RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/168  
 
22 September 2017  
(17-5043) Page: 1/137 
General Council  
26 July 2017    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 26  JULY 2017  
Chairperson : H.E. Mr Xavier Carim (South Africa)  
At the outset and throughout the meeting, the Chairman, the Director -General and several 
delegations bade farewell to Amb. Luis Manuel Piantini (Dominican Republic); Amb. Juan Eduardo 
Falconi (Ecuador); Amb. Inga Ernstsone (Latvia); Amb. Mariam Salleh (Mal aysia); and Amb. Aya 
Thiam Diallo (Mali), who were leaving their post at the WTO, and expressed appreciation for their 
contribution during their time as Permanent Representatives.  Before the meeting was adjourned, 
Amb. Luis Manuel Piantini (Dominican Repub lic) made a statement . 
 
The Chairman, the Director -General and Members also bade farewell to Deputy Director -General, 
Mr. David Shark, who was also leaving his post at the WTO, and thanked him for his outstanding 
contribution to the WTO and to the multilat eral trading system.  
 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE  ....................  2 
2   REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL ON THE INFOR MAL HEADS OF 
DELEGATION MEETING  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
3   AID FOR TRADE – REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL ON THE SIXTH  
GLOBAL REVIEW  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
4   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND NAIROBI O UTCOMES – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  12 
5   WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT  BY THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AND DEVELOPM ENT .............  14 
6   AMENDMENT OF THE TRA DE POLICY REVIEW MEC HANISM – DRAFT 
DECISION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  15 
7   WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  ................................ .....................  16 
7.1   REVIEW OF PROGRESS  ................................ ................................ ............................... 16 
7.2   COMMUNICATIONS FROM JAPAN, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, AUSTRALIA, 
CANADA, COLOMBIA, QATAR AND SINGAPORE  ................................ ................................ ......19 
8   TRADE RESTRICTIVE ME ASURES BY CERTAIN ME MBERS – STATEMENT BY 
QATAR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  41 
9   ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE  ................................ ..........  42 
9.1   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ .............................. 42 
9.2   ATTENDANCE OF OBSERVERS FROM INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 43 
9.3   REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS BY PALESTINE  ................................ .......................... 43 
10   WAIVERS UNDER ARTICL E IX OF THE WTO AGRE EMENT  ................................ .........  44 
10.1   REVIEW OF WAIVERS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX:4 OF THE WTO AGREEMENT  ................. 44 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10.1.1    Least -Developed Country M embers – Obligations under Article 70.8 and 
Article  70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to Pharmaceutical Products, granted on 
30 November 2015 until 1  January 2033  ................................ ................................ ............... 44 
10.1.2    Preferential Treatment for Least -Developed Countries, granted on 27 May 2009 
until 30  June 2019 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 44 
10.1.3    Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 28 July 2015 until 31 December 2023  ....................... 44 
10.1.4    United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 5 May 2015 
until 31 December 2019  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....44 
11   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION – REPORT ON 
MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY , MAY, AND JUNE 2017  ................................ ............................  45 
12   WTO PENSION PLAN  ................................ ................................ ...............................  46 
12.1   Report by the Independent External Auditor on the Audit of the Fina ncial 
Statements of the World Trade Organization Pension Plan for the Year ended 
31 December  2016 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 46 
12.2   Annual Report and Fin ancial Statements for the Year ending 31 December 2016  .............. 46 
12.3   Alignment of the WTO Pension Plan Regulations with the WTO's Poli cies Regarding 
the Definition of Spouse to Include Domestic Partnership  ................................ ........................ 47 
12.4   WTO Pension Plan Management Board - Election of  Chairman, Members and 
Alternates  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 47 
13   STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE 
MEASURES FOR MEMBERS  IN ARR EARS  ................................ ................................ .........  48 
ANNEX 1 – REPORTS BY THE DIREC TOR-GENERAL, AS CHAIRMAN  OF THE TNC, 
AND OF THE CHAIRS OF  THE NEGOTIATING GROU PS AT THE INFO RMAL TRADE 
NEGOTIATIONS COMMITT EE MEETING HELD ON 2 5 JULY 2017  ................................ ..... 49 
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRPERSON OF THE ELEV ENTH SESSION O F 
THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE AT THE INFORM AL TRADE NEGOTIATION S 
COMMITTEE MEETING HE LD ON 25 JULY 2017  ................................ ...............................  59 
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS AND THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL'S 
REMARKS AT THE INFOR MAL TRADE NEGOTIATIO NS COMMITTEE MEETING  HELD 
ON 25 JULY 2017  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  61 
ANNEX 4 – REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL AT THE INFOR MAL HEADS OF 
DELEGATION MEETING H ELD ON 25 JULY 2017  ................................ ...........................  115  
ANNEX 5 – STATEMENTS BY DE LEGATIONS AT THE INF ORMAL HEADS OF 
DELEGATION MEETING H ELD ON 25 JULY 2017  ................................ ...........................  117  
ANNEX 6 – STATEMENTS BY DELEGA TIONS ON THE SIXTH G LOBAL REVIEW OF 
AID FOR TRADE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  135  
 
 
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, on 25 July, Members had had an Informal TNC Meeting where 
the Director -General, as Chairman of the TNC, and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups had 
provided detailed reports1, and where Minister Malcorra, Chairperson of MC11, had addressed  
delegations2. During that  TNC meeting , it had been announced that those statements would  be 
included in the minutes of this General Council meeting . 
1.2.  More than  forty delegations had taken  the floor and, as had also been previously announced  
                                                
1 At the Director -General's request, his report (also circulated in JOB/TNC/61) and those of the 
Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups  at the 25 July  Informal  TNC are incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and are  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  
2 The statement of Minister Susana Malcorra, Chairperson of MC11, is incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and is reproduced in Annex 2 of this document. It was also circulated in JOB/TNC/62.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 3 - 
 
  at the Informal  TNC Meeting , all statements made at th at TNC meeting were included in the 
records of this General Council meeting3 unless  any delegation  indicate d otherwise . 
1.3.  The General Council took note  of the Director -General's report  and of the statements . 
2  REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL ON THE INFOR MAL HEADS OF DELEGAT ION 
MEETING  
2.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, on 25 July, immediately following the Informal TNC Meeting, an 
Informal Heads of Delegation Meeting  had been held where the Director -General had reported4 on 
his other activities.  During that  Informal HODs M eeting, it had been announced  that the Director -
General's report  would be included in the minutes of this General Council meeting.  
2.2.  Eighteen delegations had taken  the floor and, as had also been previously announc ed at the 
Informal HODs Meeting , all statements made at th at Informal HODs Meeting were included in the 
records of this General Council meeting5 unless delegations indicate d otherwise . 
2.3.  The representative of Cameroon  said that during the informal TNC meetin g, Cameroon had 
raised a point of law regarding the p rocess for legitimizing matters which we re not in conformity 
with WTO rules. For the record, it had been  said by several delegation s that the informal meeting  
at the Heads of Delegation level – as it had  been called  – was merely an informal process and was 
there simply  to share i nformation for transparency purposes .  
2.4.  At the 25 July Informal HODs, 16 flags had however already been raised before the Director -
General had concluded  his report . The r espective interventions  of those Members  had focused on 
new issues. In all of their statements, they had indicated their expectation that Members  were 
supposed to achieve results on those  issues in Buen os Aires.  
2.5.  In Buenos Aires , consensus should not be requested a p osteriori to justify an illegal process. 
Cameroon remained  committe d to work for the success of Members'  work but in full clarity and 
respect for the rules. That was exactly the way how Cameroon worked – when it had agreed to 
take up issues, Cameroon alway s obeyed the rules . 
2.6.  The representative of Uganda  echoed its sentiments from the Informal TNC Meeting . Uganda  
thank ed the Director -General  for the  clarifications he  had given  pursuant to the issues that Uganda  
had raised in its intervention. Indeed, the Inf ormal HODs was not a structure that wa s intended to 
compete with or against the TNC . It wa s not a n egotiation forum as its function wa s only limited to 
transparency exercises.  
2.7.  Uganda  express ed its  appre ciation for the work that the Director -General contin ued to do. Its 
intervention had  nothing against the person of the Director -General. It had  rather  been about the 
principle of upholding the r ules and regulations that Members had already agreed in the 
organization. Uganda  agree d with all delegations that continue d to support that point of view and 
with the Director -General  in his quest to  ensure the preservation of that  point of v iew, and  said 
that Item 2 of that day's agenda would  not be a standing agenda item. Uganda  also agree d with 
                                                
3 The statements at the 25 Jul y Informal TNC Meeting by the following delegations  and the Director -
General's remarks at that meeting  are incorporated in the minutes of this mee ting and can be found in Annex 3  
of this docu ment:  Rwanda (African Group); Israel; Philippines; Chinese Taipei  (Article XII Members) ; European 
Union; Chile; Barbados (CARICOM); Cambodia (LDCs); Nigeria; Republic of Korea; Dominica (OECS) ; Benin 
(C-4); Pakistan; Paraguay; Morocco; Peru; Ecuador; Singa pore; Mexico; Indonesia (G -33); Zimbabwe; India; 
Zambia; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Russian Federation; Nepal; Plurinational State of Bolivia; Ukraine; 
Fiji (Pacific Group) ; Senegal; Norway; South Africa; Cameroon; Ghana; Republic of Moldova; Uganda ; 
Jamaica; Hong Kong, China; Uruguay; Tanzania; China; Brazil; Switzerland; Montenegro; Thailand ; 
Mozambique; United States; Kenya and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  
4 At the Director -General's request, his report (also circulated in JOB/GC/135) at the 25 July  Informal 
Meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation  are incorporated in the minutes of this meet ing and are  reproduced 
in Annex 4  of this document.  
5 The statements at the 25 Jul y Informal Meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation by the following 
delega tions are incorporated in the minutes of this mee ting and can be found in Annex 5  of this document:  
Costa Rica (Friends of E -Commerce for Development); Argentina; Switzerland; Dominican Republic (IGDC) ; 
Brazil (Friends of MSMEs); Australia; United States; Canada; Philippines (ASEAN); Colombia; Qatar; New 
Zealand; Japan; Norway; Pakistan; Chinese Taipei; Russian Federation and European Union.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the idea of transparency exercises and  always endeavour ed to engage  in them.  
2.8.  The representative of Norway  had thought that things had been  made fairly clea r by the 
response given by the Director -General at the Informal TNC Meeting. There had been a  very wide 
agreement at that meeting  about the u tility of having the I nformal HODs. Members had  heard 
arguments around the fact that they no longer  had the green rooms and that the Informal HODs  
was clearly a transparency exercise.  
2.9.  What made him react the n had been  the comment that the Item  should not be a  standing 
item on the agenda . Members  needed to keep the flexibility of the organization so that they could  
have an opportunity to have deliberati ons not only on negotiations. They could not try to silenc e 
deliberati vely different functions of the organization, which was why he had taken the floor.  
2.10.   The representative of New Zealand  echoed Norway's sentiment on  the need for a place  in 
the organization  for deliberative considerations. A bit of history had been recalled at the informal 
meetings the previous day . He noted that the Director -General had spoken  about  the history of 
various  transparent or non -transparent  processes which he had  been present. The Director -
General had also  recalled provisions of the  Marrakesh Agreement which he had  happened to be a 
part of the drafting  process thereof.  
2.11.   One of the important provisions in the Agreement  was that Members did not simply  operate 
by the  biennial  meeting of the Ministerial  Conference. The Agreement made it  clear that between 
the sessions that Ministers we re meeting, they – as Ambassadors and  Permanent Representatives  
or as Chargés at the General Council  – exercise d the functions of the Ministerial Conference 
continuous ly. Otherwise,  there would  be no point f or them  to be there. They  could just have 
technicians working on the things that Ministers would decide  every two years. Members therefore 
needed a way of preparing thei r agenda in between Ministerial Confer ences,  actively undertaking 
that and preparing in particular  for when those  Ministerial Conferences we re coming up.  
2.12.   He had  spoke n once at the 25 July Informal HODs Meeting because he had  wanted to make 
an intervention that straddled  particularly the Doha issues that Members we re working on for 
outcomes at Buenos Aires and also other issues that his delegation along with others thought  that 
they should be looking to address at MC11 . He was c onscious of the rules and declaration s about 
how negotiations we re commenced and undertaken. But there also had to b e a forum where 
Members could discuss how to prepare in  taking the organization forward. I n a fo rmal sense,  that 
forum had to be the General Council  exercising the function s of the Ministerial Confer ence.  
2.13.   Members also  needed an informal preparation for th at, which as the Director -General had 
said he wanted to undertake. His delegation therefore support ed the Director -General in 
conducting  a process as transparent as possible.   
2.14.   To bring those various strands together , the process needed  to be done through t he General 
Council. His delegation therefore supported the idea that the General Council needed  to have a 
way of discuss ing that and to crystalize that discussio n leading up to MC11. A t some point , there 
should  be a clear process that would bring  together  the various strands  of Members'  preparation s 
for MC11  where they could discuss those  issues holistically.  
2.15.   The representative of Cameroon  wished to provide some clarifications as  there had been a  
number of insinuations in Members' interventions at the 25 Ju ly informal meetings. At a personal 
level, the Director -General wa s well aware of the respect that Cameroon had for him since he had 
been Ambassador and because of the work that he had done.  In relation to MC9 in Bali, the 
Director -General would  remember  everything that had been  said and done before, during and after 
that Ministerial Conference. His delegation had  always participated in a constructive mann er within 
all processes which included  subject s which could in fact damage its  own interests.  
2.16.   Cameroon did not intend to discriminate against the entire staff of th e WTO because they 
work with them every day . For a small delegation like Cameroon, it would be very difficult to work 
without the Secretariat.  However, wi thin that same Secretariat , his delegatio n was  sufferin g from 
what other delegations did  not suffer from. His delegation had raised that matter in  variou s 
configurations  and on a  public manner particularly on how it had to negotiate with  the Secretariat 
to make sure  that they had included all that it had said and raised.  His delegation had not  always WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 5 - 
 
  complained about it  but at a certain point it  needed to be heard loud and clear with regard to that 
kind of practice – that sometimes had  to be done.  
2.17.   With regard to the process, Members  needed to ensure th at what they did was transparent. 
Cameroon  had read that in the minutes of the TNC and the General Council and had also had 
experience and  a long standing history  in the organization. His delegation was not p retending to 
be the oldest in the house  but it had learned  some great lesson s.  
2.18.   Cameroon thought that f or the WTO to remain credible, it would be better  for everything to 
be made clear. His delegation was  not intending to block anything and was ready to participate in 
every discussion . All dele gations in the room could bear  witness to  the fact that his delegation had  
discussed with any groups in the WTO including on what had taken place that week – and would 
continue to do so after the General Council meeting.  
2.19.   Cameroon  request ed one thing – that the current  procedures and objectives  be coherent 
with those agreed upon in the past . When ever the Director -General  would seek to establish a 
transparency process, his delegation would be one of its first beneficiaries . His delegation had 
never questioned  that. It however saw a problem.  It was easy for those who wanted to benefit 
from the proce ss to say that his delegation was accusing the Director -General . They did not see 
that the process was instituted at their request for certain issues to be taken up . It wa s to those 
Members that his delegation was addressing those words because they were all part of the 
decision -making process – both individual Members and groups of Members.  
2.20.   No discussion on one issue could be prohibited in the  organization . Cameroon had made it 
clear that it had said that in its intervention and hoped that it  would be reflected in the minutes. 
The Director -General could  meet with  and listen to  whoever  he wanted . But the problem remained 
on the validity, the juridical conten t and that which condoned the results of those deliberations.  
2.21.   If a process was inconsistent or improper before Buenos Aires and if Cameroon would  hear 
Members insisting that on that issue there could be decisions taken in Buenos Aires despite such 
inconsis tency or impropriety, his delegation would  not join consensus. His delegation was not  
preventing anyone from discussing and was  ready  to discuss in any configuration . However, if the 
goal wa s that Cameroon would be taken by the throat at the very last minu te in Buenos Aires with 
a "take it or leave it" approach, his  delega tion would  not be ready to join  consensus. He believed it 
was better to say it in advance. Perhaps someone would say it down the line but his delegation 
thought it would be better to be clear in that regard.  
2.22.   The representative of Switzerland  said that t he Informal HODs meeting was extremely 
useful for the WTO's work . It provided  a space for discus sion and a process for transparency . Such 
transparency measures benefitted all Members including those who did  not have the resources to 
obtain information throu gh a network of delegates that we re well -connected in Geneva. 
Switzerland therefore  encourage d holding such meetings.   
2.23.   The nature of such meetings should not be misunderstood. They  were meant for debate and 
discussion  – for transparency purposes. In those meetings,  Members had  the opportunity to 
express thei r opinions  – which sometimes could be contradictory . Those meetings were not meant 
for taking decisions or launching negotiations.   
2.24.   The Informal HODs Meeting  prepare d the ground for delegations. It provided them the 
opportunity to  discuss the challenges that the org anization was confronting – challenges which 
could not be set aside in the WTO context and which could not be clinically examined in an isolated 
way by ignoring everything else. Members should preserve the deliberative function of the WTO 
which was crucial  – the exercise of which should not be restricted.  
2.25.   Switzerland thought that the Director -General did well with the process . 22 Informal HODs 
meetings had taken place to date. Each of those meetings had been useful and had succeeded in 
achieving its objecti ves – to share  information  transparently  and to allow all Members to express 
themselves. Such practice was good and  should  therefore be  continue d that way.  
2.26.   His delegation  hoped that all misunderstandings had been cleared up. The Director -General 
had contributed in clarifyi ng some of them. The discussion under the current item  was more WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 6 - 
 
  peaceful than t he one that had taken place the previous day. The best practices that had  been put 
in place the past few years should hopefully  continue to inspire all Members in their work ahead.  
2.27.   The representative of Mexico  referred to the  interventions made in the 25 July Informal TNC 
and Informal HODs meetings where Members had  had an in-depth d iscussion.  Some clar ification s 
had been made , particularly on the distinction between the Informal TNC and the Informal HO Ds 
format and on the importance of having both processes to facilitate discussions. It was clear that 
the Informal HODs was limited to  a transparency exercise which Mexico believe d to be valuable in  
light of the challenges that the organization was facing. His delegation  therefore saw no reason to 
stop that practice in  the General Council.   
2.28.   The representative of Kenya  supported  the Informal HODs meetings in terms of the 
transparency that it provided. It was a noble objective  and should be supported and not be 
strangu lated at any level. Kenya therefore  encourage d the continuation of such meetings . 
2.29.   The representative of the Dominican Republ ic observed that under Director -General 
Azevêdo's leadership, there had  been greater  transparency on many issues. No one  could say that 
delegations had not been  allowed to participate in discussing the core issues that were being 
addressed by the  Ministerial  Conference. There had  been no topic that had gone to the Ministerial  
Conference without being  discussed in an open and transparent  manner nor had there been any 
issue discussed behind closed doors. All facets of such issues had  been openly discussed.  
2.30.   As he was about to leave the organization, he hoped that the l evel of transparency that the 
Director -General had gifted the WTO  would remain enforced and that inclusiveness be maintained. 
Members should recognize that the Informal HO Ds Meetings we re extremely productive because 
they made them think about what the organization was – particularly on the role that it wa s 
playing in the world.  
2.31.   He recognized that Members also had a certain level of frustration on the Doha Round. It 
had already been six teen years in the making . He agreed that developin g countries should have 
made it known  that distortions were affecting them in the agr icultural sector. As a community of 
several million inhabitants represented by 164 delegations, WTO Members should admit that they 
had an obligation to th at community – one that did not cloister themselves  from the outside world . 
They rather needed to be aware of everything that was happening around them and to act upon it 
when necessary – to work on them within an organizat ion that was alive and fully -functioning. 
Members  needed to conti nue moving forward for the benefit of the international community.  
2.32.   In that regard, the Informal HODs meetings were extremely positive. They provided 
Members  with an  opportunity to brainstorm and to look at topics that some would think c ould be 
subject to discussion or debate  as they related to  the work of the organization . Such meetings 
provided transparency as it  placed various issues on public view. There was infor mation sharing 
regarding  workshop s, seminars and papers that were circulated in the respective WTO bodies.  At a 
certain point, there would be issues that could  be discussed  through this process that could 
eventually be addressed by the Ministerial Conferen ce. This process  therefore ensure d that the 
organization remained  relevant.  
2.33.   The representative of Pakistan  wished to add his delegation's  voice to those who fou nd 
value in  the Informal HODs meetings.  As a small delegation , Pakistan valued the process  as it 
provided an excellent forum for debate  and deliberation. As a Friend of the System, his delegation 
found it useful and n ot keeping it vibrant would be extremely inadvisable . If Members  wanted the 
WTO to remain a li ving, organic  organization , they should continue with it and value and protect it.   
2.34.   The representative of Jamaica  was concerned with the management of time. It seemed that 
there was one  question before them . As he had understood it, the provenance of the HO Ds and 
the TNC operating i n their respe ctive capacities had been addressed at the informal meetings the 
previous  evening. Th e only issue of substance that had been  material , if indeed the proponent 
wished it to be discussed, wa s whether the report from the HO D should be a standing item on the 
agenda. Prior  to that intervention, there had been no request that it be made so. The only issue 
therefore was whether it was necessary for Members  to consider the placement of that item as a 
standing issue on  the agenda of the General Council. He did not understand that it had been 
requested to be so. Perhaps there wa s not a material discussi on to have around it it seemed that WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 7 - 
 
  they simply had  to decide wheth er there wa s a proper request for the item to be made a standing 
item on the agenda, to which a rebu ttal was being offered, or if there we re any other pr ocedural 
considerations that attended  the report ing of the Director -General on the meeting he convened  
with the Heads of De legation. If there was no issue  then there should not be a  protracted  
discussion .  
2.35.   The representative of Nigeria  underscore d the points that his delegation  had made at the 
25 July informal meetings on  the indispensable use of the Informal HODs . Such  had been the 
practice of the o rganiza tion coming well before the WTO. The process had  been traditionally 
managed by the Director -General's Office. Its value had  been pointed out by many delegations as 
it provided  a space for deliberative consideration , transparency, a healthy exchange of views, 
constructive engagement and flexibility. That was a practice that should be continued.  
2.36.   On the question regarding whether Item 2 of the agenda  should be a standing item or not, 
Members should try not to impale themselves on that discussion. They  should retain the fl exibility 
in structuring the agenda.  If there would be  a need to have it on the agenda, it would be included 
in the provisional agenda . The fact that the agenda would be considered and adopted before the 
start of each meeting should save Members from further debate about that issue. There wa s 
probably no need for the automaticity of it but they could include it in the agenda when necessary. 
As the Informal HODs could be a practice that would continue, Nigeria placed its full confidence on 
the Director -General.   
2.37.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that t he conclusion of  the 
25 July informal meetings had been intense.  The WTO was a unique organization being the only 
one where  the Director -General as the executive head could negotiate alongside the Member s. 
Bolivia  had no problem with that.   
2.38.   The 25 July informal meetings were important as  necessary clarifications had been made. 
Transparency was important in the organization including d uring the process until the conclusion of 
each session of the Ministerial Conferen ce. 
2.39.   Many impo rtant things had been  said in those meetings. Uganda had raised an interesting 
point regarding the issue of conflict of interest. I t would perhaps be useful to draw up a guidelin e 
or something similar for the o rganization. Other organizations had been working on it such as the 
World Healt h Organization. Bolivia had not questioned the professionalism or integrity of the 
Secretariat  but such a measure could be useful as it helped build institutions.  
2.40.   The representative of Montenegro  said that as a  small country and a recently -acceded 
Member, the  WTO's deliber ative function wa s very important for her delegation with a Mission  that 
had limited resources. The Informal HODs had been  a learning experience. It had been  a venue to 
better prepare for the a genda, to int ensify work, to better send message s to the capital, to raise 
issues, to exchange ideas and to acquire information.  It had been a very transparent, inclusive and 
vibrant forum for all Members. Montenegro therefore encouraged the continuation o f those  
meetings as they were  excellent, useful and transparent  – and benefitted all Members.  
2.41.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  noted that in its statement at the 
25 July Informal TNC, Venezuela had  made explicit reference to the i mportance of the procedures 
and on how they relate d to building confidence among Members. That wa s bor ne out by the 
impasse that had arisen due to  the Informal HODs Meetings convened by the Director -General . 
2.42.   The TNC had a clear function that could not be replaced by the Informal HODs. The 
misunderstanding at the 25 July informal meetings was rooted from the failure to convene TNC 
meetings as frequently as some of the  delegations would like. The two types of meeting s clearly  
had different objectives.  Venezuela therefore  trusted that the Director -General would get back to 
convening the TNC and would leave to h is discretion the convening of Informal HODs  meetings 
whenever he would deem it appropriate.  
2.43.   The representative of Rwanda  made it clear that for his delegation, for Africa and for 
developing countries in general, Members should avoid deviating  from the focus of their 
discussions . What wa s essential  did not lie in the spirit  of certain procedures but rather more 
deeply in  the legitimacy and the capacity of the organization to meet its objective s. It wa s time for WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 8 - 
 
  all Members to work together towards the same objective and to  carry out an assessment and 
evaluation of  all the work of the WTO in the light of the development o bjecti ves.  
2.44.   Statistics we re certainly not in favour of a positive  assessment and t he relationship between 
development and multilateral trading rules we re not encouraging. The lack of progress i n the 
implementation of the DDA  and the lack of prospects in the short and medium ter m for substantive 
progr ess especially in agriculture provided more reasons  for Members to rethink and reflect about 
their current situation to enable them to move forward  towards  achieving their true objective s.  
2.45.   In relation to the issue at hand,  Rwanda noted that it welcomed all discussions . Members 
should remain open -minded and all possibilities for an  exchange of views should  be encouraged. It 
was however equally true that one had  to listen to those w ho warned the Membership  that they 
should avoid distorting the rules. Rules had  to be abided by and respected or they had to be  re-
thought and  re-written if they we re no longer relevant or responsive . 
2.46.   Members needed to  listen clo sely to those who fear ed that those informal meetings – which 
were highly useful – would serve as an  open window for the intrusion of issues without a 
negotiating mandate. C onversation s among Members should remain open and sincere.  They 
should continue to build trust among themselve s and ensure that they moved closer to achieving 
their true  objectives.  
2.47.   The Chairman  said that , in broad terms , a lot of the views expressed that day reflect ed the 
views and perspective s of the interventions from the 25 July informal meetings . However,  there 
seem ed to be one new issue t hat had been raised  at the meeting with respect to whether or not 
Item 2 on the Report by the Director -General on the Informal Heads of Delegation M eeting  would 
become a standing agenda item in the General Council. That was  a matter  that might need to be 
taken up again in the future . Other important issues had also been raised and he had taken careful 
note of what Members had said that day.  
2.48.   The General Council took note  of the Director -General 's report and of  all the statem ents. 
3  AID FOR TRADE – REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL ON THE SIXTH  GLOBAL 
REVIEW  
3.1.  The Chairman  invited the Director -General to provide his report  on the Sixth Global Rev iew of 
Aid for Trade, which had taken  place on 11 to 13 July – with the theme  "Promoting Trade, 
Inclusiveness and Connectivity for Sustainable Deve lopment".  
3.2.  The Director -General  said that at the Sixth  Aid for Trade Global Review, which  had closed on 
13 July, the scale of support that had  been provided under this initiative  had been  announced . 
Since the start of this work  in 2006 , almost 300 billion dollars had  been disbursed in Aid for Trade 
support. The latest data available wa s for 2015, when disbursements had reached 39.8 billion 
dollars – the highest amount for a single year so fa r. 146 developing countries had  benefitted from 
this support to date – mainly in Africa and Asia, with 27% of the total going to LDCs.  
3.3.  Much of this support had  gone towards building  supply -side capacity and trade -related 
infrastructure.  Both of those were hugely  important and they we re a necessary complement to 
more open markets. Together, this wa s a proven recipe for greater growth, development, poverty 
reduction and job creation. It wa s clear that Aid for Trade wa s having a real impact on the ground. 
That was w hy the Sixth Global Review had been  such an important event.  
3.4.  The theme of the Review had been  "Promoting Trade, Inclusiveness and Connectivity for 
Sustaina ble Development". The feedback he had received suggested  that Members had considered 
the Review to b e rich and diverse in terms of content, and innovative in term s of its organization. 
Overall he thought that Members would agree with him that the Review had been  a great success.  
3.5.  Over 1,500 people had participated in the plenary session s and side -events.  This included 
numerous Ministers and Heads of International Organiz ations. The privat e sector, NGOs and 
academia had  also been well-represented.  
3.6.  Many bodies had used the occasion to launch important publications – in addition  to the main WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Aid for Trade pu blication itself. The Asian Development Bank, the Inter -American Development 
Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and the UN Economic Commission for Africa had all launched 
reports exam ining the theme of this Review, a nd he had  launched a joint FAO -WTO repor t with 
FAO Director -General Graziano da Silva on "Trade and Food Standards".  
3.7.  At a thematic level, the Review had been diverse , and had  reflected  the range of topics that 
the Initiative itself sought  to address. Keeping in mi nd that everything had been  discussed through 
the lens of capacity building support, the issues covered included: trade facilitation, connectivity 
infrastructure – both physical and digital, e -commerce, gender, investment, LDCs, MSMEs, trade 
finance, and the SD Gs. All of those issues we re important and Members could reflect on how the 
Aid for Trade initiative could do more in tho se areas.  
3.8.  A common  theme throughout the Review had been how Members could  make trade more 
inclusive – and what role the initiative could  play to help those effo rts. On that point, he saw  a 
great deal of complementarity between Aid for Trade and the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Achieving economic growth was  a key objective for both initiatives. In fact, the SDGs call ed for an 
"increase in Aid for Trade support f or developing c ountries, particularly LDCs". Members should  
ensure that Aid for Trade continued  to deliv er more and better – and that they  improve d their  
coordination across the international community.  
3.9.  In addition, he highlighted the  need to mai ntain thei r focus on LDCs. He  encourage d 
Members to  ensure that the needs of LDCs we re being met, and to be  ready to innovate and 
prioritiz e support on the basis of the specific needs expressed by  the LDCs themselves. To do that, 
they needed to ensure that the Aid f or Trade initiative continued  to evolve and improve.  
3.10.   Some ideas had been raised on that  point during the review. For example, at the closing 
session, some Members had highlighted the importance of updating the monitoring and evaluation 
methodology and exer cise tha t underpinned  the Global Re view. In another session, it had been  
suggested that future Aid for Trade discussions concentrate d on outcomes and impacts. One 
particular idea floated had been  for Aid for Trade to focus on the them e of "Economic 
Empower ment". Tho se ideas – and others – would  naturally be considered in the CTD Aid for 
Trade, under the direction of Ambassa dor Mushayavanhu of Zimbabwe.  The CTD Aid for Trade 
could  facilitate discussions on a new biennial work programme and crystallize the d ifferent themes 
that could be taken forward. As in the pa st, Ambassador Mushayavanhu would  then present the 
results of that  work to the General Council.   
3.11.   He thought  all Members  agree d that the Aid for Trade initiative was doing good work. 
Indeed, in his v iew it wa s more important than  ever. He was sure that Members would  give 
discussions about the future of the initiative the time and engagement that they deserve d. By 
working together they could  ensure that the initiative continued  to go from strength to  strength, 
and that it continued  to meet the evolving needs of developing and least -developed M embers.  
3.12.   The representative of Sierra Leone  aligned her delegation with the statement  to be made  by 
the LDCs.  Sierra Leone had  complete confidence in the le adership  role that the Director -General 
was playing in movi ng the work of the WTO forward. Her intervention would  address the particular 
situation of trade in the Least -Developed Countries  in the context of th e Sustainable Development 
Goals  adopted by Heads of Sta te of al l members of the United Nations  in September 2015.   
3.13.   The category of LDCs had  officially  been established in 1971 by the UN General Assembly 
with a view to attracting special international support for the most vulnerable and disadvant aged 
members o f the UN family. The Least -Developed Countries represent ed the poorest and weakest 
segment of the international community. They comprise d more th an 880 million people (about 
12% of world population), but account ed for less than 2% of world GDP and about 1% of global 
trade in goods.  
3.14.   Four World Conferences had been held – the fourth being in Istanbul in 2011. That  
conference had provided a major opportunity to deepen the global partnership in support of LDCs 
and had set the fr amework for development co operation for the next decade. The Istanbul 
Programme of Action was an internationally  developed framework to enhance the development 
partnership between LDCs and the international c ommunity. The Programme contained  eight 
priority  areas for action – one of which wa s trade.   WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.15.   The outcome document of the mid -term review of the Istanbul Programm e of Action  which 
had taken place in Antalya, Turkey  in May 2016 had  observed that the share of LDCs in world 
exports had remained stagnant  standing in 2014 at 1.1% and dr opping to 0.97% in 2015 – a level 
that wa s far behind the objective of doubling the LDCs share of global exports by 2020 as had 
been mentioned in the Istanbul Programme of Action. It had acknowledged that a universal, rules 
based, open, non -discriminatory and equitab le multilateral trading system wa s key to promoting 
export diversification, trade and economic growth.  
3.16.   All WTO M ember s should be committed to addr essing the conditions in LDCs with  regard to 
trade. In all negotiation s, including those leading to MC11 , developed and developing Members 
should be urged to give greater consideration to the LDCs and support their  concessions.  
3.17.   It was no secret that LDCs had not been able to benefit fully from some of the concessions 
granted  both within  and outside the WTO framework. As Members  embark ed on the 
implementation of the 2030 Su stainable Development Agenda, they  needed to take a critical look 
at trade issues in LDC s and the constraints that had hampered their trade  in spite  of the Aid for 
Trade resources which had  reportedly been provided to them.  
3.18.   The 2017 Aid for Trade review  which had focused on trade connectivity , including digital 
connectivity , had revealed the addit ional obstacles to trade by LDCs through e -commerce.  The 
well-known obstacles that had  negatively affected LDCs ' participation in  trade were  compounded 
by additional factors such as limited broadband facili ties and access to the internet  as well a s non -
affordability of services  when available. Statistics on t he prevalence of mobile phones we re 
deceptive because the possession of  mobile phones in many cases did  not mean a wide use of 
them due to the  prohibitive costs of services.  Unless the proble ms of access and affordability we re 
addressed, LDCs would be left be hind even further.  
3.19.   The 2030 Sust ainable Development Agenda gave  the Aid for Trade Ini tiative even greater 
relevance. It promised that "no one should be left behind".  It also recognized  the importa nce of 
trade for development. T he Sustaina ble Development Goal 8.11 stated, " Increase Aid for Trade 
support for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, including through the 
Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade -Related Technical Assistanc e to Least Developed 
Countries."  
3.20.   It was clear that  the financial requirements to address constraints  were enormous and could 
not only be provided through overseas development assistance. That was where catalytic activities  
as promulgated by the E nhanced Integrated  Framework ca me in. Diagn ostic Trade Integ ration 
Studies , which aimed  at identify ing the constraints to the integration of  LDCs into the multilateral 
trading system and the mainstreaming of trade issues into national development strategies , 
serve d as a tool to identify policy limitations and gaps  in LDCs. D eveloping action matrices to  
address domestic bottlenecks to trade we re crucial and a cornerstone of the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework in terms of integrating and mainstreaming trade i nto national development plans.  In 
addition, imp lementing pil ot projects which we re aimed at leveraging activities by the public and 
private sectors we re invaluable in ensuring other sources of funding for developing trade.  
3.21.   And yet, the Enhanced Integrated  Framework did  not receive the support it deserved by the 
entire Membership of the WTO. In the meetings of  the General Council, most M embers proclaim ed 
the importance of addre ssing the concerns of the Least -Developed Countries but only a few of 
them had contributed to that important initiative. Sierra Leone called o n all developed Members  
and those developing Members  in a position to do so  but which had not yet done so to contribute 
generously to the EIF.  
3.22.   On gender issues, a s Co-Chair of the Gender Champions Impact Group on Trade together 
with the Ambassador of Icela nd and the Executive Direct or of ITC and  in whic h over 25 WTO 
Member s were participating,  they we re looking closely into steps that need ed to be taken both 
within and outside the WTO to address gender i ssues relating to trade and it was thei r intention to 
work towards a Ministerial Decl aration on that  subject at MC11.  
3.23.   The representative of Japan  commend ed the efforts of the Secretariat for the success of the 
Sixth Global Review of Aid for Trade. That Review had been  the first one since the adoption of the 
2030 Age nda for Sustainable Development and had been held with in the current climate of rising WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 11 - 
 
  protectionism and scepticism  about trade. At such a critical juncture, the theme of the Review 
"Promoting Trade, Inclusiveness and Connectivity for Sustainable De velopment" had been  timely. 
Through the Review, it had been  widely recognized that promoting trade facilitation and digital 
trade would contribute to improving connectivity.  
3.24.   In the Review , Japan had co-hosted a side event on African industrialization in co llaboration 
with UNIDO and oth er development partners. At that  event and on other occasions, Japan had  
stressed the important role of private investment and sound business envi ronment for 
development, and believe d that Aid for Trade contributed  in that reg ard. 
3.25.   As the top donor in that  area, Japan would  continue to assist developing countries, 
particularly LDCs, through Aid for Trade for their further integration  into global value chains. His 
delegation would  also actively engage in the processes of the next  work programme.  
3.26.   The representative of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDCs , joined  others in  applaud ing the 
successfu l Sixth Global Review and congratulated  the Director -General and the Aid for Trade 
Secre tariat team for its successful organization . The LDCs  attache d great i mportance to Aid for 
Trade as they  consider ed it a s the most effective avenue for t he meaningful integration of their  
economies into the multilateral trading system.  
3.27.   Lack of infrastructure and connectivity , particularly in relation to tra nsportation and digital 
connectivity , had caused LDCs to experience difficulties in integrating into the multilateral trading 
system.  Insufficiencies in tho se types of infrast ructure in developing countries especially  in LDCs 
led to low supply -side capacit y and low levels of exports  of local or national products.  
3.28.   The LDCs were  concerned that the levels of Aid for Trade flows seem ed to be heavily tilted 
towards other b eneficiaries instead of them. O f the almost 300 billion dollars disbursed since 2006, 
only 27% of the financial flows had been  channeled towards projects in LDCs – a very small  
percentage  given the significance of the challenges that LDCs faced compared to others . 
3.29.   According to the Aid for Trade a t a glance  Report of 2015 on r educing trade costs for 
inclusive, sustainable growth, a total of USD 246.5 billion in offic ial development assistance was 
said to have been disbursed – USD 190.7 billion of which rel ated to trade. That wa s a good 
showing since the launch of the Aid for Trade Global Review fo llowing the Hong Kong M inisterial 
Conference in 2005. The LDCs would  however  like to see better disbursements to each of them.  
3.30.   The Aid for Trade initiative was key for LDCs  in diversifying and improving  their product  
competit iveness. In that regard, the LD Cs welcome d the joint efforts of the Aid for Trade Unit and 
the Enhanced Integrated Framewo rk in identifying thei r needs, developing public/private 
partnership projects, obtaining funding and monitoring and evaluating the initiatives. The LDC 
Group called on Members to fulfill their commitments made in Nairobi in terms of contributions to  
Phase II of the EIF.  
3.31.   Moving forward, the LDC  Group wished  to see more intensified engagement  between  
development partners , donors and the LDCs in the spirit of partnership  to ensure th at Aid for 
Trade opportunities were  fully harnessed for socio -economic development and pove rty reduction in 
their economies.  The LDCs  appreciate d the invaluable efforts and contributions of the donors and  
development partners for continuing to  provide financial and technical resources to the Aid for 
Trade Programme.  
3.32.   The representative of  the European Union  thank ed the Direct or-General and the Secretariat 
for the ir hard work in preparing  and deliver ing a successful Sixth Aid for Trade Global Review . The 
EU's commitment for Aid for Trade was clearly demonstrated by its  financial contribution. Since 
2007, the EU's total Aid for Trade had increased by 85%  reaching over 13 billion in 2015.  
3.33.   Concerning the "Aid for Trade at a Glance" publication, w hile the EU  agree d with the 
observation the Director -General had made at  the release of the bulky document that actually 
could no  longer be called "at a  glance" , that did  not diminish the value the EU placed on  the 
analysis contained in it.  
3.34.   It was  useful  to recall some of the priority themes that had co me through most strongly at WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 12 - 
 
  the Sixth Aid for Trade Global R eview: c onnecting those who we re currently excluded, supporting 
increased participation in trade for MSMEs, removing barriers to realize the untapp ed potential of 
women and youth. A nd as had been recogniz ed by all speakers, digita lization and e -commerce had  
the potent ial to contribute to all of th ose aims.   
3.35.   The representative of Australia  congratulate d the WTO on a succ essful Sixth Global Review  
of Aid for Trade . The outcomes of the R eview had provided useful  signposts to the WTO's future 
Aid for Trade work programme and for trade and development issues more generally.  
3.36.   The revi ew had highlighted three main themes . First, there wa s a need to continue to assist 
developing countries to engage in the multilateral trading system which would  boost  trade and 
inclusive economic growth. Second , reforms to reduce trade costs and facilitate new areas of trade 
growth such as digita l trade did  not have to  be an onerous or expensive investment. They  should 
look to the private sector for innovation s and affordable solutions. Third, trade could  indeed be 
inclusive. Aid for Trade c ould insist in that regard  for example by undertaking initiatives th at target 
underrepresented groups particularly women and small businesses. Such investments could  assist 
in countering protection ist sentiments.  
3.37.   Australia remained  committed to the Aid for Trade initiative  which i ncluded  funding key 
initiatives such as th e Enhance d Integrated Framework, the International Trade Centre and the 
World Bank Trade Facilitation Support P rogramme.  
3.38.   The representative of Brazil  joined others in acknowledging th e successful conclusion of the 
Sixth Global R eview of  the Aid for Trade i nitiative. Brazil appreciated the Director -General's  
engage ment to support the  initiative . It was another example of his  active engagement to promote 
an agenda in favour of developing countries . 
3.39.   Brazil did  not have an Aid for Trade programme structured as such as other M embers had. 
Budgetary constraints had limited its activities in that area. S everal Brazilian t echnical cooperation 
activities notably in agriculture had however  a clear trade -related dimension. In that context, 
Brazil highlight ed its  south -south technical cooperation initiatives regard ing the cotton production 
chain  which had  a strong connection with the ultimate goals of  the Aid for Trade initiative. In the 
preparatory phase leading up to the  Global Review, Brazil had also  subm itted a case study 
regarding its  experience in providing technical assistance to Angola and Mozambique for the 
implementation of the TFA. Brazil praised  the achievement of the Aid for Trade initiative and would  
continue to actively conside r all possibilities to support  it. 
3.40.   The representative of  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  said that Aid for Trade was  an important 
vehicle for assisting developing countries and LDCs to improve their trade capacity and to benefit 
from the expansion of the global market. Aid for Trade was a global responsibility. Saudi Arabia 
allocated  some national resou rces to support that in itiative. Enhan cing Aid for Trade programs 
would help narrow the  gaps between developed a nd developing countries and that would make 
their work move  smoothly. Saudi Ara bia advised for the Aid for Trade R eview to be dedicated to 
development needs and the enhancement of trade and to avoid linking it wi th any other non -trade 
issue.  
3.41.   The General Council took note  of the Director -General's report and of the statements6.  
4  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND NAIROBI O UTCOMES – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
4.1.  The Chairman7 said that the  item remained on the agenda to allow Members  to continue to 
follow up on the decisions adopted in Bali and Nairobi – and to do so in an inclusive and 
transparent manner.  
4.2.  On 20 July, he had  met with the Chairs of Regular Bodies to discuss implem entation issues 
and to review their collective agenda in 2017. They had had a useful exchange and he  thank ed the 
                                                
6 At their request, the  statement of Japan on the Closing Session of the Aid for Trade Global Review on 
13 July and those of Pakistan and the United States under this item are incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and can be found in Annex 6  of this report.  
7 The Chairman's statement was circulated in JOB/GC/134 . WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Chairpersons for their coo peration and for the wo rk they we re taking forward in their respective 
bodies. As in the past, the discussion s and inputs from that meeting were the basis of his 
statement that day. 
4.3.  Regarding the  Decisions on "regular work", they had  separate agenda items for three: the 
Work Pro grammes on Small Econo mies and on E -commerce ; and  Aid for Trade , which had been 
dealt with  under the previous agenda item.  
4.4.  Concerning TRIPS non -violation and situation c omplaints, the TRIPS Council had  discussed 
the matter at each of its meetings since MC1 0, including at its most recent meeting in June when 
Members had again reiterated their well -known posi tions. Since then, the Chair had  been in touch 
with a number of delegations to explore possible ways forward to fulfil the Ministerial mandate, 
and to pr epare a recommendation for MC11 that would need to be adopted at the TRIPS Council's 
meeting in October.  
4.5.  Moving to Agriculture, with respect to the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, the second 
dedicated discussion on export competition had taken place during the June 2017 meeting of th e 
Committee on Agriculture. It wa s worth noting that Australia had been  the first and so far the only 
Member among the 16 WTO Members with export subsidy entitlements in their schedules of 
commitments to modify its sched ule pursuant to the Nairobi Decision. During the dedicated 
discussion, other Members with scheduled export subsidy reduction commitments had provided 
updates on the steps taken to implement the Decision. The Committee on Agriculture should begin 
a review o f the disciplines con tained in the Decision in 2018 . 
4.6.  Regarding the implementation of the Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes, no Member had  sought t o use the interim solution  and therefore the Committee on 
Agriculture had  not been ca lled upon to  take action. No information had  been provided by 
Members in the context of the foreseen monitoring.  
4.7.  With respect to  the implementation of the Bali Decision on TRQ Admin istration, to date no 
Member had  activated the TRQ underf ill mechanism. Acc ording to the  Decision, a review of its 
operation should begin no later than the end of 2017. T he Committee on Agriculture would begin 
that review in its October meeting.  
4.8.  Moving to the Operationalization of the LDC Services Waiver, at its June m eeting the Services 
Council had taken  note of an additional notification of preferences. LDCs had shared with the 
Council their appraisal of the notified preferential measures and had encouraged other Members in 
a position to do so to notify preferences. The Group had then urged notifying Members to 
undertake specific technical assistance and capacity -building measures to enable LDC service 
suppliers to u tilise the preferences granted. The CTS had  received a total of 24 notifications of 
preferences in favour of LDC se rvices and service suppliers. As a standing item on its a genda, the 
Services Council would take the  matter up again at its meeting in September.  
4.9.  As regards the Preferential Rules of Ori gin for LDCs, the Secretariat wa s revising a draft 
report on the recent ly adopted modality for the calculation of utilization rates underscoring 
obligations related to the notification of preferential trade statistics. Following the adoption of a 
new template for the notification of preferential rules of origin for LDCs in Ma rch, all preference -
granting Members had agreed to submit their rules using the  new template. Some Members had  
informed the Committee on Rules of Origin about improvements being made to their rules of origin 
as a result of an examination of their rules in light of the relevant Min isterial Decisions. The CRO 
would  hold a dedicated discussion on the substantive provisions of the Decision in its meeting in 
October.  
4.10.   Concerning the Monitoring Mechanism on Special and Differential Treatment,  the CTD's 
Dedicated S ession had  held seven meetings since the Bali Ministerial Conference – but no written 
submissions had  thus far been received. At the last meeting of the CTD in June, Members had 
shared their thoughts on why the Monitoring Mechanism had not yet been tested and whether or 
not there should be a  review of the Mechanism at that  stage. The discussion had shown  that 
Members had different views on how the review should proceed in the absence of any experience 
about the functioning of the mechanism. The CTD Chair in tended  to hol d informal consultations on 
the issue prior to the November meeting of the CTD.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.11.   Regarding the Bali Decision on D FQF market access for LDCs – that remained  a standing 
item on the CTD's agenda. At the upcoming November meeti ng of the CTD, the Co mmittee would  
undertake its annual DFQF review on th e basis of a Secretariat report  in line with the Bali Decision.  
4.12.   On Trade Facilitation, t hree additional Members h ad deposited their instrument of 
acceptance of the Trade Facilitation Agreement w hich enter ed int o force on 22 February 2017  – 
bringing the overall number to 121. The Committee had  also received new n otifications concerning 
Category  A, B and C.  
4.13.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's report.  
5  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND DEVELOPMENT  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, in line with the framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the Ge neral 
Council's agenda and the Committee on Trade and Development reported regularly to the Council 
on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions. At Nairobi, Ministers had adopted a Decision 
reaffirming their commitment to the Work Programme and instr ucting the CTD to continue its work 
in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibility of the General Council. He invited 
Ambassador Taonga M ushayavanhu (Zimbabwe), Chair man of the Dedicated Session of the CTD, 
to report on developments in the area.  
5.2.  Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe) , Chair man of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, recalled that in his last report on the Work Programme on  Small Economies, he  had recalled 
that Ministers in the Nairobi Decision had asked the CTD in Dedicated Session to continue its work 
on global value chains. They had also requested the Secretariat to examine the challenges which 
small economies face d in their efforts to reduce trade co sts, especially in the area of t rade 
facilitation.  
5.3.  With regard to th e work on global value chains, Members had  finished reviewing the 
challenges and opportuni ties which small economies faced in integrating into global value chains in 
sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, textiles and clothing and services trade. As a follow -up to 
that review, the group of  the Small  and Vulnerable Economies had  come up with a valuable 
outcome document which summari zed the challenges in the area of gl obal value chains and 
identified  specific recommendations for action.  
5.4.  The paper had been  circul ated a s WT/COMTD/SE/W/35 and had been  discussed at the last 
meeting of the Dedicated Session of the CTD on Small Economies held in May.  
5.5.  At that meeting Members had also discussed a new Secretariat paper (WT/COMTD/SE/W/34) 
on "Challenges and Opportunities experi enced by small economies in their efforts to reduce trade 
costs, particularly in the area of  trade facilitation". Members wer e likely to revert to that paper at 
the next meeting of the Dedicated Session.  
5.6.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the S VEs, said that Members had already 
started their  work on the challe nges small economies experienced in thei r efforts to reduce trade 
costs particularly in the area of trade f acilitation. During the ir last meeting, the Secretariat  had 
presented its bac kgrou nd document on the subject and many Members in particular SVEs had 
presented their national perspective s.  
5.7.  As had been agreed by the CTD, two more meetings would take place. The first one would 
focus on  the most important sources of merchandise and  service s trade costs  reported by SVEs. 
The second meeting would  focus on the actions and policies associated with the most posi tive 
results and best practices  in reducing trade costs for goods and services. The SVEs  looked forward 
on continuing that  work and hope d to find concrete solutions a nd recommendations that SVEs 
could implement  in order t o reduce trade costs.   
5.8.  The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the statement.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 15 - 
 
  6  AMENDMENT OF THE TRA DE POLICY REVIEW MEC HANISM – DRAFT DECISION 
(WT/TPR/399)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/TPR/399 which contained  the proposal for a 
decision on an amendment to the Trade Policy Review Mechanism in Annex 3 of the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing t he World Trade Organization. He  invite d Ambassador Juan Carlos 
Gonzalez  (Colombia) , Chair man of the TPRB, to introduce the draft decision.  
6.2.  Ambassador Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Colombia), Chairman of the TPRB , summarize d the main 
steps that had led them to that  agenda item of the  General Council. As Members kne w, the Sixth 
Appraisal of the T rade Policy Review Mechanism had been  formal ly launched on 20 June 2016. A  
series of intensive  consultations and meetings had been  held during  the second half of that year. 
Because of  the activ e particip ation of all those involved, those discussions had been  successful in 
reaching consensus.  
6.3.  The final report had been  formally agreed at a Trade P olicy Review Body meeting on 
21 December 2016. On that occasion, as one of the main results of the 6th Appraisal had been  the 
change in the TPR review cycles, Members had decided to l aunch the necessary procedures 
pursuant to paragraph 8 of Article X of the Marrakesh  Agreement Establishing the WTO  in order to 
change the current review cycles as specified in paragraph C  (ii) of  Annex 3 to the said Agreement. 
The change would  be from 2, 4 or 6 years to 3, 5 or 7 years , effective as of 1  January 2019.  
6.4.  At its meeting of 27 January 2017, the Trade Policy Review Body had agreed by consensus to 
submit  in accordan ce with paragraph 8 of Artic le X of the Marrakesh Agreement  the proposal 
contained in document WT/TPR/399 to the General Council for a decision on an amendment to the 
Trade Policy Review Mechanism contained in Annex 3 to the Marrakesh Agreement.  
6.5.  The releva nt part of  paragraph 8 of Article X stated,  "Decisions to approve amendments to 
the Multilateral Trade Agreement in Annex 3 shall take effect for all Members upon approval by the 
Ministerial Conference". In the present case, it wa s upon ap proval of  the Gen eral Council.  
6.6.  He acknowledge d the ha rd and efficient work done by his  predece ssor the former TPRB Chair 
Ms. Irene Young  and all Members during the Sixth Appraisal of the Trade Policy Review 
Mechanism.   
6.7.  He underline d the sign ificance for all Members of that result as they had been  able to succeed 
in taking an important decision by consensus in a wide and participative manner and that had 
been done in a rather short period of time – a testament  to the capacity of the WTO to deliver 
positive results to enh ance its regular work.  
6.8.  The Chairman , further to the TPRB's consideration of the  matter and to  the report  of 
Ambassador Gonzalez, propose d that the General Council adopt ed the draft decision on the 
Amendment of the Trade Policy Mechanism contained in docume nt WT/TPR/399.  
6.9.  The General Council so agreed8. 
6.10.   The Chairman  welcome d the decision and extend ed his  sincere thanks to Ambassador 
Gonzalez, the current TPRB Chair, and to Ms . Irene Young (Hong Kong, China), th e former TPRB 
Chair who had led the Sixth A pprais al of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, for their efforts i n 
facilitating consensus on that  important matter.  
6.11.   The representative of Hong Kong, China , speaking as the former TPRB Chair,  said that she 
had been entrusted with the r esponsibility to conduct th e Sixth  Appraisal of the TPRM  during her 
term as TPRB Chair . She thank ed the incumbent TPRB Chair for taking the  final step to complete 
the legal  formalities. She said that credit should go to all the Members who had  contributed to the 
Appraisal. The whole exercise  from the drawing boar d to the delivery of outcomes including the 
recommendation that had resulted in the Amendment they had passed that day had been 
completed in half a year. That  would not have been possib le without Members' cooperation. She  
also thank ed the Secretariat for giving her  very strong, professional support throughout the 
                                                
8 The decision was subsequently circulated in WT/L/ 1014.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 16 - 
 
  exercise.  
6.12.   Looking back, it had been as if all the stars had  suddenly  aligned to make that happen.  But 
she was sure it had  not just been luck. It had been  due to Members' willingness to wo rk together 
for a common good. It had not been because  the stars had aligned. It had been due to the 
alignment of Members'  interests, objectives and determination . If they could  do it for the TP RB, 
perhaps they could also try to do it elsewhere – in other areas of work at the WTO . 
6.13.   For Members with a higher level of am bition, some of the outcomes could fall below their 
expectations. But there wa s always the nex t Appraisal to look forward to. They had made 
incremental progress  that time . It was a small step but when it came  to impro ving the functioning 
of the WTO – every step counted . 
6.14.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the TPRB and of the 
statement.  
7  WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
7.1  REVIEW OF PROGRESS (S/C/52, G/C/59, IP/C/77)  
7.1.  The Chairman  recalled that a t MC10, Ministers had adopted a Decision on the Work 
Programme  on Electronic Commerce. In the  Decision, Ministers had decided to continue the Work 
Programme on Electro nic Commerce and  had instructed the General Council to hold periodic 
reviews in its sessions of July and December 2016 and July 20 17 based on the reports that could  
be submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the implement ation of the Work Programme. 
Those bodies we re the Councils for Services, Goods and TRIPS and the Committee on Trade and 
Development.  
7.2.  In that respect, he drew attention to the reports submitted by the Chairs of the Council for 
Trade in Services, of the Goods Council and of the TRIPS Cou ncil to the General Council, contained 
in documents S/C/52, G/C/59 and IP/C/77 respectively. He  invite d the four Chairpersons to report 
on developments under the Work Programme on e -commerce since the General Council's last 
periodic review in December 2016 . 
7.3.  Ambassador Julian Braithwaite (United Kingdom) , Chairman of the Services Council , reported 
that t he Council for Trade in Services had discussed the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 
at both of its formal meetings, on 16  March and 16  June 2017. The CTS had then reverted to th e 
issue at an informal meeting he had  convened on 20 July.  
7.4.  Over the course of the two meetings, Members had considered a nu mber of communications 
that had been  submitted to the Council as well as other relevant bodies entrusted with the Work 
Programme. The communications had generated a very high level of engagement by Members. 
Many delegations  had emphasized the transformative role of e -commerce, its positive impact on 
growth and development and its potential to reduce transacti on costs especially for MSMEs.  
7.5.  A number of Members had shared information about their own domestic regulatory 
frameworks relating to e -commerce  as well as their experience with negotiating e -commerce 
provision s in regional trade agreements.  All delegations  had welcomed the exchange of 
information on national experien ces with regard to e -commerce.  
7.6.  Numerous Members  had signalled their readiness to wor k towards an outcome for MC11. 
Various Members had said that many of the submissions tabled offered useful inf ormation and a 
structured approach that could facilitate discussions. Members' views on a Ministerial outcome on 
e-commerce had differed. Some Members  had argued for a gradual approach that would initially 
focus on less controversial issues.  
7.7.  Other  Members  had however argued against any rule -making on e -commerce under the 
Work Programme or as p art of any Ministerial outcome. Tho se delegations had stated that some o f 
the communications tabled had gone  beyond the purely exploratory mandate of the Work 
Program me and had underscored the need for the Work Programme to put the needs of 
developing countries and LDCs at the centre of the debate .   WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 17 - 
 
