RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/21
30 September 2003
(03-5137)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 AUGUST 2003
Chairman:  Mr. Jan-Peter Mout (the Netherlands)
1. The Chairman proposed the following agenda:
A. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7
B. Modifications to the Appendices to the AgreementC. Accessions:
(i) Streamlining the Accession Process
(ii) Applications
- Jordan- Chinese Taipei- Other Specific Accessions
D. Review of National Implementing Legislation
E. Other Business
(i) Date of Next Meeting
F. Election of Chairman for the Remainder of 2003 and for 2004
2. The Chairman noted that the provisional agenda of the meeting had been circulated to Parties
in Airgram WTO/AIR/2149, and Parties had been sent an Annotated Agenda for the meeting
(Job No. 5700, dated 25 July 2003).
3. The Committee adopted the agenda of the meeting as set out above and in that Annotated
Agenda.
A. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  XXIV :7
4. The Chairman reported on the meeting of the Informal Group of the Committee on
Government Procurement that had been held on  18-21 August 2003, during which negotiations had
been pursued under Article XXIV:7 of the Agreement on Government Procurement.  He said that the
Group had carried forward work on the revision of the text of the Agreement by taking up the revised
interim draft of the Agreement dated 8 August 2003, contained in a communication received from theGPA/M/21
Page 2
delegation of the United States (Job No. 6119).  That communication incorporated comments that had
been received on the previous draft text of 23 July 2003 (Job No. 5693) from the European
Community;  Hong Kong, China;  Japan;  Korea;  Switzerland;  and the United States.
5. In addition, during the informal meeting, the Group had had available to it the following
documents:
(a) a submission by Switzerland on Article V - Accession and Treatment for Developing
and Least-developed Countries:  Synthesis of Positions Drafted by Switzerland as
Coordinator for Article V (Job No. 6028 (4287/Rev.1));
(b) a submission by the European Community on Switzerland's Article V submission
(Job No. 6054);
(c) a submission by Chinese Taipei on Quad Responses to Chinese Taipei's Comments
on 20 June 2003 GPA Review Text (Job No. 6117);
(d) a submission by Canada on Revision of the Agreement on Government Procurement
(GPA):  Comments on the Revised Interim Draft of 8 August 2003 (Job No. 6160);
(e) a submission by Chinese Taipei:  Revision of the Agreement on Government
Procurement (GPA):  Comments on the Revised Interim Draft of 8 August 2003
(Job No. 6247);
(f) a submission by Japan on Article XVI:  Modifications and Rectifications to Coverage
(Job No. 6322);  and
(g) a submission by Israel on Article V:  Accession and Treatment of Developing and
Least-Developed Countries:  Israel's Comments on the Submission by Switzerland(informally distributed).
6. In addition to proposals for revision of the text that had been submitted in writing, a number
of proposals to amend the revised text of 8 August 2003 had been made orally during the informal
meeting.  These had been incorporated into the revised text.
7. In reviewing the text of the Agreement, the Group had proceeded Article-by-Article through
the whole Agreement.  The Group had left aside those provisions that had been identified in therevised text as market access issues on the basis that such issues would be reverted to when the related
elements of the Article XXIV:7 negotiations, namely those elements relating to expansion of coverage
and elimination of discriminatory measures, would be the subject of discussion.
8. Overall, the Group had made significant progress in revising the text of the Agreement.  Such
progress made over the previous four days was reflected in the text of 21 August 2003, which wasbeing circulated as a Note by the Chairman entitled "Revision of the Agreement on Government
Procurement (GPA) as at 21 August 2003" (Job No. 6343).
9. The Group had provisionally agreed on the basic structure and drafting style of the
Agreement.  The text of 21 August 2003 reflected a significant re-organisation of the current
Agreement.  As part of the revision, the Group had consolidated within single Articles all of theprovisions on related matters, which in the current Agreement were to be found in several Articles.
