RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/62
28 February 2001
(01-0984)
General Council
Special Session on Implementation
15 December 2000
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 15 December 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway)
Subjects discussed:
1. Report by the General Council Chairm an and the Director-General on their
consultations on implementation-related issues and concerns, especially those
reflected in paragraph 21 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999 and
those reflected in paragraph 22 of the dr aft Ministerial text which were raised at
the second Special Session;
2. Decisions for appropriate action where possible and in accordance with the
Decision of 3 May;
3. Organization of further work.
1. The Chairman proposed that all three agenda items be taken up together.
2. The General Council so agreed.
3. The Chairman recalled that the General Council had agreed at its May 2000 meeting that it
would address outstanding implementation issues and concerns, particularly those raised during the
preparations for the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference, by meeting in Special Sessions.  Ithad further agreed that the first such Special Sess ion would be held no later than June 2000, and that
the process should be completed not later than the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference.  In
addressing these issues, the General Council would assess the existing difficulties, identify ways
needed to resolve them, and take decisions for appropriate action.  At the first Special Session held on
22 June and 3 July, the General Council had agreed on a programme and calendar of work.  TheGeneral Council had also invited the Director-General and himself to carry out consultations in a
transparent manner, with a view to identifying ways needed to resolve the issues raised at the Special
Session, in accordance with the May Decision, and to report to Members sufficiently in advance of
the next Special Session.  In accordance with that work programme, their consultations had focussed
especially on issues and concerns reflected in paragraph 21 of the 19 October 1999 draft Ministerialtext (Job(99)/5868/Rev.1).  He had conducted open-ended consultations together with the Director-
General on these issues on 18, 19 and 25 September as well as on 6 and 12 October.  From early
October, a number of smaller consultations on specific subjects had also been carried out.  He had
reported on these consultations to the two open-ended meetings held in October, and the points madeWT/GC/M/62
Page 2
in the discussion at those meetings had been taken into account.  At the informal General Council held
on 17 October, he had presented the progress report which the Director-General and he intended to
make at the second Special Session the following day.  In holding these consultations, their approach
had been to focus first of all on those issues under paragraph 21 which seemed to offer the greatest
prospect of progress, and it was the progress achieved which they had reported to the Special Session.At that time, however, he had emphasized that structuring the work in this way did not at all imply
that the other proposals that had been made in those or other areas under paragraph 21 were being set
aside or ignored.  These were clearly issues on which work would have to continue.
4. At the Special Session on 18 October, the General Council had invited the Director-General
and himself to continue their consultations on the issues reflected in paragraph 21 of the draft
Ministerial text and to report to Members in advan ce of the next Special Session in December.  The
General Council had also invited them to also hold consultations on the issues in paragraph 22 raisedby delegations at the October Special Session, in the same manner as for paragraph 21 issues.  It had
been understood that work on paragraph 22 issues would not be at the expense of paragraph 21 issues,
which clearly had priority in the sequencing of the work programme.  Since that Special Session, he
had conducted open-ended consultations on 14 and 29 November, and 13 and 14 December, and had
held a large number of intensive consultations on specific issues.  He wished to offer his thanks todelegations for their co-operation with him, with the Secretariat and – most importantly – with each
other during that process.
5. He intended to come back to the outcome of th ese consultations later in the present meeting,
but first he believed that it was important to take stock of the work which the General Council had
mandated to other WTO bodies on various occasions since May.  In line with the mandate given to theChairman of the Council for Trade in Goods on 8 May 2000, he proposed that the General Council
hear a progress report on the consultations relating to the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment
Measures (TRIMs).
6. Mr. Ehlers (Uruguay) said that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, Ambassador
Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), was not able to attend the present meeting, and the report was as
follows:
"In accordance with the General Council Decision of 8 May 2000 on TRIMs
transition period issues, I have held intensive bilateral and plurilateral consultations with
interested Members to facilitate the process of finding a solution that is acceptable to all on
the question of requests for extensions of the TRIMs transition periods.  In keeping with the
mandate I received from the General Council, I have taken particular account of the need to
preserve and reinforce the multilateral nature of the process.  At its meetings held in July,October and November 2000, I informed the Council for Trade in Goods of the progress
made in these consultations.  At those meetings, Members made comments of a general and
more specific nature on the various requests that have been submitted under Article 5.3 of the
TRIMs Agreement.  I should also like to note here that there has been a useful exchange of
written questions and answers between Members concerned.  Based on the intensive andnumerous consultations held in October and November, I presented to the Council at its
meeting held on 15 November the elements of an approach that I believe can take into
account the various positions conveyed to me and can serve as the basis for an appropriate
solution.  The comments made on this proposed approach at the meeting of 15 November
were encouraging, but it was also clear that there remained a question as to whether it wouldbe possible to reach agreement to apply this approach to all nine requests for an extension of
the transition period.  In sum, the consultations that I have conducted since the adoption of the
8 May Decision have been fruitful in that a possible approach has emerged that has attracted a
considerable degree of support.  While further work is necessary, I would hope to be able in
the near future to circulate draft decisions for consideration by the Council for Trade inWT/GC/M/62
Page 3
Goods.  Members will recall that, in addition to consultations on requests made under
Article 5.3, the General Council Decision of 8 May also instructed me to hold consultations
on the means to address the cases of those Me mbers who had not notified TRIMs or who had
not yet requested an extension.  While I have given priority to the consultations on the
requests made under Article 5.3,  this was based on the belief that a solution to these requestsmight make it easier to find a way to address those cases.  I would like to stress, in this
respect, that I have consulted with these delegations and have kept them fully informed of the
consultations which I have conducted under Article 5.3."
7. The Chairman recalled that the Director-General, in his report to the May General Council
meeting on his consultations on the transition period issue, had pointed out that the process of
examination and approval of requests for extensions of the transition period by developing countries
had, in general, been proceeding well in the Committee on Customs Valuation, and he had suggestedthat Members should encourage the Committee to continue with this work.  The Chairman said that
since then, he understood that more progress had been made in this area, but also that some requests
still remained pending.
8. At the October Special Session, in the light of the report on progress by the Director-General
and himself, the General Council had agreed to his proposal to refer to the relevant WTO bodies anumber of issues identified in that report as being appropriate for their action, with the mandates and
time-frames he had suggested.  These issues had been:
- the development of internationally agreed disciplines to govern the provision of
export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes pursuant to Article
10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, taking into account the provisions ofparagraph 4 of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of
the Reform Programme on Least-Devel oped and Net Food-Importing Developing
Countries, which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture;
- the concerns of developing countries regarding the equivalence of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), referred to the SPS Committee;
- the problems faced by developing countries in both international standards and
conformity assessment, referred to the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
(TBT);
- the idea of information exchange between customs administrations on export values
in doubtful cases, the addition of the cost of services in Article 8:1(b)(iv) and aspects
of the residual method of determining customs value under Article 7 of the Customs
Valuation Agreement, which were all refe rred to the Customs Valuation Committee;
and,
- the issue of the relationship between the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and
the issue of the implementation of Article 66.2 of the Agreement on technology
transfer, which were referred to the TRIPS Council.
