RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/67
29 August 2001
(01-4160)
General Council
Special Session on Implementation
20 July 2001
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 20 July 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong, China)
Subjects discussed:
1. Report by the General Council Chairm an and the Director-General on their
consultations on the outstanding implem entation-related issues and concerns
2. Organization of further work
1. The Chairman proposed that both agenda items be taken up together.
2. The General Council so agreed.
3. The Chairman presented a report by the Director-General and himself on the consultations
they had been carrying out on the outstanding implementation issues and concerns.  He recalled that at
the General Council Special Session on 27 April, he had reported on the consultations he had been
holding on the various subject areas.  His assessment had been that notwithstanding the considerable
time and effort dedicated to the implementation review mechanism by everyone, there was still aconsiderable gap between the positions of delegations.
4. He had stressed the need for the injection of fresh thinking into the process, so as to be able to
fulfil the mandate conferred by the General Council in its 3 May 2000 Decision.  He had underlined
the importance of flexibility and realism, and had said that clinging to well-known positions would
not help advance this vitally important work.  He had invited delegations which had ideas on how tomove the process forward to share them.
5. Since that meeting, Uruguay and six othe r Members (Argentina, Morocco, New Zealand,
Norway, Switzerland and Thailand, referred to as the "G-7") had taken up the challenge and had
produced a paper, which had been circulated to al l delegations, with a view to contributing to the
effort to find positive solutions.  He expressed his sincere gratitude to these seven countries for theirinitiative, hard work and spirit of compromise which, no doubt, had called for considerable effort in
terms of their own national positions.
6. He recalled that the G-7 paper was divided into four parts, namely (i) issues on which early
agreement could be reached; (ii) issues that have been solved, clarified, or appear relatively less
urgent; (iii) issues referred to subsidiary bodies to be taken up again possibly in September; and (iv)WT/GC/M/67
Page 2
other pending issues1.  The reactions to the G-7 paper had been generally positive, as many
delegations had expressed the view that it could help narrow the differences in the positions of
delegations on several of the proposals.
7. Following the initial discussion of the G-7 paper by delegations, he had announced that it
would be used as a basis for his further consultations on the subject, while bearing in mind theGeneral Council's mandate of 3 May 2000 and the views expressed by Members at the General
Council meeting of 21 June.  Subsequent to that, the Director-General and he had held a number of
consultations the previous week to discuss Section 1 of the G-7 paper which, as mentioned earlier,
contained proposals on which, in the view of the G-7 countries, it was possible to reach "early
agreement".  He said it was important to point out that by "early agreement", he understood that the
G-7 countries meant anytime between the present and the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
8. Following these consultations, and taking into account the need to move as rapidly as possible
to fulfil the mandate of the General Council in its 3 May 2000 Decision, the Director-General and he
had circulated a paper on 13 July (hereinafter the "Chairman's paper"
2) building on the work done by
the G-7 countries and identifying some elements on which they saw the possibility of early
agreement.  He reiterated, as was stated in the preface to this paper, that it was not to be considered as
an agreed or definitive text.  It was equally not an exhaustive list of possible elements.  Most notably,it did not include proposals on the tirets relating to anti-dumping, textiles and clothing, and TRIMs, as
consultations were continuing on these  tirets.  He also underlined that further consultations would be
convened to discuss the remaining elements in Section I, as well as Sections II, III and IV of the G-7
paper, with a view to determining which additiona l issues could be added to the list they had put
forward.  They had already begun these consultations.  He underlined that they saw this as acontinuing effort, bearing in mind the framework of the G-7 paper and the General Council's decision
of 3 May 2000.
9. He stressed that working on the basis of the G-7 paper did not in any way exclude early
decisions at any time on any points contained in that paper, if Members were able to agree on them.
This point had emphasized at the informal General Council meeting the previous day by thedelegation of Norway.
10. He suggested that delegations also focus at the present meeting on the elements that had been
suggested, which entailed that issues would be referred to subsidiary bodies for their consideration
and for them to report back to the General Council before the Fourth Ministerial Conference, so that
the General Council might be able to take action on the basis of the technical advice from these
bodies.  He was suggesting this for purely practical reasons:  the subsidiary bodies had to be allowed
adequate time to carry out their work and report back.  He underlined that he was very aware of theconcerns on the part of a number of delegations regarding such referrals.  He wanted to make it
absolutely clear that referral of issues to subsid iary bodies did not in any way mean that issues were
being neglected or set aside.  Any issues so referr ed to subsidiary bodies at the present stage would
remain under the General Council process, and the General Council would come back to them.  This
also did not in any way preclude the General Counc il from taking any action it deemed appropriate on
these or any other issues.
11. Also, in possibly forwarding these issues to the subsidiary bodies, he wanted to make two
things clear:  (i) that in addition to any specific mandates that had been provided, all of these bodies
should aim, in addressing and reporting on these issues to the General Council, to assist the General
Council to identify ways needed to resolve them and to take decisions for appropriate action in
                                                     
1 The phrase "capable of being resolved after Doha" at the end of point (iv), which was included in the
version of this report that was circulated at the meeting, has been deleted in order to reflect more accurately theheading used in the G-7 paper.
2 Circulated in JOB(01)/112.WT/GC/M/67
Page 3
accordance with the 3 May Decision;  and  (ii) that these reports should be submitted to the General
Council by 30 September.
12. Furthermore, to help address the concerns of Members, he also intended to request the
Chairpersons of subsidiary bodies to which issues had already been referred, to report back to the
General Council by the end of September, in sufficient time for these reports to be considered by thenext Special Session.  In this regard he had requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper indicating the
current status of all issues which had been referred to subsidiary bodies.  This had been circulated as
Job(01)/115.  This was in line with what the Director-General and he had foreshadowed in the preface
to their paper of 13 July, regarding information on progress being made on issues already referred to
subsidiary bodies.
13. The issues the Director-General and he were proposing, with Members' agreement, for
submission to the relevant subsidiary bodies for their consideration and reporting to the GeneralCouncil by 30 September, were the following:
14. Tiret 4 – The consideration by the Market Access Committee of the proposal that a Member
should be considered as having a substantial interest in a product when that product constitutes a
significant share of its exports.
15. Tiret 12 – The proposal requiring the SPS Committee to come up with concrete guidance in
relation to the negotiation and conclusion of equivalency agreements.
16. Tiret 56 – The proposal directing the Customs Valuation Committee to address Members'
concerns relating to fraud in customs matters.
17. Tiret 65 instructing the Subsidies Committee to  examine all the relevant conditions for
determining when export credits provided by developing-country members do not constitute exportsubsidies.
18. Tiret 68 requesting the Subsidies Committee to consider the implementation of Article 27 of
the SCM Agreement, taking into account the percentage share of exports of individual developing-
country Members' products in import markets and in global trade.
19. Tiret 80 requesting the SCM Committee to review the provisions of the SCM Agreement
regarding countervailing duty investigations.
20. Tiret 83 instructing the SCM Committee to exam ine the threshold in Annex VII to the SCM
Agreement and to consider the issues raised by developing-country Members in that regard.
21. Tiret 96 instructing the Committee on Trade and Development to review all S & D provisions
in the WTO Agreements with a view to determinin g how they could be operationalized and further
enhanced.
22. Members had reached a critical time in the preparatory process for Doha and it was
imperative for all delegations to engage constructively and show flexibility.  His consultations had
made it clear to him that all delegations attached the highest priority to the implementation issue and
would like to see it resolved within the shortest possible time.  Having said that, he wanted to reiterate
the need for realism, given the difficulties which some of the proposals presented.  An honest
dialogue was needed to move the process forward to the satisfaction of all delegations.
23. Many delegations thanked the Chairman and the Director-General for their report and their
considerable efforts in regard to implementation- related issues, and expressed confidence in their
leadership and in their process.  They also expressed appreciation for the G-7 paper, which they saidWT/GC/M/67
Page 4
had helped to inject a more constructive spirit into the discussions on implementation and had
provided momentum to the process.
24. The representative of the United States said that her delegation recognized the importance of
implementation issues to many countries and the need to find common ground where possible,
recognizing the broader context within which this  exercise had originally been initiated.  The
Chairman's  paper was an important next step in the continuing evolution of this process.  While there
were many elements of that paper that were very difficult for the United States, just as some of the
specific suggestions in the G-7 paper were sources of concern to her delegation, it was nonetheless
willing to endorse the paper and the proposal as  a fair way forward and to pursue the Chairman's
suggestions as a basis for further work.  Her delegation supported the proposals to refer a number of
issues to subsidiary bodies, recognizing that these were complex issues on which there remained
divergences of view and differences of opinion among Members that would benefit from expert input.The United States would engage constructively and in good faith on the substance.  It had taken
careful note of the intention expressed in the cover note to the paper to continue work and to turn to
issues that the paper had not covered, using the contribution of the G-7 and others as a helpful
approach to further consultations.  The United States supported the process the Chairman had laid out
and would continue to engage with a positive spirit,  recognizing that flexibility and creativity would
be required on the part of all concerned.
25. The representative of Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group
, said that
implementation-related issues and concerns was a subject to which all Members attached great
importance, as reflected in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration, in the
preparatory process for the Third Ministerial Conference, and in numerous subsequent discussions inthe General Council.  He recalled in particular the General Council Decision of 15 December 2000,
against which the African Group welcomed efforts in the Chairman's paper to identify elements on
which further progress could be made.  That  initiative had been timely, as progress on outstanding
implementation-related issues would be critical both to creating the right atmosphere as preparations
for Doha intensified, and to the outcome of Doha itself.  The African Group encouraged efforts toreach a satisfactory conclusion to this matter, taking into account the 15 December 2000 Decision.
