RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/199  
 
6 September  2022 
(22-6646) Page: 1/33 
General Council - Special Meeting  
7 June 2022  Original: English  
 
 
MINUTES OF  THE MEETING1 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD AND IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 7 JUNE 2022 
Chair person : H.E. Mr. Didier Chambovey ( Switzerland)  
At the start of the meeting, the Chair welcomed H.E. Mr. Timur Suleimenov of Kazakhstan, the Chair 
of the Twelfth Session of the Ministerial Conference. The MC12 Chair addressed the General Council.2  
 
1. A. REPORTS FROM THE CHAIR OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL, THE FACILITATOR ON THE 
WTO RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC, THE TRIPS COUNCIL CHAIR,  AND THE RELEVANT 
NEGOTIATING GROUP CHAIRS DEALING WITH MC12 DELIVERABLES, AND ADDRESS FROM 
THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND TNC CHAIR  
1.1.  The Chair  recalled that  work ha d continued intensively in the negotiating bodies, in dedicated 
processes and in the TRIPS Council.  To prepare for this meeting, the Director -General and the Chair 
had met on Saturday , 2 June 2022,  with the Chairs who would  be reporting during this  meeting . 
Since several of them  had indicated that their respective processes could benefit from additional 
time, no discussion was expected under this first part. He noted that it was essential to urgently go 
back to work in the various areas to finalize outcomes for the Conference.  The reports and updates  
should allow Members  to assess what was required from the WTO membership – particularly, of 
delegations  in Geneva – in the few days that were left ahead of MC12.  He would begin  with his own 
report on the work and  extensive consultations that he had undertaken on (i) the MC12 outcome 
document, including on WTO Reform; (ii) LDC graduation issue; and (iii) the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce.  
1.2.  The Chair delivered the following report3: 
1.3.  Let's start with the outcome document. Since my report to the General Council on 9 May, and 
my report to the Informal Meeting of the General Council on 24 May, consultations and work on the 
outcome document continued in various configurations and formats.  
1.4.  The focus of this work was first and foremost the unfinished aspects of the draft outcome 
document (contained in RD/GC/17/Rev.2). My consultations have focused on three specific aspects: 
(i) to narrow the differences on WTO reform; (ii) to find a way forwa rd for the contextual or the 
introductory part; and (iii) to clean up, with a view to reducing, as many of the other remaining 
open issues in the document.  
1.5.  Our efforts on a mandate on WTO reform have allowed us to make considerable progress 
towards conver gence, even if some differences persist. I am hopeful that we will find a solution 
before the Ministerial Conference.  
1.6.  Aside from the WTO reform language, I also consulted on the contextual part of the outcome 
document. An alternative, and at this point, t his is the preferred way forward, would be to delete 
paragraphs 1 to 5 and start directly with the operational language – that is, paragraph  6 of the 
 
1 The proposed agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/ 849. 
2 The statement of  the MC12 Chair,  H.E. Mr Timur Suleimenov of Kazakhstan , can be found in the Annex 
of this document.  
3 This report was  subsequently circulated in JOB/GC/ 312. WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 2 - 
 
  document (RD/GC/17/Rev.2). This would be preceded by a simple introductory sentence that could 
read: "Mini sters meet in Geneva from 12 to 15 June for our Twelfth Session." I am still consulting 
on this.4 
1.7.  I have also consulted with delegations, including with proponents, with regard to the other, 
remaining open issues in the outcome document - and here, I am r eferring in particular to the few 
brackets that remain in the paragraphs on accessions and LDC -related matters, as well as the draft 
language on women's economic empowerment, MSMEs and environment. Progress is being made, 
and I am grateful to delegations f or their cooperation and flexibility in reducing the number of open 
issues. I hope we can continue to rely on the pragmatic attitude by all in the discussions to come, 
in particular, on the remaining aspects that are still open.  
1.8.  This completes the brief ov erview of where we stand on the outcome document as of today.  
1.9.  In terms of our immediate next steps, my hope remains that we can get to a clean text for 
Ministers. Work will therefore continue on these efforts in the immediate coming days. I intend to 
continue to ensure full transparency on this outcome document, and to this end, I will call an 
Informal GC meeting at short notice ahead of the MC. It is my intention to put forward a text, under 
my own responsibility, based on the finalized paragraphs in the outcome document and on the 
outcome of my consultations. I know I can count on your continued commitment and efforts, and 
you can count on mine.  
1.10.   Let me also briefly provide you with an update on the consultations I undertook with the LDCs 
and Members rega rding the LDC graduation proposal. The LDC Group asked for my assistance, and 
I met them together with the concerned Members. Despite positive exchanges, some differences 
remain, and conversations will have to continue to reach consensus. Under the second part of this 
meeting (i.e., under sub -point (b)) , the LDC Group will have an opportunity to provide us with a 
brief update.  
1.11.   Let me now also take this opportunity to briefly report to you on the e -commerce consultations 
I held over the past several months and most recently last week (on 1 June). Despite the many 
consultations in different configurations and the various textual suggestions made, Members have 
not managed to converge on a single draft text for Ministers' consideration. Views continue to differ  
notably with regard to the extension of the moratorium. The various views are well -known and I will 
not repeat them here. Suffice to note that we have two draft decisions on the table.  
1.12.   Given the continued differences, as Chair of the General Council, I su ggest that the two 
circulated drafts, contained in the latest revisions of W/831 and W/838, be sent to Ministers for their 
consideration. I will provide a factual report to Ministers on this matter.  
1.13.   This concludes my report on my consultations on the MC12  outcome document, including 
WTO reform; the LDC graduation proposal; and e -commerce.  
1.14.   Let me now offer the floor to the TRIPS Council Chair and the Facilitator on WTO Response to 
the Pandemic to hear their reports in their respective processes.  
1.15.   Ambassador L ansana Gberie (Sierra Leone), Chair of the TRIPS Council , delivered the 
following report5: 
1.16.   In my intervention as the Chair of the TRIPS Council today, let me first deliver the traditional 
oral status report on the TRIPS Council consideration of the waiver  request proposed in 
IP/C/W/669/Rev.1 that Members have agreed I should deliver under Article IX:3 of the Marrakesh 
Agreement. I would then like to briefly report – under my own responsibility – on the state of play 
of the text -based negotiations on the ba sis of the outcome text in IP/C/W688.  
1.17.   So let me begin with the oral status report by the TRIPS Council which runs as follows:  
 
4 The dates were adjusted to 12 to 17 June  in document WT/MIN(22)/24  to reflect the actual dates o f the 
Twelfth Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference.  
5 The report was subsequently circulated in JOB/GC/312.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.   At the meeting of the TRIPS Council on 15 -16 October 2020, India and South Africa introduced 
document IP/C/W/669, requesting a w aiver 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, 
Bolivia , Venezuela, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, the African Group, the LDC Group, the Maldives, 
Fiji, Namibia, Vanuatu, Indonesia and Jordan.  
1.19.   Since the introduction of the document, discussions took place in various formal and informal 
TRIPS Council meetings. Del egations 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.  
1.20.   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 b een 
co-sponsored by Malaysia and Argentina. On 29 September 2021, the co -sponsors circulated a 
summary of their interventions in document IP/C/W/684.  
1.21.   Status reports on the considerations by the TRIPS Council on the revised "Proposal for a 
Waiver from Certa in Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and 
Treatment of COVID -19" were delivered to the General Council meetings on 3 -4 March, 5 -6 May, 
27 July, 7  October, 22 November 2021 and, most recently, on 23 -24 February 2022.  
1.22.   In the co urse 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. Delegat ions 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 aff ordable 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 -19 
relate d products.  
1.23.   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 meetings  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 appropriate  and most effective way to address the shortage and inequitable 
distribution of and access to vaccines and other COVID -related products.  
1.24.   On 3 May 2022, a communication containing the outcome of informal discussions between a 
group of Ministers was circula ted in document IP/C/W/688 for discussion in the TRIPS Council. Text -
based negotiations on the basis of the text circulated in document IP/C/W/688 are on -going.  
1.25.   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, and report back to the 12th Ministerial Conference as stipulated in Article IX:3 of the 
Marrakesh Agreement.  
1.26.   In addition, the TRIPS Council will also conti nue in the same manner its consideration of the 
other related proposals by Members.  
1.27.   This concludes the TRIPS Council's oral status report.  
1.28.   Let me now briefly report under my own responsibility on the state of play of the text -based 
negotiations I have been  holding on the basis of the Outcome Text circulated in IP/C/W/688.  
1.29.   Since the 17 May, I have held text -based negotiations with a group of 30 delegations and 
group coordinators. After collecting the textual proposals and suggestions by delegations in relati on WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 4 - 
 
  to the Outcome Text, we then worked through these suggestions to see whether any proposal 
attracted consensus – and could therefore be reflected in the outcome document itself.  
1.30.   This process is being undertaken on the understanding that, although Members agreed to 
start negotiating on the basis of the outcome text, nothing is agreed at this stage, and that the 
entire final text will have to be agreed to by all Members in the end. Let me thank here especially 
the group coordinators who have done an excellent job in informing their group Members of 
developments, as well as feeding proposals from Members outside the group into the negotiations.  
1.31.   I have further done my best to provide transparency and inclusiveness by reporting to the 
wider membership at open -ended meetings on 19 May and on 1 June, which also provided an 
opportunity for all Members to comment and make proposals on the text. The latest version of the 
outcome text has bee n circulated to Members on 1 June in documents JOB/IP/58/Rev.1.  
1.32.   The start of this process has been difficult - despite the collective efforts of the Director -
General herself, DDG Gonzalez and myself. However, after extensive clarifications and significant  
bilateral engagement it is my sense that delegations entered into real negotiation mode yesterday.  
1.33.   More progress was made at yesterday's negotiations at HODs level – and the group agreed 
to reinstate paragraph 7 and accept the introduction of a new parag raph 9 into the text.  
1.34.   The negotiation group will continue to work today, and I am feeling cautiously optimistic now 
that we could get this text ready for adoption by Ministers in time for the coming weekend. I am 
looking forward to Members ' continued constructive engagement in this regard.  I call on all 
delegations to rise to the moment and deliver on this urgent matter at MC12, as this may be the 
last best opportunity to do so.  
1.35.   Thank you Chair, this concludes my intervention as Chair of the  TRIPS Council.  
1.36.   Ambassador Dacio Castillo (Honduras), Facilitator o f the Multilateral Process on the 
WTO Response to the Pandemic , delivered  the following report6: 
1.37.   Since I started as Facilitator on the WTO Response to the Pandemic, I have provided five 
transparency reports to the membership. These reports have been circulated as JOB/GC/298, 
JOB/TNC/103, JOB/GC/303, 308 and 311.  
1.38.   During my work thus far, I have observed a consistent call from delegations that the WTO 
should deliver in this area as soon as po ssible. Delegations have likewise expressed willingness to 
achieve a credible, meaningful and holistic outcome that addresses the current and future 
pandemics.  
1.39.   As I reported on Friday, we have achieved significant progress. Two weeks ago, we started 
with three proposals from various delegations, and a factual contribution from the Secretariat at the 
request of Members. Today, we are working on the basis of one text which covers areas such as 
transparency, export restrictions and prohibitions, intellectual property, transfer of technology, trade 
facilitation, services, regulatory cooperation, development and food security, among others.  
1.40.   Although several issues still remain to be bridged, we have already cleaned texts including on 
general provisions, trade f acilitation, regulatory cooperation, intellectual property, services, food 
security and some aspects of future work.  
1.41.   Let me thank delegations in the drafting group for their continued positive engagement, 
flexibility and active participation. I likewise c ommend delegations who made extra efforts to come 
together and reach compromise language.  
1.42.   On Friday, I also provided my assessment that, given the situation at that time – regarding 
the proposal on an automatic TRIPS trigger mechanism, it was not productiv e to continue with our 
 
6 The report was subsequently  circulated in JOB/GC/312.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 5 - 
 
  work. Since then, I continued reaching out to delegations during the weekend as well as yesterday 
in a meeting convened by the Director -General.  
1.43.   In that meeting, the Director -General detected four common elements that delegations al l 
agree on: (i) taking note of lessons learned and Members' diverse experiences during the pandemic, 
(ii) not altering rights and obligations, (iii) preparing a document that is forward looking and 
(iv) achieving a balanced outcome.  
1.44.   As a result, I presente d a text to replace the paragraph on an automatic TRIPS trigger 
mechanism during the interval of the TRIPS Waiver meeting with the Director -General in Room E. 
My overall assessment following a brief exchange of views with delegations was that the proposal 
was generally acceptable as a way forward that will allow discussions to continue. This, of course, is 
without prejudice to Members' positions. Let me recall that the entire document remains in square 
brackets. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.  
1.45.   In this regard, I thank delegations for their flexibility. Now, we can continue our work in the 
drafting group. The focus will shift to closing as many remaining gaps as possible, finalizing the 
future work section and cleaning as much texts as we can. My  hope is that we can present as clean 
as possible text to our Ministers.  
1.46.   Given that we still have brackets in the text, my suggestion is to continue work on this 
document with the drafting group after the GC meeting. Let me also note that all delegations w ho 
have expressed a wish to participate in these discussions have been invited. As always, all 
delegations can consult with me at any time.  
1.47.   Any progress on this document will be reflected in the text that will be circulated to all 
Members and will be befor e Ministers for their consideration at MC12. Like other Chairs, the aim is 
to circulate a text to the entire membership on Thursday – to the extent possible.  
1.48.   The importance Members attach to delivering a credible, meaningful WTO Response to the 
Pandemic r emains evident. Let us maintain the positive momentum of this process and work together 
to get this done. Let us never forget what is at stake.  
1.49.   This concludes my report.  
1.50.   The Chair thanked  Ambassadors Gberie and Castillo for their hard work and leadership , and 
invited  the Director -General and Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee to address this meeting.  
1.51.   The Director -General and Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee  delivered  the following 
report7: 
1.52.   Good morning, everyone. Let me join the GC Chair in welcoming our MC12 Chair, 
H.E. Mr. Timur Suleimenov  and thank Ambassador Zhanar Aitzhanova  for her work in trying to back 
up the MC12 Chair, seeing him here shows  that MC12 is around the corner . It is going to happen 
and we are very happy about  it. It has been almost five years. Your message of encouragement is 
timely, and I look forward to working closely with you, the General Council Chair and our Ministers 
in ensuring a successful MC12.  
1.53.   Excellencies, we are now almost at the end point of our pr eparatory work for MC12. As the 
Chairs and the Facilitator have noted, by Saturday, Ministers will be in Geneva. Today's meeting is 
therefore a good opportunity, before they arrive, for all Members to look at how our work has 
progressed across the board, i ncluding in the "four pillars plus", and how MC12 might possibly play 
out. 
1.54.   In this regard, let me first thank Ambassadors Chambovey, Gberie and Castillo for their 
reports and commend them for their tireless efforts. Due to their work and the extra efforts being 
made by Ambassadors, we are making considerable progress across all areas. I will come back and 
touch on some of what they have reported later in my statement.  
 