At its meeting earlier that week, the Group had resolved differences on a substantial number of
provisions.GPA/M/21
Page 3
10. In considering the next steps, the Group had noted that significant progress had been made in
revising the text since intensive work had begun in late 2002.  It was clear that some additional time
would be necessary to complete the work.  In or der to capitalize on the efforts invested by all
Members, it had been agreed that the work on the text should be completed as expeditiously as
possible.
11. The Group had agreed that the aim should be to have provisional agreement on a revised text
by spring 2004.  It had been further agreed that the Group would meet on at least two more occasions
before finalizing the text, starting with a meeting in the second half of November 2003.  Finally, with
regard to elements 2 and 3 of the work programme, the Group had agreed that a work programme to
complete negotiations in accordance with the timetable of February 2002 for the review would be
developed at the meeting of November 2003 based on submissions on hand and any new submissions.
In this regard, Parties were invited to submit new inputs by 31 October 2003.
12. The Committee endorsed the report of the Chairman on the progress made on the revision of
the text of the Agreement undertaken pursuant to Article XXIV:7 of the Agreement during the
meeting of 18–21 August 2003.
13. Following suggestions respectively by the representatives of the United States and of Canada
and a subsequent brief discussion, the Committee agreed that the Secretariat would prepare a side-by-
side text showing the text of the existing agreement and the corresponding (clean) text from the just
issued 21 August 2003 interim draft text.  This document would be circulated both electronically and
in hard copy as a Note by the Chairman.
14. The representative of Switzerland said that, given that the next informal meeting was
sometime away, it might be helpful for Parties to submit their comments on the revised
(21 August 2003) draft text in advance, as they had done in the past - for instance, by an agreed
deadline - so as to permit advance circulation and prior internal consultations by Parties before the
next meeting.
B. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
(i) Modifications that had become effective
15. The Chairman noted that the details of all proposed modifications to the Appendices to the
Agreement were contained in Annex 2 of the Annotated Agenda circulated on 25 July 2003
(Job No. 5700).  He said that since the pr evious meeting of the Committee, two proposed
modifications had become effective:
(a) proposed modification by Hong Kong, China to Annex 1 of Appendix I in document
GPA/W/256, dated 5 March 2003, which became effective on 4 April 2003
(WT/Let/444);  and
(b) proposed modifications by Japan to Annex 3 of Appendix I in documents
GPA/W/252, GPA/W/253 and GPA/W/254, all dated 25 February 2003, which
became effective on 9 May 2003 (WT/Let/446).
(ii) Outstanding Modifications
16. With respect to outstanding proposed modifications to Parties' Appendices, the Chairman said
that since the meeting of February 2003, there had been further developments in respect of the
proposed modification by Korea to Annex 3 of Appendix I.  However, no new communications had
been made as regards other outstanding modifications .  He opened the discussions on this item of theGPA/M/21
Page 4
agenda with the said proposed modification by Korea, and invited Parties to comment on any other
outstanding modifications.
- Modifications by Korea to Annex 3 of Appendix I
17. With regard to the proposed modification by Korea to Annex 3 of its Appendix I regarding
Housing & Commercial Bank, Korea Tobacco & Ginseng Corporation and Daehan Printing andPublishing Co. Ltd. (GPA/W/250, dated 17 February 2003), the Chairman said that the United States
had posed questions relating to the proposed withdrawal of Korea Tobacco & Ginseng Corporation
and Daehan Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. (GPA /W/264 dated 30 April 2003).  Korea's responses
to those questions had been circulated in GPA/W/270.
18. The representative of the United States said that her delegation was reviewing those responses
and anticipated completing its review as soon as possible, and to sending any follow-up questions that
it might have.  The representative of the European Community said that his delegation was also
reviewing those responses, and anticipated put ting complementary questions to Korea in
September 2003.
