RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/194  
 
14 February  2022 
(22-1306) Page: 1/112 
General Council  
22-23 November 2021   
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD AND IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 22-23 NOVEMBER  2021 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Dacio Castillo (Honduras)  
 
The Chair bade farewell to H.E. Dr. David Walker  (New Zealand ), the 2 6th Chair of the WTO General 
Council and expressed appreciation for his valuable contribution during his time as Permanent 
Representative.  The Chair also welcomed H.E. Mr. Timur Suleimenov , Chair of the Twelfth Ministerial 
Conference, and invited him to add ress1 the General Council.  
 
Subjects discussed2: 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE AND REPORT                 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOMES  – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR  ................................ ................................ ..............................  5 
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT  ......................  9 
4   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE BALI DECISION ON TRQ ADMINISTRATION – 
REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL   ................................ ................................ ..............  11 
5   THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ASPECTS OF COTTON - PERIODIC REPORT BY                   
THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL   ................................ ................................ ..............................  15 
6   TRIPS COUNCIL MATTERS  ................................ ................................ .........................  18 
6.1   Annual Review of the Special Compulsory Licensing System – Paragraph 7 of the Annex                     
to the Amended TRIPS Agreement and Paragraph 8 of the Decision on the Implementation of 
Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Pub lic Health –                                   
Report of the Council for TRIPS  ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 
6.2   Proposal for a Decision on an Extension of the Period for the Acceptance by Members                               
of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement   ................................ ................................ ....18 
6.3   TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints  ................................ ............................... 19 
6.4   Status Report on the Considerations by the TRIPS Council on the Revised "Proposal for a 
Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and 
Treatment of COVID -19" – Statement by the Chair of the Council for TRIPS  .............................. 19 
7   PREPARATIONS FOR THE TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE  ... 30 
7.1   MC12 Outcome Document – Report by the Chair  ................................ ............................ 31 
7.2   WTO Response to the Pandemic – Report by the Facilitator  ................................ .............. 43 
 
1 The statement of H.E. Mr. Timur Suleimenov  can be found in Annex 1.  
2 The proposed agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/837. Item 16 on the proposed agenda  was 
withdrawn by the requesting delegations . WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  ................................ .....................  55 
8.1   Report by the Chair  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....55 
8.2   Communication from Australia; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Ecuador;                                           
El Salvador; Georgia; Guatemala; Hon g Kong, China; Iceland; Korea, Republic of; Mexico; 
New Zealand; Norway; Peru; Singapore; Switzerland; Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Thailand; Ukraine; United Kingdom and Uruguay  ........................... 55 
8.3   The Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions: Need for Clarity on                              
its Scope and Impact – Communication from India and Sou th Africa   ................................ .......55 
9   A SMOOTH TRANSITION PACKAGE IN FAVOUR OF MEMBERS GRADUATING                              
FROM THE LDC CATEGORY  ................................ ................................ .............................  68 
9.1   LDC Group's Interim Arrangement Submission on LDC Graduation –                                 
Communication from Chad on behalf of the LDC Group   ................................ .......................... 68 
9.2   Trade Related Challenges of the Least -Developed Countries and Way Forward:                                             
A Draft for MC Decision – Communication from Chad on Behalf of the LDC Group   ..................... 68 
10   REINVIGORATING THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND NAIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISIONS ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS – STATEMENT BY THE LDC GROUP  ...........  73 
11   PAPER TITLED "THE LEGAL STATUS OF 'JOINT STATEMENT INITIATIVES'                              
AND THEIR NEGOTIATED OUTCOMES" BY INDIA, SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA  ...........  75 
12   PROPOSED GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION ON PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE 
TRANSPARENCY AND IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS – ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHILE; COSTA RICA; 
THE EUROPEAN UNION;  ICELAND; ISRAEL; JAPAN; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; MEXICO;                   
NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; PARAGUAY; THE PHILIPPINES; SINGAPORE;                       
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN 
AND MATSU; UNITED KINGDOM; AND THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ...........  81 
13   PROPOSED MINISTERIAL DECISION ON STRENGTHENING RESILIENCY AND 
PREPAREDNESS THROUGH TRADE FACILITATION – COSTA R ICA; JAPAN; MEXICO; 
NORWAY; PANAMA; URUGUAY; AND THE UNITED STATES  ................................ .............  87 
14   PROPOSED SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY DECLARATION FOR THE T WELFTH                
WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE: RESPONDING TO MODERN SPS CHALLENGES - 
ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, BELIZE, BRAZIL, BURKINA FASO, CABO VERDE, CANADA, 
CHILE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, CÔTE D'IVOIRE, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR,                   
EL SA LVADOR, THE GAMBIA, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, JAPAN, MEXICO,                                    
NEW ZEALAND, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERU, SENEGAL, SINGAPORE, TAJIKISTAN,                  
TOGO,  THE UNITED STATES, UKRAINE, URUGUAY AND VIET NAM  ................................ . 93 
15   PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR WTO COUNCILS AND COMMITTEES                       
ADDRESSING TRADE CONCERNS – UPDATE FROM ALBANIA; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; 
CHINA; EURO PEAN UNION; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; 
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; NEW  ZEALAND; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PANAMA; 
QATAR; SINGAPORE; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF    
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; THAILAND; TURKEY; AND UKRAINE  ..............  97 
16   REVIEW OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 OF GATT 1994   ...... 99 
17   PROCEDURE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF HS 2022 CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING THE TARIFF SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE – DRAFT DECISION 
(G/C/W/802)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  101  
18   WAIVERS UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT  ................................ ....... 101  
18.1   Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 Changes into W TO Schedules of                                      
Tariff Concessions – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ .....................  101 
18.2   Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 Changes into W TO Schedules of                                    
Tariff Concessions – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ .....................  101 WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 3 - 
 
  18.3   Introduction of Harmonized System 2012 Changes into W TO Schedules of                                    
Tariff Concessions – Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ .....................  101 
18.4   Introduction of Harmonized System 2017 Changes into W TO Schedules of                                        
Tariff Concessions - Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ .....................  101 
18.5   Cuba – Article X V:6 – Extension of Waiver – Draft Decision  ................................ ..........  101 
18.6   Review of Waivers Pursuant to Article I X:4 of the WTO Agreement  ...............................  102 
18.6.1    Preferential treatment in favour of services and service suppliers of least -developed 
countries, granted on 17  December  2011 until 31 December 2030  ................................ .........  102 
18.6.2    Preferential tariff treatment for least -developed countries, granted on                          
16 October  2019 until 30  June 2029  ................................ ................................ ..................  102 
18.6.3    European Union – Application of autonomous preferential treatment to the                          
Western Balkans   ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  102 
18.6.4   United States – African Growth and Opportunity Act,                                                                         
granted  on 30  November  2015 until 30  September 2025  ................................ ......................  102 
18.6.5    United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act,                                                     
granted on 16  October  2019 until 30 September 2025   ................................ .........................  102 
18.6.6    United States – Former trust territory of the Pacific Islands,                                                
granted on 7  December 2016 until 31 December 2026  ................................ .........................  102 
18.6.7    United States – Trade preferences granted to Nepal,                                                           
granted on 7 December 2016 until 31  December 2025  ................................ .........................  102 
19   REVIEW OF WTO ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ ................  104  
19.1   General Council, Dispute Settlement Body and Trade Policy Review Body  ......................  104 
19.2   Sectoral Councils, SPS Committee, TBT Committee and Committee on Agriculture  ..........  104 
19.3   Commi ttees on Trade and Development, Trade and Environment, Balance -of-Payments 
Restrictions, Budget, Finance and Administration, and Regional Trade Agreements   .................  104 
19.4   Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance, Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  104 
19.5   Committees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements  ................................ ..................  104 
20   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION –                                         
REPORTS ON MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2021  ..................  104  
21   APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO WTO BODIES  ................................ ......................  106  
21.1   Report by the Chair  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 106 
21.2   Announcement by the Chair Pursuant to Paragraph 7.1(A) of the Guidelines   .................  107 
22   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 109  
22.1   Ministerial Meeting of the Landlocked Developing Countries – Statement by Mongolia                      
on behalf of the Landlocked Developing Countries  ................................ ................................  109 
22.2   Virtual Meeting of the Arab Trade Minsters – Statement by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  . 110 
22.3   Next Steps on WTO Response to the Pandemic – Statement by Pakistan                                                     
on behalf of the Co -Sponsors of JOB/GC/278  ................................ ................................ ....... 110 
22.4   Statement by the Chair in connection with Administrative Measures for Members                                     
in arrears  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  111 
ANNEX 1 – STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. TIMUR SULEIMENOV, CHAIR OF THE TWELFTH 
SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE, AT THE FORMAL MEETING OF THE 
GENERAL COUNCIL ON 22 NOVEMBER ................................ ................................ ..........  112  
 WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE AND REPORT BY 
THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  
1.1.  The Chair  recalled  that on 19 November, a Formal TNC and Informal Heads of Delegation 
meeting had been convened by the Director -General. At that meeting, oral and written reports had 
been received from the Negotiating Group Chairs on the status of work in their respective a reas. 
The Director -General had provided her statement, and the Chair had also intervened. 48 delegations 
had taken the floor thereafter.  The Director -General's report and the reports by the Chairs of the 
Negotiating Groups could be found in document JOB/TN C/101.  
1.2.  As indicated at that meeting , the Director -General's report at the Formal TNC as well as the 
reports of the Chairs of the Negotiating Bodies would be placed before Ministers at the Ministerial 
Conference through the General Council's own Report to the Conference.  In addition, the reports of 
the regular bodies, which would be taken up under Item 20, would also be presented to Ministers – 
in accordance with the reporting obligations as adopted by the General Council and contained in 
document WT/L/105 . The Chair would submit all of those reports at the Opening Session of the 
Ministerial Conference, to update Ministers on the work in the regular bodies of the WTO and in the 
negotiations.  
1.3.  The Director -General  delivered the following statement3:  
1.4.  It is an honour to welcome our MC12 Chair, H.E. Mr. Timur Suleimenov. Your message of 
encouragement is timely and I look forward to working closely with you and our Ministers in ensuring 
a successful MC12. Let me also join the GC Chair in welcoming new Permanent  Representatives and 
bidding farewell to departing ones. To the incoming ambassadors – I look forward to working with 
you. And to our departing Ambassador, Dr David Walker, whose second stint as New Zealand's 
Permanent Representative to the WTO will conclu de at the end of December, I want to extend my 
heartfelt thanks and best wishes. Ambassador Walker embodies commitment to the multilateral 
trading system, and to making this institution deliver results. He served as Chair of the General 
Council in 2020, of  the Dispute Settlement Body the year before, and previously of the Committee 
on Agriculture in Special Session. He has given generously of his time in roles that offer little thanks, 
leading difficult consultative processes, including now on the WTO's res ponse to the pandemic.  I 
hope we will successfully give Ambassador Walker and his Minister something to take back to 
Wellington from MC12.  
1.5.  Turning now to my report as TNC Chair, since the October meeting of the General Council, the 
TNC has held one formal  meeting, on 19 November. In conjunction with you, GC Chair, we convened 
an informal Heads of Delegation meeting on 25 October to take stock of progress in several areas 
in our MC12 preparatory work. As you know, I convened a formal TNC and informal HoDs o n Friday 
– which you also addressed.  
1.6.  As I noted on Friday, the TNC has reporting obligations to the General Council – and through 
the General Council to the Ministerial Conference. Therefore, written reports have been circulated 
by all Chairs of bodies est ablished by the TNC, under their own responsibility.  These have been 
circulated in the following official documents that I will read for the record and onward transmission 
by the General Council to Ministers, together with my report:  
a. Special Session of the  Committee on Agriculture – TN/AG/50;  
b. Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development – TN/CTD/35;  
c. Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body – TN/DS/32;  
d. Special Session of the Council for TRIPS – TN/IP/30;  
e. Negotiating Group on Market Access  – TN/MA/34;  
f. Negotiating Group on Rules – TN/RL/34;  
 
3 The Director -General's statement was also circulated in JOB/GC/286.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 5 - 
 
  g. Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services – TN/S/42; and,  
h. Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment – TN/TE/26.  
1.7.  Beyond the work reflected in these reports, delegations continue their negotiations for 
outcomes. Work has intensified on both fisheries and agriculture – and there were weekend meetings 
all day long on both these negotiations. While negotiations on agriculture remain tough with positions 
not much changing, there is con siderable momentum on fisheries. But work will be continuing in 
both areas this week – with any new developments submitted to Ministers as an update particularly 
at our first HODs meeting on 30 November. I would like to express my thanks to all the Chairs for 
their dedication and hard work, to the Secretariat staff and the translators who worked all weekend, 
and of course to the Ambassadors and experts who spent long hours in this very room. Thank you 
so much for what you are doing.  
1.8.  The days ahead will busy . As Ambassador Manley said on Friday, Geneva has to become the 
city that never sleeps. And I think we are getting there. The negotiating process will include the 
work of the Chairs, and through my work as Chair of the TNC, we will try to help find as much  
convergence as possible before Ministers arrive.  And, of course, we have the Chair here to assist 
us. My experience right now is that Ministers are calling from all over the world and wanting to meet 
to assess the status of where we are. There is a very keen interest to know where we are making 
progress and where work will be needed. I am trying to keep updating them as they inquire.  
1.9.  So, in the days left, let us aim to present Ministers with documents as clean as we can possibly 
make them. We should try to avoid a Christmas Tree of alternatives because this will make it much 
more difficult for Ministers to come to a conclusion. By all means, we need to leave them with some 
work to do but let us make it as easy as we can so that we can get to yes whilst th ey are here. As I 
said on Friday, the world's eyes are on us. Let us constantly ask ourselves these questions: "What 
will Ministers take home from MC12?" and "What should Ministers bring to MC12 to help us succeed?" 
If we continue to ask ourselves these tw o questions, that will keep us focused on what we need to 
do. The answer to these two questions is actually in the hands of all of the people in this room. The 
success of MC12 is in your hands. I know you can and will make it happen.   
1.10.   The General Council took note  of the Director -General's report and the reports of the Chairs 
of the Negotiating Bodies  which  would be forwarded to Ministers at MC12 through the General 
Council's report, to be submitted to Ministers in the General Council C hair's statement at the 
Conference . The General Council also took note  that work on MC12 outcomes was continuing in the 
immediate next few days and that any results from that work would be in front of Ministers at MC12.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOMES (G/RO/94) 
– STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR  
2.1.  The Chair recalled4 that the item remained on the agenda so that the General Council could 
continue to follow up, in a horizontal and transparent manner, on the Ministerial decisions adopted 
in Bali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires. His report that day was based on the information provided by the 
Chairs of the regular bodies on the implementation work taking place further to Ministerial mandates 
in their respective areas. For some issues, including the Work Programme on Small Economies, the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Mor atorium on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation 
Complaints, TRQ Administration, there would be separate items later in the agenda . Regarding the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, the Chair's consultations would be reported under Item 
8. With respect to t he work in that area carried out by the respective bodies, the discussions were 
well reflected in the relevant Annual Reports under Item 20.  
2.2.  In the area of Agriculture, with respect to the implementation of the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competition, sinc e the Chair's last report in October, Brazil had submitted its draft modified schedule 
incorporating the Nairobi Decision. With this, out of the 16 Members with export subsidy reduction 
commitments at the time of the Nairobi Decision, 15 Members had circul ated their draft schedules 
and 12 were already certified.  
 
4 The Chair's statement was circulated in documen t JOB/GC/283.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.3.  Regarding the Services Waiver for LDCs, at the October meeting of the Services Council, the 
LDC Group had referred to the Declaration adopted by the LDC Trade Ministers outlining their 
priorities fo r MC12. Amongst the areas of special interest were a number of elements related to the 
LDC Services Waiver, which were aimed at improving the implementation of relevant Decisions and 
the preferences in favour of LDC services and service suppliers notified by Members to date.  
2.4.  On Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs, the Chair drew attention to the annual report of the 
Committee on Rules of Origin to the General Council in G/RO/94, which contained details about 
recent developments in preferential rules of or igin and the work of the Committee on Rules of Origin 
in that area.  In addition, he noted that the LDC Group had also proposed that Members negotiate d 
and adopt ed language to be inserted in the MC12 outcome document concerning the work of the 
Committee on Rules of Origin in that area reflected in G/RO/W/210. Relevant developments on the 
status of those discussions would be covered under Item 10.  
2.5.  Regarding Duty -Free Quota -Free Market Access for LDCs, at its meeting that had been held 
earlier that month, the Committee on Trade and Development had undertaken its annual review of 
the steps taken to provide DFQF market access to LDCs – as had been mandated by the relevant 
Bali Decision. The annual review had provided the opportunity for some Members to share 
information on their DFQF schemes for LDCs.  
2.6.  The situation in the Monitoring Mechanism on Special and Differential Treatment remained the 
same. At the meeting of the Monitoring Mechanism held earlier that month, the CTD Chair had once 
again urged Members to com e to a common understanding on how to move forward with the 
Mechanism. The Chair would continue to work with Members in informal settings to explore what 
could be done to make the Mechanism operational.  
2.7.  Regarding Aid -for-Trade, at the October CTD Aid for T rade session, Members had reviewed the 
implementation of the Aid -for-Trade Work Programme. They had also agreed to launch the 2022 
Monitoring and Evaluation exercise. The self -assessment monitoring questionnaires were ready for 
online completion on the WTO  website, and the deadline for submission of the completed formats 
was 31 December. Responses to the monitoring exercise were key inputs for the following year's 
Global Review that would focus on "Empowering Connected Sustainable Trade".  
2.8.  And finally, on Tr ade Facilitation, the Committee continued its work on the four -year review of 
the Agreement. The rate of implementation commitments to date stood at just over 70% for the 
entire Membership – and the rate of ratification remained at 94%, with 9 Members stil l to ratify.  
2.9.  The Director -General  delivered the following statement : 
2.10.   To use trade to better meet the needs of their people, developing countries need supply -side 
support, in terms of infrastructure but equally at the enterprise level. This is critical for our 
endeavours to ensure that the benefits of the multilateral trading system flow to all members, 
especially the weakest and most vulnerable.  The Stocktaking Event on Aid for Trade this past March 
was one of my first high -level events after taking over as  Director -General.  
2.11.   The event was very useful in gauging the depth of the pandemic's impact on Members' trade 
and development prospects. It also gave impetus to our actions to support the increased production 
and equitable roll -out of COVID -19 vaccines, dia gnostics, and therapeutics. Unequal access to these 
COVID -19 countermeasures continues to weigh on the pace of economic recovery, particularly 
amongst our lowest income Members.  
2.12.   The pandemic has sharply accelerated the shift towards digital trade and e -commerce. The 
Global Review of Aid for Trade planned for July 2022 reflects this, with its theme of "Empowering 
connected sustainable trade." We have to help developing countries prepare for new ways of working 
and trading. And we have to ensure that women -owned businesses and MSMEs can take advantage 
of new commercial opportunities, both online and offline, because this is critical for making the gains 
from trade more socially inclusive.  
2.13.   Aid for Trade must increasingly reflect the green transition which is g athering in momentum. 
The Glasgow Climate Summit has clearly signalled the direction of travel for the global economy.  
The ongoing Aid -for-Trade Monitoring and Evaluation exercise forms an essential component of the WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Global Review. I strongly urge you to p articipate in this survey; your replies to the monitoring 
exercise will form an essential input for next year's Global Review.  
2.14.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered the following statement:  
2.15.   Regarding the LDC s, some progress has been seen, however we still have a long way to go. 
The Ministers of the LDCs agreed in their Ministerial Declaration of 19 October on a number of 
elements for all of these decisions that have been made , and we have to absorb them and see to it 
that they can be enforced  and implemented. We submitted a text to your process for a final 
document to reflect the ten elements. We also submitted a compromise paragraph as an answer to 
those who have raised some concerns in order to reflect the request of our Ministers. F urthermore, 
we declared at the beginning of the TNC that we were concerned and worried by some efforts seeking 
to dilute or even suppress our elements. This paragraph has still been kept in the section of the final 
document as supplemental elements , but th ere has not been any consensus to place it in the first 
part of the document. It is our sincere hope  that we will be able to solve this matter in a way which 
addresses the strong expectations of the LDCs. Our working method remains as usual based on 
realis m and flexibility.  
2.16.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
2.17.   As we enter the last stretch towards yet another Ministerial Conference, and aim for ambitious 
outcomes, Pakistan wishes to invite attention to the severely lacking implem entation record of 
previous Ministerial outcomes. As we have been highlighting in several of our statements, 
development remains the cornerstone of any effort at the WTO, and the end we seek to achieve by 
enhancing trade. Unfortunately, our track record of  implementing our various Ministerial decisions 
and their mandated work programmes has been severely lacking, allowing questions to be raised on 
the WTO's credibility and relevance. The so -called Doha Development Round, which holds a promise 
that the conce rns of developing countries would be addressed and corrections of imbalances in the 
WTO agreements, still lingers and lurks in the background whenever we move on substantive work.  
2.18.   With this baggage of unfulfilled past promises, a good signal for the world would lie in 
delivering meaningful outcomes on longstanding unimplemented mandates from past Ministerial 
Conferences. In this regard, correcting imbalances in Agriculture, and delivering on the G90 
proposals on S &DT, delivering on an agreement on fisheries  subsidies that is meaningful and 
sympathetic to the needs of developing and LDC Members, are of crucial importance. At the same 
time, an outcome on a TRIPS waiver, which forms the most crucial part of response to the pandemic 
and that would provide safe, equitable, and affordable access to COVID -19 vaccines, therapeutics, 
and equipment to the poorest in the world is mandated. A reiteration of existing trade policy 
measures from the rulebook does not constitute a response the world demands from the WTO at 
this time. Pakistan has been happy to contribute in all processes and at all levels on the response to 
the pandemic and looks forward to continue that engagement to make the COVID response 
meaningful and credible.  
2.19.   We at the WTO have suffered from many misse d deadlines and unfulfilled mandates 
particularly developmental issues linked with livelihoods and developmental prospects of people in 
developing countries. We should not continue to fail those people. In this regard, I would urge you 
again to build a mec hanism where the unfulfilled mandates and unimplemented decisions are 
regularly highlighted in this Council and at the Ministerial Conference as a reminder for us to act in 
the right direction.  
2.20.   The representative of India delivered the following statement : 
2.21.   We had stated in all preceding General Council meetings through the year that PSH has a 
clear ministerial mandate: that PSH negotiations have to be on an accelerated, separate track and 
any effort to link these discussions with other pillars is undermini ng the ministerial mandate. 
Unfortunately, the progress on finding the PSH solution as per the mandate has not progressed 
much.  It has not progressed despite two large WTO negotiating groups, the G33 and the African 
Group making submissions; despite the G3 3 Ministers Joint Statement of September 2021 reiterating 
the need for expeditious resolution of Permanent Solution on the PSH at MC12, and reaffirming the 
G33 Members commitment and readiness to work with the rest of the WTO Members based on the 
elements contained in the proposals submitted by the G33 Members.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.22.   If the WTO Membership cannot deliver on the mandated issues of the past Ministerial meeting, 
then first, its competency comes under question. In a nutshell, credibility of the WTO hinges on the 
outco mes of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Mandates, especially when the food security issues have 
become pronounced due to the ongoing pandemic. The scale and its continuous resurgence over 
different parts of the world indicate that the pandemic may not be e asing anytime soon. In these 
unpreceded times, the WTO should get out of the self -imposed impasse and redeem itself by 
delivering a permanent solution on PSH.  
2.23.   Pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
and t he General Council Decision of 2014 as contained in document WT/L/939, India notified the 
Committee on Agriculture that it has exceeded the de minimis level of market price support for rice 
for the marketing year 2018 -2019 and 2019 -20. Market price support  for rice, a traditional staple 
food crop, is notified under Article 7.2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture to pursue public 
stockholding programmes for food security purposes. India's public stockholding programmes for 
food security purposes, covering ric e and several other commodities, have been consistently 
reported in its Table DS: 1 notification since 1995. The programme is consistent with the criteria 
mentioned in paragraph 3, footnote 5, and footnote 5 and 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture . Further, the stocks under the programme are acquired and released to meet the 
domestic food security needs of India's poor and vulnerable population and not impede commercial 
trade or food security of others. For these reasons, the notified level of mark et price support for rice 
is covered by the peace clause set out in the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purposes (WT/MIN (13)/38) and the General Council Decision (WT/L/939).  India has been 
constructively engaging on this issue with other Members in the meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture Special Session. A simple, efficient, and permanent solution on extending PSH for food 
security purposes to new program mes and new products is, therefore, a key deliverable.  
2.24.   The proponents calling for transparency should lead by example. One flag bearer of 
transparency submitted DS1 Notification for the marketing year 2018 -19 in May 2021, many months 
past the deadline of 30 September 2019. (Table DS:1 for the Marketing Year 20 18/2019 was notified 
on 17 May 2021 vide G/AG/N/EU/69, status as of 18/11/2021.) This Member gave its reasons in the 
past to explain the delay. While it feels it can have reasons not to notify in time, it is ironic it does 
not see that others can also have  genuine reasons for not notifying in time.  As a responsible Member 
of the WTO, India is conscious of its notification obligations and has consistently complied with them, 
including the notification obligations prescribed in the document G/AG/2. Our domest ic support and 
market access notifications are up to date. Our track record with meeting our transparency 
obligations has been much better than that of several Members pressing for enhanced transparency 
at the WTO.  
2.25.   The representative of South Africa  delive red the following statement:  
2.26.   The inability of the WTO to implement agreed decisions and mandates contributes to the 
inequity we see in benefits from the multilateral trading system . In order for the system to function, 
it has to address and respond to issu es of concern especially to the majority of its Members. In Bali, 
Ministers instructed the Trade Negotiations Committee to work on the remaining Doha Development 
Agenda issues, particularly on agriculture, development, S &DT and LDC issues. This work remain s 
outstanding and is even more important in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic that continues to 
have a disproportionate impact on developing countries.  The MC10 decision calling for Members to 
engage constructively to negotiate and make all concerted ef forts to agree and adopt a permanent 
solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes is very urgent. We hope that 
Members can identify what can be done to make meaningful progress on this important objective. 
Delivering on the devel opment mandate is critical both as a response to the C OVID -19 pandemic, 
as well as a means towards a more equitable and sustainable growth trajectory and global economic 
recovery.  We stress the need for constructive engagements by all Members to arrive at outcomes 
acceptable to all. In our view, the dysfunction of the WTO is not limited to the Appellate Body, but 
in the inability of the WTO to deliver on multilaterally agreed mandated issues.  
2.27.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement : 
2.28.   Indonesia continues to reiterate its priority and need to deliver on mandated issues in 
agriculture and fisheries subsidies for MC12 outcomes, as we have been trying to implement the 
mandate from Bali. On agriculture, we continue to maintain our position  and priority that outcomes 
at MC12 should lead to achieve to the establishment of a permanent solution on public stockholding WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 9 - 
 
  for food security and comprehensive and balanced outcomes in special safeguard mechanism. 
Moreover, Indonesia and G33 cosponsorin g Members have been constructively engaged and 
provided inputs for PSH discussions and, therefore, we urge that the text to be issued by the Chair 
of the CoA SS would reflect and accommodate our inputs and concerns, particularly on PSH and 
SSM. On the fish eries subsidies negotiation, Indonesia places great importance on the conclusion of 
the fisheries subsidies negotiation at MC12. We would like to convey our two concerns on the current 
fisheries negotiations . First, the discipline is not only about trade a nd fish sustainability but also 
about the livelihood of people, especially for small scale and artisanal fishermen. In this regard, the 
idea of limiting S &DT flexibilities to small scale fishermen only to 12 nautical miles, and not within 
our jurisdiction,  undermines the rights of Members. Also, we believe that the de minimis base global 
marine catch criteria lacks the proportionality principle. We encourage all Members to kindly 
reconsider these issues.  
2.29.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statemen t as circulated in document JOB/GC/ 283 
and of the statements.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
(WT/COMTD/SE/11)  
3.1.  The Chair  recalled  that in line with the agreement in the General Council in 2002, the Work 
Programme on Small Economies was a standing item of the agenda and that the Committee on 
Trade and Development reported regularly on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions.  In 
Buenos Aires, Ministers had reaffi rmed their commitment to the Work Programme and instructed 
the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibility of the General 
Council.  
3.2.  Ambassador Muhammad Mujtaba Piracha (Pakistan), Chair of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, provided  the following  report :  
3.3.  I am pleased to introduce the report of the CTD's Dedicated Session on Small Economies to 
the General Council, which is contained in document WT/COMTD/SE/11. It has been prepared in line 
with the established practice for the Dedicated Session to submit a written report to the General 
Council in the year of a WTO Ministerial Conference.  In addition to an introductory part, the report 
has two main sections. The first of these sections, titled "Submissions and Pr oceedings", provides 
an overview of the work undertaken in the Dedicated Session since the last Ministerial Conference – 
MC11 – held in Buenos Aires in December 2017.  To briefly summarize the content of this section, 
let me say that seven formal meetings o f the CTD in Dedicated Session have been held since MC11. 
Over this period, discussions took place, inter alia, on the challenges and opportunities experienced 
by small economies in their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in the area of trade fac ilitation; 
on the opportunities and challenges for small economies in attracting investments; and on the 
economic and trade impact of natural disasters on small economies.  
3.4.  At the most recent meeting of the Dedicated Session on 19 October 2021, Members cons idered 
a proposed text for a Ministerial Decision at MC12 on the Work Programme on Small Economies, 
which was submitted by the Group of Small, Vulnerable Economies in document 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/42.  I am pleased to inform you that the Dedicated Session agreed t o the text 
contained in this document. This is, in fact, the first text of a Ministerial Decision for MC12 agreed 
by all Members. The Dedicated Session also agreed to reflect this text in the other main section of 
the report – the section titled "Future Wo rk" – in the form of recommendations or proposals to the 
General Council. These include, inter alia, the proposal that the General Council recommend to the 
Twelfth Ministerial Conference that Ministers reaffirm their commitment to the Work Programme on 
Small Economies and take note of all the work conducted to date; that the CTD be instructed to 
continue its work in the Dedicated Session on Small Economies under the overall responsibility of 
the General Council; and that work be undertaken specifically on i ntegrating small economies into 
the post COVID -19 economy – in terms of the effects of the pandemic, as well as in terms of the 
challenges and opportunities.  
3.5.  The CTD in Dedicated Session would continue monitoring the progress of the small economy 
proposal s in WTO bodies and in negotiating groups with the aim of providing responses, as soon as 
possible, to the trade -related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable 
economies in the multilateral trading system.  In short, the recommend ation of the CTD's Dedicated WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Session on Small Economies to the General Council is that the proposed text for a Ministerial Decision 
on the Work Programme on Small Economies, as contained in document WT/COMTD/W/SE/42, be 
transmitted to Ministers for adoptio n at MC12.  
3.6.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , delivered the following statement:  
3.7.  Guatemala would like to express its appreciation for the positive engagement of Members in 
delineating the recommendations of the Dedicated Session on Sm all Economies of the CTD to the 
General Council, to be further submitted to the Twelfth Ministerial Conference. Guatemala would like 
to thank the continued support of the WTO Secretariat, particularly, for providing relevant 
information and factual analysi s for discussion among Members in the CTD's Dedicated Session on 
Small Economies. Guatemala looks forward to engaging with Members in monitoring the progress of 
the small economy proposals in WTO bodies and in negotiating groups with the aim of providing 
responses, as soon as possible, to the trade -related issues identified for the fuller integration of SVEs 
in the multilateral trading system.  
3.8.  The representative of Mauritius, on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
3.9.  We believe that  the WTO can do more to address the specific difficulties of small economies 
which are rarely taken on -board in regular committees. As you well know, small economies are very 
susceptible to external shocks such as global crises, climate change or natural d isasters. We 
therefore request that, post MC12, the CTD should take a very targeted approach towards addressing 
the issues of small economies in view of coming up with practical recommendations that can be 
adopted by WTO committees.  
3.10.   The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , on behalf of the OECS , delivered the following 
statement:  
3.11.   This statement is delivered on behalf of the WTO Members of the Organisation of Eastern 
Caribbean States (OECS). We also align ourselves with the statement to be delivered by Barbados 
on behalf of the CARICOM Group. We thank the Chair of the Committee on T rade and Development 
(CTD), Ambassador Dr. Muhammad Piracha of Pakistan for his report. Given our historic and current 
vulnerabilities, the OECS assigns great importance to the work of the CTD, including the Work 
Programme on Small Economies. We are also g rateful to Guatemala for its continued leadership in 
the context of the Work Programme.  Indeed, one of our Members, Saint Lucia, had the opportunity 
to make a presentation at the 40th Dedicated Session on 2 November 2020 on the opportunities 
and challenges  for small economies in attracting investments. At the 41st Dedicated Session on 6 
July 2021, another of our Members, S aint Vincent and the Grenadines, had the opportunity to 
present on the economic and trade impact of natural disasters on small economies.  This came a 
mere two months after this island was devastated by a violent volcanic eruption and as a sign of the 
daily lived reality of many SVEs, the presentation was made in the immediate aftermath of the 
passage of Hurricane Elsa.  The OECS is firmly in  support of the proposal by the SVE Group for a 
Ministerial Decision at MC12 on the Work Programme on Small Economies. It contains the elements 
which we find important, notably advancing work on legacy issues of importance to us, such as 
economic and trade  impact of natural disasters on small economies, and now, integrating small 
economies into the post COVID -19 economy.  
3.12.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
3.13.   Like others before us, the CARICOM Group welcomes  the Minister of Kazakhstan who will 
serve as the Chair of MC12 and assure him of our support during the upcoming conference. The 
CARICOM Group wishes to thank the Chair of the Committee for Trade and Development for his 
report and his work in bringing us to this stage of our work. We are pleased to see the progress that 
has been made under the auspices of the Work Programme on Small Economies overtime and 
particularly since the last Ministerial. This work has centred on ensuring the fuller integration of 
small vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system and has highlighted the unique 
challenges faced by our countries including those in the CARICOM region. Since MC11, we have 
engaged with interest on the challenges small economies experience in  their efforts to reduce trade 
costs particularly in the trade facilitation area, opportunities and challenges for small economies in 
attracting investments and economic and trade impact of natural disasters. The COVID -19 pandemic WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 11 - 
 
  has challenged the econom ies of the WTO in unprecedented ways the small and vulnerable amongst 
us have been particularly hard hit by the economic crisis that emanated as a result of the pandemic. 
As we seek to rebuild our economies and recover in a post -pandemic era, significant f ocus will need 
to be placed on examining the effects of the crisis, overcoming the challenges and taking advantage 
of the opportunities that have emerged as a result of the pandemic. We therefore look forward to 
our work in the WTO after the MC12 which wil l focus on integrating small economies into the post 
COVID -19 economy, effects of the pandemic, challenges and opportunities. We are pleased that the 
decision on the Small Economies Work Programme has been advanced to the Ministerial Conference. 
It not onl y gives us hope and comfort in realizing that our effort in the WTO is not in vain, but it also 
assures us that if we continue to work collectively and with the spirit of flexibility and pragmatism, 
we can surely add to the list of items for approval by ou r ministers in a few days. The Work 
Programme on Small Economies continues to be a critical aspect of the WTO's work . The CARICOM 
Group therefore looks forward to our continued work aimed at framing policy responses to the trade 
related issues identified f or the fuller integration of the small economies into the multilateral trading 
system. The CARICOM Group reaffirms its commitment to the work of the CTD and its dedicated 
session on small economies and is ready and willing to continue its active participat ion in this regard.  
3.14.   The Chair noted that, as per the CTD Chair's report, the Dedicated Session had agreed to 
forward the draft decision contained in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/425 to the General Council for 
transmission to the Ministerial Conference – the first text of a Ministerial Decision for MC12 that had 
been agreed by Members. This was reflected in the report before the General Council contained in 
WT/COMTD/SE/11, and the Chair welcome d this positive result. He therefore proposed that the 
General Counci l agree to forward the draft decision to the Twelfth Ministerial Conference for adoption 
by Ministers.  
3.15.   The General Council so agreed  and took note  of the report in WT/COMTD/SE/11, and of the 
statements.  
4  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE BALI DECISION ON TRQ ADMINISTRATION – 
REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL (G/AG/32)  
4.1.  The Chair  recalled that , at MC9 , Ministers had instructed the Committee on Agriculture to 
review and monitor the implementation of Members' obligations established under the Bali Decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration to promote a continuing process of improvement in the utilizatio n 
of TRQs, commencing no later than 2017, taking into account experience gained up until then. The 
Review discussions had started at the October 2017 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, and 
updates regarding the Review ha d been regularly reported to t he General Council since then.  The 
Review had been concluded in December 2019 when the General Council had approved the 
recommendations by the Committee on Agriculture contained in Annex 2 to G/AG/29. However, 
there had been no substantive agreement on the  issue of the future operation of paragraph 4 of the 
Underfill Mechanism during the 2017 -19 review exercise. In that regard, Members had agreed to 
defer the timeline for a decision on paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism by two years to the end 
of 2021.  
4.2.  Mr. Marcos Da Rosa Uranga  (Uruguay), Chair of the Committee on Agriculture , introduce d the 
report on the matter in G/AG/32 : 
4.3.  As regards the follow up to the Bali decision on tariff rate quota administration, it must be 
noted that as mentioned by the Chair, this decision required a review of its operation with a view to 
improving the utili zation of tariff rate quotas. In December 2019, the General Council approved the 
recommendations by the Committee on Agriculture contained in Annex II G/AG/29 thereby  
concluding the review except with regard to the future operation of paragraph 4 of the Underfill  
Mechanism, an issue on which, as it was mentioned by the Chair, this whole agreement was to defer 
the time length for decision by two years, which means to th e end of this year. Those 
recommendations from 2019 allude to a potential fragmentation of the decision by reaffirming the 
right to select Members listed in Annex B of the decision to discontinue the application of paragraph  4 
should there be no agreement among Members on its future operation. Avoidance of a carve out for 
certain Members , which the lack of an agreement on the future operation of paragraph 4 within the 
agreed deadline could potentially trigger , remains an important motivation for Members to find an 
agreeable solution on this issue since then . Members have engaged in intense discussions in the 
 
5 The draft decision was s ubsequently circulated as WT/MIN(21)/W/3 . WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Committee on Agriculture this year both in formal and informal settings to find a common agreement 
on this matter within the agreed deadline. Efforts fo cused mainly on finding a way to address the 
main sticking points identified in relation to the future operation of paragraph 4, a situation where 
a developing importing Member does not achieve the required increase in the fill rates while either 
retaining  the current TRQ administration method or using an alternative administration method. One 
additional issue that was taken up more recently in the discussions concerns the relationship 
between the obligations arising from the Underfill Mechanism and specifi c revisions on TRQ 
administration an importing Member may have in its schedule of concessions.  
4.4.  As a result of those discussions, the proposed draft decision on the future operation of 
paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism contains the following elements:  first, splitting up the current 
paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism into two subparagraphs, so for clarity , with regard to the 
standard requirement as in the proposed subparagraph 4 (a) and special and differential treatment 
in subparagraph 4 (b). Seco nd, in order to address the main outstanding situation mentioned before, 
the draft decision proposes to add an additional option in order to reach the closure of the matter. 
This would require the concerned developing importing Member that fails to meet th e required fill 
rate standard after two years in the final stage of the Underfill Mechanism having used an alternative 
administration method or maintained the current method in place to implement the standard 
requirements in the first part of the current p aragraph 4 if so requested by interested exporting 
Members.  
4.5.  Third, i n line with paragraph 14 of the Bali decision, which requires that the General Council 
recommendations in relation to paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism shall provide for S&DT, the 
content of the S&DT element in current paragraph 4 is reproduced without any alteration in the 
proposed subparagraph 4 (b). Indeed, a developing importing Member in the final stage of the 
Underfill Mechanism may maintain the current TRQ administration method  or use an alternative 
method and achieve a resolution of the matter by showing the required increase in the fill rate. It is 
only if the importing developing Member that benefits from this S&DT provision does not achieve 
the required increase in the fill rate in the next two years that the proposed decision may require 
that Member to apply the standard requirement and change its administration method to first come 
first serve at customs for automatic licensing and maintain it for a minimum of two years. It  should 
be noted that the requirement to apply that provision is not automatic even after those two years, 
instead the proposed obligation would apply only based on request by the concerned exporting 
Members. In case no request is made, despite the importi ng developing Member not meeting the 
required fill rate standard the underfill matter would be marked as closed.  
4.6.  Fourth, a new footnote 6 is proposed to address the potential concerns that a few Members 
expressed on the relationship between the obligation s arising from the Underfill Mechanism and 
those contained in importing Members' schedules of concessions. This is to be read in conjunction 
with paragraph 5 of the Underfill Mechanism, which already establishes a hierarchy between the 
obligations under th e covered agreements which includes Members' goods schedules and the 
provisions of the Underfill Mechanism by stating that, and I quote "in the event of any conflict the 
provisions of the governed agreement shall prevail".  Fifth and final, as an agreement on the future 
operation of paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism would also lead to the conclusion of the review 
of the operation of the Bali decision pursuant to paragraph 13 to 15 of the decision. The draft decision 
accordingly proposes that these three  paragraphs along with Annex B of the decision are rendered 
non-operational .  
4.7.  The Committee on Agriculture reconvened its 99th regular meeting on 9 November to take up 
the suspended agenda item on the implementation of the Bali decision on TRQ administrati on. At 
that meeting, the Committee discussed and agreed to forward the draft decision contained in 
Annex  2 of G/AG/W/214 to the General Council for consideration and for its subsequent submission 
to MC12 for a decision by Ministers with the understanding t hat some Members still required some 
additional time for consultations with their capitals on the draft decision. My report, along with the 
draft decision, as contained in document G/AG/32, was sent to the General Council on 11 November 
as agreed. I have s ince been in constant touch with delegations including those that requested some 
additional time on 9 November in order to receive their definitive response on this matter. My 
understanding is that some of these delegations may still require some extra tim e to finali ze their 
consultations even after today's meeting. I have heard no opposition so far, however, to the idea of 
submitting this draft decision for the consideration of Ministers at MC12 as discussed in our last 
meeting of the CoA.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.8.  As per the revised decision, in principle , it is the Ministerial Conference which should take a 
decision on the recommendations of the future operation of paragraph 4 of the Underfilled 
Mechanism. The General Council could also do that under certain conditions, in partic ular, in case 
the Ministerial Conference does not take place by the agreed deadline for a decision. Taking this into 
account and bearing in mind the end -2021 deadline and the way forward agreed in the Committee 
on Agriculture , I will recommend Members to c onsider the draft decision today with a view to its 
submission to MC12 for a decision by Ministers. I will also urge, one more time, all the concerned 
delegations to redouble their efforts in order to finali ze this matter in time for a decision by MC12.  
4.9.  The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
4.10.   My delegation is not in a position to support the proposal of Costa Rica on TRQ. India wishes 
to seek an extension for another two years of the Bali TRQ Declaration.  
4.11.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
4.12.   The United States supports the revised language in paragraph 4 of Annex A of the Bali Decision 
on TRQ Administration. We appreciate efforts, particularly by Costa Rica, to attempt t o finally resolve 
this issue in a balanced and pragmatic way that allows for sufficient special and differential treatment 
for developing country Members.  As stated before, the United States is ready to give up its rights 
under Annex B, if the Membership c an find agreement on this language. However, we remind 
Members that in the event that an extension or modification of this language cannot be agreed by 
the 31 December deadline, the United States reserves its right, as a Member of Annex B, to no 
longer app ly the underfill mechanism. We reserve this right because we need to see a mechanism 
with appropriate special and differential treatment.  We believe that it is finally time to resolve this 
issue and we do not favour any extension.  
4.13.   The representative of Ukraine delivered the following statement:  
4.14.   Ukraine welcomes the report to the General Council and appreciates efforts undertak en by 
the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture in seeking an agreement on the issue of the operation of 
paragraph 4 of the TRQ Under fill Mechanism. We also acknowledge the hard work and valuable 
contributions by Members, especially Costa Rica, for providing specific textual proposal regarding 
the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration in the draft Ministerial Decision attached to the Repo rt to 
the General Council (G/AG/32).  We consider that proposed draft Ministerial Decision containing 
recommendations for the future operation of paragraph 4 retains the current S &DT provision under 
the proposed sub paragraph 4 (b) in terms of methods and ti ming. We would like to reiterate our 
support to the proposal. We believe it strikes the right balance while providing the necessary solution 
as per paragraph 14 of the Bali TRQ Decision.  Ukraine would like to appeal  to Members to give due 
consideration to the effects of the lack of consensus to reach the decision on application of para graph  
4 of the TRQ Underfill Mechanism and would welcome the closure of the matter as soon as possible.  
4.15.   The representative of Paraguay  delivered the following statement:  
4.16.   Parag uay has been making efforts in the Committee on Agriculture to achieve a solution  on 
this matter . We express our deep concern in the face of the possibility of not reaching an agreement 
on this matter  for various reasons . We maintain our view  of the need f or special and differential 
treatment for developing countries in connection with paragraph 4 (b) before making any changes 
to the administration methods. The solution has been worked on by a group of Members headed by 
Costa Rica on paragraph 4 (b) and con sultations have been taking place for a number of months. 
Those countries who are still involved in consultations should complete these as soon as possible in 
order not to undermine Members' positions . In terms of the application of the decision, we hope t hat 
this decision can be adopted soon at MC12.  
4.17.   The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
4.18.   Canada welcomes the introduction of the report on the review and operation of the Bali TRQ 
Underfill Mechanism. The General Council is tacitly ag reeing to recommendations on how to improve 
the operation of the Bali TRQ Underfill Mechanism as regard s paragraph 4 on special and differential 
treatment. In our view, the proposed changes to paragraph 4 strikes the appropriate balance that 
will provide e ffective special and differential treatment for developing country Members and at the WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 14 - 
 
  same time ensuring that all Members will be subject to the underfill mechanism. The proposed 
changes in the report would also mean that Annex B could be removed from the decision as its 
original intention was to ensure that paragraph 4 would allow for effective special and differential 
treatment . Canada fully supports the adoption of this report and the recommended changes to 
paragraph 4 of Annex A of the Bali decision. We  call on all Members to join consensus and adopt the 
report and changes to paragraph 4 of the Bali TRQ Underfill Mechanism.  
4.19.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
4.20.   Uruguay , in its role as Chair of the Committee on Agriculture , has made good faith efforts to 
find a compromise on this longstanding issue. We support the report that Uruguay has submitted . 
We support the comments made by Brazil and Canada on this issue. We do not support an extension 
and do not consider it required. We hope that this can be resolved before MC12 . As Brazil has already 
noted, this is the only outcome on agricultural market access that has been before us and we have 
had substantial discussion over several weeks and months . We hope that consensu s can be achieved.  
4.21.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
4.22.   The E uropean Union  would like to thank the CoA C hair and all those who contributed to the 
agreement reached in document G/AG/32. The E uropean Union  hopes that co nsensus can be 
reached and the text as elaborated in document G/AG/32 can be sent for the approval of our 
Ministers at MC12. The E uropean Union  hopes that Ministers can reach agreement at MC12. In case 
no agreement could be reached, we are in favour of ext ending the review of the Bali TRQ decision 
so that we can come back to this in the future.  
4.23.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
4.24.   South Africa welcomes the report of the CoA C hair contained in G/AG/32. In our experience, 
there are many factors that result in low  fill rates, including the tariff differential between MFN duties 
and in -quota tariff duties, preferential trade agreements and availability of supplies at competitive 
prices from neighbouring countries. All these facto rs make TRQs less attractive for economic 
operators and low fill rates cannot thus be ascribed to TRQ administration and a changed 
administration method will not remedy this.  As indicated in the report of the CoA C hair, we would 
like to inform Members  that our national consultations with regard to the proposed Ministerial 
Decision accompanying the CoA C hair's report have not been concluded and we shall express our 
position as soon as possible.  
4.25.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
4.26.   Japan appreciates the hard work by the Members to find a solution to the issue of the Bali 
TRQ Review. We echo the expressions of support from previous speakers for the draft text because 
it certainly strikes a balance between appropriate S&DT and ensuring participation in this mechanism 
by all Members. I hope we can reach consensus based on the draft text.  
4.27.   The Chair  said that, as Members had  heard in the CoA Chair's report, as a result of intensive 
consultations and efforts by the Chair and the delegations, the CoA at its meeting on 9 November 
had agreed to forward the draft decision contained in the annex of document G/AG/32 for the 
consider ation of the General Council and for its subsequent transmission to the Ministerial 
Conference. He propose d that Members  proceed ed on this issue accordingly to transmit the draft 
decision for the consideration of the Ministerial Conference. Members  had also heard from the report 
of the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture that some of them  were still consulting their capitals 
on this matter, and w ould continue  to do so  after th e General Council meeting. He encourage d all 
delegations to redouble their effor ts so that a result c ould be finalized in time for a decision by the 
Ministerial Conference. He also stress ed that, as approved by the General Council in December 2019, 
the deadline for a decision on paragraph 4 of the Underfill Mechanism was the end of  2021. A decision 
in this respect was therefore urgent. Considering the end of the year deadline for a decision, they 
could  be required to revisit the matter should Members not reach an agreement at MC12.  
4.28.   The General Council took note  of the report by the Committee on Agriculture and of the 
statements.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 15 - 
 