  7.8.  A few delegations had referred to the institutional arrangements for th e Work Programme 
deliberations.  While some had welcomed that submissions had been ta bled and were being 
discussed  in the various subsidiary bodies en trusted with the Work Programme  including the CTS a 
few others had called for a more consoli dated approach to deliberations  to be held possibly in a 
joint meeting of all the relevant bodies.  
7.9.  The Council had continued consideration of a proposal to hold a thematic seminar on e -
commerce . 
7.10.   That wa s as far as the discussio ns at the two formal meetings went. A fuller account of 
which was contained in his written report in S/C/52 . At the informal meeting of the Council he had  
convened on 20 July, two items relevant to the Work Progr amme on Electronic Commerce had  also 
been addressed: how to structure the Council's discussion under th e standing ag enda item on the 
Work Programme and  the CTS thematic seminar on Electronic Commerce.  
7.11.   Regarding the first item, a number of Members had reaffirmed their position that the remit 
of the Coun cil under the Work Programme had  not call ed for any negotiation. Some delegations 
had suggested that any such negotiation  should take place in the Special Session of the Council for 
Trade in Services.  
7.12.   There had been  a general appreciation of the value of continuing with the exchange of 
information and experiences relating to electronic commerce in the Council. Regarding the 
discussion of the submissions tabled by Members, several delegations had stressed that the work 
of the Council should focus on the services -related aspects contained in the commu nications and 
that discussions on cross -cutting issues should take place in the General Council.  
7.13.   Regarding the organizati on of a thematic seminar, it had been clear that there wa s no 
convergence among Members to proceed at that  point. Given the focus on pr eparations for MC11, 
it had been  considered that the matter would be best taken up early 2018 . 
7.14.   Ambassador Choi Kyonglim (Republic of Korea) , Chairman of the Goods Council , said that as 
indicated in G/C/59,  since December, the CTG had convened two meetings:  the first on 6  April and 
the second on 30 June. At both meetings, e -commerce had been in the agenda. More than  
40 delegations had taken  the floor to express t heir views on e -commerce issues  focusing on five 
papers submitted by different delegations. Many delegations mentioned the importance of sha ring 
experiences and practices to allow Members to learn from one another.  
7.15.   Those discussions had demonstrate d that Members ' interest in e -commerce  discussi ons had  
significantly increased at the CTG level. Despite Members' strong interest in e -commerce , a 
significant gap  still remained  in terms of their priorities and scope of discussion. A number of 
delegations had indicated their wish to identify  e-commerce  issues related to trade in goods  as 
potential deliverables at MC11. O ther delegations continue d to highlight the development 
component and request ed for clarifications of definitions  before considering e -commerce as a 
potential outcome at MC11.  
7.16.   Divergences also exist ed as to the scope of discussions at the CTG level. Some delegations 
had indicated that Trade Facilitation and transparency in e -commerce regulations could be a good 
start for discussions. At the same time, e -signatures, e -certificati ons, e -authenti cations and 
paperless trade had been  identified by some delegations as possible areas w here an outcome could 
be achieved. Other delegations had been  of the view that the CTG should focus on addressing 
development -related issues including the  digital divide.  
7.17.   With regard to the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties, some M embers had 
indicated t hat it should be made permanent  while others  had argued that it should only be 
extended.  
7.18.   He looked forward to further progress of the e-commerc e discussion after  the summ er 
break. He stoo d ready to consult with any inter ested delegation in that regard.  
7.19.   Ms. Irene Young  (Hong Kong, China ), Chairperson  of the TRIPS Council , said that IP/C/77 
contained a factual report that she had submitted on her  own responsibilit y in her  capacity as WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 18 - 
 
  TRIPS Council Chair. It summarized  the discussion among Members on the Work Programme  on 
Electronic Commerce at the four regular TRIPS Council meetings.  
7.20.   At tho se meetings, Members had discussed the written communicati ons and had shared 
domestic experiences and best practices.  
7.21.   Members had also considered how to t ake the work forward. There had been  general 
support for further discussions , but no agreement on whether there should be a regular item on 
the agenda for that purpose.  Some Members had also suggested considering the role of t he WTO 
in support of e -commerce  and in identifying elements and deliverab les which the WTO could work 
on. But there had also been the view that the  Work Programme was exploratory in nature  and that 
the sharing of experiences and practices should be on a non -prejudicial and non -negotiating basis.  
7.22.   As Chair of the TRIPS Council, she encourage d Members to dis cuss issues of interest to 
them while  respect ing the Member -driven process. Given that th e Work Programme wa s not a 
standing item on the agenda of the TRIPS  Council, whether or not it would  be further considered 
by the Council in the run up to MC11 for instance  at the C ouncil’s next meeting in October wa s for 
Members to decide.  
7.23.   Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe) , Chairman of the CTD , said that he was  
making the report  under his own responsibility.  
7.24.   The CTD had discussed the issue of e -commerce during its formal sessions held in  the 
course of the year and the end of 2016. Those discussions had been  framed by  a number of 
proposals that had  been received from Members including one from China and Pakistan 
(JOB/DEV/39/Rev.1), one from Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay (JOB/DEV/41), o ne from the 
European Union and ten  other developing countries (JOB/DE V/42) and one from a group of fifteen  
developing countries (JOB/DEV/43).  
7.25.   In their discussion of the proposals, Members  had recognized the p otential benefits of e -
commerce  but had expressed d ivergent views as to h ow to take that  discussion forward. A number 
of Members had emphasized that the future path of e -comm erce discussions in the WTO should  
properly take into account developing country concerns. Some had suggested that e -commerce 
discuss ions should focus on building an inclusive growth and equitable development trajecto ry for 
all developing countries  including by allowing sufficient policy space to build an e -commerce base. 
They had also emphasized the need to address issues of access,  affordability and availability  which  
had been  critical for developing countries and had urged donors to ad dress the downward trend in 
Aid for Trade flows – especially for LDCs.  
7.26.   Other Members  had recognized the importance of taking into consideration any spec ific 
aspects that could be relevant for developing Members and LDCs in the discussions on e -
commerce and had suggested that Members took  up the issue of e -commerce and digital trade 
step-by-step. That  discussion should include concrete measures that could be taken by the WTO to 
improve infrastructure and the technical conditions for the development of cross -border e -
commerce, emphasizing the role of development assistance.  
7.27.   The CTD would  continue with its work of looking into the developmental aspects of e -
commerce in order to ensure that the digital revolution was truly inclusive and opened  up new 
trade opportunities for all.  
7.28.   The Chairman  extended his  gratitude to the four Chairs for the work carried out on e -
comm erce in their respective bodies and for their  reports. He recalled that , in addition to 
undertaking periodic reviews , the Nairobi Decision had also instructed the General Council to 
report to the next session of the Ministerial Conference on the Work Programme. To fulfil  that 
instruction, he  inform ed Members that he would  initiate consultations after  the summer break on 
how best to organize their  work on e -commerce in preparation for the Ministerial Confere nce in 
Buenos Aires. They would  also recall that the current moratorium on the application of cu stoms 
duties on electronic transmiss ions would  expire at MC11. The consultat ions after the summer 
break would also need to consider how they  would proceed on the  matter.  
7.29.   The General Council took note  of the statements of the Chairs of the Services Council, WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Goods Council, TRIPS Council and CTD, and of the reports in S/C/52, G/C/59 and IP/C/77.  
7.2  COMMUNICATIONS FROM JAPAN (JOB/GC/130), THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
(JOB/GC/131), AUSTRALIA, CANADA, COLOMBIA, QATA R AND SINGAPORE 
(JOB/GC/132)  
7.30.   The Chairman  drew attention to the Communications from Japan (JOB/GC/130), the Russian 
Federation (JOB/GC/131), and Australia, Canada, Colombia, Qatar an d Singapore (JOB/GC/132).  
7.31.   The representative of Japan  briefly touch ed upon  his delegation's  intention in submitting the 
paper. Since MC10, Members had  shown great interest in electronic commerce. A number of 
submissions had been put forward. Seminars and workshops had  been organized inside and 
outside the WTO. However, as had be en reported by the C hairs of  the relevant bodies , discussions 
had not evolved quite meaningfully  in the regular meetings including in the dedicated d iscussion of 
the G eneral Council . Members had been trapped in the so -called "mandate issue ".  
7.32.   Against that backdrop, the  paper s et out to suggest a possible way for Members to engage 
in more constructive and m ore structured discussions. The approach Japan  propose d was fully 
consistent with the Work Programme of 1998.  
7.33.   Concerning the paper, Japan tried  to grasp t he current situation as objec tively as possible. 
Members had  wide-ranging views on how best to proceed and those views had  not yet converged. 
Some Members believe d there wa s a need to strengthen the WTO rules while  other s did not.  
7.34.   Japan believed  that establishing new ru les including data flows in that area was necessary. 
Due to  the lack of convergen ce among Members, Japan however suggested that  Members 
deliberate d one more  year to deepen discussions. Within one year following MC 11, Members 
should  evalua te whether it would be  necessary to clarify or strengthen the  existing WTO rules. 
Members could  then decide to initiate negotiations as appropriate.  
7.35.   With regard to the annex of the paper, Japan believed  that the numerous submissions and 
workshops/s eminars since MC10 we re valuable assets that provide d insights into i ssues for future 
discussions. His delegation had  therefore compiled th em as an illustrative list. That was not an 
exhaustive one and Japan was  open to additions and revisions.  
7.36.   In terms of the development aspect, as many developing Members had pointed out, Japan 
recognized that developing countries we re facing a numbe r of challenges to be addressed  such as 
inadequate infrastructure and la ck of payment solutions. In that  regard, Ja pan highly appreciated  
the contributions from developing Members that highlight ed those issues especially those from the 
Friends of E -commerce for Development Group.  
7.37.   It would be  important to examine how to address those challenges du ring the evaluation 
work that Japan  suggest ed. Some S&D schemes inspired by the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
appear ed to be worth discussing.  
7.38.   On the other hand, the WTO could not handle certain challenges  on its own. It was therefore 
important to seek possible collaboration with  other international organizations and various 
stakeholders.  
7.39.   In an y case, as an important donor,  Japan had been working and would  continuously work  
with developing Members on that matter. His delegation was  looking forward to seeing valuable 
inputs from th em. 
7.40.   On the papers from the Russian Federation and Sing apore and the other co -sponsors, Japan 
supported  the idea pr oposed in the Russian paper of " examining developing  multilateral regulative 
rules." His delegation was also interested in the proposal of est ablishing a " Worki ng Group on 
Electronic Commerce"  under the  General Council. Japan positively evaluated Singapore' s paper as 
a valid idea for c larifying the way forward to MC 11.  
7.41.   Japan wa s looking forward to heari ng comments and questions on its  paper from Members. 
Based on that day's debate, his delegation was  considering preparing a draft text of a specific WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Ministerial Decision. The text would  address not only a possible way forward but also other 
elements including moratorium issues.  
7.42.   It wa s obvious that  the examination of a draft Ministerial Deci sion on Electronic Commerce 
should  take place at the General Council  since the W ork Programme of 1998 prescribed that the 
General Council should  play a central ro le in the whole process. In that regard, Japan req uested  
the General Council Chair to take the lead in ensuring that Members engage d in meaningful 
discussions toward s MC11.  
7.43.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that interest on e -commerce and its 
relevance to Members' work in Geneva  had never been clear er. For the past eighteen  months , 
Members had  had u p to twenty submissions on the table apart from  the papers that had been 
circulated for the past twenty years  since the establ ishment of the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce.  
7.44.   E-commerce wa s in the WTO with an exploratory mandate , yet there wa s still no clar ity on 
what Members we re exploring. Discussions that had taken place in early 2000 had not  provide d 
any outcome. The reason for that wa s that discussions on substance had gone  around the same 
issues, mandates and place for discussions.  
7.45.   In its proposal, Russia suggested for Members to think about what they  wanted to achie ve 
in Buenos Aires. As a cross -cutting issue , a holistic approach on e-commerce would be crucial if 
they wanted to subst antively explore the topic . Making a fast decision  or postponing it for another 
twenty years we re two ext remes that should be avoided. Members should be  rationa l and 
pragmatic in their search for optimal solutions. That was what Russia's initiative wa s abo ut.  
7.46.   Russia  believe d that e -commerce was a reality that Members  needed to deal with and be 
constructive about. Discussion s and a balanced evaluation of the issue would be key to move the 
conversation forward, to structure their work and to bridge the knowl edge gap.  
7.47.   The representative of Singapore , also on behalf of Australia , Brunei Darussalam , Canada , 
Colombia , Costa Rica , Hong Kong, China , Republic of Korea , Lao PDR , Malaysia , Republic of 
Moldova , Myanmar , New Zealand , Nigeria  and Qatar , said that there had  been a lot of discussion s 
and work done on e -commerce since MC10. Members had  been actively engaged in discussions in 
WTO committees through the 18 papers th at had  been formally tabled including theirs  and also 
through informal outreac h and information sharing activities s uch as those organized by the 
"Friends of E -Comme rce for D evelopment".  
7.48.   The discussions had been enriching and had helped them  to understand better the interface 
between trade policy and e -commerce. The inherent comple xity and the cross -cutting nature of e -
commerce were evident from the discussions they had had so far. In that regard , the 
compartmentalized co nversations Members had  been having  made it difficult to con nect the dots 
and to recognize sy nergies. It was for that reason that the co -sponsors of the paper believe d that 
it was important for Members to discuss how the WTO could better facilitate more focused work 
and holistic discussions on e -commerce within the ambit  of the e -commerce work programme – a 
discussio n of both process and substance.  
7.49.   In prepa ration for the upcoming MC11, they  propose d that Members embark ed on a 
discussion to identify possible improvements to process es and issues o f interest if any that they  
would like to take forward. That  could be don e on the basis of Members' proposa ls and ideas. The 
outcome of tho se discussions should be captured in th e MC11 Ministerial Decision on E -Commerce 
so that Ministers could give a positive, future -oriented message on e -commerce work at the WTO 
and set out a clear direction and framework through which  future work with development at  the 
core could be undertaken.  
7.50.   They hoped that a horizontal process under the auspices of the General Council could be 
established to facilitate the discuss ions in the lead up to M C11. That process would allow Members  
to get a more detailed  reading of proposals and ideas  such as  the ones that had  been tabled by 
Japan and Russia. Given that time was running short, it was important that Members  embark ed on 
that preparatory process as soon as possible and that substantive discussions commence d 
immediately after the summer break.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 21 - 
 
  7.51.   On behalf of Singapore , she said that over the past year and a half Members had heard 
narratives on how e -commerc e could  be a driver of growth, en able the  fulfilment of development 
objectives  and empower inclusive trade. They had also heard that there we re gaps to be filled in 
the pursuit of e -commerce – infrastructure or regulatory gaps for instance and the nee d to 
preserve government policy space to regulate. Since Nairobi , they had  had many inf ormation 
sessions and seminars, among others,  on e-commerce. The issue had not  been contested and 
Members were divided on ho w to approach the issue. What they had not heard wa s any Membe r 
contesting whether the WTO could  talk about e -commerce.  
7.52.   Members agreed that the W TO e -commerce work programme had  been mandated by 
Ministers since 1998. In fact, their Ministers had  establish ed a Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce in 1998  when internet  connectivity had  still been limited and e -commerce had  just 
been in its nascent  stages of development. Thei r Ministers had had the foresight to identify that  as 
an emerging area in international trade that ought to be looked into by the WTO from 20 years 
ago. If the digital econom y would be  the future economy, the corollary  should be that digital trade 
would be the future of trade. A s the institution at the forefront of inte rnational trade governance, 
the WTO should  be equipped to lead on and deal with trade policy related aspects of  digital trade.  
7.53.   There had  been some ideas on how e -commerce could be advanced in the WTO. Singapore  
appreciate d the European Union's efforts in trying to harvest concrete outcomes on an enabling 
environment to facilitate online transactions under the serv ices framework. Her delegation  hoped 
Members would  engage constructively on the submission and pursue outcomes that could help 
build confidence and provide an enabling environment for MSMEs to venture into cross -border e -
commerce.  
7.54.   Singapore  also welcome d the pape rs by Japan and Russia that had  been tabled. Japan's 
idea for an evaluation process on the necessity of clarifying or strengthen ing of existing WTO rules 
after MC11 wa s pragmatic and re asonable and could help focus thei r efforts after MC11. Russia' s 
idea for a working group for e -commerce wa s also something worth considering  especially as they 
had seen how e -commerce issues tend ed to cut across many trade policy areas.  
7.55.   Between then  and MC11 , Singapore  hoped that a horizontal process could  be establ ished to 
work through tho se issues and the ideas that had  been put forward. The earlier Members  started, 
the more inclusive the process would be and t he m ore time they would have  to pull the various 
strands together  and achieve an out come reflective of the ir collective aspirations and ambition s for 
e-commerce at the WTO.   
7.56.   The representative of Qatar  associate d with the statement made by Singapore on behalf of 
the co -sponsors of the paper entitled "Advancing Work on the E -Commerce Work Programme". In 
line wi th what his delegation  had cited during the 25 July Informal HODs Meeting, he found that 
extensive di scussions on e -commerce had  taken place in the WTO since MC10. Many Members had  
been actively engaged in the discussions  through the 18 papers that had been formally tabled so 
far. There wa s a lot of m erit in any sort of information sharing activity – whether it was on a 
formal or informal setting. Such discussions had been useful in understanding the deep 
relationsh ip betw een trade and e -commerce w ith regard to its development dimension.  
7.57.   It was evident that the complicated world of e -comm erce wa s cross -cutting in nature. Qatar 
therefore  encourage d a more practical and viable approach towards the process and substance of 
any future discussions within the f ramework of the Work Progr amme on Electronic Commerce. In 
light of that, Qatar  would like to see a horizontal process to take place at a technical level.  
7.58.   After the summer break, there would be a little more than three month s left until MC11. 
Bearing that in mind, it would be  imperative to accelerate substantive discussions on 
strengthening WTO disciplines and prepari ng the Ministerial Decision on E -Commerce.  
7.59.   Qatar did not  seek to change the nature of the Working Partie s but the content of the 
Ministerial Decision should reflect the increased relevance of e -commerce on inte rnational trade. 
His delegation  looked forward to continuing discussions to achieve a concrete outcome on e -
commerce in Buenos Aires.  
7.60.   The representat ive of Costa Rica , on behalf of the FEDs , encourage d the Chairman to launch WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 22 - 
 
  a process where the work that had  been done so far related to e­commerce would be reflected  
including the n early twenty proposals that had  been tabled  and to start the prepara tions on the 
future work that thei r Ministers could agree on at MC11 . 
7.61.   He remind ed all M embers who share d concerns about development that they were all 
welcome  to join the e­dialogues. The FEDs were hoping for their participation by sharing with them 
those issue s that  remain ed unseen and by helping them to enrich that  discussion.  
7.62.   From then until MC11, the FEDs would  host open-ended  sessions on a wide variety of 
themes that had  been identified by a broad host of stakeholders that respond ed to the needs of 
develop ing and LDC Member s.  
7.63.   The calendar of activities and the roadmap had  been shared to Members at the meeting and 
would also be distributed electronically. The FEDs were certain that together Members could  move 
forward in a constructive and mutually beneficia l manner.  
7.64.   On behalf  of Costa Rica , he joined  Singapore and others on their proposal to start a  process 
towards having a Ministerial Decision on E -Commerce. He recognized the presence of  
developmental challenges that Members should tackle.  He said that Memb ers would not want to 
have five-star e -commerce in one -star commu nities. What good would it serve to have 4G or 5G 
broadband with 100% cover age for entire countries that did  not have road infrastructure to re ceive 
basic social services off line? The only wa y to address those and other issues would be  to talk about 
them in an inclusive and constructive manner.  
7.65.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  associated, as a co -sponsor of the paper, with 
the statement  made  by Singapore on "Advancing Work on  the E -Commerce Work Programme". 
Albert Einstein had once said , "We cannot  solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we 
used when we created them ". Modern day industry problems would  be solved not by traditi onally 
managed services , but by  digital  solutions.  
7.66.   In order to have a strong e -commerce policy, governments need ed to have a strong e -
governance policy. That could be achieved through four things : strong participation and l eadership 
of the government and imple mentation of the policies to cater to the requirements of the 
investors;  create and empower another agency to coordinate effort s and decision -making – in 
Moldova that agency wa s called by the Prime Minister as the "E -Governance C entre" ; invest in 
building infras tructure and enhancing skills base; and work with international experts and 
encourage all  leaders to develop a unique differentiation for the country.  
7.67.   To have access to a large market, on e should have access to online commerce. A string of 
amendments had recently been  made in Moldova to its existing rules on electronic trade to adapt 
them to its  current  needs. Moldova also made sure to boost its  informat ion technologies sector 
through its  national strategy  – "Digital Moldova 2020" . Building a country's future would be  
unthinkable wi thout a digital strategy that w ould create opportun ities to innovate and develop ICT 
technologies and for  each contractor  and government agency  to maxim ize the usage of 
government data services for the benefit  of the citizens .  
7.68.   Many developing countries unfortunately espoused the view that before they could think 
about e -commerce, the developmental focus  should first be shown  in their discussions . Electronic 
Commerce wa s however  facilitating development – which should be the  main message.  
7.69.   On a national cap acity perspective, Moldova stressed the need for e -governance. Creating 
e-commerce necessitated s trong political will . It was therefore  important to have the  idea of e -
commerce promoted together with  e-governance.  
7.70.   Moldova saw  the transformative role of e -commerce, its positive impact on growth and 
development  and its potential to reduce transaction costs especially for SME  and MSMEs. S etting 
up an  efficient mechanism for  information  sharing among Members on their best practices 
concerning  their domest ic reg ulatory framework for e -commerce would be essential.  
7.71.   Moldova convey ed its efforts to work towards an outc ome for MC11 on e -commerce. There 
was currently sufficie nt information provided that could enable Members  to move forward in a WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 23 - 
 
  structured approach and that could  facilitate  their discussion s. In order for them to  succes sfully 
move forward, they  needed to put the needs of developing countries and LDCs at the centre of the 
debate. Addressing  the i mplications of e -commerce on development , industrialization and 
employment would benefit them . 
7.72.   Priority should undoubtedly be give n to reducing the digital divide  and promoting Global 
Value Chains . If Members  would have an open and sin cere dialogue among themselves, they 
would see the advantages of  e-commerce as a means to ensure faster development and to reduce 
costs. Since the WTO wa s one a nd should be a Member -driven o rganization , only by coming 
together could Members pass through the long path to success . 
7.73.   The representative of Canada  associated with the statement made by Singapore  on behalf 
of the co -sponsors and welcome d the papers p resented by Japan and Russia. Canada had  seen 
strong interest from many Members for subs tantive work on e -commerce at the WTO. Fruitful 
discussions had been he ld in the CTD, the C TG, the CTS and the TRIPS C ouncil covering a range of 
topics including electronic authentication, consumer protection, transparency, cooperation, robust 
implementation of the TFA, the contribution of the ITA a nd the customs duty moratorium.  
7.74.   Members  needed to continue to work to  build a common understanding on how they could  
use trade policy to better leverage e -commerce for inclusive and sustaina ble growth. Due to its 
interrelation with trade, e -commerce would unavoidably be an integral part o f the future work  of 
the organization .  
7.75.   Much had changed since 1998 when Members had  started the Work Programme on 
Electronic C ommerce. T o remain relevant , the WTO needed  to address the issues tha t were 
currently important to thei r stakeholders . With MC11 approaching, Members should focus thei r 
attention on how e -commerce would be addressed both in Buenos Aires  and more importantly 
beyond MC11 .  
7.76.   The representative of Colombia  welcome d the report s about  the activities in the various 
Councils and the three pa pers presented that day , which  significantly contributed  to Members' 
discussions on e -commerce.  Colombia shared  the sentiments enshrined in the proposals on 
boosting the discussions on e -commerce particularly those expressed in JOB/GC/132 – a proposal 
that it had  co-sponsor ed. In that regard, his delegation associated with the statement made by 
Singapore.  
7.77.   The work that had so far  been undertake n had  contributed to allowing Members to 
understand much more clearly the various ele ments of e -commerce. It had al so been made clear 
that significant challenges remain ed in term s of achieving concrete results  because of the cr oss-
cutting nature of the different e -commerce related topics under the various WTO Agreements.  
7.78.   In that regard , Colombia supported  the idea of conducting parallel discussions on the 
substance of the various e-commerce issues  with development as its  main pillar. That constructive 
process  would help Members move e -commerce forward particularly in light of the upcoming 
Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires and beyond.  His delegation conveyed its  readiness to 
continue  to actively participate on such discussions given that e -commerce was one of its great 
interests and a priority for its development.  
7.79.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation was pleased  to see so many 
subm issions on e -commerce since MC10 which demonstrated  renewed interest by Members from a 
range of different  perspectives. Chinese Taipei particularly  welcome d the latest proposals from 
Japan, Singapore  and the Russia n Federation. Those had  been tabled timely as Members  
embark ed on the se rious work of preparing for MC11.  
7.80.   Like many others, Chinese Taipei had already been exhibiting particular interest o n e-
commerce for quite some time. T he WTO should play a critical rol e in support o f the digital 
economy and trade  in both developing and developed country Members  alike. 
7.81.   The suggestion to accelerate discussions on e -commerce or digital trade should  not however 
be taken to imply that the issue had to be rushed simply  for the sake  of achieving an outcome at 
MC11 that would be  limited only to a few aspects. It would be  essential for  Members to conduct in -WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 24 - 
 
  depth discussions and comprehensive reviews to get the full picture from all aspects. Chinese 
Taipei therefore  fully support ed Japan' s initiative to all ow more time to reflect on the  topic.  
7.82.   Chinese Taipei had also been making efforts to shed more light on the im pact of e -
commerce and the real issues involved. His delegation had  recently submitted two technical pa pers 
to the relevant WTO bodies  aiming  at clarify ing some fundamental issues to be r esolved in the 
digital world and looked  forward to discussions and engagement by Members after the summer 
break.  
7.83.   The main reason why Chinese Taipei  support ed Japan's proposal was b ecause it suggested 
that Members should wait for one  year. Waiting did not however constitute doing nothing. It 
meant taking the time to properly consider the key aspects, actively check ing and draw ing up an 
agreed  "roadmap" – thus improving  their chances of reaching the right destination  and possibly 
achieving a much more fruitful result.  
7.84.   He often use d a simile to describe  the current situation. Having started the discussion on 
digital trade or e -commerce some nineteen years ago  witho ut getting any concrete results , 
Members  could say that they we re "lost in the WTO forest of complexity". Psychologists had 
describe d three possible types of response s by drivers who go t lost in their cars. The first one wa s 
to get out of the car and as k local residents for help. That could not apply to the WTO for there 
were no so -called "local resid ents" to call upon. The second was to stop  and to lo ok at and check 
on the map. That seemed  to be Japan' s proposal. The third response was to keep on driving and 
search as th ey drove. That seemed to be what the WTO had been doing for the last nineteen  
years. Members had  never stopped to check the map. They just ke pt on driving. It would be wise 
for them to use the next twelve  months to tho roughly study and check the map which was 
consistent with Japan's  proposal. It could also help  them find solutions or responses a long the way 
for Members who still had reservations on the  issue. The psychological  research he had mentioned 
also suggested  that most people adopting the th ird appr oach were males  because the 
psychologists suggest ed that males we re often over -confident so they did not  feel the necessity to 
stop or pause. The male staff in his delegation including himself had  reflected long and hard over 
that and h ad come to the concl usion that they too could have been guilty of some over -confidence 
in the discussions on e -commerce topics in  the past – another reason for Chinese Taipei to decide 
to support Japan's  proposal.  
7.85.   The representative of New Zealand  was pleased to co -sponsor do cument  JOB/GC/132 and 
to join the statement delivered by Singapore on behalf of the co -sponsors. Like many others , New 
Zealand acknowledged  the increasing ro le that e -commerce and digital trade were  already playing 
and would  continue to play in international trade. The opportunit ies and challenges it represented 
to Member economies we re only going to increase. There wa s an important role for the multilateral 
rules based system in how Members would respond to that.  
7.86.   The importa nce of the  existing negotiating agenda had been mentioned  – particularly 
agriculture. He  doubt ed that there was any WTO Member that wa s more impatient for further 
market -opening reform of Agriculture pursuant to Article XX of the Agreement on Agriculture. New 
Zealand had lent its  support for nearly fifteen years in looking to shepherd and facilitate th e 
negotiating process on their  behal f for that objective. His delegation currently had its own voice 
again and would  continue to vigorously use it.  
7.87.   New Zealan d likewise agree d with others who talk ed about the importance o f the WTO 
updating itself. The WTO wa s never going to be at the c utting edge of business but it wa s 
important that t he floor that the WTO represented got  a little bit closer to the re ality of w here 
modern business was. If they did  not do that, they  risked the discussion going somewhere else.  
7.88.   In order f or the WTO to contribute to the  discussion in a meaningful way, New Zealand  
agree d that the WTO needed a better process as had been suggested in different ways by each of 
the papers. H is delegation  had appreciated the exchanges in the various Councils but in order to 
give due justice to the ideas that many Members had put on the table so far, Members  needed to 
move from that compartmentalized genera l discussion to a horizontal d iscussion where they  
consider ed the issues in a holistic way and in a more focused manner.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 25 - 
 
  7.89.   Only through that could Members be assured that they would get the necessary guidance at 
MC11 for thei r future work o n electronic comm erce which should encompass the possibility of  
negotiated outcomes by MC12. New Zealand was  encouraged in that regard particularly after the 
Chairman's announcement that he would begin consultations on the  issue after the summer break.  
7.90.   The representative o f Chile was grateful for the work done by the various proponents  of the 
proposals put forward on e -commerce . Those were undoubtedly  valuable contribution s to that  
important topic.  
7.91.   Chile endorse d the submission in document JOB/ GC/132  circulated by Singapore, Australia, 
Canada, Col ombia and Qatar. The partial analysis that had been done on e -commerce in the 
various regular bodies did  not achiev e a holistic vision of that area. His delegation therefore 
support ed the s teps to be taken to  address the  matter . In particular, JOB/GC/132 expressed that 
Members should discuss  how the work programme could  facilitate holistic and focused discussions 
on e-commerce identifying procedural impr ovements and topics of interest . Such should  be 
reflected  in a Ministerial Decis ion in Buenos Aires  which should provide clear direction to  the future 
work on e -commerce.  
7.92.   With regard to the document submitted by the Russian Federation, Chile endorse d the 
needs expressed to adopt a holistic approach to discussio ns on e -commerce given its crosscutting 
nature.  His delegation  support ed the proposal to creat e a Working Group on E -Commerce – a 
technical forum to discuss that topic in depth. Chile hoped that the discussions on that topic be 
enriched by those proposals allowing Members  to achieve tangible results fo r Buenos Aires.   
7.93.   The representative of Mexico  welcome d the communication s from Singapore and co -
sponsors, Japan and the Russian Federation all of which  contain ed valuable p roposals which would 
help Members  to focus the ir discussions on e -commerce  in the run up  to the Ministerial Conference 
in Buenos Aires. Mexico had  co-sponsored a range of  proposals on e -commerce and had  
partic ipated in discussions which had  taken place within the work programme. Following the  paper 
of Singapore and its co -sponsors, Mexico recogniz ed the need for a more holistic approach in 
Members' discussions for them to  secure concrete recomme ndations in the run up to MC11.  
7.94.   Procedural improve ments were necessary and would allow Members  to ha ve a better space 
to discuss e-commerce  based on the conc rete proposals that Members had submitted. Mexico was 
concerned that discuss ions within the work programme were not allowing them  to secure concrete 
recommendations on e -commerce and that the Ministe rial Decision would simply be limited to an 
extension of the moratorium – that wa s not what Mexico had hoped for .  
7.95.   If properly managed, promoting e -commerce could be a powerful source of  growth  and 
development – such as by facilitating the integration of S MEs into global trade. The WTO should 
not ignore that reality which had  already been addres sed in other international fora  and alternative 
negotiating spaces. MC11 presented the  perfect opportunit y to show to the world that the 
organization remained releva nt as it continued to  address the trade needs of the 21st Century.  
7.96.   The representative of the United States  welcomed  the new contributions made by various 
Members dedicated to continuing p rogress on electronic commerce.  
7.97.   The United States  support ed e-commer ce outcomes in the WTO but recognize d that 
Members at that stage  had divergent perspectives as to  what those outcomes should be. To bridge 
those divides, the United States  agree d with Members who had  proposed re -invigorating 
discussions in the Work Program me on E lectronic Commerce.   Members could use the following  
year to consider how existing rules and commitment s related to e -commerce could  be 
strengthened  or clarified and what new rules could be developed. That would  provide a useful 
foundation for progr ess in the future.  
7.98.   Rules that reinforce d the openness of the Internet would  allow digital trade to continue to 
be a dynamic force for economic growth.    
7.99.   It had clearly been heard  that is sues around the digital divide were a priority for many 
Members. The United States  welcome d the opportunity to work with Members under the work 
programme  agenda on how digital trade could  serve as a bridge to foster economic growth and WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 26 - 
 
  development.  
7.100.   Even as the digital divide remained  a challe nge, many developing countries w ere alre ady 
hotbeds of innovation. M embers across the income spectrum stood  to gain from productive work in 
that space. The United States  looked forward to making progress in the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce that would contribute  to robust digital  trade and widely -shared economic 
growth.  
7.101.   The representative of Australia  said that electronic commerce wa s a powerful driver of 
international trade, inclusive economic growth and development. Development of rules on 
electronic commerce woul d benefit the e ntire membership. An  outcom e on electronic commerce at 
MC11 would  signal the WTO 's continued  relevan ce in the rapidly evolving g lobal trade environment 
helping  to catch the oppo rtunities offered by e -commerce especially for MSMEs.  
7.102.   Australia  had co-sponsored the paper presented by Singapore and endorse d the statement 
it had delivered on their behalf. A crucial next step would be  to establish a new horizontal p rocess 
on e-commerce between then and MC11  for all Mem bers to engage constructively b y identifying 
issues of interest that they would like to take forward and by suggesting im provements to WTO 
processes. That process would ultimately help the  Ministers to provide clear direction at MC11 for 
future work on e -commerce.  
7.103.   Australia  welcome d the paper presen ted by Japan which provided  clear pr oposals for 
moving work forward. For e-commerce to better contribute to global trade , it would be essential to 
create an enabling and predictable regulatory environment and to address structural challenges.  
7.104.   Australia welcome d the paper circulated by the European Union in the CTS SS and saw  
value in a multilateral agreement on pragmati c trade rules  that would help facilitate online 
transactions of businesses a nd consumers around the world. That incremental pragmatic app roach 
was what wa s needed to provide a starting point for a broader exploration on other issues relevant 
to facilitating e -commerce.  
7.105.   Australia  also note d Russia's proposal on creating a w orking group to advance work on e -
commerce and welcome d discussion s on innova tive ideas on how to continue Members'  
engagement.  
7.106.   All of those papers were complementary  to each other providing  a basis for further detaile d 
discussions after the summer break. Australia urged for the establishme nt of a process to consider 
those  papers  and any future contributions from Members in a more in-depth  manner in the lead up 
to MC11.  
7.107.   To provide greater certainty to consumers and businesses engaged in international online 
trade , Australia encouraged Members to agree to make the Moratorium  on Custom s Duties on 
Electronic T ransmissions  permanent .  
7.108.   In relation to the develop ment dimension of e -commerce, Australia  acknowledge d the 
digital divide that existed. Her delegation had  listen ed carefully to the concerns raised by several 
Members,  had seen the valu e of the contributions of the "Friends of E -Commerce for Development" 
and had  attended the panel  discussion  organized by the African Group  – and had taken note of the 
communication  in relation to that discussion .  
7.109.   Australia had taken action i n that regard  by contributing to the  development funding to 
help bridge the  digital divide  particularly in its region. For example , her delegation  had facilitated 
internet connectivity in Tonga and Fiji, had improved telecommunications access in Vanuatu and 
had increase d mobile coverage in the So lomon Islands.  
7.110.   Australia  welcome d ideas on how the WTO could c omplement working in other fora to 
bridge that  divide. In particular, her delegation  support ed the appro ach of collaborating closely 
with relevant stakeholders and other international organization s. While acknowledging that the 
divide existed, Australia did  not believe that its existence was  a reason for the WTO to stand still  
as the  rest of the world move d forward. Members  should work together to ensure  that the WTO 
remained  relevant and that the benefit s of e -commerce were captured by all.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 27 - 
 
  7.111.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  supported  advancing discussion s on e-comme rce 
in the WTO.  Under the Work Program me, Members had  been discussing different aspects of e -
commerce  including its implications for WTO's work. There we re different views on ho w the 
discussion should proceed  in terms of substance and process.  To a ce rtain extent, that reflected  
the different levels of digital dev elopment in different countries – hence  their different focuses.  
But she had  not heard any Member say that e -commerce wa s unimportant or i rrelevant to its 
economy.  D espite the differences, there should  be common ground . 
7.112.   The question would then be on how Members could  build upon the common interests and  
deliver some concrete results. The three  communications circulated for the meeting in 
JOB/GC /130, JOB/GC 131 and JOB/GC/132  suggest ed different approaches. Her delegation  had an 
open mind on all of them.  
7.113.   Hong Kong, China  associate d itself with JOB/GC/132 in particular as it had co-sponsor ed it 
with Singapore and other Members.  The paper offered  a pragmatic way forward – basically inviting 
Members to identify possible impr ovement s to the process and issues of interest for Ministe rs to 
discuss at Buenos Aires – without prejudice to Members'  positions on the substantive issues and 
fully respecting  the expl oratory nature of the existing Work Programme. T he proposal anchored  
upon common ground  that Members already share d and adopted an approach which wa s open and 
inclusive enough to accommodate any emerging consensus.  
7.114.    One cl ear message underlying all the three communications wa s that Members need ed to 
be more proacti ve in chart ing the next steps. The world was moving fast. Digital technology wa s 
already transforming many aspects of their lives including trade. The WTO should keep up  or it 
could risk losing its relevance. She asked whether  Members were ready to capitalize on that  
development  and to take advantage of the possibilities that the rules -based  multilateral trading 
system could offer. Her delegation called upon them to reflect on the process of their discussions 
on e-commerce so that the WTO could give that  question a ti mely response.  
7.115.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked  Japan, the Russian Federation and 
Singapore and other delegations for their recent proposals on e -commerce and their respective 
presentations. Korea had joined Singapore' s paper as  co-spons or and  associate d itself with the 
statement made by  Singapore in that regard . 
7.116.   Digital economy and e -commerce were key driver s of economy and trade. Members had  
worked hard to catch up with that  reality for more than a y ear with a renewed attention. Korea d id 
not however see much convergence in Members'  perspectives regarding the role of the WTO o n e-
commerce both in the substantive  and procedural aspects.  
7.117.   As it had stated in the 25 July Informal HODs, Korea supported continued efforts to del iver 
substantive  outcomes at MC11 o n the less con troversial areas of e -commerce. In that regard, his 
delegation  believe d that the European Union's  proposal on some deliverables merited serious 
consideration .  
7.118.   It was likewise important to  provide clear guidance at MC 11 on the future work of the WTO 
on e-commerce. Deliberations on e -commerce at the WTO would have to continue beyond MC11 
whether or not Members  succeed ed in delivering some substantive results in Buenos Aires.  
7.119.   The three proposals submitted by Japan, the Russia n Federation and Singapore were 
relevant and timely as they present ed useful ideas on possible way s forward on e -commerce. They 
were also complementary to one another.  
7.120.   Singapore's proposal called  for embarking on focuse d discussions to prep are for a  
Minist erial Decision on E -Commerce  at MC11 . Japan's paper offered useful ideas on a post MC11 
process and  an illustrative list of e -commerce related issues. Russia's proposal identified what 
needed  to be  done in the WTO on e -commerce including the creation of a Working Group on E -
Commerce.  
7.121.   Those proposals together provide d a good basis to construct a Ministerial Decision  on E-
Commerce in Buenos Aires.  To prepare and agr ee on a Ministerial Decision, Members had  to WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 28 - 
 
  engage in focused and intense discuss ions of a cro ss-cutting nature. Korea  looked forward to 
seeing the General Council play a greater role as a platform for such di scussions.  
7.122.   The representative of the Philippines , on behalf ASEAN , reaffirm ed ASEAN's  interest in 
continuing e -commerce discussions under the  1998 E -Commerce Work Programme. Enhanced 
information and  experience sharing under the Work Programme would help all Members better 
understand where the WTO could help them achieve thei r trade policy objectives in e -commerce.  
7.123.   With that in mind, ASEAN had organized a lunch panel  as part of the UNCTAD E -Commerce 
Week to further examine how e -commerce trade rules could benefit MSMEs in deve loping 
countries. The event had been organized as ASEAN had seen value in trying to find synergies 
between discussions in UNCTAD and the WTO on the deve lopment aspect of e -commerce. ASEAN  
had then ci rculated a paper summarizing its  reflections and key takeaway s from the lunch panel. 
ASEAN thanked  Members for their posit ive encouragement an d constructive engagement on its  
reflections.  
7.124.   As had been highlighted before, A SEAN wa s also currently working on an ASEAN E -
Commerce Work Programme and had agreed to commence negotiations on an ASEAN Agreement 
on E-Commerce. ASEAN  looked forward to  sharing with the Membership its progress on that  front.  
7.125.   ASEAN welcomed  the interest in e -commerce at the WTO and would  continue participating 
actively and making contributions to discussions.  
7.126.   The representative of the European Union  conside red e -commerce as an important topic 
for the futur e work of the WTO. The European Union wished  to see prog ress on a set of concrete 
short-term deliverables. The EU had  therefore submitted in May its proposal to the CTS SS and 
was ready to enga ge on potenti al WTO work in that  area in the longer term.  
7.127.   Since the Buenos Aires Minis terial Conference was  fast approaching, the EU welcomed  
Singapore and co -sponsors' ideas o utlined in JOB/GC/132. Its aim wa s to structure the process in  
the next few months allowing M embers  to develop an ambitious Ministerial Decision on e -
commerce that would pro vide clear direction for future work in that  area.  
7.128.   In line with the consultat ion process whose initiation the Chairman had announced in his 
report, Members  needed a clear and unambiguous locus where they could  discuss right after the 
summer break what Minist ers could decide on in Buenos Aires  concerning  e-commerce . The 
communi cations by Russia and Japan would  be important contribution s to that  question.  
7.129.   Regar ding the substance, the European Union  agree d on the importance of e -commerce 
and the benefits of identifying gaps in the WTO. However, his delegation had  some doubts about 
the usefulness of long, drawn out evaluation processes which would unfo ld after MC11 because  
various Members had already  looked at the roadmap during the previous year . 
7.130.   The representative of China  said that it was an und isputable fact that e -commerce was 
profoundly reshaping the current business landscape. For developing Members and SMEs, e -
comme rce could effectively reduce the cost to enter international markets as it provided  them with 
new and unpreceden ted opportunities. Members should however likewise recognize the digital gap 
and the lack of regulatory capacity that prevent ed many Members esp ecially LDCs from fully taking 
advantage of the potential brought by e -commerce.  
7.131.   E-commerce wa s fundamentally transf orming the global economy. If  developing Members 
failed to seize that  opportunity, the digital gap would  not automatically disappear but the y would  
risk missing the train of historic opportunity.  
7.132.   Despite the difficulties Members were facing, China still expected  a positive outcome  on e-
commerce at MC11. As long as they  put the developme nt dimension at the centre of thei r work 
and m anaged thei r level of ambition properly, they would  be able to reach a multilat eral outcome 
on e-commerce. N ot only would it consolidate and strengthen the confidence in the multi lateral 
trading system, but it would also  bring huge trade benefits to developing Member s. 
7.133.   Bearing that in mind, China welcomed  the recent proposals by the Russian Federation, WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Japan and Singapo re and other co -sponsors and was  ready to constructively engage in the 
upcoming discussions.  
7.134.   China also welcomed  the recent report by the African Grou p on the panel discussion 
regarding digital industrial policy and development , which had highlighted some concrete 
challenges developing Members  faced. China attached  great importance to relevant  conclusions in 
the report and wa s ready to actively work wit h Membe rs to find solutions in that regard. China 
meanwhile urged  Members to remain open -minded for relevant discussions.  
7.135.   China wa s also preparing a paper regarding facilitation of cr oss-border e -commerce which 
would  encompass elements such as the moratorium, paperless trade, e -signature, e -authentication 
and e -contract, online consumer protection, personal information protection, transparency and  
development and cooperation. China  hoped that paper would  facilitate discussions on e -commerce 
leading up to MC11 and would  welcome any constructive suggestion in that  regard.  
7.136.   The representative of Pakistan  associated  itself with the statement made by Costa Rica on 
behalf of the FEDs and thanked Japan, the Russian Federation,  Singapore and others for 
presenting the papers on possible M inisterial guidance for MC11 on e -commerce.  
7.137.   E-Commerce  was a powerful vehicle for inclusive trade and the achievement of their  
development goals. Digital trade wa s an effective tool for economic empowerment of women, 
youth and  marginalized communities. Cross -border movement of goods, services and intangibles 
through ICT had  created enormous opportunities for the promotion of inclusive growth in 
develop ing countries. The future was digital. Pakistan  wanted it to be a common shar ed future  and 
not a divided one like the past. 
7.138.    Like many other Members, Pakistan was  also interested in future outcome s on e -
commerce in the WTO with adequate consideration of the development n eeds of the developing 
Members  and LDCs.  
7.139.   Pakistan  welcome d the three proposals all of which suggested ways forward for e -
commerce discussions beyond MC11. Even though differe nt approaches had been proposed, a ll of 
them were principally suggesting further understanding and deepening of the  discussions. Pakistan 
alread y believed in that approach and would  be co mfortable with any of the approaches suggeste d 
by the proponents. Those papers provided good options for Members . Pakistan  also said  that the 
General Council needed  to galvanize discussion s on e -commerce.  
7.140.   The representative of Norway  said that times were rapidly changing . Digitalization wa s 
transforming societies and how they  interact ed in ways that few would have foreseen a few years 
before . Technological developments we re transforming the global landscape  into a digital tradin g 
landscape. Internet had  enabled businesses of all sizes to reach new markets and new consumers 
around the world without setting up operations abroad. They had  witnessed bundling of goods and 
services in both domestic and global valu e chains. Through the collection , transfer and pr ocessing 
of data, technology had  opened doors for new business models and data driven services.  
7.141.   E-commerce wa s important not only for businesses and consumers but also for Members 
and governments. E -commerc e came  in many forms. I t was to a varying degree a part  of modern -
day life for millions of people in all countries whether developed, developing or least -developed . 
The fundamental question Members should answer wa s whether dynamic an d transformed 
landscap e required  updated global disciplines and new ways of dealing with trade -related  issues. 
The WTO Membership should  seize the opportunity and move ahead in the area of e -commerce.  
7.142.   E-commerce wa s not a new issue in the WTO. It wa s well within the scope of W TO rules 
including under the GATT, GATS, T RIPS and other WTO Agreements. When the WTO agreed on the 
Electronic Commerce Work Program me in 1998 nearly 20 years ago the organization had been  at 
the forefront of development. The issues  set out in the work pro gramme remained  pertine nt but 
Members  needed to work more systematically and holistically on the whole range of e -commerce 
related issues including t he development dimension which wa s clearly cross -cutting. Capacity 
building, technical assistance, the exch ange of good practices and cooperation with other 
international organizations would  be necessary to bridge the digital divide.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 30 - 
 
  7.143.   To deal with all of tho se issues in a structured way, Members  needed a dedicated forum. 
Discussions we re taking place in several  committees of the WTO to map the vast landscape of e -
commerce issues. A number of Members had  put forward submissions listing key issues and 
process-oriented questions. Time had  come to look at the submissions that offer ed concrete 
solutions to specific i ssues. Electronic signatures, authentication and certificates that pertain ed to 
e-commer ce for both goods and services we re important building blocks to increase trust in the 
use of e -commerce and therefore a g ood starting point. Members should continue to  work on tho se 
and other elements towards a substantive result in Buenos Aires.  
7.144.   As underlined in the recent submissions from Japan and Russia and in the comment paper 
submitted by Australia, Canada, Colombia, Q atar and Singapore, e -commerce was a cross -cutting 
issue. Members  needed a more holistic approach than considering the bits and pieces in the 
respective committees in order to deal with the various aspects of e -commerce in a focused 
manner. They  needed one locus for all of tho se discussions in order to facilitate a more 
comprehensive and interactive process.  
7.145.   Members should  demonstrate the relevance of  the WTO by changing gears in thei r 
discussions on e -commerce and by updating the rulebook when necessary. Norway saw  MC11 as 
an opportunity to respond to modern -day challenges and to move that agenda forward  hopefully 
with concrete deliverables but at the very least with greater clarity on their work post MC11 and a 
decision on the moratorium. The General Council s hould decide how  to structure thei r debates in 
the run-up to MC11. Norway thanked the  Chair man for his statement that day t hat he  would 
consult on how best to organize work on e -commerce in preparation for MC11.  
7.146.   The digital trading landscape wa s rapidly developing. Membe rs need ed to decide whether 
they in the  organization would collectively get behind the steering  wheel or render them selves 
superfluous as the framework  for e-commerce further developed  either inside or outside the WTO.  
7.147.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that discussions on e -commerce had  gained new 
interest over th e past year and was happy for such development. The implications of digitalization 
of ec onomy on international trade were complex and if Members wanted to model appro priate 
global governance  in that area, it would be important to improve their knowledge on tho se matters 
while thinking at the same time about the resp onses they could give to the  issue.  
7.148.   Despite the  new interest for the subj ect, the structure of the discussions on e -commerce 
could be impr oved. The proposals by Members we re currently looked into in  different bodies of the 
WTO. Discussions should be diluted. The General Council wa s furthermore not the appropriate 
forum for technical discussions on the cross -cutting issues pertaining  to e-commerce.  
7.149.   Switzerland welcomed the different proposals currently on the table. Those would  better  
define the next stages of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. They we re 
complementary proposals offering good basis to prepare concrete decision s on the way Members 
could  treat electronic commerce in the  organization.  
7.150.   Switzerland would want to move on to a more structured  discussion as of MC11. 
Preparations should start very soon so that their Ministers could  define the objectives and the 
modaliti es for the work which they would be undertaking after MC11.  
7.151.   His delegation was  aware of the importance of the development dimension in the 
discussions on the creation of an enabling environme nt for electronic commerce. That dimension 
should  therefore be t aken on board in thei r future work.  
7.152.   Switzerland  wanted the discussions in the  organization to take place in a serene fashion in 
full respect of the concerns and wishes expressed by all Members.  
7.153.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  had taken note of the three  
proposals submitted and the statements of the majority of the co -sponsors and other Members. 
There were various perspectives in analysing the issue,  and Bolivia convey ed its preliminary 
reaction on the matter . WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 31 - 
 
  7.154.   E-Commerce wa s important for ever yone including Bolivia. The issue rested on what kind 
of rules Members  needed to develop. Bolivia had  participated in a series of events not only in the 
WTO but also in UNCTAD, the ECOSOC Committee on Science and Technology and  others and  had 
found that e -commerce worked  well given that around ten firms made hundreds of millions of 
dollars with e -commerce in the last five years. This made Bolivia wonder why Members wanted to 
have rules in that area if everything worked well. He wondered whether they wanted to have anti -
trust rules or rules to promote development. On its part, Bolivia  still had no answers to those 
questions but was working internally on them.  
7.155.   Developing its  ability to use electronic commerce wa s of the utmost importance  for Bolivia . 
In fact , it was  trying to develop and implement policies that privilege d the use of electronic media 
not only in electronic commerce but also in e -governance and in  privacy  and connectivity issues. 
E-Commerce was therefore important for Bolivia.  
7.156.   His delegation however had  doubts about whether the proposals presented to date met its 
needs. They  assume d that all Members were in the same situation and level  of development. That 
was a mistake which raised doubts about the  implications of the proposals on its regulatory 
processes . 
7.157.   In relation to the Work Program me, the discussions that had  taken place in that context 
had not been exhaustive. Many of the  proposals presented so far had been  general and had been 
circulated in the relevant Councils and Committees generally unchanged resulting in the debate 
that they were currently having.  A more focused discussion with speci fic proposals in the 
respective Committees and Councils would be  useful before moving to the creation o f working 
groups or any format that deviated from the mandate of th e Work Programme.  
7.158.   Concerning  the substance of e-commerce  discussions , the phrase  "multilateral trade 
relations in matters dealt with under the agreements " enshrined  in Article III.2  of the Marrakesh 
Agreement  and in relation to the Work Programme  should be analysed more in -depth.  Members 
should also discuss in greater depth  elements foreseen in the Work P rogram me such as its 
services component and it s relation  to the legal framework of the G ATS. They should verify 
whether the list of topics indicated in the Work Programme had already been discussed.  
7.159.   With regard to the CTD, they should analyse the  consequence s of e -commerce for 
development  taking into account the economic, financial and devel opmen t needs of developing 
Members.  They should  also identify whether issues fell  outside the WTO's competence such as 
cyber secur ity, privacy, free flow of data and spam among others and whether those issues could  
be better  addressed in other organization s such as the I TU or the mechanisms set up by the UN.  
7.160.   Bolivia  disagree d with the idea that there had been twenty years of debate on e -
commerce. It was an imprecise statement. There had been  an important debate during the first 
two years after the adoption of the 1998 Work Program me and then there had been  no 
substantive discussions until 2016, when several proposals had been  made.  
7.161.   One of the elements lacking in the proposa ls and in the debate to date had been 
development. In fact, o ne of the thematic semina rs had not pushed through  as some M embers had 
tried to introd uce development issues. Bolivia had the impression that some M embers believe d 
that mention of MSMEs had  already inclu ded the issue of development. That was not a correct 
approximation of the matt er. MSMEs were  important for Bolivia as they support ed the creation of 
about 60% of the jobs  in the country. His delegation simply had doubts on whether Members had 
the same concept of what constituted MSMEs and whether their discussions included all of them.  
7.162.   Given the current situation, it would be too early to move  to the creation of a specific 
Working Group which would  require careful evaluation by all Members. Bolivia rather  favoured a 
focused debate with more specific proposals done  within th e framew ork of the Work Programme. 
His delegation also support ed the idea of  the Chairman  holding con sultations to better analyse the  
issue in the lead up to MC11 . 
7.163.   The representative of Rwanda , on behalf of the African Group , said that Members were 
only currently beginning to understand the currenc y of the digital economy – data. In building the 
"Africa We Want", the African Group  recognize d the opportunities and ben efits of digital solutions.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 32 - 
 
