Norway's biggest question mark
regarding the paper that had been submitted.  Without going into detail, his delegation felt that on
some of the points in the paper there might be too litt le flexibility for adapting to different situations,
and that there might thus be a risk, as the United States had suggested, of a one-size-fits-all approachthat might not, in fact, fit all situations.  That having been said, there was still a need to take this work
beyond where it had been left in 2000.  His delegation had heard very few complaints regarding the
conduct of the preparatory process in Geneva for Doha, and this provided a very good precedent for
developing these ideas.  However, there were perhaps certain aspects of the conduct of the Ministerial
Conference itself that Members needed to look at.  In Norway's view, the real problem Members werefacing was that of participation of delegations in smaller-group consultations, as such consultations
were an essential tool in finding accommodations that could result in reaching conclusions.  The
organization as a whole needed to look at some form of representation in such consultations that was
based on self-selection.  Until such a system was found, this problem would remain.  Norway hoped
that the Chairman could hold consultations based on the paper that had been submitted, the work donein 2000 and the experience from Doha, in order to tr y to establish some guidelines in a more formal
way than had been done in 2000.WT/GC/M/74
Page 23
100. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that as Members had just decided on the dates
of the next Ministerial Conference, it was timely to raise issues concerning the preparatory process
and organization of Ministerial Conferences.  He recalled that after the Seattle Ministerial Conference,
Members had engaged in a series of discussions on how to improve internal transparency and
effective participation of Members.  There had also been extensive consultations on the preparationand organization of Ministerial Conferences, which had been very useful.  There had been general
agreement that a strong, inclusive and transparent process leading up to, and including, Ministerial
Conferences was fundamental in order to ensure a successful outcome.  At the same time, to avoid a
repeat of Seattle, with its indigestible compendium of a draft Declaration, there had been widespread
acceptance of the need for flexibility in the processes leading up to and at Ministerial Conferences.  In
the light of experience, any guidelines for the preparation and conduct of Ministerial Conferences
should be broad and flexible, and capable of taking into account the differing needs of eachMinisterial Conference and the situation at the time.  The approach generally supported after Seattle
had, in fact, largely been followed in the preparatory process for the Doha Ministerial Conference.
Thanks to the discussions in 2000, the Geneva process had been more transparent, and Members,
including non-resident delegations, had had opportunities to express their views.  It was true that since
there had been no consensus on the inputs to the Doha Ministerial Conference, these had had to besubmitted by the Chair and the Director-General on their own responsibility.  However, it would have
been irresponsible to risk repeating the Seattle experience through another compendium.  In fact, the
draft texts submitted turned out to be fairly close to the mark, judging by the outcome of Doha.
101. His delegation appreciated that some Members felt there could be improvements in the
preparatory process for and the conduct of Ministerial Conferences, and it could agree on that, asthere was always room for further improvement.  However, it still saw merit in having adequate
flexibility in the preparation and conduct of Ministerial Conferences.  A system which did not provide
this would not serve the interests of any Me mber, because rigid processes would discourage
compromise and make delegations entrenched in their positions.  Furthermore, rigidity could lead to
failure to deliver timely results at future Ministerial Conferences, which could lead frustratedMembers to turn even more to preferential trading arrangements.  The resulting marginalization of the
WTO would be completely counter-productive.  Thus, while agreeing with some of the points made in
the paper, his delegation had a number of reservations or questions regarding the proposal made.  It
was fully prepared to discuss this matter in detail formally or in informal consultations which the
Chairman might organize.
102. The representative of Zimbabwe said that as a co-sponsor of the paper, Zimbabwe felt that
developing countries had been disappointed by the outcome of all Ministerial Conferences thus far,
largely because the preparatory process for and conduct of these Conferences had been
non-transparent, non-inclusive and unpredictable.  There had been a failure, inter alia , to allow for
increased and effective participation of developing countries in both processes, to take on board the
concerns of developing countries in the draft Declarations and, most important, to yield a
pro-development outcome that fully addressed the needs and requirements of developing countries inthe multilateral trading system.  Ministerial Conferences depended heavily on both the preparatory
process for and the conduct of such conferences, which Zimbabwe felt should be transparent,
inclusive and predictable, and thus allow the increased and effective participation of all Members, and
particularly the developing countries, in the multilateral trading system.  His delegation sought to
emphasize the need for a draft Ministerial Declaration based on consensus.  Properly drafted andconsensus-based draft agreements would mean that Ministers would not have to negotiate on draft
texts at the technical and expert level without the necessary expertise, when what they were expected
to do was finalize, endorse and, where necessary, sign agreed instruments.  Zimbabwe also sought to
raise concerns about recent developments regarding the holding of small meetings of invited Members
outside Geneva, the outcome of which tended to feed into the Geneva process and into determiningmajor positions taken and adopted in the final outcome of the Doha Ministerial Conference.  A very
large number of developing countries did not have the opportunity to participate in such meetings, andWT/GC/M/74
Page 24
yet were affected by their outcome.  This served  to entrench the already existing less-than-equal
treatment that continuously militated against developing countries in the multilateral trading system.
103. The representative of China said that his delegation appreciated the contribution made by the
co-sponsors of the paper.  They had put forw ard many important points, regarding both the
preparatory process in Geneva and the process at  Ministerial Conferences.  Among these were the
transparency and open-endedness of consultations and negotiations, time available for delegations to
consider negotiating documents, need for consensus on draft negotiating texts to be submitted to
Ministers and the proper reflection of divergent views when consensus was not reached, the neutrality
and impartiality of the Secretariat and chairpersons of the negotiating bodies, the inclusiveness of all
Members in the decision-making process of the negotiations, and the right of delegations to choose
their level of representation.  These were important principles to ensure transparency and the effective
participation of developing-country Members in the process of Ministerial Conferences and theirsuccessful results.  China suggested that the Ch airman hold informal consultations on this matter.
104. The representative of the European Communities said that all Members shared the view that
there was a need for greater transparency and inclusiveness.  Members had come a long way since
Seattle, and on the whole the preparations for Doha and the Doha process itself had been satisfactory.
Like other delegations, the Community appreciated that there could be improvements in the processand could build on the communication in WT/GC/W/ 471.  However, like others, his delegation
wished to stress the need for flexibility and to avoid unnecessary rigidity or straitjackets.  There
should be appropriate room for manoeuvre for the Chairman of the General Council, as had been the
case in the run-up to Doha and in defining guidel ines for the TNC.  The Community would study the
paper in more detail and would engage constructively in its examination.
105. The representative of Guatemala said that as a co-sponsor of the paper, his delegation placed
the highest importance on transparency in both the preparations for and the conduct of Ministerial
Conferences, and negotiation procedures in general.  The paper contained interesting and important
ideas, which certainly merited attention and a more detailed follow-up by the entire membership.  As
Hong Kong, China had said, the conduct of Ministerial Conferences had greatly improved, butMembers had a continuing obligation and responsibility to ensure that that improvement continued.
106. The representative of Brazil welcomed the paper submitted by the co-sponsors aimed at
improving the internal transparency of the organization.  This was a positive initiative intended to
improve the preparatory process leading up to Ministerial Conferences so as to ensure ample
participation of all WTO Members.  Like the principles and practices set out for the TNC in February,
procedural guidance could be useful in promoting consensus.  However, Members should avoid
introducing unnecessary rigidity into the process.  As many of the previous speakers had said, somedegree of flexibility would always be necessary so as to allow consultations to take place in different
formats.  Brazil supported Norway's proposal, alre ady seconded by other delegations, that further
consultations on this topic be held, and in the context of such consultations, would expand on the
different issues raised in the document under consideration.
107. The representative of Costa Rica said his delegation believed that the idea of the need for
improved transparency was very important and that  transparency had to be improved in the WTO in
general, and particularly at Ministerial Conferences.  The effort undertaken after Seattle had been very
important, and his delegation was pleased to see that some results had been achieved in the form of a
Ministerial Conference that had been preceded by a transparent preparatory process in the course of
which all delegations had had the opportunity to participate.  However, his delegation was concernedabout the excessive regulations being proposed by some delegations, as these might become a sort of
straitjacket for the organization and for the Members.  The practices which had evolved after Seattle,
which had proved to work fairly well, should be continued.  It was important that there be space for
consultations both before and during the Ministerial Conferences, and that Ministers also enjoyed
such space, particularly when representatives in Geneva were not able to reach agreement.  HisWT/GC/M/74
Page 25
delegation did not believe there was a problem regarding representation in smaller-group
consultations or negotiating groups, as had been suggested by Norway.  The issue of representation in
such meetings was very different from the issue of representation in other organizations, since in the
WTO, alliances shifted and changed often depending on the issue, or even the particular aspect of an
issue, being discussed.  Costa Rica did not see how, in the light of the multiple different forms of
alliances and understandings, Members could ever agree on small groups representing other groups.
Each group would have a different representative for a different issue, which would only further
complicate matters.  However, there were some very good ideas in the paper and his delegation would
be very happy to discuss them further.  While Costa Rica was much in favour of internal transparency,
the best path to follow was the one adopted since Seattle, which had resulted in satisfactory
participation for all Members, as had been seen at the most recent Ministerial Conference.  Members
should be very cautious in introducing too rigid rules which might function as a straitjacket.
