RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/64
15 June 2001
(01-2983)
General Council
Special Session on Implementation
27 April 2001
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 27 April 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 said he would first present the report by the Director-General and himself on
the consultations they had been carrying out on the outstanding implementation issues and concerns.
This report had been made available to delegations prior to the present meeting.
4. As delegations were aware, the then-Chairman of the General Council, Ambassador Bryn,
had held an informal meeting on implementation-related issues on 5 February 2001 to seek
delegations' views on how to proceed with addres sing the outstanding issues with a view to
completing the process no later than the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, as envisaged inthe General Council Decision of 15 December 2000.  In the light of that meeting and other
consultations he had undertaken in that period, Ambassador Bryn had suggested at the regular
meeting of the General Council on 8 February 2001 that the Director-General and the present
Chairman conduct informal consultations, in full respect of transparency, to prepare for further special
sessions of the General Council, with a view to developing and implementing the continuing workprogramme on implementation that all had agreed.  Consultations had been carried out in line with
that mandate, and delegations had before them their report on them.  This was a report on their own
responsibility, setting out the situation as the Director-General and he saw it, and he was satisfied that
it faithfully reflected the results of their work thus far.
5. The General Council's mandate on implementation issues constituted an important part of the
work of the WTO, and everyone should strive to do their best to fulfil the terms of that mandate,
notwithstanding the complexities surrounding the issues.  In his work on the outstanding issues he had
adopted a thematic approach, with an emphasis on achievable results and maintaining the distinction
between paragraphs 21 and 22 of the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999.  The focus of theseWT/GC/M/64
Page 2
consultations had been the issues outstanding under each Agreement as listed in the compilation of
outstanding issues circulated by the Secretariat as Job(01)/14 on 20 February 2001.
6. At the Special Sessions held in October and December 2000, the General Council had
referred a number of issues to subsidiary bodies for their consideration.  Some delegations had
expressed their concern to him about the progress of work on these issues, and for this reason he hadalso carried out a series of meetings with the Chairs of the relevant bodies to discuss the progress
made and the question of when they could realistically report back to the General Council.  He had, of
course, taken into account the input he had received from them in preparing the present report.  He
intended to stay in touch with the Chairs and to continue to monitor the situation, and would report
back to the General Council as appropriate.
7. Since 23 February 2001, he had conducted a number of informal consultations with various
delegations on some of the outstanding issues.  The first set of consultations had been on issues underthe following Agreements: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Agriculture, Trade in Services and
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, and he outlined his assessment of these consultations.
(a) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
8. The consultations on the issues under the SPS Agreement had taken place on 23 February
2001.  Consistent with the thematic approach suggested, the focus had been first on the fouroutstanding tirets under paragraph 21, and later on the three tirets under paragraph 22.
9. On paragraph 21, delegations had had a good exchange of views on the outstanding tirets, but
it seemed clear that further consideration and consultations were needed on these complex issues.
10. The fourth tiret, relating to the problems which had prevented developing countries from
entering into equivalency agreements, had been referred to the SPS Committee.  The Chairman of thatCommittee had invited inputs from Members and had held further discussions on this issue at an
informal meeting of the Committee just prior to the consultations on 23 February.  The Chairman had
issued a report on these discussions on 21 Marc h in document G/L/445, and he noted from the
Chairman's conclusions that the Committee had agreed to continue its work with regard to
equivalence in order to develop concrete guidance, based on contributions from Members and in closecooperation with the relevant standard-setting bodies.
11. On the three paragraph 22 tirets, there had been a first run through of the issues involved, and
he believed there had been some useful clarification of what was being sought.  On the second tiret, to
further clarify the issue, one delegation had suggested that the Secretariat prepare a note on the use of
the terms "standards", "guidelines" and "recommendations" in the SPS Agreement.  The Secretariat
had subsequently circulated a technical note on this on 15 March as Job(01)/36.
12. He drew attention to the Director-General's sec ond report on his work aimed at increasing the
participation of developing-country Members in the work of the relevant sanitary and phytosanitary
international standard-setting organizations, furthe r to the General Council's request to him in this
respect at its October 2000 Special Session.  This report had been issued as document WT/GC/45 on 7
March 2001.  He also wished to mention the well-attended workshop on standard-setting processes
and developing-country involvement, held on 13 March just prior to the SPS Committee meeting,which had helped to clarify the operation of the standard-setting organizations and the current
participation of developing countries.  Delegations could count on the Director-General and his
colleagues to continue their work in this area, and to keep the General Council informed of the
progress made.WT/GC/M/64
Page 3
(b) Agreement on Agriculture
13. The consultations on agriculture had taken place on 6 March.  As there were no paragraph 22
issues in this area, the focus had been on the four outstanding paragraph 21 issues listed in the
compilation document.
14. The discussion on the first two tirets, which covered subjects also under discussion in the
agriculture negotiations, had indicated to him that although the proposals remained on the table at the
present stage, there seemed little hope of immediate progress on them in the context of the discussions
on implementation.  This was clearly an area he would need to come back to.
15. Two issues were listed in the compilation as  having been referred to the Committee on
Agriculture, the first of which, regarding the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least- Developed and Net Food -Importing Developing
Countries, had been referred to the Committee on 15 December.  A new proposal on theimplementation of that Decision had been submitted by the proponents on 19 March in document
G/AG/W/49 and discussed at the Committee meeting held on 29-30 March.  He understood that the
Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture intended to hold informal consultations to address
the technical aspects of the three areas of the proposal:  food aid, access to financing facilities, and
technical and financial assistance to increase agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  The GeneralCouncil would, of course, receive a progress report from the Vice-Chairman at its May meeting, as
mandated in the Decision of 15 December, and this matter would be on the agenda of the next
Committee meeting, scheduled for 28-29 June.
16. The second issue had been referred to the Committee on Agriculture on 18 October 2000 and
concerned the implementation of Article 10.2.  At the consultations on this issue, the proponents hadexplained their approach to the work on this issue, both in the context of the regular work of the
Committee and in its Special Sessions.  A proposal had since been submitted by a group of countries
to both the regular Committee on Agriculture and its Special Session, and it had been discussed at the
regular Committee meeting held on 29-30 March.  The issue had, of course, been included as an item
on the agenda of the regular meetings of the Committ ee, as instructed by the General Council at its
October Special Session.  Since this would appear to be a very complex issue, he suggested that
periodic reports to the General Council on progress made on this issue would be helpful.
17. He also wished to mention the issue of TR Q administration, which appeared under tirets 3
and 4 of paragraph 21 and on which the General Council had already taken a decision on
15 December 2000.  Although this issue had been transmitted to the Committee on Agriculture on the
basis of the 15 December Decision, he believed that the General Council could keep in view the
possible desirability of a report by the Vice-Chairman to its July meeting on the status of submissionsto the Committee of addenda to notifications.
(c) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
18. In the consultations on 9 March on issues in the area of GATS, the focus had been on the two
tirets under paragraph 21, since no proposals were made under paragraph 22.
19. He believed that the discussion here had been rather encouraging.  He would need to come
back to the first tiret on another occasion, and delegations were considering some ideas put forward
on the second tiret.  He was hopeful that it might be possible to reach a wider understanding on these
issues in future consultations.WT/GC/M/64
Page 4
(d) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
20. The consultations on TRIPS had taken place on 13 March.  Consistent with the thematic
approach, the focus had been first on the seven tirets under paragraph 21, and later the two tirets under
paragraph 22.
21. On the paragraph 21 issues,  he believed it had been a rather mixed picture.  He would clearly
need to come back to these issues, some sooner rather  than later.  All of these issues remained on the
table at the present stage.  However, he had the impression that concrete progress could be hard to
achieve on a number of these issues in the time-frame the General Council had set.  He feared that on
some issues, the likelihood of finding ways to resolve them in the present process was quite low.  He
also wished to note that some of the issues were under active consideration in the TRIPS Council,
including some which had not in fact been officially referred to it by the General Council.
22. The issue of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) had been referred  to the TRIPS Council on 18 October 2000, and he
noted that the General Council had urged the TRIPS Council to continue its ongoing work with a view
to clarifying this relationship.  At the TRIPS Council meeting held on 2-5 April, he understood there
had been a further discussion of Members' submissions on this issue, including three new papers, so
the work on this issue in that Council was clearly progressing.
23. On the fourth issue listed in the compilation, concerning the implementation of Article 66.2,
which had also been referred to the TRIPS Council on 18 October, he wished to point out that it had
been on the agenda of that Council's meeting in early April.  However, the Members which had
previously indicated their intention to submit proposals had still not been in a position to do so at that
meeting, and the Council had agreed to revert to th is matter at its next meting in June.  The Council
had, however, received written information on t echnology capacity-building from UNCTAD, WIPO,
UNIDO and the CBD Secretariat.
24. He wished to note also that the TRIPS Council had agreed to devote a full day to a special
discussion of intellectual property issues relevant to access to medicines during the course of its next
meeting, scheduled for June.
25. At the consultations on 13 March, there had been a good first reading of the paragraph 22
issues, and he would need to come back to them on another occasion.
26. Following these various consultations, he had held an informal open-ended meeting on 16
March at which he had reported on his activities.  He had informed delegations that he intended to
convene a Special Session of the General Council on Implementation in April, and that he would
continue his consultations on outstanding issues and also consult with delegations on how to ensure
that the process evolved in the most effective way possible.  He had also mentioned that one of thefocal points of these consultations would be the need to inject some fresh thinking into this process.
27. Since then, he had conducted consultations on the outstanding issues under the Agreements
on Technical Barriers to Trade and on Customs Valuation, as well as on the issues listed under the
heading "Cross-cutting issues" on page 10 of the comp ilation of outstanding issues circulated by the
Secretariat, and he wished to outline his assessment of them.
(e) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
28. On 22 March he had conducted consultations on the issues raised under the TBT Agreement,
starting first with the one outstanding issue in paragraph 21.  This tiret called for a specific mandate to
be given to the TBT Committee as part of its triennial work programme to address the problems faced
by developing countries in both international standards and conformity assessment.  The issue hadWT/GC/M/64
Page 5
been referred to the TBT Committee on 18 October 2000, and the Committee had issued a detailed
report on its consideration of it on 29 November in  document G/L/422, following the conclusion of its
triennial review, a full account of which could be found in document G/TBT/9.  On the basis of the
discussion in the consultations, it seemed that the work in the Committee was progressing well.  Thus,
he encouraged the Committee to continue its work, and to keep the General Council informed ofprogress.
29. Four proposals were listed under paragraph 22 on TBT, and there had been an interesting
discussion on all of them.  The first proposal, on the effective participation of developing countries in
the setting of standards by international standard-setting organisations, appeared to be an issue which
was being addressed in the Committee to the satisfaction of the proponents.  During its Second
Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the TBT Agreement which had been
concluded in November 2000, the Committee had adopted a Decision on principles and proceduresfor the development of international standards, guides and recommendations with relation to
Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement.  The Committee had also agreed to invite the
relevant bodies involved in the development of international standards to provide regular updates on
their activities at Committee meetings.  He believed that in this case the General Council should
simply keep itself informed of the progress made in the Committee.
30. The second tiret suggested that the provisions of Article 11 of the TBT Agreement should be
made obligatory so that technical assistance and cooperation was provided to developing countries,
and here again the ongoing work in the Committee would also seem to be progressing well.  The
Committee had agreed to develop a demand-driven technical cooperation programme related to the
Agreement, with the aim of achieving more effective cooperation and coordination among donors tobetter target the needs identified by developing-country Members.  However, in the case of the third
tiret on self-declaration regarding adherence to standards by developing-country exporters, although
the Committee was also working on this issue and was perhaps better placed then the General Council
to make progress in this area, he believed that he would need to come back to it in his consultations.
It would be useful if the proponents could reflect on their proposal with a view to perhaps refining itfurther.
31. The last tiret concerned a longer time-frame for developing countries to comply with
measures regarding products of export interest to them.  Here too, he would suggest reverting to this
issue in further consultations, since he did not believe that it had been possible to fully clarify the
issue on 22 March.
(f) Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 (Customs Valuation)
32. On 10 April he had held consultations on the issues raised under the Customs Valuation
Agreement.  The three issues listed in the compilation under paragraph 21 had all been referred to the
Customs Valuation Committee on 18 October 2000, and the Chairman's report on the Committee's
consideration of these issues had been circulated on 7 December 2000 in document G/VAL/36.  The
full discussion in the Committee on these issues was reflected in the minutes of that meeting in
document G/VAL/M/17, in which the high level of complexity of these issues was clear.  In hisconsultations, the discussion had also been highly complex, and he would need to return to these
issues on another occasion.
33. Three further issues were listed in this area under paragraph 22, and there had been a useful
first reading of the proposals they represented.  Here too, there were some complex issues on the table
and it would be necessary to revert to them in further consultations.  Indeed, the complexity of theseissues made him wonder whether technical input from the Committee would not help the General
Council's work on them.  For the second and third tirets, it would be useful if the proponents could
reflect on how the language of these tirets could be clarified.WT/GC/M/64
Page 6
(g) Cross-cutting issues
34. Four tirets were listed in the Secretariat's compilation under the heading of cross-cutting
issues, and at the open-ended consultations he had held on 19 April on these tirets there had been a
good discussion of the issues involved.  The first three tirets from paragraph 21 addressed special and
differential treatment, and a large number of statements had been made on the need to convert someS&D provisions into concrete commitments.  However, it would be necessary to come back to these
issues again, in particular the manner in which WTO might be able to address supply-side constraints
as mentioned in the first tiret.
35. The fourth tiret concerned the issue raised by Saint Lucia on redistribution of negotiating
rights in favour of small and medium-sized exporting Members.  Although the discussion had resulted
in some elucidation of the proposal, it would also be  necessary to come back to this issue on a future
occasion after further reflection.
36. In addition to the meetings he had held with the Chairs of the bodies he had mentioned in his
assessment of the consultations, he had also met the Chairs of the Committees on Rules of Origin and
on Subsidies.  With regard to rules of origin, the only issue referred to the Committee was tiret 1
concerning the deadline for the completion of work on harmonizing non-preferential rules of origin.
