RESTRICTED  
  
G/C/M/122  
 
9 June 2015  
(15-3014)  Page: 1/27  
Council for Trade in Goods    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
26 MARCH 2015 
CHAIRPERSON: H.E. MR. ATANAS ATANASSOV PAPARIZOV (BULGARIA) 
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG, or the Council) was convened by 
Airgram WTO/AIR/CTG/1; the proposed agenda for the meeting was circulated in document G/C/W/711. The meeting proceeded on the basis of the following agenda. 
 
1   NOTIFICATION OF RE GIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS .................................................... 2
 
2   STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS 
IN ANNEX IA OF TH E WTO AGREEMENT ........................................................................... 2  
3   APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIA RY BODIES ........................................ 2  
4   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994 ..................................................................................... 4  
5   ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA TO THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC 
UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994 (G/L/1110) .................. 5  
6   JORDAN – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  RELATING TO THE TRANSITIONAL 
PERIOD FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE EXPORT SUBSIDY PROGRAM FOR 
JORDAN (G/C/W/705 AND G/C/W/705/CORR.1) ........................................................... 6  
7   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER – CARIBBEAN 
BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT (CBERA AS AMENDED) .............................................. 11  
8   CANADA – REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER FOR THE 
CARIBBEAN INITIATIVE: CA RIBCAN (G/C/W/710) ....................................................... 12  
9   NIGERIA – RESTICTIONS/BAN IMPOSED BY NIGERIA TO IMPORTS OF SEA 
PRODUCTS – REQUEST FROM ICELAND AND NORWAY ................................................... 13  
10   NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM 
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UN ITED STATES OF AMERICA ..................................... 15  
11   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRADE RESTRICTING MEASURES – REQUEST FROM 
THE EUROPEAN UNIO N AND JAPAN ............................................................................... 16  
12   INDONESIA'S IMPORT AND EXPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND 
PRACTICES – REQUEST FROM THE EUROPE AN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERIC A ...................................................................................................... 19 
13   ECUADOR – IMPORT RESTRICTING MEASURES – REQUEST FROM JAPAN ................ 23  
14   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC CO MMERCE ................................................... 25  
15   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 26  
15.1   DATE OF TH E NEXT M EETINGS ................................................................................. 26 
16   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS .................... 26  
 
 G/C/M/122 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, under the wo rking procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), following adopti on by the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the CTG was to be kept informed of  Members' notifications of new regional trade 
agreements.1 He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements had been notified 
to the CRTA: 
- Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA St ates and the Central American States – 
Costa Rica and Panama (WT/REG357/N/1); 
 
- Eurasian Economic Union (the EAEU) be tween the Russian Federation, Belarus and 
Kazakhstan (WT/REG358/N/1); 
 
- Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and Australia 
(WT/REG359/N/1); 
 
- Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA  States and Bosnia and Herzegovina 
(WT/REG360/N/1); 
 
- Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and Australia (WT/REG361/N/1); 
 
- Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea (WT/REG362/N/1); 
 
- Accession of Armenia to the Eurasian Economic Union (WT/REG363/N/1); 
 
- Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Honduras (WT/REG364/N/1). 
 1.2.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the information provided. 
1.3.  The Council so agreed. 
2  STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS IN 
ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
2.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to documents G/L/223/Rev.21 and 
G/L/223/Rev.22, containing the status of notifica tions under the provisions of the Agreements in 
Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement. 
2.2.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of document G/L/223/Rev.22. 
2.3.  The Council so agreed. 
3  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIARY BODIES 
3.1.  The Chairperson reminded delegations that the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to the 
WTO (WT/L/510) adopted by the General Council on 11 December 2002, provided that the 
Chairperson of the CTG would conduct consultations on the appointment of the Chairpersons of the 
subsidiary bodies of this Council, including consul tations with the group coordinators in line with 
the practical steps to be taken to improve the process of appointment of officers contained in 
JOB/GC/22 dated 27 July 2012. 
3.2.  He recalled that, on 20 February 2015, all Members and Group coordinators had been 
informed that he would be accepting proposals for candidates to chair the subsidiary bodies of the 
CTG and that, accordingly, he had carried out consultations over three weeks on this matter. 
These consultations consisted of individual meetings with Group coordinators and bilateral consultations with delegations who had expressed their interest in the consultation process. Based 
on the proposals and suggestions from Group coordinators and Members who responded to his 
call, he had prepared a balanced slate of names for the Chairpersonship of the respective bodies of 
                                               
1 See documents WT/REG16, WT/L/671, and G/C/M/88. G/C/M/122 
 
- 3 - 
 
  the CTG for 2015. The slate of names had not only been communicated to delegations on 
17 March 2015 but also considered by Members in an open-ended informal meeting that had taken place immediately before this meeting where Members had agreed on his proposed slate of names. Therefore, he believed himself to be in a position to propose to this Council an agreed slate of 
names for the Chairs of its subsidiary bodies that reflected the transparent manner in which the 
consultations had been carried out as well as the wide diversity of the WTO Membership. 
3.3.  The names of Chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies were as follows: 
Chairpersons of CTG Subsidiary Bodies 
Market Access Miss Krizia Denisse MATTHEWS (Panama) 
Agriculture Mr Michael WAMAI (Uganda) 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Meas ures Mr Felipe HEES (Brazil) 
Technical Barriers to Trade Miss Alana Maria LANZA SUAZO (Honduras) 
TRIMs Mr Zaher AL-QATARNEH (Jordan) 
Anti-Dumping Practices Mr Hamed Mahmoud EL ETREBY (Egypt) 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Mr Mitsuhiro FUKUYAMA (Japan) 
Safeguards Mr Víctor ECHEVARRÍA UGARTE (Spain) 
Import Licensing Miss Carrie I-Jen WU (Chinese Taipei) 
Rules of Origin Mr Christian WEGENER (Denmark) 
Customs Valuation Mr Ping LIU (China) 
State Trading Enterprises Mr Andrew JORY (Australia) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products (ITA Committee) Mr Andrew STAINES (UK) 
 
3.4.  He proposed that the Council agree with the nominations read out. 
3.5.  The Council so agreed. 
3.6.  The Chairperson recalled that, while all th e other subsidiary bodies of the Council had 
provisions in their respective Agreement or rules of procedure requiring them to elect 
Chairpersons, Working Parties did not. As a result, he proposed that the Council appoint the nominated Chairperson for the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises. 
3.7.  The Council so agreed. 
3.8.  The Chairperson added that, on the question of Vice-Chairpersons, his understanding was 
that, in cases where the option existed under the Ag reement or rules of procedure, it would be for 
the subsidiary bodies themselves to decide if th ey needed a Vice-Chair, and that it was for the 
respective Chair to hold the necessary consultations. He asked if the Council could proceed on this basis. 
3.9.  The Council so agreed. 
3.10.  The Chairperson thanked the outgoing Chairper sons of the subsidiary bodies of this Council 
for their hard work and dedication in 2014 an d congratulated the Chairs for 2015 for their 
nomination and wished them success in fulfilling their tasks. 
3.11.  The delegate of Turkey thanked the Ch airperson for the transparency, openness, and 
inclusiveness with which he and the Secretariat had conducted the consultation process for the 
appointment of officers to the CTG's subsidiary bodies. G/C/M/122 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.12.  The Chairperson thanked the de legate of Turkey for his comments. 
4  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF 
GATT 1994 
4.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/L/1051/Add.3 concerning the 
accession to the European Union on 1 July 2013 of the Republic of Croatia. In this document, the 
EU indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to 
Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded from withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions 
under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because such wi thdrawal occurred later than six months after 
the EU's withdrawal of concessions, provided th at the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions 
no later than 30 months after the EU's modification  of concessions. He recalled that the CTG had 
extended the deadlines on three occasions, namely at its meetings of 27 November 2013, 
9 April and 17 November 2014. 
4.2.  The delegate of the European Union recalle d that at the April 2014 meeting he had informed 
the Council that the EU had received 12 claims of interest within the 90-day period following its 
notification2 to the WTO, and two other claims thereafter. The EU had held various rounds of 
meetings with the Members that submitted time ly claims and addressed the consolidation of 
agricultural Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) and possible ad-hoc compensations beyond that 
consolidation. Hence, the EU had entered into negotiations with Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, 
New Zealand, and Uruguay. Draft agreements ha d been submitted to all the EU's partners 
concerned with the exception of Brazil. The EU wa s awaiting Members' reaction with a view to 
having the agreements initialized soon so as to start the respective internal procedures for their 
entry into force. Consequently, the EU considered that the period in which Members' rights had 
been preserved should be extended until such agreements entered into force. 
4.3.  The delegate of Brazil supported the EU 's request to extend the negotiations under 
GATT Article XXVIII following Croatia's accession to  the EU and expressed concerns for the slow 
pace of the bilateral negotiations. He urged th e EU to finalize these as soon as possible. 
4.4.  The delegate of Australia indicated that his authorities had held several bilateral consultations 
with the EU on this issue. Australia hoped that the enlargement would not raise trade barriers to 
other Members and looked forward to continued discussion with the EU on the market access 
issues. 
4.5.  The delegate of Argentina echoed the concer ns expressed by Brazil regarding the slow pace 
of the negotiation of compensatory procedures under GATT Article XXVIII. 
4.6.  The delegate of Uruguay stated that his country not only had initial negotiating rights (INRs) 
with the EU but was also a principal supplier to the EU. He thanked the EU for its report concerning 
the state of play of the renegotiations under GA TT Article XXVIII but expressed concern at their 
slow pace. Uruguay hoped to reach an agreement with the EU soon. 
4.7.  The delegate of New Zealand supported th e EU's request for extension and welcomed the 
confirmation that this was without prejudice to Member's rights to withdraw substantially 
equivalent concessions within an appropriate peri o d  o f  t i m e .  H e  u r g e d  t h e  E U  t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  
Members' legitimate commercial interests in the negotiations were considered and addressed. 
4.8.  The delegate of the European Union thanked delegations for their comments and indicated 
that he would report back to Brussels the concerns that had been expressed at this meeting. The 
EU remained engaged in these negotiations and had the will to conclude them soon. 
4.9.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made regarding the 
EU communication contained in document G/L/1051/Add.3, and agreed to the extension of the 
deadline, as set out in the EU document, until 1 January 2016. 
4.10.  The Council so agreed. 
                                               
