RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/151  
 
30 June 2014  
(14-3753)  Page: 1/33  
General Council 
12 May 2014    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 12 MAY 2014 
Chairperson: Mr Jonathan Fried (Canada) 
In the course of the meeting, the Chairman and several delegations bade farewell to 
Ambassador Mario Matus (Chile), Ambassador Kwok Fook Seng (Singapore), Mr Michael Stone 
(Hong Kong, China) and Ambassador Faizel Ismail (South Africa), who were leaving their post at the WTO, and expressed appreciation for their valuable contribution during their time as 
Permanent Representatives. 
 
Subjects discussed:
1 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE .................... 2  
2   PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON TRAD E FACILITATION – REPORT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN ..................................................................................................................... 10 
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMI TTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ............. 13  
4   AID FOR TRADE WORK PROGRAMME 2014-2015 – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON  TRADE AND DE VELOPMENT .................................... 14  
5   TRADE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES OF  CERTAIN MEMBERS – COMMUNICATION 
FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION .................................................................................. 19  
6   TRADE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES BY RUSSIA – COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION ......................................................................................................... 20  
7   IMPROVING THE GUIDELINES FOR GRANTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS PERMANENT OBSERVER STATUS IN THE WTO – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 25
 
8   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION – REPORT ON MEETING OF AP RIL 2014 ............................................................................................... 26
 
9   DATE AND VENUE OF THE TENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN ............................................................. 27  
10   WORK PROGRAMME ON E-COMMERCE – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN ................ 27  
11   ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMBERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 27  
ANNEX I – STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS AT THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE ON 7 APRIL 2014........................................................................................ 29
 
ANNEX II – STATEMENT BY DOMINICA N REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE 
INFORMAL GROUP OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON IMPROVING THE 
GUIDELINES FOR GRANTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS PERMANENT OBSERVER STATUS IN THE WTO ................................................................ 33
 
                                               
1 The Proposed Agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/681. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Before proceding to Agenda Item 1, the Chairman recalled that, at the General Council meeting in 
February, when he had taken over the Chairmanship, he had highlighted that the General Council, 
as the body that was entrusted with overseeing the work of WTO bodies, needed to ensure that 
there was full implementation for the matters that  Ministers had decided in Bali, and that they 
were given appropriate priority in the ongoing work of the various Councils and Committees.  At 
that meeting, he had also announced that he would be meeting with Chairpersons of regular bodies to facilitate a common, institution-wide vi ew of a strategic direction for the Organization – 
and also to collectively set a General Council agenda that kept them focused at the strategic level.   
 He informed the Council that he had met with the Chairpersons of regular bodies on 8 April, to review their collective agenda for 2014, taking in to account the necessary follow-up to the Bali 
Ministerial Decisions, and the ongoing work on th e agenda of their respective bodies. He noted 
that they had had a very productive discussion, and that, concerning the implementation of the Bali mandates, work was ongoing in all areas.  He would continue to remain in very close contact 
with the Director-General and with all the Chairs  o f  r e l e v a n t  W T O  b o d i e s  t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  w o r k  
proceeded in a coherent manner in all areas of the Bali outcomes.   
He had also been consulting with the Group Coordinators on some broader concepts which were 
relevant to the work of the General Council – in particular on how they could make the General Council's meetings more engaged and how they could provide a real added value to Members' deliberations. This was an ongoing discussion and he said he would welcome any views delegations 
might have. 
 1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTI ATIONS COMMITTEE 
1.1.  The Chairman invited the Director-General, as  Chairman of the TNC, to report on the TNC's 
activities since his last report to the Council. 
1.2.  The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC, said2 that since the General Council meeting in 
March, the TNC had held its 34th formal meeting on 7 April.  At that meeting, Members had the 
opportunity to hear directly from all the Negotiating Chairpersons about the consultations that they had been conducting and their plans for work in the weeks ahead. All Members had had the 
opportunity to express their views and concerns on  the way forward. He thought they had a very 
useful exchange of views. His statement had been made available to delegations in document 
JOB/TNC/38 and the full record of the meeting was in document TN/C/M/34.  
1.3.  He recalled from that meeting that he ha d suggested Members took their work into a new 
phase, focused on resolving the problems that th ey had been outlining, testing what had gone 
wrong and putting forward potential solutions. He had asked the Chairpersons to further broaden their contacts with Members and to conduct increa singly focused conversations. He had also asked 
them to be prepared, talk to each other, be creative, share ideas and – most of all – be open and 
honest with each other. He then gave a brief update on developments in that new phase since the TNC meeting in April. 
1.4.  He had continued his consultations and ha d been listening to Members and talking to the 
Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups. Over the previous month, he had visited a number of 
countries, including Kenya and Uganda in their crucial roles as coordinators of the ACP and LDC Groups, respectively. He had attended a meeting of the OECD in Paris the previous week, where 
he had also taken part in an informal ministerial gathering convened by the Australian 
government.  
1.5.  In all of those forums, he had been pleased with the response of Members. The messages he 
heard continued to be positive. Members remained focused on their two priorities of: implementing 
the Bali package; and meeting the December deadline for preparing a work programme to 
conclude the DDA. 
1.6.  On the first point, he had been pleased to hear the reports of progress coming from the 
Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation – includ ing the recent completion of the legal review. 
Ambassador Conejos would be reporting on that under Item 2 of the agenda. Members could focus more fully on the draft Protocol and the ongoing need to help developing countries meet their 
                                               
2 The Director-General's statement was subsequently circulated in JOB/GC/68. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 3 - 
 
  implementation objectives. He had been reinforcing the need for donors and international 
agencies, including the World Bank and UNCTAD, to give priority to that important work. 
1.7.  Members also needed to remain focused on  the timely and full implementation of the other 
nine Decisions of the Bali Package on Agricultur e, Development and LDC Issues. He trusted that 
the Members that were more directly concerned would be pursuing those issues in the relevant 
subsidiary bodies or even in the General Council. 
1.8.  On the work programme, he welcomed the positive commitment he had been hearing to 
further progress. Members remained committed to  the parameters that had helped framed 
discussions, particularly: (i) keeping development at the heart of their efforts; (ii) focusing on what was doable; (iii) and being open-minded. 
1.9.  There was broad recognition that the core i ssues of Agriculture, NAMA and Services needed 
to be addressed promptly and that they needed to be tackled in an integrated manner. Members 
all knew that the Round was broader than those three areas alone, but he believed they would 
have to make progress there, and quickly, if there was to be any chance of advancing elsewhere.   
1.10.  In Agriculture, the Chairman of the Spec ial Session had been continuing his consultations 
with a range of Members, including group coordinators. Those consultations had shown a general willingness to work constructively. A start had been made on identifying key concerns, but there 
was a pressing need to intensify and deepen engagement among delegations and move to 
consideration of possible approaches to deal with contested areas.  
1.11.  While respecting different views on the st atus of existing drafts, the Chairman had urged 
delegations to proceed without prejudice, so that they could at least explore different perspectives 
on those issues to see where that led them. Ot herwise, progress would be extremely difficult. 
1.12.  On NAMA, the Chairman had held a number of meetings with Members and group 
coordinators since the last TNC, and intended to pursue those consultations. The objective of the 
consultations had been to delve more deeply into  the question he had raised which had been " how 
and under what circumstances could each Member contribute to a meaningful NAMA result taking into consideration past experience, present realities and possible instruments at hand ." 
1.13.  On Services, the Chairman of the Special Session had continued his consultations among 
delegations. Overall, the signals he had received  from Members remained the same: (i) willingness 
to engage; (ii) ambition commensurate with other market access pillars; (iii) balance within the various services topics; and (iv) the importance of the development dimension. There was a 
pressing need to accelerate the process of moving from principles to specific elements of the work 
programme. He would continue his efforts in that direction. 
1.14.  Rules had been the one area at the TNC in April which had not held an open-ended meeting. 
While capital-based officials had been in Geneva du ring Rules week in late April, the Chairman had 
taken the opportunity to hold a second round of consultations with Members and groups of Members regarding the way forward. An informal open-ended meeting would take place on 16 
May, where the Chairman would report on those consultations and allow delegations an 
opportunity to share their views, should they wish to do so. 
1.15.  In the other areas, the Chairpersons were either in the process of consulting or remained at 
the disposal of delegations to pursue further and more focused consultations. 
1.16.  A regular feature of his conversations, and those of the Chairpersons, had been how to build 
on the work done until that time, particularly as it was captured in the 2008 texts. While Members could not agree on those texts in the past, and while it was clear that they could not agree on 
them at that moment, he believed Members did agree that they provided important guidance on 
how to move forward. 
1.17.  However, it was still unclear in his view how far those texts could help them in building the 
bridges to close some critical gaps in terms of level of ambition and negotiating architecture in 
areas where convergence had continuously eluded them. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.18.  On the positive side, Members could not expect to be much further than where they were at 
that time. Those uncertainties were natural and they would see the path ahead more clearly as 
they deepened their dialogue and got into a more focused and detailed conversation about substance. 
1.19.  Members had learned a lot with the past stalemates and had to use that experience. He had 
personally been involved in those negotiations since 2001. He did not want to see all that work go to waste. 
1.20.  This was, and would remain, a bottom-up process. Members were talking among 
themselves, to the Chairpersons, to him, and many ideas were being floated. But they were what they were: just ideas. He assured Members ther e were no pre-cooked outcomes or approaches 
being prepared. Members should be completely  open-minded to any approach that showed 
promise. He hoped that that would be the case in the second phase of their conversations – and 
he would be there to facilitate their dialogue whenever necessary. 
1.21.  He thought everyone should accept that that was not the round to end all rounds. It was not 
an isolated, self-contained or definitive task – rather it was part of a process.  It was just a step in 
the continuous process of trade liberalization. He urged Members to take a step that was commensurate with the size of their legs. 
1.22.  Bali was successful because Members were re alistic. They should be in a position to make 
some progress in most – or all – areas of the DDA negotiations. He urged them to put everything on the table and see how far they could go in each area of the negotiations, but what was essential was that they kept making progress, ev en if it was not perfect. He urged Members to 
focus on what was doable. They could not stop there. They had to take the opportunity and use 
the momentum that Bali had given them. Nothing he had seen or heard until that point suggested that they could not do it, but they would need to redouble their efforts. They needed to engage in 
a deeper way, and they currently needed to do it. 
1.23.  He called on Members to be prepared to have some tough conversations. He would be there 
to push them and ask some difficult questions, such as: in 2008 Members had said they were 
prepared to do that or they needed that: was that  still the case? What were they prepared to put 
on the table to enable the trade-off? Or, if they wanted a high level of ambition in Agriculture, were they ready to give ground in NAMA and Services? And vice-versa. They had to answer those questions. 
1.24.  In a month or two, after having those discussions, that was when Members would know 
whether they were back in 2008, or whether that was something which showed promise and could happen. His intention was that by the summer break they would have had some very serious 
conversations along those lines.   
1.25.  He would be travelling to important meetings outside Geneva, including APEC in China and a 
meeting of multilateral agencies in Berlin. But when he would get back, delegations would all need 
to be prepared for a busy June and July. He would be in Geneva for most of that period, so they 
would be seeing him constantly and he would be inviting them – individually or in groups – for some difficult and frank conversations. He said they should get ready and that it was time to start putting their work programme together. He would convene a meeting of the TNC upon his return 
to Geneva. They would be able to have  a deeper conversation at that time. 
1.26.  The Chairman recalled that a formal TNC m eeting had been held on 7 April. The record of 
that meeting reflecting all the statements made had been circulated in TN/C/M/34. 
1.27.  All delegations which spoke thanked th e Director-General, Chairman of the Trade 
Negotiations Committee, for his report and for his tireless efforts. 
1.28.  The representative of Dominican Republic, on  behalf of the IGDC, said that the delegations 
of Chile; Hong Kong, China; Mexico; El Salvad or; Singapore and Colombia were still awaiting 
instructions from their capitals to join the statement.  WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.29.  Within the Informal Group of Developi ng Countries, the issue of the post-Bali work 
programme had been discussed, and some important points had emerged. IGDC Members had always had an open and constructive attitude and would continue to engage in the discussions with the same approach. As the Director-General  had mentioned in February, Members needed to 
remain consistent with the mandate of the Doha Round when delineating the parameters guiding 
their work. Therefore, development should remain central in the entire process.  
1.30.  As the Director-General had also said, " there must be tangible results for the poorest in the 
system " making it essential to reach tangible results in Agriculture, a sector that represented more 
than 60% of IGDC economies and on which much of their population depended. The level of ambition of the results achieved in Agriculture should determine the level of ambition in all other areas of negotiation. Due to the historical neglect of Agriculture in the GATT, levels of liberalization 
in NAMA and even Services were higher. Agriculture was clearly lagging far behind the other two 
areas, and reform was urgent in order to balance the high levels of trade distorting subsidies granted by some developed countries. 
1.31.  He said that, in developing a post-Bali work programme, all flexibilities that had been 
achieved in the current texts in favour of the developing countries should be preserved. Members should adhere to the single undertaking principle and ensure that all areas of the negotiations had 
an outcome consistent with the mandate. Despite changes in the world economy since the Doha 
Ministerial Conference in 2001, they could not sign ificantly depart from the architecture of the 
Round as had been agreed, since many vital issues to the interest of developing countries remained unresolved. 
1.32.  Bali had been a success and several econ omies had shown in the past months important 
signs of recovery since the big crisis of 2008. Members should take advantage of those developments to focus on multilateral negotiations to conclude the DDA. Developing countries 
would be open and constructive, but the process should be focused on achieving concrete results 
in Agriculture and other topics of interest to the developing countries to ensure that they, and especially the least-developed countries, could part icipate more fully in the growth of world trade 
in accordance with the level of their economic development. He reiterated the need for a 
transparent, inclusive and bottom-up approach to ensure success in the process.  
1.33.  The representative of Guatemala, on behalf of the SVEs, said that SVEs were firmly 
committed to discuss and work constructively on the post-Bali work programme that could lead 
them to the conclusion of the Doha Round Negotiations.  
1.34.  During the previous weeks, the SVEs had participated in the different Chairpersons' 
consultations where they had conveyed their support  to the work of each of the Chairpersons and 
had reiterated their interests and concerns. They had highlighted their particular and special 
economic situation which needed to be taken into account and reflected in any outcome of the negotiations.  
1.35.  He noted that the participation of the SVEs in global trade was negligible, which drove them 
to highly expect for improved market access an d better economic integration and justified their 
need for adequate special and differential treatment. The SVEs urgently needed new development opportunities in line with the Doha mandate sinc e their economies had severely suffered from the 
global financial crisis and natural disasters. Therefore, any outcome of the DDA negotiations 
should foresee the necessary flexibilities and policy space for the SVEs, particularly special and differential treatment. The flexibilities stabilized in the draft modalities texts in Agriculture and 
NAMA addressed their main concerns in those ar eas. While they acknowledged the status of the 
draft modalities texts and recognized that there we re issues to be resolved, the flexibilities for 
SVEs in the texts should be preserved. 
1.36.  In Services, any future negotiating proc ess should be guided by the GATS principles. 
Flexibilities should be given to developing countries, particularly to SVEs considering their trade-related concerns, size of economies, participation in global trade and developmental needs. 
1.37.  Majority of the SVEs' constituencies had been directly affected by the depletion of ocean 
resources due to over-fishing and over-capacity. Thus, the SVEs supported disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies. However, those disciplines should include effective and adequate special and differential WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 6 - 
 