19. The Chairman said that the Committee would revert to this item at its next meeting.
- Modifications by Korea relating to Korea Telecom
20. The representative of Korea said that since the last meeting, Korea had received questions
from Canada, the United States and the European Community with respect to Korea's notification to
withdraw Korea Telecom from Annex 3 of its Append ix I.  She noted that the Annotated Agenda did
not reflect the fact that her delegation had provided full responses to the questions put by the United
States and the European Community – in documen ts GPA/W/266 and GPA/W/267, respectively.  Her
delegation had been satisfied with the bilateral consultations that it had had with Parties during thatweek, and was looking forward to the final decisions of the United States, Canada and the European
Community in respect of the proposed modification.
21. The representative of Canada said that her delegation was continuing to examine, as
expeditiously as possible, the helpful responses by Korea to Canada, the United States and the
European Community with respect to Korea Telecom.
- Modification by the United States to reflect changes in the administrative structure of
its Federal Government
22. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had made proposed
modifications two years earlier (GPA/W/153), and was still awaiting the completion of their review
by some Parties.  She inquired of such Parties whether they had any indications as to when they
anticipated completing their review.
23. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was continuing its review of the responses
provided by the United States, and anticipated being in a position to withdraw its objections to some
of the entities, about which it saw no problems, by the time of the next meeting of the Committee.
24. The representative of the European Community said that his delegation was also continuing
its review, and if found necessary, it would put further complementary questions to the United States.
25. The representative of Canada said that her delegation was continuing to examine, as
expeditiously as possible, the responses of the United States to her delegation's questions, and would
consider the suggestion by Japan in this context.GPA/M/21
Page 5
26. The representative of the United States thanked Japan for its forward-looking response.  She
noted that her delegation's notification covered a number of entities, and it would be helpful if other
Parties could also withdraw their objections at least to those entities with which they had no further
concerns.  In this process, Parties needed to make sure that – as with all modifications – they tried to
focus on those that were of real concern and not hold up overall notifications if there were someentities with which they had no concerns.
- Modifications by Japan relating to railway companies
27. The representative of Japan noted that since 2001 his delegation had provided extensive
information on its proposed modifications relating to railway companies (GPA/W/144, 145 and 146),
and had conducted a series of bilateral consultations with the United States and the European
Community, with a view to exploring a mutually sa tisfactory solution in an expeditious manner.  To
expedite the process, Japan had requested those Parties to present their positions as to whether theywould maintain their objections and to specify thei r reasons, with a focus on any remaining concerns
that they might have in the light of Article XXIV:6(b) of the GPA.  Responding to that request, the
United States had notified its position to Japan after re-examining all the information provided by his
delegation.  Japan was carefully reviewing that response.  The European Community had submitted a
third set of questions in February 2003 in document GPA/W/245.  Japan's responses to thosequestions had been circulated in April 2003 in document GPA/W/263.  In June 2003, Japan had
requested the European Community again to re-examine all the relevant information submitted by
Japan and to present its clear position on this matter.  The European Community had notified Japan of
its intention to submit another set of follow-up questions;  however, the delegation of Japan had not
yet received these.
28. Japan was convinced that it had already provided detailed explanations which proved that the
proposed modifications were consistent with Article XXIV:6 (b) of the Agreement, and believed that
the European Community had had enough time to conduct a careful review of the information
provided.  Japan requested the European Community to submit its final set of questions, if any, and to
withdraw its objections in an expeditious manner after Japan responded to those questions.  Japan alsocalled upon the European Community to specify in writing the reasons why it wished to maintain its
objections if the European Community was not in a position to withdraw its objections.  Further
cooperation with a view to achieving a speedy solution would be highly appreciated.
29. In response, the representative of the European Community noted that, as provisionally
indicated to Japan, his delegation was preparing questions, which it would shortly submit to Japan.
Those questions would be self-explanatory and would contain the reason why the European
Community was continuing to maintain its objection.