108. The representative of Jamaica said that Jamaica had joined other Members in putting forward
this paper because it believed it was important to address a number of issues concerning the
preparations for and conduct of Ministerial Conferences.  It was necessary to have clear, written
guidelines on these exercises, first, from the point of view of enhancing transparency and
predictability, and second, from the point of view of building the confidence of Members, particularly
smaller capacity-constrained Members, in the WTO decision-making process.  The aim was not to
place the process in a straight-jacket, since a measure of flexibility was necessary in all processes.
However, where that flexibility led to uncertainty, vagueness and unpredictability, it became counter-
productive, and this should be avoided.  Jamaica hoped that Members would engage in a fruitful
debate on this issue and that there would be a positive and concrete outcome to guide preparations forthe upcoming and future Ministerial Conferences.
109. The representative of Cuba said that she had little to add to India's introduction of the paper.
The paper, which her delegation had co-sponsored, ai med to enhance, on the basis of the co-sponsors'
own experience, the procedures that had been evolved.  The main purpose of the paper was to ensure
that the preparatory process and the Ministerial Conferences themselves were held in a transparentmanner, were inclusive and were conducted on a predictable basis.  This was of paramount
importance in order to guarantee results acceptable to all.  Her delegation did not believe that this
would lead to a straitjacket.  The WTO was an organization governed by rules and disciplines, and the
aim was to adopt certain guidelines that would result in a given process acceptable to all.  While not
all Ministerial Conferences had the same objective or purpose, the principles of transparency,
predictability and the right to effective participation for all should be applied in each and every case.
Without these principles it would be difficult to build an efficient and constructive commitment.  Theprocesses in question should also always have a degree of flexibility and should avoid rigid rules.
Members should also avoid arriving at results in which many did not see their interests reflected.
Therefore, situations should be avoided where the final outcome created obligations that were too
onerous for some Members and thus very difficult to comply with.  Consultations should be held on
the basis of the paper introduced by India.
110. The representative of the Philippines said that while his country was not a co-sponsor, it
shared and supported the paper's overall thrust and objectives.  As India had said, the paper provided a
timely start for a debate on this issue that would allow a constructive exchange of views on a common
and collective responsibility of WTO Members.  The WTO was growing physically, substantially and
in age, and if it did not improve with age, its physical and substantive expansion would harm it.  Theissues taken up in the paper had been a feature of all discussions on this topic in the past, but it was
important that the Chairman come up with some kind of a working group to be able to use this paper
as a basis for something more concrete, such as written procedural guidelines which might help
Members in the preparatory process for and conduct of future Ministerial Conferences.  His
delegation was very aware of the need for flexibility and to avoid applying a straitjacket to theprocess.  However, flexibility should not be license for raising important and sensitive substantive
issues at the last minute, without even including Ministers of some developing countries in the widerWT/GC/M/74
Page 26
debate in a plenary session or a Committee of the Whole agreed in advance for the Ministerial
Conference.  The delegations who had supported a wider debate on this issue would probably see a
better process for the Ministerial Conference in Mexico, as well as for future discussions on important
issues within the WTO, in the General Council itself or in any other WTO forum.
111. The representative of Korea said that his delegation appreciated the effort made by the co-
sponsors of the paper.  Korea was also of the view that both the preparatory process and the conduct
of Ministerial Conferences should be transparent, inclusive and predictable.  The core functions of the
WTO to act as a negotiating forum, to set trade ru les and to provide a dispute settlement mechanism
made it clear that the efficiency of WTO activities was of prime importance.  His capital was
examining the paper and Korea's position would be stated at a later stage.  His comments at the
present meeting were thus preliminary.  In principl e Korea could agree with the basic idea that both in
Geneva and at Ministerial Conferences, transparency should be enhanced.  However, the proposal inthis regard seemed to be too rigid, and such inflexibility would make it difficult to agree to anything.
112. Delegations needed to consider very carefully all of the implications of the proposal, in
particular the following:  (i) it was not productive to have all meetings be formal.  Informal meetings
were often necessary and had proved very useful;  (ii) given the experience in Seattle, it was neither
efficient nor wise to put all of the outstanding i ssues into the draft Ministerial Declaration;  and
(iii) there was a significant risk that trying to make decisions on the facilitators and the Friends of the
Chair in Geneva before the Ministerial Conference would overly politicize these decisions.  The paper
seemed to contain many elements that might block the negotiations.  Korea was very concerned about
attempting to resolve prematurely some important issues that had far-reaching implications.  The
paper also set out too much detail on procedural matters.  Some flexibility should be included both inthe exercise of the Chair's role and in the negotiations themselves.  From a technical perspective,
Korea was afraid that it would take a long time to agree to adopt the proposed guidelines.  Compared
with past Ministerial Conferences, the Doha Conference had shown great improvements in terms of
transparency, participation by developing countries, and efficiency of the negotiating process.  Taken
together, these had greatly contributed to the success at Doha, and this was the sort of formula thatMembers should strive for.
113. The representative of New Zealand said that this was an important paper which his delegation
would study carefully.  His comments were more of a personal nature at the present stage.  Clearly,
there were always ways to improve transparency in WTO decision-making processes.  New Zealand
had no problem with some of the suggestions made  in the paper, such as that there should be
sufficient time for delegations to consider documents to facilitate proper consideration by consultation
with capitals, or that work on the draft Declaration should be completed in Geneva to the maximumextent possible.  New Zealand was a fairly small country with modest resources, and thus suffered
from the same practical problems as many of the co-sponsors of the paper.  However, his delegation
viewed the paper as a whole somewhat sceptically.  The WTO had a rather unusual method of
decision-making, i.e. consensus, on all key issues.  Voting procedures were never used, and a
counterpart of that was, as many other delegations had observed, a high degree of pragmatism andflexibility.  One could not have one without the ot her.  If there were a too-obsessive concern with
procedures, experience had shown that inevitably  one of two consequences would follow:  The
process could, because it was bound up with so many procedural arguments, get driven completely
underground, as had occurred in the preparatory process for the Uruguay Round – and for delegations
concerned about transparency this was a nightmare scenario, because it amounted to a process with noprocedures at all, no protections for small countries, and survival of the fittest.  Alternatively, the
more dramatic consequence was complete blockage and failure of the system, with the inevitable
consequence, since one was dealing with commercial and political reality, that people would find
solutions to their trading problems outside the system.  This was why his delegation, when it looked at
and interpreted the paper as a whole, had considerable scepticism about the proposal initially.  Hisdelegation hoped that consultations on the paper would dispel that scepticism in due course.WT/GC/M/74
Page 27
114. The representative of Turkey said that his delegation understood many of the points made by
India, and shared several of its concerns.  There had been important improvements in the present level
of internal transparency in the WTO compared to the level of the late 1980s.  In this context, the level
of transparency in the run-up to Doha had seemed satisfactory.  However, the level of transparency at
Doha had not been to the satisfaction of all, an d Members had to acknowledge the importance of this
dissatisfaction.  On the other hand, the need for flexibility and efficiency should also be understood.
Members' working methods could and should be further improved to make the organization even
more efficient, with the voluntary participation of all Members in critical phases of decision-making.
Turkey was not in favour of a straitjacket approach, but believed that a broad understanding on
procedures could and should be developed.  On this understanding, it supported the idea of holding
informal consultations and was ready to take part in them.
115. The representative of Bulgaria said that the paper was very useful and his delegation shared
many of the ideas expressed in it.  Bulgaria supported the proposal to hold informal consultations and
was prepared to take part in them.  He recalled that his delegation had also tabled a proposal on
internal transparency in WT/GC/W/422 in November  2000, and asked that a reference to this proposal
be included on the agenda when the item on internal transparency was to be taken up at future
meetings of the General Council.
116. The representative of Singapore said that his delegation was ready to participate in any
discussion on procedures and systemic issues that might result in an improvement of the current
system.  Some of the points India had raised in its introduction of the paper, such as the need for
greater transparency and inclusiveness, were important considerations in any negotiations.  However,
Singapore was concerned with the thrust of the paper, and felt that it was geared towards limiting theauthority and flexibility that Ministers would otherwise have in conducting consultations and arriving
at decisions during Ministerial Conferences.  The un derlying theme of the paper appeared to be that
Ministers should not show too much initiative, and that they should work within the parameters set by
their Permanent Representatives.  The paper also insinuated that Ministers should not do their own
thinking and that their main responsibility at Ministerial Conferences was merely to endorse what thePermanent Representatives had agreed to in Geneva.  Overall, the thrust of the paper raised doubts
about the need for and utility of Ministerial Confer ences.  In this regard, he said that it would be
useful to recall why Members had agreed to have Ministerial Conferences in the first place.
According to the Marrakech Agreement, Mini sterial Conferences had full powers under the
Agreement to "carry out the functions of the WTO and take actions necessary to this effect".  They
also had the "authority to take decisions on all matters under any of the Multilateral Trade
Agreements".  He recalled that the GATT had had no equivalent body or forum.  It was becauseMembers had felt the need for political leadership to guide the work of the WTO that they had
decided, when they established the WTO, that there should be Ministerial Conferences at least once
every two years.  Unfortunately, the paper under discussion took a step backwards by attempting to
curb the authority and powers of Ministers.  It should not be forgotten that Ministers attended
Ministerial Conferences to work out the final political deals and compromises after the PermanentRepresentatives had had a go at this.  For this reason, Ministers should be given as much room as
possible to manoeuvre and to negotiate with their counterparts during Ministerial Conferences.