This issue had been referred to the Committee on 18 October 2000, and the General Council had alsotaken action in its 15 December Decision, whereby the remaining work would be expedited so as to
complete it by the time of the Fourth Ministerial Conference, or by the end of 2001 at the latest.  The
Decision had also called for reports by the Chairman of the Committee to each regular General
Council meeting, and the first such report had been made by the Chairman at the February General
Council meeting.  A further report would be made to the May meeting and he would propose that the
General Council take note of the report.  He would also draw the attention of Members to the need to
show the flexibility and political will necessary to expedite the remaining work on harmonizing non-
preferential rules of origin.
37. However, it seemed clear to him that since the establishment of a new deadline, the work had
gained momentum.  During the March meeting of the Committee, consensus had been reached on 23outstanding issues.  This outcome was encouraging, compared to the results of previous negotiating
sessions in which consensus had been reached on only a few items.  The Committee had also adopted
a new working method in order to speed up the remaining work.  In line with this new method, the
Chairman of the Committee had recently circulated his recommendations for solutions to about 400
outstanding issues, which would serve as a basis for negotiations during the next sessions of the
Committee, scheduled in May and July.
38. Turning to the area of subsidies, in its Decemb er Decision the General Council had requested
the Subsidies Committee to examine two matters:  (i) all issues relating to Articles 27.5 and 27.6 of
the SCM Agreement, including the possibility to es tablish export competitiveness on the basis of a
period longer than two years; and (ii) the issues of aggregate and generalized rates of remission of
import duties and of the definition of "inputs consumed in the production process", taking into
account the particular needs of developing-country Members.  The Committee had held a specialmeeting on 9 February on the procedures for its consideration of these matters, and had adopted a
Decision on this question which had been circulated in document G/SCM/30.  In that Decision it was
foreseen that the Committee would direct the Chair to provide an interim report to the General
Council with a view to concluding work by 31 July 2001.  In order to keep the General Council
informed of the status of the Committee's work on these issues, he intended to invite the Chair tomake a short oral report, on the Chair's responsibility, to the General Council at its regular meeting
scheduled for May.
39. Overall, everyone had rightly devoted considerable time and effort to this exercise.  In the
interest of brevity, this report had not gone into all of the details.  If any delegation wished to have aWT/GC/M/64
Page 7
fuller account, the Secretariat and he were at their disposal.  No doubt delegations would also take
advantage of the present meeting to make their views known on any of the issues covered by the
report if they wished to do so.
40. He believed that the picture overall was somewhat mixed.  In some cases real progress was
being made, either in his consultations or in subsidiary bodies.  In many others, while it had beenpossible to achieve useful clarification of the issues at hand, concrete progress was clearly some way
off.
41. The Director-General and he proposed to continue to devote considerable attention to
implementation matters.  There were still a lot of issues to work through.  As he had said at the
informal meeting on 16 March, it was necessary to ensure that the process evolved in the most
effective way possible, bearing in mind the time-frame and context within which the General Council
was operating – that of the rapidly approaching Fourth Ministerial Conference.  He had referredbefore to the need to inject some fresh thinking, and he had been reiterating this point in various
conversations he had had in recent weeks.  In referring to "fresh thinking" he meant a new approach
which all could at least live with.  He was still considering this himself, but he was also very much
looking to delegations to offer views on how to carry this important work forward in a really effective
manner.
42. By way of introduction to the second item on the agenda of the present meeting, he wished to
outline how he saw the organization of work on im plementation issues over the months ahead, and in
so doing, he wanted to make some general points.  First, the General Council was guided in its work
by the 3 May Decision of the General Council and the mandate set out therein.  Second, it went
without saying that this was an important aspect of the WTO's work, and that it remained on aseparate track.  Third, as had been underlined by the then-Chairman, Ambassador Bryn, at the 3 May
General Council meeting the previous year, this was an action- and results-orientated process, which
meant that constructive engagement from all Members was essential.
43. In this light, he believed that the way the work was organized needed to be aimed at fulfilling
the mandate of completing the process no later than the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  He wished toassure delegations that this was the objective to which he would be dedicating his efforts, together
with the Director-General and the Secretariat.  To attain this objective, it was necessary to be clear
about the future work, but also to retain a reasonable degree of flexibility.
44. He wished to outline in more specific terms how he intended to proceed.  First, it was clear
that formal meetings such as the present one had an important place in the process the General
Council was engaged in, although it was equally clear that such meetings would require considerable
preparatory work if they were to yield meaningful results.  It would therefore be his intention toconvene another special session towards the end of June or early July, by which time he would aim to
have covered all the issues remaining to be addressed.  Beyond that meeting, he believed that one
should think in terms of at least one further special session, and perhaps two.  It seemed highly likely
that it would be necessary to have a meeting in the autumn.  The key would be to schedule meetings
precisely as necessary in the light of progress.
45. In between special sessions the Director-General and he would continue and intensify the
informal process in which they had been working up to the present.  He foresaw that this informal
process would involve consultations in various configurations on specific issues, combined with
regular open-ended informal meetings in which the Director-General and he would report back on
their consultations.  These open-ended meetings would also provide an opportunity for broadeningdiscussions on specific issues.  They attached great importance to such meetings as a key element in
the transparency and inclusiveness of the process.WT/GC/M/64
Page 8
46. In the forthcoming consultations on specific issues, he would continue working as he had
been recently, along broadly thematic lines, ensuring that all of the issues which had been raised and
which were reflected in the February compilation w ould be considered.  This meant that before the
next special session, he would be taking up all of the remaining issues in the compilation which had
not been addressed thus far in 2001 – namely, the GATT 1994 issues, textiles, trade-relatedinvestment measures, anti-dumping, rules of origin, subsidies and safeguards, though not necessarily
in that order.  In addition, he would need to find time at some stage to revisit those issues they had
already reported on but which required further work.
47. Furthermore, there was important work going on in the subsidiary bodies actively considering
various implementation issues.  He would be keeping in close contact with the Chairpersons of these
bodies, and would be carefully monitoring progress th ere and encouraging their efforts to come to a
timely result.  It was important to ensure that there were adequate and timely reporting channels to theGeneral Council.
48. Finally, he urged delegations to approach the question of process in a pragmatic way and with
a focus on achieving results.  He did not believe it was in anyone's interest to engage in a lengthy
debate on process.
49. Delegations thanked the Chairman for the report on the informal consultations held to date
and for his efforts in this regard, and expressed confidence in his leadership.
50. The representative of Thailand, on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that Members needed
to be engaged and realistic as well as flexible in their attempts to find acceptable solutions to each
issue and concern.  To move the process forw ard, the ASEAN Members suggested the following:
first, the issues and concerns on which the Ge neral Council had agreed on 3 May 2001 should not be
allowed to backslide.  Regarding the issues sent to subsidiary bodies, the General Council should take
decisions on the issues reported back, as well as set a deadline for reports on the pending issues in
order to allow the General Council to take decisions.  Intensive discussions should be held on the
other outstanding issues, such as anti-dumping and subsidies, as soon as possible.  With a view to
completing the process before the Fourth Ministerial Conference, there should be three specialsessions on implementation-related issues and concerns:  in early June, at the end of July and at the
end of October.  Before each, informal meetings should be held as frequently as the Chairman felt
necessary in order to intensify the consultations and to sustain momentum.  The ASEAN Members
wished to see implementation issues resolved in a manner satisfactory to all, but this would not be
possible without engagement in good faith by all Members.  The confidence-building process and a
successful Ministerial Conference would depend partly on the outcome of the present process on
implementation.
51. The representative of the European Commun ities said the Chairman's report provided an
excellent basis on which to build.  His delegation was confident that the process under the Chairman's
management would bring successful results on implementation, and was encouraged by the work that
had taken place in the informal consultations and also in the subsidiary bodies.  There seemed to be a
genuine desire to move forward beyond rhetoric and tactical considerations and to get to the heart ofthe substance of the issues.  The Community took the issue of implementation very seriously and
believed it was important to show that the WTO could find practical solutions to genuine problems.  It
was making major efforts to help developing coun tries to fully implement commitments made in the
Uruguay Round and more broadly to integrate into the multilateral system.  Its position on
implementation was part of this policy – to progressively steer the WTO and the multilateral tradingsystem towards being more responsive to development needs and priorities.  It was necessary to
recognise that the more practical progress could be shown on implementation, the more an
environment conducive to further negotiations in WTO would be created.WT/GC/M/64
Page 9
52. The Chairman's report showed that a lot had already been done.  Amongst other things, a set
of decisions had been taken in December, extension of transitional periods had been agreed in some
Agreements such as Customs Valuation, and there had been several proposals on agriculture and
services on the guidelines for the next phase of the negotiations in those areas, which was an
encouraging development.  In addition, autonomous measures, such as the decision by theCommunity to give duty- and quota-free access to products from least-developed countries, and
comparable actions by other Members, were also  a good signal.  At the forthcoming conference on
LDCs to be held in Brussels, the Community w ould put much emphasis on deliverables, and hoped
that autonomous measures would be multilateralized at a later stage.  Furthermore, specific work
programmes had been started in areas such as TBT and SPS to find ways to better help developing
countries participate in standards-setting, as well as work in areas such as TRIPS to ensure good
implementation.  A start had also been made on developing more coherent approaches to technicalassistance, including through strengthened coordination with other international agencies and donors,
and new contributions to the Integrated Framework Trust Fund.  In fact, the whole field of technical
assistance to build capacity, and thus to help full and faithful implementation, was being addressed
substantively and seriously in many areas of the WTO's work.  In addition, more issues might also be
rapidly agreed, for example the proposed decision in the area of customs valuation aimed at more
coherent technical assistance, on which his delegation hoped that any remaining reserve could be
lifted quickly.  His delegation wished to underline all of this, since it had been said that very little
progress had been made.  While it was true that more could be done, it was also true that there had
already been progress, if one looked at all these decisions and actions as a whole and recognised that
implementation was about much more than the list of proposals in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 1999draft Ministerial text.  Implementation concerne d also a way of looking at the integration of
developing countries into the multilateral trading system.  As a result of all the work that had been
carried out in this area, the development focus had become more pronounced.
53. The main question at the present meeting was how to move ahead in the coming weeks and
months.  It should be borne in mind that the different proposals were heterogeneous and that it mightnot be possible to treat them all in the same way or according to a single timetable.  The recent
consultations between capital-based officials of some delegations had been useful in helping
delegations to understand this better.  Many delegations recognised that among the outstanding
implementation issues, there were some of a technical, procedural or administrative nature, which it
should be possible to resolve rapidly.  Other issues, however, were of a more clearly political nature,
carried real economic implications, or would involve amending or rebalancing existing agreements,
and therefore negotiation.  In many cases, proposals to modify agreements or their interpretationcould necessitate changes to Members' domestic laws and require ratification procedures.  Therefore,
delegations should start work on determining the most appropriate course of action for the different
implementation issues, recognising that some of the more difficult questions might entail more
substantive negotiation.  In this respect, the Comm unity wished to offer some specific ideas, but in
doing so wished to stress that this was its own initial assessment, and that it was ready to continuediscussions on individual issues to see what could be achieved and within what time-frames.
54. Having done its own initial assessment, the Community was convinced there were some
proposals on which additional progress should be possible in the coming weeks or months.  The most
important of these would be a decision to extend certain notified trade-related investment measures
(TRIMs) as foreseen in the TRIMs Agreement itself and which had been outstanding for some time.The Community believed a solution was not far away and urged adoption of a decision as quickly as
possible.  This would give a major boost to confidence and demonstrate the WTO's ability to respond
sensitively to development problems.  While it was not his intention to give precise lists of issues,
there were other issues on which the General Council Chairman, through his consultation process,
could seek early progress.  Examples of this could include:  (i) asking the Anti-Dumping Committeeto clarify whether and how annual reviews under Article 18.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement could
be improved;  (ii) the transparency and notification proposals made in respect of rules of origin
changes;  (iii) the proposal for biennial reviews of the SPS Agreement, on which perhaps the SPSWT/GC/M/64
Page 10
Committee could reach a view and which could be cons idered further by the General Council;  (iv) in
the areas of both SPS and TBT, considerable work programmes were underway in areas such as
technical assistance, participation of developing countries in standards-setting bodies and equivalence,
and it might be possible in the near future to draw conclusions from that work that could be adopted
by the General Council, or further guidance given;  (v) in the area of customs valuation, a decisionshould be possible regarding more coherent technical assistance;  discussions in the Customs
Valuation Committee on specific implementation proposals had also yielded a better understanding of
the different measures to combat fraud, and it might be possible to draw some conclusions confirming
Members' views on the most effective means to tackle fraud;  (vi) in the area of TRIPS, there had also
been useful work in the TRIPS Council on the question of technology transfer under Article 66.2 of
the TRIPS Agreement;  consultations on this were continuing, at the end of which the General
Council could see if anything needed to be acted upon or any more formal or operational conclusionsreached;  and, (vii) there had been a proposal recognising the particular nature of the balance-of-
payments provision and this could be reaffirmed.
55. Regarding the other implementation issues, some were likely to necessitate the attention of
Ministers at the Ministerial Conference, since they concerned clearly political matters.  Some might
be conclusively decided by Ministers, but others might need to be negotiated further after Doha,especially if they necessitated amendment of Agreements or changes to Members' domestic laws.
Regarding issues that could be decided by Ministers at Doha, it was perhaps too early to list them
definitively.  However, by way of example, certain proposals relating to subsidies, anti-dumping, and
textiles and clothing would require serious attention.  The Community had an open mind on these
questions and wished to make progress.  Regarding issues that might need negotiations, somedelegations had made it clear that even if this were to be the case, there should nonetheless be a clear
political commitment to do this.  The Community  understood that point of view, and therefore
proposed that the negotiating mandates that would be adopted at Doha should explicitly include a
number of generic negotiating mandates addressing outstanding implementation issues.  For example,
there could be a mandate to revisit the special and differential treatment provisions of existingAgreements with a view to making them more opera tional.  This could be part of an overall mandate
to review existing WTO rules.  Other proposals could have similar treatment.  The Community looked
forward to making concrete progress on implementati on in the coming weeks, of which an extension
on TRIMs would be a key element and crucial to the WTO's credibility.  All delegations should try to
put rhetoric behind them and not to fear a real and constructive debate as they started the preparatory
work for Doha, on how to make progress on some of the more difficult issues, and in particular what
kind of Ministerial decisions could be taken.  In doing so, it would be possible to build upon theextremely useful conclusions of the General Council Chairman, and the Community would fully
support him in his further consultations.  It also supported the Chairman's suggestions regarding the
organization of further work, in particular that it was necessary to find practical ways to move the
process forward, and that the focus should be on results and on substantive issues rather than on
process.