However, the proposals advanced in the paper were far from comprehensive and reflected only the
present stage of consultations.  The African Group was concerned at the lack of meaningful progress
in resolving outstanding implementation-related issues to date.  As the Chairman had recognised, key
issues relating to TRIMs, anti-dumping, and textiles and clothing had been left out of the paper
altogether.  The African Group stood ready to work  for consensus in taking forward the elements
identified thus far, on the understanding that the remaining issues would be taken up before and atDoha in the light of the 15 December 2000 Decision, so that Ministers could give guidance on issues
that might not have been fully resolved.
26. In particular, and without prejudice to the positions of individual members of the African
Group, these Members attached special importance to  the following implementation issues that were
yet to be adequately addressed:  the proposals in tirets 2 and 4 were a good basis for advancing workin this area;  however, they urged the Committee on Market Access to expedite its consideration of
the proposal in tiret 4.  In addition to the proposal in tiret 5, there should be an urgent decision on
tiret 7, taking into account the elements contained in the proposals submitted by a group of countries
in document G/AG/W/49 and G/AG/W/ 49/Add.1.  Given the level of development of most African
countries, the phrase "longer time-frame" referred to in Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement and thephrase "reasonable interval" in Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement should be understood to mean not
less than 12 months, and the technical assistance provisions in these Agreements should be made
mandatory.  Further, the review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement foreseen
in Article 12.7 should be conducted every two years.  The proposals on tiret 56 provided a good basis
for advancing work in this area, and the African Group was keenly awaiting finalisation of the text ontechnical assistance currently being considered by  the Customs Valuation Committee.  On Annex VII
to the Subsidies Agreement, this review should ta ke into account the specificities and developmentWT/GC/M/67
Page 5
needs of a number of African countries.  On tiret 85, the proposal did not fully accommodate the
African Group's concerns;  an acceptable formulation should clearly state that "developed countries
shall fully implement commitments undertaken by them in Mode 4".  Further, there was a need for an
early decision on the implementation of Article IV provisions of GATS.  Regarding tiret 90,
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement should be made mandatory.  On tiret 92, he recalled that theAfrican Group had submitted proposals to the TRIPS Council on the issue of TRIPS and public health
containing elements for an appropriate decision to be taken by Ministers at Doha.  Thus, it would be
advisable to await the outcome of current discus sions in the TRIPS Council.  Regarding line 4 of
tiret 96, the African Group preferred a formulation that made specific reference to making operational
and binding S&D provisions in WTO Agreements.  They welcomed the proposals on tirets 97 and 99.
27. These comments were limited to the proposals that had been made at the present stage and
were not exhaustive.  The African Group remained committed to the resolution of all outstandingimplementation-related issues and concerns in the light of the 15 December 2000 Decision.  Further
issues of concern to the African Group were the following:  the expeditious granting of the waiver
request for the ACP/EU Partnership Agreement;  the need to revisit Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and
the 1979 Enabling Clause to ensure sufficient flexibility in regional trade agreements among
developing countries and between developed and developing countries;  further action towardsimplementation of the Marrakesh Declaration on Achieving Greater Coherence in Global Economic
Policy-Making;  the need to make technical assistance a core activity of the WTO and in this regard to
substantially increase the regular budget for tech nical assistance;  the need for the WTO and other
international organisations to continue and increase technical and capacity-building assistance
activities through the Integrated Framework and the strengthening and expansion to more Africancountries of the Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme for Selected Least Developed and
Other African Countries (JITAP);  and the granting of permanent observer status to the OAU, the
Arab League and other intergovernmental organisations whose applications had been pending for a
long time.  All Members had a stake in seeing implementation-related issues through to a satisfactory
conclusion.
28. The representative of Korea said that the report put elements forward in a positive and
pragmatic manner by suggesting some parameters and a possible way forward.  It would thus be a
good starting point for the forthcoming discussi on on this important subject, which would be
conducive to preparing decisions on implementation before Doha.  Korea hoped to be able to address
as soon as possible the remaining issues in Section 1 of the G-7 paper, such as anti-dumping, textiles
and TRIMS, as well as issues in Sections 2, 3 and 4.  It supported the suggestion to refer some issues
to subsidiary bodies, since further technical and expert input was required for a meaningful outcome.This work would require a sense of urgency.  Members were more aware of the nature of each
implementation issue, and it was encouraging that there was now a higher level of engagement on
these issues since the G-7 paper had been submitted.  More important, there was movement towards
convergence through enhanced understanding of the issues.  Korea encouraged the major players and
other key interested Members to increase their leadership role.  In parallel with discussions onimplementation issues, there was also a need to expedite other processes in preparation for the Fourth
Ministerial Conference.  In particular, his delegation wished to continue consultations on bullet points
3 and 4 of the Chairman's checklist of issues
3, which were also of great importance to other Members.
29. The representative of Japan said that the efforts of the G-7 countries and also of the Chairman
and Director-General had been very positive and constructive.  The report by the Chairman and the
Director-General reflected their best efforts to make a fair assessment of the situation, taking into
account the positions and views expressed by a number of countries in consultations.  The Chairman's
paper offered a good and useful basis for meaningful packages on implementation issues.  While there
were still some points on which further clarification and examination were necessary, Japan would
address these and other remaining implementation issues in good faith and with all seriousness, and
                                                     
3 JOB(01)/51.WT/GC/M/67
Page 6
would make utmost efforts to respond to them in a positive manner by Doha.  As for the referral of
certain issues to subsidiary bodies, this was a good practical suggestion in view of the nature of those
issues, and Japan could support it. However, this exercise should not be a pretext to delay crucial
decisions, and Japan also supported the proposal to  set clear deadlines for reports by the subsidiary
bodies.
30. The representative of Sri Lanka said that if the Chairman's paper was to constitute a positive
evolution in the implementation review, it should yield concrete and meaningful decisions on these
issues.  A number of issues were being referred to subsidiary bodies and consultations would continue
on remaining issues.  Real progress would be when the General Council had before it agreed language
for adoption in the form of decisions on these issues.  Therefore, the paper in its present form did not
meet Sri Lanka's expectations, as it had not yielded the desired results and fell short of minimum
requirements.  In addition, future consultations had to include tirets on textiles and clothing, andanti-dumping.  On textiles,  this should include:  elimination of all restraints on imports from small
suppliers;  elimination of restrictions on children's clothing up to size 14;  advancing implementation
of growth-on-growth to 1 January 2000;  agreed perc entage uplift in quota levels at the end of the
current year, in which quota utilisation exceeded 95 per cent;  and application of growth-on-growth
methodology used by EC developing countries.  The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC)
provided the necessary flexibility to implement such decisions, which might not require any
amendment of domestic legislation in restraining developed countries, as domestic legislation could
not take away flexibility available in the ATC.  Therefore, progress in this area was possible and
would help to build developing countries' confidence in the multilateral trading system.  Sri Lanka
accepted the proposal to instruct the Committee on Trade and Development (COMTD) to review allS&D provisions, and a sense of urgency should be injected into this directive.  He noted that the
COMTD had had an item on its agenda on review and examination of the application of S&D
provisions since 1998.  The Secretariat, on the Committee's request, had compiled useful information
on the implementation of S&D provisions of the WTO Agreements, as well as on any difficulties in
that respect.  One such document (WT/COMTD/W/35), which contained information onimplementation experiences collected from Members, reflected points raised in various WTO
meetings and issues raised in Trade Policy Reviews.  Based on the information contained in this
document and in supplements to it, the COMTD should be directed to identify legal means as to how
the provisions could be operationalized in a meaningful manner, and to identify the measures to
enhance those provisions in order to achieve the objectives of Part IV, with a report to the General
Council before 30 September.
31. On TRIPS his delegation agreed that the implementation review mechanism should leave
aside all TRIPS-related issues until the TRIPS Council had presented its recommendations to the
General Council on the relationship between the TRI PS Agreement and health policy, since this issue
had been listed under implementation issues much earlier and was now being addressed in special
sessions of the TRIPS Council.  In the subsidies area, tirets 67, 82 and 83 did not meet the
expectations of many developing countries, incl uding Sri Lanka, to whom these issues were of
particular importance.  Sri Lanka strongly supported amending paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 of Annex VII to
the Subsidies Agreement to read as follows:  "The developing country Members not subject to the
provisions of paragraph 1(a) of Article 3 under the terms of paragraph 2(a) of Article 27 are:  (a) the
developing countries, including the least-developed countries, Members of the WTO that are included
up to and in the Lower-Middle Income Category of the World Bank.  Countries indicated inparagraph 1(a) above should be excluded from this Annex if their GNP per capita has exceeded the
top level of the Lower-Middle Income Category of the World Bank for three consecutive years.  They
will be automatically re-included in this Annex if their GNP per capita falls below the top level of the
Lower-Middle Income Category of the World Bank."  On the referrals to subsidiary bodies, his
delegation agreed that the General Council should give clear guidelines on issues to be addressed andrecommendations to be made, and that these bodies should report by 30 September to the General
Council.  Sri Lanka also shared the view that im provements both in substance and language to the
elements set out in the Chairman's paper needed to be made if these were to address implementationWT/GC/M/67
Page 7
issues in a meaningful manner.  In this context, an informal paper from a group of developing
countries would be submitted as a contribution to addressing the implementation issues in Section 1 of
the G-7 paper, some of which had been subsequently elaborated in the Chairman's paper.  This
contribution should form an integral part of consultations on these issues.  His delegation, like many
other developing countries, attached significant importance to addressing implementation issues andfinding meaningful solutions before Doha.  Addressing these issues in a meaningful way and taking
decisions would help build confidence in the multilateral trading system and in domestic
constituencies.