  5  THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ASPECTS OF COTTON - PERIODIC REPORT BY THE 
DIRECTOR -GENERAL (WT/GC/238 – WT/CFMC/DG/9 – WT/MIN(21)/5)  
5.1.  The Chair  recalled that, i n 2004, the General Council had instructed the Secret ariat to continue 
to work with the  development community and to provide the Council with periodic reports on the 
development assistance aspects of the Cotton Initiative. The Council had also instructed the Director -
General to consult with the relevant inte rnational organizations, including the Bretton Woods 
Institutions, the FAO and the ITC, to direct effectively existing programmes and any additional 
resources towards development of the economies where cotton ha d vital importance. The Bali and 
Nairobi Deci sions had reaffirmed this mandate and had invited the Director -General to continue to 
provide periodic reports.  
5.2.  The Director -General  provided the following report:  
5.3.  I am pleased to introduce the Ninth Periodic Report on the Development Assistance aspects o f 
Cotton, which was circulated on 15 November 2021 in document WT/GC/238. Cotton is an important 
issue to me personally, and I am pleased to observe that, since the last Periodic Report in November 
2017, we have continued to make progress. But there is roo m for improvement. This is reflected in 
the Evolving Table (ET) circulated twice a year by the Secretariat, which plays an important role in 
monitoring and tracing global development assistance programmes on cotton. The latest version of 
the table (WT/CFMC /6/Rev.31), circulated on 27 October 2021, shows scope to increase the ratio of 
disbursements to commitments both for cotton -specific programmes and for more general 
agriculture and infrastructure programmes that also impact cotton. I would thus encourage both 
assistance providers and partners to consider how this can best be achieved.  
5.4.  Pursuant to a request by beneficiaries of cotton development assistance, the Evolving Table 
now includes a compilation of cotton -related development assistance requests. This  should help to 
give visibility to developing countries' cotton -related needs and project -oriented requests. Currently, 
ten projects have been submitted by Benin, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, and one regional 
project from the C -4, the "Cotton Roa d Map Project". These projects can be found in Part IV of the 
Evolving Table.  On the donor side, I would like to praise all the Members who have provided updates 
for the latest revisions of the table, namely: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Europe an 
Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, Turkey, 
and the United States.  
5.5.  I would also like to highlight the important role played by multilateral and regional 
organizations that actively collaborate with the  WTO with regards to our cotton development 
assistance mandate, including: the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the 
International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), the International Trade Centre (ITC), the United 
Nations Conference o n Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations Industrial 
Development Organization (UNIDO), the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), the Enhanced 
Integrated Framework (EIF), the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) and 
the Worl d Bank. Furthermore, I would like to report that since 2018, the WTO, UNCTAD, and ITC 
have been collaborating on a Joint Initiative on Cotton By -Products. The initiative seeks to help LDCs 
exploit the untapped value of cotton by -products and to generate ad ditional revenue streams from 
cotton production, processing, and trade.  
5.6.  In addition, the WTO in October 2019 hosted the launch of World Cotton Day (WCD) to 
showcase the contributions which cotton makes to economies worldwide. This event helped the C -4's 
successful campaign to get the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution recognizing 
7 October as World Cotton Day. The UN resolution acknowledges the role of trade and development 
assistance for cotton, particularly in terms of the sector's econ omic and social impacts. You will 
remember the World Cotton Day last month, which included high -level interventions to the General 
Council.  
5.7.  Finally, I wish to draw your attention to a WTO Secretariat study on the impact of the COVID -19 
pandemic on the cott on sector of a group of African LDCs.  The study, entitled "Impact of the 
COVID -19 pandemic on cotton and its value chains: the case of the C -4 and other LDCs" found that 
the pandemic has caused significant losses in cotton export revenues for the ten refer ence LDCs to 
fall by 34%, though some countries were able to maintain or even expand export levels. Declining 
revenues, affecting the livelihoods of millions of people, including the millions of women who work 
across the cotton production and textile value  chains. The study stresses that beneficiaries and WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 16 - 
 
  donors should work hand in hand to situate cotton within the context of broader COVID -19 recovery 
plans in African LDCs aimed at boosting economy -wide competitiveness and productivity. The 
findings from th e study will inform an upcoming WTO partners' conference on 30 November to 
support development assistance for cotton production, processing, transformation, and trade in 
LDCs.  
5.8.  The sustained engagement and cooperation of providers of development assistance for cotton, 
beneficiaries, and partner organizations in the WTO Consultative Framework Mechanism on Cotton 
is very encouraging. It stands as a positive example as we work to consolidate the development 
dimension of the multilateral trading system.  
5.9.  The repr esentative of Burkina Faso , on behalf of the C -4 and the 36 African Country Cotton 
and Cotton Product Producers and/or Exporters , delivered the following statement:  
5.10.   I would like to make this statement on behalf of the C -4 for the sectoral initiative in fav our of 
cotton, on behalf the C -4, Cote D'Ivoire and all of the African cotton exporting countries. We would 
like to express our thanks to the Chair of the consultative framework mechanism on cotton for the 
report on the exchanges in trade for the developme nt of cotton. Initiatives have multiplied in order 
to promote the development of cotton, for example, the regular work of the consultative framework 
mechanism of the D irector -General  in favour of cotton and the various sessions of the C -4 that have 
been or ganized. The C -4 would like to thank the Director -General  for her dynamism and also thank 
the Permanent Representatives and the Deputy Director -General who have been helping us  in this 
work. We would also like to express our appreciation to Ambassador Abraham  (Costa Rica), the  CoA 
SS Chair,  who has made every effort possible in order to move forward in the negotiations in 
agriculture in general and particularly on cotton.  
5.11.   In terms of the development -assistance aspect  of cotton, the C -4 takes note of the United 
Nations document dated  30 August 2021 o n the Global Summit on Cotton. The adoption of this 
document represented the end of a road that we started along in 2009 with all actors on cotton. 
Allow me to thank the WTO and all development partners for their support to the C -4 Members. 
Despite the difficult situation currently faced with COVID -19, the C -4 along with all Members of the 
WTO have celebrated the World Cotton Day  which reminded us of the importance of cotton to our 
countries and to LDCs in particular. We call on the attention of the international community on the 
multiple challenges th is sector is facing  – which necessitates an expression  of solidarity  from the 
world  with the C -4 in order to overcome these challenges. Equally, the C -4 would like to express a 
special thanks to the WTO Secretariat for the study on the impact of COVID -19 on cotton and its 
value chains . On the C-4 and the LDCs , the study showed to what degr ee the cotton sector has been 
hard hit by the COVID -19 pandemic and how we need great er efforts in order to overcome  these 
challenges.  
5.12.   MC12 starts next week . The C -4 hopes that the negotiations  would be conducted in a manner 
that would  facilitate in finding solutions to the multiple challenges that  the cotton  sector  is facing. 
For many LDCs , this sector is a key pillar of the economy and provide revenue for millions of people . 
We are however still struggling to find an outcome despite having the Hong Kong mandate. The C -4 
would therefore invite all Members to be more committed and  flexible in order to find a multilateral 
solution which  would fully address  the issues concerning trade -distorting measures that continue to  
pose detrimental effects to  small producers who struggle to live from the fruits of their labour. The 
C-4 is open and flexible to continue negotiations with all Members and aims to reach  an outcome on 
cotton at MC12. The C -4 invite s all Members to join us in this effort. Finally, th e C-4 would like to 
express its profound gratitude to all Members and partners supporting us and we would like to 
reiterate our request for  them to show the same  support for the negotiations on cotton in order to 
achieve an outcome at MC12. In echoing the  Director -General, we would like to invite all Members 
to actively take part  in the cotton meeting  to be held on the fringes  of MC12.  
5.13.   The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
5.14.   We fully share the view in the DG's report that cotton is o f undeniable systemic importance 
for the African countries that produce and trade cotton. COVID -19 has impacted millions of cotton 
farmers in Africa and decreased their export revenues by 34% last year. Assistance to developing 
members, the C-4 in particul ar, is essential to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of their 
cotton industry and to combat COVID -19 through local capacity building.  China has always been a 
strong supporter to the C-4 and other LDCs for agricultural cooperation, particularly on cotton WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 17 - 
 
  development assistance. Under the framework of South -South China -FAO Initiative, three 
program mes were launched in 2019 and 2020 in Africa for improving cotton production and capacity 
development. Eight training program mes were conducted, with 23 0 African cotton technicians 
trained and two technology demonstration projects established.  Furthermore, over the last few 
years, China has invested around 500 million USD in nine African countries including C -4 countries 
Mali and Benin, benefiting 200,000  households. China also supported the C-4 for its participation 
and organization of the World Cotton Day at the WTO and the cotton planning conference at home 
in 2019 and 2020. China will continue to play a constructive role in this regard. China likewise 
endorses the Ninth Periodic Report by the Director -General.  
5.15.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
5.16.   We thank the Director -General and Members for their statements today.  We can foresee 
further discussions, post-MC12, to brainstorm on an effective approach to technical assistance for 
C-4 countries aimed at enhancing investments and further developing viable cotton by -product 
industries in LDCs.  We welcome the cotton and COVID -19 assessment study by the Secret ariat 
entitled  "Impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on cotton and its value chains: the case of the C -4 and 
other LDCs ", which is timely and might serve as a starting point for a dialogue to share Members' 
experiences of resiliency, adaptation, and post -pandem ic recovery in the cotton sector.  Perhaps the 
DGCFMC could build on this study and invite beneficiary countries of cotton assistance to make 
presentations and share experiences on how they are mainstreaming cotton productivity and 
competitiveness in their COVID -19 recovery plans.  
5.17.   The representative of Cameroon  delivered the following statement:  
5.18.   Cameroon welcomes the report of the Director -General which looks in detail at our 
organization's work on cotton. We support the C -4 statement  in this regard which ex plicitly and 
profoundly mentions the expectations of the African cotton producing countries. We would like to 
thank the WTO for its impressive work particularly the DDG and the Agriculture  Division which , under 
the auspices of the Director -General , made ef forts e ach day to respond in a detailed manner as best 
as possible to the expectations of the Members  in this regard . Although it is certain that progress 
has been slow in terms of negotiations  on reducing domestic support , it should be said and recalled 
on a positive note that great efforts have been made in terms of development. These efforts however 
should not overshadow  the rest of the mandate.  More than two million people depend on the cotton 
sector in Cameroon and so it has a social impact. That is wh y we need to continue our efforts to 
meet the expectations of developing countries in both facets of our work. The COVID -19 pandemic 
has exacerbated the crisis already seen in this sector which is extremely fragile and which requires 
urgent responses. That  is why the donor conference on 30 November in the fringes of the Ministerial 
Conference requires all p arties and all donors to pay particular attention to the projects which are 
on the agenda of this  conference. We have every hope that the various parties  will help us address 
the issues we face in this sector . We thank all of th em for their support and for rising to the occasion.  
5.19.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
5.20.   We have been a strong supporter of  these efforts since 2003 whe n the cotton initiative was 
launched in the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference. We  urge Members to really consider the critical 
situation of the C -4 with the view to addressing  their request on the elimination of subsidies on 
cotton as well as providing the necessary technical assistance. We support that th e C-4's request be 
tabled at MC12 for Ministers' consideration.  
5.21.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
5.22.   Many Cai rns Group colleagues have often talked about the caus e of the C -4. We have let them 
down for too long. Burkina Faso, Cameroon and others have spoken today eloquently about this 
cause. We do need to take a step forward on this important issue at MC12 . 
5.23.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the fol lowing statement:  
5.24.   The European Union congratulates Burkina Faso on behalf of the C -4 and Côte d'Ivoire for the 
recognition of 7 October as World Cotton Day. The European Union also thanks the C -4 countries for 
presenting last year the draft declaration on an action plan to enhance support for cotton by -product WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 18 - 
 
  development. Following the Nairobi Decision on cotton, the European Union has continued to support 
efforts and contributions to enhance th e production, productivity and competitiveness of the cotton 
sector in developing country Member producers, especially the LDCs. The European Union has been 
an engaged partner at WTO level, at regional level and at national level in partner countries where  
cotton has been identified as a priority sector. We continue to support cotton projects through a 
number of our aid for trade interventions, including through our support to the EIF. The European 
Union has also recogni zed the importance of cotton by -produ cts specifically in our programming. For 
example, the European Union's 2020 -2023 programme in West Africa on competitiveness specifically 
includes a focus on the cottonseed oil sector. The European Union will also engage in the Partners 
Conference on "Development Assistance for Cotton Production, Processing and Trade in Least -
Developed Countries (LDCs) " that will take place at the WTO on 30 Novembe r. The European Union's 
objectives in supporting sustainable and inclusive cotton by -product value chains are t o ensure an 
income to smallholder farmers but also a decent life and improved resilience for thousands of small 
producers in developing countries and especially LDCs.  The European Union has comments to 
propose on the draft  and looks forward to continuing t he discussion on the text.  
5.25.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
5.26.   The African Group vigorously supports the statements  made by Burkina Faso, Chad, 
Cameroon and Nigeria . We regret the fact that th ere has not been any concrete solution in this area. 
We thank all of those who spoke this morning about technical assistance contribution s to the C -4 in 
favour of cotton and the technical improvement as well for producers. It goes without saying that 
this assistance is very important, but this has not been enough . It is not sufficient . What we have 
to understand is that there has to be a response in the agricultur e negotiations for cotton  and the 
Ministers will be dealing with this matter . It is very sensitive for our countries and it is our hope that 
we can find a response on cotton that is not only adequate but also lasting .  
5.27.   The General Council took note  of the Director -General's report in document WT/GC/238 – 
WT/CFMC/DG/9 – WT/MIN(21)/5 a nd, and of the statemen ts. 
6  TRIPS COUNCIL MATTERS  
6.1  Annual Review of the Special Compulsory Licensing System – Paragraph 7 of the 
Annex to the Amended T RIPS  Agreement and Paragraph 8 of the Decision on the 
Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration  on the T RIPS  Agreement and 
Public Health (W T/L/540 and WT/L/540/Corr.1) – Report of the Council for TRIPS  
(IP/C/90)  
6.2  Proposal for a Decision on an Extension of the Period for the Acceptance by Members 
of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS  Agreement (I P/C/89)  
6.1.  The Chair  proposed to  open the floor once after taking up all four sub -items.  On the first two 
sub-items, he recall ed that, in August 2003, the General Council had adopted a Decision on the 
Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Dec laration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  
In addition, the General Council had adopted, in December 2005, a Protocol amending the TRIPS 
Agreement. In accordance with Article X.3 of the WTO Agreement, the Protocol had entered into 
force on 23 Janua ry 2017, upon acceptance by two -thirds of the WTO Members.  Both the amended 
TRIPS Agreement and the 2003 Decision provide d that the TRIPS Council sh ould review annually the 
functioning of the system and sh ould also report on its operation to the General Co uncil. He also 
recall ed that those Members that were yet to accept the Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement 
currently ha d until 31 December to do so.  
6.2.  Ambassador Sørli (Norway), Chair of the Council for TRIPS , provided the following report : 
6.3.  The amendment to the TRIPS Agreement entered into force in January 2017. The amendment 
provides a special compulsory licensing system for the benefit of countries which rely on imports of 
medical technologies because of insufficient or no domestic pharmaceutical manufac turing 
capacities. It makes permanent the related rules already contained in the earlier waiver decision. At 
its meeting 13 -14 October, the TRIPS Council completed its Annual Review of the Functioning of the 
System pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Amended of  TRIPS Agreement and Paragraph 8 of the WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Decision on 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the 
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. The TRIPS Council's report on this review to the General Council 
has been circulated i n document IP/C/90. It includes information about implementation and use of 
the system, the status of acceptances of the protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement as well as 
activities undertaken to make the system work effectively. The record of the discussio n that took 
place during the Council's review of the system is also attached to the report. Pursuant to the General 
Council's Decision taken in 2019, the Protocol is open for acceptance by the remaining Members 
until 31 December 2021 or such later date as maybe decided by the Ministerial Conference. Despite 
indications that a number of Members are making domestic efforts in this regard, there are still 31 
WTO Members that are yet to accept the protocol. The TRIPS Council therefore agreed to propose 
to the G eneral Council a decision to extend the period for acceptance by two more years – until 
31 December 2023. This proposal is set in document IP/C/89. On behalf of the TRIPS Council, I am 
submitting this to the General Council for a decision today. I would li ke to call upon those Members 
who have yet to accept the protocol to expedite action. A practical guide on how to do so is available 
on the WTO's webpage on TRIPS and Public Health. The Secretariat will, as always, be happy to 
provide further assistance in  this regard, if necessary.  
6.4.  The Chair noted that this draft decision was before Members  for action by the General Council. 
In light of this report, and unless any delegation wishe d to comment, he propose d that the General 
Council t ook note of the report of the TRIPS Council in document IP/C/90 and adopt ed the draft 
decision in document IP/C/ 89 extending the time period for acceptance by Members of the Protocol 
amending the TRIPS Agreement until 31 December 2023.  
6.5.  The General Council so agreed .6 
6.3  TRIPS Non-Violation and Situation Complaints (IP/C/91)  
6.6.  The Chair  drew attention to the draft decision on the Moratorium on TRIPS Non -Violation and 
Situation Complaints, which ha d been submitted to the General Council by the TRIPS Council. The 
texts of the draft decision c ould be found in IP/C/91. This was the result of the intensive discussions 
that ha d taken place in the TRIPS Council, and he welcome d the agreement that ha d been reached. 
The draft decision was before the General Council  for onward transmission to the Ministerial 
Conference. So, unless any delegation wishe d to comment,  he propose d that t he General Council 
agree d to forward this draft decision to the Twelfth Ministerial Conference for Ministers' adoption.  
6.7.  The General Council so agreed .7 
6.4  Status Report on the Considerations by the TRIPS  Council on the Revised "Proposal 
for a Waiver from Certain Provisions of the T RIPS  Agreement for the Prevention, 
Containment and Treatment of COVID -19" (IP/C/W/669/R ev.1) – Statement by the Chair 
of the Council for TRIPS  
6.8.  The Chair recalled that the  final sub -item relate d to a status report by the Chair  of the Council 
for TRIPS on the revised "Proposal for a Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for 
the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID -19" in document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1. Since 
the October meeting, he underst ood that the TRIPS Council had considered this request again at its 
meetings in October and November.  
6.9.  Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli (Norway), Chair of the TRIPS Council , provided the following report:  
6.10.   At the meeting of the TRIPS Council on 15 -16 October 2020, India and South Afr ica introduced 
document IP/C/W/669, requesting a waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the 
prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19, which had been circulated on 2 October 2020 
and has since been co -sponsored by the delegations  of Kenya, Eswatini, Mozambique, Pakistan, 
Plurinational State of Bolivia,  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, the 
African Group, the LDC Group, the Maldives, Fiji, Namibia, Vanuatu, Indonesia and Jordan.  
 
6 The decision was circulated in WT/L/1122.  
7 The draft decision was s ubsequently circulated in WT/MIN(21)/W/4.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 20 - 
 
  6.11.   Since the introduction of  the document, discussions took place in various formal and informal 
TRIPS Council meetings. Delegations exchanged views, asked questions, sought clarifications and 
provided replies, clarifications, and information, including through documents IP/C/W/670, 
IP/C/W/671, IP/C/W/672, IP/C/W/673 and IP/C/W/674, on the waiver request.  On 21 May 2021 the 
co-sponsors issued a revised proposal which was circulated in document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1. The 
revised waiver request was presented at an informal open -ended meeting  of the Council on 31 May, 
and introduced at its formal meeting on 8 -9 June 2021. It has since been co -sponsored by Malaysia. 
On 29 September 2021, the co -sponsors circulated a summary of their interventions in document 
IP/C/W/684.  
6.12.   Since the last oral sta tus report delivered on 7 October 2021, discussions continued in small -
group consultations, at a formal meeting of 13 -14 October, at informal open -ended meetings on 5 
and 15 November, and at an informal and resumed formal meeting on 18 November 2021. In th e 
course of discussions on the revised waiver proposal, delegations held focused discussions on the 
topics of 'scope', both from the perspective of products and of IP rights, on 'duration', 
'implementation' and on protection of undisclosed information. Del egations engaged positively and 
their detailed substantive exchanges helped clarify various aspects and nuances of positions. While 
delegations remain committed to the common goal of providing timely and secure access to high -
quality, safe, efficacious and  affordable vaccines and medicines for all, disagreement persists on the 
fundamental question of whether a waiver is the appropriate and most effective way to address the 
shortage and inequitable distribution of and access to vaccines and other COVID -related products.  
6.13.   In addition, a proposal for a draft General Council declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and 
Public Health in the circumstances of a pandemic, issued by the European Union and circulated in 
document IP/C/W/681, has also been discussed in meetin gs since its circulation on 21 June 2021. 
Delegations exchanged views, asked questions, sought clarifications and provided replies, 
clarifications, and information. Disagreement persists on the fundamental question of whether this 
proposal is the appropria te and most effective way to address the shortage and inequitable 
distribution of and access to vaccines and other COVID -related products.  
6.14.   This means that the TRIPS Council has not yet completed its consideration of the revised 
waiver request. The TRIPS Council will therefore continue its consideration of the revised waiver 
request, including through small -group consultations and informal open -ended meetings, and report 
back to the 12th Ministerial Conference as stipulated in Article IX:3 of the Mar rakesh Agreement. In 
addition, the TRIPS Council will also continue in the same manner its consideration of the other 
related proposals by Members.  
6.15.   The Chair  thank ed Ambassador Sørli for his report on the discussions in the TRIPS Council. 
As Members had heard  in the report, he noted that discussions on this very important issue continue d 
in the TRIPS Council with a view to achieving results at MC12.  
6.16.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
6.17.   The CARICOM Group aligns with the statement to be delivered by Jamaica on behalf of the 
ACP Group. The CARICOM Group takes note of the status report provided by the Chair of the TRIPS 
Council on the revised proposal for a waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreemen t for the 
prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19. Whilst it would appear that some progress has 
been made in terms of exchanges between Members, the satisfactory solutions to the issue 
elaborated in the waiver continues to elude Members in the T RIPS Council. The CARICOM Group is 
concerned about the lack of progress to date, particularly given that some Members have tied 
success in the area to success in other areas, some of which are critical to MC12 outcomes. As 
COVID -19 vaccines, therapeutics a nd diagnostics are important, we are supportive of ramping up 
their production and of effort s to address the shortage and inequitable distribution of and access to 
vaccines and other COVID -related products. The CARICOM Group urges Members to redouble their  
efforts in the hope that we can reach consensus and an outcome which incorporates the interests of 
all Members including CARICOM Member States.  
6.18.   The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
6.19.   Needless to say that this is a very important t opic and we hope to achieve some result s during 
the Ministerial. Brazil wants to express our support for the repor t just presented by the Chair of the WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 21 - 
 
  TRIPS Council and thank him for his  efforts to facilitate a positive outcome for these  discussions.  
Despi te the efforts, we are not there yet. The  report acknowledges the state of play and gives us  
more time for consultations.  Brazil remains hopeful that we will be able to reach a  decision on this 
file in the Ministerial. If we are really committed to a resul t, we must assist  our Ministers, providing 
them with a minimum common  ground, and let them decide on the remaining  contentious aspects.  
We are convinced that this minimum common ground has  already been mapped out. It is time we 
begin to work  on a more conc rete basis.  
6.20.   The representative of Cuba delivered the following statement:  
6.21.   We thank the Chair of the TRIPS Council for the report  which reflects very clearly the debate 
that ha s unfolded within the TRIPS Council and is still unfolding. We appreciate the strong 
commitment that the Chair has demonstrated to arrive at an agreed solution, but we have not 
reached  consensus . There is still strong commitment to continue working and t hese consultations 
will continue up until MC12. The objective must be  to address the current issues.  We want to have 
access to health as a fundamental right of all human beings . This must include the opportun e and 
accessible use of proper high quality medical  products. We encourage all Members to continue 
working in this  spirit to guarantee that the WTO will fulfil its fundamental role when it comes to its 
response to the pandemic. In order to slow down the spread of this pandemic , it is urgent that we 
have in ternational cooperation  and the  elimination of export restrictions  and other  unilateral 
measures that bring about coercion. We  should ensure that the developing world could also produce 
essential products to ramp up global production including through effe ctive technology transfer.  We 
can only make progress  if we work together.  
6.22.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , delivered the following statement:  
6.23.   The LDC Group is in favour of  the draft decision of the TRIPS Council regarding the eighth  
exten sion of the acceptance by the Members of the protocol and amendment of the TRIPS 
Agreement. We also support the moratorium on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints. We 
recognize the consensus taking shape in supporting the Ministerial draft decision  on this moratorium 
in document IP/C/91. A s co-sponsors of the TRIPS Waiver, we urge Members to accept the draft 
decision  concerning products and health technology as well as tool s for diagnosis  and treatment, 
vaccines, medical equipment, personal protecti ve equipment , and raw materials and components 
and methods and means of manufacturing used for the prevention, treatment and containment of 
COVID -19. 
6.24.   The representative of Argentina  delivered the following statement:  
6.25.   Argentina attaches great importance to the discussions that are taking place in the 
TRIPS  Council. After more than a year of discussions, it is regrettable that we have not yet been 
able to agree on how the TRIPS Council and intellectual property rights can contribute to improving  
equitable access to health -care resources to treat, combat and prevent COVID -19. We must be able 
to deliver tangible results that make an impact on the ground as part of the contributions made by 
the WTO to addressing the pandemic.  For this reason, Argent ina supports the proposal for a waiver 
from certain provisions of the TRIPS  Agreement for the prevention, containment and treatment of 
COVID -19, on the understanding that extraordinary situations require responses that go beyond the 
current regulatory tool s. We believe that this will help to scale up and diversify production by 
facilitating access to diagnostics, vaccines and treatments. We must therefore continue the 
discussion and text -based negotiations, with a commitment to finding common ground. We hav e 
already identified a common objective – providing timely and secure access to high -quality, safe, 
efficacious and affordable vaccines and medicines for all – and, on this understanding, we need to 
pursue the dialogue with a view to reaching an agreement at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
6.26.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
6.27.   We refer to our  statements on this issue at previous General Council meeting s and reaffirm 
that our preferred outcome is a decision that prohibits Non –Violation Complaints under the TRIPS 
Agreement or a permanent moratorium. In any case, we  welcome the decision of the TRIPS Council 
to extend the moratorium until MC13. Nigeria reiterate s that the solution to the current COVID 
difficulties lies in the rapid access by every country to affordable diagnostics, therapeutics and 
vaccines to combat th is menace. This can only be achieved by ramping up of production of these WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 22 - 
 
  products globally. It  is for this reason that we consistently call for the adoption of this proposal . We 
believe that t he adoption of this proposal will enhance trust within the Membership and boost the 
credibility of the WTO.  
6.28.   The representative of  the Maldives  delivered the following statement:  
6.29.   The extraordinary circumstances the world is facing  related to the COVID -19 pandemic 
requires extraordinary measures to be put in place to meet the global vaccine shortage and the 
inequitable distribution. An exceptional waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for 
the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19 will provide  equitable and timely access to 
affordable medical products, including vaccines and medicines for all. The Maldives, as a cosponsor 
of this exceptional waiver, urges all Members  to engage constructively and deepen the discussions 
to find the best solution for combating the pandemic. The TRIPS Waiver proposal should be an 
integral part of any successful MC12 outcome. It should be also an important contribution the WTO 
can make towards the health -related aspects of the cu rrent crisis. In this regard, we need to work 
together to find a comprehensive package that can be agreed at MC12 on trade -related IP aspects. 
It should be our common goal to provide universal access to COVID -19 vaccines, treatments, testing 
and other prod ucts to control the pandemic and to reach the sustainable development goals.  
6.30.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
6.31.   The African Group gives its unwavering support to the proposal for the implementation of a 
waiver on certain provisions of the TRIPS in view of helping developing countries recover from the 
pandemic. COVID -19 has taken over 5 million lives worldwide and it continues to take more every 
day. Our countries and economies are on t heir knees and it is becoming increasingly difficult to 
imagine a light at the end of this tunnel.  Unless we address the health crisis now and allow the global 
economy to recover, I am afraid that this organi zation will continue to function in limbo and gl obal 
trade will remain unstable as ever. We therefore urge Members to show respect to the lives lost and 
take the morally correct decision rather than one purely driven by profits.  The rules of this 
organi zation are meant to support development and growth but they are clearly failing us during 
this crisis situation, and that too on several fronts. We thus reiterate our support for the temporary 
TRIPS Waiver and appeal to Members to lend us their support on this proposal at this particularly 
crucial time.  
6.32.   The representative of Malaysia  delivered the following statement:  
6.33.   It is unfortunate that after more than a year of extensive discussions, Members are still 
grappling to find a landing zone on the TRIPS Waiver.  While not ing that the TRIPS Council will 
continu e its consideration, we reiterate the importance of timely access and affordable diagnostics, 
therapeutics, vaccines, and other medical products to effectively contain the spread of COVID -19. 
We remain cognisant of the role of IP in research and developmen t but the fact that only a small 
number of doses had reached low -income countries proves inequitable access remains a challenge.  
Therefore, we encourage Members to continue engagement on the TRIPS Waiver proposal with the 
aim of achieving a common landing zone towards a favourable outcome at the MC12.  
6.34.   The representative of Mongolia  delivered the following statement:  
6.35.   Mongolia supports the draft decision on extending the period for the acceptance by Members 
of the protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement and enc ourage the remaining Members who are yet 
to accept the Protocol to take the necessary steps so that the domestic procedures could be 
completed at the earliest possibility.  Considering the divergent views of the Members on matters 
pertaining to non -violatio n and situation complaints , Mongolia supports the postpone ment of  
discussion s without affecting Members' positions. Mongolia  is in favour of the draft decision under 
document IP/C/91. We appreciate the TRIPS Council Chair's dedication to find a landing zon e on this 
proposal. The world population highly expects and looks upon WTO Ministers to act on facilitating 
the world population with equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics and health technology. Ramping 
up of production is one of the options that shou ld be available in this regard. The w aiver proposal 
has been widely supported by a substantive number of Members.  It therefore  needs to be seriously 
considered particularly at this critical time of  the COVID -19 pandemic. Mongolia  stands ready to 
engage fur ther on this matter.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 23 - 
 
  6.36.   The representative of Bangladesh  delivered the following statement:  
6.37.   Bangladesh  has emphasized many times that Members should engage in text -based 
discussions as soon as possible. We are concerned that no tangible progress has been made  yet up 
until now . We are all aware that the production of vaccines against COVID -19 is highly concentrated 
in a few countries and concentrated production leads to monopolistic control of productions, supply 
and price of vaccines. This situation contribute s to inequitable and unaffordable access to much 
needed vaccines to fight the pandemic. We have been constantly saying that there is an urgent need 
to expand manufacturing globally and to diversify supply of vaccines and therapeutics and other 
medical prod ucts to effectively fight the pandemic. The TRIPS Council objective on this specific 
discussion in our view should be to overcome barriers to achieve equitable and timely access to all 
these tools to fight the virus. The time is running out and we must act  now with all sincerity and my 
delegation looks forward to engaging constructively with all Members to speed up the negotiation 
process for an outcome at MC12.  
6.38.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
6.39.   India welcomes the decision by t he TRIPS Council on the extension of the moratorium on 
TRIPS Non -violation Situation Complaints. India reiterates its commitment to remain constructively 
engaged on this issue and work with like -minded Members in making this moratorium permanent.  
Despite dedicating over a year in discussions and debates and having lost over five million people 
to the deadly virus, there has been no substantive engagement on the text of the proposal on TRIPS 
Waiver contained in IP/C/W/669 Rev.1. Opposition by few Me mbers to engage on this issue of 
paramount importance to rest of the WTO Membership reflects on our ability to deliver in times that 
elicit an extraordinary response. The co -sponsors of  the waiver  have tirelessly engaged with the 
membership at large  in dis cussing our  proposal . We have shown flexibility and pragmatism in our 
bilateral engagements . The cosponsors have clearly delineated the parameters of a possible landing 
zone in our outreach with the naysayers. It is up to these Members now to show their fl exibility and 
work with a spirit of compromise. It is disappointing that while the world is watching us with great 
expectations to deliver solutions to the exigencies of the pandemic, we have ensured that the 
solutions remain elusive. We constantly heard t hat IP is not a barrier to scaling up production and 
that the bottlenecks lie elsewhere and thus a multipronged approach to come out with a response 
would be needed. The co -sponsors have in good faith engaged on all elements of a possible response 
to the p andemic, in various formats, while a similar zeal to reach an outcome or even to start a 
negotiation has been lacking on the TRIPS Waiver proposal.  
6.40.   As per the UNCTAD trade and development report 2021, the damage from the COVID -19 
crisis has exceeded that of the global financial crisis of 2008 in most parts of world economy but it 
has been particularly draining on the developing world, who will be come, barring a few, as much as 
eight trillion dollars poorer by 2025. Even assuming no further sh ocks, a return to the pre -pandemic 
income trend could take until 2030, weakest growth rate since the end of World War II. It is 
imperative that we as an organi zation should be willing to deliver solutions that alleviate the 
problems of the most resource po or and vulnerable. In this regard, the waiver becomes central to 
an effective WTO response to COVID -19 and to achieving equitable access. Time for ideological 
debates on whether the w aiver would work or be effective or whether existing flexibilities in the  form 
of compulsory licensing are sufficient is over. And as we often say in the discussions at the WTO that 
let the perfect not be the enemy of the good. Thus, it is urgent that a decision on the waiver is 
achieved to have a successful WTO response to the  pandemic during MC12 and let us all work 
towards that end. Without a decision on th e proposal in IP/C/W/669 /Rev.1, any WTO response to 
pandemic will not look credible.  
6.41.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the following stat ement:  
6.42.   The ACP Group appreciates the efforts of the Chair and his overall commitment to this file. 
The report submitted provides a factual update of the discussions on this agenda item to date and 
the Group notes that there is the intention to continue the  discussion amongst Members.  The ACP 
Group has always maintained that the WTO has a role to play in providing an effective response to 
the pandemic. As a group of developing countries and LDCs, we can all attest to the devastating 
impacts of the pandemic o n lives and livelihoods. It is for this reason that the Group has constantly 
repeated its support for the general objectives of the waiver and encourage Members to ensure that 
the organization is positioned to play a critical role in the global response to  the pandemic.  It remains 
unfortunate that the rate of vaccination for many of our members continue to be low which is quite WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 24 - 
 
  worrying as there is a growing call among the scientific community that a booster shot will be 
required to further contain the spre ad of the virus. There are also reports of some countries currently 
experiencing an increase in the number of COVID -19 cases. This is a clear indication that we must 
continue our engagement on how to increase the availability and accessibility of vaccines,  diagnostics 
and therapeutics as the pandemic has not yet come to an en d. The robust discussions on specific 
elements of the proposals such as scope, duration and implementation as well as the small group 
consultations held by the Chair have been useful. M embers were given the opportunity to ventilate 
concerns, seek clarifications and better understand the various positions. While there has been no 
consensus, it is noted that Members committed to continue engaging in various configurations and 
have signalle d that these consultations will continue leading up to the Ministerial Conference.  As it 
relates to non -violation and situation complaints, the ACP Group welcomes the decision by Members 
to extend the moratorium until the next Ministerial Conference and lo oks forward to future 
discussions in the TRIPS Council with a view to making the moratorium permanent.  
6.43.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
6.44.   The European Union is strongly committed to achieving our common goal: to con tinue 
ramping up production, to share COVID -19 vaccines and medicines more widely and faster, and to 
ensure equitable access to these products for low – and middle -income countries.  We consider that 
only a comprehensive approach can be effective in the WTO 's response to the pandemic. There is 
no single solution. That is why the discussions currently ongoing cover export restrictions, trade 
facilitating measures, transparency and monitoring, possible role of services, inter -organi zational 
cooperation and the  intellectual property dimension.  The intellectual property system has played the 
key role in the development of COVID -19 vaccines and medicines and can play an enabling role in 
deploying existing capacity or creating new capacity for the production of COV ID-19 vaccines and 
medicines. It is possible to enhance this role of the IP system while at the same time maintaining 
the protection required for incentivising technology transfer and investment in innovation.  
6.45.   Over the last couple of weeks , we have been engaging in a very active manner in discussions 
with various delegations aiming to identify areas of convergence that could become the basis for a 
meaningful and pragmatic solution on the IP component of the response. This effort is ongoing.  In 
order  to find a compromise, given the short time remaining until MC12, we all have to be clear on 
what parameters we find essential for a solution on the IP element of the broader trade response to 
the pandemic. Given the scope of divergences , we all need to be  ready to adjust our initial positions 
and focus on the effect of the solution. Also, the solution we need must be a solution that makes a 
real difference on the ground that adds to the ongoing efforts to maximi ze production and supply, 
especially for the regions that have not had sufficient supplies of COVID -19 vaccines and 
therapeutics. It must be a solution that maintains the IP protection required for incentivi zing 
technology transfer and investment in innovation.  We will continue to work towards such a  solution 
together  and strongly believe that it is possible, taking all the elements of the comprehensive trade 
response into account, to find an outcome that will make a real difference on the ground.  
6.46.   The representative of Nepal  delivered the following st atement:  
6.47.   We associate with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group and South 
Africa  and India on behalf of the proponents. About four million lives were lost due to the COVID -19 
pandemic since the submission of the proposal, but we have not been able to deliver any concrete 
result on this matter . Responding to the COVID -19 pandemic through appropriate means has 
become urgent.  Nepal is in favour of the proposal since the beginning and now strongly support s it 
as a proponent to successfully  conclude and deliver with a view to saving millions of lives across the 
globe especially in LDCs and LLDCs . 
6.48.   The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
6.49.   The pandemic is still ravaging, and the virus is now in its fifth round of attack. A s an important 
negotiating issue, the negotiations on the waiver proposal have occupied a great deal of Members' 
time and energy this year. But convergence is yet to be achieved. We need to ask ourselves, are we 
really going to do something within the comp etence of the WTO to save lives and rebuild the world?  
As many Members mentioned, IPR s have brought  the WTO and the world closer in terms of health 
and development. The contribution of IPR s is indispensable as a systematic response of the WTO. 
The waiver o n vaccine s will demonstrate effective prevention and control of the pandemic. We should 
also further facilitate the compulsory licensing system and address the inequity of the production WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 25 - 
 
  and distribution of other necessary products in a wider range so as t o help the international 
community return to normal as soon as possible.  
6.50.   The representative of the Russian Federation  delivered the following statement:  
6.51.   The Russian Federation supports any WTO effort , including that  in the TRIPS Council , to find 
solutions in combating COVID -19. We are grateful to the proponents of the two initiatives for their 
readiness for dialogue and willingness to work towards consensus.  We stand to assist countries in 
need. We support the dissemination of knowledge, the organization of local production in any country 
to increase its ability to combat the pandemic and create opportunities to help neighbouring 
countries. No doubt this kind of action can make  a significant contribution to the development of 
global immunity.  Any result of the TRIPS Council work must be adopted by consensus. This means 
that it must be agreed upon by all Members.  To be meaningful and pragmatic , the result of 
discussions should ha ve additional value to the existing TRIPS rules.  Any decision modifying the 
existing scope of WTO commitments must be clear for implementation. We need to understand how 
realistic it is in the application  and how safe it would be  for the public . We have to  convey this 
information to the Government before taking any decision.  In such a situation, let me express my 
doubts about the possibility of agreeing on such a decision if we see it on 29 November  for the first 
time. In this situation , only a declaration of political will on future work of the TRIPS Council could 
be a realistic outcome.  Once again, the Russian Federation stands ready for dialogue and the decision 
of MС12 on combating the pandemic.  
6.52.   The representative of Tanzania  delivered the following stat ement:  
6.53.   Tanzania associated with the  statement of the African Group. We have fully participated in 
the discussions on the proposed waiver . The adoption of the waiver will be the right contribution of 
the WTO in the fight against COVID -19 to ramp up producti on of vaccines and related medical 
products. If the WTO will resort to any response to COVID -19, it must be comprehensive and that 
should  include the waiver. The proposed waiver is temporary  and focused only on address ing the 
current challenges of COVID -19. In the lead up to  MC12 , the waiver has gained tremendous traction 
across the globe from various groups of people, including members of parliaments, eminent people, 
scientists, trade unions and civil societies. The WTO should capitalize the goodwill being  
demonstrated for the adoption of the waiver. We therefore urge those few Members with reservation 
to the proposed waiver to seriously consider reviewing their position.  
6.54.   The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
6.55.   Norway supports furth er discussions in the TRIP S Council on the revised waiver proposal. We 
also support that the TRIP S Council reports directly to the upcoming Ministerial Conference. 
However, with MC12 only a week away, this increases the urgency to achieve progress. We need  to 
strike the balance in ensuring that IPRs do not constitute a barrier to solving the current or future 
health crises and preserve the incentives for innovation on the other. With this in mind, we 
encourage all Members to revisit their positions with a v iew to narrowing down differences  so that 
we can find a pragmatic compromise to achieve consensus.  
6.56.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
6.57.   Indonesia support s the TRIPS Council's recommendation to continue its work up to the 
Ministerial Conference. At this juncture, it is unfortunate that after a year since the co -sponsor s of 
the TRIPS Waiver ha ve submitted our proposal, no actual text -based negotiation has been 
conducted. It is regrettable that while other WTO Bodies are inte nsifying their text -based 
negotiations, the Council for TRIPS has failed to do so. We urge Members to show their flexibilities 
and engage in good faith in the discussion of the TRIPS Waiver. With more than 5.1 million lives 
lost, and some of us lost our lo ved ones to o, failure to deliver a meaningful outcome on the TRIPS 
Waiver would not only undermine our credibility but also our relevance to the world.  
6.58.   The representative of Colombia  delivered the following statement:  
6.59.   On the Moratorium on TRIPS Non -Violat ion and Situation Complaints , we thank  the TRIPS 
Council Chair  his leadership, and all the Members who showed flexibility and came together to 
recommend the approval of a new extension to the Ministerial Conference. However, we strongly WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 26 - 
 
  urge Members to tak e a similar decision on the moratorium on e -commerce, as the balance achieved 
by discussing and approving the two  moratori a together is well -known and valuable, and has enabled 
both to continue to be renewed. We are concerned that the two have become separ ated and will be 
left weakened, one now and the other within two years. We also call on Members to approve an 
extension on the moratorium on e -commerce and maintain the balance between the two moratori a 
for the future.  On the TRIPS W aiver proposal , we than k its co-sponsors for continuing to highlight 
the importance and urgency of achieving an outcome that will help to overcome the pandemic. We 
also t hank the proponent of the flexibility document for the ir proposals, which we consider additional 
and compleme ntary. Colombia reiterates the interest and importance it attaches to this discussion . 
As expressed in various for a by our President, "vaccines must be global public goods". In this regard, 
we call on Members to  adopt a more constructive approach to help u s to reach a coordinated, holistic 
and pragmatic solution for MC12, which, in terms of intellectual property, must include a vaccine 
waiver.  We call for the political discussion to be expedited, by focusing on overcoming the differences 
between the proposa ls. This would provide a satisfactory resolution to this impasse within the WTO. 
Colombia reiterates its commitment to participating constructively in this discussion.  
6.60.   The representative of Peru delivered the following statement:  
6.61.   With the Twelfth Ministeri al Conference just a few days away, Peru wishes to reiterate the 
urgent need for this Organization to provide a joint and solidarity -based response to the 
multidimensional crisis caused by the COVID -19 pandemic, which to date has claimed over 5 million 
lives and whose spread and impact are still far from over.  Peru believes that access to COVID -19 
vaccines will be crucial for this task, which is why it advocates in various forums that the vaccines 
be considered global public goods and thus universal, timely  and equitable access to them is ensured. 
However, this is not possible while global vaccine production capacity is insufficient and their 
distribution among and within countries is unequal.  In this regard, we need urgent and tangible 
measures that tackle this issue. I would therefore like to reiterate that Peru considers reaching an 
agreement on the temporary lifting of COVID -19 vaccine patent restrictions as a matter of urgency, 
as this measure would be a milestone in the fight against the pandemic.  In ad dition, I wish to 
highlight that we are considering supporting the extension of this measure to other goods necessary 
to the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19. Unequal access to these goods affects 
the survival of our citizens and threatens  the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development. That is why Peru wishes to reiterate the necessity of arriving at a pragmatic and 
tangible agreement that would benefit all our peoples and send a strong and positive signal about 
this organization's contribution to the fight against this scourge.  
6.62.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
6.63.   We once again express our regret at the need to intervene since this is a procedural agenda 
item. Members have already ag reed by consensus to the report. However, given the extensive 
discussion we would like to make the following points.  The pandemic has placed tremendous strain 
on peoples' health and livelihoods around the world.  We in the United States are doing all we can to 
ensure everyone, both at home and around the world, has access to safe and effective vaccines 
because  by having more vaccinations is how we end this pandemic . We have committed to donate 
over 1.1 billion doses to date. We have already shipped nearly  250 million doses to 100 countries – 
donating more vaccines than all other countries combined – for free and with zero strings attached, 
with millions more shipping each day.  The United States has stated its support for a waiver of 
intellectual property p rotection for COVID -19 vaccines.  The TRIPS Council discussions have not been 
easy, and Members are still divided on this issue.  Over the past several weeks, the United States 
has continued holding consultations in capital as well as meeting bilaterally wit h other Members to 
listen to views and to explore ways forward.  This includes meetings when USTR  Tai was in Geneva 
and multiple visits by officials from Washington.  Our goal has been to encourage Members to weigh 
in with approaches to moving forward with s teps that can contribute to the increase of production 
and equitable distribution of vaccines.  With MC12 nearly upon us, the WTO can show that it is 
capable of effectively addressing a global challenge like COVID -19, and helping the world recover. 
We remai n committed to engaging with Members to find a way forward that all of them  can support.  
6.64.   The representative of Chile delivered the following statement:  
6.65.   Chile welcomes the adoption of a recommendation on the Moratorium on TRIPS Non -Violation 
and Situation Complaints in advance of MC12 and we are convinced that it will allow us to focus on 
the complex issues that lie ahead. It was with the same intention and in the same spirit that Chile WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 27 - 
 
  and the delegations  of Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, New Zealand, Panama and Uruguay put 
forward a proposal along the same lines in document  WT/GC/W/832.  We hope that, during MC12, 
Ministers will be able to approve the recommendation, taking into consideration , where appropri ate, 
its link with the E-commerce  Moratorium . We also thank  the TRIPS Council Chair for the status report 
and for his efforts to facilitate discussions aimed at achieving consensus  on the TRIPS Waiver  
request . Chile's position on this issue has not changed . We once more call on Members to seek an 
outcome that will effectively contribute to the production and distribution of vaccines and medical 
supplies in response to the pandemic, and to use and implement the flexibilities in the TRIPS 
Agreement to support  their public health policy objectives. Now more than ever, the political 
conditions are in place to allow Members to implement these flexibilities.  Meanwhile, discussions and 
the bridging of differences between delegations on this topic are essential in o rder to arrive at a 
common understanding of the role played by intellectual property during the pandemic and, from 
there, find possible areas of common ground that will enable us to reach an outcome for MC12. For 
this to happen, channels of communication m ust remain open and, above all, efforts must be made 
to restore the basic trust that allows delegations to negotiate in good faith.  Since the start of the 
pandemic, we have recognized that the WTO should contribute to efforts to combat the pandemic in 
all its areas of work. We have also been in favour of a holistic analysis and of working in every 
domain that can make an effective contribution to the production and distribution of vaccines and 
medical goods at the global level, and can prepare us for future  pandemics.  Lastly, we reiterate our 
support for and commitment to the work carried out by Ambassador Sørli and you can count on our 
delegation to seek out solutions during discussions on this subject.  
6.66.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Boliv ia delivered the following statement:  
6.67.   We commend  Ambassador Sørli  for his efforts to arrive at a result  on the TRIPS Waiver.  
Unfortunately , it has not been possible to arrive at a substantive result  in this area . We see that 
there is lack of substantive will to arrive at the objective . We need a balanced, objective way forward 
on this matter . We have been discussing this  for over a  year already. The waiver is something that 
has become even more pertinent during the current circumstances as it would help  increase the 
production  of what we need to fight the pandemic. At the same time, we need to see to it that the 
WTO Response to the Pandemic  can have a  positive  impact  on the lives and livelihoods of our people. 
For this to happen, the TRIPS Waiv er must form an integral part of such response.  
6.68.   The representative of Tunisia  delivered the following statement:  
6.69.   We consider, justly so, that th e TRIPS Waiver request , which has been widely supported for 
more than a year by many Members, a number of intern ational organizations and civil society, serves 
as a reminder of the foundations of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, 
prioritizing the protection of global health and the promotion of access to medicines for all.  Members 
have a  duty to demonstrate the flexibility and solidarity required in these exceptional circumstances. 
We stress the targeted time -bound framework for this initiative, and note that the TRIPS Council will 
continue its work on this item until MC12. We hope that M embers will begin constructive, text -based 
negotiations to facilitate a prompt decision by Ministers  on this very important matter.  
6.70.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
6.71.   On the Moratorium on TRIPS N on-Violation and Situation  Complaints , we support the 
consensus reached in the TRIPS Council for a Ministerial decision directing the TRIPS Council to 
continue the examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided for under 
subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make a recommendation to MC13. 
And that in the meantime, Members will not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.  
Regarding the "Proposal for a Waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the 
prevent ion, containment and treatment of COVID -19" in IP/C/W/669/R ev.1, we thank the TRIPS 
Council Chair for his effort and we agree with the approach taken in his report  – in particular, the 
pragmatism displayed in keeping the agenda item open right up to the Mi nisterial.  We associate 
ourselves with the statement to be made by the Africa n Group and the ACP.  MC12 will be a defining 
moment for the WTO and its role in delivering in the interests of all. We urge that all Members 
engage in the remaining time to find a  solution that will truly make a difference on the ground.  Given 
the short time that remains before MC12 , our efforts should be focused on achieving an outcome 
based on compromise and pragmatism. We strongly believe that a TRIPS Waiver is doable if we all 
think creatively to find a balanced outcome that addresses all our concerns.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 28 - 
 