2 Circulated on 15 April 2013. G/C/M/122 
 
- 5 - 
 
  5  ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA TO THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION: 
PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994 (G/L/1110) 
5.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council th at, in a communication dated 13 March 2015, the 
delegation of the Republic of Armenia had requested the Secretariat to circulate 
document G/L/1110, relating to the extension of th e time period for the withdrawal of concessions 
in connexion with Armenia's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and to include this item in the meeting's agenda. In this document, Armenia indicated that it would not assert that 
Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded from 
withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because such withdrawal occurred later than six months after Armenia's withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member withdr ew concessions no later than 12 months after 
Armenia's modification of concessions. 
5.2.  The delegate of Armenia stated that, after completion of the ratification procedures of the 
EAEU on 2 January 2015, the Republic of Armenia had become a full member of the EAEU; since 
then, it had been applying the EAEU's Common External Tariff ( СET). Armenia had submitted its 
notification under the procedures laid down in GATT Article XXIV:6 on the modification of its commitments contained in Armenia's Schedule of  Concession CLV (document G/SECRET/37) and 
had informed interested Members that it was ready to enter into the negotiations process in 
accordance with GATT Articles XXIV and XXVIII. 
5.3.  Various interested Members had submitte d their claims of interest; however, Armenia 
considered that additional time would be required to conduct these negotiations. Consequently, in 
document G/L/1110, Armenia had indicated that "it will not assert that WTO Members who have 
submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of  the GATT 1994 are precluded from withdrawing 
substantially equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of the GATT 1994 because this 
withdrawal occurs later than six months after Armenia's withdrawal of concessions 
(2 January 2015), provided that the claiming WTO Member withdraws concessions no later than 12 months after Armenia's modification of concessions" or until 2 January 2016. In other words, 
Armenia was ready to provide an extension for an additional 6-month period to those Members 
who had submitted their claims of interest to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions under GATT Article XXVIII. 
5.4.  Regarding the claims received from Members, he said that these could be grouped as follows: 
a group of requests asking for appropriate and clearer statistics and another requesting 
clarification as to any correlation with the goods' nomenclature. Regarding the former, he indicated that Armenia, with the support of the Secretar iat and in accordance with paragraph 3 of the 
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII, had excluded preferential trade from the 
data and statistics, and that the data concerning  the EU member States had been grouped. The 
updated statistics were now available and would be circulated, on request, to interested Members. 
Concerning the goods' nomenclature in the Annexes to the notification, he explained differences on 
the basis of the 10-digit tariff nomenclature of the EAEU rather than the 8-digit tariff nomenclature 
contained in Armenia's commitments. Interested Members had requested a table that would enable them to establish the correlation between the annexes. However, at this juncture, Armenia 
was not able to provide such a table although it was working on the issue. Armenia would do its 
utmost to fully comply with the WTO rules and procedures. 
5.5.  The delegate of Canada said that his count ry had submitted a claim of interest concerning 
Armenia's tariff modifications that affected the concessions previously negotiated with Armenia; 
Canada looked forward to receiving Armenia's recognition of this claim. Since Canada had requested additional technical information from Armenia it looked forward to receiving the 
available data indicated by Armenia and hoped to discuss and conclude these discussions soon. 
5.6.  The delegate of Ukraine stated that, in lin e with the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994, on 16 January 2015 Ukraine had submitted its claim of interest, 
reserving its right to negotiate with Armenia the modification of certain concessions listed in 
Schedule of Concessions CLV, including compensa tory adjustments. However, Ukraine was still 
waiting for Armenia's recognition of its claim in order to start the pertinent consultation process. G/C/M/122 
 
- 6 - 
 
  5.7.  The delegate of Switzerland thanked Arme nia for providing an extension so as to allow 
Members to reserve their rights. He recalled that Switzerland was one of the Members who had 
conducted bilateral market access negotiations during Armenia's accession process. The Swiss authorities were still examining the documentation provided by Armenia and reserved their rights 
under GATT Article XXVIII procedures to possibly submit a claim of interest in the near future. 
5.8.  The delegate of Japan stated that Japan, as one of the Members that submitted claims of 
interest to Armenia, would like to engage in the discussions with Armenia and other interested 
Members. Japan had submitted several questions to  Armenia last month and had received answers 
shortly before the meeting. 
5.9.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei supported Armenia's request to extend the period for 
Members to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions. Given that, in January 2015, her 
delegation submitted a claim of interest, together with an itemized request for compensation, 
Chinese Taipei looked forward to receiving Armenia's response so as to engage in further consultations. 
5.10.  The delegate of Hong Kong , China stated that her delegation also wished to reserve its 
interest in joining the renegotiation process with Armenia; Hong Kong, China looked forward to 
receiving from Armenia further clarifications concerning its trade statistics in order to decide 
whether or not it would engage in the renegotiation process. 
5.11.  The delegate of Armenia noted that, as stated earlier, in its notification Armenia had 
informed interested Members that it would be ready to enter into GATT Article XXIV and XXVIII 
procedures to address the compensatory adjustment provided under Article XXIV. He recalled that 
Armenia had received various requests concerning technical issues on the statistics it had provided 
and for clarification with regard to certain tariff line adjustments. Some of these requests had already been addressed, and Armenia, together with the Secretariat, was still working on the 
remaining issues. He hoped to be in a position  to provide the additional information soon. 
5.12.  The Chairperson thanked Armenia and delegations for their interventions and proposed that 
the Council take note of the statements made and of Armenia's request for an extension contained 
in document G/L/1110. He also proposed that the Council agree on the extension of the deadline 
as set out in document G/L/1110, until 2 January 2016. 
5.13.  The Council so agreed. 
6  JORDAN – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELA TING TO THE TRANSI TIONAL PERIOD FOR 
THE ELIMINATION OF THE EXPORT SUBSIDY PROGRAM FOR JORDAN (G/C/W/705 AND 
G/C/W/705/CORR.1) 
6.1.  The Chairperson reminded delegations that, at the meeting of 17 November 2014, the 
delegation of Jordan had submitted to the Council's consideration document G/C/W/705 containing 
a request for a waiver relating to the transitional period for the elimination of the export subsidy program for Jordan and that, at that meeting, the Council had agreed to revert to this issue at its 
first meeting in 2015. He also informed delegations that, according to Article IX:3(b) of the 
Marrakesh Agreement, on 20 February 2015 he had made a factual report to the General Council informing it that this issue had been under the CTG's consideration for more than the 90 days, and 
that this Council would continue considering this request. He drew Members' attention to 
document G/C/W/705/Corr.1, submitted by Jordan on 13 March 2015, clarifying the exact date of 
the extension of the transitional period requested. 
6.2.  The delegate of Jordan thanked delegations for giving Jordan the opportunity to continue the 
discussion of its waiver request. He reiterated the exceptional and extraordinary challenges being 
faced by the Jordanian economy that lay behind the request, including the unprecedented geopolitical situation, the severe instability in the region and its consequences for the industrial 
sector, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 
6.3.  Additionally, the social and economic impact of hosting more than 1.4 million Syrian refugees 
had severe consequences for the Jordanian infrastructure in areas such as education, health, water, and food. The continuing negative consequences of the global financial crisis and G/C/M/122 
 
- 7 - 
 
  accompanying crisis in the Eurozone had likewise put pressure on efforts exerted by his 
Government to promote the economic growth process, thus increasing the already high unemployment rate, particularly among the young, an d continuous growth of the budget deficit in 
spite of the austerity measures adopted by the Gove rnment in terms of cutting back fuel subsidies 
and freezing public recruitment. 
6.4.  Jordan was thankful to those Members th at had expressed their support for the waiver 
request and was likewise grateful to delegations that had shown interest, raised questions, and 
made comments. He assured the WTO Membership that Jordan had taken seriously the comments 
and concerns raised by a number of Members at the last CTG meeting. Jordan had been working closely and intensively with the Secretariat, the CTG as well as with the secretariat of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, to explore alternative programmes in line 
with the WTO Subsidy and Countervailing Measures Agreement. Jordan had also held intensive 
meetings at the capital level as well as in Geneva with all interested Members. 
6.5.  His authorities also recognized the efforts made by those Members that had indicated their 
readiness to provide technical assistance to Jordan to facilitate the phasing out of the current 
subsidy programme and to identify possible alternative programmes within the WTO legal framework in order to support the SMEs industrial sector in Jordan. However, Jordan still needed a 
sufficient grace period for the preparation of such a programme, including the establishment of a 
technical, budgetary, and legal framework. Hence, Jordan hoped that this Council would consider favourably its waiver request and was ready to co ntinue consulting with interested Members in 
order to reach a positive outcome that would a ddress the economic, financial, and development 
needs of Jordan. 
6.6.  The delegate of Qatar supported Jordan's wa iver request on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation 
Council (GCC). The GCC countries collectively believ ed that the extension of the transitional period 
would assist Jordan's efforts to support its fledgling SMEs amid the extraordinary regional 
circumstances. The GCC countries also encouraged WTO Members to consider Jordan's request favourably, particularly in light of Jordan's unprecedented political and economic situation. 
6.7.  The delegate of the Kingdom of Saudi Ar a b i a ,  s p e a k i n g  o n  b e h a l f  o f  t h e  A r a b  G r o u p ,  
welcomed the Jordanian delegation and thanked its members for the explanations provided and 
particularly for the efforts undertaken by Jordan to explore alternative programmes in line with the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement. SMEs were acknowledged worldwide for 
their contribution to development as these play ed an important role in development and job 
opportunities, particularly in those countries with major economic and political challenges. In this vein, Jordan's request was limited in scope to extending the transitional period with a view to 
providing SMEs an opportunity to deal with th e unprecedented difficulties and challenges of a 
political and economic nature faced by the region. 
6.8.  Some elements deserved to be highlighte d. Among many obstacles and challenges, Jordan's 
economic vulnerability and employment remained targets to be defeated; one means to address 
these would be to provide encouragement to SMEs. This was the essence of the request. SMEs not only represented a vehicle for potential growth but also helped the most vulnerable sectors in the society: youth and women. 
6.9.  Additionally, Jordan was not only a developing country but also a country located in a region 
that already encountered sufficient significant instabilities. Over the last four years, political, economic, and social instabilities had imposed severe pressure on Jordan's economy and 
infrastructure as it tried to overcome the nega tive consequences of conflicts in neighbouring 
countries. Therefore, the request was essential to help Jordan in overcoming its difficulties. 
6.10.  The WTO was a means to an end and that  end was to enhance the welfare and living 
conditions of all, both within and across countries, developed and developing alike. This required 
policy coherence between trade policy and public policy  goals. In this context, and to assist Jordan 
to overcome the numerous challenges being faced by its economy, the Arab Group called on the 
Council to support this waiver request. 
6.11.  The delegate of the State of Kuwait associat ed his delegation with the statements made on 
behalf of the Arab Group and the GCC. Kuwait al so supported Jordan's request as Jordan was a G/C/M/122 
 
