RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/145  
 
31 July 2013  
(13-4129)  Page: 1/26  
General Council 
4 June 2013    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 4 JUNE 2013 
Chairman:  Mr.  Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
In the course of the meeting, the Chairman, th e Director-General and many delegations bade 
farewell to Amb. Eduardo Muñoz Gómez (Colombia), who was leaving his post at the WTO, and 
expressed appreciation for his valuable contribution during his time as Permanent Representative.  Subjects discussed
1: 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE .................... 2  
2   WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
OF THE DEDICATED SESSION OF THE CO MMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT .......... 6  
3   IMPROVING THE GUIDELINES FOR GRANTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS PERMANENT OBSERVER STATUS IN THE WTO - STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN ................................................................................................................ 7
 
4   NINTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CO NFERENCE .................................................. 8  
4.1   ELECTION OF OFFICE RS ............................................................................................. 8  
4.2   ATTENDANCE OF OBSERVERS FROM GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATI ONS.............................................................................. 8  
4.3   ATTENDANCE OF NON-GO VERNMENTAL ORGA NIZATIONS ............................................... 9  
5   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION - REPORT ON 
MEETING OF MARCH 2013 ................................................................................................ 9  
6   WTO PENSION PLAN MANAGEMENT BOARD – ELECTION OF TWO MEMBERS – 
PROPOSAL BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GENERA L COUNCI L ............................................ 10  
7   ACCESSION TO THE WTO – STAT EMENT BY DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ON 
BEHALF OF THE INFORMAL GROUP OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIE S .................................. 10  
8   ACCESSION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION – STATEMENT BY CROATIA .......................... 12  
9   INFORMATION SESSION ON LOGISTICS FOR MC9 – STATEMENT BY 
INDONESIA .................................................................................................................... 13 
10   CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 13  
11   ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMBERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 13  
ANNEX - STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS AT THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE 
TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMI TTEE ON 3 JUNE 2013 .................................................... 15  
 
 
                                               
1 The proposed agenda was circulated in WT/GC/W/669. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTI ATIONS COMMITTEE 
1.1.  The Chairman invited the Director-General, C h a i r m a n  o f  t h e  T N C ,  t o  r e p o r t  o n  t h e  T N C ' s  
activities since his last report to the Council. 
1.2.  The Director-General2, Chairman of the TNC, recalled that since his February report to the 
General Council, the TNC had met in informal mode on two occasions – in April and the previous 
day3 to review progress on the potential DDA deliverables for the Bali conference and to determine 
next steps. He wished to stress the task ahead and said that in the following forty working days, 
i.e. the time before the start of the summer recess, it was necessary to build a solid foundation for 
success in Bali over the three issues which were  part of the Doha Development Agenda. This 
partial harvest would not be the end of the road, but rather the step that would allow for the continuation of the remaining Doha road post-Bali. 
1.3.  The tasks over the coming weeks were to clean up the trade facilitation draft agreement 
currently on the table; to build a landing strip on agriculture; to canvas the elements of the 
monitoring mechanism and the Cancun agreement-specific proposals as well as building on the 
elements of an LDC package for Bali. He had been encouraged by the general tone of readiness to 
roll up the sleeves that he had heard in the TNC the previous day.  
1.4.  One should not forget that work was also needed on other elements which could be part of 
the Bali deliverables. On Aid for Trade, there would be an occasion to build a set of considerations 
for Bali at the Fourth Global Aid for Trade Review on 8-10 July, devoted to connecting developing and least-developed countries to value chains; a number of accessions on which delegations were working had to be advanced, and could be ready by Bali; and the negotiations for the expansion of 
the ITA were moving forward in a promising manner. 
1.5.  He also called for a rapid conclusion of the ongoing discussions on the extension of the TRIPS 
transition period for LDCs. The aim remained to reach agreement on this matter so as to enable 
the TRIPS Council to take a decision at its meeting scheduled for 11-12 June, and report thereon to 
the Bali Conference.  
1.6.  For his part, he would continue his consultations with delegations in a number of formats, 
with group coordinators, Chairs of negotiating gr oups and the General Council Chairman to try and 
advance work. Members would have a chance to realistically review progress and the odds for delivering on the three issues in Bali at a formal TNC, which was scheduled on 22 July. The ball was back in the court of negotiators. 