56. The representative of Pakistan said that according to the 3 May Decision, Members
recognized that implementation issues had given rise to serious concerns among many developing
countries.  One type of concern was that the expected benefits from the Uruguay Round Agreements
had not been realized, in part due to the way in which these agreements had, or had not, been
implemented.  Another was that the objectives of those agreements could not be fulfilled withoutcertain clarifications, new understandings or supple mentary measures.  A third type of concern was
that certain agreements or aspects thereof, in operational terms, were contradictory to the interests of
developing countries, for example the patentability of life-saving drugs under the TRIPS Agreement.
The 3 May Decision envisaged a three-stage process:  to assess the existing difficulties, to identify
ways to resolve them, and to take decisions on appropriate action.  This process was to be completedby the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  The then-Chairman of the General Council had said at its
June 2000 meeting that the process on implementation was an action- and results-oriented process.
All three stages of the process had to be completed by the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  TheWT/GC/M/64
Page 11
decisions that had to be adopted were those on the ways and means to resolve the difficulties.  It
would not be sufficient to reach conclusions that only a few issues could be resolved before or at
Doha, and Pakistan could not accept consigning the majority of implementation concerns to some
post-Doha process, as this would amount to a dire ct abrogation of the 3 May Decision.  There was no
justification for linking concerns on implementation to new or further trade negotiations, as theseconcerns related to the Uruguay Round package which had its own internal balance and which was
supposed to produce mutual benefits for all participants.  The implementation process was designed to
achieve that anticipated and promised balance.  Developing countries could not and should not be
asked to pay twice for the mutual benefits anticipated under the Uruguay Round.  The special and
differential treatment promised to developing countries in so many of the Uruguay Round agreements
could not be linked to new negotiations regarding WTO rules as the Community had just suggested,
since all that was being asked was that these provisions be made operational.
57. Regarding the report made by the Chairman, the results reflected therein were not so much
mixed as meagre, since very little progress had been made.  Pakistan might have an evaluation
different from that in the report as to "achievable results" – which depended on the political will of all
concerned – and "little hope of immediate progre ss" – which was dependent on positive responses to
developing countries' concerns.  Pakistan wanted to move away from such value judgments, andexpected progressive results as anticipated in the 3 May Decision.  For example, it would have
expected that on the eight proposals that had been dropped at the last minute from the decision
proposed by the then-Chairman of the General Council in December 2000 due to difficulties
encountered in the negotiations, at least an attempt would have been made to revive them and to see
whether decisions could not be reached on them at the present Special Session.  There werepossibilities for decision, and on a broader spectrum than what the Community had envisaged, e.g. on
SPS and TBT, TRIMs extensions, Article 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement, and services.
Pakistan was concerned that decisions on such issues had not been suggested or taken at the present
meeting.  Second, even where decisions were not possible, ways and means to resolve these issues
had to be identified, and the present meeting could have been used to discuss these.  For example, inagriculture, the principle of flexibility for developing countries could be recognized and later
translated into something operational at a later stage.  Priority in the implementation process should
not be determined solely by feasibility or achievability, but by the importance of the issues for the
countries concerned and for the system.  In this context his delegation was very disappointed there
had been no opportunity for a substantive and open discussion on the whole gamut of issues relating
to textiles and clothing.  For Pakistan, the results on textiles would be the touchstone for its
assessment of the success or failure of the whole exercise on implementation.  The Agreement onTextiles and Clothing was supposed to have been im plemented in a progressive way, and Pakistan had
therefore asked for accelerated integration and for improvements in the prescribed progressive
liberalization ("growth-on-growth") of trade in te xtiles and clothing, as means of redressing the
imbalance resulting from the failure to implement thes e provisions.  It had also asked for an assurance
against anti-dumping measures once the quotas were removed.
58. Regarding the future work programme, it was clear that intensive efforts would be needed
both in formal and informal sessions if there were to be concrete results and the exercise completed in
accordance with the 3 May Decision.  Therefore, Pakistan suggested that three, and preferably four,
special sessions be convened:  one in June, one towards the end of July, and one in late September or
early October.  These would provide important deadlines for the action- and results-oriented processenvisaged, and Pakistan hoped that decisions and action would be taken at each one of these sessions.
Apart from these three meetings, a further special session should be devoted solely to the issues of
textiles and clothing, as this was a sector of importance to a large number of developing countries and
would be an important part of the implementation exercise.  He underlined the need for clarity
regarding the likely nature of the conclusions on implementation-related issues before his delegationcould turn to new issues being put forward for disc ussion by a number of delegations.  It would be
very difficult for Pakistan to move beyond implementation issues and the built-in agenda until andWT/GC/M/64
Page 12
unless there was clarity, commitment and certainty that the implementation concerns of developing
countries would be addressed and decisions for their resolution adopted by, i.e. before, Doha.
59. The representative of Singapore said that as  the ASEAN Members' views on how to move the
process forward had already been stated, he would comment on specific aspects of the Chairman's
report which were of particular interest to Singapore.  On the Customs Valuation Agreement, thereport said that "in our consultations, the discussion was also highly complex, and we will need to
return to these issues on another occasion", sugges ting that the Chairman intended to have another
round of discussions at a future special session.  Discussions on the three issues raised under
paragraph 21 were clearly documented in G/VAL/36 and G/VAL/M/17, which reflected the intensive
discussions there had already been on these issues at  the technical level, and nothing more needed to
be said on them.  The final paragraph of the Committee Chairman's report summed up the situation
clearly:  "While the majority of Members acknowledged the genuine difficulties and problemsexperienced by the proponents of tirets 1, 2, and 3, they failed to be convinced that the tirets
themselves were appropriate solutions.  Indeed, some of these Members had themselves experienced
the same problems but had dealt with them by using existing mechanisms and instruments while
remaining within the parameters of the Agreem ent."  As noted in that report, Members had
acknowledged that while there were genuine difficulties in addressing fraud, a different solution tothose suggested in paragraph 21 would be more appropriate in resolving these problems.  What was
needed now was engagement on possible alternative solutions to this problem. Suggestions made at
the 10 April consultations, as well as other alternatives, should be explored, rather than continuing to
discuss the proposals in paragraph 21, since it was clear the latter were not workable.
60. On the three tirets in paragraph 22, it would be useful, as noted in the General Council
Chairman's report, if the proponents could reflect on how the language of tirets 2 and 3 could be
reworded to accurately reflect the concerns that needed to be addressed.  Once these revisions were
available, all three tirets should be sent to the Customs Valuation Committee for technical
discussions.
61. Regarding the TRIPS Agreement, the report stat ed that "on some issues, the likelihood of
finding ways to resolve them in the present process  is quite low" and that some of the issues were
under active consideration in the TRIPS Council.  In fact, nearly all the issues listed in paragraphs 21
and 22 had been actively discussed by the TRIPS Council as well as by other international
organizations such as WIPO.  Thus, it could not be  said there had been no serious engagement.  These
issues were highly technical and complex.  The dilemma was whether Members wanted to duplicate
the TRIPS Council discussions in the Special Session of the General Council.  Some had suggested a
political discussion on some of the important issues, but this would require agreeing on which issueswere important.  The TRIPS Council also had its own mandate and time-frame.  The General Council
might want to urge the TRIPS Council to intensify its work on issues mentioned in paragraphs 21 and
22.  Progress there should be monitored, and the General Council Chairman might convene an
informal session of the General Council to provide political guidance on how to break the deadlock.
62. The representative of Japan said his delegation's basic position on the question of
implementation was that this was an important element of work leading to the Fourth Ministerial
Conference, and Japan would continue to devote ti me and energy to completing it by Doha, as agreed
in the 3 May Decision.  It would continue to address a ll the issues raised in th is context with a view to
identifying elements for appropriate decision at Doha.  It had allocated, and would continue to do so,
additional resources in this area in the form of ca pacity-building programmes and technical assistance
to facilitate implementation of various agreements by developing-country Members.  It had engaged
seriously in discussions on the extension of transition periods in the Customs Valuation Agreement
and the TRIMs Agreement, where there had been important progress, and would continue those
efforts.  However, implementation was not the only important element that needed to be addressed in
preparations for Doha.  Given the limited time available, Members had to address implementationissues in the most effective and pragmatic way.WT/GC/M/64
Page 13
63. The Chairman's report showed the progress made since February.  Members had engaged in
good faith in the thematic exercises conducted thus far, which had brought useful clarification on the
issues.  On SPS and GATS, Members had been able to identify possible elements for agreement.  As
highlighted in different parts of the report, subsidiary bodies were doing substantive work on the
issues tasked to them by the General Council, and a certain momentum had been generated in thesebodies.  On TBT, the Committee had substantively addressed, through the triennial review, points
raised in both paragraphs 21 and 22.  Japan shared the Chairman's view that this matter was best dealt
with in the TBT Committee with the General Council monitoring this work.  On the last remaining
tiret in paragraph 22 on TBT, Japan was prepared to continue the discussion if the proponents could
further clarify what they were seeking.
64. On the Agreement on Agriculture, the first two tirets fell within the negotiation mandate
under Article 20 of that Agreement and could be addressed in the agriculture negotiations.  A proposalto this effect had been tabled at the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, i.e. in the
context of the mandated negotiations, by one of the proponents.  The other two tirets were under
discussion in that Committee, the Vice-Chairman of  which would make a status report on the work on
these two issues at the next regular meeting of the General Council.  Japan had noted that the
Members who had tabled proposals on these two issues were satisfied with the progress thus far.  Onrules of origin, it appeared that the Committee was accelerating its work under the new Chairman and
this was welcomed.  On Customs Valuation, the Committee had had a useful discussion and its report
showed clearly the high level of complexity and technicality of the issues.  On the question of fraud, it
might be possible to find a practical way to minimize such actions.  Other issues would involve
changes to the current Agreement.  On TRIPS, the TRIPS Council was doing good work.  Japanwould follow closely the special discussion in June on the issue of access to medicines, and agreed
that Members would have to come back to some issues.  In summary, the results of both the informal
consultations and the work of the relevant subsidiary bodies were positive.  However, Japan agreed
with the Chairman's assessment that "[w]e still have  a lot of issues to work through" and that on a
number of issues "[f]urther consideration and consultations are needed" or "[w]e will need to return tothese issues on another occasion."  Consultations on paragraph 22 issues were characterized in the
report as "first run" or "first reading", which indicated the need to have a second run or reading.
Furthermore, there had as yet been no consultations on textiles and clothing, anti-dumping, subsidies
and countervailing measures, safeguards and rules of origin.  Japan was ready to address seriously the
outstanding issues.
65. Regarding the way to move forward, Japan was prepared to continue to engage in the
thematic approach to address outstanding issues, building on all the relevant results of past work, andagreed that given the time constraints, there was a need to inject some fresh thinking into the exercise.
Pragmatism was needed in identifying what could be achieved by Doha.  While discussions should
continue in order to see how far one could go on each of the items on the list, there was a need to be
realistic.  Implementation had to be seen in a wider perspective.  Doha was an important stop but was
not the terminal.  While it might not be possible to resolve all of the proposals in Doha, Ministerscould at least take appropriate decisions to find ways to resolve them.  On the future process, ensuring
progress was more important than the number of meetings.  It might be useful to have two meetings of
the General Council before the summer, but the focus should be on informal consultations and the
work of the subsidiary bodies, for which there could be a stocktaking in June or July and a decision
then on how to move from there.  As for the dead lines for subsidiary bodies, some of them already
had timetables set out by the General Council, and sin ce all of them were working with the date of the
Doha Ministerial in mind, it was not necessary to set deadlines which might disrupt the work of these
bodies.  However, the General Council could closely monitor this work.
66. The representative of Paraguay said that his delegation reserved its right to comment on a
future occasion on the results of the various consultations.  Paraguay supported the continuation of the
consultation process and for the establishment of deadlines for reports by the subsidiary bodies that
were examining certain implementation issues.  Paraguay's expectations upon joining the WTO hadWT/GC/M/64
Page 14
been high, and had included the possibility that the adoption of international trade rules would make
greater and more rapid economic development possible.  As a developing country, it had benefited
from the five-year transition period for implementing certain agreements, but the entry into force and
implementation of all the Marrakesh Agreements had produced neither full nor exemplary results.  In
particular, Paraguay continued to await the benefits of free trade.  Much remained to be doneregarding the implementation of the various ag reements resulting from the Uruguay Round, and
Paraguay supported many of the proposals put forward by Members, particularly those in the Latin
American and Caribbean Group and other regional groups.  Regarding cross-cutting issues, in
particular those relating to special and differential treatment and Part IV of the GATT as well as the
Enabling Clause, these were an inalienable right on which developing countries had to be able to rely.
The existing imbalances among countries with advantages and those without could not be corrected
without special and differential treatment becoming part and parcel of all WTO Agreements.However, special and differential treatment had to implemented in a manner that was generalized,
non-discriminatory and non-reciprocal.  Regarding the future work programme and the way pending
issues should be tackled, all meetings should be open-ended so that delegations themselves could
decide which ones to attend.   Issues to be discussed at these meetings should not be categorized or
assigned any order of priority, since they were all of intrinsic interest and equally likely to have asuccessful outcome.  It was hoped that as many of these issues as possible would be settled in the
short term, i.e. before Doha.
67. The representative of Peru said that his delegation appreciated the frankness of the Chairman's
report and agreed with the need for fresh thinking.  However, such thinking would have to take into
account the context of the world economy which was currently in a critical state.  Poverty was stillgrowing despite trade liberalization, and a recent report indicated that protectionism was at its highest
level since the creation of the WTO.  Implementation issues were particularly important given this
scenario, and without progress on these issues, developing countries would be the losers.  Priority had
to be attached to the asymmetries that had arisen among Members due either to a faulty interpretation
of Uruguay Round agreements or to a lack of impl ementation of these agreements.  In agriculture,
work had to start on import subsidies, domestic support and measures for net food-importing
developing countries.  Other areas of priority were SPS, TBT, anti-dumping and textiles.  In addition,
special and differential treatment was a type of soft law that had to be made more concrete.  If these
problems were not resolved, it would add to the discontent of developing countries, and the Doha
Ministerial Conference would not succeed in reaching its objectives.