  treatment as fishing remained a vital and primary source of income for some SVEs, not least the 
Members of the Pacific. The proposal contained in TN/RL/GEN/162/Rev.1 attempted to reflect their interests for effective special and differential treatment while maintaining the goal of minimum 
contribution to world fisheries catch, and remained on the table. 
1.38.  The SVEs remained fully committed to the Organization and would continue to support any 
initiative to move the negotiations forward. Th ey were confident that negotiations would be 
transparent, inclusive and undertaken on the basi s of a bottom-up approach, which had proven to 
be essential in delivering an outcome in Bali. 
1.39.  The representative of the Plurinational St ate of Bolivia supported the statement made by 
the Dominican Republic on behalf of the IGDC an d by Guatemala on behalf of the SVEs. He said 
that the Ministerial Conference in Bali had offered unbalanced results for the majority of 
developing countries and that this should not be repeated in the future work of the Organization.  
1.40.  He understood that efforts in the Organization were currently focused on future work in 
conformity with the Bali Ministerial Declaration. He recalled that in the Bali Declaration, it was 
established that the work program would be based " on the decisions taken at this Ministerial 
Conference, particularly on agriculture, development and LDC issues, as well as all other issues under the Doha mandate that are central to concluding the Round. Issues in the Bali Package 
where legally binding outcomes could not be achieved will be prioritized ." Therefore, he said that 
export competition, food security and LDC issues should be treated as a priority.  
1.41.  Agriculture played a central role. The reforms in Agriculture had been one of the most 
important reasons for the launching of the Doha Round as they were vital for the economies of 
most Members of the Organization, a significant proportion of whose populations lived in rural 
areas. Without those reforms, Members would not be currently talking about the Doha Round and other related issues. However, the current rule s of the Organization only accommodated the 
interests of certain Members which, after decade s of policies and practices that had seriously 
distorted trade in Agriculture, currently wanted to make them believe that those who were distorting the agricultural market were developing countries. 
1.42.  He stressed that the draft Agriculture moda lities text in Rev.4 was a reference point that 
represented the Members' collective efforts to find solutions to the distortions caused by agricultural subsidies after a lengthy period of ne gotiations that had begun 19 years before during 
the Uruguay Round. The text could not be ignored just because some Members were not satisfied 
with its content, since it reflected the sensitivities of most Members. His delegation hoped that the 
forthcoming discussions to draw up a work program would have a strong development-oriented component and would be done in a transparent, balanced, inclusive and bottom-up process.  
1.43.   The problem did not lie on the world ch anging constantly. Rather, Members had not found 
solutions to issues that had been persisting for decades, including the unfair trading practices such as export subsidies, domestic support, and other fo rms of distortion of trade in Agriculture. By 
failing to act, the international community was merely encouraging developed countries who 
applied those subsidies to continue pursuing those unfair practices to the clear detriment of most developing countries, whose economies had a strong agricultural component. 
1.44.  Bolivia did not support new early harvests – small packages of results such as the Bali 
Package, where only some benefitted and gave nothing in return, thus diluting the single 
undertaking. If they continued down that road, for each new declaration of intention in agriculture, 
developing countries would have to pay with lega lly binding agreements which promoted corporate 
interests without tangible benefits for the economies of their countries. That was not the way 
forward if Members wanted to close the Doha  Round. The single undertaking was the only 
guarantee for developing countries to ensure that their interests were given the appropriate 
attention. 
1.45.  The representative of Lesotho, on behalf of the African Group, said that the development 
paradigm needed to be the first parameter that informed discourse and exchanges amongst 
Members. Development should not be relegated to being a residual consideration in their bid to 
move beyond the impasse of the negotiations. Members should ask themselves on how they 
contributed to the development dimension of negotiations and the question should not be left to WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 7 - 
 
  some arbitrary determination at the tail-end of the negotiation process, but should be accounted 
for at every step. The Group strongly believed that  the parameter should be added to the menu of 
questions that had been posed to Members since the consultation process had started. 
1.46.  The Group considered transparency as an in dispensable parameter in building confidence in 
the very delicate negotiations process. It trusted in the ability of the Director-General and the 
Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies to ensure that Members would be fully briefed on the outcomes or issues arising at every level of co nsultation. Transparency would ensure that the 
decision-making exercise was not the abode of only a subset of Members with the rest expected to 
plug into the outcomes. Transparency and the oppo rtunity arising from it would enable Members to 
provide inputs rendering the negotiation proce ss truly inclusive. The Group urged Members to 
continue to faithfully exercise transparency in the second phase of negotiations. 
1.47.  The representative of Barbados aligned her delegation with the statement made by the 
coordinators of the SVEs and the IGDC. Barbados  acknowledged the work that had been done 
under the able guidance of the Chairman of th e Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation as 
Ministers had prescribed. 
1.48.  She said that progress in the Agriculture negotiations should be the basis of determining the 
level of ambition in the other market access pillars of NAMA and Services. If Members were to 
remain true to the mandate, special consideration should be given to trade-related concerns of 
developing countries; particularly the SVEs and LDCs. Recognition should also be given to the flexibilities gained by SVEs and LDCs from negotiations. Barbados remained open to constructive engagement in developing a post-Bali work program which supported the developmental needs of 
developing countries, in particular those most vulnerable amongst them. Ensuring the 
development dimension to be paramount and app lied across all negotiating issues would be the 
key for the successful completion of the DDA. 
1.49.  She also drew attention to a Seminar and Round Table being held on 20 June to mark the 
United Nations designation of the year 2014 as  the International Year of the Small Island 
Developing States (SIDS). She said that Me mbers would be treated to very interesting 
presentations and were encouraged to attend. 
1.50.  The representative of Jordan, on behalf of the Arab Group, reiterated the Group's positions: 
(i) the approach should be balanced across and among the three pillars of negotiations: 
Agriculture, NAMA, and Services; (ii) the single undertaking was still relevant as the only principle 
that could ensure the right balance among the outcomes of the Doha Round as had been 
confirmed by Paragraph 47 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration; (iii) respecting and acknowledging the work that had been accomplished since the beginning of the Doha Round should be given 
importance; (iv) the importance of full participation, inclusiveness, and transparency should 
always be respected throughout the process; (v ) no new issues should be added to the WTO 
Mandate before concluding the Doha Round; (vi) agriculture held a central role to a successful 
DDA. The draft Agriculture Modalities Text Rev. 4 and the draft NAMA Modalities Text Rev.3 should 
be the basis for the future work. Any further discussion on them should be focused on the outstanding issue defined in the Chair's report in April 2011. He said that the Arab Group stood ready, as it had always done, to constructively engage in the continuous negotiations and the 
future work program towards a successful and balanced conclusion of the Doha Round. 
1.51.  The representative of the United States said  that, although delegations kept on saying that 
they needed to finally engage in a new conversa tion and to move the discussion forward, there 
was nothing new in the interventions. At some point, delegations had to start engaging.  
1.52.  It had been acknowledged and agreed that market distorting agriculture subsidies were bad 
and that the world had changed. However, he said, one of the ways that the world had changed 
was in who was giving those subsidies. There were already some developing countries subsidizing 
their agriculture sector. He stressed that he had been asking for four months for someone to explain to him why it was that if a developing country subsidized, it did not distort markets. However, if Members established new disciplines that did not address developing countries' 
subsidies would that make developing countries that did not subsidize better off? Would they not 
just be switching one set of subsidies for another? How did that make the global agricultural markets any better? He did not have a response to that or an explanation. His delegation had also WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 8 - 
 