  6.72.   We repeat that this is not an ideological debate. Our interest is in addressing the vaccine 
inequity that continues to put peopl e's health and sustainable economic recovery at ris k. In Africa , 
only 6% of the adult population is vaccinated. This should concern all of us as no one is safe until 
everyone is.  Let us seize the moment and do what is right and what is just in the interest of 
humanity.  Our intention is not to dismantle the  current system of innovation incentives and the 
TRIPS Waiver does not do so. We have shared ideas with Members on a limited scope landing zone 
that aims to address all concerns and ensure that we can facilitate global production, diversification 
and acces s to COVID -19 related products. We reiterate that we are ready to discuss a compromise 
outcome around the Waiver proposal which includes elements of the Waiver, as well as the approach 
advanced by the European Union. As we have consistently stated, we need  to move beyond the 
binary of the two proposals. We have always shown flexibility and we continue to do so. We all have 
to recognize that rights are not absolute and in the context of an unprecedented global pandemic, a 
targeted, time -limited TRIPS Waiver represents a proportionate, necessary and appropriate response 
to the pandemic.  We reiterate that a TRIPS Waiver is integral to the WTO Response to the Pandemic 
and is critical to a credible and meaningful outcome at MC12.  
6.73.   The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
6.74.   We thank the TRIPS Council Chair for his status report which reflects the current state of 
discussions among Members in an objective and neutral fashion.  Although Members share the 
common goal of ensuring global, equitable and timely access to COVID -19 vaccines and treatments, 
they continue to express diverging views as to the role and importance of intellectual property and 
the TRIPS Agreement in combating this pandemic.  Switzerland believes that IP protection is crucial 
for stimulating innovation, investment, industrial partnerships and technology transfer  – in other 
words, for increasing and diversifying production and achieving the Members' common goal.  The IP 
protection system and the TRIPS Agreement help actor s such as companies, research institutions 
and universities to form partnerships aimed at researching, developing and producing innovative 
new healthcare technologies to combat COVID -19. They also promote the sharing of technological 
know -how. IP thus play s a key role in the increase and diversification of healthcare technology.   
6.75.   The figures speak for themselves: with monthly production amounting to CHF  1.5 billion worth 
of COVID -19 vaccine doses, the WHO's global COVID -19 vaccination targets are within our  reach. 
IP can in no way be held responsible for the current problems concerning the distribution of vaccine 
doses. Moreover, the recent voluntary licensing agreements for COVID -19 treatments signed by the 
Medicines Patent Pool show that the existing IP sy stem is effective. Switzerland is open to discussing 
the practical difficulties, such as compulsory licensing, that Members face when they want to use 
TRIPS flexibilities. In our opinion, this should be the focus of our discussions.  We are also willing to 
discuss pragmatic IP solutions that do not put these gains at risk, including the ideas put forward by 
the European Union. Switzerland is ready to discuss the simplified use of existing flexibilities in the 
TRIPS Agreement. The mechanism could be complemen ted by measures aimed at promoting 
technology transfer.  We are convinced that the COVID -19 pandemic requires a holistic response. 
Disciplining the use of trade restrictions affecting access to technology, facilitating trade and 
enhancing transparency can a ll make a real difference in improving the affordability and availability 
of essential medical supplies.  Switzerland  will continue to engage actively and constructively in 
bilateral discussions, as well as in any other format that facilitates dialogue amon g Members.  
6.76.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
6.77.   I fear that we may repeat some of the things we said in the meeting on 19 November. We 
welcome the TRIPS Council Chair's report which is a factual, objective and accurat e report of the 
development at the TRIPS Council. Like others, we have been meeting other delegations bilaterally 
on all sides of the debate . While we are not yet in a position to reach consensus on these issues, we 
are grateful for the discussions we had and the constructive tone struck by many delegations 
including th at day . We do not have a lot of time left before MC1 2. We therefore think it is best to try 
and focus on areas of potential convergence rather than on the areas of disagreement. And I think 
what we all, I hope, agree on is the need for a substantive Trade and Health outcome at the 
Ministerial  – an outcome which promotes production and supports the equitable distribution of 
affordable, safe and effective vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics. We continue to believe that 
the IP system has played a positive role in enabling our response to this pandemic. We do not deny 
the lack of vaccines in ma ny parts of the world . This further bolsters the need to find equitable ways  
to ensure that those vacci nes can be delivered effectively. But we also need to reflect on the role of 
the IP system in the future in facing a pandemic  – the virus of which continues to mutate . We need WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 29 - 
 
  to develop not only effective vaccines against these mutations but effective the rapeutics as well and 
we welcome the recent innovations in the therapeutics that have come out of what is for sure a 
highly successful IP system. So, we look forward to find a way forward on these issues, to work with 
other delegations and indeed the Secre tariat on them and to ensure that we can produce at the 
Ministerial next week a multifaceted outcome on Trade and Health that is worthy of the pandemic 
which we face and of the role this organization can play in tackling this issue like so many others.  
6.78.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
6.79.   We join the consensus and express our support for the extension of the Moratorium on TRIPS 
Non-violation and Situation Complaints.  Pakistan likewise continues to recall all its previous 
statem ents in the General Council and the TRIPS Council at its formal, informal, and small group 
sessions  on the TRIPS Waiver request. It is unfortunate that we are entering a Ministerial Conference, 
convened during the heart of a pandemic, with lockdowns and re strictions continuing in neighbouring 
areas . The biggest issue for this organi zation remains unresolved. To this end, we express our 
disappointment at the lack of engagement from a handful of Members that perpetuated the situation. 
As mentioned during the TNC, my government is resolute in its belief that the TRIPS Waiver is  
necessary  to address the issue of equitable, safe and affordable access to vaccines and other 
COVID -19 products. Nevertheless, one should never shy away from a belief in the ability of human 
beings to put aside profit -maximi zing, monopolistic tendencies, and work for the greater good of 
humanity to save lives. We look forward to our continued engagement with Members to identify 
landing zones that could be delivered in the comi ng days.  To remind Members of our resolve and 
commitment to this issue, we must reiterate that without a meaningful TRIPS Waiver, the WTO risks 
having no tangible or credible response to the pandemic which would be disastrous for the 
organi zation.  
6.80.   The repr esentative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
6.81.   Japan echoes our appreciation to the TRIPS Council Chair, Ambassador Sørli, for his tireless 
efforts. In order to move discussions forward swiftly towards finding common ground until one week 
ahead of MC12, narrowing down the scope of the targeted products and intellectual property would 
be the realistic option.  To make the best use of our limited time before MC12, Japan will continue to 
listen carefully to the views of the Members and participate in di scussions on how intellectual 
property can contribute to achieving our common goal of providing timely, fair and equitable access 
to high -quality, safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines for all, aiming to find convergence.  
6.82.   The representative of Singapor e delivered the following statement:  
6.83.   I thank the TRIPS Council Chair, Ambassador Sørli, for his tireless efforts and support this 
factual and objective report. First, Singapore supports the continuous discussion of all proposals on 
the table . The global nu mber of cases are trending up which gives greater importance for Members 
to reach agreement on a mutually agreeable and pragmatic approach. While the production of 
vaccines has increased significantly and is on track to reach 12 billion doses by the end of  2021, the 
challenge is to ensure a more equitable distribution of vaccines and delivering them into the arms 
of people. Hence, it is crucial that we continue to consider all possible pathways to address this 
pressing challenge. Second, on the discussion t hat the TRIPS Council cannot be detached from 
positive development on the ground, for example , we have witnessed several new vaccine 
manufacturing partnerships such as the one between BioNTech and Rwanda to develop vaccine 
production capacity in Africa. La st week, Pfizer also announced that it would allow generic 
manufacturers to produce its experimental antiviral COVID -19 pill to 95 low and middle -income 
countries through a licensing agreement with the medicines patent pool. Third, we have only a week 
left to MC12, it is incumbent upon all Members to focus our efforts and energy to find a pragmatic 
and practical way forward. Our common objective must be to identify concrete steps that will ramp 
up global production of vaccines  and strengthen supply chain co nnectivity to ensure that the 
production and distribution of diagnostic s, vaccines and therapeutics will not be disrupted.  
6.84.   The representative of Vanuatu  delivered the following statement:  
6.85.   I thank the TRIPS Council Chair for his report and having listened t o the statements this 
morning, it seems to me that from those of us who are co -sponsoring the proposals ahead of us , I 
hear that some have not moved from their own positions. We look forward for all Members to agree WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 30 - 
 
  on a vaccine waiver . We are very disappo inted that there is lack of text -based negotiations  so I call 
on all Members to redouble their efforts in building convergence in this area.   
6.86.   The Director -General  delivered the following statement:  
6.87.   Like the Ambassador from Mauritius said,  we all know I hav e been following this issue very 
closely from all sides. I just want to thank the TRIPS Council Chair for his report and his tireless 
efforts to try to move things on this issue. I also want to thank all those who have been making 
efforts to come together to a solution on this IP Waiver through more informal discussions  including  
bilatera lly and in groups . South Africa, India, Pakistan, Egypt, the European Union , the United 
Kingdom , Switzerland  and the  United States, among many others, have  all been trying in various 
configurations to make things happen . I continue to believe that a comprehensive response to the 
pandemic will include all aspects  – three aspect s as I have always said  and that none alone can 
serve us the response to the pandem ic. So, we must look for where we can land with the Walker 
process plus a pragmatic outcome on the IP Waiver. Only when we have all these  will we have a 
comprehensive response to this pandemic. It is also very good to hear delegations say they are 
willing to continue discussing even in the few days left because one must always hold out hope that 
we can come to some agreement that will signal to the world that we are ready to do something on 
the response. I want to repeat what I said at the TNC . Much of the language is polarized and when 
I hear them, I ask myself  that, if this is supposed to be a negotiating forum  yet we hear that it is 
simply  one side or the other , then there is  negotiation going on  right?  So, I think we should try to 
avoid the extremes of w hat we have been asking for since the pandemic started  and try to see if we 
can come to a middle ground. I think Malaysia laid it out very succinctly that we must all try to come 
to a middle ground and be pragmatic . I want to, in very short terms, summariz e what we need to 
do. All sides need to exhibit some flexibility  – that means both proponents and non -proponents . If 
we continue to maintain this distance , it means that we are not really ready and all the rhetoric 
about how we are wi lling to engage will m ean nothing. The world is really waiting for us . We have a 
K-shaped recovery and that recovery stands on two things . Some regions are doing well while others 
are not . There are those  not doing well because of lack of access to vaccines and lack of fiscal s pace 
to implement stimulus for their population. So, on the issue of lack of access , we must act  urgently . 
There has been some success at least in trying to get investments made in certain countries as the 
Ambassador of Singapore signalled . But we must cou ple that with looking at some sensible solution 
on IP . I remain convinced that it exists . As South Africa noted today,  all sides should be willing to 
drop the binary approach . This will in turn allow us to  come to a pragmatic middle ground. So , that 
is wha t I want to say to you . Please try to exercise this middle ground . No one here will walk out of 
this room and be seen as right if we do not deliver on this aspect. So, as you eat your lunch this 
afternoon and your dinner this evening , please plan on how we are going to solve this issue of 
reaching a pandemic response because the world urgently needs a meaningful outcome from us.  
6.88.   The Chair  thank ed the TRIPS Council  Chair for his tireless efforts in what was clearly a crucial 
matter and encourage d all delegations to remain positively and constructively engaged as 
discussions continue d with a view to finding a workable way forward for MC12.  
6.89.   The General Council took note  of the report by the Chair of the Council for TRIPS, including 
the fac t that work on the TRIPS Waiver was continuing in the immediate next few days and that any 
result from this work w ould be in front of Ministers at MC12, and of the statements.  
7  PREPARATIONS FOR THE TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE8 
7.1.  The Chair noted that, in line with the reporting obligations, as contained in WT/L/105, the 
Ministerial Conference w ould undertake an Overview of WTO activities under Item 1 of its Agenda, 
on the basis of Annual Reports from the General Council and its subsidi ary bodies. The annual 
reports, which w ould be  taken up under Item 20, constitute d the main vehicle through which WTO 
bodies report ed to Ministers on progress of work in their respective areas. In line with past practice, 
he would present th ose reports to Ministers in his statement at the Opening Session of the Ministerial 
Conference – and w ould formally transmit, at that point, the results of the work that ha d taken place 
in that intense preparatory period for Ministers' consideration. As had already been indicated, the 
reports by the TNC Chair and the Chairs of Negotiating Groups w ould also be forwarded to the 
Ministerial Conference.  At the outset of t hat day's meeting, Members  already welcomed  the 
 
8 Due to the deterioration of the epidemiological situation an d travel restrictions that ensued, MC12 was 
postponed on 26 November , on the understanding that it would be reconvened as soon as conditions allow.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Ministerial Conference Chair, H.E. Mr . Timur Suleimenov of Kazakhstan. He recall ed that the Vice 
Chairs of the Conference w ould be The Hon. Dan T ehan, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment 
of Australia; The Hon. Jerome Xavier Walcott , Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of 
Barbados; an d The Hon. Harriet Ntabazi,  Minister of State for Trade of Uganda.  
7.2.  The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement.  
7.1  MC12 Outcome Document – Report by the Chair  
7.3.  The Chair noted that t he draft MC12 Outcome Document was a product of Members' earnest 
efforts and constructive engagement. This work t ook account of, and buil t on, all his consultations 
with delegations since April. He referred Members  to his earlier reports contained in JOB/GC/259, 
JOB/GC/262, JOB/GC/268, JOB/GC/274 and JOB/GC/279. His report that day should be read in 
conjunction with th ose earlier reports.  Since the October General Council, the representative group 
had met ten times to consider all paragraphs, including new textual language. Several delegations 
had also c ome together to wo rk on compromise texts amongst themselves. To complement th ose 
efforts, he had  consulted delegations in smaller configurations to address specific issues. He recalled 
that he had  reported on th ose discussions to all Members during three informal open -ended  meetings 
and had circulated the entire draft as part of his report in JOB/GC/279 and then in the restricted 
room document RD/GC/17. He had  likewise met the representative group the previous day .  
7.4.  He commend ed delegations' dedication and hard work in th at process. Thanks to each of them, 
they had made it this far. As a result of Members' hard work, they currently  had the paragraphs in 
front of them – also circulated in document RD/GC/17/Rev.19. Several paragraphs were clean, others 
still ha d bracketed tex ts, and some were in the "additionals" where more work need ed to be done 
and which would form part of the main text once convergence to do so was achieved.  As he had 
foreshadowed, the Secretariat ha d scrubbed the text by assigning numbers to paragraphs tha t had 
letters and those that had been  moved up from the "additionals" section to the main part; also had 
checked the document for consistency in the use of "We" and "Ministers" and had used the standard 
formulation of "developing country Members and LDCs".  
7.5.  Before providing  Members  with a run through of each paragraph, he reiterate d that the entire 
document was in square brackets – from the beginning of Part 1 until the end of Part 2. As he had 
said before, Part 2 w ould depend on the various processes going on in the respective areas. His 
explanation t hat day w ould cover the paragraphs in Part 1.   
a. Paragraph 1 set the context of MC12 with Ministers gathering in the spirit of solidarity 
despite the pandemic.  
b. In Paragraph 2, Ministers would recognize that, sinc e their last meeting : (i) the world and 
the multilateral trading system ha d been confronted with several challenges,  (ii) despite 
these challenges, opportunities ha d also emerged although the capacity to avail of them 
differed, (iii) the WTO itself ha d faced significant challenges.  
c. Paragraph 3 point ed out that th ose challenges, including the difference in the capacity to 
avail opportunities, ha d, in turn, affected the global economy. During the same period, 
the global economy had experienced high levels of uncertainty and low levels of growth 
which had been  further exacerbated by the pandemic. As a response:  (i) Ministers would 
affirm their commitment to keep markets open and ensure a strengthened multilateral 
trading system that helps drive the global economic recovery.  (ii) In this regard, Ministers 
would welcome the recent positive trajectory of global trade growth but would note that 
the recovery remain ed uneven across WTO Members, especially developing and least -
developed country Members.  
d. Specifical ly, on the pandemic, Paragraph 4 refer red to the trade -related measures taken 
by Members during the pandemic with several being trade facilitating while some resulting 
in negative effects. It went on to say that addressing the pandemic and ensuring an 
 
9 A revision of this document was subsequently circulated in RD/GC/17/Rev.2.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 32 - 
 
  inclusive global economic recovery would need global solidarity and the WTO could make 
tangible contributions in this regard . 
e. Paragraph 5 sen t the message that making these tangible contributions was part of the 
ethos of the WTO. This was based on the organiza tion's principles and objectives as set 
out in the Marrakesh Agreement. By reaffirming them, Ministers would underscore the 
WTO's role in  global economic recovery,  growth,  prosperity, alleviation of poverty, welfare 
of all people, sustainable development, and protection of the environment in a manner 
consistent with respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic 
development.  
f. In discharging the WTO's role, Ministers would look at several aspects including: 
(i) addressing S&DT (Paragraph 6) whe re some phrases remain bracketed including on 
the forum for such discussions and on a possible reporting mandate, (ii) providing a 
smooth transition for graduated LDCs (Paragraph 10), (iii) facilitating accessions 
(Paragraph 11), (iv) recognizing the speci al situation of the Article XII Members 
(Paragraph 12) and, (v) recognizing the special situation of LDCs and reaffirming past 
Ministerial Decisions in their favour (Paragraph 13) , (vi) r ecognizing the increased 
participation of Women in global markets and  international trade and the contribution of 
MSMEs and the importance of promoting their participation in international markets – that 
was, paragraphs 14 and 15 respectively  – and he wished to point out the reservations by 
India and South Africa to th ose paragraphs , and, (vii) ensuring the proper functioning of 
the WTO through its reform including in dispute settlement and negotiations as well as in 
its monitoring function (Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9).  
g. On a specific note, the commitment to work towards necessary  reform of the WTO was 
evident among Members. The crux of the discussion on Paragraph 7 is how to go about it. 
In particular:  whether, in putting this commitment into action under the auspices of the 
General Council, Minister should (i) establish at MC12 a  Working Group open to all 
Members or (ii) agree on a review the mechanics of which would be discussed by the 
General Council ; whether an illustrative list of issues should be included ( i.e. monitoring 
and deliberating function, negotiating function and di spute settlement function, among 
others, as well as addressing development issues) and how to deal with them, and whether 
there should be a fixed deadline to take appropriate decisions. Reference to a timeline was 
also an unresolved matter in Paragraph 8 o n dispute settlement and differences in 
Paragraph 9 on the WTO's negotiating function remain ed. 
h. As Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 look ed to the future through reform, Paragraph 16 t ook note of 
the reports from the General Council and its subsidiary bodies and that these 
demonstrate d Members' continued commitment to the work of the WTO . 
i. Given that Members  were living in a "once in a generation" period where the world was 
suffering from the COVID -19 pandemic amid a battered global economy, a climate crisis 
and the per sistence of developmental challenges – during these exceptional times, 
Ministers, in Paragraph 17, would  recognize the importance of strengthened collaboration 
and cooperation with other intergovernmental organizations and other relevant 
stakeholders that had responsibilities related to those of the WTO, in accordance with the 
rules and principles of the WTO, to restore trust, certainty and predictability in the world 
economy and effectively address current and future multidimensional challenges.  
j. There wer e also  paragraphs under the "additionals" which related to the Environment, 
Trade for Peace and LLDC Issues.  
7.6.  The current draft text was a delicate balance recognizing interests and addressing concerns of 
delegations. He appeal ed to all delegations  to take this into account as  upon reading this draft. Given 
that there were  still bracketed texts, his suggestion was to continue work on this  document with the 
representative group after the GC meeting. He noted that all delegations who ha d expressed a wish 
to participate in th ose discussions ha d been invited. As always, all delegations c ould consult with 
him at any time. He also count ed on the  support of all group coordinators to keep their constituencies 
fully abreast of their discussions and to feed -in any comments in a timely manner. Any progress on 
the outcome document w ould be reflected in the text that w ould be circulated to all Members a nd 
would be before Ministers for their consideration at MC12. He trusted that it was acceptable to all WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Members.  The importance Members attach ed to sending a strong, meaningful and responsive 
political message from Ministers was evident – particularly given  the difficult period they were 
currently living in. Members should  keep the positive momentum of th e process and work together 
in a spirit of solidarity that they all wish ed to see as a central theme of MC12. Members should  never 
forget what was at stake.  
7.7.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
7.8.  My delegation thank s the Chair and some delegations for their tireless work on drafting the 
MC12 outcome document. I have seen that all essential elements have been incorporated in the 
draft. We support having a paragraph serving as the basis for Members to start the WTO Reform on 
the three pillars of the WTO immediately or as soon as practicable after  MC12.  On dispute settlement 
reform, we urge Members not to forget the existing tools in the DSU and ignore the possible useful 
functions of the good offices, mediation and conciliation as well the arbitration, which are already 
explicitly listed in the DS U and virtually being ignored and not being utilized in the past. I would 
propose to include exploring the possible usefulness of these two elements of the good offices, 
mediation and conciliation as well as the arbitration in paragraph 8 of the draft outc ome document.  
7.9.  The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered the following statement:  
7.10.   The LDC Group thank s the Chair for his  efforts to find convergence  on the opinions of th e 
General  Council with the aim of presenting an outcome document for  MC12.  The LDC Group wou ld 
like to remind Members that we have already made a statement10 on this point at the last TNC 
meeting on 19 November. The Group this mor ning has learned that we are mentioned in the first 
part of the outcome document . However , this is within brackets . Therefore , we would urge Members 
to accept the LDC statements and the LDC-related text s in the document so that they are  properly 
reflected.  We would lastly request that Members bear in mind the LDC Ministers ' expectations which 
have been expressed in the Ministerial Declaration11 of 19 October 2021 so that we can show that 
the WTO is able to deliver for all Members regardless of their level of development.  
7.11.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
7.12.   Nigeria wishes to reiterate that it is of utmost importance that the outcome document 
development process remains open, transparent, and inclusive. The document should incorporate 
and balance the views and priorities of Members. This would foste r the delivery of a balanced and 
equitable MC12 outcome.  
7.13.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the following statement:  
7.14.   We look forward to wrapping up our negotiations on the MC12 outcome document. This is a 
priority of the A CP Group. We have not had a declaration since 2015 and so we believe the 
organization needs political guidance on the many issues that confront the WTO. This is especially 
so given the unprecedented environment in which the multilateral trading system curr ently operates. 
Hence, the outcome document should seek to direct the WTO's operations to focus on development 
and elevating the interests of developing countries and LDCs, especially in the context of building 
back better from the COVID -19 pandemic.  We do  hope that the document would be able to focus on 
the issues of relevance to the organization. We take note of the intention by Members to include 
language on digitali zation in the document. We believe that if the issue of digitali zation is to be 
addressed  in an outcome document, we must take the opportunity to make reference to the digital 
divide in our Members, the lack of digital infrastructure and the role that the 1998 Work Programme 
can play in advancing the interest of developing countries and LDCs.  The issue of trade and 
environment is an issue of interest to our Group. In particular, natural disasters and climate change -
induced events often affect our trade infrastructure and our ability to integrate in the global 
economy. Additionally, we constantl y experience trade barriers imposed under the guise of 
environmental measures. This is an issue that must be treated with delicately in the outcome 
document.  The document must also make reference to S&DT and should treat it as a fundamental 
part of WTO rul es. We anticipate that the document refers to Paragraph 44 of the Doha Development 
 
10 The statement of the LDC Group at the 19 November Formal TNC Meeting are reflected in 
paragraphs  4.33 to 4.42, pages 18 -19 of TN/C/M/42.  
11 The LDC Ministerial Declaration for the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference 2021 can be found in 
document WT/MIN(21)/2 . WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 34 - 
 
  agenda and the central role of the CTD  SS in this regard.  LDCs' and LLDCs ' issues must be properly 
represented in the document. We also call for concessions from acceding de veloping countries to be 
commensurate with their capacity and development needs.  As the document seeks to address the 
issue of WTO Reform, this is a matter supported by the ACP Group but we are of the view that we 
should be minimalist in approach and shoul d seek to avoid inclusion of sensitive issues. We have 
made a proposal on WTO Reform on screen, which we sanitized for political sensitivities and ensured 
that it accomplishes our objectives. We stand ready to engage constructively on this proposal.  
7.15.   On the  COVID response document, we renew our support for the initiative and we will support 
the Facilitator. The outcome should not create rules nor alter Members' rights and obligations. It 
should include issues of interest to all Members. We therefore welcome the Facilitator's effort to take 
on the ideas of various Members through a drafting group. This is commendable. We urge patience 
from the Facilitator and from Members in this regard and call on the process to run its natural course 
without usurping the pro cess. The process should be inclusive and transparent and all small group 
processes should be open to interested delegations.  For us, the WTO has an important role to play 
in complementing the work of international organi zations and other stakeholders in r espect of 
responding to the impact of the pandemic from a health, stabili zation, recovery and sustainable 
rebuilding perspective.  We anticipate that Ministers will be able to use MC12 to effectively guide the 
organization on how we carry out this task. For  this to happen, however, the onus is on us, 
Ambassadors in Geneva, to make the necessary preparation so that solid, relevant and appropriate 
recommendations can be put to our Ministers to facilitate a decision. We expect that the Facilitator 
process will not only stabili ze, recover and rebuild, but will also leave us with a blueprint as it relates 
to how we respond to future international crises.  We agree that any outcome from the process must 
address the health dimension of the crisis, especially from a TRIPS and COVID perspective, taking 
into account work in the TRIPS Council.  
7.16.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
7.17.   At the outset , I sincerely commend the Chair's  efforts in leading a very transparent process 
for finalization of the MC12 outcome document. We have support ed the Chair's  efforts throughout 
the process. We were in agreement with his general approach that the MC12 declaration should 
reflect on the points of convergence of Members than their divergences. I n that spirit, we have 
avoided bringing in language or para graph s that others may find uncomfortable. Our interest, like 
many others in this room , was to achieve consensus on the document. However, some delegations 
still continue to treat the outcome docum ent as a Christmas tree and are always trying to bring in 
elements that cross clear redlines. At the beginning of the process, the Chair  had pleaded with 
Members to not to resort to those tactics, but they seem to care less about achieving consensus, 
and seem to care more about pushing forward their own lopsided agenda. If those delegations do 
not change their approach, they will be responsible for deadlocks and repeat the situation of the 
past Ministerial  Conferences . I hope they will listen to the Chair's  wise advice and help him in 
producing an agreed outcome document. My delegation will help the Chair's  efforts to that end.  
7.18.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
7.19.   At the outset, we  associate with the statem ent made by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Group. 
The CARICOM Group thanks the Chair for his tireless efforts on the MC12 outcome document. The 
Group has been actively involved in this process and look s forward to having a critical outcome. We 
have taken goo d note of the report regarding the MC12 outcome document and the level of progress 
that has been made. We are fully cogni zant that a consensual Ministerial Declaration has been 
viewed as one of the indicators of a successful Ministerial Conference. We are fully supportive of 
such an outcome document as it demonstrates that the organi zation remains a multilateral 
institution by nature and keeps the WTO's core principle of consensus alive. The ability to 
demonstrate consensus is something that has eluded us i n recent times. In order to reach consensus, 
however, we must continue to ensure that the process is inclusive, transparent and that the interests 
of all Members are included. As small vulnerable economies  with unique challenges and priorities, 
there are s ome issues that will be of interest to CARICOM  more than to others. We hope that , despite 
our different emphasis on these issues, these will still find their way into the outcome document , 
particularly in circumstances where there is no immediate operative  effects calculated. With this 
said, the nexus between trade and climate change, trade and natural disasters, is of core importance 
to countries like ours, notwithstanding the views of others. Our insularity and small sizes cause us 
to be particularly vuln erable and susceptible to the ravages of climate crises and natural disasters. 
In the immediate period after such an event,  efforts are made to ensure that trade facilitating WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 35 - 
 
  measures can assist in getting necessary supplies including food stuffs into our countries and that 
trade continues. Finally, we have not been demandeurs for the inclusion of many issues in the 
outcome document, but we would hope that our interests can be collectively taken up within the 
context of the draft outcome document.  
7.20.   The repre sentative of Mongolia , on behalf of the LLDCs , delivered the following statement:  
7.21.   As a land -locked developing Member with a small and vulnerable economy, Mongolia has been 
and is supportive of the WTO and the multilateral trading system. Mongolia believes that improving 
and reforming of our organization should be in the interests of all Members, large and small, 
developed and developing. At the same time , the benefits of international trade should be reaped 
by all, including landlocked countries.  The participation of landlocked developing countries or LLDCs 
in global trade is below 1 per cent. On average, LLDCs continue to pay more than double in transport 
costs compared to their transit neighbours. Therefore, the meaningful integration of these cou ntries 
into the multilateral trading system is essential.  In this regard, Mongolia as a coordinator of the 
LLDC Group is promot ing the transit rights of LLDCs in every possible way.  The LLDC Ministerial 
Meeting took a place on 4 November and adopted the declaration that was circulated among WTO 
Members  in document WT/GC/237  along with proposal of a paragraph for the MC12 outcome 
document. The LLDC Group proposed this para graph  with the main purpose of drawing attention to 
and initiat ing relevant studies of the issues related to the trade of landlocked developing countries, 
in particular  on transit. The work program me mentioned is not aimed at obtaining any additional  
S&DT , but only to make the WTO's relevant rules and regulations for transit clearer and deta iled. 
Mongolia and the LLDC Group count on Members' support and cooperation and is ready to work with 
Members further on the proposal with a view to refining it to fit the interests of all concerned.  
7.22.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the follow ing statement:  
7.23.   We commend the Chair  on the manner in which he has been conducting consultations. We 
take note of the initial draft he has proposed to Members under his own responsibility that aims to 
achieve an appropriate balance.  We recall our Statement made in the GC in October.  MC12 will 
happen under difficult circumstances, these are not normal times. We should aim to reach in principle 
agreements on the direction that the WTO should take in the next few years. These could be 
crystalized in the form of  work programmes.  The outcome document must be balanced, not seek to 
undermine existing mandates, nor change Members ' commitments and obligations. Importantly , it 
should also reaffirm the principles and objectives of the WTO as outlined in the Marrakesh 
Agreement.  We want to stress that if we are to have an outcome, the outcome document must only 
capture the issues that have a multilateral mandate. We must avoid using the outcome document 
as a launchpad for issues that have not been properly discussed among  Members and where reaching 
consensus is not feasible.  MC12 must aim to preserve and strengthen an inclusive, open, 
transparent, fair, rules -based and development -oriented multilateral trading system with the WTO 
playing the central role. The system must t ake into account the interests of developing countries 
and LDCs if it is to have legitimacy.  At this time , we would  like to conclude with a few words about 
arrangements for the forthcoming Ministerial  Conference. There are genuine concerns that need 
further clarification in relation to the entry requirements, vaccination certificates, and costs 
associated with regular testing that will have an impact on inclusive participation at MC12. These 
warrant greater attention since inclusive participation is key if we are to have balanced outcomes. A 
hybrid approach is not a solution. We would need to make a call at an appropria te time on whether 
the conditions are ripe for an in -person meeting given the ever -evolving COVID -19 situation.  
7.24.   The representative of Cambodia  delivered the following statement:  
7.25.   Cambodia associates the statement made by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group. I commend  
the Chair and all delegations for the hard work in coming up with the current draft MC12 outcome 
document . LDCs are the most vulnerable constituency of the WTO and that special attention should 
be given to the challenges they face . It is therefore i mportant that LDC -specific elements as proposed 
by the LDC Group and Members be considered for inclusion in the MC12 outcome document. The 
elements proposed by the LDC Group in the MC12 outcome document reflects the actual needs of 
the LDCs as called for b y LDC Ministers in the LDC Ministerial Declaration for MC12 in document 
WT/MIN(21)/2 dated 27 October 2021. By including those elements , we would reflect the WTO's 
commitment and principles to support the most vulnerable Members.  On specific topics, DFQF a nd 
Preferential Rules of Origin are critical elements for the LDCs in accessing and utilizing preferential 
market access accorded to LDC by preference -granting Members.  On LDC Graduation, the proposed WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 36 - 
 
  text reflected the LDCs ' full flexibility in working wi th all Members to come up with a solution that 
can be accepted to all Members . This transition will allow LDCs to be ready to face new challenges 
from the new status.  On accession s, we take note that there has not been any country acceding to 
the WTO since  2016. The benefits provided through the multilateral trading system with the WTO at 
the core, especially to LDCs, has been well documented. Therefore, facilitated process to allow LDCs 
swift accessions to the WTO would allow them to start reaping the bene fit from the rule s-based 
multilateral trading system and address their development needs.  On Aid for Trade, I raise the 
importance of the support from the EIF to LDCs. As the only Aid-for-Trade agency fully dedicated to 
the LDCs, the EIF has made significa nt contribution s to the LDC in capacity building and productive 
capacity development . The EIF's support and contributions should be recognized in the MC12 
outcome document.  
7.26.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
7.27.   Indonesia express es our appreciation to the Chair's  excellent leadership and tireless efforts 
in our collective work to have an agreement on this very important document. Indeed, it has been 
four years since the last WTO Ministerial Conference was held. Fu rthermore, the world today faces 
unprecedented challenges. Thus, it is essential for this organi zation to show its solidarity and show 
the world that we are still relevant. Acknowledging the progress that has been made in the outcome 
document negotiations,  we are optimistic that at MC12 we will be able to deliver a meaningful text. 
In terms of substance, we are pleased to note that important issues such as WTO Reform and the 
dispute settlement mechanism are being deliberated. The devil is in the details . As we are nearing 
the eleventh hour, the remaining issues are the toughest to resolve. In this regard, we urge all 
Members to exercise  flexibilit y and work on building  convergence. We fully support the Chair's initial 
approach to avoid any Member's redlines and contentious issues that are impossible to achieve. 
Having said that, Indonesia is committed to continue to engage in the discussion and work towards 
a positive outcome for MC12.  
7.28.   The representative of Malaysia  delivered the following statement:  
7.29.   Malaysia  commend s both the Chair and the Facilitator for their leadership in the ir respective 
processes . The MC12 outcome document was still a work in progress. With only a week left before 
MC12, we must put our collective efforts to explore possible common ground  to come to an agreed 
text in time for MC12.  On the WTO's Response to the Pandemic, we have a great responsibility to 
save lives and protect livelihoods of people around the world. Because of the urgency, we call on 
Members to exercise flexibility to reach  a possible landing zone on IP, with a view to present a 
workable solution to our Ministers.  My delegation looks forward to contributing constructively during 
the final stretch  and call all Members to join hands to ensure the success of MC12.  
7.30.   The represent ative of Liberia , on behalf of the g7+ WTO Accession Group , delivered the 
following statement:  
7.31.   We want to express the opportunity for the overwhelming support  that WTO Members have 
shown in supporting the language that the g7+ WTO Accession Group presented  to the General 
Council. This language  is very simple  - not complicated. We want to let you all know that we are still 
available for further discussion that will make you more comfortable with the language.  Our group, 
through this paragraph, is  only requesting that we all recogni ze that trade plays an important role 
in promoting economic development, peace and stability. Also, to welcome the efforts of fragile and 
conflict affected States to integrate and pa rticipate more effectively in the multilateral trading 
system. This is  the language we presented and we hop e that we will g arner greater support for it to 
form part of the MC12 outcome document.  
7.32.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the follow ing statement:  
7.33.   Let me first thank the Chair of the General Council and colleagues for their hard work on this 
document.  This is a good moment for a reality check. We still have a significant amount of issues to 
resolve before the Conference opens. Our comm on goal should be to try to agree on the greatest 
number of issues so that only a manageable handful of subjects are put to Ministers.  This in practice 
means that we need to make more progress and with greater urgency, to reduce brackets in the 
outcome document. We must also agree to make all efforts to try to close certain accompanying 
texts and documents ahead of the Conference.  We all agree that reforms are needed in this WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 37 - 
 
  organization. It is essential that, at MC12, Members give political priority to WTO  Reform and agree 
to set up an efficient and structured process of discussion in the WTO on how to make the WTO work 
better across its three functions. Let us agree on text to this end in the MC12 Ministerial Declaration 
that is concrete and non -prejudicia l as to the outcome. We cannot put this discussion off any longer.  
We also need to show that the WTO is not detached from reality and acknowledges the existence of 
global environmental challenges and climate change. We hope that in the Ministerial Declarat ion, 
Ministers do not shy away from reaffirming mutual support between trade and environmental policies 
as enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement and subsequent declarations.  
7.34.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the foll owing 
statement:  
7.35.   We commend the Chair  for starting consultations on this outcome document early. He has 
patiently sat through various mutations of the text to be able to obtain several clean paragraphs. 
We are grateful for that. I think the different perspectives at play in the WTO were quite obvious as 
we went through the process of exhausting our vocabula ry to find the perfect word that everyone 
could agree upon. I have no doubt that this exercise will continue. But we appreciate the fact that 
we remained – in spite of all these difficult situations – inclusive and with a spirit of consensus 
generation as we went forward to try and engage on the text. There were different perspectives and 
very different groups in the WTO in different configurati ons. The African Group will remain supportive 
of the situation of the LDCs, acceding countries, landlocked develop ing countries, and of course we 
look forward to having a paragraph on SVEs and NFIDCs . It is not what people would term a 
Christmas tree approach. It is a reality of what exists in the WTO and it must be reflected because  
Ministerial Conference s do not hap pen every day. On the other issues, the African Group will remain 
engaged. On WTO R eform, we agree to the question of reform under the purview of the General 
Council in dedicated sessions. We simply ask that on any other new issues to be brought in, and 
which are not based on multilateralism and on the specific mandate, there should be consensus on 
moving these issues forward. We remain engaged and we look forward to working with you.  
7.36.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statemen t: 
7.37.   We commend the Chair for his  patient and inclusive work on this document. Let me echo 
many of the words expressed by my EU colleague just a few moments ago.  Just to say that, o n the 
subject of Christmas decorations, I do not think it is appropriate to compare the empowerment of 
women, the greening of the global economy or the support for the 95 per cent of our businesses 
that are MSMEs with Christmas baubles.  
7.38.   The representative of Guatemala  delivered the following statement:  
7.39.   Guatemala commends the Chair for his  tireless efforts and the  Secretariat staff who are 
assisting him in this process.  In Guatemala's view, consensus on the outcome document is within 
reach. A successful conclusion will depend, however, on the fran k exchange of views a nd the political 
will of all Members. In this regard, Guatemala is concerned that there are still few Members objecting 
to major important issues without providing reasoned and adequate explanations to do so.  For 
example, one Member objected to the overwhe lming support for inclusion of a paragraph containing 
Ministers' commitment to revitalize the WTO negotiating function and to strengthen its rulemaking. 
Only this Member appears to be comfortable with the status quo  – a status quo that, over a period 
of 25  years, has only produced one multilateral agreement.  The same Member objected to 
mentioning climate change in the outcome document, despite being part of, and having agreed to a 
wide range of commitments at the Conference of the Parties, or COP26, of the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change.  The same Member, together with another Member, 
objected to a paragraph recognizing that women can benefit from trade, notwithstanding that, less 
than a month ago, these two Members agreed to a full par agraph concerning Women's 
Empowerment at the G20 meeting.  The same two Members also objected to a paragraph recognizing 
the critical role of MSMEs in economic and social development, while in the territory of one of them, 
there are above 63 million MSMEs p roviding employment to around 120 million persons; while in 
the other Member, there are above 2 million MSMEs, employing between 50 and 60 percent of its 
work force.  By providing these examples, Guatemala is in no way questioning the ability of Members 
to object, when they deem appropriate, to proposals by other Members. However, Members should 
provide reasoned and adequate explanations about their objections and they should fully engage 
with other Members with a view to finding mutually agreeable solutions . It is critical to reach 
consensus on the outcome document. The outcome document contains, as of today, important WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 38 - 
 
  political declarations that are necessary to reinvigorate the work of this organization. We also need 
to convey to the world that we care  – that we care about our stakeholders. Therefore, we urge all 
Members to show the necessary flexibility. My delegation stands ready to continue working 
constructively with all Members to ensure a successful conclusion of the outcome document.  
7.40.   The representati ve of Nepal  delivered the following statement:  
7.41.   Nepal commends the Chair for his  contribution to engaging all Members in developing the 
outcome document collectively through various round s of discussions. The main concerns of the LDC 
Group, as mentioned in the LDC Ministerial Declaration , will be reflected in the outcome document. 
Continuation of Members' commitment to the effective implementation of past Ministerial decisions 
on LDCs, smooth transition period for graduated LDCs and adoption of interim arran gement, 
technology transfer by the developed countries under the TRIPS Agreement, Work Programme on 
Electronic C ommerce to bridge the digital divide and capacity gaps, stimulus packages for the 
recovery of international trade with targeted program mes for e arly recovery of severely affected 
economies and sectors mainly in the LDCs are some of our priority areas for MC12. Similarly, support 
for capacity building to cope with challenges faced by LDCs in meeting NTM requirements, WTO 
Reform with a view to addre ssing emerging challenges, exploiting new opportunities and bridging 
the existing gaps in the WTO laws and practices, climate change and resilient economy by 
acknowledging traditional farming, ecotourism, and traditional health practices in the LDCs , among  
others , are other main areas of interest of the LDCs including my country Nepal. Finally, the  WTO's 
response to the COVID -19 pandemic should provide  special priority to LDCs and LLDCs.  
7.42.   The representative of Paraguay  delivered the following statement:  
7.43.   Paraguay commends the Chair for his efforts and for the transparency in this process. We 
have a number of preliminary comments on RD/GC/17/Rev.1. On the paragraphs concerning  WTO 
Reform, Paraguay would like to express its support for the reform of this organization and support 
the creation of an open Working Group for all Members with the aim of putting forward 
recommendations for an Action Plan with concrete deadlines for proposals.  We would  also like to 
make reference to a specific proposal for  a language which is included in the "Addition s" part of the 
outcome document, which is that language put forward by Mongolia for LLDCs. My delegation would 
like to stress that the language in this proposal, whil e still under internal consultations, does n ot 
seek to create a new subcategory of Members but rather to address trade policy and adapt them to 
the particular situation of the geographical circumstances of these Members to strengthen the WTO's 
ability to attend to the need of those Members. We there fore once again request that Members 
consider this language favourably and its inclusion in the MC12 outcome document . 
7.44.   The representative of the Philippines  delivered the following statement:  
7.45.   It feels as though we are now running the hardest mile in a mara thon. Many of us are starting 
to feel physically and mentally drained. We must have the mental fortitude to move forward and 
cross the finish line. I appreciate the work that has been done on the Political Declaration and the 
constructive approach displaye d by many delegations. We need a political outcome that will send 
the message that the WTO is back in business and we need a practical outcome that demonstrates 
our collective resolve to effectively respond to the pandemic and speak clearly on the WTO's 
contribution to trade and environment and Sustainable Development and we thank the Chair on his 
leadership with the constructive contributions of the ACP, through Ambassadors Cheryl Spencer and 
Chad Blackman, and other delegations leading to paragraph 5A. We  also thank the Chair  for 
RD/GC/17 /Rev.1. We appreciate how coherent and eloquent the text  now reads and note the 
important elements requiring Ministerial deliberations and guidance . The Philippines will continue to 
work with others in producing a balanced  outcome that shows the WTO is ready to confront the 
many challenges before us: from WTO Reform, development, environment and sustainability, to 
pandemic response.  We take note of the ongoing small group discussions on a range of issues, and 
specifically o n the draft Declaration on the WTO Response to the Pandemic. We encourage pragmatic 
convergence on the text that is on the table. Let us show to the world that the WTO is relevant and 
able to finish this marathon exercise through to its successful conclusi on. WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 39 - 
 
  7.46.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
7.47.   I join others in thanking the Chair  for his efforts to guide us towards a possible consensus 
outcome document. The United States has worked hard to find language where we can , to allow 
Members to express their views, consistent with the guiding principles that the Chair  set out. If this 
is going to be a consensus document, it must articulate those views and words that we can all agree 
with. We have heard several interventions tod ay that indicate that some Members continue to seek 
to push others across well -known redlines, while at the same time telling others to avoid their own 
redlines. We want to remind the Chair of what we said at the beginning of this process, that is the 
benchmark of success for the United States means a document that provides Ministers with a basis 
for understanding where we are as an organization and assist them in giving us guidance to where 
they want us to go . 
7.48.   The representative of Ecuador  delivered the fo llowing statement:  
7.49.   We commend the  Chair for the work and leadership in this process. We are optimistic in 
achieving an outcome document for MC12. As a developing country and a n SVE, Ecuador considers 
a multilateral rules -based system based on transparency, openness and inclusion . The work of this 
house and trade can and should become a positive agent for economic recovery and international 
trade post -COVID -19. We should form part of the international response to the current health crisis, 
in line with other international organizations and we must show that we can participate in a global 
response to COVID -19 – a response based on cooperation at the international level and solidarity. 
Equally,  sustainable development and protection and preservation of the environment are key 
objectives for th is house. The relationship of trade  with climate change, natural disasters, pollution 
and loss of biodiversity must be re flected  in our outcome document. This is very important, and we 
wish to achieve a consensual agreement on this . Environment is a concer n for all WTO Members . As 
other Members have already expressed , we must show that the WTO is not disconnected from reality 
and that it recognizes the existence of global environmental challenges. We hope that the Ministerial 
Declaration will allow our auth orities to reconfirm the link between trade and environment, which is 
already established in the Marrakesh Agreement and in subsequent declarations. We cannot be the 
only international multilateral organization which does not express its will to contribute  to addressing 
these global challenges. The same with w omen's  economic  empowerment which does not address a 
minority . It addresses 50 per cent of the global population . To speak on  gender issues is to speak 
on the recovery of the global economy . This seems  obvious . But it looks like this is not the case  for 
some Members. We therefore hope that this matter will also achieve consensus.  
7.50.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
7.51.   I agree with Malaysia . We must join hands to secure a mult ilateral agreed outcome document 
at this Conference. And then of course we must quickly use some hand saniti zer. Because of the 
pandemic , this is the first conference after the milestone of this organi zation reaching the age of a 
ripe quarter -century. It i s an opportunity for renewal and revival on all three pillars.  We need to give 
effect to that through a process of WTO Reform – to agree to a process, as others have said, on how 
to make the organi zation work better – with clear guidelines to report with r ecommendations for 
decision by the next Ministerial Conference.  All of us have ideas to contribute and nobody should be 
prejudiced by this effort.  WTO Reform has been discussed in many places in recent years – it is time 
it is taken up here, in this house,  and time to act.  Australia is working for an MC12 package that 
delivers meaningful multilateral outcomes for our collective future.  On fisheries subsidies, we are 
closer than we have ever been to finali zing these negotiations – now, we must come together and 
agree on a meaningful deal that effectively curbs harmful fisheries subsidies. The sustainability of 
our oceans and marine life hangs in the balance and the international community is looking to the 
WTO to make a contribution to preserve global fish stocks.  
7.52.   On trade and health, we thank Ambassador Walker for his considerable efforts in consulting 
Members on possible MC12 outcomes. It is important that we achieve an outcome on trade and 
health that is ambitious enough to meet stak eholder's expectations for what the WTO should be able 
to deliver in response to a crisis of this magnitude. At a minimum, this will require us to reaffirm the 
value of openness in the international trading system, and the importance of ensuring any 
emerge ncy trade measures, including export restrictions, are targeted, temporary, transparent and 
consistent with WTO rules.  We have heard the concerns from some Members regarding capacity 
constraints and the need to preserve policy space. However, we have also heard the priority that 
many Members, particularly those smaller developing states that depend on imports for some critical WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 40 - 
 
  medical supplies, place on the issues of transparency and export restrictions. Those who are 
fortunate enough to be producers of suc h goods need to demonstrate leadership on these issues.  
We also encourage all Members to engage in ongoing discussions on the intellectual property issues 
with a spirit of compromise and flexibility.  Action on agriculture is critical for global food securi ty, 
sustainability and the environment – and for levelling the playing field in agricultural trade. We must 
grasp this opportunity to put in train a meaningful agricultural reform process that will deliver 
modalities by MC13. We cannot let this process elu de us for a further 25 years. It is now likewise 
evident th at the  plurilateral negotiations are likely to provide a baseline of success for the Ministerial 
Conference. Substantial progress has been made on the e -commerce and investment facilitation 
Joint S tatement Initiatives , and the conclusion of the Services Domestic Regulation Joint Statement 
Initiative – launched at the last Ministerial Conference – demonstrates much -needed advancing of 
the rulemaking function. Through the MC12 package th e WTO has the opportunity to assist the 
global response and recovery from the pandemic . We have the opportunity to act collectively to 
shape a sustainable and fair future for our world.  
7.53.   The representative of Chile delivered the following statement:  
7.54.   Chile commends the Ch air for all his  efforts and the transparency with which he has led this 
process . Many Members have already raised this and thank ed him for his efforts in bringing us 
towards a solid Declaration  – the first in four years. The process is going well, and we n eed to show 
that we are committed and flexible . But we have also seen that some Members are not as flexible 
as what is called for . To this end, t he WTO's commitment to multilateralism, development, women's 
economic empowerment, MSMEs, environment and WTO R eform  are very important points to raise . 
7.55.   The representative of Thailand  delivered the following statement:  
7.56.   I place on record Thailand's sincere gratitude for the hard work of Ambassador George Mina 
from Australia on his kind assistance on Thailand's issue s in the dispute case and we highly 
appreciate it. Together with the Secretariat , I also place on record our appreciation to Ambassador 
Manuel Teehankee my good friend from the Philippines for his kind cooperation . We cannot forget 
the Chair because he is the one who suggested that we undertake this when he was the Chair of the 
DSB so that at this moment we appreciate that things have come to, not conclusion, but arriving at 
the point where Thailand is very grateful for the help and cooperation from all. I also thank 
Ambassador Sørli for his hard work . Thailand places importance on the TRIPS Waiver issue. We are 
quite flexible on the details, but we definitely look forward to seeing a part of the WTO Response to 
the Pandemic as one of the deliverables at MC1 2. I do not have to explain that it is very important 
to the credibility of the WTO . This is an issue which is critical to the world  and the WTO can play an 
important role in helping us move towards fulfilling that objective. I have also just looked at 
RD/CG/17/Rev.1.  At our meeting l ast night , Thailand said that we would like to have some time to 
look at the paragraph on LDCs . I am very delighted to report that my capital can support the current 
language and paragraph on the LDCs that we saw the abbreviate d version from last night . Thailand 
has always been supportive of LDCs and work closely with them.  Now, we hop e that the paragraph 
on LDC s will be operationalized in the future and we  look forward to future cooperation with them.  
7.57.   On other issues , Thailand,  like many others , see the importance of WTO Reform . We would 
definitely like to see that as an element in the outcome document . We should reach a common 
understanding on working towards  an ambitious goal comprising of an  agreement at MC 12 to 
establish a W orking Group or some kind of permanent, semi -permanent, body to work on this issue. 
We can be flexible to look at other options but we definitely think that this is a must. Although the 
WTO is not a person, it  is time for  it to take a look at itself. I t is time to reinvigorat e and consider 
how we can improve this organization . On trade and environment , Thailand  support s the inclusion 
of a paragraph on t his area.  But we would like to see the language that is as close to the COP 
statement as possible. Thailand has been an active participant of this issue in APEC , among others . 
The WTO can definitely play some role in contributing to this. Lastly, Thailand  looks forward to 
working with the Chair, the Director -General  and other colleagues in the  upcoming  MC12.  
7.58.   The representative of Tunisia  delivered the following statement:  
7.59.   We take note of the revision prepared under the Facilitator's  responsibility and await its 
circulation to better examine it.  We align ourselves with the statement delivered by Pakistan on 
behalf of the co -sponsors of document JOB/GC/278 and we stress the paramount importance of the 
process, which could have a direct  impact on the credibility of our organization and could be, in our WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 41 - 
 
  view, a barometer of the success of the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  The few days remaining until 
MC12 will be crucial for Members to demonstrate the unity and the flexibility needed to  respond 
effectively to the current pandemic, and to prepare for any future pandemics.  In this regard, we 
would have preferred that the facilitator's text be more responsive to the considerations of 
developing countries and least -developed countries, which  would have saved us precious time that 
was lost these past few weeks in the search for the right balance.  Tunisia has engaged constructively 
and positively throughout this process and will continue to do so until we arrive at a meaningful and 
equitable ou tcome that will benefit all Members.  Tunisia's  main concerns have been reflected in 
document JOB/GC/278, which aims, in particular, to strike the right balance that would meet the 
needs and ambitions of various Members, including developing countries and L DCs. In that regard, 
a global response to the pandemic must, in our view, cover all sectors and aspects affected by the 
pandemic. In an exceptional health, economic and social situation, it is of the utmost importance 
that we are able to use all the propos als that can help to the tackle the pandemic and promote a 
rapid recovery of economic systems, many of which seem to be on the verge of collapsing.  Therefore, 
my delegation strongly supports the inclusion of a positive response to the request for a waiver from 
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement in the final text. It would be a shame if WTO rules deprived the 
world of a real opportunity to strengthen global production of vaccines and other medical products 
needed for the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19. Likewise, particular attention 
should be paid to the specific challenges faced by the countries most vulnerable to crises. Thus, the 
issues of food security, economic recovery, resilience -building, and technology and know -how 
transfer, cannot be ignored during this process.  Furthermore, these Members should not see their 
policy space reduced by new obligations that would impact their ability to deal with crises.  I would 
also like to acknowledge Members' greater involvement in this final stretch  and the work undertaken 
by the small working group to provide updates on landing zones  in order to achieve a balanced text  
representative of the concerns and priorities of all parties.  Allow me to reiterate our commitment, 
like the majority of developing countries, to an effective and tangible WTO response to the pandemic, 
and to insist that, as a matter of priority, all voices and all concerns be heard and treated equally.  
7.60.   The representative of Vanuatu  delivered the following statement:  
7.61.   We have listened v ery carefully to the comments made by delegates and we commend the 
Chair for conducting a very transparent process which we support. Some Members' positions during 
the discussions of the MC12 draft outcome document are yet to be further explained to us but  I 
think that we should not ignore Members' views . We should all keep engaged so that an outcome 
can be arrived at without so much of extreme positions taken by  all of us.  
7.62.   The representative of Iceland  delivered the following statement:  
7.63.   I commend the  Chair for his work and engagement on this outcome document and for taking 
our proposal into account. As a co -chair of the Informal Working Group on Trade and Gender, Iceland 
welcomes the language on women's economic empowerment in the MC12 outcome document als o 
still bracketed. In case there are any doubts about the inclusion of this text in the document, Iceland 
would like to highlight that gender equality benefits societies and economies in several concrete 
ways, including having a positive effect on trade an d it contributes to increasing economic growth. 
We urge Members to engage constructively towards achieving consensus on this important topic.  
7.64.   The representative of Argentina  delivered the following statement:  
7.65.   I commend the Chair for this report and for the efforts undertaken at the sessions convened 
to draft the Ministerial Declaration for MC12. Argentina is actively participating in this process and 
we welcome the commitment, effort and flexibility shown by all  Members to reaching a consensus, 
especially on issues that are the subject of opposing views. We are aware of the systemic concerns 
of some Members, but we also believe that there needs to be sufficient flexibility to establish a 
collective way forward th at will give fresh impetus to the WTO in all its functions and provide it with 
the tools to deal with current and future challenges. We hope that everyone's commitment will be 
reflected in a document that sends out the necessary signals in this regard.  We also thank 
Ambassador Walker for his report on the WTO response to the pandemic.  With a week to go until 
the start of the Ministerial Conference, we reiterate that we do not believe we can realistically be 
expected to resolve, in such a short space of time , the profound conceptual differences that remain 
over the elements to be included in that response. We must adopt a balanced approach and think 
collectively. We cannot harbour high ambitions on the issues that each of us considers to be 
important, while a t the same time disregarding or downplaying others that may be core issues for WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 42 - 
 
  other Members.  The way forward must be to acknowledge that all these issues are relevant and that 
they must be addressed, whether as a proposal adopted for immediate action or t hrough a 
commitment to deal with them after the Ministerial Conference, with specific objectives and defined 
deadlines. The declaration and action plan proposed by the facilitator as the structure of an outcome 
offer the pathway and platform required to gu ide that discussion. Let us be pragmatic. Let us not 
put our Ministers in the awkward position of having to tell their citizens that the WTO has nothing to 
say about the pandemic and that it will continue to act as if nothing has happened.  
7.66.   The representati ve of Uruguay  delivered the following statement:  
7.67.   I thank the Chair  for his efforts to bringing us towards a common Declaration, which for the 
first time in several years has managed to show the general feeling of the  entire  Membership. As 
recently shared i n this room, 95 per cent of our economy is formed by MSMEs, many of them are 
led by women . The pandemic has had a very serious effect on MSMEs and a very serious effect on 
women. Support for those MSMEs which have been significantly affected and who will b e crucial in 
the recovery and committing ourselves to women's economic empowerment will undoubt edly 
support these individuals and these key players. Helping MSMEs to integrate themselves better into 
international trade will contribute to our common economi c recovery. These are some reflections, 
but I think they are shared by everyone . I do not think anybody here in this room could possibly be 
against them  – be against MSMEs  and women's economic empowerme nt. This is a safe path towards 
a joint declaration re presentative of all.  
7.68.   The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
7.69.   The outcome document should reflect three main points: First, a reaffirmation of the core 
values and principles underpinning this organization. This is now well covered in  the agreed part of 
the text. Second, we need to acknowledge that we have to do better, meaning that we need to agree 
to start work on WTO Reform that covers all three pillars. Third, the WTO needs to adapt and be 
relevant to the challenges of today's worl d. These challenges are embodied in the concept of 
sustainability in its social, economic and environmental dimensions. The proposed paragraphs 
addressing women's economic empowerment, MSME s and environment and climate are all relevant 
in this perspective and should be included in the outcome document.  
7.70.   The representative of Costa Rica  delivered the following statement : 
7.71.   I commend the Chair for  the efforts he has made to produce this text. We highlight  the 
importance for Costa Rica of reaching an agreement in  relation to WTO R eform that allows us to 
revitalize the functioning of this organization in its three pillars: negotiation, dispute settlement, and 
transparency and monitoring.  I also highlight  the importance of  trade and environment issues, in 
particular the contribution of the WTO to sustainability and the fight against climate change, as well 
as the recognition of the importance of promoting the participation of women in international trade 
and their empowerme nt, and the WTO's contribution to promote  MSMEs.  
7.72.   The Chair encourage d all delegations to remain actively and constructively engaged in this 
process in an effort to build convergences in the remaining days ahead of the Conference and to 
clean up the text as  much as possible, so as to ensure a manageable agenda for the Ministers.  
7.73.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's  report12, the statements made, and that work13 
was continuing in the immediate next few days on the draft MC12 outcome document, as he ha d 
said in his report, and that any results from this work w ould be before the Ministerial Conference, 
for consideration.  
 