  7.164.   It was estimated that the market size of the digital economy was 22.5 t rillion USD. Of that, 
around 21 trillion USD was domestic e -commerce and only 1.6 trillion USD wa s internationa l cross -
border e -commerce. It was  also estimated that in 2015, the highest share of cross -border e -
commerce sales had been  in Asia -Pacific (51%),  followed by Europe (24%)  and North America 
(23%). Latin America had accounted for 1%.  
7.165.   On the othe r hand, the African Continent with 54 sovereign States could not be aggregated 
alone. It had  to be juxtaposed with another trans continental region – the Midd le East. The Middle 
East and Africa had accounted for 1%.  
7.166.   If those figures approximated reality, they underscore d two fundamental issues that 
prevent ed the collec tive attainment of gains in that  area fo r developing countries and LDCs – the 
scope and depth of the digital divide and the m ajor impediments and challenges  due to the lack of 
digital capabilities and digital industrial policy.  
7.167.   The African Group  duly acknowledge d the profound challenges that had  left most of 
Africa' s people behind. It wa s regrettable that there had been  no agreement to accept few minor 
refinements by some of the Members aimed at making meaningful  the deve lopment agenda to the 
proposed s eminar agenda on E -commerce in the Council for Trade in Services. It painted  a very 
gloomy picture if developing and least -developed Members we re denied an opportunity in a 
seminar under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  to discuss relevant, development -
related issues.  
7.168.   In order to fill the large knowledge gap by the membership, the African Group had 
organized a Panel Discussion on "Digital Industrial Policy"  on 29 June in Room W and had invited 
all WTO Members. The Report of the Panel Discussion had been  submitted to the General Council 
in the African Group Communication in JOB/GC/13 3. The Panel Discussion had been  the first 
concrete step towards scoping the depth of the challenges facing developing countries, of the 
digital divide, particularly for countries who we re striving to industri alize.  
7.169.   At that Panel Discussion, it had  become  apparent that as mu ch as a digital transformation 
was underway, and that digi tal technologies and solutions were emerging, many of those would  be 
seriously disruptive to e conomies around the world and they we re still confronted by the reality of 
a deep, persistent and widening digital and technology divide. For instance, according to the I TU, 
more than half of the world's population was not using the internet – notably 75% of people in 
Africa.  
7.170.   They had  learned that while Members ' paths towards achieving g lobal leader ship in the 
digital economy had not all been the same, they require d active policies and deliberate efforts to 
develop the necessary infrastructure and to manage digital flows for national digital catch -up. One 
lesson was that global integratio n needed  to be preceded by building nation al capabilities through 
what had been  termed as digital industrial policy. What had  also e merged at the Panel Discussion 
was the importance of digital rights  and how a balance should be sought on the international 
agenda on issues pertaining to electronic commerce and Internet governance.   
7.171.   On the proposals, the African Group thank ed the proponents for the three new submissions 
on process -related issues and wish ed to inform that their  Capitals we re still assessing  them and 
the African Group would  revert at the next meeting.  
7.172.   The African Group reiterated its position and commitment to continue engaging in 
comprehensive discussions in the relevant bodies falling under the Work Program me. Over the last 
six months, the G roup had  requested the proponents to ref ine and discuss their proposals  and to 
appropriately focus them specific to the body where they want ed discussions to take place as per 
the Work Programme  to ensure a meaningful discussion.  
7.173.   The African Group's appro ach wa s guided by the search for ans wers to the following 
questions as it  continue d to en gage under the Work Programme: " What is required to build the 
capabilities of developing and least developed countries so that they can be able to effectively 
particip ate in cross -border e -commerce? What specific government measures have been employed 
to support the development of  e-commerce in other countries? What is the  impact of e -commerce 
on Africa' s longstanding developmental objectives of industrial development, structural WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 33 - 
 
  transformation and employment? What are the policy perspectives for promoting inclusive and 
equitable growth, trade and development in the digital economy? " 
7.174.   The representative of Barbados  said that  a number of the elements outlined in  the 
propos al by Australia, Canada, Colombia, Qat ar and Singapore in JOB/GC/132 was attractive and 
resonated with his delegation. Barbados  therefore support ed the proposal given its sponsorship of 
a proc ess on how the Work P rogramme could better facilitate more focused discussion s on e-
commer ce. As the co -sponsors had  also indicated , such a discussion should however  be without 
prejudice to Members' positions on substantive issues related to e -commerce and should not alter 
the underlying exploratory and deve lopmen t oriented nature of the Work Programme. That could 
put Members  on the strategic path for deriving language which would co -facilitate  a consensus 
decision on the Work P rogra mme on Electronic C ommerce.  
7.175.   The representative of Uganda  thank ed all the proponents  for their submissions. The 
starting point wa s the 1998 Work Programme on  Electronic Commerce that allowed Members  
sufficient space to have an extensive and exhaustive discussion on e -commerce. The work 
programme had no negotiating mandate. It wa s explorat ory in nature. The work programme also 
provided  for horizontal process to deal with two major items – the issue of the imposition of the 
customs duties on electronic transmissions and any trade -related issu es of a cross -cutting nature. 
Uganda  therefore loo ked forward to the Chairman's leadership  in line with the 1998 Work 
Programme.  
7.176.   The e -commer ce phenomenon in theory provided  a critical gateway for consumers and 
businesses in weaker countries , allowing them to surmount obstacles faced when competing 
domestically and with enterprises and stronger players in the trading system. However, in reality, 
most LDCs face d a number of constraints due to insufficient basic infrastructure, access to 
electri city and the internet, the high cost of electricity, among others, and bottlenecks that 
hinder ed LDCs from taking advantage of opportunities theoretically available through the e -
commerce platforms.  
7.177.   It was basic to know that for e -commerce to work one need ed, inter alia , connectivity 
without which it would be a clear case of putting the cart before the horse. In Africa, for instance , 
75% of the entire population wa s not on the internet. While more than  50% of the population in 
LDCs wa s covered by a mobile b roadband signal, only 15% use d the internet. In terms of 
individuals using the internet, only 15.2% in LDCs use d it as opposed to 82.1% in the developed 
world; 25.1% in Africa as opposed to 79.1% in Europe; 65% in the Americas and 66% in the CIS. 
In terms of households with internet use, 11.1% in LDCs against 83.8% in the devel oped world. 
The digital divide was huge and there wa s therefore need to bridge it.  
7.178.   From the discussions that had  ensued , including in the various seminars a nd in the regular 
bodies, it had  also become ap parent that there we re Members includin g developing countries that 
had generated a lot of revenue from that enterprise. What had not been clearly spelled out wa s 
that kind of domestic regul atory policy framework that had been adopted b y tho se countries 
especially the developing countries that  had afforded their domestic industries  the requisite policy 
space and protection to grow and thrive until such a time that they had beco me strong, emerg ing 
and dominant players. It had been and continued  to be necessary for Uganda to request that 
major players share d their experience on the kind of digital industrial policies that they put in 
place that  had inter alia  helped guarantee their digital rights and ensured their current prosperity.  
7.179.   UNCTAD estimated  that t he size of the digital economy wa s around 32% of the global 
economy amounting to around 2 3 trillion. Around 21 trillion wa s estimated to be domestic e -
comm erce while around 1.6 trillion wa s estimated to be the share of cross -border e -commerce. It 
was estima ted that only six countries had  captured more than 85% of the cross -border e -
commerce market and only one of those wa s a developing country.  
7.180.   According to the Universal Parcel Services forecast between 2013 to 2020, while the 
annual gr owth rate of the global GDP would be 3.10%, retail would  grow at 5.8% and domestic e -
commerce by 16.5%. Howev er, cross -border e -commerce would  grow at a rate o f 26.6%. A close 
analysis of tho se numbers would give  one a sense as to why Members were eager to  discipline that 
field while others we re still catching up or even trying to ship their digital vision in the future.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 34 - 
 
  7.181.   It wa s upon tha t background therefore that it wa s with profound gratitude that Uganda  
express ed its  appreciation to the African Group f or the panel discussion that had been  organized 
on 29 June on digital industrial policy and development in JOB/GC /133. For the first time in the 
organization, Members had been  presented with an  alternative narrative which had  basically  been 
a reality on e-commerce – that the benefits were not self -imposing nor we re they automatic; that 
countries ha d to undertake deliberate measures with the view to e nsure and guarantee that there 
was a trickle -down effect of those benefits to the masses and to enable catch -up. 
7.182.   The following had been Uganda's takeaway points from that panel discussion: The digital 
divide wa s huge between developed, developing and least -developed countries. If that was not 
addressed, it would  create even bigger future divide – income, workforce skills, infrastruct ure, etc. 
between those who had and those who did not. Inequality would  increase and most  of Africa would  
be left behind  because multilateral rules would entrench tho se imbalances. The exi sting global e -
commerce space was  extrem ely asymm etrical and the gains were not shared equitably. Data wa s 
a new raw ma terial of the future. The way Members  would treat, man age and/or export data 
would  determine which development path a country or members of countries would take in the 
digital age. There  was not a single prescriptive, theoretical policy  or regulatory approach that could  
be a recipe f or success but that Members had  used the policy space to nurture and develop their 
domestic i ndustries. While development could  mean different things to diffe rent Members, the 
implications of the fourth industrial revolution would be far -reaching. It wa s therefore important 
for Members to think about and develop digital industrial policies.  
7.183.   With regard to how Members would advance with work on those important issues, Uganda 
had previously stated that most of  the submissions on the table fe ll outside the scope and 
mandate of the work programme. In all fairnes s, his delegation had  not heard an in -depth 
engagement on m any of the submissions that had been made. Tha t was not necessarily because 
of the issue of mandate because the Work Programme of 1998 wa s very clear. It ought to be 
acknowledged however that on many of the pr oposals they had  heard extremely limited 
engagement due in part to the reluctance of the prop onents.  
7.184.   Uganda express ed its  profound appre ciation to delegations that had  been most helpful in 
sharin g their national experiences. His delegation  applaud ed them and request ed for that to 
continue and for that  to be a best practice to others.  
7.185.   In terms of  approach, Uganda  therefore suggest ed that Members should narrow their 
submissions to issues specif ic to each particular body. That  would enable a more focused 
discussion to ta ke place. In the event that that would not be  possible, focus should then be on the 
development -related aspects of the Work P rogramme with the view to considering the examination 
of improved access to infrastructure, the transfer of technology, the movement of natural persons 
and the use information technology in the integrat ion of de veloping countries. Those we re the 
issues at the heart  of the digital divide that should  be res olved with a view to building thei r e-
commerce readiness.  
7.186.   Uganda  therefore look ed forward to eng aging on the basis of the 1998 Work P rogramme 
with the view to a n enhanced and focused discussion on the basis of Members' proposals in line 
with the Marrakesh Agreement.  
7.187.   The representative of Brazil  welcomed  the contributions of Singapore coordinating a  group 
of co-sponsors and  those by the Russian Federation and Japa n. As Brazil had stated i n the 25 July 
Informal HODs Meeting, those proposals had  the common merit o f focusing on process and  on the 
possible way forward post M C11. Those were the immediate challenges Members  should prioritize 
in the run up to MC11. In par ticular, the prop osal to establish a horizontal Working Group on 
Electronic Commerce seemed  to deserve careful consideration.  
7.188.   Brazil looked forward to the Chairman's consultations after the summer break and would 
engage in th em. A core element wa s the nee d of a clear locus for their discussions. Brazil favoured  
solutions that would enable the Membership to hold more focused discussions on e -commerce 
without prejudging a ny possible outcome. Brazil had taken  a very good note of the recent 
submission by the A frican Group which had once more reminded Members  of the centrality of  the 
development perspective in thei r deliberations on e -commerce.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 35 - 
 
  7.189.   The representative of Nigeria  said that e -commerce wa s a powerful engine for inclusive 
growth, modernization and development.  There were challenges  comprehensively descri bed in the 
Panel Report that had  been circulated by Rwanda on behalf of the African Group. Their  positions in 
the African Group were  evolving.  There were differences , but that was normal. He believed  that 
they we re evolving positively, gradually.  
7.190.   Regardless of the differences, they had agreed on the vital importance of the centrality of 
the developmen t dimension that e -commerce should represent.  There we re macro chall enges in 
the aggregated numbers b ut there we re also good stories at the micro level – also in Africa. 
Kenya, Rwanda and Nigeria we re setting great examples on the c ontinent on the digital econom y 
and e -commerce in particular. It wa s also  true that there was no automaticity – no silver bul let. 
For any policy to work, it would require  companion policies.  
7.191.   In that context, the more open one was  to e-commerce, the greater the flow of 
investments  for addressing the challenges.  The real challenge o f the digital divide wa s itself the 
opportunity p resented by e -commerce and the facilitation of investment for inclusive trade and 
development.    
7.192.   Nigeria underscored the s tatement made by Singapore on behalf of the co -sponsors of 
JOB/GC/132. A  clear direction should  be established for future work , includ ing a horizontal process 
under the General Council in the lead up to MC11 for a Decision.  Nigeria welcome d the paper by 
the Russian Federation  on the idea of a Working Group. The paper by Japan wa s also a useful 
contribution.    
7.193.   Nigeria drew attention to th e useful work by the FEDs. A s part of the FEDs, Nigeria  invite d 
Members to join the e -dialogue series.  His delegation  acknowledged  and respect ed the differences 
in positions and  hoped that their discussions would evolve positively and rapidly  towards 
convergence.  Finally, Nigeria highlighted that e -commerce was  an area where it wa s moving very 
aggressively, ambit iously and domestically through the " Smart Nigeria Digital Economy Project ".  
7.194.   The representative of Turkey  noted that t he world of di gital economy in general , and e -
commerce or digital trade in particular , as a technology -driven field , evolved  rapidly. Developing 
international rule s and disciplines , on the other hand , naturally took  time.  
7.195.   At the WTO, Members we re faced with the  dilemma  of being left behind by  the progress 
registered in digital economy. If they did  not act quic kly, technological advances would  dictate  de 
facto rules by providing their own requirements which would not serve their policy objectives. That 
was not an ideal s cenario. On the other hand, as a growing mode of supply of goods and se rvices 
worldwide, e -commerce had  a balancing effect on the competition among  the big and small 
players. It also served as leverage for small player s to integrate into  the global economy  and 
contribute to growth.  
7.196.   Members  should discuss the issue of e -comm erce to enable inclusiveness by keeping in 
mind the d evelopment perspective a nd by paying special attention to investment needs and 
connectivity problems of LDCs and some developing Memb ers. Members' discussion at the WTO 
had concentrated on process and divisions of issu es under different WTO bodies they thought were 
relevant. It was time they  officially recognize d the cross -cutting nature of e -commerce. Turkey  
hoped that a solid deliverable could  come out of MC1 1 on e -commerce. His delegation therefore  
support ed the idea of ado pting a mandate at MC11 that would guide them  into the right direction 
and that would facilitate a holistic and forward thinking discussion of e -commerce.  
7.197.   In that regard, Turkey  welcome d the three submissions . Japan's and other Members ' 
papers had strong merit. His delegation furthermore support ed the main idea embedded in the 
Russian propos al that the General Council should take the lead on the issue and a W orking Party 
under the General C ouncil should be established. Turkey looked  forward to positively engaging in 
discussion s in that  area in the lead up to MC11 and  on the subsequent substantive discussions 
after the Ministerial Conference.  
7.198.   The representative  of South Africa  associated with the statement made by the African 
Group.  At no poin t had  any Member disputed the impor tance of e -commerce. In fact, all Members 
were aware of the o pportunities that e -commerce could bring and how dividends in that  form of WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 36 - 
 
  commerce could promote inclusive growth  and sustainable development. They we re also aware 
that reaping those dividends we re embedded in industrial policy tools that could  nurture and 
support the digital economy.  
7.199.   South Africa thanked the African Group for t he Panel Discussion Report in JOB/GC/133 
which had been  the first concrete step in scoping the dept h of the digital divide. At that discussion, 
it had  also been recognized that there wa s potential in establishing strong linkages between 
industrial policy, ICT-related infrastructure and skills development that support ed the digital 
economy.  
7.200.   South Africa thank ed the proponents for th eir new submissions and agreed that it could  be 
possible to agree to continue exploratory discussions under the comprehensive, non -negotiating 
framework set out in the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  
7.201.   The discussions Members had  had in the WTO under the Work Programme had been a 
useful one. They had all learned about how e -commerce worked but it had become very clear that 
most of them we re still coming to grips with wha t appeared would  be very profound changes 
brought on by the digital tran sformation of which e -commerce was integral. What was even clearer 
was that e -commerce wa s developing rapidly but unevenly across the world.  
7.202.   South Africa had  found the current discussions in the rel evant bodies somewhat difficult  
mainly because proponents who assert ed that e -commerce would support inclusive development 
were unable to answe r questions about how rules would help them  overcome  the fundamental 
difficulties they  faced.  
7.203.   For South Africa, the most critical issues for discussion include d: the scop e and depth of 
the digital divide; the highly concentrated nature of e -commerce and the measures that  needed to 
be taken to address tax avoidance, market concentration and  anti-competitive practices.  
7.204.   There we re also several unresolved , more technical is sues in the relevant bodies. Tho se 
include d properly defining terms such "digital trade", "digital economy" and "digital product". 
Those terms we re used  interchangeably with the term "e -commerce"  by some  Members. Her 
delegation asked what they meant and how they related to e -commerce; what "digital", 
"digitized", "digitizable" products meant; whether  digital products were more akin to  goods or 
services; how "new services" should be classified; and whether online service delivery fell under 
Mode 1 or  Mode 2.  
7.205.   South Africa wa s prepared to have a more focused dialogue, particularly with the 
overarching objective of understanding the specific gover nment measures that Members had  taken 
to support the development o f e-commerce in their countries,  in addressing the di gital and 
technological divide, in  building national capabilities  and in addressing the unresolved issues.  
7.206.   South Africa would  not be able to agree to any kind of outcome at MC11 that would 
prejudge a future decision and timing for rule -making or to begin negotiations. Its assessment wa s 
that any suggestion for multilate ral rule -making was premature and would  not obtain consensus.  
7.207.   The representative of India welcomed  discussions on e -commerce within the existing  
framework of the 1998 Work P rogramme which w as a non -negotiating and an exploratory one. He 
underscore d India's  views both on the substance and the process of ongoing work and discussions.  
7.208.   While e -commerce presented  opportunities to econo mic growth and development, it wa s 
also widely acknowledged that both the transformation and the growth on e-commerce across the 
world was hugely uneven which wa s the result of a deep and wide global digital divide on 
infrastructure, skills and  technology. The priority for Members  therefo re should be to expand the 
internet and bridge the digital divide on infrastructure and connectivity.  
7.209.   This was especially critical as  only one in three people in India, one in four persons in  
Africa and one in seven in LDCs currently had  access to  the int ernet – leaving  aside high speed 
broadband required for accessing e -trade platforms and se rvices. Access to the internet wa s 
therefore a major issue that needed  to be addressed u rgently. Unless that wa s done, the 
asymmetry of information that the digital d ivide was creating would  transform into an asymmetry WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 37 - 
 
  of opportunity against the interests of the developing world.  
7.210.   In the cu rrent exploratory phase of the Work Programme, emphasis should be laid on the 
need to understand the full scope and dimension of th e various issues involved and address the 
knowledge gap which existed in the  area. Scoping of the digital divide wa s important for all 
developing countries to understand the impact of the radical, destructive and transformative 
technological changes and th e impact on growth of developing countries.  
7.211.   The importan t issues which Members  needed to discuss and understand include d access to 
technology, skill development, impact of automation in developing countries particularly 
unemployment and inequality betwe en and within countries. There wa s also a need to address 
what could  be done about that  and the necessity for technology transfer arrangements and 
strategies to deal with the digital divide. In other words, the development dimension and concerns 
of developin g countries and LDCs should remain central to the discussions on e -commerce in 
accordance with the le tter and the spirit of the WTO Work P rogramme.  
7.212.   India understoo d that some Members we re keen to begin to identify issues for multilateral 
rule making on e -commerce. In that regard, its considered view wa s that the gains for e -
commerce should not be confused with the likely benefits of rul e-making in e -commerce. While his 
delegation  had seen the benefits of e -commerce both on goods trade on electronic platform s, 
convenient delivery of services and the support and its growth and benefits that it br ought  to 
consumers, negotiation on rules and disciplines in e -commerce w ould be highly premature at that  
stage especially given the highly asymmetrical nature of the e xisting global e -commerce space.  
7.213.   Members we re witnessing a phenomenal growth of e -commerce and a paradigm shift in 
the pattern of trade to one which wa s highly digitized. The communic ation from Japan also 
emphasized  the transformational impact of electroni c commerce on g lobal trade and investment. 
That changing trade pattern posed  new challenges both for domestic and  for cross -border trade.  
7.214.   The need of the hour according to India wa s therefore sufficient policy space for 
appropriate  domestic and trade poli cies. Members  needed to therefore focus on exchange of 
information on the policies and best practices  around the globe. That wa s important not just for 
cross-border data transfer but on all aspects of e -commerce and digital trade especially on transfer 
of technology and support to  the development of digital infrastructure to reduce the divide.  
7.215.   As regards the process, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Electronic Commerce had 
decided to continue work on electronic commerce based on the existing mandate and guidelines 
and on the basis of proposals submitted by Members in the relevant WTO bodies as set out in 
paragra phs 2 to 5 of the Work Programme. India saw merit in that  bottom up approach for 
productive discussions and remain ed open to any exploratory discussion in the relevant WTO 
bodies as per the existing mandate.  
7.216.   India had  noted that  the latest Russian proposal had  proposed the establishment of a 
horizontal working group on electronic commerce whereas the proposal from Aust ralia, Canada, 
Colombia, Qatar and Singapore had  suggested improvements in processes with out going into 
details. While his delegation was  open to discussing all possible suggestions aimed at imp roving 
the existing processes, India would  not agree to any ap proach that would take  away the role of the 
relevant bodies in discussing e -commerce led issues as per the Work Programme which had  been 
reiterated in successive Ministerial decisions.  
7.217.   Pursuant to the 1998 Work Programme which identified  the needs for spe cific WTO bodies 
to dea l with e -commerce issues that fell within that  specific mandate, the various bodies had  in 
fact highlighted additional issues which continue d to remain relevant and require d deliberation. 
That remained an unfinished agenda and Member s should all endeavour to expedite their 
deliberations on tho se issues.  
7.218.   India looked  forward to constructively engaging in the discussions on  e-commerce as 
mandated in the Work P rogramme.  
7.219.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  noted th at Venezuela was 
giving attention to that issue. Within the framework of  the Bolivarian Economic Agenda currently WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 38 - 
 
  under way fifteen e ngines for the promotion of its economy had been identified – one of which wa s 
related to telecommunicat ions and informatio n technology where mechanisms to promote that  
sector of the economy  had been articulated with the Chamber of Elec tronic Commerce of 
Venezuela.  
7.220.   To date, Venezuela  had demonstrated achievements in banking, entertainment (t elevision) 
and journalism services. The issue should however be analys ed with caution with regard to the 
exchange of goo ds. It was becoming more and more constant to see the sale of various n ew or 
used products thereby creating  a perception of the growth o f electronic commerce. However, t here 
were cases of digital fraud  with tax evasion.  
7.221.   While e -commerce could  be an instrument to support entrepr eneurship and productivity, it 
was necessary to lay the found ations for capacity building. Venezuela understood that it could not 
stay in the "s aga". They currently however had more questions than answers.  
7.222.   Venezuela  appreciate d the three proposals that were presented that day which would help 
in its analytical process. They had been sent to the capital and Venezuela reserve d the right to 
return to th em in the future.  
7.223.   Venezuela was currently not in a position to start negotiations. At the moment , Members 
needed greater understanding of the subject, exchange of experiences, transfer of technology and 
capacity building.  
7.224.   The representative of Cameroon  said that the Work Programme had shown that Members 
had some interest in disc ussing what wa s at stake with electronic commerce , which was in fact 
very positive.  This was because electronic commerce  was of  interest  to Members , including 
Cameroon.  
7.225.   It would see m that  most Members who currently had comparative advantage we re trying 
to obtain rules at all costs – to develop trade and speed up proce sses in developing countries. 
Cameroon encounter ed several problems in that regard .  
7.226.   Members did  not have good knowled ge of the level of subsidies that enterprises benefited 
from who were currently competitive. They would  need such figures. The accountability  was very 
important because in the past, countries who subsidize d their production or even their exports and 
had gi ven them an arti ficial comparative advantage had  obtain ed the right to either continue to 
subsidize or to limit the capacity  to subsidize for others. That wa s quite a worrying scenario which 
was actua lly appearing on the horizon at the moment .  
7.227.   Someone had  mentioned p rogress in Africa in the digital area . That progress wa s stated 
eloquently but he did not want to get over rejoiced on  the current share of African trade. It did  not 
even reach 1% of global trade. He had  also heard mention made of the aid given to developing 
countries to m ove out of the digital divide. He  would like to have a  better idea of the bill of that 
divide – its cost in particular . Members had  the digital divide taking the f orm of absolute digital  
abyss. He thought Uganda had spoken at length on that , and he would not come back to it.  
7.228.   Determining the  adaptabil ity of W TO rules to e-commerce had  still not been carried out. H e 
wondered  how the WTO rules would be affected by the fourt h industrial revol ution – the digital 
revolution. South Africa drew up some elements for them and he  wished  to invite Members  to look 
into that  more. Th e fourth industrial revolution was progressing at an exponential  speed. That 
revolution wa s upsetting nearly everything in  all industries in every count ry. The depth and extent 
of that  upheaval effect ed total c hange in the management and  governance system s throughout 
the world. The WTO should therefore carry out an adaptability test . 
7.229.   The WTO had  not sufficiently taken stock o f the situation in that area. The proponents had  
still not answered the many questions that h ad remained in abeyance. Rwanda,  on behalf of the 
African Group , had shown  the reality of the digital divide. Cameroon would like to support an 
approach which woul d guarantee shared bene fits. In the bible, everything was possible. Water 
could  come out of  a rock which  had eventually  been shared . In the bible, water wa s transformed 
into win e which everybody could drink. The same bible indicated that there wa s no point  in putting 
new wine in old bottles. Members should not  run the risk of losing both the bottles and the wine.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 39 - 
 
  7.230.   Cameroon requested that Members'  work continue d serenely following the mandate. 
Members  needed to update their knowledge first  to bet ter understand exactly where they stood.  
They should go into in-depth discussion s in the different bodies which currently remained very 
limited . If they we re guided by the substance of the mandate which had been  entrusted to the 
Members by the Ministers , they would  achieve better results.  
7.231.   The representative of Chad associated with  the statem ent made by the African Group. E -
commerce posed more problems than it gave  clear answer s given the complexity of the subject. 
Apart from infrastructure, far more was necessa ry for Members  such as Chad to really benefit from 
e-commerce . The cha llenges on the digital economy were huge. Members had  to make choices 
according to thei r urgent priorities.  
7.232.   Given that many we re lagging behi nd and given the presence of the digital div ide and the 
major obstacles faced by a number of Members , such as the extremely weak  internet connectivity 
in Africa, it would be  relevant and wise for Members to focus on tho se different aspects . That 
would enable them to have the appropriate capacity to participate  in the international e -commerce 
market. If they did  not respond beforehand effectively and efficiently to  the major concerns of 
Members whose economies we re the most vulnerable, e -commerce would simply  increase the 
deterioration of their fragil e economic situation . 
7.233.   While it was true that e -commerce was expanding and had  an incredible growth potential , 
it was often left in the hands of b ig groups and shareholders who left  practically nothi ng for their 
countries. Members sh ould ensure that tho se big groups and multinationals contribute d in a 
substantial  manner to the development of thei r countries by investing in capac ity building and 
infrastructure and by setting up  financial mechanisms to achieve that objective.   
7.234.   Access to the digital resources created by countries to set up development projects  was 
also necessary as such resources often went elsewhere due to lack of mastery of those digital 
tools. If Members would  use e -commerce as an important lever for development, they should  
master the digit al tool and ha ve the necessary infrastructure. Chad  hoped that the discussions that 
had started at the WTO on e -commerce  would  enable Members  to find appropriat e responses to 
the issues that had been raised  particularly for the benefit of the most vulnerab le among them.  
7.235.   The representative of  the Republic of Moldova  noted that her delegation had given  a lot of 
attention to the needs and priorities of some LDCs regarding digital trade and e -commerce. 
Moldova reiterate d its readiness to work with all Members i nterested on having  a dialogue and an 
exploratory discussion on e -commerce and on the benefits and gains that could be derived from 
this area .  
7.236.   Moldova had  already provided certai n assistance to some African Members . In particular, 
the Moldovan Governance Centre had hosted a delegation from the National Information 
Technology Authority from Uganda eight months prior. The bench -making visit had been  organized 
by the World Bank and  the E-Governance Centre of Moldova as  part of a knowledge exchange 
programme b etween the institut ions from Moldova and Uganda. Moldova was  pleased to see the 
interest from Uganda on the  implementation of all the elements of the shared government 
platform including e -payment gateway platforms and e -services.  
7.237.   Following the good result  obtained in its  process of e -transformation, Moldova stood ready 
to share its experience to Members  to allow them to move faster  in that area  and to help them 
avoid  making the same mistake that Moldova had made in  the past.   
7.238.   The representative of Japan  was impressed and  encouraged by th e fact that so many 
Members had taken  the floor and had expressed their views and positions on e -commerce. Almost 
all Members had emphasized the importance of e -commerce. He felt that there wa s a shared sense 
of urgency tha t Members  needed to tackle or discuss the issue. He recognize d that there was 
consensus that the 1998 Work Programme remained valid and was convinced that Members  
needed more c onstructive discussions on the issue.  
7.239.   According to the 1998 Work Programme, Mem bers we re to examine all trade -related 
issues relating to global electronic commerce and to  report on the progress of the Work 
Programme with a ny recommendation for action. Japan  unders tood that the phrase  "any WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 40 - 
 
  recommendation  for action" did  not preclude i nitiati ng negotiations. He did not however  want to 
prejudge the outcome of the evaluation that his delegation was proposing.  
7.240.   Many Members – developing Members in particular – had emphasized the importance and  
the problem of the digital div ide in relation t o infrastructure and connectivity. Japan was fully 
aware of that. The WTO alone could not handle that issue but Members could try to explore what 
the WTO could  contribute in that area. For example , most of the teleco m infrastructures in the 
world were buil t by private investment. Members  needed to  attract and encourage investors by 
creating a sound business environment. WTO disciplines and instruments such as the Telecom 
Reference Paper would help in that regard. That was one way that the WTO could  contribu te to 
deal with the digital divide.  
7.241.   Japan stressed that it was  time to star t substantive discussions on a  possible Ministerial 
Declaration on E -Commerce and expected the Chairman's leadership in that  regard.  
7.242.   The representative of Cameroon  agreed  with a numb er of points raised by Japan and 
highlighted the role of the WTO and digital industrial policies. Reference to telecommunications 
made him think about Cameroon's case. Cameroon had  a regulatory environment which wa s 
completely open . It did not  however  have the number of investors that it  would have liked. 
Specific policies had  therefore  been put into place for those sectors to  take off.  
7.243.   The G overnment  of Cameroon had  had to implement measures that respect ed WTO rules 
which prohibited  local cont ent requirements . This sometimes meant that some of its sectors would 
not be able to take off.  Because of those constraints, Cameroon had experienced difficulties. To 
address the issue, his government had  allowed some companies to enjoy a situation  resembl ing a 
duopoly  which had allowed them to develop infrastructure for  approximately twenty years , before 
opening up the market to others . They had  profited f rom that situation allowing Cameroon  to 
create a favourable environment with appropriate  infrastructur e. The policy then  move d forward. 
This would not have been possible  if Cameroon  had been constrained by rules .  
7.244.   For developing Members, aid for trade on a digital level would only be marginal. They could 
not just  thank  those who provide d aid. The disbursem ents and promises that had been made did 
not always address  their real needs. That was why he had talked  about the breakdown of the bill.  
7.245.   Investors pursue d a business -based logi c – one of profit. Countries could not wait for 
companies  to figure out whether profit was  possible in their territory before they develop ed a 
sector which could  leave some countries behind. If Members want ed to discuss rules then they 
should  keep in mind that all those who had  been able to develop their sectors  had done so using 
support p olicies from the government providing comparative advantage to some .  
7.246.   When drawing up those rules, Members should take into a ccount what those companies 
had received as subsidies and to take stock of that so that it  would be cle ar and fair. H istoric 
support should co rrespond to future support. Those who had  already benefitted from support from 
the past at a certa in level should accept that others should  be accorded the same level of support 
for the future.  
7.247.   The representative of Rwanda  recognize d the importance of digital economy an d its 
associated e -commerce. Rwanda was  trying to build ICT infrastructure and to develop multi ple e-
solutions. They we re building many e -solutions ac ross the entire economy. They had e -
government, e -health, e -market and drones distribut ing blood across the remote medical centres. 
They we re trying to start deve loping e -commerce which was currently quite  modest.  
7.248.   Rwanda recognize d two challenges in that  area: the digital divide and the lack of digit al 
industrial policy. Nigeria wa s included among countries facing tho se challenges. Members  should 
not limit the e -commerce ecosystem to  selling and buying online. That wa s not e -commerce. Th ere 
were m any other parameters behind that  apparent ecosystem. Those who  owned and could 
process data and those who manage d the big da ta and artificial intelligence we re the most  blessed 
to benefit more. That was why the e -market was concentrated. There we re very few companies 
worldwide competing  among themselves and the rest wa s out of the competi tion.  
7.249.   Beyond the digital divide, it would be essential to determine the  digital industrial policies  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 41 - 
 
  they would need and the environment , culture, language and others that would be necessary  to 
build dig ital companies that could  compete. Even in the most connected continents, one would not 
see any digital company that compete d with the four wor ldwide leading companies in the area. 
Members should therefore work together to understand all of those challenge s under the Work 
Programme. They could discuss rules once the same knowledge had been shared because there 
were rules that could help catch up and rules that could  exclude more.  
7.250.   The representative of Uganda  thanked  Moldova for highlighting a very good exam ple of a 
partnership in terms of technical assistanc e and capacity building that had  been extended to the 
National Information Technology Authorit y of Uganda,  and also as part of the contribution to try to 
build e -commerce readiness. The contribut ion of th e donor community to his country was 
extensive. In fact, if he had gone  through the list of donors to his country, he  could be accused of 
not having provided  an exhaustive list.  
7.251.   Uganda was however trying to draw a distinction between the measures and/or 
mechanisms Members were trying to establish in their  own countries to  build a sense of vision in 
that particular area. Uganda had  establish ed national backbone infrastructure, fibre optics and all 
kinds of ICT tools and instruments. His delegation question ed whether it was  sufficient to argue 
that because it already had those frameworks in place, the situation could  already  be considered 
mature enough for Uganda to  have disciplines  on that area.   
7.252.   He also drew Members' attention on the issue of what they wer e trying to commit 
themselves to on e -commerce and what matters they were asked to debate upon. In the history of 
development, multilateral rules had  never come before the formative stages of development. Most 
of the major and r ich countries had  even had a  very methodical, reluctant approach to disciplining 
themselves in a multila teral framework before they had  advanced various levels of development.  
7.253.   The e -commerce e cosystem was a good example. That was what he was  talking about and 
why he was requesting Members to s hare their own experiences. It wa s part of what informed the 
panel discussion of the African Group on digital industri al policies. Uganda therefore  invite d 
Members to have a deeper reflection on the  issue. His delegation encourage d the work in the 
regular bodies because those we re the bodies competent to deal  with the specific areas of that  
notion of electronic commerce.  
7.254.   In terms of ICT exports , as had been seen from UNCTAD for 2015, out of 1.9 trillion USD 
of ICT world exports, Africa had only contributed 3.8 billion. Uganda had found itself somewhere 
with 32 million dollars but had imported 289 million dollars. Uganda therefore had a long way to 
go. His country should  first deal  with building its  capacity, understanding the concept and 
generati ng the content. There was a spectrum of things that it  needed to do. It did not have the 
sufficient funds to do it . But there was already the sense of urgency from others to have rules.  
7.255.   Uganda had  many things to do domestically and  needed to take tim e like  what other 
countries had  done to devel op sufficient capacity. Multilateral rules  could then be had . 
7.256.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
8  TRADE RESTRICTIVE ME ASURES BY CERTAIN ME MBERS – STATEMENT BY QATAR  
8.1.  The Chairman  recalled that on 13 July Qatar had requested in writ ing to the Secretariat that 
that item be included in the agenda of the meeting. He invited Qatar to take the floor.  
8.2.  The representative of Qatar  express ed his country's  on-going concern regarding the severe 
and unwarra nted trade restrictions that had  been maintained against Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the 
United Arab Emirates and Ba hrain since early June 2017 .  
8.3.  Qatar had  already highlighted in the respective Services and Goods Councils the specific 
concer ns relating to the impact of th ose measures on services and goods trade. Without re -stating 
each of the point s raised in those meetings, Qatar  said that it was important to recall that the 
measures imposed clearly violate d cornerstone WTO rules.  
8.4.  WTO rules for goods, serv ices and intell ectual property we re based on principles of non -WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 42 - 
 
  discriminatory treatment but tho se measures target ed Qatar alone denying virtually all the 
benefits guaranteed by WTO Membership.  
8.5.  WTO r ules including the new Trade Facilitation A greement guarantee d freedom o f transit , yet 
those measures denied  freedom of transit to both Qatar and  to third -country WTO Members 
seeking to ship to and receive goods from Qatar.  
8.6.  WTO rules and commitments allow ed trade to be stopped only in limited circumstances and 
yet with a few exceptions that we re commercially important for the countries concerned – almost 
all goods and services trade had  been frustrated.  
8.7.  Rather than pursuing their objectives in a manner that was consistent with WTO rules, the 
measure imposed against by the thr ee Members concerned constitute d unilateral a ctions in gross 
disregard of its  and other WTO Members' rights. The WTO illegal measures appear ed calculated 
simply as a means of political coerci on. Those actions we re fundamentally at odds with the 
multilatera l settlement of disputes. They represent ed an assault on the multila teral trading system 
itself. Tho se unannounced, unexpected and egregious actions and their course of purpose should 
be an alarm to all WTO Members.  
8.8.  The ri ghts of many WTO Members in the r oom that day were being violated by that  course of 
attempts at economic isolation. For example, worldwide purchases of essential petroleum and gas  
products originating in Qatar we re experiencing transit delays along with increased costs of transit 
and insu rance due to the denial of WTO -consistent free passage of goods to and from Qatar. Nor 
could  third country WTO Members any longer enjoy the harmonized import conditions resulting 
from the Gulf Cooperation Council Customs Union and Single Market.  
8.9.  WTO Membe rs should also be concer ned that the measures at issue we re being applied in a 
protectionist manner to secure commercial advantage for certain stakeholders . Certain commercial 
interests we re able to secure exemptions to continue trade in areas deemed advan tageous to local 
interests. Not surprisingly, tho se discrimi natory market closing measures we re creating 
opportunities for competing commercial interests from the Members concerned to seize market 
opportunities fr om incumbent Qatari companies.  
8.10.   As should b e obvious to all  concerned, the longer that the unprecedented situation remained  
in place, the greater the long -term damage to create an investment falling to and from the Gulf 
region. The situation inde ed stroke  at the very foundations of the multilateral  trading system.  
8.11.   While enacted for the fulfilment of political objectives, the speci fic trade measures in place 
lied squarely within the purview of the organization. Qatar does not  only have the right but as a 
Member of the multilateral trading system  it could  use it as an obligation to bring an issue of such 
magnitu de to the attention of Members.  
8.12.   In concluding, he said that Qatar was  a small nation but not one that would shy away from 
pursuing its rights and benefits as a Member o f the organization. Q atar therefore reserved  all of its 
rights under the WTO Agreement s including under the dispute settlement understanding.  
8.13.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , also on behalf of the United Arab 
Emirates , the Kingdom of Bahrain  and Egypt , reiter ated that those measures were fully consistent 
with thei r rights  and obligations under the WTO A greements. They regret ted that Qatar had 
chosen to include that  item on th e agenda of the General Council. They  believe d that they had  
provided sufficient expla nations in the previous meetings of the Council for Trade in Services and 
the Council for Trade in Goods. Moreover, they did not believe that the WTO wa s the a ppropriate 
forum to discuss that  political matter.  
8.14.   The General Council took note  of the statement s. 
9  ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE  
9.1  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
9.1.  The Chairman  recalled  that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure f or the Ministerial Conference WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 43 - 
 
  establish ed that "During the course of each regular session a Chairperson and three Vice -
Chairpersons shall be elected from among the Members.  They shall hold office from the end of 
that session until the en d of the next regular session." As delegations would  recall , at its meeting 
on 18 May, the General Council had agreed that MC11 would be chaired by H.E.  Minister Susana 
Malcorra of Argentina – the host country of MC11.  
9.2.  Regarding the three Vice -Chairs, in view  of the fact that the Chair would  come from Latin 
America and the Caribbean  and in line with customary practice at that meeting he had  invited the 
representatives of the other three broad groupings – i.e. Africa, Asia and the Pacific and developed 
countries – to consult wi th their constituents so that the y could revert to that matter at the  July 
Council meeting.   
9.3.  That had been  followed by communications th at he had  sent to the group coo rdinators on 
24 May and 28 June inviting them to inform him once their consultations had been concluded  of 
the proposed V ice-Chairs for their respective groupings.  
9.4.  Following that process of consultations, he had  then sent a communication to all delegations 
on 21 July  informing all Members of the three names for app ointment as Vice -Chairs. In that 
communication he had also pr oposed that if no objections had been  receiv ed by 24 July close -of-
business  the General Council would elect the  proposed Vice -Chairs at the  meeting.  
9.5.  On the basis of that process and since no objections had been received, he was very pleased 
to propose tha t the General Council agree d to elect the following Vic e-Chairs for MC11: H.E. Dr. 
Okechukwu Ene lamah, Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment of Nigeria; H.E. Mr. Todd 
McClay, Minister of Trade of New Zealand and Mr. Edward Yau , Secretary for Commerce and 
Economic Development of Hong Kong, China.  
9.6.  The General Council so agreed . 
9.2  ATTENDANCE OF OBSERVERS FROM INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS  
9.7.  The Chairman  recall ed that past practice up to MC7 had been  to invite those IGOs which had 
observer stat us in the previous Ministerial Conference to atten d the next one. Delegations would  
also recall that for MC8, MC9 and M C10, consensus on repeating that practice could not be 
reached and as a result no IGOs had been  invited to attend as observers to the las t three sessions 
of the Ministerial Conference.  
9.8.  At the Gene ral Council meeting on 18 May, he had  invited delegations who  had wished to 
discuss that matter to consult with him particularly if there had been  any new developments. Since 
then, he had  reached o ut to a number of delegations and group coordinators to discuss the matter.  
9.9.  He also inform ed Members that a request to att end MC11 had been  received from the League 
of Arab States on 10 July.   
9.10.   The feedback that he had received from his consultations was that the situation remained 
unchanged. While he was ready to continue consulting on the matter, he was fully aware of the 
difficulties  in resolving the  issue.  
9.11.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement.  
9.3  REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS BY PALESTI NE (WT/L/1007)  
9.12.   The Chairman  drew the General Council's attention to the request for Observer status at 
MC11 by Palestine circulated t hat week in document WT/L/1007. In accordance with the 
customary practice, he had undertaken consultations on that request and he was pleased to report 
that those consultations had been positive. Therefore, he  would like to propose  that the General 
Council agreed  to grant Palestine Observer Status at MC11 on an ad hoc basis.  
9.13.   The General Council so agreed . WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 44 - 
 
  10  WAIVERS UNDER ARTICL E IX OF THE WTO AGRE EMENT  
10.1  REVIEW OF WAIVERS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX:4 OF THE WTO AGREEMENT  
10.1.1   Least -Developed Country Members – Obligations  under Article 70.8 and 
Article  70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to Pharmaceutical Products, granted 
on 30  Novemb er 2015 until 1  January 2033 (WT/L/971)  
10.1.2   Preferential Treatment for Least -Developed Countries, granted on 27 May 2009 
until 30  June  2019 (WT/L/759)  
10.1.3   Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 28 July 2015 until 31 December 2023 
(WT/L/958, WT/L/1013)  
10.1.4   United States – Carib bean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 5 May 2015 
until 31 December 2019 (WT/L/950, WT/L/1012)  
10.1.   The Chairman  recall ed that  in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement,  "any waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the 
Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until the 
waiver terminates."   
10.2.   There we re four waivers before the General Council for review. Two of the waivers under 
review provide d that an a nnual report should be submitted by the Member concerned regarding 
the operation or implementation of those waivers with a view to facilitating their annual  review by 
the General Council.  The reports from t he United States and Canada had  been circulated in  
documents WT/L/1012 and 1013, respectively.  
10.3.   The General Council took note  of the reports contained in documents WT/L/1012 and 1013, 
and agreed  to revert to the review of multi -year waivers under Article IX.4 of the WTO Agreement 
at its last regular meetin g in 2017.  
10.4.   The representative of Barbados , on behalf of CARICOM , welcomed  the reports before the 
Council on the CARIBCAN and the CBERA waivers which had  been submitted by Canada and th e 
United States respectively. CARICOM  wished to signal that both CARIBCA N and CBERA continue d 
to be of significant value to the trade and economic  circumstances of the region. CARICOM  
therefore thank ed both Canada and the United States for their continued partnership with the 
Caribbean Community.  
10.5.   The representative of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDCs , said that the 2015 decision to 
extend the LDC waiver until 2033 concerning the exclusive marketing rights fo r pharmaceuticals 
and the mailbox measure for receiving patent s was imperative for LDCs and their quest to ensure 
the healt h and livelihood of their people. That was in relation to Article s 66.1 and 66.2  of the 
TRIPS Agreement . The LDCs sought the n eed for flexibility to allow them  to create a viable 
technological base. Together with the extension  of the pharmaceutical waiver  also in 2015, the 
maintenance of that waiver wa s critical for al l LDCs as they tried to develop their supply -side 
capacity, save the lives of their people, ensure access to medicine, reduce poverty and attain their 
shared goals of graduating from their LD C status . The LDCs therefore invited  Members to provide 
the necessary technical assistance to promote the exchange of experience in accordance with 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement to support the use of intellectual property as an instrument 
for promoti on of sustaina ble development and inclusivity.  
10.6.   The representative of Haiti associated with the statements made  by CARICOM and the LDCs. 
Haiti thank ed the United States for its  2016 report on CARIBCAN. The stagnation of the exchange 
between the United State s and the beneficiaries during  the 2008-2016 period proved that 
preferences we re being eroded which  was worrying and  should be addressed in a proactive 
fashion. Haiti thus thank ed the United States for introducing the r equest aiming at suspending that 
derogation. Haiti would like the General Council to take note of the import ance of the contribution 
of that  derogation in the promotion of the economic  development of Haiti and hoped to be able to 
pursue its  projects of economic cooperation with the United Sta tes.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 45 - 
 
  10.7.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
11  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION – REPORT ON MEETINGS 
OF FEBRUARY, MAY, AN D JUNE 2017 (WT/BFA/ 161, WT/BFA/163 AND 
WT/BFA/164/REV.1)  
11.1.   The Chairman  drew attention to the reports of the Comm ittee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration in documents WT/BFA/161, WT/BFA/162 and WT/BFA/164/Rev.1 and invited 
Mr. Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic), Chair man of the Committee, to introduce the reports.  
11.2.   Mr. Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic), Chairman of the CBFA , reported  that the  CBFA had met 
several times since the last General Council meeti ng. He would focus his report on the 
recommendations by the CBFA  to the General Council from tho se meetings.  
11.3.   Regarding the 2016 Financial Performance Report and Audited Financ ial Statements, on 22  
June the Committee had reviewed the WTO 2016 Financial Performance Report and the related 
report of the External Auditor on the 2016 WTO Financial Statements.  
11.4.   The b udgetary expenditure had totalled CHF196.1 million  relative to the bu dgeted r evenue 
of CHF197.2 million. That had  resulted in a budgetary surplus of CHF1.1 million. However, after 
effecting adjustments stipulated by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), 
a financia l deficit of CHF28.2 million had been  reported.  
11.5.   The financial deficit for 2016 had been  much higher than the CHF6 million  financial deficit of 
2015. That wa s expla ined by the following factors: a  significant decrease of the discount rates 
used to calculate the Pension and After Service Health Insurance benefits; and a  decreased 
amount of bud getary surplus to partially off set the negative impact of actuarial effects. In  2015, 
the budgetary surplus had been  CHF6 Million versus the 2016 budgetary surplus of CHF1 million.  
11.6.   The Supreme Audit Instit ution of Germany, the External Auditor of the WTO, had made a 
presentation of the Audit Report for the 2016 Annual Financi al Statements. The Committee had 
been informed that the audit had  not reveal ed any significant weaknesses or errors considered 
materia l to the accuracy, completeness  and validity of the financial statements of  the WTO. The 
Auditor had concluded by expressing an unqualified opinion on the 2016 Financial Statements.  
11.7.   The External Auditor had also carried out  performance audits of the WTO's  policies relating 
to Confidentiality of Information, the Organization of Sessions of Ministerial Conferences and 
select ed human resources activities. The WTO Secretariat had committed to assess tho se and to 
take most on b oard. The External Auditors would  do a follow up of the imple mentation status in 
October . 
11.8.   In light of the above, the recommendation of the Committee regarding the 2016 Financial 
Performance Report and 201 6 Audited Financial Statements was as followed :  
"The Committee recommends that the Ge neral Council approve the transfers between 
budgetary sections as outlined in paragraphs 2.31 and 2.39 of document WT/BFA/W/419. 
The Committee further recommends that the General Council approve the 2016 WTO 
Audited Financial Statements."  
11.9.   Concerning the R eview of the Adjustment of WTO Dependency Allowances, at the 22 June 
CBFA meeting, the Committee had also taken  up the item concerning the Review of the 
Adjustment of the WTO Dependency Allowances. At that meeting, the Committee had considered 
the recommen dation on that  matter contained in paragraph 17 (ii) of  WT/BFA/W/416/Rev.2.  
11.10.   That recommendation had been  a result of an extensive process of consultations between 
the Secretariat and the Members. Given that one Member needed more time to consult with its 
capital on the matter the recommendation could not be adopted by the Committee at that 
meeting. Still, the r eport of the 22 June meeting had been  circulated o n 4 July in WT/BFA/164  and 
it had contained a reference to the recommendation on the Dependency Allowances.  
11.11.   Followi ng further consultations, it had been ascertained that there was consensus on the WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 46 - 
 
  recommendation. The Committee had therefore circulated a revised document containing the 
result of the additional consultations on 14 July in document WT/BFA/W/Rev.3.  
11.12.   He had then  convened a further meet ing of the Committee on 18 July  where the 
Committee had agreed to transmit to the General Council the following recommendation:  
"The Committee  on Budget, Finance and Administration recommends that, in view of staff 
regulation 6.5 and annex 2 of the WTO staff rules, the General Council:  
recognizes that for the years 2011 to 2015 no provisional application of adjustments of the 
dependency allowance s was made and no requests for adjustments of the dependency 
allowances for these years were presented by the Secretariat;  
in this context recalls that staff hired before 1 January 2012 have benefited from a salary 
freeze since 2012;  
approves adjustments to the dependency allowances as of 1 January 2016 and 
1 January  2017 respectively, as reflected in the table on paragraph 4.14 of 
WT/BFA/164/Rev.1   
hereby decides to close its consideration of the adjustment of the dependency allowances for 
the years 2011 to 2017."  
11.13.   That recommendation had  subsequently  been circulated to all d elegations in d ocument 
WT/BFA/164/Rev.1 and could  be found in paragraph 4.14 of that  document. He highlight ed again 
that that recommendation wa s the result of an ext ensive process of co nsultations. He was happy 
to inform delegations of the consensus around it. The Budget Committee therefore proposed that 
that recommendation was  put forward to the General Council for its consideration.  
11.14.   Regarding the request from the Republic of Guinea -Bissau for the Revision of their 
Paym ent Plan, during its meeting on 24 February, the CBFA had considered a request by the 
Republic of Guinea -Bissau to have its payment plan revised. In that regard, the Committee made  
the following recommendation:  
"In accorda nce with the decision of the General Council of 15 November 2012, the 
Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration recommends that the General Council 
suspend the application of administrative measures for the Republic of Guinea -Bissau which 
agrees, and  undertakes, to abide by a schedule of instalment payments aimed at liquidating 
all arrears over a period of 30 years. The payments mu st be received no later than 
31 December of each year, failing which the administrative measures will be reinstated."  
11.15.   The Chairman  said t hat the General Council had  heard that the recommen dations in 
WT/BFA/164/Rev.1 had  been considered and had been agreed to by the Members in the Budget 
Committee on 18 July.  Due to pa rticular circumstances that had  been expla ined by the Chair  of the 
CBFA, he  propose d that the General Council include d that  recommendation with the other 
recommendations that they were considering .  
11.16.   The General Co uncil took note  of the statements, approved  the Budget Committee's 
specific recommendations in parag raphs 7.6 and 8.2 of WT/BFA/161 and  paragraph 4.1 4 of 
WT/BFA/164/Rev.1 and adopted  the reports in  WT/BFA/161, WT/BFA/ 163 and WT/BFA/ 164/Rev.1.  
12  WTO PENSION PLAN  
12.1  Report by the Independent External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial 
Statements of the World  Trade Organization Pension Plan for the Year ended 
31 December  2016 (WT/L/1008)  
12.2  Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year ending 31 December 2016 
(WT/L/1009)  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 47 - 
 
  12.3  Alignment of the WTO Pension Plan Regulations with the WTO's Policies Regarding 
the Def inition of Spouse to Include Domestic Partnership (WT/L/1010)  
12.1.   The Chairman  drew the Council's  attention to the Annual Report and Financial Statements 
for 2016 contained in document WT/L/1009  which wa s submitted to the General Council in 
accordance with Art icle 5(d) of the Regulations of t he WTO Pension Plan. He also drew attention to 
the Report of the Independent External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial Statements of the 
WTOPP in  document WT/L/1008.  
12.2.   The Management Board had indicated that it wa s pleas ed to report a positive audit report 
with an unqualified opinion. In t he area of investments, 2016 had been  another good year for the 
WTO Pension Plan's investment portfolio. The Management Board's investment strategy had 
followed closely its benchmark and  had delivered a real rate of return of 6.8%.  That was 3.3% 
above the long -term target rate of return of 3.5% used in the actuarial assumptions of the Plan.  
12.3.   Concerning the Alignment of the WTO Pension Plan Regulations with the WTO's Policies 
Regarding the Definition of Spouse to Include Domestic Partnership circulated in WT/L/1010, a 
working group of the Management Board had met sever al times to carefully study the  issue. As a 
result, the Management Board had agreed at its April 2017 meeting that the defini tion of "spouse" 
used by the Pension Plan should be aligned with that used by the WTO staff rules.  
12.4.   The General Council approved  the WTOPP Management Board's specific recommendation in 
paragraph 5 of the WT/L/1010, and took note  of the Annual Report of the Management Board and 
the Financial Statements for 2016 in document WT/L/1009, the Report of the Independent 
External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial Statements of the WTOPP in document WT/L/1008, 
and the Chairman's statement made on behalf of the Out going Chair of the WTOPP.  
12.4  WTO Pension Plan Management Board - Election of Chairman, Members and 
Alternates (WT/GC/W/733)  
12.5.   The Chairman  recall ed that Article 4(a) of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan provided 
inter alia  for the election by the General Council of a Chairperson, four members and four 
alternates to the Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan.  
12.6.   He recalled that  consultations on a new Chair for the Pension Plan Management Board had 
started in 2016 . The term of office of the current membershi p of the whole Management Board had  
then come up  for renewal in May .  
12.7.   In that regard, on 9 June a fax had been  sent to the Heads of Delegation inviting Members 
to communicate expressions of interest in serving on the Manag ement Board by no later than 
19 June. An overview of the role and functions  of the Board had been  attached to the fax.  
12.8.   He had asked Mr.  Brňo, Chair of the CBFA, to coordinate the process in a way that would 
ensure transparency and provide sufficient opportunities for consultations with Members interested 
in that pro cess. He thanked Mr. Brňo for his work and for e ffectively managing the process which 
appeared  to have satisf ied Members' expectations. The Management Board could  build on the 
process that had just been  undert aken to develop s ome guidelines  to ensure that future processes 
were carried out with equal transparency and efficiency.  
12.9.   Mr. Brňo had consulted with those individuals who had expressed interest in serving on the 
Board during the week of 19 June. On 22 June, he had provide d an update on the process to the 
CBFA and had announced his availability to meet with Members wishing to further discuss the 
candidates or the election process on  7 July. Additionally, a fax had been  sent to the Heads of 
Delegation on 3 July reiterating h is availability for consultations up until 7 July.  
12.10.   Document WT/GC/W/733 described the overall process and listed  the candidates identified 
as a result of the consultations. As of the deadl ine of 21 July he had  received no comments or 
questions regarding th e slate and therefore suggest ed that the candidates proposed in document 
WT/GC/W/733 be elected to the Management Board of the Pension Plan for a term of 3 years.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 48 - 
 
  12.11.   The General Council so agreed .9 
12.12.   The representative of Turkey  thank ed the Chairman for ensurin g that the process was 
functional and transparent.  Turkey express ed its  appreciation for  the due diligence shown in that  
process of designating the Members and the Chair of the Management Boa rd and Alternates. His 
delegation therefore  fully support ed the p roposal by the General Council. Turkey  congratulate d all 
Members and Alternates and wish ed them a successful and fruitful term.  
12.13.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
13  STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES 
FOR MEMBERS  IN ARREARS  
13.1.   The Chairman  recalled that the revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears, 
contained in WT/BFA/132 Annex I had entered into force on 1 January 2013. Those measures 
included a requirement that at the end of each meeting of the Genera l Council the Chairperson of 
the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should provide information with regard to 
which Members and Observers were under Administrative Measures. He invited the Chair of the 
Budget Committee, Mr . Peter B rňo (Slovak Republic), to provide the Council with that information.  
13.2.   Mr. Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic), Chairman of the CBFA , reported that the Administrative 
Measures applicable to Members and Observers with arrears in contribution had been implemented 
since 1 March 2013. In accordance with the decision of the General Council, he should state all 
Members and Observers under all categories. As at 25 July 2017, there had been 17 Members and 
2 Observers under Administrative Measures.  
13.3.   There were 8 Members under C ategory 1: Antigua and Barbuda; Democratic Republic of the 
Congo; Dominica; Guinea; Mozambique; Rwanda; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Uganda. 
There was 1 Member in Category II: Cameroon. There were 8 Members and 2 Observers in 
Category III: Burundi;  Central African Republic; Djibouti; Guinea -Bissau; Mauritania; Niger; Sierra 
Leone; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Libya (Observer) and Sao Tomé and Principe (Observer).  
13.4.   The Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration would review the situation on  arrears 
from Members and Observers  including those following a payment plan at its next  meeting 
scheduled on 21 September and would subsequently provide a full report to General Council.  
13.5.   The Chairman  said that he was also required at each Council meeting to request Members 
and Observers in Categories II and III of the Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their 
payment of arrears could be expected.  
13.6.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
 
_______________  
 
                                                
9 The decision was subsequently circulated in WT/L/1015.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 49 - 
 
ANNEX 1  
REPORTS BY  THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL , AS CHAIRMAN OF THE  TNC,  AND OF THE CHAIRS 
OF THE NEGOTIATING G ROUPS AT THE INFORMA L TRADE NEGOTIATIONS  COMMITTEE 
MEETING HELD ON 25 J ULY 2017  
Report by  the Director -General  as Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee
 
Let me start with a report on my own activities and consultations.1 
 
Over the past few months, I have visited a number of Capitals where I met with a broad range of 
stakeholders including leaders, government officials a nd the private sector. I was also invited to 
attend a number of Ministerial gatherings. I will give a fuller report on these activities in the HoDs 
meeting.  
 