  been asking for data on who was subsidizing at present. For four months, he had heard radio-
silence on that issue. 
1.53.  The United States was ready to engage in and would welcome a real conversation. It should 
be done in an open and honest way where all the facts would be laid on the table. He urged his 
colleagues in whatever configuration was useful to start answering those questions and engaging 
in a real discussion that reflected the reality of the world in 2014. The US looked forward to being part of that conversation. 
1.54.  The representative of Cuba supported the st atements made by the coordinators of the IGDC 
and the SVEs. She said that, while the representative of the United States had been awaiting a 
reply to questions that had been raised in th e context of the negotiations, in the case of 
developing countries they had been waiting for more than 12 years for a positive response and for 
attention to be given to their needs and priorities. Any concrete response had yet to be received. 
Everything was diluted in promises, in commitments to participate openly and to find pragmatic and plausible approaches. However, in practice, nothing had been achieved. She urged the 
delegation that raised the point to also respond to the 12 years of failure in providing attention to 
the needs of the majority of the Members of the Organization. 
1.55.  The representative of the European Unio n said that, although delegations were at a 
relatively early stage in their collective reflecti ons, certain issues were already becoming clearer 
and the questions on the table were in a way that  should be an inspiration to engage and move 
forward. Delegations had gathered a wealth of experience and understanding about each other's positions. They had an implicit understanding ab out what each one of them could and could not 
do. They knew the failures of the previous attemp ts to reach consensus. As the Director-General 
had said, their efforts should be focused on being realistic and on what was doable.  
1.56.  Delegations also needed to factor the most recent developments in the global trade which 
should be approached realistically. He would not repeat the points raised by the Director-General 
in relation to the existing texts, to the need of balance of contributions and to the parallelism 
among Agriculture, NAMA, and Services. The pote ntial outcome on those three areas should set 
the tone for the other DDA issues such as the Non-Tariff Barriers, Geographical Indications, and 
industrial subsidies, among others, which were particularly problematic in the current trading environment. Addressing also broad Rules issues constituted the future of the WTO in a world in 
which tariffs would play a smaller role.  
1.57.  Delegations needed to collectively keep development at the heart of the DDA. They should 
attempt to simplify the approach in many respects particularly on core issues. But this should not, under any circumstances, be construed in a way that would put any aspect of the development 
objectives of the Round at risk. Appropriate flexibilities needed to remain in place in order to allow 
developing countries – particularly the LDCs – to properly respond to their individual development requirements.  
1.58.  Only timely and effective implementation as  mandated by the Ministers at Bali would create 
the right environment to build a work program op ening the door to achieving the long standing 
objective of resolving the DDA, an opportunity that should not be missed.  
1.59.  He welcomed the fact that the process was entering into a new phase. Bali had created a 
previously non-existent space of credibility and the momentum among Members on moving 
forward. Those were precious assets that needed to be preserved and developed. Each Member of the Organization had special responsibilities in  that regard. The European Union supported the 
Director-General's indications for the coming months and would certainly support and encourage 
him to play a similarly proactive and constructive role as he had done in moving WTO Members towards success in Bali. 
1.60.  The representative of China said that de legations had entered into the second phase in 
drafting the post-Bali work program. Their common efforts were creating general momentum. The 
interactive discussions were getting more substantive in various negotiating bodies. Ministers were engaging actively in the process, as they had met in Paris the previous week, and would continue 
the discussion at the APEC Ministerial Meeting in Qingdao, China.   WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.61.  To better advance their discussion in the second phase, delegations had to put things in 
perspective and strike a right balance. They should look at challenges and difficulties squarely, while fully capitalizing the positive momentum that they had built. They should show not only what 
they wanted, but also what they could offer an d contribute by declaring their red lines while 
understanding and respecting those of others. 
1.62.  The post-Bali work program was an integral  part of the DDA. China believed that through 
substantive discussion, delegations could build up mutual trust among themselves. The spirit of a 
bottom-up, Member-driven, inclusive and transparent process should be preserved throughout the 
negotiations. Only by so doing, delegations would be able to lay a sound foundation for drafting the work program, paving the way for the final conclusion of the DDA in the nearest future. 
1.63.  He noted that there had been some talks about changes in the world since 2008. However, 
from a development perspective, many key concer ns of developing Members remained unresolved. 
As impaired by the global financial crisis, some developing Members’ situation was getting even worse. In this sense, the 2008 text was not only a reflection of history, but also of the current 
reality. The DDA development objective and negotiation mandate should in no case be changed. 
The principles of special and differential treatment and less-than-full-reciprocity, as well as the consensus of addressing the overall trade distorti ng subsidies and tariff peaks and escalations, 
among others, that were recorded in the result achieved in 2008 should be strictly preserved.  
1.64.  As the biggest developing trade nation, China was willing to make its own contribution 
reflecting its own real situation. It committed to constructively work with all the Members to draw a detailed and balanced work program by the end of the year. China was ready to move in the 
same direction where Members collectively decided to either keep or lower the ambition as 
reflected by the results of 2008. However, any proposal that required a few Members to contribute beyond the benchmark while allowing some major players to do less, would only lead the 
negotiations nowhere.  
1.65.  After years of negotiations, delegations knew  each other's' red lines well. For example, in 
the case of domestic support in Agriculture, China had made contributions on the basis of the 
Uruguay Round, resulting in no AMS, no Development Box and a de minimis  of 8.5%, lower than 
other developing Members. China’s domestic supports were mainly targeted to the subsistence and small-scaled agriculture production mainly on staple food for food security purposes of 1.37 billion 
people. It was understandable that the de minimis  of 8.5% was China's red line. Likewise, for 
NAMA, there should be no change to the voluntary nature of Sectorals. 
1.66.  Delegations should have a sense of urgency and ask senior officials from capitals to engage 
in the negotiations as early as possible. China would join others in intensifying discussions in the 
second phase to draw up the work program by the end of the year.  
1.67.  The Chairman of the TNC re-emphasized that there would be another TNC meeting where 
they would be talking about the issues pr eviously discussed in the interventions. 
1.68.  The representative of El Salvador understood that there were important consultations still 
under way with the Chairs and among the variou s Members which would assist them in having 
absolute clarity on the way forward. It was import ant to understand everything that had been said 
between the lines that Members could read from the Director-General's report. 
1.69.  The representative of Pakistan said that the progress of the Preparatory Committee on 
Trade Facilitation was encouraging. Legal scrubbing was completed efficiently and likely to be 
formally adopted very soon. It was a transparen t and Member-led process. Members should take 
further steps, including the preparation of a Protocol, in the same manner and spirit. He was 
optimistic that in the summer session of the Ge neral Council, Members would complete the entire 
work and after a long time, respect the timelines mandated by their Ministers.  
1.70.  On the remaining DDA issues, Members were engaged to identify areas of convergence and 
to indicate their preferences for future areas of negotiations. Notwithstanding the different assessments of the current global realities and concerns, it had been recognized that the WTO 
should remain credible and ensure that advancement in the Multilateral Trading System was 
beneficial for all. There was definitely an understanding that Agriculture and Development would WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 10 - 
 
  remain the central pillars for their endeavour in 2014. Other market access areas like Industrial 
Goods and Services could be built around those core issues. Gradually, Members would develop a common understanding to know what would be doable in the short, medium, and long terms. 
1.71.  The representative of Ecuador echoed the need to preserve flexibilities and special and 
differential treatment for small and vulnerable economies. 1.72.  The General Council took note of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
2  PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATION – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN 
2.1.   The Chairman recalled that, in their De cision on the Agreement on Trade Facilitation 
(WT/L/911–WT/MIN(13)/36), Ministers had conclude d the negotiations of the Agreement, subject 
to legal review for rectifications of a purely form al character that did not affect the substance of 
the Agreement.  
2.2.   Ministers had established a Preparator y Committee under the General Council, mandated 
with very specific tasks – to conduct the legal revi ew of the Agreement, to receive notifications of 
Category A commitments, and to draw up a Prot ocol of Amendment in order to insert the 
Agreement into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement. Work was underway in the Preparatory 
Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Esteban Conejos (Philippines). 
2.3.  Ministers had also directed the General Council to meet no later than 31 July 2014 to annex 
to the Agreement notifications of Category A commitments, to adopt the Protocol drawn up by the 
Preparatory Committee, and to open the Protocol for acceptance until 31 July 2015. 
2.4.  He recalled that, at the General Council meeting in March, Mr Conejos had reported on the 
activities of the Preparatory Committee and invited Mr Conejos to provide an update on the 
progress in this area. 
2.5.  Mr Conejos (Philippines), Chairman of the Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation, said 
that since his last report to the Council, Members had continued their work on the tasks assigned 
to the Preparatory Committee in line with the work programme adopted in March. Following the 
decision to opt for a sequential approach, efforts had focused on the legal review. Delegations had presented a great number of contributions which had formed the basis for the scrub. Inputs had 
been received from a wide range of Members, and he had been very pleased to see them originate 
not only from the traditionally very active delegations, but also from the less frequent participants extending even to the non-residents. The swift, focused manner in which those proposals had been 
addressed had been another piece of good news and a testimony to Members’ commitment. He 
had been heartened to see everyone display a co nstructive approach, which had done much to 
advance the process.  
2.6.  As a result, Members had not only been able to advance the review, but in fact to conclude it 
as far as the English version of the text was concerned. They had achieved this within their given 
deadline, proving that it was still possible to do work in a timely fashion in the WTO. 
2.7.  The English text had been circulated the pr evious week giving Members time to verify the 
accuracy of the account of their agreement. Ensu ring proper translations into the other two WTO 
languages was the next step. Once the drafts in Spanish and French were ready, any potential language problem would be addressed so that the Agreement could be fully accurate in the three 
official languages. When that was done, he woul d invite Members to a brief Preparatory Committee 
meeting to formally adopt the text. While a specific date had yet to be set, he hoped that this 
could ideally be done before the next regular session of the Preparatory Committee, which was scheduled to take place from 26-28 May. 
2.8.  The session would see Members move to the next task on their agenda: the preparation of an 
amendment protocol. Their principles of operation would remain the same: proceeding on a Member-driven basis and in an inclusive and transparent manner. The Committee would further 
have the benefit of participation of experts from ACP and LDC capitals, which would be of 
considerable value for moving things forward.   WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.9.  Joint efforts, full dedication and a focused, constructive environment would be key for 
completing their remaining work. Members would achieve their goals if they continued to invest their minds in the outstanding tasks. The timely conclusion of the legal review and first advances on the notification front (where Hong Kong, China had started the process of notifying category A 
commitments) showed that this was doable. 
2.10.  All delegations which spoke thanked the Ch airman of the Trade Facilitation Preparatory 
Committee for his report and for his efforts and those of the Preparatory Committee in concluding 
the legal review of the English text of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). 
2.11.  The representative of Mexico welcomed the update that the Preparatory Committee would 
be able to adopt, by the end of the month, the te xt of the TFA in the three WTO languages. Mexico 
found it important to have the TFA in Spanish since that would be the version that the Mexican 
Congress would use to ratify it. His delegation was very confident that the process would continue 
to be equally efficient and that the parties would show the same cooperation in the preparation and adoption of the Protocol of Amendment within the dates indicated by Ministers.  
2.12.  Mexico hoped and believed that Members would be successful in the area of notifications of 
the Category A commitments. He announced that Mexico would be notifying the Preparatory Committee that same day all the provisions of Section I of the Agreement under Category A. 
2.13.  The representative of Korea said that a ttention should be focused on the remaining two 
issues: to receive notifications of Category A commitments and to establish a Protocol of 
Amendment as instructed in the Bali Decision. Korea had decided to notify in writing all provisions contained in Articles 1 to 12 of the TFA under Ca tegory A, possibly before the end of the month, 
thereby contributing to facilitate the implementati on of the TFA. He encouraged other developing 
Members to demonstrate the same or similar level of commitments when notifying their provisions under Category A in a timely manner and welcomed the update that donors were taking steps to 
support developing Members in need of implementing the TFA. 
2.14.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia said that the conclusion of the legal 
review of the TFA confirmed that the Members' vessel was ready to navigate. They could not afford 
wasting their time discovering their trajectory by intuition or trial and error, or panicking facing 
stormy weather. They had to act as a visionary captain who had the vessel's ultimate command sure to identify and follow the right and safe navi gation tools and responsible for the efficiency of 
operations and the security of all passengers to ensure a sound journey to the right shore. 
2.15.  The representative of Chinese Taipei, on beha lf of the RAMs Group, said that the impressive 
level of engagement and hard work in the area of Trade Facilitation had shown very positive 
momentum that Members could and should build upon to further deliver on other instructions 
given by Ministers in Bali. 
2.16.  The representative of Qatar said that his delegation had been following up the 
developments within the Preparatory Committee and commended the inclusive method by which 
its work had been progressing and which had been te stament to the multilateral spirit of the WTO. 
Listening to statements made under the previous ag enda item, Qatar found it difficult to be very 
optimistic. However, progressing towards the implementation of the TFA would create the right environment where Members could move forward.  
2.17.  He said that his country recognized that the time for the implementation of the TFA was 
nearing. His delegation had been approaching readiness to implement the majority of its 
provisions among which had been the implementa tion of a customs clearance single window 
programme since 2008. This had gradually grown in  functionality to cover 90% of registered 
importers and exporters, reduced customs clearance to 15 minutes and currently included a risk management component while having replaced all paper-based trade processes. His delegation 
stood ready to undergo any appropriate adjustments for the implementation of the TFA. 
2.18.  The representative of the Plurinational Stat e of Bolivia referred to the issue of the deadline 
for receiving comments to the English text, which had been circulated on 9 May. Comments had 
been required by 12 May. Bolivia considered that  the deadline should be extended by at least 
three more days, up to 15 May, to enable delegations – particularly the smaller ones – to have the WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 12 - 
 
  opportunity of reviewing the changes made to the legal text in the appropriate fashion. A similar 
consideration should also be applied to the Spanish version when it would be circulated. The work in the Preparatory Committee had been led in a very good and transparent way. Delegations 
needed to continue to proceed in the same manner,  but with realistic and appropriate deadlines so 
that they could carry out their work. 
2.19.  The Chairman of the Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation said that the deadline for 
submission of comments on the English text had been extended to close-of-business on 14 May – 
amounting to a three-day extension. 
2.20.  The representative of Japan expressed appreciation to Hong Kong, China; Korea and Mexico 
for the decisions they had recently announced and hoped that other Members would be following 
in their footsteps. Japan was ready to provide the necessary support to strengthen the capacity of 
developing Members to ensure that the Agreem ent was implemented. As many Ministers had 
stressed in Paris and as reiterated by the Europe an Union, if Members did not carry out the work 
set out in the decisions in Bali, they could not ho pe to establish the post-Bali work program. Work 
needed to be completed as foreseen, and with the same constructive spirit. 
2.21.  The representative of Uganda, on behalf of the LDC Group, said that the Group had engaged 
constructively and had made meaningful contributi ons to the process of the legal review, showing 
their eagerness towards the implementation of the Agreement. The Group looked forward to 
actively engaging in the second phase of the pr ocess and expected adequate technical, financial 
and capacity building assistance on a sustainable basis to effectively implement the Agreement.  
2.22.  However, the question of funding was not ye t clear in terms of where the funds were and on 
what conditions they would be disbursed – whether as grants or loans. The lack of clarity on the 
conditions of access to funding was of great concern as it suggested that it might be based on the usual conditions for ODA funding. In this case, the Agreement would have to be prioritized over 
other national development priorities eligible for donor-funding, making TFA a de facto  national 
priority of Members. Hence, the need for clarity and transparency on the availability of funding – 
how it would be availed and any conditions that could be attached. The LDC Group had requested 
the Director-General, as a confidence-building meas ure, to facilitate a dedicated discussion on the 
matter soon and hoped to meet the support of other Members. It urged Members to extend the same kind of assistance and support for capacity -building to acceding Members. They would not 
afford to implement the Agreement upon its entr y into force without reasonable implementation 
capacity. They should also benefit from the various flexibilities enshrined in Section II of the TFA. 
2.23.  The representative of Lesotho, on behalf of the African Group, had noted the extension of 
the deadline for rectifications to 14 May. There was no doubt that Members were en-route to 
fulfilling the Bali Decision on Trade Facilitation. The African Group would play a constructive role in 
Members' efforts to pursue the Bali Decision to its logical conclusion. 
2.24.  While recognizing that the terms of reference of the Preparatory Committee were limited to 
the prescriptions by the Bali Decision, it was the understanding of the African Group that Trade 
Facilitation, as one of the items on the DDA, still fell under the remit of the TNC. It was with this 
understanding that the African Group had requested for dedicated discussions aimed at bringing about clarity on the question of funding for the im plementation of the TFA to be facilitated under 
the patronage of the Chairman of the TNC. As it  had cautioned in various fora, the quality of 
notifications by developing countries would depend  on the availability of funding. The systemic 
nature of the issue should not be downplayed.  
2.25.  The ultimate annexation of the TFA into the Marrakesh Agreement should not lead to 
barring acceding African Countries and other deve loping countries from joining the WTO. If all 
Members had recognized that it would take external assistance for developing countries to 
implement the TFA, it should not be expected that acceding developing countries would do it on 
their own. The African Group considered it important that acceding countries be availed full access to the Section II flexibilities of the TFA. 
2.26.  The representative of Costa Rica said that  Members should put all their efforts in drafting 
the Protocol of Amendment and in submitting notifications under Category A to comply with that 
part of their work before 31 July, and this should be carried out in a positive and practical fashion. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 13 - 
 