32. The representative of Guatemala expressed his delegation's concern over the lack of progress
on tiret 83 and other matters in the Chairman's paper.  That paper was a step backward rather than
forward.  His delegation was trying to maintain a positive outlook but could not support the proposal
in tiret 83, which was crucial to Guatemala’s economy.  Guatemala had exhausted its reserves ofpatience and flexibility, and now awaited concrete progress and results.  It realised with dismay that
the most it could possibly hope for before Doha was a subsidiary body report to the General Council
on this matter, as this was all that was requested in tiret 83. Guatemala wondered what contribution
the subsidiary body could make to this matter, since it was not a technical issue.
33. The representative of Honduras said that although the Chairman's paper took into account the
General Council Decision of 15 December 2000, most of the solutions it put forward were far from
meeting expectations.  His delegation had previously said that the G-7 paper could be deemed a
positive contribution and a starting-point for further work, but that it remained convinced that use
should have been made of paragraphs 21 and 22 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999,
which included proposals that would lead to an  acceptable solution to implementation concerns.
However, as a sign of flexibility and goodwill, it had refrained from rejecting the G-7 paper.  His
delegation's concern over the Chairman's paper became even more acute in regard to the proposal to
refer to subsidiary bodies matters that should be dealt with by the General Council.  One such case
was the proposal on Annex VII to the Subsidies Agreement, which was a matter of particular concern
since no substantive headway had been made by the subsidiary body, nor had a report been made tothe General Council reflecting any progress on this issue.  His delegation therefore considered that
this proposal should remain in the General Council, since the decision required was purely political
and there was no reason for it to be discussed at a technical level.  On this basis, his delegation was
unable to accept the referral of this proposal to the respective subsidiary body.  Developing countries
had shown flexibility in many instances over the pa st two years, both in this General Council and in
the subsidiary bodies.  The time had come for the ma in trading partners to show some flexibility in
return and to help resolve the implementation problems that beset a great many developing countries.His delegation, together with several others, w ould submit a paper putting forward alternative
solutions that would meet their implementation concer ns so that these could be approved prior to the
Fourth Ministerial Conference.  In addition, positive steps could be taken in relation to this paper even
before that meeting, at the end of July, with a view to drawing up a balanced agenda for Doha that
reflected the interests of all WTO Members.
34. The representative of India recalled that the 3 May 2000 Decision gave a deadline for
resolution of implementation issues which was linked to the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  In good
faith his delegation had said it could use the G-7 paper as a trigger for further intensive consultations,
so that meaningful decisions could be taken at the present Special Session.  The Chairman and the
Director-General had recently circulated what they had called elements for moving the processforward.  While India understood and appreciated the spirit behind that effort, the paper had caused a
lot of anxiety for his delegation.  The first major problem was that many important subjects from
Section 1 of the G-7 paper, such as textiles, anti-dumping and TRIMs, had been left out of the paper.
India was also concerned that a large number of matters were being proposed for referral to subsidiary
bodies, as this was not a solution in and of itself.  One of India's major concerns about the paperrelated to the TRIPS Agreement, where the paper identified some elements regarding TRIPS and
public health that would create an even worse situation than the existing one.  The ongoing discussionWT/GC/M/67
Page 8
in the TRIPS Council on this matter should be allowed to conclude before further work was
attempted.  India, along with a number of other Members, was trying to make a contribution with a
view to fine-tuning what had been suggested in the G-7 paper and the Chairman's paper, and hoped
that in the days to come there could be intensiv e consultations on this matter in order to move the
process forward.  Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the G-7 paper were equally important and appropriateconsultations should be held on them with a view to finding solutions to all of these issues at the
earliest possible time.
35. Regarding the referral of some issues to subordinate bodies, the proponent of the proposal in
tiret 4 should be consulted on this action.  Regardin g tiret 12, this issue had already been referred to
the SPS Committee which was in the final stages of finalizing its report.  Therefore, it was neither
necessary nor useful to refer this tiret again to th at Committee.  The latter should be asked to submit
its report by the end of July at the latest.  Regarding tiret 56, there was no purpose in sending thismatter back to the Customs Valuation Committee.  Re garding tiret 65, India could agree to refer it to
the subsidiary body, but there should be some overarching guidelines for consideration of this issue.
Regarding tiret 68, the Subsidies Committee was currently examining this matter which should not be
referred again to that Committee.  Regarding ti ret 80, India could go along with the referral.
Regarding tiret 83, this was an intensely political question and not a technical issue, and it would bemore appropriate for the General Council to hold consultations on it.  Regarding tiret 96, India could
go along with the referral.  He suggested that the deadlines for reports from the subsidiary bodies be
staggered, with those on matters already referred having deadlines prior to 30 September, in order to
avoid having a large number of reports submitted at the same time.  Further, all necessary logistics for
the meetings of these bodies should be set well in advance in order to ensure completion of the workby the deadline set.  India would continue to engage positively in the process on implementation
issues and hoped that intensive consultations would be held in order to try to reach solutions on at
least some of these issues, on the understanding that issues which had not yet been covered would be
taken up very soon.  He expressed India's gratitude to the US for its gesture in being the first speaker
at the present meeting, and trusted that this gesture would be translated into meaningful decisions inthe days to come.
36. The representative of the Dominican Republic recalled that the implementation review
mechanism had been created on 3 May 2000 as a core element of a strategy to restore confidence in
the multilateral trading system in the wake of the Seattle meeting.  The Director-General had
expressed his satisfaction with the creation of this mechanism which was to help solve the more
complicated problems experienced by developing countries in implementing the results of the
Uruguay Round.  More than a year had passed since then, but not one implementation problem hadyet been resolved.  Of the long list of issues covered in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the draft Seattle
Declaration, a few had been referred to subsidiary  bodies, while the great majority continued to await
settlement by the General Council.  A paper had been submitted by the Chairman and the Director-
General based on the useful G-7 paper, and the Dominican Republic, together with Cuba, Egypt,
Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakist an, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe,
had prepared a paper indicating their acceptance of several of the proposals outlined in these two
papers, and suggesting slight amendments, in the form of alternative contributions, to the texts of
both.  These delegations hoped that the paper would be deemed a constructive contribution to the
implementation process.  They felt that this was the best way to ensure that their voices were heard in
the consultations currently under way, to which his delegation had not been invited.  Should adecision be taken to refer some of these issues to subsidiary bodies, they would like the suggestions in
their paper to be taken into consideration.
37. However, his delegation wished to make a formal objection to the referral of tiret 83 to the
Subsidies Committee, as it did not believe that this Committee had anything to contribute to the
discussion of this issue.  This matter required a purely political decision by the Ministerial Conferenceor the General Council.  This proposal had been backed on two occasions by the 79 ACP Ministers,
the members of the Like-Minded Group of countries  and members of the Paradisus Group, which wasWT/GC/M/67
Page 9
presently coordinated by the Dominican Republic.  Failure to raise the threshold of Annex VII would
mean that many developing countries would have to dismantle their few truly effective development
policies aimed at diversifying exports and overcoming a situation that had resulted from colonial
times.  A further consequence of such a failure would be to prove right those members of civil society
who had criticized the Uruguay Round Agreements for their distorting effect on development.  Tiret83 would thus have to be included in the set of implementation problems subject to decisions
requiring immediate action either before or after the Doha meeting.  His delegation hoped that other
tirets that could benefit from decisions requiring immediate action could also be identified at the
present meeting.
38. The representative of the European Communities said that implementation was and remained
in the forefront of the Community's concerns.  It  was committed to working constructively toward a
meaningful package of decisions between the present time and Doha.  The present meeting would bean opportunity to reinforce this commitment and to move into a higher gear.  The Community's
assessment of the situation was certainly more optimistic than others'.  One had to look at the
dynamics of the process and make interpretations in a positive way.  His delegation was doing this,
from the perspective of one of the major trading pa rtners who would have to deliver and was prepared
to do so.  The G-7 paper had been more than useful in getting the negotiating process under way.  Hewas aware that other papers had also been submitted, and these would be examined positively.  The
Community had engaged itself and was looking hard at how to be able to deliver.  This involved not
only political will, but also a process of persuasion in each of its domestic constituencies, in which he
and others were investing heavily and would continue to do so.  While some of the implementation
issues might appear to be easier to resolve, others  were very sensitive in many of the countries that
would have to deliver on them.