Throughout these exchanges, I stressed to ministers and leaders the importance of making 
progress on Doha issues – including at the forthcoming Ministerial Conference. I also highlighted 
the need for continued engagement at the ministerial level in order to ensure that we keep moving 
forward  
 
I have also been pursuing consultations here in Geneva.  
  
In June I met individually with the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups on Agriculture, Rules, 
Services, Development and NAMA to discuss their specific areas in greater detail. And yesterday 
Minister Malcorra and I – together with the Chair of the General Counc il – heard from all of the 
Chairs. This was a follow -up to the meeting we held on 24 April, in the same configuration. Again, 
the purpose was to collectively review the overall state of play in the negotiations and assess 
progress in each area.  
  
I also me t with the coordinators of the LDC, African and ACP Groups in June to discuss their 
priorities and concerns in light of MC11.  
 
In addition, I was invited by the G -33 to participate in their workshop on 'Delivering Development 
in the 11th Ministerial Confe rence', with a focus on Public Stockholding for Food Security and the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism.  
 
I think the session helped to further Members' understanding of their different positions and 
concerns. We clearly need keep work with greater urgency if w e want to advance these issues, 
especially in view of the mandated timeline for public stockholding.  
  
Indeed, I think greater urgency is required across the board, if we are to see progress. 
Nevertheless, we have seen a welcome increase in activity on the Doha issues in recent months.  
 
Agriculture, Services and Rules have continued to be major areas where Members' attention has 
been focused – although I have been pleased to see increased activity in Development 
conversations as well in recent days.  
 
In Agriculture, a total of 18 submiss ions have been tabled by Members since we last met, covering 
a range of agriculture issues. Last week alone, 8 submissions were tabled – mainly in the areas of 
domestic support, public stockholding and SSM.  
 
This is a very impressive level of engagement.  
 
We have also seen additional papers tabled in other areas, including on fisheries subsidies, anti -
dumping and horizontal subsidies. And, more recently, papers have been put forward in areas 
where there had been less activity, such as NAMA and S&D.  
 
The re vised S&D proposal from the ACP, African and LDC Groups was introduced in the CTD  SS 
last week. I am informed that this has already allowed discussions in the CTD SS to restart for the 
first time since Nairobi.  
                                                
1 The report was subsequently circulated in JOB/TNC/61.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 50 - 
 
   
It is very positive that Members have start ed to move to more detailed, text -based submissions 
and discussions. My hope is that this enhanced level of activity paves the way for a more focused 
process in the autumn. Wherever issues have reached the right level of maturity and specificity, 
Members s hould be moving in to negotiating mode.  
 
But, let me underline again that while this growing engagement is very welcome, the approaches 
and level of ambition amongst delegations vary widely. A great deal remains to be done before 
Buenos Aires.  
 
When delega tions return to Geneva in September, we will have just 14 weeks until the Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
We need to increase the intensity of our work markedly if we are to make the progress that I think 
most Members  want to see – including, crucially, steps on  development and in support of LDCs.  
 
The Chairs and I will continue in our roles of facilitating convergence, but proponents bear the 
responsibility of building momentum behind their ideas. So I encourage you to reflect about how 
you can achieve this.  
 
And I encourage all delegations to use August to work with your Capitals to increase their 
engagement, and to see what may be possible.  
 
We also need to be realistic in assessing what can be done by Buenos Aires and what could be 
further developed in the l onger term. We must ensure that MC11 is a step forward for the 
multilateral trading system, in the interests of growth, development, job creation and living 
standards around the world.  
 
As with Bali and Nairobi, it is essential that we do all we can to ma ke Buenos Aires a success – and 
to ensure that it represents a strong platform for future work.  
 
 
Reports by  the Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups  
 
 
1. Committee on Agriculture – Special Session2 
 
Introduction  
 
Following my appointment as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture i n Special Session on 
26 April, I have held a series of 35 bilateral consultations with group representatives or 
coordinators, and individual delegations representing the whole Membership in its diversity.  
 
I concluded this first p hase by holding an informal open -ended meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session on 1 June followed by two dedicated sessions on Public Stockholding 
for Food Security Purposes (PSH) and the Special Safeguard Mechanism for Developing Countr ies 
(SSM).  
 
I then moved to topic -based Room -E type consultations with the pa rticipation of approximately 
30 delegations on all topics in which you have expressed an interest.  
 
These topics are Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, Domestic Suppo rt, Special 
Safeguard Mechanism for developing country Members, Market Access, Export Restrictions and 
Other Issues, including Export Competition and Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures. Following 
the practice established by my predecessors, I also held co nsultations on Cotton in a Quad plus 
format.  
 
It represented in total seven meetings.  
 
                                                
2 The report was subsequently circulated in JOB/AG/108.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 51 - 
 
  This second phase concluded last week with the informal open -ended meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session held on 19 July followed by two dedicated s essions on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH) and the Special Safeguard Mechanism for 
Developing Countries (SSM) on 20 July.  
 
Let me take this opportunity here to express all my gratitude to Ambassador Neple who accepted, 
as Friend of the  Chair, to chair these meetings and read my reports to the Membership on the 
state of play of the negotiations on my behalf.  
 
My report to the CoA -SS will be circulated soon as a JOB document.  
 
For the sake of time, I am not going to repeat my full report here. Rather, I will briefly summarize 
my assessment of where the situation stands on each of the topics under consideration and 
conclude my report by some comments on the way forward.  
 
My report today will incorporate elements from the discussions on 19 and 20 July as they were 
reported to me by Ambassador Neple and the Secretariat.  
 
Substance  
 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
 
Public stockholding remains clearly one of the priority issues. Two new proposals were submitted 
during the dedicated session on 20 July, one by Brazil, European Union, Colombia, Peru and 
Uruguay and one by the G33.  The dedicated session was the first possibility to discuss these 
proposals, and most of the delegations took the floor to give their preliminary rea ctions. While the 
gaps between different positions remained broadly the same, the engagement was invigorated. 
Members have now some serious homework to do over the summer break and more indebt 
discussions will take place as from September.  
 
Domestic Suppor t 
 
Domestic support is another topic that remains a priority issue for the vast majority of Members. 
Five new submissions were circulated ahead of the CoA -SS on 19 July, one of them as a proposal. 
The proposal by Brazil, European Union, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay suggests an overall limit as a 
percentage of the value of production. India and China put forward a submission suggesting the 
elimination of the AMS entitlement as a prior step to any domestic support reform. Other 
submissions stressed the advantag es of a fixed overall limit over a floating one. The submissions 
received many preliminary reactions. Like in the case of public stockholding, Members will have a 
lot to think about over the summer break so as to facilitate more in -depth discussions just a fter. 
 
Cotton  
 
Most Members reiterated their support for a meaningful and specific outcome on Cotton Domestic 
Support, but a couple of participants recorded their lack of optimism, taking into account the 
overall negotiation prospects. Several participants  also noted the link with the overall Domestic 
Support negotiation.  
 
During Quad plus consultations on 30 June, participants made preliminary comments on a draft 
proposal on Cotton Domestic Support bein g currently prepared by the C4.  
 
Many participants wer e of the opinion that the most efficient way forward would be to focus on the 
most trade -distorting support granted to cotton farmers but divergent views were expressed as to 
how this could be done.  
 
Market Access  
 
Members have expressed a wide range of vi ews on the likelihood of an outcome on market access 
for MC11. Some think that incremental outcomes would be feasible at MC11, others consider that 
a commitment to pursue market access negotiations post -MC11 would be a realistic outcome.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Others think tha t an outcome in this area would not be possible. The issues highlighted by 
Members as priorities in this area reflect the diversity of positions and include: specific elements in 
the market access pillar; updated market access information in order to lay t he ground work for 
future market access outcomes, and the development of a work programme on market access.  
 
Special Safeguard Mechanism  
 
The discussions on the SSM for developing country Members have not revealed an obvious way 
forward to achieve concrete  outcomes for MC11. Proponents continue to stress their views that the 
SSM is an essential tool to protect domestic producers from import surges, to fight against 
poverty, and to promote rural development. They consider that a concrete, incremental outcome , 
focusing on the price -based SSM should be a workable option in MC11. Other Members consider 
that it would be difficult to achieve any outcome on the SSM in MC11 in the absence of outcomes 
on market access more generally.  
 
Export Restrictions  
 
During my consultations, both bilateral and in a small -group setting, I noted a broad interest and 
support among the Membership for Singapore's ideas to enhance the transparency of export 
restrictions.  
 
To make further progress in the discussions and in r esponse to Members' requests, Singapore 
circulated last week a textual proposal (contained in JOB/AG/101) and presented that to the 
Membership in the CoA -SS open -ended session on 19 July. A number of Members supported the 
proposal to form a basis of a poss ible outcome on export restrictions at MC11. Some Members also 
believed that the outcome should not be limited to transparency alone. Simultaneously I heard 
concerns from some developing Members on the potential burdensomeness of the proposed 
transparency requirements.  
 
Export Competition  
 
A couple of Members reiterated that export competition was still an unfinished business, and that 
this fact should be recognized, but no deliverable is expected on this topic for MC11.  
 
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures  
 
Brazil and Argentina indicated that their objective was to start a discussion on a certain number of 
SPS issues listed in their discussion paper and that could be part of the deliverables for the next 
Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. I und erstand these Members are reflecting on what the 
next steps could be to further discussions on this issue.  
 
Conclusion  
 
Thus, the discussions in the last weeks have confirmed that the different topics are at different 
levels of maturity.  
 
Many delegations  consider that a substantial outcome at MC11 is within reach for Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, Domestic Support, Cotton and Export Restrictions but the 
same cannot be said of the other topics.  
 
Some delegations consider nevertheless that a substantial outcome is still possible, at least 
partially, for some of the other topics.  
 
Some other delegations express doubts about the possibility of reaching substantial outcomes on 
any of the topics under consideration.  
 
It is indeed clear that key areas of divergence, and in some cases significant ones, remain.  
 
On all these topics, with the notable exception of PSH where there is a mandate to agree on a 
Permanent Solution at MC11, there is agreement among the Members that some issues would 
have to be taken up in a Work Programme post MC11.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 53 - 
 
  In terms of process, Members have now engaged in discussions with a high level of specificity, at 
least on some issues. Most recently, the number of proposals – eight overall including some 
textual proposals for outcomes at MC11 – tabled last week confirmed the renewed engagement by 
Members.  
 
This being said, it is clear that we have not yet moved so far into what I would call a real intensive 
negotiation mode. We have had useful suggestions, discussions and excha nges but no real 
negotiation.  
 
This preparatory phase was very important, and I would say indispensable, to prepare the ground 
for a successful negotiation, but we also need to be realistic and pragmatic.  
 
The issue we face today is, therefore, how do we m ove forward considering the numerous 
elements available on the various topics, and their respective degree of priority for the 
Membership, should we decide to move into text -based negotiations.  
 
This issue is now becoming absolutely critical, given the tig ht timeframe we are operating in.  
 
So what is the situation today?  
 
On both topics – PSH and Domestic Support – we have several contributions – including proposals 
– that highlight various options and include sometimes common elements that nevertheless dif fer 
substance -wise. These written contributions are supplemented by oral interventions during 
meetings, some of which contain very specific additional elements.  
 
On Export Restrictions, we have one main written proposal which could serve as a possible bas is 
for discussion.  
 
On cotton, we already have some suggestions on the table and we are still waiting for the 
submission by the C4 that will of course be an important piece in the future negotiation.  
 
On other topics like Market Access and SSM, we have sub missions by proponents that have not yet 
triggered in -depth detailed discussions with non -proponents.  
 
Finally, proponents are still reflecting on the way forward for SPS -related issues and no text is 
expected on Export Competition.  
 
On my side, I will car efully reflect in the coming days on how to organize my work based on all the 
inputs received so far.  
 
My immediate objective after the summer recess will be to intensify discussions, based on the 
submissions thus far received with a view to capturing the convergences and identifying precisely 
the areas of divergence.  
 
This will have to be done for all the topics on the table, while taking into account their different 
levels of maturity.  
 
This being said, let me stress again that I am only a facilitator an d there is no substitute for direct 
discussion between and among delegations to bridge gaps and explore and develop possible 
options that might garner consensus, taking into account the recent submissions and related 
discussions.  
 
Time is extremely short and there will be no place for hesitation or procrastination in the fall.  
 
2. Negotiating Group on Rules  
 
Since last fall, the Negotiating Group on Rules has been pursuing an active programme of 
meetings on fisheries subsidies, triggered by submissions from M embers. As of last week, the 
Group has now received seven textual proposals for binding new disciplines. Of the seven, six are 
comprehensive texts, while the seventh is intended to fit into a broader framework of disciplines. 
All of the proposals refer to Sustainable Development Target 14.6, which calls for the elimination WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 54 - 
 
  and prohibition of certain fisheries subsidies by 2020, and refers to the WTO negotiations on this 
issue. All of the proposals are aimed at achieving outcomes at MC11.  
 
Our process conti nues to be proposal -based and Member -driven. And it is a very significant step 
that as of last week, all of the proponents that previously had submitted conceptual proposals 
have now converted these to legal text form. In some cases, proponents already hav e submitted 
revisions to their original legal texts, in response to questions and comments from Members. Our 
process has been consistent throughout. When each new proposal has been received it has been 
discussed in open -ended plenary session. At our two -day meeting cluster last week, we had six 
new proposals on the agenda for a first round of discussion.  
 
Previously, during the Spring, the Group held a series of topical discussions of common themes 
and issues that were raised in the proposals then on the t able and in the related discussions in the 
Negotiating Group. All Members were free to participate, and many have commented that those 
discussions helped them to focus their thinking and to understand the concerns of other Members.  
 
Our meeting cluster la st week was focused exclusively on the new fisheries subsidies textual 
proposals received since June. The discussions were constructive and engaged, in spite of the fact 
that some proposals were received only shortly before the meeting.  
 
In terms of next steps, at the request of the proponents and as agreed by the Negotiating Group 
as a whole, I will be circulating to all Members, later this week, a matrix or tabular compilation of 
all of the textual proposals. This will be a thematic side -by-side presenta tion of the proposals – 
nothing will be added or subtracted. The topics or issues in the table will be taken from the 
proposals themselves, and the purpose is simply to facilitate Members' ability to analyse and 
compare the proposals.  
 
After the summer br eak, my intention is to organize an intensive programme of meetings where 
we will return to topical discussions, this time based on the matrix. This approach should help us 
to efficiently identify where we already have opportunities to build convergence, a nd where much 
more focused and intensive work is needed. During this process, I anticipate that Members may 
submit additional focused drafting suggestions on the various issues under discussion. I will be 
encouraging all Members to assist our process in th is way – to be in a solution -seeking mode, 
building on what we already have before us on each issue, including by bringing in new ideas and 
approaches, in textual form, that may help to bridge gaps.  
 
Turning to the other main pillars of Rules, trade remed ies and horizontal subsidies disciplines, both 
have seen recent activity. On trade remedies, we received a new, textual proposal from one 
delegation, following up on an earlier conceptual paper with a somewhat broader scope. We also 
received a conceptual p roposal regarding improving the horizontal transparency rules in respect of 
subsidies. Earlier this month, consistent with our established practice, we held open -ended 
informal meetings to consider both of these proposals. A range of views was expressed on  each, 
and all delegations are now reflecting on the issues raised. I stand ready to facilitate further 
engagement on these issues, in line with the commitment to ensure that every opportunity is 
provided to Members for the deepening of understanding and a dvancing the consideration of any 
issue, on its merit.  
  
Encouragingly, in our discussions over the past few weeks of all issues under consideration in the 
NG Rules, all Members, including the proponents, emphasized that each issue needs to proceed on 
its own merits, without linkages or sequencing with other issues. I am very heartened by this 
approach, which can only facilitate our further work in the short time before MC 11, when we 
reconvene in the fall.  
 
3. Council for Trade in Services – Special Session  
 
Over the last year, the priority areas highlighted by a number of Members were: domestic 
regulation; services trade facilitation; market access; and services aspects of e -commerce.  
Discussions are more advanced than in some areas than in others.  Let me s ay a few words about 
each of these topics.  
 
Negotiations on domestic regulation are obviously more advanced, since they have been ongoing 
for quite some time.  Since my last report, formal and informal meetings of the WPDR have been WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 55 - 
 
  held.  Work has progres sed to a more in -depth discussion of several text proposals, including the 
most recent ones on "technical standards", "gender equality" and "development – least developed 
countries".     
 
From my consultations with the Chair of the WPDR, I understand that some Members question the 
need for domestic regulation disciplines generally and the benefits and appropriateness of what 
has been proposed specifically.  At the same time, many Members have substantive interest in 
fully understanding the scope and details  of the proposals, and in flagging areas of practical 
concern that they would like to see accommodated as the process advances.  Proponents are 
working towards consolidation of their proposals in one document, taking into account the 
discussions that have taken place.  Further engagement is expected after the summer break.  
 
Second, on services trade facilitation, no new substantive discussion of India's proposed text has 
taken place since the HoDs meeting of last May.  India's proposal has been discussed in  a good 
amount of detail.  Clearly, the views of Members differ significantly.  In view of comments 
received, India undertook to prepare a revised draft of its proposal.  Once it is submitted, I will 
work to facilitate further discussions.   
 
Third, regard ing services aspects of e -commerce, a concrete proposal for rules aiming to facilitate 
online services transactions has been put forward since my last report.   The proposal by the 
European Union covers such issues as e -signatures, e -contracts, consumer pr otection, and spam.  
The proposal was discussed for the first time in June.  Different views were expressed and further 
discussions will be required to further flesh out opinions and to discuss substantive as well as more 
technical aspects.  
 
And fourth, wi th respect to market access, I have noted on previous occasions that a number of 
Members have expressed interest to move ahead.  However, no concrete proposal has so far been 
put forward.   
 
In conclusio n, let me stress a few points. First, the more time p asses, the more the chances of 
substantive deli verables for MC11 diminish. Proponents in all areas will have to engage strongly 
and realistically, right after the summer break.   
 
In each of the areas where concrete proposals have been submitted – trade fa cilitation, domestic 
regulation, and online transactions – some Members currently  appear opposed to an outcome. If 
delegations want to pursue consensus -based process and outcomes, these differences of views will  
have to start narrowing soon. If that does n ot happen, there will be no such consensus -based 
outcome for MC11.  
 
As usual, I will stand ready to facilitate discussions as soon as proponents are ready to engage.  
 
4. Committee on Trade and Development – Special Session  
 
Since my last report to the HODs in May 2017, there have been important developments in our 
work.  
 
Earlier this month, the Special Session received a submission from G90 containing a number of 
revised S&D proposals. These were circulated to Members on 10 July in document JOB/DEV/48 & 
JOB/TNC/60.  
 
A formal meeting of the Special Session was held on 19 July 2017 to consider these proposals. The 
proponents introduced their proposals in that meeting, after which Members expressed general 
comments and some prel iminary views on the proposals.  
 
Members expressed divergent views on the substance of the proposals. Some Members felt that, 
other than two proposals which were new, the others were similar to those that had been 
discussed in the run up to and at Nairobi , where it had not been possible to gather consensus on 
them despite intensive and constructive engagement.  Those proposals had sought carve -outs 
from established WTO rules and principles, and for a broad group of members.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 56 - 
 
  These Members felt that the rev ised proposals had failed to take into account earlier discussions. 
They also felt that progress in the discussions would only be possible if the proponents were ready 
to explore new approaches to address the underlying issues.   
  
Other Members appreciated that the G90 members had put in a lot of effort in reformulating these 
proposals and found it encouraging that a reduced number of proposals had been tabled. They felt 
that Members should begin consideration of the proposals with an open mind w ith the aim of 
finding common ground.  
 
Clearly Members have divergent views. I am cognizant of the fact that we do not have much time 
to identify possible deliverables for the Ministerial in Buenos Aires.  
 
My aim is to complete the first reading of all pr oposals by the middle of October.  I plan to 
reconvene the formal session of the suspended 52nd Session of the CTD SS on 14 September. After 
this, the membership will be in a better position to assess the situation and decide on how to 
proceed with our work  in the remaining time available.  
 
My primary objective is to ensure a work plan that facilitates constructive engagement leading to 
tangible deliverables at MC11.  
 
Of course, positive engagement, mutual accommodation and willingness to demonstrate flexibi lity 
will be crucial to making progress and for shaping S&D deliverables for MC11.  
 
5. Negotiating Group on Market Access3 
 
My last report was made to the Heads of Delegations (HODs) informal meeting on 8 May this year 
and was circulated in document JOB/TN/MA /3. 
 
Since that time, I would like to report that there has been no evolution in the area of tariffs. 
However, new developments have taken place in the area of non -tariff barriers (NTBs).  
 
The Negotiating Group on Market Access met in formal session last F riday, 21 July in order to 
consider a proposal by the EU; Hong Kong, China; Chinese Taipei; and Singapore entitled 
"Ministerial Decision on Facilitating SME Trade: Transparency of Regulatory Measures for Trade in 
Goods" (TN/MA/W/144/Rev.1). The proposal co ntains a number of elements including:  
 
 Making available regulatory measures via the internet;  
 Notifying the final text of regulatory measures;  
 Consultation of stakeholders during the development of a regulatory measure;  
 Creating a public internet portal o f regulatory measures;  
 Adopting a Work Programme in order to develop additional provisions relating to 
transparency.  
 
The proposal aims at covering all regulatory measures falling within the scope of the Agreement on 
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (TBT).  
 
The discussion last Friday was substantive and many delegations took the floor to express support, 
reservations and in some cases opposition to the proposal.  
 
Supporters stressed that enhancing the transparency of TBT and SPS regulatory measures would 
facilitate small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro, small, and medium sized 
enterprises' (MSMEs) integration into the multilateral trading system. Currently such type of 
information was scattered and difficult to access for SMEs and MSMEs. Some mentioned that for 
multinational companies the situation did not present a challenge as they had the resources to 
obtain the relevant information. This was in stark contrast  with the situation of small size 
enterprises for which the difficulties in gaining access to information d id effectively constitute a 
non-tariff barrier. So in short, in the view of the supporters, SMEs and MSMEs stood to benefit the 
most through the incr ease in transparency and access to information as envisaged by the 
proposed decision.  
                                                
3 The report was subsequently circulated in JOB/TN/MA/4.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 57 - 
 
   
Some Members who saw merit in the proposal still needed further explanations and asked 
questions.  
 
I am turning now to the reservations and, in some cases, objections to  the proposal. A group 
position noted, among others, that the proposal constituted heavy administrative obligations and 
could eventually impinge on Members' right to regulate. Other points raised included the lack of a 
common understanding of the basic con cept of SME, the broad scope of the proposal, and how the 
proposal related to the mandate of the Negotiating Group. Some considered that a consensus 
would be required to hold negotiations on this proposal. Other points included the lack of clarity 
about th e benefits that would accrue to the SMEs of developing countries and LDCs and how their 
needs have been taken into account. Doubts were also expressed about the timing of the proposal 
and its chances to elicit consensus at MC11.  
 
Finally, it was noted that  transparency issues were already discussed in the TBT and SPS 
Committees and it was important to not undermine the work that was taking place in these bodies 
among experts.  
 
During the discussion, the sponsors had the opportunity to respond to some of the  specific 
questions, reservations and objections that were voiced.  
 
I concluded the meeting by noting that the proposal had received both support and opposition. I 
also indicated that many questions and issues were raised during the debate. Some of them we re 
addressed by the co -sponsors at the meeting whereas other issues required further clarification. I 
noted that the co -sponsors were ready to engage and to provide responses to the remaining 
questions. In light of the debate, my assessment is that substan tive work is still needed to clarify a 
number of points and to build momentum. So, I would repeat my call to the sponsors to engage 
with Members if they want to advance this file. Of course, should further developments occur, I 
stand ready to hold consulta tions.  
 
6. Council for TRIPS – Special Session  
 
In my last report to the Heads of Delegation's meeting on 8 May, I had indicated that the situation 
in the TRIPS Special Session remained unchanged and that delegations on both sides of the 
habitual divide showe d little appetite to engage in substantive work in the TRIPS Special Session in 
the context of the overall negotiating landscape.  
 
Unfortunately, the situation has not evolved much since that time. The delegations supporting the 
Joint Proposal continue to consider that, due to the divergence of views on the extent of the 
mandate, there is little likelihood for a realistic outcome in this area, and are therefore not in 
favour of intensifying work in the TRIPS Special Session. While I understand that internal  
discussions among supporters of the TN/C/W/52  coalition have progressed since May, these 
activities have so far not resulted in concrete initiatives to reinvigorate the discussion in this 
negotiating forum.  
 
In view of the apparent reluctance of Members to engage constructively in the TRIPS Special 
Session, I have mostly adopted a "listening mode" approach, and have kept in close informal 
contact with the most active delegations in order to detect any developm ents and foster 
engagement in this area.  
 
However, in view of the approaching Ministerial meeting in December and in order to allow a 
better assessment of Members' levels of ambition in this area, it is my intention to resume more 
active consultations aft er the summer break. Depending on developments, such consultations and 
exchanges should permit us to establish a clearer picture of the situation in the negotiations on a 
GI Register for wines and spirits, and what, if any, activity in this regard can be e xpected for 
MC11.  
 
It is also my intention to hold a formal meeting of the TRIPS Special Session in October, back -to-
back with the meeting of the Regular Session of the TRIPS Council.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 58 - 
 
  In the meantime I am keeping my ear to the ground for any concretizati on of new initiatives – and 
remain ready and available for delegations to facilitate their work and progress in the TRIPS 
Special Session.  
  
7. Committee on Trade and Environment – Special Session  
 
As indicated in my previous report to you in May, I held a ro und of bilateral consultations reaching 
out to all delegations. My intention with the consultations was to have an update on delegations’ 
views on whether there was scope in this ministerial year to turn delegations’ repeated 
expressions of goodwill and su pport for the topics of the environment and sustainable development 
into restarting work in the CTE -SS. Moreover, through the consultations process I was seeking to 
get a better sense of whether the level of priority that some delegations gave to the CTE -SS may 
have changed in light of recent developments, including efforts on environmental goods trade 
pursued by a subset of WTO Members in the context of the EGA.  
 
During the consultations, delegations reiterated their continued support for, and interest in,  the 
issue of trade and environment in the WTO. Additionally, all delegations with whom I met agreed 
that environment should not be forgotten if Doha mandates are recalled in any ministerial 
declaration that might emerge from Buenos Aires. That said, I did  not detect any change in 
Members' underlying positions, nor did I sense any intention on the part of Members to come 
forward at this juncture with concrete proposals on how to advance our work.  
 
At the same time, the consultations revealed a significant d egree of interest from delegations in 
holding an informal, factual information session regarding past work under the three -pronged 
mandate of the CTE -SS. Delegations that took part in the consultations saw a factual information 
session as a good opportunit y to refresh our collective memory about the valuable work on the 
CTE-SS mandate that has taken place over the years. Moreover, as repeatedly noted by 
delegations, these negotiations have stretched many years and delegations have naturally 
changed over thi s time, so not all of us may be up to speed with the work that has taken place in 
the CTE -SS over the years. In fact, the last time the CTE -SS held an informal information session 
was over two years ago, in March 2015, well before the start of my chairmans hip. 
 
With this in mind, I believe that the time is ripe for holding a new information session. What I 
envision this time around is a factual overview by the WTO secretariat of the discussions that have 
taken place so far in the CTE -SS on all three items o f paragraph 31 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration. This will then be followed by an opportunity for delegations to seek clarification or 
share their thoughts on what comes next. My hope is that the information provided would assist 
delegations' own reflec tions on how to proceed with the CTE -SS mandate and what opportunities 
the upcoming ministerial in Buenos Aires offers to us.  
 
The precise date and time of the informal meeting will be communicated to delegations shortly.  
 
In the meantime, I would like to remind delegations that I stand ready to play my part in the work 
of the CTE -SS and to assist you in any way I can. Thank you.  
 
8. Dispute Settlement Body – Special Session  
 
Since I became Chair in May, the group has completed its focused work on two of the 12 issues in 
the negotiations. The first issue was Strictly Confidential Information, and this week the group will 
complete its focused work on another issue, Sequencing.  
 
My intention is to conduct a stock -taking exercise with Members after the summer break with a 
view to assessing whether a possible outcome could be prepared on the basis of the work 
undertaken since May 2016. The stock -taking exercise will also provide an  opportunity to discuss 
the way forward.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 59 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEMENT BY THE  CHAIRPERSON  OF THE ELEVENTH SESS ION OF THE MINISTERI AL 
CONFERENCE  AT THE INFORMAL TRAD E NEGOTIATIONS COMMI TTEE MEETING HELD ON  
25 JULY 2017  
Statement by  the MC11 Chairpe rson4 
 
I would like to formally convey my Government's and my appreciation for the trust you have put in 
Argentina to host this year's Ministerial Conference.  
 
For us, in Argentina, for us, Argentineans, hosting the WTO Ministerial Conference means 
support ing the multilateral trade system and being committed to upholding its values and 
integrity.  
 
President Mauricio Macri has entrusted me with the task of chairing this WTO Ministerial 
Conference, the MC11, and I can only assure you that I will spare no effo rts, and I am sure you 
already realized that, to guarantee its success.  
 
For this, I intend to follow the preparatory process closely. I have been in regular contact with the 
DG and his team to keep up with the developments in Geneva. And I have met alread y with the 
Chairs of the negotiating groups twice. In fact, I have dedicated the whole of yesterday to discuss 
each of these negotiations.  
 
In this respect, I would like to thank the Director -General and the Chairs for their efforts in 
advancing the discus sions in all areas. We all have just heard their reports. I would also like to 
extend my gratitude to the delegations for their engagement and commitment demonstrated.  
 
I have to say that I have seen progress since April, but I am deeply concerned of how m uch work 
we all have before us. It is clear that divergences still need to be overcome and that even though 
efforts have been made to put more papers on the table, the negotiating instances have not really 
yet started. And I think this is a clear sign that , and everybody made reference to the summer 
break, I will also do the same; after the summer break we have no time to spare. We have to 
exercise flexibility and focus, and hopefully, our shared belief in the multilateral trading system 
and its role in sup porting our economies.  
 
Argentina, as a founding Member of the WTO, cherishes the stability and predictability that the 
transparent, rules -based multilateral trading system embodied by the WTO has provided to our 
country since its establishment. Our Govern ment is working to ensure that Argentina integrates 
further and successfully  into the world economy. It is a prime objective of our Government.  
 
However, we all need to recognize that we, collectively, are facing challenging times. Globalization 
and open markets are often being blamed for job disruption and inequality, giving breeding ground 
to protectionist tendencies and insularity.  
 
But more than that, I think, we need to recognize that our citizens, our peoples, feel distant from 
their leadership and f rom organizations such as WTO. They sometimes wonder about the relevance 
and positive impact that an organization such as the WTO makes in their lives. This adds 
responsibility to the world that we are committed to. It should push us to act with even more 
conviction to ensure that the role and function of the WTO are preserved and strengthened.   
 
Agenda 2030 has set the tone for our work. Less than two years ago, we, collectively, signed on 
this effort to leave no one behind. There was a clear recognition o f the underlying inequalities 
between countries and within countries. That is why this became a universal agenda: not a 
developing world agenda, a global agenda.  
 
And, of particular significance for us, here, trade was highlighted as a key enabler of this agenda 
towards inclusivity. Trade was highlighted.  
 
                                                
4 The statement was subs equently circulated in JOB/TNC/62.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 60 - 
 
  In the face of growing political and economic uncertainty, Buenos Aires, we, in Buenos Aires, need 
to send a clear message that the system is essential to our common prosperity. As Members of 
this Organi zation, we need to reaffirm our belief that trade, international trade – based on 
transparent and shared rules –provides us with more and better opportunities for  economic growth 
and development.  
 
The system we built together is not perfect. Let’s work toge ther to improve it, to make it more 
effective and more efficient to all. Let’s find common ground to build bridges, not to build walls.  
 
The results of the most recent Ministerial Conferences have shown that we can achieve results. 
What happened recently in Nairobi is a clear example of what can be done. But it is also true that 
we face a more significant challenge given the environment we will be discussing in while in 
Buenos Aires.  
 
We have to recommit to the system. What is at stake here is not a partic ular issue. We have here 
the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups. And we have seen that issues are put on the table. But we 
need to come to the table with the conviction: that the profound discussion we are facing is not 
about any particular issue. It’s about  the system being preserved.  
 
So, this time more than ever before, it is not only about the technicalities of the issue, it is about 
the values and the principles that brought us together sitting around this room.  
 
We know that there are outcomes that ha ve been long delayed. And for us in Argentina the  view of 
farmers is at the cent re, no question about that. So, we recognize that. But we also recognize that 
there are new issues of the 21st century that require attention. So, how we find ways to balance 
that? So that we can prove to our peoples that this Organization is relevant and it keeps up with 
the demands from the times; it is absolutely essential.  
 
The role of WTO in building international economic coherence is undeniable. The complexities of 
the ch allenges we face and their scope mean that multilateral action is the best option we can 
provide.  
 
I will say that we want Buenos Aires to serve as a platform, as a timely platform in which we can 
all recommit and endorse again this system. It is a way to be, if I can use this word, 
"refoundational" on the notion of the system that we all need; even though, again, we all 
recognize that the system may need improvements.  
 
I can assure you that you can count on my personal continued support and assistance. You  will see 
me around; probably you will hope not to see me so often. I will be reaching out to your capitals 
as needed. And again, I hope that it will not happen very much, because in your able hands things 
will move forwards, as needed. But we really feel,  from deep in the south, that these are times for 
us to stand up, to recognize that solutions are not easy, to recognize that getting our view 100% 
will not be possible, and to recognize that preserving a system that can be the umbrella for all of 
us to go  further in the 21st century is central.  
 
So I count on you as much as you can count on me. I look forward to working with you, with the 
DG, his team, with the Chairman of the Council, with each one of the delegations with the view 
that "no successful Buen os Aires" is not an option. That the only option we have is to be able to 
build those bridges and to make every possible effort, coming from our corner, but recognizing 
that only a shared perspective will get us there.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 61 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
STATEMENTS BY DELEGA TIONS  AND THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL'S REMARKS  AT THE 
INFORMAL TRADE NEGOT IATIONS COMMITTEE ME ETING HELD ON 25 JUL Y 2017  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements of 
Rwanda (African Group); Israel; Philippines; Chinese Taipei  (Article XII Members) ; European 
Union; Chile; Barbados (CARICOM); Cambodia (LDCs); Nigeria; Republic of Korea; Dominica 
(OECS) ; Benin (C -4); Pakistan; Paraguay; Morocco; Peru; Ecuador; Singapore; Mexico; Indonesia 
(G-33); Zimbabwe; India; Zambia; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Russian Federation; Nepal; 
Plurinational State of Bolivia; Ukraine; Fiji (Pacific Group) ; Senegal; Norway; South Africa; 
Cameroon; Ghana; Republic of Moldova; Uganda; Jamaica; Hong Kong, China; U ruguay; 
Tanzania; China; Brazil; Switzerland; Montenegro; Thailand ; Mozambique; United States; Kenya 
and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  and the Director -General's Remarks  are included below as part of the 
Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
Statements by Delegations  
 
During the meeting, delegations welcomed Susana Malcorra (Argentina), Chair person  of the 
Eleventh Ministerial Conference . 
 
1. Rwanda (African Group)  
 
Today, our statement will provide reflections from the African Group retreat held  in Geneva on 6 to 
7 July, which saw the participation of a strong delegation of the African Union, led by the Trade 
Commissioner Albert Muchanga.  
  
The African Group wishes to reiterate our special attachment to the strong development mandate 
embodied in  the Doha Development Agenda and we call on all Members of the Organization to 
respect the letter and spirit of paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, and I quote "… 
there remains a strong commitment of all Members to advance negotiations on the remaining 
Doha issues".  
  
Let me outline the priorities of the African Group as we all strive to ensure a favourable and 
balanced outcome in Buenos Aires:  
  
On Agriculture negotiations, as you already know, a high proportion of the populations in all 
African countries are crucially dependent on agriculture for livelihood and daily subsistence. 
Therefore, a correction of the systemic imbalances and asymmetries in the Agreement on 
Agriculture, as echoed by all African Ministers of Trade, remains our main  priority in the WTO and 
it continues to be our determinant of the level of ambition in the negotiations as we move towards 
MC11.  
  
We underscore that recent approaches on Overall Trade Distorting Support (OTDS) based on the 
percentage of value of producti on (VOP), cannot achieve the desired objectives. Indeed, these 
approaches would rather result in maintaining and even extending current imbalances in the global 
rules on trade distorting domestic support.  
  
We expect that collective efforts to level the pl aying field can be achieved through among others: 
(i) the elimination of AMS entitlements; (ii) and capping product specific support to avoid 
production support concentration.  
  
Furthermore, we look forward to Members to address the following issues: Cotto n, as specifically 
submitted by the C -4; a Permanent solution on Public Stock -holding for Food Security Purposes; a 
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) as well as concerns raised by Net -Food Importing Developing 
Countries (NFIDCs).  
  
On Fisheries Subsidies, as it well -known, developing countries and LDCs are not the main players 
when it comes to fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. On the 
contrary, developing countries and LDCs are the most affected by unfair competition caused  by WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 62 - 
 
  overfishing activities of subsidized industrial fishing vessels and fishing practices of countries that 
are operating in their exclusive economic zones.  
  
In light of this, we wish to reiterate our call for a multilateral outcome with provisions for 
elimination of subsidies to IUU fishing activities, as well as disciplines on subsidies that contribute 
to overfishing and overcapacity, while taking into account the need for necessary policy space for 
the development of this sector in many developing count ries. 
  
On Special and Differential Treatment, the G90 introduced its proposal in a CTD -SS meeting held 
last week. Regrettably, these proposals were received with extremely stiff resistance by some 
delegations.  
  
We remain guided by our Ministers who have  been constantly explicit on this issue and have 
maintained that Special and Differential Treatment MUST be an integral part of all WTO 
Agreements and future multilateral outcomes and be operationally effective, so as to enable 
developing countries, in par ticular LDCs, to catch up and effectively address their development 
needs.  
  
Given the importance of S&D in economic development, we call on all Members of this 
Organization to demonstrate the same spirit of openness that is urged upon us, when they presen t 
other issues, which we do not consider a priority for our economies.  
  
Therefore, in a similar spirit of good -faith, we hope to see positive engagement from all Members 
come September.  
  
With regard to Trade in Services, the African Group is committed to  continue its constructive 
engagement in the Working Party on Domestic Regulations (WPDR). It is our sincere hope that 
after the summer -break, proponents will present us with responses to all the questions which we 
have put forth.  
  
As you know we are NOT demandeurs for disciplines in Domestic Regulations but we have been 
engaging in order to understand the scope and impact of the proposals on the right to regulate. 
We reiterate the concerns of our Ministers that "any outcome on GATS Article VI.4 discipline s shall 
not involve the implementation of new and/or onerous administrative requirements or 
requirements that intrude into the domestic policy -making processes".   
 
On other issues, the African Group recalls paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declarat ion which 
states that "While we concur that officials should prioritize work where results have not yet been 
achieved, some wish to identify and discuss other issues for negotiation; others do not. Any 
decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on such  issues would need to be agreed by all 
Members".  
  
Therefore, we reiterate that ALL issues without any negotiating mandate, inter alia E -Commerce, 
MSMEs and Investment Facilitation, will require an explicit consensus to launch negotiations.  
 
Before I conclude, let me reiterate that the African Group remains devoted to this Organization 
and we are ready to constructively engage with all our partners, in established bodies of this 
Organization, as we move towards Buenos Aires.  
  
The African Group remains  committed to a fair and balanced rules -based Multilateral Trading 
System; which puts the economic development of developing countries, and especially the least -
developed among them, at its core, as inscribed in the preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement 
establishing this Organization.  
 
On the crucial issue of Process, the African Group underscores the importance of upholding the 
principles of full participation, inclusiveness, and transparency in the run up to, as well as during 
the eleventh Ministerial Confe rence in Buenos Aires.  We strongly stand against any process or 
green room meetings both in Geneva and in Buenos Aires that would be exclusively reserved for 
certain Members only. We stress that such meetings must be representative of all WTO groupings.  
  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 63 - 
 
  In addition, we expect that members would continue to abide by the "gentleman's agreement" 
requiring for any Member pursuing an issue for decision, but not achieving consensus on it 
6 weeks  before MC11, would not insist on putting the item before our Mini sters in Buenos Aires.  
 
Regarding the second item (HoD), I feel it is my duty to report to you that I have been approached 
by some delegations of our group who raised questions regarding the format of today’s meeting. 
Those members asked me to convey their  request for an open conversation on the issue of 
informal HoD. Having heard their concerns and having heard your introduction on the matter, I 
would suggest that we hold informal consultations in a near future in order to ensure once for all 
the same unde rstanding on what informs this format.  
 
I wish to clarify that the timing of the reception of this request did not allow for me to consult the 
entire African group.   
 
2. Israel  
 
At the outset, Israel would like to associate itself with the statement read by  the Swiss 
Ambassador on behalf of the group of Friends of the System.  
 
The intensification of discussions and proliferation of ideas as we approach the summer break 
make us hopeful that we could be ready to deliver meaningful outcomes in Buenos Aires. Thi s is 
Israel’s wish. Against an overall backdrop of uncertainty, we must seize every opportunity to send 
a strong message about the importance and significance of trade liberalization and the rule -based 
multilateral trading system.  
 
Let me begin with agric ulture. As a member of the G10 group, Israel welcomes the recent efforts 
in the painstaking process of finding common ground on Agriculture. We believe the feasible 
starting point for the discussions should focus on the existing instruments of AMS and de m inimis, 
and I would like to refer to the G10 communication (JOB/AG/103) outlining some of our views and 
express our support for Japan's contribution in JOB/AG/104. Nevertheless, we take note that some 
members have proposed ideas for reforms in domestic sup port, which in our mind are not the ideal 
path to go.  
 
Israel is also interested in the discussions on Export Restrictions. In fact, we consider the effect of 
non-transparent and disproportionate usage of these type of measures on international trade and 
prices of commodities as harmful, and believe that it is one of the potential deliverables of the 
upcoming Ministerial Conference. On this note, Israel welcomes Singapore’s "Proposal on 
Transparency on Agriculture Export Prohibitions or Restrictions" as wel l as the emplacement of 
further constraints on such export restrictions.  
 
Now, focusing on identifying the feasible contours of a package of deliverables for Buenos Aires, 
we welcome the recent dialogue with the aim of finding a specific solution for cotto n and a 
permanent mechanism on public stockholding in developing countries for food security purposes as 
mandated by our Ministers in Nairobi.  
 
We are also encouraged by the discussion on fisheries and number of proposals that have 
supported it. This engag ement clearly demonstrates how we can all take interest in protecting our 
common goods. We are encouraged by the incremental engagement and statements by important 
members in regards to the way ahead for standalone deliverables in this area. The pathway 
proposed by the Chairperson, Ambassador McCook, last week which seeks to consolidate all 
proposals seems to go in this direction and this is encouraging.  
 
On services we have been encouraged by the intense conversations in the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulations where a group of co -sponsors have ignited discussions with various 
proposals addressing most aspects of the mandate but leaving development open t o demandeurs’ 
ideas. As you all know Domestic Regulation disciplines do not restrict policy space nor impose 
burdensome obligations on developing countries and much less on LDCs.  
 
Services linked to e -commerce constitute another issue with the potential f or delivering results in 
Buenos Aires and Israel believes in the positive affect these may have on the inclusion of SMEs. 
There has consequently been calls for Members to craft a roadmap for Ministers to consider in 
Buenos Aires that sets out improved proc esses and a more focused way forward beyond MC11.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 64 - 
 
  Israel believes that an effective and prompt discussions on e -commerce as we go along towards 
MC11 may serve as another example for this organization's valued contribution to world trade.  
 
Finally, it is up to us, the Members, to identify the areas in which outcomes are possible in Buenos 
Aires and to move forward in those areas. We need to show that we have learnt from our past 
mistakes and avoid last -minute ditch approaches, which will not be acceptable again by our 
Ministers.   
 
3. Philippines  
 
The Philippines also associates itself with the statement delivered by Indonesia o n behalf of the 
G-33, as well as  with the statement delivered by  ASEAN today.  
 
The Philippines seldom speaks in the Informal TNC/HODs given that our main concerns are always 
reflected in statements of the alliances where we belong. Today – some five months away from 
MC11 – however, is a  special day indeed for emphasiz ing and clarifying our gateway priorities in 
the negotiations particula rly in Agriculture.   
 
Judging from the current proposals on the table thus far including on domestic support and PSH, 
the Philippines underscores that none has yet can provide sufficient political basis for us to support 
any outcome in MC11 – if at least an incremental but concrete and operational outcome on SSM is 
not included in a package of outcomes in Buenos Aires.  
 
Without SSM, there is no way the compensation being asked of us – the proposal to cap and 
reduce overall trade distorting support that cov ers only de minimis  AMS entitlements of Members 
could be balanced or ameliorated. Thus, the proposal to issue anot her work programme on SSM in 
MC11 is neither workable nor acceptable for the Philippines.  It is also, in our view, a recipe f or 
failure not on ly for the WTO  but also for the millions of Filipino farmers and other farmers in 
developing countries including LDCs. To be clear, without a con crete and operational SSM, we 
would  not consider MC11 to be a success.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, the Philippines  can support any workable outcomes in MC11 that promote 
sustainability of oceans and harmony among nations. And that fisheries subsidies and IUU fishing 
activities ar e neither promoted nor legitimiz ed under new WTO disciplines especially in 
geographical ar eas where maritime entitlements are in dispute.    
 
The Chair and Members must frame our work after the summer break in a manner that would 
ensure thorough discussions of technica l issues of Members before our M inisters gather in Buenos 
Aires, and that all  DDA issues of Mem bers critical to their decision -making should not be left out of 
the agenda of MC11 to ensure success.  
 
4. Chinese Taipei  (Article XII Members)  
 
Article XII Members  would like to stress that the extensive concessions made by Article XII 
Memb ers have demonstrated our strong commi tments to the multilateral trading  system. Take 
domestic support in agriculture as an example that Article XII M embers largely adopt a much 
higher AMS reduction rate and applied a much lower de minimis than the rate as sumed by 
developing country Members in the Uruguay Round, let alone some developed country M embers 
enjoyed even a much higher ceiling of their domestic support.  
 
We hope our levels of commitments could serve as good references. Moreover, the special 
situat ion of Article XII Members shall be taken into consideration in the negotiations, which is 
clearly stated in Paragraph 27 of the MC10 Declaration.  
 
5. Chinese Taipei  
 
I would like to speak on behalf of my delegation to support the transparency proposal raised by 
the EU. In fact , our delegation was the first M ember to have supported the EU proposal.  
 
In general, there are two aspects associated with an international trea ty or agreement. The first  
aspect is that it restrains a M ember's sove reignty or regulatory authority because some of the 
Member's domestic affairs is affected by such treaties. The second aspect is that sometimes WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 65 - 
 
  foreign treaties represent forces  that push the domestic regulations to move toward more 
reasonable scenarios. We believe that the EU transparency proposa l is more of the second aspect 
– pushing toward s reasonableness , and less or even none of the interference aspect.  
 
Frankly , my delegation  was a nd is not in full conformity with the transparency requirements yet, 
and if we ask regulatory agency's opinion, they would certainly object to this proposal and our 
delegation would never join the proposal. But I believe that this is one of the few things that we 
should not be driven by the "current status" of our bureaucracy, therefore we endorse and support 
the EU's proposal.  
 
This spirit could also apply to other issues, in driving a successful MC11. In short, we have 
supported the EU proposal in its old  version. We support its current version, despite some of the 
ambition that has been compromised. And we will support it no matter whatever revision is made 
in the future.  
 
6. European Union  
 
On TNC matters, we would like to thank you and the Chairs of the Ne gotiating Groups for your 
reports. These reports reflect a welcome change of gear in the preparations of MC11: there are 
now multiple textual proposals on the table which provide a solid basis for our work over the next 
months.  
 
The European Union is comm itted to achieving successful outcomes in Buenos Aires and we have 
contributed to advancing the process by submitting textual proposals on many outstanding Doha 
issues. Our recent submission with Brazil and other Latin American countries sets out a reasona ble 
basis for negotiations on several issues of core agricultural interest to Members: domestic support, 
public stockholding and cotton.  
 
Likewise, the EU welcomes the progress in the preparations of an outcome on fisheries subsidies. 
The discussions at th e meeting of the Rules Negotiations Group last week showed considerable 
engagement. Nevertheless several important differences remain to be bridged in order to ensure 
that meaningful disciplines are agreed and applied consistently by Members.  
 
By the same token, and despite objections raised by some Members, we hope to soon see a 
comprehensive and consolidated textual proposal on domestic regulation in services, based on the 
inputs of Members. The European Union also looks forward to speeding up work on our  initiative, 
together with several Asian Members, on facilitating SME participation to global trade by enhancing 
transparency on regulatory measures.  
 
We must adopt a pragmatic approach and ensure that we do not miss an opportunity to 
strengthen the WTO. There is no point at this stage to prioritise issues or reduce our ambition, but 
we should start the next stage, that of real negotiations .  
 
Just after the summer break, we will need to consolidate and finalise the proposals to be in a 
position to seek po litical guidance on the scope and contents package of files issues that can be 
brought as deliverables to Buenos Aires. Clarity and common understanding on results for MC11 
are essential and should be achieved in good time to avoid the chaotic situation we  had in Nairobi.  
 
Time is again of the essence as the tasks ahead of us remain tremendous and weeks are scarce. 
Good planning, coordination efforts and shorter turnaround times between Geneva and capitals are 
necessary to meet the challenges ahead of us. T he DG, the General Council Chair, the Chairs of all 
Negotiation Groups and the Argentinean Presidency will have a key role in organising the work and 
above all in bringing all of us around the table.  
 
7. Chile  
 
Chile's position is well known and is systematically reiterated in working groups, negotiating 
groups and on all occasions when opportunities arise for dialogue with the potential to lead to 
significant agreements that would allow the Organization's objectives and functions to be met in 
full. 
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 66 - 
 
  I shall not go into detail, but will merely express Chile's willingness to work towards and contribute 
to finding consensus and agreements that lie somewhere between the ideal and what is possible, 
on the understanding that it is only by moving forward on  outstanding matters and addressing the 
emerging issues for international trade and the economy that we will strengthen the system and 
the WTO, in terms of both its negotiating pillar and its regular work.  
 
In this regard, we must reiterate our concern at the fact that the Nairobi agreements on 
agricultural matters are still not fully implemented, and that, as regards one of the central 
functions of the WTO, it has still not been possible to resolve the stalemate in the appointment of 
an Appellate Body memb er to fill the vacancy left by a previous incumbent who had completed his 
mandate. It would send out a very negative signal if we were to arrive in Buenos Aires with this 
issue still outstanding.  
 
Director -General, I would like to conclude by expressing, on behalf of the Chilean Government and 
delegation, our full support for, endorsement of and confidence in the measures you are taking in 
order to continue making progress in the complex tasks incumbent upon you, as part of efforts to 
achieve the Organizat ion's purposes, especially with regard to the Buenos Aires Conference.  
 
8. Barbados (CARICOM)  
 
I am delivering the statement of behalf of t he Caribbean Community Group . 
 
The CARICOM Group  takes note of the report on your activities since our last meeting. We do 
recognize that your activities have been extensive and wide ranging. Thank you  for this 
transparency exercise. We also thank the Chair of the various negotiating groups, for the ir 
sobering reports on the status of the discussions in each of the areas of  negot iation. We also 
support the call to arms – that is negotiating arms – of the distinguished Minister of Argentina.  
 
The CARICOM Group has kept a keen eye  on the various deliberations, and today we would wish to 
share with you our views. I t is hoped t hat these views could contribute to a collective sense of 
direction for our journ ey to Argentina. The CARICOM  Group recognizes that the WTO is at a 
crossroad – a crossroad where we think this organization has the ability to choose to continue to 
be entrenc hed in hard positions and thereby contribute to a standstill or we can choose to make  
incremental by meaningful progress  towards a shared outcome at MC11.  
 
This largely and what we heard from you, as well as what  we ourselves have recognized, w e are of 
the view that a standstill is in no one's interest. For us, MC11 must deliver clear outcomes which 
incorpo rate the development interest of our region. These interests have been clearly said in our 
national development plans and positions and in our collectiv e regional thinking.  
 
As we seek to advance our work here in the WTO, we would wish to signal that we are not 
opposed to deliberative engagement on any matter, old or new, that has a positive bearing on the 
economic  and trade circumstances of  small, vulne rable coun tries in our region, and indeed  beyond 
– embracing the entire world.  
 
We strongly believe that is only when we have a clear understan ding of one another's intrigues  
through dialogues with one another  that we will be able to chart a path way toward s the common 
ground that we all have to occupy  if we are to forge a shared agenda, an eventual  successful 
outcome and indeed the  maint enance of the integrity of the multilateral trading s ystem.  
 
We in the CARICOM  Group remain convinced of the correc tness of such an approach to effect  a 
win-win outcome for all at the Eleventh  WTO Ministe rial Conference. The CARICOM  Group remains 
committed to multi lateralism and to the attainment  of a meaningful outcome for our countries at 
the Eleventh Meeting.  
 
We hope that these words resonate with WTO Members  and that we can work collectively to 
ensure the advance of mutual inte rests.   
 
9. Cambodia (LDCs)  
 
In the run -up to MC11, this December, we have less than 5 months to  go. The LDCs need to 
obtain solid and concrete re sults to allow them to better integrate into the multilateral trading WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 67 - 
 
  system in accordance with the LDC status and so that benefits of participation in the WTO 
translate to our people.  
 
Therefore, the LDC Group calls on Member s to do their utmost to respon d to LDC submissions, 
priorities and concerns in the negotiations. We are in the process of developing our submi ssion and 
priorities for MC11.  However, many of our priorities are well -known to the Members as 
implementation of decisions taken which have not  transpired or cur rent implementation is so 
weak.  There is no agreement yet in some areas in  the negotiation s of importance to LDC. The LDC 
Group has actively participated by submitting papers and proposals on areas of priority.   
 