- 8 - 
 
  small economy, with very limited resources, facing a unique and exceptional situation which 
severely affected all sectors of its economy. Kuwait believed this request was justifiable and 
deserved a positive consideration. 
6.12.  The delegate of Egypt also associated his delegation with the previous statements. As 
already expressed at the last CTG meeting, Egypt reiterated its full support for the Jordanian 
request to further extend its Export Subsidy Pr ogram until December 2022. His country was aware 
of the concerns raised by some Members; however, the efforts made by Jordan to accommodate 
those concerns so as to reach a zone of agreement while exploring possible alternatives for 
achieving its objectives should also be recognized. 
6.13.  Jordan was a small developing country whose economy–among the smallest in the Middle 
East–had been weighed down by political tensions in the region. The instability of the region over 
the last few years had made it still more difficult for Jordan to face all its challenges, whether 
political, economic, or social. Therefore, sound economic policies and growth-enhancing reforms 
were also necessary to reduce the country's vulnerability to external shock, and the extension of 
the subsidies programme would have an impact in that direction. Egypt had seen the careful 
attention given by Members to Jordan's request and hoped that this matter would be settled in due time. 
6.14.  The delegate of Sri Lanka expressed the support of his delegation for the Jordanian waiver 
request. The request itself explained the justification for the extension of the phase-out 
programme of export subsidy programmes under the SCM Agreement beyond 31 December 2015. The first Gulf War had not only affected Jordan and its people but also other countries in and 
beyond the region. This had been the case for Sri Lanka, who lost Iraq as it principal buyer of 
Ceylon tea. Even though the Gulf War was over, the situation in the region continued to be volatile; indeed, the daily news showed serious, troubling, disturbing developments in the region. 
Therefore, Jordan's growth prospects were extrem ely blurred and to maintain its subsidies would 
help to mitigate the impact of this adverse situation. 
6.15.  The delegate of India stated that his de legation had carefully considered the extenuating 
circumstances under which Jordan had placed this  request and believed that such circumstances 
deserved an appropriate response. Therefore, Indi a supported Jordan's request for a waiver that, 
on his understanding, would be examined annually in order to determine whether the exceptional circumstances continued to exist and whether the terms and conditions of the waiver had been 
met. However, India also recognized the trade-dist orting effects that export subsidies might cause 
and encouraged Jordan to consider and move to less trade-distorting alternatives than direct 
export subsidies during the currency of this waiver. India also considered that the proposed 
extension through a waiver should not become a precedent. 
6.16.  The delegate of Guatemala said that he r delegation supported the request and was also 
aware of Jordan's political and economic situation. In the view of her delegation, Jordan's situation 
was very similar to that of many Members that, as small and vulnerable economies (SVEs), applied 
these programmes to help and support their SMEs to compete on the national market. Guatemala would follow this issue closely and considered that, if such an extension were to be granted to Jordan, Guatemala could also apply for an extension. 
6.17.  The delegate of the Kingdom of Bahrain associated his delegation with the statements made 
on behalf of the Arab Group and the GCC and reaffirmed their support for Jordan's request to 
extend the phase-out of the existing export subsidy programme. Jordan had been facing several 
economic and geopolitical challenges and instabilities and Bahrain believed this extension would 
help to alleviate their impact. Bahrain did not find Jordan's programme overly trade-distorting; it did not affect trade in the region and also excluded Jordan's largest industries. It was targeted 
only at SMEs, which were key to growth in any developing country's economy. His delegation was 
also encouraged by reports that Jordan had been holding meetings and consultations with the Secretariat and Members concerned. Bahrain looked forward to Jordan's request receiving a favourable and positive consideration by the Council. 
6.18.  The delegate from Canada acknowledged the impact that regional conflicts had had on 
Jordan's economy, including the large influx of refugees that had placed additional strains on 
Jordan's infrastructure, public services, and domestic labour market. In light of the extraordinary G/C/M/122 
 
- 9 - 
 
  circumstances Jordan was facing, Canada supported its request for a waiver to extend the 
transitional period provided by Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement to phase out its export subsidy 
programme. 
6.19.  The delegate of the Sultanate of Oman also  associated his delegation with the statements 
made by the Arab Group and the GCC Countries. Oman had already registered its position on this 
request at the last meeting. Oman welcomed Jordan's efforts to hold meetings with interested delegations both in Amman and Geneva in order to accommodate Members' concerns. 
Consequently Jordan's request for extension was now limited in scope in that it related only to the 
transitional period and aimed at eliminating the subsidies programme altogether. Jordan was currently facing extraordinary political and economic circumstances and its industries had lost out on market share in neighbouring countries. As a result, the ability of its industries to benefit from 
the waiver had been virtually frustrated. Moreover, Jordan was also an SVE and a Recently 
Acceded Member (RAM). He called on Members to consider Jordan's request favourably. 
6.20.  The delegate of China recalled that at the last CTG meeting, in November 2014, and in light 
of the exceptional circumstances and difficulties that Jordan was facing, her delegation had 
expressed its support to the waiver request. 
6.21.  The delegate of Pakistan echoed the previous speakers in supporting Jordan's request as it 
considered this request genuine and based on extenuating circumstances. Pakistan hoped that all 
Members would take note of these facts and give their support to Jordan. 
6.22.  The delegate of Turkey said that Turkey acknowledged the economic and social difficulties 
Jordan was facing given the volatile political environment of the region. Turkey had already 
expressed its support to the waiver and referred to its intervention at the last CTG meeting. 
6.23.  The representative of the Dominican Republic stated that, like Guatemala, his delegation 
believed that the Jordanian economic conditions were similar to those faced by SVEs; therefore, in 
the case of a favourable decision with regard to Jordan's request, the Dominican Republic reserved 
its right to submit a similar request. 
6.24.  The delegate of Japan said that his country had always praised the role Jordan had played in 
building and stabilizing the Middle East and also recognized the challenges Jordan was currently 
facing. Since the last CTG meeting, Japan had had several opportunities to discuss this request bilaterally and it now had a clearer understanding of its background. However, Japan would like to 
see whether there might be another solution to su stain Jordan's economy other than the extension 
of the transitional period for the elimination of the export subsidy programme. In this vein, he 
encouraged Jordan to make further efforts to brin g its programme into conformity with WTO rules. 
Japan would contribute to such efforts, together with the WTO Secretariat and any interested 
Members. 
6.25.  The delegate of Switzerland said that his country had also given consideration to the 
systemic concerns and was of the view that Members should not create situations that might 
gradually undermine WTO disciplines. However, Switzerland acknowledged the extraordinarily 
challenging situation that Jordan continued to face, supported an exceptional extension to its subsidy programme waiver, and encouraged Jordan to continue in its efforts to phase out this programme in the near future. 
6.26.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei thanked Jo rdan for the detailed explanation of its current 
situation. His delegation believed that any export subsidy programme was trade-distorting, and 
noted that the General Council's Decision in 2007 included a commitment for Members concerned 
not to seek further extension. However, Chinese Taipei was sympathetic to Jordan's challenges: 
the political and social instability of the region and the influx of millions of refugees from neighbouring countries had made Jordan vulnerable in terms of its economic, financial, and 
development needs. In view of these exceptio nal circumstances, Chinese Taipei hoped that 
Members would give favourable consideration to Jordan's request for an extended transitional period in the form of a waiver. 
6.27.  The delegate of El Salvador indicated that  her country recognized the political and economic 
challenges faced by Jordan, many of which were similar to those faced by her country. Therefore, G/C/M/122 
 
- 10 - 
 
  if this request were granted, El Salvador would not rule out the possibility of it submitting a similar 
request. 
6.28.  The delegate of the United States of Am erica thanked Jordan for the bilateral discussions; 
her delegation would continue consulting with the capital, Jordan, and other Members, with a view 
to finding a positive solution. 
6.29.  The delegate of the European Union said that, considering the extraordinary and difficult 
circumstances Jordan was facing, the EU was sympathetic to Jordan's request and would be keen 
to join a consensus on this matter. He noted that overwhelming support had been expressed 
during this Council meeting but consensus had not yet been met. The EU hoped it would soon be 
reached. However, the EU wished to be reassured that this would be the very last such request from Jordan, and that its request would not create  any precedent for future extensions from any 
other Member. He had heard some Members maki ng comments with regard to reserving their 
rights to submit similar requests. The EU had taken note, but also noted that the Council's discussion was of the extreme and extraordinary circumstances currently faced by Jordan. 
6.30.  The delegate of Australia appreciated Jordan's willingness to engage partners on its proposal 
for a waiver, including the opportunity to discuss the issue both in his capital and in Geneva. 
Jordan had shown an extraordinary generosity in  hosting large numbers of refugees from Syria 
and elsewhere over an extended period. This, as well as other regional developments, generated 
various impacts, including economic. Australia acknowledged the importance of this issue to Jordan and had fully understood Jordan's objectives with regard to continuing to provide assistance to its SMEs, which were operating und er a difficult set of circumstances. However, 
Australia had concerns with the request as, while it recognized Jordan's legitimate objective of 
assisting SMEs, Australia also considered that there could be other and more appropriate options in order to achieve this objective. Jordan was not prevented from providing assistance to its SMEs, 
and there were many options available to am end its programme which would not require a 
WTO waiver, including tax measures through an amendment to its legislation such that it would no longer be an export subsidy. Consequently, in Australia's view the waiver request was unnecessary 
to Jordan's assistance of its SMEs. 
6.31.  Jordan was effectively asking WTO Members to select an approach that would endorse 
introducing a new export subsidy. Members were aware that Australia placed great importance in upholding the integrity of WTO rules and decisions. Considering that Australia believed there were 
other legitimate and alternative options, it was not in a position to support Jordan's request. 
Nevertheless, Australia remained ready to cont inue to engage constructively with Jordan, 
bilaterally, in the Subsidies Committee, and in this Council. 
6.32.  The delegate of Uganda stated that the challenges that Jordan was currently facing were 
similar to those faced by Uganda and many ot her LDCs. Therefore, his country supported the 
requested extension. 
6.33.  The delegate of New Zealand said that his country was sympathetic to Jordan's current 
situation and difficulties, particularly with regard to the significant refugee burden that it was 
facing, as well as Jordan's role in countering the threat of ISIL. New Zealand had recently provided general support to Jordan, including assistance to support refugees. As his delegation had 
indicated at the last CTG meeting, New Zealand had concerns about Jordan's waiver request that 
related to New Zealand's long-standing and systemic interests in export subsidies; therefore, New Zealand remained generally opposed to export subsidies. 
6.34.  New Zealand had also held bilateral discu ssions with Jordan and these had helped both 
countries to understand each other's respective approach to this waiver request. His authorities were particularly interested in Jordan's efforts to explore options for redesigning its programme. 
There still remained time to consider various other options before turning to that which Jordan had 
submitted to Members. New Zealand wished to encourage Jordan to continue pursuing alternative policies, which did not require recourse to a waiver request. 
6.35.  The delegate of the Republic of Korea reiterated the support of his delegation for Jordan's 
request to extend the phase-out period of its ex port subsidy programme for an additional period, 
beyond 2015. Korea fully acknowledged the unprecedented geopolitical instability that Jordan was G/C/M/122 
 