1.7.  The Chairman invited any delegation that wished its statement at the informal TNC meeting 
the previous day to be included in the Minutes of  the present meeting to communicate this directly 
to the Secretariat.4 
1.8.  All delegations which spoke thanked th e Director-General, Chairman of the Trade 
Negotiations Committee, for his report. 
1.9.  The representative of the Dominican Republic , on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing 
Countries, stressed the need for Members to increase efforts to achieve positive results in Bali. A 
failure to deliver at Bali would seriously affect the credibility of the WTO and the viability of the 
Multilateral Trading System. He said that all shared the opinion that a Trade Facilitation Agreement was still a realistically possible deliverable for Bali, but delegations needed to work harder as the 
timing was running out, with a serious compromise to make progress on both Section I and 
Section II (Special and Differential Treatment). Working harder did not only mean scheduling more meetings or further tweaking the process. What was needed was purposeful and meaningful 
engagement that would allow delegations to narrow the gaps, particularly in Section II, which were 
not just technical in nature. Expressions of optimism that this work could be completed in time had been heard coming from the mini-ministerial in Paris. What was needed now was to bring that 
optimism to Geneva and translate it into positive results in the negotiations. 
                                               
2 The Director-General's statement was subsequently circulated in JOB/GC/53. 
3 The Director-General's statements at the TNC meetings were made available to delegations in 
JOB/TNC/18 and JOB/TNC/19, respectively. 
4 Such statements are reproduced in the Annex to the present record. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.10.  The Group was also of the view that one should not lose sight of the developmental 
mandate under which the negotiations had been launc hed. For this mandate to be respected it was 
important to get a balanced result in Bali with  all three elements that had been discussed as 
deliverables forming part of the package. These were: trade facilitation, which was already 
discussed; the agriculture negotiations elements of food security, tariff quota administration and 
export competition; as well as a third set of decisions consisting of special and differential treatment and LDC deliverables. 
1.11.  Regarding LDC issues, the Group wished to express its support for LDCs to be granted a 
waiver from their obligations to enforce intellec tual property protection measures. This waiver 
should be granted promptly before the deadline for an extension expired in July. The LDC extension of the TRIPS transition periods was already the object of a decision at MC8 and it looked 
like it would be implemented when the decision to grant the extension was taken in July. 
Unfortunately, other decisions taken at MC8 and in previous Ministerial Conferences still awaited full implementation. These decisions were the results of some very difficult negotiations and 
captured hard-won concessions in many cases favouring the developing countries. The Group 
stressed the importance of fully implementing any Ministerial Decisions that had been taken in past years. 
1.12.  Speaking on behalf of the Dominican Repu blic, he noted that those who had attended the 
meeting of the TNC the previous day had been able  to appreciate the intensity of the debate. The 
passion that had been expressed by participants in this process spoke to the importance that 
Members attached to the organization. He believed that all should commit themselves to achieving 
positive results in Bali. Since the organization had been set up, almost 20 years earlier, trade 
liberalization had enabled global poverty to be cut by 50%. He could necessarily say that this was the fruits of the organization's influence in the world, but it was true to say that WTO policy had 
developed a push factor towards a new world order, enabling better distribution of wealth through 
the creation of wealth caused by trade. 
1.13.  He believed that the organization had an ob ligation to ensure it that by 2030, as had been 
recently expressed by the President of the Worl d Bank and by the US President Obama, poverty 
could be eliminated. There were therefore 17 ye ars to eliminate poverty, and one of the key 
factors in achieving it was trade operating in conjunction with the various other variables that would help eradicating poverty as part of the UN set of millennium development goals for the post 
2015 period. Therefore, Members should be committed to making the organization a keystone in 
the process of eradicating poverty by 2030, through trade liberalization and better participation by the poorest countries in the multilateral trading system. 
1.14.  The representative of Jamaica, on behalf of the ACP Group
5, said he wished to reaffirm the 
importance of the Bali Conference and the imperati ve of securing an outcome that builds on the 
three pillars that had been identified. He also wished to emphasize the need to strive for a 
meaningful and substantive outcome with regard to LDC issues that took fully into account the 
sensitivities of Members in relation to the impact of specific proposals on their existing benefits. In addition, the Group reaffirmed that a meaningful outcome on agriculture was important for securing results in Bali and indicated that the ACP would contribute to efforts to find appropriate 
compromises that would lead to consensus. 