First on fisheries , the LDC Group call s for an agreement at the Ministerial C onference in Buenos 
Aires that actually helps to achieve the objectives set by the international community as part of 
the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and in particular the objective  referred to u nder target 
14.6.  in respect of the mandate in  the WTO. In this regard, the LDC  Group has submitted the 
proposal TN/RL/GEN/193. The group urges M embers to consider the proposal seriously.  
 
On S&DT, the LDC group is calling on Members to provide meaningful and maximum flexibilities to 
the proposal on  S&DT which was submitted by the ACP on behalf of  the G-90. The LDC Group 
together with the G90 attempted to achieve results on the longstanding S&DT proposals at MC11. 
We would like to take this opportunity to e xpress our sincere thanks to Ambassador Yee Woan Tan 
of Singapore for her able leadership to propose two  meetings on 14 and 24 September after the 
summer break to further discuss about the proposal.  
 
On Agriculture, a griculture constitutes a major sector i n most LDCs for GDP and income 
generation, food security and livelihood security. Therefore, it is imperative to strive to achieve the 
long-term objective aiming at a market -oriented agriculture trading system. To this end, we need 
to correct systemic imba lances and asymmetries in the Agreement on Agriculture. For example, 
some Members with AMS (Aggregate Measurement Support) are able to concentrate subsidies to 
some commodities beyond their entitlements, hence creating huge distortions in agriculture 
marke t prices with severe consequences on the agriculture sector in LDCs. The elimination of AMS 
therefore can help eliminate such existing imbalances. We need to ensure capping product specific 
support to avoid production support concentration. Other important  issues that require an outcome 
at Buenos Aires are: Cotton,  with a high ambition as sub mitted by the C -4; a Permanent Solution 
on Public Stock holding for Food Security Purposes; and a Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) in 
order to protect our agriculture s ector from unfair competition from under -priced and subsidized 
imports.   
 
Concerning the Services Waiver,  we continue to urge Members to follow the Nairobi Decision by 
providing assistance to orient LDC services suppliers to benefit from the notifications  made to the 
WTO so that preferential treatment extended to LDCs is implemented. We also encourage 
Members to continue to notify preferences for LDCs that address the entirety of our Collective 
Request to remove administrative barriers to market access of our suppliers.  
 
On Rules of Origin,  the Nairobi D ecision on Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs is an  important 
multilateral outcome  that will enhance LDC exports to a great extent if it is effectively 
implemented. It will contribute to the fulfilment of the multilateral obligation and aspiration of 
doubling the share of LDCs export by 2020.  
 
We appreciate  the notifications made by ten  Preference Granting Members using the agreed 
template namely Canada, China, European Union, India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, 
Switzerland, Chinese Taipei and the United States of America.  On the same note, we would like t o 
urge the Preference Granting M embers who have not yet fulf illed this obligation to do so. The LDC 
Group will assess the received notifications and provide feedback in the Committee on Rules of 
Origin.  
 
Regarding notifications of import data under  the PTA transparency mechanism to be u sed in 
calculating the utilization rate, we would like to extend our gratitude and appreciation to 
Preference Granting M embers who have fulfilled this obligation. Howe ver, we have noted with 
concern that only 11 out of 21 Preference Granting M embers have n otified.  Th erefore, we urge 
the remaining M embers to notify as soon as possible. Notifi cation of import data from all 
Preference Granting M embers will provide a fair assessment on the level of utilization of 
preferences by LDCs. The utilization trends and  patterns for certain products will definitely signal WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 68 - 
 
  areas that need specific attent ion and intervention from both Preference Granting M embers and 
beneficiaries.  
 
The LDC G roup will continue its engagement  in the work of the Committee on  Rules of Origin in 
both regular and dedicated sessions.  In this regard, we would like to draw Members ' attention on 
the group intention to make sev eral presentations in the next C ommittee meeting to be held in 
October 2017 with regards to the potential improvements on the  current applied rules of origin for 
LDCs.  
 
On DFQF,  we ask Members to re -double their efforts so that the positive outcomes for LDCs in 
Hong Kong, Bali, and Nairobi are implemented. We strongly urge Members not to backtrack on the 
2005 Hong Kong Decision and 2013 Bali Decision. In addition, the LDC Group w ishes Members to 
reconsider and agree on the elements we introduced in our submission for a clinical examination 
on DFQF.  In particular, we urge that an outcome at MC11 include that all Members providing DFQF 
treatment for LDCs in compliance with their com mitment in Hong Kong and in Bali to provide DFQF 
for at least 97% of the products originating from LDCs.  
 
Concerning Trade Facilitation, we welcome the entry into force of the TFA early this year and look 
to the mechanism of S&DT and the flexibility under Section 2 of the Agreemen t. However, there 
are several challenges for LDCs to implement the agreement due to capacity constraints in 
financial, technical and regulatory areas.  
 
As implementation of C ategory C measures envisages substantial investment, it c alls for effective 
leveraging of international partnership and support. In this respect, we request all donor Members 
to notify technical assistance plan according t o Article 22 of the Agreement. Most of the LDCs have 
to place national priority on reducing  poverty and hunger and achieving structural transformation 
of the economy, so it is di fficult for them to execute the TF A greement if external resources are 
not properly leveraged.  We emphasize that global partnership be geared especially in addressing 
behind the border obstacles such as building trade -related infrastructures and enhancing 
productive capacity.  
 
The WTO shall not also forget the problem of accession of new LDC Members to the WTO, for 
whom the integration to the institution and to the multi lateral system should be easier and 
quicker. In that respect, the candidate countries should be able to benefit from adeq uate technical 
assistance and capacity -building support.  
 
Finally, the LDC Group highly and sincerely wishes MC11 to be an opportunity  for concrete, 
implementable results for LDCs and their development process. We are ready to work with you to 
obtain a successful outcome in Buenos Aires.  
 
10. Nigeria  
 
Thank you very much DG for your strong and very positive leadership and service to the 
Organization. I t is serving us very well. The only comment we will make with regard to this 
meeting is  that informal meetings both HODs and the TNC – we should have more of them. W e 
should  not have less of them. W e should increa se the number of these meetings  as you conv ene 
them as we move closer and closer to MC11.  
 
An advice from the Nigerian delegation: greater regularity on your part and greater intensity – so 
more, no t less. That is the advice that you would get from this African. D o it in as many 
config urations as possible, and count on the support of the Nigerian Delegation.  
 
Nigeria would like to welcome Min ister Susana Malcorra to Geneva. W e hope to see you  more 
often. You were sort of coy or shy or timid or tentative  regarding your frequency to Gene va. S o 
please, the advice from t he Nigerian Delegation is that we  would like to see you more in Geneva. 
Come to G eneva as frequently as possible  and hopefully you can put as on the straight and 
narrower partnership with the Director -General and the Chairma n of the General Council. We are 
also hoping that if you visit capitals, you  will make a touchdown in Abuja. W e will be expecting you 
as part of a high -level meeting that Nigeria will convene in October .  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 69 - 
 
  Next appreciation is to our abled body Chairperson s, every single one of them. I know the 
complexity of what you are dealing with, I have been there , in and out. K eep at it and thank you 
very much for you professional reports.  
 
On TNC matters, Nigeria welcomes  the report by the Chairpersons. W hat we beli eve that we have 
heard is a balance  of all the r eports. In there we see nuggets – real gold nuggets. S ome nugg ets 
are in silver. Some are not of high quality metals and there is some cause for concern. But we 
have been there before, and the advice is simpl y to keep at it. Stay engaged and do not be 
daunted  because we dealt with seve ral other challenges before. It i s a different moment  in the 
global economy but this also will pass. It i s not the end of time s. So keep at it.  
 
As we assess the position of the  preparatory work at this stage, what we advise is that you stay 
engaged. T here i s always an orientation to risk – risk of being averse to risk , accepting risks and 
then some calculated steps that h ave to be taken by Chairpersons  supporting the efforts of the 
Director -General and the Chairman of the General Council as we move ahead. P ragmatism, focus 
and keep in mind overall the collective dedication to strengthening and fostering the system.  
 
Next point I would like to make is more of a general point. And  again I thi nk it goes back to the  
point that was made  by the Minister in the morning. The rules based system is a very old one. It  is 
not new and it is not something that was constructed . It was established in 1995. T here was a lot 
of accumulated wisdom a nd good practice in this system. W e are not reinventing the wheel.  
 
One of the pieces of advice that we will give to colleagues, friends and Members is that there are 
tested mechanisms that we have used before in the system t o get our teeth  into the bits and deal 
with the challenges.  First is substantive t ext based work. Anyone who has an  issue – put it to test, 
open it for discussions discussion and have a good conversation. Second , we have the mechanism 
of many Ministerial s. We should be u sing them more and more. Third, we have the practice of 
Friends of t he System. We should use them. W e should use them also more and more as  time 
goes by. Yesterday and I am hoping that colleagues  will report later on a  seminar that we had 
yesterday between  the FEDs  and the FIFDs – two friends of the system. We  should continue to 
work on this more aggressively and mor e ambitiously in the system. It i s a good thing to do and 
we should use this mechanism of Friends of the S ystem . We have a constituency groups through  
the various  regional groups and coalitions. We should continue to use them and as we go ahead, 
we continue to support the po sition of the Director -General ex officio  and those who have been 
around as long as at least I have been. There is a guardia nship of the system that is embedded in 
that office. We should not be frightened by it but support  it and deepen it so the system can 
continue moving ahead.  
   
It is at this point that I wo uld like to thank Ambassador Ngarambe , the Coordinator for the Afr ican 
Group. He is an  exceptional ly though guy. H e has not lived in Nigeria but he is pretty tough and a 
very competent man.  He is also dealing with the diversity and the complexity of the African Group . 
I thank him for his statement – Nigeria does. Just to  add that the  issue, and I  have already 
signall ed this to him so I am not blindsiding him, that the issue rais ed in the concluding part of his  
statement regarding the informal meetings of  the TNC and the HoDs – this issue was  never ever 
discussed in the Af rican Group. Nigeria is o pen to having this conversation. W e are ready to have it 
at any time  but it was not discussed and you have heard me on my opening statement saying 
what we think and how we see the informal process  proceeding.  
 
So speaking for Niger ia again, and on the reco rd, we acknowledge  how the system works in terms 
of practice. We think that has worked well. It  is what we see . We are extremely comfortable and 
confident in the technical competence and capacity of our Director -General . Nigeria is also very 
comfortable with the competence and capacity of Ambassador Carim  and we should be able to 
make this work.  
  
On MC11, w hat we think is that when at the moment everyone is thinking that after Nairobi there 
was a period of refl ection and contemplation, everyone has been thinking a lot, hard and deep and 
long and there is a bit of turbulence in the  system. Pilots when they fly and  they encounter 
turbulence,  either they go higher or the y go under the turbulence. Our advice is that we should fly 
above the turbulence. W e should  not go lower. It i s important that for a public good as 
indispensable as the WTO is when we encounter turbulence – and this would be normal as we go 
ahead – we don't go low. W e don't fly below the turbulence  because that  would be undermining 
the organization. We fly above the turbulence  and this is where Nigeria will pitch its tent .  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 70 - 
 
   
What should we deliver? I don't need to belabour the point because I think that Minister Malcorra 
answered that question extremely well whe n she spoke. Our objective in Buenos Aires wo uld be to 
strengthen the system  and we should seek o utcomes. In some cases they would be substantive. I n 
some cases it will be designing and putting in place work pro grammes that we will take ahead. 
This is how we should respond.  
 
I work in the econ omic management team of Nigeria  and the way that we are looking at what we 
confront both at home in Nigeria and in multilateral institutions – the WTO is important but is not 
the only game in tow n – is that this is ac tually not a  bad moment for multilateralism. T his is 
actually a very good moment for multilateralism  because it presents everyone with an o pportunity 
to get out of the complacency  and t he ease of living the good life  in which we have been at  least 
multilat erally  for a while.  
 
We agree  with the Minister of Argentina.  Buenos Aires must be a recommitment a nd an 
endorsement of the system. The organization ha s been stress -tested and we believe that it will 
survive and prosper. We agree with Argentina on focusin g and building th is into the universality of 
Agenda 2030. The Nigerian delegation adds what we bui ld into that, our own agenda in the African 
Union  and that is the Ag enda 2063 of the African U nion. 
 
Nigeria will be co -hosting with the WTO Friends of Invest ment Facilitation for D evelopment  a high -
level workshop in Abuja from 11 -12 October on facilitating investment in Africa. So you need to 
know, we s aid it at the seminar yesterday. We are putting it here. W e will raise  it also in the 
Informal HoDs. Nigeria will engage and we shall do so aggressively and ambitiously. Believe me, 
we should fly above  and not below the  turbulence.   
 
11. Republic of Korea  
 
First of all, my delegation would like to associate itself with the statement of Switzerland is going 
to make on  behalf of 47 co -sponsors.  We would also like to associate ourselves with the 
statement to be made by Indonesia on behalf of G -33. 
 
As reported by the Negotiating Group Chairs, there have been activities in different areas with 
varying intensity.  We have  seen proposals and ideas in such areas as agriculture, fisheries 
subsidies, trade remedies, services, development, e -commerce, investment facilitation, NTBs and 
MSMEs.  
 
Indeed, we have worked hard and we should commend ourselves for our efforts.  Now, we have 
the elements to build on in the run -up to MC -11 and beyond.  We also have a good understanding 
of where Members stand.  Put differently, we have seen that the positions of Members still remain 
wide apart depending on their priorities and sensitivities .  Consequently, the contours of the 
Buenos Aires deliverables are not visible yet.  
 
What is more concerning is that it is not likely the current situation will evolve for the better any 
time soon.  We have to be practical and creative to ensure some conve rgence that can lead to a 
decent set of deliverables in the form of substantive outcomes or work programs in Buenos Aires.  
 
Now, we would like to share our thoughts on four areas, namely, agriculture, fisheries subsidies, 
e-commerce and services domestic regulation.  
 
First, agriculture - especially, domestic support and public stockholding for food security purposes 
- remains a gateway issue.  We appreciate recent proposals and ideas.  Some of them represent a 
bold move by certain Members departing from tr aditional and strongly held positions.  
 
While it is important to produce a substantive outcome in agriculture, we should avoid an approach 
that requires a disproportionate contribution by only a small group of Members.  The only workable 
way forward is ta king an incremental and balanced approach that can facilitate a long -term 
process of agricultural reform among Members.  
 
Second, fisheries subsidies are an area where there are high expectations from the global 
community for a substantive outcome at MC11.  Seven text -based proposals put on the table 
present the main elements of potential disciplines.  While Members still have significantly differing WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 71 - 
 
  views, they at least share a common purpose which is well reflected in the SDG 14.6.  We hope we 
continue to work towards a balanced outcome that disciplines certain forms of harmful subsidies 
while allowing the sustainable use of fisheries resources for the benefit of all.  
 
Third, e -commerce is an area where the WTO is lagging behind the digital revolution in th e real 
world and the vast opportunities it offers.  It has been a year since WTO Members resumed 
discussions on e -commerce in various configurations.  Yet, Members still do not have a meeting of 
minds on substance or on procedure, although there has been n o shortage of well -considered 
proposals.  
 
Nonetheless, we have to carry on.  We support efforts to deliver substantive outcomes in areas of 
e-commerce that are less controversial and more conducive to agreement.  The EU’s proposal 
contains such elements an d merits continued discussions.  Also, at MC11, a clearer guidance on 
the WTO’s work on e -commerce should be provided in a Ministerial Decision.  To this end, we look 
forward to seeing the General Council play a greater role as a platform for horizontal di scussions 
on e-commerce.  
 
Fourth, on domestic regulation of services, Members have had useful discussions on proposals for 
various elements of potential disciplines.  It would be a good idea to proceed to more advanced 
discussions based on a consolidated t ext, while continuing to address the concerns of some 
Members.  
 
In the interest of time, we are not going to offer specific views on other areas.  However, this 
should not be interpreted as indicating that we view them as less important.  We would very muc h 
like to see meaningful progress in those areas as well.  
 
Last but not least, MC11 should also be an opportunity to give political guidance on the future 
work of the WTO.  As we all seem to agree, MC11 is not only an end in itself, but also an important 
stepping stone for our future work.  In this regard, it is important to produce a Ministerial 
Declaration that presents a vision and modus operandi  of the WTO that are fully reflective of the 
new global economic realities.  
 
We look forward to having frank a nd more focused discussions after the summer break to ensure 
the success of MC11.  
 
12. Dominica  (OECS)  
 
The OECS Member States would like to thank you and the Chairs for the efforts at providing 
transparency and ensuring a broad representation and inclusivene ss in the smaller restricted 
consultations that have been undertaken. Not having participated in these meetings, these efforts 
are very important to the OECS Member States.  
 
We recall the expression of a strong commitment to of all Members to advance negot iations on the 
remaining Doha issues in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. In that regard, the OECS been 
monitoring the progress in the more active areas of discussions including agriculture, services 
domestic regulations, and trade rules. In a few cases  we have also been engaged.  
 
In agriculture where the domestic support pillar has been identified as the top priority for MC11, 
we take note of the state of play on this issue. The OECS share the broad and systemic goals of 
continuing the reforms through r eductions and tighter disciplines on the use of trade distorting 
subsidies. As Small Vulnerable Economies and net food importing developing countries with no 
access to the AMS, the OECS deems it critical that the current de minimis levels are not reduced.  
  
The OECS has taken note of the lack of progress on public stockholding for food security  and on 
the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM ). The OECS supports the agreement on an adoption of a 
permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding  for food sec urity purposes. We also strongly 
believe that this should be complemente d by a right of developing  countries to a recourse to a 
special safeguard mechanism including for any item for which public  stockholding for food security 
purposes can be used.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Acknow ledging the calls and proposals for work on the market access pillar, we wish to recall and 
reiterate that flexibility in any tariff reduction modalities will be critical and the SVEs modalities 
contained in Rev.4 remains the benchmark for an acceptable ou tcome in this area for the OECS.  
 
In the area of services, the work on domestic regulations has been the most active in terms of 
proposals and engagement. The OECS has taken note of the proposals submitted and the positions 
expressed by Members in the disc ussions. Capitals are still reviewing and considering the recent 
proposals on domestic regulations and may be in a better position to elaborate our perspectives on 
them after the summer break. What is important for the OECS is that any new rules on domesti c 
regulations for services on which Members may find consensus, must have special and differential 
treatment (SDT) and flexibility in their implementation.  
 
In the area of trade rules, the OECS has attached the highest level of priority to the negotiations  
on fisheries subsidies rules among the remaining Doha issues targeted for MC11. As a collection of 
small island developing state (SIDS), the OECS Member States have jurisdiction over an extensive 
area of marine space. This area and its resources contribut e significantly to the economies of OECS 
Member States and are fundamental to the wellbeing of its citizens. The fishing sector, which is 
largely artisanal, contribute to domestic food security, socio -economic development and have 
linkages to important sec tors such as health and tourism.  
  
In this regard, the OECS Member States are very concerned about the state of global fish stocks, 
especially in the waters surrounding the Eastern Caribbean as well as the impact that certain 
fisheries subsidies have on th e depletion of stocks. The OECS Member States are therefore fully 
committed to the sustainable use of marine resources and to the mandates and goals agreed to 
prohibit subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity.  
 
The OECS supports an agreeme nt on a robust set of disciplines to prohibit fisheries subsidies that 
contribute to overfishing and overcapacity. In line with the mandates, special and differential 
treatment provisions must be an integ ral part of those disciplines. The level of developm ent of the 
OECS; the small scale, artisanal and subsistence nature of the fishing sector in the OECS; and the 
desire of the OECS governments to develop and diversify the sector will require flexibility and 
policy space.  
 
The OECS is encouraged by the level  of engagement on fisheries subsidies in the Negotiating 
Group on Rules and welcomes the proposals that have been submitted which together provide a 
solid package of ideas from which to craft a meaningful set of disciplines. The OECS will continue 
to work with Members including through the ACP Group to achieve this goal and we expect to do 
so at MC11 in Buenos Aires.  
 
The OECS Member States look forward to and call for continued and meaningful engagement on 
the above issues after the summer break when our a ttention will be of necessity to turn to MC11 in 
Buenos Aires and the need to ensure that we have a successful outcome and one that is 
development centred.  
 
Chair, a development outcome for  the OECS is one which maintains development at the cent re of 
our w ork with special and differential treatment an integral part of any outcome. It is also one 
which addresses in a substantive and meaningful manner the needs of small vulnerable economies 
(SVEs).  
  
Finally we would like to associate ourselves wit h the state ments made on behalf of  CARICOM, the 
ACP, the SVEs and the G33 .  
 
13. Benin (C -4) 
 
The C -4 associates itself with the statements made by Cambodia on behalf of  the LDCs, Rwanda 
on behalf of the African Group, Guyana on behalf of the ACP, and Indonesia on behalf  of the G33.  
 
C-4 appreciates the renewed intensity of the negotiations. We will need to maintain this 
momentum  to reach  substantial and measurable results, integrating the realities, constraints and 
needs of all Members, especially the most vulnerable M embers of the multilateral trading system. 
These results should be in addition to those already achieved in Bali and Nairobi to help promote 
development, poverty alleviation and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 73 - 
 
   
In Buenos Aires, decisions will have to be made  on the substantial reduction and  the eventual 
elimination of domestic  support that distorts international trade in agricultural products, incl uding 
cotton for which C -4 is working hard with other Members to develop a specific  text that will use 
statistical data to assess the quantitative levels of commitments to be made by Members in the 
different categories or boxes of domestic support . 
 
In any case, the C -4 does not envisage any result at MC11  which does not include a specif ic result 
for Cotton, in accordance with the Hong Kong  Mandate of 2005. The C -4 also reserves  the right to 
explore al l legal ways of resolving this thorny issue of domestic support to Cotton, if there is no 
result on Cotton in Buenos Aires.  
 
A perm anent so lution for public stockholding for food security purposes  as well as the 
establishment of a Special Safeguard Mechanism and the adoption of disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies, are also priorities WTO Members should continue and accelerate the ir work.  
 
With regard to S&D Treatment , the C-4 would like to emphasize the importance of impleme nting 
the mandate contained in p aragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration , which addresses this 
issue on  the W TO Agreements. In doing so, we sh ould effectively take in to account the needs, 
constraints, and special circumsta nces of developing countries, particularly the LDCs , with the 
necessary flexibilities. Trade data and statistics inform and clarify the submissions on S&D . 
 
Finally, the C-4 reaffirms the availability  and com mitment of the co -sponsors  of the Cotton Sector 
Initiative (C -4) to collaborate with all WTO Members to prepare for a successful MC11 . 
 
14. Pakistan  
 
We are going through one of the most challenging times for global trade, not only in terms of 
declinin g trends, but also declining public support for trade liberali zation in many of the world’s 
most significant economies.  
 
Our response to the challenges should be to intensify negotiations, in all pillars — particularly 
agriculture, with a focus on domesti c support and cotton. For our constituents this remains the top 
priority.  
 
We are deeply concerned about growing trade distortions in agriculture caused by domestic 
support policies. Long -term reform of domestic support in agriculture is critical for our f armers, 
who are 70% of our population and more than 90% of them are subsistence level farmers. We 
cannot afford to put off action in this area of our work, and there is dire need to find ways to 
address this issue.  
 
We had concrete deliverables in last two  Ministerials, and in our view MC -11 is another opportunity 
to move collectively in the same direction. A large number of proposals in the agriculture 
particularly on domestic support provide us hope and good basis for work, domestic support 
reforms is a l ong standing agenda that can integrate small farmers in the trading system, we must 
collectively commit to explore viable options for continuation of this reform process.  
  
We believe that a substantial reduction of trade -distorting domestic support for co tton producers in 
big economies will be a desirable outcome from MC11.  
 
We recognize importance of public stockholding for a  country’s food security policy. I t is important 
for poor farmers whose only livelihood is subsistence agriculture. However, in its current form, it 
has serious adverse unintended consequences impacting economies of other members. A 
sustainable permanent solution on public stockholding has to work for everyone.  
 
Export restrictions on foodstuffs can have an impact on food security and overall food price 
volatility. UN Sustainable Development Goals also stressed the need to prevent trade restrictions 
and distortions in world agricultural markets. Pakistan believes that transparency improvement in 
export restrictions can be a deliverable for MC11.  
 
We welcome the proposals on domestic support, PSH, Cotton and Export Restrictions. We will 
engage constructively in negotiations on these critically important issues.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 74 - 
 
   
Pakistan considers fisheries subsidies to be a possible outcome for MC11. We appreciate all the 
text based proposals submitted by the members so far. We have also submitted a proposal along 
with New Zealand and Iceland. We encourage members to engage in future discussions with open 
mind since it is our collective responsibility to protect this valuable natural resource. At least we 
should do our part in eliminating all subsidies to IUU fishing and subsidies that lead to 
overcapacity and overfishing in line with SDG 14.6. Due recognition should be given to the 
development needs of de veloping countries.  
 
The importance of services for growth, developmen t and connectivity is critical.  The interest 
exhibited by Members in Services negotiations is very positive development. We are very 
supportive of efforts of Members and Ambassador Cima in the services track. We will 
constructively engage with all the services proposals on the table.  
 
We are happy with the restart of market access negotiations for industrial goods in Negotiating 
Group on Market Access. The transparency proposal put forwa rd by the European Union; Hong 
Kong, China; Chinese, Taipei; and Singapore has a series of interesting elements, including the 
development of a common internet portal for sharing information, greater consultation with 
stakeholders and notification of final  changes to domestic regulations covered in the WTO's 
agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and technical barriers to trade (TBT).  
 
The principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, including NFIDCs and 
least d eveloped countries, must remain integral to all negotiations.  The framework for trade 
reforms must continue to support the economic development needs, including technical assistance 
requirements, of these WTO members. A key message we want from MC 11, is that Development 
is here to stay, and its most welcome. It is due to this vital linkage that multilateral trading system 
can deliver particularly for the poorest and most marginalized.  
 
A key Message that we have to give at Buenos Aires is that together we  will build a stable, 
common prosperous future. In present times multilateral approach becomes even more important, 
WTO is corner stone of global economy, which has worked for benefit of our people, and we have 
to strengthen it.  
 
15. Paraguay  
 
We support the intensification of work to draft a package for Buenos Aires with clear guidance for 
future work. Paraguay has a strong interest that this organization continues to deliver reforms in 
agriculture. This pillar continues to lag in terms of fair trade and trad e liberalization. The treatment 
of agricultural products in Members’ schedules has large imbalances compared to industrial goods. 
We would continue to demand reform to harmonize commitments among goods and between 
Members.   
 
Members know that my delegation  has high ambitions on agricultural market access that seeks 
engagement on this pillar in preparing for Buenos Aires and projecting a work program for future 
work after Buenos Aires.  
We heard with interest that more members are considering tariff simplific ation in agricultural 
market access as an area that requires work. This is a step needed for future formula reduction.  
 
While trade liberalization has continued progressing in industrial goods through plurilateral like 
EGA or ITA, the agricultural schedul es remain unchanged and present no progress since the 
Uruguay round, encompassing a large overhang that can be used to to restrict trade at any 
moment.  
 
Once more, the WTO membership has the opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to expand 
trade opportun ities through agricultural Market Access. This will be a positive contribution to 
promote the world economy, to counter balance any surge of protectionism and also a contribution 
to the objectives of the SDG, in term of employment generation, quality of li fe and above all, 
poverty reduction.  
 
On domestic support, we would like to see a framework that would promote reforms and the 
elimination of unfair entitlements awarded to few members. This framework should address trade 
distortive domestic support like t he blue box and product specific support and by no means it WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 75 - 
 
  should open the door for the introduction of new programs with market price support. The concept 
of special and differential treatment must be preserve as the main developmental component of 
this effort.  
 
On public stock holding, we still think that the interim solution as agreed and as it has been in 
place over the last four years could become the permanent solution, but we see value in the 
elements of the Brazil, EU, Col, Peru, Uruguay proposal especially the safeguard calling for 
prohibition of export and the new transparency requirements.  
 
On SSM, we reiterate our commitment to create the appropriate context for an SSM negotiation. 
And we truly believe that this context is given by the reductio n of tariff in agricultural market 
access pillar.  
 
Cotton, my delegation will support efforts for substantial reduction of trade distorting support on 
cotton and any effort to reaffirm S&D treatment for LDCs.  
 
In the other issues, we have strong interest i n deepening the dialogue in e -commerce, digital 
economy, investment facilitation and especially, to foster the participation of Micro, Small, medium 
enterprises in the global trade. We have co -sponsored numerous documents in those issues, 
expressing our co nstructive engagement towards MC11.  
 
From our perspective, those issues should become an important component of a development -
oriented agenda at the WTO. We encourage Members to work together to adopt, at the Ministerial 
Conference in Buenos Aires, a Minis terial Decision creating a Work Program that addresses the 
specific needs of MSMEs, and as well to improve the current programme for electronic commerce, 
with a clear and development -centred negotiating mandate.  
 
We have a positive and constructive approac h on these areas and hope that they will also 
contribute to reinforce and update the WTO agenda, which is a healthy sign vis-à-vis the 
international trade community.  
 
Having said all this, Paraguay will continue to be engaged on all efforts that may bring us to 
success and results in Buenos Aires. And make us prove once more in that beautiful city that WTO 
and the multilateral trading system are the way of doing business for the benefit of all without 
living anyone behind.  
 
16. Morocco  
 
Morocco is making a stat ement under this TNC meeting and the Heads  of Delegation meeting as 
well. Morocco w ould like to associate itself with the statements made by  Rwanda on behalf of the 
African Group and by Cambodia on beha lf of the LDCs. Morocco further more would like to salu te 
the presence amongst us of the Minister of Argentina – Susana Malcorra and also for her highly 
inspirational speech this  morning. We thank you for presenting this report to us and we see that 
we have a number of updates here.  
 
Morocco within the Arab Gr oup and the African Group wishes to continue with the negotiati ons 
following Nairobi and in the lead up to MC11 . If we look at the state of play of the negotiations , we 
only have four months remaining until MC11. W e cannot yet say that we can have full suc cess for 
Buenos Aires . We still need to take into account the developmen t priorities of the LDCs and the  
more vulnerable economies .  
 
We see a number of new subjects such as Investment Facilitations, MSMEs and e -commerce.  The 
proposals seem to be for  a digitised borderless economy for which the WTO does not yet have new 
rules that have been defined. W e therefore recognize that there are opportunities in Buenos Aires 
but there are likewise a lot of obstacles and challenges we must arise to  given the presence  of the  
very deep and br oad digital divide, lack of capacity and lack of digital industrial c ulture in a 
number of countries. By doing this, we would be able to  have collective gains for developing 
countries – especially the LDCs. 
 
We should focus on the D oha mandate on  domestic support, SSM, pub lic stockholding, fisheries 
subsidies, cotton, and S&D  treatment. All of th ese must be maintained as cross -cutting priorities in 
the Eleventh Ministerial Conference.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 76 - 
 
   
Morocco furthermore would like to reaf firm the g reat importance of SDT  in economic development. 
We call upon all Members to readjust their ambitions to arrive at convergence and to consolidate 
the achiev ements of the multilateral trading system . 
 
Morocco shares with you the  wish to see this organization continue playing its very important  role. 
We hope that there can be conve rgence through the meeting in Marrakesh in October. W e wish to 
be able to  pave the way for success in trade negotiations before we go to Buenos Aires. I t would 
be easier in this way for our hosts  – the Argentines.  
 
17. Peru  
 
Peru also would like to express support for strengthening the multilateral trading system because 
we firmly believe that international trade is a tool for development and that the WTO is the 
mainstay of global trade relations.  
 
As regards the concerns expressed about progress in the negotiations and the future of this 
Organization's work, Peru acknowledges that there are indeed genuine threats that may affect this 
Organization's ability to  make a greater contribution to economic development. We therefore 
understand why some Members have a sceptical or pessimistic view about the outcomes of the 
Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference (MC11).  
 
Nevertheless, Peru will redouble its efforts to achie ve results at MC11 and beyond because Buenos 
Aires is not the end of the road; although some regard the glass as half empty, Peru has chosen to 
view it as half full. Accordingly, we have expressed our opinion on almost all the items on this 
Organization's work and negotiating agendas.  
 
To cast more light on Peru's commitment, I should state that together with Paraguay we have 
submitted a proposal to achieve gradual, flexible results on access to agricultural markets 
(JOB/AG/93). Additionally, together with the European Union, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay, we 
have submitted a proposal for the agriculture negotiations, with a view to reducing trade distorting 
domestic support, debating a permanent solution to public stockholding for food security purposes, 
and establishing commitments for trade in cotton (JOB/AG/99). We are glad to see that other 
Members have also submitted proposals for the agriculture negotiations. We are aware that mere 
submission of proposals does not guarantee an outcome, but it is nonethe less an essential step in 
that process.  
 
In particular I should like to stress that Peru has submitted a proposal to eliminate certain fisheries 
subsidies. The proposal is comprehensive because it includes the elimination of subsidies that 
contribute to il legal, unreported and unregulated fishing, as well as disciplines to prohibit subsidies 
which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, including provisions for the treatment of small 
scale artisanal fisheries, as established by our Heads of State and Go vernment in goals 14.6 and 
14.b of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (TN/RL/GEN/187, as revised). This reflects 
Peru's long standing, unstinting effort to drive negotiations on these matters forward.  
 
Against that background, while acknowledging the difficulties and challenges of finding common 
ground, Peru is pleased to find confirmation in the reports of the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups 
that there are other negotiating proposals and initiatives on the table representing the Members' 
varied i nterests. In particular we are pleased to note that we will soon have a document setting 
out all the proposals on fisheries subsidies. We are sure that that document will prove to be a 
useful, functional tool in facilitating analysis, focusing discussions and moving the negotiations 
forward.  
 
With just a few months remaining until the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, we would like to 
restate the criteria that should guide all negotiating processes from now on:  
 
 Approach the negotiations with creativi ty and pragmatism. We should be prepared to 
utilize all possible negotiating formats.  
 Conduct negotiations based on texts, preferably a single text that combines all proposals, 
without prejudging the outcomes or ruling out new contributions.  
 Establish time lines for discussion of the issues in order to make efficient and effective use 
of the short time remaining before MC11.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 77 - 
 
   Identify the possible outcomes on the basis of the merits of each issue without making 
outcomes subject to convergence in other areas.  
 
Peru reiterates its staunch commitment to continue working alongside all Members and to redouble 
efforts to ensure that, at MC11, the WTO makes a meaningful contribution to making trade bigger 
and better, especially in terms of sustainability of fisheries  resources, through the adoption of 
disciplines on fisheries subsidies, to the benefit of all.  
 
18. Ecuador  
 
Ecuador notes and welcomes the reports submitted by the Director -General and the Chairs of the 
Negotiating Groups on the activities and consultations that have taken place since our last meeting 
in May. We also welcome the Argentine Minister Susana Malcorra, who is here with us this 
morning.  
 
As this will be my final st atement here, I would like to wish you success in ensuring that this global 
Organization functions effectively so that the important activities that it performs can produce 
viable and vital outcomes to the benefit of fair and transparent world trade, which  is not an end in 
itself but a means to the economic and human development of our peoples. In this connection, we 
hope for concrete outcomes at the forthcoming Ministerial Conference in Buenos  Aires.  
 
Allow me to make a very personal comment, something I w ould never have imagined back in 
August  1991, when as Minister for Industry and Trade I initiated the procedures for accession to 
the GATT, a process that took some time before, on 21  January  1996, we joined the WTO. My first 
thought was simple: there was no logic in the fact that Ecuador, at the time the world's leading 
exporter of bananas and a major exporter of many other goods such as prawns and seafood, 
coffee, cocoa and flowers, was not party to the GATT, when we already had an inkling of looming 
difficulties in gaining access to certain markets which, following a lengthy trade dispute, ended 
with the imposition of quotas. I could not resist pointing this out while noting that, 25  years later, 
fate gave me the welcome opportunity to become a member of this body, representing my 
country. Omnia per ipsum facta and now it truly humbles me to see that my initiative was sound 
and necessary, while at the same time I am grateful for the knowledge I have acquired and the 
experience I have gained on this General  Council.  
 
In relation to the path that the various negotiating groups should follow, Ecuador reiterates that 
the mandates set out in paragraphs  31 and  32 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration are essential 
guidelines for work in the immediate future. The  guidelines, adopted voluntarily by Members 
following arduous negotiations, summarize the efforts made to maintain the reliability of the world 
trade system which, when regulated in an orderly fashion, aims to be fair by considering the 
different levels of  development of each and every one of its Members. Promoting these goals lends 
credibility and permanence to this Organization.  
 
We hope that the forthcoming Ministerial Conference will produce outcomes that are balanced and 
therefore acceptable to all Mem bers. They must be made visible primarily in the agricultural pillar, 
which is hugely important to many countries, including Ecuador. It is highly probable that those 
outcomes will set the level of aspiration in other areas that are also of special interes t to Members. 
Hence we support what should be a comprehensive reform in agriculture while maintaining our 
position that the discussions must focus on subpillars such as domestic support and market 
access, since in our view the 2008  Agricultural Modalities document, negotiated over more than a 
decade, can indeed form the basis of the negotiations.  
 
Additionally, we consider it appropriate to deepen discussions leading to a current, permanent 
solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purp oses and the special safeguard 
mechanism. This requires the necessary flexibility in Members' positions, especially if concrete 
outcomes are expected.  
 
In relation to negotiations on non -agricultural market access, we reiterate that we are convinced 
about the negotiating mandates, given that the proposals must not reduce the public policy spaces 
that Members have and require. We call for them to refrain from the imposition of further 
obligations on the least developed countries while retaining both flexibil ities and special and 
differential treatment.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 78 - 
 
  Turning to negotiations under the services pillar, there has been an intense debate on national 
regulation. Since Ecuador does not have a large demand for services, it is of the view that deeper 
discussions ar e required about the elements that should comprise the disciplines for negotiation so 
that an explicit mandate can be given; however we repeat that negotiations in this area must not 
compromise the space that States have to regulate through their own polic ies in order to 
encourage development.  
 
In relation to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, the submission of seven proposals by various 
Members, alongside the theme -based sessions organized to analyse them, illustrate the high level 
of commitment in t his area. We therefore consider the Negotiating Group Chairman's initiative to 
draw up an analytical table of the proposals as a useful tool to move the negotiations forward. 
While supporting the issuance of regulations within the multilateral framework on  fisheries 
subsidies, in relation specifically to small -scale fishing among other necessary derogations, we 
reiterate our support for the intensification of discussions with a view to securing an outcome that 
takes into account the importance of this secto r to development priorities, poverty reduction, and 
livelihood and food security concerns.  
 
We have participated in debates on electronic commerce, investment facilitation and the role of 
SMEs, in which Members have shared their experience and submitted pr oposals that help us 
understand the constant changes in these areas which are today's development drivers. We are of 
the view that the proposals submitted on electronic commerce do not entail market access 
commitments and that there is a mandate under the Work Programme on this matter that can be 
updated.  
 
As I noted previously, on a personal note, I conclude my duties by addressing you, Mr  Chairman, 
colleagues, and friends. My experience as Permanent Representative of Ecuador leads me to point 
out that the  journey through the highly specialized and sometimes conflicting trade issues that this 
Organization addresses has for me been an exercise in putting theory into practice. I hope to have 
made some contribution to these complex negotiations.  
 
You can count  on our participation in the search for consensus that satisfies all Members and 
deepens the crucial multilateral negotiations.  
 
19. Singapore  
 
In respect of a suggestion by some Members for an open conversation on the format of the 
informal HODs, my delegation’s view is as follows.  
 
We appreciate that the DG is responding to the repeated and consistent calls from the Membership 
for transparency and inclusiveness in our work.  
 
We find that the informal HODs is a pragmatic and efficient platform for achieving this.  
 
It is fully within the DG’s prerogative to convene informal HODs. We need to go no further back 
than MC10. The Nairobi Ministerial D eclaration recognised the different views among the 
Membership on multilateral negotiations (paragraph 30). Ministers therefore requested, inter alia, 
the DG to report regularly to the GC on efforts to preserve and further strengthen the negotiating 
functi on of the WTO (paragraph 33)  
 
Even without paragraph 33 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, my delegation appreciates the 
informal HODs platform, as the alternative would have been a return to the small group Green 
Room process where the majority of t he Membership is excluded, or imperfectly represented.  
 
The DG has convened two meetings in response to concerns raised by delegations regarding the 
TNC, and also to hold more focused discussions.  This statement is relevant to both meetings.  In 
the inte rest of efficiency, I will deliver it only once.   
 
Regardless of the name or form of our meetings in the WTO, the focus should always be to engage 
constructively on moving the multilateral trading system forward.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 79 - 
 
  It is our collective responsibility to e nsure that the rules -based multilateral trading system 
functions well and that the WTO' s core work in addressing trade distortions, promoting the smooth 
flow of global trade and enabling development is not unduly impeded.  
 
Developments in the course of th e first semester are a challenge to the multilateral core of the 
WTO. The controversial adoption of the GC agenda in May 2017 encapsulates the contestation  of 
ideas, process, and the WTO' s future which the WTO has been undergoing since before Nairobi. 
This has longer term, systemic implications on the functioning of the WTO, and the preservation of 
the WTO way, which has hitherto been consultative, inclusive and collegial.  
 
In several negotiating bodies, substantive consideration of proposals have been sty mied by 
procedural debates.  Where substantive discussions are indeed taking place, a lot more willingness 
to make compromises is needed in order to find consensus and forge ahead.   
 
On the trade monitoring front, transparency obligations need to be taken  more seriously in order 
for the system to function as it should. We note that only 40% of the Membership had responded 
to the most recent monitoring report from the DG on Trade -Related Developments.  
 
The dispute settlement pillar of the WTO faces a myria d of challenges, including issues related to 
workload and resourcing. Members'  inability to agree on launching a process to fill the Appellate 
Body positions will add further stress.  
 
The WTO is under strain.  If left unchecked, the lack of a strong, rules -based system where all 
Members can engage in good faith will hurt all Members, with disproportionate impact on small 
and developing countries, in particular the LDCs.  
 
MC11 is the ne xt milestone for the organisation. The Membership will of course devote time and 
energy to delivering a successful Ministerial Conference. But the broader questions and systemic 
issues confronting the organisation also merit serious reflection and discussi on.  
 
Singapore will do our best to contribute to the WTO’s continued relevance and success. We have 
put forward a number of proposals, including on Transparency in Agriculture Export Restrictions, 
Advancing the E -Commerce Work Programme, and addressing tr ansparency and non -tariff barriers 
for MSMEs. We have also been engaging on the other proposals put forward by Members, and note 
the ongoing momentum on issues such as fisheries subsidies and agriculture. We stand ready to 
also contribute in working throug h the larger systemic issues as an old Friend and Supporter of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system.  
 
20. Mexico  
 
Mexico is encouraged to learn from the reports of the Chairs of the negotiating bodies that in some 
groups, especially fisheries, discussio ns have been enriched by seven new and revised proposals 
that will soon be included in a consolidated text. In other groups such as agriculture however, 
despite strenuous efforts and new proposals, positions have not changed and have even become 
more entre nched.  
 
Mexico is concerned to note that we have only around three working months le ft before our 
meeting in Buenos Aires. In the run -up to Buenos  Aires it is important for us to be able to make an 
evaluation capable of providing us with policy guidance th at puts us on the road to achieving 
positive outcomes at MC11.  
 
Mexico hopes for an outcome on domestic support, including on the matters of public stockholding, 
fisheries and domestic regulation in services, and for incremental steps in other issues.  
 
We would also like to thank Ambassador Álvaro Cedeño for his report on the activities of the FEDs. 
The Group's work has undoubtedly contributed to improving Members' understanding of electronic 
commerce and the possible actions that this Organization could ta ke to boost its development.  
 
However, we are concerned that discussions under the work programme might be limited solely to 
the extension of the moratorium and may not allow us to secure outcomes that improve 
across -the-board understanding of this matter.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 80 - 
 
  We are convinced that the promotion of electronic commerce is a tool that can, if handled 
properly, become a powerful driver of development and growth, particularly by incorporating SMEs 
into international trade. The WTO cannot ignore reality, a reality that is already being addressed in 
other international forums and negotiating spaces. The upcoming Ministerial Conference provides 
an excellent opportunity to obtain positive outcomes on this matter.  
 
While I have the floor, I would like to thank Ambassado r Marcelo  Cima for the report he submitted 
concerning talks on facilitation of investment for development.  
 
Mexico has participated actively in the three meetings, sharing its experience both on issues such 
as the regulatory framework, which drives transpa rency and predictability, and on recent progress 
in setting up electronic portals that foreign investors can use to carry out administrative 
formalities.  
 
We repeat that Mexico is ready to play an active role in the meetings scheduled for after the 
summer break with a view to assessing the extent to which the WTO could promote actions to 
facilitate investment.  
 
We woul d also like to thank Ambassador Héctor Casanueva  for the statement he made on behalf of 
the Friends of MSMEs group. The full incorporation of MSMEs into global value chains and therefore 
into international trade flows is one of the Mexican Government's priorities.  
 
We are convinced that the WTO has an i mportant role to play in this task and accordingly we are 
committed to participating in these talks, just as we were to the four sets of talks that have been 
held so far.  
 
We should like to close by thanking Switzerland for submitting the joint communicati on on behalf 
of more than 40 Members, including Mexico who, concerned at the current state of play both in the 
negotiations and in some aspects of our regular work, reaffirm our commitment to the centrality of 
the WTO in the multilateral trading system and  to achieving an outcome in Buenos Aires.  
 
21. Indonesia (G -33) 
 
While welcoming Member' s contributions to move the negotiations in Agriculture forward, the 
Group wishes to reiterate that PSH and SSM remain priorities under the Nairobi Decisions and 
Declaratio n, and the Group therefore urges Members to engage constructively and in good faith in 
order to deliver these development priorities in MC11.  
 
A permanent solution for the PSH and accessible and effective SSM are important tools needed by 
the developing me mbers, SVEs and LDCs for sustaining investments in agriculture for food 
security, livelihood security and rural development.  
 
As the time is currently very critical, it is important for Members to demonstrate their constructive 
engagements and flexibiliti es. In this regard, the Group is of the view that it is in the best interest 
of Members to faithfully follow our ministerial mandates under the Nairobi and Bali Ministerial 
Decisions as well as the General Council Decision of 27 November 2014, and to inten sify 
discussions with a view to deliver a Permanent Solution for PSH and establish SSM in Buenos 
Aires.  
 
The G -33 is also of the view that Chair and Members must frame our work after the summer break 
that would ensure no single technical matter on SSM and  PSH is left unturned and unaddressed 
before our ministers gather in Buenos Aires, and that all issues of Members critical to their decision 
making should not be left out of the agenda of MC11 so as to ensure success.  
 
The Group shall continue to work clo sely and constructively with you, Chair, and Members to make 
full and best use of the remaining time so that PSH and SSM are successfully delivered in Buenos 
Aires.  
 
 
 
 
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 81 - 
 
  22. Indonesia  
 
First of all, Indonesia would like to associate itself to the statement wo uld be made by the 
delegation of the Philippines on behalf of the ASEAN Member States in the subsequent informal 
HOD meeting.  
 
My delegation welcomes engagements from Members by submitting contributions on various 
remaining DDA issues, such as in the negotiations of agriculture, fisheries subsidies, Special and 
Differential Treatment (SDT), as well as in domestic regulation in Trade in Services. My delegation 
also takes notes various initiatives of some Members to discuss issues other than the remainin g 
Doha issues.  
 
With the MC11 set to take place in less than five months from today and Members are yet to close 
divergent views in various negotiation issues, Members need to be realistic and at the same time 
demonstrating strong political wills and flexi bilities to deliver tangible, credible and balance 
outcomes in Buenos Aires. In this respect, my delegation is of the view that Members need to 
focus its resources on the remaining Doha issues, particularly on issues which will deliver 
development benefits  to the whole Membership, and where progress is possible.   
 
Taking those into consideration, Indonesia believes that issues such as Agriculture, Fisheries 
Subsidies Discipline, Domestic Regulation, SDT may become strong candidates of Buenos Aires 
delivera bles. For that purpose, Members have to redouble efforts and to intensify the works on 
those issues immediately after summer break. Indonesia, however, wishes to reiterate that SDT 
for developing and LDCs Members, shall remain an integral part of any outco mes in Buenos Aires.   
 
While on other remaining Doha issues, Members may take incremental approach.  
 
My delegation is of the view that the process that will lead us to Buenos Aires is just as important 
as the substance. In this respect, some important po ints need to be seriously considered, as 
follows:  
 
a. Our remaining works need to be guided by centrality of development with the principles 
of SDT at its cores;  
b. The process that we are going to undertake after summer break until Buenos Aires shall 
be open, transparent and inclusive;   
c. Any Buenos Aires deliverables shall be discussed substantively in Geneva, with the 
involvement of Senior Officials from the capital if necessary;  
d. Buenos Aires should not be a negotiating forum for the Ministers.   
Finally, Indo nesia stands ready to closely work with you Chair and also with the whole negotiation 
Chairs and Members, to deliver realistic , credible and development -centred outcomes in Buenos 
Aires.   
 
23. Zimbabwe  
 
From the outset we associate ourselves with the statemen ts delivered by Rwanda on behalf of the 
African Group, Indonesia on behalf of the G33, Benin on behalf of C4 and to be made by Guyana 
on behalf of the ACP.  
 
We appreciate the comprehensive reports by the chairs of the various committees and by the 
Director  General. My delegation is however concerned about the state of play in the DDA 
negotiations, especially as it is now less than three working months before the Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
My delegation reaffirms its support for the DDA and that we should give  priority to outcomes on; 
agriculture domestic support including cotton, Special Safeguard Mechanism, Public Stockholding 
for Food Security Purposes and Development (SDT), in line with paragraphs 31 and 34 of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 82 - 
 
  It is our  position, that the MC 11 outcome on domestic support should include the elimination of 
AMS support, capping of the product specific support in order to eliminate concentration. We 
should also preserve the flexibilities in the revised version four modaliti es text of 2008.  
 
We are concerned that current proposals to reduce trade distorting domestic support are based on 
the Value of Production and do not address the imbalances of the past round of negotiations.   The 
proposals award more policy space or SDT t o major developed country subsidisers than developing 
countries.  
 
On Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, the deadline for an outcome is the upcoming 
Eleventh Ministerial Conference, we would therefore like to have a permanent solution by this 
conference. Our view is that the G33 proposal should be the basis for that solution and not the 
Peace Clause, which has burdensome and onerous obligations. We are also of the view that there 
should be no linkages between Domestic Support and Public Stockhol ding for Food Security 
Purposes as the latter has a separate and clear mandate.  
 
Regarding SDT, the mandate of paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration is very clear, to this end 
members should not avoid this mandate by introducing approaches that are divorced  from the 
DDA architecture.  
 
It is concerning to note that there continues to be divergences in all pillars of the DDA 
negotiations, on matters of principle, mandates, approach and substance. Instead of giving focus 
on the remaining issues of the DDA some members are frustrating  efforts to have meaningful 
DDA outcomes at MC11 by introducing new issues for negotiations across the board when there is 
no mandate to do so. Our position is that, in line with paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration, 
consensus is  required before we can negotiate new issues such as, E -Commerce, Investment 
Facilitation, NAMA - TBT/SPS transparency issues and MSMES. Our priority is conclusion of the 
DDA. 
 
The replication of the template on Trade Facilitation Agreement transparency mea sures to 
Domestic Regulation and NAMA negotiations, Investment Facilitation and E -Commerce by some 
members is not practical and is beyond the existing mandates. My delegation will not support 
attempts to diminish our right to regulate, intrusion into our d omestic processes and introduction 
of burdensome and cumbersome transparency obligations and exposure of our regulatory 
architecture to multilateral oversight.  
 
To this end, we call upon members to focus on work where we have mandates and to take into 
account the different levels of development and interests of the most vulnerable and small 
economies amongst us. Members should engage constructively in order to have meaningful and 
balanced developmental outcomes at MC11.  
 
It is time that we seriously engage on matters of process to ensure we do not have a repeat of the 
undemocratic processes of past Ministerial Meetings where a handful of members made the 
decisions on behalf of the full membership.  
 
The WTO should adhere to basic principles of full participat ion, inclusivity and transparency (FIT) 
to ensure that all members are represented and own the outcomes.  
 
We need to work towards completion of our work here in Geneva so as to avoid overburdening the 
Ministers in negotiations in Buenos Aires. Any issue fo r adoption by Ministers at the Ministerial 
Conference should be agreed to by members well before the event. To this end, we need to take a 
cue from the “gentlemen’s agreement “  made in preparation for MC7 and MC8 Conferences where 
members came to the unde rstanding that  any agenda for the Ministerial Conference should have 
gained consensus of members by at least 6 weeks before the Ministerial Conference.  
 
On the HODs format, while we appreciate the explanation given by the Director General, we think 
that t here is merit in the proposal for consultations so that we have the same understanding going 
forward.  
 
My delegation stands ready to engage constructively in order to have meaningful and balanced 
outcomes in Buenos Aires.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 83 - 
 
  24. India  
 
At the outset, my delegation associates itself with the statement of the G33.  
 
India, along with a large part of the membership, continues to believe that implementation of the 
Declarations and Decisions adopted at Doha and the Ministerial Conferences held thereafter, is th e 
only way forward to conclude the DDA. The development dimension is at the core of the DDA and 
issues of interest to developing countries and LDCs must be addressed on priority.  
 
Ministerial Declarations are an article of faith which must be fulfilled wi th utmost seriousness. If we 
fail to do so, the credibility of the WTO is at risk. The successful conclusion of the Doha Round is a 
shared responsibility of all WTO members. This is also in our collective and individual self -interest.  
 
In this context, I would like to enumerate India’s priorities, particularly in the area of agriculture 
where the inequity and asymmetry in the rules, is particularly pronounced.  
 
Concerning Public Stockholding, there is a clear mandate to arrive at and adopt a permanent 
solution on Public Stockholding (PSH) for food security purposes by December 2017. The G33 has 
recently submitted a textual proposal to amend the AoA for a permanent solution at Buenos 
Aires.  The G33 has also stated its openness to engage on specific concerns of some members.  
 
With more than eight hundred million hungry and undernourished people in the world, the problem 
of ensuring food security remains an enduring challenge especially for developing countries. Many 
developing countries face daunting challenge s, including a stagnant farm sector, inadequate 
domestic food stocks, volatility in food prices in international markets and low purchasing power 
among the poor and needy for buying food. This is an issue of interest not only to India, but to a 
large numbe r of other developing countries as well.  We cannot imagine a substantive outcome at 
MC11 without a permanent solution on food security.  
 
My delegation would like to express disappointment at the linkage being drawn between PSH and 
the domestic support dis cussions. The mandate on this is absolutely clear. The two have to be kept 
on separate tracks and efforts need to be accelerated to arrive at a permanent solution on food 
security.  
 
In this context some members were not willing to engage on the grounds th at some of the 
proponents were not notifying agricultural domestic support. As many of you would be aware, 
India has recently done so up to 2013-14.  
 
Regarding SSM, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on SSM for developing members reinforced and 
strengthened  the mandate in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. The G33 has demonstrated a 
great deal of constructive engagement through its successive submissions.  
 
We are concerned that some Members are seeking to silence the issue refusing to engage and by 
drawing linkages with market access.  
 
On domestic support, the Agreement on Agriculture favours a few developed members and 
provides them with huge space and flexibilities to subsidize agriculture including the possibility of 
concentrati ng subsidies on a few p roducts.  Some of the proposals may in fact further widen the 
imbalance.  
 
While there are several proposals in this area, the discussions indicate that there is considerable 
divergence in Members’ positions. China and India have recently made a submission o n AMS, the 
most trade distorting of all categories of domestic support.  It is our conviction that the Doha Work 
Programme can best be taken forward by reducing some of the inequities built into the WTO rules 
in favour of the developed Members. It also ill ustrates clearly the adverse effects of concentration 
of AMS on a few products, which no other proposal on the table addresses.  Elimination of AMS, we 
believe, should be the starting point of reforms rather than seeking reduction of subsidies by 
developin g countries, some of which like India pro vide a subsistence amount of US$ 260 per farmer 
per annum.  
 
Special and differential treatment for developing countries is a very important part of the WTO’s 
mandate and of the DDA and this, I must emphasize, is a mu st have.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 84 - 
 
   
On cotton, we also support the proposal of C4 to eliminate AMS on cotton, while retaining the 
existing de minimis  limits of developing countries.  
 
India has always been a supporter of special dispensation for LDCs and provides 98.2% tariff lines 
as duty free or preferential access to LDCs with applicable tariff on all cotton lines at zero.  In 
addition, we are implementing a major technical assistance programme in 7 African countries, 
including the C4 for the last 05 years to improve the productiv ity of both the agriculture and textile 
part of the cotton value chain.  We have also provided one of the most liberal packages for 
services waiver, including complete waiver of visa fees.  
 
