RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/54/Add.1
6 April 2000
(00-1399)
General Council
23 March 20001
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 23 March 20001
Addendum
Chairman:  Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway)
1. Appointment of the Chairperson of the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights and of the Chai rpersons of the subsidiary bodies of the
Council for Trade in Goods
1. Following an informal meeting, the General Council resumed the special meeting that had
adjourned on 13 March 2000, in order to take up item 1 of the agenda of that meeting.
2. The Chairman said that he and the outgoing Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods
(CTG), Mr. Farrell (New Zealand), had conducted ex tensive consultations in order to find a solution
to the question of a package regarding these chairpersons.  At the present stage they had not been able
to come up with a solution that commanded co nsensus, and would therefore continue their
consultations.  In addition, the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture was to have its first
meeting later that day.  Given the need for a chairman for that meeting, he proposed that
exceptionally, the Chairman of the CTG chair the first Special Session.  This was based on Rule 14 ofthe rules of procedure of that Committee which provided that "[i]f the Chairperson can no longer
perform the functions of the office, the Committee on Agriculture shall appoint an interim
Chairperson to perform those functions pending the election of a new Chairperson".  In the past, WTO
bodies had often requested a Chairperson from another WTO body to take the chair when the
Chairperson had an impediment.  This practice followed the practice laid down in the rules of
procedure for the General Council, which provided in Rule 13 that the Chairperson of the General
Council preferably be replaced during his absence by the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body
(DSB) or the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB).  Following a similar practice inspired by this rule,
the Chairperson of the General Council had on various occasions been requested to chair a meeting of
the DSB.  As Members were aware, the Committee on Agriculture was a subsidiary body of the CTG,although the General Council had agreed in February 2000 that progress in the Special Sessions
would be reported directly to the General Council.
3. Under the present circumstances – and he ha d consulted extensively with Members on this
matter – he proposed that as an interim arrangement, the Chairman of the body immediately superior
to the Committee on Agriculture, namely the CTG, chair the first Special Session of the Committeeon Agriculture.  This arrangement would be without prejudice to the decision on the Chairperson and
                                                     
1 This meeting was adjourned and will be reconvened to complete the consideration of items 1 and 4.
Minutes of the reconvened meeting will be ca rried in a further Addendum to WT/GC/M/54.WT/GC/M/54/Add.1
Page 2
the Vice-Chairperson of that Committee.  He would continue the process of intensive consultations
with the aim of settling the latter question as soon as possible.
4. Delegations expressed their thanks to the Chairman and to Mr. Farrell for their considerable
work in the consultations on this matter.
5. The representatives of Mexico, India , Egypt , and Chile  supported the Chairman's proposal for
an interim arrangement for the chairmanship of  the first Special Session of the Committee on
Agriculture.
6. The representative of the European Communitie s said that his delegation was willing to go
along with the Chairman's proposal because it wanted the first Special Session of the Agriculture
Committee to proceed and to be a solid start to the negotiations that had been agreed at Marrakesh.
The Community was ready for that meeting.  There had been extensive discussions on the question of
a number of chairmanships, and agreement on this had not yet been possible.  He wanted to clarifythat at the General Council meeting on 13 March he had not said anything about the personal qualities
of any individual, nor had he impugned any person's integrity.  He also wanted to clarify that it was
not the Community's position to block the negotiations on agriculture.  Of the various options, the
Community would have preferred that an individual from the Secretariat chair the agriculture
meeting, given that the General Council Chairman and the outgoing Chairman of the CTG still hadconsiderable work to do to find a permanent Chairperson for the Agriculture Committee.
7. The representative of Australia said it was unfortunate that after waiting five years for
detailed negotiations on agriculture, and given that it was part of the Marrakesh Agreement, there
would be a makeshift, interim provisional arra ngement for the chairmanship of this important
negotiating group.  The only reason for this was that one delegation was blocking the Chairman'sproposed slate of names and had used the consensus rule in an arbitrary and unconstructive way.  It
was entirely unsatisfactory that there be interim or provisional chair arrangements for these important
negotiations, and he noted that there were no such arrangements in the services area.  He asked what
the words "to be seen to be neutral" in that de legation's statement at the informal General Council
preceding the present meeting could mean, other than questioning the integrity of the individualsinvolved.  In light of this, and the fact that a candidate had been proposed by a delegation for
chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee when that individual had not even given his consent for
this, it would be extremely difficult to find a slate of names that would satisfy Members' requirements.
