RESTRICTED  
  
GPA/M/84  
 
2 August  2021 
(21-6029) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Government Procur ement    
 
MINUTES OF THE FORMAL MEETING OF 16 JULY 2021  
CHAIR : MR CARLOS VANDERLOO (CANADA)  
The Chair opened the meeting by noting that prior to the meeting delegations had received an 
Airgram1 setting out the proposed agenda as follows:  
1. Statement by the Chair ahead of his departure from Geneva;  
2. Discussion on the selection process of the Committ ee's next chair; and  
3. Other business, if any.  
No items of other business were proposed by delegations.  
The Committee adopted  the agenda, as proposed by the Chair.  
1  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR AHEAD OF HIS DEPARTURE FROM GENEVA  
1.1.  The Chair  made a short statement on his own behalf. He recalled that in the course of 
the Committee's June 2021 meetings, it had been agreed that, in the absence of a new chair and to 
facilitate further consultations, he would continue as chair, at least while he remained in post in 
Geneva. He informed the Committee that, upon further reflection and after consultations with his 
capital, his departure from Geneva, which was planned for the following week, would, at the same 
time, mark the end of his chairmanship of this Committee. In other wor ds, the Committee would be 
without a chair as of 21 July 2021, creating uncertainty regarding the planning and holding of 
the Committee's October meetings. He had wished to explain his personal situation in the interest 
of clarity and transparency, and as a background for the next agenda item.  
2  DISCUSSION ON THE SELECTION PROCESS OF THE COMMITTEE'S NEXT CHAIR  
2.1.  The Chair recalled that on 28 May 2021, he had organized an informal consultative meeting 
with Parties to discuss  whether the Committee would be in a position to confirm the only remaining 
candidate from Chinese Taipei as the Committee's next chair . It had become c lear during the 
consultative meeting that one Party had not been able to join the consensus on the remaining 
candidate and that more time was needed. On 2 June 2021, in the course of the Committee's formal 
meeting, the objecting Party had reiterated that i t remained resolute in its position of not joining 
a consensus to designate the candidate from Chinese Taipei as the next Committee chair. The  other 
ten Parties that had spoken had expressed their confidence in the process conducted by the Chair 
to identif y candidates and select the next chair, and in the results of that process.  They had 
expressed their regret that the Committee had been unable to reach consensus on selecting the only 
remaining candidate from Chinese Taipei as the Committee's next chair. M oreover, most of 
the Parties that had spoken had urged the only objecting Party to reconsider its position and to join 
a consensus in favour of the appointment of the candidate from Chinese Taipei.  
2.2.  Continuing, he said that in recent weeks, he had informall y consulted with various interested 
Parties in an effort to explore possible interim or permanent solutions. Unfortunately, this had not 
resulted in the desired outcome. The current meeting would give delegations an opportunity to see 
whether the Committee  continued to be unable to agree on the only remaining candidate for chair, 
 