68. The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation was concerned about the progress of
implementation measures. Much more substantial and faster progress was required on implementation
issues.  There was no need to categorise issues as those to be considered before, during and at Doha,
especially given the risk that this would prejudge the outcome of the discussions.  Furthermore, the
criteria for such categorization were neither obvious nor fair in any respect, and could prove
discriminatory.  It was essential that informal meetings were conducted with all due transparency and
inclusiveness, with a view to restoring confid ence in WTO negotiations.  However, one might
consider the idea of setting participation criteria.  Her delegation shared the view of several other
developing countries that the slow pace of implementation was due partly to a lack of political will on
the part of the developed countries.  All parties should act decisively to wrap up the process prior to
the Ministerial Conference, given that the little time available had to be used as productively as
possible.  For this reason, the work had to go forward at a faster pace and efforts had to be made toadopt different and perhaps unconventional approaches to these problems.  The consideration of
implementation issues could not be held up on the pretext that they had been referred to the subsidiary
bodies.  These bodies had to submit their reports within tight but realistic deadlines.  Likewise, the
value of continued discussion of these implementation issues had to be set against the need to achieve
results in the shortest possible time.WT/GC/M/64
Page 15
69. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation fully shared the view expressed in
the report concerning the mixed results of the implementation exercise thus far.  Switzerland would
continue to examine these issues in a constructive spirit.  This was an important process to which
Members had devoted a considerable amount of interest and energy and which had already yielded a
certain amount of progress.  The issues raised were essential and required an appropriate process.Switzerland was committed to pursuing this process, which it hoped would yield creative and
mutually satisfactory solutions.  Work on implemen tation issues had already resulted in the adoption
in December 2000 of several decisions, even though the impact of these had thus far been limited.
The consultations and work in the subsidiary bodies had provided indispensable clarification of the
issues raised, and the reports of these bodies – on customs valuation, SPS, agriculture, TBT and
TRIPS – had been very useful in this regard.   Switzerland was convinced that further progress was
possible, but only on the basis of a differentiated approach to the issues in paragraphs 21 and 22 in thechecklist document.  Issues would be differentiated, according to possible solutions, into four
categories.  In one category were specific proposals which might be acceptable but which would
require an amendment to WTO agreements.  Here it was not realistic to expect Member governments
to engage in the legislative and parliamentary procedures such amendments implied, outside of  a
more complete package of decisions.  An alternative would be interim or provisional measures thatwould not involve a formal amendment, but whose effects would largely be similar on the basis of a
firm political commitment.  For example, the propo sal in the first tiret under paragraph 21 regarding
the Anti-Dumping Agreement could be taken on board only through an amendment to the Agreement,
which would not be possible in isolation.  However, an interim or provisional measure might take the
form, for example, of the text negotiated in Seattle under the chairmanship of Minister Pettigrew ofCanada, and at a second stage become law once ratified by Members.  Switzerland would happily
work in this way on the basis of the "Pettigrew text".
70. The second category concerned specific proposals that would not require formal amendment
of Agreements but could be dealt with through, for example, interpretative statements adopted by
consensus.  An example would be the second bull et of paragraph 21 (c) concerning Article 10.2 of
SPS Agreement, where a formulation his delegation could agree to had already been worked out in
2000.  The third category concerned proposals of a more general scope that would require amendment
of a series of agreements in order to establish a new balance.  Switzerland would discuss these issues
in the context of a new round of negotiations, on the understanding that the scope, content, relevance
and systemic consequences of these proposals had to be specified, in order that mutually satisfactory
solutions could be found.  This was the case of the cross-cutting issues contained in the first tiret of
paragraph 21(m) on special and differential treatment.  The fourth category involved general andspecific proposals for amendment of WTO Agreements, which would fundamentally call into
question the content and balance of existing Agreements.  It would be impossible to take these into
account without putting the entire system in jeopardy, even in the context of a negotiation.  An
example would be the proposal in the fourth tire t of paragraph 21(b) to exempt low- and middle-
income developing countries from Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement.  While it might bepossible, in the context of a new round of negotiations, to take up the problems that had led to such
proposals, it would not be possible to take up the proposals themselves.  A dialogue could not be
opened on the basis of a mandate that prejudged the outcome of  negotiations.  In summary, it should
be possible in Doha to take two types of decisi ons.  The first concerned decisions with immediate
effect that went beyond what had already been decided in December 2000, and here theimplementation exercise should look into the first two categories of issues, i.e. provisional or interim
measures and interpretative declarations.  The second concerned those issues outlined above in the
third and fourth categories that could be part of a package including them in a new round of
negotiations.  He reaffirmed the importance his delegation attached to implementation issues and its
commitment to finding solutions.
71. The representative of Turkey said hard work was being carried out in the area of
implementation, and the report showed that the im plementation machinery was working.  However, it
also showed that progress was slow.  This was due in  part to the political realities that conditioned theWT/GC/M/64
Page 16
work and the technical nature of the issues.  Nevertheless, the report was forward-looking and results-
oriented.  It was necessary to reflect on how to continue that work in a business-like manner, instead
of repeating well-known political discussions.  Although the work was progressing slowly, there was
still time to make progress before Doha.  A work plan should be elaborated with a view to achieving
as much as possible in that time, so that the ground could be prepared for appropriate decisions atDoha.  To this end, Turkey suggested the following:  (i) informal consultations should continue in the
same format, with priority given to subjects where progress seemed more likely;  (ii) there could be
two or three more special sessions, with one be ing convened once all issues in the compilation of
20 February were addressed;  (iii) all of the issues in the compilation should have been taken up by
end-June or mid-July;  at that time Members should assess the situation, taking into account the
forthcoming Ministerial Conference as well as other activities in the WTO.  In this context, it might
be advisable to categorize implementation issues as pre-Doha, Doha and post-Doha, based on theresults of the conclusions, which would allow for a number of decisions before Doha.  In Doha,
Ministers could hopefully resolve some additional implementation issues and take appropriate
decisions on how to continue to deal with the remaining ones.  There was no reason to be too
pessimistic about the result of this exercise as long as constructive realism and diplomatic flexibility
guided Members' actions.
72. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had engaged in the discussions
on implementation issues and had found many of the clarifications and suggestions informative and
useful.  There had been progress in deliberations on some issues such as customs valuation, TRIPS,
TBT, and capacity building, which overlapped into some of the implementation proposals.  In 2000 a
decision had been reached on a number of items of varying interest to delegations such as therectification sought by Honduras regarding Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement and the rules of
origin deadline all were expeditiously working to meet in light of the enormous work to do there.  The
United States was pleased to note that consensus had been reached in the Rules of Origin Committee
on 23 outstanding issues, reflecting a new momentum in the negotiations and the adoption of a
working method.  The Chairman's report also recognized the steady progress in ensuring increaseddeveloping country participation in relevant standards-setting organizations related to TBT and SPS
work in the WTO.  In addition, there had been continued progress in the work of  the Customs
Valuation Committee and the Council for Trade in Goods on the treatment of  requests for extensions,
while at the same time ensuring that capacity building and technical assistance measures were part of
the solutions.
73. In the TRIMs area, her delegation had worked persistently to find ways to resolve these issues
and in 2000 had helped fashion approaches to address each request in the light of US trade concernsand those of the countries requesting extensions.  It had now been a year since those extensions had
expired, and the US had exercised due restraint.  It remained committed to building on the proposed
solutions that had gained momentum in 2000 in order to address TRIMs, without prejudice to US
rights under the WTO Agreements.  The Chairman's report on other specific consultations in the
various sectors was accurate and included ideas on how to proceed next, including how to deal withissues not yet discussed.  The US had participated in these consultations, had listened carefully, had
asked questions and had learned more about the proposals.  Implementation concerns were a critical
issue for every Member, in particular developing countries, and the present exercise had to ensure the
full and faithful implementation of the agreements.  The 1998 Geneva Ministerial  Declaration
highlighted this as part of the General Council’s work programme.  The US would continue to engagepositively in this work with a view to identifying and achieving what was appropriate.  In many cases,
the proposals had been rigorously examined and debated in the responsible subsidiary bodies.  In
some cases, while not all, there had been a resolution of the issues raised.  The US had also suggested
in the consultations that the TBT Committee and the Secretariat invite the standards-setting
organizations to include, in their reporting, information about their own technical assistance availablefor bringing developing country representatives to their meetings.  As the Chairman's report noted, the
work done in that Committee in the context of th e Triennial Review had resulted in a decision on
principles and procedures for the development of international standards, guides andWT/GC/M/64
Page 17
recommendations in relation to Articles 2 and 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement.  Members
should be kept informed of progress on this.  On certain other proposals in this category the US would
examine options.
74. On agriculture her delegation had taken note of the Chairman's status report concerning net
food-importing developing countries, and looked forward to the progress report concerning theadditional proposal for this tiret from the Vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Committee at the General
Council’s May meeting.  The US also supported the Chairman's suggestion that there be periodic
reports on progress on work concerning implementation of Article 10.2.  On TRIPS, much was still to
be discussed, but the US had indicated in the TRIPS Council and the informal consultations its views
on how to approach the proposals.  In any case, in some instances the TRIPS Council would continue
ongoing work, such as its examination of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the examination of proposals to compliment the existingimplementation of Article 66.2 of the Agreement.   Her delegation was also pleased to have been able
to play a key role in working with the African Group to achieve agreement on its proposal to hold a
special discussion in the TRIPS Council on the flexib ilities inherent in the TRIPS Agreement to deal
with health crises.  In the informal consultation on services, Members had explored new language,
which still needed to be examined, concerning Mode 4 commitments, and had discussed the proposalconcerning GATS Article IV.  However, Members should examine whether both these proposals had
now been satisfied in the context of the agreement on Negotiating Guidelines and Procedures in the
CTS.  Regarding Mode 4, the US and a number of delegations had also made additional proposals in
the services negotiations.   Of course, the US intended to meet fully its existing commitments in
Mode 4.
75. Concerning other proposals such as the Customs Valuation tirets in the Secretariat
compilation, the technical discussions had helped the US to understand better the concerns underlying
the proposals.  It was necessary to take a step back and look at these proposals further in light of these
discussions.  On other issues where there had been only a first reading, the US looked forward to
closer examination and assessment.  The Chairman had reported on the latest developments onimplementation issues being examined in sub-bodies and not yet taken up in his consultations, in
particular, work in the Subsidies Committee, and there had been a report on recent progress in the
anti-dumping Ad Hoc Group on Implementation.  Anti-dumping experts had worked together
constructively to finalize and approve a third recommendation paper outlining indicative guidelines
for “best practices” in a particular area of anti-dumping law administration.  This paper, on an
“Indicative List of Elements Relevant to a Decisi on on a Request for Extension of Time to Provide
Information”, had been adopted by the Anti-Dumping Committee a few days earlier.  It provided anindication of the factors and criteria that authorities should take into account when deciding whether
to grant or deny requests by exporters to have additional time in which to supply information to
investigators.  This paper followed two other recommendations previously developed and approved
over the past two years – one on the timing of notifica tions to be made to the foreign authorities prior
to the initiation of an investigation, adopted in October 1998, and a second on the periods of time forthe collection of dumping and injury data, adopted in May 2000.  The Ad Hoc Group on
Implementation had also made substantial progress recently on yet another set of recommendations,
concerning the kinds of information to be included in preliminary affirmative determinations of
dumping and injury.  While some might claim this work was about process and procedures of anti-
dumping actions rather than methodology and substance, the work undertaken had been decided byconsensus, and the importance of this activity should not be undervalued.  The procedures of the anti-
dumping investigative process went to the heart of whether the anti-dumping authorities’ actions, and
the rules they followed, were based on openness and transparency, accorded full rights of
participation, and assured due process.  These issues mattered in terms of determining the true impact
of anti-dumping actions, and helped give all Members greater confidence that legitimate interestswere served regarding both market access and protection from injurious, unfair trade.WT/GC/M/64
Page 18
76. Members had to think carefully about how to  manage the process between now and Doha,
especially given the work remaining to do.  As indicated in the Chairman's checklist on preparations
for that meeting, implementation was integral.  Even if work was organized on parallel tracks, this had
to be done in a manner that would utilize resources and time effectively.  The US welcomed the
Chairman's proposal on this issue.  The process had worked well and there was a need for discussionsunder the thematic approach on issues not yet examined in 2001 and on some that had already been
examined.  The Chairman should continue to hold a wider open-ended informal meeting following the
smaller consultations for transparency purposes, as this method would help ensure inclusiveness on a
topic important to all.  Concerning further work, it could be useful to lay out a general idea of the
further process including the number and timing of other special sessions.  Given what remained to be
accomplished, the US could envisage up to three such sessions, with full preparation through informal
meetings before each.   The spacing of these meetings should be left up to the Chairman, but therecould be perhaps one in June, another in July, and another in October.   The US also welcomed the
suggestion that the scheduling of any implementation meetings indicate the topics to be addressed.
77. The representative of Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group
, said that implementation
was a critical subject for this Group, and that its resolution would go a long way towards instilling
confidence in the multilateral trading system.  There was a need to resolve all outstanding
implementation issues not later than the Fourth Mi nisterial Conference, as envisaged in the General
Council Decision of 15 December 2000.  To achieve this, the Chairman should continue consulting
Members with a view to resolving these issues, and the subsidiary bodies should be urged to expedite
the work referred to them.  The African Group appealed for the active participation of all Members,
especially the developed countries, in the search for solutions to the legitimate implementationconcerns contained in paragraphs 21 and 22.  He said that in past sessions of the Council there had
seemed to be a growing unwillingness by trading partners to engage in the debate, and suggestions for
a new mechanism to address implementation issues.  The African Group insisted that the special
sessions of the General Council were the appropriate mechanism to address this issue, as mandated by
the General Council Decision of 3 May 2000, and emphasized the critical importance of ensuring thatS&D provisions in the Uruguay Round Agreements were operationalized and made binding.  This
would make a positive contribution to the equitabl e integration of developing countries into the
multilateral trading system.  In the same manner, tr ading partners needed to accept the principle of
revisiting the Uruguay Round Agreements in order to bring equity, balance and mutual benefits.