7 The report was subsequently  circulated in JOB/GC/312.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.55.   Before I request – through the GC Chair – the Chairs of the negotiating bodies that have been 
working on possible MC12 deliverables to provide their reports, let me recall that, at our formal TNC 
meeting in November, we transmitted reports from all Chairs of Negotiating Groups to the General 
Council for onward transmission to the Ministerial C onference. So, this morning, updated reports will 
be provided only by the Chairs of the Negotiating Group on Rules, the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session and the Council on Trade in Services in Special Session. I will now invite them to 
provide t heir reports.8 
1.56.   Ambassador Santiago Wills (Colombia), Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules , delivered  
the following report:  
1.57.   Good morning colleagues and thank you, Chair and Director -General for the opportunity to 
report on recent work in the Negotiating Group on Rules. As you are all aware, last week, three 
plenary sessions of the NGR were held on Monday 30 May, Wednesday 1 June and Saturday 4 June 
when I reported on the work I had been doing and delegations reported on the work they had 
under taken and took the opportunity to comment on both the process and the substance of our 
work.  
1.58.   Since I have already delivered full and detailed reports to those plenary sessions of the NGR, 
my report today will be a brief summary of those reports along with updates to take account of 
Member's comments at those meetings and the work I have undertaken since Saturday morning.   
1.59.   We started the "Fish Decision Week" on Monday 30 May with an opening plenary session at 
the level of Heads of Delegation when both the D G and I reported on the meetings we had attended 
in Davos and I outlined a working plan for the week.  
1.60.   During last week I held a number of meetings in different formats on some of the outstanding 
issues on balance and ambition, particularly focused on Artic le 5, Article 1.2 and some aspects of 
Article 8. In addition, I held some meetings on territoriality, reflagging, and notifications on 
forced  labour  and I have also attended some meetings convened by the Director -General.   
1.61.   In addition, I have met bilatera lly with several delegations on a range of topics and I am 
happy to report that some significant progress has been made, a great deal by delegations working 
together on their own initiative on some of the issues. And I would like to thank all delegations f or 
their strong commitment and hard work during these past few days.  
1.62.   As we all know, one of the most important elements we need to resolve related to balance 
and ambition is SDT in Article 5.4.   
1.63.   At the plenary session of the NGR held on Saturday 4 June, I presented the very positive 
news that a group of Members that had worked together to clarify Article 5.4 had developed a 
suggested new structure for this provision, especially to clarify the independence of its elements. 
The suggested text sets out separ ately the three elements of SDT, namely the transition period, the 
de minimis, and the artisanal fishing provision. The bracketed numbers for each provision are still 
being discussed so what I showed to the NGR still included the numbers from the current d raft 
Agreement, that is "X" years, "0.7 per cent" for de minimis and "12 nautical miles" for artisanal 
fishing.   
1.64.   Work is still ongoing on these numbers and some progress is being made. I can only urge the 
delegations involved to work intensively to resolv e the remaining differences quickly.  
1.65.   Another point clarified in this draft was to add that the reference to baselines in the artisanal 
exemption includes archipelagic baselines around the outermost islands and reefs of an 
archipelagic  Member.  
1.66.   Another new  element in the proposed restructuring of Article 5.4 is the suggestion that there 
should be a two -year peace clause after the transition period, when subsidies not covered by the 
de minimis and artisanal exemptions would not be subjected to dispute settle ment.   
 
8 All reports delivered at the meeting  under 1.A. were subsequently  circulated in JOB/GC/312.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.67.   I am happy to say that Members have received this suggested new structure positively, and 
it seems to be helping a lot in the discussions on the numbers in Article 5.4 that still have to 
be decided.  
1.68.   Beyond the proposed restructuring, we also have heard other proposals and suggestion 
relating to Article 5.4. These include:  
• a target date for implementation rather than a period of "X" years after entry into force of 
the Agreement, with 2030 – being this the 2030 agenda for sustainable development - 
after which there would be the two -year peace clause;  
• as an alternative to a peace clause, the proposal in RD/TN/RL/156 for additional time for 
notifications of stock status; and  
• And proposals addressing several elements of SDT throughout the text in:  
o docum ent RD/TN/RL/157; and  
o document  RD/TN/RL/155/Rev.1.  
1.69.   Further very good news concerns Article 5.3, on reflagging. A group of delegations that are 
most interested in this issue developed a new compromise approach to this issue. Under this 
approach there would  be, first, a new footnote to Article 1.1 to make it clear that subsidies are 
always attributed to the subsidizing Member, regardless of the flag of a vessel or the nationality of 
the recipient. Second, the two alternatives in the current text of Article 5 .3 would be replaced by a 
provision that Members will take special care and exercise due restraint when granting subsidies to 
vessels not flying their flags. Here again, this solution to this very sensitive issue seems to be warmly 
welcomed by Members, and  again I would like to thank all delegations for their constructive 
engagement and flexibility to address this very sensitive issue.  
1.70.   Moving now to the prohibition in Article 5.1(i) on subsidies contingent on fishing outside the 
subsidizing Member's EEZ. Al though there has been a lot of discussion of this issue there remain 
differences among Members, in particular on its placement in the text. There have been broad calls 
for moving this provision back to its former placement as a stand -alone provision, with some, but 
not all, Members also calling for the return of the former Article 5.2(b) on non -collection of 
government -to-government payments. However, some other Members consider that this prohibition 
is better placed as Article 5.1(i).  
1.71.   One aspect of concern  that has been raised in respect of Article 5.1(i) is how the contingency 
element that it establishes would work. A number of delegations have been looking at wording to 
make clear that the combination of receiving a subsidy and fishing beyond a national j urisdiction 
would not on its own establish a legal contingency that would give rise to the prohibition, including 
where the fishing takes place under regional or traditional arrangements in another Member's EEZ.  
1.72.   On territoriality, there is broad support f or keeping Article 11.3(a) in the text, meaning that 
the main differences of view now pertain to Article 11.3(b), which deals with specific aspects of WTO 
dispute settlement if an issue of territoriality were to arise. As I said in the plenary, we have two  
basic options for dealing with this issue: to have something in the text of the Agreement; or no text 
at all.  
1.73.   Nevertheless, even though some delegations would prefer no text at all on dispute settlement, 
they are willing to work on specific language. Howe ver, as before Members continue to have different 
views on both the discretion a panel could have in assessing the merit of a territorial claim in the 
context of a subsidy claim under the fisheries Agreement, and on the rights that a third party in the 
WTO dispute would have if it considered its territorial jurisdiction were implicated in the dispute 
between other Members.  
1.74.   Given the complexity and sensitivity of this issue, one alternative option that has been 
suggested is that Members should commit to nego tiating specific language after the Agreement is 
concluded. Others consider, however, that without resolving how to deal with this issue, it will not 
be possible to close on the Agreement as a whole.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.75.   Recognizing the progress made so far, I am continuing t o consult with Members on this issue.  
1.76.   I have been informed that groups of Members also are discussing several other provisions.  
1.77.   One of these is Article 8.6 which links the use of flexibilities and sustainability provisions in 
the different pillars to certain notification requirements. One key issue that has emerged is the need 
to clarify that it is not necessary to notify a subsidy  before it is granted, and that what is envisaged 
here is the notification based on current practice and the existing notification cycle and process 
under the SCM Agreement.  
1.78.   At our plenary meeting on Wednesday, one delegation raised an issue concerning th e 
operation of Articles 4 and 5, suggesting that it should be made clear that Article 5 would apply to 
subsidies not already covered by Article 4. I have met with some delegations on this issue where 
some specific ideas have been discussed, and it seems th at the issues and concerns are becoming 
clearer.   
1.79.   Concerning footnote 2 of the Agreement, one delegation has suggested amendments relating 
to subsidies that may arise from the further transfer of access rights under government -to-
government access agreeme nts. And this suggestion will be circulated as a proposal shortly.  
1.80.   Concerning Article 1.2 and the treatment of non -specific fuel subsidies, some delegations have 
indicated that, for them, whether or not such subsidies are included represents the metric or  
reference point for the level of ambition in the Agreement. They consider that if Article 1.2 were to 
be deleted, then other provisions should also be deleted in order to equalise ambition across different 
disciplines . However, some other delegations stro ngly oppose inclusion of such subsidies under the 
Agreement, for systemic as well as practical reasons.  
1.81.   I would also like to note the suggestion in document RD/TN/RL/155/Rev.1 which proposed 
that Article 1.2 would not apply to developing countries whose a nnual share of the global volume of 
marine capture production does not exceed 1.2%.  
1.82.   Also on fuel subsidies, I have been informed that a group of Members has been discussing 
the language of Article 8.1bis, concerning notification of information on non -specific fuel subsidies 
as an alternative to Article 1.2.  
1.83.   One other issue on which I would like to report briefly is the Fisheries Fund being discussed, 
which is related to Article 7 on technical assistance and capacity building. The Director -General held 
a meeting about the Fund last week with a number of potential donors and beneficiaries, and she 
reported to the Negotiating Group at Saturday’s plenary that the participants expressed strong 
support for the establishment of the Fund.  
1.84.   Regarding Article 7, I wo uld also like to note the proposal in document RD/TN/RL/156 to add 
a footnote that technical assistance and capacity building can be used by developing countries to 
make use of Article 5.1.1. That is, the possibility to grant or maintain the subsidies in A rticle 5.1, 
having met the sustainability requirements.  
1.85.   This concludes my report on the recent work on fisheries subsidies. As you have heard, we 
have made significant progress including on some long -standing sensitive issues, and I believe that 
a reasona ble package that can be presented to Ministers is coming together. There is a very positive 
spirit and a real sense that Members are determined to finally conclude these negotiations. This 
engagement has really helped us, and we need to see it continue and  increase. We have some major 
issues left to resolve so we really need even more engagement and willingness to listen to concerns, 
take them into account and look for pragmatic solutions. If we do this very intensively now, I am 
convinced that we can deliv er on our promise to Ministers.  
1.86.   For my part, I will continue working with the aim to prepare a clean revised text to send to 
Ministers before MC12 starts on Sunday. In this connection, I would just advise you of the possibility 
that I may call you to a pl enary meeting of the Negotiating Group on Rules on short notice in the 
near future.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.87.   This concludes my report. Again, I would like to thank all delegations for their constructive 
engagement. This week showed, that when Members work together with political will, even the most 
sensitive issues that I thought would have to go to Ministers are being resolved. I remain hopeful, 
optimistic and with the strong belief that Members can close this historic, multilateral deal. Thank 
you, DG, and thank you, Chair.  
1.88.   Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta (Costa Rica), Chair of the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session , delivered  the following report:  
1.89.   Following the CoA Special Session meeting held on 19 May, we have engaged together in an 
intensive consultation process b uilding on the extensive work undertaken by Members in the last 
months.  
1.90.   The purpose of this process was to support Members' efforts to develop draft texts that would 
serve as a basis for an outcome on food and agriculture at MC12.  
1.91.   I circulated as a result on 31 May three draft texts namely:  
a. a draft Ministerial Decision on agriculture,  
b. a draft Ministerial Declaration on food security and  
c. a draft Ministerial Decision on World Food Programme food purchases exemption from 
export prohibitions or restrictions.  
1.92.   These draft texts were discussed during the CoA SS meeting and dedicated sessions on PSH 
and SSM held on 1 and 2 June.  
1.93.   Members also had the opportunity to hold preliminary exchanges during this meeting around 
two new proposals of Decisions on PSH circulated  on 31 May: First, a proposal by the African Group, 
the ACP, and G33 in JOB/AG/229; and second a communication from Brazil in JOB/AG/230.  
1.94.   Following Members' interventions during this meeting and subsequent written comments by 
more than 20 Members and group s of Members, I circulated on 4 June morning revised versions of 
these draft texts.  
1.95.   I held another CoA SS meeting on 4 June for Members to provide their comments on these 
revised draft texts.  
1.96.   Let me take this opportunity to thank all the Members for demon strating constructiveness 
and self -restraint in their comments during this meeting, either by already indicating their readiness 
to endorse the draft texts or by limiting themselves to their most critical points.  
1.97.   This is the spirit in which we need to work  to reach an outcome at MC12.  
1.98.   This spirit was also present during the subsequent Green Room meeting we held yesterday 
evening under your chairmanship DG.  
1.99.   I will continue to work in the coming hours on a revised version of the draft texts that could 
be sent  to Ministers for their consideration at MC12, based on all the inputs received in the last days 
as well as the discussion at today's General Council.  
1.100.   I will convene an open -ended meeting of the CoA Special Session in the coming days to 
introduce these dra ft texts.  
1.101.   These draft texts will represent our best attempt, by the DG and myself, building on the 
intensive work undertaken in these last weeks, to put on the table a balanced and realistic package 
that can garner the support of all Members for an outcome  at MC12.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.102.   The preparation of these texts will continue to follow the guiding principles summarized in 
the – now famous – formula SSBB, Short, Simple, Beautiful and Balanced, with the following 
objectives:  
a. Preserve a delicate balance between Members' different positions;  
b. Constitute an important step forward for a new start in the agriculture negotiations post 
MC12, while not  prejudging their outcome;  
c. Provide a meaningful response by the WTO to the global food security challenges, both in 
the short and longer term.   
1.103.   My assessment at this stage, is that we are pretty close on the draft WFP decision and on 
the food security dec laration.  
1.104.   Unsurprisingly, it is on the agriculture text that we received most comments, with many of 
them contradicting each other and where some work remains to be done on few remaining issues . 
The text needs further work for it to be forwarded to Ministe rs' for their consideration at MC12.  
1.105.   With just days before the opening of the Ministerial Conference, we have now entered into 
the very final stretch of our negotiation.  
1.106.   As stated by some of you at our last CoA SS meeting, the question in front of the membership 
will be whether the draft package constitutes an acceptable package that goes in the right direction 
for the WTO and its Members, for the multilateral agricultural trading system, and for addressing 
on-going global food challenges.  
1.107.   I am firmly co nvinced this is the case.  
1.108.   Ambassador Zhanar Aitzhanova (Kazakhstan), Chair of the Council for Trade in Services in 
Special Session , delivered  the following report:  
1.109.   This report, which I make under my own responsibility, provides an update on the state of 
discussions in the CTS SS with respect to services text for MC12. I will circulate a slightly longer 
written report today.  
1.110.   In November, I reported that there was general convergence on the first four sentences of 
a paragraph on services trade for the MC12 o utcome document. However, additional language to 
refer to recent work of the Special Session and post -MC12 work could not be agreed.  
1.111.   Over the last days, I have brought together the different groups of delegations that had put 
forward text proposals over th e last year as well as those that had expressed concerns and offered 
alternative formulation.   
1.112.   As a result of these discussions, differences among participants have been narrowed to the 
following formulation for the last sentence: "We take note of work in  the area of trade in services 
[,including work undertaken within the Council for Trade in Services (Special Session)]". The key 
difference is that one group would accept the full sentence, while the other would only accept a 
shorter version, without the b racketed text referring to the CTS SS.  
1.113.   Director -General, at this stage, I consider that the following text reflects the current level of 
progress.  Further discussions involving all delegations would be needed to finalize it.  I am sharing 
with the members hip the text under my own responsibility for further consideration with a view to 
its eventual inclusion in the MC12 outcome document.  The full text goes as follows:  
"Services trade is vital to the global economy and has a major role to play in global ec onomic 
output and employment. The COVID -19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of services 
and has had a significant impact on services trade and services sectors, particularly for 
developing Members, including least -developed countries (LDCs). We unde rscore the 
importance of recovery for services most impacted by the pandemic and of efforts to 
strengthen such services, taking into account challenges and opportunities encountered by WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Members. We acknowledge the need to facilitate the increasing participa tion of developing 
Members, including LDCs, in global services trade, including by paying particular attention to 
sectors and modes of supply of export interest to them. [We take note of work in the area of 
trade in services [,including work undertaken wit hin the Council for Trade in Services (Special 
Session)].]"  
 