1 WTO/AIR/GPA/25 . GPA/M/84  
 
- 2 - 
 
  and if that remained the case, it would also provide an opportunity for further discussion among 
Parties regarding the way forward for the selection of his successor. Therefore, an d in the interest 
of transparency, he asked again whether the Committee was able to agree to the selection of 
Ms Liang -Rong Lin to be its next chair.  
2.3.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that her delegation had informed the Committee 
at its previous  formal meeting held on 2 June 2021 that Hong Kong, China would not join any 
consensus to designate the candidate from Chinese Taipei as the next chair of the Committee, 
although the European Union had withdrawn the candidate it had nominated earlier. She confirmed 
that Hong Kong, China still did not join the consensus at this stage.  
2.4.  The Chair  noted that the Committee continued to be unable to agree on the next chair. He also 
noted that the Committee had business to move forward and progress to achieve stil l in 2021. 
Notably, the Committee was actively engaged in discussing important accessions to the Agreement; 
it was hoping to adopt long -pending draft decisions on the circulation and derestriction of GPA 
documents; it was planning to hold its first informa tion-sharing workshop; and it was planning to 
advance its various agreed Work Programmes. It was therefore essential that Parties use the coming 
weeks and the summer break to identify a way forward so that the October 2021 meetings could go 
ahead as planne d. As he had noted earlier, the lack of a chair created significant uncertainty about 
the status of the October 2021 meetings.  
2.5.  The representative of the United States  expressed her delegation's regret and disappointment 
that the Committee had not been able to acclaim Ms Liang -Rong Lin as its next chair at this meeting. 
The United States was particularly disappointed that the Committee on Government Procurement 
and its longstanding tradition of collegiality had been tainted by the domestic political agenda of 
those outside the Committee. The United States wanted to make it clear that it did not take this 
interference by non -GPA Parties lightly. It was highly inappropriat e and was not something that had 
a place in the Committee. WTO chairs were selected and acted in their personal capacity and issues 
unrelated to their personal capacity should not be injected into the process. The United States also 
wanted to make it clear  that the accession candidates were not entitled to participate in the 
decision -making process of the Committee. Such intrusion was extremely damaging to the work of 
the Committee. The United States urged Hong Kong, China to carefully consider joining cons ensus 
to acclaim Ms Liang -Rong Lin as the Committee's next chair.  
2.6.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that in the spirit of constructive engagement, 
Hong Kong, China wanted to put forward its suggestions on how to take forward the matter. 
Its sugge stions had already been conveyed to the Chair during a bilateral meeting and in writing via 
an email in early July 2021. Making reference to the established practice of decision -making by 
consensus, the first suggestion was that the Committee tried to iden tify and nominate another 
candidate, on whom a consensus could be forged, to be designated as the next Committee chair. 
Noting that the current Chair would leave Geneva later in July 2021 and would not be able to continue 
to serve as the Committee chair up on his departure, Hong Kong, China's second suggestion was to 
invite the Deputy Director -General or the Division Director responsible for government procurement 
matters in the WTO Secretariat to stand in as an interim arrangement until the next Committee c hair 
was formally designated. Hong Kong, China noted that a similar interim arrangement had been 
adopted in other WTO bodies previously. It stood ready to work with other GPA Parties in the coming 
months to select the next Committee chair in accordance wit h the long -established WTO tradition of 
making decisions by Members' consensus.  
2.7.  The representative of the European Union  said that, as her delegation had indicated at the 
Committee's June 2021 meetings, the European Union was ready to support the candidate  who 
commanded the greatest support from the GPA Parties. It regretted that the Committee had not 
been able to reach consensus on its next chair at its meeting in June 2021. She recalled that there 
was only one candidate remaining and that this candidate h ad the full support of all the GPA Parties 
except one. Parties had come to the current meeting to ask this outstanding delegation whether it 
had been able to consider this matter further and whether it had been able to make some progress 
in identifying the  way forward that would allow the current blockage to be overcome. It had heard 
the statement by Hong Kong, China with regret. In the view of the European Union, the Committee 
had run through a complete process of consultations that had resulted in one qua lified candidate 
remaining and it did not see the need to restart the process. The European Union invited the outgoing 
Chair to consider continuing exercising his role for a limited period of time in order to allow GPA/M/84  
 