9. The Chairpersons of the bodies he had just listed had been invited to report on the outcome of
the consideration of these issues, and in all cases these reports had been issued as documents.  He
noted from the reports that the work of these bodies with regard to the issues referred to them would
continue in most cases, and he underlined that this continuing process would remain under the
overview of the General Council.  It was this body which retained at all times the overallresponsibility of the work on implementation, and the results of all work referred to subsidiary bodies
should come back to this body.WT/GC/M/62
Page 4
10. At the October Special Session, the General Council had also requested the Director-General
to work with the relevant international standard-setting organizations and relevant intergovernmental
organizations in the areas of SPS and TBT on the question of the participation of developing countries
in standard-setting activities.  He wished to inv ite the Director-General to present his report on this
work.
11. The Director-General reported on the actions he had taken to date in response to the request
from the General Council that he explore with the relevant standard-setting organizations and other
intergovernmental organizations financial and technical mechanisms to assist the participation of
developing countries in standard-setting organizations.  As his full report was contained in document
WT/GC/42, he would summarize the main points.  In November, he had sent letters to the three
standard-setting organizations relevant to the SPS Agreement, inviting them to a meeting at the
Deputy Directors-General level to discuss how to increase participation of developing countries intheir standard-setting activities.  At the same meeting, the four organizations would discuss how they
could most effectively coordinate their technical assistance efforts to best address the needs of
developing countries.  The organizations invited to this meeting with Mr. Rodriguez were: the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO) and the international animal
health organization (OIE).  The meeting was tentatively scheduled for 7 February 2001.  At the sametime, he had sent letters to the organizations which had observer status in the TBT Committee,
inviting them to a separate meeting, also at the level of Deputy Directors-General, to discuss the same
issues in the context of the TBT Agreement.  Th e organizations invited to this meeting with Mr.
Ravier were: FAO, WHO, OIE, the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Organization for Standardization (ISO),International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), United Nations/Economic Commission for
Europe (UN/ECE), and the Organization for Eco nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD).  The
meeting was tentatively scheduled for 23 January 2001.
12. The Chairman then introduced the draft decision contained in Job(00)/8205/Rev.2.  This text
was the outcome of the consultation process the Director-General and he had conducted since the last
Special Session.  It had been considered in intensive consultations and at informal meetings of the
General Council prior to the present Special Session, and it reflected the amendments agreed at these
informal meetings.  It contained a number of items for decision in the areas where they believed
decision was possible at this stage of the work, and also a paragraph on further work.
13. However, he emphasized that all the issues in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the draft Ministerial
text of 19 October 1999 which were not in the draft decision, including those which had not yet been
fully addressed in the work, together with any other proposals raised by Members in accordance withthe footnote to the June work programme, would go forward into the process which would continue
the following year.  This was strictly in line wi th the General Council's mandates contained in the
Decision of  3 May and the 22 June work programme, and was reflected in the last point of the draft
decision.  As suggested at the informal meetings, the Secretariat would prepare a compilation of these
outstanding items, to serve as background to the further work.  He also reaffirmed that the textssubmitted to him by delegations, either as separate or parallel suggestions in the consultations he had
recently held, would also be carried forward into the process the following year, and here he was
referring to the texts put forward by Egypt, Indone sia, Mauritius along with three other delegations,
Jamaica, and others.
14. He mentioned three other points with regard to the draft decision.  First, a technical correction
had been made in the first tiret of the eighth inde nt of the preamble, to reflect more accurately the
action agreed by the General Council at its October Special Session, and a reference to the provisions
of paragraph 4 of the Decision on Least-Devel oped and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries
had been added in this regard.  Second, he wished to make clear that it was understood that the
notification issue referred to in paragraph 1.1 of the draft decision should not put undue new burdensWT/GC/M/62
Page 5
on developing countries.  Third, after consultations with Egypt, he wished to suggest an addition to
paragraph 1.2, which would appear at the end of the paragraph and would read "… at the second
regular meeting of the Council in 2001", to introduce a time-frame for the action in this paragraph.
He proposed that this amendment be made to the draft decision if no Member objected.
15. He believed that the result of the General Council's work which was now before the
Members, although modest, was important.  It was a clear indication of the collective will to take
decisions on implementation-related issues and concerns, and also to continue to find solutions in this
area.
16. He proposed that the General Council take note of the reports by the Chairman of the Council
for Trade in Goods, by the Chairpersons of the various WTO bodies he had referred to and by the
Director-General and himself, and adopt the draft decision as contained in Job(00)/8205/Rev.2 with
the amendment he had proposed.
17. The General Council so agreed1.
18. All representatives who spoke expressed their gratitude and appreciation to the Chairman, the
Director-General and the Secretariat for the tirele ss efforts and hard work they had put into the
process with a view to achieving results since the October Special Session.
19. The representative of Colombia, also on behalf of Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico,
Pakistan, Philippines, Romania and Thailand, thanked the Chairman of the Council for Trade in
Goods for his report and for his valuable work in seeking a multilateral solution to preserve the
balance in the TRIMs Agreement.  His efforts to pull together all the countries involved to define the
extension of the transitional period had been most valuable and should continue so as to allow the
Council for Trade in Goods to grant the extensions of the transitional period as established in Article
5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The Members on whose behalf he was speaking reiterated that
Members had already agreed to give positive consideration to requests for extension in the Decision
of 3 May, and that in this light, this subject still constituted a pending implementation issue.
20. Speaking on behalf of Colombia, he said that it was unfortunate that more progress had not
been achieved at the present stage of the work on implementation issues, but that his delegation was
sure that the Decision represented what had been possible.  He would not attempt to qualify the
Decision, since time would tell if it was sufficient to  allow the work to advance in the coming year.
Nevertheless, some of the elements it contained were significant, since they sent an important political
signal to Members, and his delegation hoped the Decision was the beginning of a fruitful dialogue on
the many remaining implementation issues.  Some issues were undoubtedly sensitive, but the political
will expressed by many Members should enable the work to progress with a view to resolving the
problems faced by developing countries in order to allow them to benefit more from the UruguayRound Agreements.