39. The Chairman's paper constituted more than elements for further progress – it provided the
perspective of meaningful decisions on the issues it covered.  While a number of proposals might
require some fine tuning, others would need more  in-depth examination, but he would not comment
on them specifically at the present meeting.  He acknowledged that not all issues had been coveredand that some hard work needed to be done on textiles and anti-dumping, both of which were
sensitive issues in some constituencies and would need careful handling.  Even here, the Community
would be ready to engage, within  a wider context, to seek some positive results.  The Community
agreed that the subsidiary bodies should be asked to help shape further decisions, and that guidance
and precise time-frames for reporting should be set.  While one had to take account of practical
constraints regarding the number of meetings that could be held, these bodies could make a valuable
contribution in helping pave the way for decisions or solutions satisfactory to all.  The Communityregretted that some operational decisions were not being taken at the present juncture, even if these
might have been considered falling short of expectations, and hoped that further consultations might
make it possible to take decisions on TRIMs before the end of July.  It was open to looking at other
inputs and would continue to work in good faith towards meaningful decisions by the time of the
Doha Ministerial.
40. The representative of Turkey said that the concept of sections in the G-7 paper had opened the
way for future-oriented thinking.  The Chairman's paper was another step forward, and Turkey could
accept it, complemented with elements on the two or three issues it did not include, as the basis for
work between now and Doha.  The statement by the United States clearly indicated that further
progress was possible.  While only modest results might be attained by the time of Doha, it wasimportant that the results of work until then should be a clear signal that developing countries would
have an increasingly stronger say in WTO affairs and that the implementation exercise would
continue in regard to the remaining issues.
41. The representative of Colombia said that the Chairman's paper was a development of the G-7
paper, which had put fresh impetus into work on implementation.  Colombia agreed on referring
certain additional issues to subsidiary bodies, but on condition that there be clear deadlines for thisWT/GC/M/67
Page 10
work.  In addition, guidance from the General Council on these and earlier referrals was important, as
the subsidiary bodies' work should be basically technical in nature.  For example, on one of the issues
already referred, the subsidiary body had questioned whether the issue was implementation-related.
This was not a determination for the subsidiary body to make.  Apart from these referrals, there were
15 tirets on which the General Council was to reach agreement and take decisions, and thus far therewas agreement on only tiret 15 on SPS.  On the other 14 tirets, it would be positive to have clear
responses as to whether the proposals were generally acceptable.  There were proposals in the
Chairman's paper of considerable interest to Colombia, for example tirets 4, 5, 56 and 65, and his
delegation hoped that solutions could be quickly found on these.
42. The representative of Mexico said that the Chairman's paper was a step forward in the
implementation process and would enable progress to be made.  This was a critical stage in the
preparatory process for Doha, and failure could not be risked.  Mexico hoped that all Members, inevaluating the proposals, would take into account not only criteria related to individual interests but
also those relating to the promotion of a solid and efficient multilateral trading system.
43. The representative of Venezuela said the progress that had been made on implementation was
thus far very modest, as could be seen in the scope of issues dealt with in consultations and in the
proposed solutions on the table.  His delegation would have liked to have been able to take
substantive decisions on at least some of the issues that were of concern and importance to developing
countries.  The G-7 paper in some cases proposed simple and straightforward interpretations of S&D
treatment provisions in Uruguay Round Agreements, but it seemed that even on these points it would
not be possible to take any decisions at the present meeting.  Venezuela had been participating
constructively in the Doha preparatory process, and was willing to consider issues of interest to otherMembers on their merits if this would help make progress on implementation issues.  If the WTO
could not respond to the real concerns of a large number of its Members that had resulted from the
implementation of existing agreements, Venezuel a wondered how these same countries could be
asked to embark on a new, wide-ranging round of multilateral trade negotiations.  This could not be
done on the basis of vague and general mandates that included only a certain amount of flexibility onthe implementation of commitments, and a vague promise of technical assistance.  Venezuela would
not take a firm position at the present meeting on the proposals in the Chairman's paper because it still
hoped that it would be possible to achieve solutions to some other problems on which it had made
proposals.  It appeared that the only decision the General Council could adopt at the present meeting
was on the referral of issues to subsidiary bodies.  There was still an enormous amount of work to be
done.  Acceptance of the methodology providing for consultations on the proposals in Sections 2, 3
and 4 of the G-7 paper did not prejudge the relevance or importance of the issues under discussion.  Inother words, the document was not merely a tool for classification or categorization of the issues.
Venezuela had full confidence in the Chairman regarding both the implementation and preparatory
process exercises, and could accept his suggestion on the referral of issues to the subsidiary bodies.
44. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation had taken note of the Chairman's
suggestions regarding elements on which further progress could be made and would examine them
carefully.  Jamaica shared a certain pessimism about the current state of this process, in that rather
than having decisions to consider and agree on so th at the mandate to complete this work by the time
of the Fourth Ministerial Conference could be complied with, Members were being primarily asked to
refer a number of proposals – some of which had already been altered from their original form – to
subsidiary bodies for consideration.  Experience did not suggest the likelihood of decisive results onthese issues, and the fact that this work would take time meant a period of further uncertainty
regarding the outcome of the implementation process.  Apart from the substantive issues raised,
implementation was vital to the post-Seattle confiden ce-building process.  It now seemed certain there
would be no meaningful progress on implementation issues, which was an essential element for a
successful preparatory process and Ministerial meeting.WT/GC/M/67
Page 11
45. Implementation issues of particular interest to Jamaica were:  tiret 4 on substantial interest
and small suppliers;  tiret 83 on Annex VII to the Subsidies Agreement;  tiret 99 on the redistribution
of negotiating rights;  tiret 7 on net food-importing developing countries;  the cross-cutting issues on
S&D treatment and on preferential arrangements – those falling within the scope of the Enabling
Clause and those governed by waivers;  and proposals on the SPS and TBT Agreements.  Jamaica waskeenly interested in participating in the process fo r dealing with these and other issues not included in
the Chairman's paper.  His delegation hoped that all interested delegations would be included in the
respective consultations in what appeared in some respects to be an increasingly opaque process.
While limited consultations might at times be necessary, transparency was a critical element in
confidence-building.  Given the mandate in the Decision of 3 May and the urgency of resolving
implementation issues, it was essential that specific mandates and time-frames be applied to the issues
referred to subsidiary bodies.  Progress would lie not in simply referring these matters, but in doing soin circumstances in which there was genuine likelihood of positive, decisive and timely outcomes.
Jamaica did not believe that on many of these issues, given the time allotted, these bodies could be
expected to make major progress without clear guidance for their technical considerations and input.
In any event, tiret 83 was a matter requiring political decision and guidance.  Some good proposals
had been made by Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group, Sri Lanka and India that his delegationhoped would assist further progress.
46. The representative of Cuba said that while Cuba recognized the efforts to promote the issue of
implementation and to obtain commitments from developed countries, it was not appropriate to speak
of progress when over 90 implementation issues remained to be resolved in the General Council and
the subsidiary bodies.  This figure reflected the real situation and the lack of political will on the partof developed-country partners.  No satisfactory solution had been found to implementation proposals
for the issues in question.  The solutions proposed were far below Cuba's expectations, and in some
cases were a step backward with regard to what was established in the Agreements.  In others, issues
had simply been referred to the subsidiary bodies or made the subject of consultations.  In this regard,
Cuba supported the statements by Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, the Dominican Republic, India, Honduras
and Jamaica.  It also supported the proposal by Saint Lucia and the appropriate treatment of health
within the framework of the TRIPS Council.
47. In order to help find a prompt solution to implementation issues and as further proof of its
flexibility, Cuba, in conjunction with a number of other delegations, was working on a paper
proposing solutions to the various elements in the G-7 paper, and hoped that it would be taken into
consideration in, and prove of value to, future cons ultations.  Given the urgent need to resolve such
issues and the little time remaining before Doha, concrete results on implementation issues had to beachieved by the end of July, in particular with regard to the elements in Section 1 of the G-7 paper,
where Cuba had yet to see evidence that the major trading countries were taking the demands of
developing countries into consideration.  Regardin g the proposal to refer some issues to subsidiary
bodies, experience to date had shown that none of the issues already referred had found any solution,
for example tirets 4, 65, 68 and 80.  In particular, Cuba could not agree to refer the proposal on AnnexVII to the Subsidies Agreement to the subsidiary body, as this proposal required political will and not
technical consideration.  The General Council had to  remain the body dealing with concerns raised by
developing countries.  Regarding procedure, issues should be dealt with within the framework of
wide-ranging consultations in which all Members could participate.  Cuba's response to other
initiatives in WTO would, to a great extent, depend on progress on implementation.  The outcome ofthe present discussion would have a particular impact on the credibility of the multilateral trading
system, in particular for developing countries.  Failure could have incalculable consequences for all
Members.
48. The representative of Brazil said that Members had to approach the considerable amount of
work remaining to be done with an enhanced sense of urgency and seriousness.  Brazil would look at
the Chairman's paper in that spirit and would give its reaction to individual suggestions in due course.