  The TFA would enable Members to carry out the reforms they needed in their respective countries. 
Costa Rica would make every effort to ensure that the TFA would come into force as soon as possible since it would be advantageous for Members.  
2.27.  Costa Rica intended to notify commitments under Category A in the coming days in a 
negative list manner. The notification would indicate that all the obligations contained in the 
Agreement would be in Category A except for the commitments that could be notified under 
another Category. Efforts would be made to avoid listing commitments in Category B while no 
commitments would be placed in Category C. 
2.28.  The representative of Nigeria supported th e statements of the coordinators of the African 
Group and the LDCs. As Members began the process of implementing the TFA, his delegation 
trusted that the required technical assistance and support for human and infrastructure capacity-
building, which was very vital for the implementation  of Section I of the TFA, would be provided by 
developed countries and donors.  
2.29.  The representative of the European Union wished to react to the comments made by the 
African and the LDC Groups. The invitation of the tw o Groups to facilitate discussion on TF-related 
assistance was very important. He drew the attention of the Members to the special workshop on 10 June and suggested that the discussion be combin ed with it. This could be a good opportunity 
to exchange views and better understand the problems by receiving specific requests and 
questions from the developing countries that had preoccupations in that regard. 
2.30.  The General Council took note of the repo rt of the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee 
on Trade Facilitation and of the statements. 
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in line with th e framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda and the Committee on Trade and Development reported regularly to the Council on the progress of its work in Dedicated Sessions on the subject. At Bali, Ministers had also 
adopted a Decision re-confirming their commitment to the Work Programme, instructing the CTD 
to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibility of the General Council. 
3.2.  The Chairman read out the report on work i n  t h i s  a r e a  o n  b e h a l f  o f  M r  P i e r r e  C l a v e r  
Ndayiragije (Burundi), Chairman of the Dedi cated Session of the CTD, as follows: 
"This is my first report as the new Chairman of the CTD's Dedicated Session on the Work 
Programme on Small Economies.  
 
I am pleased to report that the proponents of small economies have agreed to appoint a 
new group coordinator. Guatemala agreed to take over from Barbados last month and will now lead and coordinate the work on Small Economies, and especially on their concerns in 
regard to the day to day work of the WTO and issues related to the Doha Round.  
 I understand the Small Economies have been discussing upcoming priorities for 2014 and follow-up activities to the Bali Ministerial Decision which concerned the Small Economies 
Work programme. I hope to able to report on more activities at the next General Council 
meeting in July."  
3.3.  All delegations which spoke thanked the Ch airman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD for 
his report and welcomed him to his new role. They also thanked Barbados for its efforts as the 
previous coordinator of the SVEs Group and welcomed Guatemala as the new group coordinator. 
3.4.  The representative of Guatemala, on behalf of the SVEs, said that it would lead the work on 
small economies with regard to the day-to-day work of the WTO and issues related to the Doha 
Round. The SVEs Group was on the process of discu ssing and updating its priorities for 2014 and 
the follow-up activities to the Bali Ministerial Decision. It looked forward to the reinvigorated ideas 
on how to continue implementing the Work Programme on Small Economies. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.5.  The representative of St. Lucia, on beha lf of CARICOM, said that CARICOM, as small 
economies, placed significant importance in the Work Programme on Small Economies, welcomed 
the Bali Decision on Small Economies and looked forward to working with the Chairman and other 
Members on its implementation. 
3.6.  The representative of Maldives associated  her delegation with the statement by Guatemala 
on behalf of the SVEs. The Work Programme on Small Economies continued to be an important 
platform for a number of developing countries with specific structural vulnerabilities seeking to 
pool their negotiating resources with the aim of contributing to the multilateral trade debate. 
3.7.  As Members reflected on the current phase of  the post-Bali process, it was clear that they 
had remained faithful to the instruction given by Ministers and had engaged in different formats and configurations in discussions aimed at defining the contours of the post-Bali work program. 
While this process had yet to yield concrete outcomes, Members should consider all approaches 
within the context of an equitable, development- enhancing outcome. As a SVE, Maldives believed 
that the interests of the weakest and most vulnerab le were best protected within the confines of a 
functional, rules-based Multilateral Trading Sy stem. Her delegation hoped for a balanced and 
development-friendly conclusion of the final negotiations that took into account the associated vulnerabilities of small economies.  
3.8.  The Maldives, like many other small economies, was acutely vulnerable at the economic, 
social, institutional and environmental levels. The most marked economic vulnerabilities included the sectoral concentration of exports to tourism and fisheries, high transportation costs due to 
geographic dispersion, and the diseconomies of scale of being a small island nation. In addition, 
the impact of climate change threatened to hamper their long-term development. Undergoing its 
post-LDC graduation experience, the Maldives comp letely recognized the enormous challenges in 
fully integrating into the global economy. 
3.9.  She stated that progress in multilateral ne gotiations seldom depended on the consensus of 
the small but was typically made based on the designs of the strong. Members should ensure an equal say in determining the substance of the agenda that emerged from the process and the 
channel through which progress was to be achieved . Members should aim to preserve elements of 
the package that had been understood as 'settl ed'. While her delegation acknowledged that 
negotiations on both Agriculture and NAMA remain ed open, the current texts were the result of 
delicate negotiations and a fine balance between the rights and obligations of Members. It 
appealed to Members to preserve the development flexibilities accorded to small economies in 
various areas of negotiations, includ ing NAMA and fisheries subsidies.  
3.10.  The Maldives registered its gratitude for th e availability of Aid-for-Trade assistance through 
the Enhanced Integrated Framework (ElF) and the WTO for its welcomed efforts at supporting 
capacity-building in Trade Facilitation. It would continue to work closely with the membership and its SVE colleagues on the flexibilities. 
3.11.  The representative of Vanuatu, on behalf of the Pacific WTO Members, said that the 
situation of SVEs was well-known to Members which led to the mandate in paragraph 35 of the 
DDA. The Pacific Members were therefore prepared to work constructively with Members in the CTD to find meaningful solutions to the trade problems faced by small vulnerable and isolated 
economies. 
3.12.  The General Council took note of the repo rt of the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and 
Development and of the statements. 
4  AID FOR TRADE WORK PROGRAMME 2014-2015 – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
4.1.  The Chairman recalled that at Bali, Mi nisters had adopted a Decision on Aid-for-Trade 
(WT/L/909 – WT/MIN(13)/34), in which they had welcomed the progress on Aid-for-Trade and had 
recognized the continuing need of Aid-for-Trade for developing countries, and in particular LDCs. 
4.2.  The Chairman read out the report on work i n  t h i s  a r e a  o n  b e h a l f  o f  M r  P i e r r e  C l a v e r  
Ndayiragije (Burundi), Chairman of the CTD, as follows: WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 15 - 
 
  "The new biennial Aid-for-Trade Work Programme for 2014-2015 was issued as document 
WT/COMTD/AFT/W/51 on 7 May 2014.  As in the past, I have transmitted the Work Programme to the General Council under my own responsibility as Chair of the Committee on Trade and Development. 
 
Let me now say a few words on process and also on content. Firstly, the process. At last year's Bali Ministerial Conference, Ministers re affirmed their commitment to Aid for Trade.  
Ministers reiterated the mandate given to the Director-General and instructed the 
development of a new Aid-for-Trade Work Programme.  The Work Programme I transmit to you today fulfils that mandate.  
The development of the Work Programme has invo lved extensive interaction with Members.  
Briefings with Members in different configurations began at the start of this year. These discussions proved useful in elaborating and understanding the views offered by Members, 
starting from the 4th Global  Review held in July 2013. 
 Discussion at the formal CTD Aid-for-Trade meeting on 9 April permitted Members to put 
these views on record and react to each other's priorities and concerns.  This formal meeting 
was followed by an informal open ended meeting on 29 April at which Members were invited to comment on a draft text.  These views were then integrated into this draft.  
The document I transmit to you today is thus the result of many months of work and 
considered reflection.  It is a work programme, not a legal decision.  And the emphasis of the work programme is very much on precisely that: work. 
 
An independent evaluation presented at the formal CTD meeting on 9 April highlighted just how much good work has been done on the Aid-for-Trade Initiative since 2005.  Ministers 
also recognized this progress in their Bali decision.  In my capacity as CTD Chair I intend to 
ensure that we drive this work forward, with high quality outputs that we can all appreciate.  Now a word on content. The Work Programme seeks to advance the core mandate on Aid-
for-Trade.  That is to "build the supply side capacity and trade related infrastructure that 
developing countries, and in particular least developed countries, need to implement and benefit from WTO agreements and more broadly expand their trade". 
 
It does so in a new context.  A context in formed by the Bali Package and framed by the 
emerging post-2015 development agenda.  The organizing theme for the Work Programme 
is:  "Reducing trade costs for inclusive, sustainable growth".  This theme speaks to the new 
context, but through the lens of the core mandate.  The Work Programme is underpinned by an exte nsive monitoring and evaluation exercise - 
an exercise on which I intend to consult with Members, as well as other stakeholders, 
including the private sector.  
The aim of successive Work Programmes has been to provide guidance on the continuing 
operationalization of the Recommendations of the Task Force that were presented to the General Council in 2006.  This plan is no differe nt.  The actions identified by the Task Force 
continue to inform the Work Programme activities.  Worthy of note in this regard are actions 
promoting mainstreaming, monitoring, advocacy and outreach activities.  In these activities, I believe we need to reflect Members' views on their development and financing needs and perspectives on to how to address these needs, based on experience and evidence. 
 
The Aid-for-Trade Initiative aims to help Memb ers make trade work for their development.  
It does so by addressing the constraints that developing countries, and in particular least 
developed countries, face.  
 This message resonates with Members efforts to implement Bali decisions, and with the 
continuing efforts to conclude the DDA. It resonates in the context of the post-2015 
development agenda."  
4.3.  All delegations which spoke thanked the Chairman of the CTD for his report. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 16 - 
 