1.15.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago, on behalf of CARICOM, said that the Group took 
note of the state of play in the negotiations to date, particularly on Trade Facilitation, Agriculture 
and Development and wondered whether the curren t pace would allow for some outcome to be 
reached in time for Bali. An “early harvest” agreement could turn out to be one small step on the journey towards Doha or the only step. CARICOM was in full support of the former and of the 
completion of the Doha Round. Whatever the end result, it would have taken more than 12 years 
to reach that position - and that was a long time. This had raised questions, and understandably so, regarding the Doha Round and the relevance of the organization. These questions should be to 
rest by delivering in Bali. Toward this end, CARICO M looked to the bigger players to show flexibility 
in the negotiations. This was the type of leadership desired and was the type that would auger well 
not only for the Doha Round, but for the Multilater al Trading System as a whole. He stressed that 
                                               
5 The statement that Jamaica, on behalf of the AC P Group, made at the TNC meeting on 3 June is 
reproduced in Annex I to the present record. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 4 - 
 
  there were only 40 days to deliver the “contours of landing zones” for Bali and that this time 
should be made valuable. 
1.16.  Speaking on behalf of Trinidad and Tobago, he recalled a speech that DG Lamy had 
delivered in 2006 at the International Institute of Economics entitled “The Doha Development 
Agenda: Sweet Dreams or Slip Slidin’ Away?” In th at speech he had posed the following questions: 
“Where are we today? Are we on the verge of a coll apse of the multilateral trading system as many 
academics have written recently? Are we witnessing the end of an era and taking a sharp bend into 
b i l a t e r a l i s m ?  A r e  w e  m o v i n g  c l o s e r  t o  a  “ c h e a p  round”? Or are we just witnessing the normal 
positioning that takes place prior to the last lap in  the race?” He believed that DG Lamy’s questions 
were as relevant today in 2013, as they were in 2006. 
1.17.  The impasse in the DDA negotiations seem ed indeterminable; the “early harvest” package 
for the Bali Ministerial in December also seemed elusive and as the stalemate persisted, ambitious 
free trade agreements were being negotiated across the globe. This situation was certainly a matter of concern for the economically weakest and most vulnerable Members, whose economic 
growth and development interests were at stake. He asked whether it wasn't the case that the 
DDA Round of negotiations had been launched in the spirit of making the multilateral trading system stronger to ensure that all Members, particularly the weakest and most vulnerable, could 
benefit significantly from it. He also asked whether the interests of the major players in 
international trade had overshadowed the needs of  the most vulnerable Members. Notwithstanding 
the wind of pessimism blowing in the organization, his delegation remained optimistic that it was 
possible to resolve the differences and pave the way for a successful outcome at the Ministerial 
Conference in Bali and the DDA negotiations. As DG Lamy had stated in his 2006 speech, “it is 
about leadership, about compromises and countries  recognizing their common interest in success 
and the collective costs of failure”. 
1.18.  The representative of the Plurinational Stat e of Bolivia noted that the key feature discernible 
in the preparations for the MC9 was the high leve l of imbalance in the topics themselves, between 
topics and, consequently, in the level of ambition. The imbalance began with the reception given to 
the G33 proposals on food security and the G-20 proposals on export competition, which some 
counterparties considered inadmissible for negotiation, or of unnecessarily lengthy treatment. Yet, if one wanted to have a successful Ministerial Conference in Bali, results on these proposals in agriculture were needed. Agriculture was the main area of imbalance in the WTO's current 
architecture, with export subsidies representing  one of the most trade distorting measures, 
resulting in the situation faced by agriculture, especially small-scale farmers in developing countries which needed to be resolved urgently. 
1.19.  She said that the imbalance continued in the lack of significant results for LDCs: specifically, 
the real elimination of cotton subsidies, duty-f ree and quota-free access for LDCs to developed 
country markets; an effective waiver on services or preferential rules of origin; not to mention 
extension of the TRIPS Agreement transition pe riod, which was a regular topic and therefore 
outside the Bali package, but which should be completed before the Ministerial. She further noted that the imbalance deepened when one was asked to believe that economically irrelevant proposals that were potentially retrograde in terms of flexibilities for developing countries or LDCs, such as 
those contained in Annex C of the Cancún te xt, implied progress towards development. 