With regard to services trade, services negotiations at the WTO have lagged behind.  India’s 
initiative on trade facilitation in services is an effort to address this issue and we are happy that 
Members have engaged actively on it.  We would soon be coming out with a revised version on the 
basis of feedback of Members.  
 
Concerning new issues, we would like to highlight paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration that states that work where results have not yet been achieved should be prioritised.  
However, some Members are also keen to begin to identify issues f or multilateral rule -making and 
some see it necessary to promote the expansion of e -commerce. However, we strongly feel that 
the gains from E -commerce should not be confused with the likely benefits of rulemaking in E -
commerce.  In India, we have seen the benefits of E -commerce both in use of electronic platforms 
for goods trade and convenient delivery of services.  We support its growth and value the benefits 
that it brings to consumers.  But at the same time, we see no additional benefits of taking 
discip lines on E -commerce at the WTO and cannot agree to restriction on policy space in an arena 
where technology is rapidly evolving along an uncertain part leading to an era of M2M 
communication and Industry 4.0.   
 
In fact, most of the proposals at the WTO do  not have elements that can lead to growth of E -
commerce.  On the other hand, they will impose constraints and prevent companies in developing 
members from growing to compete with global behemoths as the existing non -level playing field 
will be frozen perm anently against their interests and will preserve the status quo.  We, therefore, 
see merit in continuing with the existing work programme and the progress of bottom up approach 
for productive discussions and remain open to any exploratory discussion in th e relevant WTO 
bodies as per the existing mandate. We would not agree to any approach that takes away the role 
of the relevant bodies in discussing ecommerce related issues as per the Work Programme which 
has been reiterated in successive Ministerial Decis ions. 
 
To conclude, we are concerned that some of the issues being pushed for outcomes at MC11 seem 
to address issues other than those on which mandates already exist and which have not yet been 
implemented.  
 
It is problematic that the outcomes or package  sought to be taken forward for MC11 seem 
overwhelmingly to be constituted of new issues.  These issues like e -commerce, MSMEs and 
investment, we believe firmly, are highly premature for rule -making as the membership first needs 
to deal with the gateway is sue of the extent to which these subjects actually lie within the domain 
of the WTO.   
 
Attempts are also being made to relegate development issues which have been discussed for 
several years and need to be implemented on priority, to the background.  
 
I would like to reemphasize that India cannot envisage an outcome at Buenos Aires which does not 
include a solution on PSH.  We also  expect that the process at MC11  is transparent, inclusive and 
we hope only mature texts will be put before Members at Buenos Ai res. 
 
Some Members have spoken on the role of informal HODs.   
 
Our understanding is that a forum for negotiations can only be created by the decision of the 
Ministerial Council.  Further the mandate of the TNC flows from the decision of the Ministers in 
Doha in November 2001.  The TNC was set up to supervise the overall conduct of the negotiations 
under the guidance of the General Council.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 85 - 
 
  The TNC, therefore, together with its bodies remains the only negotiating forum at the WTO and 
no other parallel nego tiating forum can be created.  Therefore, we believe that as in the past, the 
DG in his capacity as Chair of the TNC is free to report to the GC on his travels and meetings 
under the framework of the TNC.  
 
In light of this overarching remit of TNC we would  like to hear from the D G, the need for having an 
informal HODs to be chaired by him.  
 
Let me also assure you that India stands committed to strengthening multilateralism and 
constructively engage in discussions on all areas of work in the WTO.  
 
25. Zambia  
 
Zambia associates itself with the statements delivered by Cambodia on behalf of the LDC group, 
and Rwanda on behalf of the African Group.  
 
Let me highlight a few points on some of the topical issues as we prepare for the Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
On Agric ulture, I will not get into so much det ail as to why this is important because this is one 
sector  which is ext remely critical for our country  in terms of food security and economic 
diversification. We are being mindful of the difficulties caused by the cur rent political landscape in 
terms of address ing key elements in agriculture  particularly the Domestic Support pillar. This pillar 
still remains an area of  significant interest to Zambia  as we have placed agriculture as one of the 
main drivers of our divers ification agenda. Therefore, we strongly support the call to seek concrete 
results achieved on domestic support, public stockholding, special safeguard  measures and  cotton 
at the MC11.  
 
On e-commerce, as it has been rightly highlighted by many, the digital gap between developing 
and developed countries is so wide  that it requires efforts to be directed at narrowing the gap 
rather than engaging in a discussion on rule -making whose implications or policy space is not 
known at the moment. As the Chair m ay be aware currently, these developed  countries have 
many challenges  which include limited or non -existent infrastructure, consumer protection issues 
and comparative ly weak legislative environment  just to mention a few that need to be addressed 
as a matte r of priority. It is for these reasons that discussions on e -commerce should be directed 
at addressing the se challenges as opposed to rule -making. In keeping with the mandate in 
paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, it is important that any decision to launch 
negotiations multilaterally on issues identified for negotiations should be agreed by all Members. 
With that in mind, my delegation supports the view that we should not proceed with any work 
outside the current work programme on this mat ter.  
 
On Special and Differential treatment, Zambia supports the proposal introduced by the G -90 
during the CTD Special Session meeting held last week. I t is our sincere hope that Members would 
take time over the summer break to f ully internalize the subm ission. I t is our hope that post -
summer break, we can have positive and progressive engagement on the proposal.  
 
Lastly, on process, it is important to maintain an inclusive, transparent and predictable process, 
where the voice of every Member is hear d in order to protect the credibility of our organization.  
 
In conclusion,  in our view, the next Ministerial Conference should provide a good basis for us to 
review progress made since Nairobi. Implementation of outcomes from the Ministerial Conference 
should therefore form part of the agenda to take stock  of what we ha ve achieved since 
December  2015 and how we hope to move our wor k forward under the Doha Round.  
 
26. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We echo the statements made by Indonesia on behalf of the Group of 33 and by the Dominican 
Republic on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries.  
 
I would like to open my statement by briefly summarizing events since our last meeting. Today 
there are of course a large number of proposals on various issues on  the table. However, in 
Venezuela's opinion, except where the issue of fisheries subsidies is concerned, most of the WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 86 - 
 
  documents on the table show no progress. With the summer recess imminent and only three 
viable working months left until December, the outl ook for concrete results is uncertain and 
discouraging.  
 
At previous meetings we have referred in detail to the issues that are a priority for Venezuela. If I 
may very quickly summarize, as a net food importing developing country, our position across the 
board on all issues is to safeguard the principles of special and differential treatment, less than full 
reciprocity, and protection of the policy spaces necessary to implement industrial development, 
food security, poverty alleviation and to overcome socia l, economic and structural inequalities, 
whether the issue be agriculture, services or fisheries subsidies.  
 
That being said, I would like to focus my statement on two issues that I regard as crucial in the 
current economic situation.  
 
The first is the nee d to recognize development as a cross cutting priority in our work. In an 
increasingly globalized and interdependent world, the problems that some fail to address 
inexorably become problems faced by us all. The things that we refuse to see, on the ground t hat 
they are a matter for someone else, inevitably have to be confronted sooner or later, not only in 
this trade oriented Organization, but in any policy space, whether in relation to refugees, displaced 
persons, or natural disasters to name but a few of t he issues that are emblematic of 
interdependence.  
 
One thing that this Organization has in its favour is the high level of technical expertise of its 
Delegates and Secretariat. Their preparatory work and the seriousness with which they address all 
issues are exemplary. However, at times there is seen to be some arrogance in dealing with the 
unresolved issues from the Doha Development Agenda. There would seem to be a degree of 
indifference on the part of some Members towards what in our view they regard as an 
insignificant, far off or unknown matter. I am referring to the issue of development.  
 
On the question of how to move forward, we are convinced that it is in everyone's interest first to 
address development and remedy the current imbalances in order the n to be able to move on to 
new issues. I reiterate that today the problems faced by some are in fact problems faced by all. In 
Venezuela's view there is a need to develop empathy towards development issues and that is only 
possible by tackling those issues  head on, facing up to their true dimension, on the understanding 
that trade can be an important instrument for development only if the conditions are right and the 
existing inequalities are overcome.  
 
This leads me to the second point we want to address t oday, namely procedures. It is only through 
a dialogue based on empathy, in other words, a genuine understanding of the reality of another 
person's situation, that we will be able to tackle two opposing positions that have been dogging us 
since Nairobi, na mely the applicability of the Doha Round versus New Issues. To that end trust is 
vital, and trust is only possible if we can ensure transparent and inclusive procedures in which we 
all feel taken into account equally.  
 
On another matter, we would like to p lace on record our systemic concern at the lack of 
agreement on filling the vacancy that currently exists in the Appellate Body.  
 
Finally, the Delegation of Venezuela would like to express its solidarity with the statement made by 
the African Group.  
 
27. Russi an Federation  
 
Much work was done but we are still far from being able to say that we have some deliverables for 
MC11 in hand.  
 
In Nairobi, our ministers pledged to continue to address all the core issues of contemporary 
agenda through negotiation process.  I take it as strong allegiance to the WTO norm -setting 
function.  
 
In my personal assessment of negotiations, I would like to make the following comments on sector 
perspectives.   
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 87 - 
 
  There is some promising glimpse of hope in agriculture. Nonetheless, the pr ogress is subtle. 
Members’ positions are diverse and even conflicting. On domestic support, we see complicated 
dilemma: whether to have a monetary cap or percentage of a production volume.  
 
Transparency in export restrictions commands wider support and ma tures to a decision. PSH is 
hostage to non -flying proposals. A more constructive approach is needed. Russia recently outlined 
some elements that – we believe - could help us in arriving to long -sought compromise.  
 
NAMA is a little bit sidelined. New proposal on regulatory practices from EU, Hong Kong, China, 
Chinese Taipei and Singapore could add traction. Its focus on non -tariff barriers is especially 
relevant for MSMEs and their empowerment.  
 
In rules, we trace worthwhile concepts with regard to ant i-dumping and countervailing measures. 
We welcome China’s role and input on the matter. Transparency and due process often suffer in 
investigations to the detriment of both importing party and exporters. If handled constructively in 
negotiations, these ele ments are doable.  
 
Russia actively participates in a debate on fisheries subsidies. They prominently figure in SDGs and 
the WTO is instrumental for curbing state -funded outlays to IUU, overcapacity and overfishing fleet 
operations, such as fuel subsidies.  
 
In services, inte raction resonates well. It benefits from widely shared demand and ambition. 
During Services Week in June, we had to extend the Working Party on Domestic Regulation 
session from one to three full days.  
 
The development dimension is taking off. We took note of the joint proposal from last week by 
ACP, African Group and LDC on special and differential treatment. My delegation will come back on 
it after intra -agency examination in the capital.  
 
Russi a as well as other Article XII M embers made significant extra commitments to trade 
liberalization upon the accession to the WTO.  They comprise market access in goods and services, 
domestic support in agriculture and many other important a reas. We urge the WTO founding 
Members to match in a timely and practical manne r. 
 
28. Nepal  
 
The delegation of Nepal associates itself with the statement delivered by Cambodia on behalf of 
the LDC Group.  
 
LDCs are faithful supporter of the multilateral trading system. LDCs want our economic 
development to be sustainable and inclusive an d enabled by more thriving trade. We are, 
however, suffering from low value addition and primary produ ct trap in our export markets. As a 
shared responsibility, it must be acknowledged that the basic objectives of the Marrakesh 
Agreement have not been mate rialized in the case of LDCs.  
 
We want to request all distinguished Members to pay more attention to the implementation of 
LDC-related decisions reached in Hong Kong, Bali and Nairobi, and other agreement -specific 
provisions so that they give real positiv e impact on the economies of the LDCs. To address 
continued marginalization of most of the LDCs, we expect substantial outputs from Buenos Aires 
under the DDA. A closer attention to the provisions of para grah 24, 31 and 32 of Nairobi 
declaration also point  to this direction.  
 
Without export promotion, increased productive capacity building, industrialization, diversification 
and structural transformation of the economy of the most disadvantaged group of countries, 
achieving global objectives and commitment s such as 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 
Goals and Istanbul Programme of Action  for LDCs is  impossible.  
 
For implementation and follow up mechanism of past decisions and agreement - specific LDCs 
related provisions, effective, coordinated, funct ional and result oriented global partnership is 
essential. At the same time, strengthening the SPS and TBT related capacities in the LDCs 
including testing, calibration, standardization, and facilitating mutual recognition of standards is 
highly desirable.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 88 - 
 
   
In our opinion, non -Doha issues such as e -commerce are future agenda. Discussions on non -Doha 
issues should take place within existing mandate and decisions must take place on the basis of 
consensus. Already marginalized in export trade and its potential  benefits in the economy, the 
LDCs must be exempted from making any further commitments. For them, institutionalized S&DT 
provisions should be an integral part with new rule making.  
 
Contrary to the objective set by the Istanbul Plan of Action (IPoA) to d ouble the share of the LDCs' 
exports, we have seen it decline to less than one percent. And with respect to the SDG 9 on 
promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, LDCs have been facing formidable challenges 
to deepen and diversify the existing  industrial capacity in the highly competitive global economy, 
and have experienced a premature decline in the share of manufacturing in their GDP. To this end, 
the G -90 have submitted agreement spec ific proposals contained in Job/Dev/47  to support 
industr ialization, structural transformation and diversification of the economy. We expect a 
meaningful outcome out of this proposal through MC11.  
 
The implementation of TFA, specifically category C measures, is important for LDCs. We appreciate 
the notification of the EU on its technical assistance plan according to Article 22 of the Agreement, 
and request rest of the donor Members to do so. Leveraging of partnership and cooperation from 
capable member countries would help LDCs to implement category C measures.  
 
We appreciate the prime attention received by TFA during the 6th Global Review of Aid for Trade. 
We emphasize that the TFA should not be confined to address only 'at the border ' level issues such 
as simplification, harmonization and standardization of customs procedures, it should also pay 
equal attention to 'behind the border ' issues such as enhancing supply -side and productive 
capacity, export promotion and strengthening other supply -side capacity.  
 
As the time is running short, we need to redouble our efforts to secure a meaningful outcome from 
MC11. Despite uncertain global environment, we should be able to deliver at the Buenos Aires by 
bridging the existing physical and dig ital gaps among the Members and strengthening the principle 
of multilateralism.  
 
29. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
We endorse the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of the  G-33. 
 
We have set out our position in relation to MC11 in other meetings, but woul d like to reiterate a 
number of points relevant to the Plurinational State of Bolivia. In our view, development should be 
the main element of the expected outcomes of MC11.  
 
Some things are difficult for Bolivia to understand: while some countries are push ing for the 
inclusion of new items on the WTO agenda, they do not appear ready to achieve substantive 
outcomes on the development issues that have been pending for decades, on the grounds that we 
have to be realistic and pragmatic.  
 
One such example was th e treatment of the proposals on special and differential treatment (upon 
which Bolivia places much  importance) submitted by the G -90 at the Committee on Trade and 
Development, in respect of which we have seen no substantial progress and indeed, some rather  
unconstructive comments.  
 
For example, despite the work of the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, 
there has been no substantive progress in agriculture. Some of the developed countries have been 
benefiting for over 20  years from the  flexibilities of the Agreement on Agriculture and intend to 
continue to enjoy this special and differential treatment for many more years to come, thereby 
adversely affecting  millions of farmers in many developing countries.  
 
The reform process under Arti cle 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture was intended to address the 
need to level the playing field, not to protect the imbalances that arose as a result of the 
Uruguay  Round.  
 
Bolivia attaches much importance to food security and sovereignty; accordingly w e hope to 
achieve meaningful, useful outcomes in agriculture rather than mere cosmetic changes. Therefore WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 89 - 
 
  Rev.4 of the Draft Modalities on Agriculture is very important. We support the elimination of 
domestic support for all countries that qualify under th e Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) 
except for NFIDCs. We support anti -concentration measures and the G -33 proposals to deliver 
concrete and useful outcomes on public stockholding for food security purposes, the Special 
Safeguard Measure and cotton, i n a manner consistent with the Doha mandate and subsequent 
ministerial decisions, in particular those of Hong  Kong, Bali and Nairobi, and the General Council 
Decision of 2014. Agriculture continues to set the level of ambition for the work of the 
Ministeri al Conference.  
 
However, some Members that do not wish to give any ground in agriculture are trying to push 
forward issues for which there is no mandate in the Organization. The treatment of these new 
issues should be as set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, in particular paragraph  34. 
 
From a systemic point of view, Bolivia is hoping for an ambitious outcome in fisheries with robust 
SDT for MC11.  
 
I shall refer briefly to process. The Plurinational State of Bolivia is in favour of transparency, 
inclusiveness and participation in work before and during MC11. We are not in favour of small 
groups taking decisions on behalf of all Members.  
 
On the matter of Trade Negotiations Committee versus Heads of Delegation meetings, Bolivia's 
attention was drawn  to the special manner in which these meetings are listed for discussion at the 
General Council tomorrow. This led us to look into some of the details and we have learned that 
the Trade Negotiations Committee was established in accordance with paragraphs 4 5 to 52 of the 
Doha Declaration, under the authority of the General Council, to supervise the overall conduct of 
the negotiations, and that at the General Council meeting of February  2002, the Members decided, 
after some debate, exceptionally to appoint th e Director -General as Chair of the Trade 
Negotiations Committee without that decision setting a precedent for the future.  
 
Accordingly we are in favour of holding Trade Negotiations Committee meetings in conformity with 
the provisions of the Doha Ministeri al Declaration.  
 
To our knowledge, there is no legal or regulatory precedent that provides guidance on informal 
meetings of Heads of Delegation. Bolivia is of the view that we all need to be clear on this point.  
 
To conclude, I would like to reiterate that  Bolivia will work in a constructive and appropriate 
manner, taking into consideration the interests of the majority of the Members of this 
Organization, with a view to the upcoming Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
30. Ukraine  
 
From the systemic point of view Ukraine associates itself with the statements of the Group of 
Friends of System and Article XII Members Group . 
 
More practically, taking into account the sequence of negotiating tracks Ukraine believes 
agriculture is the most important. And in its turn, the most practical issues within the agriculture 
are domestic support, public stockholding, market access and special safeguard mechanism,  where 
outcomes  could be vital for a successful  MC11.  
 
Ukraine supports the initiatives of the WTO Members relat ed to the reduction of trade distorting 
domestic support, in particular, regarding the establishing single comprehensive cap on all forms 
of domestic support that distort trade, which will be calculated on the basis of a percentage of the 
total value of ag ricultural production. The key issues are the level of percent and the approaches 
to its reduction.  
  
On the draft permanent decision on public stockholding, Ukraine shares the views of the US, the 
EU and the Members of the Cairns Group concerning the draft permanent decision on public 
stockholding for food security purposes, proposed by G -33 in the documents JOB/AG/27, 
JOB/AG/54 and others (taking into account the objectives of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture 
and the Doha Ministerial Declaration on th e reduction of trade distorting measures, and also the 
WTO mechanism on creation of public stockholding to ensure food security).  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 90 - 
 
  On the market access, Ukraine is interested in focusing attention on such issues as tariff reduction, 
tariff escalation and t ariff peaks, leveling tariff commitments by the WTO Members.  
  
On Article 5 of Agriculture Agreement and Special Safeguard Mechanism , Ukraine supports the 
proposal on termination of Article 5 provisions of Agreement on Agriculture regarding the 
application  of Special Agricultural Safeguards (JOB/AG/85, Corr.1 and Corr.2).  
 
The proposal on introduction of additional mechanism for trade protection - Special Safeguard 
Mechanism (SSM) - should be considered under the condition that Special Agricultural Safeguar ds 
are abolished аnd SSM constitutes the part of possible decision on improvement of  access to the 
agriculture market. The SSM application, proposed by G -33 under current high level of bound duty 
rates will create risks of additional trade barriers.  
 
31. Fiji (Pacific Group)  
 
I am delivering this statement on behalf of the six Pacific Island countries, namely: Fiji, Papua New 
Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu.  
 
As you would be aware, two -thirds of our Members do not have Missions in Geneva, b ut they have 
been following the discussions taking place very closely. Our non -representation does not 
constrain us in vigorously pursuing our interests in the different groups in the WTO that we are 
Members of, namely ACP Group, LDC and SVEs groups.  
 
We would like to also thank you for the report and also extend our appreciation to the Chairs of 
the different negotiating groups for their efforts and commitment in engaging with Members to 
develop potential elements for MC11 agenda.  
 
The Pacific group suppo rts the position of ACP and LDC groups.  
 
As we look towards MC11, the Pacific Members reiterate their position of securing meaningful 
development outcomes. We would further like to recall the Doha Development Agenda, the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Mandate and n egotiating areas of the Doha negotiations in line with the MC10 
decision that commits us to the centrality of development and that S&D which will be an integral 
part of these negotiations.  
 
First, on the fisheries subsidies negotiations, the group express  its support for a multilateral 
outcome at MC11 – an outcome that addresses the policy space for fisheries sector development 
and therefore a standstill clause is difficult for us. Capacity and support for implementation 
commitments for small island countr ies like us that depend on fisheries resources for livelihood 
security and economic development are paramount. We do not agree to the disciplining of fisheries 
management in the WTO as we believe that fisheries management disciplines are in the ambit of 
the regional fisheries management organization and at the sub -regional level. We also require 
policy space for the development of our subsistence, artisanal and small scale fisheries sector. 
Whilst we recognize the importance of transparency, the disciplines  in transparency shall be within 
the ambit of the SCM Agreement and not burdensome on small economies and LDCs.  
 
The Pacific group thanks all the proponents of the seven (7) proposals and Chair of the Rules 
Negotiating Group for steering the series of meet ings convened in the first part of the year, which 
has resulted in the seven textual proposals that have been submitted to date and the future steps 
to move towards consolidation. We note the positive direction in which the Chair is working closely 
with th e Members, and the responsiveness of Members to work together despite differences to 
create the forward -looking environment on the fisheries subsidies negotiations. While many areas 
remain to be resolved, the Pacific group urges all Members to keep this mo mentum of work after 
the summer in order for us to further develop a textual matrix to allow commencement of fisheries 
textual negotiations.  
 
Second, we note the status of discussions on agriculture, particularly the Domestic support, public 
stockholding a nd special safeguard mechanism. An outcome on Agriculture negotiation is also 
important to the group.  
 
Third, on the E -commerce, we welcome the work under the current existing 1998 work 
programme on E -Commerce.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 91 - 
 
   
Fourth, with regards to the Development issu es, we note the submission of the G90 proposal on 
the Agreement –specific proposals and the strengthening of the special and differential treatment 
(S&DT) provisions. We welcome the discussions that have started in the CTD -SS, especially those 
Members that  are willing to understand and engage on these proposals.  This is an outstanding 
priority and interest of the developing countries. The Pacific countries will remain uncompetitive 
given the structural challenges and high trade costs associated with smalln ess and isolation. We 
urge Members to take into account our legitimate interest and desire to attain an outcome on 
S&DT to address the many challenges we are facing today in trying to develop our domestic 
industries, diversify our economies and build suppl y capacity including through sectoral 
development.  
 
The Pacific group will continue to effectively contribute towards the multilateral negotiations 
including through common areas of interest through the ACP, LDC and G90 groups to support you 
and the work o f all the Chairs of the negotiating groups in order for us to develop a meaningful 
package for MC11 that would restore confidence in the multilateral trading system at the global 
front.  
 
32. Fiji 
 
Fiji wishes to reiterate its commitment towards the WTOs’ multilateral trading system. As the 
membership is working toward an outcomes for MC -11, Fiji wishes to join other members in 
reaffirming its commitment towards the Doha and Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. Furthermore, 
Fiji wishes to inform members that the current existing issues under Doha and Hong Kong 
mandate has to be concluded first and foremost. These include longstanding issues on Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Special and differential treatment proposal. Development outcomes has to be at the 
“heart” of the negotiations.  
 
We place paramount value to the multilateral trading system and Fiji recognizes the contribution of 
the multilateral rules based system towards the economic growth and development of small 
economies such as ours. However, the developm ent of such rules should be one that equalizers 
the level playing field amongst the developed, developing and least developed countries. In this 
regard and quoting from the report published by the World Trade Organization and the Wo rld Bank 
Group in 2015, titled " the role of trade in ending poverty ". The findings/ conclusion of the report 
states, " The multilateral trading system has a positive effect on the global enabling environment. 
This supports trade contribution on growth and poverty reduction, as well  as contributing to 
countries economic performance. An open, predictable, non -discriminatory rules based multi -
lateral trading system will continue to be a necessary tool for development and poverty reduction 
in future. Success in moving effectively on the  Doha Agenda will create new economic 
opportunities, boost business confidence and revive the support for multilateral cooperation aimed 
at reinforcing the stabilit y of the world economy."  
 
Fiji is a small vulnerable economy. Similar to other SVEs, it is c hallenged with numerous issues 
including distance from markets, poor economies of scale, threats to climate change and low 
export base.  In the midst of these challenges the Government of Fiji has developed a trade policy 
framework that has prioritised cer tain vital sectors for economic growth in future. These include 
amongst others Agriculture and Fisheries.  
 
In the area of Fisheries negotiations, Fiji wishes to reiterate the following:  
 
 The attainment of sufficient policy space for the development of our future fisheries 
sector is paramount. To this end we look forward to a development -friendly outcomes in 
the fisheries subsidies negotiations.  
 Fiji further aims to secure effective and implementable special and differential treatment 
in the fisheries outcom e including for subsistence, artisanal and small -scale commercial 
fisheries.  
 Fiji recognizes the Doha Ministerial, the Hong Kong Declaration and the SDG 14.6 goals;  
 Fiji will not support the disciplining of the Fisheries management in the WTO.  The issues 
of fisheries management is best dealt at the Regional Fisheries Management 
Organization, the sub -regional organizations and the national authorities of the sovereign 
member states.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 92 - 
 
   As a coastal state Fiji also has the sovereign rights over its coastal  zon e and Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ) as per the UNCLOS and calls members to respect the international 
agreement which is the Constitution of Sea.  
 
Fiji also wishes to express its deep concern on some of the proposals on the table that have linked 
stringent conditions of fisheries management to special and differential treatment. On the issue of 
Transparency, Fiji recognizes the importance of transparency, however, the conditions of 
transparency in some of the proposals spill over to management and are more b urdensome 
obligations that is beyond the provisions of the SCM agreement. On the issue of standstill, Fiji has 
major concerns with this provision and it is unacceptable to Fiji as it will derail our capacity to 
develop our fisheries sector.  
 
In the area of  Agriculture, similar to other developing countries, Fiji wishes to inform members 
that meaningful and effective special and differential treatment in the area of domestic support is 
important to Fiji. On the issue of PSH, a permanent solution to PSH is im portant including for 
current and future stockholdings. We note the number of proposals on the table and are concerned 
with the conditionality’s in some which may prove burdensome in implementation.  
  
On the special and differential treatment, Fiji support s the current proposal on special and 
differential treatment.  
 
On E-Commerce, Fiji recognizes the importance of e -commerce to economic development and to 
our businesses. Fiji supports the 1998 Work Programme on E -Commerce and the exploratory 
discussions sh ould be within the Work Programme on E -Commerce.  
 
However, Fiji is concerned about the rule -making in the WTO on e -commerce for which there is no 
mandate and which seems to be prevalent in the proposals with linkages even on domestic 
regulations in services. Such attempts only aim to benefit the already existing firms globally that 
have achieved competitive and comparative advantages while constraining the policy space of 
small economies such as ours. According to the 2015 global retail e -commerce in dex, amongst the 
top 30 economies that scored the highest in terms of the online market attractiveness scores 
included Canada, Australia, Singapore, Russia, Japan and others. There is clearly the aspect of a 
first mover advantage and locking in of policy s pace for new entrants through the rules on E -
commerce.  The retail e -commerce index comprises of online market size, consumer behaviour, 
growth potential and infrastructure.  
  
Additionally, Fiji notes that the proposals by proponents delve into internet go vernance issues or 
simply Chair, internet management i ssues such as cybersecurity. T he WTO has a focus on trade 
instruments and is not an internet management organization or rather an internet governance 
organization.  
 
In addition, Fiji wishes to underscor e para 34 of the Nairobi Ministeria l declaration that stated that 
"while we concur that officials should prioritize work where results have not been achieved, some 
wish to identify and discuss other issues for negotiation; others do not. Any decision to launch 
negotiations multilaterally on such issues would need to be agreed by all Members ". 
 
Fiji remains committed towards engaging with members on the existing Doha issues under the 
multilateral format and will cont ribute constructively towards developmen t-friendly outcomes as 
we work towards  MC11. 
 
33. Senegal  
 
The Delegation of Senegal fully associates itself with the statements made by Rwanda, Cambodia 
and Indonesia respectively on behalf of the African, LDC and G33 Groups.  
 
I wish to emphasize that the ach ievements of the Tenth Ministerial Conference held in Nairobi in 
2015 were seen as a promising step. However, they also helped to gauge the scale of the 
remaining task so that development issues remain at the heart of the agenda for multilateral trade 
negotiations, in line with the Doha Ministerial Declaration of 14 November 2001.  
 
At this stage, it remains clear that the efforts made to achieve this objective could be considerably 
diluted in light of the direction of some current discussions within our org anization.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 93 - 
 
   
In this regard, Members should be reminded that they should prioritize the conclusion of 
negotiations in areas of interest to developing countries, such as agriculture, special and 
differential treatment and fisheries subsidies.  
 
In view of the  forthcoming Ministerial Conference, my delegation welcomes the new G90 proposal 
on special and differential treatment and calls on Members to make a constructive commitment to 
achieve a result on this issue which is of utmost importance for developing cou ntries.  
 
My delegation also calls on Members to redouble their efforts to achieve ambitious and equitable 
results in the negotiations on domestic support in general, on cotton in particular, and on the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism and on public stockholding  for food security purposes.  
 
With regard to services negotiations, particularly in the area of domestic regulation, Senegal would 
like to reaffirm the need to take into account policy space and the right of developing countries 
and LDCs in particular to r egulate their sectors according to their development priorities.  
 
Negotiations on fisheries subsidies are another priority area for my delegation. In this context, 
Senegal remains committed to a multilateral outcome on disciplines on certain forms of subsi dies 
that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing and the elimination of those contributing to illegal, 
unreported and unregulated fishing.  
 
Senegal therefore welcomes the proposals on the table aimed at advancing the negotiations in this 
area, irrespective of any progress on the other pillars of ru les and recalls the need to place the  
development dimension  at the centre of these negotiations taking into  account  the food security 
dimension, t he development needs of developing countries and LDCs i n particular, as well as their 
technica l and institutional capacities.  
 
With regard to electronic co mmerce, which undoubtedly provides opportunities  for small and 
medium -sized enterprises in developing countries to access the international market at lower 
costs, many challenges  remain for LDCs particularly i n terms of infrastructure, connectivity and 
regulatory and institutional frameworks, to effectively participa te in electronic commerce and 
derive its  expected benefits. However, in the absence of a negot iating mandate in this area, 
Senegal is of the opinion that discussions should remain part of the work of the relevant bodies 
responsible for monitori ng and implementing the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 
and focus on development.  
 
Senegal will  continue to engage in the negotiating process with the deep conviction that all 
countries, particularly develo ping countries and  LDCs, need a strong multila teral system based on 
security a nd predictability, through rules accepted by all and favo urable to the inclusion of 
developing countries in international  trade.  
 
34. Norway  
 
As others, we welcome Minister Malcorra's statement stressing the importance of upholding the 
integrity and values of the WTO. I think this is an important call, which we all need to ke ep in mind 
as we prepare for MC11.  
 
Turning to Agriculture, we all know that MC11 is the deadline for finding a permanent solution for 
public stockholding for food security purposes and we are engaging in order to succeed.  
Further more, many M embers have f requently said that domestic support in agriculture is  their 
main priority for MC11. The EU, Brazil and their 3 co -sponsors recently put forward a paper on 
domestic support, c otton and public stockholding. We have already made our vi ews on the 
proposal ver y clear.  Norway accepts to negotiate based on an overall limit on trade distorting 
domestic suppor t. However, we do not accept a one -size fits all concept based on giving all 
developed M embers the same entitlement in percenta ge of the value of production. A cap on trade 
distorting support fixed as a percentage of value of production means that net importing members 
with a substantial AMS and a modest value of production will have to bear a much higher burden 
than a big exporting member with de minimis  clearly higher than AMS.  Norway sees more value in 
a nominal cap  than a percentage cap.  Let me add that we are willing to engage constructively in 
order to find solutions that will accommodate our concerns.   
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 94 - 
 
  Turning to fisheries subsidies, which is ano ther area of the negotiations that is of great interest to 
many members including Norway and where we have seen good progress a nd a high level of 
engagement. We look forward to receiving the compilation of the different proposals and are 
prepared to work h ard after the summer break to reach consens us on the implementation of 
SDG 14.6 in the WTO. To Norway, this means working towards a meaningful outcome that is not 
limited to prohibiting subsidies to those found  to be engaged in IUU fishing. We also seek re sults in 
Buenos Aires that cover the other elements of SDG 14.6.   
 
As we noted during the CTD -SS meeting last week, the fundamental differences from 2 years ago 
on the S&D proposal s do not seem to have changed. In order to be efficient and results oriente d, 
Members should quickly identify areas in which converg ence is most likely to appear. In analysing 
the new G90 proposal, Norway continues to have a particular focus on the LDCs  and the 
challenges they face.  
 
As regards services, the best prospects  for an outcome seem  to be in domestic regulations where 
a number of proposals have been submitted. Norway is ready to engage in text based negoti ations 
after the summer break. However, some have even questioned whether we have a mandate to 
negotia te improvement s in this field. This endless discussion about mandates, not only in the 
working party on domestic regulations, but also in other fora is worrying and distracts att ention 
from the substance that M embers clearly need to discuss.  Norway calls on Members to show 
pragmatism and flexibility. Otherwise, we will never be able to agree and make MC11 as successful 
as possible.   
 
In times of rising protectionism and increased uncertainty, we need to maintain and strengthen 
the multilateral trading system embedded i n the WTO and not weaken it.  
 
Having listened carefully to the discussions here today, divergences clearly remain. We have a lot 
of work to reach consensus or convergence on these issues.  Therefore, we support the DG's call 
to intensify work and the need  for strong engagement by all when we return af ter the summer 
break.  
 
35. South Africa  
 
We endorse the statement made by Rwanda on behalf of the African Group.  
 
As we reach the end of the first semester of 2017, with around 10 weeks to prepare for MC11 after 
the summer break, we need to collectively assess what if anything, can realistically be delivered at 
MC11. Despite intensifying exchanges on new or updated proposals, the divergences between 
Members have not narrowed in any decisive manner. The essential q uestion to answer is not what 
each of us wants to see delivered at MC11 but, rather, "which issues do we agree can be 
delivered, and how - in the limited time available."  
 
Some divergences in some areas are of a more 'technical ' nature and may be resolved if there is 
constructive interaction, some flexibility and sufficient time. Most divergences on most issues are, 
however, more deeply embedded in different national policy pers pectives and sensitivities. Let' s be 
frank: These deep -seated divergences are no t amenable to resolution any time soon.    
 
Members should now be recognizing that non -Doha, non -mandated issues proposed for decision at 
MC11 are not achieving multilateral consensus, notably on investment facilitation and MSMEs. It is 
also clear that the re is no consensus on current proposals for domestic regulation in services, 
temporary admission or others requiring new and onerous transparency obligations.  
 
On domestic support and cotton, the most recent proposals have only served to underscore the 
wide differences amongst Members and, on S&D, we are particularly concerned at some negative 
initial reactions to the African Group and G90 proposal.  
 
Public stockholding and fishery subsidies however seem to enjoy some prospects for advance not 
least becau se they are being pursued on the basis of agreed mandates and on which positive 
multilateral engagement continues. On e -commerce, it may be possible to agree to continue 
exploratory discussions under the current work program. While we have an interest in a  focused 
dialogue on policies that address the digital divide and that build national capabilities, any 
suggestion for multilateral rules will not obtain consensus.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 95 - 
 
   
Finally, we all seem to agree that the process leading to MC11 should be fully transparen t and 
inclusive, and that we avoid a repeat of the process at MC10. We should therefore be focused on 
completing all technical work in Geneva before MC11 and, in doing so, we will also need to allocate 
sufficient time to work on a draft Ministerial Declara tion. 
 
36. Cameroon  
 
I welcome the presence of Ms Susana Malcorra and share in particular her view when she 
recognizes that the WTO rules are not perfect and need to be improved.  
 
My delegation wishes to thank you for your report. It also thanks the Chairs of the different 
negotiating committees for their respective reports. My delegation recognizes that these reports 
are factual in many respects.  
 
My delegation has also noted with satisfaction that, as shown by these reports, Members have 
attained a remarkable  level of commitment in certain fields, and welcomes this dynamic which 
could hold out hope of a successful outcome for MC11 in Buenos Aires in these specific fields in 
particular. My delegation fully endorses the statement made by Rwanda on behalf of the African 
Group. As Rwanda has already dealt with the substantive elements in its statement on behalf of 
the African Group, I shall not bring them up again other than to make a specific point before 
raising some questions of law.  
 
On a different matter, othe r less encouraging signs have been perceived during the discussions in 
some negotiating bodies. I would mention first the superficial account taken of the development 
mandate entrusted to us by the Ministers. Development is supposed to be central to the 
negotiations in this round. With this in mind, the LDC Group, the African Group and the ACP Group 
introduced a proposal capable of facilitating the integration of the weakest Members in the 
multilateral trading system. This proposal, which covers my own coun try and not just the LDCs, is 
aimed at the structural transformation, industrialization and diversification of our economies.  
 
Diversification was selected by the Ministers in Doha, specifically in paragraph 42, as one of the 
priority lines of action in th e package of measures to help the weakest countries integrate into the 
multilateral trading system. Diversification was also a decisive element in the ACP countries' 
commitment to the package deal concluded in December 2009 with regard to bananas and tropi cal 
products, which covered a range of countries, including the ACP countries, the European Union, 
the United States, Brazil and many others. Moreover, 44 WTO Member countries, with an entire 
continent, wish to industrialize in order to put an end to the " produce more, earn less" syndrome. 
Africa, not to mention its name, seeks via its Agenda 2063 to meet the need for value chains 
through structural transformation. That is the background to the submission which, although it 
derives from the Ministerial Decl arations of Doha (2001) (paragraphs 44 and 50), Hong Kong 
(paragraphs 35 and 38) and Nairobi (paragraph 32) and from the Decision of the General Council 
(paragraph 1(d) of the July Package of 2004), still seems not to be properly appreciated. We shall 
nevertheless continue our consultations with Members in this connection.  
 
Although this topic has a definite and hence solid legal basis, numerous initiatives are developing 
outside the rules. This trend disturbs certain negotiating group chairs who seem to ha ve difficulty 
in summarizing the divergences that come to light during the discussions. In paragraph 7 of 
document TN/C/M/1 of 14 February 2002, it had been agreed that "Chairpersons should be 
impartial and objective, and discharge their duties in accordan ce with the mandate conferred on 
the TNC by Ministers". It is quite clear that the chairpersons of negotiating groups should reflect 
consensus as well as divergences. Zimbabwe had stressed at the time, on behalf of the African 
Group, that "In the event tha t there was no consensus regarding the text, then any divergent 
positions of delegations should be clearly reflected", and this is stated in paragraph 18. In other 
words, it is necessary to "specify the different positions" rather than "specify substantive  
differences", as had in turn been demanded by Tanzania on behalf of the LDCs (in paragraph 22). 
The full relevance of this nuance is revealed when issues of law justify the different positions of 
Members. Generally speaking, preliminary questions or quest ions referred for a preliminary ruling 
do not have the same legal status or the same importance as substantive questions, depending on 
the stages in the proceedings. In this connection, as the WTO is a rules based Organization, any 
initiative not in confor mity with the rules cannot be justified and should not therefore prevail. WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 96 - 
 
  Thus, my delegation invites Members to strengthen WTO law by conforming to the rules. What is 
at stake here is the credibility of the system.  
 
My delegation would like the rules to apply to all parties, everywhere (in all fields) and at all times; 
that should be the case more particularly in the negotiating processes. We observe with 
astonishment the interest displayed by some Members in legal "l iquidity". Liquidity here should be 
understood in the sense used by Zygmunt Bauman. It is with this systemic concern, and in the 
interests of transparency in our work, that my delegation had sought to understand the logic and 
the functioning of the structu res mandated for the management of our work.  
 
Given the situation we have experienced, which resembled a sort of productive absence of TNC 
meetings issuing regular reports to the General Council, my delegation simply wished to 
understand the coherence of t he current practice involving, on the one hand, heads of delegations 
deliberating without a clear mandate, and on the other, the TNC, formally constituted, which 
submits a report to the General Council without having held a meeting. Based on memory and 
experience, it would necessarily be difficult to understand this procedural ingenuity which, despite 
its effectiveness, has resulted in agreed former practices being ignored. In order to contribute to 
clarification, my delegation sought to understand by askin g questions. Considering the 
explanations given and the views expressed by certain Members, it wishes to summarize succinctly 
its technical interpretation of the rules in force.  
 
According to paragraph 7 of document TN/C/M/1 of 14 February 2002 reporting o n the work of the 
Trade Negotiations Committee on 28 January and 1 February 2002, the TNC is the only WTO body 
mandated to conduct negotiations in the context of the Doha Round. Its work is supervised by the 
General Council which has entrusted its chairman ship, on an exceptional and unprecedented basis, 
to the Director General. Any other body would have to be created either by the Ministerial 
Conference or by the General Council. The WTO rules grant neither a particular Member, nor a 
group of Members, and l ess still the Secretariat, powers to conduct multilateral negotiations during 
this Round. The Secretariat staff should ensure respect for its ethical obligations. Pursuant to 
Article 47 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, negotiations are conducted under the single 
undertaking system. In this respect, in the event of an early harvest, as occurred in Bali in 2013, 
and as specified in the same paragraph 47, "early agreements shall be taken into account in 
assessing the overall balance of the negotiations". T hat amounts to saying that the conclusion of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement will be taken into account at the time of assessing the 
negotiations. It has not escaped Members' attention that the preamble to the General Council 
Decision of 27 November 2014 constituting the Protocol Amending the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization and relating to the Trade Facilitation Agreement, clearly 
refers to paragraph 47 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  
 
In view of the foregoing, the diverg ences noted in paragraphs 30, 32 and 34 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration merely illustrate the lack of consensus. They do not create new law. These 
divergences simply reflect a failure to develop new rules. Moreover, the entry into force of the 
Trade  Facilitation Agreement on 22 February 2017, which all Members welcome, has strengthened 
not only this analysis, but the status quo ante as well. It might therefore be essential for all 
Members to take account of this legal position. In other words, paragr aphs 30, 32 and 34 of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration do not create a sufficient legal basis to undertake negotiations on 
other questions or new issues. Nor do they offer relevant legal support for the creation of a new 
negotiating body. However, Membe rs retain the right to submit their concerns in the existing 
competent bodies. Moreover, under paragraph 33, the Director General reports regularly to the 
General Council on efforts to advance the Doha Round negotiations. Members wishing to introduce 
new i ssues or to launch a new round of negotiations should inform the other Members accordingly 
with a view to achieving an explicit consensus.  
 
It follows from this analysis that any negotiating process parallel or in competition with the 
regulatory framework would be at variance with the WTO rules and hence non -compliant. 
Similarly, the informal institutionalization of practices inconsistent with the rules, no matter how 
legitimate they may be, could not constitute a credible alternative solution. Rwanda has m ade a 
proposal for consultations, which was echoed by Zimbabwe, and which we support.  
 
In conclusion, allow me to recall that Cameroon and its President place great expectations on this 
development round in order to industrialize and be included among the emerging countries. My 
delegation has regularly made known its wish to see the WTO produce shared results, results for WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 97 - 
 
  all, beginning with those that most need them. The Chair of MC11 has indicated that we must work 
to improve the system. My delegation sup ports this. In this regard, my delegation remains open, 
constructive, prepared and committed to work with all Members, in order to find ways and means 
of taking our work forward.  
 
37. Ghana  
 
Ghana reiterates its strong commitment to the rules -based multilateral trading system that is 
transparent and inclusive. We also recognize that all issues that have clear mandate should be on 
the table and given adequate attention.  
 
On some of the issues of particular interest to Ghana, let me emphasize that our economy 
depends on agriculture  and the large number of our population, mostly poor, depends on the 
sector for survival. Each of us is aware of the systemic imbala nces in the agricultural sector  which 
continues to undermine Africa's progress and efforts  to overcome  its food security. In that regard, 
we reiterate the Af rican Ministers of Trade's call  for agriculture to remain a priority and  support the 
African Group's stance  that agriculture should determine the balance of the negotiat ions and the 
outcome  of the forthcoming Ministerial Conference.  
  
Subsidized industrial fishing practices have contributed to overfishing in t he ocean s and other 
water bodies. W e therefore we lcome the discussions on fisheries subsidies at the Rules Negotiating 
Group and suppo rt any outco mes that seek to protect fisheries  stocks. We join the cal l for the 
elimination of fisheries subsidies to IU U fishing and disciplines on subsidies that contribute to 
overfishing and overcapacity. We take note of the ACP proposal in that regard.  
  
On development , in accordance with paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration  and the 
recent declaration of the Afri can Trade Ministers, we support the pursuit of stronger,  more precise, 
effective and operational S&D outcomes at MC11 s o as to addr ess our s tructural transformation 
agenda and my P resident's objective of develo ping our country beyond aid. I t is for this reason 
that we welcome the G90 proposal  and encourage Members to consider  it with open mind and 
positive engagement to ensure that it  remains integral in all the negotiation s. 
 
As regards  domestic regulation in servi ces negotiations, as we have always indicate d, any 
outcomes in this area does seek to introduce onerous administrative requirements  or are likely to 
intrude into our  domesti c policy -making processes and  the little policy -space available for us to 
develop and industrialize, should be avoi ded.  
 
By way of process in the run up to MC11, we uphold the principle s of bottom  up, inclusive and 
transparent approaches in all our delibe rations. Therefore, we must av oid the firefighting 
approaches with a view to saving the image of the multilateral trading system  chara cteristic of 
recent M inisterial  Conferences . 
 
Ghana aligns  itself with the statement delivered by Rwanda on behalf of the African Group.  
 
38. Republic of Moldova  
 
Before referring to the main priorities for the R epublic of Moldova regarding the negotiation  
process for MC11, I would like to make a quick introspecti ve or retrospective in the past  and to 
examine the negotiation process and the state of play before  the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial 
Conferences – a situation that we also find ourselves today in. Then, as now, it was not easy to 
achieve compromise and to co ntribute to the achievem ent of new disciplines for the multilateral 
trading s ystem. But it was not impossible to enga ge ourselves in the negotiation  process.  
 
Today, only a couple of month before MC11, what we can see is incertitu de regarding the 
commitme nts from  our countries in engaging in a more constructi ve dialogue. When all of us had  
reached agreements on the Bali and Nairobi outcomes, the gaps and divergences between 
developed, developing and LDC s were still there at that time  which we can also noti ce today. But 
we did it and we were able to identify the main challenges for our trade system and we were able 
to move forward. That is why today we can all s hare some of the achievements and  outcomes 
after the implementation of Bali and Nairobi Ministeria l Declaration s. How could we set up today a 
Committee on Trade Facilitation,  for example,  if we had not been able to trust each other and to 
reach a compromise in Bali.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 98 - 
 
   
I would like to reiterate that Moldova remains a small economy according to micro and  macro 
indicators of the World Bank. But nevertheless, Moldova has undertaken extensive commitments 
during its sixteen years of Membership to the WTO family and has duly implemented our 
commitments taken i n Bali and Nairobi.  
 
Regarding the upcoming MC11 i n Buenos Aires, Moldova strongly recommends to consolidate the 
sectorial approach and to initiate group -to-group meetings in o rder to find a convergence between 
developed, developing and LDCs  regarding the negotiation process under three items: Agriculture , 
domestic support, public stockholding, cotton and fishery subsidies; domestic regulation on 
services, competition of trade policy and e -commerce. On e -comme rce particularly, Moldova 
commends  the work done by the groups, including the Friends of E -Commerc e for Development 
and the Friends of Investment Facilitation for Development"  where Moldova has been actively 
involved. On e -commerce, Moldova will have a separate statement on the relevant GC agenda 
item.  
 
The Republic of Moldova strongly belie ves that o ur communication and diplomatic s kills will 
determine us to be open towards initia tions of a constructive dialogue which will bring a common 
result for the  world trade system. The Republic of Moldova is ready to move forward and to move 
from consultations to negotiations for the next Ministerial Declaration.  
 
Before I finish, may I also extend my warm wishes and sincere appreciation for my good friend 
Ambassador Juan Falconi of Ecuador  for his active work and his dedication in our organization. In 
my capac ity as Chair of the Balance of Payment Restrictions Committee, it has been an honour and 
pleasure to work t ogether with Ambassador Falconi  and other WTO Members in successfully 
finalizing our joined work in the C ommittee just this last week.  
 
I would like  to end my statement with the following sayin g which is valid  in Moldova: "A real 
decision is measured by the fact t hat you have taken a new action. I f there is no action, you have 
not truly decided". Let us all decide to take further action and achieve success in B uenos Aires.  
 
39. Uganda  
 
At the outset we would like to recall the statement we delive red in our last meeting of May.  We 
also support the statement of the African Group, the LDC Group, the C4 and the G33.   
 
We would like to congratulate you, Chai r, for having reconvened t he TNC after such a long time. It 
will be recalled that we last met in this format i n January 2015. In this time, two  formal meetings 
of the TNC were also convened – the last one being in July 2015, so it has been literally two  years 
since then. Since then, no formal meetings or informal meetings of the TNC had been convened.  
 
We have three  basic points to raise on process issues today.  
 
One is with respect to the role of the Chair of the TNC, the mandate of the TNC and the authority 
to create negotiating for a. You will recall t hat the TNC was created by the fourth s ession of the 
Ministerial Conference of the WTO under paragraph 46 of th e Doha Ministerial Declaration.  In 
consultations that ensued after Doha , there was no imme diate agreement on who would chair the 
TNC.  They were torn between those who wanted the DG and those who wanted leadership to be 
from among representatives of WTO M embers.  It was, therefore agreed that the DG, as an 
exceptional arr angement, be appointed i n an ex officio capacit y to chair the TNC – it being 
understood that it does not crea te a precedent for the future.  
 
On the question of the mandate of the TNC , in reading the minutes of the first TNC meeting in 
document TN/C/M/1 the Chair of the GC clarif ied as follows, "the mandate for the TNC, as for the 
negotiations as a whole, is that agreed by Ministers at Doha in November 2001 and set out in their 
Ministerial Declaration – paragraphs 45 to 52 of that Declaration in particular relate to the TNC 
which Ministers have established under the authority of the General Council to supervise the 
overall conduct of the negotiations." T hat is the mandate .  
 
It therefore means that any moves to create a structure or forum parallel to and in competition 
with the TNC  as far as negotiations are concerned is inconsistent with the mandate of the TNC and 
the social contract for which the holder of the of fice of the DG is bound by the M embership t o WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 99 - 
 
  execute as chair of the TNC. It is therefore important for my delegation to  stress that the only 
contract that the DG has in as far as matters of negotiations are co ncerned is limited to the TNC. 
To seek to expand or limit thei r role is without legal basis.  
 
This then begs the question, where does the DG derive the authority to create this parallel 
structure which is competing against the TNC?  Has the TNC outlived its usefulness?  Have the 
negotiations which were mandated been concluded? Have we agreed to wind up the TNC?   
 
Our view is that the right to create fora for negotiations ha ve been clearly spelled out in 
Article III.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement. It says, "[t]he WTO may a lso provide a forum for further  
negotiations among its M embers concerning their multilateral trade relations as may be decided by 
the Ministeri al Conference" . As we understand , there has been no such Ministerial Decision to 
create a structure counter to the TNC.   
 
Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration says " [w]hile we concur that officials should 
prioritize work where results have not yet been achieved, some wish to identify and discuss other 
issues for negotiation; others do not. Any decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on such 
issues would need to be agreed by all M embers."  Unilaterally setting up this parallel structure  is an 
attempt at institutionalising the disagreement in Paragraph  34 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration wit hout the authority of Article III.2.  
 
Paragraph 34 has no reporting requirement for the DG on new issues. It does not mandate the 
creation and/o r establishment of any new forum or fora for negotiations.  In fact, to do so, would 
be an attempt at exceeding the authority of the DG as laid down in Article  VI of the Marrakesh 
Agreement  defeating the instruction, object and purpose for which Ministers c reated the TNC in the 
first place.   
 
Further , it is in contravention of Article VI.4 of the Marrakesh A greement wh ich requires that "the 
responsibilities of the DG and of the staff of the Secretariat shall be exclusiv ely international in 
character.  They s hall refrain from any action which might adversely reflect on their position as 
international officials". It is important to acknowledge that there are instances where the DG 
undertook to convene HOD s meetings before the Doha Round.  Such meetings were conv ened with 
the express agreement of the Members .  
 
For instance, in documen t WT/GC/M/61/Add.1 during that Council M eeting which took place on 
30 January and 8 February 2001, the Chair of the GC requested and the Council agreed to give the 
Council Chair and the DG a mandate to work with M embers on facilitating organiz ational and issue 
related aspects of the preparat ions from the Doha Ministerial.  It was in accordance with this 
mandate that the Chairman and the DG held numerous consultations with delegations i n a variety 
of formats including, but not limited to, Heads of Delegations meetings.  
 
We believe  that just like in past practice  a Director -General in his capacity as Chair of the TNC is 
free to report on the various travels and meetings under the framewo rk of the TNC.  There is no 
need for creating another forum without following due proce ss. Further , every Member has a right 
to speak on any issue of national i nterest to them within the TNC.  It is the duty of the other 
Members to debate and either agree or  not agree with any suggestions. This is why this is called a 
Member -driven organization and all of this is a function of negotiations.  
 
In closi ng, we are at a critical juncture within this Organization where it will matter in the history 
of the future on  why a rules -based organization elected to proceed by setting aside a critical part 
of its mode of operation that has defined its negotiati ng history.  As the weakest and most 
vulnerable Members of this organization, the only protection we have in this orga nization is the 
protection afforded by our rules which have variously been etched in our fabric as agreements, 
Ministerial Decisions and Declarations and/or M andates. If we do not defend the strong legal 
structure of this Organization as we acknowledged in  Nairobi, slowly by slowly all small and less 
powerful and poor delegations will lose their voice and the protection of such rules.   
 
We have seen M embers push proposals in complete disregard of established rules and procedures 
and without an explicit man date. We have seen a renaming of divisions in this organization in 
complete disregard of the object, purpose and spirit of Paragraph 1 (g) of the July Framework.  We 
have seen Members of the Secretariat attempt to engage in interpretation of multilateral 
agreement s within a negotiating context.  We have witnessed Members of the Secretariat prepare WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 100 - 
 
  papers and offer interviews to support one point of view against another as though they were 
surrogate proponents.   
 
On the contrary , we have never seen the Se cretar iat make any presentation  in defence of the 
structure of transformation and industrialization of Africa in line with Agenda 2063 – The Afri ca We 
Want. We have been talking abou t this issue since before 2015.  We have never seen the 
Secretariat speak in defe nce of public stockholding for food security purposes or the SS M. It is 
therefore our noble duty to raise these systemic concerns and requests the Secretariat to exercise 
maximum restraint and show neutrality in line with the WTO's international character.  We 
therefore do not support any attempt at creating structure and/or fora without an explicit mandate 
and would support further consultations on this issue going forward preferably  under the auspices 
of the General Council.  
 
Before I close I would like t o strongly add  on another note . I would like to strongly add to ask staff 
members of the WTO to exercise maximum restraint in exhibiting behaviour that is a conflict of 
interest intended to undermine positions of Members of the African Group in the WTO. It  is a 
condition of service applicable to the WTO that staff members shall conduct themselves at all times 
in an appropriate manner and shall avoid any action which may adversely reflect on their status of 
international civil servants or on the integrity , independence and impartiality which are required by 
that status.   
 
It is also our understanding that the staf f rules of this organization, as  with any other international 
organization, staff members who are on special leave without pay are obliged to maint ain an 
international character as instructed by Article VI.4  of the Marrakesh A greement.  Staff who are 
granted leave without pay by the WTO remain WTO staff members and are under the obligation to 
observe these standards of conduct.  In particular , staff me mbers authorised to accept employment 
during such leave must ensure that they conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid actual and 
potential conflicts of interest.   
 
I regret, Ambassador Osakwe is h ighly regarded in our community. W e are proud of his service in 
this secretariat for the entire period of time he has served actively and while he is on leave. He is 
contravening his status of being an international civil servant and is therefore constrained in 
engaging objectively on this  issue given his delicate status of employment.   
 