- 11 - 
 
  encountering, which led to severe challenges for its economic sustainability and which particularly 
affected Jordanian SMEs. Korea also acknowledged the key role played by Jordan in favour of regional stability. Korea was ready to engage in bilateral consultations with Jordan. 
6.36.  The delegate of Nepal joined previous speakers who had expressed their support for 
Jordan's waiver request and called upon WTO Members to consider Jordan's request positively. 6.37.  The delegate of Jordan thanked those delegations expressing support for its request as well 
as Members that had expressed interest in the i ssue in their comments and questions. Jordan had 
requested this waiver in order to assist it in diminishing the impact of persisting severe regional 
and international circumstances, to continue to stimulate private sector investment, and to enable the industrial sector to adjust to these challenges. Jordan was committed to fulfilling all its obligations under the SCM Agreement, including in due time the phasing out of its export subsidy 
programme. However, Jordan's request for an additional phasing out period in the form of a waiver 
was an exceptional request, submitted in light of  exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, and 
it should not set a precedent. 
6.38.  The waiver request was limited in scope to extending the transitional period after 2015 in 
order to provide SMEs in Jordan an opportunity  to deal with their unprecedentedly difficult 
situation in light of the challenges in the region and, in addition, to stimulate Jordanian exports to 
its main markets. The request to waive Jordan's obligation of the transition period under 
Article XVIII:2(b) of the SCM Agreement was justifiable given the exceptional and unprecedented circumstances facing the Jordanian economy, resulting from the geopolitical situation and instability in the region and its consequences on the industrial sector, and especially on small and 
medium-sized enterprises. 
6.39.  Jordan was ready to continue its consultations with Members, together with the Secretariat, 
with the aim of reaching a positive outcome that would address the economic, financial, and 
development needs of Jordan. 
6.40.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made and revert to this matter at its next meeting. He also 
encouraged interested delegations to continue to discuss this issue with Jordan with a view to 
reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. 
6.41.  The Council so agreed. 
7  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER – CARIBBEAN BASIN 
ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT (CBERA AS AMENDED) 
7.1.  The Chairperson reminded delegations that at the last CTG meeting, on 25 November 2014, 
the United States of America had introduced document G/C/W/708 containing a waiver request 
and a draft waiver decision in respect of the Ca ribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA, as 
amended). At that meeting it had been agreed that the Council would revert to this issue at the present meeting. 
7.2.  The delegate of the United States of Americ a stated that at the last meeting of the CTG the 
EU had raised some questions concerning this waiver request; since then, the respective 
authorities had discussed the issue and the questions had been clarified. 
7.3.  The delegate of the European Union indica ted that his delegation supported the US waiver 
request. 
7.4.  The delegate of India said that, in connection with this request, aimed at continuing the 
preferential treatment to the beneficiary countries under the CBERA, India had noted the 
enactment of the HELP Act, which had amended the provisions of CBERA in order to assist Haiti 
after the earthquake. India recognized the need  to improve livelihoods and expand economic 
opportunities in the Caribbean Basin and therefore supported the US waiver request. However, 
there were certain systemic issues that India would like to highlight, such as the conditionalities 
incorporated in CBERA requiring a beneficiary country to source materials such as processed and semi-finished goods from the preference-giving co untry. A clear example was duty-free treatment, G/C/M/122 
 
- 12 - 
 
  only granted for apparel assembled in the eligible beneficiary countries from fabrics formed in the 
United States from US yarns and cut, dyed and finished in the United States. India therefore 
requested the US to review such provisions, to make the preferences unconditional, and to align 
them with the goal of assisting the beneficiaries in building their domestic capacities, increasing 
domestic value addition, and diversifying their exports. 
7.5.  The delegate of Jamaica, supporting the US waiver request that had played an important role 
in the enhancement of trade between Jamaica and the US, referred to the statement delivered at 
the CTG's previous meeting and recorded in the minutes. 
7.6.  The delegate of Trinidad and Tobago reiter ated the support of his delegation to the waiver 
request extending the CBERA, as amended, until 31 December 2019. CBERA had supported 
Trinidad and Tobago's goals for export growth and diversification and had created positive spill-off 
effects with regard to other development goals, including economic transformation and poverty 
and unemployment alleviation. The expansion of CBERA to include additional products would create greater opportunities for diversification of  exports from his country. Since 2005, thanks to 
the exports of methanol and petroleum oils, Trinid ad and Tobago had been the largest exporter to 
the US among the CBERA beneficiary countries and had accounted for 69% of total US imports under CBERA in 2013. Also, since 2005, the US was Trinidad and Tobago's largest export market. 
7.7.  The delegate of Dominica, on behalf of WTO Members in the Organization of Eastern 
Caribbean States (OECS), thanked the US for its request and expressed their support to the 
extension of the waiver. Throughout its existe nce, CBERA had provided opportunities to its 
beneficiary countries to expand their exports into the US market and thereby contributed to the 
economic growth and development of these countries, including OECS member States. 
7.8.  The delegate of Haiti thanked the US for their request to extend the CBERA initiative. He 
highlighted the benefits of the Laws for Haiti from 2006, 2008 and, particularly, the HELP Law of 
2010, which aimed at boosting the Haitian economy and textile exports, particularly to the US, 
which represented over 80% of total exports, an d this in response to the aftermath of the 
earthquake of January 2010. The Haitian authorities had worked together with the US and the 
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) in order to best benefit from CEBRA and the creation of 
65,000 jobs. However, this pact had not been completely fulfilled, particularly with regard to exports to the US market. 
7.9.  In 2015, Haitian textiles were estimated to represent over US$300,000; the Haitian 
Government was working to increase its exports of textiles, and complementary measures would 
be introduced to reduce unemployment. He encour aged WTO Members to consider favourably this 
request, which represented economic stability for a number of countries in the region, and 
particularly in Haiti, where substantial investments had been made by the Haitian Government and 
the private sector in recent years. 
7.10.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made, approve the 
waiver request contained in document G/C/W/708, and agree to forward the draft waiver decision 
contained therein to the General Council for adoption. 
7.11.  The Council so agreed. 
8  CANADA – REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER FOR THE CARIBBEAN 
INITIATIVE: CARIBCAN (G/C/W/710) 
8.1.  The Chairperson drew the Council's attention to document G/C/W/710 containing a request, 
background information, and a draft waiver decisi on submitted by Canada for the extension of its 
waiver for the Caribbean Initiative, CARIBCAN. 
8.2.  The delegate of Canada reminded delegations that in 1986 the Commonwealth Caribbean 
countries initiative (or CARIBCAN) had been established to help improve the trade and economic 
development prospects of the region. On this occasion, Canada had submitted in 
document G/C/W/710 its latest waiver request unilaterally to extend duty-free access to the Canadian market for most commodities originating from 18 Commonwealth Caribbean countries under CARIBCAN. Reflecting the continuity in Canada's policy towards the region, CARIBCAN's G/C/M/122 
 
- 13 - 
 
  objectives, scope, and coverage remained unchang ed; the request was aimed at renewing this 
initiative for the Commonwealth Caribbean Countries until 31 December 2023. 
8.3.  The delegate of Jamaica expressed the support  of her delegation to the Canadian request to 
extend the CARIBCAN waiver; Jamaica had had a lo ng and fruitful relationship of development 
cooperation with Canada, both at the national and regional levels. CARIBCAN indeed had been part 
of this development cooperation, and had contributed to enhanced trade between Jamaica and Canada. Members were aware that Canada and the Caribbean countries had been negotiating a 
trade agreement; however, while this remained pending, her country would appreciate 
continuation of the CARIBCAN. Jamaica hoped that Members would endorse this request and agree to forward the decision to the next meeting of the General Council for adoption. 
8.4.  The delegate of Dominica, on behalf of  WTO Members of the OECS, expressed support for 
this waiver request. Throughout its existence, CARIBCAN had provided opportunities to its 
beneficiary countries to expand their exports into the Caribbean market and thereby contributed to the economic growth and development of these countries, including OECS' member States. 
OECS member States appreciated Canada 's will to continue this programme. 
8.5.  The delegate of Trinidad and Tobago expr essed the support of his authorities to Canada's 
request to renew the CARIBCAN waiver until 31 December 2023. CARIBCAN had supported 
Trinidad and Tobago's goals for export growth and diversification and had created positive spill-off 
effects with regard to other development goals, including economic transformation and poverty and unemployment reduction. Exports to Canada had risen from US$126,000 in 2001 to US$505,000 in 2014. Additionally, in 2012, Trinidad and Tobago was the second largest exporter 
to Canada among the CARIBCAN beneficiaries, an d 81% of all Trinidad and Tobago's exports to 
Canada were receiving duty free access. CARIBCAN had been very useful in supporting the export 
growth and diversification goals of Trinidad and Tobago. His government had identified key sectors 
for the growth and diversification of the domest ic economy. Among these sectors was the Food 
and Beverage sector. A large number of products from this sector were being exported to Canada under the CARIBCAN arrangement. 
8.6.  He also stated that the CARIBCAN preferen ces were not only a critical development tool for 
Trinidad and Tobago, but to all of CARICOM memb er States. Almost all of these economies had 
been seeking to stabilize their economies and di versify their productive base. He encouraged 
Members also to support the Canadian request for the extension of the CARIBCAN initiative. 
8.7.  The delegate of Haiti thanked Canada for having submitted this request and expressed the 
support of his delegation for the further extension of CARIBCAN. 
8.8.  The delegate of the European Union sated th at his delegation was sympathetic to the request 
but was not yet ready to take a position on it as it had only been circulated a few days prior to the 
meeting. The EU reserved the right to seek for additional clarifications with regard to this request. 
8.9.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made and revert to 
the waiver request contained in document G/C/W/710 at its next meeting. He also encouraged 
interested delegations to discuss this issue with Canada with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. 
8.10.  The Council so agreed. 
9  NIGERIA – RESTICTIONS/BAN IMPOSED BY NIGERIA TO IMPORTS OF SEA PRODUCTS 
– REQUEST FROM ICELAND AND NORWAY 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed Members that, in a communication dated 13 March 2015, the 
delegations of Iceland and Norway had requested the Secretariat to include this item in the agenda 
of the meeting. 
9.2.  The delegate of Norway regretted to have to  raise again this issue in the Council but, since 
the November 2014 meeting, there had not been much development; she recalled that, as already 
indicated at previous meetings, exports of fish and fish products were of great importance to G/C/M/122 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Norway, and that the Norwegian exports of fish to Nigeria had dropped significantly since 2012. 
Much of this was due to uncertainty regarding import conditions. 
9.3.  Norway continued to be concerned by the lack  of transparency and predictability with regard 
to the current import regime for fish and fish products in Nigeria; these concerns had increased 
following Nigeria's statement in this Council that it was preparing new regulations regarding its fish 
import policy. However, these regulations had not yet been finalized, and Nigeria should update the CTG about the current status of the announced  regulations. Nigeria should also clarify the 
current regulations regarding imports of fish into  its market. In conclusion, she highlighted the 
importance of a transparent and predictable trading regime for all economic operators. 
9.4.  The delegate of Iceland also regretted to raise again this issue at CTG level, but there 
continued to be a lack of transparency from Ni geria about the precise nature and content of the 
measures it had already implemented and the ones it was planning to implement on the 
importation of fish and other seafood products into its territory. Iceland once again encouraged Nigeria to inform and clarify for all affected Members the measures it had already implemented, 
and those it was planning to implement, on the importation of fish and other seafood products. 
9.5.  The delegate of the European Union stated that his delegation remained concerned about the 
lack of transparency and notifications regarding th e Nigerian restrictions affecting the imports of 
fish into Nigeria. Although the issue had been raised in this Council several times, Nigeria had still 
not addressed it in its written replies provided in October 2014. In its responses, Nigeria had stated that its Government had put no ban in place, but the EU had been informed that currently there was a ban on imports of farmed fish. Nigeri a should clarify its answer. Additionally, the EU 
believed that all Nigeria's current requirements for the importation of frozen fish should be notified 
to the WTO as it was essential both to have clear and transparent measures in place and for the WTO Members to be informed of these. 
9.6.  His delegation had noted that Nigeria was currently working on a new fish import policy, and 
would be interested to receive more detailed information on this process, on the consultation with stakeholders that had been mentioned by Nigeria in its replies, on when this new policy would be 
finalized, as well as on the fore seen timeline for its application. 
9.7.  The delegate of Uruguay echoed previous speakers given that her delegation shared similar 
concerns, particularly as Nigeria was the second main destination of Uruguayan fish exports. 
Exports from her country had dropped by 63% in 2013 as compared with 2012, and to date it had 
not been possible to recover that percentage. The written responses provided by Nigeria in 
October 2014 lacked clarity concerning the measures applied; this created uncertainty and led to the loss of an important export market for her country. 
9.8.  The delegate of the United States of Amer ica supported requests made by previous speakers 
for Nigeria to clarify any new import restrictions for fish products it currently had in place or was 
contemplating. 
9.9.  The delegate of Nigeria stated that her de legation had conveyed all the questions posed at 
the CTG level to her capital with a request for further clarification with regard to the issues raised 
by interested Members on Nigeria's measures on imports of sea products. It would be much appreciated by her delegation if Members that had intervened could specify in writing which of the 
responses were still not satisfactory so as to better understand all the concerns and thereby 
provide a better and adequate answer. She reassu red Members that currently there was no ban 
placed on importation of any sea products in Nigeria by her authorities. 
9.10.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made. 
9.11.  The Council so agreed. G/C/M/122 
 