  4.4.  The representative of Turkey took note of the revised programme circulated in document 
WT/COMTD/AFT/W/51. Since the Work Programme was issued under the responsibility of the 
Chairman of the CTD, he did not wish to make specific comments on its contents, as it was just a programme setting the stage while it was the implementation that mattered for Turkey.  
4.5.  He recalled the statement made by his colleague at the informal, open-ended meeting of the 
Committee on 29 April with regard to the Programme of Action for the Least-Developed Countries for the Decade 2011-2020.  
4.6.  Along with the LDCs coordinator and several other representatives, they had made a specific 
request that a more direct reference be made to that programme of action in the revised paper. 
No Member had objected to that proposal, but an open reference had not been made. Only a cross-reference had been included in a very indire ct manner in one footnote. He had difficulty in 
understanding the attitude of the Secretariat on that  issue. He retained important to underline that 
his delegation expected the Secretariat to fully take into account comments from Members especially if the comments were pertinent and no Member had objected to it.  
4.7.  Turning to the substance of the matter, Turk ey pointed out that the Programme of Action for 
the Least-Developed Countries for the Decade 2011-2020 had been adopted at the Fourth UN Conference on the LDCs in May 2011. As Turkey  had hosted the event, the Programme was also 
referred to as the Istanbul Programme of Action. Its text was available on the website of the UN 
Office of the High Representative for Least-Deve loped Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries 
and Small Island Developing States. 
4.8.  The Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA) charted out the international community’s vision 
and strategy for the sustainable development of LDCs for the next decade with a strong focus on 
developing their productive capacities. Actions to  be implemented by LDCs and their development 
partners focused on eight interlinked priority areas. Trade figured within the top three areas for 
action. One of the Key Deliverables was " Enhancing the share of assistance to LDCs by the 
development partners for Aid-for-Trade ". More specifically, the Programme set the following target 
for development partners: " Implement effective trade-related technical assistance and capacity 
building to least developed countries on a priori ty basis, including by enhancing the share of 
assistance to least developed countries for Aid-for-Trade ". Those actions that had been jointly 
adopted by the international community would be followed-up fully in the implementation of the 
Aid-for-Trade Work Programme 2014-2015. 
4.9.  The representative of Uganda, on behalf of the LDC Group, said that, while some of the 
issues of specific concern were not well-reflec ted, the LDC Group welcomed the Work Programme. 
4.10.  The Aid-for-Trade Task Force that had come about as a result of the Hong Kong Ministerial 
had provided the rationale for Aid-for-Trade as: " Assisting developing countries, to increase 
exports of goods and services, to integrate into  the Multilateral Trading System, and to benefit 
from liberalized trade and increased market acce ss. Effective Aid-for-Trade will enhance growth 
prospects and reduce poverty in developing countries, as well as complement multilateral trade 
reforms and distribute the global benefits more equitably across and within developing countries ". 
4.11.  According to the OECD, in 2012, LDCs had only attracted 24% of the total Aid-for-Trade. 
The largest share of Aid-for-Trade of about 31bn USD or 58% had been taken by middle-income 
countries. Most of the money had been in form of loans. Only 35% had been in form of grants.  
Out of the top 10 recipients of Aid-for-Trade wh o consumed 50% of total flows, only two were 
from LDCs, while 7 were from middle-income coun tries despite the fact that the LDCs were the 
poorest, weakest and most vulnerable Members of the MTS. The LDC Group observed that the 
narrative was not in harmony with what Members had agreed to in Paragraph 57 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. Therefore, the LDC Group called upon Members to prioritize the needs and 
interests of LDCs while taking commitments and making disbursements. The allocations to LDCs 
should be commensurate with their development needs and challenges, as well as the structural constraints and multiple vulnerabilities they were confronted with.  
4.12.  The LDC Group, to that end, urged developmen t partners to ensure that at least one third of 
the total Aid-for-Trade was disbursed to LDCs. While it would welcome soft loans, it called upon 
development partners to progressively raise the grant component to four-fifths of total Aid-for-WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Trade disbursed to LDCs. It underlined the need for additionality, predictability, sustainability and 
effectiveness of resources in Aid-for-Trade and ca lled for maintaining Aid-for-Trade spending at the 
average level of 2006-2008 as pledged by the G-20. 
4.13.  While the LDC Group welcomed the link age between the Work Programme and the post 
2015 Development Agenda, which was yet to be fully elaborated, it had proposed during 
consultations a further direct linkage to be drawn with the Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least-Developed Countries for the decade 2011-2020. He recalled that the Istanbul Programme of 
Action already existed, had gained multilateral consensus and was aimed at inter alia  enabling the 
graduation of at least half the number of LDCs by 2020. This view had enjoyed the support of a substantial number of Members. There had been no objection by any delegation. However, the Group was disappointed that neither had that linkage  been explicitly drawn, nor had there been an 
operative linkage with another issue dear to the LDCs, such as Cotton, through the Consultative 
Mechanism of the Director-General. 
4.14.  While the LDC Group recognized the Bali Ministerial Decision with respect to DFQF Market 
Access, the supply side capacity and ability to produce should be built in order to trade. It was 
therefore important that Aid-for-Trade was targeted at those key sectors of the economies of LDCs in order to address the supply side constraints, production and infrastructure, economic 
diversification, and overcoming infrastructural bottlenecks, including energy, connectivity, roads 
and other means of transportation. Measures should be put in place to address issues of standards 
enhancing market access for LDC products. 
4.15.  The Group was delighted to see the role of the private sector highlighted – the real locus of 
production and trade that often lacked the technica l and financial resources needed to invest in its 
own competitive development. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) should be empowered to overcome supply side constraints to take advantage of the opportunities provided by trade 
liberalization in such decisions as Trade Facilitation, DFQF, and the Operationalization of the 
Services Waiver, among others. 
4.16.  The LDC Group took note of the linkage that  had been drawn to the EIF. It recognized the 
EIF as a vehicle for the delivery of Aid-for-Trade. It called for the extension of its mandate beyond 
its 2015 deadline to, inter alia , contribute towards the achievement of the post-2015 development 
goals. It urged the development partners to continue to deliver on their commitments particularly with regard to required resources so that the EIF co uld effectively fulfil its mandate. It called upon 
Members to encourage the establishment of a bridging fund to cater for programme support from 
the present until the next pledging conference. La stly, it assured Members of its willingness to 
engage constructively in discussions to implement the Work Programme and saw it as a minimal 
basis of what they could achieve in 2014-2015. It urged the Chairman of the CTD to facilitate the 
elaboration of a road map covering that period, as soon as possible. 
4.17.  The representative of the European Union sa id that Aid-for-Trade remained a priority in his 
delegation's global efforts to harmonize trade to achieve development outcomes, echoing EU's 
continued commitment to Aid for Trade. His delegation's still ongoing analysis for 2012 figures indicated a significant increase in the collective Aid-for-Trade commitments of the EU and its Member States – an increase in the range of 20% from 2011 figures to a total of 11.6bn, a notable 
success during a time of downward pressure of ODA as a whole.  
4.18.  The EU welcomed the broad heading of th e Work Programme of "reducing trade costs for 
inclusive sustainable growth" which was also the proposed title of the Fifth Global Aid-for-Trade 
Review in July 2015. The EU also welcomed the Work Programme's approach to look for 
perspectives linking policy lessons for Aid-for-Trade and existing research on value chains – a good opportunity to add value to the growing body of  research on value chains. Connecting SMEs in 
LDCs was a priority of the EU as reflected by  its work with the OECD and the ITC. The EU 
welcomed the recognition that infrastructure development was an area where south-south partners were active. While recognizing that traditional north-south relationships remained primary, the EU saw a growing role for emerging economies in global efforts towards sustainable 
development and poverty reduction including market access and financial aid.  
4.19.  The Work Programme rightly emphasized the importance of outreach and monitoring 
activities for implementation of the Bali Package and the TFA – Trade Facilitation was a priority for WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 18 - 
 
  the EU. The Work Programme also rightly priori tized the needs of LDCs. The EU had carefully 
heard the statement made by Uganda and recalled its commitment to prioritize LDCs and other countries most in need. That said, in line with the principle of ownership, the delivery of Aid-for-Trade was based on the needs and priorities identified by partner countries themselves. 
Consequently, partner countries relied on LDCs to prioritize Aid-for-Trade within their cooperation 
with the EU. In this respect, the EU recalled that it was in the final stages of programming its ODA 
for the period 2014-2020. The EU reiterated its co mmitment to the Aid-for-Trade initiative, as well 
as its strong support for a continued engagement of the WTO in this respect. 
4.20.  The representative of Cameroon said that the Ministerial Decision on Aid-for-Trade adopted 
in Bali stressed the needs of developing countries – particularly those of the LDCs – and called on 
the Director-General to undertake support action. Cameroon deemed appropriate to recall the 
criterion of need in the orientation of aid flows,  which went towards those who needed it the least 
while it should actually be directed to those who needed it the most. As stated by Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, the share of loans seemed to be disproportionate as compared to 
the grants in the Aid-for-Trade flows. In implementing the Work Programme, Members should 
work towards a necessary re-balancing, thus reduci ng trade costs – as the title of the upcoming 
Work Programme – where those trade costs were higher. 
4.21.  The representative of St. Lucia, on behalf  of CARICOM, welcomed the Bali Decision on Aid-
for-Trade and continued to support the initiative. CARICOM also welcomed the 2014-2015 Work 
Programme on Aid-for-Trade. CARICOM economies continued to face difficulties associated with supply side constraints such as its limited export base, diversification from traditional exports as 
well as challenges associated with remoteness, exacerbated by natural disasters making Aid-for-
Trade important for CARICOM. 
4.22.  CARICOM welcomed the annotations in the Work Programme that highlighted the synergies 
to be derived from the TFA. She noted that for the TFA to be realized, there should be adequate 
technical and financial assistance which should be additional to existing Aid-for-Trade commitments. CARICOM looked forward to workin g with its development partners and other 
institutions in the operationalization of assistan ce and support for capacity-building as anticipated 
under Section II of the Agreement. 
4.23.  CARICOM noted the progress on the Aid-for- Trade initiative, but stressed to its development 
partners that though CARICOM members were categorized as middle-to-high-income countries, 
that masked the true deficiencies in their economies. For this reason, CARICOM continued to 
advocate for continued assistance to its economies despite those indices. It also appreciated the regional focus of the Work Programme and remi nded the Membership that the Caribbean was 
working towards the implementation of its Aid-for-Trade strategy. 
4.24.  The representative of Nepal supported the interventions of Uganda, on behalf of LDCs, and 
Turkey in relation to the Aid-for-Trade Work  Programme 2014-2015. It requested the General 
Council to instruct the CTD to include all those salient points as raised by the LDC Group and other 
delegations in the General Council meeting and during the informal meeting of the CTD that took place in the last week of April. The implementati on of the Istanbul Programme of Action and the 
TFA should be linked with Aid-for-Trade. Given the critical role that Aid-for-Trade could play in 
enhancing the supply side capacity of the LDCs an d trade infrastructure building in poor countries, 
Nepal asked to include those LDC-specific programmes with due priority in the proposed draft and for Members and Donor Agencies to ensure adequate technical, financial and capacity-building 
assistance to LDCs without any prior condition and without any delay to enable the LDCs to 
implement the recently concluded TFA. 
4.25.  The Chairman said that, as the Chairman of the CTD had noted in his report, the Work 
Programme had been conveyed to the General Council under his own responsibility as Chairman of 
the CTD and his report reflected the views from extensive consultations with Members and stakeholders. The emphasis was on work: it was a work plan, not a decision. He said that all of the views expressed regarding how the Work Programme  might be refined would be conveyed to the 
Chairman of the CTD.  
4.26.  The General Council took note of the stat ement of the Chairman of the Committee on Trade 
and Development, of the Aid-for-Trade Work Programme and of the statements.  WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 19 - 
 
  5  TRADE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES OF CE RTAIN MEMBERS – COMMUNICATION FROM 
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (WT/GC/157) 
5.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from the Russian Federation contained in 
document WT/GC/157 requesting that the item of Trade Restrictive Measures of Certain Members 
be placed on the agenda of the meeting. He invi ted the delegation of the Russian Federation to 
introduce the item. 
5.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  wished to express serious concerns on certain 
trade restrictive measures recently adopted by the United States and Canada against a number of 
economic operators of the Russian Federation.  
5.3.  Those measures had been adopted in the United States through a number of acts. Those acts 
established lists of natural and juridical persons of the Russian Federation whose assets were 
blocked as soon as they appeared within the territo ry of the United States or in possession of a US 
person. The acts also effectively prohibited the listed persons of the Russian Federation and juridical persons established elsewhere under the control of the listed persons to pursue any 
economic activities in the US or with the US counter-partners. 
5.4.  The Russian Federation believed that all thos e measures were not in conformity with the WTO 
Agreements, in particular GATT and GATS. They were discriminatory, trade restrictive, unjustified 
and already had adverse effect on the interests of some of the persons listed including banks, 
transportation and construction companies, producer of water and soft drinks and some others, and the respective goods and services they were trading. 
5.5.  Notwithstanding the violations by those US measures of the WTO Agreement, the Russian 
Federation had found it highly regrettable that effectively the same path had also been taken by 
Canada.  
5.6.  The Russian Federation had raised its conc erns on those measures on numerous occasions – 
particularly at the Councils for Trade in Good s and in Services. However, there had been no 
satisfactory explanation from its trading partners in justifying the measures in question. That was the reason forcing the Russian Federation to br ing the issue to the attention of the General 
Council. 
5.7.  With great concern, the Russian Federation also registered the intentions of some other 
Members to adopt further measures that would potentially conflict with their WTO commitments. 
The EU had already adopted certain measures th at were completely different from those the 
Russian Federation referred to in the case of the US or Canada, but that were applied in the same 
context and in conflict with the WTO Agreement. In particular, the Russian Federation referred to 
the discriminatory treatment that resulted in the reduction and elimination of customs duties on 
goods originating in Ukraine by the European Union, which had taken no consideration of adverse 
effects to the Russian Federation and its trading partners. The measure did not only have an effect on trade with Russia, but what was more disappoin ting was that it had been adopted without any 
consideration of the procedures established under the GATT on similar measures. 
5.8.  The Russian Federation urged those Member s to provide information as to when and how 
exactly they were planning to bring their measures in conformity with their commitments under the WTO. 
5.9.  The representative of the United States underscored that the United States took its 
obligations under the WTO Agreement very seriously. Prior to instituting the measures referenced 
in the Russian Federation's communication to the CTS and the CTG, as well as related measures 
announced on 28 April, the United States had carefully considered their consistency with WTO 
Rules. It remained confident that all of those actions were consistent with its WTO obligations. 
5.10.  The representative of Canada was very disappointed to hear Russia's assertion that Canada 
was in violation of its WTO commitments. Canada took its WTO obligations very seriously and its 
measures were fully consistent with its WTO obligations.  WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 20 - 
 