1.114.   As I have noted earlier, there are different views on the last sentence, which is in double 
brackets.   
1.115.   I remain willing, Director -General, to further work with delegations, and with the General 
Council Chair, on this text. I encourage delegations to reflect further,  and I continue to believe that 
the text can gather support with the required pragmatism and openness.  
1.116.   The Director -General and Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee  continued with  her 
report, as follows:  
1.117.   Let me sincerely thank each of the Chairs for their reports in the lead up to MC12 and for 
their dedication and efforts in guiding Members towards MC12 results. I know that you have been 
working flat out with Members – early mornin gs, late hours, over the weekends and even on public 
holidays. I do not take this for granted and I do appreciate your commitment and contributions – 
thank you. My thanks also to the Secretariat teams that have worked to support Members and the 
Chairs in t he different streams of work  -without their dedication , we also could not make progress.  
1.118.   I would likewise commend all delegations for their constructive participation in each of the 
"four pillars plus" to prepare the ground for Ministerial engagement and a ction.  
1.119.    Let me very briefly comment on what we have just heard from the Chairs starting with 
fisheries subsidies. As many of you know, I attended the last three plenary meetings of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules held on Monday 30 May, Wednesday 1 June and Saturday 4 June when 
the Chair, Ambassador Wills, reported on the work he has been doing and many of you took the 
opportunity to comment on progress and raise concerns. His report today has brought us up to date 
on work since last Saturday. His report high lighted what has been achieved and what still needs to 
be done.  
1.120.   I have also had some meetings of my own on fisheries subsidies and I am very encouraged 
by both the progress made and by the atmosphere, where Ambassadors have been engaging to try 
to push th e limits of their national positions in a search for compromise. We have seen some results 
of this work. We have a cleaner and clearer structure for SDT on subsidies contributing to 
overcapacity and overfishing, we have new wording for subsidies to vessels  not flying the subsidizer's 
flag, we agree that the first part of the provision on territoriality can be unbracketed, and we are 
still working to find the appropriate compromise on that issue.  
1.121.   That is the good news. That said, there is very little time l eft and some tough decisions still 
to be made. Everyone has said that Ministers should get a clean text but getting there is not easy. 
We are moving in the right direction,  and we have made considerable progress on this dossier since 
the last time.  We nee d to use the time left wisely and efficiently.  
1.122.   We all know that the agreement on fisheries is needed for the fishermen and women in the 
world, 26 million of them, for the fish, with respect to sustainability, for the United Nations in terms 
of SDG 14.6 an d for the WTO.  We should reflect carefully on how much longer we are going to allow 
subsidies that are damaging stocks throughout the world to prevail. Everyone says they want to do 
the right thing, and I believe them, so let's make this happen.  That is why I am happy to say that 
this movement in the right direction that we have seen, we should do everything to make sure it 
continues so that we are not standing out as an organisation that is not capable to support the 
livelihoods of small fisherwomen and men all over the world, or the sustainability of our oceans, 
which is so important. We have the Oceans Conference at the end of June (27 June – 1 July) , and 
we are expected to report there on having concluded the fisheries subsidies negotiations. So, let u s 
see how we do.  
1.123.   Turning to agriculture, as noted by Ambassador Peralta, there are three texts on the table 
which with the help of the team  I prepared together with her: (i) the draft Ministerial Decision on WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Agriculture; (ii) the draft Ministerial Declarat ion on Trade and Food Security and (iii) the draft 
Ministerial Decision on World Food Programme.  
1.124.   These texts have benefited from many pages of written comments, as well as an even 
greater number of oral comments made in various meetings including in Green Room meetings, in 
the CoA SS and in the Dedicated Sessions of the Public Stockholding and the Spe cial Safeguard 
Mechanism. They represent a delicate balance that the Chair and I have tried to strike in the face of 
Members' very divergent positions on the negotiating issues. We have also been very careful not to 
prejudge the outcome of the negotiations  that will take place amongst you after MC12. I therefore 
urge Members to consider these texts with that perspective in mind.  
1.125.   As just noted by Ambassador Peralta, these texts may once more be slightly adjusted in 
light of the comments that Members have ma de. I could not over -emphasize the importance of these 
texts, particularly in the context of the current global food crisis.  
1.126.   The adoption of  the three texts put forward,  this package , would also send a clear signal 
that the WTO remains relevant and capabl e of responding to urgent challenges such as the food 
security crisis and ultimately the all -important agriculture sector  in a collective and timely manner.  
1.127.   I therefore urge you to support these texts, as they would effectively address contemporary 
challen ges facing the agriculture sector in the short to medium term and also the medium to long 
term. A strengthened and robust agriculture sector will enhance productivity on a sustainable basis! 
We have taken a long time with agriculture. At one point in time,  we did not have any text to go on, 
so this is a considerable advance and I want to thank Members for having made it possible for us to 
move forward on a very difficult area.  I am very encouraged.  
1.128.   Given that services account for an increasingly significa nt part of world trade, I hope that 
the Ministerial Conference will not overlook this key area for all Members. I thank the Members that 
have engaged on these issues, as well as the Chair of the CTS SS, Ambassador Aitzhanova, for her 
efforts, and hope that  Members can show the needed flexibility to finalize language in this area for 
the outcome document. I think it will be distinctly odd if we could not bring this document to Ministers 
because we can't agree on part of a sentence.  
1.129.   On the WTO Response to the  Pandemic, including the TRIPS Waiver the good news is that 
the negotiations are text -based in both streams. While they have been difficult – I have stepped in 
as necessary, to assist Ambassadors Gberie and Castillo. I strongly believe that we have a real 
chance to deliver  and I am very grateful to both of them for their strong efforts in this regard .  We 
should seize the current opportunity while a credible response remains relevant  and I actually believe 
we can do it given the progress we saw yesterday . 
1.130.   WTO Reform is an important political matter given the challenges that this organization has 
been and continues to face. I want to thank the Chair for the strong efforts he has continued to 
make to get us an agreed text in this area. It is our collective res ponsibility, including at the highest 
level, to ensure that the WTO functions effectively to respond to all Members' needs and contribute 
to addressing the most pressing issues of the world. We in Geneva have a responsibility to properly 
prepare Ministers'  discussion on this critical area for the organization.  
1.131.   Development and LDC issues, I believe we should all work towards a mutually acceptable 
path forward including on issues of critical importance to LDCs. This is key to unlocking the WTO's 
capacity to d eliver multilateral outcomes.  
1.132.   Excellencies, it is clear we have some very busy days ahead in all the areas we are working 
for deliverables for MC12. The negotiating processes are continuing, including through the work of 
the Chairs and my efforts as Chair of the TNC to try to help find as much convergence as possible 
before Ministers arrive.  
1.133.   Delegations have often asked for clarity on what Ministers would take up at MC12. You have 
made clear that the issues to be discussed should be agreed ahead of time to provide Ministers a 
manageable agenda and to ensure productive Ministerial engagement. This is a sentiment everyone 
knows I share.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.134.   Today's reports have painted a clear picture on where the issues lie on the "four pillars plus". 
In addition, we will shortly  circulate the schedule of the thematic sessions and the list of 
Minister -Facilitators, as well as the Speakers' List for the session on the challenges facing the 
multilateral trading system.  I believe this will help facilitate your preparation for your Mi nisters.  
1.135.   For the latter session, the unprecedented number of Ministers and Heads of Delegation that 
have registered to speak – at the last count, there were more than 95 – testifies to the value 
Members attach to the WTO and is a positive signal of commitm ent to respond to the challenges 
facing the multilateral trading system to strengthen it for the benefit of all.  
1.136.   Many gaps remain, but as I said, we are making progress. Let us keep on the pressure. Let 
us keep up the work at this critical juncture. Let us  keep treating each other with respect and 
friendship which will get us to the goal we want to achieve.  
1.137.   The next 124 hours will be critical. We need to use each hour effectively to close as many 
gaps as possible.  
1.138.   On 12 June, after the opening session, all the Chairs who reported today will report to the 
Ministers during the Informal HoDs which will be a scene -setting meeting. The contents of their 
statements on the state of play in their respective areas would reflect the inputs that each of you 
would have provided in those processes as of the 12th of June.  
1.139.   Excellencies, the success of MC12 is in your hands. Let us work hard. Let us deliver. People 
outside are waiting for us and believe it or not, I really think we will do it.  Thank you.  
1.140.   The Chair  thanked the  Director -General and Chairs of Negotiating Groups. From the reports 
delivered, he noted that work remain ed to be done within very limited time. That was why he had  
reiterate d that there was no intention  to open the floor in this part of the me eting. Instead, he 
encourage d all delegations to make good use of the little time that was  left and to focus on finalizing 
discussions in the respective areas.  
1.141.   He also recalled at this point that the General Council had agreed in November to forward 
the d raft decisions on the Work Programme on Small Economies and on TRIPS Non -Violation and 
Situation Complaints to the Twelfth Ministerial Conference for Ministers' adoption. These had been 
circulated in WT/MIN(21)/W/3 and WT/MIN(21)/ W/4, respectively.  
1.142.   The General Council took note of the GC Chair's  report as well as of the report of the 
Director -General and that of the other Chairs and Facilitator. The General Council further took note 
that work was continuing in the immediate next few days and that any results from that work would 
be in front of Ministers at MC12.  
1. B. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON MEMBERS' PROPOSALS FOR MC12  
1.143.   The Chair  moved  to the second part of the meeting which was the review of progre ss on 
Members' proposals for MC12. As he had  said at the start, a number of Members had wished to 
provide updates with respect to proposals in different areas, including on their efforts as to whether 
they had been able to generate convergence around those  proposals.   
1.144.   He recalled that , during the May General Council meeting, delegations  had heard that 
discussions were still ongoing on the Proposed Sanitary and Phytosanitary Declaration for the Twelfth 
WTO Ministerial Conference: Responding to Modern SPS Ch allenges. He also recalled  that this 
proposal had already been discussed in the General Council, including ahead of the postponed MC12 
in November. The proponents ha d put forward a revised document contained in WT/MIN(22)/W/3. 
He then gave  the floor to Gua temala, on behalf of the co -sponsors, to provide an update.  
1.145.   The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the co -sponsors, delivered  the following 
statement:  
1.146.   Allow me to refer to document WT/GC/W/835/Rev.3 on behalf of the 96 co -sponsors. We 
are pleased to provide an update on the SPS Declaration for the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
Commitment to and support for this initiative continue to grow.  We are pleased to report the recent WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 14 - 
 