21. The representative of the United States expressed appreciation for the contribution made by
other delegations to the present process, which had allowed significant work to be undertaken.  The
Chairman had characterized the results of the process thus far as modest, but although the Decision
did not cover all the issues raised, it did show that Members could work together and move forward inthis very important process.  Her delegation believed that it was significant that good work had been
done not only at the level of the General Council but also at the level of the Committees, and it was
prepared to undertake more work at the Committee level without prejudice to a final outcome, since it
had found that this work had led to a better understanding of the concerns.  The General Council
would have to ensure appropriate preparations for the fourth Ministerial Conference, and there should
                                                     
1 The Decision was subsequently circulated as document WT/L/384.WT/GC/M/62
Page 6
be no additional burden on it in that period.  As provided in the 3 May Decision and the June work
programme, this work should continue, and her delegation had learned from the process that the
expertise and clarifications at the Committee level were critical to any understanding and assessment
of how to proceed on certain issues.  As a result of the process thus far, her delegation had concerns
that some of the issues raised were not related to implementation and would require new negotiations.In some cases, there were clearly differences of view as to what should be the subject of such
negotiations, and it would be necessary to look at how progress could be made on these issues.  The
General Council had an important ongoing role with respect to implementation.  Her delegation did
not believe that continuing the process as at present would be the most advantageous way forward.  In
the coming year it would be important to recognize that some of the difficult issues to be addressed
would require a realistic approach to finding ways to resolve them.  The 1998 Ministerial Declaration
committed Members to pursue effective implementation of the WTO Agreements.  As such, herdelegation accepted the present Decision without prejudice to any Member's rights and obligations
under any WTO Agreement, or the outcome of any existing process underway in the WTO related to
implementation reviews.  Regarding the section of the Decision on rules of origin, since the beginning
of the harmonization work programme and continuing to the present, no Member had made a greater
commitment, offered more resources, actively pa rticipated in more meetings, contributed more
proposals and worked harder towards solutions and the ultimate completion of the programme than
the United States.  This commitment would remain at the same level.  However, given the amount of
work ahead and the concerns of some Members, including their proposals, her delegation did not
believe that the time-frame which had just been set in the Decision was realistic.  As such, it was
important for the General Council to monitor the efforts of the Committee on Rules of Origin, and toensure that the Committee operated in an efficient and affective manner in light of the resource
difficulties of some delegations, especially from developing countries.  Her delegation was not alone
in voicing these concerns.  Oversight by the General Council would also have to ensure that the
Committee was on the correct path towards high quality results that would facilitate trade rather than
lead to the imposition of new paperwork and other technical red tape at borders.  Her delegationlooked forward to addressing these challenges, and it would continue to make every effort to work
with all delegations to bring the process to a timely and successful conclusion.
22. The representative of India said that the importance his delegation attached to finding
meaningful solutions to implementation-related issues and concerns was well known.  India drew
some satisfaction from the fact that at least a few decisions had been taken in the present meeting,
months after the decision to establish a special mechanism to deal with the subject of implementation.
While some of the major delegations had characterized the present Decision as modest and meagre,for India it was below its lowest expectations.  His delegation was profoundly disappointed at the
results obtained thus far.  The Chairman's first draft decision of 29 November 2000 had incorporated
possible decisions on 28 tirets of the 54 contained in paragraph 21.  The draft of 13 December had
contained possible decisions on 9 tirets, and th at of 14 December had again contained 9, though one
tiret relating to services had been replaced by a tiret on subsidies – a referral to the SubsidiesCommittee which did not ensure the qualitative equality of the two drafts.  It was thus clear that out of
54 tirets in paragraph 21, the present Decision covered nine tirets, and even among these, five were
merely referrals to subsidiary bodies and two were appeals to other international organisations.  That
left only two really meaningful decisions.  One of these was a rectification of an error – the case of
Honduras – and the other was a decision on tariff rate quota regimes in agriculture.  Regarding thesection of the Decision on rules of origin, his delegation was distressed to note that the United States
was characterizing the decision as unrealistic.  His delegation expected that all delegations would
make good faith efforts to implement this decision.  As for a qualitative assessment of the present
Decision, the fact that there had been no decisions in areas like textiles, anti-dumping and subsidies
spoke eloquently for the real impact these decisions would have in trade or economic terms fordeveloping countries.  It was regrettable that services, an area where results should have been
possible, did not figure in the Decision.  During the informal consultations delegations had agreed to a
simple decision regarding mode 4, movement of natural persons.  His delegation had accepted the textWT/GC/M/62
Page 7
on this issue suggested by the Chairman and had even accepted further dilution of it.  However,
regrettably, this issue had not found a place in the final Decision, and this was extremely
disappointing.  Therefore, it was obvious that the results achieved thus far represented, at best, the
first minimal step.
23. India had always maintained that the issues it had raised under implementation required a
certain amount of political sensitivity and could not be dealt with in a narrow and legal manner.  It
was for this reason that his delegation had been reluctant to refer the issues to subsidiary bodies.  Yet,
in a spirit of compromise and sometimes in deferenc e to the Chairman's views, it had agreed at the last
meeting to refer some of the issues to subsidiary bodies.  His delegation had read the reports
submitted by the Chairpersons of these bodies, and it recognized their valiant efforts to encourage
their respective bodies to come up with meaningful recommendations.  Nevertheless, India was
disappointed at the lack of substantive results or progress, especially in the areas of TRIPS andcustoms valuation.  For instance, in the TRIPS Council it had not even been possible to grant
observership to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), much less conduct a
serious examination of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD on the basis of a
Chairman's checklist or a factual note by the Secretariat.  Furthermore, his Government had sent an
expert all the way from India to Geneva to participate in the Customs Valuation Committee.However, in spite of the clarifications provided by the Indian delegation, it had not been possible to
persuade the Committee to accept even a simple proposal on exchange of information on export
values in doubtful cases, with a view to reducing the scope for fraud.  Thus, his delegation's
scepticism about referring matters to subsidiary bodies had been vindicated.  India reiterated that in
accordance with the 3 May Decision, the General Council should refer matters to the subsidiarybodies only where absolutely necessary, and with a clear mandate and a specific time-frame.
24. He wished to mention one other important aspect of the present exercise and request all
delegations to reflect further on it.  Even in the case of a relatively minor issue, such as a best-
endeavour clause or a desirable course of action already provided for in the various agreements, any
move to make it meaningful was being resisted by some Members on the grounds that this required achange in domestic legislation.  It was a matter of serious concern that the best-endeavour clauses in
existing agreements did not figure in the domestic legislation of some of the major trading partners.