78. The representative of Mauritius said the mandate on implementation was an important part of
the General Council's work that had to yield results.  The first set of issues that had been taken up thus
far were those considered to be the most achievable, and progress could surely be made on these aswell as on others currently under consideration.  A number of these were extremely complex, and the
reason a number of them had been referred to subsidiary bodies was their highly technical nature.
Such work was now underway and the General Council should monitor progress through regular
reports from the respective Chairpersons.  This would also allow an assessment of how near solutions
were and whether the General Council's support was needed for a final resolution.  There remained alarge number of issues that required collective work and the proper approach.  In this regard, it might
also be useful to establish a structured and focussed process, be it a work programme or road map or
whatever, for the work that had to be done between now and Doha, in order to complete this work in
time.  Progress had been made in the thematic consultative approach, and the Chairman should
intensify those consultations.  Mauritius supported an inclusive approach, considering the largenumber of issues on the table, and hoped that the present discussion would yield a clear sense of
direction.
79. The representative of Romania, also on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia, said that given the importance Members
attached to implementation, each issue raised in th is area should be adequately considered.  These
countries therefore supported the Chairman's proposal for a road map.  Given the large number and
complex substance of the issues remaining to be addressed and resolved, in light of the 3 May and 15WT/GC/M/64
Page 19
December 2000 Decisions, they strongly supported the idea that Members should agree on a realistic
approach on how to deal with the problems ahead.  There were areas where progress had been made,
and the focus now should be on further progress possible between now and Doha.  In order to
maintain the positive trend to date, and given that further reflection and political will would be
needed, these countries supported a more pragmatic and results-oriented approach aimed first atdetermining the issues that could be resolved up to the Ministerial, thus creating a basis for results at
Doha.  In the meantime, Members could consider ways to address the remaining issues after Doha.
The implementation process should be handled in such a way that it served as a building block, not a
stumbling block, for the preparation of Doha.  The Chairman should continue his consultations in
order to find appropriate solutions, and could count on these countries' full support.
80. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the Chairman’s report was a faithful
reflection of where things stood on the various implementation issues, and where appropriate,
indicated possible ways to handle certain issues in future.  This was very useful for the organization of
future work.  The report indicated that enormous efforts had been made in moving matters forward.
Progress had been made on certain issues, and it was hoped that at least some of the outstanding
issues could be addressed and resolved by the time of the next special session.  One could not
underestimate the difficulty and technical complexity of the issues involved.  There was indeed a needfor fresh thinking, but also for fresh positions and fresh action.  His delegation welcomed the initiative
outlined by the Community and looked forward to hearing more details from it in the coming
consultations, especially on those related to textiles and clothing.  The 3 May Decision required that
the implementation process be completed not later than the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  This was
only six months away, and time wa s running out.  His delegation wanted to emphasize the importance
of the satisfactory completion of this process by the time of Doha.  Failing to do so would adversely
impact on other areas of the WTO's future work programme.  This political reality should be
recognized.  On the other hand, to adopt a standstill or roll-back mode on other parts of the WTO
agenda because of the current difficulties on implementation was not in the long-term interests of the
system.  The Chairman’s suggestion on the number of meetings to be held prior to Doha seemedreasonable, but more important than the number of meetings was Members’ collective ability to
compromise, to address one another's concerns, and to achieve results that would further the
objectives of the organization.
81. The representative of Hungary said that the Chairman's report was a fair description of the
situation.  His delegation could go along with the road map proposed by the Chairman.  The results
achieved thus far showed that progress could be made.  For this it was necessary to make a certain
distinction among the very different kinds of issues and problems in the implementation basket.Hungary was confident that on the basis of the Chairman's consultations and on the basis of progress
made in some subsidiary bodies, it should be possible to identify certain issues of a technical,
procedural or administrative nature which could be resolved relatively easily and thus create positive
momentum in this delicate area.  Hungary shared the view that some issues would require
renegotiation of existing agreements.  It had to be ensured that the negotiating mandates to be adoptedat Doha would adequately address the outstanding implementation issues.  Any anticipation of
agreement on all implementation issues by the time of Doha was unrealistic and counterproductive.
Only a reasonable and pragmatic approach would bring about the real progress in this area that would
create the necessary confidence for a successful meeting in Doha, including a decision to launch
further negotiations in the WTO.
82.  The representative of New Zealand said that from the time of the Geneva Ministerial
Conference the status and significance of implementation issues had been lifted to a new level.  It was
evident that these matters had been appropriately mainstreamed within the WTO.   His delegation had
examined thoroughly all of the proposals – had analyzed them, thought through the consequences of
the ideas, and communicated openly and candidly in both informal and formal meetings on theseissues.  It was vital for all Members to similarly address these issues and to be clear, constructive and
objective in their statements on them.  The WTO would only make progress – whether onWT/GC/M/64
Page 20
implementation issues or on other important aspects of the future work programme – on the basis of
consensus.  Any proposal had to be examined, evaluated and discussed, and would not always be
accepted.  Alternatively, it might be modified to accommodate the needs and concerns of Members.
The Chairman's report showed the in-depth nature of the discussions on the various issues over recent
months.  In some cases there was discernible progress, for example the heightened consciousness ofthe importance of progress on implementation issues reflected in the decisions and recommendations
in some subsidiary bodies.  The recommendations and decisions adopted by the TBT Committee
regarding international standardizing bodies were testimony to this.  Useful progress had been made
within the CTG in respect of the TRIMs extension question, and efforts were underway to secure
results in this area.
83. In his delegation's view any proposal, includi ng on implementation, should include certain
essential criteria.  One was consensus, the achievement of which required a transparent and timelyprocess to address the issues.  While there had been a great deal of exchange on the topics, it was
necessary to move to a more constructive approach soon.  Another criterion was that changes should
not weaken, undermine or confuse existing WTO provisions.  This did not mean there should never be
change, but change should evolve on the basis of experience.  The fundamental aim for all Members
had to be to strengthen and enhance the WTO Agreements.  Thus, what was needed was an earlyconsensus on exactly which areas of the implementation agenda would truly be beneficial and would
add in a sound way to the economic prosperity of WTO Members.  While there were differing
opinions on this, hopefully there were areas where Members could agree that specific decisions or
recommendations for action would move the rule-based system forward in a productive way.  A
further supplementary criterion was that there could be no renegotiation of elements of existingAgreements entirely on their own.  Many of the implementation issues on the table had been proposed
to be addressed in the context of a broader process.  Renegotiation of any WTO provisions in the
absence of other forward-looking and serious trade liberalizing elements of a work programme would
not be possible.  The crucial and prime criterion in the Geneva Declaration was that "the work
programme shall be aimed at achieving overall balance of interests of all Members".  Without this onewould get nowhere.  Members should very soon be clear about which outstanding implementation
issues could be dealt with by consensus, about the steps necessary, and about the achievable
time-frames in which to make progress on specific issues.  The continuing detailed consultations on
the outstanding issues should soon indicate which issues could be moved forward, and whether before
or after the next Ministerial.  While classification or categorization was a factor to consider from a
preparatory point of view, what was important was to sincerely address the essential substance and
content of the proposals, and workable time-frames.  Before long it would be necessary to make abalanced overall assessment of what could be done  and when.  New Zealand looked forward to further
progress reports from the Chairman.  The best way forward would be to give discretion to the
Chairman to hold informal open-ended consultations on implementation over the next several weeks,
taking into account views expressed by Members at the present meeting, and to hold a further formal
General Council Special Session on Implementation by the end of June, so as to establish the progressmade and the necessary work still to be advanced.  In this regard his delegation supported the
Chairman's proposal.  There was a need for a newly invigorated process that reflected the fresh
thinking the Chairman had requested.
84. The representative of India said his statement would cover three broad aspects: the
Chairman's report on the current status of consultations on implementation proposals, a response to
some of the points made by other delegations, and the organization of future work.  While his remarks
would cover only a few of the agreements, this was due to the shortage of time and not to a lack of
interest in the consultations on other agreements.  India also had a keen interest in areas that had not
yet been the subject of consultations, such as textiles and anti-dumping.
85. On customs valuation, the report seemed to indicate it would be necessary to return to these
issues on another occasion, with a view to reaching a suitable decision.  While these issues were
highly complex, there was acknowledgement of the genuine difficulties and problems experienced, inWT/GC/M/64
Page 21
particular in respect of the first tiret on exchange of information on export values.  India looked
forward to further consultations in this area in or der to identify solutions that could deal with the
problems identified, since existing mechanisms and instruments were not at all sufficient.  One
delegation had said that regarding the first tiret of paragraph 21, the solutions proposed were not
appropriate.  The Customs Valuation Committee Chairman's report clearly acknowledged the genuinedifficulties faced and problems experienced in respect of the three tirets in paragraph 21, but some
Members were not convinced that the solutions proposed in the tirets were appropriate.  These
Members, after acknowledging the genuine difficulties faced by the proponents, were arguing that the
mechanism they themselves used to deal with these difficulties should also be used by the proponents,
even though the problems faced were different.  A further problem was the fact that the structure of
the Committee Chairman's report coupled India's introduction of its proposals and its responses to
Members, and then presented questions and concerns of Members, giving the impression that not allquestions/concerns could be addressed by the proponents.  However, India had answered all
questions.  Whether Members had found those answers acceptable or convincing was another mater.
86. Regarding the paragraph 22 tiret issues under the Customs Valuation Agreement and whether
these issues should be sent to the Committee for technical consideration, he noted that the next
meeting of that Committee was scheduled only for October 2001.  Therefore, if they were referred tothe Committee there should be a clear understanding that it would meet in a special session in June
and report to the General Council by the end of June.  India was grateful for the Chairman's
suggestion that the proponents reflect on how the language of the second and third tirets could be
clarified, and would work on this.  Regarding the implementation proposals on paragraph 21 issues
under the TRIPS Agreement, the Chairman's report struck a pessimistic note.  India, however, was ofthe view that with hard work, meaningful solutions  could be found there.  Regarding the relationship
between TRIPS and the Convention on Bio-diversit y (CBD), the Chairman of the TRIPS Council had
submitted a report on his own responsibility in December 2000, from which it was clear that an
examination of this issue had barely begun and was far from complete.  The TRIPS Council should be
asked to report back to the General Council after its June meeting.  In this context, some of theproposals in paragraph 21, especially those relating to exceptions to patentability and access to
essential drugs, were currently in the public eye.  India was pleased that the question of access to
drugs would be discussed in the TRIPS Council in June.  That Council should be asked to make a
comprehensive input to the General Council, especially on access to drugs and exceptions to
patentability, as well as the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD, immediately after its June
meeting.  However, given the highly political nature of TRIPS issues, it might be necessary to have a
special session of the General Council to deal exclus ively with these issues in the light of the June
meeting and the report that the TRIPS Council might submit.  The implications of the TRIPS
Agreement in various areas were engaging the attention of governments, NGOs and civil society, and
Ministers at Doha could not ignore this issue.
87. Regarding the SPS Agreement there had been good discussions on those tirets, but India was
surprised that the Chairman's report did not refer to  the question of the longer time-frame requested by
developing countries for complying with new SPS measures, as this was an area where there was a
good prospect of reaching consensus if good faith efforts were made.  Regarding the Agreement on
Rules of Origin, his delegation had taken note of the US statement, and was aware that the
harmonization work was supposed to have been completed by July 1998 and that the deadline had
been missed twice so far.  That deadline should not be missed a third time.  He reminded Membersthat in case slippages were observed in the work in the Committee on Rules of Origin, or slippages
were reported by its Chairman, India would have to seriously consider the remaining implementation
issue of how to deal with rules-of-origin prov isions put in place since January 1995 by various
Members.  Regarding the Subsidies Agreement, seve ral issues had been referred to that Committee
and India looked forward to an early report from it.
88. Regarding points made by other delegations, the EC had said its objective was to
progressively steer the WTO to be more responsive to the concerns of developing countries.  HeWT/GC/M/64
Page 22
trusted that the concept of progressivity enunciated by the EC was not in any way linked to the
concept of progressivity used in sectors like agriculture and textiles with unfortunate consequences for
developing countries.  The EC had also stated that good things had been done in December 2000 and
that much had been done since then.  However, even the then-Chairman of the General Council and
the Director-General had described as modest the decisions taken with regard to implementation inthe December Special Session.  India had described the December achievement as lower than its
lowest expectations.  While the EC had spoken extensively on technical assistance, most of the
implementation proposals were not related to technical assistance.  For example, regarding the
impairment of a developing-country government's ability to provide access to drugs at affordable
prices to its population because of certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, technical assistance
was not the answer.  While technical assistance was important, it was not an adequate answer to
implementation concerns.  The concern of developing countries was that they were not receiving thebenefits intended from some of the agreements, that some of the agreements required re-balancing,
and that special and differential treatment provisions had no operational content or legal
enforceability.  Meaningful ways of addressing implementation issues and concerns raised by a large
number of developing countries had to be found.  Indi a agreed with the EC's statement on the need for
transparency when WTO Members made changes to rules of origin provisions during the harmonizingprogramme, and recalled the statement by a number of Members, including India, in the DSB
regarding the changes to textiles rules of origin agreed to by two major trading partners without
adequate transparency.
89. Regarding the TRIPS Agreement, India took not e of the US statement with regard to the
available flexibilities in that Agreement.  However, it was concerned by remarks by the EC, Japan,Switzerland, Canada and New Zealand, among others, which implied that the various implementation
proposals should be categorized in order to decide what could be done before Doha, at Doha and after
Doha.  The 3 May Decision of the General Council clearly implied that Members should resolve all
implementation issues and take appropriate decisions in respect of those issues at the latest by the
Fourth Ministerial Conference.  Some of the suggestions for categorization, or proposals for whatamounted to re-negotiations, could imply annulling that consensus-based Decision.  His delegation
had always said that what was needed was good- faith, serious and sincere efforts to deal with
implementation issues.  Any ex ante classification would dilute the 3 May Decision, and attempts
would no doubt be made to say "everything after Doha only".  Regarding the statement by New
Zealand, these proposals had been on the table for over two years, and after the Seattle Ministerial the
Director-General himself had said that in the absence of meaningful resolution of implementation
issues and concerns, developing countries would lose confidence in the system.  New Zealand hadalso said that the developing countries' concerns had been mainstreamed into the system, but what
was needed were meaningful resolution of implementation issues and concerns.  There had to be
meaningful engagement on the part of major trading partners, and good-faith efforts had to be made to
find solutions.  Switzerland had said that the proposals would in some cases amount to amending the
agreements and, therefore, they were not a question of implementation.  However, once it was agreedthat there was a legitimate concern or difficulty, efforts had to be made to identify solutions.  He
noted that during nearly 48 years, the GATT 1947 had never been amended.  There had always been
interpretative notes or understandings, once solutions had been identified on the basis of consensus.