12 The Chair's report wa s subsequently circulated in document JOB/GC/ 282. 
13 See RD/GC/17/Rev.2.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 43 - 
 
  7.2  WTO Response to the Pandemic – Report by the Facilitator  
7.74.   Ambassador David Walker (New Zealand), Facilitator for the WTO Response to the  Pandemic , 
provided the following report:  
7.75.   I am pleased to provide my report to the General Council on the WTO's multilateral response 
to the pandemic, in view of the forthcoming 12th Ministerial Conference.  Let me first recap the road 
that took us here today. Since my appointment as Facilitator on 22 June at an informal meeting of 
the General Council, I have undertaken consultations and convened meetings in a range of formats, 
and I provided my first report to the General Council on 27 July (JOB/GC/ 269). As I have done 
throughout this process, I have met with and listened to any delegation that wanted to consult with 
me and convey its views.  
7.76.   In September, I convened a series of thematic sessions, focusing on themes inspired from 
earlier discussions, in particular from the consultations that Ambassadors Spencer and Tan had 
undertaken with the Membership, as captured in RD/GC/14. Those six themes were: (1) 
transparency and monitoring; (2) export restrictions and prohibitions; (3) trade facilitation, 
regulatory coherence and cooperation, and tariffs; (4) the role of services trade; (5) collaboration 
with other international organizations and engagement with other key stakeholders, and (6) a 
framework for future pandemics and crises. In addition to those s essions, I also held consultations 
in different configurations, including meetings with Group Coordinators and other delegations.  
7.77.   In my second report to the General Council, on 7 October, I provided an overview, theme by 
theme, of what I felt was emerging  from discussions with Members. This report was circulated as 
JOB/GC/273. At that meeting, I also informed Members of the intention to carry the work forward 
by undertaking a solutions -oriented text -based discussion. Accordingly, I convened three text -based 
sessions on 12, 15 and 18 October, and also convened a meeting with Group Coordinators and other 
delegations on 21 October. For each of those sessions, I circulated, under my own responsibility, 
draft text with the intention of helping to focus and struc ture discussions. Over the course of October, 
I introduced a number of specific revisions that, in light of what I heard from delegations in those 
sessions, seemed to reflect emerging convergence.  
7.78.   At the Heads of Delegations meeting of 25 October, I shared  draft text for a Ministerial 
Declaration on the WTO Response to the COVID -19 Pandemic, accompanied by a post -MC12 Plan 
on Pandemic Preparedness and Resilience. This is contained in JOB/GC/279. While prepared under 
my own responsibility, that draft text wa s rooted in discussions held by delegations over the last 
months. It was inspired by the report I provided to the General Council in JOB/GC/273, which itself 
was based on discussions and consultations that had taken place in the thematic sessions in 
Septem ber. Those discussions and consultations, in turn, drew inspiration from the proposals put 
forward by Members as well as from the compilation of elements gleaned from the consultations 
undertaken by Ambassadors Spencer and Tan, contained in RD/GC/14.  
7.79.   After my report to Heads of Delegations on 25 October, I convened meetings on 28 October 
and 9 November with Group Coordinators and other delegations. At those meetings, I recalled that 
the draft text circulated in JOB/GC/279 aimed to reflect areas of emerging  convergence, in light of 
what I had heard. However, a number of outstanding issues remained, where delegations still had 
very different views. Indeed, there were issues that some Members wanted to see included or that 
they wanted to see addressed quite di fferently, while others disagreed. Also, on various parts of the 
draft text, there were questions about what aspects might be addressed in the Declaration and what 
should rather be reflected in the post -MC12 plan. In order to achieve a multilateral outcome , I then 
stressed the need for delegations to engage with those that had different views and to find common 
ground.  
7.80.   At another meeting with Group Coordinators and other delegations on 12 November, I 
indicated that I had been discussing with delegations in different configurations, both bilaterally and 
in small groups, with the objective of getting Members from different  corners of the room to 
converge. I brought together a group of Members with different views, and of different levels of 
development, so as to help identify landing zones on outstanding issues. This "reference group" of 
delegations representing various poi nts of views across the Membership worked extensively and 
constructively. Their discussions contributed to the identification of common ground in some areas. 
On other issues, this group has not fully converged, but their discussions have, in my view, helpe d 
to point towards possible landing zones. Last week, I convened another informal meeting with Group WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 44 - 
 
  Coordinators, on 16 November, and then open -ended consultations on 17, 18 and 19 November, 
where I gave examples of areas where the reference group seemed to have found some elements 
of common ground, and where I listened to further views from Members as a whole.  
7.81.   The draft text that I am presenting today will be attached to the written copy of my report, 
which will be circulated later today. This draft text  is again submitted under my own responsibility. 
This revision from the October 25 text aims to reflect my best assessment of possible landing zones 
on outstanding issues, in light of what I have so far heard from Members from different corners. 
Naturally,  some will think that the draft is not sufficiently ambitious, while others will have opposite 
views. Nobody will think that it reflects their own national preferences. I think that the text is now 
hopefully much closer to a possible landing zone and accep tance by Members at MC12.  
7.82.   I would now like to highlight some of the changes to the draft text since my report to Heads 
of Delegations. But before that, let me point to two important aspects that have not changed. First, 
preambular language continues to co nfirm that the draft Declaration would not alter the rights and 
obligations provided in WTO agreements. The focus is on political language to reaffirm shared values 
and help guide our collective response to the pandemic. The intention is not to develop, fo r the 
Ministerial Conference, a new legal instrument that would modify existing rights and obligations 
under the WTO agreements.  Second, as indicated from the start of my work as Facilitator, proposals 
under significant consideration in the TRIPS Council h ave not been the subject of the discussions 
that I have convened. Throughout this process, however, delegations have acknowledged the 
relevance of making an outcome of the TRIPS Council considerations part of the WTO Response to 
the Pandemic and a number o f delegations have made clear that an outcome in that area was of 
critical importance.  
7.83.   Changes that I introduced in the draft text were done under my own responsibility, but were 
inspired by discussions between Members from different sides of the issues. G enerally, you will see 
that the Declaration has been streamlined, while the annexed post -MC12 Action Plan on Pandemic 
Response, Preparedness and Resilience has been further developed. The logic to this recalibration is 
that certain specific issues did not appear ready for political commitments at the Ministerial 
Conference, but should form part of a structured plan of work after the Ministerial. Overall, keeping 
a balance between a credible political declaration for MC12 and a robust post -MC12 Action Plan i s 
key to a document that will be acceptable to all.  
7.84.   While the draft text does not aim to duplicate discussions that are ongoing in the TRIPS 
Council, it now includes a placeholder in the preamble to refer to an outcome of those discussions. 
In addition, I have included language that does not interfere with the TRIPS Council process and 
that I had orally shared with delegations on earlier occasions. Preambular language thus notes the 
shared desire to ensure that the intellectual property system supports Memb ers' responses to the 
pandemic and the Action Plan includes IP issues in the list of areas for discussion post -MC12. Finally, 
to reflect an area where there seems to be emerging convergence, the draft text also recalls the 
Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agr eement and Public Health of 2001.  
7.85.   In the preamble, a number of additions were made, aiming to capture elements of 
convergence in the reference group, for example to acknowledge the impact of the pandemic on 
food and economic insecurity, particularly in de veloping countries and LDCs, and to highlight the 
differing challenges posed by the recovery. Additional language was also included in the introduction, 
so as to reflect emerging convergence in recent discussions. One such addition aims to carefully 
recogn ize the impact of issues related to vaccine certificates, drawing from the language in the 
recent G20 Leaders' Declaration. Given the different views among delegations on this aspect, this 
seems to be, in my view, a possible landing zone, and to reflect wh at the traffic could bear.  
7.86.   Sections 2 to 5, on "transparency and monitoring", "export prohibitions or restrictions", "trade 
facilitation, regulatory cooperation and coherence, and tariffs", and "the role of trade in services" 
were streamlined so as to poin t to landing zones in view of previous differences of opinions, and 
items were moved to the Annex so as to boost the Action Plan. The sections on "collaboration with 
other intergovernmental organizations and stakeholders" and on the "framework for future 
preparedness" were also streamlined.  
7.87.   The draft Declaration also includes a new section on "Supporting Inclusive Recovery and 
Resilience", which draws from discussions in the reference group. The section underscores the critical 
role of the WTO in promoting inclusive growth and development and the importance of understanding WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 45 - 
 
  how WTO rules have supported Members, notably developing and least -developed countries, during 
the COVID -19 pandemic and their role in future pandemics. It also includes text on food secu rity in 
the context of resilience -building. Clearly, views remain different on the substance of a number of 
these issues, but the draft text aims to acknowledge these issues and to highlight the contours of a 
possible landing zone for the purpose of this d ocument. On this aspect, like on others, Members will 
need to continue engaging in a constructive manner to find ways to converge.  
7.88.   Finally, the Action Plan has been expanded and provides additional detail and information on 
the various issues relevant to addressing the response to the current pandemic and to enhancing 
future preparedness and resilience. The Action Plan lists various substantive areas of discussion and 
focus. It also suggests some aspects of orientation that each WTO body would seek to addr ess in 
light of factors they may consider relevant. Such factors may include levels of development or the 
situation of import -dependent Members, for example.  The basic structure and operation of the Action 
Plan has also been clarified. One aspect that rema ins to be decided is whether the entity overseeing 
work under the Action Plan will be the General Council or a newly created Body. Throughout the 
text, these two alternatives are reflected, and in brackets, pending Members' agreement on which 
entity should  lead the work.  
7.89.   Members need to get to landing zones and to bridge the differences of views that had been 
expressed over the last weeks. I hope that the draft text that I just described, and which will be 
circulated with my report, will help us to that.  The world is watching, and we need to focus on what 
can be agreed, not on issues that will make it more difficult to reach convergence. The plight of the 
many small and import -dependent Members has grown louder in recent weeks and all Members will 
surely ha ve listened carefully. The importance of a meaningful and credible multilateral outcome on 
this topic for the forthcoming Ministerial Conference has never been clearer. I convey this draft text 
to the Chair and Members for consideration in capitals. I hope  that Members can continue to narrow 
gaps under your guidance so as to help bring to Ministers a text that is as close to being agreed as 
possible.  
7.90.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
7.91.   Nigeria supports the Facilitator Process. I n our view, this process must remain open, 
transparent, and inclusive. We believe any meaningful outcome in this area should include the TRIPS 
Waiver that would pave the way for the ramping up of production of diagnostics, therapeutics, and 
vaccines to com bat COVID -19 as well as commitment on technology transfers to foster the building 
of pandemic resilient health sectors in developing countries . Nigeria would continue to engage 
constructively on this issue towards the delivery of a win -win outcome.  
7.92.   The rep resentative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement : 
7.93.   We deliver this statement on behalf of the cosponsors of the document JOB/GC/278 namely, 
Egypt, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uganda  and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  
We thank  the Facilitator for his efforts and work done so far. We note that while work is still going 
on to produce a consolidated text, the Facilitator has tabled his own text. We understand that this 
is under his own responsibility. However, we feel that a balan ced, meaningful, and representative 
consolidated text reflecting the needs and ambitions of various Members including developing 
countries and LDCs is a necessary step towards achieving an outcome on this issue at MC12. We 
need to produce that text in a Member-driven process and allow time for Members to finali ze a text 
that can be accepted by the Membership at MC12.  We have already spent considerable time and 
energy on this issue as we felt that the text from the beginning needed to be more meaningful and 
balanced. We stress that the work should remain Member -driven, transparent and inclusive. It 
should allow as much time as may be necessary to achieve the desired result leading up to the MC12 
and during the conference , if necessary. It should particularly allow adequate time for small 
delegations, who are already stretched due to limited resources and time pressures, to participate 
fully in the consultations in various configurations.  
7.94.   Specifically, it is our considered view – reiterated on multiple occasio ns – that without a 
meaningful TRIPS Waiver, and an effective IP component, there will be no possibility to harvest a 
credible WTO response to the pandemic.  In terms of the ongoing work, we have noticed that several 
issues of importance to the cosponsors s till remain in brackets or are pending effective engagement, 
while several others have been cleared. For us, it is important that the balance in the text is achieved 
not only in the number of issues dealt with, but also across and within sections of the do cument WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 46 - 
 
  where all issues are given equivalent weightage.  For instance, the specific needs for policy space of 
developing countries and LDCs must be recogni zed and the principle of  S&DT be upheld as a right 
for all developing countries and LDCs. Measures or policy tools for economic resilience and recovery 
during pandemics or similar crises must, therefore, be clearly emphasi zed. The need to address IP 
barriers undermining diversification of production and supply of COVID -19 products must be 
underscored. At t he same time, recognition of critical food security issues in developing and LDC  
Members  further exacerbated by the pandemic and similar crises must be given proper attention.  
7.95.   On all issues, and in all sections of the document, we must remain mindful in o ur drafting that 
we do not undermine existing WTO rules or principles established under the Marrakech Agreement , 
diminish any flexibilities already available to developing and LDC Members , take due regard of 
limited resources and capacity constraints of th ose Members , do not compromise the WTO's M ember -
driven nature and give due regard to past mandates established through ministerial declarations.  
Care must also be taken to balance the various sections of the document. Any work to be undertaken 
for future p reparedness post MC12 must flow from recogni zed elements within the declaration. The 
Declaration is fundamental for enabling a political engagement over the work plan and the related 
coordinating entity. We firmly believe that the best place to work on the  response to the pandemic 
and other crises post MC12 would be the General Council which has established rules of procedure 
and would simplify the process and make it more time and resource efficient going towards the next 
MC. We remain committed to the for mulation of a response by the WTO to the pandemic which is 
useful for the credibility of the organi zation and for the benefit of its Members. This would be a 
document that is balanced, meaningful and representative of the concerns and challenges of the 
wider membership especially those whose economies have been worse hit by the pandemic.  
7.96.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the  following statement : 
7.97.   We like to sincerely thank Ambassador Walker's tireless efforts and leadership thus far and 
we need him to continue helping us to successfully complete this work for a few more days. On the 
WTO's Multilateral Response to the Pandemic,  we hope to have a high ambitious Ministerial 
Declaration and an accompanied Action Plan. But if the high ambition cannot be achieved because 
of divided views on certain issues, we can live with a little lower ambitious Declaration, with those 
unresolved i ssues being put into the Action Plan so that we can continuously deliberate on these 
issues at the post -MC12 period. We are pleased to hear that the Action Plan has been expanded. 
This would be very important for our future preparedness for public health r isk of similar nature. In 
any event, we will be ready and constructive to help find a landing zone.  
7.98.   The representative of Brunei Darussalam  delivered the following statement : 
7.99.   Brunei Darussalam is making this statement on the MC12 Outcome Document and the W TO 
Response to the Pandemic, respectively. At the outset I would like to thank the Chair and the 
Facilitator  and the ir respective teams within the Secretariat for all the hard work and tireless effort 
put in to get us this far. There has been good progress  on the MC12 draft Outcome Document and 
negotiations have reached a stage where we can realistically view  that a consensus based Ministerial 
Declaration is within reach. However, this will only be the case if we stick to the path we are on, and 
continue to  exercise flexibility and a willingness to make compromises. We would therefore urge 
proponents of proposals that have not achieved support or consensus to reconsider their inclusion 
or their approaches. The general overarching consideration should be the importance of achieving a 
Ministerial Declaration that is agreed to by all Members, to show that the WTO remains united in the 
cause of a multilateral rules -based organization. In the same vein, it is equally important to have a 
consensus -based outcome on the WTO Response to the Pandemic to show that the WTO can come 
together in times of global crisis and can speak in one single voice about the devastating impact of 
the pandemic to the global economy, and that we are willing, indeed eager to work together t owards 
its recovery. We urge all sides to consider the importance of this issue and of a united response  – 
not for mere optics but to ensure the WTO provides a real and meaningful contribution to all people.  
7.100.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the  ACP Group  delivered the following statement : 
7.101.   We look forward to wrapping up our negotiations on the MC12 outcome document. This is a 
priority of the ACP Group. We have not had a declaration since 2015 and so we believe the WTO 
needs political guidance on the many issues that confront  it. This is especially so given the 
unprecedented environment in which the multilateral trading system currently operates. Hence, the 
outcome document should seek to direct the WTO's operations to a focus on development and WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 47 - 
 
  elevating the interests of developing countries and LDCs, especially in the context of building back 
better from the COVID -19 Pandemic.  We do hope that the document would be able to focus on the 
issues of relevance to the organization. We take note of the in tention by Members to include 
language on digitali zation in the document. We believe that if the issue of digitali zation is to be 
addressed in an outcome document, we must take the opportunity to make reference to the digital 
divide in our Members, the lac k of digital infrastructure and the role that the 1998 Work Programme 
can play in advancing the interest of developing and LDC  Members .  
7.102.   The issue of trade and environment is an issue of interest to the ACP Group . In particular, 
natural disasters and clima te change -induced events often affect our trade infrastructure and our 
ability to integrate in the global economy. Additionally, we constantly experience trade barriers 
imposed under the guise of environmental measures. This is an issue that must be treate d with 
delicately in the outcome document.  The document must make reference to S&DT and treat it as a 
fundamental part of WTO rules. We anticipate that the document refers to Paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Development agenda and the central role of the CTD  SS in  this regard.  LDC and LLDC issues must 
be properly represented in the document. We also call for concessions from acceding developing 
countries to be commensurate with their capacity and development needs.  As the document seeks 
to address WTO Reform, this is a matter supported by the ACP Group but we are of the view that 
we should be minimalist in approach and should seek to avoid inclusion of sensitive issues. We have 
made a proposal on WTO Reform on screen which we sanitized for political sensitivities an d ensured 
that it accomplishes our objectives. We stand ready to engage constructively on this proposal.  
7.103.   On the COVID response document, we renew our support for the initiative and we will 
support the Facilitator. The outcome should not create rules nor al ter Members' rights and 
obligations. It should include issues of interest to all Members. We therefore welcome the Facilitator's 
effort to take on the ideas of various Members through a drafting group. This is commendable. We 
urge patience from the Facilitator and from Members in this regard and call on the process to run its 
natural course without usurping the process. The process should be inclusive and transparent and 
all small group processes should b e open to interested delegations.  For us, the WTO has an important 
role to play in complementing the work of international organi zations and other stakeholders in 
respect of responding to the impact of the pandemic from a health, stabili zation, recovery an d 
sustainable rebuilding perspective.  We anticipate that Ministers will be able to use MC12 to effectively 
guide the organization on how we carry out this task. For this to happen, however, the onus is on 
us, Ambassadors in Geneva, to make the necessary pr eparation so that solid, relevant and 
appropriate recommendations can be put to our Ministers to facilitate a decision. We expect that the 
facilitator process will not only stabili ze, recover and rebuild, but also leaves us with a blueprint as 
it relates t o how we respond to future international crises. We agree that any outcome from the 
process must address the health dimension of the crisis especially from a TRIPS and COVID 
perspective taking into account work in the TRIPS Council.  
7.104.   The representative of Guatemala  delivered the following statement : 
7.105.   Guatemala thank s the Facilitator for his continued efforts in conducting the discussions on 
this issue. We look forward to receiving his new draft text. The pandemic reminded us how much 
international cooperation  is needed to address global challenges. Members' individual efforts to deal 
with the pandemic are insufficient. International coordination is key. Members must cooperate with 
a view to provide a coordinated response to the pandemic.  Trade has been playing  an essential role 
in moving vaccines and medical goods around the world. The WTO rules -based system has 
underpinned this process and we need to improve it for the benefit of all Members, especially the 
small developing countries and LDCs that depend on im ports. Trade is part of the response to the 
pandemic. The WTO is us – the Members. We all need to respond. We are very proud to say that 
the WTO is a Member -driven organization. I encourage all delegations to engage constructively and 
find practical soluti ons. As I noted at last week's  meeting, the pandemic was declared almost two 
years ago. Yet, there is no formal response from the WTO to it. MC12  is a unique opportunity to 
provide the much -needed response to the pandemic. Failure is simply not an option.  Guatemala 
does not participate in the small group negotiations on the response of the WTO to the pandemic. 
We have been informed about proposals that were tabled by different groups of Members and we 
know that there are ongoing discussions to find mutually  agreed solutions.  While we value Members' 
contributions, absent an agreed outcome, Guatemala considers that the first text proposed by the 
Facilitator represented a good compromise solution. Guatemala looks forward to reviewing the new 
draft proposal by t he Facilitator.  Members need to be pragmatic and weight the Facilitator's text WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 48 - 
 
  against the scenario of no response to the pandemic . Guatemala stands ready to make constructive 
contributions to this process.  
7.106.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered the following statement : 
7.107.   The LDC Group thank s the Facilitator for his tireless efforts to find convergence amongst 
Members on the WTO Response to the Pandemic.  We refer to our statement made under this sub -
item at the TNC held on 19 November.14 
7.108.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement : 
7.109.   We reiterate our support to the Facilitator -led process on the WTO Response to the 
Pandemic. The trade -related impact of the pandemic on our individual economies is significant and 
requires us to ensure that the WTO develops a dedicated response to the ongoing pandemic. The 
discussions must remain transparent, inclusive and complementary to the re sponse by other 
international institutions in responding to the impact of the crisis. The discourse in the WTO must 
also be reflective of the views and interest of all Members. We are aware of the linkages that exist 
between these and the discussions that are ongoing in the TRIPS Council . We must  reconcile both 
of these areas if we are to ensure that the WTO in charge with the development and management 
of trade rules can address issues that are the core of its function. The CARICOM Group has a systemic 
interest in the WTO's response and will continue to engage constructively in this regard and we wish 
to align our intervention with the statement delivered by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Group.  
7.110.   The representative of Sri Lanka  delivered the following statemen t: 
7.111.   On the MC 12 outcome document, Sri Lanka highly commends the Chair for the very 
transparent process launched for this purpose. Due to his determination and the manner in which 
the meetings are organized , small and marginalized delegations such as Sri Lan ka could effectively 
participate at the discussions to ensure that the document entails fair and balanced formulations so 
that Ministers could adopt it at MC12. We also thank  the Facilitator for his efforts and work done so 
far. The Facilitator has tabled a proposed text which is clearly not designed to resolve the pandemic . 
Rather, the draft text promotes the same liberalization demands made by developed countries in 
various fora and interventions that will further constrain regulatory space and policy too ls available 
to Members. The 278 co -sponsors have engaged constructively in negotiating different areas of the 
declaration text. At this stage, we have achieved some progress in certain areas but still major work 
needs to be done to achieve balance within each element and across the whole text. In order to 
preserve the outcome document on pandemic response that bears  the characters of fair and 
balance d reflection of concerns of all Members, the co -sponsors have been engaging tirelessly in the 
small group pr ocess.  It is not us who are supposed to be delaying things. If the original format of 
the text remained balanced, we would not need this long effort, but we cannot let an unbalanced or 
one-sided text go through without addressing our issues. This Declarati on text remains in need of 
major work to reflect the concerns and ambitions of all Members and allow for the needed balance 
that we have been calling for. Accordingly, it is clear that there remains major work needed to 
achieve the balance sought in the te xt of the Declaration that would meaningfully reflect the needs 
and ambitions of various Members including developing countries and LDCs. For this purpose, the 
work in the remaining time until MC12  should focus on working in that direction towards achievin g 
the needed balance. This should be a Member -led proces s. Work should remain based on the 
composite draft Ministerial Declaration annexed to the text. The co -sponsors remain committed to 
achieving  a fair and balance d outcome which includes a satisfactory resolution on the TRIPS Waiver 
and robust and meaningful activities on pandemic preparedness and resilience so that it can be 
endorsed by our Ministers at MC12 . 
7.112.   The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement : 
7.113.   Let me start by expressing my appreciation to the Chair  and the Facilitator  for the hard work 
and intensive preparations that have brought us to this point. I also acknowledge the efforts from 
all Members who have worked tirelessly including over the past weekend on this document. First, 
the WTO's credibility is at stake if MC12 fails to deliver . Against the backdrop of the ongoing COVID -
19 pandemic , the eyes of the world will be on MC12 . The WTO is under intense scrutiny. In this 
 
14 The statement of the LDC Group at the 19 November Formal TNC Meeting are reflected in paragraphs 
4.33 to 4.42, pages 18 -19 of TN/C/M/42.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 49 - 
 
  context, it is imperative that Members deliver a credible and meaningful Ministerial Declaration for 
MC12 and the WTO Response to the Pandemic.  Second, it is imperative that the outcomes of MC12 
are meaningful and make a real difference, and both the MC12 outcome document and the W TO 
response to the pandemic must address the critical issues confronting the WTO and this include 
reforming the WTO to be future -ready and taking pragmatic steps to increase vaccine production 
and enhance more equitable distribution. Members must develop p ractical solutions to address 
issues such as supply chain vulnerabilities, preparedness for future pandemics and climate change.  
Third, with the clock ticking down to D -day, which is Delivery Day, Members must exercise flexibility 
and redouble efforts in t he remaining seven  days to MC12. As I said before, the time for megaphone  
negotiations or political grand standing has passed and it is time to focus on securing mutually 
acceptable solutions. We must also, first, remove the wooden lock from our own eyes b efore we can 
see clearly to remove the speck of dust in our brothers' eyes. Even as we work through long days 
and nights, we need to remind ourselves that there is often darkness before the dawn. As always, 
my delegation and I stand ready to put our should er to the wheel to contribute to the success of 
MC12 in any way we can.  
7.114.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement : 
7.115.   Let me thank the Facilitator  for his report and the way he has conducted this complex process 
very ably in a challenging context.  Earlier this year, we as Members collectively felt that the WTO 
could make a n important contribution to the global efforts to combat the pandemic. Our newly -
appointed Director -General made this a personal priority and she organi zed a series of high profile 
and successful events to bring the key actors together. Throughout we have been listening carefully 
to stakeholders from across the world.  The European Union together with a large Group of Members 
from different continents and level s of development made concrete proposals that we hoped could 
help the WTO rise to the challenge. We coalesced because the global community will be better off 
coordinating efforts rather than having every Member going its own way. We heard views from the 
LDC Group and a number of other developing countries in support of greater transparency and care 
in the application of export restrictions, and those views resonated with us. We felt that the 
Facilitator's text reflected those wider interests, including spec ifically those of developing countries.  
7.116.   We recall that hope remained in conclud ing an agreed text before the opening of next week's 
conference. The Facilitator  has proposed to include a placeholder to reflect the need for Minister -
level discussions on int ellectual property, and he has always underlined that intellectual property 
would have to be an integral part of a balanced MC12 outcome on the WTO Response to the 
Pandemic.  At the same time , the Facilitator said that this should not stand in the way of pr ogress 
on the rest of his text. We regret that this objective could not be met . He has had no option but to 
submit a text to us today that is not agreed between Members. We also regret that negotiations on 
elements of his text proposed by Members could not proceed in the small group over the weekend. 
In not having an agreed WTO Response to the Pandemic  text ahead of MC12 , Ministers will now 
unfortunately have to familiari ze themselves with an additional set of texts next w eek. The European 
Union is ready to pursue discussions on his text over the next days if others are willing too.  
7.117.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement : 
7.118.   A week from today, MC12 will be held for the first time in four years. At this j uncture, it is 
crucial for the credibility of this organization to be able to demonstrate, through its Ministerial 
Declaration and its Pandemic  Response Declaration, its accountability in response to the imminent 
global trade agenda arising from the pandem ic and to clearly present the direction of its future.  The 
WTO also needs to exhibit its awareness and readiness to respond to the expectations from business 
as its major partner and stakeholder. In his content, Japan offers  its profound respect and 
apprec iation to the tireless leadership exercised by the Chair. In order to meet the expectation of 
the international community entrusted onto the WTO, it is essential to send a clear message about 
its commitment with specific work plans to materialize a fully f unctional WTO through its reform 
efforts including on its rulemaking/negotiation function and dispute settlement function.  The WTO 
needs to be, and to appear to be, fully aware of the evolution of the global trade environment it 
works in  and of the issues and concerns of the global business community starting with MSMEs. 
These include advancement of digitalization, various environment and sustainability policy agenda, 
and their interface with trade legal framework. The next 2 weeks will be critical  in deter mining the 
credibility and, eventually, the sustainability of this institution. To keep this cause within our reach, 
all delegations would be expected to exercise their full pragmatism  and flexibility.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 50 - 
 
  7.119.   On trade and health,  particularly on the export restri ction on heath products and services , 
we consider that the world experienced a very severe and difficult initial pandemic period  because 
we do not have enough supply on those products and certain services. We consider that is very 
important for this house to take care of the export restriction side of this issue. Overall, the WTO 
has been putting emphasis from the viewpoint of production. But, for the future of the WTO, we 
consider that consumer protection is very important because any commercial transactio n has been 
made between producers and consumers. If  consumers start to doubt that they cannot buy enough 
supply, we face some difficult situations. That really has a shrinking effect on trade. We consider 
that export restriction side on the health issue is  very important. Frankly speaking, we are not in 
the small room of the negotiation s. We are waiting outside the gate of the small negotiation room. 
We try to be constructive while the small group is producing some results. But at the same time , we 
are wait ing outside the room with strong passion on this subject that I just explained.  
7.120.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement : 
7.121.   We have not had the opportunity yet to look at the text produced by  the Faci litator but we 
will do so as a group and come back to you so we reserve our views on this for the time being. 
Nonetheless, we reiterate what we have always said as a group . The cornerstone of the response of 
the WTO to the pandemic is the TRIPS Waiver and we look forward to this being part of the response. 
We would appreciate understanding the future process for the Walker text . We are not sure if  the 
text will be looked at the level of the General Council or how we can do more work on this before it 
goes to the Ministers. It is important from our perspective that the process remains inclusive, 
constructive, responsive to the reality on the ground and addresses the concerns of developing 
countries . It should not lead to new obligations and remain balanced in approach. The focus remains 
on providing a response to the pandemic and we look forward to working on that direction.  
7.122.   The representative of Tunisia delivered the following statement : 
7.123.   We take note of the revision under the Facilitator's own responsibility . We would like to 
receive it to have a better analysis. We align ourselves with the statement  made by Pakistan on 
behalf of cosponsors of JOB/GC /278. This process will have a direct impact on the credibility of this 
organization. This is how success at MC12 will be measured . The upcoming days will be crucial  for 
Members to come together to respond effectively to the current pandemic and prepare fo r future 
pandemics. We would have preferred that the Facilitator's text be more reactive to developing and 
LDC Members which would have allowed us to gain precious time in our attempt to achieve 
consensus. We have contributed constructively throughout this  process and will continue to do so 
until we manage to achieve a meaningful result, which is equitable and balanced for all Members. 
Tunisia's main concerns  have been reflected in document JOB/GC/278 which seeks a fair balance for 
all including developing and LDC Members. An overall response to the pandemic must cover all 
factors affected by the pandemic in any social, economic and health context  which is exceptional by 
nature . It is extremely important that we are up to the task of using all proposals to c ontribute to 
our fight against the pandemic and encourage a rapid recovery. Therefore, Tunisia  defends the 
inclusion of a positive response to the request for a TRIPS W aiver. It would be disappointing to see 
the WTO depriving the world of a real opportunit y to strengthen global vaccine production and the 
production of other necessary equipment and products. Particular attention must be paid to the 
specific challenges which the most vulnerable counties face including food security, restarting the 
economy, re silience  and technology transfer . All of these topics cannot be ignored. Additionally, 
Members must not see their ability to work restricted by any legal obligations. I commend Members 
for their efforts particularly th ose made by small groups in order to s eek a landing zone and a 
balanced text which will represent the concerns of all. Like many developing countr y Members, 
Tunisia  commi ts itself  to an effective WTO Response to the Pandemic and stress es the importance 
that all concerns and voices should be  heard and treated equally  in this process . 
7.124.   The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement : 
7.125.   Canada express es a deep appreciation to  the Facilitator  for his perseverance and his patience 
with Members to get us to this point. An MC12 outcome with a clear an d unambiguous indication of 
Members' resolve to do no harm in the current situation and that sets in motion work to learn how 
to react better in a f uture pandemic with a specific timeline for a result is a sine qua non  for Canada. 
The 25 October text was the baseline for Canada, but we have heard different voices in this 
organization and have worked to recognize the issues those voices have raised, al ways mindful of WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 51 - 
 
  parallel conversations on these same topics in other WTO bodies. We trust in your judgement and 
expect that the modified text you will circulate shortly will be a fair and balanced reflection of all the 
different trade and health related di scussions across this organization and that it can signal a credible 
and meaningful WTO Response to the Pandemic. We also expect that it will put us on a define path 
to learn from recent experiences and create a framework to prevent us from repeating any m istakes 
made. Canada looks forward to an agreement among Members on a package of trade and health 
measures at MC12 and commits to actively contributing to the work ahead.  
7.126.   The representative of Turkey  delivered the following statement : 
7.127.   We thank the Facilit ator for his efforts to put together a streamlined text for the WTO 
Response to the Pandemic. This is  a significant mission to demonstrate the role that trade can play 
in response to the pandemic. Turkey has a positive overall perspective concerning the or iginal text 
proposed in document JOB/GC/279. As  the Facilitator  just explained, certain Members were working 
on this text and throughout last week we were informed of the specific developments on that front.  
We are looking forward to receiving the revised text. We welcome the explanation by  the Facilitator  
that the new text continues to not incorporate language which may modify existing rights and 
obligations of Members.  We think it is best to focus on a more efficient functioning of existing 
instruments av ailable to us in our response to the pandemic.  
7.128.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement : 
7.129.   On the issue of the WTO Response to the Pandemic, Indonesia acknowledge s the efforts by 
the Facilitator in the attempt to find convergence on  this very important topic. The WTO Response 
to the Pandemic should be the centrepiece of MC12. The world is waiting for us and the organization 
to deliver a meaningful and credible outcome on this issue. To this end, we must ensure that the 
text that will  be agreed upon should be balanced and holistic. In this regard, we welcome the 
submission made by Members particularly JOB/GC/271 and JOB/GC/278/Rev.1 as they certainly add 
value to the text. It is important that the WTO Response to the Pandemic does not only address the 
interest of all Members but also all sectors that are affected by the pandemic, such as the issue of 
food security and TRIPS Waiver. Our delegation cannot emphasize enough the importance of having 
a meaningful outcome on the TRIPS Waiver. A WTO Response to the Pandemic that leaves such a 
large carveout will lose its merit and relevance. In this regard, we thank the Facilitator for circulating 
a revised text of the draft so that Members can consider appropriately, contribute positively and 
coordinate effectively with the capital. With that in mind, Indonesia would like to contribute further 
to the discussions . As such , we share the view of others to have greater transparency and inclusivity 
in the negotiation process.  
7.130.   The representative of th e United Kingdom  delivered the following statement : 
7.131.   We echo and note the concern expressed particularly by developing countries includi ng the 
LDC Group on  export restrictions . Throughout this pandemic, Members have repeatedly called for 
restraint on the im position of export restrictions on medical goods a nd food. Many Members have 
quite eloquently described the effect of those waves of export restrictions, how they have reduced 
global supply, how they have led them to suffer from price spikes, especially among those countries 
that lack the economic resilience of mor e developed economies. Faced with those challenges, many 
vulnerable economies have noted  the need to restrict their own exports . It is a vicious circle. We are 
grateful to those Members who have stood up and made these calls for restraint on producers 
applying restrictions . We have listened to those calls and we agree with them. Calls have also been  
repeatedly made for transparency on those restrictions . We have listened to th em and fully support 
them. We stand behind the language agreed by the G20 and adopted by many others including APEC 
that any measure on essential goods must be temporary, transparent, targeted and proportionate. 
We are ourselves a producer of a number of medical goods  and, at the same time, need to import 
many other medical goods . So, for our part , the U nited Kingdom  will be willing to step up to take 
political commitments in this declaration around the fact that substantial producers should recognize 
their particular responsibility for exercising restraint and ensuring transparency. I e ncourage others  
who are also fortunate enough to be substantial producers of such goods t o take similar steps and 
take the political commitments necessary to recognize our particular responsibilities.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 52 - 
 
  7.132.   The representative of Paraguay  delivered the following statement : 
7.133.   We reiterate our support to this process. We have taken note of the Facilitator's  report on 
the new draft and look forward to this being circulated so we can analyse  it in more detail . We 
consider that this document is a good framework  for us to move forward. We reiterate the need to 
have ambitious language especially when it comes to export restrictions and trade facilitation  bearing 
in mind the need s of net importers of vaccines  without local production capacity  such as Paraguay . 
We also note with concern that in the previous document , we see proposals from countries on food 
security which resort to only one type of tool and policy and could indeed endanger food security 
while side-lining other approaches less damaging to trade. We wou ld continue to work  and follow 
with interest the negotiations in the TRIPS Council to include these negotiations in the WTO Response 
to the Pandemic. We will continue to work constructively to contribute to the Facilitator -led process 
so that we have both a substantial and tangible result for MC12.  
7.134.   The representative of the Russian Federation  delivered the following statement : 
7.135.   We would like to express o ur concern that the process of drafting a document within a small 
group is already somewhat delayed. The longer this process drags on, the less chances of success 
this document has. The "take it or leave " option for the deals made behind closed doors will not 
work. This document should be presented in the form of a political declaration. It should not change 
the existing scope of rights and obligations of Members. The whole wording of the document should 
not pretend to alter the rights and obligations of Members for example on Paragraph 3 related to 
export restrictions . The functional responsibilities of the Secretariat should not be expanded. 
Regarding the creation of an ad hoc coordinating body, we should have a clear view of the usefulness 
and scope of th is structure. We urge all parties to stop pushing ideas that are a priori impassable. 
It would be more pragmatic for those Members whose proposals have not gathered consensus up to 
now to admit that they have no chance to be adopted at MC12 . On the other h and, we urge everyone 
to focus on what unites us and where a consensus is likely to be formed. For example, the Russian 
Federation propose s to include in the project of the Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response to 
the Pandemic the following item: "We encourage the recognition of vaccine certificates, test results 
and other measures, which can help to fight the pandemic, to boost services trade and post -
pandemic economic recovery. " We judge it as an urgent and necessary political signal. We can put 
this new item in as  Paragraph  5.5 since this issue is specifically relevant to Mode 4 of services trade.  
7.136.   The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement : 
7.137.   We look forward to reading the text and very much hope that it will take us a step cl oser to 
consensus.  Our priority is still to adopt a multilateral Ministerial Declaration on COVID -19 that makes 
a difference on the ground. It is our duty to make international trade a powerful tool in efforts to 
contain the pandemic and promote economic r ecovery. Disciplining the use of trade restrictions and 
enhancing the transparency of trade measures can make a real difference to ensuring the flow and 
availability of medical supplies, above all those required for vaccine production.  We have duly noted 
the explanations given by the Facilitator  including on IP. As we have repeatedly pointed out, IP 
protection also has a role to play in a holistic approach. We nonetheless recall that deliberations on 
the IP component take place in the TRIPS Council and must  not impede progress in other areas, 
including value chains.  With a week to go until MC12, it is time for us to be pragmatic while ensuring 
a level of ambition that remains higher than the WTO's current practices.  
7.138.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement : 
7.139.   I wanted to acknowledge the hard work of Members over the past few weeks . Members were 
finally given a chance to engage and felt that for the first time all Members' interests and priorities 
were part of the text and the di scussions and we have found the interaction of Members in the small 
group to be constructive . We should not be giving up when the going gets hard . Otherwise , "Member -
driven" is a meaningless phrase. There appear s to be growing convergence that the declarat ion 
needs to take a light touch and represent a balance of Members' different priorities and we support 
much of what was expressed earlier by Sri Lanka. There appears to be a growing convergence o n 
the Action Plan which should be specific enough to ensure results and that it should deliver responses 
in an expedited timeframe. It is important to recall the description provided by the Facilitator which 
is that "the Declaration should not result in changes or is not intended to result in changes in rights 
and obligations" and yet that is not an accepted goal by all Members and therein lies one of the key 
problems that Members need to work  out between and among themselves.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 53 - 
 
  7.140.   The representative of Chile delivered the following statement : 
7.141.   As we have not participated in the small group consultations mentioned in the report, Chile 
would like to know more about the discussions that have taken place including for example an 
overview and explanation of the changes made so that we can form a clea r picture of the process 
and the next steps.  With discussions in their current state, the WTO Response to the Pandemic will 
not meet the expectations of everyone outside this room and of the  millions of people who have 
been directly affected by the pandemi c. We do not understand where the focus was lost given that 
the problems our countries faced in looking after our citizens during the pandemic are so clear. Who 
could not be in favour of learning from what we have been going through for the last year and a  
half, and of being prepared for future pandemics, including, on the one hand, the export restrictions 
and prohibitions that have caused so much harm and, on the other, trade facilitation measures?  It 
has been clear from the start that the exchanges should  have focused on low production, export 
restrictions and problems in the supply chains of essential medical goods, including vaccines, and 
their distribution to the furthest corners of the world. But today, on seeing the working text, we note 
with concern that the discussion has been side -tracked and confined to disasters only, covering 
concepts such as food security that are not appropriate in this context.  We hope that, in view of the 
limited time available to us, delegations will focus on the real proble m at hand, leaving their 
longstanding goals in other areas to one side, and will act in a constructive manner in the discussions 
ahead.  We want a substantial, meaningful and holistic package which includes intellectual property.  
7.142.   The representative of Ecuad or delivered the following statement : 
7.143.   We thank the Facilitator for his efforts in  trying to find consensus on the WTO Response to 
the Pandemic . When the D irector -General  came to the WTO, she said that it was not business as 
usual . This is particularly the case when it comes to the pandemic. The political messages and 
commitments that we need to undertake are at the centre of this process. We trust we bear in mind 
developing countries that are net importers of COVID -19 products such as Ecuador and particular ly 
vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics when it comes to the drafting of the document. On export 
restrictions and trade facilitation, we need substantial progress  while taking into account the views 
of consumers as indicated by Japan. W e must also en sure that there is political commitment both in 
the spirit and the letter of the WTO Agreements  that would  allow for progress in this areas . Our 
political declaration needs to be based on international cooperation and the role of the multilateral 
trading syste m to ensure that all States, and in particular net importers of COVID -19 products, have 
equal and fair and universal access to COVID -19 products, particularly vaccines, therapeutics and 
diagnostics. We  look forward to seeing the new draf t. We will continue  to work diligently to ensure 
that we meet an agreement which reflects our concerns while bringing together the political will of 
all. 
7.144.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  delivered the following statement : 
7.145.   We appreciate all the efforts of Members w ho are engaged in the separate small group 
discussions. After two years of no collective official signal from the Membership since the outbreak 
of this pandemic, the WTO's relevance is now at stake. If we can not produce a meaningful political 
declaration t his time, the WTO's credibility will be seriously damaged.  With a few days remaining 
before MC12, we at the WTO need to focus on elements most relevant to the WTO as a premier 
organization governing international trade. Such elements should include, withou t doubt, strong and 
clear trade -related guidelines, in particular on export restrictions, trade facilitation and transparency.  
We will continue to work closely with other Members.  
7.146.   The representative of India delivered the following statement : 
7.147.   The ongoing pandemic, with its ever -evolving nature, has had an unprecedented devastating 
effect on lives and livelihoods, resulted in severe disruptions to societies, economies and trade, and 
food security. The pandemic has also thrown open a number of cha llenges, including those relating 
to the need for ensuring timely, equitable and affordable access for all to medicines, vaccines, 
diagnostic tools and other products essential for its prevention, treatment and control, and for that 
the urgent need to dive rsify and scale -up production by addressing challenges related thereto, 
particularly on IP. While the primary focus of this exercise has to be addressing challenges posed by 
the current pandemic, including IP challenges in augmenting production, response m echanism put 
in place should also better prepare us for future pandemics and natural disasters.  The Facilitator -led 
process on WTO Response to the Pandemic being a multilateral process, it is necessary that views WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 54 - 
 
  of all Members are taken into consideration . We are also aware that it has taken us more than two 
months to have a consolidated draft Ministerial Declaration text which incorporates elements 
suggested by various Members . We need to see whether today's Facilitator's text is adding value to 
Members' work or not.  The s mall group constituted by the Facilitator has been engaging 
constructively on such consolidated text to arrive at possible areas of convergence.  
7.148.   As we are aware in another multilateral process, examining the most important element of 
WTO Response to Pandemic, the TRIPS Council has decided to continue its consideration of the 
waiver proposal, including through small  group consultations and informal open -ended meetings, 
and report the outcome to the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  It would therefore be appropriate to 
provide similar time to small group discussions under this multilateral process on WTO Response to 
the Pandemic and all future discussions on this issue should be on the basis of the consolidated draft 
texts being examined by su ch small group.  There has been intensive engagement under this process, 
and we must focus on a balanced response that is not skewed in favour of a few. We must also 
refrain from approaching this as a market access issue or with a view to take away policy s pace 
available for Members or impose cumbersome transparency obligations on them that serve to benefit 
a few. Doing away with the legitimate policy instruments like export restrictions or aiming to make 
temporary tariff elimination/reductions permanent or calling for burdensome transparency 
obligations is not a panacea to our problems. It is deplorable that despite over a year's discussions 
and debates there has been no movement on the TRIPS Waiver proposal. Its co-sponsors have 
tirelessly engaged with ever yone and shown flexibility and pragmatism. But opposition by a couple 
of Members on such an issue is testing the credibility of the multilateral trading system. While the 
world is watching us with great expectations to deliver solutions, these Members have  ensured that 
the solutions remain elusive. We reiterate that the TRIPS Waiver constitutes the most critical and 
important part of the WTO Response to the P andemic and any WTO response without the TRIPS 
Waiver element in it would not at all be credible.  
7.149.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement : 
7.150.   We align ourselves with the statements by the JOB/GC/278 co -sponsors, the African Group 
and the ACP. T he WTO Response to the Pandemic is the most important priority for the WTO and 
we have  engaged constructively both in the Walker process and in the TRIPS Council towards a 
TRIPS Waiver.  We believe that the response must be comprehensive and must include both the IP 
and trade -related aspects.  There are five key elements to a WTO response to the pandemic that 
South Africa would like to see: (i) approval of a targeted and time -limited TRIPS Waiver in order to 
boost and diversify global production of vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics; (ii) diversification of 
location of production and scali ng up of production capacity across the world, especially in Africa; 
(ii) protocols covering transparency and equity in vaccine contracts and pricing; (iv) meaningful 
commitment to keep supply chains open; and (v) forward -looking TRIPS provision to address  future 
pandemics and obviates the need for special arrangements and waivers.  Together with the other co -
sponsors of JOB/GC/278, we are participating constructively in the Facilitator -led process in an effort 
to produce a balanced document that places the WTO in a position to meaningfully and credibly 
respond to the pandemic. Our response must also include high -level political commitments on food 
security and efforts to promote economic recovery.  We are concerned that there seems to be much 
more enthusiasm to conclude this process than what we have witnessed in the TRIPS Council. 
However, we cannot have an outcome on a WTO Response to the Pandemic with  nothing on the 
TRIPS Waiver proposal.  We note the Facilitator's report in which he indicated that he will present a 
text under his own responsibility. This is despite the fact that intensive work is still underway to 
produce a consolidated, balanced text. We will study the document as soon as it is made available 
and as stated by Mauritius, we will reserve our comments at this stage. The outcome of this process 
must contain an appropriate balance in the interests of the broader Membership if it is to garner 
consensus.  As such, Members should be  accorded adequate time and space to conclude work on the 
composite text.  
7.151.   The Chair  thanked  Ambassador Walker for his report and for his able leadership of this 
process. His tireless effort over the past few months was a true testament to his commitment an d 
dedication to th e organization. In his capacity as Chair of the General Council, he could not thank 
him enough for having stepped in to guide and facilitate this multifaceted and complex topic.  He 
thank ed all delegations and group coordinators for their tireless work in this process, under the 
leadership of the Facilitator, Ambassador Walker. Members  had repeatedly heard the importance of 
MC12 delivering results on this issue, and the world w ould be looking at the WTO to see what the 
WTO Response to the Pandemic w ould entail. They had very few days left before the Conference . WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 55 - 
 
  He therefore appeal ed to all Members to (i) step up their efforts, (ii) show pragmatism and flexibility, 
and (iii) engage in a true spirit of collaboration and solidarity – so that they would  ensure that they 
would offer a meaningful and credible response to the pandemic.  
7.152.   The General Council took note  of the report15 by the Facilitator, of the statements made  and 
of the fact that the Chair  would  be in contact with delegations and the Facilitator to discuss how to 
take this work forward to MC12.  
8  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
8.1  Report by the Chair  
8.2  Communication from Australia; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Ecuador; El 
Salvador; Georgia; Guatemala; Hong  Kong, China; Iceland; Korea, Republic of; Mexico; 
New Zealand; Norway; Peru; Singapore; Switzerland; Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Thailand; Ukraine; United Kingdom and Uruguay 
(WT/GC/W/831/R ev.2) 
8.3  The Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions: Need for Clarity on 
its Scope and Impact – Communication from India and South Africa (WT/GC/W/833)  
8.1.  The Chair  suggested t o take up his report on the first sub -item after going through the two 
communications presented by some delegations. He would then open the floor after all sub -items 
had been taken up. He invited the delegation of Switzerland to introduce the communication  in 
document WT/GC/W/831/Rev.2.  
8.2.  The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
8.3.  I am making this statement on behalf of the following co -sponsors of the room document 
WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4 on the Work Programme and moratorium on electronic  commerce. Those co -
sponsors are representing 62 Members of the WTO . The following Members are  the co-sponsor s: 
Australia ; Brazil ; Canada ; Chile; Colombia ; Costa Rica ; Ecuador ; El Salvador ; the European Union ; 
Georgia ; Guatemala ; Hong Kong , China ; Iceland ; Israel ; Japan ; Kazakhstan ; the Republic of  Korea ; 
Lichtenstein ; the Republic of  Moldova ; Monte negro; Mexico ; New Zealand ; North Macedonia ; 
Norway ; Panama ; Paraguay ; Peru; the Russian Federation, Singapore ; Switzerland ; the Separate 
Customs Territ ory of Taiwan , Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ; Thailand ; Ukraine ; the United Kingdom, 
the United States and Uruguay. We are delighted to present this working paper today which is 
supported by a large part of the WTO Membership from both developed and developing Members. 
Members were recognized that this proposal has also been subject to discussion in open -ended 
consultations led by the Chair of the General Council on 5 November and 17 November. The proposal 
aims to continue work under the E -commerce Work Programm e and extend the E-commerce 
Moratorium until the next Ministerial Conference. Over the past years, Members have held a series 
of fruitful discussions under the Work Programme, as we welcome this renewed vigour, the topics 
covered confirmed that the Work Pr ogramme mandate is very broad and provides opportunities to 
Members to discuss a wide range of topics. The E-commerce Moratorium is a foundational 
multilateral decision that plays an important role in increasing the utilization of cross -border trade. 
The p andemic has once again revealed the potential of the digital economy and how much global 
trade depends on digital connectivity as well as the ready  availability of digital tools. We do not 
believe that degrading the international regulatory framework for d igital trade will be a helpful 
development for anyone. The WTO would be sending a disconcerting signal if the commitment not 
to impose customs duties on electronic transmissions were to be terminated. We will welcome further 
support from other Members to c ontinue this long -standing practice.  
8.4.  The General Council took note  of the statement.  
8.5.  The Chair invite d the delegation of India to introduce the communication in WT/GC/W/833.  
 