- 15 - 
 
  10  NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 13 March 2015, the 
delegations of the European Union and the United States of America had requested the Secretariat 
to include this item in the agenda of the meeting. 
10.2.  The delegate of the European Union regrette d once again to take the floor on an issue that 
had been on the agenda of the CTG and of the TRIMs Committee for almost two years without 
being clarified by Nigeria. He recalled that in October 2014 the EU again submitted written 
questions to Nigeria with regard to its local content measures and hoped that Nigeria would provide answers at this meeting to all the questi ons raised at the last TRIMs Committee meeting. 
Some of these questions related to expatriate positions, the considerations that were given to 
possible skills shortages on the Nigerian labour  market, and the solution that Nigeria would 
provide if there were no Nigerian candidate with the required skills available for recruitment. The 
EU had understood that, until the investment law would be reviewed, the derogation from the 
requirements therein, which had expired in 2013, could no longer be awarded under the specific 
mechanism contained in Section 11 of the Law. Nigeria should explain how operators were currently being allowed to face capacity shortfalls . The EU would welcome responses to all of these 
questions. 
10.3.  The delegate of the United States of America recalled that for more than four years 
Members had been addressing the Council's attention to certain measures that appeared to require 
the use of local content in Nigeria's oil and gas industry. Written questions describing the 
US understanding of these measures had been submitted to Nigeria in the TRIMs Committee 
meeting of September 2011. In a meeting in October 2011 Nigeria indicated that they had not received any instructions from the capital, nor answers to the US questions. The issue had been 
raised by her delegation at each subsequent me eting of the TRIMs Committee, most recently in 
October 2014, but no formal response or substantive engagement had been provided. 
10.4.  For systemic reasons, the US had also raised  this issue several times in the CTG, but Nigeria 
continued to fail to address the factual questions.  The issue had also been raised bilaterally, 
including in the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement Council meeting, most recently on 
11 March 2014. 
10.5.  As already noted by the US, the WTO Committee system provided a forum to gain a basic 
understanding of the trade policies of other Members and to raise concerns outside the context of 
dispute settlement. Thus, the US urged Nigeria to make use of this body to clear up any misunderstandings that Members might have, and to explain their view of th e relationship of their 
measures to the obligations contained in the TRIMs Agreement. The US had also noted that the 
adoption of measures requiring the use of local content appeared to be spreading to new sectors in Nigeria, most recently to the ICT sector. Such measures imposed a long-term cost to Nigeria as 
investors questioned their ability to operate in its market, and considered instead alternative 
locations where the investment climate was more favourable. Her delegation looked forward to working bilaterally and multilaterally with Nigeria to address these concerns. A good start would be for Nigeria to commit itself to engaging with WTO Members through the committee system. 
10.6.  The delegate of Australia once again reques ted Nigeria's explanation of how the preferential 
treatment accorded to local goods and services in the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content 
Development Act 2010 was consistent with Nigeria's WTO national treatment obligations. In 
particular, Australia noted that Section 11.1 of  the Act established minimum percentages of 
Nigerian content in goods, services, and investment for any project in the Nigerian oil and gas industry. Further, Section 7 of the Act required  operators to submit a Nigerian Content Plan 
demonstrating compliance with the Nigerian content requirement. Nigeria should respond to the 
questions posed. 
10.7.  The delegate of Japan reiterated Japan's systemic concerns and requested Nigeria to 
provide the Council with information that woul d clarify the long-standing questions posed by 
Members in previous meetings of this Council and of the TRIMs Committee. G/C/M/122 
 
- 16 - 
 
  10.8.  The delegate of Nigeria informed the Council that her delegation in Geneva was liaising with 
the capital in order to get adequate responses to all the questions raised by the previous speakers. 
She assured delegations that once the responses were received from capital they would be conveyed to interested delegations, either in this Council or in the TRIMs Committee. 
10.9.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made. 
10.10.  The Council so agreed. 
11  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRADE RESTRICTING MEASURES – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN 
11.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 13 March 2015, the 
delegations of the European Union and Japan had re quested the Secretariat to include this item on 
the agenda of the meeting. 
11.2.  The delegate of the European Union regret ted to take the floor once more on the Russian 
Federation's trade-restricting measures, particularly the ones recently adopted that negatively 
affected the transport of goods from the EU into  or through the Russian Federation's territory. 
11.3.  The first of these measures, applied since 20 November 2014, imposed a total control of 
freight and lorries at the Russian Federation's bo rders. These targeted specifically Lithuania and 
were applied if Lithuania was indicated as the place of loading, the country of dispatch, or the 
registration place of carriers. This was a repetition of measures applied by Russia in 
September 2013, also ag ainst Lithuania, and which the EU had denounced at the October 2013 
CTG meeting and which were abolished shortly after the CTG meeting. However, on this occasion there was no indication as to when the measures would be abolished. 
11.4.  These systematic controls had been in place for more than four months and had created 
considerable delays at the Russian Federation's borders, with Lithuanian road-carriers having to wait for hours. In November and December 2014, for example, 156 Lithuanian trucks were 
blocked at the Russian Federation's customs fo r two weeks. The Lithuanian authorities had 
contacted in vain their Russian counterparts several times to obtain formal explanations. The European Commission had also contacted the Russian authorities, who referred always to risk 
management without giving any concrete detail. 
11.5.  The EU recognized Members' right to apply legitimate risk management measures but had 
serious reservations as to whether the specific measures applied by the Russian Federation could be justified on these grounds, particularly considering that none of the trucks inspected after being 
blocked, even for weeks, had been subject to pr ohibition from entering Russian territory. This 
demonstrated the disproportionality of the measures taken. 
11.6.  The EU would appreciate explanation and cl arification from the Russian Federation on the 
following: What were the circumstances that justified this particular measure and its maintenance 
since November 2014? When did the Russian Fede ration intend to end this measure? Russia 
should keep the spirit and objective of the Tr ade Facilitation Agreement recently adopted. 
11.7.  The second set of restrictive measures referred to the transit restriction measures applied 
by the Russian Federation with respect to EU ag ricultural goods subject to embargo when their 
final destination was central Asia. These measures had been applied in some cases since September 2014 and in some cases since November  2014. The EU would appreciate explanations 
from the Russian Federation concerning the rational e of such measures, clarification of their basis, 
their scope, and the date of their application. 
11.8.  The delegate of Japan echoed the EU's comments as Japan also had its systemic and 
commercial concerns. Japan had been monitoring Russia's implementation of WTO commitments in 
the automotive sector and remained concerned about the local content requirement in the industrial assembly programme to obtain preferential treatment imposed on companies that 
engaged in automobile production and assembly. G/C/M/122 
 
- 17 - 
 
  11.9.  In January 2014 the Russian Federation adopted a number of resolutions providing 
subsidies to automobile producers in Russia in four specific areas, relating to energy consumption, the production of ecologically-friendly vehicl es, employment, and research and development. 
Therefore, vehicle producers in Russia received subsidies in exchange for ensuring that production 
be in the industrial assembly mode. Japan considered that these measures were inconsistent with 
the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements, such as Article 3.1b of the SCM Agreement, 
Article III.4 of the GATT, and Ar ticle 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement, because the conditions 
stipulated by Russia might constitute local content requirements. 
11.10.  Since the benefit provided to vehicles produced in the industrial assembly mode would be 
more than the preferential tariff treatment which the Russian Federation was allowed to maintain until 1 July 2018, Japan doubted the consistency of these measures with Russia's commitment 
under Paragraph 2 of its Protocol of Accession, particularly paragraphs 1450 and 1090 of the 
Working Party Report. Japan had posed questions to Russia at the SCM Committees and looked forward to receiving a response. Japan would also pose additional questions in the 
TRIMs Committee. 
11.11.  Japan had also the intention closely to monitor, as a third party of the panel, the case on 
the tariff treatment provided by the Russian Federation to certain agricultural and manufacturing 
products. 
11.12.  The delegate of the Republic of Korea echoed previous speakers and reiterated the 
systemic concerns held by his delegation with rega rd to the practice by the Russian Federation of 
applying import tariffs on imported refrigerators that were higher than the tariff duties contained 
in its Schedule of Concession. Korea had raised this issue on several occasions and had tried to 
solve the issue with Russia without success. He asked the Russian Federation to reconsider its practice given that exporters of Korean refriger ators were incurring extra and burdensome costs. 
Korea believed Russia was committed to fulfilling its entire obligations under its Protocol of 
Accession and should therefore correct the practice under consideration. 
11.13.  He added that his country had decided to join, as a Third Party, the dispute under the DSU 
initiated by the EU. Nevertheless, Korea was also interested in consulting with the Russian 
Federation on this matter. 
11.14.  The delegate of Ukraine shared the conc erns of the previous speakers. In 2014, Ukraine 
had also experienced periods of considerable trade flow disruption with the Russian Federation due 
to the sudden adoption of customs measures at  its border. Exporters had indicated that the 
unexpected and uncommunicated measures had been extremely burdensome to them; they had caused delays or simply paralyzed shipments. Similar situations had been raised by his delegation 
in various WTO bodies. Nevertheless, there had been no positive developments and the situation 
had rather worsened, further deteriorating Ukrainian business opportunities. 
11.15.  In addition, the Russian Federation, sinc e July 2013, had introduced a ban on imports of 
certain Ukrainian products and, despite calls made to Russia, this ban had neither been lifted nor 
properly explained but rather expanded with regard to certain other products. There appeared to be a lack of interest on the side of the Russi an authorities to address Ukraine's comments or 
enquiries concerning Russia's trade restrictive measures. Indeed, it had taken the Russian 
Federation about eight months to respond to cert ain of Ukraine's enquiries and, when responses 
were provided, the information they contained was vague, contradictory, and triggered only more 
questions. 
11.16.  Ukraine also had concerns with regard to Russia's ability to implement the TBT and 
SPS Agreements as part of its national legal framework and that of the EAEU. The Russian Federation should refrain from using trade as an  instrument of political pressure and non-tariff 
measures as disguised competition policy; to do so created serious systemic concerns with regard 
to Russia's lack of compliance with its WTO commitments. Ukraine urged the Russian Federation not only to fully comply with its WTO commitments but also to ensure predictable and transparent conditions for trade, and remove unjustifiable bans and discriminatory trade barriers. 
11.17.  The delegate of Australia reiterated those concerns already expressed by his delegation 
with regard to Russia's lack of adherence to its WTO accession commitments and its use of trade G/C/M/122 
 