1.20.  The imbalance was then intensified by the impossibility of ensuring that the monitoring 
mechanism made its full contribution to development; in other words, if competencies could not be 
clearly defined for making recommendations to other committees on issues for improvement, 
strengthening, and effective implementation of the provisions on special and differential treatment, pursuant to the mandate of Article 44 of the Doha Declaration. This imbalance was further 
accentuated when unrealistic ambitions were proposed for trade facilitation, without the same level 
of ambition on agricultural issues, issues relating to LDCs and the monitoring mechanism. It was also unrealistic to try to impose systems that were irrelevant to the needs and interests of developing countries, particularly when the gap in  ambition between sections I and II continued to 
widen. Clearly, this series of imbalances to the detriment of developing countries was 
unsustainable if one really wanted to achieve positive results in Bali. There was the risk of building a fragile house of cards, which was so precarious ly balanced that the excessive ambition of the 
developed countries could cause it to collapse once again, and very soon. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.21.  The representative of the Chile said he di d not doubt the benefit of agreeing a Bali package, 
because trade facilitation was an issue in which all Members benefited. There were different 
degrees and intensities, but ultimately everyone agreed on the need to promote foreign trade and 
integrate into global value chains. It was also true that many developing countries, such as Chile, 
needed to adjust to their practices and policies; but it was also true that the global trend was 
towards greater regulatory efficiency. In this context, the trade facilitation negotiations provided an opportunity to agree global, ambitious, and bi nding rules, in a framework that was flexible 
enough to enable commitments to be put into practice. To put it simply, the Members' different 
sensitivities needed to be recognized and reflected. 
1.22.  In agriculture, although time was pressing, there was still time to find pragmatic, functional, 
and realistic solutions. In relation to the G-33 proposal, Chile agreed that a public statement 
should be issued reiterating the importance of public inventory programs for developing countries 
for food security purposes. A mechanism needed to be prepared to address the most urgent problems. Lastly, as a member of the G-20, Chile reiterated its support for the proposal on export 
competition, which was one of the most distorting issues in agricultural trade; Chile publicly 
declared its openness to dialogue with flexibility and pragmatism. 
1.23.  He stressed that the development element was at the heart of the WTO. No one could object 
to the provisions on special and differential treatment being analysed under a transparent and 
effective mechanism. This was an issue on which Members were in debt to the system and to themselves. All that remains was to work, negotiate, and reach agreement. Similarly, it was essential to take account of the needs of the least-developed countries. The previous week, in 
Paris, Chile's Minister undertook to implement a "duty-free quota-free" scheme for goods 
originating in the Members that most needed assistance. This step should be seen not only as a sign of commitment, but also as a call to the large economies to act with determination and clarity 
of objectives. 
1.24.  The representative of Honduras said he wished to reiterate his country's firm commitment to 
the multilateral trading system governed by the organization's rules, which enabled small 
economies, such Honduras', to strengthen the positive ties that existed between trade and 
development. With regard to the road to Bali, Honduras, as a small vulnerable economy, was participating in the current negotiations constructively and actively. Honduras was trying to have substantive achievements in areas of interest, as these results would have a direct impact on the 
economic and trading systems of all Members. In agriculture, as an SVE, and as SVEs are 
members of the G-33, Honduras had always wished to reach horizontal solutions in each and every 
one of the proposals put forward within the negotiations of the Doha Round. And all of this, as 
Honduras attempted to have better integration of its economy within the world trading system. 
1.25.  With respect to trade facilitation, Honduras believed in the results reflected in the 
consolidated text but work needed to continue in order to ensure that the special and differential 
pillar reached the level of progress expected. On the monitoring mechanism, it would be in favour 
of a solution enabling all Members to effectively support the challenges that they faced through the various agreements under the Organization. He wi shed to reaffirm Honduras's commitment to the 
multilateral trading system, and in particular its commitment to principles of transparency and 
inclusiveness. Honduras wished to appeal on the membership that the necessary efforts be made, 
having as an objective a successful 9
th Ministerial Conference. 
1.26.  The representative of El Salvador said he was grateful to the chairs of the negotiating bodies 
for their efforts to make progress in the negotiations on the three priority topics for the Ministerial 
Conference. As always, the report was pragmatic and succinct. His delegation fully supported the Colombian delegation's call, at the previous day's meeting, for reflection and open exchange 
between Members in relation to the Bali package. It was essential to hold horizontal discussions on 
all topics, bearing in mind the short time availa ble between until the Ministerial Conference, and 
w i t h o u t  w h i c h  i t  w o u l d  b e  v e r y  h a r d  t o  a c h i e v e  c o n c r e t e  r e s u l t s .  E l  S a l v a d o r  a l s o  s h a r e d  t h e  concern raised by Barbados on the need to respect and adequately implement any ministerial 
decision or statement adopted. It was hard to understand how mandates issued by Ministers got 
reinterpreted, renegotiated or even questioned by one or more delegations, to the benefit of some 
and the detriment of others, or vice-versa. This was a dangerous precedent and should not occur. 