117. While he did not intend to go into the details of the paper, he said that it contained some
contradictions.  For example, there was a call in paragraph (iii), under the heading "Preparatory
Process in Geneva", for frequent formal meetings of the General Council to take stock of the progressin the preparatory work.  He wondered how this wo uld tally with the difficulties faced by small
delegations having to attend numerous meetings, especially when they did not have the resources to
do so.  He also wondered how this would gel with the difficulties non-resident delegations already had
in sending representatives for WTO meetings, which was a point alluded to in the last sentence of
paragraph (iii).  In paragraph (v) it was suggested that when consensus was not possible, the draftDeclaration should fully and appropriately reflec t differences of view.  The proposal was to list
various options suggested by Members.  However, the last sentence of this paragraph stated that whenWT/GC/M/74
Page 28
the majority of Members had strong opposition to the inclusion of any issue in the draft Declaration,
such an issue should not be included.  Thus, it seemed that the first part of the paragraph contradicted
the last part.  He asked how one could reconcile the suggestion to list the various options with the
suggestion to include only issues which did not face opposition from the majority of Members.  These
were some of his delegation’s preliminary commen ts.  Singapore was ready to participate in any
informal consultations on the paper.
118. The representative of Malaysia said that in co-sponsoring this paper, Malaysia wanted to
make clear that it was not to detract from the fact that the process leading up to the Doha Ministerial
Conference had generally been positive.  However, that process had by no means been perfect, nor
would Members ever achieve perfection.  However, efforts could be made to try to improve the
process to the benefit of Members specifically and the WTO in general.  In this connection, Members
might wish to take the following points into account:  (i) there were currently no guidelines regardingthe process leading up to a Ministerial Conference.  Thus, the process moved on an ad-hoc basis and
in a sense remained perpetually of an experimental nature.  A set of guidelines would be beneficial to
ensure some semblance of understanding by all Members as to how the process would be conducted
from start to finish.  (ii) One issue Members needed to reflect on was the transmittal of draft Decisions
to Ministers.  If there were considerable difficulties regarding a given subject, the draft Decisionshould be crafted in such a way that such difficulties were reflected.  Otherwise, countries' positions
could be seriously prejudiced.  (iii) Another crucial point was the need to avoid last-minute surprises
at the Ministerial Conference itself.  This had been evident in Doha regarding a certain issue.  Apart
from these points, other concerns had been underlined by other delegations that also needed to be
considered.  The proposal as presented was a step envisaged by the proponents that could overcomethe genuine concerns they had.  Members were being asked to reflect with an open mind on these
concerns and on the proposal to alleviate them.  It was up to the wisdom of the Chair to determine
how he would like Members to have a full debate on this matter with a view to achieving meaningful
results.
119. The representative of Colombia said that the paper had been introduced at a time when
Members had had the experience of the most recent  Ministerial Conference in Doha and would have
sufficient time to discuss the paper before the next Ministerial Conference.  As a general principle, it
was a good thing to have guidelines and set procedures regarding the preparations for and conduct of
Ministerial Conferences.  In the process prior to Doha, and in light of the broad guidance of the then
Chairmen of the General Council, transparency had been greatly enhanced and considerable effort had
been made to ensure the participation of the greatest number of delegations.  The process since then
had been increasingly inclusive, and Members should draw on that good experience.  However, whilemany of these procedures had been adopted, they had not actually been put down on paper anywhere,
and it might be positive to establish a few of the procedures and guidelines along the lines suggested
by the co-sponsors of the paper, with some of the changes suggested by other delegations.  There was
no doubt that the preparatory phase of the Doha Conference had been fairly well done, and that the
actual conduct of the Conference had been subject to certain unforeseeable elements and factors.Some delegations might have felt that their interests had been affected because of certain
unforeseeable elements that that not been taken into consideration in the preparation of the
Conference.  However, Singapore had made a good point, which was that Ministerial Conferences
were basically political events, and that greater flexibility was required than, perhaps, in the
preparatory phase in Geneva.  Furthermore, although the Ministerial Conference itself was a politicalevent, it would nonetheless be good to have some basic procedural rules which the Ministers, the
Chairman or facilitators could follow, as this was the very basis of the confidence and trust needed for
the smooth functioning of any future Ministerial Co nference, be it to follow-up, launch or complete a
round of negotiations.  While certain basic rules and procedures were clearly needed to impart an
overall sense of confidence to all delegations, Members should not take things too far.  Some of theproposals contained in the paper – for example, that the facilitators could not have any direct interest
in the topic they would deal with – would introduce excessive and unnecessary rigidity, as it was only
natural that Ministers would have an interest in virt ually all of the topics raised.  Also, the suggestionWT/GC/M/74
Page 29
that all Ministerial Conferences should be held in Geneva might isolate the organization from world
public opinion.  In the case of the IMF or certain regional banks, meetings were sometimes held at
headquarters and at other times were held abroad on a sort of rotating basis.  This type of arrangement
could be considered.  Members should draw as much as possible on their own experiences.  There was
a clear need for procedural guidelines, and Member s would have to analyze which ones would be the
most useful.
120. The representative of Indonesia noted that his delegation was a co-sponsor of the paper.  As
India had clearly indicated, the idea in the paper was to establish a mechanism for the preparation of
future Ministerial Conferences and the negotiating procedures.  In Indonesia's view, existing practice
thus far had not been uniform from one Ministerial Conference to another.  This made it difficult for
many developing countries to prepare for Ministerial Conferences.  Given this background, basic
principles and procedures needed to be adopted both for the preparatory process and for the conductof Ministerial Conferences, aimed at establishing a more transparent, effective, inclusive and
predictable process.  Some delegations had said that the paper had weaknesses, such as being too rigid
or too restrictive, and that there was a need for flexibility.  While the co-sponsors were not against
flexibility, flexibility that led to uncertainty, unpredictability, a lack of transparency, ineffectiveness
and exclusiveness would not achieve the basic objective of the proposal.  Therefore, Members had toagree on how far flexibility should be provided, in order to maintain the basic objective sought.  No
one would disagree that rigidity should be avoided and that flexibility was needed.  However, it had to
be borne in mind that the WTO was a rules-based organization and that the rules were fairly rigid.
The Ministerial Conference decided on what these rigid rules would be.  Too much flexibility in the
process leading up to the establishment of rigid rules might not be in everyone's interests, particularlythose of small countries and developing countries.  The paper drew largely on statements on this issue
in 2000 by the then Chairman of the General Counc il, on the debate that had followed his report of
17 July 2000 and on Members' experience since then.  It was intended to initiate a debate on the issue,
as there was broad recognition from many Members that there was room for improvement in the
current preparatory process for and conduct of Ministerial Conferences.  The co-sponsors looked
forward to a constructive dialogue on the various aspects touched upon in the paper, with a view to
arriving at agreed procedures for both the preparatory process for and conduct of Ministerial
Conferences.
121. The representative of Chile said that the submission of the paper created a good opportunity
for a necessary exchange of ideas on an important issue.  The WTO was a relatively young
organization and in the few years of its existence had learned to improve on its performance each
time.  In Chile's view, Members had learned from their lessons in Seattle.  They had been able tochange their working methods during the two years since Seattle and to apply different procedures,
which had led to Doha.  Whether one was satisfied with the results of Doha or not, the fact was that
those results were credible, because the process used to reach them had been open and transparent and
had ensured the participation of all.  No Member  had been refused the opportunity to put forward or
defend its point of view, or to criticize the points of view put forward by others.  This had at times
been a rather competitive exercise, and quite exhausting, but well worthwhile, given the results
achieved.  The suggestions made in the paper were well taken and could serve as a basis for further
discussion.  This was a very constructive approach, and his delegation would try to participate fully in
it.
122. Chile fully shared the views expressed by Norway and Malaysia, and shared the concern
expressed by some that too many strict rules might depart from the concept of flexibility needed by an
organization that had to adapt its working methods constantly in the context of a constantly changing
international environment.  There were different economic and political factors which would have an
impact on the way Members worked.  Excessive rigidity might lead to total paralysis and would not
be in the interest of anyone, particularly not the smaller countries like Chile, or the weaker countries
that had less of an impact on the international scene.  There was also a need for certain space for
flexibility.  In the overall suggestions made in the paper there were many aspects that seemedWT/GC/M/74
Page 30
reasonable, such as those calling for more transparency, inclusiveness and predictability.  However, in
many cases it would be difficult to actually codify and apply what might seem like obvious rules – for
example, the need for a common agreement with good judgement.  One could hardly put that down as
a rule, but it was the general underlying spirit all Members tried to follow.  On the other hand, there
were some things with which his delegation could not agree, for example, the suggestion that theDirector-General had to be impartial.  The Direct or-General could not be impartial.  He had been
elected in order to defend the functions and objectives of the organization, which meant he had to be
partial.  He also had to be partial regarding the work and mandate with which Members had endowed
him.  Another point with which Chile could not agree was that meetings going into the early hours of
the morning or marathon meetings should be avoided.  Ministers had to justify the responsibility they
had been given.