  addition of China, Malaysia, Morocco, the Philippines, Switzerla nd and  Chinese Taipei as the latest 
co-sponsors.  The diversity of these new co -sponsors and the broad support for this initiative are 
indicative of Members' interest in supporting a constructive and positive initiative.  We would like to 
thank Members for t heir sincere commitment and collaboration.  We are proud to be part of the 
collective and diverse process of each region, with different levels of economic development and 
varied agricultural systems.  This has been a collaborative, Member -driven initiative.  
1.147.   This Declaration includes a work programme for the SPS Committee to explore the SPS 
Agreement and how to address the new challenges facing agriculture and trade.  The work 
programme proposes a series of discussions without prejudging the outcomes.  Members'  obligations  
under the SPS Agreement are unchanged, thus providing us with an important space for 
dialogue.  For Guatemala as a developing country, having the space to discuss these issues helps to 
strengthen our capacities along with the competent authorit ies in all the capitals.  The themes  on the 
work programme are balanced and reflect the wide range of interests of WTO Members.  Over the 
past two years, the list of topics has been defined by Members' feedback, ensuring that it reflects 
their key priorities , while maintaining a focus on issues that can  garner  broad support.  
1.148.   This latest revision includes some minor edits, which we believe are positive changes to the 
text. We have listened to the comments received and worked closely to understand the concerns 
and adjust the language in order to reach consensus.  The improvements made through this 
consultative process reflect the openness of the co -sponsors to work with Members to refine this 
document and move forward with it.  After MC12, we believe that our work  in the SPS Committee 
will be enriched. This initiative was Members' idea, and we must take advantage of a situation in 
which we are willing to work together.  
1.149.   In addition, we are seeking to deepen the discussion in the WTO among our technical experts 
and e ngage with one another on the complex issues we all face, while keeping that discussion very 
clearly within the scope of the WTO.  By working together, we can chart a path forward.  We hope 
that all Members will join us in this initiative going forward.  As co-sponsors of this initiative, we 
believe this text can reach consensus and should be officially presented to Ministers. Thank you all 
for your commitment.  We hope that Ministers will be able to support this Declaration at the Twelfth 
WTO Ministerial Confe rence.  
1.150.   The representative of Senegal  delivered  the following statement:  
1.151.   Senegal was one of the first supporters of this draft SPS Declaration for MC12 and the work 
programme proposed for the SPS Committee, which was first put forward  in February 2020. 
Co-sponsors have taken  advantage of the time afforded to improve the text. W e assure that the 
amended text reflects the concerns expressed by Members. It is a significant and useful contribution 
to MC12. The SPS  Declaration recognizes the need to further strengthen the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement in order to meet the chall enges before us and to ensure that we improve the 
agricultural landscape. This is a matter of great significance to Senegal and to all WTO Members. 
That is why we appeal to all Members to join us and adopt this Declaration for MC12.  
1.152.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered  the following 
statement:  
1.153.   As a co -sponsor, the ACP Group believes that the work programme provides an avenue to 
improve the understanding of  the SPS Agreement without altering Members' rights and obligations. 
The declaration can also be used as an opportunity for weighing the benefits and implications of 
maintaining supervisory standards that can simultaneously serve as barriers to trade. All Members 
are largely impacted by non -tariff barriers that could be avert ed through streamlined, collaborative 
work among Members. This declaration proposes an avenue for greater collaboration in support of 
developing countries and LDCs to improve their integration into the multilateral trading system. 
Technical assistance and capacity building are therefore essential. So too is the WTO's collaboration 
with other standard -setting international organizations that can offer insights and support. It is with 
this in mind that the ACP Group believes that Ministers should be requested  to adopt this declaration 
as a part of the MC12 package.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.154.   The representative of the European Union  delivered  the following statement:  
1.155.   On the SPS declaration, the European Union thanks the proponents for this updated version 
that we will analyse carefully. At first sight, it seems to address our main concerns, but we will come 
back to you with the official EU position once we conclude our internal analysis  and procedures . 
1.156.   The representative of Argentina  delivered  the following statement:  
1.157.   Argentina welcomes Switzerland, China, Chinese Taipei, Morocco and the Philippines as new 
co-sponsors of this Ministerial declaration on SPS, as well as the proposed work programme. We 
highlight that has taken two years of dialogue involving all Members wh o had expressed any 
concerns  with the purpose of building consensus, which today seems within reach . This declaration 
recognizes the challenges we face in the 21st century. It also, however, recognizes the  great 
opportunities multilateralism affords us in allowing  us to move forwar d in a sustainable way , based 
on science . I urge all Members who have not yet done so  to join consensus and support  this 
declaration at MC12.  
1.158.   The representative of Uruguay  delivered  the following statement:  
1.159.   Uruguay would like to w elcome this new draft version of the proposal, which is supported  by 
96 co -sponsors , including Uruguay. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight that the intense 
work carried out by the co -sponsors over a number of years to put forward  a proposal  which finally 
reached the level of matur ity – building on  several revisions , numerous  modifications , and resulting  
from inclusive negotiations among Membe rs. We would urge delegations to support this initiative. 
We hope that it is going to enjoy consensus at MC12.  
1.160.   The representative of Cameroon , on behalf of the African Group , delivered  the following 
statement:  
1.161.   We would like to warmly welcome the MC12 Chai r and say  how much we and the African 
Group will work for a success ful MC12. Chair, on behalf of the 44 Members of the African Group, we 
would like to thank Guatemala for having presented this draft SPS declaration. As co -sponsors, we 
would like to reiterate our support for this Ministerial Declaration on SPS. The African Group would 
urge Members to join the consensus on this matter.  
1.162.   The representative of Norway  delivered  the following statement:  
1.163.   I am taking the floor as we have voiced our reservation regarding certain elements of this 
proposal in previous meetings of the General Council. We appreciate the ne w draft we received from 
the proponents, and we are currently analysing the changes made. We will come back to you with 
our assessment as soon as possible.  
1.164.   The representative of Tajikistan  delivered the following statement:  
1.165.   At the outset , I would like to w elcome the Chair of the MC12. We also welcome new co -
sponsors of this Declaration. The Republic of Tajikistan thanks the proponents of this initiative for 
the revised SPS Declaration for the MC12 and Guatemala for introducing the revised Declaration on 
behalf of co -sponsors. The Republic of Tajikistan is confident that the full implementation of the SPS 
Agreement by Members will support trade facilitation and contribute to sustainable agricultural 
growth. We co -sponsors believe that this Declaration can rea ch consensus and allow us to move 
forward with the aim of having a concrete outcome at MC12. Finally, Mr. Chair, we look forward to 
constructive cooperation and encourage other Members to join this Declaration.  
1.166.   The representative of Guatemala  delivered  the following statement:  
1.167.   We thank the Members that spoke. As I mentioned, this is a Member -driven process, and 
we have been open to dialogue, so we welcome your comments. This Declaration is a proposal to 
discuss the work programme in the SPS Committee and is  not linked to our commitments or to an 
amendment to the Agreement. It is the will of Members to engage in a dialogue. We will be working 
with Members over the next few days to understand their concerns and respond to their questions.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.168.   The representative of  the Philippines  delivered  the following statement:  
1.169.   As one of the new co -sponsors of this proposed declaration , we thank the proponents and 
wish to engage in constructive discussions towards a result at MC12. Indeed, this is an exercise in 
transparency and greater dialogue among delegations towards this end. Taking the floor for the first 
time, we thank the Director -General and  the various Chairs for their earlier reports as we prepare 
for MC12.  
1.170.   The representative of Viet Nam delivered  the following statement:  
1.171.   Viet Nam would like to thank Guatemala for making the statement on behalf of the 
co-sponsors of the proposed SPS declaration for MC12. Viet Nam welcomes Members joining us as 
new co -sponsors. Viet Nam is proud to be among one of the 96 supporters of this important initiative. 
We have been an early co -sponsor of this initiative and have worked hard to move it forward. We 
would like to thank the many Members who engaged with us and the co -sponsors group and provided 
feedback and input on t he proposed work programme over the past two years. Viet Nam has a 
thriving agricultural sector, and we also see new challenges that we will face with climate change, 
such as in the Mekong Delta and spread across the globe with pest and disease. We think 
consultations about how the SPS Agreement is relevant to these issues would be very valuable. This 
is not complicated or offensive to anyone. The new SPS declaration text has been improved through 
the engagement with all Members over the last year  and we be lieve there is  consensus , and that it 
is ready for Ministers to adopt at MC12. It will be exciting to have an important and relevant 
conversation on SPS issues at WTO, it will be valuable to have the SPS declaration  as a positive  
contribution to MC12. We u rge all our colleagues here to join this as an MC12 outcome.   
1.172.   The representative of Malaysia  delivered  the following statement:  
1.173.   Malaysia would like to thank Guatemala on behalf of the co -sponsors for presenting the 
revised version of the draft Ministerial declaration. We wish to reiterate the importance of the  benefit 
derived from the SPS Agreement and its provisions continue to sa feguard Members' rights to ensure 
the necessary protection of human, animal and plant life or health while at the same time avoiding 
protectionism that can lead to unnecessary barriers to trade. Malaysia expresses its support for the 
draft SPS Ministerial declaration and considers the declaration as an opportunity for Members to 
strengthen the implementation of the SPS Agreement to better position ourselves in managing and 
dealing with SPS issues and challenges in the 21st century. We also invite those who are not yet co -
sponsors to join the support for the declaration.  
1.174.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered  the following statement:  
1.175.   Nigeria would like to thank the proponents of the declaration on SPS and to welcome the 
draft proposal for endorsement in MC12 .  
1.176.   The Chair  noted  that discussions on this issue ha d moved forward in this area  and that this 
proposal was enjoying a  very high level of support among Members and that Members were  very 
close to consensus on the basis of the discussion that the Chair had  heard.  His understanding was 
that Members should  be in a position to submit this proposal for adoption to the Ministerial 
Conference,  pending the confirmation of two delegations, wh ich he invited  to contact him as soon 
as possible . He noted that he would  report to Ministers accordingly at the Opening Session.  
1.177.   The General Council took note  of the statements.   
1.178.   The Chair  then moved to the next  proposal. He noted that on 25 May, a communication  had 
been received  from Brazil in JOB/GC/310, which contained an MC12 proposal on the frequency of 
Ministerial Conferences. This document had been reissued on the day of the meeting in 
WT/MIN(22)/W/6. He invited  the delegation of Brazil to introduce its proposal.  
1.179.   The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
1.180.   The Ministerial Conference is the highest decision -making body of the WTO, usually meeting 
every two years. The last Ministerial Conference (MC11) took place more than four years ago, and 
a long interval was also observed between MC6 in 2005 and MC7 in 2009. These delays (i) weaken WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 17 - 
 
  ministerial oversight and  guidance; (ii) generate unnecessary uncertainties on the work ahead; and 
(iii) overcrowd the agenda and add more pressure on Members to deliver meaningful results at each 
Ministerial Conference. As we have observed, these uncertainties are all the more ha rmful and 
disruptive during times of economic crisis, usually associated with higher risk of gridlock and 
paralysis. In Brazil's view, the WTO membership should consider increasing the frequency of 
ministerial engagement. Ideally, as in so many other inter national fora, such as the OECD, ECOSOC, 
the IMF, the World Bank and the UNFCCC, trade ministers could meet every year. We believe this 
would represent a step ahead on the WTO institutional reform. Annual ministerial meetings would 
be more efficient, less dramatic, and focused on incremental deliverables. They could also be shorter, 
2 or 3 days in Geneva, like other fora. They could also dispense long sessions of ministerial 
statements. On these occasions, rather than delivering large "packages ", Ministers could exchange 
views on world trade and the multilateral trading system; debate short and long -term issues and 
solutions; and provide ongoing negotiations with guidance and political drive. Brazil believes that 
yearly high -level meetings would provide the opportunity for the whole WTO membership to show 
their continued commitment to the rules -based multilateral trading system; bring fresh approaches 
to Geneva 's long outstanding issues; and, last but not least, address specific and urgent trade -
related matte rs in a timely manner.  
1.181.   Finally, and for all the reasons above, Brazil believes that annual Ministerial Conferences 
would greatly contribute to rebuild the much -needed trust among WTO Members and  increase 
willingness to cooperate at the multilateral level.  With the full engagement of its membership, and 
a better understanding of short and long -term trends and challenges, Brazil is confident that the 
WTO will deliver on the multilateral trading system 's enormous potential for promoting gains of 
trade, econom ic growth and sustainable development for all.  
1.182.   The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
1.183.   Nigeria would like to thank Brazil for the proposal. As the proponent made mention , the 
Ministerial Conference is the highest ruling decision -making body of the WTO. Of course, it is. 
Therefore, the annual meeting of Ministers would strengthen the work in the WTO because the 
regular meetings would provide more guidance, more political will and therefore, the work in the 
WTO would really be strengt hened. We therefore support the proposal.  
1.184.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
1.185.   The General Council is the highest decision -making body in between Ministerial Conferences.  
We are currently considering the proposal in our Capital that has been put forward by Brazil and we  
will come back once we have the position of the Capital.  
1.186.   The re presentative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
1.187.   We thank Brazil for its proposal which we are still considering. We agree with many of the 
problems they have articulated about how we need to carry out our work better here and how 
Ministers need to be better aware of how we are prioritizing our work and spending our time here in 
Geneva. We would note that Ministers are able to get together,  and it does not necessarily need to 
be a Ministerial Conference. Perhaps lowering the profile and expectation of the meeting might also 
accomplish some of the goals Brazil has set out. We are cognizant of the reverse engineering that 
goes into ministerial meetings, and how meeting deliverables and working backwards to come up 
with something is not alwa ys a productive use of our time. We are witnessing this right now. 
Preparing for Ministerials seem to increase the divergencies rather than help bridge them. It seems 
to crowd out new thinking. So perhaps we can establish a rule that there will be no decla rations or 
statements at these annual meetings. The purpose is to take stock, support the development of the 
institution and exchange views with each other to keep our work going in a positive direction. But if 
we do not address the habits that have caused  our current state, the frequency of meetings will do 
little to alter the status quo and could well paralyze us further. But thanks again, and we will continue 
to consider the proposal.  
1.188.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following state ment:  
1.189.   On Brazil's proposal to hold yearly Ministerial Conferences, the European Union welcomes 
and is in principle supportive. We are discussing this proposal internally. We tend to agree that it WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 18 - 
 
  may be beneficial to have more regular meetings , but we nee d to consider the implications of yearly 
ministerial meetings as they will change the mode in which we operate.  We will revert shortly to 
you. 
1.190.   The representative of Kazakhstan  delivered the following statement:  
1.191.   We also would like to thank the delegation of  Brazil for this interesting proposal. Also, we 
agree with many arguments which have been brought in this paper. We also believe that this issue 
could be considered as part of the broader discussion on WTO reform because WTO reform will also 
be looking at issue of how to make the work of this Organization more efficient and this type of 
institutional issues could also be considered within that framework of broader discussions.  
1.192.   The Director -General  delivered the following statement:  
1.193.   I am only commenting on the proposal because w hen I was a candidate for the job,  this is 
one of the things that  I suggested  that the membership should  look at . So, to hear Brazil talk about 
it and I know many people have  also heard me mention it. I am happy to see that several delegations 
said that they would be looking at it and weighing the  merit. Of course, there are  pros and cons.  But 
if you look at the way we work here, I think that such a meeting, bringing people to gether more 
often, meaning Ministers, will help to build the contact needed to build more trust. I really believe 
in what Brazil is saying. There is such a trust deficit in this organization  that is undermining  the 
ability of Amb assadors  to come  to agreeme nt on several issues.  And you can imagine how this 
translates also to Ministers. So, I think having something that brings them together more should 
really be considered. And I know it would take time for this to sink in. The second thing is that a s 
an obje ctive observer, I sometimes see that the mere fact that  people d o not know when the next 
meeting  will take place has an impact on the way that the work is also approached  – almost a 
desperation to get things through. Whereas if it were clear that we will have another meeting fairly 
soon, we may not have the same experience – which is similar to  what the U nited States  is saying 
concerning  lowering a bit the temperature.  This would be helpful in doing that.  If we know that there 
are regular meetings  and where we could  push through the dossiers , you will be in a better position 
to know that  holding one thing up for another, as is sometimes done, may not be necessary. So, 
these are some of the reasons . We all know that contacts with each other build mo re trust  and if 
you do not have much contact, the trust deficit worse ns. So, I just w ant Members to think about it. 
Of course, it has implications, one of which will be budgetary. If we start to meet every year, there 
will be implications of cost  in doing that, implications also for the Swiss government  here in Geneva . 
But all told, it would be good if a serious look were given at what Brazil is putting on the table.   
1.194.   The Chair  noted that further discussion on this proposal was needed . 
1.195.   The General Council took note of the statements.  
1.196.   The Chair  recalled that, since the May General Council meeting, consultations on the LDC 
proposals related to "a smooth transition package in favour of Members graduating from the LDC 
category" had continued in different configurations and formats. He then invited  the LDCs to provide 
Members with  an update.  
1.197.   The representative of Bangladesh , in the capacity as Focal Point for LDC Graduation, 
delivered the following statement:  
1.198.   First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for your efforts in facilitating our discussions. 
We remain grateful to you for your time, especially among your many pressing priorities. The 
consultations did not yet result in any concrete agreement but  has helped us understand each other's  
positions better. I think finding solution to the remaining disagreement is not impossible. We have 
been reiterating the main thrust of our proposal since we tabled our latest submission last October. 
First, we are me rely asking for an encouragement to Members to extend LDC preferences to 
graduated LDCs over a period of time. It is a best endeavour approach, and we are flexible to discuss 
the duration of this period. Some of our Members have already been granting such transition period 
to graduated LDCs. We sincerely appreciate their efforts. Second, we propose the LDC Sub -
Committee to examine the relevant S&D provisions of LDCs and see what could be considered as 
support measures for graduated LDCs. This is without pre judice to any outcome. We are also flexible 
to continue consideration of graduation -related issues in the General Council should the membership WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 19 - 
 