1.27.  He stressed that what was needed to reach agreements was political will, because a 
technical argument could always be countered with another one. Without political will, things would WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 6 - 
 
  not progress. On the contrary, given the lack of po litical will shown by delegations, it would be 
very sad to have to report to Ministers on the scant progress made. Horizontal conversations should therefore start as soon as possible. He also  said that concrete results would not be achieved 
merely through talk and fine-sounding rhetoric. 
1.28.  He further noted that his delegation believed credibility was measured by results and 
wondered in what situation the Organization would be if it were a private enterprise, given the few results obtained thus far on one of its core issues, and the resources deployed by delegations. 
1.29.  The General Council took note of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
2  WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
2.1.  The Chairman said that in line with th e framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda, and the Committee on Trade and Development reported regularly to the Council on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this subject. 
2.2.  The Chairman read out the report on work in  this area on behalf of Mrs Williams (Barbados), 
Chairperson of the Dedicated Sessi on of the CTD, as follows: 
"Since the last report on the Small Economy Work Programme made in February this year, 
there has been one formal meeting of the CTD Dedicated Session. At the meeting on 3 April 
2013, Barbados presented a new proposal which has since been circulated in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/27. The proposal was made by Barbados on behalf of other SVEs and contains two suggestions: the first is to continue with the work on the identification and 
effects of NTMS on the exports of Small Econ omies. This had already been agreed to by 
Ministers at MC8 in 2011 and had been addresse d, in part, in the Secretariat’s background 
document WT/COMTD/SE/W/26/Rev.1; the second  suggestion is to continue working on 
NTMs and Small Economies by organizing a workshop. Such a workshop would not only help 
to disseminate the results of the Secretariat’s work, but would also encourage Members to share their respective national experiences in regard to how they had overcome certain 
NTMs in their key export markets. Many SVEs saw this as a good way to highlight, among 
other things, what was being done on NTMs at a practical level.  
The SVE proponents and other Members are currently discussing some of the points raised in 
the proposal. It is hoped that a way forward can soon be agreed to, thereby ensuring that 
work on NTMs continues and that solutions for SVEs can be found. 
As you are aware, Ministers at MC8 specifically instructed that work on the identification and 
effects of non-tariff measures on Small Economies be conducted by the Secretariat. Even 
though some preliminary work has been done, some SVEs are dismayed that, despite the 
decision of Ministers, the need for further work  is being questioned. SVEs are, therefore, now 
considering alternatives to follow up on the MC8 Decision and will keep Members informed 
accordingly.  
Ministers at MC8 also instructed the CTD in Dedicated Session to report to the General 
Council on progress and action taken, not only on NTM measures but also on other areas of interest to SVEs. The General Council, in turn, is to report to Ministers meeting at MC9 in 
Bali later this year. In this regard, I would like to inform you that the SVEs and WTO 
Members will soon start work on such a report in upcoming meetings of the CTD in Dedicated Session." 
2.3.  The representative of Barbados, on behalf of the SVEs, said the statement the Chairman had 
read out on behalf of the Chair of the CTD was one which all agreed gave an accurate assessment 
of the work on the Small Economies Work Programme within the CTD. At the 4 March 2013 
informal meeting and 3 April 2013 formal meetin g of the CTD Dedicated Session, the SVEs had 
presented to Members their proposal outlining th e “Continuation of the Examination of NTMs/NTBs 
in fulfilment of the MC8 Mandate” as elaborated in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/27. The proposal comprised two elements: the further elaboration of the work which had been started by the WTO WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Secretariat on NTMs and small economies by de veloping a factual assessment and a workshop 
which would further accent and complement this work as well as lend a functional and practical element to the work. 
2.4.  The SVEs saw the factual assessment and the workshop as two central elements which could 
be core to assisting small economies to increasing  their competitiveness and export potential. They 
reiterated that the elements of W/27 were in line with the MC8 mandate from Ministers and the Secretariat’s background note represented a good start upon which some deepened examination 
on the effects of NTMs on small economies could be undertaken. 