15 The Facilitator's Report was subsequently circulated in document JOB/GC/281.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 56 - 
 
  8.6.  The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
8.7.  India has been advo cating evidence -based decision -making  on the question of the M oratorium 
on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions. In order to arrive at a conclusion on this topic which 
addresses an effective way to promote digital trade, a broader discussion with information and data 
is paramount to ensure productive negotiations. If the WTO is to truly attempt to promo te digital 
trade, it cannot be based on a discussion of a single policy instrument or a one size fits all solution. 
Therefore, for any decision on the Moratorium to go forward, it must also include the recognition of  
other tools beyond the Moratorium which  are available to promote digital trade.  It is in this context 
that India and South Africa have jointly submitted the paper titled "The Moratorium on Customs 
Duties on Electronic Transmissions: Need for Clarity on its Scope and Impact " in WT/GC/W/833.  This 
paper as well as our earlier paper  in WT/GC/W/798 made it clear that the scope of this Moratorium 
is not well -defined. Our current paper brings out four key conceptual and methodological issues in 
the arguments made by the proponents in WT/GC/W/799/Rev.1.  There is no single solution. It needs 
a multifaceted approach.  First, our paper explains  the use of a methodological sleight of hand . The 
proponents of WT/GC/W/799/Rev.1 conclude that while digital trade is booming, they still need 
greater market access t hrough the continuation of this Moratorium. The convenience of the 
methodology used to gain undue advantage in their arguments is astonishing. When assessing the 
total trade of electronic transmissions, the proponents of WT/GC/W/799/Rev.1 consider only 
digitizable goods and conclude that trade in these goods remains modest. But when estimating the 
impact of the Moratorium on exports, especially of MSMEs, they consider the extended scope of the 
Moratorium by including services and find the positive impact to  be huge. This scope expansion of 
the Moratorium to include services has been done without giving any rationale or argument to 
support this understanding.  
8.8.  Secondly, our paper shows how the proponents of WT/GC/W/799/Rev.1 have not just 
conveniently defined the scope using two contradictory arguments simultaneously, they have also 
glossed over the fact that the cost of the Moratorium is being disproportionately borne by the 
developing countries. The paper outlines UNCTAD data which shows that the annual loss of tariff 
revenue from this Moratorium based on the identification of a small number of digitizable goods in 
five areas is USD 10 billion on an annual basis. A more recent view from the UNCTAD places this 
loss at USD 12 billion. The proponents of WT/GC/W/7 99/Rev.1 characterize this loss as a small one. 
However, they fail to mention that almost all this loss is being borne by the developing countries. 
As per UNCTAD studies, the developing countries are letting go revenue to the tune of 4.35% of 
their total c ustoms revenue. This impact is a mere 0.24% for the developed countries. This is yet 
another example of how the arguments made by the proponents is based on cherry -picked data.  
Third, these submissions also do not reflect the impact that new technologies s uch as 3D printing 
can have on domestic industries especially MSMEs in developing countries. while 3D printing is 
currently at a nascent stage in developing countries, its market is expected to grow at a rapid pace. 
The most affected sectors could include sectors such as textiles and clothing, footwear, auto -
components, toys, mechanical appliances, and hand tools, among others,  which generate large scale 
employment for low skilled workers and are sectors in which most MSMEs operate. Not a word is 
spoken by the proponents of WT/GC/W/799/Rev.1 on these concerns.   
8.9.  Fourth, we explain in our paper how the proponents of WT/GC/W/799/Rev.1 do not address 
the concerns of the developing countries with respect to the importance of preserving their policy 
space. Customs  duties are used by countries to support nascent domestic industries, regulate an 
unwanted surge in imports and facilitate industrialization. Customs duties have been resorted to by 
developed countries to provide protection to their industry and to enable them to become 
internationally competitive. The submissions suggest that instead of imposing tariffs on electronic 
transmissions, governments could consider imposing non -discriminatory internal taxes for raising 
revenue. Internal taxes are not an alternati ve to customs duties and serve a different purpose. For 
countries that want to promote digital industriali zation, customs duties should remain part of the 
toolbox to be deployed based on the strategic objectives of each country in pursuit of industrial 
policy. Our paper thus makes it clear that the proponents of the Moratorium have abjectly failed in 
demonstrating any concrete benefits this Moratorium brings to Members at large.  Let us be clear 
that the Moratorium is not a silver bullet to promote digital t rade. There may be many other ways 
to achieve the same end objective. In light of this, we reiterate our commitment to evidence -based 
policymaking in the WTO and call upon the proponents of the Moratorium to back their claims with 
relevant, consistent and non-contradictory data.  
8.10.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 57 - 
 
  8.11.   The Chair recalled that, a t the October General Council meeting, he had  provided a 
comprehensive report on his consultations on the Work Programme on E-commerce and the 
Moratorium. His report had subsequently  been circulated in JOB/GC/275. In that report, he had 
emphasi zed that, any decision on the way forward with respect to both the Work Programme and 
the Moratorium was in Members' hands.  Throughout his consultations, he had  not hear d any specific 
objection to continuing the activities and consultations under the Work Programme. However, 
several delegations  had expressed concern that, in their view, there had bee n no substantive 
engagement nor ha d the Work Programme achieved concrete results. On the other hand, others had 
been of the view that there ha d been engagement particularly in the Council for Trade in Services; 
in the structured discussion as well as at th e workshops held over the past two years. Furthermore, 
they had noted that various studies ha d also helped inform Members' discussion. With respect to the 
Moratorium, Members' positions continue d to differ. Th ose differences were well -known and d id not 
need repeating. Suffice to say that while many ha d expressed their readiness to continue with both 
the Work Programme and the Moratorium, some ha d reiterated the need for clarity on the 
Moratorium's scope and on the definition of electronic transmissions firs t. Proponents of the 
Moratorium ha d emphasised that the Moratorium provide d certainty and predictability. While they 
prefer red a permanent moratorium, they were ready to at least extend it until MC13.  At the same 
time, some delegations believe d that discus sions should not just focus on the Moratorium. In their 
view, the Work Programme should also address the development -related aspects of e -commerce 
including the digital divide. It should also be noted that some delegations consider ed that the 
Moratorium an d the Work Programme were a package and they were not ready to agree to one 
without the other.  Despite the divergent views, Members continue d to attach importance to e -
commerce particularly in light of the pandemic which ha d further highlighted both opportunities and 
challenges.  
8.12.   In terms of preparation for MC12, he had  urged Members to focus on a possible draft 
Ministerial decision for Ministers' consideration. In that regard, three communications ha d since been 
circulated. First, WT/GC/W/831 , which ha d since been revised to include additional co -sponsors , 
contain ed a draft Ministerial decision that call ed for the continuation of the Work Programme and 
the extension of the Moratorium until MC13. Second, WT/GC/W/833 which call ed for, among others, 
clarity on the Moratorium's scope. Both communications ha d been introduced by their respective 
proponents in the previous sub -items. On his part, he had convened two informal open -ended 
meetings on 5 and 17 November to discuss these c ommunications. He had  also held consultations 
in different configurations.  Third, on 18 November, another draft Ministerial decision had been  
circulated and was contained in WT/GC/W/838. This draft decision include d some preambular text 
and language on the  reinvigoration and extension of the Work Programme. While he had not had 
the time to convene an open -ended meeting to consider this most recent submission, he had  held 
consultations on 21 November with a small group to consider both WT/GC/W/831 and 
WT/GC/ W/838. His objective had been  to facilitate a discussion between proponents of the two draft 
decisions they currently  had in front of them and consider possible compromise language. However, 
delegations could not reach consensus on the way forward. In that  regard, he suggest ed that both 
draft decisions – WT/GC/W/831 and WT/GC/W/838 be forwarded to Ministers for their consideration. 
As General Council Chair, he would provide a report, under his own responsibility, reflecting 
Members' discussions to date. He stood ready to facilitate further discussions in the coming days , if 
necessary.  
8.13.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
8.14.   India has been advocating evidence -based decision -making on the question of moratorium 
on customs duties on elect ronic transmissions. The current submission WT/GC/W/831/ Rev.4 does 
not really provide any evidence as to why this moratorium should continue.  My plea and request to 
the proponents are that, when we hear evidenced -based decision -making or policymaking, plea se 
follow that practice in your proposals also and strengthen our argument so that we can arrive at 
informed political decisions in front of our Ministers. On WT/GC/W/838, I would like to thank South 
Africa for joining it. Here, we have in the Preambular p aragraph . We are requesting Members to take 
cognizance of the digital and technology divide, recognize uneven spread of global electronic 
commerce and acknowledge the importance of work under the Work Programme. Our request is to 
continue the Work Programme. The thir d one is on the paper presented, that is WT/GC/W/833, on 
the need for clarity on scope and impact. We have already made a detailed statement on this but 
let me just touch upon two or three points. We often hear, when we discuss the TRIPS Waiver or 
the Perm anent Solution for PSH, that there is no single solution. But I do not know why the 
proponents of the extension of the Moratorium forget that sentence and say that the extension is WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 58 - 
 
  the only solution for digital expansion. Therefore, I would request them to  reflect upon and see that, 
yes, we agree that customs duty is one of the components based on which one can expand digital 
footprint. But let us not say that this is the only instrument and without that, digital expansion will 
fail. Similarly, on digital e xpansion, as we hear that pandemic response is a multifaceted work and 
does not only involve TRIPS Waiver, food security is also a multifaceted work and not only involve 
public stockholding. In the same manner, the expansion of digital trade or digital inf rastructure is a 
multifaceted task and it cannot depend only on the extension of the Moratorium. So, in our paper, 
we have enumerated and I will not repeat what we have said in that Open -Ended General Council 
meeting that there are the issues of digital in dustrialization, policy space, loss of revenue, not 
equating internal taxes with customs duties and future expansion – what we have seen in the last 
couple of years particularly in the case of 3D printing. Keeping all these things in mind, it is high 
time that before extending the Moratorium, we must have the clarity on the scope and the impact. 
Therefore, we need more transparency from the Members who always repeat the phrase on more 
transparency on what kind of impact and trade is taking place presently i n digitizable goods so that 
we can take informed policy decision s. 
8.15.   The representative of Panama  delivered the following statement:  
8.16.   Panama is pleased to co -sponsor the draft Ministerial Decision contained in document 
WT/GC/W/ 831/Rev. 4 on the renewal of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and the 
request to extend the Moratorium.  Even more so than in 1998, the digital economy, technology and 
e-commerce now play a central role in trade and economic growth. The reinvigoration of the Work 
Programme should not be understood as a continuation of the eternal talk shop that it is depicted 
as today. Its mandate provides for recommendations to be made by the bodies. After more than two 
decades, the time has come to demonstrate tangible outcomes.  Panama is a drivi ng force behind 
making the M oratorium  permanent as it facilitates the flow of digital information, data and content 
by fostering innovation. It promotes security and predictability for both national digital economic 
activity and global production networks and supply chains.  We nonetheless recognize the concerns 
expressed by some Members . We can therefore support the extension of the Moratorium until MC13 . 
8.17.   The representative of Malaysia  delivered the following statement:  
8.18.   On this pertinent issue, Malaysia vie ws the importance for the WTO to send a positive signal 
to the business community and general public at large. Malaysi a would therefore register itself as a 
co-sponsor of WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4 on the proposed extension of the moratorium until the 
Thirteenth Mi nisterial Conference.  In addition, Malaysia appreciates efforts by Members to engage 
in intellectual dialogue to further discuss E -commerce Moratorium issues. Through such initiatives, 
we do hope it will help Members to better comprehend the issues and to discuss the subject 
constructively in future meetings.  
8.19.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
8.20.   On document WT/GC/W/831, we thank Switzerland and Canada for their leadership in 
initiating the proposal.  There has been more tha n two decades since we had the 1998 E-commerce 
Work Program me and the practice of continuously extending the Moratorium. If we suddenly stop ped 
such Moratorium, it would give a very negative signal to the world and business community about 
the WTO's retreat from trade promotion.  Debates had been going on for an extended period of time. 
There might be some micro -negative implications, but we would like to suggest Members not to just 
focus on the possible negative aspects, but to seriously look into the  real benefits to the industry 
and to the overall economy arising from the Moratorium.  We still look forward to adopting a 
Ministerial Decision on the Moratorium and the Work Program me at MC12.  
8.21.   The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement : 
8.22.   As a co-sponsor of document WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4 , Canada associates with the statement 
made  by Switzerland on behalf of the co -sponsors. We welcome the new co -sponsors and the overall 
increased openness to support the extension of the Work Programme and the  Moratorium that we 
all heard in past GC consultation meetings. We also wish to thank the Chair for his efforts. While we 
strong ly support a permanent Moratorium, the most viable, inclusive and realistic option for MC12 
is to maintain the longstanding prac tice of extending the Moratorium and the Work Programme until 
MC13. We trust the proposal can represent a compromise, balanced way forward, taking into account WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 59 - 
 
  past Ministerial Conference practices and allowing us to continue discussion on a vast range of topics 
in appropriate configurations. Moreover, Canada continues to see the value of continuing discussion 
under the Work Programme on issues of Members' interest related to digital trade and digital divide 
in the context that the E-commerce Moratorium is also extended. Canada remains open to engage 
with Members on specific text -based proposals towards a consensus -based outcome.  
8.23.   The representative of Argentina  delivered the following statement:  
8.24.   Argentina supports the continuation and reinvigoration of the 1998 Work Programme and 
understands that it is the best way to address e -commerce issues.  Argentina is also in favour of 
continuing the practice of renewing the Moratorium until the next Ministerial Conference under the 
same condition s as it has periodically been renewed in the past . 
8.25.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  delivered the following statement:  
8.26.   I echo the statement made by Switzerland on behalf of the co -sponsors and express Hong 
Kong, China's strong support to submitting t he draft decision for adoption at MC12. The Moratorium 
has contributed to providing the necessary certainty and predictability for global digital economy to 
thrive in the past 20 years and it should be made permanent. We understand that some Members 
are no t ready to do so at the moment. So, we agree that it is a pragmatic way forward to extend 
the moratorium until MC13 while Members continue the discussions after MC12 under the Work 
Programme. Unfortunately, despite the Chair 's efforts to facilitate the dis cussions in the past few 
weeks, we are still diverging. It is of utmost importance that the Moratorium be extended until at 
least MC13 and that letting the Moratorium expire after MC12 would send the wrong signal to all 
stakeholders at a time when many businesses, especially those operated by MSMEs, start -ups and 
disadvantage d groups are relying on digital platforms and tools to overcome various difficulties 
brought about by the pandemic. Hong Kong , China urges all Members to be pragmatic and open -
minded to the Chair's suggestions on the way forward  including at MC12.  
8.27.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement : 
8.28.   Nigeria ha s been consistent i n calling on the Membership to reinvigorate the 1998 Work 
Programme and explore ways of addressing the difficulties undermining the gains of developing 
countries from global digital trade. Going forward, we look forward to more structured and targeted 
discussions on horizontal and vertical issues regarding the trade -related aspect of e -commerce under 
the Work Programme. Through these discussions, we should seek effective ways of addressing the 
North –South  digital divide and digital exclusion existing within  developing countr y econom ies and 
other difficulties undermining the gains of developing countries from global digital trade. We call on 
Members to work towards the delivery of people -centred development outcomes on e -commerce at 
MC13 that would foster inc lusive growth and development of global digital trade.  Regarding the 
Moratorium, Nigeria is mindful of the negative effects of an unpredictable global e -commerce 
environment for businesses and consumers that is likely to occur from the non -renewal of the 
Moratorium at MC12. This would be devastating given that the world is still struggling to recover 
from COVID -19 and climate -related economic difficulties. In view of this, Nigeria supports the 
temporary extension of the Moratorium at MC12.  Nigeria wishes to  register its support for the 
proposed draft Ministerial Decision  in document WT/GC/W/831/Rev. 4. 
8.29.   The joint  proposal of India and South Africa is currently being reviewed in our capital. 
However, we wish to share some preliminary views. On the views express ed in the paper regarding 
the interpretation of the scope of the Moratorium, our understanding of the 1998 declaration is that 
the Moratorium also applies to the content of the transmission . Otherwise , it would be of no 
commercial value. You would agree wi th us that in assessing the scope of application of any 
agreement, both de  jure and de  facto analysis are relevant.  On the impact of the Moratorium on 
fiscal revenue, we are mindful of the legitimate concerns of some Members especially in the light of 
the growing trade in digitizable products. However, a general equilibrium analysis that takes into 
account the dynamic effects of the Moratorium will reveal that its benefits outweighs the cost. We 
call on Members to be mindful of the negative effects of an unpredictable global e -commerce 
environment for businesses and consumers that is likely to occur from the non -renewal of the 
Moratorium at MC12 or a decision that rollback s its scope.  We would continue to engage 
constructively with the proponent s so we can  seek mutually beneficial solutions to this issue.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 60 - 
 
  8.30.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
8.31.   We associate ourselves with the statement by the Africa n Group and the ACP.  We inform the 
Membership that South Africa is now a co -sponsor of the draft Ministerial Decision contained in 
WT/GC/ W/838. South Africa and India have consistently called for structured discussions in the 
General Council to be reinvigorated. This is all the more important in the context of the pandemic 
which has e xposed the enormous digital divide.  Jointly with India, we have submitted a paper in 
WT/GC/ W/833 that outlines our views on the impact of the Moratorium. It recalls our submission, 
WT/GC/W/798, wherein we stressed that re -consideration of the Moratorium is  critical for developing 
countries to preserve policy space to regulate imports, generate revenue through a simple and direct 
instrument such as customs duties and achieve digital industrialization.  We highlight the impact of 
e-commerce on SMEs and the imp act that new technologies such as 3D printing can have on 
domestic industries especially MSMEs in developing countries. As outlined before, while 3D printing 
is currently at a nascent stage in developing countries, its market is expected to grow at a rapid  
pace. The most affected sectors are sectors that are critical to developing countries such as clothing 
and textiles.  If, "Customs duties on electronic transmissions " cover not only digiti zed and digitizable 
goods but also digitally transmitted services, a s asserted by a couple of institutions and submissions 
recently, then the negative impact of continuing with the Moratorium on developing countries would 
be even greater. Effectively, this implies that the economy of the future , the digital economy , is 
totally liberali zed. The submission of papers with differing approaches on the scope and definition of 
electronic transmissions  shows that there is no common understanding among Members.  
8.32.   We acknowledge that the digital revolution has provided both opportuniti es and challenges. 
However, it is clear that the existing global digital divide has limited the inclusiveness of this 
opportunity and this has become more visible during the pandemic.  In 1998, Members agreed for 
the first time to the temporary Moratorium w ithout specifying what is included in the category of 
electronic transmissions and thereby its scope. This Moratorium has been renewed every two years 
without clarity on the scope and definition of electric transmissions.  A re-consideration of the 
Moratori um is critical. Apart from providing an important source of revenue, customs duties are an 
important industrial policy tool to support nascent domestic industries, regulate harmful surges in 
imports and facilitate industrialization.  In relation to revenue,  research from UNCTAD indicates that 
with the significant rise in online imports during the pandemic, the potential tariff revenue loss to 
developing countries increased from USD 10 billion to USD 12 billion per annum from 2020 using 
the bound tariffs. Int ernal taxes are not a substitute for tariffs which serve a different purpose. In 
this regard , it is important to recognize that tariffs are a policy tool for industrial development. 
Therefore , clarity on the scope and definition of electronic transmission is critical to decision -making 
on the Moratorium.  Issues identified by Members under the Work Programme must be clarified under 
a multilateral process to enable a common understanding on e -commerce. The absence of a shared 
and common understanding on the s cope and definition of electronic transmissions  will make a 
decision on the extension of the moratorium at MC12 difficult. We must reinvigorate the Work 
Programme to remedy the unsustainable inequities and broaden the benefits from growing e -
commerce. Deve lopmental aspects of e -commerc e; scope, definition and impact of the moratorium 
on customs duties on electronic transmissions; and examination of the challenges experienced by 
developing countries and LDCs in relation to electronic commerce and exploring ways of enhancing 
the participation of developing countries in electronic commerce remain key. We have submitted 
papers, including in the CTD , with a view to fostering structured discussions on these issues.  
8.33.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered the following statement:  
8.34.   The LDC Group congratulates the Chair  for the structured discussions held under his 
leadership.  It is necessary for MC12 to enable  us to achieve positive and equitable outcomes  in this 
area so that no Member is left behind. To this end, we draw Members' attention to our communication 
in WT/GC/W/787.  The LDCs remain committed to the 1998 Work Program me and are very interested 
in resolving issues regarding customs duties on electronic transmissions. We have a su bmission on 
the table that deals with the digital divide.  The LDCs remain attached to the 1998 Work Programme . 
We support the Chair's process to find a resolution for a decision to present to Ministers next week.  
8.35.   The representative of Nepal  delivered the f ollowing statement:  
8.36.   In the wake of the pandemic, we cannot survive without going digital.  However, due to the 
huge digital divide between and within the Members, the LDCs and LLDCs have not been able to 
participate in the global trading system through e -commerce. Insufficient ICT infrastructure and WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 61 - 
 
  weak institutional and human capacity are their main obstacles. Needful intervention has become 
urgent through  the E-commerce Work Programme to enable LDCs and LLDCs.  Regarding the 
Moratorium, clarity on its scope is  necessary. Implications of continu ing the  moratorium should be 
assessed before taking any decision on it .  
8.37.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
8.38.   The inability of the Memb ership to clarify and resolve questions related to the scope, definition 
and impact of the Moratorium has impeded progress on this issue. However, since we have no reason 
to believe that the longstanding divergent views on this issue could be reconciled ah ead of MC12, 
the Group is of the view that the renewal of the Moratorium until MC13 is the most pragmatic 
approach at this stage. For the CARICOM Group, the Work Programme must go beyond the question 
of the Moratorium . We therefore underscore the great imp ortance of the Work Programme including 
its development dimension for small vulnerable economies in our region. We would like to see the 
following additions to any proposal for discussion going forward: language related to the 
reinvigoration of the Work Pr ogramme on Electronic Commerce based on the mandate outlined in 
WT/L/274 , text highlighting the importance of addressing the development dimension of the Work 
Programme in particular and language related to an instruction from Ministers regarding the 
intensification of structured discussions based on proposals brought forward by Members. The 
CARICOM Group stands ready to continue its constructive engagement on this important matter, 
including regarding the incorporation of its textual suggestions.  
8.39.   The repr esentative of Saint Lucia , on behalf of the OECS , delivered the following statement:  
8.40.   We align ourselves with the statements made by CARICOM and  the ACP. The OECS recogni zes 
the importance of e -commerce to the development of our economies. We firmly support ed the 
General Council Decision of December 2019 to reinvigorate the work under the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce , including structured discussions on all trade -related topics of interest brought 
forward by Members, including on scope, definition a nd impact of the Moratorium . We also supported 
the renewal of the Moratorium. Specific to the Draft Ministerial Decision contained in document 
WT/GC/W/831/Rev.2, Paragraph 1 contains some of the main elements which we find important. 
We certainly can agree  to continue work under the Work Programme. However, this paragraph can 
be strengthened by agreeing to continue in frequent structured discussions format. Furthermore, 
our Ministers are unlikely to agree to a Decision which does not squarely address the de velopment 
dimension, especially in a context where the digital divide is a real and persistent challenge for OECS 
WTO Members. On Paragraph 2, the OECS WTO Members have consistently joined the consensus at 
successive Ministerial Conferences to renew the Moratorium. Therefore, we can support its renewal 
until MC13. Regarding document WT/GC/W/833, there is tremendous merit in engaging in further 
discussions on the scope and impact of the Moratorium. We are no closer to a common understanding 
on these elements  and with less than a week to go before MC12, it is not practicable to have complete 
clarity before our Ministers meet. This makes it all the more important to agree to a reinvigoration 
of the Work Programme and to mandate frequent structured discussions o n all issues of interest to 
Members, including with respect to the scope and impact of the Moratorium. However, I will caution 
that it is important that we all make positive efforts to engage meaningfully after MC12 so as to 
renew the confidence of our Min isters that our concerns are being given careful consideration.  
8.41.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
8.42.   We thank Switzerland and Canada for their proposal. The African Group remains very much 
attached to an E -commerce Work Programme that delivers positive benefits. And in fact, the 
extension of the Moratorium was in the first place premised on the fact that the E -commerce Work 
Programme would deliver benefits for countries who are not able to avai l of such e -commerce. But 
the latter has not delivered, and we remain doubtful even if we are able to persuade all Members of 
the Group to go in one direction and have a temporary extension of the Moratorium, whether there 
would be any benefits in reciproc ity in the Work Programme. So, 23 years later , it is clear that 
whatever paragraph we have on the Work Programme is not sufficient . It needs  to see more specific 
commitments . This means to have more deadlines  and m ore engagement . We need to  see more 
sugges ted deliveries so that we can actually consider how we take this forward.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 62 - 
 
  8.43.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP  Group , delivered the following statement:  
8.44.   The ACP Group to commend s the Chair  for his commitment to this file evidenced by the 
continued consultations and engagement with Member s on the matter. The COVID -19 pandemic has 
highlighted the need for an even greater focus to be placed on electronic commerce. While the 
pandemic has expanded e -commerce transactions, there is evidence to sug gest that such growth 
has not been equal across all  Members. It has also shown the deficits and shortcomings of many 
developing countries as it relates to having the necessary digital infrastructure to fully benefit from 
the opportunities to be derived fro m e-commerce. Many developing countries also lack the requisite 
domestic skills and technical competencies to harness the full potential of electronic commerce.  The 
ACP Group has been one of the main supporters for the reinvigoration of the 1998 Work Progr amme 
on Electronic Commerce and the structured discussions which were set out in the 2019 decision. We 
note positively the various discussions which have taken place throughout the year and would like 
to encourage even further structured, constructive and meaningful discussions. Some of the issue 
areas to be explored include data locali zation, internal taxes, data flows, source code, digital divide 
and infrastructure development.  We have taken note of the submission contained in 
WT/GC/W/831/Rev.2 regarding a draft Ministerial decision as well as the submission from India and 
South Africa contained in WT/GC/W/833. The ACP is of the view that in our recommendation to 
Ministers, there should be a clear signal that the Work Programme should be reinvigorated. On the 
Moratorium, there is  a need for greater clarity on the scope and definition of electronic transmissions 
and the impact that the Moratorium has had on developing countries, particularly from a revenue 
perspective. Given the limited time before the Minis terial Conference, there is urgency in resolving 
the question of the Moratorium. The ACP therefore stand s ready to engage on this matter and 
supports ongoing efforts aimed at finding a landing zone among all Members.  
8.45.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
8.46.   The Moratorium has supported the rapid growth of digital trade over the past two decades, 
and the United States continues to believe that  Members should be ready to agree to a permanent 
Moratorium.  To that end, the United States remains firmly of the view that the continuation of the  
Moratorium is beneficial to both developed and developing countries and are pleased to join as a co -
sponsor o f the draft decision in WT/GC/W/831.  Ending the Moratorium at this critical time would 
create uncertainty and concern for consumers and businesses, particularly MSMEs.  We shared our 
detailed views on WT/GC/W/833 during the 17 November GC Chair consultation . During that 
meeting, we conveyed our concerns that imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions would 
have negative consequences for developed and developing country Members.  We also strongly 
disagreed with the paper's assertion that a legitimate interpretation of the scope of the Moratorium 
could exclude content.  As we have said before, the Moratorium clearly requires tariff -free treatment 
of digital content transmitted electronically. An alternate view would render the Moratorium all but 
meaningl ess, and would call into question what our Ministers thought they were agreeing to in 1998.  
We therefore support the proposal in WT/GC/W/831 which represents a reasonable compromise that 
extends both the Moratorium and the Work Programme until MC13 and wil l allow us to continue our 
discussions on issues of interest to all Members over the coming two years.  
8.47.   The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:  
8.48.   Members must maintain the Moratorium at the MC12. First, the lapse of the Moratorium w ould 
negatively impact many MSMEs  and women entrepreneurs who have gone online during the 
pandemic. This is contrary to the claims made in the paper by India and South Africa. Let me share 
an interesting example which I came across recently. During the pea k of COVID -19 the Self -
Employed Women's Association with a membership of over 1.5 million self -employed women from 
the informal economy assisted women entrepreneurs to market their products online or even join 
Airbnb to have their own ecotourism ventures i n remote and rural parts of India. I urge Members to 
think seriously and carefully about the potential impact on MSMEs and women entrepreneurs if the 
Moratorium was to cease. Second, the argument that custom s duties will help developing countries 
develop t heir domestic digital sector is oversimplified. On one level it does not take into account the 
risk of potential retaliatory duties which will cause  huge GDP losses and have a negative impact on 
Members' digital industrialization. In the longer run, removi ng the Moratorium will mean that both 
businesses and consumers will end up paying more. On another level, digital industrialization is 
multifaceted and complex, for instance the growing popularity of Bollywood, the Indian movie 
industry, in recent years is  certainly not due to the imposition of customs duties, but rather the 
improved quality and marketability of its content. Third, removing the Moratorium would send the WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 63 - 
 
  wrong signal to both the international and business communities, especially during the C OVID -19 
pandemic.  We welcome all Members to co -sponsor the draft Ministerial Declaration in WT/GC/W/831 
to support the Moratorium extension . Let us all work together in the spirit of pragmatism to maintain 
the only multilateral agreement the WTO has in the  domain of the digital economy.  
8.49.   The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
8.50.   Brazil is pleased to join 6 1 other Members as  a co-sponsor of the draft Ministerial Decision in 
favour of the  continuation of the work  under the Work  Programme on Electronic Commerce  and the 
extension of the Moratorium until MC13.  Having been established in 1998, Brazil considers that the 
Moratorium, as the only existing multilateral rule on e -commerce, has been an important component 
of the  global grow th of e -commerce, by providing predictability and certainty for business and 
consumers engaged in international electronic  transactions.  We are convinced that the eventual 
discontinuation of  the Moratorium would send a negative political  message about the ability of the 
WTO and the  multilateral trad ing system to address the current  challenges of the global economy, 
which is becoming  increasingly digitalized.  Brazil sees value in continuing discussions on the  scope 
and impact of the Moratorium and any other topic of the Work Programme in  order to improve 
understanding of Member s' different  positions on these issues and to address challenges  faced by 
Members, particularly developing countries,  raised by the growth of e -commerce.  We stand ready 
to collaborate i n an open  and constructive manner in order to ensure the  continuation of the work 
under the Work Programme and  the renewal of the Moratorium.  
8.51.   The representative of Ecuador  delivered the following statement:  
8.52.   We support the extension of the Moratorium as it is suggested in WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4. It is 
a pragmatic solution that brings benefits to all countries, including developing countries such as 
Ecuador. The Moratorium is a mechanism by which we can continue to promote the digitalization of 
electronic trade in a general manner and in a specific way particularly in this period of recovery from 
the COVID -19 pandemic. Whil e there are still concerns about the impact of the pandemic, it has 
definitely led to an increase in the use of digital trade  and many developing countries have seen the 
digital divide of e -commerce being reduced from what it was before. The Moratorium must be 
renewed in due form  – alongside the TRIPS Moratorium discussed earlier . 
8.53.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following  statement:  
8.54.   As a co-sponsor of the proposal in WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4 request ing the extension of the 
Moratorium until MC13 , Japan believe s that the Moratorium has provided certainty and predictability 
in digital trade for both consumers and businesses, includi ng MSMEs. We should maintain our current 
multilateral practice of the Moratorium at MC12, and make it permanent eventually. In addition, 
electronic transmission  include s contents. Therefore, th is proposal is a compromise. To continue the 
Moratorium at MC12  is significant particularly under the current COVID -19 pandemic when a sound 
and liberalized environment through e -commerce is important and the promotion of safe and socio -
economic transactions are needed. Discontinuation will be regarded as a serious st ep back not only 
for the multilateral trad ing system but also for the global economy as a whole.  
8.55.   The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
8.56.   As a co-sponsors of WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4, Norway associates with the statements made by 
Switzerlan d. The WTO and its membership must mirror real world developments and adjust the 
rules-based trading system to the real world. This was the real reason why we supported the 
establishment of the Work Program me and the Moratorium back in 1998 and have suppor ted later 
renewals.  This was also why Norway joined the JSI on E-commerce in Buenos Aires. Since then, we 
have, together with a majority of Members, been involved in a forward -looking process exploring 
and searching for common ground on a wide range of important issues of relevance to the digital 
economy.  Norway agrees that it is important to continue our dialogue on the relationship between 
development and e -commerce and we are looking forward to continuing discussions under the Work 
Programme.  The Moratorium has provided predictability and stability for more than 20 years  and 
has not limited Members, like Norway, to set up VAT -program mes creating a more levelled playing 
field between foreign and domestic suppliers and for collection of revenues on goods  and services 
ordered via electronic marketplaces. Norway is strongly in favour of a continuation of the current 
Work Program me and the Moratorium. Creating more uncertainty should not be the WTO's purpose . WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 64 - 
 
  8.57.   The representative of Thailand  delivered the foll owing statement:  
8.58.   As a co -sponsors of WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4, Thailand associates with the statement made by 
Switzerland. We also thank India, South Africa and other co -sponsors of the submissions that are 
on the table. We have said on several occasions that Tha iland supports the continuation of the 
Moratorium and the Work Programme until MC13  because this is very important for our businesses, 
especially MSMEs , during the post -COVID recovery . These would keep  certainty and predictability at 
least for the next few  years to allow them to  focus on economic recovery and on  strengthening the 
confidence of the businesses in Thailand. As a developing country, Thailand  is enjoying relatively 
positively the impact of e -commerce during the  pandemic. W e look forward to  further expand during 
the recovery period . But at the same time, we are following  a lot of ongoing developments  in 
domestic regulatory agencies of the international community as well as  technological advancements  
that have bearing  on e-commerce and on digital e conomy and digital regime around the world. This 
is why at this stage we support the extension of the Moratorium until MC 13. W e want to have the 
policy space to consider all developments that are taking place and the issues that have been 
highlighted today  including by  South Africa on 3D printing  and Jamaica on data localization and tax 
regimes, among many others.  These are the things that Thailand is following with great interest . We 
hope that at least post -MC12 there will be occasions where we can also discuss all these things that 
are developing. So, we want to have a "reinvigorated Work Programme".  
8.59.   I likewise heard a lot of developing Members talk about the digital divide. In Thailand's 
experience, the divide now is not digital nor on access to te lecommunication s and network s. It is 
the divide on how to utili ze e-commerce and the digital environment  within the digital ecosystem.  I 
hope that one of the things that we can start discussing after MC12 is the new capacity building 
programme relating to e-commerce that would focus more on helping developing countries and LDCs 
to utili ze e-commerce more – not simply  talking about access to network or technology . Our focus 
should be on how we can make use  all the new technological advancements to help each of us 
further develop . Good will in this organization is always welcome  and I hope we can find a way build 
convergence on this issue together .  
8.60.   The representative of Colombia  delivered the following statement:  
8.61.   We support and endors e the statement made by S witzerland on behalf of the co -sponsors of 
WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4, as well as the previous statements made in support of the text.  As a 
developing country that faces major challenges in matters of trade and taxation, Colombia has 
always considered e -commerce to  be a tool for development. The very basis of this tool are the 
opportunities it provides for countries such as ours to access other markets on an equal footing and 
by taking advantage of the fact that e -commerce has lower costs and fewer intermediaries.  The 
organization cannot backtrack on this matter. The termination of the Moratorium would send a very 
negative message about the disconnect between the WTO and the priorities of businesses and 
communities, especially now that the pandemic has illustrated th e importance of this type of trade 
for livelihoods and inclusiveness in developing countries.  We also reiterate the call we made during 
our intervention on the TRIPS M oratorium to maintain the balance established by discussing and 
approving the two  morator ia at the same time, which has allowed both to continue to be renewed.  
8.62.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
8.63.   Some of this debate seems like d éjà vu . It has been repeat ed many times . We continue to be 
a strong supporter  of the Work Programme and a ssociate with t he statement made by Switzerland 
on behalf of the co -sponsors of WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4. W e strongly support continuing work under 
the Work Programm e and have played an active role in those discussions. We have set out on 
countless occasions the value of the Moratorium . As I said on the 19 November TNC meeting, I 
cannot imagine something more difficult to explain to British business groups than the sugg estion 
that we might not renew the Moratorium at MC12 . With all due respect, I call on my fellow Members 
and my fellow Permanent Representatives to support extending the Moratorium and the Work 
Programme at MC12  in the interest of certainty for consumers a nd businesses and show that the 
WTO is not just back in business but backing business.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 65 - 
 
  8.64.   The representative of Guatemala  delivered the following statement:  
8.65.   Guatemala thanks  Switzerland for its statement on behalf of the co -sponsors of WT/GC/W/831 
which we co-sponsor . We reiterate the importance of maintaining our practice of not imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions. Put more simply, Guatemala supports the Moratorium.  
8.66.   The representative of Sri Lanka  delivered the following statement:  
8.67.   Sri Lanka attaches great importance to the continuation of the Work Programme. There is still 
a lot of work that can be done under the Work Programme to understand and contextualize how the 
WTO can respond to the development needs of developing countries in the digi tal economy. With 
this in mind, the way forward presented in India and South Africa 's proposal in WT/GC/W/ 838 laying 
formulation for a Ministerial Declaration to be reached by the Ministers on the reinvigoration of the 
Work Programme with specific time issues to be covered in a timely fashion receives Sri Lanka 's 
fullest support. The Work Programme should  continue to serve as an important basis to dis cuss 
mandated issues among all Members in particular on the classification of services, the scope of 
electronic transmissions, the deep technological divide afflicting developing countries and LDCs, and 
the inequitable gains arising from the highly concent rated e -commerce sector.  Our position on the 
Moratorium has not yet been altered. Due to lack of greater clarity on those aspects referred to 
above and not having any positive assurance that those will be addressed without any further delay, 
until we can e valuate all the related impact of the Moratorium on small economies such as Sri Lanka , 
it will be very hard for us to continue with another extension of the Moratorium.  
8.68.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
8.69.   As we have mentioned  in previous statements, the General Council must fulfil its mandate to 
reinvigorate the structured discussions on various aspects of electronic commerce. However, we 
have noted that there has been little or no engagement from certain delegations on this a spect. It 
remains extremely important that we collectively find solutions for developing and LDC Members to 
address pressing challenges such as the digital divide, technology transfer and the effective 
utilization of digital raw material to advance digital  development in those countries.  On 
WT/GC/W/ 831 which seeks an extension of the Moratorium, under the Ministerial Decision of 1998, 
the Moratorium must only be renewed by consensus after duly reviewing the conditions and 
necessity of its exten sion. Pakista n has been consistent in its view that a fundamental reassessment 
of the situation and answers to emerging questions are required before extending the Moratorium 
due to new technological developments, emerging realities in the digital realm and the lack of  
understanding surrounding the scope and definition of electronic transmissions.  We welcome  
WT/GC/W/833 by South Africa and India which duly puts forth the questions and concerns 
surrounding the issue of the Moratorium. Other than clearly establishing the definition and scope of 
the Moratorium, the developmental implications must be clearly understood, both from fiscal and 
revenue  perspectives  and also for the development of digital industries and the future of digitizable  
products. The paper also points to the necessity of policy space for developing countries in the digital 
arena. Even if the Moratorium is not extended, it does not automatically impose duties, but only 
allows Members the right to do so, if and when they d eem it appropriate.  We look forward to 
engaging extensively with the proponents of WT/GC/W/ 833 to address the issues highlighted and to 
find lasting, meaningful and development -oriented solutions.  
8.70.   The representative of the Russian Federation  delivered the following statement:  
8.71.   The Russian Federation joined the co -sponsors of WT/GC/W/831. We stand  for the 
continuation of the work under the E -commerce Work Programme and the extension of the 
Moratorium until MC13 . The existing Moratorium provides a predictable environment for e -commerce 
at the multilateral level.  This is important for stimulating the development of the digital economy. 
At the same time, we share the concern that many years of negotiation s have failed to reach a 
consensus on the interpretation of  certain terms of the Moratorium. This fact highlights the 
complexity of e -commerce and the need for a comprehensive approach in discussions. These issues 
cannot be discussed in emergency mode. Taking into account the complex agenda we have in the 
General Council, the lack of understanding on these longstanding issues should not block the decision 
which was a subject of consensus in the past . The Russian Federation is committed to engage 
constructively in the post -MC12 discussions on the Work Programme incl uding on clarification of the 
scope of the Moratorium.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 66 - 
 
  8.72.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
8.73.   The European Union full y support s this draft decision  which we co -sponsored.  The Moratorium 
provides the predictability and s ecurity that our consumers and businesses – both in developed and 
developing countries – need when engaging or planning to engage in e -commerce . We would also 
like to recall that several recent economic studies have provided scientifically solid new eviden ce on 
the positive economic implications of Moratorium. The European Union is clear in its view that the 
Moratorium, together with the Work Programme, must be extended at the upcoming Ministerial 
Conference, due to its systemic and economic importance. Thi s is of outmost importance.  
8.74.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
8.75.   It is unfortunate that despite the fact that the digital sector has been experiencing growth in 
a rapid manner, wide gap s of the level of benefits that could be reaped from the utilization of the 
sector particularly between developed and developing countries persist . We should also take into 
consideration that while digitalization has also affected trade, development, distribution and access 
to technology, they remain uneven between Members. Hence, we believe proper attention should 
be provided to the surrounding elements arising from th e development of digital trade such as digital 
divide. In this regard, bearing in mind that Members have agreed to establish a comprehensive Work 
Programme to examine all trade -related issues arising from global e -commerce in 1998, we remain 
convinced that  the reinvigoration of work under this mandate should continue to be carried out. In 
recalling  our well -known and longstanding position on the Moratorium, we reiterate that discussions 
to reach clarity and consensus on the scope, definition and impact of c ustom duties will be imperative 
prior to agreeing on any course of action towards the Moratorium.  
8.76.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
8.77.   With digital trade fuelling global recovery from COVID -19, we urge all Members to extend the 
two-decade old Moratorium at MC12. A failure to extend the Moratorium would be a significant blow 
to the WTO's credibility and encourage e -commerce trade barriers at a time when the world can 
least afford them. The onus is on those who seek to change the status quo to deliver evidence as to 
how that would be helpful.  We consider the Moratorium's scope to be clear – it applies to all goods 
and services transmitted el ectronically, including to content. There is no legitimate basis for any 
other interpretation. Nothing in the language of the Moratorium or any WTO agreement supports 
restricting the Moratorium to exclude content. Indeed, such an interpretation would rende r the 
Moratorium meaningless. We note India and South Africa's recent communication in WT/GC/W/833 
and we acknowledge the centrality of development issues to digital trade commitments in the WTO. 
Indeed, our 2020 communication on the Moratorium in WT/GC/W/ 799/Rev.1 engages precisely on 
this issue, cites credible evidence on the economic benefits of the Moratorium and details more 
efficient and practical -behind -the-border options for revenue collection. Australia has engaged in 
depth on these issues with all  Members, including a recent presentation on value added taxes on 
digital products to the Chair's structured discussions.  
8.78.   Australia would be open to continued discussions on the economic impacts of the Moratorium, 
informed by recent global economic studie s. This includes a recent University of St Gallen paper 
which shows that many developing countries already have tax regimes in place to enable non -
discriminatory collection of revenues from digital products. We also note the recent OECD report on 
3D printi ng, circulated by E -commerce JSI co -convenors to all Members on 12 November, which 
found a positive association between 3D printing growth and goods trade – undermining claims that 
3D printing would reduce traditional tariff revenue. We note the draft Ministerial Decision proposed 
by India in WT/GC/W/838 and are concerned that this decision contains no reference to the 
Moratorium. We see the Work Programme and the Moratorium as linked given they both originated 
from the same 1998 decision. In our view, any decision on the Work Programme needs to be succinct 
and balanced and should  not pre-judge outcomes on Work Programme topics. Australia will continue 
to support substantive, inclusive and transparent discussions on the Moratorium and would be willing 
to eng age with Members on how to better reflect a forward agenda for the E -commerce Work 
Programme in our draft Ministerial Decision.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 67 - 
 
  8.79.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  delivered the following statement:  
8.80.   The current practice of not imposing customs dut ies on electronic transmissions should be 
made permanent. This will provide economic efficiency for all stakeholders and a solid foundation 
for a stable and credible development of the e -commerce environment. With only one week 
remaining before MC12, we ur gently need to reach consensus on this issue. Korea reiterates its 
support for the proposal in WT/GC/W/831 to extend the Moratorium until MC13, and we welcome 
new co -sponsors of this proposal. Failing to extend the Moratorium will damage seriously the 
credibility of the WTO, particularly at this time when we need to accelerate the post -pandemic 
recovery. Keeping in mind that the text should address both  the Moratorium and the Work 
Programme, we look forward to further consultations to reach a Ministerial Decision  in this area . 
8.81.   The representative of Costa Rica  delivered the following statement:  
8.82.   As a co-sponsor , we associate with the statement made by Switzerlan d on behalf of the co -
sponsors of  WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4. We consider  the renewal of the Moratorium to be fundamental, 
at least until MC13, in the WTO's contribution to one of the most dynamic sectors of the world 
economy which has also played a key role during  the pandemic and that will be even more relevant 
for the recovery of our economies in a post -COVID context. The current Moratorium is in accordance 
with the principles  of the Marrakesh Agreement which in its preamble calls for the reduction of 
obstacles t o trade and the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations. 
Its non -renewal would add uncertainty to electronic commerce at a time when it is precisely even 
more necessary to ensure safe conditions for companies in developing countries. For 23 years, Costa 
Rica, together with other Members, have presented evidence on the benefits of the Moratorium . We 
invite those who still oppose it to review all the material that has been presented demonstrating the 
value of the Moratorium fo r the economies of developing countries.  
8.83.   The representative of Chile delivered the following statement:  
8.84.   We are concerned about the lack of progress in this area given some Members' reluctance to 
reach an agreement.  Chile is pleased to be a co -sponsor of th e proposal to renew the Moratorium 
and the Work Programme, and associates with the statement made by Switzerland on behalf of the 
co-sponsors of WT/GC/W/831. We also wish to extend a warm welcome to the new co -sponsors of 
the proposal: Panama, Israel, Kaza khstan, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, 
Paraguay and Liechtenstein.  The Moratorium applies to content transmitted electronically . 
Otherwise , it would be worthless.  For reasons we have given on numerous occasions, Chile hopes 
one day to re ach a permanent commitment at the WTO not to impose customs duties on electronic 
transmissions. However, given that an outcome would currently be unacceptable for some Members, 
we propose that the Moratorium be renewed at the next Ministerial Conference un til MC13.  Not 
renewing the Moratorium would be a step backwards for the WTO  at a time when it needs positive 
results . By renewing it or, better still, making it permanent, we would be preserving a practice that 
is of direct benefit to our consumers and  to MSMEs.  
8.85.   The representative of Mexico  delivered the following statement:  
8.86.   We support the continuation of the Work Programme and the renewal of the Moratorium. We 
would like to reiterate our position  that not renewing the Moratorium in the cur rent situation would 
be incomprehensible for most stakeholders. It would be based on a short-sighted fiscal view which 
would be more damaging than beneficial . 
8.87.   The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
8.88.   We would like to thank all t he Members that have expressed support for a Ministerial Decision 
to extend the Work Programme and the Moratorium as set out in WT/GC/W/831/Rev.4. This proposal 
represents a pragmatic basis for decision -making by Ministers. Thank you for your efforts and 
initiatives. Despite the willingness on the side of the co -sponsors to engage in a drafting exercise, 
we regret that it was not possible to agree on a merged text reflecting the positions of both sides. 
We nevertheless hope that we will be able to come to a  balanced result at MC12 and are ready to 
engage with all Members. We also invite Members sharing our approach to join us in our endeavours.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 68 - 
 
  8.89.   The Chair thanked  delegations for their respective interventions. As he had said earlier, he 
stood ready to facilit ate further discussions and consultations in the coming days.  
8.90.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's report16, and of all the statements made.  
9  A SMOOTH TRANSITION PACKAGE IN FAVOUR OF MEMBERS GRADUATING FROM THE 
LDC CATEGORY  
9.1  LDC Group's Interim Arra ngement Submission on LDC Graduation – Communication 
from Chad on behalf of the LDC Group  (WT/GC/W/829)  
9.2  Trade Related Challenges of the Least -Developed Countries and Way Forward: A Draft 
for MC Decision – Communication from Chad on Behalf of the LDC Group (WT/GC/W/807)  
9.1.  The Chair  recall ed that this matter ha d been discussed in the General Council since 
December  2020. At the LDCs' request, he had  facilitated consultations in 2021, and had regularly 
followed up on this issue with them. On 18 October, th e LDCs had circulated a submission for an 
interim arrangement in WT/GC/W/829.  In response to a request from the LDC Group, he had  
conducted open -ended consultations on 5 November, at which the LDC Group had presented its 
submission and Members had been  given the opportunity to provide comments.  In the discussion, 
Members had recognized the particular challenges faced by LDCs, including graduated ones. While 
expressing their readiness to discuss how to best ensure a smooth transition for Graduated LDCs, 
some  Members had raised questions on the specific aspects of the proposal. He underst ood that 
since that meeting, the LDC Group ha d continued its outreach with other delegations. This matter 
had also been raised in the context of the MC12 outcome document proc ess.  
9.2.  The representative of Bangladesh , speaking as the LDC Focal Point on Graduation , delivered 
the following statement:  
9.3.  We commend the Chair for his f or his efforts including facilitating the discussion s on this 
particular issue. LDC Graduation is one of the key priorities of the LDC Group for MC12. The proposal  
has been discussed already five times at the  General Council since December. In view of the time 
constraints, we submitted a draft interim arrang ement on LDC Graduation focusing on the market 
access dimension involving  trade preferences granted unilaterally to LDCs by their trading partners. 
We hope to examine the topic of LDC Graduation and the application of WTO rules, including LDC -
specific S&DT  provisions next year . There are several unilateral LDC -specific GSP schemes where 
there are procedures available to extend LDC trade preferences to Graduated LDCs for a certain 
period of time. Our interim arrangement submission is simply to encourage othe rs to consider similar 
practices in their respective preference schemes for LDCs. It is up to preference granting Members 
to see how they want to consider this interim arrangement in their unilateral LDC specific schemes. 
It is an encouragement, not an obl igation , to show support and commitment  to sustainable growth 
and development of the most vulnerable Members. What we are calling for, in the latest submission, 
is a best endeavour effort . This is the least that Members can do to help Graduating LDCs bette r 
integrate into global trade. This is a text flexible enough to agree on, but we are ready to negotiate 
further. We need the readiness and willingness of our partners to engage in a meaningful discussion 
to find a reasonable and acceptable outcome. We call on all Members  consider our submission 
favourably. The Director -General has also made similar calls in the past which we really appreciate.  
9.4.  The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
9.5.  The LDCs' revised proposal shows their flexibility and positive engagement at this crucial 
moment with no more than two weeks before MC12. The revised proposal has been structured in a 
forward -looking way which is constructive and could serve as the basis for further discussion. The 
pandemic has affected Graduating LDCs more severely than others. As the Director -General  
mentioned "The COVID -19 pandemic has wiped out a decade of progress for LDCs in global trade ". 
China recognizes the importance and necessity for continued international support for LDCs to k eep 
the pandemic in check and achieve better integration into the global economy. We support the 
 