  desire so.  What we really want is a way to continue discussion on this proposal and this should not 
be too diffi cult to agree on. Chair, we have come a long way from where we started. As you see, we 
have lowered our expectation significantly. Some Members have provided concrete suggestions for 
which we remain thankful. We have listened to other Members also and we a re willing to demonstrate 
further flexibility. What we need is a bit of more understanding and openness from our partners. 
Chair, as you are aware, the LDC graduation is the only specific request of LDCs for this Ministerial. 
If our Members could help us f ind a workable solution, it will be a huge confidence -building measure 
for the system and an inspiration for the LDCs. We hope to continue our outreach efforts in the 
coming days. With a little bit of flexibility from all sides, I think we can find a worka ble solution.  
1.199.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , delivered the following statement:  
1.200.   As this is the first time  that I am taking the floor, I would like to welcome the MC12 Chair 
and to assure him of the full support of the LDC Group. Followi ng on the statement made by the 
Ambassador of Bangladesh, I welcome the progress made through the joint efforts of all  Members. 
The discussions were not easy. We are very much encouraged by the willingness to listen, and we 
wish to thank you  Chair, on beha lf of the LDC G roup, for your assistance which has been extremely 
useful. The proposal by the LDC Group for a provisional decision on graduation of LDCs is a priority 
for us, and my colleague from Bangladesh has just elaborated  that with great clarity. The  
Director -General  also underlined the fact that we need a mutually acceptable solution, we think we 
are very close to that solution  as long as we all demonstrate flexibility . As far as we are concerned 
in the  LDC Group, we are flexible. Achieving an outcom e on our proposal is key  for the follow -up to 
the entire process . We remain committed, optimistic and we call on all Members to demonstrate 
greater commitment, openness and join consensus on this issue.  
1.201.   The representative of Senegal  delivered the following statement:  
1.202.   I thank Bangladesh for the status update. I align myself with the statement made by Chad. 
My delegation would like to support the LDC proposal, advising a transition period in favour of 
graduating LDCs in order to not co mpromise the progress of recently graduated countries  – a 
practice that LDCs already benefit from with their partners.  
1.203.   The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
1.204.   We share the goal of those  LDCs that are entering into the  WTO developing country status 
in the near future to seriously re-evaluate  their current, outdated practice of on e-size-fits-all 
treatment for SDT and to seek to develop better more tailored approaches to address specific need s 
and circumstances of individual or similarly situated countries. As we have said previously, the 
current proposal from the LDCs has not taken into account our comments, which we have shared 
over the past two years. It continues to raise concerns for us regarding fairness, equity and bala nce 
in treatment with respect to similarly situated  or in some cases worse off developing countries. We 
have repeatedly expressed concerns with the introduction of the unexplored and unfamiliar concept 
of "support measures " included in the proposal  in the context of the WTO and what the Organization 
can do. This is not something that we fully understand,  and we have not received a satisfactory 
explanation from the proponents. We want to be thoughtful and comprehensive in our  approach to 
differentiation across the overly  broad category of developing countries. We are not in a position 
today or during the Ministerial Conference  to take actions that would prejudice our interests in this 
important area. Nevertheless, the LDCs and  other developing countries can be assured of our 
commitment to continue to work with them to reform the approach to SDT here at the WTO. We do 
however believe based on the consultations we have participated in that there is a willingness across 
the member ship to endorse some language that encourages consideration of a transition period for 
graduating LDCs when  specific goods tariff preference programmes utilize the UN  LDC designation 
as the sole criterium for eligibility. We believe that encouraging Member s to undertake a broader 
evaluation for eligibility of an individual Member for their goods tariff preference programmes by 
taking into account many factors such as the countries' level of economic development rather than 
solely on a UN designation would b e beneficial to those LDCs considering graduation. We understand 
that the GC Chair has put together a possible proposal to accomplish this consistent with the goals 
that MC12 proposals should be Short, Simple, Balanced and Beautiful. There is clearly an ou tcome 
there for graduating LDCs as long as it remains SSBB . WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.205.   The representative of China  delivered the following statement : 
1.206.   Regarding the current issue, facing the current multiple challenges of post -COVID -19 
recovery, food crisis and climate change, smooth transition for graduated LDCs is needed more than 
ever. China calls for Members' constructive discussions and proactive engagement in following this, 
in the name of providing a better chance for graduating and graduated LDCs to integrate into the 
global trading system.  
1.207.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
1.208.   On the LDC graduation proposal, the European Union has consistently engaged in a 
constructive way with the LDC Group, and with other preference -granting Members, to achieve 
consensus. We will continue to do so. To date, to my knowledge, such consensus has not yet 
emerged, although we remain committed to continuing engagement to achieve convergence. The 
European Union already provides fo r transition periods. We need to discuss the best ways to 
integrate LDCs into the multilateral trading system and we remain committed to continuing to do 
so. 
1.209.   The Chair noted that work was still continuing on this issue and that Members were ready 
to contin ue this discussion in a constructive and cooperative spirit.   
1.210.   The General Council took note of the statements.   
1.211.   The Chair then offered  the floor to Indonesia, who ha d indicated their wish to  introduce their 
submission in WT/MIN(22)/W/4 on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes.  
1.212.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
1.213.   Thank you for giving me the floor to introduce the joint proposal by the African Group, the 
ACP Group and G33 co -sponsoring Members, as reflected in WT/GC/W/850 and WT/MIN(22)/W/4. 
Since this is the first time that I am taking the floor, I would like to begin by welcoming the MC12 
Chair for his presence in this meeting and thanking the DG for her  tireless efforts in advancing 
progress in all negotiating issues towards imminent Ministerial Conference. The joint proposal has 
been submitted in the CoA SS meeting on 1 and 2 June 2022, as reflected in JOB/AG/229. On this 
occasion, allow me on behalf of  G33 co-sponsors, the AG and the ACP, to present to the membership 
a joint proposal on the permanent solution on public stockholding for food security purposes for 
consideration and decision by Ministers at MC12. The joint proposal has been supported by 80  
Members of the WTO, comprising of the African Group, the ACP and the G33 Members which 
represent almost 50% of the 164 WTO Members, from all across regions, both from developing and 
LDCs. This joint proposal as harmonized text of G33, AG proposals submitt ed last year in the CoA 
SS with improvements on key issues such as on DS mechanism, the proposal provides an assurance 
to all WTO Members that they have access to the DSB once this permanent solution is agreed. Under 
such circumstances, the bis clause no l onger applies. Programme and product coverage contained 
in the proposal allow policy space for developing Members and LDCs to exercise their PSH 
programme in a more operational  manner and based on their needs. WTO Members also have the 
opportunity to request for consultations using additional data in the Annex of the proposal, which 
was not included in the previous proposal. The proposal also provides options for the calculation  of 
the external reference price or ERP on a PSH programme either using Olympic price based on 3 out 
of the last 5 years average, or the inflation rate. The existing external reference price based on 1968 
until 1988 average price is obsolete and irrelevant  with current development and inflation rate. 
Therefore, the calculation of the ERP is the highlight of this joint proposal. This is the culmination of 
the efforts of PSH proponents by the three large groups and it is our intention that this joint proposal  
could be taken into serious consideration by all Members to be submitted to Ministers for their 
consideration and decision at MC12. The fact that almost half of the membership has co-sponsored 
this joint proposal is a testimony of the higher degree of exp ectation that this issue should be an 
integral part of the MC12 outcomes. It is also a testimony that call from the Members on the 
importance and urgency of PSH as one of the policy instruments to address food security issues 
particularly for poor and smal l farmers given the current challenges can no longer be delayed, nor 
neglected. We are ready to work together with all membership. And I believe that true, sincere, 
constructive and positive attitude, we could build trust and confidence that would lead to an 
agreement on a permanent solution on PSH which is long overdue.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.214.   The Chair noted  that the next proposal that would be taken up was that by the delegation 
of Brazil on the same issue. For the efficiency of the debate , he recalled that b oth submissions  had 
been extensively  discussed at the Dedicated Session on Public Stockholding  on 21 May . He further 
noted that it might  not be useful to duplicate th at debate in the General Council . He believed 
positions on this matter were  very well -known. The CoA SS Chair ha d also provided a report at the 
start of the meeting on the state -of-play in the negotiations . With that said, he still offered the floor 
to any delegation wishing to make an intervention on the matter.   
1.215.   The representat ive of Jamaica  delivered the following statement:  
1.216.   We will deliver our statement at this point. We thank Indonesia, and align ourselves with the 
statement made, on behalf of the co -sponsors. These are not normal times for food security and 
food insecur e nations. The ACP Group has numerous Members that are classified by the FAO as food 
insecure. Most of us, are NFIDCs. We face climate crisis and natural disasters, that deprive us of our 
harvesting and agricultural and food production. Importation has not reso lved our issues. The lack 
of strong domestic capacity is always a threat to food security. The draft submission seeks to address 
the issues , which we have been highlighting for some time. The features of the proposal are , inter 
alia, it is for food securit y purposes and can help to ameliorate food security challenges. It would 
alleviate the onerous nature of the transparency notification requirements, while ensuring that here 
is enough information on PSH programme. It makes an attempt of addressing the outd ated reference 
period for market price support calculation. It seeks to ensure that PSH programmes do not 
substantially distort trade or adversely affect food security. It gives consideration to international 
food aid in the interest of developing countrie s and LDCs. The ACP Group has had the pleasure of 
working with the African Group and the G33 to come up with a balanced text. We look forward to 
constructive dialogue among Members, fuelled by efforts at a solution -seeking mood.  
1.217.   The representative of Egypt  delivered the following statement:  
1.218.   It is time in our view to call for a food security package at MC12 consisting of effective policy 
tools to the most in need. We believe that such package should build on the various proposals put 
on the table, including  the Ministerial Decision on Trade and Food Security, and as just heard the 
PSH proposal, presented by Indonesia, on behalf of a group of countries, including Egypt. We also, 
in this regard, have been proposing a draft decision, submitted by Egypt on 1 Jun e 2022, entitled 
Food Insecurity in Net Food Importing Developing Countries and LDCs as contained in 
WT/GC/W/847. Such package would enable us to collectively address the food security challenges 
and provide sustainable solutions from this recurrent proble m. Egypt is a case in point, we share the 
challenges faced by many NFIDCs and LDCs in the face of this looming global food crisis. It is no 
secret that we are the world's largest importer of wheat with a population of 108 million citizens 
consuming 22 mill ion tons of which 12 million are imported, 80% coming from Ukraine and the 
Russian Federation. Our import bill of wheat only is soaring and has surpassed 11 billion dollars. 
Prices of wheat increased at the beginning of the year as the recovery from the pandemic was just 
starting. The most recent report by the FAO indicates that the year -on-year inflation of wheat prices 
reached 56% by the end of May 2022. This situation is expected to get worse by the end of this 
year, given the forecast predict a r eduction in global wheat harvest in the upcoming season as a 
result of drought and climate -related impacts, and the impact of shortages of fertilizers on the 
producers all over the world. Trade in our view is not, and should not be, the sole solution to a 
problem of that kind. Local production should be given more impetus in the composition of the food 
basket of developing countries. The President of the EU Commission, Mme Ursula van der Leyen, 
announced in Davos that she is coordinating to hold an internat ional event in response of the current 
global food crisis. She mentioned that the need to restructure existing collaboration on mutual 
interests and cooperation rather than imbalanced dependencies. From that speech, I quote: "We are 
supporting Africa in be coming less dependent on food imports. Only 50 years ago, Africa produced 
all the food it needed. For centuries, countries like Egypt were the granaries of the world." Our 
proposal falls within those lines and aims to raise production capacities of the mos t in need to 
improve the self -sufficiency and also alleviates some of the pressures. The proposal offers a possible 
solution to enhance food security by providing part of the needed policy tools and space for net food 
importing developing countries and LDC s. This is why, the proposal calls for establishing a work 
programme to operationalize the Marrakesh Decision of 1994 on Measures Concerning the Possible 
Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least -Developed  and Net Food -Importing Developing 
Countrie s. The proposal also calls for a peace clause that would enable these countries under certain 
conditions related to supply shortages and price hikes to exceed their de minimis levels and for a 
limited period . It is worth mentioning  that this policy tool is  targeted, temporary, non -trade distortive WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 22 - 
 