40. Jamaica  
 
I know this is an informal meeting but I am constrained to ask to refrain from calling by name and 
presenting an allegation in respect of the conduct of any officer in a manner that might prejudice 
the integrity of the forum. I do say this with great regret. I understand the importance of the 
statement that is being made. But if the name of an individual is called with respect to the 
individual's conduct, it can and should only be done in a  format that allows for the protection of 
the rights of that individual.  
 
41. Hong Kong, China  
 
I wish to make it clear, however, that taking the floor in this session does not mean HKC has 
reservation about having a separate HOD session. Quite the contrary, w e appreciate the inclusive 
and transparent process that the DG has made available  to Members in the HOD format. The DG 
has a role to play in consulting Members on a broad range of issues, and in reporting reg ularly to 
the General Council. We see the HOD me etings as part of his efforts to perform this ro le, and we 
thank him for that. We do not see the HOD as necessarily competing, or in conflict, with work in 
other contexts.  
 
HKC takes a pragmati c approach to work in the WTO. Proces ses and formats are the me ans. 
Subst ance and outcomes are the end. In the WTO, Members already have very diffe rent positions 
on many issues. I hope we can be more open -minded with the means, to make it easier to get to 
the end.  
 
Let me now turn to the ongoing negotiations in variou s areas. In this connection, I would like to 
thank you, DG, and all the Negotiating Group Chairs f or your reports and hard work. I also thank 
the Secretariat for its professional input to the process.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 101 - 
 
  HKC appreciates that, for many Members, Agriculture is  the gateway issue. The concerns which 
Members seek to address are long -standing but also pressing, because they have far -reaching 
implications not only for market operations, but  also for people’s livelihood. HKC supports a 
meaningful outcome in Agricultu re, but not to the exclusion of outcomes in other areas.  
 
In Services, HKC is a well -known demandeur for formulating Domestic Regulation (DR) discip lines 
under GATS Article VI:4. And we are not the only one. There are now several text proposals on the 
table, indicating a strong desire among Members to develop new rules. Debate at the WPDR has 
been intense, and we are encouraged to see a large number of Members express ing interest in the 
proposals. We are working with other proponents on a consolidated text,  so that Members will 
have a full picture of the deliverables that we seek at MC11, and will have a clear basis to indicate 
support.  
 
HKC remains convinced that market access commitments have to be complemented by effective 
disciplines to ensure that vario us requirements in Members’ domestic regulations do not constitute 
unnecessary barriers to trade. That is why we believe that fulfilling the GATS mandate should be a 
matter of priority.  
 
Apart from the DR proposals, the Special Session is also looking at a  comprehensive proposal t o 
facilitate trade in services.  We appreciate the proponent’s initiative and the efforts that it has 
made in addressing Members’ concerns. We understand that a revised proposal is under 
preparation. We look forward to its circulati on and further discussions, although understandably 
our priority would still be in the DR disciplines.  
 
In NAMA, HKC is co -sponsoring a Transparency proposal to address another barrier to trade – 
which is the lack of access to basic information regarding regulatory measures for trade in goods.  
 
Market a ccess does not come by easily. We must not let our hard -earned concessions be 
undermined by non -tariff barriers. A substantial part of the regulatory measures in question are 
related to SPS and TBT, which is  a compelling reason for tackling these Agreements in the first 
instance.  
 
The proposal was introduced at the Negotiating Group last Friday, and we thank Members for their 
initial feedback.  Comments and questions are most welcome, but in our view at least  one issue is 
beyond doubt – which is that the current mandate of NGMA allows for negotiation on this subject, 
as has been the case in the past.  With this proposal, we are reinvigorating the NAMA negotiations.  
Let us focus on the substance, rather than p rocedural arguments that will only take us one step 
backwards.  
 
On the Rules side, HKC would also like to see improved disciplines.  
 
With the world’s fisheries resources continuing to decline, there is a need for prompt and 
concerted efforts to ensure that  fishing activities are sustainable. We are glad to see the 
negotiation on fisheri es subsidies gaining traction. The matrix document showing the various 
proposals side by side should facilitate in -depth negotiation in September.  
 
At NGR, there are also cal ls for better trade remedy rules to guard against the abusive use of an ti-
dumping and other measures. HKC sees merit in the lat est proposal. We will approach it with an 
open mind, and hope other Members will do the same.  
 
Regarding Development, HKC believe s that negotiations at the CTDSS should be premised upon 
the clear understanding that in the WTO, the rules -based system is fundamental, while 
development is a core objective.  The two have to go together. By including Special and Differential 
Treatment (S& DT) in the WTO Agreements, we are facilitating the integration of Developing and 
Least Developed Members into our rules -based system. The S&DT provisions are already there; 
the question is how we can make those provisions more precise, effective and operational, in a 
manner that is consistent with the spirit of the Agreements.  
 
HKC appreciates the efforts of G90 in updating it s S&DT proposal. At the Special Session last 
week, we heard very different views. Clearly  there is a wide gap to bridge.  If Mem bers have the 
political will to find convergence, the first step in that direction will have to be a willingness to 
listen to each other, and to enga ge in a constructive dialogue. HKC was actively involved in the WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 102 - 
 
  discussion on Development before and during  MC10.  We stand ready to facilitate the current 
discussion in the run up to MC 11.  
 
Alongside the negotiations, HKC would like to advance the discussions on E -commerce and 
Investment Facilitation.   
 
On E-commerce, there will be a separate agenda item at the General Council meeting to discuss 
the Work Programme a nd recently circulated papers. I shall leave HKC’s substantive comments to 
that discussion.   
 
Here, I would say in general that we are happy to see lively discussions in all the regular bodies 
involved (namely, CTS , CTG, TRIPs Council and CTD). Within the WTO, there is a broad -based and 
sustained interest in the subje ct. HKC would like this dialogue to continue, and in due course to 
develop in a way that can, through our rules -based system, bring c oncrete benefits to WTO 
Members.  
 
As regards Investment Facilitation, HKC is a member of the Friends of Investment Facilit ation for 
Development (FIFD). The Group is organising a s eries of structured dialogues. We have also 
organised other ad hoc events, fo r example, the workshop held on the eve of this year 's Aid for 
Trade Global Review, about developing economies ' investment needs and bottlenecks; and the 
joint seminar with the Friends of E -commerce for Development (FED) Group yesterday, on how to 
harness e-commerce and investment facilitation for inclusive trade and development.  
 
One can see that development has always been a c entral theme for these events. For the FIFD 
Group, investment f acilitation is for development.  It is through the many open and incl usive 
dialogues that we understand better what exactly investment can do to foster development; how 
this has been done in different parts of the world; and what more can be d one at the multilateral 
level. HKC will continue to support the Group’s initiative s in this regard.  
 
In a few days ' time, the WT O will start its summer break. I hope this brief respite will not damp en 
the momentum of our work. Instead, it should allow us to reflect on the progress made so far, and 
sharpen our focus as we consider what c an be achieved in the run -up to MC11 and beyond.  
 
HKC is a co -sponsor of the joint statement to be delivered by Swi tzerland in the HOD session.  Let 
me conclude this intervention by highlighting our joint appeal in that statement: We urge all 
Members to eng age constructively; consider proposals on their own merit; work towards pragmatic 
outcomes; and make Buenos Aires a success.  
 
42. Uruguay  
 
Uruguay fully endorses the Director -General's report with regard to the need to redouble our 
efforts looking forward to making the most of the fourteen weeks that remain before the 
Ministerial Conference.  
 
We welcome the efforts that have been made to ach ieve significant and meaningful results that 
will not only allow us to reiterate the important role played by this organization but also to make 
significant steps forward in the name of global trade. We would like to make progress. We likewise 
are aware of  the need to also examine the interests and needs of other Members.  
 
In this regard, we have endorsed the proposal in JOB/AG/99 from Brazil, the European Union, Peru 
and Colombia. We believe that this is a good foundation for working on a constructive man ner on 
domestic support. This offers a solution on Public Stockholding and allows us to address the 
important negotiations on cotton.  
 
We also put high priority to moving forward the negotiations on fisheries subsidies. On these 
negotiations, we trust tha t we will be able to achieve a meaningful result in Buenos Aires.  
 
We reiterate that the growth and development of small countries such as Uruguay is inextricably 
linked to the expansion, diversification and modernization of external foreign sectors. We th erefore 
could not agree more with the various previous interventions made which highlighted the 
importance of reiterating our commitment to the organization and to preserving the multilateral 
trading system.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 103 - 
 
   
We also support the work done in seeking to ide ntify possible results on MSMEs and e -commerce.  
 
43. Tanzania  
 
From the outset, I would like to associate my statement with the statements made by Cambodia, 
on behalf of the LDC group and Rwanda, on behalf of the African group.  
 
The reports reflect the reality  of the matters as they stand now while we are left with just few 
weeks before the Ministerial Conference. We should be able to forge ahead for an outcome in 
Buenos Aires, however, MC11 is not the end of our continued work.  Our priority after summer 
break  definitely should be to work on areas which are likely to yield results particularly on issues 
which have clear and concrete mandate.  
 
Undoubt edly, we will continue to support developments and work for MC11 outcome on public 
stockholding (PSH), domestic support, special safeguard mechanism (SSM) and cotton on 
agriculture with a view to rectify the existing imbalances as embodied in the  WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture. We are also supportive to the ongoing engagement on Fisheries Subsidies for an 
outcome in M C11. The reason behind for our support in this area is premised on the need to 
promote sustainable development and good use of marine reso urces as a global common good. 
Another area which continue to be in our priority is the Special and Differential Treat ment (S&DT) 
provisions with a view to making them concise, effective and operational and therefore, we urge 
members to remain positive and constructive to the G90 proposals.  
 
We have encountered a number of proposals and efforts from some members to push for an 
outcome in Buenos  Aires on areas such as ecommerce, investment facilitation, services facilitation 
and MISMES, we remain unoptimistic for an outcome in MC11 on those areas for various reasons.  
Some of the reasons include,  lack of clarity in the pro posals and lack of clear -cut mandate in 
others to guide our work going forward. The prolonged process of correcting imbalances in 
dependable areas such as agriculture, continue to exacerbate our fear to agree on outcome in 
areas with little or no clarity. Members do not want to repeat the same and obvious mistakes 
which will take ages to rectify in future particularly on dynamic issues such as ecommerce and 
investment. Therefore, an extensive debated and clarity will have to be attained before any 
decision is reached.  
 
However, in conclusion, our delegation reiterates its readiness to remain positive and engaged 
after summer break for MC11 outcome preparations.  
 
44. China  
 
Needless  to say, time is not on our side. We  need obviously  to concentrate  on areas with high level 
of convergence  which may be achievable and doable at MC11. But the top priority for MC11 is to 
safeguard the core values and basic principles of the WTO.  
 
On Agriculture , India and China submitted a proposal  on domestic support last week. As 
introduced, we are of the view that to reduce and ultimately eliminate the  most disto rting element 
for international  agricultural trade – AMS, should be the most urgent task of WTO’s agricultural 
reform. We also note  several submissions from  other Members, an d welcome the efforts of this 
kind, to eliminate  the trade distorting  domestic  subsidies of developed  Members in particular. 
Besides, I  echo the statement of Indonesia on behalf of G33.  A permanent  solution for PSH should 
not be missing  for any MC11 package; substantial progress should be made  on SSM  as well. 
Without them,  the credibility of Ministerial  Decisions  will be jeopardized.  
 
On Rules , China insists  to advance  the relevant  issues under this pillar in tandem. For one thing, 
fisheries subsidies  attract  great interest  from Members, but we shouldn’t stretch  beyond our 
capability. The WTO,  after all,  is not a fisheries  organization, neither  do we  have the professional  
knowledge and experiences. Reaching  certain consensus on IUU,  I am afraid, would be the most 
possible convergence and the way forward. Desiring too much would eventually lead to nothing. 
For another, China’s submission on trade remedies focuses on the clarification of  existing rules, so 
that they can be better implemented. We welcome M embers to continue to engage  and provide  
constructive comments.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 104 - 
 
  On E -commerce , we think  e-commerce  can effectively help developing  Members and SMEs to 
lower their trade cost and achieve  development  goals. China thanks the African Group for their 
report on  the Panel Discussion of Digital Industrial Policy and Development, and  welcomes  the 
recent papers submitted by Russia, Japan and Singapore, and applauds  for those  efforts  and 
explorations. However, we also have to admit, this kind of efforts and explorati ons would not lead 
to binding rules  at this stage. Redlines of Members must be respected.  
 
On Investment Facilitation , we are encouraged by the lively interest from Member governments 
and the industry. I  would like to support the statements  to be made by Argentina and Pakistan, 
and welcome  the initiative of Nigeria to host a high level workshop on investment facilitation for 
industrialization in Africa.  China and FIFD members will actively participate in the  discussion, and 
we will also encour age Chinese a nd other countries' companies to participate in the side event of 
the workshop, to explore investment opportunities in Africa not  only on policy level, but also in 
practice.  
 
45. Brazil  
 
We appreciate the fact that the DG highlighted his  efforts to advance Doh a issues, of interest for 
developing countries. I thank him  for being focused on the substance of our agenda. We trust in 
his tireless work in favo ur of a positive outc ome in Buenos Aires, just as he did before MC9 and 
MC10.  
 
We welcome Minister Malcorra' s important statement, with a strong message of support to the 
MTS and a very balanced and realistic, but balanced and constructive, assessment of where we 
stand.  As we approach Buenos Aires, we trust that Minister Malcorra's engagement in the process 
will help us address the fundamental challenge of not having a common view on our negotiations 
agenda and mandates.  
 
As a developing country, Brazil shares a keen interest in advancing the remaining Doha issues, as 
we agreed to do in Nairobi, and as highlight ed by the first speaker, the ambassador of Rwanda, on 
behalf of Africa.  
 
Brazil is also open to work on the so -called new issues, in their own merits, as long as, in the end, 
any possible package is balanced and development -oriented.  
 
Under present circums tances, in the same spirit of the point made by the ambassador of 
Barbados, on behalf of our CARICOM neighbors, Brazil continues to be of the view that we should 
work to achiev e incremental – albeit substant ial – results. Some progress is better than a 
standstill.  
 
A number of draft ministerial decisions have been circulated. We have material on which we can 
start to consider a possible package.  
 
From our perspective, agriculture  is the core Doha -issue to be addressed at MC -11. On the 17th, 
Brazil circulated with the EU, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay a proposal covering domestic support, 
public stockholding and cotton.  
 
As a developing country, Brazil wishes to highlight that this proposal is a contribution to address 
the imbalances and asymm etries of the AoA. Depending on the different national perspectives, it 
may be seen as not being ambitious enough, but there can be no doubt that it is a decisive step to 
level the playing field. Within its framework, we would eventually eliminate AMS enti tlements, a 
crucial goal for developing countries.  
 
We invite Members to consider the proposal with an open mind. Brazil will continue to reach out to 
all interested Members.  
 
On SPS, Brazil circulated a paper with ideas on implementation issues. We will continue to 
approach Members on a possible way forward for this topic.  
 
On Rules, negotiations on fisheries subsidies are the most likely to yield results in the short run. 
We invite Members to prioritize them. The views of developing countries in a situation of under -
capacity and under -exploitation must be duly taken into account.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 105 - 
 
   
In Services, in order to be able to move forward on the mandate of GATS article VI.4, we look 
forward to the consolidation of proposals on domestic regulation into a revis ed draft.  
 
We also look forward to India's revised TFS draft. While having specific concerns regarding the 
initial version, Brazil will engage constructively.  
 
The NAMA negotiating group has started consideration of a proposal on transparency of regulatory  
measures for trade in goods, covering TBT and SPS horizontal issues, submitted by the EU, 
HK/China, Chinese Taipei and Singapore. Brazil is carefully considering this proposal.  
 
On e -commerce, a topic in which Brazil circulated three papers, we welcome th e recent 
submissions by the Russian Federation, Japan and Singapore (with others). These documents have 
in common the merit of focusing on issues of procedure and the possible way forward post -MC11.  
 
On investment facilitation, we thank Ambassador Marcelo Cima, of Argentina, for his statement. 
Dialogue opportunities in events organized by the Friends of Investment Facilitation for 
Development provide inputs to any possible ministerial guidance in Buenos Aires. We invite 
Members to consider inputs submitted by Brazil and Argentina in document JOB/GC/124.  
 
We also thank Ambassador Hector Casanueva from Chile for his statement on behalf of the Friends 
of MSMEs. We believe that the discussions promoted by this group since June are a solid start for 
more focused work. Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay submitted inputs in document 
JOB/GC/127.  
 
Last but not least among possible topics for MC11, we owe the G -90 a realistic and honest 
discussion, with an open mind, about proposals contained in document JOB/DEV/4 8. 
 
Brazil mentioned topics which have been the object of our joint considerations. Some have more 
traction than others. In any event, agriculture will be the benchmark for our assessment on a 
possible MC 11 package.  
 
46. Norway (Second Intervention)  
 
I must admit that I have been deeply worried by some of the discussions that have been taking 
place in the latter part of this meeting.  We have in this organization a tendency to use procedures 
for reasons, which sometimes are very difficult to understand.  Firs t of all, I would like to express 
our full faith in the Secretariat under your leadership. I think it is very important as we prepare for 
MC11 that we do not undermine the authority of the Director -General. I think this is what we have 
seen attempts at her e today.  It is fully within the prerogative of the Director -General to convene 
informal HODs and frankly I cannot understand why this suddenly comes up now when ever since 
I arrived here we have had informal HODs and we have never had any of these problem s before.  
My colleague from Singapore gave a very good explanation earlier on why there is no problem with 
this.  Also Hong Kong made some valid points in this respect.  We need to uphold the integrity of 
the Director -General and not question his authorit y to call meetings to help us as Members 
continue our work as we prepare for the Ministeri al Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
47. Switzerland  
 
I did not wish to speak at the TNC meeting. But the substance of the debate, and more particularly 
the comments made on t he raison d'être of the meetings of Heads of Delegation, led me to change 
my mind.  
 
The meetings of the Heads of Delegations are an exercise in transparency on the activities 
undertaken by Members and the Director -General as well as on the state of negotia tions.  
 
It is not a matter of negotiating or launching new negotiations. The process remains informal. It is 
important, however, to check the temperature of the membership and to understand the 
sensitivities of the Members. For some delegations, these meet ings are the only opportunity to 
gain an overview of WTO issues.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 106 - 
 
  Meetings of Heads of Delegations are at the heart of the deliberative function of the WTO, a vital 
function for an organization that must remain attuned with economic realities if it does no t want to 
be obsolete.  
 
Again, it is not a matter of deciding or negotiating, but of informing and debating as openly as 
possible – to allow all voices to be heard. In this respect, we can only encourage the Director -
General to convene informal meetings of  Heads of Delegations. He is perfectly qualified to do so. 
That is his role. This is the meaning of his function.  
 
We will not comment here on allegations of bias against the Secretariat and some of its members. 
I should like to emphasize that this delegat ion has always been satisfied and impressed by the 
integrity, impartiality and professionalism of the Secretariat and its staff, under the leadership of 
the Director -General. And we very much hope that they will continue to work with the same 
exemplary cod e of ethics.  
 
48. Montenegro  
 
My delegation thanks  you, Director -General  for the transparency of your work and reiterates the 
full confidence in your leadership in preparations leading  to MC11. In addition, m y delegation 
extends a warm welcome to the Chair  of MC11 , Minister Susana Malcorra at the meeting today and 
confirms full support of my Government for Argentina’s  efforts to deliver a successful c onference 
with the objective of  preserving  and strengthening  the WTO.  
 
Montenegro continues to be a staunch supporter for a global trading system based on rules at an 
important time for the World Trade Organization, but we share concerns that the WTO is facing 
serious challenges.  
 
Let me briefly highlight some of them and the way Montenegro reflects on our futur e work, in line 
with our own priorities and interests leading to the  MC11 . 
 
On fisheries subsidies, Montenegro is pleased that members agreed to move to the next phase of 
negotiations on fisheries subsidies after a surge of new and revised proposals aimed at reaching a 
decision by December at the Ministerial Conference were submitted.  We are looking forward to 
receiving a document  compiling the proposals in the form of a matrix, which is intended to help 
members firm up positions over the summer ahead of intensive September negotiations. We use 
this opportunity to recognize Chair Ambassador McCook and the Secretariat for their outs tanding 
conduct of the meetings on this extremely complex subject. Montenegro will continue to 
participate actively and constructively in the future work on this important topic and to advocate 
solution -seeking approach in line with our Strategy for fisher ies 2015 -2020 and based on the 14.6 
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of  2030.  
 
Agriculture remains an important issue in the negotiations leading up to the WT O MC11  Ministerial 
Conference. We believe that the members should continue to close the neg otiation gaps in the 
spirit of results of 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Conference that led to the historic reform of global 
export competition rules in agriculture.  Montenegro joins calls of those delegations urging the WTO 
founding members to match the commit ments taken by the recently acceded member countries. 
In this context we take note of the recent submissions, including the EU and Brazil’s joint proposal 
on agricultural domestic support for agricultural production and food security me asures, which is 
introduced as "both ambitious and realistic" . We believe that this proposal offers opportunity for 
further constructive negotiations and that proponents should remain open to take into account 
some of the concerns expressed by some member states towards reach ing the pragmatic common 
ground.  
 
On e-commerce, w e were enlightened again yesterday during the seminar on bridging the digital  
divide /on the nexus of e -commerce and investment facilitation for the economic development and 
the importance of the WTO to ste p up and continue to update its system in line with the 
accelerating changes of the global economy.  As mentioned b y one of the speakers yesterday  – the 
WTO and its membership are held accountable to moving ahead in supporting digital prosperity 
and that l agging behind is not an option. That is the reason that Montenegro will continue its 
strong support to the submission of the EU and the group of countries related to the specific issues 
on relationship between trade policy, the WTO and digital economy. We believe that this proposal 
reflects way forward, incl uding the latest submission on "online transactions" containing the set of WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 107 - 
 
  concrete rules in electronic transactions such as: e -contracts, e -signatures, and regulatory 
frameworks pertaining to consumer p rotection (against spam). In addition, we welcome further 
initiatives, some of them already circulated as guidelines for our discussions on future work 
regarding e -commerce, both in substa nce and process, from now to MC11 and beyond.  
 
Finally, and we keep on highlighting this important issue, Montenegro will continue to support the 
expansion of the WTO as accession to this central multilateral trading institution has a critical  
transformational power in economic and structural reforms of the acceding countr ies. With 
additional flexibility and efforts we should be able to welcome new members at the MC XI. To this 
end we would like to see the intensifying of accession process of Comoros, Sudan, Belorussia, 
Azerbaijan and particularly accession of our neighbors  Bosnia and Herzegovina  and Serbia as their 
membership to the WTO would be a value added to the stronger and more transparent economic 
integration of the Western Balkans region.  
 
In conclusion, Montenegro calls on the key members to engage their capitals and provide political 
and expert focus in support to the successful MC11  and possible tangible deliverables for the sake 
of strengthening the WTO.  
 
Montenegro is looking forward to continue contributing constructively to these efforts in the 
months to com e. 
 
49. Thailand  
 
Thailand associates with the statement to be delivered later by the Philippines on behalf of ASEAN 
and by Switzerland on behalf of the Friends of the System at the Informal HODs. We fully support 
the Director -General for convening the Informal HODs.  
 
With MC11 just around the corner, intensive work is needed if we are to deliver meaningful 
outcomes in Buenos Aires. For Thailand, we view that the outcomes in Agriculture are still very 
much possible. This includes domestic support, public  stockholding for food security and with its 
convergence by the broad Membership's export restrictions. We look forward to intensive sessions 
after the summer break.  
 
On domestic regulation, Thailand will continue to engage constructively in the discussion  on the 
mandate on Article VI.4 of the GATS. In this regard, we look forward to seeing consolidated draft 
text in order to move the discussions forward.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we support the discussion in this area with the view to achieving a 
meaningfu l and appropriate outcome for developing countries on fisheries subsidies with effective 
S&D as an integral part of such outcome.  
 
Thailand is also supportive of continued information exchange, exploratory discussions and 
consideration of possible areas of  cooperation on issues such as e -commerce and MSMEs in order 
to facilitate the integration of MSMEs into the global value chains and enhance the development 
and inclusiveness in world trade of developing countries and LDCs.  
 
50. Mozambique  
 
We align our intervention with the statements delivered by the African, and LDC’s  Groups, 
including that from C4  on Cotton.  
 
The meeting takes place at a time when all members are deploying efforts in the implementation 
of the various WTO Ministerial and General Counci l decisions. We are also engaged in advancing 
the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the UN General 
Assembly in 2015, to which Trade is a crucial component given its very important crucial role, as 
an engine for develo pment.  
 
Allow us to address our gratitude to the Director General and to Chairs of the different negotiating 
Bodies for the exhaustive information on the status of the work since the last TNC, including 
consultations held so far.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 108 - 
 
  We would also like to tak e the opportunity to thank H .E. Minister Susan Malco rra, for the 
statement that is very supportive to the Multilateral Trading System and to the work of the WTO, 
and very encouraging, mainly in reminding us, by re -stating the relevance of not leaving no one 
behind in our way, struggling towards development.  
 
The reports, presented this morning, show that, all efforts have been being devoted to advance 
negotiations aiming at achieving substantive outcomes at the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference to 
be held in Buenos Aires.  
 
Mozambique thankful, takes good note of the update on the work that was done, as well as of the 
ongoing work. In the meantime, we would like to recall the Ministers recommendation to advance 
the LDC’s issues, as a matter of priority.  
 
Concre tizing this recommendation,  Mr. Chairman, would, in one way be  a step forward in 
responding to the efforts to  implement the principle recommending to  ‘leaving no one behind’ 
under the Sustainable Development Goals.  
 
Mozambique’s priority issues are, a mong others; Agriculture and Cotton subsidies, Special and 
Differential Treatment, Public Stockholdi ngs for food security, fisheries subsidies wi th negative 
impacts to economies.  
 
We are of the view that Member’s engagement must follow the existing mandate s so as to be 
consistent with the type of Organization we are all engaged in, which is a rule based one, and also 
for Members to be consistent with Paragraphs 31 and 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
 
We conclude reiterating our commitment to continue engaged constructively to advance DDA, as 
well as other Ministerial Decisions and recommendations of the General Council, under the bodies 
for each subject matter.  
 
51. Mexico (Second Intervention)  
 
We consid er it necessary to intervene because of our concern after hearing what has been said 
about the Informal HODs. The Informal HODs has already happened in the past. I have been part 
of this practice and have witnessed this on different occasions throughout th e year. The Director -
General has the prerogative of calling consultations at the HODs level on issues that he deems 
necessary. That is why questioning such prerogative makes no sense to us at this juncture.  
 
We believe that we should not be dragged into a  debate which dangerously could lead to 
jeopardizing the Director -General's freedom of movement – with who, when and what he can 
consult. He must be able to do this and he does so in full transparency. This is in fact even more 
important now due to the sen se of urgency of achieving consensus in Buenos Aires.  
 
We have heard this morning from Minister Malcorra  a very clear call to act with a sense of 
urgency. We do believe that this is precisely what should prevail here when we hold our 
deliberations. Mexico is clearly opposed to attempts to try and limit this deliberation – a 
deliberation which is taking place  in an open and informal context. The Director -General and the 
Secretariat can count on our full trust and support to lead the work before us.  
 
52. Jamaica (Second Intervention)  
 
We recognize the role of the Director -General as Chairman of the Trade Negotiatio ns Committee 
recalling as others have the appointment of the occupant of the office of Director -General as ex -
officio chair of the TNC at the first meeting of this body in 2002. This TNC function is in line with 
the Doha Development Agenda and its processe s. We understand that its parameters are set and 
the Director -General's role as its Chairman would be within those set parameters.  
 
We also recognize the need to separate and clearly understand the link between informal and 
formal processes. Clearly, an i nformal TNC to consider negotiating matters for decision must be 
followed by a formal sitting of the TNC for decision and further action. We all know that the need 
for this has been rare, unfortunately so. Hence, we have this extensive discussion focused o n how 
the Chairman of the TNC would report to the GC on TNC activities – a matter which has been WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 109 - 
 
  conflated into a sense of importance well beyond what it would naturally occupy, not on how 
informal discussions would be converted into decisions for further action.  
 
We further recognize that we have a long history of HODs meetings convened by the Director -
General with specific reference to his role as Chairman of the TNC or efforts by Members to seek to 
have explicit reference or to limit the scope of such m eetings explicitly to TNC specific matters 
including with respect to the scope and subject matter of his reports. In short, by acquiescence , 
we have so far accepted the form of HODs meetings that has not been circumscribed. No questions 
were raised and no clarifications were sough t on these many occasions.  
 
Nevertheless, we take note of the desire of some Members to have clarity on this matter at this 
time and respect the views so expressed. We have no difficulty with the separation of the informal 
TNC mee ting from any other aspect of a meeting of HODs understanding that some might be of 
the view that this would simply be the understanding of your reporting on TNC matters to the 
General Council. However, we do not see this as an impediment to the convening of Members by 
you in informal HODs format for the delivery of your transparency reports and for discussions 
thereon or for discussions on other matters of common interest should Members so wish.  
 
We are not of the view that the Director -General is estoppe d from convening HODs for any other 
purpose than to undertake TNC specific discussions. If there is written in any canon such a 
restriction, it would be important for that to be brought to the attention of Members. Furthermore, 
we would not as a small dele gation wish to be deprived of the opportunities that open HODs 
meetings would provide for information sharing and engagement across a range of matters in a 
non-negotiating format.  
 
We also recognize of the capacity of the Chairman of the General Council i n convening informal 
HODs meetings but understand that this is not a matter for discussion at this time.  
 
53. United States  
 
Most Members understand that there is likely no Member that is more devoted to the notion that 
this is and must remain a Member -driven organization than the United States. If you doubt it, you 
can ask many m embers of the Secretariat staff who have had their hands slapped ferociously by 
our delegation over many years. But we pay the Director -General through our assessed 
contributions to th e budget to consult with us and with other Members on a very broad range of 
issues that are both within and outside of the scope of active negotiations.  
 
These are issues that matter to us. We need to hear from him – and in a transparent manner – on 
what he has heard from us and others and how he, given his role as the Chief Executive of the 
Organization, is processing that information. It is not just that we need to hear from the Director -
General. We are deeply interested in hearing what other Members hav e to say in response to what 
the Director -General tells us. For us, it will be deeply troubling if we did not have this opportunity.  
 
We fully agree with the statements that have been made that any new multilateral negotiations 
can only proceed on the bas is of multilateral agreement to start these negotiations. The United 
States would have extremely significant concerns if we felt that an informal HODs was in anyway 
being stylized as a negotiating forum or if we felt that the Director -General was adopting any sort 
of a right of initiative in any respect in convening or directing such a meeting. But that was clearly 
not the case here.  
 
54. Singapore (Second Intervention)  
 
Members, amongst us, we may have disagreements on matters of substance and process but we 
should not take it out on the Secretariat especially when the Secretariat is doing its job. In this 
respect, the most important element of what I want to say now is basically I want to recognize and 
thank the Secretariat under the leadership of the Directo r-General for your professionalism, 
integrity and conduct. Please keep on with the good work. Do not be fazed by our tensions. Be 
stoic.  
 
 
 
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 110 - 
 
  55. Peru (Second Intervention)  
 
We have taken the floor again because of the turn the debate has taken on your roles an d 
functions as the Director -General. I would like to convey to you our support to all the efforts you 
are making to facilitate our work and help Members take the decisions to reach agreements to the 
benefit of all.  
 
56. Nigeria (Second Intervention)  
 
The Gove rnment of Nigeria has absolute confidence in the Director -General and in his office ex -
officio. This is about the fourth in thirty years of involvement with the WTO and the process 
leading up to the establishment of the WTO that I have been involved with d iscussions on the role 
and job description of the Director -General. There was a small group meeting in 1994. I do not see 
any of the individuals around where there was an attempt to define the particular roles and 
responsibilities of the Director -General. Eventually, after about a week of trying, what we decided 
was that we will not continue with that exercise because knowingly or unknowingly Singapore and 
Jamaica have stated, the role of the Director -General ex -officio is actually unqualified.  
 
Secondly, what we had in that discussion is that classically, the Director -General ex -officio is the 
guardian of the system and giving yourself feedback from the past in discussions in which I was 
involved in this organization in the few years leading up to the esta blishment of the WTO. So we 
need to know where we are. This is not a new debate. We can take it. Even if it is personal but we 
will not be personal. Those who cannot take the heat should leave the kitchen.  
 
But the point is this. The Director -General has the prerogative to convene meetings here in terms 
of the formal TNC. He also has the prerogative to convene informal meetings. He can do that in 
different formats and configuration. That right and that prerogative is unabridged.  
 
We have confidence with th e WTO Secretariat and its staff. I have been  a delegate then I joined 
the Secretariat then I left to go back to a sovereign delegation. We are having a satisfied 
conversation on that. This is nothing to be terrified or entering into a situation which peopl e are 
put in a corner. These positions are formal and they are not going to change.  
 
For reasons of transparency, information sharing and exchange, it is right that the Director -
General is able to convene meetings of a formal nature and convene meetings of an informal 
nature and do it clearly based on the parameters that have been spelled out by Jamaica – when it 
is informal, you say it is informal; when it is formal, you say it is formal.  
 
Nigeria shares the positions expressed by Singapore, Norway, Swit zerland, Mexico and the United 
States.  
 
57. European Union  (Second Intervention)  
 
On the question of the possibility for the Director -General to call informal HODs, we are actually 
quite surprised of it being raised at all. Indeed, there have been called several times of informal 
HODs to date – also between 1996 and 2001. The establishment of the TNC has not done away in 
any manner with the possibility nor the need for the Director -General to consult Members and 
deliberate in an informal fashion. Moreover,  the TNC and the informal HODs are by no means 
rivals. The informal HODs has never been designed as a negotiating forum.  
 
On the professional quality of the WTO Secretariat, I can only say that in our view, it is second to 
none. It is actually an example f or many international organizations.  
 
58. Director -General  
 
In 2013, I was nominated by you to be the Director -General. At that point in time, I received a 
flurry of delegations, Ambassadors and Ministers who wanted to talk to me. I never felt so 
important but  I knew that the importance was not because of me but because of the position of 
Director -General. They were talking not to me but to the Director -General of an organization that 
they valued. In those conversations, several delegations came to me and they said that their 
number one priority was to get rid of the lack of transparency that existed in this organization 
starting with the GATT and in the early years of the WTO.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 111 - 
 
   
One clear example that I have to give you is that before, when I was Ambassador for  five years at 
the WTO, every single time that we had the General Council, there was a green room meeting the 
previous day. At that point in time, the Director -General consulted with Members and he talked 
about several different things. Around thirty deleg ations took the floor, spoke and interacted with 
each other. I always felt a bit strange that we were having that conversation with only those. And 
I promised to the delegations, Ambassadors and Ministers that came to me in 2013 that I was not 
going to rep eat that practice. And I will not. But not at the cost of lack of transparency.  
 
In the lead up to Bali, everybody was sleepless in Geneva – losing nights and concentrating on the 
work. After Bali, in 2014, we had another crisis because of the adoption of the TFA Protocol. We 
were all overrun by all those things. So in the second semester after the summer break, I thought 
it was time that we started to have conversations because things were coming up. We were not 
only dealing with the implementation of Bali  and the DDA. There were many other things that were 
happening at that point in time. They were not the so -called new issues. During that period, I was 
holding meetings in various formats informally with delegations trying to see whether we could 
solve the  Doha Round. We had several meetings to see whether we could make it work. I was 
welcoming new ideas and I was inviting you to be creative and forthcoming.  
 
During the second half of 2014, I thought we had to find ways to be more transparent and 
inclusive,  particularly before the General Council meeting. So I decided that instead of doing the 
Green Room that we used to do before I took office, I convened Informal HODs where everybody 
could be invited and could speak their minds about anything. It was not a negotiating forum. It 
was just an informal process where Members could talk to each other. There were no new issues 
and no hidden agenda. It was a transparency exercise which started in September 2014.  
 
I was not concerned with the TNC at that time because , as had been pointed out by Jamaica, at 
that time I informed Members that the DDA negotiations were mostly done by the Negotiating 
Group Chairs. They were the ones who had to make things work. I was going to help to the extent 
possible. I was trying to do  that very intensely as well.  
 
In the informal HODs, we would make all those statements and I was not very concerned whether 
it was done in an informal or formal setting. We usually convene a formal meeting when we need 
to take a decision. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for quite some time. It has always 
been informal and we formalized those comments in the General Council. All those comments and 
positions were reflected in the General Council under the Agenda Item on the Report of the 
Chairman of the TNC. By the way, we had twenty -two meetings like that.  
 
At our last meeting, the representative of Cameroon mentioned the fact that we had not had a 
TNC for quite some time and that maybe we should come back to that practice. In good faith, I 
thoug ht that was a fair request. Although, from my perspective, I thought we were already doing 
that because we were having these informal HODs where people were talking about TNC issues. I 
was giving reports and the Negotiating Group Chairs were also giving re ports, which were all 
reflected at the General Council. If some Members wanted to constrain those proceedings with the 
TNC title, and many of you here indicated the mandate where that came from, the reality is that 
they want apparently to have a conversati on that has to do with the mandate more strictly 
speaking of the TNC.  
 
So I said, let's have that conversation. I will save the transparency exercise for another meeting. 
It is not creating a negotiating forum as I cannot create one. Members cannot create  a negotiating 
forum individually. Only by a multilateral decision can you do that. That is where you can create a 
negotiating forum and it needs to be decided by the Ministerial Conference.  
 
By the way, the General Council may also do that between sessio ns of the Ministerial Conference. 
Only the Ministerial Conference and the General Council can create a negotiating forum. I cannot 
take seriously the notion that I am creating one after twenty -two sessions of the informal HODs. It 
just does not make any se nse.  
 
From my perspective, this is simply a transparency exercise. This is something that I promised to 
people who came to me and said that they wanted this organization to be transparent and 
inclusive. You cannot be selective and be transparent and inclu sive in some situations because you WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 112 - 
 
  like it and not in other situations because you do not like it. Transparency and inclusiveness has 
costs and benefits. That is the reality.  
 
That is where we came from. I could have an informal HODs with two, three or twenty but I prefer 
164. It could be in my office or anywhere else, but some delegations suggested to hold it in the 
Council Room, where everybody fits. I said no problem. You can  bring whoever. You do not even 
have to be a Head of Delegation to be in a HODs meeting under my tenure.  
 
I want to assure you that as far as I am concerned, the informal HODs is solely a transparency 
exercise and I would talk about different things which  do not necessarily fit under the TNC. You 
cannot have it both ways and say you want to have the TNC because you want to talk about Doha 
but you also want to talk about other things. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. You have to 
choose. Either you w ant to have a conversation about Doha or you want to have a conversation 
about everything. For those who wanted to limit the discussion only to the mandate – I said ok, let 
us do the TNC. But there are also other things. I have a report on the Aid for Trad e Review. I want 
to talk about the WTO Public Forum. There are other delegations who want to talk about other 
situations which have nothing to do with negotiations. And I cannot stop them from having that 
conversation. Why would I do that? Now, that is the  purpose of the Informal HODs. It is not and 
cannot be a negotiating forum.  
 
I cannot help those who want to push for new multilateral negotiations. Those of you who are 
interested in talking about e -commerce, MSMEs or investment facilitation – I cannot do  that for 
you. If you want a multilateral negotiation, you need multilateral consensus. When people talk to 
me about Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration – for me it is stating the obvious 
because you need consensus to launch a multilateral negotiation. There is no other way.  
 
I cannot help those who want to have that. They have to convince the Membership if they want to 
have negotiations that are truly multilateral. But that does not preclude them from having 
conversations and I will not – cannot - stop that. And that does not preclude them from doing 
plurilaterals. We have seen plurilaterals. We have annexes with plurilaterals and they have been 
able to reach plurilateral outcomes that we all know about. I have constantly said that my 
preference is multilateral. But you should decide on how you want to do this.  
 
As far as the Secretariat is concerned, please be at least fair with them. Think of what you are 
imposing on the Secretariat. Some of you want to talk only about the DDA – nothing el se. Some of 
you don't want to talk about the DDA. You want to talk about other things – if at all. Some of you 
want to talk about both. How does the Secretariat react? What I told the Secretariat is, whenever 
you are approached by one or a group of delegat ions and they ask for your support – give it. It 
does not matter which issue it is – whether it be MSMEs, e -commerce, public stockholding, 
industrialization of Africa or any other issue. They should give whatever support delegations ask 
for. That is the on ly way of being neutral because if they deny the support because another 
Member does not like it then they are not being neutral. They would be taking sides with those 
who don't want to have that conversation. That is not the Secretariat that is going to d ecide that. 
You decide that. I stress once again that the Secretariat will be supportive to any delegation that 
asks for support because that is their job. That is my instruction to the Secretariat and I hope that 
you will be fair in assessing their positi on which is extremely delicate under the present 
circumstances.  
 
Those are a few things that I wanted to tell you. As for the role of the Director -General, I will not 
get into that. You do not think I read the agreements and texts addressing what the role  of the 
Director -General is? Unfortunately, there is not much guidance there. I have to do what my ethics 
tell me I should do. My priority is to preserve the multilateral trading system. I have no doubts 
about your good intentions. Everybody here says that  they want to preserve the system. But in 
trying to do that make sure you do not destroy it.  
 
59. India (Second Intervention)  
 
We thank you, Director -General, for your statement and clarification. Your statement is reassuring 
that the informal HODs has never been, is not and will never be a rival negotiating forum for the 
TNC. That is exactly the point that we made in our statement that the TNC is mandated by the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration. It is the sole negotiating body and it has to be the forum for 
negot iations during this round. As far as the competence or the right of the Directo r-General to call WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 113 - 
 
  a meeting of i nformal HODs is concerned, we have no issue as long as the informal HODs relates 
to issues of transparency, of sharing of information and of othe r things.  
 
60. Kenya5 
 
We cannot be oblivious of the current challenges that the multilateral trading system is facing. The 
value of the system, which has done so much for the security and prosperity of the world is being 
questioned. In  that  regard,  Kenya  appreciates  the engagement the DG has had so far which 
has encouraged delegations to focus  their  discussions  on  possible  deliverables at MC11, which 
would invigorate the multilateral trading system.  
 
We also note with satisfaction the recent flurry o f proposals in the various Negotiating Groups. This 
shows the commitment of Members to the multilateral trading system and the desire to achieve 
success at Buenos Aires and build a more equitable system which accommodates the interests of 
all Members, part icularly least -developed countries and other developing countries which are yet 
to derive significant benefits from it.  
 
However, we need to take into account the lessons we learned from the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial 
Conferences. We need to shift gears and identify as a matter of priority issues that could constitute 
elements for MC11 deliverables.  
 
From the statements delivered thus far, it is clear that Members want a successful MC11. We 
would encourage Argentina, as host country, to continue to intens ify its contacts with Members 
and inject political goodwill into the process. We wish to remind Members that the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision provided political guidance on how to accelerate discussions on some of the 
issues, particularly those of interest  to developing countries, including Public Stockholding for Food 
Security. It is important for Members to show flexibility and goodwill when we resume our 
discussions after the summer break in order to accelerate the negotiations  and reach positive 
outcome s in Buenos Aires.  
 
As previously noted, Kenya would like to see an outcome on fisheries subsidies at MC11. We would 
like to express our gratitude to Ambassador McCook of Jamaica for his relentless effort in 
intensifying discussions in the Negotiating Grou p on Rules and his decision to circulate a 
compilation of all the proposals that have been submitted thus far to be the basis of our work after 
the summer break.  
 
Development should be a common tread in all the issues that the DG and Chairs of the various 
Negotiating Groups will be consulting on after the summer break. We therefore expect Members to 
show flexibility, so that we can have a development -oriented outcome at MC11. In this respect, we 
support the statement by made Rwanda on behalf of the Africa G roup and Indonesia on behalf of 
the G33.  
 
In conclusion, we wish to note the desire of many Members to complete preparations for MC11 
before we get to Argentina. Kenya shares the same desire, and is ready to work with all 
delegations in a constructive mann er and secure outcomes which would strengthen the multilateral 
trading system for the benefit of all countries.  
 
61. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia6 
 
The lack of progress in various areas of WTO negotiations is currently hindered by certain 
impasses, which have not yet been overcome by Members. This situation is particularly worrisome 
in light of the challenges facing the international trade and the global economy. What we do in the 
WTO has a direct impact on the standard of living and quality of life of millions of people around 
the globe.  
 
One of the key messages contained in the preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement is that trade 
should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, and the WTO agreements are 
                                                
5 At its request, this statement of the delegation of Kenya is also incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and is annexed together with the statements that were made at the 25 July Informal TNC Meeting.  
6 At its requ est, this statement of the delegation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is also incorporated in 
the minutes of this meeting and is annexed together with the statements that were made at the 25 July 
Informal TNC Meeting.   WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 114 - 
 
  conceived as a means to achieve that purpose. Th e preamble also reflects the view that 
participation in the growth of international trade is essential for the economic development of 
developing and least -developed countries (LDCs).  
 
While we recognize that, there has been an active engagement in the la st few weeks among 
members in discussing the way forward on various areas of WTO negotiations. In addition, many 
WTO members have recently submitted various proposals to revive the efforts in moving the 
negotiations ahead. We noticed that these efforts in the previous weeks among members brought 
them no closer on how to proceed.  
 
However, this should not frustrate us from continuing our work in a positive manner to achieve a 
successful negotiated outcome for the 11th Ministerial Conference. We should contin ue our work 
with a good faith and to have frank discussions to reach at a common understanding of the issues 
where we can have deliverables at MC11.  
 
After the summer break until the time of conducting the MC11, we should make sure that we use 
this time w isely and with a sense of urgency. This only can happen, if members work in positive 
spirit and show the necessary political will and flexibility in the work ahead.  
 
We must try to achieve a successful negotiated outcome for the 11th Ministerial Conference . We all 
need to believe that any Buenos Aires outcomes will not be the end of the road. A post - Buenos 
Aires process must, however, prioritise the issues of interest to all WTO members.  
 
Finally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reiterates its commitment to th e Multilateral Trading System 
and remains ready to engage constructively in the work ahead.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 115 - 
 
   
ANNEX 4  
REPORT BY  THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AT THE INFOR MAL HEADS OF DELEGAT ION 
MEETING HELD ON 25 J ULY 2017  
Report by  the Director -General7 
 
Let's now move on to the informal Heads of Delegation meeting. Again, this is intended as a 
transparency exercise. So I will start with a brief overview of my various meetings and 
consultations, before opening the floor to Members.  
Since the informal HoDs meeting on 8 May, I have visited a number of Capitals and met with a 
broad range of stakeholders including leaders, government officials and the private sector.  
I have attended a series of high -level meetings, namely: the 'One Belt One Road' Forum in Beij ing; 
the APEC Trade Ministers' meeting in Hanoi; the OECD Ministerial meeting and the informal 
gathering of Ministers in Paris, which was organized by Australia and co -chaired by Minister Steven 
Ciobo and Minister Malcorra; and, finally, the G20 Leaders' s ummit in Hamburg earlier this month.  
In terms of bilateral visits, I met with the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, in Tokyo, and held 
meetings with a number high -level government officials and private sector representatives. I 
travelled to Washington  to meet with the new administration , including the new USTR Robert 
Lighthizer, the Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and the Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. In 
Brussels  I met with European Commission President Jean -Claude Juncker, and addressed the EU 
Parliamentary Committee on International Trade. And I visited Bucharest, where I met with 
Romania's President Klaus Iohannis, and other high -level government officials.  
The Global Review of Aid for Trade here in Geneva was an opportunity to engage with a large 
number of Ministers from developing and least -developed Members – as well as representatives of 
the private sector and other international organisations. It also provided the opportunity to meet 
with the new African Union Commissioner for Trade and Industr y, Albert Muchanga.  
From the statements in the closing plenary, I think Members agreed that it was a very successful 
event, with in -depth discussions taking place on a wide range of development and capacity -
building issues.  
Throughout  these various discus sions – including over 25 bilateral meetings – I have sensed a 
continued high level of interest, engagement and support for the multilateral trading system.  
Members recognize the important role that the WTO plays in ensuring stability, transparency and 
predictability of the global trading system and therefore the need to further improve and 
strengthen it. This is especially positive given the continued uncertainty in the global economy.  
In addition, throughout these exchanges, I have heard consistent calls  for a successful MC11.  
The Ministerial Conference is clearly an important moment to demonstrate that the system works 
to support all countries' economic growth and development.  
To deliver on this we need to ensure that our work is relevant to the challe nges faced by the users 
of the trading system. And therefore I am pleased that interest from the private sector in the work 
of the WTO continues to be very high. And that was very clear in the Aid for Trade Review. I also 
had a meeting there with represent atives of the multilateral development banks from several 
regions where we had a conversation about trade finance. I was particularly concerned with the 
fact that in several developing countries the financial system is not strong enough, especially for 
small and medium enterprises. It would be useful if the multilateral development banks and others 
could be more engaged to help ensure that the appropriate financing is available. That's something 
that I will continue to pursue potentially during the Fall mee tings of the World Bank and the IMF. I 
may continue this conversation at the margin of those meetings.  
                                                
7 The report was subsequently circulat ed in JOB/GC/ 135. WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 116 - 
 
  Let me also remind you all of the Public Forum which is coming up in September, with the theme 
of 'Trade: Behind the Headlines'. This event will provide a valuable opportunity for participants to 
examine a range of topical issues, including looking at how we can ensure that the benefits of 
trade are spread wider and understood better.  
These issues were present in almost all of my exchanges with ministers – both bilaterally and in 
larger groups.  
Interest in many different issues has been growing as demonst rated by the various events 
organized by Members. Recently, I have been invited to attend a number of informal dialogues and 
workshops. These have included:  
 Yesterday's seminar, organized jointly by the Friends of Investment Facilitation for 
Development an d the Friends of E -commerce for Development, on "Bridging the Digital 
Divide: Harnessing E -commerce and Investment Facilitation for Inclusive Trade and 
Development".  
 An Open -Ended Dialogue on the E -commerce Ecosystem organized by the Friends of E -
commerce  for Development last Friday, 21 July.  
 A Workshop on Investment Facilitation for Development organized by the Friends of 
Investment Facilitation for Development held on 10 July.  
 And an Informal Dialogue on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises held on 29 Jun e, 
organized by the Friends of MSMEs  
As you know, these issues also emerged as prominent themes during the Global Review of Aid for 
Trade.  
Ultimately, it will be up to Members to decide whether and how to conduct and advance those 
conversations.  
 
_______ ________  
 
 
 
  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 117 - 
 
  ANNEX 5  
STATEMENTS BY DELEGA TIONS AT THE INFORMAL HEADS O F DELEGATION MEETING  
HELD ON 25 JULY 2017  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements of 
Costa Rica (Friends of E -Commerce for Development); Argentina; Switzerland; Dominican Republic 
(IGDC) ; Brazil (Friends of MSMEs); Australia; United States; Canada; Philippines (ASEAN); 
Colombia; Qatar; New Zealand; Japan; Norway; Pakistan; Chinese Taipei;  Russian Federation and 
European Union  are included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
1. Costa Rica (Friends of E -Commerce for Development)  
 
The FEDs were created to bring together ideas to support solutions for the challenges and 
opportunities faced by developing members entering the digital economy. The FEDs view e -
Commerce as a tool that brings together the digital, social and development agendas and as an 
enabler of sustainable and inclusive growth for MSMEs, especially those from developing and least 
developed countries.  
 
The FEDs are now represented by twelve members from different regions and with different levels 
of development. Moldova and Kazakhstan have recently joined, and they have enriched the group 
with their experience on e -governance and a new geographical perspective as landlocked 
developing countries. This remains an important element of the development agenda, clearly 
identified in the Sustainable Development Goals.  
 
What first started as a colla borative effort to create awareness, exchange ideas and share 
experiences, has evolved into a broader approach to the discussion of e -Commerce, both at the 
WTO, and in other fora and contexts.  
 
The group's first Ministerial meeting in April 2017, at UNCTA D’s e-Commerce Week, was attended 
by FED Ministers and other invited authorities from developing and least developed countries, who 
actively engaged in the discussion. As a result of this Ministerial, the group presented a Roadmap 
consisting of seven key a reas the group believes can lead to action to tackle the challenges 
mentioned earlier.  
 
Throughout this endeavor, the group has relied on the guidance and support of UNCTAD’s e -Trade 
for All Initiative, the WTO, the ITC and the ITU among many other stakeho lders.  
 
In this spirit, the FEDs launched last Friday, 21 July a series of e-Dialogues leading up to MC11, 
with the purpose of providing an informal and open setting to discuss specific issues related to the 
development dimension of e -Commerce within the different pillars that have been identified 
throughout our past seminars and discussions. In the lead to Buenos Aires, we welcome all 
feedback and additional ideas to ensure that the e-Dialogues are truly inclusive and effective.  
 
The FEDs are an informal,  non-negotiating group, with the belief that the WTO already has the 
necessary framework to facilitate the participation of developing and least developed countries in 
e-Commerce, and although some provisions need to be updated, improved or addressed at th e 
national level, many relevant others already exist in the context of international trade rules and 
standards. In fact, the Sustainable Development Goals underpin the direct impact of electronic 
commerce on development, particularly through job creation, economic growth, promoting 
innovation, developing infrastructure and furthering the empowerment of women. The task is for 
this House to undertake.  
 
This conversation should be constructive and pragmatic. Decision -making can be facilitated by 
defining what  already exists under the WTO’s legal and regulatory framework as well as to what 
each member has already committed to. We believe that existing provisions in the WTO 
Agreements can work as a point of departure and members can benefit through individual 
assessments that can help us all have a clearer picture of where we are and what needs to be 
achieved.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 118 - 
 
  2. Argentina  
 
Allow me to inform Members on the informal dialogues on i nvestment facilitation for development. 
When Members launched the WTO informal dialogues on investment facilitation for development, 
the aim was to create a transparent and inclusive process that could invite and indeed encourage 
the participation of the W TO Members.  
 
It was also agreed that the informal dialogue would not address topics such as market -access, 
investment protection or investor -state dispute settlement. And it was made clear that the 
informal dialogue was not a negotiation process, nor woul d it attempt to prejudge Members' 
positions on any of the subjects being discussed or on any potential future steps.  
 
Since its launch , the informal dialogue has held three meetings. The inaugural meeting focused on 
the growing linkage between trade, inve stment and development and the importance of coherent 
policy approach. The second meeting, focused on improving regulatory transparency and 
predictability.  
 
Many delegations reported on efforts to improve transparency of their investment regimes. A 
number of Members shared their experience with the establishment of operations of a single 
electronic window, branching from simple enquiring points to integrate a b usiness registration 
portal. Some Members stressed the need for technical assistance and capacity -building to support 
investment facilitation efforts in developing countries.  
 
The most recent meeting of the informal dialogue, in July, focused on stream -lining and speeding 
up administrative procedures. A number of Members shared experience and provided concrete 
examples of succ essful implementation of stream lining and simplification of administr ative 
procedures for investment  as well as single -window mechan isms. They felt that the discussions 
should focus on how the WTO could add value to countries' national investment facilitation policies.  
 
After the summer break, the informal dialogue will continue its discussio n and experience sharing.  
 
3. Switzerland  
 
I will present a communication which has already been referred to by some delegations in the 
debate during the TNC.  
 
Director General, I am making this statement on behalf of the following 47 Members of the WTO: 
Albania;  Argentina ; Australia ; Bangladesh; Beni n; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica;  the 
Dominican Republic; Ecuador; El Salvador; Ghana; Guatemala;  Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; 
Kazakhstan;  Republic of Korea; Lao PDR; Liechtenstein; Malaysia; Mexico; Montenegro; Republic 
of Moldova; Myanmar; Ne w Zealand; Nigeria; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea; 
Paraguay;  Qatar; the Russian Federation; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; 
Thailand;  the Former  Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Tonga;  Turkey; Ukraine; Uruguay; Vanuatu 
and Viet Nam.  
 
And this is the statement8: 
 
"We, a group of 47 developing and developed Members, are strongly supportive of the Multilateral 
Trading System and are concerned that the WTO is facing challenges.  
 
In recent months, Members have submitted ideas and proposals both on longstanding negotiating 
issues and other topics as part of the preparatory process for the 11th Ministerial Conference 
(MC11) in Buenos Aires. However, to date, the political will to find compromises and to forge 
consensus is lacking. Ev en the legitimacy of discussing topics of interest to Members has been put 
into question.  
 