  5.11.  The representative of the European Union underlined that, just like the United States and 
Canada, it took its obligations under the WTO Agreement very seriously. It trusted that the 
measures referred to by the Russian Federation's communication to the CTS and the CTG, as well as the EU measures announced on 28 Apri l, were consistent with WTO Rules. 
5.12.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
6  TRADE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES BY RUSSIA – COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION (WT/GC/158) 
6.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/GC/158 requesting that the item of Trade Restrictive Measures by Russia be placed 
on the meeting's agenda. He invited the delegation  of the European Union to introduce the item. 
6.2.  The representative of the European Union regr etted to be obliged once more to take the floor 
on Russia's restrictive measures. After its intervention at the CTG on 9 April, the EU had hoped 
that the clear expression of its concerns, supported by a number of WTO Members, would have produced some effects. Instead of improving, the situation had worsened. 
6.3.  The overall experience with Russia as a WTO Member was rather disappointing. Russia had 
not shown real willingness to bring its trade measures in line with basic WTO obligations and had introduced a number of trade obstacles inconsistent with its WTO commitments. 
6.4.  The EU had been a staunch supporter of Russia's accession to the WTO. It worked intensively 
with other WTO Members at the highest level to ensure a high quality and accelerated WTO accession of Russia. Indeed, it had been convince d that membership would contribute to further 
integrate the Russian Federation's economy into the world market and thereby contribute to its 
objectives of modernization and diversification. It had also high expectations that its bilateral trade 
would be enhanced by Russia's membership. Unfortunately, after one year and a half of membership, those high hopes had not materialized. 
6.5.  Despite EU's engagement and active consultations, Russia had not solved any of the many 
trade irritants that had been raised. For example, Russian import tariffs, even at present, were not 
in line with their WTO bindings. In spite of its repeated complaints, the EU had not seen any 
changes in the way trade defence measures were applied either. Issues well-known to the 
membership, such as the recycling fee programme and the blockade of imports of pork from the 
whole territory of the EU, remained unaddressed.  Furthermore, in the past weeks, new SPS 
restrictions which similarly raised questions of WTO consistency had been added. 
6.6.  The EU had to stress again that most of those measures fell under Customs Union 
competence. That confirmed its fundamental concern that, in spite of Russia’s clear commitments, the Customs Union of which Russia was the leading member did not follow WTO rules. As an 
important Member of the WTO, Russia could not use the Customs Union as an excuse for not 
applying its WTO commitments. 
6.7.  The EU expected Russia to change gear so that its membership became an asset not only for 
Russia but also for the Organization. Those steps should be taken quickly, patience being a virtue 
only until assimilated to complacency. In fact , Members were aware that the fundamental WTO 
disciplines remained to be fully complied with. The EU urged Russia to quickly adopt the necessary steps to put its policy in compliance with its obligations – an issue of systemic importance. A WTO 
Member could not serially fail to respect its obligations without undermining the rules-based 
multilateral system Members all believed in. 
6.8.  The representative of Ukraine shared th e concerns expressed by the European Union and 
other Members with respect to Russia's trade-restrictive measures. 
6.9.  Ukraine had raised similar issues at various WTO Committees including the CTG. Regrettably 
it did not observe any improvements or positive developments as reported by business operators 
or respective governmental bodies of Ukraine. It  brought to the attention of Members its serious 
concern about systemic non-compliance of the Russian Federation with its WTO commitments.  WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 21 - 
 
  6.10.  An unjustifiable and discriminatory ban on imports of Ukrainian products, introduced by 
Russia in July 2013, was neither lifted nor proper ly explained. Ukraine had received answers to 
questions forwarded to the Russian Federation in the summer of 2013 only in April 2014. They 
were vague, contradictory and triggered more questions. Ukraine had serious grounds to doubt 
Russia's ability to fully implement the TBT and SP S Agreements as part of its national legal 
framework.  
6.11.  Ukraine had experienced considerable disr uption of trade flows in the summer 2013 due to 
sudden customs measures at the Russian Federation's border, for which Ukraine, even at the 
present time, had no substantial official explanation from the Russian side. From time to time the Ukrainian Government received complaints from its traders about unexplained delays at the Russian border, and transit of goods had worsened th rough the territory of Russia. In light of these 
facts, Ukraine called on the Russian Federation to also respect the recommendations of the World 
Customs Organization, to work to improve operations  and be guided by best practices in the area. 
It had become a rule that Russia's trade measures and practices seriously lacked transparency 
which in itself could count as a serious obstacle.  
6.12.  More worrying was the unwillingness of the relevant Russian authorities to cooperate with 
Ukraine in resolving issues. The level of engagement and cooperation between bodies in charge of 
different control functions of neighbours was a litmus test for the CIS-FTA which had been aimed 
at creating conditions for free movement of goods and promoting liberalized trade.  
6.13.  In the sui generis  situation of the present time, the temptation could be high, but Ukraine 
wished to call upon the Russian Federation to refrain from using trade as an instrument of political 
pressure and non-tariff measures as disguised competition policy. It urged the Russian Federation 
to fully comply with its WTO commitments, in particular under TBT and SPS, to ensure predictable conditions for trade, to remove unjustifiable bans and discriminatory barriers for Ukrainian 
products, to ensure transparency and considerably improve cooperation with the relevant 
Ukrainian authorities in finding ways to overcome disagreements. It had to remind once again the Russian Federation of the need to respect the pacta sunt servanda  principle and demonstrate it by 
governmental policies and practice. It reserved its right to use all possibilities of the WTO system 
to ensure its rights and legitimate interests. 
6.14.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation had worked hard to support 
Russia’s accession to the WTO, in the belief that having Russia as part of the rules-based global 
trading system would benefit all. It remained convinced that WTO membership was a critical 
means of ensuring predictability and accountability,  on the part of Russia and all Members, to the 
rules-based trading system. However, at that point the United States was very concerned, both 
with what appeared to be a lack of seriousness on  the part of Russia in implementing some of its 
WTO accession commitments and, in fact, a general rejection by Russia of one of the underlying goals of the WTO – the reduction of barriers to global trade, acutely demonstrated by recent trade 
actions aimed at Members particularly reliant on trade with Russia. 
6.15.  Since Russia had become a WTO Member, the US was on the record in the five meetings of 
the CTG with some of its specific, accession-related concerns. Principal among them was the lack of transparency in Russia’s trading system. While the United States acknowledged the notifications 
and information provided to date by Russia, what was missing was of significant systemic 
importance. Russia had not responded to the follow-up questions raised in the February 2014 TRIPS Council meeting or the questions raised in the Import Licensing Committee. It had not 
notified numerous technical regulations and some of its safeguard measures. Despite seeking an 
outcome on RTAs' transparency during its G20 host  year, Russia had not provided the full set of 
information on its Customs Union and FTAs as required under the WTO’s RTA Transparency 
Mechanism. Russia at that moment was moving the Customs Union into the Eurasian Union with 
potentially broader implications for economic relations among those countries, but had done nothing to notify the WTO. Russia had never resp onded to the questions the US had provided in 
November 2012 on its recycling programme. Those questions still stood, and the US still expected 
answers to them just as it expected Russia to be responsive in other Committees on other 
transparency matters. 
6.16.  The United States also remained concerned with how the Russian Federation was 
implementing some of its SPS obligations. It was observing problems with the harmonization of 
SPS measures with the relevant international standards, and a failure to adopt inspection WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 22 - 
 
  guidelines that were in accordance with Codex. In addition, Russia was failing to ensure that SPS 
measures that were more restrictive than intern ational standards were based on science and were 
accompanied by risk analysis. Moreover, the US was experiencing problems with regard to the approval of establishments for export to the Russian Federation and Customs Union territory.  
Despite numerous discussions with Russia, it had seen little progress and remained concerned with 
Russia’s implementation of its SPS obligations. It hoped that Russia would work to bring its regime into compliance with its WTO commitments. In addition to those SPS measures that directly 
affected the United States, the US also noted with concern Russia’s recent bans on imports of food 
and beverages from neighbouring countries without evidence of valid SPS concerns. The products affected included dairy products from Lithuania and Ukraine, chocolates from Ukraine, wine and other agricultural products from Moldova and prep ared meats from Poland, Lithuania and Moldova. 
6.17.  With regard to tariffs, Russia had seemingly attempted to at best obfuscate and at worst 
increase, various tariff rates by adding minimum tariffs to a number of lines. More broadly, the United States noted that Russia was moving increasingly to build walls around its economy, 
whether through implementing trade restrictive measures such as those already mentioned or by 
adopting import substitution and local content rules that had the same trade restrictive result. The United States hoped that Russia would begin to engage substantively with the United States in the 
various committees of the WTO to ensure that the obligations Russia assumed in becoming a WTO 
Member were being faithfully implemented. 
6.18.  The representative of Canada shared the concerns on Russia’s trade restrictive measures 
outlined by previous speakers. Canada had also been a strong supporter of Russia’s accession to 
the WTO, and was concerned when any WTO Member sought to enjoy the benefits and rights 
conferred by WTO Membership without also respecting their obligations – which was particularly true for larger countries whose actions had a proportionately larger impact on the global trading 
system. For these reasons, Canada urged Russia to take its obligations more seriously so that all 
WTO Members could share in the benefits of its membership.  
6.19.  The representative of Japan associated hims elf with the concerns ex pressed by the previous 
speakers about the trade restricting measures implemented by Russia, from both systemic and 
commercial points of view. Despite the reduction of applied rates by Russia in September and October last year, there were still some tariff lines where applied rates, in particular refrigerators, 
were higher than their bound rates. Since a binding commitment was the most fundamental 
obligation under the WTO, Japan strongly urged Russia, as a responsible Member of the WTO, to 
bring those measures into full conformity as soon as possible. Furthermore, the raise of applied tariffs for TVs, from April last year, ran counter to the stand still commitment of the G20 and APEC 
Leaders. Japan urged Russia to respect the polit ical commitment and to withdraw the decision. 
6.20.  The representative of Switzerland shared the concerns expressed by the previous speakers. 
A strong Multilateral Trading System was essential for all WTO Members particularly for the smaller 
Members. The WTO Multilateral Trading System was strong because it was based on a framework 
of rules adhered by all WTO Members. Compliance with WTO rules as with all commitments was of 
crucial importance. That included compliance with the commitments made at the accession, as well 
as the fulfilment of transparency, particularly no tification requirements. Switzerland expected all 
WTO Members, including the recently acceded ones , to live up to their commitments and to the 
rules of the Multilateral Trading System. 
6.21.  The representative of New Zealand said that as a small country dependent on trade, New 
Zealand saw a robust, transparent and non-discriminatory Multilateral Trading System as 
essential. The maintenance of the integrity of the system was in the interest of all WTO Members. 
As it had noted on previous occasions, New Zealand had an established track record of positive 
and constructive engagements with the Russian Federation on SPS issues including its treaty-level 
veterinary agreement to which it attached great value. It had respected its agreements with Russia and animal products exported to Russia complied fully with the relevant requirements. New Zealand urged Russia to work constructively within the WTO framework on its accession 
commitments and to comply with other WTO requirements. 
6.22.  The representative of Korea shared the systemic concerns raised by the previous speakers 
with regard to various trade restrictive measures undertaken by the Russian Federation. Such 
trade measures had been put on the agenda of the relevant bodies of the WTO. In that respect, 
Korea reminded that it had also registered its concern at the CTG meeting in April regarding the WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Russian Federation’s implementation of its binding tariff commitment, in particular, on some 
imported refrigerators. Since then, the techni cal experts of the two sides had had close and 
constructive consultations in Geneva to reach a common understanding and find a lasting solution to address its concern. It sincerely hoped that the issue would be resolved in an expeditious and 
mutually satisfactory way consistently with the Russian Federation’s commitments under the WTO. 
Thereby, the Russian Federation could demonstrate its unswerving resolve to support and respect the spirit and the rules of the Multilateral Trad ing System represented by the WTO. For this 
purpose, Korea looked forward to continuing cooperation in addressing the issue with the Russian 
Federation as well as other Members.  
6.23.  The representative of Norway shared the concerns raised by other delegations. Like other 
Members, Norway relied on the WTO and a strong  rules-based Multilateral Trading System. The 
transparency and predictability of the commitm ents in the Multilateral Trading System was 
essential and compliance with those commitments by all Members was crucial. Norway urged Russia as a major economy and an important trading partner to honour the commitments made 
through its accession to the WTO. Norway expresse d hope that the systemic concerns raised would 
be taken into account by Russia in its next st eps to ensure transparency and responsibility 
throughout the process of further implementation and compliance. 
6.24.  The representative of Chinese Taipei shar ed the concerns expressed by previous speakers 
on the subject, but at the same time sympathized with the position of the Russian Federation as a 
very recently acceded WTO Member. Her delegation  encouraged the Russian Federation to engage 
in some form of bilateral dialogue with the Members concerned in order to be mutually satisfied in 
resolving the relevant issues in the near future. Her delegation fully recognized the enormous 
challenges that faced any new Member in adapting to the Multilateral Trading System during the early stage of its membership. Nevertheless, it would encourage the Russian Federation to 
redouble its efforts to comply with its obligations under the WTO Agreements, especially in the 
areas of SPS measures, trade remedy rules and the implementation of its WTO accession commitments. 
6.25.  The representative of Australia shared the concerns of other Members on Russia’s 
adherence to its WTO accession commitments and on the importance of Russia’s avoiding trade 
restrictive measures. His delegation was concerned about the use by Russia of restrictive measures which were having a tangible and negative impact upon Australian trade. Australia 
looked forward to continued engagement with relevant Russian authorities on those issues. 
6.26.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated that Russia took its WTO obligations 
very seriously and that the measures Russia was taking were in line with its commitments. He was 
extremely disappointed by the EU statement accu sing the Russian Federation of continuously 
raising trade obstacles which some Members believed to be inconsistent with its WTO obligations. The Russian Federation had always been, and continued to be, ready for a constructive dialogue 
and invited Members to engage in the same before making such statements. Constructive 
consultations should not be driven and motivated by politics but should be done with a view to find solutions if problems existed. 
6.27.  In light of this understanding, he wished to clarify concerns expressed at the meeting. 
Firstly, the Russian Federation regretted that th e EU brought back issues that in its view had 
already been resolved. For example, it seemed that the EU’s claim regarding the anti-dumping measure on light commercial vehicles was mainly built on the alleged wrong choice of the 
investigation period for material injury determinat ion. He reminded the EU that the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement did not contain any decisive guidance on that matter and, moreover, the past panel reports had stated that a one-year period of investigation was not a violation a priori .  
6.28.  He then referred to another trade defence claim of the EU – safeguard measure on 
harvesters. The EU insisted that the level of the import quota had been less than the average 
volume of import during the last three represen tative years. However, in its final report, the 
investigating authority had provided a clear justification of a different level fully in accordance with 
Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. On import quota allocation, the Russian Federation 
noted that that question had been recently rais ed by the EU at the meeting of the Committee on 
Safeguards. He recalled the Russian Federation's an swer that there had been no sufficient amount 
of requests for import licenses from historical  importers, and therefore the remaining quota 
volume had been distributed among other suppliers in the middle of April 2014. As for other WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 24 - 
 