  and linked to a specific trigger mechanism. We are open to consult interested delegations and hear 
their views and comments with a view to reaching a consensual outcome to this in MC12 and we 
intend, upon completi ng our internal discussion within the groups, to table this proposal for the 
consideration by Ministers at MC12 to be part of the food security package. Let me close by saying 
that at times of crisis, the invisible hand must appear. I repeat the invisible hand must appear and 
sincerely trust that the Director -General with all her leadership can give this Member -driven 
Organization a hand in this regard.  
1.219.   The representative of Cameroon  delivered the following statement:  
1.220.   Cameroon would like to align itself with the statement delivered by Indonesia, on behalf of 
the co -sponsors, I also subscribe to elements of other delegations such as Egypt and also to the 
floor before him. The African Group has throughout our preparatory discussions for MC12 stressed 
the impo rtance of reaching a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security. Our joint 
proposal with the ACP Group and the G33 is the result of extensive consultations and aims to provide 
a lasting solution to this issue that should now be decided. Th e proposal is notable for its particular 
ability and inclusiveness in giving Members the opportunity to ask Members about the operationality 
and programmes through consultation. In the face of the severe food security crisis that we are 
facing, and that Af rica is particularly affected by, giving our countries adequate tools to provide 
sustainable and effective solution is paramount. Since no party  questions the importance of PSH, it 
would be appropriate that words are translated into actions and that we ado pt the proposals 
submitted by the African Group and the co -sponsors at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference. It should 
be said that the element of differentiation , if I may just add it , and calculation incorporated in another 
proposal tabled by Brazil are certainly respectable  but make it more difficult to use. This option 
accentuates  our divisions by multiplying the  pitfalls  at a time  when we need practical measures. 
That is why, we have told our friends from Brazil to  agree to work with the African Group and the 
co-sponsors to avoid  polarizing the debate on PSH and to build the mutual trust that we so badly 
need at this time. In this regard, we must welcome the good will expressed by the proponents and 
many other delegations to work in these  direction s. The time for action has come. In the absence of 
an agreement on a consensual text, the African Group calls for the extension of the Ba li Decision to 
Developing Countries that have not made use of PSH at these times. We always stand ready to work 
with all Members in a constructive manner in order to achieve a consensual package at the  Ministerial 
Conference in the coming days.  
1.221.   The represe ntative of China  delivered the following statement:  
1.222.   As a member of G33, and a co -sponsor for the submission, China thanks Indonesia for 
presenting the proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors. PSH is a mandated issue and is overdue for a 
long time. The joint efforts of us to submit the combined PSH text further highlights the importance 
of PSH in maintaining food security and livelihood security of smallholder farmers as well as the 
urgency of arriving at a permanent PSH solution, especially facing the current  challenges. As 
co-sponsor of the joint submission, China is ready to work with both the joint groups and the 
non-proponents constructively. We hope that Members will work on the text as a basis and be 
actively engaged to deliver on the Ministerial mandate  to achieve a meaningful outcome on PSH as 
soon as possible.  
1.223.   The representative of  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  delivered  the following statement:  
1.224.   I would like to welcome the MC12 Chair and would like to thank the proponents for their 
proposals, especially we would like to thank Egypt and other co -sponsors for their great efforts in 
introducing their timely and constructive paper about food insecurit y for net food importing 
developing countries and LDCs. We support these efforts in this direction. Facing the unprecedented 
challenges, the multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core, has a central role to play in 
addressing food insecurity, in cluding enhancing availability and access to food and agricultural 
products through keeping markets open and avoiding unjustified export restrictions and improving 
the predictability and stability of global food markets for producers and consumers. We are all aware 
that this important issue of food insecurity is very crucial to most developing countries, especially 
for net food importing developing countries and LDCs, in facing the current global challenges.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.225.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the  following statement:  
1.226.   Let me start by associating ourselves with the statement  that has been  delivered by 
Indonesia, on behalf of the co -sponsors of JOB/AG/229 , as well as the African Group and Jamaica, 
on behalf of the ACP Group. As we indicated in the pr evious interventions in the CoA SS, we do 
believe that one of the appropriate tools that we have in the WTO toolbox is PSH. We are therefore 
pleased that we have, as part of the African Group, been able to jointly  table and present the 
proposal as put forw ard by Indonesia . A strong diverse system of domestic production remains an 
indispensable and integral part of how developing countries make their own agriculture resilient 
against crisis. This necessitates that we deal with the long -standing imbalances in  the Agreement 
on Agriculture. It also requires reinforcing support to small -scale farmers who remain  vulnerable to 
market volatility and global shock. South Africa therefore believes that an urgent outcome on PSH 
for food security is of fundamental importance if the WTO is to be relevant and be genuinely 
responsive to the food security challenges that ar e facing our country. We are of the view that the 
harmonized text by the three groups takes us forward and in that direction. The text conveys the 
co-sponsors' ambition in the context of the current crisis. It attempts to address the concerns that 
have bee n previously raised by Members, particularly with regards to safeguards and anti-
circumvention  provision s. The text also seeks to address the difficulties and the limitations that 
render ed the Bali peace clause inaccessible  and ineffectual to all  developin g countries, including 
cumbersome eligibility criteria , among others. We therefore hope that by submitting this text, we 
will have constructive discussions among Members with a view to deliver on food security 
considerations  that will have to become a corn erstone of the work in the WTO so that we are able 
to deal with real issues that face our countries. We therefore remain ready to engage with Members 
towards  delivering on the long -standing mandate of a permanent solution.  
1.227.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
1.228.   As Jamaica has said , this is a very important time for food security,  and I hesitate d to 
intervene here today because we do risk repeating the last couple of years of debate on this issue 
that we had at the CoA SS. I do not think it is appropriate for us to do that. But it seems that we 
are here now doing the work that the agricultural neg otiators have been doing and it does seem that 
some wish to have these issues  proceed to the Ministerial Conference. So , it is important for us to 
be clear. We need to boost the role that trade plays in food security rather than undermin ing that 
role. One of the worst ways to boost food security is through those distorting subsidies  to lead to a 
reduction in the diversity of supply. What we should be  doing here is , first thing, food security 
through trade. I also want to make it very clear where this delega tion stands on this issue. There 
are two types of public stockholding programmes. The non -distorting kind and the distorting kind. I 
want to make it very clear that the first kind of PSH, the non -distorting PSH is a type of support that 
this delegation is in favour of. It is a type of support on which we have had no limits. No cap 
whatsoever since 1995. It is instead the distorting type of domestic support for PSH with which many 
Members have concerns. It is this distorting domestic support programmes for P SH that have 
garnered the least convergence here. That type of support,  the distorting type of domestic support 
for PSH impact s on food security, limits imports, restricts diversity, stability of supply and it  is for 
that reason that we are concerned about  the impact of these types of distorting domestic support 
programmes for global food security. Now, we are very conscious that there is strong interest here  
in this issue and we are nevertheless very open to engage in a discussion on this type of distortin g 
domestic support for PSH. But it needs to be an integral part of the domestic support negotiations 
and we need to deal with this in conjunction with those other forms of domestic support and we 
need to implement and deliver at the same time as we make de cisions on, and we deliver on those 
other forms of domestic support that distort global markets. Indonesia just made the point on the 
need for an update in the external reference price. This is an excellent point. Indonesia is spot on. 
This external refere nce price has been sitting there since 1996 to 1998, if I recall correctly. 
Hopelessly out of date. But let's be clear, it's an external reference price for distorting domestic 
support and it needs to therefore be dealt  with not just for the distorting  support for  PSH but for the 
distorting support for all forms of such support. On the text before us, the draft text from the 
proponents does not respond to the concerns I have just raised. It would have without limit trade  
distorting support entitlements for distorting public stockholding programmes that could cover any 
commodity, any purpose and does not have any prohibition on exports. We made these points for 
three to four years in the agricultural negotiations. What we can't be doing here, what we ought not 
to be doing as a membership, is undermining this Organization's contribution to food security. We 
ought to be promoting food security through trade. We will engage and we are keen to engage but 
let's do it as part of the proper, domestic support negotiations in the agricultural field. In respect of WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Brazil's proposal, wish to thank Brazil for its proposal, which I think Brazil underlined is intended for 
post-MC12 discussion, together with parallel negotiations on modali ties for meaningful domestic 
support outcomes. It is an o bjective for those of us who care about improving food security through 
trade, and this is the view that this delegation and other CAIRNS group Members would like to 
progress, Brazil is a huge contri butor in the area of domestic support reform, of course, and we look 
forward to working on and engag ing on their proposal when work commences post -MC12. I think it 
is important to set our views before the Ministerial Conference. This is something that we h ave 
discussed for quite some time in the CoA SS.  
1.229.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
1.230.   Welcome MC12 Chair. On this file, I would again request Members to be sympathetic because 
this is what we are looking for food security becaus e what we heard or read in the food security 
declaration  there is nothing much in that to tell the world that we have delivered during a pandemic 
or during a food security crisis period. I thank Indonesia for their leadership, and I thank Jamaica 
and Camer oon for their leadership . This proposal is supported by 80 Members. We are engaged with 
other Members for co -sponsoring. Very soon we will cross 100 , we will have more than 100 co -
sponsors. This present set of co -sponsors represent two-thirds  of the world population,  and they are 
actually affected by the food crisis. So , let the people affected by the food crisis decide on the valid 
policy tools for them rather than someone suggesting that no , this tool is not good for you, but this 
tool is good for you. We  never said that PSH is the panacea of food security,  or we have never said 
that trade cannot solve the problem of food security. All these are complimentary in nature, so let 
us not get into an ideological debate. Let us try and resolve the present crisis . Our past experience 
of the past two years shows  that how, because of public stockholding a big country like India was 
able to feed 800 million people for  the last two years and we are continuing for the next 6 months , 
that grains were being delivered at the doorstep when people were under lockdown and people have 
lost their employment /jobs. I would still request that decision on this file will test the credibility of 
the Twelfth Ministerial Conference and not the three drafts which are being floated by ei ther the 
negotiating Chair or by the Green Room process.  
1.231.   The Director -General  delivered  the following statement : 
1.232.   It is very good to see the proposals for PSH by both India and by the ACP  Group , the African 
Group and the G 33, presented  by Indonesia. This is very welcome  and so  is the proposal by Brazil. 
I just w ant to say that nothing stops a gr oup from proceeding  with their recommendation or their 
proposal as they said but the other three  proposals that have been looked at by the CoA S S and that 
have been  commented by other Members are equally valid  and should not be downgraded. They are 
not competing with each other . So, I would like the membership to look at the packages.  
1.233.   The Chair noted that this was an issue that require d further work and further discussion 
among Members.  
1.234.   The General Council took note  of the statements made.  
1.235.   The Chair  then invited  Brazil to introduce  their submission in WT/MIN(22)/W/5 on the same 
subject.   
1.236.   The representative of Brazil  delivered the follow ing statement:   
1.237.   Let me begin by agreeing and thanking the Director -General for her comment. We bring this 
proposal to the table, not imagined that it is stand -alone but that it is part of a package, and within 
the effort that it took to develop the three texts that should  be submitted to all of us very soon is 
very valid and is part of the things that we are going to  be considering during the Ministerial 
Conference.  Let me read my notes and then I will make a couple of comments. I am not going to 
repeat everything I said i n the CoA SS , but it would not be polite to colleagues not to say anything 
about what they commented. So, Brazil would like to present our proposal for a permanent solution 
on public stockholding for food security issues, circulated as document WT/MIN(22)/ W/5, 
WT/GC/W/851, for the consideration of Ministers at the MC12, expecting it can be the basis for 
future work on this subject.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.238.   Brazil  understand s that  there is no longer consensus at the WTO on the Bali mandate for a 
permanent solution on public stockhol ding, therefore we understand it is important to work within 
the system to elaborate a proposal aiming at providing a solution for those most in need: 
Least -Developed Countries, Net Food -Importing Developing Countries and Countries Requiring 
External Assis tance for Food according to FAO criteria.  Just to give you a number, our proposal 
encompasses and would hel p, would be useful for no less than 60 Members of this Organization.  Our 
proposal provides adequate levels of rights and obligations, with particular  attention to the 
constraints of LDC countries, and once in force , it would replace the interim solution adopted in Bali.  
The document addresses aspects that have been raised by non -demandeurs during our negotiating 
process, including adequate transparency and safeguards clauses and legal certainty, in order to 
ensure that PSH programmes are as least distortive as possible in terms of trade and third countries ' 
food security.  It seeks to preserve the WTO at the core of the multilateral trading s ystem and provide 
a concrete and realistic basis for engagement between demandeurs and non -demandeurs.  This 
proposal is being presented for discussions now and adoption at MC13, in tandem with modalities 
for reducing trade and production -distorting domesti c support.  Brazil will continue to work at MC12 
and beyond to pursue reforms in agricultural trade rules at the WTO and to strengthen the role both 
agriculture and trade policies play in addressing the multifaceted issue of food security, with the 
same spi rit of solidarity that has always motivated us in this Organization.   
1.239.   Having read my notes, let me reply to the floor , and  begin  by thanking my friend  from 
Cameroon . His diplomatic  skills, I am convinced,  will have sufficed long ago  for us  to bridge the ga ps 
of the PSH discussion. I think he should have a very prominent role doing that. And let me reciprocate 
your request for co -sponsorship, inviting you and the African Group to co -sponsor Brazil's proposal. 
Africa is well taken care of in Brazil's proposal . The provisions we have against exports of grains that 
were accumulated protects Africa  and does not harm the continent . So, I hope we can talk more 
about that. It would be a privilege to engage with you in this debate. A second note, let us look at 
the o rigin of this kind of mechanism of PSH. The old -timers know. We all know. This was an 
instrument widely used by the European Union, as one part of their common agricultural policy. 
What they would do, they would accumulate stocks and they would sell stocks  more often than not 
at subsidized prices which in another term is dumping, and that made the lives of producers very 
difficult. I do not think we should replicate this, and I say this with all due respect because the 
European Union has evolved from this position,  and this does not exist anymore. Let me make yet 
another comment. There is a crucial distinction here to be made between distorting and non -
distorting. No one is against food security. It would be absurd  to imagine  that a position can be 
against f ood security. What makes us so passionately attached to this is that we are convinced that 
food security is better protected and preserved through this proposal. We have no doubt about that. 
Let me give you a simple number. The main subsidizers who benefit  from this permanent 
non-solution would be able to subsidize no less than USD 1 trillion in the next ten years, USD 1 
trillion , which of us can compete with that? Does anyone think that small producers in our countries 
will be able to fight this? I do not think so. So, when we are talking about solidarity. Solidarity is 
there also. Let me just read, and then I promise, I will conc lude with that, a very interesting report 
from the Deputy Director -General and Regional Representative for Africa for the UN Food and 
Agriculture Organization, it is one or two paragraphs: " Enabling a strong private sector is an 
important early step, as sm all to medium enterprises are critical to the structural reform of 
agricultural and food systems in Africa. Governments need to design systems for buyers and 
suppliers, connecting small and medium producers, including smallholder farmers, to national and 
regional buyers. Women and youth deserve to be included in those  efforts . The transition from food 
security systems to improved, integrated, flexible and sustainable commercial systems needs to be 
improved in field -level production, inputs, machinery use an d post -harvest management led by 
investment, technology, innovation and knowledge text. It is estimated that freeing tariffs could 
bring prosperity benefits of up to USD 16 billion, and trade growth among African nations by 33 per 
cent. Looking ahead, one African market can create a more competitive commercial environment for 
agriculture, encourage more investment in a modern, dynamic, productive, inclusive, sustainable 
and sustainable agricultural sector that can lift millions of Africans out of poverty" . We want to be 
partners of this. We want to be partners of a new development in Africa, and we are going to achieve 
this to a well -built proposal on PSH.  
1.240.   The representative of Uruguay  delivered the following statement:  
1.241.   I would like to address the two propos als for Ministerial decision on PSH , which were 
submitted today. A joint proposal presented by various delegations and another proposal , which has 
just been presented by the delegation of Brazil. Brazil's proposal establishes a contribution for the WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 26 - 
 