Other important functions of the WTO are also facing challenges. Inter alia , compliance with 
notification obligations is often unsatisfactory, thereby undermining th e WTO's monitoring 
function; and various issues are affecting the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement system.  
 
                                                
8 The statement was subsequently circulated in WT/GC/184.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 119 - 
 
  We call on Members to safeguard the integrity of the open, rules -based Multilateral Trading 
System embodied in the WTO and to work toget her to ensure its sound functioning. The WTO 
continues to be essential to achieving inclusive and sustainable global growth and development, 
including through the further integration of LDCs into world trade. MC11 presents an important 
opportunity to reaff irm the centrality of the WTO.  
 
We welcome the commitment from the recent G -20 Summit in Hamburg to make MC11 a success. 
We urge Members to engage constructively, to consider proposals on their own merit, and to work 
towards pragmatic outcomes. It will be important that Ministers provide political guidance on 
outcomes for MC11, including on the WTO's future work."  
 
This is the end of the statement.  
 
We would like this communication to be included in the Minutes of the meeting of the General 
Council and to be circulate as an official WTO document.  
 
For the time being the communication is available as a room document. The list of co -sponsors is 
not closed yet and Members wishing to join this initiative as co -sponsors are most welcome, and 
they should inform u s about their intention. They can do this at this meeting or even during the 
meeting of the General Council tomorrow.  
 
4. Dominican Republic (IGDC)  
 
The Informal Group of Developing Countries expresses, in these moments of great uncertainty, our 
firm support for the multilateral trading system and the World Trade Organization and our strong 
desire to r each a positive outcome at the next Ministerial Conference. We are firmly of the view 
that the WTO brings predictability and security to international economic r elations. This 
organization has promoted the integration into a rules -based multilateral trading system for a 
growing community that starte d with 128 members in 1995 and already represents 164 members, 
showing its relevance in m ultilateral economic governa nce. We also believe that trade is a tool for 
development and economic empowerment that leads to the elimination of poverty and the creation 
of decent employment oppo rtunities. We should therefore ensure that development remai ns at the 
centre of the WTO's work.  
 
The Group would also like to highlight the importance of technical assistance  pillar of WTO and 
notes with concern that voluntary contributions to the trust funds that support this assistance 
dropped 30% in 2016 compared to 2015. We encourag e donors  to continue providing the 
necessary funds for  the sustainability of the WTO's  technical assistance programme.  
 
This organization must continue its efforts to strengthen its negotiating, monitoring and dispute 
settlement pillars and decision making process es. These processes should uphold the principles of 
transparency, inclusiveness and full participation. Decisions made by consensus with full ownership 
by all members ensure that the legal instruments of the organization bring predictability and 
security i n international economic re lations. Taking these elements into account our priority should 
be to ensure that globalization works for all by strengthening the system, delivering new reforms 
and resisting the imposition of new barriers to trade. These reform s would help in ensuring that 
the WTO continues to deliver positive outcomes that support the implementation o f the SDGs and 
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  
 
5. Brazil (Friends of MSMEs)  
 
In the last General Council on Thursday 18 May, some Membe rs expressed their willingness to 
work together to make trade more inclusive by supporting MSMEs' greater integration in global 
trade.  
 
The "Friends of MSMEs" is an open and informal group consisting of 24 Members at this moment, 
including developing and d eveloped Economies, with a diverse regional representation.  
 
I would like to share with you from the onset, our group has organized 4 open -ended meetings, 
with the aim of discussing and fostering the participation of MSMEs in regional and global markets, 
and identifying possible ways forward on MSMEs in the WTO, based on concrete proposals and 
suggestions submitted by Members.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 120 - 
 
   
In one of these meetings the 3 main authorities of the WTO, UNCTAD and ITC were present.  
 
We note that more than 50 WTO Members hav e participated in each of these informal dialogues.  
 
Also, in Chile's  capacity as co ordinator of Friends of MSMEs, Chile has  made 2 statements on 
behalf of the Group, one at the ITC event on the first Micro, Small and Medium -Sized Enterprises 
Day, and duri ng the fifty first session of the Joint Advisory Group of the ITC.  
 
We believe that the WTO has a crucial role to play in making the participation of MSMEs in the  
global market more inclusive  and productive. We also believe that MSMEs should become an 
important component of a development -oriented agenda at the WTO.  
 
We encourage Members to actively pai1icipate in our meetings and consultations in the coming 
weeks and months. As of today, we ha ve received a formal proposal  by Argentina, Brazil, 
Paraguay  and Uruguay and discussed the EU proposals on  regulatory  transparency  and e -
commerce and several other ideas put forward by other delegations, namely Switzerland and 
Chinese Taipei. We will work on these - and other proposals - which we may  receive.  
 
We will keep  Members informed accordingly. It is a fact that MSMEs face specific challenges to 
fully participate in international trade, particularly those from developing and least developed 
countrie s. Therefore, our efforts at the multilateral level in support of domestic policies, regional 
and international development strategies to increase MSMEs' participa tion in international trade 
are more important than ever.  
 
We aim at achieving imp ortant outc omes at MC11 in this  area. 
 
6. Australia  
 
Australia expresses its full faith and confidence in the impartiality of the Director General and the 
Secretariat.  
 
I’d like to acknowledge the Joint Communication made by Switzerland on the behalf of 47 co -
sponsors, including Australia, who are concerned about the challe nges currently facing the WTO. 
In the Joint Communication, we call on Members to safeguard the integrity of the open, rules -
based Multilateral Trading System embodied in the WTO and to work together to  ensure its sound 
functioning.  
  
The WTO continues to be essential for global economic stability and achieving inclusive and 
sustainable global growth and development, including through the further integra tion of LDCs into 
world trade. Like other WTO Members, Australia has a strong commitment to ensuring that all 
countries can effectively participate and benefit from world trade.  
 
With only four months until MC11, my delegation is uneasy about the current situation – a 
sentiment shared by many Members who have spoken today and at previous meetings.  
 
At the Paris informal Ministerial Meeting on 8 June, organised and co -chaired by Australia and 
Argentina in the margins of OECD meetings, Ministers unanimously reaffirmed the importance of a 
rules-based mult ilateral trading system and the centrality of the WTO. Ministers noted areas where 
the WTO was imperfect and in need of reform, while reasserting its fundamental value as an 
institution.  
 
There were differences in specific areas of emphasis and focus, but there was a clear commitment 
to finding ways to achieve negotiated, multil ateral outcomes through the WTO' s neg otiating 
function. There was a call for realism and pragmatism in the lead -up to MC11 and beyond.  
 
Ministers acknowledged there would be benefits  to making incremental but meaningful progress on 
issues where convergence appeared achievable in the limited time before MC11.  
 
In areas where new commitments were unlikely to find consensus, some Ministers suggested that 
a work program could lay useful g roundwork for negotiations going forward.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 121 - 
 
  At the Paris meeting, you, Director General, asked Ministers to instruct their Geneva delegations to 
remain ready to work constructively, and with a willingness to engage with greater specificity; and 
most importantly, to show o pen-mindedness and pragmatism. Ministers also urged Members to 
table textual proposals and to intensify their efforts in the lead -up to the summer break.  
 
We want to acknowledge the effort made by many Geneva delegations over the six weeks since 
the Paris meeting. There have been many new and revised proposals and a marked uptick in the 
frequenc y and intensity of engagement. We have all been busy.  
 
However, it' s evident that wide differences in positions remain and there are few signs of 
convergence.  
 
As we approach MC11, we will certainly need to shift gears and move quickly into ne gotiating 
mode. We are more likely to succeed if we focus our efforts on outcomes likely to benefit a wide 
range of Members – we all need something to take home to our stakeholders.  
 
Recent successes at Ministerial meetings, such as the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, and the 
elimination of export subsidies, show that progress is possible when Members are pragmatic about 
their level of ambition.  
 
For Austral ia, we are focusing attention on areas where there is widespread interest.  
 
On agriculture, it' s clear that there is widespread support for tightening of rules on domestic 
support for agriculture.  
 
Australia' s focus is to reduce the trade -distorting impact  of domestic support policies . 
 
It's crucial to address, in a concrete way, the unfairness of current rules . 
 
We've heard the reservations of some major subsidisers about taking major steps this year, and 
are prepared to be pragmatic about possible outcome s. 
 
As expressed in the Cairns Group' s submission on Objectives for MC11 and Beyond, the outcomes 
we achieve on domestic support must cover all production and trade distorting support,  must 
meaningfully reduce today' s entitlements, and must include discipl ines on product specific 
concentration of support, including on cotton.  
 
We've heard reservations of some on taking major steps this year and we are prepared to be 
pragmatic.  
 
We're also prepared to engage in discussions on an outcome on public stockholdi ng for food 
security purposes.  
 
On services, we should aim to build on current rules to reduce regulatory red tape, streamline 
procedures and improve transparency for services suppliers.  
 
Given the preparatory work which has been undertaken and the high le vel of engagement we have 
seen from a broad range of Members, we see real prospects for reaching agreement on domestic 
regulation outcomes – provided Members remain focused on pragmatic results.  
 
An outcome on e -commerce is important to maintain the relevance of the WTO, given the reality of 
modern global trade and to capture the benefits e -commerce brings for all, particularly for MSMEs. 
E-commerce is a powerful driver of trade, inclusive economic growth and development.  
 
There has been a strong focu s on e -commerce over the past year. Momentum has been building 
and we remain ambitious.   
 
However, we need to shift from scoping work and preparatory discussions and focus on what can 
realistically be achieved at MC11 and on the scope and nature of future  work in 2018 and beyond.  
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies, Australia is actively participating in discussions on both the 
multilateral track and in the separate plurilateral process to deliver an outcome, in line with the UN WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 122 - 
 
  Sustainable Development G oals, b y the end of this year. We're encouraged by the level of 
engagement, noting that nearly two -thirds of Members are now proponents for fisheries subsidies 
disciplines, and by the intensification of work.  
 
We're also open to practical ideas to further facilit ate trade or reduce trade costs and we welcome 
the work that has been undertaken on regulatory transparency and MSMEs, and the ongoing 
dialogue on investment  facilitation for development. We also welcome support from the 
Membership on Australia’s initiativ e for the duty free Temporary Admission of containers, pallets 
and packing.  
 
We look forward to continued engagement over the summer break on these areas, as we seek to 
narrow differences and work together to develop a balanced and pragmatic set of outcome s for 
MC11.  
 
7. United States  
 
The United States considers that the membership is at an important moment for taking stock of 
our work so far this year and reflecting on the state of preparation for our upcoming Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
It is also our view tha t we need, collectively, to begin thinking seriously about what lies beyond  
MC11.  
 
First, I would like to acknowledge the good work being done by the Government of Argentina in 
preparation for MC11, and we welcome Minister Malcorra’s active engagement as d emonstrated by 
her presence in Geneva this week. The United States considers that we are in good hands fo r this 
ministerial. As Ambassador Lighthizer  has mentioned several times, the United States is focused 
on a successful meeting of trade ministers at the end of the year.  
 
But within the past few months, we have seen some startling evidence of just how far we are from 
consensus views on how to move f orward with our work, whether in formal negotiations towards 
potential ministerial decisions, or even in the work of our regular com mittees or informal 
dialogues. We have recently experienced a highly unusual disruption in the normal business of the 
Genera l Council, and what might have been useful technical discussions in our services council and 
related bodies have degenerated into rather metaphysical debates that have been frust rating for 
everyone concerned. Discussion of longstanding issues such as fishe ries subsidies and agriculture, 
while certainly very active, appear to be encountering obstacles that have been familiar for quite 
some time.  
 
At the risk of substantial understatement, it is our view that the membership is not in a mode of 
serious deal -making or rule -making for Buenos Aires.  
 
When we offer this observation in private conversations with other Members here in Genev a, we 
are often advised that it' s important to keep trying and pushing, and that i t's too early to give up 
on notions such as neg otiated outcomes or a negotiated ministerial declaration.  
 
This may be the case, and the United States is not, at this stage, advising a general work stoppage 
on potential outcomes – although the moment at which we 'll need to turn our focus in other 
directions may be fast approaching.  
 
For today, we would simply leave our fellow Members with a few observations for reflection as we 
head into the coming quiet weeks.  
 
The options before us seem, in our view, to come down to the following:  
 
First, we can use the time we have left before December to begin to confront some of the 
systemic and institutional questions confronting our 20 -year-old organization, in order to 
reinvigorate it and put it on the path towards a more successful and sustainable future.  
 
Second, we can use  MC11 as an opportunity to begin to define some areas for future priority 
work for the WTO in discreet areas of trade policy.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 123 - 
 
  And third, we can c ontinue striving for some set of non-controversial incremental rule -
making outcomes for MC11 . 
 
Of course it is possible that MC11 could involve some combination of these three elements.  
 
I would signal today, though, that, for the United States, it' s the first pathway – addressing 
important systemic and institutional issues – that captures more o f our imagination and a greater 
sense of urgency.  
 
Drawing from our experience in the WTO, such work could include addressing deficiencies and 
gaps in notifications and transparency; improving the way in which we discuss the intersection of 
trade and devel opment; ensuring that the dispute settlement functions of the WTO are working 
efficiently and consistent with the role our governments originally agreed to in the DSU; and 
examining the structures of WTO bodies to ensure that they are appropriately aligned  to current 
trade realities.  
 
These are tough issues, and would need to be approached in a realistic and deliberative manner.   
 
But we are beginning to reflect on whether Buenos Aires could provide our ministers with a useful 
moment to tackle some long -neglected institutional issues and at least begin  a discussion of the 
more challenging aspects of the functioning of the WTO, all with the common objective of making 
the WTO work better in the future and setting a positive and sustainable path for MC12.  
 
To sum up, the United States is engaged in deep thinking about the future of the WTO, and we 
believe that the members hip faces important questions: are we best off pursuing incremental  
negotiated outcomes for MC11? Or might it not be better to begin a process  of dialogue about 
making the institution function better for the long -term, even if we know that such a dialogue will 
be very challenging?   
 
We suggest that these may be useful questions for all of us to reflect on as we prepare ourselves 
for the final p ush to Buenos Aires this autumn.  
 
8. Canada  
 
Canada aligns itself with the statement made by Switzerland on behalf of a group of countries.  
 
It is very encouraging to see the active leading role that Argentina is taking in the preparations for 
MC11. Canada is  ready to assist in any way we can to help prepare for success in Buenos Aires in 
December. However, we have a lot of work to do between now and December.  
 
These reports of the DG and Negotiating Group Chairs paint a rather sombre picture and remind us 
that we are far apart. Canada is concerned about state of play of not only negotiations but the 
overall functioning of the organization.  
 
Many have opined that negotiated results for MC11 will, by necessity, be incremental at best – no 
big bang outcome – but outcomes are possible. Many agree on that.  
 
We have to keep striving for that objective – but there aren’t solid signs of convergence on any 
potential issues … yet. There are encouraging signs in some areas, such as fisheries subsidies.  
 
Canada' s objecti ves are well known – primary among them is disciplines on agricultural domestic 
support – any progress, however incremental would be welcome. We are encouraged by the work, 
but not by the specifics of the proposals.  
 
We have objectives in other areas as we ll – areas such as disciplines on subsidies to the fisheries 
sector, provisions on services domestic regulation, progress on addressing the problems that we 
face in the dispute settlement system.  
  
On fisheries subsidy disciplines, we are looking for a hi gh ambition outcome for something more 
than just a discipline on subsi dies that benefit IUU fishing. The issues of overfishing and over 
capacity also need to be addressed, as it seems to us that prohibiting assistance for illegal 
activities is simply good governance. We need to go beyond this.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 124 - 
 
   
We have not forgotten that, at the centre of any and all issues that we address as an organization, 
development needs must be considered for those members that require assistance on the road to 
better integrating th eir economies into the multilateral trading system and the global economy.  
  
We have to realize that, while many of the issues that we faced in 2001 are still relevant and still 
need to be addressed, the world of commerce and trade has changed in the inte rvening years and 
we need to also discuss and potentially negotiate in other areas that are increasingly more 
important in the 21st Century economy – issues such as:  
 
 e-commerce – we believe we need to look at what can we do here to help promote and 
ease e lectronic commerce – this is a part of the way business is conducted today and it 
is much different even from how business was conducted in 1998 when our work 
programme on electronic commerce was initiated;  
 Canada also believes we need to look at investmen t facilitation: investment is key to 
economic growth.  No nation can develop without investment and very few can do it 
effectively without foreign investment and knowhow.  
 Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to discuss and determine what can be done through 
this organization to facilitate investment.  
 Canada also believes that we should have MSMEs in mind when we are discussing trade 
issues. For Canada, these businesses account for well over 50% of formal employment 
and close to 60% of GDP.  As such, they are the engine of the economy and their 
success is vital to Canada’s prosperity.  
 The statistics are similar in most other WTO members, both developed and developing 
countries.  This should be an issue that unites all of us.  
We are well aware that all other members also have objectives, some the same as Canada’s and 
some different – we stand ready to address all issues members raise to try to find mutually 
agreeable solutions.  
 
Again, MC11 is important and outcomes, even if o nly incremental outcomes, are highly desirable 
but we need more than that from the ministerial conference.  This is an opportunity for ministers 
to instruct us – their representatives here in Geneva – on what is important going forward and 
what we should b e working towards post MC11 as we look to MC12, MC13, and beyond.  
 
That work should not and cannot be limited to the negotiating agenda – the other pillars of WTO 
work through regular committees and trade policy reviews, as well as the important, unique 
function of the dispute settlement process need attention as well.   
 
There is more we can do in regular committees – and this work and indeed the negotiating 
agendas would be greatly facilitated if we all fulfilled our notification requirements.  
 
We are all  acutely aware of the important issues facing the DSB – the current Appellate Body 
member selection process, or more particularly, the lack thereof, is only the most recent important 
issue facing the dispute settlement process.  There are various issues fa cing this important 
function of the WTO, these issues are long -standing and are progressively getting worse.  We need 
to address them to ensure the integrity and efficiency of our dispute resolution system.  
 
In conclusion, Canada firmly and strongly suppor ts the multilateral trading system anchored in the 
WTO.  However, we have a lot of work to do and to accomplish this work we need to come 
together and develop a common vision for what we want this organization to be and to stand for.  
MC11 is an important milestone on our journey but it isn’t the end of the road.  
 
I will just take a further minute to give a n update on another issue. As Members know, a small 
group of 15 members, chaired by Canada, are conducting plurilateral discussions toward a 
Fisheries S ubsidies Agreement. This group has met 5 times since January and we have had several 
papers submitted – most quite similar to RNG papers. On this basis, we have had deep discussions 
on the principal issues of disciplining subsidies that support IUU fishing , overfishing and WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 125 - 
 
  overcapacity. While we have not reached a convergence of views on the details of any discipline, 
the small -group format has allowed us to have the back and forth debate that is oft en difficult in 
larger groups. It remains our fervent hope , however, that there will be a multilateral outcome in 
this area – perhaps our work can complement or inform the broader work takin g place under 
Ambassador McCook' s able leadershi p in the Negotiating Group on Rules.  
 
9. Philippines (ASEAN)  
 
With the Eleventh  Ministerial Conference set to take place less than five month s from today, 
ASEAN takes note of the work that has been undertaken in formal WTO Co mmittees and 
Negotiating Groups  as well as on informal consultations and workshops.  
 
With the view to achievi ng meaningful outcomes in Buenos Aires in December, ASEAN welcomes 
increasing engagement from Members and takes note that proposals have been tabled by the 
Members on variou s remaining DDA issues such as agricultural issues and fisheries  subsidi es, S&D 
Treatment  as well as proposals related to domestic regulation as mandated under A rticle VI.4 of 
the GATS.   
 
ASEAN also takes note  of the exploratory discussions on e -commerce, MSMEs and Investm ent 
Facilitation that are taking place in the last few months. AS EAN places great importance on the 
inclusive rules -based multilateral trading system  with the development dimension at its core.  
 
ASEAN  reaffirms its commitment to engage constructively in areas of great importance for the 
whole Membership  of the WTO  in order to achieve concrete outcomes at MC11, which are 
beneficial to all Members, particularly for the developing Members and the L DCs. To this end, 
ASEAN calls upon  all Members to engage in a more cooperative dialogue to be able to achieve 
meaningful o utcomes in Bueno s Aires.   
 
10. Colombia  
 
Colombia endorses the statement made on behalf of a broad group of Members by 
Ambassador  Chambovey  of Switzerland. We consider that the first WTO Ministerial Conference to 
be held in South  America should achieve outcomes that are meaningful to the future of this 
Organization. The most recent Ministerial Conferences have demonstrated that this is possib le 
despite gaps in position. We see Buenos  Aires as an opportunity to send a clear signal of our 
commitment to trade as a driver of development.  
 
Mr Chairman, the end of this semester before the summer recess has seen the discussions in the 
various groups intensify. From September, we should step up this work by being proactive, 
pragmatic and taking an open -minded and constructive attitude.  
 
Turning to the matter at hand, on the specific issues under negotiation, we reiterate that 
Colombia, like many other countries, places great importance on the outcomes in agriculture; 
indeed, Colombia's priority for the Buenos  Aires Ministerial is an agreement on the domestic 
support pillar. In particular, we would like to underscore the fact that along with the 
European  Union, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay, we have co -sponsored a negotiating proposal that in a 
broad, pragmatic, realistic context, advocates alternatives for negotiation in respect of domestic 
support, a permanent solution on public stockholding for food securit y purposes, and cotton. In 
this context, we hope to be able to make progress in focused discussions so that we have a 
deliverable in Buenos Aires, thus demonstrating to the international community the Organization's 
interest in consolidating the progress m ade in the three pillars of agriculture.  
 
With regard to rules, as part of the Latin  American Group composed of Argentina, Costa Rica, 
Panama, Peru and Uruguay, Colombia submitted the Proposal for Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies 
which, in the light of S ustainable Development Goal  14.6, seeks to establish disciplines on harmful 
subsidies related to illegal fishing, overfishing and overcapacity as well as subsidies related to 
deep-sea fishing and irresponsible fishing. We have also highlighted the importan ce of taking into 
account special and differential treatment for the least developed countries in this matter.  
 
As proponents, we constructed this proposal after hearing the views of our fellow Members, and 
today we have circulated two revised versions in a spirit of addressing concerns and requests and 
moving closer to a deliverable for Buenos  Aires. Mr  Chairman, an outcome on this matter will be of WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 126 - 
 
  the utmost importance in signalling this Organization's commitment to the objectives prioritized by 
our Head s of State.  
 
Turning to services, Colombia acknowledges the interest shown and efforts undertaken by a large 
number of Members, including our country, in respect of deepening the discussions on domestic 
regulation that are being held in the relevant workin g group. We hope that this work will result in a 
specific, balanced proposal that gains the support of our fellow Members.  
 
In relation to electronic commerce, our delegation is part of the Friends of E -commerce for 
Development group. Colombia will continu e to work constructively with this group of Members in 
order to deepen understanding of how e -commerce offers a concrete tool for promoting inclusive 
development and, in particular, boosts the capacity of SMEs to become an integral part of the 
global econo my, facilitating their growth. We view the Buenos  Aires Ministerial as an opportunity 
to receive a clear lead from Ministers on how we should orient the work programme on 
e-commerce towards the future, taking into account its cross -cutting nature.  
 
Finally , Colombia would also like to express its support for the open and informal dialogue that has 
taken place over recent months in the Friends of Investment Facilitation for Development group. 
We hope that the two sessions scheduled for after the summer will continue to build an 
atmosphere that is conducive to more in -depth discussions within this Organization.  
 
I would like to conclude my speech, Mr  Chairman, by reiterating that we hope to be able to make 
progress in focused discussions on the various matters  with a view to a plausible outcome in 
Buenos  Aires.  
 
11. Qatar  
 
I would like to begin our statement by thanking you for the clarification which you provided during 
the beginning of this meeting on the role of the Informal Heads of Delegation.  
 
As you find it to be a practical and a transparent way to convene meeting s which are inclusive of 
the entire  Membership, we would like to reaffirm our support towards you , the Director General , 
during this process.  
 
We also take this opportunity to thank the negotiating  group Chairs for their reports on the latest 
developments on multilateral trade negotiations during the TNC.  
 
We associate ourselves with the statement delivered by Switzerland on the joint communication on 
WTO issues of systemic interest and the statemen t delivered by Argentina on investment 
facilitation.  
 
It is clear that the WTO is facing challenges in various areas including the dispute settlement 
system and in transparency. Challenges are also present in various ar eas of the negotiating 
function  of this organization. This is not unexpected.  
 
The IMF has issued its latest six -month  World Economic Outlook which again marked a continued 
shift towards protectionism in advanced economies. Furthermore, unilateralism has reappeared 
recently as a tool for trad e policy.  
 
Qatar would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm its commitments to the multilateral trading 
system. We believe that trade has proven to play an essential role in poverty reducti on, 
development and economic empowerment.  The WTO is essential  in achieving this.  
 
In this connection,  Qatar has recently has recently ratified  the Trade Facilitation Agreement. We 
encourage Members to continue to safeguard the rules based multilateral trading system as it is 
essential in achieving sustainable growt h for all.  
 
On MC11 we find that Buenos Aires presents an opportuni ty for us to reaffirm centra lity of the 
WTO and advance its negotiating functions. Qatar takes interest in two specific areas: e -commerce 
and investment facilitation. As we have seen yester day during the joint FIFD and FEDs seminar , 
many speakers highlighted the linkages between investment and the e -commerce with regards to WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 127 - 
 
  the development dimension. We are of the view that e -commerce could prevail better investment 
opportunities as they are  both growing and becoming more relevant in the world stage.  
 
We have joined in submitting the communication entitled "Advancing work on e -commerce group 
program me" with aims to have discussions on improvements of the process and to identify the 
issues of interest for Members. In this regard, we would like to see a horizontal process at the 
technical level taking place as we head closer towards MC11. We must find a way to participate in 
more substantive discussions on this topic for the purpose of achieving  concrete outcomes on e -
commerce in Buenos Aires.  
 
We have further held  three informal dialogues on investment fa cilitation  with broad participation 
from the M embership. Many issues were highlighted including efforts to improve transparency and 
regulatory measures. As a Member of Friends for Investment Facilitation for Development, we 
welcome these discussions.  
 
It has been proven that FDI is a catalyst for eco nomic dev elopment. We find that liberalization and 
facilitation would  only aid in achieving t he Sustainable Development Goals. Thus, we look forward 
to continuing the ongoing open ended dialogue and explore the possible role of investment 
facilitation.  
 
To conclude, we encourage Members to adopt a solution seeking more than the upcoming period 
and to adjudge any proposal on its merits and we look forward to continued constructive 
engagement in many of the issues to achieve a successful MC11.  
 
12. New Zealand  
 
I had to leave  the room briefly earlier this evening,  and I suggested as I did to Ambassador Neple 
that he could also associate me with what he was about to say and coming back into the room I    
therefore do associate New Zealand with the comments of Norw ay and others in expressing our 
confidence in the integrity of the Secretariat and you r role as Director -General.  
 
New Zealand is one of the co -signatories to the joint communication introduced by Switzerland 
expressing concerns at the challenges  facing the WTO. And as we have all reminded ourselves 
today – that it is not something independent but that is us as Member s. 
 
Looking to MC11, it will  be important that we as Members leave no doubt as  to our commitment to 
the rules -based multilateral tra ding system as embodied in the WTO. That means we need to 
continue to develop rules in the areas we have traditionally been negotiating and we need to 
update our agenda to more closely reflect modern business reality.  
 
New Zealand is looking for concrete o utcomes addressing the issues of fisheries  subsidies, 
agriculture, domestic support including public stockholding and services domestic regulation 
harvesting the work done pursuant to the GATT's Article VI.4 Mandate.  
 
Hopefully , there will also be other M inisterial decisions for example extending t he moratorium on 
e-commerce dut ies and enhanc ed transparency on NTBs to show  that we as WTO Member 
gover nments are delivering to the practical  needs of business particularly small and medium 
enterprises.  
 
To the e xtent that MC11 outcomes do not complete the work required in each area we will need to 
agree for work program mes. For example, fisheries subsidies, pursuant to the SD G 14.6 for which 
the 2020 clock is ticking includes IUU, overfish ed stocks, overfishing a nd over capacity to the 
extent any of these issues remain unresolved , ongoin g negotiations will be needed hopefully 
subject  to an overall standstill to ensure that the problem d oes not get worse in the interim . 
 
In the area of updating, we also need a mean ingful work program me on e-commerce which 
encompasses the possibility of negotiated outcomes.  
 
These  post MC11 work programmes should be directed to producing agreed outcomes for MC12.  
 
I have not sought to be exhausted here. T here are many other issues tha t need addressing both 
on our regular work and through negotiations. It is only through an agenda of meaningful market WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 128 - 
 
  opening and reduction or elimination of other market distorting policies and practices that all 
Members will have an opportunity to devel op through trade.  
 
13. Japan  
 
Japan thanks the Director -General  for sharing his thought about his role, transparency and the 
neutrality of the Se cretariat. We fully support his effort and highly appreciate hard work of the 
Secretariat.  
 
Japan welcomes and supports the initiative by Switzerland and many other co -sponsors . Japan 
echoes all the views expressed in their communication.  
 
On MC11 , in the next two to three months, we need to identify areas, and figure out  forms , of 
deliverables and other outcomes for MC11.  In this regard, there are several  points we should  take 
into account in this regard . 
 
 First, w e should address all the relevant issues, whether they are mature as the subjects 
of negotiation or not , in order for the WTO to respo nd to the challenges facing the 
international community.  
 Second, w e should take a  pragmatic and realistic  approach  based on the proposals 
currently on the table , while  respecting the red lines of each Member . Unrealistic 
demands will never be achieved.  
 Third, a n incremental approach is necessary. We should  make every effort  to achieve 
specific outcomes for MC11, but if a binding solution is premature, we may opt for a  
non-binding one . If we cannot agree on every part of one particular issue, w e may 
consider some  limited deliverables as early harvests  and a work program for remaining 
parts. If all the Members are not ready , the plurilateral format provided for in WTO 
agreements may be the way to go . In this connection, we believe that creating a better 
and more sound  post-Buenos Aires negotiating  environment will also be one of the  
positive  outcome s of MC11.  
Now l et me touch upon some of the issues of interest  to us. 
 
On agriculture, domestic support is the most important issue to be addressed. Ja pan believe s that 
a discipline  on domestic support should be based on the existing elements o f the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The proposed Value of Product -based approach is not equitable and will not facilitate 
the creation of effective  rules.  
 
As for  public stockholding  for food security purposes , Japan expects the proponents to take a 
realistic approach  in order to achieve tangible outcomes at MC11.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, due consideration for fisheries resource management is indispensable . The 
discipli ne under the WTO should  contribute to achieving the sustainable use of fisheries resources 
envisaged in the 2030 Agenda . 
 
As for domestic regulation in services, the proposals currently on the table are quite mature. Such 
regulations will help to facilitat e trade, particularly for developing countries and MSMEs.  This issue 
should be one of the specific outcome s at MC11.  
 
On e-commerce, we welcome the initiative by the European Union for the facilitation of online 
transactions  under the existing mandate . However, we also believe that the issue of e -commerce 
and digital trade should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner.  We therefore propose that we 
deepen discussion s for one more year under the work program of 1998 in order to evaluate 
whether  strengthening or clarification of the WTO rules is necessary and to decide whether to start 
negotiations on e -commerce.  I will elaborate further on this point in the General Council tomorrow.  
 
Furthermore, Japan welcomes ongoing discussions on issues of the day such as investment 
facilitation and MSMEs. These elements, together with e -commerce and domestic regulation in 
services, are important features of facilitat ing trade and investment , and will make trade more 
inclusive.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 129 - 
 
   
Last but not least, with respe ct to the new proposal on S&D treatments, Generally speaking I 
would like to make a few points. Deviation s from WTO rules lead to less transparency and 
predictability, which has negative impacts  on the business environment, and thus on  trade and 
investment  as well as on integration into global value chains. S&D treatment is a remedy which 
should be administered only for those Members  in real need and only to the extent necessary . An 
overdose would  be harmful for those countr ies and would endanger the rule o f law under the WTO. 
We should not repeat the unproductive  process of two years ago . 
 
After the summer break, there will be less than 100 days left before MC11. We have a difficult 
road ahead  and the time remaining is short . But among the three pillars of WTO functions, we 
must advance the negotiati ng pillar in particular, so that the WTO  remain s relevant to the current 
needs of the international community . Japan is ready to do its best to cooperate with the host 
country Argentina and other Members in this endeavor.  
 
14. Norway  
 
We support the statement Switzerland made on behalf of 47 Members.  I can assure you that we 
will continue our efforts in the different negotiating groups, in working groups and informal 
meetings to seek incremental progress at MC11.  We need to prepare th e ground for the Ministers 
to reach as ambitious results as possible. We also need Ministers guidance on further work beyond 
MC11.   
 
E-commerce, for example, is an area where further guidance without doubt is needed to update 
the multilateral trading syst em and keep the WTO relevant to developments in the world economy 
as many have mentioned before here today.  Norway would prefer a more ambitious result, but at 
the very least members need to agree on a locus for future comprehensive and uninterrupted 
discussions on e -commerce.  We also seek clarity regarding future work on investment facilitation.  
We call on all Members to be pragmatic and flexible, stay engaged and search for what is doable 
and realistic.  
 
15. Pakistan  
 
Director -General, you  have been most inclus ive, transparent and accessible. We regard you as our 
Director -Gener al. Regarding the Secretariat, l et me be on record that it is most professional and  a 
true office of a Member -driven organization.  
 
We have been following your effort s and your articulate and persistent defence of Trade and  the 
World Trade Organisation at different fora. W e greatly appreciate your efforts. W ith rising anti-
trade discourse, wherein trade is often singled out as a major cause of instability in labour 
markets, your research -based,  objective articulation of views in support of trade has been 
effective.  
 
We are of the considered view that economic well -being of billions of people depends on trade. 
Deeper trade integration coupled with right national policies  can boost incomes and accelerate 
global growth.  
 
We fully subscribe to DG Azevedo' s views when he says "Trade is imperfect" but trade negotiations 
are not. We are doing our work in a rules based system which clearly defines our roles and  
limitations. We a ll therefore  have to take advantage of this rules based multilateral system and try 
to compensate for the imperfections in trade. We should propose a common agenda that can reset 
the trajectory of the system to respond to contemporary issues as well as the  outstanding ones, by 
being pragmatic, realistic and creative at the same time.  
 
We recently had the Aid for Trade Global Review.  It was a  good reminder for us at the WTO abou t 
our commitment to development and also provided guidance on our  future course of action. We 
have had valuable experience sharing and a clear articulation of the expectations that our 
stakeholders have from the deve lopment institutions and the multilateral trading system .  
 
In Aid for Trade, we had approximately fifty -six sessions on Trade, Inclusiveness and Connectivity 
for Sustainable Development. An e stimated 40% of sessions  had digital connectivity and e -
commerce as a key co mponent. But in our experience,  invariably majority of the sessions WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 130 - 
 
  culminated in highl ighting t he key linkage between e -commerce, Investment Facilitation, MSMEs, 
Inclusive Trade and SDGs.  
 
This Aid for Trade  Global Review had important messages from stakeholders and people at 
operational level – these were messages about what is expected from us at  the WTO.  
 
ICTSD recently presente d a research paper on RTAs and e -commerce, a key finding of the 
research is that since 2001  – to date, at  least half of WTO M embers (developed and developing) 
have en tered at least one RTA with an e -commerce chapter. This  is food for thought for us in  the 
WTO.  
 
Internet revoluti on contributes 8% of global GDP.  The development of mobile broad band holds the 
promises to bring  billions more on line, thus narrowing the digital, economic, physical and 
educational divide.  The int ernet of things or internet of everything has the potential of contributing 
$11 Trillion to global GDP by 2025. Internet -related consumption and expenditure has already 
surpassed the size of the global agriculture and energy sectors. But only a small propo rtion of this 
is happening in LDCs and developing countries.  
 
More than anything else , the internet  will define the 21st century business environment. At the  
present day and ag e, we live in an era of  24/7 connectivity. By end of year,  half o f world’s 
popul ation will be online. I n the developed world 80% use internet, but only 40% in developing 
and less than 15% in LDCs are online. In many African countries one person in 10 is on the 
internet. This off line population is mostly female, elderly, less educated and poorer and mostly in 
rural areas. Of the 4.4 billion people offline, 3.4 billion live in just 20 countri es, and one billion of 
this 3.4 B are illiterate.  
  
According to the latest UNCTAD B2C ecommerce Readiness Index, the developed world has a score 
of 71, Latin America  42, Developing Asia 38 and Africa 24. This shows that some have the ability 
to capture a disproportion ate share of "digital dividends". A k ey message is that we are digitally a 
multispeed planet. Particularly from a development perspectiv e, it is critical that we focus on the 
development dimension of e -commerce.  
 
Yesterday in the FED s and FIFD seminar on digital divide, we learned  about the potential of e -
commerce to address development deficit. A private sector operator from Pakistan shar ed that, 
during the last three years, after the auction of 3G/4G  spectrum, the consumers using broadband 
on mobile  have increased from 3 to 44 million. This is 188% growth rate. A  million BBM 
connections are being added every month.  
 
The theme of the rece ntly held WTO 2017 Aid for Trade Global Review was "Promoting 
Connectivity". We learned that c onnectivity is also about having the right infrastructure and the 
institutions to service that infrastructure  and creating a favorable environment. It is about ha rd 
infrastructure like roads, railways, ports and soft infrastructure like TFA, and more so it is about 
infrastructure underlying all infrastructures – the internet.  
 
In our view a progressive trade policy agenda has answers to challenges of ICT infrastructure, and 
investment required for bridging  the digital divide and making trade logistics efficient.  There is a 
clear and pressing need to scale up investment in digital infrastructure in many developing and 
least-developed countries if they are g oing to benefit from e -commerce and the digitization of the 
global economy.  
 
By facilitating investment – including through strengthening transparency, improving predictability 
and speeding up administrative procedures – not only can developing countries create jobs, build 
skills, and spur innovation but t hey also can  also build the essential infrastructure that represents 
the difference between countries being connected to – or disconnected from – today's global 
economy.  
 
In order to deepen the dialo gue o n investment facilitation, on b ehalf of FIFD,  which is comprised of 
12 WTO Members, namely Argentina; Brazil; Chile; China; Colombia; Hong Kong, China; 
Kazakhstan; Mexico; Nigeria; Pakista n;  Republic of Korea and Qatar, w e organized a workshop on 
Investme nt Facilitation for Development  on the eve of  the Aid for Trade Global Review.  The 
Workshop  focused specifically on: "What Investment can do for Trade Connectivity and 
Development – Investment Needs and Bottlenecks."   WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 131 - 
 
   
 The key highlights and takeaways of the Workshop were also presented at the Closing Plenary 
Session of the Aid -for-Trade Global Review 2017.  
 
 This Workshop explored how investment facilitation policies could help countries foster 
development, diversify their exports, integrate into GVCs and link up to the digit al economy. 
The private sector participants identified the ground -level obstacles they faced when investing 
in different countries, and how investment facilitation could address them effectively. And very 
importantly, the Workshop showc ased concrete policies, tools and best practices that 
governments can adopt to facilitate investment – such as improving regulatory transparency 
and predictability, streamlining and speeding up administrative procedures, and enhancing 
international coopera tion, and technical investment.  
 
 The Workshop had following highlights:  
 
1. In total, 21 speakers made a pres entation (or an intervention). And over 
70 participants joined in the full -day discussion, coming from different backgrounds: 
WTO Members; experts fr om international organizations (such as UNCTAD, World Bank 
and OECD); non -governmental organizations; the private sector (such as Vodafone 
Group, the World Economic Forum, ICC, and the Federation of German Industries), 
and academia. As well as, importantly , investment -facilitation policy practitioners: 
notably national Investment Authorities and representatives from national investment 
promotion agencies (IPAs).  
 
2. In doing so, the Workshop provided a platform for debate bringing together the 
investment and t he trade community.  Together they sent a clear message:  in today's 
trade and investment value chains, investment is essential if developing and least -
developed countries are to overcome their infrastructure constraints, industrialize, and 
expand and dive rsify their exports.  
 
3. Thirdly, the Workshop highlighted how a large number of countries – and notably 
developing countries – were committed to, and already, implementing investment 
facilitation policies at the national, bilateral and even regional level.  Why?  Because 
they wished to attract not only more, but also higher quality investment that is better 
geared towards their development needs.  In this context, access to technical 
assistance and capacity building, as well as faithful implementation, were s een to be 
critical.    
 
 The Workshop enabled a constructive dialogue, and specifically brought to Members' attention 
possible elements that could be further discussed in the WTO Informal Dialogue on Investment 
Facilitation for Development, very ably being facilitated and coordinated by Amb Cima of 
Argentina.  
 
 The high level of engagement at the Workshop was testimony to the fact that investment 
facilitation is of interest to many Members.  There may be different needs and approaches – 
but it is fair to say  that all countries want to explore ways of facilitating investment – and 
notably foreign investment – as a means of promoting economic growth and development. 
Presentations made at workshop a re available on the WTO website.  
 
 We appreciate and value the st erling quality assistan ce provided by the S ecretariat.  
 
I would be failing my duty if I do not hig hlight challenges faced by MSMEs  and what we have to do 
for them. We have to particularly  address lack of access to finance and regulatory trade barriers 
faced by MSMEs, along with many others.  
 
MSME exporters represent an important source of economic growth in both the developed and 
developing countries . 
 
Globally, SMEs as well as MSMEs are t he leading providers of employment and contribute 
significantly to value addition. In effect, they are directly and indirectly embedded in the 
international trading system. In Pakistan , more than 90% of our enterprises are SMEs. They 
employ 45M people – around 70 % of our labour force. But only 25% of them export.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 132 - 
 
   
Micro, small and medium -sized enterprises are responsible for the bulk of job creation, economi c 
dynamism and innovation. M ost of the time,  they however  do not participate in trade and in the 
global economy to a level that matches their potential  despite of the fact that these young, 
dynamic MSMEs  are engine s of growth and innovation.  SMEs ha ve been largely absent from the  
broad trade debate. It seems that we may be missing an opportun ity to supp ort this vital part of 
every economy.   
 
It is an undeniable fact  that tradin g internationally is often much more  costly and difficult for 
micro, small   and medium -sized enterprises (MS MEs). The smaller the business, the bigger and 
more difficult  the barrie rs they face.   
 
They are most affected by changes in trade policy. In a practical sense, the e ffects take concrete 
form as issues that can impact costs, access, and strategic planning. Lacking the technical and 
financial resources, most MSMEs are not equip ped to deal with these issues in isolation. 
Frequently, MSMEs are not aware of the changes in trade policy and practices in export markets. 
They face huge challenge s and regulatory burden which are further complicated by lack of 
information.  
 
The challeng es for MSMEs of the developing countries are much more than those faced by th ose of 
developed countries. It is estimated that about 20 % of new SMEs go out of business before their 
first birthday and that over 50% eventually wind up after five years.  
 
For M SMEs , e-commerce can break the "Iron Law" of International Trade t hat exporting was 
possible only for large companies. Today , while less than 5% of big c ompanies export, the WTOs 
2016 World Trade Report  cited that 97% of internet -enabled SMEs export.  
 
We have to support these MSMEs in fully integrating into global trade. We need to prioritize needs 
of MSMEs  in all streams of our  work. Towards this objective, w e greatly appreciate the valuable 
work being done by the Friends of MSMES  coordinated by Amb . Hector Cas anueva of Chile.  
 
This is an issue which we must address and which could make a significant contribution to 
supporting growth, development and job c reation. In our work towards MC 11 and beyond, we 
need to keep in mind the challenges faced by MSMEs  so that we build a more open and inclusive 
trading system, the benefits of which are available to all.  
 
The world has changed drastically over the last two decades and the WTO has to adapt itself to 
this change to remain rel evant. It is high time the WTO Members start explor ing the best way to 
incorporate  emerging issues and present day challenges in our work.  
 
It is not advisable to live in the past. The issues have to be those that matter to businesses and 
our stakeholders and help remove any existing tr ade disto rtions. It is time for the WTO M embers 
to regain the centrality of the WTO as the only organization for negotiating global rules of 
governing cross -border trade in goods and services. But we have to move with a balance, and not 
forget our pending business.  
 
16. Chinese Taipei  
 
My delegation is pleased to join the joint communication introduced by Switzerland on WTO issues 
of systemic interest. We would also like to thank Costa Rica, Chile and Argentina for their efforts to 
enhance discussions on e-commerce, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and 
investment facilitation.  
 
We are a strong believer in the fact that the WTO is a system of rules dedicated to open, fair and 
undistorted competition. Internet and digital technologies could promot e inclusion, efficiency, and 
innovation. However, if the digital economy is not accessible, affordable and open, it will result in 
inequality, control and concentration.  
 
For MSMEs even to have the chance of participating in the Global Value Chain, the key  
requirements are connectivity, accessibility, regulatory transparency, and innovation. First, 
connectivity means to bridge digital divide in terms of infrastructure; Second, removal of unfair 
internet blocking to ensure equal access to digital trade is cr ucial; Third, transparency help MSMEs WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 133 - 
 
  to access the regulatory information in the different foreign markets. Finally, spurring innovation 
and creativity of MSMEs can be contributed to their sustainable growth and employment.  
 
We believe that the WTO has a crucial role to play in making this possible, and in making the 
global market more inclusive and productive.  
 
17. Russian Federation  
 
This HODs meeting is the opportunity for thoughtful consideration with the capital of ways to move 
things for MC11 from stuck to success. I believe we cannot afford a meagre ministerial. World 
trade needs a bold response to raising protectionist sentiment.  
 
Russia does hope that coming September will mark a fresh start for getting practical stuff for 
MC11. My delegation is eager to make a positive input. Despite the controversies, we feel high 
level of interest inside the WTO for advancements on a number of tracks.  
 
Agriculture seemingly tops the list. Many Members name it as a must for MC11. Many Members 
talked today about fair t rade and a levelled play field. It is time to translate words into deeds. 
Trade distorting domestic support in agriculture is a good candidate for it. There are several 
proposals on how to cap this spending.  
 
Russia does not sit idle on agriculture either . My delegation has put forward the proposal to abolish 
the right to SSG that only some of the Members enjoy.  
 
We also seek better disciplines on domestic regulations in services. I do not think that it got the 
deserved progress and call upon colleagues i n the house to inject more momentum in this area.  
 
From the outset, my country pushes for properly addressing important emerging issues in trade 
such as investment facilitation, e -commerce or MSMEs. I welcome recent developments in this 
regard. These facto rs will shape the future trade and it is not wise to overlook them.  
 
Trade and investment are complimentary. They follow each other. If decoupled, the effect of trade 
will go down as well as country’s ability to integrate in global value chains. Having sai d this, I 
would like to raise the voice for investment facilitation inclusion into the MC11 outcome package.  
  
E-commerce is another hot spot. It overtakes more traditional means of doing business. Member’s 
high interest in it is proved by multiple substan tive submissions and dedicated events. Russia 
joined this effort by circulating its own vision on how to proceed with e -commerce. It emphasizes 
the need for better structuring of the work and closing knowledge gap.  
 
For the WTO, MC is a milestone. It serves as a messenger for peoples and businesses on economic 
and development prospects. It is up to us to meet their expectations and ensure that trade works 
at its fullest to bring more opportunities and choices to our s ocieties.  
 
18. European Union  
 
First, regarding e -commerce, the EU would like to remind Members of its proposal on "An enabling 
environment to facilitate on -line transactions " (tabled in May 2017).  The identification of a limited 
set of deliverables outlined  in our Communication emerged from a similar kind of evaluation 
process which had taken place among Members since the last Ministerial Conference in 2015, in 
the context of the WP on e -commerce, regular committees, CTS -SS and various events.  
 
The EU propos al indeed focuses on a limited set of non -controversial regulatory issues, i.e. 
consumer protection, anti -spam, e -trust services and e -contracts. These topics have been 
identified by many Members as areas where the WTO could deliver in order to improve leg al 
certainty and transparency, enhance the access and use of e -services, increase the participation of 
SMEs, and bring development benefits, to name just a few.  
 
Following the CTS -SS meeting in June, the EU continues to hold bilateral conversations with 
interested Members, and expects another discussion in the CTS -SS after summer break.  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 134 - 
 
  The EU would therefore like to invite an active and constructive engagement by Members on its 
text proposal, while continuing active reflections on the elements for the Mi nisterial Decision 
outlining longer terms priorities, processes and potential deliverables by the WTO in this area.  
 
The EU would like to thank Chile for skilfully chairing the Informal dialogue on MSMEs . I would first 
like to make two general points:  
 
First, the EU's objective is not to create new rules only applicable to MSMEs; accordingly, we see 
no need to define what MSMEs is in legal terms. Indeed, this would be an impossible task given 
how different our economies are. What we aim to is to explore wh ether there are areas of our 
work where improvements or new general rules could be more beneficial for MSMEs. For example, 
the EU is supportive of further work on access to information and good regulatory practices.  
 
Second, we do see enhancing MSMEs acces s to global value chains as a contribution to the 
developmental objective. We heard on many occasions that SMEs are of key importance to 
developing economies; accordingly, rules that facilitate SMEs' access to trade opportunities should 
bring benefits to d eveloping economies.  
 
Until today, in the MSMEs dialogue, we had interesting sessions where we had the opportunity to 
engage in open and instructive discussions; now, we need to move one step forward and explore 
what can be done to achieve a meaningful re sult in the upcoming Ministerial Conference. We have 
already a good set of ideas and potential proposals on the table on which we can build on 
constructively.  
 
With respect to Investment, the EU welcomes and supports the work done by the "Friends of 
Inves tment Facilitation for Development" through the ongoing informal dialogue. While the 
dialogue is still ongoing, it has already allowed to share domestic practices and experiences with 
respect to measures that facilitate investment. In particular, we have a ppreciated the discussions 
on transparency and on streamlined procedures. The discussion is obviously allowing us to 
progressively identify what measures should be in place in our regulatory frameworks should we 
wish to attract and retain investment.  
 
Looking ahead, we would welcome more discussions on which rules supporting investment 
facilitation already exist at the WTO. By identifying more clearly the gaps that exist in the 
multilateral rule book, we would be able to define where value -added could be cr eated at the WTO.  
 
As those informal talks progress, one will also need to reflect on how this organisation could take 
forward this issue in a more formal manner.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
 
  WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 135 - 
 
  ANNEX 6  
STATEMENT S BY DELEGATIONS ON  THE SIXTH GLOBAL REV IEW OF AID FOR TRADE  
At their  request, the statement  of Japan at the Closing Session of the Aid for Trade Global Review 
on 13 July  and those of  Pakistan  and the United States  on Aid for Trade (Agenda Item 3)  are 
included below as part of the Minutes of the General Co uncil meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Statement at the Closing Session of the Aid for Trade Global Review on 13 July 2017  
 
1. Japan  
 
At the outset, let me congratulate the success of the Sixth Global Review of Aid for Trade.  
 
This year’s Global Review was held at  a critical juncture for the following two ways:  
 
Firstly, it was held for the first time since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development. The SDGs are the common goals for the international community, and I believe that 
Aid for Trade ser ves for all of these Goals. It is because economic growth expands the resources of 
the country, and it ultimately becomes the necessary foundation for the enhancement of human 
security and the eradication of poverty and hunger.  
 
Secondly, it was held in the time of the rise in protectionism and skepticism about trade 
worldwide. In order to ensure that everyone, including SMEs, women and youths can reap the 
benefit of trade, and to realize “inclusive trade” which leaves no one behi nd, it is expected that Aid 
for Trade will continue to play its role.  
 
Under such circumstances, it was timely to have “connectivity” as the theme of this year’s Review. 
Through the three -day discussions, it was widely recognized that promoting trade facil itation and 
digital trade would contribute to improving connectivity. Also, we reaffirmed the importance of 
combining various elements such as hard infrastructure, human resource development, regulatory 
framework and gender empowerment.  
 
Such a holistic ap proach is exactly what Japan has put in practice in its own Aid for Trade efforts. 
As the top donor country of Aid for Trade, Japan provided assis tance amounting to more than 
45 billion USD between 2006 and 2015. While economic infrastructure accounts for the large 
portion, we are providing comprehensive assistance including in the areas of productive capacity 
building as well as trade policy and regulations, in order to meet the needs of the recipient 
countries.  
 
In this context, I would like to inform you  that Japan has recently made additional contribution to 
the DDA Global Trust Fund. It is for the second time for us this year, and the total amount of 
Japan’s contribution to the Fund in 2017 amounts to approximately 450,000 CHF.  
 
Japan will continue to f ollow such a holistic approach and provide Aid for Trade to developing 
countries, including LDCs, through various initiatives such as High Quality Infrastructure, One -Stop 
Border Post and the One Village One Product movement. In Africa in particular, Japan  will steadily 
implement the pledge announced by Prime Minister Abe at TICAD VI last year that Japan would 
provide a support of 30 billion USD including private investment. We hope this will help African 
countries pursue their strategic visions envisaged i n Agenda 2063.  
 
In this year’s Global Review, it was also reaffirmed that mobilization of private resources including 
Foreign Direct Investment plays important roles in such areas as trade facilitation and digital 
trade, and that good investment environmen t though policy consistency and transparency is 
critical. In the end, efforts made by developing countries themselves are always the key. Japan 
hopes that the ownership by developing countries and the catalyst effect of Aid for Trade will 
create good syner gies and lead to sustainable economic growth.  
 
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 136 - 
 
   
Statements on Agenda Item 3 on Aid for Trade  
 
1. Pakistan  
 
Aid for Trade is always a good reminder for us at the WTO about our commitment to development 
and guidance about our future course of action.  
 
With mo re than 80% of the Members being Developing & LDCs, development is an integral part of 
our work. It is essential for our work at WTO and Aid for Trade is a key vehicle for operationalizing 
this commitment.  
 
Pakistan greatly appreciates the WTO Secretariat  and partner institutions for the excellent 
knowledge management and logistical coordination.  
 
We have had valuable experience sharing and a clear articulation of the expectations that LDCs 
and Developing Members have from the dev elopment institutions and  the multilateral trading 
system .  
 
We had 56 sessions on Trade, Inclusiveness and Connectivity of SD. An estimated 40% of sessions 
had digital connectivity and e -commerce as a key component.  
 
But in my experience, the invariable majority of the sessions culminated in highlighti ng the key 
linkage of Aid for Trade  with Electronic C ommerce, Investment Facilitation, MSMEs, Inclusive Trade 
and SDGs.  
 
The WTO Secretariat  is a member of the Geneva Gender Champions which makes  a commitment 
and pledge to ende avour for gender panel parity. It will be advisable to ende avour that no panel is  
gender blind during future Aid for Trade  reviews.  
 
This Aid for Trade  Global Review had important messages from stakeholders , entrepreneurs, 
sector leaders  and people at operatio nal level – these were messages about what is expected from 
us at the WTO.  
 
2. United States  
 
We'd like to thank Director -General Azevêdo  and his staff, particularly those in the Development 
Division, for organizing the 6th Global Review of Aid for Trade. The  program of events was 
impressive – from the plenaries, to the side events, to the development hubs.  
 
This year's focus on trade, inclusiveness and connectivity for sustainable development built on the 
theme of reducing trade costs in the 5th Global Review,  expanding our understanding of trade 
costs into the digital domain and reflecting the changing nature of trade.  
 
As noted in the 2017 Aid for Trade at a Glance publication, digital networks offer another avenue 
for developing countries to connect to glob al trade.  Digital connectivity is pertinent to other 
modes of physical connectivity (air, sea, road and rail) and underpins the global value chains that 
now characterize international commerce.  
 
The United States hosted a side event on “New Trends in Digi tal Economy and Connectivity 
Innovation & Assistance.”  In that session, we heard how business transactions – including cross -
border transactions – increasingly depend on the internet and access to information 
communication technology.  
 
Companies that sel l their products and services online are much more likely to export.  This 
underscores the importance of the digital economy as a driver of innovation, competitiveness, 
growth, and trade.  
 
But it also highlights the challenges related to connectivity, aff ordability of ICT goods and services, 
establishing a digital presence, trade facilitation, and the enduring challenge of logistics that 
developing countries need to tackle, and aid agencies need to target.  
 WT/GC/M/168  
 
- 137 - 
 
  We were pleased that the Global Review continued to focus on implementing the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement, which entered into force earlier this year. The thematic session and related side 
events earlier this week reinforced again how important the TFA is to advancing solid development 
outcomes in the t rade sphere, as well as reminding us of the extensive availability of relevant 
technical assistance from multiple sources.  
 
Again, thanks to the Director General and the Secretariat for putting together another successful 
Global Review, and we look forward  to engaging with others to build on the good work showcased 
this week.  
 
 
 
__________