2.5.  The SVEs would wish to register disappointment that the proposal for a study was yet to be 
agreed as it continued to be the subject of a few limited concerns despite the overwhelming and almost unanimous support from the Membership to wards delivering as agreed by Ministers during 
MC8 under the Work Programme. The SVEs considered the proposal and its outcomes were one 
step towards contributing to the wider goal of further integrating small economies into the multilateral trading system. Discussions were continuing. 
2.6.  The SVEs were cognizant that MC9 was clos e, and they would therefore continue to work 
assiduously with Members to fulfil the MC8 mandates for the Work Programme. They looked forward to working with Members to submit a meaningful report to MC9. 
2.7.  The representative of the Plurinational Stat e of Bolivia supported the statement by Barbados 
on behalf of the SVEs. Bolivia wished to express its concern at the twist in developments on the 
SVE proposal on an analysis of NTMs in the economies of such countries, where one particular country appeared to be opposed to this approach, despite the fact it was adopted at MC8.  
2.8.  The representative of Cuba supported the statement by Barbados on behalf of the SVEs. Cuba 
had concerns about the lack of flexibility show n by one Member in particular, which had been 
obstructing the implementation of the decision adopted at MC8. This attitude led nowhere; 
meanwhile, the clock continued to tick and there was less and less time before Bali. The decision in 
question requested the Secretariat to continue the study and factual analysis of NTMs and barriers affecting small economies, and their effects on the trade and development of those countries. 
Without specific arguments and imposing conditions, this Member had not accepted the Group's 
proposal, which had been presented in March 2013, to organize a workshop prior to MC9, for the purpose of transparently analysing the results of the studies commissioned from the Secretariat. It 
was neither serious nor fair to continue with delaying tactics that prevented fulfilment of a 
Ministerial mandate. The Member in question needed  to show flexibility and the necessary political 
will to ensure that this mandate was fulf illed on behalf of the small economies. 
2.9.  The representatives of the Dominican Republic , Jamaica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, 
Trinidad and Tobago and Ecuador supported the st atement by Barbados on behalf of the SVEs. 
2.10.  The General Council took note of the repo rt of the Chair of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statements. 
3  IMPROVING THE GUIDELINES FO R GRANTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS PERMANENT OBSERVER STAT US IN THE WTO - STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its Novemb er 2011 meeting, the General Council had agreed 
to initiate a process of consultations to consider the issue of Observer Status for IGOs in the WTO, 
following a communication by the Arab Group entitled "Improving the Guidelines for Granting Observer Status to Intergovernmental Organizati ons in the WTO" (WT/GC/W/643), which was then 
supplemented by a further communication in document WT/GC/W/654. At the February 2013 
meeting of the General Council, his predecessor had reported on the progress in these consultations and had encouraged delegations to work together with a constructive spirit to 
address this issue. Since then, he had continued the consultations on this matter and, at this time, 
he was not able to report any change in the po sitions previously expressed. He intended to 
continue these consultations and to report back to the General Council as appropriate. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.2.  The representative of the Dominican Republic , on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing 
Countries, said the Group noted with concern that this issue had yet to be resolved despite having 
been consulted on for some time. For this reason, it supported the request that this issue be kept 
on the agenda for the next regular meeting of th e General Council and urged Members to show the 
necessary flexibility so that this issue, which was disrupting the WTO's co-operation with other 
IGOs, was finally settled. 
3.3.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
4  NINTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 4.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in December th e previous year, the General Council had agreed 
on the date and venue for the Ninth Session of the Ministerial Conference, which would take place 
in Bali, Indonesia, from 3 to 6 December 2013. As Members moved on in their preparations for 
MC9, there were a number of administrative matters on which the General Council had to take a 
decision. As indicated in the agenda for the m eeting, these were: (a) Election of Officers; 
(b) Attendance of Observers from Govern ments and International Intergovernmental 
Organizations; and (c) Attendance of NGOs. He had conducted consultations on all these matters, 
including with the coordinators of WTO Groups, and he wished to report on these consultations and to propose that the General Council takes action on  some of these sub-items. After his report, he 
would open the floor to delegations. 