  negotia tions post -MC12 , and as such, is welcomed by Uruguay. Unfortunately, this does not seem 
to be the case for the joint proposal , as presented by other delegations. Apparently, they are looking 
for Ministers' consideration at the upcoming Ministerial Conference. In this regard, I cannot but 
express my delegation's concern with regard to this proposal , which could force the next Mini sterial 
Conference to consider  a proposal which has hardly been discussed at the technical level in last 
week's CoA SS, and the lack of consensus was very clear , given the concerns both on substance  and 
form. These concerns  were put forward by no fewer tha n 15 delegations, which represented over 
40 Members  of this Organization . Uruguay shares these concerns . Uruguay does not consider it 
constructive to submit proposals containing extreme positions, disconnected from the reality of the 
negotiations, which ha ve not been adequately explained or discussed at the technical level, and 
which have not addressed the concerns expressed by several delegations, given that the next 
Ministerial Conference is approaching.  In this regard, we would like to appeal to the pro ponents to 
approach the upcoming Ministerial Conference in a responsible manner and to avoid taking actions 
that would result in , or lead most probably to , a blockage in the negotiations and to a new delay of 
dealing with agricultural issues and perhaps other issues too . This  would especially harm developing 
and LDCs Members. As has been said, it would seem to be within the WTO'  responsibility to 
contribute to food security through trade. We should not forget that it is precisely through trade  that 
a large number of Members of this Organization  actually provide food for the world. Many of us here 
feed the world  - today, in the past, and we hope in the future too. Protected by the certainties and 
guarantees provided by the Agreement on Agriculture - which for the first time subjected  the 
agricultural  sector  to the rule of law, and not simply to the free  will of those who h ave greater 
opportunity to provide subsidies  thanks to their large budget. To conclude, I would like to invite us 
all to think carefully about the USD 1.3 trillion in subsidies , which have just been mentioned by my 
friend and colleague from Brazil.   
1.242.   The re presentative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
1.243.   We would like to thank Brazil for presenting its proposal today and, in particular, for 
presenting a proposal that appears to attempt to narrow the divergencies in Members' positions and 
which , as noted , is for future consideration. We do think Brazil has taken a creative approach to 
addressing some of the key concerns of Members on both sides of this issue and, in particular, we 
appreciate efforts to find ways to minimize the negative eff ects of public stockholding policies on 
other Members. The negative effects of such policies on global agricultural markets and the food 
security of other Members are a major concern of the United States. We look forward to discussing 
this with Brazil in o rder to better understand what they have shared with us today.  
1.244.   The representative Mexico  delivered  the following statement:  
1.245.   We agree with Members that have said that food security has many facets and requires 
different tools and actions. We recognize that for some Members, PSH is an important tool and so 
we need to give the attention it deserves and find a solution that would a ddress the needs and 
concerns of Members. However, we need to be realistic and take onboard the consequences of what 
we have done or not over the last few months. We think the best option we have is to have a work 
programme on this topic for negotiations. These two proposals on PSH are worthy of detailed review  
post-MC12 . The changes that the proposals seek are not small, we need to have clarity on what is 
required and what the effects would be on agriculture  reform . With five days until the start to MC12, 
this submission  may be counterproductive in terms of moving forward in  the agricultural 
negotiations. The p roposals do not have the required maturity to be submitted for decision by 
Ministers. So, we need to be realistic.  
1.246.   The representative of Paraguay  delivered the following statement:  
1.247.   My delegation is very concerned with the introduction of the document presented by the 
African Group, the ACP Group and the G -33 on today's agenda. The possible repercussion  this may 
have for Ministers and for the possible s uccess of MC12. We think that Brazil's proposal seeks to 
bring together positions for the next Ministerial Conference. As has been shown over agricultural 
negotiations, although this proposal has broad support from various delegations that are interested 
in a permanent solution for PSH , it is quite radical and unbalanced and would not lead to consensus. 
We recall that agriculture is absolutely fundamental for our economies , especially  for Paraguay , a 
small developing economy that exports  food. Trade is a driver of the economy , and it ensure s that 
we can sustain small farmers that do not receive high levels of subsidies because of a lack of budget. 
We have always worked constructively and in good faith and we have submitted concrete questions WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 27 - 
 
  to the proponents on what was discussed last year but we have never received a response. We will 
continue to enquire about how Members  intend to use the m, given that only 20 have notified over 
the last few years and , among these,  only one Member has gone beyon d the authorized subsidy 
limit. We do not deny that the information may be incorrect, but it is the available information , 
according to Members' notifications. If this scenario does not represent the reality, we would like to 
know what the reality  is, to know which Members need assistance , so that we understand the scope 
of the problem and how to solve it. The proponents until now have not provided this information. 
Despite the limited time we have , we have nevertheless demonstrated readiness to negotiate a nd 
have reiterate d our questions to the proponents . We have request ed that they convene a meeting 
so that we can  discuss our concerns and reservations . The proponents took almost five days to 
respond and w hen we finally met, we found that the draft on the basis of which we would negotiate 
had become a Ministerial document. In this context, m y delegation is not able to support the 
submission of this proposal  to Ministers . We do not think that it s submission to Ministers would  
contribute to achieving a consensus -based outcome . The proponents should accept to sit down to  
negotiate instead of trying to impose proposals. With regard to the NFIDCs and LDC proposal,  
although we have deep sympathy with the difficulties encountered by  many countries in the current 
context, we consider  that many of the ideas presented are outside the remit  of the WTO, such as 
for example,  the creation of a  financing mechanism. Also, we think that it is necessary to extensively 
revise  the category of Members  which make up the NFIDCs before granting new flexibilities. There 
are many  Members  that belong to this category currently  which are  competitive exporters  of certain 
specific produ cts such as wheat, rice, cheese, fruit and vegetables, among other s. And so, without  
a review mechanism that takes into account that granularity we may find ourselves creating harmful 
competitive conditions for other developing countries that depend on agr iculture to sustain their 
small and vulnerable producers, which is the case of Paraguay . Finally, I would also refer to the 
proposal introduced by Sri Lanka and our concern with the intention to permit eventual  violations of 
the export competitiveness rule s with direct sale s at concessionary prices among other things.  
1.248.   The representative of the delegation of the United Kingdom  delivered the following 
statement:  
1.249.   We thank the negotiating  Chairs, yourself and the Director -General for all of the updates.  
We also wanted to welcome the MC12 Chair. We want to echo the remarks by Australia. We fully 
agree with them. The G -33, ACP  Group  and African Group joint proposal, like the Brazilian proposal, 
can be the basis for immediate engagement and work, as a positive step forward. But it is a 
permanent legal decision, which still has complex technical issues that are unresolved in it and 
therefore, it is unsuitable to present to Ministers at MC12. As the Brazilian proposal sets out, this 
has to be a post -MC12 discussion, which is part of the wider conversation on agriculture. We are 
ready to start that work immediately in June/July of this year, and we recognize its priority status . 
But let's be clear, it took the proponents of this proposal four months to g et to this point, we cannot 
expect that those with legitimate concerns to negotiate it in four days.  
1.250.   The representative of the delegation of Argentina  delivered the following statement:  
1.251.   We thank the delegation of Brazil for presenting their proposal , referring to a permanent 
solution for PSH to be analysed following the MC12. We understand that the concepts included in 
this document are a step in the right direction. We reiterate that we do not find ourselves in a 
position to negotiate this document in the week ahead of the Ministerial Conference. But we would 
like to mention some elements that we think are worthwhile , which we think should appear in any 
definitive solution for PSH. The clear definition of the products which can come u nder these 
programmes, the clear definition of the countries which can implement these programmes, and the 
limitation that these programmes are exclusively to respon d to the challenges of food security and 
not undercover subsidies in order to export these products , and which enjoy legal coverage. As we 
have always said, we reassure that Argentina is ready to find a permanent  solution for PSH, as long 
as progress is made in parallel on the pillars that enjoy a historic mandate of reform in the Agreement 
on Agriculture,  especially on domestic support and market access. After MC12, we need to resume 
negotiations to make progress on the delayed agricultural trade reform, in terms of domestic 
support, market access and a permanent solution to PSH. With regard to document WT /GC/W/850 
on the draft decision on PSH, which was presented today, we would align ourselves with what has 
been said by Brazil, Uruguay, Australia and Paraguay.  
1.252.   The Chair  noted that that work still needed to be done to achieve convergence on this very 
impor tant issue and that the discussion would continue . WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 28 - 
 
  1.253.   The General Council took note  of statements .  
1.254.   The Chair  then moved to another proposal put forward by Sri Lanka regarding a Ministerial 
Declaration on the WTO Response to the Food Security Crisis.  
1.255.   The representative of Sri Lanka  introduce d its proposal in WT/GC/W/848:  
1.256.   As Members are fully aware, t he relevant decision  concerning the NFIDCs and LDCs  
mandate s Members  to address the effects of reform stemming from the Agreement on Agriculture 
and is not mandated to address the impacts of crisis such as what we are witnessing in the present 
context. So, the proposals contained in document WT/GC/W/848 of 3 June 2022 are to take into 
account those current challeng es and to address some of the most critical challenges being faced by 
the Net Food Importing Developing Countries and LDCs by agreeing to certain immediate measures 
at MC12. It is our view that the WTO must contribute within its mandate to address the stru ctural 
causes of food insecurity and poverty with a view to enhance livelihoods of vulnerable farmers and 
food production, especially in NFIDCs  and LDCs. The devastating impact of the COVID -19 pandemic 
and the current ongoing global challenges which have p ushed the world food prices and the 
agricultural inputs  to unprecedented high prices have put Sri Lanka on a back seat and is now 
experiencing an acute food shortage as a result of these multiple aspects. This has even prompted 
the United Nations to come f orward and call for food aid to be provided to Sri Lanka. As stated by 
many delegations today, in particular the Ambassador of Egypt, there is an imperative need to agree 
on a composite food security package at MC12. As a positive contribution, Sri Lanka's  proposal aims 
to bring most pertinent issues to the table for complementing the proposals that are already on the 
table. To flag those very specific aspects in our proposal , I draw your attention to paragraph 5 where 
we are seeking to  include this matter as a standing agenda item in the Committee on Agriculture 
specifically to consider the effects of export restrictions  on food security for Members to raise these 
concerns regarding exports restrictions on their food security in particular the impact on NFI DCs and  
LDCs with a view to resolving these concerns. Also, we have seen over and over again some of these 
export restrictions on food stocks during the food security crisis. There are severe impacts on Net 
Food Importing Developing Countries and LDCs so w e would wish Members  who intend to impose 
these restrictions to prioritize  the exports to Net Food Importing Developing Countries and LDCs. 
Again, on paragraph 8 of our proposal, it flags the importance of our food security concerns, 
particularly the progr ammes such as PSH that other Members  may on a priority basis be allowed to 
export some of these stocks that are emanating from the public food security programmes targeting 
the N FIDCs  and LDCs. We look at their unique nature because they are also experienc ing balance of 
payment situations and then inability to accommodate certain payments systems and consignment 
basis payment terms  due to this very difficult payment systems and of course they are not able to 
implement this payment system due to lack of fore ign exchange, so these food stocks are released 
either in fully ground form or in appropriate concessional terms in accordance with the Article V of 
the Food Assistance Convention of 2012. Similarly, we see the Marrakesh Agreement itself has  a 
mechanism be cause trade itself cannot resolve the problems of NFIDCs  and LDCs in times of food 
crisis because there are scarcities of food supplies around the world . So they also have to build up 
their productive capacity in their national context. The Marrakesh Decis ion has called on t he donors, 
developed Members  who have the capacity to do so to provide such assistance particularly the 
provision of technical and financial assistance to developing  and LDC  Members to help them build 
up their productive capacities . So, we see this particular avenue needs lots of strengthening and it 
is the right time to expedite this and look for ways on how such technical and financial assistance 
could be delivered to the Members  facing this serious food crisis. We know that the World B ank and 
other financial institutions are having their normal channel s to assist them, but this is the time that 
these institutions to have an expeditious mechanism to deliver such technical and financial 
assistance to NFIDCs  and LDCs to build up their prod uctive capacities  during  food cris es. We would 
like to see that some of these elements in our proposal are reflected in any final outcome that the 
Ministers are going to deliver at MC12.  
1.257.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
1.258.   We thank Indonesia for presenting the ir proposal earlier today on behalf of the G -33 and 
other co -sponsors on PSH. We wish to highlight that food security is probably the most critical issue 
confronting us right now, especially in countries like ours that have been hit by severe financial cri sis 
and are facing supply shocks and a looming food crisis that may have serious repercussions for lives 
and livelihoods in our countries. We therefore welcome the submission by Sri Lanka in this regard, 
we also welcome other submissions such as those made  by Egypt. We recognize elements that help WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 29 - 
 
  developing countries to enhance production and productivity and address the utility of policy tools 
to deal with food crisis are always welcome. We hope to continue our engagement on this issue with 
interested del egations and to find a solution that addresses this issue in a meaningful way.  
1.259.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
1.260.   We also welcome the proposals from Egypt and Sri Lanka , which are in the direction of 
ensuring food security thro ugh enhanced production. I would like to request the membership to 
sympathetically consider these proposals for consideration during Ministerial Conference.  
1.261.   The General Council took note  of the statements made.  
1.262.   The Chair  noted that he had received a request from Switzerland that would like to make a 
statement on e -commerce.  
1.263.   The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
1.264.   Regarding the e -commerce Work Programme and Moratorium, we would like to draw the 
attention of the Members on the recent revisions of WT/GC/W/831 that enjoys the support of a 
broad and diverse range of WTO Members.  In the exchanges that we have had with some Members 
and group of Members, the importance for these Members to reinvigor ate the work under the WP 
has been stressed. Intensification of that work should take place on the basis of submissions by 
Members, and the importance to address development -related issues was also underlined. The co -
sponsors of WT/GC/W/831 have therefore integrated these elements in the 6th revision of the draft 
decision extending both the WP and the moratorium until MC13. Support to this approach in the 
form of additional co -sponsorship is reflected in the 6th and 7th revision, with 71 WTO Members now 
expressly supporting it.  
1.265.   At the risk of repeating what has already been shared at multiple occasion, let me underline 
that Switzerland views the moratorium on e -commerce as one of the framework conditions that 
allowed e -commerce to flourish. This framework c ondition has the characteristic to be anchored here 
at the WTO. To provide even greater predictability, Switzerland is of the view that it should be made 
permanent.  
1.266.   Of course , every Member should pay close attention to nurture an environment that is 
conduc ive to the development of its digital economy. This is fully recognized by our government as 
a priority and is one of the goals of our cooperation policy with developing partner countries, and 
within the UNCTAD where Switzerland is a core contributor of th e E-commerce and Digital Economy 
Programme.  
1.267.   We remain however not convinced that applying trade policy instruments such as customs 
duties, designed for trade in goods, can have any positive impact on the digital economy 
environment. On the contrary, liftin g the only multilateral rule on e -commerce opens the door to the 
application of such duties by any Member, thereby degrading the international trade environment.  
1.268.   On the hopes to collect additional customs revenue, we would draw the attention of the 
Members  to the three  following studies:  
1. "Electronic Transmissions and International Trade – Shedding new light on the moratorium 
debate ", a study produced by the OECD, in November 2019. This study takes a broader look 
at the debate surrounding the moratorium, and indicates that the increase in consumers 
welfare brought by digitization of products outweighs by over 10 -fold the cost associated with 
revenue loss.  
 