- 18 - 
 
  restrictive measures, which negatively affected Australian trade. Australia looked forward to 
continued engagement with the relevant Russian authorities on these issues. 
11.18.  The delegate of Canada shared the previo us concerns, particularly with regard to the 
Russian Federation's tariff treatment of certain agricultural and manufacturing goods. Canada had 
a systemic interest in the correct interpretation of Article II of GATT 1994 and encouraged Russia 
to respect its trade obligations. Canada's interest was also boosted by the Russian Federation's leadership role in the Eurasian Economic Union with other WTO Members and countries seeking 
WTO accession. 
11.19.  The delegate of the United States of Am erica supported previous speakers concerning the 
Russian Federation's growing reco rd of trade restrictions. She observed that, when Members spent 
years working with Russian negotiators to complete the Russian Federation's WTO accession 
negotiations, the expectation was to launch a new chapter in trade growth and investment. 
Instead, there had been an increasing number of actions on the part of the Russian Federation 
that restricted trade, many of which had been raised previously in this Council as well as in various 
WTO committee meetings. 
11.20.  A particularly troubling trend was the increasing trade policy reliance by the Russian 
Federation on local content requirements. Measures had been adopted by Russia in sectors such as 
autos, telecommunications equipment, software, me dical equipment, and data storage. The trend 
appeared to propose more of such measures. Russia was framing many of these measures as government procurement; thus, the US was paying particular attention to recent amendments concerning state-owned enterprises so as to ensu re that the "buy Russia" requirements would be 
implemented consistently with the Russian Federation's WTO commitments. 
11.21.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei stated that her delegation generally shared the same views 
as those of previous speakers on this subject, although Chinese Taipei also recognized the 
challenges faced by any new Member in adapting to the multilateral trading system during the 
early stages of its WTO membership. She urged Russia to redouble its efforts to comply with its WTO commitments. 
11.22.  Since June 2014, her delegation had repeatedly registered strong concerns over the 
provisional import ban applied by the Russian Federation to fish products from her country. Several bilateral, open, and constructive discussions had taken place with the Russian Federation. Chinese Taipei appreciated Russia's continued engagement in these discussions and looked 
forward to resolving the issue soon. 
11.23.  The delegate of New Zealand indicated that his authorities had a well-established track 
record of constructive engagement with the Russian  Federation on veterinary issues, including at 
treaty level agreement, to which New Zealand attached great value. New Zealand had respected 
its agreements with Russia, and the animal produc ts exported to the Russian Federation complied 
with these requirements. As previously indicated in this Council, New Zealand stood ready to work 
with the Customs Union on new certification requirements. This process also represented some 
new challenges but New Zealand was ready to help the Customs Union partners in ensuring a robust and pragmatic outcome, consistent with WTO obligations. 
11.24.  The delegate of the Russian Federation indi cated, in response to the EU, that the Russian 
Federation believed that the measures mentioned by these delegations were fully compliant with 
Russia's WTO commitments. However, the EU should provide more information on the issues to be considered by his authorities. In response to Japa n, he indicated that at the last meeting of the 
TRIMs Committee the Russian Federation had already clarified the issues concerning the industrial 
assembly programme and its relation to subsidies in the automotive sector. 
11.25.  The Russian Federation regretted to note, once again, that most of the interventions at 
today's meeting had repeated what had already been said, by the same delegations, at previous 
CTG meetings. Moreover, since the last CTG meetin g, the interested delegations had not engaged 
with the Russian Federation in a constructive dialogue, despite the calls and readiness for such contacts. Therefore, the Russian Federation believed that there could be no real commercial 
concerns behind this agenda item; had there been, the said Members would already have G/C/M/122 
 
- 19 - 
 
  contacted his delegation. He invited delegations to opt for a bilateral track in order to settle these 
issues rather than again taking up the Council agenda with the same broad interventions. 
11.26.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made. 
11.27.  The Council so agreed. 
12  INDONESIA'S IMPORT AND EXPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES – 
REQUEST FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
12.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 13 March 2015, the 
delegations of the European Union, Japan, and the United States had requested the Secretariat to 
include this issue in the agenda of the meeting. 
12.2.  The delegate of the United States of America referred once again to US concerns about 
trade and investment policy trends in Indonesia, many of which had been initiated under the 
previous government and which included a grow ing number of laws and regulations that could 
have systemic consequences for access to Indonesia's market, its attractiveness as a trading partner, and its ability to fulfil its WTO commitments. The statements made by senior officials of 
the new Indonesian government indicating that the goal of new policies would be to reduce 
imports, increase exports, and balance both th e trade and current accounts created additional 
concerns, particularly when Indonesia was an important partner of the United States. 
12.3.  Bilateral trade with Indonesia was almost US$31 billion, of which US$28 billion 
corresponded to goods and US$3 billion to services . However, Indonesia benefitted from an almost 
US$10 billion trade surplus with the US in trade in goods. Indonesia was a large and diverse, 
fast-growing country, with real GDP growth consistently ranging from 4 to 7% over the last 
decade. The new government had set a 7% growth target and had also emphasized the need for 
investment, particularly in infrastructure. It had already taken initial steps to streamline the business licensing process by creating a one-stop shop at the Indonesian Investment Coordinating 
Board. 
12.4.  Despite its impressive economic performa nce and goals, Indonesia's market suffered from 
numerous trade and investment restrictions, including import licensing requirements, unique 
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, such as for toys, pre-shipment 
inspection requirements, local content and domestic manufacturing requirements, including those in the energy, telecommunication, information and communication technology sectors, and export restrictions. Individually, each policy created burdens for traders. Together, these requirements 
created a complex web of approvals that made Indonesia's market impenetrable and a less 
attractive investment and business destination. 
12.5.  Over the last several years, Indonesia had introduced import licensing requirements on an 
increasing list of products of great interest to the US, including agriculture, information and 
communications technology, and consumer goods, including electronics, household appliances, food and beverages. These licensing procedures were complex and non-automatic; concerns 
existed about their implementation in a consistent and predictable manner. These import 
requirements were apparently used to implement possibly WTO-inconsistent measures such as the 
use of import licences for cell phones, tablets, and handheld computers, aimed at restricting the quantity of those imported products and oblig ing importers to commit to developing local 
manufacturing. 
12.6.  In the same vein, the Indonesian gove rnment had expanded the use of localization 
requirements, including but not limited to local content requirements and domestic manufacturing. 
These types of requirements applied to many sectors, including mining, oil, gas, franchising, retail, 
and telecommunications. In addition, the Indonesi an government was developing new regulations 
for equipment and devices that ran on the 4G LTE spectrum. 
12.7.  Concerns also existed about the general la ck of transparency in Indonesia's trade regime. 
Since 1995, Indonesia had not submitted any notification of its subsidies programme, and on several occasions the government failed to notify measures that related to technical regulations, G/C/M/122 
 
- 20 - 
 
  conformity assessment procedures, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, as required by the 
relevant agreements. 
12.8.  According to a recent press statement by the Ministry of Finance, Indonesia planned to 
provide "tax allowances to companies who export at least 30% of their production", and to impose 
"temporary anti-dumping duties to promote Indonesian businesses and manufactures"; this 
indicated an intention to adopt actions to help balance Indonesia's trade and current accounts. 
12.9.  The US acknowledged the objectives of promoting domestic production, creating jobs, and 
moving the economy up the value chain to a high er level of development. However, closing the 
market to imports was not the best way to achieve those objectives. Expanding the web of import restrictions, export restrictions, local manufactu ring and content requirements, foreign equity 
restrictions, and other policies, not only reduced the transparency, predictability, and 
competitiveness of Indonesia's business and investment climate, but also ran against Indonesia's 
natural advantages as a place to do business. 
12.10.  She encouraged the new government to distance itself from the previous government's 
policies and to address all these concerns by revi ewing its laws and regulations with a view to 
ensuring that they support Indonesia's economic goals and its WTO commitments. 
12.11.  The delegate of the European Union reiter ated the concerns, repeatedly expressed by the 
EU for over a year, about the direction taken by Indonesia's economic and trade policies. These 
had been raised in many meetings of this Council and in the Committees on Import Licensing, TBT, TRIMs, and SPS. Indonesia's trade policies were not only becoming increasingly restrictive and 
protectionist but also prescribed local content requirements. Economic operators hesitated to enter 
the Indonesian market given the increased trade barriers, which contradicted Indonesia's pledge 
made at the G-20. 
12.12.  The EU regretted that none of its concerns  had been alleviated but rather had increased. 
This was the case with regard to: the legislation on distribution, which could potentially restrict the 
possibilities for non-locally produced goods or non-local marks actually to be sold; the imposition of pre-paid corporate income tax to importers' companies, which was not in line with the 
WTO obligation of non-discrimination; and the entry port restrictions in the Jakarta main port that 
had undermined EU capacity to export food. 
12.13.  Export restrictions applied to certain raw materials were also of concern. In 2014, 
Indonesia had amended its export tariffs but left unchanged the ban on exports of unprocessed 
minerals; such restrictions disrupted international markets, increased input costs for producers, 
and led to uncertainty in terms of supply. The result of the current export ban, while aiming at supporting certain industrial policy objectives under the Mining Law, could be more harmful than 
beneficial to the Indonesian economy and the glob al market and would also be WTO-inconsistent 
as quantitative export restrictions were prohibited. 
12.14.  At the previous two meetings of the CT G, the EU had requested clarification on the 
implementation of such restrictions but Indonesia had not responded. The EU deplored this lack of 
transparency as it created a climate of uncertain ty and ambiguity for exporters, importers, and 
investors alike. This applied in particular, but not only, to the 2014 laws on industry and trade, 
whose potential impact on trade and investment could be significant in terms of disrupting trade if 
fully implemented in their current form. 
12.15.  The EU appreciated the firm commitment by  President Widodo to cut red tape and improve 
the investment climate in Indonesia. The investment climate had not yet improved but the 
EU nevertheless hoped to see positive developments by the time of the next CTG meeting. 
12.16.  The delegate of Japan shared the concerns raised by previous speakers with regard to the 
increasingly restrictive trade policy measures of Indonesia, which ran counter to Members' 
concerns raised at the previous meeting of this Council and other Committees. Those measures 
included the Mining Law, the Law on Trade, the Law on Industry, the Trade Ministry Regulations 
No. 70/2013, and No. 28/2014, local content requirem ents on 4G mobile phones, the national car 
programme, and the preferential tax treatment for Indonesian exporting companies. G/C/M/122 
 