For example, in the maritime services negotiations the membership had found a way to deal with a
ticklish issue by resorting to suspension of the fundamental MFN obligation, which stood suspendeduntil the completion of the next round of services negotiations.  The point was that to deal with the
concern of a powerful Member, the membership had found a solution which was said not to constitute
an amendment of the Agreement.  Where there was a will, there was a way.  If solutions could be
identified for the implementation issues and concerns , appropriate ways of fitting them into a proper
legal framework, even without amending the agreement, could be found.
90. Regarding the future work programme, the Geneva Ministerial Declaration linked
implementation of individual agreements to the reali zation of the objectives of those agreements.  The
3 May Decision clearly stated that the General Council would assess the existing difficulties, identifyWT/GC/M/64
Page 23
ways needed to resolve them and take decisions for appropriate action.  The then-Chairman of the
General Council had said that this was an action- and results-oriented exercise, which implied that this
was not merely a debating exercise.  The Director-General had hailed that Decision as "designed to
raise confidence in the multilateral trading system by addressing the needs of developing countries",
and the General Council Chairman had indicated that he was fully committed to the ongoing exercisefor finding solutions to implementation issues and concerns.  India was also pleased that the Chairman
had underscored the importance of formal meetings.  The very fact of convening a formal meeting
enhanced the level of preparedness and seriousness in respect of any item of work, and India endorsed
Pakistan’s suggestion that there should be at least four formal meetings before Doha.
91. The representative of Brazil recalled a statement by a German Minister that either the next
round of negotiations would be a development round or else there would be no round.  These words
were directly relevant to the present process.  Although it was possible to look at implementation fromvarious perspectives, from the point of view of developing countries, implementation was about
redressing the development deficit they had inherited from the past.  It was not sufficient to say that
everything had been negotiated, because while this was true, the result had turned out differently than
anticipated.  While implementation was not the only topic at present, together with the built-in agenda
it was the most important topic, not only in itself, but also to determine whether there would bebroader negotiations.  The Chairman's suggestions for the organization of further work were
commendable, in particular the details of his intentions with regard to the issues he would take up.
While at the beginning of the present process there might have been a need for an exercise of
categorization of issues, this was no longer the case.  The success of the process would be measured
against substantive issues such as subsidies – especially export credits – and anti-dumping, and notonly against the number of issues.  Developing countries expected more than being told the issues
were difficult – they expected counter-proposals.  This implied recognition that the issue of
implementation was a legitimate one and that it should be addressed.  It was not appropriate to talk
about a development round and, at the same time, not recognize that the issues raised by developing
countries on correcting the development deficit were legitimate.  To suggest that these issues shouldbe negotiated against other issues was not the way to approach a development round.  The
implementation process was aimed at addressing mainly the concerns of developing countries about
the results of the Uruguay Round, and was not a wholesale revision of existing agreements, since
most of the proposals were very specific.  While perhaps not all of the issues raised would be resolved
in this process, this was as yet not known.  What needed to be clear at this stage was what could be
done in the substantive areas raised.
92. The Chairman's report was accurate in general, but during the consultations on SPS Brazil had
made suggestions orally on the question of emergency measures in the context of Article 10.2 of the
SPS Agreement which were not reflected in the report.  His delegation would submit these in writing
as an input to further consultations.  On TRIPS, Brazil concurred with others on the lack of progress
in the work aimed at clarifying the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  It
welcomed the session of the TRIPS Council in June which would allow a discussion of intellectualproperty issues relevant to access to medicines, and had taken note of the US statement to the effect
that the TRIPS Agreement provided flexibility for measures related to health, which had always been
Brazil's conviction.
93. The representative of Malaysia reiterated the importance of resolving implementation
concerns before the Doha Ministerial in accordance with the 3 May General Council Decision.
Whether progress had been achieved or not depended on one’s perception.  Any proposal that had the
effect of diluting the 3 May Decision, which had been taken with the full participation of all, or any
proposal calling for a categorization of the outstanding implementation issues, was unacceptable.
Many of these issues, for example in the area of subsidies, had not even been taken up in any
meaningful discussions.  Proposals for categorization were merely attempts to circumvent the realissue of finding solutions to these concerns.  Not addressing and resolving these issues before Doha
could seriously impinge on the preparatory proc ess, and could lead to grave consequences.WT/GC/M/64
Page 24
94. One of the proposals that had yet to be taken up, and which reflected the imbalances in the
Subsidies Agreement, called for certain development programmes implemented by developing
countries to be considered as non-actionable within the meaning of Article 8 of the Subsidies
Agreement,  or if Article 8 was considered to be a dead letter, then within the meaning of "Article 8
type" subsidies.  It was common knowledge that developed countries provided a range of subsidies inthe form of grants, either monetary or otherwise, to investors.  These were given up front, normally in
persuading a potential investor faced with the difficult choice of selecting a location for his/her
investment.  While one could argue that this option was also open to the developing countries, the
latter had limited resources for providing such grants as incentives.  Ironically, the fiscal incentives
provided by a large number of developing countries were considered actionable.  These incentives
were provided only to help offset the inherent disadvantages faced by investors in developing
countries, such as the lack of suitable infrastructure, and were not provided up front as is the case ofgrants.  This was one example of several proposals in the area of subsidies that had to be addressed
and resolved before Doha.  Providing real solutions to address inequities and imbalances such as this
would go a long way in boosting the confidence of developing countries in the multilateral trading
system and the WTO.  Regarding issues that ha d been relegated to subsidiary bodies for their
technical inputs, an initial round of discussions had taken place in the Subsidies Committee.  Whilethe sense of engagement and commitment by trading partners in those discussions was appreciated,
the questions posed by some Members were not of a technical nature and were unnecessary to finding
technical solutions or recommendations.  As to the organization of further work, there should be three
formal sessions, and this programme should be fi nalized immediately so as to lend urgency and
seriousness to the process.
95. The representative of Australia said that since the Seattle Ministerial, all had participated in
many hours of discussion addressing implementation issues, consistent with the historical priority
WTO Members as a whole accorded this issue, and with decisions taken since Seattle to address
outstanding implementation issues and concerns with a view to taking decisions for appropriate action
not later than Doha.  Despite this there had been frustration across the membership at the resultsachieved so far – frustration by some demandeurs who felt that decisions to date had been modest and
that few new decisions were in prospect, and frustration by those who were not demandeurs and
queried whether any of the implementation proposals, as crafted prior to Seattle, could effectively be
pursued outside of the specific context that had then prevailed.  It seemed clear that the level of
ambition and scope of demands on implementation were associated by many developing countries
with their concerns over the level of ambition of some delegations for the start of new negotiations in
Doha.  While this defensive positioning was understandable, it had led to an impasse.  Therefore, for arange of substantive and tactical reasons, positions on implementation would continue to be very
difficult to bridge, and there was a need for some fresh thinking to find a way out of the current
impasse.  Whatever approach was taken to address implementation over the coming months should be
consistent with the 3 May Decision, and should allow each proposal on the table to be addressed in
sufficient detail to establish whether there was a consensus to take decisions for appropriate action byDoha.  Australia remained open to looking at an y constructive suggestions on how to do this.
96. In reviewing the proposals currently on the table, it should be recalled that many of them had
been developed in the expectation that negotiations would be launched in Seattle, and that some
Members had been pressing for those negotiations to be comprehensive and ambitious.  It should also
be recalled that paragraph 22 proposals had been specifically related by their drafters to theexpectation that they would be addressed in the first year of negotiations.  Regrettably, a round of
negotiations had not been launched, thus there had not been a context in which to satisfactorily
address demands that had been crafted for a new round.  Encouragingly, however, decisions had
already been taken on some implementation demands which, while modest in relation to the scope of
the proposals, should not be discounted.  However, many proposals raised technically complex issuesand had been referred to the relevant technical committees for advice to help delegations develop
positions on them.  Furthermore, the point had been made many times, and remained true, that where
proposals involved changes to WTO rules and/or relevant domestic legislation, such changes wereWT/GC/M/64
Page 25
more easily made in the context of broader negotiations.  Taking these factors into account, Australia
shared the Chairman's overall assessment that the current picture was somewhat mixed:  progress was
being made in some areas, but in others more work was needed.  Some proposals needed to be refined
to make their intent and effect clearer.  Members had to develop a work programme that would allow
time to address outstanding issues so that decisions could be taken on all implementation-relatedissues by Doha.  In structuring this work, the programme of meetings should not be too rigid, but
should also avoid creating the impression that work on implementation was not being accorded the
importance it deserved, as set out in the May 1998 Geneva Declaration.  Australia supported the
Chairman's suggestion in this regard.
97. The representative of Guatemala said it was important to have a fully structured work
programme that would include the results of the subsidiary bodies' work.  Guatemala was concerned
over the slow progress of that work, and hoped that  results from it would be known by July at the
latest.  The arbitrary categorization of implementation issues was unacceptable as it implied a
prejudgement of issues that were still on the table.  Regarding the consultation process, she asked that
the schedule for these consultations be announced in advance so that each delegation could decide
which to attend.
98. The representative of the Dominican Republic said it was apparent that on the whole no
significant headway had been made on virtually any of the issues on which there had been
consultations.  For example, on the proposal on net food-importing countries, trading partners had
stated that they were unwilling to undertake commitments in this regard.  On customs valuation, and
in spite of intense Committee debates, Members had rejected the proposed solutions, and the
alternatives they had put forward did not resolve the problems raised.  On cross-cutting issues, therehad been no clear signs of a willingness to convert special and differential treatment provisions into
concrete commitments.  On subsidies, the preliminary reaction of certain Members to the proposals
had not been at all constructive.  As a result, the current status of discussion in this area was
disturbing, since there had been no substantive progress and concerns had been met with only
delaying tactics and indifference.
99. It was crucially important at the present meeting to agree on a clear, well-defined work
programme to ensure an early solution to implementation issues.  These issues had to be resolved by
the time of the Fourth Ministerial Conference at the latest, as indicated in the Decision of 15
December 2000.  His delegation therefore suggested that at least three formal special sessions be held,
with intensive open-ended consultations taking place between each.  It was of the utmost importance
that the developed countries undertake to engage in serious and constructive dialogue so that a
satisfactory solution could be found.  Silence was not a valid response, since these were matters of thehighest priority.  There had been no evidence to date of the political will required to reach a
satisfactory solution and help boost the confidence of developing countries in the multilateral trading
system.  The future work programme should produce concrete solutions involving authorized
interpretations or amendments to the agreements, as stipulated in the Agreement Establishing the
WTO.  It should be understood that the 3 May Decision had been adopted to correct the imbalancesinherent in the Uruguay Round Agreements, and that if these were not rectified, they would create a
crisis situation within the WTO that would affect all Members equally.
100. Any division or hierarchical structuring of these issues was out of the question.  All of these
issues were important and should be tackled with adequate thoroughness.  Until these problems were
resolved, Members should not be expected to commit themselves to discussions on any other issues,or to accept any involvement in a fresh round of negotiations for which there was no consensus.  In
addition, it was of the utmost importance that a deadline be set for the submission of reports by the
subsidiary bodies.  The General Council should receive these reports by the end of July at the latest.
In addition, his delegation considered that the principle of transparency had not been adequately
applied in the consultations held to date.  The Dominican Republic had consistently stressed the highpriority it attached to implementation issues, had played an active role in drawing up proposals in thisWT/GC/M/64
Page 26
field, and had been actively involved in drafting paragraphs 21 and 22 of the draft Seattle Ministerial
Declaration.  However, with the exception of the consultations on cross-cutting issues, it had not thus
far been invited to any of the informal consultations.  These practices, if continued, would produce a
situation that would prove negative for the entire system.  At the very least, Members had the right to
be informed of meetings that were to take place.  It was then up to delegations to decide whether or
not to attend.  His delegation could not accept any text drawn up without its concerns having been
taken into account.
101. The representative of Nicaragua expressed the hope that there would be political will,
transparency, a coherent work programme, and above all results in the implementation process.
Nicaragua supported the statements by Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, and pledged its full
support for the Chairman in his efforts to comply with the 3 May Decision, which said that results
should be forthcoming prior to Doha.
102. The representative of Jamaica reiterated the importance Jamaica attached to the effective and
meaningful redressal of implementation concerns in a manner faithful to the General Council
Decisions of 3 May and 15 December.  Of particular interest to his delegation were Annex VII of the
Subsidies Agreement, the SPS Agreement, customs valuation, and cross-cutting issues such as special
and differential treatment.  Jamaica had proposed and co-sponsored implementation proposals on thetable.  With very little time left, his delegation found the Chairman’s remark in his report that on
many issues “concrete progress is clearly some way off”, not an encouraging assessment.  To make
progress, a demonstration of positive political will on the part of a number of Members was needed.
The resolution of implementation issues was essential to raising confidence levels before and at Doha.
Furthermore, since different issues were important to different delegations, all of the issues should betackled systematically and in good faith in the remaining time.  Thus, Jamaica joined with others in
encouraging the Chairman to con tinue and intensify his consultati ons between now and Doha.  His
delegation could broadly agree with the structure of work.  At least three formal sessions between the
present time and Doha would be necessary for decision-taking and to allow Members to put on record
their views on the progress of this exercise.  Regular informal sessions and consultations conducted ina transparent manner would be a requisite complement to these formal sessions in order for real
progress to be achieved before Doha.