2. Study is named "Is the WTO Moratorium on customs duties on e -commerce depriving 
develo ping countries of much needed revenue? ", and was led by Prof Simon Evenett and the 
University of St Gallen in November 2021. This study shows that potential revenue loss 
represents small if not negligible shares of tax revenues from sources other than cust oms 
duties.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 30 - 
 
  3. A study from the OECD named: "3D Printing and International Trade: What is the evidence 
to date? " issued in November 2021. This study presents new evidence that adoption of 3D 
printing appears to be complementary to traditional goods trade.  
 
1.269.   While Switzerland continues to stand ready to engage in this debate, we invite the 
membership to extend both the Work Programme and the Moratorium until MC13.  
1.270.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
1.271.   I just want to be sure that our p roposal is also in consideration on this topic because you 
referred to it in the morning report that both proposals are there.  
1.272.   The Chair noted  that the delegation of India was right in its assumption and that the Chair 
was suggesting sending  both drafts to the Ministerial Conference.  
1.273.   The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
1.274.   The European Union fully supports Switzerland and the proposal for a draft ministerial 
decision extending the moratorium and the work p rogramme. Industry from all corners of the world 
is calling for the extension of the e -commerce moratorium, including in developing countries. There 
are numerous studies on the impact of discontinuing the moratorium and raising the customs duties 
on electr onic transmissions. I hope we will continue with the practice of extending the moratorium 
until MC13 and that this Ministerial Conference will not convey the negative signal of sto pping the 
moratorium, the only tool we have on digital trade in this organis ation.  
1.275.   The representative of  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  delivered  the following statement:  
1.276.   Since 1998, Members have agreed not to impose customs duties on electronic transmissions 
and to extend the moratorium at the  biennial  WTO Ministerial Conference. H aving said that, and 
consistent with paragraph 3 of the WTO Ministerial Decision of 13 December 2017, the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia is always keen to extend the current practice of not imposing customs duties on 
electronic transmission until the next Ministe rial Conference. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is happy 
to announce that we are co -sponsoring the proposal on the Ministerial Decision to extend the 
moratorium.  
1.277.   The representative of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
1.278.   The UK strongly supports the customs duties moratorium being extended. I just wanted to 
flag that we have been hearing from businesses around the world, not just the UK businesses, but 
businesses globally about the negative impact the lapse of the moratorium woul d have on the global 
economy. We really want to stress the importance they are placing on rolling over the moratorium 
at such critical time for the global economy.  
1.279.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
1.280.   On this issue, I would  like to echo what India has said with regard to the Ministerial 
Statement on the work programme and on the moratorium . The main issue for us is the impact on 
digital industrialization as well as revenue, which disproportionally affects developing countrie s. 
What is important to informed decision -making is to understand the scope and definition of the 
moratorium which is critical to decision -making.  
1.281.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following statement:  
1.282.   The CARICOM Group ha s been working with you and other Members to bridge the gap in the 
discussions on the electronic commerce work programme and the moratorium on imposing customs 
duties on electronic transmissions. We remain hopeful that Members would view our bridging 
eleme nts in a positive way and could ensure that we secure an outcome in an area which remains 
critical to many Members. We have taken note of your report under agenda item 1 of this meeting, 
and we will over the next few days reflect on our next steps in the p rocess on this file. We remain 
open, willing and ready to work with any and all Members on this and all other areas of our work.  WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 31 - 
 
  1.283.   The Chair  recalled that as he had already said before, it was his intention to send two 
proposals to Ministers. He encouraged  Members to speak to each other with a view to trying  to 
bridge differences . He noted that if there were  any developments, delegations should not hesitate 
to contact me.  
1.284.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
1.285.   The representative of Brazil  delivered  the following statement:  
1.286.   I felt that the d ebate on Sri Lanka 's proposal  was shorter than  I expected , and I do not know 
what the conclusion was . I just ask for your guidance on this. Is it going to  be submitted for deb ate 
to Ministers? What happened?  I guess I missed it.  I am sorry about that.  
1.287.   The Chair  invited Sri Lanka to indicate its intentions regarding its proposal.  
1.288.   The representative of Sri Lanka  delivered the following statement:  
1.289.   Thank you to Brazil for having shown an interest in our proposal. Our proposal, as I stated 
in my intervention, is a s upplement ary set of proposals,  which we would like to be reflected  and to 
be considered along with the two proposals that are on the table . That  our set of proposals are to 
be considered as supplementary proposals along with those two proposals that are contained in the 
document that our CoA SS Chair has released, as well as the proposal of Egypt. Our main  intention 
is to focus on the issue s of net food importing developing countries and LDCs as they are actually 
facing severe food shortages and severe constraints in acquisition of the food  to meet their needs. 
Our expectation is that these elements are giv en due consideration and are reflected in any of the 
Ministerial outcomes that Members would be agreeing to be released at MC12.  
1.290.   The representative of Uruguay  delivered the following statement:  
1.291.   I do have some difficulty with the very notion  of good faith in this house, I am afraid. Here 
we are, 7 June 2022, and we have before us a proposal dated 3 June. Why was it not circulated 
earlier? That is one problem. Secondly, I do not really see how we can move forward with a proposal 
that has not been  discussed, which we only learned about today. We have not had the opportunity 
to really consider what it is about. It would seem to me at a glance there are technical issues here 
that seem to undermine the working principles of this Organization. This all  would warrant further 
technical discussions. I really do not think that this is a constructive way of going forward with the 
view to a Ministerial Conference that is to be launched in three days.  As I understand the proposal 
is dated 3 June 2022 and has b een circulated on that day, i.e., 3 June 2022.  
1.292.   The representative of Sri Lanka  delivered the following statement:  
1.293.   I do not want to open pandora's box  here. Sri Lanka was never a part of the Green Room 
process where the food security proposals were discuss ed. We also had the benefit of seeing Egypt's 
proposal. Sri Lanka's contribution was to flag its concern and its proposal because we  were never 
invited to the Green Room process in order to present Sri Lanka's concern.  We waited until an 
opportunity is giv en to us by the Members and also by the Secretariat, but we never got an 
opportunity. So, that is the delay. It is not there to  derail any process and that's  what I emphasize,  
these proposals are presented  with the intention of being complementary, not to oppose anyone. I 
think I was very clear with my country's intentions. We request Members to take into account these 
proposals as complementary proposals. If you wish to have a discussion, we are ready to answer 
these aspects. Today I had to cut short my le ngthy statement. If delegations are interested in the 
technical explanations on our proposal, we are ready to provide them.  
1.294.   The Director -General  delivered  the following statement : 
1.295.   I just wanted to ask the Chair of the CoA SS, Ambassador Peralta, to let us know whether 
she had any transparency session s in CoA SS regarding any of the three statements that are going 
forward, and how many times those have been brought to the attention of everyone. I am asking 
for this because of the reference to the Green Ro om. I do not think anyone has been kept out of any 
of the discussion s or statement s that are going to be sent forward.  There  have been repeated  
attempts and  she had just mentioned, if I heard correctly, she is going to  have another CoA SS . WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 32 - 
 
  1.296.   The Chair of the  CoA SS  delivered  the following statement:  
1.297.   It is indeed the case that we have had a number of CoA SS meetings where t here has been 
a very transparent account of what has happened in the  course of the  consultations of various 
configurations  that have taken place. There have been opportunities in the course of the CoA SS 
meetings on 1, 2 and 4 June 2022 for proposals and presentations before the CoA SS plenary. 
Furthermore, there was information given at that meeting what stage we have reache d in the 
negotiations . Once we finish reviewing all elements that have been put before us  for consideration , 
we will be convening another CoA SS meeting  in the coming days .  
1.298.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  provided the following statement:  
1.299.   The World Trade Organization (WTO), and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade (GATT), contributed to economic prosperity during the last 75 years. The organization 
facilitated the progressive dismantling of trade barriers. And that proce ss resulted in better living 
standards worldwide.  But growing international trade and economic prosperity generate 
fundamental changes -including in the distribution of the gains from trade. Analytical models, like 
the Stolper -Samuelson theorem, aid in thi nking about the process. The balance of winners and losers 
resulting from international trade can trigger social tensions affecting the sympathy for 
decision -making at multilateral organizations like the WTO. In that context: Is the WTO still relevant? 
Robert W. Staiger, professor of economics at Dartmouth College in the United States, addresses the 
question in A World Trading System for the Twenty -First Century, to be published by MIT Press at 
the end of 2022. Professor Staiger revisits the WTO’s essential role; that is, solving a terms -of-trade 
externality. Staiger contends that the WTO continues being relevant. But acknowledges the potential 
drawbacks l ying ahead. Future progress will mainly involve 'deep integration ' versus the 'shallow 
integration ' historically promoted by the WTO. We ought to safeguard the WTO 's prominent role in 
the global economy. Particularly, more can be done to help developing co untries in deriving gains 
from international trade that improve their people 's livelihoods. The WTO 's 12th Ministerial 
Conference in Geneva provides an opportunity to agree on what is needed going forward  
1.300.   The General Council took note  of the statements . 
1.301.   Thereafter, t he Chair  said that u nless there was a delegation that wishe d to take the floor, 
he would  bring th e meeting to a close and to continue work in the respective work streams. He 
further noted that i n line with past practice, he would  report on Sunday , 12 June 2022,  to Ministers 
in his statement at the Opening Session of the Ministerial Conference – and would  formally transmit, 
at that point, the results of the work that ha d taken place in this intens e preparatory period for 
Ministerial consideration.  In this regard, he echoed the calls made by the Director -General and all 
Chairs and the Facilitator  – to narrow gaps and clean texts as much as they could . This would  ensure 
a manageable agenda and produc tive engagement for Ministers. This would  hopefully help Members  
arrive at the shared objective of a meaningful MC12. He called on Members  to do what it takes, as 
they had  no time to lose.  He noted that  Members'  engagement in the next few hours would be  
crucial.  
1.302.   The Chair also made announcements on some logistics and administrative matters. It had 
been brought to his attention that many participants accredited to MC12 had not  yet created a WTO 
online account. This was essential to participate in the Conference . He referred  delegations to the 
Information Note, in WT/MIN(22)/INF/2, and the relevant communications forwarded to their 
Delegation Coordinators.  On a different matter, he also recalled that  the General Council had 
confirmed the appointments of the Trade Ministers of Barbados, Uganda, and Australia as Vice Chairs 
for the 12th Ministerial Conference. In this connection, he drew Members'  attention that as a result 
of the recent change in Government, former Australi an Minister of Trade, The Honourable  Dan 
Tehan , had been succeeded by The Honourable  Don Farrell , who would  now serve as Vice Chair 
along with The Honourable Jerome Xavier Walcott , Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of 
Barbados; and The Honourab le Harriet Ntabazi , Minister of State for Trade of Uganda . Those three 
Ministers  would  be serving as Vice Chairs for MC12 , and looked forward to working with them.  In 
closing, t he Chair thanked  the Ministerial Conference Chair, the Director -General, the respective 
Chairs and the Facilitator on the WTO 's pandemic response , and all Members for their participation.  
 
_______________   WT/GC/M/199  
 
- 33 - 
 
   
ANNEX  
 
STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. TIMUR SULEIMENOV OF KAZAKHSTAN, THE CHAIR  
OF THE TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE  
I arrived a little early to participate in this General Council meeting to keep up with the developments 
here in Geneva and to find out the current state of play in the run -up to the Conference it self. 
 
In the course of this week, I plan to meet with the General Council Chair, Ambassador 
Didier  Chambovey and the Chairs of various negotiating groups on the issues to be discussed at the 
Ministerial Conference.  
 
I will be also working closely with the Director -General Dr. Ngozi and her dedicated team.  
 
Taking this opportunity, let me thank the Dire ctor-General, General Council Chair, and the Chairs 
and Facilitators of various negotiating sessions for their tireless efforts in advancing the discussions 
in all areas. I extend my gratitude to all delegations for their active and constructive engagement  
as well as for their commitment to the multilateral trading system.  
 
I hope that we can build convergence and collectively deliver meaningful results at MC12. I know 
that there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved including WTO's Response  to the 
Pandemic, Food Security and Agriculture, WTO reform, Fisheries Subsidies and the TRIPS waiver. 
Addressing  these issues is vital for ensuring the multilateral outcome at MC12. I hope that in the 
coming days we w ill be able to overcome the differences, demonstrate flexibility and agree on 
meaningful results on all of these issues.  
 
My doors are open for any bilateral consultations as well as meetings with the regional groups. You 
can count on my support and assist ance.  
 
I thank you and good luck to all of us.  
__________