Even best-endeavour clauses should be clearly provided for in legislation.  This would be in line with
both the letter and spirit of the WTO Agreements signed and ratified by Member Governments.  He
reminded all delegations that the present exercise on implementation-related issues and concerns had
been, and should continue to be, about confidence building.  This could be achieved only through a
combination of political will and good faith effort.  The present results demonstrated that these factorswere not available to the extent needed.  India strongly disagreed with delegations suggesting that the
fault might lay with the process.  The General Council had decided on 22 June 2000 that the present
meeting would decide on the organization of future work in the year 2001.  It was a matter of regret
that at the present Special Session attention had not been devoted to this issue and a decision made
about the organisation of work in the coming year .  India requested that the Chairman hold informal
consultations on this well in advance of the next General Council meeting scheduled for 8 February
2001.  His delegation hoped that in the new year delegations would find the necessary political will,
good faith and courage to address the remaining implementation issues and find meaningful solutions
well before the deadline of the fourth Ministerial Conference.  This alone would build confidence in
the WTO and enhance its image in countries such as his.  India would continue to persevere in itsefforts to persuade its major trading partners to be more forthcoming in this area.  This would be the
most important common endeavour for all in the year ahead.
25. The representative of Brazil said that the Chairman had characterized the results of the
present process as modest but important, and he agreed with this in one respect – even though there
was not much in terms of a decision, Members had been able to treat the issues seriously.  This wasthe most important aspect of the present exercise, and was systemic.  The results thus far were almostWT/GC/M/62
Page 8
non-existent, and the most important element was paragraph 7.  Most of Brazil's proposals were
contained in paragraph 22 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999, including in the areas of
subsidies, anti-dumping and TRIMs, and it was important that these proposals be addressed
meaningfully before the fourth Ministerial Conference.  Nevertheless, the agriculture section of
paragraph 21 was also of interest to Brazil, specifically the issue of the implementation of Article 10.2of the Agriculture Agreement.  This issue had be en included in the work leading to the present
Decision, but did not appear in the final version.  The problem in the implementation of this provision
concerned not only whether it was being implemented, but also how.  The point here was to establish
the authority of the WTO in deciding on its rules – rules which would apply to all its Members.  This
was of great importance to all Members, and they should all be aware of it.  Brazil had not been able
to agree to the proposed language on this issue at the recent meetings because that language did not
ensure that role for the WTO, and even tended to legitimize the idea that rules in this area might be
negotiated elsewhere and then brought into the WTO.  Brazil could not accept that, since it had
already had the experience of delegating its rights in the Subsidies Agreement and would not repeat
that experience.  He urged all Members to pay the highest attention to this issue.  He understood that a
proposal would soon be submitted which addressed this issue and which referred to the integration of
rules and disciplines agreed in other international fora into the Agriculture Agreement.  This was a
matter of the utmost concern to his delegation.  Brazil did not deny the right of other organizations to
negotiate rules.  Its concern was that rules negotiated outside the WTO might, explicitly or by
implication, become law for WTO Members.  These organizations were not necessarily transparent to
non-Members, as past experience had shown, and all Members should be aware that, sooner or later,
they would be confronted with problems of this type.  Finally, the work on implementation thus farspoke highly of the WTO, if not yet in terms of decisions, at least in terms of the seriousness with
which issues of importance to developing countries were being addressed.
26. The representative of Poland, also on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, and the Slovak Republic, said that the Chairman's approach of focussing on
issues with a high degree of probability of acceptance had been correct, and the present Decision was
in large part acceptable.  These Members' approach to the work on implementation was based on the
assumption that implementation had to be seen as a part of the 1998 Ministerial Declaration together
with another essential element – the work programme.  For these and other Members, such a work
programme was an instrument for launching a comprehensive round of trade negotiations and they
maintained this objective.  It had been in this sp irit that they had supported the confidence-building
process.  Particular implementation concerns reflected different situations and problems of countries
with different levels of development.  These Members understood and sympathized with theseconcerns, since some transition economies also experienced comparable implementation problems in
certain areas.  At the same time, they were aware of the existing limitations and difficulties in
accommodating a number of implementation-related concerns, because satisfying these demands
would change the existing balance of rights and obligations.  In spite of this, they could not be
satisfied with the rather modest harvest at this stage, and it would be necessary to discuss further thepossibilities of collectively acceptable solutions.  At the same time, it was clear that solutions to some
of the issues could be found only in the framework of a wider context of the work programme as
contained in the 1998 Ministerial Declaration, which they considered to be still relevant.  In line with
this approach, they believed that this discussion should not overwhelm the work in WTO in the
coming year, but should be part of an intensive and ambitious process of preparing the ground forfurther trade liberalization.  They cautioned against ignoring the genuine preoccupations of a large
part of the Members, but at the same time cautioned against holding the new round hostage to
implementation issues.  They were confident that with time, all Members would realize that only a
wide framework of an ambitious new round would offer real solutions to the many inadequacies and
shortcomings of the multilateral trading system, including genuine solutions to real and seriousimplementation problems.WT/GC/M/62
Page 9
27. The representative of Egypt said that following the Seattle Ministerial Conference, Members
had embarked on a package of confidence-building measures in which addressing and resolving
implementation issues raised by a number of developing countries figured prominently.  Furthermore,
on 3 May the General Council had adopted a decision to guide the process of addressing
implementation issues.  Numerous meetings and consultations, and three General Council SpecialSessions had been held since then.  The result of this work was the present Decision, which was
extremely disappointing to his delegation and could not even be considered minimalist.  It did not
help the confidence-building process, nor improve the present situation of many developing countries.
This situation had been the reason for proposing work on implementation in the first place, in order to
redress the imbalances and shortcomings of the Uruguay Round Agreements.  One example of this
disappointment was paragraph 1.2 of  the Decision, concerning the Decision on Measures Concerning
the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries.  His delegation regretted that it had not been possible, due to time constraints,
to agree at this stage to the proposal for examining the idea of establishing an inter-agency Revolving
Fund to work towards the realization of the objectives set forth in the Ministerial Decision; namely
food aid, access to financing facilities, and technical and financial assistance to increase agricultural
productivity and infrastructure.  His delegation hoped that Members would approach this issue withan open mind later when it was discussed at the Committee level, so that the Committee would be
able to report back positively to the General Council.  His delegation also regretted the late deletion
from the draft decision of the paragraph in the area of services on steps to increase the effective
implementation of mode 4 supply commitments on movement of natural persons.  There were also
other important areas that were outside the scope of the decision in the first place.  Despite theseregrets, at least a decision had been taken, but not one that met his delegation's aspirations or
minimum requirements.  Egypt would thus characteri ze the present Decision as an interim decision.
His delegation could, however, derive some comfort that the outstanding issues from the Chairman's
consultations, and also those implementation issues that were outside the scope of the consultations,
would be dealt with through the present mechanism in the course of the coming year, in accordancewith the 3 May Decision and the 22 June work programme.  His delegation thus attached great
importance to paragraph 7 of the present Decision on further work.  Egypt urged its trading partners to
be more forthcoming and to show the needed political will to take decisions on the outstanding issues.
In communications with the outside world, Members should endeavour to reflect the facts and the
reality of the situation without exaggerating the outcome one way or the other.