123. The representative of Japan said that his delegation agreed it was very important to ensure
that the preparatory process for and conduct of the Ministerial Conferences were transparent,
inclusive and predictable.  It also agreed that it was a good idea to develop guidelines to achieve these
objectives.  At the same time, it was important to keep in mind that the Ministerial Conference was a
forum of the last resort of the WTO.  It was the forum where Members could expect to resolve
remaining differences of position.  If the Ministerial Conference failed to resolve those remainingdifferences among Members, the WTO ran the risk of being paralysed.  Therefore, in considering
procedural guidelines, it was essential to ensure that these contained elements that would facilitate the
Ministerial Conference achieving well its expected function.  Bearing in mind these factors, Japan had
read the paper carefully and found that there were a number of proposals with which it could agree.
However, there were a number of other proposals on which it would like further clarification.Therefore, Japan intended to participate actively in the discussion of this paper, should it be taken up
in future meetings.
124. The representative of Pakistan said that as a co-sponsor of the paper, it viewed the
interventions at the present meeting as constructive.  There seemed to be a general feeling of support
for the paper.  He recalled the sleepless nights which delegations, especially the developing countriesand the LDCs, had  spent during the pre-Doha preparatory process as well as during the Ministerial
Conference itself, and the draft Declaration at Doha which had come out in the early hours of the
morning and which, in Pakistan's view, had not taken into account many of the concerns or diverse
opinions of the majority of the WTO.  He was not saying this to undermine the immense effort and
work that had gone into this draft, but most delegations vividly remembered the surprises and
unconventional negotiating tactics which had culminated in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  Some
delegations at the present meeting had labelled the proposals a straitjacket in that they did not providethe flexibility required for a successful Ministeria l Conference like Doha.  However, Pakistan's
question was "successful at what?"  If the question was whether it had been successful at launching a
new round of negotiations, and as such had been not a means to an end but rather an end in itself, then
Doha had been and was a success.  The paper was an attempt by certain developing countries to
identify some of the shortcomings of the process, and to provide some constructive thoughts on howto make the preparatory process for, and the negotiating procedures at, Ministerial Conferences more
representative and inclusive, as well as pragmatic.  Pakistan had noted with interest some of the
remarks made by certain Members, especially by one developing-country delegation who, Pakistan
believed, had not taken into account the spirit in which this paper had been presented.  Pakistan
wished to bring to that delegation's notice that the mere fact such a paper had been presented wasevidence of the fact that all was not well.  Pakistan and other co-sponsors of the paper were seeking
the indulgence of the General Council in an attempt to improve the existing process and procedures,
which they believed could be achieved only through constructive engagement, and not through
outright rejection.  The latter point had been indicated by the majority of Members who had spoken
on this item.  Pakistan therefore hoped there would be a constructive dialogue in the interest ofmaking the process transparent, inclusive and constructive.WT/GC/M/74
Page 31
125. The representative of Egypt said that as a co-sponsor of the paper, Egypt had been
encouraged by the constructive comments made by the majority of delegations who had spoken on the
proposal.  There was apparently a need to get into the details of the proposal, and it seemed that the
best way to do this was through informal consultations by the Chairman.  His delegation remained
ready to elaborate in those consultations on the points made in the paper and the rational behind thoseproposals.
126. The representative of India, responding to some of the earlier statements, said that the co-
sponsors of the paper were gratified by the overwhelming feeling among the membership that further
discussions needed to take place on this important issue, and that Members needed to agree on certain
conclusions regarding internal transparency as it applied to the preparatory process for and conduct of
Ministerial Conferences.  One of the points mentio ned was that too much rigidity would either drive
the process underground or lead to complete blockage of the system.  However, this had nothappened.  Members had, by and large, been able to accommodate each others' points of view,
understand each others' political sensitivities and find solutions.  There was no need to proceed on the
assumption that such an eventuality would arise.  Ho wever, on the issue of rigidity, he recalled that he
had clarified in his opening statement that the paper was intended to commence a debate on the issue
with a view to collectively agreeing on a set of principles and procedures.  This paper was not a finaltext, but a contribution to a debate which it was hoped the Chairman would initiate.  The second point,
made by Singapore, was that the paper limited the flexibility and authority of Ministers and would
dictate that Ministers work within the parameters agreed on by Permanent Representatives.  It was
rather naïve to believe that 15 ambassadors in Geneva could limit the flexibility of Ministers without
their Ministers knowing.  In fact, the paper reflected the collective view of 15 Ministers, and had beensupported by a number of delegations at the present meeting who had referred this paper to their own
capitals and got approval.  Accordingly, it was not just the view of the Permanent Representatives that
was reflected in the paper, but rather the view of Ministers collectively.  Members needed to work on
that basis with a sense of commitment and good faith.  Another point mentioned related to some
alleged contradictions in the paper.  India did not believe that the elements cited were reallycontradictory, but looked forward to clarifying any such contradictions in further consultations.
127. As Malaysia had noted, transmitting a draft text which did not reflect the difficulties different
groups of Members had with the draft text would seriously prejudice those countries' positions and
would force them to wage an uphill battle to have their views taken into account.  It was important
that this point became an intrinsic part of whatever procedure Members adopted.  Norway and a
number of other delegations had suggested that the Chairman of the General Council hold
consultations on the paper, and virtually all delegations who had spoken on this issue had indicatedtheir desire to participate constructively in these consultations.  He therefore urged the Chairman to
set in motion a process of carrying this paper and the principles it contained to a logical conclusion
before the next Ministerial Conference.
128. The Director-General said that the discussion on this item had been healthy.  It was a mature
organization that could examine itself to see how it could improve its performance,  and he felt that he
had a duty and responsibility to the organization a nd to his successor to share some views on how the
WTO could do its job even better.  He said that Members should not forget some of the lessons from
Seattle and from Doha.  Much had been learned after Seattle, and a number of things had been done
differently since then.  There were those who thought  there had been too many square brackets in the
draft Declaration that had gone to Seattle, and those who thought there had not been enough of thesebrackets in the text sent to Doha.  He recalled that at a recent symposium at the WTO, three sessions
had been dedicated to the functioning, financing and management of the WTO.  He had learned a lot
at those sessions listening to previous Directors-General and previous General Council Chairmen.
However, Members should also celebrate that some things had been done right.  For example, at
Doha, not once during the meetings of the Committee of the Whole, at which virtually every Minister
had been present, was any Minister refused an opportunity to speak.  Immediately after both Seattle
and Doha the WTO senior staff had met to discuss the lessons learned and how to makeWT/GC/M/74
Page 32
improvements.  The present debate had been both healthy and useful, and he himself had some ideas
he wished to share with Members, perhaps in an in formal way as one of his parting gifts.  The WTO
was a Member-driven, Ministerial-led organization, and the complexities it dealt with were constantly
growing, which meant there would always be room for improvement.
129. The Chairman expressed appreciation to the Members who had contributed to the paper in
WT/GC/W/471, and particularly to India for its introduction of the paper.  This issue ran to the very
heart of the organization – how Members interacted and dealt with one another.  Many delegations
had responded to the paper.  Many had also said they needed more time to reflect, not only on the
contents of the paper, but also in order to contribute equally in terms of ideas and thoughts.  A number
of Members, and also the Director-General, had given reminders of the improvements to which all
had contributed.  The representative of Norway had recalled that activity on this issue under his
Chairmanship of the General Council in 2000 had taken place in the post-Seattle period, and hadpointed out that many positive changes had been made since then.  Chile and others had said that the
results of Doha had been credible because the process at Doha had been more open, transparent and
inclusive – and thus more credible – than the pro cess at Seattle.  Members were now asking how they
could build further on these improvements.  He suggested that this item be placed on the agenda of the
next meeting of the General Council, given that several delegations had requested further time toreflect on it.  Subsequent to this, the issue could be taken to the next step of consultations, which
would start in the autumn of 2002.  This would be one year in advance of the next Ministerial
Conference, which should allow sufficient time to reflect, discuss and ultimately agree on other
improvements that might be made.
130. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
13. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce - Progress report by the Chairman
131. The Chairman recalled that Ministers at Doha had agreed to continue the Work Programme
on Electronic Commerce, and had instructed the General Council to consider the most appropriate
institutional arrangements for handling the Work Programme and to report on further progress to theFifth Session of the Ministerial Conference.  With regard to future work on e-commerce, the General
Council had agreed in December 2001 as follows:  first, a further dedicated discussion on cross-
cutting issues would be held under the auspices of the General Council early in 2002;  second, the
Chairman of the General Council would conduct informal consultations with delegations on the most
appropriate institutional arrangements for handling the Work Programme and would report to the
General Council after the second dedicated discussion on cross-cutting issues;  and third, the General
Council would continue to oversee progress made in the four subsidiary bodies involved ine-commerce, i.e the sectoral Councils and the Committee on Trade and Development, and would keep
future work under periodic review, as appropriate.  The second dedicated discussion on cross-cutting
issues under the auspices of the General Council had been held on 6 May 2002 under the
chairmanship of Deputy Director-General Mr. Stoler, with the aim of building on the examination of
these issues undertaken in the first dedicated discussion of this matter held on 15 June 2001.