103. The representative of Egypt said that the lack of concrete results reflected in the Chairman's
report was no fault of the Chairman.  When Egypt, together with a number of developing countries,
had put forward concrete proposals on implementation issues during the run-up to Seattle, the
objective had been – and still was – to rebalance the Uruguay Agreements in areas of major priority
and to address the inherited inequities in those agre ements in a meaningful way so as to be able to
move forward in future work.  Two areas where promised and expected benefits had not been realized
were agriculture and textiles, as well as special and differential treatment, which involved
cross-cutting issues in all agreements and which remained "best endeavours" when they should be
made operational.  The 3 May and 15 December Decisions had been carefully negotiated,  drafted,
and agreed by all.  They were clear and precise and left no room for misinterpretation.  In accordancewith those Decision the General Council was required to address implementation issues with a view to
resolving them and adopting decisions at a date no later than the Fourth Ministerial Meeting now
scheduled for early November.  That date was only five working months away, and the current state
of play on the implementation issues and the concrete proposals made – a year and a half after the
process had begun – was, to say the least, seriously disappointing.  Egypt had engaged in this exerciseconstructively and in good faith, had shown the necessary flexibility, and had hoped that its major
trading partners would be more forthcoming and w ould show the will needed to address issues that
had been recognized as genuine and legitimate concerns of the developing countries.  Such
engagement had thus far been lacking.
104. However, his delegation still hoped that these special sessions, which were critical to future
work, would reverse this trend and set a positive tone  for  future action.  Egypt would also have hopedWT/GC/M/64
Page 27
that meaningful progress could be achieved on at least some of the priority areas, where the
Chairman's report showed no progress, such as agriculture, SPS, TRIPS, services, TBT, customs
valuation, and cross-cutting issues.  Real progress was when the General Council had before it agreed
language for adoption in the form of decisions on at least the most important of these issues.  In
addition, important areas such as textiles and clothing, subsidies, anti-dumping, TRIMs, rules oforigin, and safeguards had not been covered in the report.  Regarding work in the subsidiary bodies on
implementation issues referred to them, this matter had to be addressed in a more practical manner.
Thus far those subsidiary bodies which had reported had either requested more time to examine these
matters – with some even scheduling meetings only a few days before Doha – or had given a factual
report on ongoing work, when what the General Council sought was a technical recommendation that
would enable it to adopt a decision.  He recalled that the question of referring some implementation
issues to subsidiary bodies was an area where Egypt had shown flexibility, given its original position.
105. Regarding the organization of future work, it was of the utmost importance that a clear road
map or work programme be agreed for the period up to Doha.  The objective in this work should
clearly be to adopt decisions to resolve implementation issues no later than the Fourth Ministerial.
Although implementation issues stood on their own and should be resolved in their own right,
resolving them – or not resolving them – would undoubtedly affect Egypt's position on the WTO'songoing work and preparations for Doha.  There was a need for constructive engagement and political
will from trading partners in the weeks ahead to achieve concrete results.  There was nothing wrong
with the process as it stood, and it did not need adju stment to yield fruitful results.  Egypt supported
the holding of a mixture of formal special sessions and topic-specific informal meetings up to Doha,
and could agree to three special sessions, preferably in June, July, and the third week after the summerbreak, with informal meetings in between as the Chairman saw fit.  What was important was that the
informal meetings be conducted in a way that would feed into the formal meetings by preparing the
ground for decisions to be adopted by the General Council.  He quoted from a recent newspaper
article indicating that the cost of trade barriers to developing countries was higher than the amount
developed countries spent on official aid programmes, and that unless the rules were tilted more infavor of the developing world, Doha could see a re-run of Seattle.
106. The representative of Canada said that his delegation recognized the priority many Members
attached to addressing issues raised in the implementation process, had given serious consideration to
these concerns and would continue to work on them in a serious and constructive manner.
Considerable time and energy, both in Geneva and in capitals, had been dedicated to this exercise.
The work to date had produced useful results in terms of understanding the causes of concern
underlying some of theses issues and in identifying the means to address them.  It was important forthis work to continue to move forward, in k eeping with the constructive progress that had been
achieved in the agriculture and services stock-taking meetings at the end of April.  In order to
maintain a productive dialogue, it was necessary to understand the level of ambition and degree of
priority the proponents attached to individual proposals, but it was also necessary to recognize the
parameters of what might be doable, when, and in what context.
107. The consultation process led by the Chairman of the General Council, and previously by his
predecessor, had demonstrably produced results.  Some examples were:  in the area of technical
barriers to trade, the TBT Committee, acting under the instruction of the General Council and in the
context of its triennial review, had examined proble ms faced by developing countries in implementing
the TBT Agreement, and had decided to develop a demand-driven technical assistance programme tofurther assist the developing countries in implementing the Agreement.   On the issue of the
participation of developing countries in the deve lopment of international standards, the Director-
General had followed up with the relevant international organizations, and the Secretariat was
working with them to compile information on the specific TBT needs of different groups of
developing countries and on the existing technical assistance activities provided by the variousorganizations.  TBT was a good example of how referring matters to the relevant subsidiary body for
technical input had contributed positively to addressing implementation concerns.WT/GC/M/64
Page 28
108. In the TRIPS Council, meaningful work was underway on a number of issues raised in the
implementation context.  For example, delegations – including Canada – had submitted papers on the
possible scope and modalities of the non-violation remedy, and had wisely chosen to set aside the
controversial question of the current status of the moratorium to focus instead on the substance of
how, if at all, this remedy should operate in th e TRIPS context.  Likewise, there were ongoing
discussions to further explore the incentives for technology transfer outlined in Article 66.2, including
possible reporting requirements. And during the next TRIPS Council meeting, a special discussion
would be held on the urgent matter of intellectual property and health, including access to essential
medicines.  While all these issues had yet to be resolved, Members were working constructively to
move forward.  Some issues were being taken up in other ways within the WTO, including within
mandated negotiations.  For example, the proposal that a "monitoring and notification mechanism
shall be established to ensure effective implementation of Article IV".  The Services Council hadrecently concluded its Negotiating Guidelines and Procedures in which there had been a clear
undertaking to consider the extent to which Article IV was being implemented and to suggest further
ways and means of promoting the goals therein.  However, progress had been hampered in many
areas by trying to deal with implementation proposals in isolation.  For example, some of the
proposals in the area of anti-dumping, such as changes to de minimis margins and negligibilityvolumes, would require amendment of Canadian la w.  Canada could not address proposals of this
kind outside the context of negotiations.
109. It had to be recognized that context was important and relevant to all work in the WTO, and
not only implementation.  There had to be a practical and realistic recognition by all participants in
this process that the context in which one tried to address these issues was an important variable in a
complex equation.  Most of the proposals on implementation-related issues and concerns had been
developed in the autumn of 1999 in the preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial Conference, at
which time Members were operating in the context of preparations for the launch of broader
negotiations.  Indeed, the entirety of the issues set out under paragraph 22 in the Secretariat
compilation had been defined to be engaged in the negotiations that Members had tried to launch atSeattle.  Thus, it should not come as a surprise, nor should it be interpreted as indifference on the part
of Canada or any other delegation, when it was said that a good number of these issues could only be
addressed in that fuller context.  This was a statement not on the importance of implementation issues,
but on the process being used to bring to meaningful closure issues of concern to all Members.  The
collective commitment to results and flexibility on process, had enabled some real progress on some
issues.
110. The Chairman’s consultations on a thematic basis had allowed all interested parties the
opportunity to examine issues in considerable detail and to explore possible solutions.  The referral to
the TBT Committee had demonstrated how technical experts in subsidiary bodies could help the
General Council address concerns in a positive and effective manner, and the mandated negotiations
on agriculture and services were proving to be an effective way to address other implementation
issues.  Canada wanted to ensure that all concerns were aired and understood, and that all issues wereexamined.  His delegation continued to support the Chairman’s efforts to move the process forward,
and left the number and type of meetings to his good judgement.  Canada believed that Members
could achieve the mandate required – completing examination of all the paragraph 21 and paragraph
22 issues by the time of the Doha Ministerial.  In this regard, Doha was an end point, but it was also a
beginning, as it would allow Members to address the more difficult issues in a broader context thatheld promise for all.
111. The representative of Indonesia said his delegation agreed with the suggestion by Thailand on
behalf of the ASEAN Members that there should be at least three special sessions before Doha.
Formal sessions were important for transparency and to allow all Members to express their views and
positions.  Indonesia shared the disappointment expressed by a number of delegations that progress inthe implementation process had been slow, and encouraged the Chairman to undertake further
intensive consultations on the outstanding issues, given the limited time remaining before Doha.WT/GC/M/64
Page 29
Further, the General Council should set a deadline for the subsidiary bodies examining
implementation issues to report on their work, especially where these bodies were encountering
problems in their deliberations.  On TRIPS, her delegation noted with satisfaction that the TRIPS
Council would hold a special meeting to discuss intellectual property issues related to access to
medicines.  The WTO had to take measures to balance intellectual property protection and the needsof developing countries for affordable medicines.  On cross-cutting issues, special and differential
(S&D) treatment had to be revisited, not only to  discuss how the WTO might be able to address
supply-side constraints, but to address other ambiguous S&D trade-related terms that needed to be
clarified.  On subsidies, Indonesia urged that this work meet the deadline of 31 July, to enable the
General Council to take decisions on issues related to Articles 27.5 and 27.6 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  Her delegation also urged the Chairman to hold consultations as soon as possible on
other proposals under paragraph 21, including th e proposals by Indonesia and Jamaica.  Her
delegation fully supported Pakistan's suggestion for a special session on textiles and clothing.  For
Indonesia, all implementation issues raised by developing countries were equally important and
should be addressed and resolved properly in order to enable the WTO to move forward in other areas
of its work.
112. The representative of Honduras that his delegation accorded the greatest importance to the
concerns of developing countries regarding the difficulties of implementing the WTO Agreements.
Regarding the statement in the Chairman's report that  the purpose of the consultations was to prepare
and adopt a work programme on implementation, his delegation was concerned that the larger trading
partners had given no positive indication of agreeing to this work programme which was essential to
organizing work on the subject in the manner agreed for the negotiations on agriculture and services.All implementation problems were important to his delegation, and Honduras did not support any of
the proposals for categorization.  An analysis of individual implementation issues revealed no sign of
progress.  For example, in the area of implementation of the decision on net food-importing countries,
the response of certain Members had not been constructive, and their reaction to the proposal had
amounted to a declaration of unwillingness to bi nd any commitments within the WTO.  Regarding
consultations on cross-cutting issues, it was disappointing that in spite of the fundamental importance
of special and differential treatment for developing countries, the attitude of some Members was one
of indifference.  Only one meeting had been held on the matter.  It was hoped that common ground on
these issues could be found in order to strengthen these provisions, which should become concrete
commitments within the WTO Agreements.  On subs idies, there had been several consultations and
another was scheduled for the following week to answer Members' questions.  It could be concluded
from the type of questions raised by some Members that there was in fact a lack of willingness to findways to solve the problems raised.  In spite of the fact that the work of the subsidiary bodies had
failed to produce any positive results, that work should continue and a deadline should be set –
perhaps July – for these bodies to report to the General Council.  He encouraged Members to show
political will in this work so that positive results could be achieved and decisions could be adopted at
Doha.  The 3 May Decision had been adopted by th e General Council in a positive spirit and with the
aim of correcting the existing imbalances in the WTO Agreements, but thus far there had been no
movement towards compliance with that Decision.  At least three General Council special sessions
should take place prior to Doha, with open-ended informal meetings between them.  Transparency
was of the essence in this process, and all delegations should be able to choose which meetings they
would attend, in accordance with their national inte rests.  Closed consultations would not contribute
to the preparations for Doha, which all hoped would be a success.
113. The representative of Cuba said that given the importance of implementation, an earlier
meeting like the present one would have been useful.  His delegation did not agree with the statement
in the Chairman's report that on some implementation issues real progress was being made.  There
was need for a clear work programme that would involve all Members in seeking solutions to theseissues, and for a real dialogue among Members.  To date there had appeared to be only a monologue,
but a dialogue seemed to be starting at the present meeting.  A deadline had to be set for reports from
the subsidiary bodies.  Cuba shared the conviction that the political will necessary to solve theseWT/GC/M/64
Page 30
problems would be shown. Transparency and inclusiveness should be features of any consultation
held.  It was a fact that the manner in which the negotiations on implementation took place would
impact directly on other negotiating processes curr ently underway.  The imbalances resulting from the
Uruguay Round had continued unresolved.  Any proposal for categorization was not acceptable, and
all implementation issues had to be taken up before Doha.
114. The representative of Panama said that the consultations held thus far had served to clarify
issues but not to take Members closer to specific decisions.  The new thinking suggested by the
Chairman had to be aimed at finding ways to comply with the December 2000 Decision, and not at
how to re-organize the calendar proposed in that  Decision.  There a need was for the negotiating
process to create a climate of confidence in the system, and for this, binding multilateral decisions had
to be taken.  This required political decisions with economic repercussions to be taken before Doha.
One, and perhaps the only, example of new thinking had been the US statement regarding the need forflexibility in implementing the TRIPS Agreement, but  this needed to be clarified and fleshed out.
There were no specific proposals by developed countries to meet other specific concerns of
developing countries.  Without this, the confidence would not be instilled that would enable
developing countries to accept new negotiating commitments.
115. The representative of Tanzania, on behalf of the Least-Developed Countries
, said that
implementation was an issue of extreme importance fo r the very survival of the multilateral trading
system, since there was no point in undertaking obligations under that system if the problems related
to implementation of those obligations could not be resolved.  Regarding the Chairman’s report, if
progress had been made it had been in very limited areas, and there was still a lot of ground to be
covered in resolving the issues identified.  The LDC Members were particularly concerned with thelack of significant progress on the more substantive and fundamental issues related to SPS, TBT,
TRIMs and TRIPS, and on the cross-cutting issues, especially on making S&D provisions more
concrete and operational.  However, the LDCs were encouraged by statements by some of the major
delegations, like the US, regarding the future work programme.  In cases where issues had been
referred to the relevant subsidiary bodies, those bodies had to be given clear deadlines to resolve thoseissues, even if this involved postponing consideration of other issues under their purview.  The LDCs
were concerned about the progress thus far achieved because of the July deadline for agreeing on the
agenda for Doha.  Implementation should be one of the priority items at Doha, and if there were no
agreement on what to report on implementation, it  would cast a big shadow of doubt on the whole
agenda for the Conference, as a number of delegations had indicated.  The LDC Members wanted to
see Doha succeed, and Members could ensure this by doing more to resolve implementation issues.