- 21 - 
 
  12.17.  Japan had particular concerns about the implementation measures under the Mining Law, 
which prohibited the exportation of raw materials, such as nickel ore. Japan considered that these 
constituted a violation of GATT Article XI on the elimination of quantitative restrictions on imports and exports and, since the new Indonesian government took office last year, it had persistently 
urged the Indonesian authorities to reconsider the measures concerned. However, Japan had not 
received any positive response from Indonesia and, even though it still intended to solve this issue 
bilaterally, it had already begun an internal consideration of steps available under the DSU. He 
urged Indonesia to respond promptly, as requeste d by Prime Minister Abe to President Widodo 
during their recent bilateral meeting. 
12.18.  Japan also shared the concerns raised by the EU and the US with regard to other laws, 
including the Law on Trade and the Law on Industry, as it had doubts about their consistency with 
GATT Articles XI and III, and Article 2 of the TR IMs Agreement. Japan would closely monitor how 
these laws were to be implemented. 
12.19.  Japan also found problematic the restriction in the retail sector (Trade Ministry Regulation 
No. 70/2013), as it imposed an obligation on shopping centres and modern retail shops to ensure 
that 80% of products in their outlets be of domestic origin. Japan also considered that the new regulation, No. 56/2014, which stipulated that stand-alone brands handling goods from the global 
supply chain be exempt from local content requirements, still raised concern as to its consistency 
with WTO Agreements and, in particular, GATT Ar ticle III and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. 
Japan urged Indonesia to bring these measures into conformity with WTO rules. 
12.20.  With regard to Trade Ministry Regulation No. 28/2014, which entered into force in 
July 2014, Japan considered that it included provisions on quantitative restrictions of alloy steel 
imports. Additionally, despite an indication that they should be granted within five working days, 
there had been delays in granting import licences. Therefore, Japan doubted the consistency of 
these measures with GATT Article XI, and Article 2.2(a)(iii) and Article 3.5(f) of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures. 
12.21.  Japan was therefore concerned by the increasingly restrictive and protectionist trade 
policies of Indonesia, and believed that a transparent and stable trade and investment 
environment was the key to Indonesia's developm ent and to the development of the regional 
economy. Moreover, President Widodo and Prime Mi nister Abe had emphasized the importance of 
the rules-based multilateral trading system. Ther efore, Japan urged Indonesia to bring its trade 
policy into conformity with the WTO agreements. 
12.22.  The delegate of Chile shared the previo us concerns with regard to the practices and 
policies implemented by the Indonesian governme nt, particularly Regulations 42 and 43 of the 
Ministry of Agriculture as these had banned Chilean fruit and vegetable imports from using the 
port of Jakarta on the basis of alleged SPS conc erns over the possible presence of fruit fly. 
Nevertheless, Chile fulfilled the SP S standards established by the International Plant Protection 
Convention (IPPC), and was thus recogn ized as a country free of fruit fly. 
12.23.  A direct consequence of the restriction was that it obliged Chilean exports to Indonesia to 
pass through ports located over 800 kilometres away from Jakarta, which was the main centre of consumption; this represented additional costs. Likewise, the ban had placed Chilean exports in a 
position of direct disadvantage when compared to products from other countries, which were 
authorized to use the Jakarta port. Chile had already raised this trade concern in the SPS Committee, highlighting that Chile had been  recognized as a country free from fruit fly. 
Indonesia should reconsider this restriction. 
12.24.  The delegate of Brazil joined previous sp e a k e r s  i n  s h a r i n g  c o n c e r n s  w i t h  r e g a r d  t o  t h e  
import restrictions and measures implemented by Indonesia, specifically as applied to poultry. In 
addition, Brazil had held consultations with  Indonesia in the context of dispute DS484, Indonesia – 
Measures Concerning the Importation of Chicken Meat and Chicken Products . However, Brazil 
remained concerned with regard to the WTO-consistency of several import restrictions imposed by Indonesia on poultry and other agricultural products. He hoped that Indonesia would address the 
different complaints voiced at this meeting and would bring its measures into conformity with the 
WTO rules. G/C/M/122 
 
- 22 - 
 
  12.25.  The delegate of Canada stated that his co untry, as a significant exporter of high-quality 
agriculture and agri-food products, had a systemic interest in ensuring that the measures 
implemented by its trading partners did not restrict trade. However, Indonesia's numerous measures, especially those relating to agricultur al products, might negatively affect Canada's 
ability to compete in the Indonesian market. Canada had also participated in the discussions and 
consultations with Indonesia and continued to encourage Indonesia to abide by its WTO obligations, in particular with regard to import licensing. 
12.26.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei joined prev ious speakers in reiterating the concerns of her 
delegation over Indonesia's import licensing regime for agricultural products, which required 
importers to obtain multiple documents, to complete multiple steps, and to approach a multiplicity of Indonesian agencies prior to importation; this was complex, burdensome, and time-consuming, 
and negatively affected the access of Chinese Taipei's agricultural products to the Indonesian 
market. Such regimes were also discriminatory and not in accordance with the national treatment principle. 
12.27.  Her delegation also noted that, in document G/SPS/N/IDN/103, Indonesia was applying 
similar requirements to fish and fish products in that it referred to a new regulation concerning quality control and the necessity of fishery products imported into Indonesia. Since October 2014 
Indonesia had also set out a series of requiremen ts and procedures for the importation of fish 
products. Indeed, in addition to a health certificate, a certificate of origin, a catch certificate, and a labelling document, a fishery products import permit issued by the Director General of Fishery Product Processing and Marketing of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries was also required. 
Indonesia should explain whether the approval of that application was granted in all cases, and 
within a feasible time frame. The justification to limit the ports of entry into Indonesia should also be clarified and sufficient time should likewise have to be given to Members to become acquainted 
with it and to make comments. 
12.28.  Chinese Taipei would continue closely to monitor Indonesia's import licensing regime, 
including within the context of the DSU, and encouraged Indonesia to improve its import licensing 
procedures and ensure their conformity with the relevant provisions in the Agreement. 
12.29.  The delegate of New Zealand reiterated the concerns of his delegation with a number of 
import restrictions in Indonesia's laws and regulations as these affected trade across a range of 
agricultural products, including horticultural and animal products. The WTO-inconsistency and 
commercial impact of these measures on New Zealand exporters had led his country to request 
the establishment of a WTO panel to hear this dispute; this would be taken up by the DSB in due course. 
12.30.  The delegate of Australia shared the previous concerns regarding the trade policy 
measures of Indonesia that affected agricultural products. He indicated that recent measures 
implemented by Indonesia, and which included beef , cattle, and horticultural products, had further 
restricted imports. Indeed, Indonesian regulations introduced in December 2014 excluded imports 
of secondary beef cuts and offal, and subsequent  amendments only allowed imports of secondary 
beef cuts in limited circumstances and only through State-owned enterprises. Regulations also imposed a number of requirements, including pa ckaging, labelling, and purpose of usage 
requirements on imported beef products, which we re not applied to domestically produced beef. 
These measures were in addition to Indonesia's existing import permit system for live cattle that effectively acted as a quarterly quota on imports. 
12.31.  Australia acknowledged Indonesia's aspiration  to achieve food security in key commodities 
such as beef. However, import restrictions would reduce supply and put pressure on beef prices for Indonesian consumers. His authorities were workin g with Indonesia to help support food security, 
including through cooperation to increase capability in Indonesia's beef and cattle industry to meet 
domestic demand. Nevertheless, Australia was interested in hearing from Indonesia as to how its regulations were WTO-consistent, including the obligation under GATT Article XI, that Members should not implement quantitative restrictions on imports, and obligations under Article III, that 
products imported from the territory of any Member should be accorded treatment no less 
favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin. He encouraged Indonesia to explore alternative policies, which were WTO-consistent, and which did not restrict high quality 
Australian products that were safe, reliable, and made a strong contribution to Indonesia's food 
supply. G/C/M/122 
 
- 23 - 
 
  12.32.  The delegate of Indonesia reiterated that her country was a strong supporter of the 
multilateral trading system and trade reform. This was reflected in Indonesia's Schedule of 
Concessions, with a tariff binding coverage of 96. 6%, a 47% average of bound tariff in agriculture, 
and 35.6% for non-agricultural products, with an applied tariff average of around 7%. In addition, 
within the ASEAN Economic Community Indonesia had bound most of its tariffs to zero. 
12.33.  She further noted that Indonesia had continued to undertake systematic efforts to reduce 
trade constraints and steps to improve its business environment; this had been reflected in 
improvements in its ranking in various global indicators. The Indonesian National Single Window 
was one of several efforts to facilitate trade by  implementing online processing of trade and 
licensing activities. It was now fully operational at all of the ten main Indonesian customs entry points, where approximately 90% of trade operations, imports and exports, took place. 
Furthermore, Indonesia was continuously improving the infrastructure in all designated ports to 
provide better services and to maintain the level of competiveness; in other words, to facilitate trade and to expedite export and import activities. 
12.34.  Her delegation had already expressed, at the respective committee meetings, its view that 
its import and export policy and measures were applied under justifiable objectives and rationale, such as safety, health, environment, social, culture, and moral hazard reasons, and were not 
aimed at creating barriers to trade. 
12.35.  With regard to Indonesia's import policy on agricultural products and animals and animal 
products, she indicated that this issue had been brought to the DSU and would therefore not need 
to be raised again at the CTG level. 
12.36.  She highlighted that all of Indonesia's poli cies were "living policies"; they evolved and were 
readjusted and recalibrated commensurate to the challenges that emanated from the global trade into which Indonesia was integrated. Indonesia was committed to continuing to work with 
interested Members, in the WTO and in other fora, to address Members' concerns and to reach a 
solution that would at the same time give consideration to Indonesia's developmental needs and challenges. 
12.37.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made. 
12.38.  The Council so agreed. 
13  ECUADOR – IMPORT RESTRICTING MEASURES – REQUEST FROM JAPAN 
13.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 13 March 2015, the 
delegation of Japan had requested the Secretaria t to include this item in the agenda of the 
meeting. 
13.2.  The delegate of Japan indicated that, with respect to Ecuador's import restricting measures, 
Japan had two points of concern. The first related to the trade restricting measures on automobiles 
implemented by Ecuador since 2012, which were meant to end in December 2014. However, Ecuador had adopted Resolution No. 49 in Dece mber 2014, which not only had tightened the 
measure but also extended it until the end of 2015. Consequently, the total import of Complete 
Build-Up Units would be reduced by 40% when comp ared to the level of imports recorded in 2013, 
and the total import of the Complete Knock-Down (CKD) would be reduced 20% from the level of 
imports recorded in 2013. If the 2012 restricting measures had considerably depressed imports of 
automobiles from Japan, the tightened and extended measures would further depress the imports 
from Japan in 2015 by 50% when compared with the imports recorded in 2014. 
13.3.  Japan considered that such measures violated GATT Article XI, and realized that Ecuador 
had introduced them claiming that their policy objective was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
and protect human life or health under GATT Article XX(b). Japan had doubts concerning this justification since the measure was not necessary to achieve the said policy objective. 
Furthermore, the measure treated differently the Complete Build-Up Units and the CKD, and also 
provided different treatment between cars in ci rculation in Ecuador and imported cars. Such 
differentiation was also not justifiable nor in line with GATT Article XX(b). He therefore urged Ecuador to further explain the justification of the measures. G/C/M/122 
 