132. Mr. Stoler, Deputy Director-Gen eral, reporting on the second dedicated discussion under the
auspices of the General Council on cross-cutting issues identified in the course of the Work
Programme on Electronic Commerce, said that the agenda for the meeting held on 6 May had
consisted of the same listing of issues that had served as the agenda for the first dedicated discussion
in June 2001, and could be found on page 5 of the summary note on that meeting (WT/GC/W/436).In addition to papers previously tabled by Members, the Secretariat had prepared a background note
on the so-called "classification issue" (JOB(02)/37), and Canada had submitted a related paper on the
classification of software delivered electronically  (JOB(02)/38).  There had also been a submission
from Japan on its international cooperation on information technology (WT/L/451), as well as the
remarks made by the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Services, Amb. Whelan (Ireland)WT/GC/M/74
Page 33
summarizing the seminar held under the auspices of the Committee on Trade and Development on
22 April on the revenue implications of e-commerce.  As with the first dedicated discussion, the
Secretariat would prepare and circulate a short factual note on the discussion.8
133. The discussion on 6 May had been similar to the one held in 2001, in that the lion's share of
the discussion had been devoted to the classification issue.  While development-related issues hadbeen clearly important to many delegations, Members had seemed to prefer to pursue discussion of
those issues in the Committee on Trade and Development.  On the classification question, which
many Members felt was key to addressing other e-commerce issues, delegations had been able to
deepen their appreciation in this area, and it seemed that some progress had been made during the
discussion.  However, some Members still held very different views on how this issue might be
resolved, and it was likely to be some time before there was a meeting of minds on this question.  The
discussion clearly suggested the need for another session on the classification question in therelatively near future.  Apart from classification, there had been very few comments on the other
issues in the listing.  One delegation had made a substantive statement on competition policy and
e-commerce.  Another had stressed the importance of pursuing certain related questions in a more
coherent fashion than had been the case to date under the current agenda.  On the latter point, he said
that delegations might usefully revisit the agenda for these meetings and further focus their workbefore organizing a further dedicated discussion on cross-cutting issues.  At the close of the meeting,
he had invited delegations to reflect on how best to pursue the cross-cutting issues discussion and to
offer some additional guidance on this at the present meeting.  Specifically, it was hoped that
delegations would state their views on when the next dedicated discussion should be planned and
what, in addition to the classification issue, might be the subject of that meeting.
134. The Chairman noted that prior to the second dedicated discussion under the auspices of the
General Council, a seminar on the revenue implications of e-commerce had been held on 22 April
under the auspices of the Committee on Trade and Development.  The seminar had provided for an
exchange of information between country and private-sector representatives, and the importance and
timeliness of the topic it addressed had made this event a highly valuable input to the work beingpursued under the Work Programme.  Regarding the most appropriate institutional arrangements for
handling the future Work Programme, he would be holding informal consultations on this matter with
delegations and would report to the General Council at its next meeting.
135. Many delegations expressed appreciation to Deputy Director-General Mr. Stoler for his report
and for his work in chairing the second dedicated session on e-commerce cross-cutting issues, as well
as for the recent seminar organized by the Committee on Trade and Development.
136. The representative of Japan said that arrangements for discussions on the issue of electronic
commerce should reflect the cross-cutting nature of the issue, and the current arrangement of a
dedicated session under the auspices of the General Council was an appropriate and practical one.  In
the second dedicated discussion, Members had been able to have concrete discussions and deepen
their understanding on some aspects of these issues.  It was important to deepen further the
substantive discussion on electronic commerce on a continuing basis.  In this connection, Japanbelieved it would be useful, as well as necessary, to encourage the participation of capital-based
experts in the dedicated sessions at an interval adequate for such discussions.  Regarding the agenda
for the dedicated discussions, it would also be useful to focus on the issues that had attracted
considerable attention in the past two dedicated sessions.
137. The representative of Uruguay recalled that in paragraph 34 of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration Members had agreed to continue the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and,
accordingly, had instructed the General Council to consider the most appropriate institutional
arrangements for handling the Work Programme, and to report on further progress to the Fifth
                                                     
8 Subsequently circulated as WT/GC/W/475.WT/GC/M/74
Page 34
Ministerial Conference.  Regarding the first point, th e "dedicated sessions" format identified thus far
appeared to be acceptable and could, therefore, be continued.  The second point derived from the first,
and concerned the report that Members would have to prepare for the Fifth Ministerial Conference.
Uruguay considered it important to organize the work to be done from the present time until the Fifth
Session, so as to have a clear idea of the number of meetings and the issues to be taken up at eachmeeting.  This would enable Members to make optimal use of this examination process, both in
Geneva and in capitals, and to prepare the report in a timely fashion.  It might be useful for the
Chairman to conduct informal consultations, not on ly to prepare for the next meeting on electronic
commerce but also to determine the number, dates and topics of the meetings that might be necessary
until the Fifth Session.  Lastly, and without having any definite position on this matter, his delegation
felt it would be important to discuss whether to co ntinue with the practice of the Secretariat producing
a factual note on the dedicated discussions, or whether there should be formal minutes indicatingdelegations' positions.
138. The representative of Brazil said that the debate in the second dedicated discussion had been
useful in helping to clarify Members' positions, particularly regarding classification of electronic
deliveries, which in Brazil's view was the most im portant of the cross-cutting issues.  The importance
of this issue was even greater in light of the current market-access phase of the services negotiations.The current institutional arrangement for handling th e cross-cutting issues related to e-commerce, i.e.
the dedicated discussions under the auspices of the General Council, had proved to be the most
adequate way to move the debate forward.  At the same time, his delegation was in favour of trying to
organize the debate better, in order to give it a more precise focus.  This could be done by revising the
checklist of issues so as to make it more focussed on matters that were directly related to the specificmandate and competence of the WTO.  Like Urugua y, his delegation believed it would be useful to
define a programme of meetings, possibly extending until the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  This
would provide more predictability for fulfilling  the Work Programme and would enable delegations
and capital-based officials to better prepare for the discussions.
139. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the second dedicated discussion had been
very useful.  Substantial time had been spent on discussing the issue of classification.  Members had
tendered some interesting and constructive views,  although there had been divergent views on how
digitized products should be classified.  His delegation wished to stress the importance of discussing
classification issues in the wider context of various WTO agreements, bearing in mind the need to
ensure that any conclusion would not adversely affect the integrity and consistency of these
agreements.  Beyond the classification issue, jurisdictional matters relating to e-commerce were also
important.  While this might fall outside the mandate of the WTO, it would have an impact on anywork done under the WTO umbrella.  He suggested that it might be worthwhile for the Secretariat to
provide some background information regarding work by other relevant international organizations on
such matters.
140. The representative of Panama said that his delegation supported the points raised by Uruguay.
In order to comply with the mandate in the D oha Declaration, the Work Programme on Electronic
Commerce should be organized in such a manner that progress could be reported to the Fifth Session
of the Ministerial Conference.  Panama was satisfied with the way matters had been carried out thus
far, and hoped to see a programme for future meetings on this issue.  This would enable Members to
get guidance from capitals in a more effective manner.
141. The representative of the United States said that a liberalized trade environment for digital
products in both the goods and services sectors would facilitate a vibrant e-commerce economy.  For
example, making meaningful market-access and national-treatment commitments in the relevant
services sectors would create a globally networked environment where digital products and services
would flow unimpeded by trade barriers.  The Work Programme on Global Electronic Commerce had
been a useful exercise, and her delegation was encouraged by the commitment to extend it, as well asto extend the current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.  The WorkWT/GC/M/74
Page 35
Programme should continue in a manner that would assist the ongoing negotiations in a meaningful
way.  While there was disagreement over how to classify a small set of products – digitally
downloaded products, such as books, videos, movies and software – this should not impede progress
in acknowledging the importance of existing WTO rules for the development of e-commerce.  In
addition, to provide appropriate guidance on digital trade, the following goals should be at the core ofthe overall negotiations:  trade in digital products should continue to flourish in a liberal and open
trade environment, reflected in the principle of non-discrimination;  there should be greater market-
access and national-treatment commitments across a broad range of relevant goods and services
sectors, which would lead to greater development of e-commerce and economic growth;  if necessary,
domestic regulations affecting e-commerce should follow existing WTO principles, namely, they
should be transparent and non-discriminatory;  and, in light of the importance of trade liberalization in
digital trade, the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions should be madepermanent and binding.  On the organization of further work, her delegation supported Uruguay's
suggestion as a practical way to proceed.
142. The representative of India said that the recent dedicated discussion had concentrated on what
was a key issue in the debate on cross-cutting issues, namely, classification.  While there was a better
understanding of the issues involved in the classification debate, this understanding had not yetmatured to the stage of reaching conclusions.  India looked forward to further intensification of the
discussions in this respect.  Other issues had been identified for discussion, particularly on
development.  India attached extreme importance to this subject, as had Ministers in the 1998
Ministerial Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce.  While her delegation agreed that there had
not been sufficient discussion of development issues in the dedicated discussions, that did not indicatethat Members were not ready to engage in discussions on development issues in the General Council.