28. The representative of Uganda said that the results of the process thus far were modest, and
few genuine decisions had been taken.  His delegation hoped that by referring a number of issues to
the subsidiary bodies, the General Council was sending a message of good will.  His delegation was
disappointed in the lack of meaningful results, and hoped that more would be achieved before the
fourth Ministerial Conference.  The areas of TBT and SPS were important to his country, since
measures in these areas often impeded LDCs from benefitting from the improved market access
accorded to them.  Increased technical assistance in these areas would be needed, including onconformity assessment, and his delegation hoped that the TBT Committee would address this issue in
its work.  In the area of TRIPS, the issue of making Article 66.2 operational was also important to
Uganda, and a means of achieving this should be found.  With regard to paragraph 1.2 of the present
Decision, his delegation supported the suggestion by Egypt to establish a fund.  Finally, the issue of
mode 4 under the GATS was another area where further work would be needed.
29. The representative of Pakistan said that implementation was the most important issue on the
agenda of the General Council for his delegation, and for most developing countries.  Pakistan had
estimated that, of all the international trade-related issues for developing countries, between 60 and 70
per cent were related to or had arisen from the implementation of the WTO Agreements.  After the
Seattle Ministerial Conference, his delegation had welcomed the Decision adopted by the GeneralCouncil on 3 May to address implementation issues in a special mechanism.  It had concurred with
the general consensus that progress on these issues was essential to building the mutual confidenceWT/GC/M/62
Page 10
which had been eroded as a result of the events which had preceded and followed that Conference.
Much time had been spent discussing implementation issues, and his delegation appreciated the
Chairman's patience and fairness in his work on these issues, as well as the efforts of the Director-
General and his staff.  Pakistan agreed with the Chairman that the results were indeed modest.
Agreement had been reached on only 9 tirets out of 54 in paragraph 21 – the glass was not only halfempty, there was barely any water in it.  Pakistan deeply regretted that the areas of its primary trade
interest, in particular textiles, which accounted for 60 per cent of its exports, had not been covered in
the Decision.  It also regretted that the area of services had been excluded, in particular a decision
relating to the movement of natural persons.  Until these principal concerns of the developing
countries were addressed, these countries would have little stake in the wider work of the WTO.  His
delegation had been able to accept the present Decision because of the inclusion of the last paragraph
relating to further work.  The modesty of the results would invigorate Pakistan's endeavours to pursuethe proposals in paragraphs 21 and 22 in the continuing work the following year.  His delegation
trusted that the large amount of work already accomplished would not lead to any slackening in the
pace of the work.  In particular, it hoped that a decision granting the requests for extension of the
transition period under the TRIMs Agreement would be  adopted early in 2001.  It also hoped that the
subsidiary bodies would submit their conclusions to the General Council Special Session early in theyear, and that the General Council itself would take action in the cases where those reports were not
available.  Pakistan agreed with the Chairman th at the General Council had the ultimate responsibility
for the implementation process, and it trusted that there would be no attempt to change the nature of
the process and to link it to wider negotiations.  This could result in a negative symmetry which could
have a chilling effect on the rest of the work in the WTO.  The implementation process had to becompleted by the fourth Ministerial Conference, and his delegation would work with others to seek to
resolve problems and adopt decisions by that time.  This would be a precondition for the success of
that Conference and for the further endeavours of the WTO system.
30. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation welcomed the progress
made, even if it was more limited than his delegation and many others would have wished.  Further
efforts would be needed, concentrating on the substance of the individual outstanding issues.  The
fourth Ministerial Conference was more likely to be successful against the background of a solid and
productive confidence-building phase, and there was still much work to do in this connection.  It had
been said that textiles and clothing was the qu intessential implementation issue.  This involved
effectively just three major developed Members delivering the promised liberalization in a sector of
vital economic interest to a large number of developing Members.  The structure of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing (ATC) was such that, although it emphasized the benefits of progressiveliberalisation, it allowed heavy backloading as  a minimalist approach to integration.  That,
unfortunately, was the approach chosen by the three importing restraining Members, which left a
tremendous gulf to be crossed on 1 January 2005 at the end of the transitional period.  While the three
Members in question had asserted that this gulf would be crossed at that time, experience had been
such as to breed caution among the exporting developing Members.  His delegation was concernedthat in the present situation, some developing Members might be tempted to wait and see what
happened in 2005 before being willing to commit themselves to a broader programme of trade
liberalization.  Against this background, it had been slightly disappointing that those developed
Members who did not maintain restrictions on textiles and clothing products – essentially all but three
– had not shown more interest in the debate on this issue.  Instead, they had sometimes seemed asanxious as the three restraining Members to turn the page on implementation and move on.  This
could turn out to be a miscalculation, and his delegation hoped they would give further thought to the
matter.  In this connection, it did not appear  to be clearly understood that throwing ATC
implementation into a broader negotiation was not an option.  No one was seeking to renegotiate
anything.  Since full integration was scheduled to take place anyway on 1 January 2005, none of theexporting developing Members would be willing to pay a price for something which had already been
agreed.  The main issue was simply the pace of liberalisation between the present and the end of 2004
which, in the exporters' view, should be sufficiently progressive as to facilitate as smooth a transitionWT/GC/M/62
Page 11
as possible, resulting in the bringing of trade in  textiles and clothing within the normal GATT/WTO
disciplines.  As Members were aware, Hong Kong, China was a proponent of further negotiations
aimed at balanced and gradual multilateral trade liberalization.  It saw the current debate over
implementation as an opportunity to remove, or at least reduce, one of the main roadblocks to future
negotiations on a broader agenda.  The time might not yet have come, but soon, when Membersturned to that broader agenda, it would be helpful if they could do so against a background of solid
progress on implementation that would have built a satisfactory degree of confidence among
Members.  His delegation therefore appealed to Members to adopt an even more constructive and
flexible attitude to the implementation issues raised by a large number of developing Members.  The
WTO could move forward only on the basis of give-and-take and a genuine spirit of consensus.
31. The representative of Zambia said that with regard to the fifth paragraph of the report by the
Chairman of the TRIPS Council on that Council's work on the implementation of Article 66.2 of the
TRIPS Agreement, his delegation had understood that the intergovernmental organizations would be
invited to participate in the TRIPS Council meetin gs, and not simply to provide written information.
The organizations with observer status in the TRIPS Council should be invited to present their
information at its meetings.
32. The representative of Thailand said his delegation was disappointed with the marginal
outcome of the consultations on implementation issu es, but was encouraged that the process would
continue by addressing the remaining issues under the same mechanism until the fourth Ministerial
Conference.  Thailand hoped that the present Decision was just a first step towards resolving the
remaining issues in significant numbers.  However, unless the major Members showed more political
will and flexibility, the result would not be different from the present one.  His delegation encouragedthese Members to engage in good faith in further work  with a view to obtaining as much as possible in
the coming year.  Only substantial achievements in this area could enhance the process of building
confidence in the WTO and the multilateral trading system, and only after that could Members devote
more time and effort to other issues.
33. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation noted with minimal satisfaction the
adoption of the present Decision, which was only a modest contribution to, and of uncertain impact
on, the confidence-building exercise so important to  the WTO.  The importance of implementation to
developing countries had been emphasized by the ACP Ministers of Trade when the 77-member
group had met in Brussels earlier that week.  In this context, Jamaica hoped that the process in the
coming year would build a more ambitious st ructure on the present modest foundation.  His
delegation had a particular interest in the issue of Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement, and hoped
that all Members would continue their efforts and deepen their cooperation so as to ensure greaterprogress and more significant results.  Jamaica had agreed to the adoption of paragraph 1.1 of the
present Decision on the understanding that it related only to administration of tariff rate quotas and
not their structure or other characteristics.
34. The representative of Indonesia said that although her delegation had joined the consensus on
the present Decision, it was disappointed that agreement had not been reached on a large number of
the implementation issues raised by developing countries.  Like others, her delegation was also
interested in moving on to discussion of other issues of mutual interest to all Members, however the
resolution of implementation issues was important to Indonesia, since it was one of the confidence-
building measures.  Without adequate resolution of the these issues, it would be unrealistic to expect
her country to be more forthcoming on negotiating new agreements.  Indonesia did not rule out thepossibility of discussing other issues to open the prospect of further trade liberalization.  However, it
was reluctant to engage in serious discussions of other issues at the present stage, mainly out of
concern that new agreements, which would entail additional burdens and obligations, would create
additional problems and be more difficult to implement.  For this reason, Indonesia's first priority the
resolution of the difficulties faced in implementing the existing agreements.  From its experience inWT/GC/M/62
Page 12
this area, Indonesia had learned that it needed to understand all the implications, especially on the
negative side, before entering into negotiations on any issue, since some of the problems stemming
from the Uruguay Round Agreements had not been anticipated at the time of the negotiations.  The
existing mechanism should be maintained for further work on implementation, and Thailand was
prepared to discuss the details of the work programm e for the coming year.  While it agreed that the
General Council might take into account any im plementation-related issues under consideration in
other WTO bodies, it could not accept any attempt to  link implementation issues with the objective of
launching a new round.
35. The representative of Saint Lucia said that while the present Decision was indeed modest, the
effort expended on all sides merited a positive attitude, irrespective of the outcome.  Paragraph 7 of
the Decision on further work was of paramount importance.  Saint Lucia's proposals addressing the
vulnerabilities of small developing countries in transition from preferences built on the recognition inparagraph 6 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration of the growing marginalization of certain small
developing countries in the multilateral trading system – an issue which had yet to be meaningfully
addressed.  Her delegation trusted that the compilation to be issued by the Secretariat of outstanding
items for further work would contain a reference to issues which it had raised in the course of the
recent consultations.  These issues included:  possible measures for granting additional flexibility todeveloping countries, such as threshold limits relating to percentage share of exports in import
markets and global trade;  the need to secure a redistribution of negotiating rights in favour of small
and medium-sized exporting Members, which was an outstanding concern specifically highlighted in
the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994;  and the need to
enhance the security of market access for traditional small suppliers, addressing the definition of theterm "substantial supplier" in the context of Article XIII of the GATT 1994.  These issues stemmed
from proposals contained in document Job(99)/ 4797/Rev.3, some of which had been further
elaborated in specific proposals made during the c onsultations.  Saint Lucia looked forward to the
important work to be undertaken by the Committee on Agriculture to address the possible negative
effects of the reform programme on least-developed and net food-importing developing countries,which it hoped would soon lead to positive decisions in the General Council.
36. The representative of Honduras said that his delegation appreciated the support by the
Members and the Secretariat for the inclusion of his country in Annex VII(b) to the Subsidies
Agreement.  Honduras had been seeking to rectify th is error for five years, including in the relevant
committees, and the language in present Decision would finally allow this.  His delegation requested
the Director-General to proceed as soon as possible with this rectification.
37. The representative of El Salvador said that the results contained in the present Decision were
limited, and the only result of importance to her delegation was paragraph 6.1 on the inclusion of
Honduras in Annex VII(b) to the Subsidies Agreement.  Resolving the problems faced in
implementation was of vital importance to her country, in particular in the areas of textiles, subsidies
and services, all of which were missing from the Decision.  It was important to respect the 3 May
Decision, and El Salvador hoped that the further work envisaged in paragraph 7 of the presentDecision would bring positive results in the areas of interest to it and to other developing countries.
38. The representative of Turkey said that his delegation was gratified that a positive result had
been reached in the present process, although it fell short of the expectations of many Members.
Nevertheless, the present Decision was a first step, which was always the most difficult one to take.
The present process should bring to life the provisions of the WTO Agreements, and identify andcorrect any problems by revealing deficiencies in them.  However, the process was not aimed at
amending the Agreements or creating new provisions, which was a completely different exercise, and
this was the basis for his delegation's support of the implementation proposals.  Turkey hoped that
further work on implementation would be in parallel with advances towards broader negotiations.WT/GC/M/62
Page 13
39. The representative of Bolivia said that implementation of all WTO Agreements was of high
importance to her country, in particular those on agriculture and sanitary and phytosanitary measures,
but her delegation was disappointed that the area of textiles was absent from the present Decision.
Although progress had been made on some implementation issues, it had been a long and arduous
process.  Delegations would need to reflect on how to achieve solutions to these issues in the shorttime available up to the fourth Ministerial Conference, since implementation had become one of the
determining elements in recuperating the confidence in and credibility of the WTO.  The results
obtained in the present process would be key to Members, in particular developing countries, being
open to starting new liberalization activities.  For small economies with a limited range of exports,
such as Bolivia, it was fundamental that concrete solutions be found in this area.
40.  The representative of South Africa said that there were many issues in the area of
implementation that his country wished to be addressed in a decisive manner to serve its trade and
development objectives.  His delegation had been largely absent from the meetings in the present
process because of the need to allocate limited of resources across the work of the organization.  It
appeared that in the case of the work conducted in the implementation review mechanism, its
assessment had proven accurate.  Despite intensive efforts by the Chairman, the Director-General and
the Secretariat, as well as by other Members over many months, the results had been minimal.  Theoutcome was not commensurate with the effort.  Other delegations had characterized the outcome as
meagre, modest or lower than their lowest expectations, and his delegation would concur with these
assessments.  As a small delegation, his delegation would not have been able to afford that much time
for such meagre returns.  There was little to be ga ined by raising questions of good faith or the lack of
political will on the part of some Members during the present process.  The results reflected a certainand somewhat intractable political reality and the very serious difficulties that the WTO found itself
in, not only on these issues, but more generally across its work programme.  As long as
implementation issues were not resolved, Memb ers remained locked into an unacceptable and
untenable situation that severely prejudiced and undermined their trade and development interests.