They supported the Chairman’s intention to have a clear programme of meetings and consultationsthat would be inclusive and transparent, and that would enable resolution of the many outstanding
issues.  However, as had been pointed out, merely having more meetings was not a guarantee of
success.  There had to be meaningful fresh thinking and a demonstration of positive political will on
the part of major delegations to seriously address implementation concerns.  He was optimistic that
such will would be more forthcoming in the weeks to come.
116. The representative of Chile said that the process on implementation had proved to be
operational, transparent, ensured the participation of  all, and created working habits that generated
confidence.  His delegation had never felt that it had been left out in any way.  The Chairman's report
contained a useful assessment of the consultations held thus far, which would enable Members to
identify areas where they had to concentrate their efforts.  Chile fully supported the Chairman'ssuggestions on the organization of future work.   There was no time to be wasted, and Members had to
be clear in their questions and in their answers.  He agreed with Brazil that each of the issues raised
had to be considered seriously, so that the substance, and not just the form, of a solution could be
examined.  It was not enough to say that something could not be done because it would require a
change in domestic legislation.  There had to be a debate on the substance of the problems and of thesolutions.  For example, Chile would be interested in an in-depth discussion of anti-dumping issues
and subsidies, where his delegation did not agree that it should be possible for certain developingWT/GC/M/64
Page 31
countries to subsidize their exports, thus generating new distortions.  As Peru had said, the context of
the economic environment had to be taken into account.  Members had to act responsibly so that
governments could face up to the problems.  Even though implementation was on a separate track, it
was part of other activities and ongoing processes in the WTO.  It was only by keeping the bigger
picture – the objectives of the WTO – in mind that the concerns of the developing countries would bemet.
117. The representative of Korea said that the more positive mood at the present meeting was an
encouraging sign.  Many developed Members were now engaging in this process and there had been
concrete suggestions on how to deal with implementation issues.  On the organization of future work,
at least one special session should be held after the summer break, and the informal process should be
intensified.  In principle, Korea could go along with the Community's proposal on how to deal with
implementation issues.  However, the focus should be on issues with the greatest chance of quick
progress.  It was hoped that all Members would look at these issues with courage and frankness, and
devise creative solutions to break the deadlock.
118. The representative of Uganda recalled that implementation issues and concerns had been
identified in 2000 as areas of focus for building confidence in the organization, and that it was
recognized that this would impact on other processes.  The mandate in the 3 May Decision was clear.However, as the Chairman's report indicated, there was a long way to go to build the necessary
confidence, and the problems had not been adequately addressed.  The subsidiary bodies had yet to
make their reports, and there had not been much progress on many issues, including SPS and TBT.
On TRIPS Agreement Article 66:2, which was mandatory, little progress had been made in
implementing this provision.  Uganda had expected the TRIPS Council to define the nature and scopeof the incentives required and to set up a framework within which the developed countries could be
deemed to have fulfilled their obligation under that Article.  Articles 41 through 61 requiring the
adoption of enforcement rules on intellectual property rights were very stringent, and the obligations
under Article 66:2 should be equally stringent.  It was hoped that the TRIPS Council would carefully
address these issues and come up with an appropriate framework.  His delegation agreed that thereshould be at least three special sessions.  Statements by some of the major trading partners at the
present meeting provided a glimmer of hope that a dialogue might develop.  This dialogue should be
focussed on addressing the substance of concerns and on proposing solutions, rather than on raising
questions or justifying why solutions were impossible.
119. The representative of the Czech Republic said that despite all of the difficulties, there did
seem to be progress, while perhaps not as much as wished.  A lot of useful work had been done, some
concrete decisions had been taken, delegations had exercised due restraint, and all had a betterunderstanding of many of the issues under discussion.  Furthermore, all Members remained engaged
with a view to achieving more substantive progress.  One should build on these elements in the further
implementation discussions.  However, a large number of issues remained unresolved and concrete
progress on many of them was some way off, as the Chairman had indicated in his report.  What was
needed now was to create an environment in which most of the implementation issues could bedebated in a more pragmatic and results-oriented manner, and in which delegations would be willing
to show the level of flexibility required.  It should also be recognized that Members were operating
under certain time constraints.  Priority attention should be given to those issues that had the potential
to be resolved in the months ahead or at Doha and that did not require substantive changes in the
existing legal texts and thus negotiations.  At the same time, specific, time-bound mandates should beestablished at Doha for those issues remaining outstanding.  His delegation pledged its full support to
the Chairman’s and the Director-General's effort s to find meaningful solutions acceptable to all.
120. The representative of Colombia noted that delegations had different appreciations of the work
done thus far on implementation.  While it was true there was much work to be done, statements like
that by the Community indicated that the door was slightly open for progress.  On the organization offuture work, some delegations were concerned that categorization of implementation proposals wouldWT/GC/M/64
Page 32
result in postponing important issues until after Doha, but the fundamental objective of the
implementation work was to balance and improve the distribution of benefits among developed and
developing countries under the Uruguay Round.  Th us, categorization of these issues, which would
put some ahead of others, would not be the appr opriate way to launch a new round or ensure the
success of Doha.  An effort should be made to find proposals that would be of interest to the greatestpossible number of developing countries.  It would be unacceptable to achieve this with proposals that
would involve little or no cost to the develope d countries, because this would not achieve the
objectives of implementation work.  All implementation proposals deserved detailed study and
discussion before Doha, and work had to be concentrated on proposals with the greatest significance
for the greatest number of developing countries.  A group of countries which did not have substantial
interests in the proposals should be asked to help determine the proposals that met these criteria.
There could be consultations to set up this group, or volunteers requested.  The programme for futurework proposed by the Chairman should have the necessary flexibility to be adapted to the rhythm of
work on implementation.
121. The representative of Costa Rica said that the Chairman's suggestion for the organization of
future work was appropriate.  Efforts in the area of implementation had to be considered within the
context of the upcoming Ministerial Conference and the fact that a large number of Members wantedto launch broad negotiations in different areas of trade.  It would not be wise to establish absolute
conditions regarding the possible results of Doha.  Rather, efforts should be made to achieve progress
on implementation before Doha, and that meeting could also help Members to make progress on
implementation, and if necessary, to identify implementation issues for subsequent negotiations.   In
this sense it would be useful to work on the basis of categories of issues in order to get out of thecurrent impasse.  Matters going beyond the strict area of implementation, and thus involving
amendment of the agreements, should be part of negotiations to be undertaken with that objective.
Any problems of possible imbalances under the Ur uguay Round agreements could only be solved by
means of a new negotiation in which the agreements could be amended.  To compare these problems
with implementation problems only made it harder to find solutions to the latter.  Pragmatic andconstructive work was necessary in both of these areas that would unavoidably co-exist for the
remainder of the year.
122. The representative of the Philippines recalled that the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement
clearly reflected the developmental bent of th e Uruguay Round when it recognized the need for
positive efforts to ensure that developing countries, and especially the least-developed among them,
secured a share in the growth of international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic
development.  Members should give vent to this objective before plunging into another round ofnegotiations aimed at further liberalization and development of new rules and disciplines.
Implementation issues provided an opportunity to accomplish this development objective, and should
be resolved now and not at some possible date after Doha.  These imbalances, which had resulted
from the Uruguay Round, should be properly treated independent of any new rights or obligations
flowing from a new round.  Developing countries' concerns on implementation would not beadequately addressed through technical assistance and capacity-building measures alone, which did
not go to the root of the problems.  What was necessary was the political will to accommodate the
genuine trade concerns of developing countries.
123. Of particular interest to the Philippines, as well as to many developing countries, was how the
process for consideration of requests for extensions of the transition period under the TRIPSAgreement would evolve.  His delegation shared th e concerns expressed by India, among others,
regarding the implications of patents for access to medicines, in particular essential medicines.  The
Philippines encouraged the Chairman to continue his intensive consultations on outstanding
implementation issues.
124. The representative of Morocco said that the discussion seemed to be focussed more on
procedure than on the substance of the issues covered in informal consultations, and that to continueWT/GC/M/64
Page 33
this way would not lead to progress on the issues.  The Chairman should be trusted to determine
himself the appropriate type and number of meetings necessary. There seemed to be a
misunderstanding on a fundamental point, which was when, according to the 3 May General Council
Decision, decisions on implementation issues were to be taken.  While that Decision stipulated that
the process should be completed no later than the Fourth Ministerial Conference, it contained noobligation to achieve results, but simply to make every effort to this end.  It was clear there would be
concrete results on some issues by that time, and only a process agreed for dealing with others.
Members should do their utmost to ensure that the process chosen would be one most likely to lead to
solutions on these remaining issues.  The aim of such  an approach was not to categorise or prejudge
the issues, but simply to obtain as many practical and satisfactory solutions as possible.  To do this it
was necessary to decide which issues to take up first.  Some issues were purely technical assistance or
capacity-building issues, some would require an in terpretation of existing provisions, and others
involved a rebalancing of perceived imbalances in existing provisions.  The point was to use a
methodology that would yield solutions on the greatest number of these issues.  Ministerial
conferences were becoming more routine events, and Members should de-dramatise Doha and not be
overly concerned with whether an issue was resolved before or after that meeting.  Given that there
was simply not time to resolve all issues by that time, pragmatism should be the order of the day.Following the present meeting, Members should identify issues to be taken up and proceed with small
group, bilateral and plurilateral meetings in order to identify solutions and when decisions could be
taken.  Morocco hoped that all delegations would be  flexible and would try to make Doha a success,
both in the interests of the institution and, in particular, given the development dimension identified
with Doha, by showing a construc tive spirit in seeking consensus.
125. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation appreciated that the EC and the US had
at least made an effort to engage in a dialogue on implementation, even if it disagreed with much of
what they had said.  He wanted to make four poin ts.  Prior to Seattle, developing countries had said
they wanted solutions to the proposals under paragraph 21 at Seattle, and solutions to the proposals
under paragraph 22 after Seattle.  But at no time had they agreed that the paragraph 22 issues wouldbe part of any package of negotiations that were or were not to be launched at Seattle.  Second, the
agreement at Seattle to discuss implementation while other issues were being discussed was not an
agreement to a package that would include implementation.  At that time there was as yet no
understanding on a single undertaking.  Implementation issues were to be resolved in their own right.
Third, there could be no categorization of these issues.  Each issue was to be resolved by the time of
Doha.  Any decision to be taken at Doha would have  to be designed to resolve the difficulties.  By
definition, according to the 3 May Decision there could be no post-Doha negotiations onimplementation issues.  Fourth, it was important to set a clear schedule of formal and informal
meetings on these issues.  Deadlines had to be set, and direction and momentum provided.  The
Chairman should hold consultations and set a timetable for the three special sessions, as well as a date
for a special session on textiles issues.  Pakistan hop ed that at the next special session Members would
be able to adopt concrete decisions on those matters on which consensus could be reached.  Thisshould be a progressive exercise, so that at each formal meeting decisions could be adopted.  He
hoped that the Chairman would work towards this end.
126. The representative of India said that he wanted to to clarify an inaccuracy in the statements of
some delegations.  One delegation had said that paragraph 22 demands had been crafted for a new
round of negotiations.  Another had suggested that these proposals had been made in the autumn of1999, i.e. slightly before the Seattle Ministerial.  These statements were factually inaccurate.  The first
statement and proposals on implementation had been made in September 1998, when a round was not
even being talked about.  Detailed proposals had been made in the first half of 1999.  India had
maintained throughout that implementation issues were per se important and reflected the real
problems and concerns of developing countries.  In October 1999, the proposals had been reduced tobullet form and prioritized in response to a specific suggestion.  This prioritization had been simply
to identify issues that could be resolved before or at Seattle.  The remaining issues were to have been
resolved within a year after Seattle.  Developing countries had always said that implementationWT/GC/M/64
Page 34
proposals were not in the context of a new round, but rather aimed at resolving existing problems, and
without such resolution developing countries could not be expected to look at new commitments.
127. The Chairman said that the meeting, which had been very useful, had shown a strong sense of
engagement.  A large number of views had been expressed on specific issues, which provided
important guidance on how delegations felt about various issues and where their priorities lay.  Viewshad also been expressed on the process engaged in thus far, and ideas for fresh thinking had been
aired.  Perceptions of progress clearly varied – in some cases substantially – but there seemed to be a
commitment on the part of all to continuing and intensifying efforts to make progress.  There had
been a general reaffirmation of the importance of the implementation issue and of the 3 May mandate.
128. Regarding future work, his impression was that the process he had outlined in his opening
remarks struck the right balance at the present stage.  That process was as follows:  that Members
should be guided by the 3 May Decision;  that implementation remained on a separate track;  that thiswas an action- and results-oriented process;  that formal meetings had an important place in this
process;  that it was his intention to convene another special session towards the end of June or early
July, and that Members should think in terms of at least one – and perhaps two – further special
sessions;  that the informal process along broadly thematic lines would continue and be intensified;
that before the next special session on implementation he would have taken up all of the remainingissues in the 20 February compilation that had not yet been addressed in 2001;  that he would revisit
those issues on which there had been consultations but which required further work;  that he would
keep in close contact with the Chairpersons of the relevant subsidiary bodies, and carefully monitor
progress and encourage their efforts;  and that he would ensure that those subsidiary bodies reported
in an adequate and timely manner to the General Council.  While what he had outlined might  not beas specific as all delegations might wish, it was a substantial road map of the way ahead over the
coming months, which he felt struck the right balance at the present stage.  He suggested that
Members work on this basis, but he would certainly reflect on some of the suggestions that had been
made, including Pakistan's suggestion that there be a fixed schedule of formal and informal meetings
with deadlines, and a special session on textiles.
129. A number of delegations had commented on the issue of transparency, and it was his
impression that the process over the past two months – that of interspersing smaller consultations with
open-ended meetings – was accepted as the modus operandi  during the course of consultations in
2000, but he would like to reflect on that and to see if he could effect some improvements.  Overall
the meeting had been very good, with delegations engaging, and this provided renewed impetus to
efforts to close the gaps on substance, which should be the focus of work in the weeks ahead.
130. The General Council took note of the report by the Chairman and the Director-General,  and
of the statements.
__________