Rather, it indicated that there were some issues which had a significant bearing on the discussion of
development issues, such as the classification issue which perhaps needed to be dealt with in a more
comprehensive way before Members addressed the issue of development.  India therefore looked
forward to the Chairman's consultations, in which Me mbers might consider how to better organize the
work on e-commerce.
143. The representative of the European Communities said that the recent dedicated session had
been very constructive, in particular regarding classification issues.  The CTD-sponsored seminar in
April on the revenue aspect had also been useful and most interesting.  In the Community's view, the
existing format of the dedicated discussions was adequate for handling the cross-cutting issues.
However, it agreed with others that one should try to focus the work on those issues that had elicited
substantive contributions, so as to enable Members to report to the next Ministerial Conference.
144. The representative of Australia said his delegation supported maintaining the current
arrangement which comprised dedicated discussions under the auspices of the General Council on
cross-cutting issues and work in subsidiary bodies to examine specific issues relevant to their
particular areas of responsibility.  Given the time and resource constraints, it was important to keep
work highly focused and demand-driven.  Members might decide in some cases that the WTO was notthe relevant body to address a particular issue.  As some Members had indicated, the key issue was
classification – i.e. whether electronically delivered products were goods, services or intellectual
property.  Because so few products were affected by this classification problem, it might be best to
examine them case by case and only if the need arose.  For example, if a Member wanted to make a
negotiating request or offer on a particular item, but was not sure how to categorize it, this wouldseem to be a sensible approach, and would save Members from devoting considerable time and effort
to trying to resolve hypothetical problems that might never become real ones.  Regarding the future
work programme, and picking up on a point raised by Japan, his delegation felt it would be a good
idea to organize the next dedicated discussion back to back with the ITU telecommunications experts
meeting, in order to facilitate capital-based attendance.  The next ITU experts session was scheduledfor 9-13 December.  This period also coincided with scheduled services negotiating sessions, during
which time telecoms experts might wish to discuss telecoms-related negotiating requests.  HisWT/GC/M/74
Page 36
delegation had been told by its own experts that 16 December might be the best day to schedule an
e-commerce dedicated discussion and perhaps also the services telecoms discussions, unless these
could take place in the margins of what was expected to be a rather intensive ITU meeting.  Other
delegations had raised the issue of the Cancún Ministerial Conference and what Members should be
doing to prepare for that.  In Australia's view, it wo uld be useful to decide this in good time, and this
should be on the General Council's agenda not later than the second half of 2002.  Members should
decide what sort of report should go to Ministers to mark five years of e-commerce work in the WTO.
For example, one might to examine what, if any, announceables would be appropriate to reflect
progress in the Work Programme.  Some possibilities might include a declaration on a set of
principles or common elements of understanding that would also clarify the role of the WTO and, as
other delegations had suggested, a further extension of, or even making permanent, the moratorium on
customs duties on electronic transmissions.
145. The representative of Singapore said that Ministers in Doha had recognized the importance of
creating and maintaining an environment favourable  to the future development of e-commerce.  This
was an important point to bear in mind as Members continued their work on e-commerce.  In addition,
Ministers had instructed the General Council to consider the most appropriate institutional
arrangements for handling the Work Programme, as well as to report to the Fifth Session of theMinisterial Conference.  On appropriate institutional arrangements, Singapore remained very open-
minded.  If other Members were comfortable with continuing the dedicated discussions under the
General Council, it could go along with this.  In its view, the two dedicated discussions held thus far
had been useful for Members to exchange views on the cross-cutting issues.  However, more needed
to be done, as the dedicated discussion on 6 May had shown.  In this respect, further dedicatedsessions should perhaps be scheduled soon.  The dedicated discussions, as well as further work in the
four subsidiary bodies, would form the basis of the progress report to the Fifth Session.  The CTD, for
example, had been working actively on e-commerce, including through the recent symposium on
revenue implications of e-commerce.  The end goal, as stated in the Doha Declaration, was to foster
an environment conducive to the development of e-commerce and to facilitate business going online.The moratorium on customs duties on electronic tr ansmissions was equally important and should be
further expanded.  In addition, the WTO should strive to establish broad principles that would
contribute to that aim.  Looking ahead to the Fifth Ministerial Conference, Singapore could support
the idea that had been proposed to determine the meetings to be held under the Work Programme
between the present time and the date of that Conference, as well as to consider the appropriate focus
for the issues.  Thus far, Members had worked on the basis of the listing of issues contained in
WT/GC/W/436.  The dedicated discussion on 6 May had shown that some issues perhaps warrantedmore discussion than others.  In that respect, Me mbers might consider how to redefine that list in
order to put renewed focus on some issues, such as classification.
146. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation shared the view that the present
arrangement in carrying forward the mandate in  paragraph 34 of the Doha Declaration was
acceptable.  The dedicated discussions on many complex issues such as classification and revenueimplications, as well as developmental dimensions of the debate, had served a useful purpose.  The
work being carried out in all four subsidiary bodies in this regard was also very important, and
Pakistan attached immense importance to that work.  Like India, Pakistan also attached immense
importance to the development dimension of the debate and believed that through the dedicated
discussions more contributions on this aspect wo uld come forward.  Regarding the organization of
future work, his delegation supported the proposal by Uruguay as a practical and pragmatic way of
moving the work forward.
147. The Chairman said it seemed that most delegations were comfortable with proceeding with
the dedicated discussions under the auspices of the General Council.  There was clearly a need to
address the question of the number of meetings between the present time and the next MinisterialConference.  A number of delegations, as well as Deputy Director-General Mr. Stoler, had said there
was a need to hold a dedicated discussion soon on the question of classification, and a number ofWT/GC/M/74
Page 37
delegations had mentioned the need for a sharper focus in these discussions.  To this end, one
delegation had suggested revisiting the agenda for these meetings.  Japan had suggested including
capital-based officials in these discussions as much as possible, and Australia had raised the
possibility of potential "announceables" for the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  He would consult
Members on future work under the Work Programme and would report at the next meeting of theGeneral Council.
148. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
14. Technical assistance and capacity-building – Second meeting of Heads of Agency of the
Integrated Framework – Report by the Director-General
149. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 43 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, inter alia,
requested the Director-General to coordinate with the Heads of Agency of the Integrated Framework
(IF) and to explore the enhancement of the IF with a view to addressing the supply-side constraints
and the extension of the model to all LDCs.
150. The Director-General reported on the Second Meeting of the Heads of the IF Agencies since
July 2000, held on 26 February 2002 at the World Bank Headquarters in Washington D.C., as well as
on the first policy dialogue that he had held on 3 May with the Heads and Representatives of RegionalDevelopment Banks, the World Bank and the New Partnership for African Development Secretariat
(NEPAD).
151. At the Second Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the six core IF agencies, progress
made under the IF since its revamp had been reviewed.  It was agreed that much progress had been
made.  It was also agreed that the IF, although focused on LDCs, needed to respond to the broaderchallenges of the Doha Development Agenda.  There had been eight essential outcomes.
152. First, Agency Heads had re-affirmed the position that the IF was not only an effective
mechanism for the delivery of trade-related technical  assistance, but also an effective mechanism for
mainstreaming trade priority areas of action into countries' development plans and poverty reduction
strategies (PRS).  They had welcomed progress on the implementation of the IF in three pilot LDCs –Cambodia, Madagascar and Mauritania.  The diagnostic trade integration studies (DTIS) had proved
to be a powerful instrument for identifying the beneficiaries' constraints and their technical assistance
needs within the policy framework.  They had provided a platform for coordinated responses, from
the agencies and bilateral donors, to the priority needs of the LDCs.  Moreover, and perhaps more
importantly, the process involved in the preparation of the studies had proved to be a positive and
significant capacity building exercise for the LD Cs as well as enhancing LDCs' country ownership.
153. Second, the agencies had reiterated the urgent and critical importance of effective follow-up
to the diagnostic trade integration studies to ensure the sustainability of the IF process.  They had
underscored the necessity to explicitly connect policy and research results from the diagnostics to
operational activities to address the competitive weaknesses in the LDCs.  They had therefore
committed themselves to enhance their own agencies’ responses to the priority technical assistance
needs identified in the studies, by incorporating them in the planning of country programmes andprojects.  In the case of the WTO, its follow-up responses were being implemented as part of the
Secretariat's Annual Technical Assistance (TA) Plan.  The agencies, at the same time, were urging
bilateral donors and other development partners, such as regional development banks, to join their
efforts in the implementation and follow-up.  As one of the practical ways to ensure the involvement
of bilateral donors in the IF process, the agencies  had invited bilateral donors to assume "Lead Donor
Roles” in the countries where they had a strong field presence and had interest to support the
Governments' mainstreaming efforts.  Some donors had already responded positively since the
February meeting, by taking up the lead donor role in several of the IF beneficiaries.  He welcomedWT/GC/M/74
Page 38
this very positive development.  For their part, LDCs would also need to implement policy reforms
recommended in the diagnostics.