30. With respect to these outstanding proposed modifications, the Chairman welcomed the
positive intentions expressed by Parties to speed up their examinations of questions and answers,
respectively, and their intention to submit further contributions on this issue before the next formal
meeting of the Committee.
C. ACCESSIONS
(i) Streamlining the Accession Process
31. The Chairman recalled that, at the meeting of February 2003, Parties had agreed to take up
the issue of streamlining the accession process within the wider context of the revision of the
Agreement, particularly with regard to the provis ions of the Agreement dealing with accessions and
developing countries.  Parties had earlier heard a report on this under the agenda item "Negotiationsunder Article XXIV:7".  The Chairman added that Parties had had very interesting discussions on
accessions and developing countries, including the issues of asymmetric approaches and transitionalGPA/M/21
Page 6
time-frames.  One of the questions that Parties had been dealing with was which items might be taken
up in the context of the Agreement itself, and which issues might be dealt with in a specific accession
decision of the Committee.  This discussion showed the interrelation between this particular agenda
item and the negotiations on the revision of the GPA.
32. The representative of Switzerland emphasized that a speedy resolution of the new Article V in
the revised Agreement could prove to be extremely useful by providing guidelines for both current
and future accessions.  His delegation would therefore commend the drafting Group and the
Committee to give a high priority to this issue as the negotiations of the revised Agreement were now
extending into spring 2004.  His delegation considered that there were quite a large number of
acceding Members that depended on the key policy decisions that would have to be taken.  Without
making further progress in the revision on that particular area, it would be difficult to speed up the
accession process for the benefit of acceding Members.  This was one of the most important issues ofthe revision on which other issues depended.
33. The representative of the European Community supported the statement made by
Switzerland.  In reference to the communication his delegation had submitted on the current Article V
on the accession and the regime to be foreseen for developing countries (Job No. 6054), he reiterated
the importance his delegation attached to that Article, and hoped that that document could serve as abasis for the current negotiations.
34. The representative of the United States also supported the statement by Switzerland on the
need to move forward on that Article as quickly  as possible.  With regard to streamlining the
accession process,  she suggested that that be deferred until Parties had completed the work on the
Article, as that might provide important information.  The United States was fully committed tofinding ways in the Agreement that would assist developing countries in their accession to the
Agreement.  The United States appreciated the work that Switzerland and the European Community
had done and the ideas that they had brought forward on this issue.
35. The Chairman echoed the statements made by the delegations of Switzerland, the European
Community and the United States, with particular regard to the special importance of this issue to
Members discussing accession to the Agreement.
(ii) Applications
36. The Chairman said that the details of the current status of all accessions could be found in the
Annotated Agenda (Job No. 5700).  There were two accessions on which there had been
developments to report on since the February 2003 meeting: respectively those of Jordan and Chinese
Taipei.
- Jordan
37. With respect to the accession process of Jordan, the Chairman noted that Jordan had
submitted its entity offer on 6 February 2003 (GPA/SPEC/29).  In a communication circulated on
30 April 2003, the United States had submitted questions and a request for information to Jordan in
relation to that offer (GPA/SPEC/30).  Jordan had submitted its responses to the questions and request
for information from the United States in document GPA/SPEC/31.
38. The representative of Jordan made reference to the negotiations under Article XXIV:7 that
had taken place in the informal meeting preceding the present meeting, at which his delegation had
taken careful note of the suggestions and proposals made by, and views exchanged among, the
Parties.  In the view of his delegation, these had enhanced and enriched the original Agreement.  They
provided a helpful guide to countries whose legislation were under review to make such legislationcompatible with the GPA, as in the case of Jorda n.  Jordan was moving towards the final stages ofGPA/M/21
Page 7
modernising its legislation, and the deliberations at the informal meeting had been of great help and
would be utilized whenever needed to ensure compliance of the provisions of the legislation with the
Agreement.