- 24 - 
 
  13.4.  The second concern related to the introduction by Ecuador of an import surcharge, in 
Resolution 11 of March 2015, invoking GATT Article XVII(b). Such BOP measures, in addition to the above-mentioned restricting measures on automobiles, had a significant adverse impact upon Japan's trade and industry. Japan recognized that th e recent drop in oil price and the appreciation 
of the US dollar had negatively affected Ecuador' s economy, and that adopting balance of payment 
(BOP) measures was a right granted to all WTO Members. However, the applicability of such 
measures needed to be strictly judged in order to  secure the integrity of the Multilateral Trading 
System. Thus, he called on Ecuador to explain its measures and to bring the issue to 
the Committee on BOP. 
13.5.  The delegate of Colombia joined Japan with regard to the systemic interest and indicated 
that his country also had concrete interests in this matter. A capital issue in the multilateral 
trading system and in bilateral trade relations was always to ensure an adequate level of 
transparency and compliance with the commitments made under the various agreements that regulated trade relations. Consequently, Colombia believed that when adopting measures that 
might impact the trade relations between Members, it was always necessary to comply with the 
procedures and transparency provisions as well as with the commitments that had been made and 
undertaken. These measures should also be based on objective criteria; they would otherwise 
undermine the basics of the multilateral trading sy stem and negatively impact trade. Accordingly, 
Colombia looked forward to receiving from Ecuador the clarifications and explanations on the issue raised by Japan. 
13.6.  The delegate of the United States of Amer ica shared the concerns raised by Japan on this 
issue and urged Ecuador to remove its measures on automobiles. On the safeguards measures 
imposed by Ecuador she indicated that these affect ed one third of imports; hence, a broad range 
of stakeholders were concerned. 
13.7.  The delegate of the European Union shared the concerns expressed by Japan with regard to 
the automobile sector and urged Ecuador to reconsider its measure given the possibility of 
attaining the declared objective by reducing emissions through internal policy initiatives that would 
not distort trade flows. Regarding the BOP measures, implemented in early March 2015, he urged 
Ecuador to ensure full transparency and act in accordance with its WTO obligations. In the interest of the WTO Membership, the exceptional measures  adopted by Ecuador should be temporary, 
justified in light of the country's situation, and should not exceed what was necessary to address 
the BOP situation. The EU looked forward to receiv ing form Ecuador the notification of its measure 
in the Committee on BOP. 
13.8.  The delegate of Guatemala requested Ecua dor to submit the pertinent notification and 
documentation requirements on its BOP measure so as to allow her authorities to assess the 
situation and implications to her country. BOP-restrictive measures should be clear, justified, and aimed at reducing the related effects; they should also include a progressive plan to reduce the 
remaining restrictions. Guatemala looked forward to participating in any consultations on this 
matter. 
13.9.  The delegate of Panama joined the previous  speakers with regard to the concerns on this 
issue. Panama had analysed the measure and its potential impact. As in 2009, Ecuador had for a 
second time adopted import restricting measures based on an imbalance in its balance of 
payments. Panama asked Ecuador promptly to notify its measures and to hold consultations on this issue. 
13.10.  The delegate of Canada said that his country had systemic concerns about Ecuador's 
import restrictions in the automotive sector, particularly with regard to the application of a sliding 
tariff scale that appeared to favour local content. Canada was also concerned by the consistency of 
these measures with Ecuador's WTO obligations, including its obligations under the GATT. He 
sought further clarification from Ecuador on the measures affecting the automobile sector, including the methodology used to measure local content levels and the applicable tariffs, as well as Ecuador's requirements concerning mandatory certificates of recognition for imported vehicles. 
13.11.  The delegate of Peru shared the conc erns expressed by previous speakers on the 
imposition of surcharges on the existing tariffs , and applicable to 2961 tariff subheadings invoking G/C/M/122 
 
- 25 - 
 
  the provisions of Section B of GATT Article XVIII, and the Understanding on the GATT 1994 
provisions concerning BOP. 
13.12.  Peru's exports to Ecuador represented almost 3.8% of the total Ecuadorian imports in 
2014. However, the application of the surcharge would reduce them severely, since 48% of the 
tariff lines exported from Peru to Ecuador had been subject to such duties. Considering the harm 
that this type of restrictive practice had on trade,  both bilateral and multilateral, Peru believed that 
they were not pertinent, especially when the cause on which they were based originated in 
structural problems in the country that required more in-depth solutions. 
13.13.  Peru was also concerned that Ecuador had once again used the mechanism established in 
Section B of Article XVIII, an exceptional provisio n that should not be used frequently. Indeed, 
Ecuador had already applied this measure in 2009, thus affecting its trading partners, including 
Peru. 
13.14.  Peru asked Ecuador to take into account the concerns expressed at this meeting, to 
consider the prompt suspension of this measure and, if not, to proceed to notify its measures so as 
to begin consultations in the Committee on Balance of Payment Restrictions. 
13.15.  The delegate of Mexico said that his country recognized the situation being faced by 
Ecuador but also had concerns about the restrictive measures being applied on automotive 
products. Mexico would analyse these measures in more detail in the pertinent WTO body. 
13.16.  The representative of Ecuador, in response to the concerns about the measures applied by 
his country on the automobile sector, indicated that Ecuador was facing a serious problem with an 
increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and that in order to address this problem it had adopted a 
number of measures aimed at reducing this increase in all sectors. The measure contained in 
Resolutions 65 and 66 was aimed at reducing th e increase of 110% of greenhouse gases in the 
automobile sector, particularly in the main cities where there was also a massive increase in the 
number of cars. These Resolutions applied to all WTO Members and affected equally the nationally 
produced vehicles. Ecuador also had a national air plan for its main cities and was currently developing other measures to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases produced by cars. Some 
additional programmes had been adopted, such as improving the quality of gasoline so as to 
reduce gas emissions, and improve the air quality in  the cities in order to preserve human health. 
Ecuador was also implementing a plan of incentives for the use of electric cars; therefore, Regulations 65 and 66 of COMEX had been adopted with the aim of protecting human health and 
life according to the standards of the multilateral trading system. 
13.17.  With regard to the safeguards adopted under the BOP he expressed surprise at the 
assertions in the statements made as there was a mechanism called Understanding on 
Balance-of-Payments Provisions of the GATT 1994, whose Paragraph 5 not only indicated the 
appropriate forum for raising these issues–the Committee on Balance of Payment Restrictions–but also the procedures to hold consultations. Addi tionally, Section B of GATT Article XVIII established 
what the procedures were and when the notifica tion should be made, namely within 30 days 
following the adoption of the measure. In this regard, Ecuador has informed its trading partners, both in the Capitals and in Geneva, that its notification would take place before the 30-day limit. Moreover, the relevant Division in the WTO Secretariat had also been informed of this fact. 
Therefore, Ecuador was acting according to th e established disciplines and abiding by its 
WTO commitments. 
13.18.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. 13.19.  The Council so agreed. 
14  WORK PROGRAMME ON  ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
14.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, at the last meeting of this Council, he had reminded 
delegations that Ministers in Bali had agreed: (i) to continue with the positive work under the Work 
Programme on E-Commerce based on its existing mandate and guidelines and on the basis of proposals submitted by Members in the respective WTO bodies; (ii) to instruct the General Council G/C/M/122 
 
- 26 - 
 
  and its relevant bodies, including this Council, to continue to reinvigorate this work, especially 
under the initiatives taken in relation to commercial issues, development, and evolving technology; and (iii) that any relevant body of the Work Programme might explore appropriate mechanisms to address the relationship betw een electronic commerce and development in a 
focused and comprehensive manner. In this vein and in order to fulfil the mandate, he had invited 
delegations to express their opinions and to take suggestions as to how to work on the preparation of the periodic reviews to be held in the Gene ral Council at its meetings of December 2014 and 
July 2015. 
14.2.  He also informed delegations that, on 16 February 2015, the 10
th Dedicated Session on 
E-commerce had taken place, where Members had expressed varied views on the way forward to consider possible outcomes for MC10 and where de legations had emphasized the importance of a 
bottom-up approach. Reference was also made in the background information note prepared by 
the Secretariat to the informal dedicated discussions that were conducted mostly from the end of 1998 to mid-2001 on the basis of the background notes prepared by the Secretariat 
(documents G/C/W/128 and G/C/W/128/Add.1). He opened the floor for delegations to express 
their views and suggestions, namely in view of the next meeting of the General Council where the 
incoming Chair, on his own responsibility, would make a factual report on the discussions held in 
this Council on the Work Programme and with a vi ew to preparing the possible outcomes on this 
issue at MC10. 
14.3.  The delegate of Canada said that his country continued to support the MC9 Decision calling 
for Members to continue to invigorate work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. 
Canada was ready to engage on e-commerce discussions in this Council and in the other 
WTO bodies dealing with this subject, and looked forward to receiving concrete proposals. Canada 
had also been supportive of the continued extensio n of the moratorium on applying customs duties 
to electronic transmissions, which were an important contributor to maintaining open markets for 
electronic commerce. He also informed the Council that Canada had included provisions in its recent free trade agreements that provided for a permanent customs duties moratorium on 
electronic transmissions and that it was open to discussion in this regard as part of the 
WTO E-Commerce Work Programme. 
14.4.  The Chairperson thanked Canada for its statement and invited the Council to take note of 
the information presented. 
14.5.  The Council so agreed. 
15  OTHER BUSINESS 
15.1  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETINGS 
15.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the next meeting of the CTG was scheduled to 
take place on Monday, 13 July 20153. The agenda for the July meeting would close on Thursday, 
2 July 2015. 
15.2.  He also informed the Council that, in light of MC10, the CTG's autumn meeting was 
scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 10 November 2015. The agenda for the November meeting would close on Friday, 30 October 2015. 
16  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
16.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the Chairperson of the General Council had carried out 
consultations on a slate of names for Chairpersons to the different WTO standing bodies in 
accordance with the established Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers. These proposed 
nominations had been approved by the General Council at its meeting on 20 February 2015. In line 
with the nominations, he proposed that the Council for Trade in Goods elect Ambassador Héctor CASANUEVA from Chile as Chairperson of this Council, by acclamation. 
16.2.  The Council so agreed. 
                                               
3 Changed to Friday, 26 June 2015. G/C/M/122 
 
- 27 - 
 
  16.3.  The outgoing Chairperson thanked all delegations, and the Secretariat, for their untiring 
efforts and dedication in carrying out the wo rk programme of the CTG in 2015. He also 
congratulated Ambassador Casanueva on his appointment and wished him all success in fulfilling his mandate as Chair of this Council. 
16.4.  The incoming Chairperson thanked the GRULAC for having nominated him to Chair the CTG, 
and the regional groups and WTO Membership for having accepted his nomination. It would be a 
challenge for him to follow in the footsteps of Ambassador Paparizov, given Ambassador 
Paparizov's leadership skills, and many profe ssional, diplomatic, and personal qualities. 
16.5.  The WTO was experiencing renewed dynamism following the adoption of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement and the initiation of work towards a programme on the other Bali issues under the three pillars. The Organization's main bodies, such as this Council, were also critical 
components and constituted the common heritage and the institutional continuity of the 
multilateral trading system. In his capacity as Chairperson he would contribute and do his utmost in favour of this system in any possible way, draw ing on the support of Members, the Chairs of the 
Committees, and of the Secretariat. 
16.6.  The meeting was closed. 
__________