154. Third, the agencies had reaffirmed the lead role of the World Bank in undertaking the
mainstreaming work, with the support of the other agencies.  He wished to especially welcome the
recent IF activities, such as in Lesotho, Malawi and Yemen, where inter-agency partnership had beendemonstrated in the form of joint missions to the field.  He believed this was the only way to ensure
that agencies' advice on trade matters were consistent and mutually supportive of the development
objectives of the beneficiaries.  They were also fully committed to assisting LDCs to further integrate
the results of the diagnostic studies into the upcoming Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) and
donors' financing fora, such as the World Bank Consultative Group.  Positive results were already
emerging.  For instance, there would be a specific IF session at the upcoming World Bank
Consultative Group meeting in Cambodia in June, where trade would be considered as one of themajor inputs to the PRSP.  This was a first.  Not only would trade be distinctly treated at the
Consultative Group, but also the results of Cambodia's Integrated Framework diagnostics would be
explicitly and directly channelled into a World Bank Consultative Group Meeting.
155. Fourth, they had confirmed the extension of the IF to the second group of LDCs (Burundi,
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lesot ho, Malawi, Mali, Nepal, Senegal and Yemen).
Furthermore, they had agreed to move swiftly to extend the benefits of the IF to as many LDCs as
possible, by the time of the conclusion of the trade negotiations which were now under way.  The
implementation of the IF had thus far been made possible by the support of donors, who had
generously contributed to the IF Trust Fund.  In just over a year, 17 donors, including 2 multilateral
agencies, had made a total of pledges amounting to approximately US$10 million.  On behalf of thesix agencies and beneficiary LDCs, he wished, once again, to express appreciation to the donors for
their support.  However, the mobilisation of resources needed to be continued, which would provide
the means for the further extension of the benefits of the IF to other LDCs within the target date.
156. Fifth, agency heads had acknowledged requests from non-LDC low income countries for the
extension of the IF benefits.  Noting that the needs and concerns of these countries were not toodifferent from those of the LDCs, they had encouraged those agencies and donors in a position to do
so to respond favourably to provide support for mainstreaming and for trade-related technical
assistance, building on the IF model.  However, it was emphasized that the extension of such support
should be done outside the institutional framework of the IF, and without diverting resources from the
IF nor distracting from the priority accorded to LDCs.  The first and utmost priority remained the
meaningful integration of the most vulnerable  members into the multilateral trading system.
157. Sixth, the heads of the other five agencies had been forthcoming with their commitment to
work together with the WTO and to make complementary contributions to the implementation of the
Doha Development Agenda, based on their expertise and competence.  On behalf of the WTO, he had
welcomed the commitment and support from the other core agencies.  These commitments were
encouraging and indispensable as the WTO alone could not respond to the extensive scope of the
Doha Development Agenda.
158. Seventh, in addition to the inter-agency partnership, they had also stressed the need for
greater linkages between the trade and development communities, which were necessary for
addressing the depth and complexity of the trade-related development concerns of developing and
least-developed countries.  Agency heads had also emphasized that technical assistance was not a
substitute for open markets, but that they were complementary.  The objective of technical assistancewas, after all, to help the weaker countries take advantage of open markets, and it was therefore
essential to move forward on both fronts. The discussions had made it evident that domestic
regulatory reform, sound macroeconomic environment, and coherent trade policy framework were
essential enabling conditions for countries to benefit from technical assistance and open markets.WT/GC/M/74
Page 39
159. Eighth, and finally, agencies had endorsed the WTO/OECD initiative for the establishment of
the DDA Trade-Related Technical Assistance and Capa city-Building Database based on country files.
Such a database would enhance transparency and coordination in the delivery of technical assistance,
minimize duplication, and therefore maximize the trade-related technical assistance benefits for the
recipients. He appealed to all bilateral and multila teral TA providers for their support in compiling the
necessary information and urgently reporting into the Database.
160. As regards the meeting with the Heads and Representatives of the six major Regional
Development Banks and the World Bank on 3 May, its purpose had been to explore areas of
cooperation between the WTO and the Regional Development Banks to meet the challenges of the
Doha Development Agenda.  They had met first in private session, and had then held an open meeting
with the WTO membership.  During the course of the discussions, several areas of strategic
cooperation, in support of the implementation of the Doha Development Agenda, had emerged.
161. First, they had recognized the ever-increasing demand for trade-related technical assistance.
There had been a degree of concern about the reluctance of developing countries to borrow for
capacity building, whose return was invaluable, even  if not immediate.  It had been stressed that
national expenditures for trade-related technica l assistance, including for negotiations were
investments for growth.  In all cases, it was agreed that the Trade-Related Technical Assistance(TRTA) and Capacity Building priorities needed to be made part of national development plans and
PRSPs.  Second, the Heads of the Regional Development Banks had agreed on the critical importance
of trade mainstreaming for developing countries to fully benefit from the Doha Development Agenda.
He had proposed to the Regional Banks to convene policy dialogues of Trade and Finance Ministers,
in their respective regions, to which the WTO and the World Bank would also be invited toparticipate.  They had reached a shared understanding on this suggestion that they should proceed in
this direction.  He believed that bringing together trade and development Ministers was a first
important step in shaping a country's trade agenda in  the context of its overall development.  In this
regard, the Inter-American Development Bank had established good practice for others to follow.
Third, the Regional Banks had reiterated the importance of inter-agency coherence and the necessityof connecting policy and operational work.  In this regard, they had fully recognized the value of the
IF.  Given their operational strength at the country and regional levels, he had suggested that the IF
agencies should closely associate the Regional Banks as partners at the regional level, in particular in
the follow-up phase to the diagnostic trade integration studies.  It had also been stressed that the IF-
type inter-agency coordination was necessary, not  only for LDCs, but also for non-LDC low-income
countries and other developing countries, who may wish to have the concept of the IF applied to them.
They had agreed that they would follow up effec tively on this suggestion with the World Bank, the
lead IF agency for trade mainstreaming.  Fourth, the Regional Development Banks had asked the
WTO to keep them fully informed of developments  during the trade negotiations.  They had said that
such briefings would help advance and focus their trade-related work at the country and regional
levels.  He had expressed appreciation to the representatives of the RDBs for their cooperation, but
had to report to Members that some had expressed their exasperation at the expectation that theyshould offer trade-related technical assistance in support of the implementation of the Doha
Development Agenda, and yet be excluded from the trade negotiations and other WTO bodies,
including as observers.  He had pointed out that Members were working on this issue.  Finally, he had
proposed that this dialogue should continue, hopefully on an annual basis, within the framework of a
WTO-World Bank-Regional Development Bank Dialogue.  This idea had been widely welcomed bythe heads of the Regional Banks, and he would c onvey this message to his successor, Dr. Supachai.
162. The representative of Haiti welcomed the Director-General's presentation of the joint
communication of the six core agencies and expressed appreciation to the six agencies for the interest
they had shown in LDCs' problems.  Three paragra phs of this communication had drawn his attention.
Paragraph 5 stated that the IF was an effective mechanism to integrate trade into national developmentplans and national PRSs.  Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 indicated that the agencies recognized the urgency of
strengthening links and improving coherence betw een trade organizations and those dealing withWT/GC/M/74
Page 40
development, as well as with other organizations.  This reflected the concerns of these organizations
in trying to help LDCs find a way out of their current situation.  In this connection, coherence should
be ensured between the different agencies, such as UNDP, UNCTAD, and UNIDO, which were not
among the six agencies.  These agencies, along with the WTO, had an important role to play in the
integration of LDCs in the multilateral trading system.  Moreover, these agencies accorded greatimportance to the fundamental role of technical assi stance in the strengthening of capacity building in
LDCs.  Capacity building was not only about strengthening human resources, but also the
strengthening of production capacity and trade.  In this respect, the important lead role assigned by the
six agencies to the World Bank was welcomed.  The World Bank and the regional banks should get
together with governments so as to help LDCs solv e their infrastructure problems and strengthen their
capacity building.  In light of the positive result of the IF pilot project set up by Canada, Norway and
the United Kingdom, among others, this project was now open to eleven other LDCs.  Haiti, whichwas among the beneficiaries of the special fund for technical assistance, was grateful to those
Members who had contributed to that fund, and encouraged Members to continue on this good path.
Haiti welcomed the World Bank's lead role in helping LDCs to solve their problems and hoped that in
ten years, many LDCs would find a way out of their current situation.  Measures should also be taken
to ensure that small island economies, which were small and vulnerable, would not become leastdeveloped.
163. The representative of Guinea welcomed the Director-General’s report and congratulated the
six agencies which had adopted a joint declaration on the IF.  The IF had gone through several stages,
and the progress that had been achieved was the result of efforts by all participating organizations and
partners.  The documents presented by the three pilot countries that had benefited from the IF werewelcomed.  Her Government was aware that trade could be an engine for growth, and considered
trade a priority issue and the focal point of the country’s activities aimed at alleviating poverty.  The
World Bank piloted these activities in the field.  Her delegation welcomed initiatives taken by
partners who would play the lead role in order to mobilize resources and finance the project linked to
the IF.   Guinea was among the eleven countries recommended by the six agencies which wouldbenefit from the second phase of the pilot project, and invited those agencies involved in the second
phase to participate in the same way so as to ensure  success similar to that of the first phase.  The IF
had been recommended by Ministers in the Doha Declaration as a technical assistance programme
that would help least-developed countries find a way out of the precarious situation and poverty they
were currently in.   The IF should be used by all LDCs throughout the world, especially those in
Africa.