South Africa had no ready or easy answers to this.  At the current juncture, there appeared to be noalternative but to continue the consultations to seek to resolve the outstanding implementation issues
in the framework of the review mechanism.  Fo r this reason, his delegation supported the calls to
continue the work in the existing framework until the fourth Ministerial Conference and encouraged
the Chairman and the Director-General to continue to  facilitate it.  However, in light of experience
thus far, South Africa was not optimistic that the review mechanism would deliver the meaningful
outcomes so important to it.  If the current trajectory was to continue, it was concerned that the sense
of frustration now evident among Members would grow, since all that could be expected was, at great
cost, more of the same – very little.
41. The representative of the Philippines said that in the multilateral process concerning the
transition periods under the TRIMs Agreement to which Members were committed, applicant
countries having a similar situation should be treated in a similar way.  From the report by the
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, it would appear that one Member could not agree to this
modality.  However, the statement by Colombia on behalf of a number of Members should be taken
into consideration, bearing in mind the multilateral character of the WTO and in the interests of
fairness and equity.  Regarding the outcome of the implementation process, the present meeting was a
significant turning-point in terms of the Decision adopted, the work referred to the subsidiary bodies
and the further work envisaged in paragraph 7 of the Decision.  The present results were abreakthrough, in particular after the difficulties encountered thus far.  Sensitivity to developing
countries' concerns had been shown, and putting the 3 May Decision into effect in this way was a start
to rebuilding confidence after Seattle, and showed the way to wider engagement and a possibility of
further negotiations.  Progress in the area of implementation was the key to this.  The results thus far
could be considered meagre, but at least a decision had been adopted, and this would form a basis forfurther, more fruitful work.  His delegation hoped  that the spirit of compromise now in evidence
would facilitate this.WT/GC/M/62
Page 14
42. The representative of Malaysia said that the present results were far below the expectations of
his country, and were not commensurate with the time and efforts put in to the process.  His
delegation regretted that decisions had not been possible in some of the more fundamental areas of
interest to developing countries, some of which had not been fully addressed in the consultations thus
far.  Nevertheless, the present Decision was a useful first step, and his delegation hoped for moresubstantive results in the coming year.  It was not difficult to identify the reason why more had not
been achieved thus far.  There was nothing wrong with the process or the mechanism, both of which
should be maintained.  The reason was rather a lack of political will.  Some had stated that political
will was a two-way process, and his delegation agreed with this, but only in the context of
negotiations.  The present process was not a negotiation, but rather a confidence-building exercise,
and in these circumstances it was more appropriate for the major Members to display the political will
and the flexibility to achieve the necessary results.  For Malaysia, resolution of the problems in thearea of implementation was imperative for the creation of the confidence necessary for developing
countries to engage in other areas of the WTO's work.  Under no circumstances should any link be
established between the work on implementation and broader negotiations.  His delegation was
confident that in the coming year, a favourable and conducive environment would exist to allow
substantive results to be achieved on implementation.
43. The representative of Venezuela said that the present Decision was below the expectations of
his delegation, in particular when compared with the first draft submitted by the Chairman, and was
disappointing.  It would be important to renew th e political will shown at the time of the adoption of
the May Decision on implementation.  The remaining issues in paragraphs 21 and 22 and those
contained in the compilation of proposals of 18 November 1999 had been incorporated in the comingyear's agenda as priority issues, and there remained only the question of how to organize the work so
as to achieve solutions satisfactory to developing countries.  There was no need to revisit the structure
of the process, since any change there would make no difference if the necessary political will and
flexibility was not shown by certain Members.  The reasons behind the failure at Seattle had not been
only those reported in the press, but also included a lack of flexibility similar to that beingexperienced in the present process.  For this reason, his delegation underlined the importance of
showing willingness to progress rapidly on implementation.  This would be the only way to achieve
substantive results by the fourth Ministerial Conference.  He reiterated that any outcome of the
present process should lead to benefits for developing countries, but it would be unacceptable that any
additional administrative or other burdens be placed on these countries as a result.  Venezuela had
agreed to the present Decision on the understanding that the process would be intensified in the
coming year.  The May Decision and June work programme were the framework in whichimplementation issues would be addressed on th eir own merits up to the fourth Ministerial
Conference, and it had never been agreed that this process would lead to additional obligations for
developing countries.
44. The representative of Zimbabwe said that his delegation was concerned at the lack of progress
in the implementation process, and the present Decision failed to meet its lowest expectations.  There
was a need for major delegations to show political will to engage more meaningfully and
constructively in resolving implementation concerns.  His delegation hoped that greater progress
could be made on the outstanding issues in the coming year, since the agreement which had been
reached on further work was a great achievement.  With regard to the referral of issues to subsidiary
bodies, his delegation reiterated its misgivings to this approach and hoped that these issues would berapidly brought back to the General Council for decision.  The success of the fourth Ministerial
Conference hinged on the progress made on implementation, and it was incumbent on all Members to
resolve the outstanding issues in the coming months.
45. The representative of Nigeria said that his delegation was disappointed at the outcome of the
present process.  At face value, there were some results, although meagre.  However, on careful
reflection, one could see that there was no substance in them.  This made one wonder about the muchWT/GC/M/62
Page 15
vaunted confidence-building process.  Perhaps so me expected that time would dim expectations on
implementation issues.  But since developing countries were facing genuine difficulties in
implementing WTO Agreements, implementation issues could not be wished away, and something
concrete had to be done to alleviate these difficulties.  While the importance of implementation had
been duly acknowledged in the preamble to the present Decision by reference to the GenevaMinisterial Declaration and other texts, no action had been taken to help developing countries to
overcome their implementation difficulties.  Much had been said about integrating developing
countries into the multilateral trading system, but he wondered how this could happen without the
necessary flexibility and consideration for their difficulties.  He also wondered why no concrete action
had been taken to make operational provisions for special and differential treatment.  It should remain
clear to all that confidence building could not be fully achieved until enough flexibility was shown for
the concerns of developing countries.  Nigeria appreciated all the bilateral assistance supplied to itindividually and to others, and was grateful to the individual donors for its technical assistance
programmes.  However, the Sw F 5 million approved in the WTO budget was far from the Sw F 10
million proposed.  Nigeria believed that this was inadequate and a further increase should be
considered.
46. The representative of Ecuador said that the present Decision was modest and did not include
the issues of principal interest to developing countries.  His delegation hoped that the work would be
more productive in the coming year and would contribute to resolving the increasing implementation
problems faced by developing countries.  Paragraph 7 of the Decision on further work was important
to his delegation, and this work should be accompanied by a process of reflection on the objectives of
the WTO, which was meant to be a universal organization.  He wondered if these objectives includedthe development needs of the majority of the Members, or whether the organization had been
conceived to satisfy the aims of only a few.  Members needed to ensure that the dissatisfaction of
some of them was not increased.
47. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was disappointed by
the present Decision.  The Community would have been ready to go considerably further.  Certain
important and sensitive sectors had been left out and the Community would have been ready to
include all those sectors, and on a significant number of points would have been ready to agree to the
texts proposed by the Chairman at the end of November.  His delegation would provide it's full
support to the Chairman and the Director-General when the work recommenced in the coming year,
as also in the other areas of common endeavour which made up the work programme.  The
Community looked forward to working with all Memb ers to continue to build confidence within the
organization, as well as outside.  The opportunity to revitalize the WTO's work was at hand, and toembark seriously on the preparations for a further exercise in multilateral liberalization, hopefully
through the early launch of negotiations.
48. The representative of Barbados said that the results of the work thus far and the present
Decision fell far short of the expectations of his country and its needs as a small and vulnerable
developing economy.  He reaffirmed the importance to Barbados of the effective implementation ofthe WTO Agreements.  Barbados had not reaped from the Uruguay Round the benefits it had
envisaged and which it had been promised.  The rebalancing of the existing inequities among
Members would be required to restore his country's confidence in the multilateral trading system, as
well as to enable it to participate as an equal trading partner in the liberalization process and to
empower it to assume, at some future date, furthe r commitments.  It was thus important to advance
the work on implementation in the coming year in a constructive and positive manner within the
framework established on 3 May, and with the aim of achieving substantive progress in resolving the
existing difficulties by the fourth Ministerial Conference.
49. The representative of Singapore said that while it had not been possible to agree on number of
issues raised in paragraph 21, the present Decision represented some positive results and was anWT/GC/M/62
Page 16
important step forward.  Members should build on this progress and work towards a package where a
decision could be taken in the coming year on outstanding implementation issues.  The most
important aspect was that the work on implementation would continue and all unresolved issues
would remain on the table.  Members should strive to achieve a good outcome by the fourth
Ministerial Conference.  However, in pursuing the work on implementation, Members should notforget the core business of the WTO, which was to further multilateral trade liberalization.  For this
reason, it was important to bear in mind the Geneva Ministerial Declaration which provided that
implementation work should be seen in the wider context of furthering the trade liberalization
objectives of the WTO.  Her delegation agreed that progress in implementation should not be linked
to progress in other areas of the WTO's work and vice versa, and believed that work should advance
on all fronts in the coming year.
50. The representative of Paraguay said that his delegation understood that the issue of
implementation was difficult since it entailed altering existing circumstances to allow developing
countries to participate more fully in international trade.  For this reason, his delegation was satisfied
by the modest progress which had been achieved.  The process would continue, as reflected in
paragraph 7 of the present Decision, and his delegation was optimistic that agreement on solutions to
the problems faced by developing countries could be found.  It was fundamental to resolve theseproblems before turning to a new round of negotiations and modifications to the existing system.
Globalization had brought benefits for some countrie s, but not for others such as Paraguay.  His
delegation hoped that these benefits would soon be available for all Members.
51. The representative of Panama said that evaluations of the present Decision varied across the
membership, but it was important not to underestimate the work which remained, including those
issues referred to subsidiary bodies in this Decision.  His delegation was pleased that the issue of the
inclusion of Honduras in the annex to the Subsidie s Agreement had been resolved, but this issue had
been among the easiest to resolve, and since it was the only substantive issue in the Decision, it
underlined the amount of ground yet to be covered.  His delegation wished to reiterate its interest in
participating in future consultations, in particular on subsidies.  In this respect, paragraph 6.2 of the
Decision was important to his delegation since it concerned Articles 27.5 and 27.6 of the Subsidies
Agreement which were special and differential treatment provisions.  In discussions on this issue,
some of the points of view expressed on these provisions were cause for concern for his delegation,
and this issue would need to be addressed in the consultations.
52. The representative of Guatemala said that the present Decision was a step forward, but it did
not contain many significant results from the mont hs of effort put into the process.  Only two
substantive paragraphs were contained in the present Decision, and her delegation was concerned thatmany issues of importance to it had been omitted, such as those in the areas of textiles, anti-dumping
and subsidies.  These issues had important implications for the trade of developing countries and her
delegation hoped that concrete results would soon be achieved in these areas.  The work on
implementation would continue, and while this was a difficult issue for developed Members, it was of
utmost importance to developing countries, and her delegation hoped that balance could be found inthe results.
53. The representative of Chile associated his delegation with the statement by Brazil, in
particular on the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.  The results of the
present process were modest thus far, but it would be premature to evaluate them now, since the first
three months of the coming year would reveal the consequences of the results obtained by then, inparticular with relation to the expectations attached to them and the possibilities they offered to
resolve the problems faced in implementation.
54. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was disappointed by the present results
and believed that more could have been achieved.  In the coming year, it would be important to reflectWT/GC/M/62
Page 17
on how to make the process more productive and mean ingful in the light of experience.  In this
respect, his delegation believed that the best way would be to place the exercise in a broader context,
with a view to launching a new round.
55. The representative of Korea said that while his delegation agreed with others that the present
results were modest, it believed that it was important to have some results at this stage, even if
modest.  In accordance with the 3 May Decision, the present Decision and the Chairman's statement
confirmed that the process would continue in the coming year and that all the issues would remain on
the table.  The present Decision should thus be seen as a mid-term result in a continuing process, and
his delegation hoped that it would help build a more constructive environment for further work.
Implementation issues were important and deserved priority attention in the coming year, but, in the
light of experience thus far, his delegation beli eved that the implementation review mechanism had
limitations in finding solutions to all of the issues raised.  For this reason, some of these issues mighthave a better chance of resolution if addressed in a different context, including broader negotiations.
Furthermore, it would soon be necessary to start the preparations for the fourth Ministerial
Conference, which should encompass the entire spectrum of WTO activities, while the present
process continued.  It would be important to ensure that the two processes were managed in an
efficient and mutually supportive manner.
56. The representative of Canada said that the present results were the maximum that could have
been achieved at this stage.  In the continuing process in the coming year, a constructive and realistic
approach by all delegations would allow further progress to be made.
57. The representative of Cuba said that the present results were modest, but that if the process
thus far had led to an improved environment in the search for results, the exercise had been
worthwhile.  There was now an awareness of the need to resolve implementation problems to allow
the focus to turn to other issues.  Political will, goodwill and determination were all required for the
resolution of these problems, which was important for the future of the organization and should be
achieved before the fourth Ministerial Conference in order for it to be a success.  There should be no
link established between implementation issues and the preparations for that Conference, anddeveloping countries should not be asked to  pay twice for the Uruguay Round Agreements.
58. The General Council took note of the statements.
__________