However, it was not reassured by the procedural handling of such a large number of issues that hadWT/GC/M/67
Page 12
been singled out by the G-7 for early agreement.  While the procedural treatment proposed contained
a kind of built-in sense of urgency, it had to be clear that the items referred to subsidiary bodies would
receive the attention they deserved and would not again be dealt with procedurally in the future.  The
development of guidance and guidelines for this work would be indispensable for Brazil to work
constructively in this respect.  In addition, Brazil was not reassured by the language in tiret 92 onTRIPS and health, which represented a step backwards not only with respect to the G-7 formulation,
but also with respect to the articles of the TRIPS Agreement themselves, by suggesting an unduly
restrictive reading of the latter.  Members should follow closely discussions taking place in the TRIPS
Council and try to work in parallel with developmen ts there.  On a slightly more positive note, Brazil
could support the language on agriculture in tiret 5.  Developing countries should be given flexibility
in implementing measures notified under the green box, especially regarding rural development and
food-security concerns.  Since those measures were supposed to have little or no trade-distorting
effect, it was unlikely they would be challenged in any event.  Brazil could also support the language
in tirets 9 and 10 on SPS.  He underlined the paramount importance of reaching meaningful results on
implementation by the Doha Ministerial, and encour aged the Chairman to intensify his efforts on the
remaining items: textiles, anti-dumping, TRIMs, and those items included under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of
the G-7 paper.  Brazil would also look at other inputs being proposed, and might suggest somelanguage for some of the tirets.  His delegation would work intensively to achieve meaningful
progress.  Satisfactory results on implementation would be a critical ingredient for a successful
Ministerial meeting in Doha.  He preferred not to contemplate the negative impact that failure to
achieve such results could have.
49. The representative of El Salvador expressed concern at the lack of satisfactory results and the
slow pace of progress on implementation issues.  On 14 June 1999, a group of developing countries,
including El Salvador, had presented a series of proposals on implementation issues within the
framework of preparations for the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  Two years had passed with no
satisfactory response received from their trading partners.  The latter had to show signs of flexibility
so that the deadline stipulated in the 3 May Decision could be met.  For many poor countries,including El Salvador, resolving implementation problems was a matter of particular importance,
since this would help to rectify the imbalances resulting from the Uruguay Round and would lead to
their fuller integration into the multilateral trading sy stem.  El Salvador had a particular interest in the
proposal on Annex VII to the Subsidies Agreement, which it had always felt was an issue requiring a
political decision rather than technical consideration, and which therefore should remain in the
General Council.  It was imperative to resolve implementation problems so that new commitments
could be taken on.  His delegation would work constructively to achieve mutually acceptablesolutions, and could have accepted the suggestion to refer the Annex VII issue to the Subsidies
Committee for examination – despite the fact that it considered this to be a step backward – had
attempts been made to establish a clear, precise mandate.  However, in view of the opposition of
several delegations to this referral, this issue shou ld continue to be discussed in the General Council.
50. The representative of Pakistan said that notwithstanding the initiative by the G-7, and not
withstanding the Chairman's and the Director-G eneral's endeavours to put forward a text, his
delegation, as many other developing countries, had a sense of both disappointment and frustration at
the present stage.  There had not only been a delay in the outcome that had been so long anticipated,
but also a progressive diminution in the levels of ambition developing countries were being asked to
entertain on implementation.  While paragraph 21 of the draft Seattle text of 19 October 1999contained roughly 50 proposals for early or immedi ate action, and the G-7 paper contained roughly 20
proposals for early action, the recently submitted Chairman's paper contained only around 10,
excluding the procedural proposals.  Further, the substance of the proposals was also disappointing.
The proposals would not add much to rectifying the imbalance of the Uruguay Round Agreements,
and most disappointing of all, thus far the key issues of textiles and anti-dumping, as well as TRIMs,had not even been addressed.  While there had been consultations on TRIMs, these had thus far been
unsatisfactory.  Consultations on textiles had started only one day earlier, and consultations on anti-
dumping implementation issues had yet to be held.  The fact that for more than two years, the GeneralWT/GC/M/67
Page 13
Council had been unable to come to grips with proposals on textiles and anti-dumping indicated a
collective failure of will to respond to the concerns of developing countries.  For Pakistan, 60 per cent
of whose trade interests were concentrated in textiles and clothing, this failure was directly related to
the level of disappointment and frustration it felt with regard to the present exercise.  His delegation
wondered where this downward trend would e nd, or whether implementation proposals would
continue to be denuded until they were totally meaningless.
51. Regarding the question of referring issues to subsidiary bodies, Pakistan had been averse to
such a course of action because of its sense that issues so referred did not seem to re-surface.  It had
urged that such issues be returned the General Council as soon as possible.  Any deadline – and
30 September was the outer limit for new referrals – should apply also to those issues already
referred.  Regarding the proposals for new referrals, there should be specific guidelines for action by
the subsidiary body in question.  Among the proposals in the Chairman's paper, tiret 12 had alreadybeen referred on 18 October 2000 to the SPS Committee, which should be urged to finalize its work
and make its report at a definite date.  Tiret 56 had been referred on the same date to the Customs
Valuation Committee, and it seemed pointless to refer it again.  That Committee should be asked to
report as soon as possible.  Tiret 68 had been referred on 15 December 2000 to the Subsidies
Committee, which should be urged to make its report.  On tiret 83, Pakistan agreed with those whodid not think this should be referred to the Subsidies Committee.  Regarding other issues, his
delegation was prepared to work with the Chairman on the specific guidelines to be provided for such
referrals.  Despite some of the interventions made at the present meeting, Pakistan continued to be
extremely concerned about the lack of progress on implementation.  At the "reality check" meeting on
30 July, Members would have to evaluate where they were and where they should go in the processtowards Doha.  If by then Pakistan felt there was no prospect of meaningful results on implementation
issues, the levels of ambition for Doha would have to be severely constrained and, apart from
implementation issues, focussed on progress relating to the built-in agenda.
52. The representative of Egypt fully supported the statement by Zimbabwe on behalf of the
African Group.  The present meeting was a critical juncture, and a moment of truth, in the painful
history of the implementation process.  The present situation regarding implementation issues was, to
say the least, dismal.  With a genuine spirit of flexibility and a serious sense of engagement, Egypt
had been willing to work on the basis of the G-7 paper as a starting-point for faithful and serious
negotiations on implementation, even though the paper fell short of its expectations.  Unfortunately,
and despite the Chairman's tireless efforts, no results had been achieved.  The Chairman's paper was
effectively a bridging proposal, which again fell far below Egypt's expectations and left out key issues
such as textiles, anti-dumping and TRIMs.  Time and time again the proponents of implementationissues had been presented with proposals that did not provide adequate solutions to legitimate
concerns, despite the obligation to do so contained in the 3 May General Council Decision.  Twenty-
six months later there was neither a clear nor a concrete response from major trading partners.  For
Egypt, a concrete response meant readiness to adopt relevant decisions on the respective proposals.
53. Regarding the tirets to be referred to the subsidiary bodies, his delegation was prepared to go
along with this, provided there was a serious commitment by those bodies to present the General
Council with complete operational decisions in the time-frame set.  In this regard, the deadlines had to
be respected.  He suggested the Chairman hold consultations the following week with all interested
delegations to set out the guidelines, criteria and time-frames for the subsidiary bodies' work on the
referred issues.  His delegation would also like to know the Chairman's intention regarding tirets thatwere not to be referred to subsidiary bodies.  His delegation and several others would submit an
informal paper containing suggested ideas for achieving progress.  This paper reflected a stretching of
their flexibility to the limits in order to move the process forward, not only to a higher gear but
hopefully to a final destination.  Egypt hoped that what seemed to be a positive note struck by several
of the major trading partners at the present meeting would be translated into concrete action forimmediate decision.  That was the litmus test – a test of Members' credibility and a challenge that had
to be faced.WT/GC/M/67
Page 14
54. The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation viewed the Chairman's paper as a
further step in the direction of attempting to find solutions.  It had taken note that the elements in the
paper should not be considered as exclusive or agreed or definitive, and that the Chairman would
continue consultations on all of the other proposals , including those in Section 4 of the G-7 paper.
However, time was running short.  These issues had been on the table for almost two years andneeded resolution immediately, in any case by the time of the Doha Ministerial Conference.  His
delegation, like many other developing countries, was deeply disappointed with the progress achieved
thus far.  Merely relegating subjects for consideration to subsidiary bodies, while it might give the
optical illusion that there was movement or prog ress, was not the solution.  What was needed were
concrete decisions that addressed the imbalances in existing WTO agreements and operationalized the
dead letters in GATT 1994.  This was not to say that Malaysia was not happy with any of the
proposals in the Chairman's paper;  for example, on tiret 96 which referred work to the Committee onTrade and Development, his delegation hoped that work in the Committee would have a positive
outcome.  While Malaysia was willing to consider providing guidance on at least some of the issues to
be referred to subsidiary bodies, the Like-Minded Group of countries intended to submit alternative
suggestions for the solutions outlined in the Chairman's paper.  It was hoped that this submission
would become part of the consultative proces s and would be taken as a positive contribution.
55. Regarding the proposed referrals, tiret 56 on customs evaluation and 68 on subsidies did not
need to be referred to the respective subsidia ry bodies, since the Committee on Customs Valuation
had already completed its work on tiret 56, and while recognizing that a problem of fraud existed, had
not found any solutions.  This issue should be dealt with in the General Council.  Similarly, the
Subsidies Committee had deliberated and continued to deliberate on tiret 68 under the mandateprovided earlier, and there was no utility in providing a new mandate.  Further, the report from that
Committee was due at the end of July.  If the matter remained unresolved at that point, the Committee
could be given a firm deadline for its deliberations.  With regard to tiret 83 on Annex VII to the
Subsidies Agreement, this should be dealt with in, and required a decision by, the General Council,
and there was no utility in passing it on to the Subsidies Committee for its input.  In closing, he notedthat the major trading partners had shown a very encouraging and positive attitude at the present
meeting and had consistently indicated their readiness and willingness to work to resolve
implementation issues.  Regrettably, however, that enthusiasm and vigour had not been reflected in
the consultations on these issues, as could be seen in the lack of progress.  Malaysia hoped that what
had been said at the present meeting by those Members would be reflected in future consultations, and
that the major trading partners would collectively strengthen their resolve to find genuine and
meaningful solutions to implementation issues.