4.1  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 4.2.  The Chairman recalled that the Rules of Pr ocedure for the Ministerial Conference established 
that "During the course of each regular session a Chairperson and three Vice-Chairpersons shall be 
elected from among the Members. They shall hold office from the end of that session until the end 
of the next regular session." As delegations would also recall, at MC8, Ministers had requested the General Council to hold consultations with a view to deciding on the election of Officers of the next 
Ministerial Conference. In this respect, he noted that the customary practice had always been that 
a representative of the Government hosting a Ministerial Conference outside Geneva, normally the Trade Minister, was elected as Chair. The three vice-chairmanships were then shared across the 
other broad groupings of Members. From the cons ultations he had undertaken, it appeared that 
this past practice could be repeated for MC9. Therefore, he proposed that the General Council elect the Trade Minister of the host Government – In donesia – to chair the Conference. Regarding the 
three Vice-Chairs, in view of the fact that the Chair would come from Asia, and in line with 
customary practice, he proposed to invite the representatives of the other three broad groupings – 
Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and developed countries – to consult with their constituents so that the Council could revert to this matter at its July meeting, and agree on the 
full slate of officers for MC9 at that time.  
4.3.  The General Council so agreed. 
4.2  ATTENDANCE OF OBSERVERS FROM GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS6 
4.4.  The Chairman suggested that the issues of  attendance of observers from Governments and 
IGOs be taken up separately. First, with regard to attendance of observers from Governments, he 
had suggested in his consultations that past practice be repeated – that was to invite the 
Governments with Observer Status at MC8 to  attend MC9. This concerned therefore the 
governments with regular observer status in the General Council – with the due adjustments related to the accessions since MC8 – plus the following six Governments which had previously 
been granted observer status only at Ministeria l Conferences: Cook Islands, Eritrea, Niue, San 
Marino, Timor-Leste and Tuvalu. In the light of the convergence around his suggestion which had been apparent in his consultations, he proposed that the General Council agree to follow the 
procedure he had outlined. 
4.5.  The General Council so agreed. 
                                               
6 In connection with this item, the attention of Members was drawn to the following document: 
WT/MIN(09)/INF/6/REV.1, Categories II and III.  WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.6.  Second, with regard to the attendance of IGOs,  he recalled that past practice up to MC7 had 
been to invite those IGOs which had observer status in the previous Ministerial Conference to attend the next one. The list of the Observer IG Os invited to MC7 could be found in document 
WT/MIN(09)/INF/6/Rev.1 under Category III. He also recalled that for MC8, consensus on 
repeating past practice with respect to IGOs attendance could not be reached, and that therefore 
no IGOs were invited to attend MC8. From the consultations he had conducted on repeating past practice for MC9, it was clear that more time was needed for delegations to consider this approach. 
He therefore proposed to continue his consultations in different configurations, including small 
groups, and that the General Council revert to this  sub-item at its July meeting. In addition, he 
informed Members that a request to attend MC9 had been received from the League of Arab States on 27 May. He intended to include consideration of this request in his consultations, and he 
proposed that the General Council revert to it at its meeting in July. 
4.7.  The General Council took note of the statement. 
4.3  ATTENDANCE OF NON-GO VERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 
4.8.  The Chairman recalled that for all previous Ministerial Conferences, attendance of Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) had been governed by a procedure which had been agreed by 
the General Council in July 1996. This procedure was as follows: 
(i) A limited number of accredited NGO representatives were allowed to attend only the 
Plenary Sessions of the Conference, without the right to speak; 
(ii) applications from NGOs to be registered were accepted on the basis of Article V, 
paragraph 2 of the WTO Agreement, i.e. NGOs "concerned with matters related to those of 
the WTO"; and 
(iii) a deadline was established for the registration of NGOs that wished to attend the 
Conference. 
4.9.  In his consultations, there had been conver gence about repeating this practice. He therefore 
proposed to follow the procedure he had just read out, with a deadline for registration fixed at 13 October 2013. Once the registration procedure was finalized, the Secretariat would circulate the 
list of registered NGOs to all Members. 
4.10.  The General Council so agreed. 
4.11.  Separately, the Chairman drew attention to the request for Observer status at MC9 that had 
been received from Palestine in document WT/L/884. In accordance with customary practice, he 
would undertake consultations on this request and intended to revert to it at the next General 
Council meeting. 
4.12.  The representative of the Dominican Re public, on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries, expressed the Group's full suppo rt of the request by Palestine to participate 
as an observer at MC9. 