164. The representative of Canada expressed his Government's appreciation to the Director-
General and the Heads of the IMF, ITC, UNCTAD, UNDP and World Bank for their commitment to
the delivery of trade-related technical assistance and capacity building in a coordinated and coherent
fashion.  He also expressed appreciation to the Director-General for his leadership in this regard and
for his report.  It was important to ensure that the representatives of the LDCs, the donors and the
Agencies worked together on all elements of the IF.  It was essential that all partners in the IF be fully
consulted, especially when considering any new directions for the IF.  On that basis, Canada was
pleased to continue to support this mechanism as  an effective means to deliver TRTA to LDCs.
165. The representative of the United States expressed appreciation to the Director-General for his
report and his continued leadership.  The United States continued to support the IF and its approach to
mainstreaming trade in the development strategies of LDCs.  In its view, nations open to trade andinvestment were more likely to escape the scourge of poverty.  The United States welcomed the next
round of expansion of the IF process to other LDCs as  soon as possible.  It was important to look for
concrete results in the activities resulting from the diagnostic studies under way and those nearing
completion.  This would be essential for the report due at the end of the year.  Matching outcomes
with expectations was critical to the credibility of the negotiating parties and the institutions.  For its
part, the United States was prepared to make its contribution through bilateral programs to help meetWT/GC/M/74
Page 41
the identified trade-related assistance needs, and to work with multilateral agencies and bilateral
donors in this process.
166. The Director-General expressed appreciation to Members for their advice and to the other
agencies for their assistance and friendship.  He wished to make the point again that the database was
central to success.  If the country files within that  database were not in place well before the Fifth
Session of the Ministerial Conference, he feared Members would not be able to target the problem
areas.  This meant that there was a responsibility on all, including ambassadors in Geneva and
officials in capitals.  Members also needed to re mind themselves that capacity building and technical
assistance under the DDA was about building a public service, about advice, and about providing
information that could assist negotiators and Ministers in Mexico and at the Sixth Ministerial
Conference.  It was not within the WTO's function to provide roads, refrigeration, airports or seaports,
although through the IF and through work with other agencies, the WTO could play a modest role inthis regard.  The WTO's core business in capacity building and technical assistance was to do what
Ministers had instructed it to do at Doha, and this it would do.  The whole process hinged on a
transparent country files database system, so that at any time one could see in detail what was being
done and, more importantly, what was not being done.  Finding out what was not being done right
was more important than feeling comfortable about the things that were being done correctly.  At theforthcoming OECD Ministerial meeting in Paris, he  would be talking to some other agencies and
friends who were assisting the WTO in this endeavour.  He asked the agencies that were observers at
the General Council to pass back to their headquarters the appreciation of the WTO membership for
the cooperation they had shown thus far.
167. The General Council took note of the Director-General's report and of the statements.
15. Schedule of WTO meetings - Statement by the Deputy Director-General
168. The Chairman recalled that at the General Council meeting in February/March, Deputy
Director-General Mr. Rodríguez Mendoza had reported on his examination of the current situation
with regard to the scheduling of WTO meetings, and had made several specific proposals to address
the concerns expressed by delegations, including that the Secretariat would continue to monitor thesituation regularly.
169. Mr. Rodríguez Mendoza, Deputy Director-General, reporting on the situation of the
scheduling of WTO meetings for 2002, expressed appreciation to Members and chairpersons of
regular WTO bodies, as well as of the Doha negotiating bodies, for their cooperation in the setting up
of an annual calendar of meetings in accordance with the 1995 guidelines.  The 2002 calendar of
meetings, which was now established and updated on a weekly basis, was consistent with the 1995
guidelines and accessible to all Members via their web-site.  The positive response to this exercise hadbeen an encouraging sign that the needs of small and resource-constrained Members, in particular,
were being taken seriously into account.  According to the WTO Conference Office statistics, which
calculated meetings on the basis of half-day units, i. e. a meeting lasting one full day was calculated as
two meetings, between the beginning of the year  and the present there had been 47 formal and
informal open-ended meetings of the TNC and its subsidiary bodies.  Over the same time-period,regular WTO bodies had met 164 times.  All of these meetings, open to all Members, had been
scheduled in accordance with the 1995 guidelines.  This meant that of the 211 meetings held, none of
the negotiating bodies had met at the same time and there had never been more than two formal or
informal open-ended meetings held simultaneously.  However, there were still complaints that too
many meetings were being held at the same time, and this situation might worsen as one moved onwith the Doha negotiations and work programme.  Some Members considered that the 1995
guidelines imposed undue restraint on them, while others believed there were few constraints.
However, deviating from these guidelines would lead to  even more grievances.  He said that to allow
for exceptions would create its own dynamics, make the situation unmanageable and create more
difficulties for small delegations.   Therefore, chairpersons of regular WTO bodies as well as of DohaWT/GC/M/74
Page 42
negotiating bodies should be encouraged to continue the serious efforts they had made so far in
implementing the 1995 guidelines for the scheduling of WTO meetings to the fullest extent possible.
170. The representative of Bangladesh said that in view of the problems of small delegations, it
had been agreed at the General Council meeting in February/March that there would be no more than
one meeting at a time.  However, in the 2002 calendar of meetings, two to three meetings, as well asseminars and symposia, were being scheduled at the same time in some instances.  All these meetings
were important, and it was extremely difficult for small delegations like Bangladesh to take part in all
of them, in particular in the negotiating meetings.  A way would have to be found to solve this
problem.  In line with the Doha Declaration, there would be negotiations in certain areas and
discussions in others.  Therefore, in scheduling meetings, priority should be given to those areas that
had to be dealt with within specific time-frames for negotiations, the next time-frame being
December 2002.
171. The Chairman recalled that the agreement with regard to the scheduling of meetings had been
that there would be no more than two meetings at the same time and that, as an overall guideline, as
far as possible only one negotiating body would meet at the same time.  This meant, for example, that
at any one time there would be no more than one regular WTO body meeting and one negotiating
body meeting.
172. The General Council took note of the statements.
16. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Statement by the Chairman of the
Committee
173. Mr. McMillan (United Kingdom), Chairman  of the Committee on Budget, Finance and
Administration, speaking under "Other Business", said that the Committee's reports on its meetings on
15 April and 8 May (WT/BFA/58 and 59), which included points for decision by the General Council,
would be on the agenda of the General Council's next  meeting.  At the present meeting, he wished to
report on several matters which did not need decision but which were of interest to the General
Council.  On 15 April and 8 May, the Committee had considered the report of an outside consultant
on the structure of the WTO Secretariat and, in particular, the recommendations in that report dealingwith the number of Deputy Directors-General (DDGs) and Directors.  Regarding the DDGs, the report
had concluded that there was not sufficient work for four DDGs, and that at least one
UN Organization had eliminated one level of DDG altogether.  The Secretariat had informed the
meeting that the direct cost of each DDG, i.e.  not including overheads and office accommodation
costs, amounted to approximately Sw F 400,000.  The report had suggested a maximum of two
DDGs.  The Committee had no ted that the number of DDGs was esse ntially a political issue for the
General Council and the Director-General to decide.  Some Members had suggested that theCommittee recommend that the General Council consider a reduction to one or two DDGs, with
perhaps one of the permanent WTO staff being appointed as Assistant Director-General.  Others had
felt that the present structure provided an important geographical balance.  All had agreed that this
issue should be drawn to the attention of the General Council.
174. Regarding the number of Directors, the report had suggested a reduction of six divisions and
four Director posts.  Some of these recommendatio ns had already been implemented, e.g. the merger
of the Council and Ministerial Sessions Divisions, and earlier, Finance and Human Resources.  Most
members of the Committee had agreed that it was im portant to allow the Director-General, including
the one who had not yet taken office, the room to streamline and restructure the Secretariat.  In order
to aid this, most delegations were happy with the idea that the Secretariat should be requested toprepare a paper on a scheme to provide compensation for agreed termination of services for senior
WTO staff.  A decision could be made in the context of the 2003 budget in the light of the budgetary
position at the end of 2002.WT/GC/M/74
Page 43
175. Regarding technical assistance and contributions to the Doha Development Agenda Global
Trust Fund, document WT/BFA/SPEC/75 showed a figure of Sw F 9.5 million remitted to the bank
thus far.  Since the circulation of that document, a further contribution had been received from the
Netherlands, bringing the total to Sw F 10.5 million.  While this was positive, he recalled that the
General Council Decision in December 2001 had approved a target of Sw F 15 million which shouldbe remitted by end-June.  Actual pledges, however, had totalled Sw F 21.2 million, with a further
Sw F 3.7 million for earmarked activities.  The total amount received thus far was therefore only
about 50 per cent of the money pledged.  If the Secretariat was to deliver on the technical assistance
that Members wished to see provided by the end of 2002, it was important that the pledged amounts
be in the bank soon.
176. The General Council took note of the statement.
__________