56. The representative of Bolivia said that despite the energy and persistence of the Chairman, the
Director-General and his Deputies,  the desired results still had not been achieved.  Bolivia supported
the statements by Honduras and others.  For Bolivia, a small economy, the implementation process
was a source of hope.  It wanted its few export products to be able to be exported to more countries
and under better conditions, without discrimination, so that it could correct the problems of the failureto implement phytosanitary and sanitary measures properly and the problems related to textiles and
clothing.  Points 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement had been dealt with in the G-7 paper, which
proposed that the deadline set in Article 2.10 shou ld be understood to be a minimum of six months.
This proposal did not cover even the most minimal expectations of countries like Bolivia, which had
been affected by the non-application or misguided application of this provision.  The results achievedto date had been virtually non-existent, and the time left before Doha was running out fast.  Bolivia
again appealed to its major trading partners to show real political will and to make it possible to find a
more flexible and wide-ranging solution to implementation problems.  Bolivia reiterated its
confidence in the Chairman and would support him in his continued efforts to find a solution
satisfactory to all concerned.  The credibility of the WTO was on the line, as was the credibility of itsfuture work.WT/GC/M/67
Page 15
57. The representative of Indonesia said that despite the serious efforts made, the Chairman's
paper failed to satisfactorily resolve implementation concerns, as it did not present satisfactory
solutions to the problems raised and excluded proposals on problems of paramount importance to
Indonesia, such as those in the areas of textiles and clothing, and anti-dumping.  For this reason,
members of the Like-Minded Group, including Indonesi a, were proposing alternative suggestions on a
number of tirets contained in that paper.  These were being tabled in a spirit of compromise, in order
to allow for forward movement.  Her delegation believed that these contributions could be
instrumental in laying the basis for further serious  engagement.  Regarding the suggestion that certain
tirets be referred to subsidiary bodies, Indonesia agreed in principle with this suggestion, including
that each subsidiary body report back to the General Council not later than 30 September 2001.
Proper guidance from the General Council on the consideration of issues by the respective subsidiary
bodies was needed, as well as a clear deadline for their reports.  Indonesia was seriously concernedover the current stalemate, and hoped that all Members would become more seriously engaged so that
satisfactory solutions could be found before Doha.
58. The representative of Singapore said that his delegation was pleased that the Chairman's paper
had taken on board most of the elements under Section 1 of the G-7 paper, and had also incorporated
some ideas from Sections 2 and 3 by giving more precision and guidance to the subsidiary bodies.
Singapore noted that the Chairman's paper did not purport to be an agreed or definitive text, and that
further consultations were needed to include, in particular, the tirets on anti-dumping and textiles and
clothing.  The paper was a good attempt by the Chairman, in light of his recent consultations, to put
together possible solutions on what might be doable between the present time and Doha, and provided
a good basis on which to build consensus and to advance work on implementation.  His delegationsaw the present process as a building-block process.  Singapore supported that process and what the
Chairman had suggested and encouraged him to continue with his consultations on the basis of the
paper, with the aim of achieving consensus on a more complete paper as the Doha Ministerial
Conference approached, keeping in mind the broader preparatory process for Doha.  Members would
have another opportunity at the "reality check" meeting on 30 July to see where things stood, not onlyon implementation but also on other issues that would form the scope of the Doha agenda.  There was
a need to manage the process between the present time and 30 July, as well as after the summer break.
His delegation stood ready to work with the Chairman and with other delegations in finding ways to
move the preparatory process forward.
59. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation was encouraged by the useful
discussion that had taken place thus far.  While some critical views had been expressed, which
Switzerland understood, the discussion had been quite positive.  Thus far, it had confirmed theimportance of implementation issues and the seriousness that all delegations attached to these issues
in the framework of the broader preparations for D oha.  It had also confirmed the sense of urgency
that all attached to substantive progress on th ese issues and the commitment to make progress on
them.  His delegation was encouraged by the fact that Members seemed to take inspiration from the
framework provided by the G-7 paper, which had been confirmed by the Chairman's paper as well asby numerous statements at the present meeting.  However, on the substance, major gaps remained.  As
a co-author of the G-7 paper, Switzerland's position in this respect was clear.  His delegation fully
understood and could agree with the proposal to refer certain issues to subsidiary bodies, with the
proper mandates and guidelines, as these bodies might provide important and useful inputs.  It was
imperative that these issues not get bogged down in the subsidiary body process, and it remained the
responsibility of the General Council to find solu tions to them.  He reiterated Switzerland's strong
commitment to finding solutions to implementati on issues and its full support for the Chairman's
efforts in this regard.
60. The representative of Nicaragua said that his delegation's reaction to the Chairman's and
Director-General's goodwill in seeking a solution in this process was very positive.  However,
generally speaking the Chairman's paper failed to live up to expectations and his delegation wished to
register its disappointment.  Regarding tiret 83, Nicaragua was concerned about the proposal to referWT/GC/M/67
Page 16
this matter to the subsidiary body.  As previous speakers had already pointed out, the significance of
this proposal to developing countries had been understated, and his delegation supported those who
had said this was not a technical matter but rather one requiring a political decision by the General
Council.  For this reason, his delegation wished to place on record its reservations on the referral of
this matter to the Subsidies Committee.  Regardin g tiret 92, the wording of this proposal undermined
the importance of discussions currently under way in the TRIPS Council.  Thus, it would be better to
await the conclusion of those discussions before proceeding with the tiret as proposed.  He reiterated
his delegation's goodwill in continuing to work with the Chairman and with other Members with a
view to making headway on these and other issues and reaching a consensus before the Fourth
Ministerial Conference.
61. The representative of Gabon, speaking on behalf of the ACP group of countries , said that
these countries had shown considerable interest in the G-7 paper.  The Chairman's paper was also
clear, but was unfortunately incomplete.  There were still some areas where progress could be made,
not only in taking into account developing countries' major concerns, but also in trying to achieve
specific objectives.  There was a need for stronger commitment from the developed countries,
particularly with respect to proposals that had a direct impact on the economic development of
developing countries and the ACP countries in particular.  These countries had prepared a text withthe support of the ACP secretariat in Brussels, which contained proposed amendments to the
Chairman's paper.  These proposals should be considered and discussed, along with the papers that
had already been tabled.   The ACP group of countries welcomed the positive statements made by
certain delegations who seemed willing to seek acceptable solutions not only with the Chairman but
also with the support and involvement of other groups of delegations.  They hoped to be able to dealwith substantive issues on implementation soon, because their expectations were very high.  The end
of July would be a turning-point as far as implem entation was concerned, and they hoped that by then,
proposals would be more specific than the current ones.
62. The representative of Costa Rica said that the Chairman’s paper was headed in the right
direction and would enable Members to make some headway on the very important issue of
implementation.  The G-7 paper was also very useful, and had injected a considerable amount of
impetus into the search for solutions, as had the Chairman's paper.  These papers made his
government feel more optimistic about the possible outcome of this process.  Referral of some issues
to the relevant subsidiary bodies appeared to be appropriate, as they could make an important
technical contribution. This would enable Members to make greater and quicker progress than had
been possible thus far in the General Council.  Regarding the concern expressed by some Members
over the referral of tiret 83 to the Subsidies Committee, Costa Rica was aware that some developingcountries faced disadvantages regarding subsidies and incentives.  However, this problem could not
be solved by weakening the existing rules on subsid ies, as this would make the way such tools were
used more pernicious.  Cost Rica wanted the misuse of subsidies to be eliminated entirely, and for that
reason had opposed, and continued to oppose, amending Annex VII.  Those Members seeking a
solution to this issue should be more patient and should try to recognize that this was not merely a
political issue but also a very complex one with many technical aspects and many differing positions
that had to be taken into account, including on the part of developing countries like Costa Rica.  It was
thus appropriate to refer this issue to the relevant subsidiary body.  Regarding the Chairman's paper,
his delegation hoped that issues of great importance such as textiles and anti-dumping would be given
the attention many delegations had said they deserved, and in the appropriate setting.  Costa Ricasupported the establishment of deadlines for reports by the subsidiary bodies, and hoped that
solutions could be found to implementation-related problems before Doha.  Some of these issues
would probably be solved more appropriately in a slightly wider setting.  No delegation could expect
to get 100 per cent support for its proposals.  It was with flexibly, a reasonable attitude and
understanding that Members should continue to tackle the important issue of implementation, with aview to the forthcoming Ministerial Conference in  Doha.  Without this, Members could not hope to
achieve the objective expressed by Mexico – to promote and strengthen a solid and efficient trading
system.  Costa Rica fully endorsed Mexico's statement.WT/GC/M/67
Page 17
63. The representative of the Czech Republic, also on behalf of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia, said that these
countries were relieved to see that positive and pragmatic approaches had prevailed at the present
meeting.  This was important in order to energize the process and properly address implementation-
related concerns.  While these countries would have preferred some substantive decisions on severalproposals at the present meeting in order to set aside some of these issues and to concentrate efforts
on the more complex issues, no decisions were going to be taken.  However, this did not mean that
such decisions would not be taken in the weeks or months to come, and did not imply that nothing had
been done and no major progress had been made towards finding common ground for future
decisions.  On the contrary, Members had reached a better understanding of a number of issues, and
there was even some convergence of positions. There were also other positive developments, such as
on TRIMs, which was poised for quick action.  Moreover, the Chairman's report indicated that issuesrelated to anti-dumping and textiles and clothing had yet to be addressed.  The intent was not to paint
a rosy picture but rather to do justice to a more balanced assessment of the situation.  At the same
time, all Members had to recognize that in order to succeed in the common objective of meaningful
and acceptable results, they had to continue to be realistic about what was achievable and what would
require further negotiations.  They had to contin ue to show respect for each other's views and
sensitivities and a sense of mutual responsibility.  All the necessary elements were present for this,
and a number of useful submissions had been made with a view to breaking the deadlock and making
further progress, including the Chairman's paper, the G-7 paper and other submissions, on which
further clarifications could be sought.  The twelve countries for which he spoke took in a positive
spirit the proposal to send certain issues to the su bsidiary bodies for further consideration, and could
support the deadline of 30 September for reports from these bodies.  They also agreed with the
suggestion that the Chairman meet with the Chairpersons of these bodies in order to convey a
message of urgency when dealing with these issu es.  They looked forward to working with the
Chairman and with other delegations to achieve a mutual accommodation.