39. Jordan had, as a developing country, sought accession to the GPA and had earlier submitted
its initial offer.  The negotiations with the Committ ee had been very encouraging as they indicated to
his delegation that developed countries were taking into consideration the developmental aspects of
government procurement.  Any understanding supporting Jordan's offer would send a very positive
signal to other developing countries to follow sim ilar steps.  He thanked all Parties that had shown
interest in Jordan's offer and had asked for clarifications.  He noted that his delegation had received
questions on its initial offer from the United States, and had submitted replies in due time.  Referring
to the discussions earlier that week in the inform al meeting, he thanked Parties that had recommended
special and differential treatment  for developing c ountries other than the flexibilities provided for in
the current Agreement.
40. The representative of the United States thanked Jordan for its prompt responses, and said that
the United States looked forward to engaging in further discussions on Jordan's offer.  She encouraged
all other Parties to also give close and quick consideration to Jordan's offer and its responses, and to
do everything they could to move this accession process forward expeditiously.
41. The representative of the European Community said that his delegation would shortly be
submitting questions to Jordan1 and looked forward to having further discussion with Jordan and to
receiving their answers thereafter.  He emphasized the importance of Jordan's accession to the
Agreement, and hoped that it was a step that wo uld lead towards further accessions by other
developing countries.
42. The representative of Canada thanked Jordan for its efforts and for responding promptly to
the questions put to it by the United States.  She said that her delegation had held discussions with,
and expected to provide further feedback to, Jordan.  Her delegation had found Jordan's responses to
the questions put by the United States to be helpful.  Her delegation would be examining those
responses, and it would do its best not to duplicate the questions and answers that had already beenprovided.
43. The Chairman noted that, in accordance with the GPA accession timeline, a period of four
months of further bilateral and plurilateral consultations was foreseen with regard to Jordan's
accession.  For the time being, he would not set a specific deadline for submission by Jordan of a
revised offer, and invited all Parties to engage expeditiously in the consultations with Jordan.
44. The representative of the United States suggested that the Committee might consider holding
a plurilateral meeting on Jordan's accession at the time of the next informal meeting of the Committee
in November 2003 (see Item E, Other Business).  After some discussion, the Committee accepted this
suggestion. Since, however, the proposed date of the ne xt informal meeting conflicted with the start of
Ramadan, as advised by the representative of Jordan, the Chairman proposed that the Committee
schedule an alternative date for the plurilateral meeting on Jordan's accession process in conjunction
with the subsequent cluster of informal meetings that the Committee would decide upon.
45. The Committee agreed to proceed as the Chairman had proposed.
                                                     
1 Subsequently submitted in document GPA/SPEC/32 circulated on 27 August 2003.GPA/M/21
Page 8
- Chinese Taipei
46. With regard to the accession process of Chinese Taipei, the Chairman recalled that at the
February 2003 meeting, the delegations of Singapore and Israel had reported that they had concluded
their respective market access negotiations with Chinese Taipei;  in consequence, the process of
bilateral market access negotiations between Chinese Taipei and GPA Parties that had lasted for sevenyears had come to an end.  While these negotiations had not always been easy, this positive
conclusion had been made possible thanks to a strong commitment on the part of both Chinese Taipei
and GPA Parties.
47. There remained, however, one outstanding issue regarding Chinese Taipei's accession,
namely the issue of nomenclature used by Chinese Ta ipei in its Appendix I.  The Chairman said that
he had held intensive consultations with all delegatio ns involved with a view to resolving this issue,
both before the meeting of February 2003 and the present one.  Nevertheless, he had to report that,despite his very best efforts, these consultations had not yielded a positive result.  Therefore, it would
not be possible to conclude the accession process of Chinese Taipei at the present meeting.
48. This situation was frustrating for all involved, not least for Chinese Taipei, given that almost
eight months had elapsed since the substantive market access negotiations had been concluded.  The
situation was also disappointing for companies bot h in Chinese Taipei and in GPA Parties, which
were still waiting for the mutual opening of procurement markets.