One could not merely replace one name on the slate with another.  He presumed that on the basis of
what was about to be agreed, the Chairman, as the Chairman of the body immediately superior to the
TRIPS Council, would act as interim Chairman of that body, as there was likely to be important
consultative work to be done in that area.  His delegation looked forward to the second SpecialSession of the Agriculture Committee being chaired by the ambassador of Uruguay.
8. The representative of the United States said that her delegation supported the slate put
forward by the Chairman, for which the discussion at the informal meeting had shown there was a
majority of support.  It was a sad situation that an alternative had to be considered for what was one of
the most important meetings of 2000 in the WTO, as each and every Member had a concern aboutagriculture.  It would be very difficult to achieve consensus on a slate of names due to the comment
that had been made at the informal meeting about neutrality.  The individuals on the slate were highly
qualified and of the highest integrity.  Actions spoke louder than words, and those actions would
affect the overall image of the WTO.
9. The representative of Uruguay said that his delegation joined those who had said they could
accept the package proposed by the Chairman, which was the result of intensive consultations among
Members.  While there was as yet no consensus, this was a basis on which Members could reach a
satisfactory solution.  However, at the present meeting two serious elements had arisen.  First, oneWT/GC/M/54/Add.1
Page 3
Member had said that "at this stage" it could not accept the Chairman's proposal, and was thereby
ignoring that the process had been initiated more than two months earlier.  The pros and cons of all
possible solutions had already been evaluated, and continuing the debate would not help Members to
find a better solution.  Second, and more serious, the concept of neutrality had been raised.  Members
had until now selected chairpersons on the basis of an individual's competence, knowledge and
experience, and not on the basis of his country's affiliation or positions.  However, it was clear that a
solution would not be found within the next few days, and it was also clear who was responsible for
the deadlock.
10. The representative of the European Communities proposed that in view of the fact that
statements made were sometimes not accurate, all Members abstain from briefing the press at the end
of the present meeting, and that the Chairman do this on Members' behalf.  This was important in this
post-Seattle period.
11. The Chairman said that he could speak to the press together with Mr. Farrell, but that each
delegation would have to consider what it wished to say to the press.  He suggested there not be a long
debate on this issue.
12. The representative of Canada said that her delegation could go along with the proposed slate
of names.  Canada agreed with other delegations that the WTO was in a very dangerous situation, and
supported Morocco's statement at the informal meeting on the systemic issues.  In the WTO and the
GATT before it, Members had agreed that in a ppointing chairmanships, they would look for
competent individuals who would serve as neutral chairpersons.  Candidates had come forward, or
had been asked to come forward, on that basis.  It was disheartening that a major WTO player had
said that a chairperson had to be seen as neutral regarding the various positions in the debate onagriculture.  It was unfair to characterize an individual on the basis of his country of origin when
assessing whether he would be a competent neutral chairperson.  Such a situation would make it
difficult in future for Members to find qualified individuals willing to come forward as candidates for
such posts.  Should the Chairman brief the press on the present meeting, he should convey Canada's
remarks.
13. The representative of Mexico said that what was most important was that the Special Session
of the Agriculture Committee meet and start work.  However, Mexico wanted to find a more
permanent solution, and urged that the consultations be pursued so that this matter, as well as the
entire slate of names for chairmanships, could be resolved the following week.
14. The representative of Bolivia noted that the Chairman had said at the outset of the informal
meeting that Members were close to a consensus on the proposed slate of names.  Nevertheless, there
was now a push to move to the second option of an  interim arrangement for the chairmanship of the
Agriculture Committee.  The best message the WTO could send the outside world was to approve the
proposed slate of names.
15. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that although agriculture was not an area of
direct concern to Hong Kong, China, it was concer ned that the current disagreement would have much
wider repercussions and would impinge on areas that were of a high priority for it.  Members shouldbear in mind the wider interests and credibility of the system when considering this point, and his
delegation urged a broader perspective on this issue.  In accordance with the Guidelines on the
Appointment of Chairpersons (WT/L/31) and as a general principle, the competence and experience
of nominees should be the main criteria to consid er, rather than merely their nationality or the
affiliation of their country with any group.  The Chairman and Mr. Farrell had borne these guidelinesin mind in putting together the proposed slate of names, and in the interest of the system, Members
should accept their proposals.WT/GC/M/54/Add.1
Page 4
16. The representative of India said it had been the general practice that when the subordinate
body of a sectoral Council did not have a chairperson, or the chairperson was not available for a
particular meeting, the Chairperson of the sectoral Council would preside over the meeting.  For
example, the Working Party on Professional Services had been chaired by the Chairperson of the
Services Council when the Chairperson of that Working Party had had to leave in 1996.  Thus, theproposal by the Chairman was institutionally appropriate.
17. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation had come prepared to support the
Chairman's slate of names, and in the absence of agreement on that slate was ready to support the
proposal for an interim arrangement for the Special Session of the Agriculture Committee.  However,
Egypt was accepting this interim arrangement because it was important that the meeting in question
take place as scheduled.  He urged the Chairman to continue his consultations with the aim of
reaching agreement on the chairmanships in question.
18. The representative of Chile said that her delegation regretted that it was necessary to have
recourse to an interim arrangement.  The slate proposed by the Chairman was acceptable to Chile, as
all of the individuals on it were highly qualified, and Chile regretted that the principle of neutrality
was being questioned.  Nationality or membership in an informal grouping should not be a criterion in
the selection of chairpersons.  Her delegation hoped that the problem of chairmanships for the TRIPSCouncil and the Agriculture Committee would be resolved as soon as possible.
19. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation shared the views expressed during
the informal meeting concerning the dangers of th e current situation regarding chairmanships, which
involved personalities as well as political considerations.  Switzerland accepted with strong
reservations the proposal on an interim arrangement.  As for briefing the press, the Chairman would
say whatever seemed appropriate to him on behalf  of the organization, and Switzerland would not
provide any guidance on this.  Since the proposal on the interim arrangement had not raised any
objections, it appeared that there was consensus on it, and Members should get on with the
consultations.
20. The representative of Poland, on behalf of the CEFTA Members, Latvia and Estonia , said that
like Mexico, these countries were concerned about the failure to agree on the chairmanship of the
Committee on Agriculture.  Members should recogn ize there was a problem but not over-dramatize
the issue, and should concentrate on finding a solution.  Given the preparations that had already been
made for the Special Session of the Agriculture Committee planned for that afternoon, Members
should do whatever they could – in the light of precedents in the system – to solve the present
impasse.  His delegation would be flexible so as to enable agreement on a transitional chairmanship,
including, if necessary, having a representative from the Secretariat fill this role.  It was important atthe present stage for Members to learn more about positions on the mandated negotiations in
agriculture.
21. The representative of Venezuela said that the present situation was of great concern,
particularly regarding the chairmanship of the Co mmittee on Agriculture.  It was important that the
mandated negotiations on agriculture start as planned, for several reasons.  First, after the collapse ofthe negotiations in Seattle, another episode of disagreement would strengthen the view of the outside
world that the WTO had few options to move forward.  Second, while the appointment of WTO
chairmanships was important, it would be unfortunate if an administrative decision of minor
consequences gave the impression of suspicion and difficulties among Members and created
unnecessary friction.  On the other hand, it would not be fair to delegations who had sent people fromcapitals to further delay the agriculture negotiations.  Any lack of transparency or neutrality in the
individual assuming the responsibility of chairing the Committee on Agriculture would be
unacceptable.  The following alternatives were before Members:  an interim chairperson could be
appointed for the Committee on Agriculture so as to allow the mandated negotiations to start;  thatWT/GC/M/54/Add.1
Page 5
individual could be the Chairman of the CTG or th e Chairman of the General Council, or alternatively
one of the WTO Deputy Directors-General, but  not an individual from any Member.  While
Venezuela would join a consensus on this matter if necessary, it believed that the above alternatives
would allow the Special Session of the Agriculture Committee to proceed.  WTO Members had had
lengthy discussions on transparency, but more important was the issue of integrity.  Members had toensure that the notion of integrity was not lost, as this was a strength of the WTO, and that the notion
of neutrality was not mixed with the concept of integrity.  The outside world should not be given to
understand that the neutrality of panelists analysing sensitive and difficult positions could be
questioned.  Venezuela had no concern about the professional capacity or ethical and moral qualities
of any individual from any Member to chair any WTO body.  He thus urged Members to put aside
their differences and to preserve the notion of integrity in the way WTO negotiations were conducted,
as this was a great strength of the WTO.
22. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation supported the
Chairman's proposed slate of names and felt that th ese were highly qualified individuals.  Members
were now in the position of having to support an interim arrangement which, while the best solution
under the circumstances, was not ideal.  His delegation agreed fully with the statements by Australia,
Canada and Uruguay.  One was again seeing how unworkable the decision-making process was in the
WTO.  Members had been talking about new negotiations on agriculture for six years, and yet were
unable to get them underway in a satisfactory way.   The Dominican Republic would raise this issue in
the context of the General Council's informal meeting on internal transparency.
23. The General Council took note of the statements, agreed  to the Chairman's proposal and
adjourned.
__________