64. The representative of Mauritius said that his delegation fully endorsed the comprehensive
statement by Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group.  It also fully supported the Chairman’s paper
and encouraged him to continue the process and his consultations so that the concerns of all would be
taken on board, and so that by the time of the “reality check” Members would know where they were
heading.
65. The representative of Chile said that the G-7 paper had made a very constructive contribution
to efforts to find solutions to implementation-related problems, and that the Chairman’s paper was a
further step forward.  His delegation deemed this paper to be positive and hoped that delegationswould be able to focus on it so as to be able  to make further headway on the other matters still
outstanding.  Chile agreed with other delegations who had emphasized the need to move ahead more
quickly and have a greater sense of urgency in order to find an effective package of solutions on these
implementation-related issues.  The work already done was a good basis for negotiation.  Nonetheless,
his delegation understood, and to a certain extent shared, the feeling of disappointment expressed bysome delegations, because some matters had not been solved and showed little prospect of being
solved.  However, the present discussion had been useful and to a very great extent constructive.  Any
eventual package on implementation could not exclude issues such as textiles and clothing or other
equally important issues.   It was important in terms of balance and policy that these key issues were
made an integral part of any implementation package, and that this be done as quickly as possible.The process outlined by the Chairman was appropriate, i.e. that certain issues should be handed over
to the subsidiary bodies with deadlines for sorting them out and with clear instructions that they tackle
the technical issues and refer back whatever contribution they could make to the General Council as
soon as possible.
66. Regarding tiret 83, several delegations had indicated that this was a political issue and that it
should not be referred to the Subsidies Committee.  In Chile’s view, this was not a political issue, but
rather one that had technical aspects, and it therefore needed a thorough and detailed examination inWT/GC/M/67
Page 18
the Committee.  What was at issue was trying to find a balance between those who wanted to have the
possibility of subsidising their exports, and those, like Chile, who were developing countries and did
not want to see their industries suffering from subsidised competition from other developing
countries.  Chile had alot of trade with other developing countries, which was why this was an issue
of such concern to it.  A thorough technical analysis of this issue could help Members find somesolution that would be satisfactory to most, if not in its entirety, at least in part.  To leave this issue in
the General Council would be the best way of killing it off entirely.
67. The representative of Australia said the Chairman's paper was a welcome contribution to the
implementation process.  His delegation viewed it as  a basis for future consultations, recognizing that
the paper was incomplete in areas of particular importance to many delegations.  Australia had views
on many elements in the paper, and looked forward to participating in the consultations that would
take place on all elements that would make up the implementation package.  It supported the nextsteps proposed by the Chairman, including the referral of a number of issues to relevant subsidiary
bodies with appropriate guidance and deadlines for their work.
68. The representative of Israel said that flexibil ity and realism had to be the guidelines for all
Members in order to progress and to achieve results on the complex and core issue of implementation.
His delegation saw positively the comments of speaker s at the present meeting.  Israel supported the
Chairman's suggestion to refer certain issues to subsidiary bodies with specific guidelines and a firm
deadline.  It hoped that the Chairman would continue with the consultation process in order to make
progress on this important issue.
69. The representative of Thailand said that the introductory remarks in the cover note to the
Chairman's paper clearly indicated that the text was not an agreed or definitive text on which a
decision was to be made at the present meeting.  The Chairman and the Director-General would have
to pursue consultations on the elements listed in the paper for further improvement, both in terms of
quality and quantity, in order to find broadly acceptable solutions.  In addition, they would continue to
use the G-7 paper as a basis for consultations with Members on the issues in their own paper and in
the areas that had not yet been addressed, in particular the tirets on anti-dumping, textiles andclothing, and TRIMs, and those in Sections 2, 3 an d 4 of the G-7 paper.  On the question of how to
further energize the implementation process, Thailand encouraged the Chairman to use the G-7 paper
as a tool for further consultations in order to achieve substantive results on all outstanding issues by
Doha.  Thailand had no objection to sending some of the tirets, if deemed necessary, to subsidiary
bodies.  However, these bodies had to be given specific mandates and time-frames for reporting back
to the General Council for early decisions in September.  Time was running out, and Members had to
be aware that progress on implementation would facil itate preparations for Doha, and that success at
Doha would hinge on results on implementation issu es.  Thailand therefore urged all Members to
strive to do their best to fulfill the 3 May mandate by taking political decisions on these issues.  His
delegation looked forward to working closely with the Chairman, the Director-General and other
Members in a constructive manner, with a view to  helping move the implementation process forward
and for the success of the Doha Conference.
70. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation fully understood the sense of
frustration expressed by some Members.  While textiles, on which Hong Kong, China was a
proponent, unfortunately did not feature in the Chairman's paper, his delegation nevertheless saw the
process in a more positive light than some.  At the informal meeting on 21 June, his delegation had
been encouraged by the G-7 paper which had injected some fresh thinking into the process. There hadbeen widespread support by Members for using the paper as a basis for further consultations. In the
past few weeks, the Chairman had been using the G-7 paper as the basis for intensive consultations,
focusing primarily on Section 1.  The elements in the Chairman's were substantive and generally quite
positive.  While tirets relating to anti-dumping, textiles and TRIMs were not included in the paper, his
delegation trusted that further consultations on these areas would be held to identify elements onwhich further progress could be made.  On TRIMs extensions, it seemed that one was close to findingWT/GC/M/67
Page 19
common ground.  It was significant that most, if not all, of the other elements under Section 1 of the
G-7 paper were covered in the Chairman's paper, albeit some with modifications.  In some respects
the Chairman's paper went farther than the G-7 paper and gave more precise guidance to subsidiary
bodies on certain elements in Sections 2 and 3 of th e G-7 paper.  As the G-7 paper had received wide
support as a basis for discussion, the Chairman's paper could serve a similar purpose in guidingMembers towards some early decisions.  His delegation was hopeful that some decisions could be
made after the summer break, provided the proponents and the key Members concerned could show
more flexibility.  His delegation had noted the concern of some Members that referral to subsidiary
bodies might not result in any significant progress, and agreed that the General Council should give
positive guidance to these bodies to come up with positive results by the end of September.  It should
be kept in mind that many of the proposals were complex and technical in nature, and expert input by
these bodies could contribute to some early progress.  The Chairman's paper was a positive evolutionin the implementation review process, and Members were clearly on the right track.  That process
should be energized in the coming weeks before Doha.  Implementation issues had to be dealt with
satisfactorily in order to make Doha a success.  This did not mean that every proposal could be
resolved before Doha.  A number of these issues could only be resolved in the context of negotiation,
and Members should start thinking of appropriate mandates for such negotiation in the context of thework programme to be decided at Doha.  Time was running out, and positive attitudes had to be
translated into concrete actions and more flexibility, so that acceptable solutions could be identified
before and at Doha.
71. The representative of Canada expressed appreciation for the initiative the Chairman and the
Director-General had taken to advance the implementation process.  Canada had attempted to engage
constructively in the consultations held to date.  The Chairman's paper brought together the wide
range of views heard in those consultations, in that it offered a balanced and realistic assessment of
what was required and what was achievable on the issues covered thus far.  Canada was committed to
continuing to engage in this process and to giving serious consideration and responses to the issues
raised.  In turn, it asked the proponents of implementation proposals to understand that domesticrealities limited its ability to make the unilateral concessions required to meet some of their requests.
The proposal on export credits in the Chairman's paper dealt with an issue of particular sensitivity to
Canada, as it was at the crux of several WTO disputes in which Canada was engaged.  His delegation
continued to believe that this issue would be resolved only in the context of a negotiating process, and
therefore wanted to be included in any consultations on its further disposition before it was referred to
the subsidiary body.  Canada recognized the importance of the implementation process to the broader
preparatory process for Doha.  With greater flexibility on all sides, and building on the Chairman'spaper and contributions by the G-7 and others, it would hopefully be possible to close, in the near
term, some of the substantial remaining gaps.