- 3 - 
 
  the Committee to continue to function and  make progress on important files the Chair had mentioned 
and to find a way forward in the selection of the new chair.  
2.8.  The representative of Japan  said that  his delegation believed that  it was of utmost importance 
for all GPA Parties at the moment to reach  a consensus on the Committee's next chair. The Parties 
should recall the fact that Ms Liang -Rong Lin was the only candidate that had remained, and the 
candidate to whom the large majority of the Parties but one had expressed their support to take 
over the  chairmanship of the Committee with her sufficient capacity and experience. Japan believed 
that there was still time until the next Committee meeting, but disruption of good administration of 
the Committee should be avoided. To that end, Japan called on Ho ng Kong, China to reflect on its 
position and to join the consensus among the Parties.  
2.9.  The representative of the United Kingdom  reiterated his delegation's full confidence in 
the consultative process led by the Chair of the Committee to identify his succes sor. He recalled that 
a significant majority of Parties had expressed their support for the one remaining candidate from 
Chinese  Taipei.  It was the United Kingdom's strong  belief that Ms Liang -Rong Lin had the skills and 
expertise needed to be an effective  Committee chair. The United Kingdom had not heard anything 
about her merits as a candidate to suggest the contrary. It was, therefore, regrettable that the 
Committee continued to find itself at this impasse.  The Committee had important business to be 
getting on with, as the Chair had identified. The United Kingdom would strongly encourage 
Hong Kong, China to reconsider its position and to join the consensus to appoint Ms Liang -Rong Lin 
as the next chair of the Committee. The United Kingdom was not ready to  consider an interim chair 
or restarting the process. In order to facilitate the appointment of the new chair, the United Kingdom 
exceptionally proposed that the outgoing chair - should he be willing to do so and noting his 
statement that had been made at the beginning of the meeting - remain in place until the scheduled 
October 2021 meeting, with a view to ensuring the appointment of the new chair at that meeting. 
On that basis, the United Kingdom again urged Hong Kong, China to unblock this impasse by joi ning 
consensus with all other Parties, to ensure that this Committee can continue business as planned in 
October  2021 and beyond.  
2.10.   The representative of Australia  said that her delegation was disappointed that the Committee 
had not been able to appoint the next Committee chair especially given that the current Chair had 
advised that he would step down on 21 July 2021 when he would depart from Geneva. She expressed 
her delegation's full confidence in the consultation process for the selection of the new chair  and the 
ability of Chinese Taipei's candidate to perform this role professionally. Australia was disappointed 
that Hong Kong, China was continuing to block consensus on the only remaining chair candidate and 
would welcome further explanation of its reason s so that the Parties could discuss and address its 
concerns constructively to reach consensus. Australia hoped that all Parties could still come together 
to ensure a smooth handover of the chair's role and the continued functioning of the Committee in 
its important work.  
2.11.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Chair for his active engagement in the process 
leading up to the selection of the new chair. Her delegation was disappointed that the Committee 
had not yet been able to find a solution. Canada conti nued to believe that a solution was reachable. 
It was difficult to understand why Parties should not proceed with the selection of the candidate 
from Chinese Taipei, Ms Liang -Rong Lin, as the next chair of the Committee. Past discussions had 
demonstrated t hat she was a solid candidate. Canada regretted that one Party was unable to join 
consensus to select the only remaining candidate. It was looking forward to continuing engaging 
constructively and encouraged the outstanding Party to demonstrate pragmatism and join the 
consensus expeditiously. In her delegation's view, it was in the Committee's and the Parties' best 
interest to select a new chair as soon as possible to allow the continuation of the Committee's 
important work. Canada did not believe that the proposal by Hong Kong, China would be an 
appropriate way to move forward. Canada reiterated its confidence in the integrity of the process 
and in the remaining candidate. Canada's priority remained to ensure that the important work of 
this Committee was no t interrupted. In that regard, Canada supported the proposal for the Chair to 
maintain his current role in a virtual capacity, if he accepted, including at the scheduled 
October  2021 meetings for the purpose of appointing a new chair.  
2.12.   The representative of  Switzerland  echoed other Parties and expressed his delegation's full 
confidence in the selection process that had taken place and in the result that it had led to. 
Switzerland regretted that it had not been possible to reach consensus on the candidacy of 
Ms Liang -Rong Lin. This situation created uncertainty with regard to further work of the Committee. GPA/M/84  
 