16 The Chair's Report was subsequently c irculated in document JOB/GC/284.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 69 - 
 
  smooth transition for Members graduating from the LDC category.  China calls for Members' 
collective, constructive and open -minded engagement in the discussions . 
9.6.  The representative of Nepal  delivered the following statement:  
9.7.  We associate with the statement to be made by the LDC Group.  I wish to refer to the statement 
delivered by my delegation since last December in different occasions and reiterate all the 
justifications shared earlier to be taken into account. LDC Graduation is a process of development 
and global target with common r esponsibility. LDCs have accepted the global process of graduation 
and proceeding ahead despite of devastating impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic in their 
development endeavours. All LDCs will graduate soon as the world wishes to see no more LDCs after 
a certain time.  Sustainable graduation requires continuation of LDC -specific support for a certain 
number of years after graduation in line with the smooth transition accepted globally. This is well -
reflected in the submission of the LDC Group. Such extension i s a matter of global partnership for 
achieving the global targets of LDC Graduation and achieving  SDGs  in a timely and sustainable 
manner. LDCs are not asking for any additional support but just requesting for the continuation of 
flexibilities they current ly have for a few more years. We have shown the maximum level of flexibility 
through our proposal for an  interim arrangement in WT/GC/W/829 and  we urge all Members to 
consider our proposal positively.  
9.8.  The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered the following statement:  
9.9.  Following the statements of Bangladesh and Nepal, I would simply like to recall my previous 
comments . The  LDCs in the WTO are considered a separate category which was created by the 
United Nations in 1971. Since the creation of this category, only six have left the said category based 
on the assessments and recommendations of the UN Committee for Development Policy.  Even these 
six, if we evaluate them today, would perhaps not have graduated today.  During the fourth United 
Nations Conference on LDCs held in Istanbul in 2011, the LDC Action Program me for 2011 -2020 was 
adopted. The main objective has been to ensure  that half of the LDCs meet the graduation criteria 
by 2020. Currently, 26 LDCs, of which  19 are Members out of a tota l of 35, are in the process of 
graduating from the category.  While  taking into account certain concerns raised by Members in the 
discussions the proposal clearly sets out as a principle that any support must be applied 
automatically, equally and unconditio nally to all Graduated LDCs for an equal period in line with the 
change of status. An agreement on this would be an important step in addressing the difficult 
situation that those countries leaving the LDC category face. On this we have shared a great deal  of 
flexibility and we count on the flexibility of Members in this regard . 
9.10.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:   
9.11.   The African Group supports the submission made by the LDC Group. We recogni ze that an 
abrupt loss of benefits can prove to be challenging and that it takes a certain amount of time for an 
LDC to be fully compliant with the obligations of WTO Agreements.  In addition to that, the pandemic 
has significantly harmed the development of least -developed countries and the scarcity of vaccines 
and therapeutics has further impaired their capacity to restore sustainable economic growth. We 
therefore support the request  for a 12 -year transition period for Graduating LDCs in view of giving 
them a reasonable amount of time to adjust to new rules.  
9.12.   The representative of Zambia  delivered the following statement:  
9.13.   Zambia supports the se submissions . Without a smooth transition f rom the LDC category , it 
would be very difficult for us LDCs to meaningfully participate in the multilateral trading system and 
this is because we have experienced a number of challenges, especially with the pandemic . We still 
remain a moving target up to now. So, a smooth transition for us and many other LDCs will be key 
in how we manage this  crisis in the medium to long term. Having a smooth transition would also 
allow us not to fall back into the LDC category in the long term given the challenges that ar e being 
faced by a number of our countries because of the pandemic.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 70 - 
 
  9.14.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
9.15.   We thank the LDC Group for the ir proposal s. As Members are aware, the issue of LDC 
Graduation raises some challe nging questions, and we appreciate the continued outreach from the 
LDCs.  Looking at WT/GC/ W/829, Para graph  1 proposes the gradual phase out of unilateral trade 
preferences, stating that preference granting Members: "shall seek to have procedures in place t o 
extend and gradually phase out their preferential market access scheme over a period of 6 to 9 
years…. ". This language raises several initial questions for us. For example, should the WTO be 
attempting to shape unilateral preference program mes? Second, i s the call for action in Paragraph 
1 aligned with, or even relevant to, our various preference program mes? And we are continuing to 
examine these questions.  The second part of the proposal, regarding potential support measures, 
also raises some questions.  Given that LDC Members face different challenges and unique 
circumstances, is a one -size-fits-all approach to S&D T a wise approach? And we believe, there is 
already WTO research that has looked into this question as well.  Also, given that, at the actual ti me 
of graduation, which we know is extended through the graduation process, graduating LDCs are 
often in a better position, in terms of development indicators, than some non -LDCs, should such 
graduating LDCs have a claim to benefits not available to non -LDCs who may have lower levels of 
development? So, we are not sure why we should be creating pockets of Members who are being 
left behind and we do believe that we need to consider a more inclusive approach.  
9.16.   These are important questions, and we do  not have sufficient time to unpack them in the 
short time remaining to MC12.  That said, we have taken note of the LDC Group's interest in technical 
assistance, in Paragraph 4.ii.  We think there could be an opportunity, post -MC12 at the expert level, 
to discuss a be tter approach to technical assistance for LDCs aimed at the implementation of WTO 
rules, and perhaps better linked with other WTO processes, such as Trade Policy Reviews.  As an 
initial matter, we  are not sure that such a discussion need be limited only to Graduating LDCs . It 
could be relevant and helpful to all LDCs.  While we do  not think that the proposal in WT/GC/ W/829 
offers a basis for an MC12 outcome, we can foresee further discussion of certain issues, among 
experts, particularly related to technical assistance to LDCs.  
9.17.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the following statement:  
9.18.   The ACP Group continues to pledge its full and unwavering support for this important 
submission on behalf of the LDC Group. We comme nd the pragmatism shown by the LDC Group. 
The vulnerability of these countries to external shocks is real and should always be taken into 
account by the WTO.  Graduation is never automatically accompanied by favourable conditions that 
warrant immediate reli nquishing of LDC flexibilities. A transition arrangement is of utmost 
importance to graduating LDCs and the proposed transition period in the submission is reasonable 
to allow these Members to face the significant trade and development challenges post -graduation. 
As a Group of developing countries and LDCs, we can relate to the vulnerabilities of LDCs which the 
COVID -19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated. Our systems are fragile and it only takes a global 
crisis of any magnitude to inflict irreparable dam age to our economies, lives and livelihood.  The ACP 
Group supports the LDCs Group's submission. We look forward to further productive engagement 
on the matter in order to support LDCs, including graduating LDCs, in their developmental 
aspirations and their  efforts to integrate into the multilateral trading system. We urge the 
Membership to give favourable consideration to the submission . MC12 can make this happen.  
9.19.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
9.20.   We associate with the st atement s made by the African Group and the ACP. We thank the LDC 
Group for its submission and its continued efforts towards a meaningful outcome and recall our 
previous statements on this issue.  As WT/GC/W/829 states, while LDC Graduation represents a 
significant achievement, leaving the LDC category also implies that graduating countries lose access 
to the LDC -specific international support measures which have contributed to their socio -economic 
development. At this time of heightened uncertainty, LDCs nee d special development support more 
than ever.  Based on the LDC Group's well formulated analysis, South Africa reiterates its support for 
the submissions in WT/GC/ W/807 and looks forward to constructive discussions towards a decision 
at MC12 that will ensur e continued support to LDCs after graduation. It  is important for the 
multilateral trading system  to deliver on issues impacting its most vulnerable Members.  We also 
support the call to reinvigorate the work of the Committee on Rules of Origin on the Implementation 
of the Bali and Nairobi Decisions.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 71 - 
 
  9.21.   The representative of Uganda  delivered the following statement:  
9.22.   Very soon we are all going to be LDCs. It is tragic that there is a political declaration on the 
WTO Response to the Pandemic as opposed to some ac tionable results. Uganda stand s with the ACP  
and the LDCs and ask,  is there possibly a fourth way? I have heard my Director -General mention a 
third way and I would like to propose, and this is a question with no good answer but to ask is there 
a fourth way ? Because I think if we all come here in  two days' time and there is nothing on the 
response, there is nothing on the economic impact. No one has been more severely impacted than 
LDCs and we are looking to our brothers and sisters graduating to graduate an d yet every single 
brother and sister who was planning to graduate has suffered greatly during  the pandemic and are 
fully back into the group in need of, as the United States  has said, post -MC12 technical assistance 
and perhaps it should not only include t ransition countries. So, I come to a fourth proposal. We 
appreciate everything that has been done by all our partners through COVAX and other companies 
and other manufacturers that have made it possible for us to try and reopen our economies. As the 
Direct or-General  has said in  various discussions with all partners and key stakeholders , we were 
wondering as LDCs , is there a possibility for us to open or reopen our economies through a combined 
and consolidated procurement of vaccines ? We see the work that CO VAX has done . We see the work 
that G AVI has done . But in addition to the work that has been done, as we try to open our economies, 
if we have combined procurement or consolidated procurement as LDCs, as Africa , as Latin America , 
as Asia, would this then bring the prices of the vaccines down within the TRIPS Agreement? I ask 
this question because of boosters. So on, we are going to start to scientifically discuss the efficacy of 
the vaccine. We are negotiating for something that wi ll pass in December and will not be relevant to 
anyone . Once it is scientifically proven that the vaccine wins, we need not just boosters but perhaps 
additional vaccines. Could we begin to look at a fourth way ? Could we begin to work with every 
manufacture r? Could we begin to work together to find a way to procure beyond COVAX in a manner 
combined and consolidated for the lowest price, the highest volume and the fastest delivery ? This is 
Uganda speaking outside of all of the wonderful statements made but ju st to propose  a fourth way  
– as economies must open . Otherwise, we  will all be LDCs in 2023.  
9.23.   The representative of Cambodia  delivered the following statement:  
9.24.   Cambodia supports and associate s with the statement  made by the LDC Group and  thanks 
those Member s who support the LDC Group's proposal.  Graduating out of LDC status indicate the 
level of achievements and development of a country but it also brought about new challenges which 
the newly graduating country would need to face.  No LDC should be discourage d from striving to 
graduate from the LDC status but there should be a smooth transition from moving up to another 
level. The proposed extension would provide this much needed time for the graduated country to 
adjust to new surroundings and make appropriate  adjustments.  The proposed transition period 
would go a long way in sustaining and accelerating the level of development of Graduating LDCs and 
to avoid falling into a situation that holds back development.  The LDC Group has been listening to 
views of all Members and have made appropriate adjustments which reflect strong flexibility and full 
engagement on our part.  We hope that the membership could favourably consider this proposal.  
9.25.   The representative of Tanzania  delivered the following statement:  
9.26.   We associ ate with t he statement of LDC Group  and call on Members to view LDCs as a special 
category of countries with special economic needs. Due to their special needs, LDCs have been 
granted favourable treatment in the WTO including preferential market access , the GSP, preferential 
rules of origin, services waiver, TRIPS waiver and many others in the multilateral trading system. 
As a result, these arrangements have immensely assisted t he LDCs to grow economically. Currently, 
a number of LDCs are  about to  graduat e. This is good news  yet at the same time scary for the 
respective Members knowing that all special treatment will be gone in  an instant. The issue of LDC 
Graduation need to be carefully handled through provisional meaningful transition period for a 
smooth landing to avoid backsliding. The WTO has the  role of doing the heavy lifting and nurturing  
the LDCs economically through trade and should seriously consider the LDCs ' draft decision.  
9.27.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the followin g statement:  
9.28.   We thank  the LDC Group for bringing forward this proposal and for the changes they have 
made to it in the course of the discussions with us and the number of other delegations' openness 
to that sort of dialogue. We are extremely supportive and  indeed pretty keen that we ensure there 
is a positive outcome for LDCs at the Ministerial next week. We remain absolutely committed to WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 72 - 
 
  supporting LDCs in their graduation efforts including through our own trade preference scheme and 
technical assistance . Graduation should be a cause for celebration. At the moment, we can not as a 
delegation commit to a specific number of years particularly as we engage in establishing our new 
developing countries trading scheme  which aspires to be more ambitious and more pr o-growth than 
our existing scheme. We remain very much open to working with Members including LDCs on the 
proposals to ensure a smooth transition which is a positive development in itself. We are concerned, 
as I know some others in this room are, about the  proposed unconditionality of the measures and 
we would like to understand how constructive it would be to have the Sub -Committee looking at 
issues around S&DT , which are obviously issues of much wider concern in this organization where 
we could not yet, s adly, reach consensus.  
9.29.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
9.30.   India has been a votary of LDCs ' integration into the multilateral trading system, and remains 
committed to undertake efforts to increase their share in global trade. Th e LDCs have been 
disproportionately impacted by the pandemic . They would need a reasonable additional time period 
to address the extensive economic, development, technological and health challenges facing them. 
To that end, India unequivocally supports an approach to be taken by all Members for an expeditious 
outcome on this issue with a reasonable time period post -graduation.  
9.31.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
9.32.   The European Union is mindful of the challenges that least-developed countries face in 
integrating in the global trading system.  The European Union believe s that there should be support 
and flexibilities for Members commensurate with their needs and capaci ty constraints beyond the 
group of LDCs.  Regarding the revised communication, the European Union welcomes the proposed 
reduction of the recommended transition time -period which is going in the right direction.  In the 
area of trade specifically, the aim of the European Union is to focus on how to facilitate and enhance 
the capacity of countries to assume commitments that foster integration in the global economy. In 
our view , that is the best way that the WTO can effectively contribut e to sustainable development.  
9.33.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
9.34.   Graduation from the LDC category is a major achievement, and Australia supports the 
development of appropriate transition arrangements in the WTO context, to c omplement such 
arrangements in our bilateral and regional engagement.  We welcome the LDC Group's leadership in 
seeking to identify appropriate transition arrangements.  To be most effective, these arrangements 
should be tailored to the diverse economic circ umstances and development needs of each graduating 
country.  Australia is actively considering the proposal to instruct the Sub -Committee for Least -
Developed Countries to develop draft transition measures . However , it is unhelpful to be prescriptive 
about t he scope of this Sub -Committee's work.  Australia's system of unilateral trade preferences 
already extends tariff concessions to LDCs for more than nine years beyond graduation but Members 
should have the flexibility to tailor extensions to need in consulta tion with the graduating country.  
Australia supports the approach outlined in the UNGA resolutions noted in Chad's covering 
communication to W T/GC/W/ 829 – LDC-specific special and differential treatment should be 
extended for a period appropriate to the de velopment situation of the graduating country. We look 
forward to engaging constructively with the LDC Group to achieve this outcome.  
9.35.   The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
9.36.   As we signalled at the December and March meetings, S witzerland is ready to discuss ways 
and means to support LDCs that face a changing environment due to graduation. We participated in 
the Chair's consultations and also met with proponents. We welcome the new proposal in 
WT/GC/ W/829. The increased focus on preferential Market Access as well as the long -term 
perspective have improved the proposal.  We stand ready to further consult with LDCs and other 
Members on this proposal. We hope that an outcome on this topic for MC12 is within reach.  
9.37.   The representative o f Mozambique  delivered the following statement:  
9.38.   We associate with the ACP statement and  support the need for progress and a positive 
conclusion of debates in this issue.  Members are well aware that LDCs have been negotiating with a WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 73 - 
 
  view to seek achievement  of a common ground on the so desired flexibility.  The interim arrangement 
submission by LDCs is a temporary one that LDCs seek so that Members can help them better fulfil 
their commitments during the  transition stage . Even though graduation could be seen as an upgrade 
of the development level, such brings  new challenge s including  the loss of certain markets  that were 
once fully open to them due to their LDC status . The pandemic has also substantially wiped out 
decades of progress and gains in the implement ation of SDGs . It has also exacerbated the social 
and economic gains achieved so far  by LDCs. Given the current challenges that have aggravated the 
LDCs' weak economic situation, we call on all Members ' to be more understanding on  the LDCs'  need 
for flexibilit ies and solidarity so that the discussions on th is request  can lead into an acceptable 
landing zone.  Despite all these challenges, the LDCs are committed to continue their firm and devo ut 
efforts in this regard.  We call upon  all Members to lend a positive consideration to this request with 
a view to achieve the desired and necessary outcome.  
9.39.   The representative of Bangladesh  delivered the following statement:  
9.40.   On behalf of the LDC Group, we thank all Members who participated and extended their 
support. The LDCs are  flexible and look forward to further discussion s. We are ready  to consult with 
Members and are open to any textual suggestions to address your concerns on our proposal.  So, 
please guide us in this process.  Through Members' cooperation, th e LDCs are  hopeful that an 
outcome at MC12 is possible. At the same time, we request the Chair, if possible, to conduct 
consultations in whatever configuration he deem s best. As always, we appreciate his guidance.  
9.41.   The Director -General  delivered the followi ng statement:  
9.42.   LDCs are an important constituency of this organization. At a personal level, their issues are 
close to my heart.  Institutionally, they are a test of the multilateral trading system's ability to deliver 
for all of its Members. The COVID -19 pa ndemic has not only reversed progress achieved on several 
dimensions, especially poverty, education, nutrition and health . It has also exacerbated pre -existing 
development challenges.  I am pleased to see LDCs at the WTO advance work in a united way and 
take an active part in discussions in the various WTO bodies. A number of LDCs are in the process 
of graduation, reflecting their success and raising incomes and reducing vulnerability. This is a very 
significant accomplishment, particularly in the face of th e pandemic, and in many cases reflects 
effective integration into the multilateral trading system. But it  is not without its own challenges 
because of the associated loss of the special status accorded to LDCs in the WTO rulebook. To gain 
a better apprecia tion of their concerns, last week I met with senior officials from Graduating LDCs  
from different geographic regions. Those conversations reinforced the importance of an outcome on 
LDC Graduation at MC12. This has also been reflected in the constructive approach the LDC Group 
has taken recently by recalibrating their proposal. This pragmatism is what we need at this final 
hour.  It is time we move into solution -finding mode. An outcome on LDC Graduation is within reach. 
My good offices have al so been requested by the LDC Group to find common ground.  I will work 
closely with  the Chair and all interested delegations to ensure that we deliver an outcome for LDCs 
at MC12. We cannot let this opportunity slip from our grasp. Let us roll up our sleeve s and find an 
outcome that will ensure a smooth and sustainable transition for Graduating LDCs.  
9.43.   The Chair  said he unders tood how important this issue was to the LDC Group. He also 
recognize d that some questions remain ed and he positively acknowledge d that there was clear 
willingness from the membership to continue discussing this matter with a view to finding a mutually 
agreeable way forward.  
9.44.   The General Council took note  of the statements made  and that work was continuing on this 
matter.  
10  REINVIGORATING TH E WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND NAIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISIONS ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDC S – STATEMENT BY THE LDC GROUP  
10.1.   The Chair  noted that the item was included in the agenda by Chad, on behalf  of the LDC 
Group , and invite d the delegation of Chad to make a statement.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 74 - 
 
  10.2.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered the following statement:  
10.3.   The LDC Group takes note of the report that is looking at the specific rules for LDCs on rules 
of origin with a view to reaching a paragraph on this matter  for MC12. On the basis of this , we call 
on all Members  to strengthen the rules with regard to implementing the relevant Ministerial Decisions 
and to continue to explore the link between the requirements for rules of origin and the preferential 
rules that were being used , to adopt best practices on the preferential rules of origin a nd the 
administrative requirements li nked to it and to  report on this work at the next Ministerial Conference.  
10.4.   The representative of Cambodia  delivered the following statement:  
10.5.   Cambodia associates  with the statement made by the LDC Group. The preferential rules of 
origin for LDCs is a longsta nding issue since the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005 whic h 
called for  preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs be transparent and simple, and 
contribute to facilitating market access.  This call was further built upon by the Ba li Ministerial 
Conference in 2013 then Nairobi in 2015 which called for further improvement on preferential rules 
of origin by preference -granting Members in favour of LDCs. The Nairobi Decision , in particular,  is 
an achievement for LDCs in this area . Yet the implementation of th is decision is lagging behind in 
terms of reform of rules of origin by preference giving countries.  We appreciate the work of the 
Committee on Rules of Origin regarding the implementation of the Bali and the Nairobi Decision s on 
this particular issue. However, there are still a lot to be done for the LDCs to further improve on the 
current level of market access.  Therefore, the proposal calls for taking stock of the ongoing work on 
utilization rates that has been initiated by LDCs and  considering best practices on preferential rules 
of origin and related administrative requirements to be reported to the next Ministerial Conference.  
We call on all  Members to support t he inclusion of this paragraph at the MC12 outcome document.  
10.6.   The repre sentative of Nepal  delivered the following statement:  
10.7.   Nepal associates with the statement made by the LDC Group and with the further clarification 
to be made by Tanzania . We support this proposal and urge all Members to positively consider this.  
10.8.   The repres entative of Tanzania , speaking as the LDC Focal Point on Rules of Origin , delivered 
the following statement:  
10.9.   Tanzania associates with the statement made by the LDC Group  and takes note of the 
progress achieved so far in the small group in finding a consensual text which will be included in the 
Ministerial Declaration. The text is mainly to affirm Members' commitment to fully implement the 
Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions and to continue the work in the CRO post MC12. We also 
take note of the implementation and progress made on the Nairobi Decision as adopted in 2015 
whereby much has been on notification of import data and some minor reforms on substantive rules 
of origin f rom few preference granting Members . But much remains to be done. In the past six years, 
the LDC Group has made several submissions in the CRO describing the challenges and possible 
solutions that could facilitate LDCs ' utilization of preferential markets in the preference granting 
Members. This should be a shared responsibility of all Members and not left to LDCs only. We 
therefore  urge all Members to adopt the draft text in the CRO for inclusion into the MC12 outcome 
document where  it will not be renegoti ated. 
10.10.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
10.11.   We thank the LDC Group for bringing this issue to the agenda. Since the negotiation of the 
Nairobi Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin in 2015, the United States and othe r preference 
granting Members have worked diligently to implement its provisions, notify program mes, and 
engage in substantive discussions in the Committee on Rules of Origin.  We were surprised when 
three days before the 14 October meeting, the LDC Group c irculated text to be included in a 
Ministerial  Statement.  We continue to work with the LDC Group and other Members on text that can 
be included in a statement, but we can not accept any text that creates new obligations. We think 
the continuation of the dis cussion is best suited for the CRO and not th e General Council . We have 
however offered language that we can accept to the LDCs.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 75 - 
 
  10.12.   The representative of Bangladesh  delivered the following statement:  
10.13.   Bangladesh associates with the statement s made by the LDC Group  and Tanzania. Proper 
utilization of the flexibilities under rules of origin, as decided by our Ministers in their previous 
sessions, is crucially important for the exports of the products originat ing in LDCs. The Group has 
reported i n several occasions that the utilization rate in different export destination s is mostly below 
the expected level. Therefore, the problem must be addressed. The LDC Group's proposal, as 
explained by Tanzania , should be considered to fulfil our collective c ommitment for the LDCs. 
Bangladesh fully supports the LDC Group 's proposal for a separate Ministerial outcome to further 
facilitate the preferential rules of origin  decisions in favour of LDCs.  
10.14.   The representative of India delivered the following statement : 
10.15.   India has been a strong supporter of LDCs ' integration into the multilateral trading system 
and we have been at the forefront of efforts to increase their share in global trade . India is the fourth 
biggest export destination for goods originating in LDCs  and we were among the first developing 
countries to extend preferences to LDCs . Since then , we have substantially expanded the coverage 
of our scheme for LDCs and simplified preferential rules of origin for the same . India provides duty 
free access to abo ut 96% of tariff lines for goods originating in LDCs with partial preference on 
another 114 tariff lines  – about 2.15 % of tariff lines . While we are supportive of all efforts to promote 
LDC integration, any Ministerial Declaration on this issue should app ropriately recognize the fact that 
while developed countries are obligated to extend duty -free quota -free market access to LDCs, 
developing countries, who have extended such preferences, have done so voluntarily.  
10.16.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
10.17.   The African Group remains supportive of all LDC initiatives, including the reinvigoration of 
the Work of the Committee on Rules of Origin and would favour a Ministerial Declaration.  
10.18.   The Chair underst ood that additional discussions w ould take place on this matter between 
the LDC Group and other Members.  
10.19.   The General Council took note  of the statements made.  
11  PAPER TITLED "THE LEGAL STATUS OF 'JOINT STATEMENT INITIATIVES' AND THEIR 
NEGOTIATED OUTCOMES" BY INDIA, SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA 
(WT/GC/W/819/REV.1)  
11.1.   The Chair  said that t he item was on the agenda at the request of the delegations of India,  
South Africa and Namibia and relate d to the Paper on "Legal Status of Joint Statement Initiatives 
and their Negotiated Outcomes", together with the communication in WT/GC/W/819/Rev.1. He 
invited  the delegation of  India to make a statement.  
11.2.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
11.3.   The Tokyo Round plurilateral codes created a fragment ed system of rules. While in respect of 
some Contracting Parties, the GATT rules were applicable . In respect of others , the rules of 
plurilateral codes were applicable. This created considerable complexity in determining what 
obligations were applicable in  respect of which Contracting Party. Recognizing problems created by 
the fragmented system of trade rules, Members sought an end to this problem. This has been clearly 
articulated in the following recitals of the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement – "Resolved, 
therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable multilateral trading system …. " and 
"Determined to preserve the basic principles and to further the objectives underlying this multilateral 
trading system. " On this issue, the Appellate Bod y in one of the earliest disputes under the WTO, 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut, had observed "The authors of the new WTO regime intended to put an 
end to the fragmentation (emphasis added) that had characterized the previous system. This can 
be seen from the  preamble to the WTO Agreement which states, in pertinent part: Resolved, 
therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable multilateral trading system 
encompassing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the results of past trade liberaliza tion 
efforts, and all of the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations."  Going back WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 76 - 
 
  to plurilateral agreements would therefore be a step in the wrong direction, and would be contrary 
to such clear resolve and determination enshrined i n the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement.  
11.4.   As co -sponsor to this paper, my delegation would like to reiterate that we are not questioning 
the right of Members to meet and discuss any issue. What we are saying is that when such 
discussions turn into negoti ations and their outcomes are to be brought into the WTO rulebook, 
fundamental rules of the WTO must be followed. More importantly, any attempt to introduce new 
rules, resulting from JSI negotiations, into the WTO rulebook without fulfilling the requiremen ts of 
Articles IX and X of the Marrakesh Agreement will create a precedent for any group of Members to 
bring any issue into the WTO without the required consensus , bypass the collective oversight of 
Members for bringing in any new rules or for carrying out  amendments to existing rules , usurp 
limited WTO resources available for multilateral negotiations , undermine balance in agenda setting , 
and most importantly result in Members disregarding existing multilateral mandates arrived at 
through consensus  – leading to the marginalization or exclusion of issues which are difficult but 
critical to the membership at large such as agriculture. We have seen in the last one month that 
Negotiating Groups are not getting rooms but JSI meetings are taking place in the Council Room. 
Meetings o n the  WTO Response to the Pandemic facilitation process were taking place on Zoom 
platform because of non -availability of Interprefy or this being very costly but at the same time, 
Interprefy was used for JSI meetings. Our paper only states that basic fundamental principles and 
rules of the rules-based multilateral trading system as enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement should 
be followed by all Members including the participants of various JSIs.  
11.5.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
11.6.   The Preamble of t he Marrakesh Agreement, is clear that the aim is to create "an integrated, 
more viable multilateral trading system " among Members, including the  establishment of a 
multilateral trading system  that embodies the principles of multilateralism, non -discriminat ion, 
decision -making by consensus and the development acquis.  The Joint Statement Initiatives  aim to 
develop and adopt new rules on existing and new trade -related matters among a sub -group of  
Members through modalities that confront the WTO's foundational commitments to multilateralism, 
consensus decision -making and the development acquis.  We need to be aware that introducing 
variable geometry into WTO negotiations would create an inherently discriminatory multi -tiered 
multispeed trading system and reinforc e asymmetrical bargaining power. The introduction of JSIs , 
if outcomes are sought to be brought into the WTO , has far -reaching institutional reforms. The JSIs 
will set a precedent that enables sub -groups of Members to develop their own rules on their own 
terms, bypass mandated bodies and processes, launch negotiations on topics that are not agreed, 
including whether those issues can be brought into the WTO.  
11.7.   We are concerned about the systemic implications of JSI s – importantly, its implications in 
fragmenti ng the multilateral trading system . Any process that enables some Members to change or 
redesign the WTO's rules without consensus decision -making should be of concern to all of us. The 
rules and principles of the Marrakesh Agreement provide the foundation for the WTO and should 
continue to be our guide of what was envisaged with the establishment of the WTO. Article II.1 of 
the Marrakesh Agreement provides clarity on what the purpose of the WTO is which is to "provide 
the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members ". It was 
established as a forum concerning Members ' "multilateral trade relations ". The systemic concerns 
include whether JSIs will worsen an already challenging situation wherein agreed mandates and 
issues are put in the periphery. We are already witnessing this in the context of the Doha Round 
where concerns of developing countries to rebalance WTO rules, obligations and commitments which 
were promised as the price for agreeing to the Uruguay Round now rema in largely unfulfilled.  
11.8.   The Marrakesh Agreement does not make provision for the so -called open plurilaterals and 
flexible multilateralism. Therefore, any suggestion that when offered on MFN basis, no consensus is 
required for bringing new rules into the WT O is legally inconsistent with the fundamental principles 
and procedures of the Marrakesh Agreement. Importantly, new rules cannot be brought into the 
WTO through amendment of Member s' Schedules.  We do not question the right for any group of 
Members to dis cuss any issue informally, but where such discussions turn into negotiations, and 
their outcomes are sought to be formalized into the WTO framework, this can only be done in 
accordance with the rules set out in the Marrakesh Agreement.  The legitimacy of th e WTO and its 
agreements depends on its ability to address the issues of its interest and concern to all Members 
and to find balanced outcomes even on the difficult issues that confront the Membership.  The Paper 
gives options that Members can consider in a ccordance with rules. We urge the Membership to reflect WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 77 - 
 
  on the issues raised in the paper and we remain ready to engage constructively with Members with 
a view to strengthen the multilateral character of the WTO.  
11.9.   The representative of Guatemala  delivered t he following statement:  
11.10.   Guatemala has carefully considered the document submitted by India, South Africa and 
Namibia.  Guatemala recalls that consensus in this organization means that a decision is agreed 
unless there is an explicit objection to such decisi on. The lack of consensus in the many negotiating 
areas is, precisely, the reason why some Members have been exploring other flexible approaches, 
including plurilateral initiatives.  It is telling to observe that some of the Members that have used 
more generously their right to object decisions in this organization are the same that are expressing 
concerns with the plurilateral discussions undertaken by other Members.  The issue of pluri lateral 
discussions would become moo t if Members were ready to commit to revitalize the WTO negotiating 
function and to strengthen its rulemaking. Unfortunately, as of today, India, one of the proponents 
of the document under consideration, is not ready to  accept a paragraph containing such 
commitment in the MC12 outcome document.  To conclude, the discussion on joint initiatives is not 
a legal but a political one . Members need to decide whether joint initiatives are necessary to 
overcome the deficiencies of  this organization in finding compromise solutions through multilateral 
negotiations and whether they will be part of the WTO Agreements. This implies a political decision.  
What is clear to my delegation is that, whether we like it or not, Members will con tinue discussing 
and negotiating either here at the WTO or elsewhere. Legal arguments will not stop Members from 
pursuing common objectives in favour of much -needed disciplines. Business and the world economy 
move fast , and governments need to catch up.  
11.11.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
11.12.   I would have liked to enthusiastically endorse this proposal but I wo uld not – for the same 
reasons that we have not on several occasions before . I could endorse pretty much every wo rd 
spoken by Guatemala  just a second ago. I would dearly love, as I am sure would many people in 
this room, for us to be witness to a flourishing series o f multilateral initiatives that are going to bear 
fruit next week at MC12 . Sadly, that is not where we  are. Where we are is that the energy in this 
organization lies in a series of plurilateral initiatives, JSIs, that are actually addressing some of the 
most important issues facing the world today, whether that be women entrepreneurs, MSMEs that 
comprise 95% of global businesses, the services sector through domestic services regulation, the 
environment and climate challenge that we are facing. This unfortunately for better or worse is 
where the vitality, the innovation and the ideas lie in this organization . So, the real debate we should 
be having today is about how we harness that energy, that innovation, that creativity for the benefit 
of the organization as a whole  – not to stifle the one bit of creativity that we have in this organization.  
11.13.   The representa tive of Chile delivered the following statement:  
11.14.   At the 19 November TNC meeting, reports by the coordinators of the joint initiatives, 
including on investment facilitation for development, demonstrated that certain topics can in fact be 
discussed in this organization and that agreements can be reached to the benefit of developing and 
least-developed countries, even when they have not participated in the relevant negotiations. We 
have not lost our way in such processes. We knew the what, the why and the how.  These initiatives 
are the response to the demands and challenges of a 21st century economy and they promote 
sustainable development and resilience, particularly in the context of recovering from the pandemic. 
We will continue to follow this path if, as is  becoming evident, we cannot move forward multilaterally.  
It is regrettable that the proponents have not yet agreed to begin discussions on the necessary 
reform of the organization's negotiating pillar which clearly does not work and requires pragmatic 
and flexible solutions.  
11.15.   The representative of Nepal  delivered the following statement:  
11.16.   Safeguarding multilateralism and facilitating rules -based, predictable, transparent, and 
inclusive trade with a view to achieving broad objectives of the Marrakesh Agreement is essential 
which is well -highlighted by the paper.  Consensus -based decision -making and consultation s, 
discussion s and dialogues to achieve the WTO objectives are crucial.  Nepal  supports the essence of 
the paper as it is consistent with the promotion and protection of the provision and spirit of the 
Marrakesh Agreement.   WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 78 - 
 
  11.17.   The representa tive of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
11.18.   When we see this agenda item being brought up again, we are reminded that the WTO really 
needs new input and reform after 26 years. Whether people like it or not, there is the fact that more 
and more JSIs in important areas are emerging and are discussed among the vast majority of 
Members with the same objectives of updating the WTO rulebook to reflect to the new developments 
and to cope with new situations. This trend shows the need of the WTO le gal structure allowing for 
more flexibility. Only with such flexibilities can the WTO really stay relevant and respond to the 
rapidly changing global trade especially in a digitalized world during the pandemic. The recent 
significant progress in services d omestic regulation on concluding the JSI negotiation text is the 
strongest evidence showing that Members are eager to find a new approach to further facilitate trade 
and boost liberalization regardless of procedural or substantive issues. Other substantial  progress 
were particularly shown on e -commerce and investment facilitation negotiations in addition to 
MSMEs, trade and environment  and trade and gender, among others . 
11.19.   The voluntary, open, transparent and inclusive nature of plurilateral initiatives is a practical 
approach to update the WTO rules and to make the WTO a living organization. It does not affect 
non-participating Members' right s and obligations. Rather, they can choose to join when they are 
ready. In reality, these JSIs benefit all Members incl uding non -participating  ones. In addition, from  
past experience, multilateral agreements are usually derived from plurilateral negotiations. It would 
be more practical for Members to find pathways to integrate the results of JSIs into the multilateral 
trading system. We see it being the only way forward for the WTO to make changes at this stage. 
What we do not like to see is Members deciding to conduct the negotiations outside the WTO. It 
would be unfortunate if some Members decide to go elsewhere to negoti ate these new items. This 
would undermine the WTO.  We urge Members to exercise their collective wisdom to develop a 
workable way forward for bringing the real benefit by the plurilateral negotiations to all Members, 
based on voluntariness, openness, transp arency and inclusiveness, and taking into account the 
respective development stages and maintaining the existing rights and obligations of Members.  
11.20.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
11.21.   Indonesia thank s India, South Africa and Namibia for raising this highly important issue and 
for their very useful basis for the discussion on this matter. Concerns on the institutional issue of 
initiatives in the WTO should be addressed in a proper manner since WTO Agreements have set rules 
on pursuing the negotiating agenda in the WTO.  
11.22.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
11.23.   At previous General Council meetings where this submission was discussed, it was clear that 
a very large number of Members are involved i n plurilateral negotiations under the Joint Statement 
Initiatives and support such approaches which provide an essential tool to moderni ze the WTO 
rulebook. We encourage more Members to join the ongoing JSI negotiations.  As stated in previous 
occasions, ma intaining the option of developing rules that respond to current economic and trade 
realities through plurilateral agreements is absolutely vital for the WTO's relevance and credibility. 
This is what matters and we need a reflection on how to create an eas ier path for plurilaterals to be 
integrated in the multilateral architecture. We should avoid on the other hand having a legalistic 
debate in this setting on the legal claims of this submission – many of which are simply not valid as 
we have pointed out in  previous meetings. The WTO rulebook provides for a number of options to 
give outcomes negotiated in such context legal effect such as through scheduling of additional 
commitments in the individual Members' schedules.  This shows the importance of having th e 
discussion on the relationship between the WTO architecture and plurilateral agreements with 
Members as part of future work on how to improve the WTO's functioning. We urge Members to 
agree at MC12 to set up a structured process that would allow to have such a discussion in the WTO.  
11.24.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
11.25.   JSIs contribut e to updating the WTO rulebook and to ensuring the relevance of the WTO in 
the world today. Without the JSIs, which work on the front -runner issues facing the world, the WTO 
risks becoming less relevant and even losing its raison d'être as a cornerstone of the multilateral 
trading system. We echo what Guatemala said particularly that business will not wait for us and that 
we really need to tackle the pressing issues.  We have high hopes that JSIs will achieve concrete WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 79 - 
 
  outcomes at MC12 and beyond. Japan will c ontinue to work with other Members to deliver substantial 
outcomes in the JSIs.  
11.26.   The representative of Costa Rica , speaking as the Coordinator of the JSI on Services 
Domestic Regulation , delivered the following statement:  
11.27.   On the JSI on services domestic re gulation, as I have noted on previous occasions, the 
participants in this JSI have carefully considered the concerns expressed by India and South Africa, 
but we do not agree with their legal interpretations. I do not wish to repeat the legal arguments 
which I have previously explained in th e General Council on the reasons why these negotiations, 
and the outcome they will produce, are firmly anchored within WTO rules. With regard to the JSI on 
Services Domestic Regulation, the participants make use of the mu ltilaterally agreed flexibility under 
the GATS that provides Members with the possibility of assuming different levels of specific 
commitments, with respect to different sectors and measures, and within the context of existing 
standards. Nor is there any p rovision in the WTO Agreement or the GATS that requires consensus 
for a Member to make improvements to its schedule of specific commitments under the GATS.  
Article  XVIII of the GATS unambiguously establishes that Members have the right to incorporate 
commi tments within the scope of this article in their GATS Schedules.  
11.28.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
11.29.   This paper has raised very pertinent questions which not only have implications for the 
legality of steps taken by some  Membe rs but also for the fundamental nature and functioning of this 
organization. We have consistently maintained that notwithstanding the content or subject the JSIs 
seek to address, they pose a central challenge to the consensus -based decision -making principl e of 
the multilateral  trading  system.  Consensus  lies at the core of this multilateral institution. 
Compromising this principle is a strike at the very foundation of multilateralism.  We have heard, 
even today by certain delegations, that the negotiating fun ction of the WTO needs to be restored. 
We have also heard from proponents that JSIs are a way of advancing negotiations when they are 
deadlocked elsewhere. This is precisely the problem. We need to assess and ask ourselves, how is 
it that the negotiating f unction is institutionally or structurally broken? We have noted that the NGR, 
despite the deadlocks over years, is still carrying on its negotiations. Similarly , we see all negotiating 
bodies and regular bodies convening regularly their Chairs and the M embers and working tirelessly 
in the multilateral format. To be clear, the negotiating structures and function do not need fixing. It 
is the nature of the subject being discussed in the room, and the diverging views of Members on it 
that create a stalemate, not a breakdown in the structures of the organization. In addition, if 
negotiations are launched prematurely when the entire Membership is not ready, or multilaterally 
mandated subjects that are important to Members are continually blocked, there will inev itably be 
deadlocks. If by restoring the negotiating function, the intention is to do away with the consensus -
based element of this organization, we would be weakening our very foundation.  JSIs undermine 
the true principles of multilateralism even if they are launched behind  deadlock in negotiations 
elsewhere. The questions posed in this paper a re pertinent . We look forward to discussing this aspect 
particularly with reference to upholding and strengthening the fundamental pillars of this system.  
11.30.   The representative of the Russian Federation  delivered the following statement:  
11.31.   The Russian Federation would like to refer to its previous statements under this agenda item 
and urge co -sponsors of the initiative to take a more constructive approach towards  the WTO's 
response to new challenges in international trade. The approach introduced by the co-sponsors is 
not quite fair towards those Members who remain ready and willing to participate in active 
negotiating format aimed at reaching a common understandi ng on urgent matters of trade policies 
not yet covered by the current WTO rulebook. The Russian Federation confirms its interest in 
incorporating results of the future plurilateral agreements into the WTO law given that such 
agreements would be open for al l Members and abide by the non -discrimination principle. We are 
confident that this issue may be addressed within the practical work on WTO Reform which we will 
be able to launch at MC12.  
11.32.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
11.33.   As we have said before, plurilateral negotiations have a long history in this house. WTO -
consistent plurilateral trade agreements with broad participation play an important role in advancing WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 80 - 
 
  critically -needed rulemaking in this organi zation and complementin g progress towards multilateral 
outcomes. In just over a week, we are going to register our first major recent success on this front 
with the conclusion of the Services Domestic Regulation Initiative. We should all be proud of the fact 
that this Initiative  is going to contribute to the success of MC12.  As we have said before, and will 
continue to say, we do not agree with the legal arguments in this paper. In particular, we want to 
reiterate that consensus is not required in order for Members to launch plur ilateral initiatives. 
Consensus is also not required for a group of Members to collectively improve their schedules. Over 
110 Members are participating in one or more of these plurilateral initiatives, and further Members 
continue to join – as we have seen  with the Philippines' welcome news this week that it is joining 
the Services Domestic Regulation Initiative. This seems to indicate that, at a very minimum, a large 
majority of Members share our view on this paper.  Australia continues to encourage all Mem bers to 
participate in these plurilateral initiatives – and if they do not wish to join – to at least keep an open 
mind on them. This will help us to deliver outcomes that can moderni ze and enhance the WTO 
rulebook for the benefit of the entire Membership.  
11.34.   The representative of Tunisia  delivered the following statement:  
11.35.   Tunisia  reiterates its commitment to the WTO as an advocate of the rules -based multilateral 
trading system in which decisions are adopted by consensus.  Plurilateralism should remain an 
excep tion either as a basis for negotiations or for the adoption of new rules.  The progress made in 
discussions on the work on joint initiatives should not deviate from their informal framework. The 
formalization of their results under WTO rules can only occur in accordance with the rules of 
procedure for amendments and decision -making as provided for in the Marrakesh Agreement.  
11.36.   The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:  
11.37.   I echo many colleagues from around the room such as Guatemala, the United Kingdom , 
Japan, the Russia n Federation , Australia and the E uropean Union . This is not the first time that this 
agenda item has been discussed . Nonetheless , as the proponents of this agenda have done, let me 
once again read the Singapore's position via three points. First, JSIs are in line and in sync with the 
workings of the WTO . The most significant feature of the ongoing JSIs is that they remain open, 
transparent and inclusive. They encourage the participation of all Members with the aim of obtaining 
a multilateral outcome. We have always negotiated in such spirit at the WTO and this is no different.  
Second, plurilaterals have been proven to be legitimately  integrated into the multilateral trading 
system . An example is the Information Technology Agreement which many Members including non -
proponents of the JSIs are party to.  Third, the JSIs strengthen the raison d'être of the WTO and 
enhances its relevance in  the 21st century. In a time when this organization faces numerous 
challenges, they represent bright spots  that brought together a vast majority of Members  to work 
towards meaningful and relevant outcomes and address new emerging issues. Third, we look for ward 
to the  conclusion of the negotiations in the  JSI on Services Domestic Regulation at MC12 . We will 
continue to work closely with like -minded Members and continue the good progress on JSIs.  
11.38.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
11.39.   India thank s Members for their engagement today on this agenda item. During the 
discussions today , we again heard a number of delegations stating that they do not agree with the 
contents of the paper. However, we are yet to hear any legal basis for their d isagreement. We would 
urge these Members to express their views more explicitly on various elements of our paper . Our 
paper only states that Members need to follow the foundational rules of the rule s-based multilateral 
trading system as enshrined in the Ma rrakesh Agreement.  We thank delegations for explicitly stating 
that purpose of bringing  the reform paragraph in the outcome document is to streamline JSI s into 
the WTO framework. Does blocking text -based negotiation s in the TRIPS Council , the G90 proposal 
in the CTD SS and the discussion on a permanent solution on PSH in the CoA SS revitalize and 
reinvigorate the negotiating function? Our paper is not political but legal in nature. We cannot bury  
mandated issues just because certain Members  do not like it  or for new issues to  be brought in.  
11.40.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 81 - 
 
  12  PROPOSED GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION ON PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE 
TRANSPARENCY AND IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS – ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHILE; COSTA RICA; THE 
EUROPEAN UNION; ICELAND; ISRAEL; JAPAN; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; MEXICO; NEW 
ZEALAND; NORWAY; PARAGUAY; THE PHILIPPINES; SINGAPORE; SWITZERLAND; THE 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; UNITED 
KINGDOM; AND THE UNITED STATES (JOB/GC/204/REV.8 - JOB/CTG/14/REV.8)  
12.1.   The Chair noted that the  item was included in the agenda by the United States, on behalf of 
co-sponsors, together with the latest revised communication in document JOB/GC/204/Rev.8 – 
JOB/CTG/14/Rev.8 , and invited the delegation of the United States to make a statement.  
12.2.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
12.3.   Today the co -sponsors of the proposal on Procedures to Enhance Transparency  and Improve 
Compliance with Notification Requirements in JOB/ GC/204/Rev.8 and JOB/CTG/14/Rev .8 return with 
additional enhancements to share with the General Council.  As MC12  fast approaches, we consider 
this effort to address systemic issues with transpar ency exemplary of the kind of reform work that 
will be necessary to strengthen this institution in the years to come.  We are pleased that the proposal 
now has 21 co -sponsors. We note that just this week Colombia joined as a new co -sponsor. In 
addition, Par aguay and Iceland became co -sponsors since the previous version was circulated.  The 
revisions in this text are few but significant, and in fact emphasize that improvements to notification 
procedures will be driven by input from the Members through their ac tive participation in the Working 
Group on notifications . This is reflected in P aragraph s 3b, 3e and 3h as well as in actions taken in 
specific committees and bodies as reflected in P aragraph 5.  
12.4.   We continue to include administrative measures for chronic la te notifiers who do not ask for 
help. We have made serious efforts to ensure that the Members who require assistance will be able 
to get it to overcome capacity constraints. WTO Membership is a privilege that also includes 
obligations that all Members agre ed to as a condition of Membership. The inclusive nature of the 
WTO means that we are all responsible for its success, and therefore we must hold each other 
accountable.  In Paragraph 10 a (i), the language has been adjusted to make clear that the 
designati on "Member with notification delay " is to be reported as a standing item on the Council 
agenda, and not something noted each time a Member takes the floor.  We have also clarified that 
relevant administrative measures would not apply in the case of negotiat ions, taking note of the 
concerns raised by some Members during past General Council meetings that Members' rights of 
participation were being taken away.  
12.5.   Several additional modifications relating to information collection in reporting documents, 
including  in G/L/223, are intended to provide greater transparency and information on notifications 
that can be used to develop more targeted training.  This is a realistic and practical proposal  – one 
which has evolved gradually and improved significantly thanks to  the extensive Member 
consultations that have taken place over the past year.  It includes many good ideas for reforming 
the operation and effectiveness of notifications without being prescriptive or prejudging outcomes 
of the Working Group, offers tangible  benefits for all Members , developing and LDC Members in 
particular, and can provide enhanced trade predictability and trust between Members.  This proposal 
is an invaluable opportunity to bring greater transparency to the WTO. It is something tangible we 
can do right now to make a difference.  We invite Members to join in supporting this proposal at 
MC12 and showing our dedication to WTO Reform.  
12.6.   The representative of Colombia  delivered the following statement:  
12.7.   As was mentioned, Colombia recently confirmed it s support for the proposed decision. The 
latest changes are meaningful and appropriate, in particular those now extending the same 
treatment to agriculture notifications and those separating the intended effects on Chairpersons 
between formal and informal Committee meetings. These changes, together with the willingness of 
proponents to engage in dialogue, convinced us to lend our support to the proposal.  We encourage 
all Members that have not yet given their support to the proposal to consider the new version of the 
text carefully and support it. Greater transparency is important in itself for all WTO  Agreements . It 
is important for the organization as a whole and it is important for its domestic effects as it is the 
best way for keeping efforts focused  on being up to date with the notification disciplines.  We would 
like to thank the co -sponsors and the United States for the initial explanations.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 82 - 
 
  12.8.   The representative of Brunei Darussalam  delivered the following statement:  
12.9.   Aside from the amendment to state that "Phase 1 Measures " will not apply "in the case of 
negotiations ", the differences in the present text have been minimal at best.  Brunei Darussalam 
agrees that transparency is an important element for the basic functioning of a rules -based 
organization such as the WTO, and that the monitoring function of the WTO is one of the important 
pillars holding up the organization. We should also remember however the importance of inclusive 
participation for all Members and note previous calls made by some Members  to bear in mind that 
transparency should not just be limited to notifications which this proposal is focused on. We also 
recall that in some of the other points that have been made by Members, the so -called 
"Administrative Measures " do not address the roo t cause of delays and would instead have a 
detrimental, counter -productive and disproportionate effect.  In this regard, we are concerned with 
the timeframes proposed for the escalation from being subjected to Phase 1 measures to then having 
Phase 2 measure s imposed. The current pandemic and its resulting crisis have clearly shown that 
much can happen in the space of one year which can have a long -term effect on a country and its 
capacity and resources. As such, and if the goal is indeed to help bring Member s into compliance 
with notification commitments for the benefit of all, timeframes should be realistic and sufficient to 
operationalize any needed action.  
12.10.   The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
12.11.   Canada remains convinced of the long -term benefits approval of this proposal would bring 
to our organization. Much of our discussion over the past year and a half has been about the 
importance of improved transparency and how it can help us all respond to crisis situations. This 
proposal offe rs us an opportunity to examine how to support those improvements to find new tools 
to support each Member's efforts to comply with the notification obligations and to encourage the 
provision of the assistance we all know produces positive results. Canada supports its adoption.  
12.12.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
12.13.   The United Kingdom  welcome s this proposal that has been brought to the General Council, 
for the third time and welcome Colombia as an additional co -sponsor.  As we said before, and echoing 
the comments just made by Canada , transparency lies right at the heart of this organization and 
anything we can do to enhance it, as this proposal does, should be welcome d. The United Kingdom 
commends t he way the co -sponsors  have engaged with others across this organization and thank s 
those Members who have engaged with us in that effort. I hope that when Members look at this 
proposal, they will see the way in which the co-sponsors have attempted to take onboard the 
comments,  suggestions and concerns from others across this organization. I hope that in the few 
days that we have before us before our Ministers gather in this building , we will find other Member s 
following the example set by Colombia this morning to join this prop osal. 
12.14.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
12.15.   At the outset, we thank co -sponsors for their submission which we have had the benefit of 
responding to on previous occasions. The ACP Group attaches great importance to transparency and 
notification in the WTO. All Members recognize the importance of thei r notification obligations 
including submitting them in a timely manner. We also see value in Technical Assistance and 
Capacity Building for Members which are encountering difficulties in fulfilling their notification 
obligations.  Where the ACP Group has m ajor concerns is with respect to the proposed administrative 
measures contained in the submission from co -sponsors.  Financial penalties are not contemplated 
in the current and more recent submissions. Nonetheless, we have specific and systemic concerns 
about the use of punitive measures, especially in a context where developing countries which fail to 
make timely notifications, are not wilfully or strategically doing so, but have formidable capacity 
constraints. As we have stated on previous occasions, a pu nitive approach will serve only to further 
alienate many developing countries and may even undermine the already faltering capacity of 
Members to agree on future binding commitments. The ACP Group sees discussions on transparency 
and notifications as part of broader conversations on WTO Reform. As we have said in previous 
statements to co -sponsors, reform should be handled in a holistic manner that allows the 
participation of all Members. It is possible that at MC12, our Ministers may agree to a mechanism t o 
advance discussions on WTO Reform. The ACP Group looks forward to engaging co -sponsors on their 
ideas in such a context. We will remain open for dialogue and constructive.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 83 - 
 