  substantial claims on the results of the investig ation, the Russian Federation referred the EU to 
their previous bilateral discussions and clarifications from its side at the Committee on Safeguards. The investigation and its results did not contradict the relevant WTO provisions. 
6.29.  Secondly, the Russian Federation wished to shortly shed light on the complex issue of 
import duties. Some Members had expressed concerns in respect of the level of specific parts of 
import duties. Many delegations believed th at application of mixed duty instead of ad valorem  
duties set out in the Russian Federation Schedule of concessions and commitments on goods was 
unlawful under the WTO. However, more detailed discussion with those Members had proven that 
the specific component of the mixed duty was equivalent to the ad valorem  component and thus 
its bound levels were respected. In cases where such equivalence had been arguable, the Russian Federation had proposed the corrective amendments  to the CU Common Customs tariff, calculated 
jointly with the interested Members, namely with  the EU. The need for such amendments had been 
identified jointly with the EU with respect to  85 tariff lines, 75 of which had already been 
corrected. The rest would be implemented soon by the CU body. 
6.30.  The Russian Federation stated that its SP S measures were based on international standards 
and were in compliance with the WTO SPS Agreem ent. Russian competent authorities did their 
best to consider any possibility of solving an y trade concerns of WTO Members. The Russian 
authorities were cooperating with such Members both bilaterally and within the WTO framework. 
Therefore, the Russian Federation called on usin g existing tools to resolve problems instead of 
making groundless accusations. 
6.31.  The EU claimed that Russia’s prohibition on  imports of pork due to African swine fever in 
two Member States should not cover all EU Member States and that Russia should respect the 
regionalization principle of the SPS Agreement. However, there was no prohibition of pork imports from EU Member States except in those two wh ere disease had been identified, nor were there 
Russian legal acts or other measures prohibitin g such imports. It had been the EU competent 
authorities which had failed to comply with the provisions of the bilateral veterinary certificate.    
6.32.  Giving due account to commercial significance  of trade in live pigs, pork and pork products 
for many EU Member States, the Russian Federation had suggested to the EU to modify their 
bilateral arrangement allowing to carry out trade in those products. However, the Russian Federation's proposals had not been accepted and the EU had chosen to recourse to the dispute 
settlement procedure. This brought about the current situation which Russia had not chosen. 
6.33.  Finally, he wished to clarify some question s raised with respect to notifications. Having 
taken into account concerns of some Members, the Russian Federation had made application of a series of missing notifications. In particular, its replies to the recent Import Licensing questionnaire 
had been provided to the WTO Secretariat by notification in document G/LIC/N/3/RUS/1 dated 
6 May 2014. Since its accession, the Russian Federation had submitted more than 36 TBT notifications, and this was an important point with respect to the problems mentioned by the 
delegation of the United States. The Russian Federation believed that it had fulfilled its 
commitments. The Russian Federation understood Members' position that transparency commitments should be implemented, and it was do ing so already. However, the alleged breach of 
the Russian Federation's notification obligations se emed to be non-notification of reviews of the 
safeguard measures which did not relate to seri ous injury. By the same token, some Members 
insisted that the Russian Federation needed to noti fy the decisions of the investigating authority of 
non-application and non-extension of the measures and, as Russia understood, even the 
investigations that had not been launched. However, the Russian Federation still did not see any 
obligation of that kind in the Agreement on Safeguards or in the Russian Federation Accession Protocol. 
6.34.  During the last meeting of the Committee on Safeguards, his delegation had been surprised 
to hear a reference to Article 12.7 of the Agreement on Safeguards providing for the obligation to notify measures existing on the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement - that was in 1995 – and taken pursuant to Article XIX of the GATT. The Russian Federation did not maintain any 
measures from that period and actually had not taken any measures pursuant to Article XIX of the 
GATT, as the Russian Federation had not been a GATT signatory. Therefore, the Russian Federation believed that Article 12.7 was not applicable to the Russian measures existing prior to 
its accession to the WTO in 2012. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 25 - 
 
  6.35.  He confirmed that the Russian Federation fully agreed with the fact that transparency 
obligations were essential for the functioning of the whole WTO system. However, that consistent misinterpretation of Russian transparency obligations by certain WTO Members raised a significant systemic concern leading to the discrimination of the Members that had acceded to the 
Organization. The Russian Federation proposed to all interested WTO Members, including the 
United States, to settle the matter bilaterally after consultations at the expert level. 
6.36.  The representative of the European Union thanked the Russian Federation for the 
information provided. He said that the General Council was not the place to discuss in detail the 
specific issues. What was important was that the EU had raised at least six important concerns. Some elements of response had been received that were all pertinent, and his delegation remained in its basic position, that the issues that had been mentioned were examples where Russia was not 
respecting its WTO obligations. He stressed that what was also important was that more issues 
had been raised by other Members. The EU urge d Russia to quickly adopt the necessary steps to 
put its policy in compliance with its obligations. The EU was in favour of constructive consultations 
with all partners and all Members of the Organization, but wished to underline that the experience 
of the last weeks and months had been particularly disappointing. Very intense consultations had not given signs of progress. The European Un ion hoped that the situation would change. 
6.37.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
7  IMPROVING THE GUIDELINES FO R GRANTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS PERMANENT OBSERVER STAT US IN THE WTO – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
7.1.  The Chairman recalled that the item had b een on the agenda since February 2012 because in 
its November 2011 meeting, the General Council had agreed to initiate a process of consultations 
to consider the issue of Observer Status for IGOs in the WTO, further to a communication by the 
Arab Group, which had then been supplemented by a further communication. 
7.2.  Since February 2012, his predecessors had conducted consultations on the matter including 
during 2013 when Ambassador Bashir, in the context of the preparations for MC9, had sought to 
advance the issue. However, regrettably those consultations had not resulted in a change in the 
positions expressed. He had been briefed in detail by Ambassador Bashir in line with the statement he had made at the February meeting. He was fully aware of the complexity of the matter and intended to take his responsibility very seriou sly. He would continue to seek the views of 
delegations, and would report to the General Council as appropriate. He would work with an open 
mind and with a constructive spirit and urged all delegations to do the same.  
7.3.  The representative of Jordan, on behalf of  the Arab Group, said that there had been no 
improvement under the agenda item, as mentioned by the Chairman He thanked him and 
welcomed his initiative to hold consultations and to find a solution. For more than a decade, some Members had continued to undermine the guidelines to ensure the participation of IGOs and their 
contribution to the work of the WTO and the cohe rence needed in the Multilateral Trading System. 
Their diverging interpretation of the guidelines granting IGOs observer status had continued to grow with no clear indication as to how some IGOs had been granted permanent observer status while others continued to be barred from receivin g that same status. The Arab Group invited the 
Members to refrain from politicizing the work of the WTO so that Observer Status would be 
granted to all requesting IGOs. It requested to keep the item on the agenda of the General Council until a satisfactory and permanent solution woul d be reached, and looked forward to receiving 
positive news in that regard. 
7.4.  The representative of the United States clarified that his delegation's assumption was the 
request for the issue to continue to be considered was not a request for a standing item on the 
General Council agenda. The US would not support a standing item on the agenda. 
7.5.  The General Council took note of the Ch airman's statement and of the other statements. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 26 - 
 
  8  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION – REPORT ON MEETING OF 
APRIL 2014 (WT/BFA/142) 
8.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee in document 
WT/BFA/142 and invited Amb. Francisco LIMA (E l Salvador), Chairman of the Committee, to 
introduce the report. 
8.2.  Amb. Lima, Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance, and Administration, reported 
that in its meeting in April, the Committee had approved the proposed Terms of Reference for two 
Working Groups. 
8.3.  A first Working Group, chaired by Amb. Zananavi čius (Lithuania), would look at After Service 
Health Insurance (ASHI) to receive recommendations on the long-term financial viability and sustainability of the medical insurance plan for WTO staff and retirees. The group had already met 
on 29 April to better understand the functioning of the insurance plan. It would meet again on 
16 May with the actuary to review the long-term liability. A second Working Group, chaired by Mr Staines from the United Kingdom, would review the WTO Financial Regulations. Those 
regulations needed to be aligned with new requirements imposed by the implementation of 
International Public Sector Accounting Standards and to accurately reflect current policies and decisions taken by the General Council. The group would meet for the first time on 15 May. Both 
groups were open to all Members. He encouraged them to participate in their work. Those groups 
were expected to conclude their work by the end of the year. 
8.4.  The Committee had made an update on organizational review process initiated by the 
Director-General at the end of 2013. Members ha d welcomed the review and strongly expressed 
their desire of being consulted and kept informed  throughout the process. They had stressed the 
need for the Secretariat to tackle the grade stru cture, to ensure appropriate reallocation of 
resources in areas of priorities and to operate within a zero nominal growth environment. He 
invited Members to read the report of the meeting contained in document WT/BFA/142. 
8.5.  The Committee had reviewed the annual report on diversity in the WTO Secretariat contained 
in document WT/BFA/W/323. The issue of diversity in the WTO staff was of great interest to a 
number of Members. He recalled that the Commi ttee had asked for a detailed annual report on 
diversity from the Secretariat starting in 2010. The Committee had been reviewing the report and the progress achieved on an annual basis. Accord ing to the report, the recruitment policy of the 
WTO was seeking to attract and retain staff members offering the highest standards of 
competence, efficiency and integrity. It was base d on the principle of equal opportunity for all, 
regardless of gender, nationality, race or religion, with the objective of ensuring the broadest possible diversification of the Secretariat. In 2013, the number of Members represented in the 
Secretariat had totalled 83. Since 1995, there had been a 69% increase in the number of Members 
represented. The share of professional staff from developing and least-developed countries had increased from 22% to 35% during the same period. 
8.6.  The report also stated that while progress had been achieved in improving diversity in the 
WTO staff, Members had encouraged the Secretaria t to further enhance diversity, especially to 
have a broader representation of the Members in the staff and also to improve gender balance, especially in the Senior Management. They could al so play a role by promoting at home the vacant 
positions advertised by the Secretariat. 
8.7.  The General Council took note of the statement and adopted the report in WT/BFA/142. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 27 - 
 
  9  DATE AND VENUE OF THE TENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN 
9.1.  The Chairman noted that Article IV of the Marrakesh Agreement provided that " There shall be 
a Ministerial Conference of representatives of a ll Members, which shall meet at least once every 
two years ." He also recalled that, at Bali, under item 3 of the Agenda, Ministers had instructed the 
General Council to hold consultations regarding the date and venue of the Tenth Session of the Ministerial Conference – MC10. 
9.2.  He intended to start those consultations sh ortly, with a view to Members taking a decision 
collectively on the date and venue of the next Ministerial Conference at the July General Council meeting. Since MC9 had been held at the end of  2013, the next Ministerial Conference should 
normally be held at the end of 2015. With a little more than one year to go, it was certainly not 
too early to start some forward planning, taking into consideration the amount of work which went 
into organizing an event of that size, both for the Secretariat and for any possible host country. 
9.3.  He also invited any Member which was considering hosting the Tenth Ministerial Conference 
to come forward with their proposal urgently for him to consult accordingly. Should there be no 
offer from Members forthcoming in the coming days, then together with the hosts in Switzerland, they needed to think about a possible venue and a decision should still be made so that the 
organizing machinery could be set in motion. 
9.4.  The General Council took note of the statement. 
10  WORK PROGRAMME ON E-COMMERCE – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN 10.1.  The Chairman recalled that the Work Programme on E-commerce took place in four bodies – 
the Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services, the TRIPS Council, and the 
Committee on Trade and Development – with th e General Council overseeing the work and 
examining any cross-cutting issues. In 2001, and as early as that, in view of its limited scope to 
study those issues at its regular meetings, the General Council had agreed to hold a "dedicated 
discussion" on e-commerce, with a Deputy Director-G eneral chairing those meetings on behalf of 
the GC Chairperson. That practice had been follo wed right through to the end of the mandate of 
former DDG Harsha Singh in October 2013. He informed Members that he had started consulting 
Group Coordinators on the possibility of appointing a Facilitator for e-commerce dealing with the matter in a horizontal way, as former DDG Sing h had done during his mandate. He invited any 
delegation which would like to express their view s on the matter to come forward and discuss that 
with him. He recalled that, in line with the Bali decision on e-commerce (WT/MIN(13)/32- 
WT/L/907), the next periodic review by the Genera l Council should take place at the July meeting. 
10.2.  The General Council took note of the statement. 
11  ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMBERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
11.1.  The Chairman recalled that the new revised Administrative Measures for Members in 
arrears, contained in WT/BFA/132, Annex I, had entered into force on 1 January 2013.   11.2.  Those measures included a requirement th at, at the end of each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should provide information with regard to which Members and Ob servers were under Administrative Measures. He 
invited the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr Francisco LIMA (El Salvador), to provide the 
Council with the information. 
11.3.  Mr Lima, Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance, and Administration, reported that 
there had been progress in the payment of contributions in arrears. He nevertheless informed 
Members that there were 4 Members in Category 1: Benin, Cameroon, Tanzania, and Vanuatu. There were 4 Members in Category 2: Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 
Senegal, and The former Republic of Macedoni a. There were 6 Members and 1 Observer in 
Category 3: Central African Republic, Dominica, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, and Sao Tomé and Principe (Observer). WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 28 - 
 