72. The representative of St. Lucia said that her delegation was heartened by the support which
had been given to issues of particular importance to St. Lucia by a number of delegations in the
consultations that had been held recently.  The Implementation Review Mechanism had beendesigned to provide substantive justice.  This encompassed a wider notion of justice as a condition to
be achieved, i.e. transcending a mere procedural treatment of issues raised.  Her delegation was
disappointed that no substantive decisions were being taken at the present meeting.  It had expected
that the momentum deriving from the G-7 paper would have led to early agreement on a number of
issues.  By "early agreement", her delegation meant a decision sufficiently in advance of Doha tofacilitate further decisions on other issues, in fulfilment of the General Council's mandate of 3 May
2000 and as affirmed on 15 December 2000, calling for satisfactory resolution of implementation
concerns by Doha.  While this would allow for decisions to be taken anytime between the present and
the Fourth Ministerial Conference, in light of the pending "reality check" at the end of July her
delegation had expected that there would have been significant advances before then.  However, thepresent reality was no different from that of a month earlier.  Indeed, given the passage of time and
the apparent lack of progress on a number of issues of importance to St. Lucia, its assessment was less
optimistic than it had been a month earlier.  The credibility of the multilateral system depended on theWT/GC/M/67
Page 20
results achieved before Doha.  If that meeting was not to be a repeat of the Seattle meeting, Members
had to apply an even greater sense of urgency to their work.  It was almost the end of July, and
Members were yet to take any substantive decisions on issues of importance to the majority of
developing countries.
73. Her delegation broadly supported the concerns of a number of developing countries, including
India, Colombia, Cuba, Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Egypt,
Malaysia, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Mauritius and many others.  The particular areas of
concern raised by Jamaica were coincident with St. Lucia's, including on the increasingly opaque
nature of the process.  When one was left in the dark, one's assessment of progress was not tempered
by the effort expended, when this showed no results.   Specifically, with respect to tiret 4 the proposal
advanced was one of principal, i.e. requiring a political decision of the General Council.  The reality
of the multifaceted WTO processes was that participation in consultations in one forum involvedcertain costs.  As such, her delegation would not oppose referring tiret 4 to the Committee on Market
Access under certain clearly defined conditions, which included instructions that the Committee treat
the matter sufficiently expeditiously so as to re port back with a draft decision for adoption by the
General Council before Doha.  Her delegation fully  sympathized with the difficulties the Chairman
faced in bringing about timely agreement on the issues raised, but wished to see a more definitive,results-oriented approach in addressing developing countries' implementation concerns.
74. The representative of Uruguay expressed his delegation's satisfaction with the positive tone of
the present meeting and with the political will shown throughout the statements for continuing to
work to move the process forward.  His delegation was also gratified by the numerous and positive
reactions to the G-7 paper and by the recognition of its usefulness as a basis for further consultations.At the same time, Uruguay had taken note of th e concerns and disappointments expressed, and was
very aware of the little time left and what had to be overcome in order to reach solutions satisfactory
to all on this subject.  Uruguay, together with the other co-sponsors of the G-7 paper, had already
clearly stated its position on implementation issues and what it was willing to do in this connection.
He encouraged the Chairman to continue his efforts and assured him of Uruguay's goodwill incontinuing to work with him and with all other delegations in order to achieve concrete results.
75. The representative of the Philippines said that there seemed to be greater proactive
engagement, more reasonable flexibility and utmost creativity in recent efforts on implementation
issues, and his delegation hoped that in the coming months this would be able to move the process
forward.  It was in the interest of developing countries to leave doors clearly open to seek that
proactive engagement, because the strength and viability of the WTO would play a big role in their
future development and progress.  If, in the end, the process did not result in a satisfactory outcome, atleast Members would have tried.  Along with TRIMs, anti-dumping and other rules issues, the
Philippines gave high priority to the cross-cutting issue of the operationalization of S&D provisions as
one of the pressing elements of this strengthen ed and viable WTO process.  S&D treatment was a
clear commitment, albeit on a voluntary basis, regarding existing agreements.  His delegation
supported the statements by Venezuela, Brazil, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka on this issue, andparticularly endorsed Sri Lanka's proposal for the Committee on Trade and Development to identify
legal means that could lead to making S&D provisions operational and binding and enhance them so
as to achieve the objective of development in consonance with Part IV of GATT 1994.  Regarding the
referral of issues to subsidiary bodies, his delegation endorsed the proposal that those issues already
referred might be subject to an early harvest.  It also supported the proposal that the subsidiary bodiesbe given specific mandates and deadlines.  It was important that these mandates be clear on the
specific objectives and deadlines involved.  Submissions made at the present meeting by the Like-
Minded Group, Gabon for the ACP, and others were an effort to clarify the issues and to work
towards clear decisions, and the Philippines hoped that these would receive careful consideration by
Members.  His delegation also hoped that the energy from these fresh initiatives would be maintainedin the coming weeks and would yield fruit and change, so as to create a healthier environment and
climate for Doha.WT/GC/M/67
Page 21
76. The representative of Paraguay urged all delegations, not just developing countries, to show
pragmatism and flexibility in reaching solutions to implementation issues.  Work had been under way
on these issues since May 2000, but unfortunately little or no headway had been made.  The G-7
paper had increased confidence that it would be possible to make progress on all aspects of these
issues without leaving any out.  It should be po ssible, in a WTO that favoured free trade without
obstacles and without discrimination, to bring together enough pragmatism and enough goodwill to
find solutions.  His delegation agreed that the subsidiary bodies should deal with some issues and that
a deadline should be set for this work.  The Doha Ministerial Conference was of extraordinary
importance for the prestige and reputation of the WTO.  There had already been one failure, and in
order to avoid another one, solutions to implementation-related issues had to be found.  A clear road
map had been given in the mandated negotiations, and Members could not arrive in Doha with an aura
of uncertainty, nor could they continue to defer deadlines from 30 July to 30 September and perhapseven later.  This would be very harmful in the long run.  To a great extent, the manner in which the
mandated negotiations were carried out, and the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements
and the commitments made, would determine the outcome of the Doha conference and its impact on
WTO activities in the future.  The WTO could not cope with another failure, and his delegation urged
the Chairman, the Director-General and all Members to continue to work hard with a flexible attitudeand in the spirit of pragmatism to find solutions to  the problems that still remained outstanding.
77. The representative of Gabon clarified that in her earlier statement she had referred to a
submission prepared by the secretariat of the group of ACP countries, and that this would be
considered and examined by the members of that group.  These countries were more than willing to
look at the document with any other interested delegations.
78. The representative of Kenya associated his delegation with the statement by Zimbabwe on
behalf of the African Group, and wished the Chairman the best of luck.
79. The Chairman, in summing up, said that in an overall and very general sense, and given the
situation just prior to the informal General Council meeting on implementation held on 21 June, some
progress had certainly been made over the past month.  The deadlock existing at that time had beenbroken by the approach brought forward in the G-7 paper, and the present discussion indicated that
this paper still had momentum.  He believed that some headway had been made on the basis of that
paper through the consultations held and the elements tabled on some of the tirets.  New inputs had
also been made or foreshadowed at the present meeting, which he believed had been offered in a
constructive spirit.  There had also been important indications of an enhanced sense of engagement
and willingness on the part of key Members to address the implementation concerns raised.  However,
progress in terms of concrete results had not been as rapid as one might have hoped, and further hardwork was needed in a number of respects.  Specifically, but not in any order of priority, there was a
need to do the following:  (i) finalize the terms of any new referrals to subsidiary bodies where this
could be agreed;  (ii) identify elements on which more immediate action might be taken;  (iii) pursue
consultations on the remaining items on Section 1 of the G-7 paper, which many delegations had
flagged as being of great importance to them, as well as on the remaining Sections in that paper;  and(iv) inject a greater sense of urgency into the ongoing work in subsidiary bodies on issues already
referred to them.  He would pursue consultations in the very near future along these four tracks,
including an early meeting with Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies.  While overall there was a
need for a greater sense of urgency, flexibility and realism, the present meeting had made clear the
significance all delegations continued to attach to the subject of implementation.
80. The representative of India said that it would be necessary to consider quickly what sort of
guidance would be given to the subsidiary bodies to which referrals had been made, and that this
could be left with the Chairman to decide.  It would also be necessary for the subsidiary bodies to fix
dates for meetings so that all delegations would know in advance when these would be held, as some
of these bodies had not planned to meet at all in September.  In all cases, both for the issues to beWT/GC/M/67
Page 22
referred and for those already referred, the reports should be made as quickly as possible, and in any
event not later than 30 September.
81. The representative of Pakistan asked whether the Chairman intended, or whether it was the
general sense, that Members would try to reach some early decisions on implementation by 31 July.
It was important to do this and to reach some substantive conclusions on important implementationissues.
82. The representative of Kenya expressed concern that many of the subsidiary bodies to which
issues had been referred would hold their meetings at the same time.  In the interests of small
delegations, this should be avoided as much as possible.
83. The Chairman said that, regarding the points  raised by India in relation to guidance to
subsidiary bodies and the setting of deadlines, he felt that given the tenure of the present discussion
and the obvious importance Members attached to setting guidelines and deadlines, he shouldundertake consultations on this issue.  On the question of trying to reach very early decisions on some
issues, he would hold consultations to try to identify if there were some elements on which more
immediate action could be taken.  It was not for him to unilaterally set a deadline in this respect, but
he would hold consultations the following week on th is matter.  He felt there had been a very useful
discussion at the present meeting and that Members were much better informed of each other'spositions, of the situation overall, and of the task ahead.
84. The General Council took note of the report by the Chairman and the Director-General,  and
of the statements.
__________