  12.16.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the fol lowing 
statement:  
12.17.   The African Group has always been supportive of the principle of transparency. We further 
fully understand the importance of timely notifications in this respect and with regard to the 
monitoring function of the WTO.  However, we do not be lieve that the introduction of administrative 
and punitive measures, especially against developing Members that fail to meet all their notification 
obligations, would help either the organi zation or the Membership. On the contrary , it may end up 
alienating  developing Members that are already struggling to fully comply to their notification 
obligation s. The African Group takes this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for technical assistance 
provided on notification s. It should nevertheless be acknowledge d that such assistance does not 
address all the difficulties faced by the Group in fulfilling our transparency obligations.  We are willing 
to engage constructively in discussions to improve the transparency rules of the WTO which  must 
not be unnecessarily bu rdensome and onerous especially in light of the limited institutional capacity 
of developing and LDC Members . 
12.18.   The representative of Turkey  delivered the following statement:  
12.19.   We believe keeping trade transparent is one of the most important functions of the  WTO. To 
ensure this and to render the trading environment predictable for our traders, we need to adhere to 
our notification obligations. On this part, we fully agree with the proponents. We also agree that 
there is room for improvement of Members' record  of meeting their notification obligations.  However, 
as a developing country, we know with first -hand experience that notification requirements may, at 
times, represent real challenges. Again, experience shows that, once a notification is handled 
properly,  repetition is much easier. The assistance of the WTO Secretariat is of immense importance 
in this process.  That is why, what we need is, in certain areas, simplification of notification formats, 
longer timeframes, technical assistance and close guidance t o assist Members to comply. Although 
the administrative measures foreseen in the current proposal are further relaxed, we still believe 
that rather than this kind of measures, what we need for enhancement of transparency is result -
oriented, pragmatic appro aches.  We are ready to work with interested Members for such proposals.  
12.20.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
12.21.   We associated with the statements made by the African Group and the ACP. As we earlier 
stated in the previous meeting, we still want to emphasize that one of the core principles of the WTO 
is transparency and it  is important for Members to ensure compliance to notification. However, it is 
equally important that the challenges being faced by the developing countries should be tak en into 
consideration. It is imperative to note that the challenges are not only lack of capacities rather it 
includes systemic and structural challenges in not meeting up with notifications. No functional or 
administrative measure should be applied on any Member due to delay on notification. The constraint 
faced by developing countries must be tackled. We do not support any administrative measure to 
Members at this stage . At the same time, we  remain available for constructive engagem ents on how 
to enhance notification obligations.  
12.22.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
12.23.   We commend  the United States' leadership on this transparency proposal and thank its 
responses to all possible concerns.  The proposal addresses the challenges and bottlenecks that 
hinder the proper operation of WTO Agreements. We therefore encourage all Members to attach 
greater attention on the positive effects that could be generated by this proposal to improve the 
fundamental function  of the WTO.  
12.24.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
12.25.   As mentioned by the United States, some further improvements have been introduced, 
taking into account input by the Membership to make the proposal even more practical and inclusive.  
This proposal could be a valuable part of an MC12 outcome in relation to WTO Reform in the crucial 
area of transparency.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 84 - 
 
  12.26.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
12.27.   The CARICOM Group ass ociates with the statement made by the ACP. The Group recognizes 
the importance of transparency as a key tenet of the WTO and therefore thanks the co -sponsors for 
the revised proposal. We take note of the amendments that have been made to the proposal . Despite 
the removal of financial penalties, punitive measures remain in the text. We have on a number of 
occasions now indicated our preference to have these removed from the proposal. Specific reasons 
for this have been elaborated by the ACP Group in the sta tement.  While  we note the inclusion of the 
reactivation of the Working Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures, a more productive 
method of work would be t o first advance discussions in the Working Group. Only when that work is 
sufficiently mature  should we return to the General Council to seek a decision which is in the best 
interest of all Members. We repeat our suggestion that proponents enhance their engagement with 
developing and LDC Members , including with the CARICOM Group. On the nature and  extent of the 
challenges which we face in meeting transparency and notification obligations , this could serve as 
an indicative gate on how best we will assess technical assistance and capacity building needs of 
Members. CARICOM remains engaged and ready t o further discuss these important issues.  
12.28.   The representative of Bangladesh  delivered the following statement:  
12.29.   Bangladesh  appreciates the recent engagement with the U nited States  on behalf the co -
sponsors  to further discuss this proposal. T ransparency is an  essential pillar . Only a few notification 
templates c ould not however  assure transparency. We take note that the co -sponsors recogniz e the 
difficulties of some Members and their capacity constraints to comply with notification requirements. 
We also welcome the provision o n consultation s with relevant committees and other working groups 
and bodies to identify both systemic and specific im provements such as introducing simplified 
notification formats, updating reporting requirements, holding additional trainings and workshops at 
the committee level and using new digital tools that can help Members improve compliance with 
notification obliga tions. We have  earlier stressed that notification provisions under different 
agreements are diverse and the capability of the LDCs to notify is severely constrained by lack of 
technical capacity and unique internal coordination challenges. The same is the case for the list of 
Agreements and Understandings that the co -sponsors mentioned under Paragraph 1 of the draft 
decision. According to Article XI.2  of the Marrakesh Agreement, the LDCs ' "will only be required to 
undertake commitments and concessions to th e extent consistent with their individual development, 
financial and trade needs or their administrative and institutional capabilities ". The LDCs are 
therefore not to be forced to act beyond their capacity and limitation.  Paragraph 9 of this draft 
decisio n should take into consideration the challenges that many LDCs face in complying with 
notification obligations that require severe internal  administrative coordination in their capitals.  
Without addressing these challenges, a conditional pre -requisite cann ot do justice to the LDCs.  We 
invite the proponents to review their proposal under Paragraph 9 in light of Article XI.2 of the 
Marrakech Agreement and look forward to working with Members in this area.  
12.30.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following s tatement:  
12.31.   Japan appreciates the collective effort by all the co -sponsors  as well as the constructive 
engagement of other Members  on this proposal up to this point. We are pleased to welcome all the 
new co -sponsors. Enhancing transparency is an important pi llar of WTO Reform. As the first step, 
this proposal is calling for discussions among Members to improve the notification system.  We hope 
that all Members support this proposal to show our readiness to reform the WTO.  
12.32.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
12.33.   Pakistan echo es our past statements under this agenda item. Transparency is a fundamental 
pillar of the WTO which brings predictability to trade. We are not  however  sure that the proposal will 
have the desired impact of i mproving transparency with regard to notifications. We are not convinced 
that non -compliance is always wilful or has quick fixes , for instance , through technical assistance.  
The problem must be fixed where it exists and , in this case , the real problems lie  in the capacity 
constraints of developing countries as pointed out by many Members before us. Lack of technical 
training of staff  and institutional capacity, and insufficient human resources to carry out the desired 
tasks in the stipulated time in the cum bersome detail they are required are a few of those 
constraints.  These problems are not excuses  but defining attributes of developing countries, 
generally. No amount of technical assistance but only long -term development can overcome these WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 85 - 
 
  shortcomings. Pa kistan therefore re -emphasi zes that , on notifications,  administrative and punitive 
measures would not lead to any optimal resolution. Such measures risk being counter -productive.  
12.34.   We call for simplifying procedures and seek an approach that makes the oblig ations easier 
and less complicated. For that, we are willing to have a constructive conversation. We cannot 
therefore support this paper at this time.  We note that no Member is fully compliant with all its 
transparency obligations at all times including ev en those with all the infrastructure and capabilities 
at their disposal.  Transparency should permeate the entire functioning of the WTO . In times such as 
these, where global emergencies require urgent collective action, matters of global interest such as 
vaccine production and manufacturing licenses and technology sharing must also remain 
transparent.  Transparency is not confined to notification obligations. The conduct of business and 
procedures, regular work of Councils and Committees, negotiations, appro aches adopted for 
negotiations and in Members' agreements with other Members  – all must be equally transparent. In 
times such as these where global emergencies require urgent collective action, transparency in 
matters of global interest such as vaccine pro duction and manufacturing licenses and technology 
sharing must also be transparent. Pakistan can work with Members to address transparency in its 
true spirit and for the betterment of the Membership.  
12.35.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , delivered the following statement:  
12.36.   The LDC Group appreciates the exchanges we had on th is document  with the co -sponsors . 
The Group is aware of the importance of notifications within the WTO and  equally aware  of the 
limited ability  of Members to meet their notification obligations  – which should be taken into account . 
The Group reiterates that the conditionalities attached to the flexibilities regarding the new 
obligations may not  be sufficient to  address the systemic and structural issues we face both  in the 
capital and in Geneva.  Footnote 1 regarding administrative measures is not sufficient to provide 
reassurance to Members who have had negative experiences with administrative measures and 
believe that such practices run the risk of discouraging Members in their  participat ion in the WTO's 
work instead of integrating them into the multilateral trading system.  The LDC Group wishes to 
strengthen the capacity of its Members in  terms of  WTO notifications but is not in a position to 
support a framework for the discrimination or punishment of Members which are already fac ing a 
wide range of  constraints. The Group hopes that the co -sponsors will continue to, in line with other 
Members, work in a positive way to increase the number of notifications in the WTO b odies. The TFA 
might be a useful model. Thus, the LDCs are open to work with the co -sponsors and any other 
Members on the issue.  
12.37.   The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:  
12.38.   We welcome the reiterative dialogue over this proposal which  has incorporated many 
constructive comments and inputs from Members. The proposal is comprehensive and balanced in 
incentivizing notification compliance while ensuring Members with difficulties will receive the 
technical assistance they require. The propo sal recognizes that notification obligations may differ 
across WTO Agreements and calls for a bottom -up approach by working with relevant committees 
to identify targeted recommendations to facilitate compliance. Naturally, we welcome Members with 
further i deas to use that avenue to give us their feedback. The proposal will complement other MC12 
deliverables as part of a comprehensive response to the pandemic and WTO Reform. The complete 
and timely submission of notification is key to ensure effectiveness of  the WTO's monitoring function. 
It will also help to mitigate trade disruptions and facilitate post -pandemic recovery by building a 
more transparent and predictable trading environment.  
12.39.   The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
12.40.   China t hanks the U nited States  for raising this important agenda. We support the importance 
of enhancing transparency. However, on this specific proposal, China still has concerns on some 
issues, especially on counter -notification and punitive measures. We are op en to further discuss the 
communication with proponents.  
12.41.   The representative of Paraguay  delivered the following statement:  
12.42.   Paraguay is a co-sponsor of th e most recent version  of this proposal. I n the seventh  revision 
and subsequent changes , Paraguay was critical of the initiative up until that point. However, at that WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 86 - 
 
  point we have seen a positive change in the document which  reflect ed Members' comments and 
address ed their concerns. The new changes which have been introduced in the eighth  revision also 
continue  this approach . We urge Members who are still concerned to work collaboratively with us 
with the view to finding support and bringing this very important initiative forward which will 
significantly contri bute to this organization and its work. Monitoring is a key function of the WTO 
and depends largely on transparency of Members in the implementation of their policies . This is the 
best source of trade intelligence especially for those without a vast foreig n network.  It should be in 
the interest of all developing Members to co-sponsor  this initiative which will allow for more efficient 
and effective monitoring of their trade interests. The current version provides  the requisite balance 
to address our concern s related to the difficulties faced by  developing and LDC Members and the  
technical assistance which will be provided in order to overcome them.  
12.43.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
12.44.   Listening  to the conversation on this item,  it is clear that there is widespread consensus that 
we must act to improve transparency.  This proposal has assuaged part of our concerns on monitoring 
and transparency , and we thank the United States for introducing it. We are willing to enter into 
dialog ue with other Members on this important issue . We welcome the suggestion that the exercise 
should address the quality of information provided as part of notification requirements.  Transparency 
is likewise an  important part of our WTO Reform agenda.  
12.45.   The rep resentative of India delivered the following statement:  
12.46.   I completely agree with first para graph  of the preamble in JOB/GC/204 that transparency 
and notification requirements constitute fundamental elements of many WTO Agreements and a 
properly functioning WTO system, and thus of Members' obligations. This proposal essentially aims 
to increase the burden of notifications on developing and LDC  Members  while terming such additional 
disciplines as transparency. Additional compliance burden is not transparency. A multilateral 
organization can only be more transparent if all Members work towards this objective.  Several 
proponents have not di stinguished themselves when it comes to setting an example on transparency. 
Let us look at the deliberations in the last Council for Trade in Goods which took place on 1 and 2 
November. Several Members raised detailed concerns and anxieties about non -transparent and 
arbitrary changes made to tariff schedules, Aggregate Measure of Support and Special Safeguard 
Mechanism inheriting of either or both the European Union and the United Kingdom as a result of  
the EU-28 moving to an EU -27 and the United Kingdom st ructure. We have already had several 
discussions on transparency in the context of MC12 which is just a week away. Let us reflect on how 
the negotiations have been conducted in several areas, where Facilitators have brought in text which 
has been imbalance d. When Members have complained about this imbalance, changes have still not 
been made or only very grudgingly introduced as Alt texts. While you have conducted your 
proceedings in a transparent way, some of the other rooms have not given the same respect to the 
principle of "transparency ". 
12.47.   During the previous  meeting, we have already indicated several areas in which proponents 
need to improve their own notification obligations. I will recap them. First, final bound AMS 
commitments not provided by some Memb ers for two years beyond their due date.  Second, 
unsatisfactory compliance with GATS Article III:3 notification obligations.  Third, non -compliance of 
GATS Mode 4 notification despite the developing Members pointing this out repeatedly.  Fourth, no 
transpare ncy on TRIPS Article 66.2 commitments to support LDCs with enhanced technology 
transfer.  Fifth, notifications on traditional knowledge in patent applications . Sixth, use of non -
transparent ad valorem tariffs by some proponents creating uncertainty and disc ouraging market 
access.  Transparency in the WTO is not a one -way street. Let us not seek to burden developing  and 
LDC Members  with higher notification obligations. Let the constructive character of this forum not 
be altered into a peer policing one like what Paragraph 5 of the proposal seeks to do. Let Member 
equality enshrined in the very definition of the WTO not be altered into a penal structure as 
Paragraph 10 of the proposal seeks to do.  We support hand holding – not the punitive approach.  
12.48.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
12.49.   We acknowledge and thank all Members that contributed today . We have had several good 
conversations in the General Council on this proposal and we are moving in the right direction.  I 
would like to be able to respond to a few of the concerns that we have heard today and just see if 
we could get some additional clarity because we think that there were no interventions that spoke WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 87 - 
 
  to not wanting to fulfil transparency obligations . It was more a question of how do we do better. 
With respect to the inclusion of other notifications, we have been very clear at the beginning that 
we were starting small  – with the CTG cluster. We would welcome co -sponsors bringing other ideas 
forward and inclu sion of others but we  do not understand whether this is a red herring or  something 
else. If you have concerns and you want to voice your dissatisfaction with the compliance of others, 
yet you are refusing to engage on a solution that would try and improve that compliance , I am not 
sure how th is argument is circled. We would welcome discussion  on this,  if there are other areas, 
but again, the co -sponsors chose to start small and work up from the CTG . That does not mean that 
we are turning our back on other notification obligations. But again , if you are dissatisfied with the 
compliance then perhaps we should be all  be working together to improve that.  
12.50.   With respect to timeframes, we have included in the provision a number of years before this 
entered i nto force so that we could all work together  in moving that forward  including providing 
sufficient time, if needed. T he current proposal has in brackets an initiation date of 2025 or 2026 
and then within that , there  is a built-in one year trigger for non -compliance but with a very important 
2-year delay that is triggered  for developing Members  just by asking for assistance. The LDCs have 
a complete exemption if they ask for assistance . We are therefore  a little bit puzzled by concerns 
raised by Brunei  Darus salam  and others with respect to timeframes because we have already 
incorporated some significant time gaps into the proposal and we would be happy to engage further 
on that. The word "punitive" came up a lot  as well. W e are a little bit surprised because the 
administrative measures and the minimal consequences included simply seek more  transparency. It 
is only for those that have not sought assistance or have not availed of the mechanisms that we are 
trying to create. And so, it is difficult for us to unde rstand how we can all agree on the principle of 
transparency but then object to transparency  when it comes to fulfilling one's commitment .  
12.51.   This initiative is  an opportunity to focus all of our collective efforts on technical assistance 
and support . We wonder what is going to happen to that energy if we were able to move this forward 
because we already made a lot of progress in drawing out and seeking ways to improve and 
streamline transparency obligations. These are with respect to some of the comments tha t were 
raised . We have already agreed to transparency obligations and they form part of our contribution 
to sustaining the system that we all believe in. Although n o changes were made to any obligation 
proposed in the proposal , a number of people have made  comments asserting that obligations were 
being changed . We would like to clarify that there are no transparency obligations being modified in 
this proposal. At the same time, w e are not suggesting that there are any quick fixes . We are just 
trying to crea te a pathway forward to focus our efforts on assisting those who are seeking assistance 
and transparency for those that do  not. To be taken seriously as an organization with transparency 
at its core, we have to take some demonstrable steps to improve the s tatus quo . Our proposal is 
first and foremost an effort to address the challenges and constraints raised by Members and to 
mobilize collective effort to address those concerns. The se are minimal provisions to make sure that 
we are all moving in the same di rection. We look forward to continue the engagement and ensure 
that we all live up to the transparency goals and ideals that have been articulated today.  
12.52.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
13  PROPOSED MINISTERIAL DECISION ON STRENGTHENING RESILIENCY AND 
PREPAREDNESS THROUGH TRADE FACILITATION – COSTA RICA; JAPAN; MEXICO; 
NORWAY; PANAMA; URUGUAY; AND THE UNITED STATES (WT/GC/W/836)  
13.1.   The Chair  noted that the  item was included in the agenda at the request of the United States 
on behalf of co -sponsors of the Proposed Ministerial Decision on Strengthening Resiliency and 
Preparedness through Trade Facilitation in document WT/GC/W/836 , and invited the delegation of 
the United States to introduce the item . 
13.2.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
13.3.   We have worked with many Members in the Committee on Trade Facilitation on the 
Communication that was the source of this Ministerial Declaration , and we are thankful that Members 
continue to  see the value in co ntinuing our work on ensuring the timely and efficient movement of 
goods globally during the  COVID -19 pandemic.  Our goal in this document is to ensure that we can 
have focused discussions in the Committee next year that are based on Members ' experiences an d 
lessons  learned during COVID -19 with a view to identifying best practices and making 
recommendations for implementation . We have repeatedly stated we are not seeking any new WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 88 - 
 
  outcomes or commitments from Members and we removed any language that Members no ted 
implied a level of commitment  which was not our aim.  Again, we are seeking to reiterate the 
importance of implementing the TFA for the benefit of all traders and citizens which became even 
more important during COVID -19. We see this document as compati ble with a successful outcome 
in a Trade and Health and Preparedness Declaration and Action Plan under the Walker Process.  That 
declaration and this decision stand on their own and this decision simply provides more detailed 
guidance and direction to the C ommittee,  including how the Committee organizes itself to undertake 
focused discussions on implementation of the TFA with regard to the COVID -19 pandemic. We look 
forward to hearing from Members and their reactions . 
13.4.   The representative of Guatemala  deliver ed the following statement:  
13.5.   Guatemala agrees with  the objectives of the initiative. We consider it important to facilitate 
import, export and transit procedures for goods . We are convinced that the full implementation of 
the TFA will allow us to achieve this objective.  The health emergency caused by the pandemic 
highlighted the limitations and challenges in relation to trade facilitation. We need to continue 
working to remedy  these limitations and face these challenges globally.  Regarding the list  of items 
that the proponents have identified as  being  "particularly relevant" to the expedited movement of 
essential goods, Guatemala does not share the classification of some of th em. We would prefer a 
more general paragraph that does not mention specifi c items . Guatemala draws Members' attention  
to the fact that one of the most difficult  effects of COVID -19 was the  increase in maritime freight 
costs. The increase in sea freight prices has had a serious impact on world trade particularly for the 
small and medium sized exporters that cannot cover these costs.  Members could take trade 
facilitation measures in order to improve this situation. This topic should be taken into consideration 
in the discussions under this initiative to meet the objectives of stren gthening resilience and 
preparing for future crises.  
13.6.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group , delivered the following statement:  
13.7.   The LDC Group takes note of the proposal of the co -sponsors which we have  had an exchange 
with one of them. The proposal is currently being discussed in the various capitals of LDCs  and we 
would share our position with the co -sponsors as soon as we have received comments from capital . 
13.8.   The representative of Uruguay  delivered the following statement:  
13.9.   It is extremely important to obtain a result on trade facilitation at MC12. TFA  implementation  
is already yielding many benefits including better access of MSMEs to export possibilities that can 
help them recover and make them more resilient.  Uruguay co -sponsors this draft ministerial decision 
because we recognize the importance of implementing the TFA as an essential contribution to 
facilitate timely and efficient movement of goods to respond to the pandemic and to future cris es. 
13.10.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
13.11.   We all recognize the benefits of the TFA to Members . We have discussed those benefits a 
great deal in relation to our efforts to mitigate the effects of the pandemic and to recover from it 
economically. Trade facilitation is an important part of the WTO Response to the Pandemic  including 
on preparations for future ones. The decision proposed by the United States and co -sponsors provide 
a clear structure to the Committee on Trade Facilitation 's post-MC12 Work Plan so that Members 
can share best practice s on this and future cris es within the TFA framework. We particularly thank  
the United States for its bilateral engagement on this initiative . I am delighted to confirm that the 
United Kingdom will co -sponsor this  decision . I encourage other Members across this organization 
to look favourably upon it including through co -sponsorship.   
13.12.   The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
13.13.   Norway is among the co -sponsors of this proposal . Trade facilitation measures have a crucial 
role in ensuring the smooth flow of important goods in global supply and value chains.  Experiences 
gained from Members coping with the pandemic have demonstrated that measures identified and 
prepared for in good times p rovide for greater resilience when extraordinary circumstances put 
governments and authorities under stress.  Furthermore, our collective resilience will be 
strengthened through increased openness about which measures have been put in place and by WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 89 - 
 
  sharing e xperiences about which measures have proven to be most effective in supporting 
governments in their efforts to combat the pandemic.  Norway looks forward to learning from others 
and to share our experiences with partners. Sharing of best practices is a cost -effective way to 
support Members in the implementation of the TFA. This will strengthen the resilience of individual 
Members as well as contribute to the robustness and resilience of global value chains.  
13.14.   The representative of Panama  delivered the followin g statement:  
13.15.   As a co-sponsor , Panama associate s with the statement made by the United States. The T FA 
and the Committee on Trade Facilitation have an important role to play as a powerful tool in the 
WTO's work to deal with the consequences of COVID -19. The  proposal aims to promote a structured 
framework for discussions and the shar ing of  experiences and lessons learned on the implementation 
of TFA p rovisions so that through their effective implementation the WTO can help build resiliency 
and preparedness fo r future crises.  We hope that Members will support this worthy initiative.  
13.16.   The representative of Mongolia  delivered the following statement:  
13.17.   Mongolia attaches high importance to TFA implementation as the agreement contributes to 
supporting the timely and e fficient release of goods.  Moreover, the trade facilitative measures 
enshrined in the TFA are instrumental for eliminating transit -related hurdles that landlocked country 
Members such as Mongolia face. Mongolia therefore supports  in principle  initiatives that call for 
accelerated TFA implementation.  It is however noteworthy that due to different stance and capacity, 
not all Members, including landlocked ones, are capable of implementing TFA provisions. Despite 
the progress made, TFA implementation is estimated to be 51.2 per cent of the notifiable provisions 
by LLDCs compared to 71.0 per cent for developing countries and 100 per cent for developed 
countries.  In this regard, we emphasize  the importance of  mobilizing adequate resources to 
accelerate TFA implementation. We urge Members in a position to do so to continue to provide 
technical, financial and capacity building assistance to LLDCs on a sustainable basis  for the effective 
implementation of  the TFA  and other trade facilitation reforms.  Transit issues of landlocked country 
Members should be discussed in the Committee on Trade Facilitation on a regular basis. In this 
regard,  in the context of the ongoing review process of the TFA, Mongolia , on behalf of the LLDC 
Group, has propose to amend the Committee 's spring meeting agenda to include a dedicated session 
to discuss transit issues of landlocked country Members.  
13.18.   The representative of Turkey  delivered the following statement:  
13.19.   Turkey attributes great importance to a robust TFA implementation. The initial years of its 
implementation had a very positive effect on boosting international trade. Its impact became more 
obvious during the pandemic by facilitating the movement of essent ial medical goods and 
equipment.  Members and people around the world will benefit from deepening the robust 
implementation of the TFA and using the TFA as one of the fundamental elements for strengthening 
capacity and building resiliency for future crises.  For future preparedness, we also see a lot of merit 
in information and experience sharing exercises.  As a co -sponsor of the proposed Ministerial 
Decision, we invite and encourage all Members to support th is draft.  
13.20.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
13.21.   We agree with the objectives of this proposal and are pleased to be a co -sponsor. We support 
the United States in urging Members to deepen TFA implementation , to hold a focused discussion to 
assist Members in supporting TFA implementation and to share and exchange information and 
experiences  which would benefit all Members.  The proposal is important especially as we  are still  
battling  COVID -19. We urge Members to look at the merits and consider co-sponsoring  the proposal.  
13.22.   The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , on behalf of the OECS , delivered  the following 
statement:  
13.23.   The OECS associates with the statements made by CARICOM and the ACP. A Ministerial 
Statement on Trade Facilitation at MC12 is not inappropriate given the i mportant role that trade 
facilitation reforms have been playing in managing the economic responses to the C OVID -19 
pandemic and its role in the global economic recovery process.  Ministers at MC12 will receive the 
report of the first review of the operation  and implementation of the TFA. However,  it is questionable WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 90 - 
 
  whether this requires a separate Ministerial Decision on Trade Facilitation. The MC12 political 
declaration can accommodate general language which notes the importance of trade facilitation in 
managing the trade -related aspects of the pandemic.  There is a proposal in the Trade Facilitation 
Committee which calls for expedited implementation of some TFA measures. The substance of this 
proposal, contained in G/TFA/W/25/Rev.2, is replicated in this draft Ministerial Decision which 
appears to be  an attempt by the co -sponsors to translate their proposal into a Ministerial mandate.  
Several of the trade facilitation measures cited in the draft Ministerial Decision have been notified 
by OECS countries as Cat egory C measures, for which we require time and technical assistance and 
capacity building support to implement.  To date, some  Members have not been very forthcoming in 
offering support to the OECS to build implementation capacity. Some Members have also s ought to 
block the operations of the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility which has been helping  to build 
implementation capacity for many developing countries.  Notably absent in the draft Ministerial 
Decision is any reference to TACB support to assist im plementation. Furthermore, there is no call o n 
Members to assist developing and LDC Members to accelerate implementation.  Reference to the 
outcome of the first review of the TFA is also notably absent in the draft Ministerial Decision.  For 
these reasons, t he OECS is not in a position to agree to a separate Ministerial Decision on Trade 
Facilitation as per document WT/GC/W/836.  
13.24.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
13.25.   We support the statement s of the African Group and Mongolia. Trade facilitation is one of 
the most important tool s to boast both domestic and international trade. A functional trade 
facilitation will address some challenges caused by the pandemic. Most developing countries are 
however  still face d with enormous challenges to fully implement the TFA due to capacity constraints 
and other challenges. The most unfortunate experience is lack of commitment by some Members 
who made promises to support other Members in building cap acity to impl ement Categories B  and 
C. While looking at the proposal, we urge developed Members to intensify efforts in supporting 
developing countries and LDCs with technical, infrastructural and other support with a view to 
enabling developing countries fully impleme nt the TFA for them to benefit from its dividends.  
13.26.   The representative of Kazakhstan  delivered  the following statement:  
13.27.   I express our gratitude to the United States and other co -sponsors for this proposal  and 
announce that Kazakhstan is co-sponsoring  this statement and this initiative.  
13.28.   The representative of Mexico  delivered the following statement:  
13.29.   I refer to the "World Trade Report 2021", published last week, in which it is shown  that trade 
facilitation measures play a fundamental role in building resilienc e to crises, by contributing to 
smooth imports of critical goods , such as food, medical supplies and emergency equipment that may 
be in short supply in countries affected by an emergency situation.  Likewise, the Report refers to a 
recent WTO study on count ries affected by natural disasters which highlights the fundamental 
importance of preparedness  and the early inclusion  of specific measures in customs processes and 
procedures.  Considering the above, it is important to recognize that the full implementatio n of the  
TFA is crucial to face emergency situations such as the health crisis that we are currently 
experiencing.  The draft Decision that we are discussing encourages  the implementation of the 
provisions related to the facilitation of essential goods in line with the  TFA. It also promotes 
experience  sharing  on trade facilitation measures which have been implemented as a response to 
the COVID -19 health crisis in order to strengthen resilience among Members and increase 
preparedness for future crises.  Mexico therefore urges all Members to support this proposal.  
13.30.   The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
13.31.   Brazil supports this proposal  as it is a response to the difficulties faced in international trade 
caused by the current pandemic.  The WTO is in a privileged position to make a positive contribution 
to the resilience of international trade in emergencies.  We have been negatively affected by COVID -
led logistical difficulties imposed  on global value chains which stresses the importance of  trade 
facilitation within the multilateral trad ing system.  Brazil remains committed to the full 
implementation of the TFA. WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 91 - 
 
  13.32.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
13.33.   The TFA which came into force in 2017 is arguably the most ambitious and relevant 
development at the WTO since the Marrakesh Agreement. We commend both th e WTO and Members 
for successfully implementing the agreement but we reali ze that the operationali zation and full 
implementation of the agreement is an ongoing process. In that regard, we encourage Members to 
ensure that they are compliant with their commitments  especially those in Category A . As we are 
looking at the proposal, several developing and LDC Members  face challenges to implement the 
agreement . It can be just as difficult to secure technical assistance from partners. We therefore urge 
more flexibility in the conditions and requirements to allow more countries to avail of technical and 
financia l assistance projects. We are confident that  technical  assistance and  capacity building would 
enable developing and LDC Members  improve their compliance level with the TFA.  
13.34.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
13.35.   Japan recognizes the  increasing need for trade facilitative measures under the influence of 
the COVID -19 pandemic.  Now is an opportune moment for Members to deepen the robust 
implementation of the TFA. This is indeed the expected role for the WTO as an organization with the 
goal of ensuring smooth, predictab le and free  trade flows . We hope every Member, including 
developing ones, will support this decision to strengthen resiliency and preparedness through the 
full and robust implementation of the TFA. 
13.36.   The representative of Canada delivered the following statement:  
13.37.   Canada shares the co -sponsors ' belief that focused discussions among Members on trade 
facilitative measures that contribute to build resilience and ensure preparedness for future crisis is 
important. As such, Canada i s pleased to join as a co -sponsor and look s forward to working with 
Members in this area.  
13.38.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
13.39.   The proposal includes a number of suggestions which could be of interest to us. However, 
we must at this time register that we do not support a standalone Ministerial Decision on trade 
facilitation at MC12. In light of the interlinkages with some of the elements of the Facilitator -led 
process on the  WTO Response to the Pandemic an d the MC12 outcome document , a reference to 
trade facilitation could be better served in the context of these tracks of work. Additionally, with j ust 
a few days left before the start of MC12 , there is little time to delve into the detail s of some of the 
areas that we will find to be of interest to us. We stand ready to engage on the various issues within 
the context of the ongoing work within the WTO.  We associate with the statement of the ACP .  
13.40.   The representative of Colombia  delivered the following statement:  
13.41.   Colombia recognize s the importance of this proposed decision and  has co-sponsored the 
previous general proposal discussed at the Committee on Trade Facilitation on accelerating TFA 
implem entation. Today, in the same vein, my country is announcing its co -sponsorship of this 
additional proposal for the Ministerial Conference and we hope that it will be adopted.  
13.42.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the followin g 
statement:  
13.43.   The ACP Group takes note of the draft Ministerial Decision which puts forward several 
proposals which are geared towards having certain activities taken up by the Committee on Trade 
Facilitation in light of the impact of the pandemic.  The TFA remains a significant milestone  or 
achievement in the history of the multilateral trading system  particularly for developing and  LDC 
Members . The ACP therefore remains a strong advocate for the continued implementation of the T FA 
and related commitments by  all WTO Members. The COVID -19 pandemic with its multidimensional 
impacts including on trade continues to pose significant challenges for the development goals and 
aspirations of all countries particularly developing and LDC Members . In some cases, it has had the 
effect of reversing significant progress made in the implementation efforts of Members which had to 
divert attention and critical resources to responding to the immediate health threats posed by the WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 92 - 
 
  pandemic.  We however acknowledge that while there  continues to be challenges associated with the 
ongoing pandemic, there have been significant opportunities. We commend those Members, 
including those within the Group, that continued their efforts to meet their various obligations under 
the Agreement. The se measures had the effect of enhancing trade for these Members and fostering 
their relatively quick recovery from the pandemic. It also allowed for much needed medical 
equipment to be acquired.  
13.44.   There are some good elements within the proposed Ministerial Decision put forward by these 
delegations. TFA implementation can complement Members ' and the international community 's 
ongoing efforts to respond to and mitigate the impacts of the pandemic. The Group is encouraged 
by these actions and notes that there may be important lessons and best practices that can be 
shared among all Members to strengthen resiliency and build capacity to respond to future crises  
and events. The proposed draft Ministerial Decision however requires more in -depth discussion and 
consideration by the Membership to better understand what implications this may have for 
developing and LDCs  Members  which are allowed to implement the TFA in keeping with their capacity 
to do so. It is further recognized that some Members still require external assistance to implement 
the TFA. In addition, a separate process is currently underway on the WTO Response to the  
Pandemic . We are therefore cautiou s about seemingly outlining  or agreeing to a work programme 
for the Committee on Trade Facilitation ahead of the completion of the work being done in that area. 
The Committee should be given the flexibility to determine how its modalities are developed to give 
effect to aspects of its work related to the WTO Response to the Pandemic.  
13.45.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
13.46.   We see merit in all WTO bodies contributing towards pandemic response. We are willing to 
constructively engage wi th proponents to better understand their proposal.  
13.47.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
13.48.   The E uropean Union  considers that a comprehensive action plan is the most appropriate 
path to take at MC12  to ensure that Member s are better equipped to deal with the ongoing pandemic 
and future crises. A comprehensive and meaningful WTO response is needed and we understand 
that in case of conclusions of th ese strands, it would not be proposed to adopt th is draft Ministerial 
Declar ation.  The European Union  supports the U nited States'  and other Members ' views that the 
pandemic has led to the need to enhance TFA implementation in particular in the area of digitization, 
as a way to increase the resilience of the global trad ing system a s well as facilitating recovery. It 
will be  useful to deepen the sharing  of experience s started in the Committee on Trade Facilitations  
notably with the compendium of Members ' practices on how best to adjust custom s procedures and 
use the many pertinent TF A Articles to address the obstacles that COVID -19 creates for a smooth, 
efficient and compliant cross -border flow of goods.  It is of critical importance that Members having 
notified Category C commitments get the needed  technical  assistance and support to timely 
implement these TFA provisions that are crucial at times of  pandemic.  It is also crucial that  the WTO 
continues to cooperat e with international organizations like the WCO and the WHO to ensure that 
the best possible solutio ns are designed for equipping  Members with the necessary tools to address 
future and ongoing  challenges.  
13.49.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
13.50.   We will examine this proposal in more detail in our capital. As an initial response, while 
Pakistan is a TFA signatory and has a good implementation record . The TFA  already has built -in, 
negotiated flexibilities . While s ome developing Members face difficulties in TFA implementation , they  
are doing  their best to meet their obligations.  A conversation on resilience and preparedness can be 
undertaken but that would involve many more aspects other than trade facilitation. We are also 
aware that some elements of this conversation and in particular with regard to trade facilitation  are 
already being proposed under the Facilitator -led process on the WTO R esponse to the Pandemic. We 
are therefore not entirely convi nced of the utility of this draft  at this stage.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 93 - 
 
  13.51.   The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
13.52.   We join the  co-sponsors  in acknowledging the importance of trade facilitation for the fight 
against the sanitary crisis and for economic r ecovery. In substance, we support the idea behind this 
proposal as facilitating trade is a key element of the WTO Response to the Pandemic.  
13.53.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
13.54.   The United States  thank s Members for thei r contributions today . In particular, we thank  the 
United Kingdom and Kazakhstan for their support . We will reach out to  Colombia as well following  
its encouraging words. What the proponents are putting forward is a very simple proposal that 
speak s to the moment of where we are in a practical way using the Committee structure that we 
have. We are extremely open to engaging with other Members and making modifications to the 
proposal to include the interest of others . We appreciate the expressions that we hav e heard today . 
We have reached out to a number of regional groups who were unfortunately unable to meet with 
us prior to this meeting but we will continue to follow up with them. It is important that we 
acknowledge that the TFA is the most significant mult ilateral outcome in the last 25 years and it 
include s many important innovations that we should not overlook . This very flexible agreement both 
in its approach to S&DT and  to the obligations should be looked at carefully in the context of 
COVID -19 or other  crises to see whether or not this flexibility can be utili zed to better address the 
situation.  We are a little bit confused and do not quite understand some of the concerns by the most 
vulnerable economies who may not want to use the WTO to build preparedness and resiliency . 
Circling back on that conversation would be incredibly useful.  
13.55.   The proposal is exactly responsive to mobilizing donors and the enthusiasm for support 
whether it is in Category C or in other improvements. If we can harness the lessons learned from 
COVID -19 looking at the stresses that our economies have faced and come forward with solutions,  
donors would be there to support TFA implementation. No one is suggesting any kind of forced 
change in schedules in Category C. That certai nly does not and should not appear in the proposal. 
But what we think could be useful is if we can reflect on COVID -19 or other disasters that have 
triggered the desire to move forward to address vulnerabilities or change the way Members approach 
TFA imple mentation.  Back in 2013 , many of us considered vaccines to be perishable goods and now 
we all know that they are and so these kinds of discussions allow us to have a conversation to ask 
"Can we look again at these obligations ? Does the COVID -19 experience require us to reprioritize in 
some ways to make sure that we are reducing our vulnerabilities ?" This is the essence.  We heard a 
number of concerns also with respect to waiting for the broader pandemic response . We do not think 
that it is in our interest pa rticularly or in the interest of vulnerable economies to wait until next year 
to begin to think about how we want Committees to restructure and respond. There does seem to 
be overwhelming support for an Action Plan approach and so this is a concrete exampl e of what that 
could look like . We urge other Committees to begin to think about getting a jump on using the 
agreements  and the committees and discuss how we want to address resiliency and preparedness 
going forward. We will continue to do our outreach and  we appreciate the feedback received today.  
13.56.   The Chair thanked delegations for their interventions and understood that discussions on 
this matter would be continuing.   
13.57.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
14  PROPOSED SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY DECL ARATION FOR THE TWELFTH WTO 
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE: RESPONDING TO MODERN SPS CHALLENGES - ARGENTINA, 
AUSTRALIA, BELIZE, BRAZIL, BURKINA FASO, CABO VERDE, CANADA, CHILE, COLOMBIA, 
COSTA RICA, CÔTE D'IVOIRE, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EL SALVADOR, THE 
GAMB IA, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, JAPAN, MEXICO, NEW ZEALAND, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, 
PERU, SENEGAL, SINGAPORE, TAJIKISTAN, TOGO, THE UNITED STATES, UKRAINE, 
URUGUAY AND VIET NAM (WT/GC/W/835 – G/SPS/GEN/1758/REV.9)  
14.1.   The Chair  noted that the  item was included in the agend a at the request of the United States, 
on behalf of co -sponsors of the Proposed Sanitary and Phytosanitary Declaration for the Twelfth 
WTO Ministerial Conference: Responding to Modern SPS Challenges in the double -symbolled 
document WT/GC/W/835 – G/SPS/GEN/ 1758/Rev.9. He understood  that this proposed SPS WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 94 - 
 
  Declaration ha d also been discussed in the SPS Committee  and that the delegation of Canada would 
introduce the item . 
14.2.   The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
14.3.   Canada is pleased to introduce the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Declaration for the Twelfth 
Ministerial Conference responding to modern SPS challenges. A revision of the declaration, now 
including the African Group and the ACP Group as co -sponsors was issued  two nights ago . We warmly 
welcome the new co -sponsors and are encouraged by this positive development. With now 89 co -
sponsors, the Declaration underlines the benefits of the SPS Agreement to all Members and reaffirms 
the continuing importance of adhering  to its obligations. The global agricultural landscape has 
evolved since the adoption of the SPS Agreement in 1995 . There are new opportunities and emerging 
pressures relating to international trade in food, animals and plants, such as climate change, 
population growth, the pace of innovation, shifting pest and disease pressures and environmental 
sustainability. If Members are to address these demands, the proponents of the SPS Declaration 
believe that transparent, science and risk -based approaches will be the essential means to do so.  
14.4.   The SPS Declaration expresses a fundamental point . Enhanced implementation of the SPS 
Agreement is essential to address the challenges and opportunities of the global agricultural 
landscape. Importantly, through the SPS Decla ration, the Ministerial Conference will instruct the SPS 
Committee to examine SPS issues arising from emerging pressures that impact trade into report 
findings and any consensus recommendations to the Thirteenth  Ministerial Conference. Over the 
past 20 mon ths, co -sponsors have engaged with Members leading to a n SPS Declaration that is 
representative of the views of diverse Members. The Declaration does not in any way indicate that 
there is a need to launch the negotiation of SPS obligations or reopen the SP S Agreement. Rather, 
it recognizes the value of the Agreement in guiding our collective response to global challenges. In  
light of the growing momentum for adopting this Declaration at MC12, the co -sponsors are 
requesting that this item  be submitted to the  Ministerial Conference for consideration by Ministers.  
14.5.   The representative of Panama  delivered the following statement:  
14.6.   Panama is pleased to co -sponsor the proposal for a Ministerial Declaration on SPS. It is 
important to highlight the regional, economic a nd social diversity of the Members who are sponsoring 
this statement.  The SPS Agreement is as relevant and applicable today as it was back in 1995. The 
co-sponsors of this proposal wish to draw attention to the benefits to be gained from the continu ed 
improvement of its implementation.  Panama recognizes the importance of seizing opportunities and 
successfully rising to new challenges affecting international trade in food, animals and plants, in 
particular climate change and associated concerns regarding foo d production and varying pressures 
owing to the spread of pests, diseases and disease -causing organisms, which are addressed in the 
Ministerial Declaration on SPS.  The twenty -fifth anniversary of the adoption of the SPS Agreement 
offers the perfect opportu nity to highlight achievements and challenges to do with the application of 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures. We request that the SPS Declaration be submitted for 
consideration by our Ministers at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
14.7.   The representative o f Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the following statement:  
14.8.   We join other members in acknowledging that this Ministerial Conference follows the 
25th Anniversary of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures . The 
successes achieved within this time indicate that the WTO has the capacity to create policies that 
positively impact international trade in food, animals and plants and address new and emerging 
challenges within this discipline. The ACP Group  renews its commitment to this endeavour and is 
pleased to co -sponsor the SPS Declaration for the Twelfth Ministerial Conference in 
G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.9.  As a co -sponsor of the text, we believe that it sufficiently reflects a 
sensitivity to some of the mos t critical concerns for developing and LDC Members particularly in its 
reference to collaborations with standard -setting bodies for technical exchanges and capacity 
building as well as a market access perspective. Non -tariff barriers have always been an is sue for 
the ACP Group . This document would bring into focus how developing countries and LDCs are better 
prepared to deal with this issue. We acknowledge the work invested in preparing this text and 
encourage other Members to constructively consider its ad option as part of the MC12 package.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 95 - 
 
  14.9.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
14.10.   Japan is grateful for Canada's introduction of this SPS Ministerial Declaration proposal.  This 
proposed Declaration acknowledges the ongoing contribution of the SPS Agreement to international 
trade in food, animals, and plants while making reference to common challenges and other relevant 
issues in the implementation of the SPS Agreement. It al so suggests undertaking a work programme 
that will identify these new opportunities and challenges. As one of the co -sponsors, Japan sees a 
clear benefit of this declaration. We hope this declaration proposal will be sent to the Ministerial 
Conference for consideration by the Ministers.  
14.11.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
14.12.   The European Union thank s the co -sponsors for engaging with us on this draft Ministerial 
Declaration process.  As stated previously at the SPS Commit tee meetings, we would have preferred 
to see more robust references in the text of the declaration to the current and future environmental 
and climate challenges for trade in foods, to sustainable food systems, without prejudice to the well 
acknowledged bo undaries of the SPS Agreement and the remit of this Committee.  While confirming 
the EU Commitment to the relevance and value and to the Good Functioning of the SPS Agreement 
and Committee, we confirms our reservation to the draft declaration for the reason s expressed today 
as well as in previous occasions.  We also take this occasion to draw the General Council's attention  
to the document presented by the European Union on the global transition towards sustainable food 
systems. We encourage the SPS Committee , among others , to be a forum for discussion on this 
topic with a view to supporting the process and reflecting on setting up a work programme to address 
issues related to the transition to sustainable food systems in relation with international trade.  
14.13.   The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the African Group  delivered the following 
statement:  
14.14.   The African Group acknowledges the work of the group of Members in the preparation of the 
draft Declaration. The African Group have followed with keen interest and have contributed in  
finalizing the documen t. The African continent is experiencing considerable growth of the intra -
African agri -food market. Intra -African food demand is projected to almost double by 2050 . Africa's 
net food import bill is projected to  increase ten -fold to reach USD 400 billion by 2030. Unfortunately, 
however, Africa has the world's highest incidences of foodborne illness claiming tens of thousand s 
of lives and causing million s of cases of sickness.  With the entry into force of the AfCF TA, Africa is 
geared to expand intra -regional trade. However, we still face several challenges related to the 
application of non -tariff measures including SPS measures.  With such a background, the African 
Union adopted the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Policy  Framework for Africa in 2019 with a view to 
aligning the African SPS systems with international science -based standards. This continental 
Framework is guided by the WTO SPS Agreement and other international standards such as Codex, 
IPPC and OIE. The African Group has joined the list of co -sponsors of the draft Declaration as we 
believe that it can help us address our concerns and weaknesses on SPS issues. In this regard, we 
look forward to increasing our collaboration with Members in the context o f the Work Programme 
provided for under in the draft Declaration.  
14.15.   The representative of Mongolia  delivered the following statement:  
14.16.   WT/GC/W/835 and G/SPS/Gen/1758/Rev.9 ha ve been circulated among the Members of the 
LLDC Group and internal discussion  is expected to take place.  Mongolia will work in a timely manner 
to deliver the responses of the Group on the proposed draft Declaration.  
14.17.   The representative of Ukraine  delivered the following statement:  
14.18.   Ukraine is pleased to join the Declaration as a new co -sponsor and acknowledge the efforts 
of the co -sponsors in developing and moving forward th is initiative.  We announced our intention to 
join the Declaration at the last meeting of the SPS Committee which took place on 4  to 5 November . 
The Declaration reflects o ur priorities in conducting the effective system of agricultural production 
as an element of  the global food safety system.  Ukraine fully supports the goals of the Declaration 
and reaffirms its important role in serving as a forum for discussions and excha nges on SPS issues 
and, as a result , supporting Members' efforts in facilitating sustainable development of agricultural WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 96 - 
 
  production and international trade.  We would welcome the adoption of the Declaration at MC12 and 
stand ready to work with all Members o n issues of mutual interest.  
14.19.   The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
14.20.   Brazil is proud to be one of the initial proponents of  this Declaration which can be a positive 
response  from the WTO to the emerging challenges affecting the  agricultural landscape.  We are 
encouraged to see the overwhelming degree of  support this proposal is commanding. In addition to  
its 89 co-sponsors, it is undeniable that the topics  contained in the work programme are of great  
importance to the entire  Membershi p. The constructive discussions held on  the SPS Declaration and 
its broad support have paved  the way forward to its consideration by Ministers at  MC12.  
14.21.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
14.22.   Nigeria is pleased to join as co -sponsor of the Declaration on SPS through the African Group. 
It is not a hidden fact that some of our exportable products have been faced with various challenges 
due to stringent SPS measures especially where some Members a pplied some standards above 
international standards requirements. This Declaration has taken into consideration the concerns of 
developing countries and  modern  SPS challenges. We therefore support it. 
14.23.   The representative of India delivered the following sta tement:  
14.24.   We thank the United States for their response to our questions. We are in consultation with 
the proponents of this Declaration to understand the objective better.  
14.25.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered  the following statement : 
14.26.   Several LDCs , including  Chad, have co -sponsored th is proposal . But the LDC Group , formally 
speaking, does not yet have a joint position on the matter. Consequently, t he Group reserves the 
right to return to the co -sponsors when we do have more informatio n from the Group.  
14.27.   The representative of the Russian Federation  delivered the following statement:  
14.28.   This proposal welcomes the consistent efforts of Members to implement the SPS Agreement 
in an up -to-standard way. We underscore the importance of adopting the Work Program me to 
appropriately consider common challenges encountered while implementing the SPS Agr eement.  
While expressing general support to the SPS Declaration drafted in the document WT/GC/W/835 – 
G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.9 , the Russian Federation would like to propose some slight technical 
amendments to the text . First, the SPS Declaration could be more in the format of a WTO Ministerial 
document. For the moment, the document lacks common characteristics perceived by WTO 
declarations such as design of the mentioned document. Second , and that is more important , while 
drafting the SPS Declaration , legal wor ding of the SPS Agreement should be followed. In particular, 
we would like to propose to draft Paragraph 3 of the SPS Declaration in consistence with the SPS 
Agreement. We would like to express our readiness to work with the co -sponsors.  
14.29.   The representative  of Ecuador  delivered the following statement:  
14.30.   We welcome th e Members who co -sponsored thi s proposal . We need a Work Programme 
through which we can express our concerns and come up with alternatives in the face of challenges 
such as emergence of and access  to new technologies, innovation, and good, sustainable practices 
in the different geographical conditions particularly in tropical areas. Ecuador believes this Ministerial 
Declaration will strengthen the Committee thanks to good SPS measures.  
14.31.   The represen tative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
14.32.   The United States extends our appreciation to Canada for the introduction of the SPS 
Declaration on behalf of the 89 co -sponsors . We welcome the support of the African Group and the 
ACP which a re published on the latest revision. As co -sponsors, we take note of the feedback from 
the European Union , the Russia n Federation  and others today and appreciate their continued 
engagement on this . We note that the latest draft includes updated text  based on feedback from 
several Member s including the E uropean Union  and on those received by  the co -sponsors during the WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 97 - 
 
  most recent SPS Committee  meeting . As co -sponsors, we are actively working with all interested 
Members . We appear very close to consensus . We look forward to this topic being considered by 
Ministers and to the opportunity for a multilateral SPS Declaration outcome at the MC12 . To remind 
Members, as we have noted in the SPS Committee over the past two years, this proposal is for a 
series of discussions with no presupposed outcomes in order to help us collectively consider and 
address some of the pressing issues facing agricultural trade that are relevant to the SPS Committee . 
The issues of importance to the E uropean Union  and others can be pa rt of this conversation.  
14.33.   The Chair thanked everyone for the useful discussion on the matter and understood that 
discussions would be continuing on this proposal.   
14.34.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
15  PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR WTO COUNCILS AND COMMITTEES ADDRESSING 
TRADE CONCERNS (WT/GC/W/777/REV.6) - UPDATE FROM ALBANIA; AUSTRALIA; 
CANADA; CHINA; EUROPEAN UNION; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; NEW  ZEALAND; NORTH MACED ONIA; NORWAY; 
PANAMA; QATAR; SINGAPORE; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; THAILAND; TURKEY AND UKRAINE  
15.1.   The Chair noted that t he delegation of the European Union had requested the Secretariat to 
add this item i n the agenda, together with the revised proposal in WT/GC/W/777/Rev.6 , and invited  
the delegation of the  European Union to introduce the item . 
15.2.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
15.3.   Given that the proposal fits into the  context of the reform agenda, it is timely to recall ahead 
of the upcoming Ministerial Conference that the WTO's monitoring and deliberative function is in 
need of change  too. We hope that this proposal, which aims to improve how Members address each 
other's trade concerns in regular WTO bodies, including meeting arrangements, can inform our 
upcoming discussions on WTO Reform. We are pleased that several of our ideas on increasing 
efficiency of meeting arrangements have already been taken up and put into p ractice. We are hoping 
that other ideas from the proposal such as non -binding guidelines on certain cross -cutting issues 
when it comes to addressing trade concerns can also be taken aboard. To recall, the proposal does 
not suggest a "one size fits all " type of harmoni zation across the different Committees. It rather 
encourages the establishment of a common platform based on some core principles as a complement 
to the specificities of each WTO Committee. Co -sponsors would also like to draw attention to the 
elements that aim at facilitating real engagement, for example by providing non -binding guidance 
on how to handle written questions, while maintaining flexibilities to account of individual 
circumstances or by encouraging capital -based participation to make  discussions more substantive.  
The co -sponsors reiterate that the proposal is voluntary in nature. It does not aim in any way to 
limit the Members' ability to raise trade concerns as they see fit. The co -sponsors look forward to 
discussions relating to WTO  Reform at the Ministerial Conference and remain committed to advancing 
the objectives of this proposal as appropriate at MC12 and beyond.  
15.4.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
15.5.   As iterated during previous General Council meetings , India supports the idea of improving 
the meeting arrangements of WTO bodies with a view to make them more efficient. We therefore 
support proposals for preparation of advance indicative yearly schedule of meetings , circulation of 
all documents to be discus sed at a meeting at least 15 days prior to the meeting and timely 
circulation of the minutes of meetings of various WTO bodies. We also agree that it is in the interest 
of all Members to make full use of the WTO Council s and Committees to seek satisfactory  outcomes 
of their trade concerns. However, while considering any changes in procedures to be followed for 
various WTO bodies, we need to ensure that such proposals, in effect, do not end up adding to or 
diminishing Members' rights and obligations under th e concerned WTO Agreements.  The appropriate 
forum for discussing procedural guidelines for trade concerns is the relevant Council or Committee 
dealing with the specific trade concern as per the scope of the relevant WTO Agreement. Therefore, 
while we are o pen to discuss all possible suggestions aimed at improving existing processes, we 
would not like to take away the role of such WTO bodies in finalizing such procedural guidelines.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 98 - 
 