49. On a personal note, the Chairman paid tribute to the delegation of Chinese Taipei for its very
active and constructive contribution to the review of the Agreement, despite the lack of progress in
concluding their accession process.  This, amongst other things, clearly demonstrated Chinese Taipei's
strong commitment to the GPA.
50. He noted that he would no longer be able to contribute to Chinese Taipei's accession process,
since he would be leaving Geneva at the end of August 2003.  He had, however, discussed the matter
with his designated successor (see Item G), and was pleased to indicate that his designated successor
had offered his good offices to help resolve this issu e. He appealed to all Parties involved to do their
utmost so that the final hurdle in Chinese Taipei's accession process might be overcome.
51. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked the Chairman for his outstanding leadership as
Chair of the Committee over the previous year.  He  expressed his delegation's profound gratitude for
the Chairman's unreserved support and great efforts in trying to complete Chinese Taipei's accession
process during the period of his chairmanship.  He drew attention to the preamble to the GPA, which
recognised that an international framework of rights and obligations regarding government
procurement would contribute to greater liberalisation and the extension of world trade.  Based on his
delegation's commitment to be a positive Member of the WTO, even in the knowledge that accessionto the Agreement was likely to adversely affect Chinese Taipei's domestic suppliers to a certain
extent, Chinese Taipei was determined to acced e to the Agreement on Government Procurement in
the more general framework of acceding to the WTO.  Thanks to the support of the Parties involved,
Chinese Taipei had successfully completed bilateral consultations on all the substantive issues and
had sought to get its accession adopted in December 2002.  In spite of so much good work, however,it was a non-economic issue that had prevented the conclusion of its accession at that time.
52. As further evidence of Chinese Taipei's continued determination to accede to the GPA, its
responsible Minister had come to Geneva earlier th at week and had been consulting very closely with
the Chairman.  However, despite the unreserved efforts and utmost flexibility from his delegation's
side, regretfully, the non-economic issue had continued to be a stumbling-block.  While expressing hisdelegation's great disappointment at the current  stage of its GPA accession, he urged all GPA
signatories to redouble their efforts so as to overcome that last outstanding hurdle as soon as possible.
He took the opportunity to offer his delegation's best wishes to the Chairman in his future endeavours.GPA/M/21
Page 9
53. The representative of Japan said that his delegation looked forward to the accession of
Chinese Taipei at the earliest possible date, and to that end, it would continue to work with the
incoming Chairman and support his role.
54. The representative of the United States joined Japan in its statement.  Her delegation had
worked for many years to assist the accession of Chinese Taipei to the GPA, and had a strong interest
in the commercial opportunities that this accession  would bring to all Parties.  The United States
would welcome Chinese Taipei's accession as soon as it could be worked out.  She encouraged the
Chairman to continue his efforts to bring this i ssue to a resolution.  She thanked the representative of
Chinese Taipei, who had been very active in the discussions on the revision of the Agreement, and
said this showed the clear commitment of Chinese Taipei to accede to the Agreement.
55. The representative of Canada joined Japan and the United States in thanking Chinese Taipei
for its efforts to pursue accession and for its contribution to the review of the Agreement.  Canada
looked forward to the accession of Chinese Taipei at the earliest possible date, and encouraged the
Chairman to continue working on finding a resolution.
56. The representative of Korea echoed the previous speakers who had supported the early
resolution of the remaining issues and conclusion of the accession of Chinese Taipei as soon as
possible.
57. The representative of China expressed his delegation's appreciation for the Chairman's
excellent work during his chairmanship, and thanked him for his efforts in the relevant consultations
to bridge differences.  He noted that the Chairman's mediating efforts had helped to improve
understanding among  all Members concerned.  The Chairman's skilfulness had enabled the exercise
to be conducted in a positive way.  He expressed his delegation's hope that this would continue infuture consultations.