- 4 - 
 
  It also created a regrettable precedent in the way this Committee had been working so far.  
Switzerland would remain constructively engaged to find a solutio n. It was important for all Parties 
and for other Members in the process of GPA accession that a new chair can take over the leadership 
without delay to progress the work of the Committee. Should the Chair agree to continue chairing 
the Committee for an in termediate period, Switzerland would support this temporary solution.  
2.13.   The representative of New Zealand  said that as her delegation had outlined in the Committee's 
June 2021 formal meeting, New  Zealand considered that the candidate from Chinese Taipei was 
a suitable person to chair the Committee. New Zealand further considered that, in the same manner 
as Hong Kong, China as a full participant in the GPA, and a Member of the WTO, Chinese Taipei was 
subject to all the responsibilities of membership and was ab le to exercise all the rights of 
membership. The continued failure to reach consensus on this appointment was sending a negative 
signal in the context of the broader challenges confronting the wider WTO system. New  Zealand 
therefore urged Hong Kong, China to reconsider its position and to join a consensus in favour of 
the appointment of the candidate from Chinese Taipei. New Zealand would be grateful if the Chair 
could consider continuing in the position to serve as the chair of the Committee while discussi ons 
continued.  
2.14.   The representative of Norway  thanked the Chair for his dedication and commitment to the 
GPA during his tenure, and for his constructive role in the process leading up to the selection of a 
new chair. Norway deeply regretted that the parties could not reach consensus in spite of the Chair's 
efforts. Most of the GPA Parties, including Norway, were ready to support the only remaining 
candidate as the new chair. Norway regretted that the selection could not go ahead at this meeting. 
As pointed ou t by the Chair at the beginning of the meeting, the Committee had much important 
work in the months ahead. Norway called upon the Party that was unable to join the consensus to 
reconsider its position in order to ensure that the work of the Committee conti nued unencumbered. 
In the meantime, Norway supported keeping the current Chair on an interim basis for a few weeks 
to give the Committee time to reach a consensus on a new chair, as proposed by the European  Union 
and supported by several delegates who had spoken prior to him.  
2.15.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that her delegation regretted that the Committee 
was once again unable to reach a consensus on the selection of its next chair at the meeting. Having 
a chair of the Committee was crucial to en suring that the Committee carried out its business in 
a smooth and seamless manner. It was clear from the Chair's stocktaking that there was a lot of 
important pending work for the Committee. Yet, while a coalescence of support had formed behind 
the only r emaining candidate, Hong Kong, China still refused to join the consensus. 
Hong Kong,  China blocked the chair selection process not because it had a systemic concern on 
the operation of the Committee or the Agreement on Government Procurement. Indeed, 
Hong Kong,  China had blocked the chair selection process without offering any clear explanation in 
the previous meeting of the Committee on 2 June 2021 and at the current meeting. This was a clear 
misuse of the WTO consensus rule. Moreover, if the Committee too k a step back, it could see that 
Hong Kong, China's blockage of the chair selection process would have negative implications for 
the multilateral trading system as a whole. The GPA had only 21 Parties, yet it still failed to reach 
consensus on the appointm ent of the only remaining candidate as the next chair. This result  would 
not only impede the Committee's operation, but also undermine the very spirit of the WTO. 
Her delegation was surprised to hear that Hong Kong, China suggested that the Committee restart 
the selection process. What Hong Kong, China proposed did not resolve the fundamental issue, which 
was that Hong Kong, China blocked the chair selection process without providing any legitimate 
reason. For all these reasons and for the in terest of the GPA Parties and the WTO, her delegation 
requested that Hong Kong, China explain its reasons for blocking the chair selection process, so that 
Parties could have a candid and constructive discussion to address Hong Kong, China's concerns. As 
her delegation had stated at the Committee's 28 May 2021 informal meeting and the 2 June 2021 
formal meeting, her delegation was willing to answer any questions and clarify any concerns that 
Hong Kong,  China might have.  
2.16.   The representative of Singapore  said that his delegation believed that it was important not to 
prolong the impasse on the chair appointment. Prolonged impasse did not reflect well on the WTO, 
particularly over a procedural matter, and especially in a ministerial conference year where Members 
were attempting to demonstrate the continuous relevance of the WTO. Singapore expressed its 
readiness to support efforts, including those of the Chair, to continue the work in the Committee 
and to reach consensus on a suitable candidate.  GPA/M/84  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.17.   Responding to the suggestions made by Hong Kong, China, the representative of 
the United  States  said that her delegation agreed with other Parties that it would not be an 
appropriate way to move forward. As other delegations had noted, the Committee had already run 
a comple te process of consultations that had resulted in one qualified candidate. Therefore, it did 
not see the need to restart the process. It also noted that the Committee was in a unique situation, 
and it could not assume that the arrangements that other WTO bo dies had used were appropriate 
in this Committee. Regarding the question of the current Chair continuing on as the chair, the United 
States appreciated the Chair's willingness to work with Parties. As the Chair had noted at 
the beginning of the meeting, Pa rties had previously agreed only to extend the Chair for the duration 
of his stay in Geneva. The United States supported allowing the current Chair to chair meetings from 
capital only for the purpose of electing a new chair when Parties were in a position to do so. Asking 
the current Chair to continue as chair with all the duties that it entailed and beyond the current term 
would not be fair to him. The United States did not see how it would help resolve the current situation 
in which Parties found themselv es. When the Parties were ready to appoint a new chair, they could 
call upon the current Chair to convene a meeting for this express purpose so that the Committee 
could continue to undertake its important business.  
2.18.   The Chair  noted the statements made by de legations. He said that it was clear from the 
discussion that the Committee could not agree on the Committee's next chair.  He encouraged all 
Parties to engage and continue holding consultations without delay so that a solution could be found 
as promptly as  possible before the Committee's October 2021 meetings. The road ahead was in 
Parties' hands and it was the collective responsibility of all Parties to resolve the issue. Even in the 
absence of a chair, the Secretariat remained available to assist the Part ies in finding solutions in 
whichever way they deemed appropriate. He also encouraged Parties to continue to hold bilateral 
discussions and submit written contributions on ways forward, as appropriate, to maintain 
momentum on the work to identify the next chair. He also encouraged Parties to continue engaging 
in the work of the Committee including on accessions and other items he had mentioned earlier in 
his intervention. In particular, he noted that with regard to accessions, Brazil and other Members 
had e xpressed an interest in receiving input from other Parties as soon as possible to facilitate 
advancing their accession processes. This could be done without a chair.  
2.19.   Regarding the suggestion that the current Chair should stay on in a limited capacity to 
continue working with Parties and keep the Committee's business moving, and other suggestions on 
how the current Chair could be helpful in the work of the Committee, the Chair's personal view was 
that once he left his post, it was inappropriate for him to co ntinue as a chair at least on a full -time 
basis. The situation was now in the Parties' hands.  
3  OTHER BUSINESS  
3.1.  There were no items of other business.  
__________