  15.6.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
15.7.   We rec all our previous statements on the same communicatio n including at the October 
General Council meeting. The horizontal application of this proposal remains of concern to us. As we 
stated previously, certain agreements already provide for the processing of specific trade concerns  
and still believe that these are better left to each regular body to consider in  accordance with their 
respective rules and mandate.  
15.8.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC s, delivered the following statement:  
15.9.   The LDC Group takes note of the update from the co-sponsors . The 15 -day rule is maintained 
instead of the 10 -day rule  which is not always easy for LDCs to respect.  The LDC Group reiterates 
that any proposal for new procedures and processes must take into account the constraints of its 
Members and avoid overloading the system where not all Members are in a position to par ticipate 
or contribute.  We reserve the right to come back with further comments on this proposal.  
15.10.   The representative of Paraguay  delivered the following statement:  
15.11.   Paraguay  has already indicated its concerns  on this proposal during previous General Council  
meetings and we again refer to them.  
15.12.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
15.13.   As one of the co -sponsors of this proposal, we intend to find effective ways to promote the 
efficiency of the WTO's daily work in  addressing Membe rs' specific trade concerns. The non -binding 
and voluntary procedural guidelines can facilitate and complement each Committee's work. They are 
not meant to lay additional burden to Members.  We also agree with the E uropean Union  that the 
proposal will be a concrete step to improve the WTO's monitoring and deliberative functions. We 
trust this is complementary to the future reform of the WTO.  
15.14.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
15.15.   As we noted in October, we share the propon ents' objective – to rebuild norms for Members 
to respond to and address trade concerns raised by other Members.  These norms have eroded, and 
the key culprit appears to be some Members' lack of interest and political will to address such 
concerns. Fundamen tally, the problem is substantive, not procedural.  We also recognize that, in 
some Committees, the procedures probably can be improved. For example, relevant documents for 
an agenda item should be shared by the moment that the agenda is circulated, and not  after. It is 
difficult to have a meaningful discussion of a document that was circulated a few days before a 
meeting.  However, we do not see a one -size-fits-all approach coming from the General Council. WTO 
Committees are quite diverse, and few solutions can be applied horizontally. Procedural changes 
that may help in one Committee may undermine what is already working in another Committee.  
This does not mean that Members must be silent about this issue, including at MC12. And rather 
than a horizontal appr oach to procedures for specific trade concerns, we would suggest an approach 
whereby Ministers could direct each Committee or body to review its rules of procedures and 
undertake appropriate actions with a view to improve its effectiveness and report back to the General 
Council by a certain date.  Such an approach would allow for Committee -specific approaches, which 
will naturally reflect the diversity that is a real strength of the WTO's Committee system.  
15.16.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
15.17.   The European Union  thank s Members for the feedback . We have taken good note of the 
various comments and these will usefully inform the reflection as we consider tangible steps that 
could be taken as part of our reflection on WTO Reform.  
15.18.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 99 - 
 
  16  REVIEW OF THE EXEMPTI ON PROVIDED UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 OF GATT 1994 
(WT/L/1108, WT/L/1121)  
16.1.   The Chair recalled that Paragraph 3(a) of GATT 1994 provide d an exemption from Part II of 
GATT 1994 for measures under specific mandatory legislation – enacted by a Member before it 
became a  contracting party to GATT 1947 – which prohibit ed the use, sale or lease of foreign -built 
or foreign -reconstructed vessels in commercial applications between points in national waters or 
waters of an exclusive economic zone. In 1994, the United States had invoked this provision with 
respect to specific legislation that had met the requirements of that paragraph.  Paragraph 3(b) of 
GATT 1994 call ed for a review of this exemption five years after the date of entry into force of the 
WTO Agreement – and thereaf ter every two years for as long as the exemption was in force – to 
examine whether the conditions for the exemption still prevail ed. The General Council last considered 
this matter at its meeting in March. Statements, questions and responses from intereste d 
delegations and the United States, together with the annual reports provided by the U nited States , 
circulated in WT/L/1108 and WT/L/1121, would form the basis for this year's review. The General 
Council had also agreed that it would consider this matter again at the meeting, including taking 
note that the subsequent review would be held in 2023.  This exemption was without prejudice to 
solutions concerning specific aspects of the legislation covered by this exemption negotiated in 
sectoral agreements or in  other fora.  
16.2.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
16.3.   The United States welcomes the opportunity to participate in the review of the exemption 
under Paragraph 3 of GATT 1994.  This exemption was agreed to by all Members to deal with non -
conforming provisions of domestic legislation of a non -discretionary character in a specific area 
addressed by the exemption, and it is an integral part of the GATT 1994.  In Paragraph 3(a), Members 
agreed that as long as the legislation that the United States notified prior to the date of entry of 
force of the WTO Agreement remained in force and was not modified to reduce its conformity with 
Part II of the GATT 1994, Part II would not apply to that legislation.  Paragraph 3(b) specifies that 
Members shall review the exemption every two years to examine "whether the conditions which 
created the need for the exemption still prevail. " The United States confirms that the conditions that 
created the need for this exemption continue to exist, including the US Navy's reliance on commercial 
shipyards for day -to-day maintenance of naval and surge -fleet vessels. It also remains critical for 
US shipbuilders to build commercial ships for trade in order to ensure the maintenance of a viable 
industrial  base to meet future US naval requirements.  In short, the United States has the same need 
as it had in 1994: to maintain its shipyards' readiness to build and maintain naval vessels.  The 
United States has also continued to provide Members with annual stati stical reports under 
Paragraph  3(c) of the GATT 1994, including the most recent report that was circulated on 
12 November 2021. These reports provide detailed annual reporting of vessel orders and deliveries 
from US shipyards.  We thank other Members for th eir interest in this issue. We stand ready to 
answer Members' questions on the topic as needed.  
16.4.   The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
16.5.   This exemption from the GATT 1994 rules is an important subject to Norway. We would like 
to thank the United States for once again having invited us to informal consultations on the Jones 
Act. We have voiced our concerns as in previous reviews.  Our focus is as always on the salient point 
of paragraph 3(b) of the GATT agreement, whether the condit ions, which created the need for the 
exemption, still exist. This question seems even more relevant when considering the fact that the 
Jones Act has been in effect for more than 101 years. We note the US emphasis in the consultations 
on national security a nd humanitarian emergency reasons, that Jones Act is critical for US 
shipbuilding, not least of military vessels, and for maintaining enough qualified American mariners. 
It is, however, not clear whether the US has considered alternative measures for stimu lating activity 
in the US ship building sector.  
16.6.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  delivered the following statement:  
16.7.   Korea thanks the United States for  the informal consultations it hosted on the Jones Act earlier 
this month and the information i t provided as part of the review. My delegation has voiced its 
systemic concerns over the US exemption under paragraph 3(a) of the GATT 1994. The exemption, 
which has been maintained since the entry into force of the WTO, is a major derogation from the 
fundamental principle of the WTO. It undermines fair competition in shipbuilding and maritime WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 100 - 
 
  transport services as well.  While recognizing particular sensitivities for the United States in terms of 
cabotage and coastal shipping, Korea would like to encourage  the United States to consider potential 
economic benefits to US businesses and consumers alike by liberalizing this sector. I would like to 
note certain studies showing negative unintended consequences from this practice . For example, 
the absence of compe tition has discouraged shipbuilders from innovating, and higher costs imposed 
on shippers are passed on to their consumers. In this regard, Korea hopes that the United States 
will look into the possibility of modifying its implementation of the Jones Act i n the next review.  
16.8.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
16.9.   Japan attaches great importance to the review process and this exemption is a deviation from 
the fundamental principles of the WTO. Japan expects the United States to not onl y share relevant 
data but also conduct a substantial examination in order to address whether this exemption is still 
necessary. In recent years, in response to unforeseen events, the US government has approved 
waivers from the Jones Act. However, we believ e it is necessary to review the way in which the 
Jones Act itself is operated, rather than responding with temporary waivers.  
16.10.   The representative of Panama  delivered the following statement:  
16.11.   My delegation would like to thank the United States for its statem ent, the information 
provided and the consultations organized with interested Members. This issue is of particular 
importance to Panama , and we would be grateful for being kept abreast of any meetings, 
consultations and information that may be provided in the future.  
16.12.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
16.13.   As we have stated back in 2019 and before, the E uropean Union  follows this review process 
carefully. The European Union underlines once again our concerns with this exe mption considering 
the negative economic consequences for the E uropean Union 's and other countries ' shipbuilding, 
logistics, dredging and energy industries. We sincerely hope that the 2021 review is consequential. 
We hope it will be the starting point to l ook into how to remedy a situation that we believe is neither 
justified nor satisfactory.  
16.14.   The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
16.15.   We thank the United States for organizing informal consultations recently and providing 
more informatio n on this issue.  The Jones Act was established more than 100 years ago in 1920 and 
the exemption on this Act has also been reviewed in the WTO for more than 20 years since 1999. 
But unfortunately, we have not seen much positive outcome yet in the review.  As stated in the 
previous meetings, we believe that the exemption is a deviation from the fundamental principles of 
the WTO and restricts fair competition in shipbuilding and shipping markets. We also take note that 
reports made by US experts indicated that  the Jones Act caused environmental costs of more than 
8 billion USD per year, because the high shipping costs driven by this Act have incentivized more 
cargos to be transported by trucks, which generate much more emissions than marine transport.  
We hope t he 2021 review could deliver results instead of being another recurring point on the 
agenda. We look forward to further discussion with the United States on this issue.  
16.16.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
16.17.   I just want to acknowledge and thank the delegations of Norway, the Republic of Korea, 
Japan, Panama, the E uropean Union  and China for their continued engagement on this issue and 
thank them for working with us throughout the review process.  
16.18.   The General Council took note of the statements made in the course of the review in 2021 , 
and that the subsequent review, under the two -yearly cycle provided in Paragraph 3(b) of GATT 
1994, w ould be held in 2023.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 101 - 
 
  17  PROCEDURE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF HS 2022 CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING THE TARIFF SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE – DRAFT DECISION 
(G/C/W/802)  
17.1.   The Chair  drew attention to the Draft Decision on the Procedure for the Introduction of HS 
2022 Changes to Schedules of Concessions using the Tariff Schedule  Database contain ed in 
document G/C/W/802 which, after consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods at its November 
meeting, ha d been forwarded to the General Council for adoption. Unless there were comments, he 
propose d that the General Council adopt ed the draft decisi on contained in the document he had just 
referred to.  
17.2.   The General Council so agreed .17 
18  WAIVERS UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT18 
18.1  Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 Changes into W TO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/796)  
18.2  Introduction of Harmonized System 200 7 Changes into W TO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/797)  
18.3  Introduction of Harmonized System 20 12 Changes into W TO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/798)  
18.4  Introduction of Harmonized System 20 17 Changes into W TO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Draft Decision (G/C/W/799)  
18.5  Cuba – Article X V:6 – Extension of Waiver – Draft Decision (G/C/W/803)  
18.1.   The Chair recalled that, under this agenda item, the draft waiver decisions for the matters 
listed in the agenda had been  taken up for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods at its 
meeting on 1 -2 November.  
18.2.   Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren  (Mongolia) , Chair of the Goods Council , provided the 
following report:   
18.3.   I would like to report that, at its meeting of 1 and 2 November 2021, the Council for Trade in 
Goods considered five waiver requests.  The first four are collective waiver requests relating to the 
introduct ion of Harmonized System changes into WTO Schedules of Concessions, which are based 
on similar waivers currently in force that will expire on 31 December 2021. These four collective 
waiver requests were previously discussed at the Market Access Committee m eeting in October and 
forwarded to the Council for Trade in Goods for its consideration. The fifth waiver request is by Cuba 
to extend the current waiver from Article XVI:6 of the GATT. The current waiver, contained in 
document WT/L/1003, will expire on 31  December 2021.  The five draft decisions that are being put 
forward today for consideration by the General Council have followed the procedures provided for in 
Article IX (b) of the Marrakesh Agreement and are contained in the documents listed in the agend a 
of today's meeting.  At its November meeting, the Council for Trade in Goods recommended that the 
five draft waiver decisions contained in these waiver requests be forwarded to the General Council 
for adoption.  This concludes the report by the CTG Chair.  
18.4.   The Chair  noted that, u nless delegations wish ed to comment, he propose d that the General 
Council adopt ed the five draft waiver decisions, which relate d to the Introduction of Harmonized 
System 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017 changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions and to the 
Extension of Waiver "Cuba – Article XV:6".  
 
17 The decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/1123.  
18 In connection with this Item, the attention of Members is drawn to the Decision -Making Procedures 
under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed by  the General Council on 15 November 1995 (WT/L/93).  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 102 - 
 
  18.5.   The General Council so agreed .19 
18.6  Review of Waivers Pursuant to Article I X:4 of the W TO Agreement  
18.6.1   Preferential treatment in favour of services and service suppliers of least -
developed countries, granted on 17  December  2011 until 31 December 2030 (WT/L/847, 
WT/L/982)  
18.6.2   Preferential tariff treatment for least -developed countries, granted on 
16 October  2019 until 30  June  2029 (WT/L/1069)  
18.6.3   European Union – Application of autonomous p referential treatment to the 
Western Balkans (WT/L/1116)  
18.6.4   United States – African Growth and Opportunity Act, granted on 
30 November  2015 until 30  September 2025 (WT/L/970, WT/L/1117)  
18.6.5   United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 
16 Octo ber 2019 until 30 September 2025 (WT/L/1070, WT/L/1115)  
18.6.6   United States – Former trust territory of the Pacific Islands, granted on 
7 December 2016 until 31 December 2026 (WT/L/1000, WT/L/1118)  
18.6.7   United States – Trade preferences granted to Nepal, granted on 7  December 2016 
until 31  December 2025 (WT/L/1001, WT/L/1119)  
18.6.   The Chair noted that, c oncerning the review of waivers in sub -item (f), in accordance with 
paragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO Agreement, "any waiver granted for a period of more than one 
year s hall be reviewed by the Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and 
thereafter annually until the waiver terminates." There were seven waivers before the General 
Council for review, and they were listed in the proposed Agenda.  He stress ed that th ose waivers ha d 
already been agreed by the General Council and that they were in force. The General Council was 
not expected to take any new decision on their renewal or otherwise at th e meeting. Five of the 
waivers under review provide d that an annual report should be submitted by the Member concerned 
regarding the operation or implementation of th e waiver with a view to facilitating its annual review 
by the General Council. The report s from the European Union and the United States ha d been 
circulated in documents WT/L/1116 and WT/L/1115, 1117, 1118 and 1119, respectively.  
18.7.   The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , on behalf of OECS , delivered the following 
statement:  
18.8.   I am intervening on  behalf of the WTO Members of the OECS. We also support the statement 
on behalf of the CARICOM Group. The OECS also thanks the United States for its report on the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The U nited States  remains the single most important 
trading partner for OECS WTO Members. The preferential access to the US market under CBERA for 
a wide variety of goods plays a major role in driving our trading relationship with the U nited States . 
Continued access to the US market, under preferential terms,  will be even more critical as we seek 
to build back better post -COVID -19 as well as in the context of our inherent vulnerabilities.  OECS 
Member States are actively focusing on economic and trade diversification. Based on the report 
presented by the U nited States , it is evident that in the last year, energy -related products and 
textiles and apparel accounted for 84% of US imports under CBERA. This suggests that there is 
enormous scope for export diversification. We note with concern that the export performa nce of 5 
of the 6 OECS WTO Members under CBERA has drastically declined. This is a sign of the negative 
impact of not just the C OVID -19 pandemic but also our longstanding vulnerabilities. Notwithstanding 
this, the CBERA waiver provides legal comfort to our  economic operators and as our economic and 
trade diversification efforts intensify, it is important to have recourse to the duty -free treatment 
 
19 The waiver decisions were subsequently circulated in documents WT/L/1124, WT/L/1125, WT/L/1126 , 
WT/L/1127  and WT/L/1128, respectively.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 103 - 
 
  guarantees under CBERA.  Once again, we renew our thanks to the U nited States  for its report. We 
also renew our interest in continuing to benefit from trade preferences under CBERA.  
18.9.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
18.10.   The CARICOM Group wishes to thank the United States for its report as it relates to the 
Caribbea n Basin Economic Recovery Act. The United States continues to be an important trading 
partner for the Small, Vulnerable Economies in CARICOM. While we recognize that trade is not an 
end in itself , it does serve as an engine for growth and sustainable devel opment. For CARICOM, the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act serves to provide our countries with an additional avenue 
for development through the creation of enhanced prospects for CARICOM products into the market 
of the United States. CBERA continues t o be beneficial to CARICOM. We therefore wish to reiterate 
our gratitude to the United States for extending the waiver of the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act and its report to today's General Council meeting.  
18.11.   The representative of Mauritius , on beha lf of the African Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
18.12.   I would like to make the statement regarding the AGOA granted until 30th September 2025. 
For more than 20 years, majority of African countries have been benefitting from AGOA trade 
preferences. It  is today a cornerstone of African -US trade linkages and has proven to be very 
beneficial to African countries.  That said, it does not mean that African countries are able to fully 
avail of the advantages granted by the AGOA as many exporters still do not meet all the export 
requirements to access the US market. The African private sector would immensely benefit from 
capacity building programmes aimed at developing their export potential to the U nited States. A t 
the same time, it would be beneficial to buil d the competence of the public sector so as to create an 
overall environment that is more conducive to trade with the U nited States . In view of generating 
development in the region, Africa and the United States could look into ways to increase investment 
as these usually also carry transfer of knowledge and technology . We would also like to seize this 
opportunity to speak of the highly ambitious achievements of the continent through the 
establishment of the Afri can Continental Free Trade Area. The agreement will play a significant role 
in the development and regional integration of Africa and look forward to finding ways to relate the 
CFTA with the AGOA. As unanimously agreed by African countries, we support the future extension 
of the AGOA post -2025 in view of assuring trade predictability between the U nited States  and Africa.  
18.13.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
18.14.   We align ourselves with the statement made b y Barbados on behalf of the CARICOM Group. 
Jamaica , like other Caribbean countries , has been a beneficiary of  CBERA since its inception and we 
continue to attach high importance to the arrangement. The scope of coverage of the Act has 
facilitated a vibrant  flow of trade in agricultural manufactured products between our countries and 
has assisted with  the diversification of our exports.  CBERA continues to be of immense value to our 
country on the trade and economic fronts. Moreover, CBERA significantly compl ements Jamaica's 
national export strategy and the national development plan, Vision 2030. My delegation  therefore 
wishes to reaffirm its sincere gratitude to the U nited States  for the maintenance of CBERA under its 
waiver coverage, which we view as a clear  demonstration of the affirmed commitment to a 
partnership for trade and development with its Caribbean neighbours. We look forward to continuing 
positive engagement to deepen our bilateral trade relations following from that. We also thank 
Members for the  support that has been given for the waiver, enabling these arrangements over the 
years , and we look forward to the continuation of that support for our renewal request.  
18.15.   The General Council took note  of the report s contained in documents WT/L/1115 , 
WT/L/11 16, WT/L/1117, WT/L/1118 and WT/L /1119, and of the statements.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 104 - 
 
  19  REVIEW OF WTO ACTIVITIES  
19.1  General Council (WT/GC/W/834), Dispute Settlement Body (WT/DSB/83) and 
Trade Policy Review Body (WT/TPR/471)  
19.2  Sectoral Councils (G/L/1418, S/C/62, and IP/C/92), SPS Committee 
(G/L/1413/Rev.1), TBT Committee (G/L/1420) and Committee on Agriculture 
(G/L/1421)  
19.3  Committees  on Trade and Development (WT/COMTD/101), Trade and Environment 
(WT/CTE/28), Balance -of-Payments Restrictions (WT/BOP/R/119), Budget, Finance and 
Administration (WT/BFA/201), and Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/32)  
19.4  Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance (WT/WGTDF/20), Working Group on 
Trade and Transfer of Technology (WT/WGTTT/23)  
19.5  Commi ttees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements (GPA/AR/4, WT/L/1120 – 
TCA/18)  
19.1.   The Chair took up the reports under Item 20 which ha d been prepared in line with the Decision 
concerning procedures for an annual overview of WTO activities and for reporting unde r the WTO in 
document WT/L/105. Th ose reports were listed in the agenda of the meeting . Delegations ha d 
already had a substantive discussion on th ose reports in the respective bodies where they had been  
adopted, and he would therefore suggest that they did not repeat those discussions in the General 
Council. In line with the reporting obligations, as he had  said earlier, all reports from the respective 
bodies w ould be forwarded to the Ministerial Conference for the consideration of Ministers. He also 
propos ed that the Chairs of the various bodies refrain ed from introducing their respective reports 
during th e meeting, as they ha d already been thoroughly discussed in the respective WTO Bodies.  
With th ose words, he propose d that, in accordance with practice, the General Council  took action on 
those reports.  He therefore  invite d the General Council to adopt the report of the Committee on 
Trade and Development in document WT/COMTD/101, and to take note of the reports of the other 
WTO bodies, including the reports of the Committees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements, listed 
in the Proposed Agenda.  
19.2.   The General Council so agreed . 
19.3.   The Chair then propose d that the General Council adopt ed the draft Report of the General 
Council contained in document WT/GC/W/834, on the understanding that the Secretariat w ould 
make the necessary adj ustments to that Report to include matters that ha d been considered at th at 
meeting. The General Council's Report w ould then be circulated and forwarded to the Ministerial 
Conference.  
19.4.   The General Council so agreed .20 
20  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINI STRATION - REPORTS ON MEETINGS 
OF SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2021 (WT/BFA/198, WT/BFA/198/CORR.1, 
WT/BFA/199 AND WT/BFA/200)  
20.1.   The Chair  drew attention to the reports of the Budget Committee in documents WT/BFA/198 , 
WT/BFA/199 and WT/BFA/ 200, including WT/BFA/ 198/Corr.1.  
20.1.   Ambassador Bettina Waldmann  (Germany), Chair of the CBFA , provided the following 
statement:  
20.2.   Since my last report to the General Council, the CBFA has met on several occasions. I would 
like to present to you the CBFA report for the meetin gs that took place in September, October and 
November. My remarks today will focus on the meetings of the CBFA held on 23 September and 
 
20 The 2021 Annual Report of the General Council was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/242. 
An addendum was also circulated in WT/GC/242/Add.1 to reflect the special meeting of the General Council on 
15 December.   WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 105 - 
 
  4 November 2021 and the items recommended for approval by the General Council. The report of 
those meetings can be found  in the following documents: WT/BFA/198 as well as the related 
corrigendum bearing the reference WT/BFA/198/Corr.1, WT/BFA/199 and WT/BFA/200.  As a 
personal remark, I would like to thank WTO Members for the flexibility and commitment they have 
demonstrated  working together on budgetary matters in support of this organization and the 
Secretariat. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues and to thank them for their active 
participation and support at the CBFA. I hope that this spirit of constructive eng agement is also 
reflected in the larger context of MC12 and beyond.  
20.3.   I am pleased to report that the CBFA endorsed at its meeting of the 23rd of September the 
WTO Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2020. The Committee also 
endorsed the transfers between budgetary sections, outlined in paragraph 2.33 of document 
WT/BFA/W/560/Rev.1. With respect to these items , the CBFA is submitting the following 
recommendations to the General Council for approval and , for procedural reasons , I will have to 
read the full text of all the recommendations and there are four, so please excuse the lengthy 
statement.  Coming to the first recommendation: the Committee recommends that the General 
Council approve the transfers between budgetary sections  as outlined in paragraph 2.33 of the 
document WT/BFA/W/560/Rev.1. The Committee further recommends that the General Council 
approve the WTO Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2020.  
20.4.   I am also pleased to report that the CBFA has en dorsed the Director General's proposal 
regarding the 2020 budgetary surplus. The CBFA discussed the proposal over the course of several 
meetings, the discussions were constructive and helped clarify the context for the proposal, including 
the long -term pen sion and after service house insurance liabilities of the WTO, which are significant , 
and which will be subject to further conversations next year. With respect to this matter, the CBFA 
is submitting the following recommendation to the General Council: "The Committee on Budget, 
Finance and Administration recommends to the General Council that the WTO budgetary surplus as 
at 31 December 2020 amounting to CHF 11,771,979 will be utilised as follows: 9.8 million to be 
applied against Members contributions for 2 020 and CHF 1,971,979 to be transferred to the working 
capital fund. The recommendation is linked to the pandemic and does not create a precedent for 
future recommendations pertaining to the budgetary surplus and is not a de facto  lowering of future 
assess ed contributions. "  
20.5.   With respect to the ITC 2022/2023 budget proposal, the CBFA first discuss ed the proposal 
during its meeting of the 1st of July 2021. Following these discussions, the CBFA endorsed the ITC 
2021 budget proposal at its meeting held on 23 September. The Committee is, therefore, submitting 
the following recommendation to the General Council for approval: "The Committee recommends to 
the General Council that the budget for 2022/2023 for the International Trade Centre be approved 
in the amount of CHF 36,686,250 with miscellaneous income being estimated at CHF 200,000, the 
amount to be provided by the WTO to the International Trade Centre budget for 2022 and 2023 
shall be CHF 18,243,125 per year. " 
20.6.   Now, I will be coming to the final recommendation , that is the WTO budget. The WTO budget 
for 2022/2023 was formally presented through the CBFA in June and it was discussed by Members 
over the course of several meetings. I am very pleased to inform delegations that following these 
discussions the Committ ee endorsed the WTO 2022/2023 budget proposal at its meeting held on 
4 November and is submitting the following recommendation to the General Council for approval: 
"The General Council, having considered the guidelines on biannual budgeting in 
WT/BFA/W/105 /Rev.1 , approved by the General Council through document WT/GC/M/82 and the 
2022/2023 WTO consolidated budget, which amounts to CHF 197,203,900 for 2022 and 2023, 
respectively, as set forth in tables 1, 2, and 3 annexed to this report, resolves that the 20 22/2023 
WTO consolidated budget be financed as follows: a) contributions from Members in the amount of 
CHF 195,500,000 and miscellaneous income of CHF 1,703,900. "  
20.7.   In addition, the CBFA has endorsed specific recommendations for the approval of the 
budgetar y aspects of the biannual technical assistance plan for 2022/2023. The recommendation 
reads as follows: "Pursuant to paragraph 40(1) of the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the 4th 
session of the WTO's Ministerial Conference, the Committee recommends to the General Council 
that: WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 106 - 
 
  a. Secure and predictable financing be provided for the implementation of the 2022/2023 
biannual technical assistance and training plan as to prove by the Committee on Trade 
and Development.  
b. The target level of extra budgetary resources intended to fund the TA plan include CHF 
13,992,000 for 2022 and CHF 13,992,000 for 2023 to come from the Doha Development 
Agenda Global Trust Fund, and CHF 2,554,000 for 2022 and CHF 2,554,000 for 2023 from 
other trust funds.  
c. Members b e reminded that, on 19 -20 December 2001, the General Council approved the 
following periodic benchmarks for contribution receipts  to the DDAGTF: (i) by December 
of the year preceding the funds revolving annual target period, 25 per cent of the annual 
total should be in the bank; (ii) by the 31st of March another 50 per cent for an overall 
75 per cent of the total; (iii) by 30th of June, 100 per cent of the funds.  
d. In this context, Members be informed that the projected year -end balance of the Fund is 
likely to be sufficient to cover the 25 per cent of the target amount.  
e. Governments be urged to make financial contributions in a manner which preserve s the 
global nature of the program and facilitate s the management and reporting with the view 
to greater t ransparency (i.e. making un -earmarked contributions) and pledge multi -year 
contributions to create more predictability in terms of financing. " 
20.8.   The Chair noted that, u nless any delegation wishe d to speak at th at point, he propose d that 
the General Council  took action on the reports and recommendations as referred to by the Chair of 
the Budget Committee.  
20.9.   The General Council  approve d the Budget Committee's specific recommendations in  
paragraph 4.4 of WT/BFA/198 on transfers between budgetary sections and the approval the WTO 
Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2020;  paragraph 9.3 of WT/BFA/198 
on the approval of the budget for 2022 -2023 of the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO;  
paragraph 3.5 of WT/BFA/200 on the utilization of the 2 020 budgetary surplus; and,  paragraphs 4.9 
to 4.12 on the approval of the budget for 2022 -2023 of the WTO ; took note of the CBFA Chair 's 
statement  and adopt ed the reports in WT/BFA/198 , WT/BFA/198/ Corr.1, WT/BFA/ 199 and 
WT/BFA/ 200. 
21  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO WTO BODIES  
21.1  Report by the Chair  
21.1.   The Chair recalled that, a t the last meeting of the General Council in October, he had  reported 
on his consultations on the overall process of the appointment of officers to WTO bodies, and this 
report had been  issued in JOB/GC/277. Since his last report, consultations and discussions on this 
matter ha d continued, and he would like to provide Members with an update t hat day. His report 
that day buil t on the discussions on this matter at meetings of the General Council in 2021, and on 
the consultations that he had  undert aken at the request of delegations since September. The report 
should be read in conjunct ion with his earlier report  in JOB/GC/277 . 
21.2.   Since his last report in October, he had convened his consultations, including with two 
Informal Open -Ended Meetings – on 8 and 17 November , respectively. At the 8 November meeting, 
he had  walked delegations throu gh the main suggestions that group coordinators and delegations 
had made so far on this matter, and he had posed five questions to facilitate the discussion. The 
intention had been  to get a better understanding of, and identify to the extent possible, pote ntial 
elements of convergence.  The five questions had evolved around (i) when and how to start the 
appointment cycles; (ii) how to strengthen transparency in the appointment process; (iii) the 
manner in which the principle of rotation ought to be applied; (iv) how to ensure representation; 
and (v) if there were other improvements and clarifications that Members deem ed appropriate to 
avoid a repetition of the issues faced in recent years.  It had been evident from the discussion that 
Members  had attached grea t importance to ensuring that the forthcoming and future appointment 
cycles would run smoothly.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 107 - 
 
  21.3.   Based on what he had  heard on 8 November and in his conversations with delegations, the 
next step and question to sound out had been , whether Members would wis h to consider initial 
"common elements" of a practical nature and apply th ose already to the forthcoming appointment 
cycle, on the understanding that consultations would continue on a number of other important 
matters, such as 'representation' and 'rotatio n', which would require further time, consideration and 
discussion. Taking into account of what he had heard from Members on 8 November and his 
preceding consultations, such initial elements could include: (i) launching the process early, with 
consultation s on the actual slate of names starting before the end of the year; (ii) starting 
consultations on both Tiers 1 and 2 at the same time, while conducting them in separate, 
independent tracks; (iii) drawing up a clear time -defined calendar; and (iv) further enhancing 
transparency and inclusiveness through regular updates to the entire Membership at every stage of 
the process, through regular communications. As part of enhancing transparency and 
communication, any side agreements could be communicated in a tra nsparent and timely manner, 
indicating clearly if they ha d a bearing on future appointment cycles.  
21.4.   At the 17 November meeting, delegations that  intervened had welcomed th ose possible 
common elements, which he had identified based on what he had  heard from Members, as a good 
and helpful starting point. At the same time, delegations had found that th ose initial elements would 
not suffice to address the shortcomings and problems experienced in recent appointment cycles, 
and they had felt that it had been  necessary to continue this useful discussion and ensure that all 
concerns and points raised were addressed. He had  taken good note of the issues that had been  
specifically mentioned again, and that delegations had considered to merit further attention and 
consideration, such as: rotation; transparency; hand -over of appointment processes by 
outgoing/incoming Chairs; specific communication to all Members of, and transparency on, any side -
agreements; recusal by group coordinators or members of their delegation(s) as possible candidates 
because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality; early start of consultations; and, the 
possibility of vice -chairmanships and a 2 -year slate. At that meeting, he had also heard that other 
delegations had found that the overall balance of the 2002 guidelines had been  right and would 
require only slight improvements. Broadly and positively, He acknowledge d the readiness and 
willingness among Members to continue engaging a nd talking to each other with a view to further 
strengthening and improving the overall process on the appointment of officers.  
21.5.   Guided by this, he therefore propose d that he continue d his consultations and discussion on 
the overall process on the Appointme nt of Officers to WTO Bodies after the Ministerial Conference, 
and he would count on Members'  continued good will and active participation.  He thanked  all group 
coordinators and delegations for their contributions and efforts. Members  had frequently heard the 
reference to this being a "housekeeping matter", and he agree d with that. It was a "housekeeping 
matter" – but one that ha d a direct bearing on ensuring the smooth functioning of WTO bodies, and 
that was their shared responsibility.  In 2021 , Members ha d faced great difficulties in the appointment 
cycles, which had carried all the way into mid -2021. In the end, they had found a mutually acceptable 
and workable solution. They had  all agree d that such a situation should be avoided at all costs. They 
all kn ew how th at reflect ed on them and on the organization. He therefore call ed on all Members, 
and group coordinators, to engage in this forthcoming appointment cycle in good faith and in a 
constructive manner so that they avoid ed a repetition of what they had faced in 2021 .  
21.6.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's report.21 
21.2  Announcement by the Chair Pursuant to Paragraph 7.1(A) of the Guidelines 
(WT/L/510)  
21.7.   The Chair drew attention to the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies in 
document WT/L/510. Th ose Guidelines provide d that the outgoing Chair of the Genera l Council w ould 
conduct consultations on the appointment of chairpersons to the WTO bodies in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 
5 of the Annex to the Guidelines. The Guidelines also provide d that to promote transparency, the 
selection process should start with an announc ement by the Chair at the General Council meeting. 
In accordance with the Guidelines, he should be assisted in the selection process by the serving 
Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, Ambassador Chambovey  (Switzerland). A list of past Chairs 
of major bod ies was available to provide some structure on discussions on the possible distribution 
of Chairs based on past practice and the need for balance. In keeping with the Guidelines, 
representatives of Members in financial arrears for over one full year c ould not be considered for 
 
21 The Chair's report was subsequentl y circulated in document JOB/GC/285.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 108 - 
 
  appointment.  He recalled that  the practical steps to improve the implementation of the Guidelines 
in document JOB/GC/22, provide d that groups, namely the developed countries, Latin America and 
the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific and A frica, ha d a role in putting forward names of candidates for 
the slots available to them. Therefore, Ambassador Chambovey and he would be meeting with group 
coordinators first. Relevant communications concerning the consultations on the process were going 
to be sent out in due course. He intend ed to start consultations early, immediately after the 
Ministerial Conference, and he count ed on delegations' positive engagement.  
21.8.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
21.9.   Thank you , Chair, for your report and for your efforts to streamline the existing guidelines on 
appointment of officers. During the consultations, we had conveyed our concerns on how the current 
process is arbitrary and lacks transparency. It also does not ensure proper ro tation of Chairs and 
does not always achieve balanced representation of Membership from different groups. The lack of 
clear-cut guidelines had also allowed side deals among the facilitators/office bearers, which the rest 
of the Membership are not aware of.  During the consultations , we had therefore provided you with 
some suggestions and ideas, both orally and through written submission and we are happy to note 
from your statement today that some of those suggestions have been considered by you. However, 
on the current system of rotation, we had suggested that the Chairmanship of each Committee 
should sequentially rotate between different groups. The current practice of the Developed Group 
alternating with the other regional groups should be done away with. T his amounts to reverse S&DT 
for developed countries.  This issue has not been addressed.  On transparency, we had requested at 
every stage of the selection process  a clear -cut communication process both by the Chairs of 
concerned bodies and the Regional Coor dinators. We had requested that the Regional Coordinators  
shall provide the initial slates of vacancies available to the group, the nominations received, the 
internal process on handling multiple nominations within the group. Once the negotiations are 
comp leted within the Group and the list of nominations is finalized, then only the R egional 
Coordinators  shall provide the nominations to respective office bearers for finali zation. The Regional 
Coordinators  shall initiate a similar round of consultations with in the Group for vacancies not filled 
in the first round due to non -receipt of nominations, and has been offered to the Group in the second 
subsequent rounds. While we note from your report the need for ensuring transparency, we do not 
see the details of h ow it will be ensured.  
21.10.   We had also suggested that there should be a clear process for handing over of the selection 
process matter between incoming and outgoing Chairs of different bodies, under the supervision of 
the G eneral Council  Chair. If there are an y understandings, agreements reached between Members 
during the select ion process in a given year, either within their regional groups or between groups, 
for future years, the same should be brought to the attention of the Members in a clear and 
transparen t manner, with the cogni zance of the Chair. Otherwise, such understandings are deemed 
to be null and void.  We had also requested that to avoid conflict of interest . The Regional 
Coordinators  should not be nominating either themselves or their country deleg ates for 
Chairmanship of any Committees during their role as R egional Coordinator . If they wish to nominate 
themselves or their country delegates for Chairmanship/s during a particular year, then they need 
to recuse themselves of the R egional Coordinator  role during that period.  While we see your report 
as a positive step forward, it still falls short of our expectations and does not address all the concerns 
that we had raised over the issues that we had experienced during the selection process earlier this  
year. Therefore, we request that these consultations may be carried forward and more detailed 
guidelines be put forward to make the system more transparent and efficient. We are willing to work 
on this, post MC12 , to reach a common understanding.  
21.11.   The repr esentative of the Russian Federation  delivered the following statement:  
21.12.   The Russian Federation thanks the Chair for his efforts in this process and considers the 
suggestions  he had  summarized as a step in the right direction  which we support . Our only remark 
refers to the suggestion regarding the so-called side -agreements. Our delegation 's view is that we 
should either abandon the practice of such arrangements or to treat them in a more formalized and 
comprehensive way, since such practice, as currently applied, provides privileges for some Members 
while other Members are deprived of them. However, it seems that the proposed arrangements can 
just mitigate some problematic issues of t he appointment process rather than fix them. To come up 
with solutions addressing root causes of the problems we encounter every year, we welcome the 
Chair's  statement that his consultations will continue.   WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 109 - 
 
  21.13.   In the meantime, we expect that in the next elect ion cycle , all WTO Members will strictly 
follow the principles and provisions of the actual "Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO 
Bodies " (document WT/L/510), in particular:  the appointments exercise should be regarded as a 
relatively routine annu al "housekeeping'' matter (Item 1.1 of the Guidelines), rather than a politically 
driven process, and be approached in a way conducive to the smooth conduct of ongoing business 
(Item 1.1 of the Guidelines ); the choice of a Chairperson should primarily refl ect the capacity and 
the availability of that person to undertake the required special responsibilities (Item 2.3 of the 
Guidelines).  In addition, the Chair's consultations  clearly demonstrated that , in general , the 
Membership gives its consent to the prin ciple, as expressed in t he Chair 's statement of this matter 
on 27 July 2012  in document JOB/GC/22 that "the Members should exercise restraint in blocking 
consensus on a candidate and should explain to the selection committee the reasons why, if they 
are do ing so ". I sincerely hope that all Members will follow this principle . Otherwise , the repetition 
of the problems experienced in the recent years is unavoidable.  
21.14.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement  and of the other statements.  
22  OTHER BUSINESS  
22.1  Ministerial Meeting of the Landlocked Developing Countries  – Statement by Mongolia 
on behalf of the Landlocked Developing Countries  
22.1.   The representative of Mongolia , on behalf of the LLDCs , under "Other Business ", provided the 
following statement:  
22.2.   On 4 November , the delegation of Mongolia in collaboration with the delegation of Kazakhstan 
held the LLDCs Ministerial Meeting at the margins of the upcoming MC12. A total of 14 Ministers 
highlighted the worsening situat ion for LLDCs due to the pandemic. They underscored the essential 
role that international trade can play in supporting LLDCs' economic recovery and the importance of 
the tools available at the WTO for developing countries.  Director -General Dr. Ngozi  Okonjo -Iweala  
participated in the meeting in -person and underscored in her address the challenges faced by LLDCs 
and reiterated her commitment to promoting a more inclusive multilateral trading system. Ministers 
adopted the LLDCs Ministerial Declaration which wa s circulated among the WTO Members on 
5 November as document WT/G C/237 and which will be included in the MC12 Package . The 
declaration calls for discussions on establishing a work programme for LLDCs in the WTO to monitor 
their needs, challenges and vulner abilities and to develop strategies to boost their participation in 
the multilateral trading system. In addition to the challenges of high trade costs and dependence on 
transit countries to trade internationally, LLDCs are facing new challenges, such as co ntainer 
shortages, high shipping costs, climate change vulnerability and limited access to COVID -19 
vaccines, the declaration notes.  
22.3.   More than half of LLDCs are LDCs and are unable to benefit from the granted preferential 
tariffs due to uncertainly define d rules of origin. In this regard, the Committee on Rules of Origin 
needs to explore the issue of how rules of origin affect the ability of LLDCs to take advantage of 
preferential access to markets given the particularities of their trade.  In view of the i mpact of SPS 
and TBT measures imposed by transit countries on transit goods, it is important to develop more 
specific and simplified requirements to be applied to goods in transit, as well as notification of all 
proposed SPS and TBT measures to enable earl y consultations with affected countries, prior to the 
adoption of the measure. To be clear on this point, let me emphasize that the same tight SPS and 
TBT measures for imported goods are being implemented for transit goods and this is very critical 
for LLD Cs, main exported goods of which are agriculture products.  The LLDC Group has proposed to 
include a paragraph on a Work Programme on Transit in the outcome document of MC12. This 
programme is aimed at making the relevant rules and regulations of the WTO cl earer and detailed. 
The consultations on this proposal are being held, and we do hope that the proposal will gain 
necessary support from the WTO Members.  By defining transit rules clearer and detailed, we do 
believe that not only LLDC s but also the entire Membership of the WTO will benefit from it, and it 
would be our contribution to  the strengthening of the rules-based multilateral trading system.  
22.4.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 110 - 
 
  22.2  Virtual Meeting of the Arab Trade Minsters  – Statement by the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia  
22.5.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , under "Other Business ", provided the 
following statement:  
22.6.   I would like to share brief remarks today on the recent preparatory meeting of the Arab Trade 
Ministers which was hosted by  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in its capacity as the coordinator of the 
Arab Group in the WTO, via video conference on 31 October 2021. The aim of the meeting was to 
discuss a number of common issues for the Arab Countries in preparation for the Twelfth WT O 
Ministerial Conference. And , to coordinate positions and to identify the common interests of Arab 
countries within the framework of the WTO. The meeting was chaired by H.E. Dr. Majid Al Qasabi, 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's Minister of Commerce. Deputy D irector -General Angela Ellard 
participated in the meeting on behalf of Director -General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo -Iweala. In her statement , 
DDG Ellard called on Ministers to fully and proactively engage in the process to ensure a successful 
Twelfth  Ministerial Conf erence.  We thank DDG Ellard for her constructive contribution. During the 
meeting, T rade Ministers discussed issues of common interest to Arab countries within the WTO, 
including  the WTO Response to the COVID -19 Pandemic, multilateral negotiations, including fisheries 
subsidies, agriculture negotiations, special and differential treatment for developing and least-
developed countries as well as WTO Reform. Ministers also touched on common issues related to 
accession , observer status to countries and IGOs and in introducing the Arabic language as a WTO 
official language.  
22.7.   At the end of  the meeting , a joint Ministerial Communiqu é was endorsed containing 
consensual and common visions of the Arab countries on various comm on and negotiating issues 
within the framework of the World Trade Organization, and that was circulated as a WTO document 
in WT/GC/236. In the Joint Communiqu é, the Arab Trade Ministers, among other several topics, 
expressed their strong commitment to their active participation in MC12, to ensure its success and 
to reach meaningful outcomes for the entire Membership , and to further enhance the role of the 
WTO in establishing rules that support a free, fair, stable, inclusive, non -discriminatory, transparent , 
and open trade and investment environment.  In addition, Trade Ministers emphasized the significant 
role that the WTO can play in tackling the impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic and in enabling strong 
global econom ic recovery. Furthermore, Minster s stressed  the need at this critical juncture to 
strengthen the global cooperation and coordination to take all the necessary measures to overcome 
the consequences of the COVID -19 pandemic, and build a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient 
future. Finally, I wou ld like to thank all Arab countries, regional and international organizations, and 
the business community for their participation and contribution in the meeting.  
22.8.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
22.3  Next Steps on WTO Response to the Pandemic – Statement by Pakistan  on behalf of 
the Co -Sponsors of JOB/GC/278  
22.9.   The representative of Pakistan  asked the Chair if it was still possible to take the floor under 
"Other  Business " on behalf of the co -sponsors of JOB/GC/278. Pakistan wished  to address the 
ongoing process to develop a document for the WTO Response to the Pandemic. Members had 
already  heard Ambassador Walker's report and ha d had the chance to initially study the draft 
Facilitator's Text in document JOB/GC/281.  
22.10.   The Chair  noted that  the point had not been raised as an additional item under  "Other 
Business " when the agenda was adopted. He opened the floor for Members' consideration  by putting 
forward Pakistan's request and asking  if anyone opposed to it.  After a brief pause, the  Chair noted 
that, as no one had  opposed , he would  give the floor to Pakistan to speak on this matter under 
"Other Business".   
22.11.   The General Council so agreed .  
22.12.   The representative of Pakistan , under "Other Business ", provided the following statement.  
22.13.   We have heard Am bassador Walker's report yesterday and we are happy to note that the 
document has progressed from its version on 25 October and that our substantive, constructive WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 111 - 
 
  engagement has borne some fruit and the text appears to have accommodated some of our 
concern s. However, we also note that there are some very important issues which still need to be 
addressed including the placeholder on the TRIPS Waiver placed now in the Preamble which will be 
in the Declaration. Additionally, more engagement with certain IP iss ues and transparency, such as 
that in contractual terms, is required for the text to take us closer to a landing  zone. Similarly, there 
are other small areas which need to be worked on. Now, the last matter we wish to request is that 
in order to allow the Member -driven process to take its due course, the item must be kept open and 
that there should be sufficient time provided for Members to continue to work with the text to make 
a consolidated text which is useful for Ministers to reflect on. We need clarity from the Chair  on what 
the next steps on this will be.  
22.14.   The Chair noted that, as expressed earlier under agenda item 7, he would  be in contact with 
the delegations and also with the Facilitator to discuss how to take this work forward to MC12.  
22.15.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
22.4  Statement by the Chair in connection with Administrative Measures for Members in 
arrears  
22.16.   The Chair  recalled that t he General  Council Procedures for Members and Observers subject 
to Administrative Measures in  WT/BFA/132 require d that, at the end of each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration w ould provide 
information with regard to which Members and Observers were under Administrative Measures.  
22.17.   Ambassad or Bettina Waldmann (Germany), Chair of the CBFA , provided the following 
statement:  
22.18.   The administrative measures applicable to Members and observers with arrears in 
contributions have been in place since 1 March 2013. In accordance with the decision of the General 
Council, I shall state all Members and Observers under categories of administrative measures. As of  
22 November 2021, there are 17 Members and 8 Observers under administrative measures. The 
following seven Members are in Category 1 : Belize, Djibout i, Gabon, Mauritania, Papua New Guinea, 
Suriname  and Yemen. The following two Members are in Category 2: Cuba  and Guinea. The following 
eight Members are in Category 3: Antigua and Barbuda, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, 
Congo, Democratic Republi c of Congo, Guinea Bissau  and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Burundi, 
Central African Republic, Chad and Guinea Bissau are not in compliance with the payment plan 
terms. Now, I will move to Observers . There are four Observers  in Category 1 : Comoros, Iran, Iraq  
and Sudan. There is only one Observer in Category 2: Syrian Arab Republic. The following three 
Observers are in Category 3: Libya, Sao Tome and Principe  and Somalia. With regard to this matter, 
the Committee on Budget, Finance and Admin istration makes the following recommendation to the 
General Council: "The Committee invites the General Council to urge Members and Observers under 
administrative measures to liquidate their arrears. " This concludes my report.  
22.19.   The Chair noted that, as als o required by the General Council Procedures, he request ed 
Members and Observers in Categories 2 and 3 of the measures to inform the Secretariat as to when 
their payment of arrears would  be expected.  
22.20.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
 
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/194  
 
- 112 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. TIMUR SULEIMENOV,  
CHAIR OF THE TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE,  
AT THE FORMAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL ON 22 NOVEMBER  
Allow me to express our deep gratitude for the tru st that Members have placed on Kazakhstan to 
chair and co -host the Twelfth  Ministerial Conference. As you are aware, Kazakhstan was planning to 
hold MC12 in Nur -Sultan in June 2020. However, the COVID -19 pandemic imposed constraints and 
adjustments on all of us, and did not allow us to carry out the Conference as planned.  I am honoured 
to chair the Twelfth  Ministerial Conference and assure you that I will spare no efforts to guarantee 
its success.  
 
For this, I intend to keep up with the developments in Gene va and the preparatory process closely. 
This week, I will be meeting with the General Council Chair and the Chairs of various negotiating 
groups on the issues which are lik ely to be discussed at the Ministerial Conference. I also will be in 
close contact w ith the Director -General and her dedicated team.  Let me thank the General Council 
Chair, the Director -General, the Chairs and Facilitators for their tireless efforts in advancing the 
discussions in all areas. I extend my gratitude to all the delegations fo r their active and constructive 
engagement, their strong commitment to the system, flexibility and focus they have shown.  
 
I look forward to working with all of you. I can assure you that you can count on my personal and 
continued support and assistance.  And I count on you, because with your able hands, the discussions 
will move forward. I hope we can build convergence and collectively deliver meaningful results at 
MC12. I know that the issues which should still be resolved, namely on fisheries  subsidies, the WTO 's 
response to the pandemic, agriculture and other issues, are of a very serious nature and very 
important, particularly during the current days. I very much look forward to working with you all, 
with the Chairman of the General Council,  the Director -General and her team, and each one of the 
delegations.  
 
 
 
__________