58. The Chairman stated that he had taken note of the commitments of all delegations to resolve
this issue as soon as possible, and would convey to his successor the Parties' wish as regards his
successor's involvement in the resolution of this issu e.  He proposed that the Committee revert to this
issue at its next meeting, but also that the Committee could convene an additional formal meeting todeal with the issue if it had been resolved before the next scheduled formal meeting.
59. The Committee so agreed.
- Other Accessions
60. The Chairman noted that there were no comments by Parties with regard to the other ongoing
accession processes, and said that the Committee would revert to this item at its next formal meeting.
D. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
61. The Chairman noted that at the meetings October 2002 and February 2003, the delegation of
the Netherlands with respect to Aruba had been invited to submit its notification of the implementing
legislation in accordance with the requirements in document GPA/1/Add.1.  The representative of the
Netherlands with respect to Aruba noted that there had been no new developments on that issue.
62. The Chairman said that Hong Kong, China had sent a notification concerning its national
implementing legislation (GPA/27/Add.1 circulated on 20 August 2003).  The representative of Hong
Kong, China informed the Committee that the communication her delegation had sent concerned an
updated version of Hong Kong, China's basic procurement regulations, namely the Stores and
Procurement Regulations.GPA/M/21
Page 10
E. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Date of Next Meeting
63. The Chairman said that there were two meeting dates that the Committee needed to deal with:
(i) the date of the informal meeting, which would also be an opportunity to discuss the plurilateral
meeting with respect to the accession of Jordan (see Item C);  and (ii) the date of the next formalmeeting.
64. Following a brief discussion, the Committee agreed to hold its next informal meeting during
week commencing 24 November 2003, and further that the incoming Chairman (see Item F below)
would consult with Parties to determine appropriate days in that week to hold that meeting.  Some
Parties pointed out that the duration of the meeting can be shortened to three days.  The representative
of Japan expressed that his delegation would prefer the latter half of that week to hold that meeting.
65. As regards the date for the following formal m eeting, the Chairman suggested that it might be
practical that this coincided with the completion of the revision of the text of the Agreement, for
which the Committee had agreed a deadline of spring 2004.  He suggested that his successor consult
with Parties to determine an appropriate date.
66. The Committee agreed to proceed as the Chairman had proposed.
F. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2003 AND FOR 2004
67. The Chairman recalled that in a fax dated 20 January 2003 he had informed Parties that he
would be leaving Geneva at the end of August 2003 and that, accordingly, the Committee would need
to elect a Chairperson for the remainder of 2003 and for 2004.  In consequence, he had undertaken
consultations with delegations and on the basis of those consultations, he understood that there was
general support for the election of Mr. Niklas Bersgtröm from the delegation of Sweden as Chairman.
68. The Committee duly elected Mr. Niklas Bergström (Sweden) as Chairman for the remainder
of 2003 and for 2004.
69. The outgoing Chairman thanked the Committee for the very good cooperation and the
pleasant atmosphere in which he had been able to do his work as Chairman.  He also thanked the
Secretariat for its support.  He wished success to his successor.
70. The incoming Chairman thanked the Committee for the confidence it had placed in him.  He
said that he looked forward to working with the Committee, and was confident that there would be a
good working atmosphere.  He noted that he would also depend on the Secretariat in carrying out his
work on the Committee.  He thanked his predecessor for his skill and efficiency in chairing the
Committee, and wished him best of luck in his future career.
71. The representatives of Canada;  China ;  Chinese Taipei ;  the European Community ;  Hong
Kong, China;  Israel ;  Japan ;  Jordan ;  Korea ; Singapore ;  Switzerland ;  and the United States  thanked
the outgoing Chairman for his work and conveyed their best wishes to him for the future.  They
welcomed the incoming Chairman and assured him of their support for his work.
__________