  11.4.  The Chairman said that he was also requ ired at each Council meeting to request those 
Members and Observers that Ambassador Lima had named in Categories II and III to inform the 
Secretariat as to when their payment of arrears might be expected. Since he did not see any flags 
raised, he invited them to enter into bilateral discussions with the Secretariat to work-out a 
schedule for payments in arrears. 
11.5.  The General Council took note of the statement. 
_______________ 
 
 WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 29 - 
 
  ANNEX I 
STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS AT TH E TRADE NEGOTIATIO NS COMMITTEE ON 
7 APRIL 2014 
At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned 
meeting are included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.1 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. Lesotho (African Group) 
I am delivering this statement on behalf of the African Group. 
 
The Group takes note of your remarks and commends you for the efforts you have taken so far.   
The Group further takes note of the factual reports of the Chairs of the negotiating committees 
and looks forward to your summary of Members` exchanges today. In this context, allow me to reiterate a couple of key points: 
 
Similar to most Members, the African Group is  undergoing a review of the 2008 DDA negotiating 
texts in preparation for the substance based negotiations on the DDA work program. The past two weeks of exchanges have given an insight into the enormity of the task before Members.  
 
Undoubtedly, there is a lot to do.  
What we have heard this morning from the respective Chairs` reports confirms the substance of 
the deliberations of Members over the past two weeks. The common thread in these reports is a 
clear disagreement amongst Members on whethe r the 2008 negotiating texts should continue 
being the basis for negotiations.  For the African Group, the only port of entry into the resumed 
DDA negotiations is the Rev. 3 and Rev.4 texts of  NAMA and Agriculture negotiations respectively. 
The alternatives presented so far have failed to  convince the African Group that the departure 
from Rev 3 and Rev.4 does not translate into reneging on the Doha Mandate itself. For the African 
Group, the deliberations on legitimacy of DDA negotiating text cannot be mutually exclusive from 
the notion of the legitimacy of Doha Mandate. It is on this basis that the African Group continues to rebut attempts to throw away thousands of ho urs and resources invested in constructing the 
DDA negotiating texts.    
 Expounding further on this point, a secondary view that Rev.4 modalities be preserved with a view 
to having them bear a limited function of servin g the negotiations as a reference point, conjures 
up a further rebuttal. Again in this context, failure to convince the African Group of the fate of the architecture of the modalities has denied the Group some modicum of clarity on what will be the precise function of the referential value of DDA negotiating texts. At the moment, the destiny of 
flexibilities in these texts, particularly the inherent recognition of the economic and developmental 
circumstances of developing countries and LDCs remains uncertain. It is worth noting that some of the Bali Decisions were based of the very DDA negotiating texts such as Rev. 4 text of Agriculture 
modalities. On this score, the African Group is yet to understand what fate belies such decisions in 
the event that Rev. 4 disappears. Again for the African Group, the current DDA negotiating texts 
are the only port of entry into Post Bali DDA negotiations. 
 
Taking this question a little further, the African Gr oup is acutely aware of th e political question that 
is overshadowing the context within which we are working.  This question is the very one which led Members into acknowledging that the negotiations we re at an impasse during the MC8.  With this 
question looming in the horizon, the Group is of the view that no amount of tinkering with DDA 
negotiating texts will wish it away. The negotiating texts are the manifest translation of the DDA mandate in text. The impression of the Group is therefore that starting negotiations on a clean 
slate will not make them any easier. 
 
                                               
1 The statements are also included in the minutes of the 7 April 2014 TNC Meeting in document 
TN/C/M/34. WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 30 - 
 
  As you may deduce from these preliminary view s of the African Group, there are still more 
questions than answers at the moment. Perhaps this is natural because all Members including the African Group are exercising diligence with a view  to reviewing the issues on the table. It is 
therefore the hope of the African Group that our conversation will soon mature and Members will 
collectively find answers to these questions.  
 Let me quickly turn to perspectives of the African Group on specific technical elements of our 
work: 
 
a. The Group strongly believes that Agriculture should be at the center of any outcome of the 
DDA negotiations. In fact, this begs no further question because Ministers in Bali directed 
Members to prioritize non-binding outcomes  of the MC9 such as cotton and export 
competition, in the Post Bali DDA work program. The negotiations on Agriculture must cover all three pillars including the areas identified by the Chair of the COASS`s report to Members. 
This is because any partial treatment of Agriculture will deal a great blow to the level of 
ambition in other areas of negotiations. The Group is persuaded that engagement in Agriculture will predicate the level of ambition to be cultivated other negotiating areas. 
b. On NAMA, the African Group would like to refer Members to the statement it made during the 
meeting of the Negotiating Group on NAMA. 
c. Services trade continues to be an important part of the international trade. The interests of 
the Group in this pillar of negotiations need no repetition. The growing importance of trade 
and environment in international trade and DDA negotiations cannot be overemphasized. It is 
therefore important to recognize that initia tives outside the MTS in these areas bear a 
potential to cut-off African Countries from international services trade and trade in 
environmental goods, particularly if the results thereto do not apply on MFN basis. 
d. On development issues Mr Chairman, the Africa n Group welcomes the fact that Members are 
rallying behind para 44 of the Doha Mandate as the basis on which further negotiations under 
the CTDSS will proceed. The Group as a natural proponent in this area has been working hard 
to ensure that as Members gear up to define the contours of the DDA work program, all the elements necessary to move the work forward will be on the table. 
 
e. On trade facilitation, Members are en-route to fulfil the Ministerial Instructions of the MC9. 
Some Members of the African Group have beg un to consult with their capitals on the 
implementations of the Trade Facilitation Agreem ent. However, these efforts will not amount 
to much in the absence clarity on the availability and terms of accessibility of resources. 
Effectively, without this clarity, the assignment  of commitments into the three categories will 
no doubt compromise the overall quality of commitments to be made by developing countries. 
In order to remedy this information deficit, the African Group requests the Director General to 
facilitate the creation a forum that will serve to provide Members with information on the assistance to be availed to developing countri es in order to implement TFA and the related 
terms of access.  
In closing, the African Group considers it impo rtant that development becomes linchpin of our 
work. This should not only be in utterance but also in identifiable and measurable outcomes. Further, the principle of single undertaking must be preserved. Without this preservation, the 
internal and external balance of negotiations will be difficult to strike. Lastly, no new issues should 
be introduced on negotiations table during the life span of the DDA. 
2. Cuba 
I am making this statement on behalf of my Ambassador, Anayansi Rodríguez Camejo, who hoped 
to be able to speak this morning and unfortunately she does have another important commitment this afternoon and is unable to attend.  
We would like to thank you for your report as well as those from the Chairs of the other Bodies. In 
s u m ,  t h i s  p r o v i d e s  u s  w i t h  a n  o v e r v i e w  o f  t h e  situation of the negotiations at this time. Cuba WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 31 - 
 
  supports the statements made by Indonesia on behalf  of the G33, by Brazil speaking on behalf of 
the G-20, by Kenya speaking for the ACP and Guatemala speaking on behalf of the SVEs.   We do not note any substantial changes since the last TNC which was held on 6th February. And 
the positions of certain developed country Members do not seem to be making a positive 
contribution to moving forward.  
There is a risk that, with so much work ahead of us, that at the last minute what will prevail is a 
sense of urgency thus sacrificing the interests of the majority. There cannot be any selective treatment nor any moving away from the Doha Mandate which must be preserved in its entirety respecting the principle of a Single Undertaking. Creativity in our work must always be aimed at 
ensuring that by the end of the year we have prepared a clearly defined Work Programme with 
development at its center. It the most recent meetings, Cuba has clearly stated its position. We would request that in the minutes of this meeting our interventions made in the Committee of 
Agriculture in Special Session on 28th March be incorporated as well as our statement in the 
Negotiating Group on Market Access on 31st Marc h, and our statement also in the Council for 
Trade in Services in Special Session on 1st April. 
 
For Agriculture, we must mention this point as something of concern to us after so many years so many efforts into this the overall work accomplished in the WTO could be satisfied by some who are trying to hamper further progress. There are some who hide behind subject future that are not 
very clear and they try to find new ideas, new data, new information, new concepts, new 
approaches so as to hide the true purposes and perpetuate an unbalanced reality which has always 
been favourable to them.  
 
On NAMA, we would like to reiterate that Cuba cannot imagine a balanced outcome in this area without the elimination of non-tariff barriers, which are inconsistent with the most fundamental 
principles, rules and agreements of this Organization. 
 Cuba maintains its commitments to the WTO and is willing to work constructively so as to ensure that the WTO is the Doha Round is firmly placed back on track and that the objective is achieved 
for a world alliance for development where the role of trade as you yourself stated last April 4th in 
the Second Open Dialogue of the Sustainable Development Agenda for 2015, that where the role of trade is not simply reduced to liberalization but where it becomes a tool for development policy. 
 
We also wish to make reference to the Negotiations under way in the Dispute Settlement Body with a view to the review of the DSU and in particular we would like to support the comments 
made by the African Group on this matter. 
 We would also like to stress the work that has been done at the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body by the Group of developing coun tries. These countries last year submitted a 
number of proposed legal texts on timeframes, medica tion of high cost of litigation, and effective 
compliance. Cuba's view is that any outcome from this process will have to include and take into account these matters and therefore we give our full support to a successful conclusion in these 
negotiations as well. 
 3. Ecuador 
Previously we had stated that in our view the post-Bali Work Program needed to be exclusively 
focused on the areas contained in the DDA. The needs and the interests of developing countries must constitute the centre of the post-Bali Work  Program – that is Agriculture must be the key 
piece of the program. The post-Bali program must  be based on the results achieved and on the 
principle of the single undertaking.  
 At this time, we would like to add the following remarks:  
 
The post-Bali Work Program and the implementati o n  o f  t h e  B a l i  P a c k a g e  m u s t  b e  t a k e n  u p  
simultaneously and in parallel. Agriculture is a decisive factor in determining the level of ambition 
of outcomes in this entire process. Furthermor e, from a broader perspective, we would like to 
stress on one hand that we will have to move forward and build future agreements on the basis of the balance achieved in the Marrakech Agreemen t between trade and non-trade concerns, issues 
particularly important in the area of Services, where there must be effective preservation of WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 32 - 
 
  national regulatory space in a functional way, wi th the constitutional and development objectives 
of Members.   And then on the other hand, we will have to ensure that needs for specific flexibilities such as 
those recognized in favour of Recently Acceded Members, Small and Vulnerable Economies and 
LDCs, these needs are given concrete special effective treatment of those concerning their interests, such as liberalization of trade and trop ical products, diversification and issues concerning 
preference erosion.  
 Finally, we would like to refer to the process in the context of the DSB in Special Session. On this p o i n t ,  w e  s u p p o r t  w h a t  w a s  s t a t e d  b y  t h e  R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  o f  t h e  A f r i c a n  G r o u p .  I n  l i g h t  o f  t h e  
discussion in previous years, between June and November 2012, a large number of developing 
countries submitted proposals with legal texts on the time-frame issues and the decrease of high 
cost of litigation and effective compliance. Any outcome of this process will have to include these 
matters, particularly those concerning effective compliance. The objective being to give content 
and concrete significance to the provisions on Special and Differential treatment already contained in the DSU. We support a speedy conclusion of this process. 
 
_______________ 
  WT/GC/M/151 
 
- 33 - 
 
  ANNEX II 
STATEMENT BY DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE INFORMAL GROUP OF 
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON IMPROVIN G THE GUIDELINES FOR GRANTING 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS PERMANENT OBSERVER STATUS 
IN THE WTO 
At its request, the statement of Dominican Republic on behalf of the IGDC is included below as 
part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
_______________ 
 The Group notes with concern that this issue has yet to be resolved despite having been under 
consultation already for some time. For this reason we would support that this issue be kept in the 
Agenda for the next regular meeting of the General Council. We also urge Members to show the necessary flexibility so that this issue is finally settled. 
 
__________