4.13.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
5  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMI NISTRATION - REPORT ON MEETING OF 
MARCH 2013 (WT/BFA/136) 
5.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee in document 
WT/BFA/136 and invite Mr Stone (Hong Kong, Chin a), Chairman of the Committee, to introduce 
the report. 
5.2.  Mr Stone (Hong Kong, China), Chairm an of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said that at its meeting in March, the Committee had reviewed the financial 
situation of the trust funds. Members had been invited to contribute to the Global Trust Fund and 
to the dedicated trust fund that facilitated the participation of LDCs in MC9 in order to ensure the timely implementation of planned activities . The Committee had examined the situation on WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 10 - 
 
  outstanding contributions from Members and Ob servers. The number of Members subject to 
Administrative Measures at the end of 2012 had been  the lowest ever with only 6 Members. At the 
start of every year, the list of Members, and now also Observers, was updated with the annual 
assessed contributions. There were current ly 18 Members and 4 Observers subject to 
Administrative Measures. It included 5 Members that were not complying with their approved 
payment plans. The full list would be provided at the end of the meeting. In the meantime, the 
Committee recommended to the General Council  to urge Members and Observers under 
Administrative to liquidate their arrears.  
5.3.  The Committee had been informed of the acce ssions of the Lao People's Democratic Republic 
and Tajikistan. The Committee recommended to the General Council to approve the respective pro rata contributions to the 2013 budget as well as contributions to the Working Capital Fund. On 
human resources matters, the Committee had review ed the implementation of the salary scale 
methodology for 2013, the increase in health insu rance premiums and the evolution of the grade 
structure. Members had stressed the importance of continuing to engage human resources reforms 
in light of the salary freeze, grade structure and budget constraints. The Committee had asked the 
Secretariat to provide an annual report on promot ions and on the grade structure. Finally, the 
Committee had been updated on the progress made on the building project.  
5.4.  The representative of El Salvador thanked those Members who were contributing to the 
Global Trust Fund, through which technical co-operation of much importance to developing 
countries was funded. Despite the difficult econom ic conditions which were facing everyone, his 
delegation appealed to the donors to fulfil the commitments they had made, so the technical 
assistance activities could continue to be financed. 
5.5.  The General Council took note of the stat ements, approved the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendations in paragraphs 2.2, 3.2 and 4.2 of its report in document WT/BFA/136, and 
adopted the report. 
6  WTO PENSION PLAN MANAGEMENT BO ARD – ELECTION OF TWO MEMBERS – 
PROPOSAL BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL (WT/GC/W/668 AND 
WT/GC/W/668/CORR.1) 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that Article 4(a) of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan provided, 
inter alia , for the election by the General Council of a Chairman, four members and four alternates 
to the Management Board of the Pension Plan. In a communication circulated to delegations in 
document WT/GC/W/668 and Corr.1, he had indicate d that two members, previously elected to the 
Management Board by the General Council, were no longer available to serve on the Board, and he had proposed the names of two representatives who had kindly agreed to have their names put 
forward for election as members. He had also invited delegations to submit any comments 
regarding the proposed nominations by close-of-business on 30 May. He had not received any comments regarding the proposed nominations, and accordingly, proposed that the General 
Council elect Ms Aiko Kimura (Japan) and Mr Felipe Sandoval (Chile) to serve as members on the 
Board for the remainder of the term, i.e. until May 2014. 
6.2.  The General Council so agreed. 
7  ACCESSION TO THE WTO – STATEMENT BY DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE 
INFORMAL GROUP OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
7.1.  The representative of the Dominican Republic , speaking under "Other Business" and on behalf 
of the Informal Group on Developing Countries (IGDC), said the issue of accession to the WTO was 
of great interest to the Group. Several of the count ries that participated in the work of the Group 
were currently in the process of accession to join the WTO and would like to see their accessions concluded in the very near future. The Group was very pleased that the MC8 mandate to 
strengthen the guidelines for accession of LDCs had been fulfilled. This decision had to be 
implemented both in its letter and it its spirit so that one could soon see all LDCs that were still not part of the WTO participate more meaningfully in the multilateral trading system. The Group reiterated that all accession processes should foll ow the principles of S&D treatment for developing 
countries, non-reciprocity, and should be based only on technical, trade and economic 
considerations. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 11 - 
 
  7.2.  The Group greatly appreciated the reports by  the Director-General on the state of play of 
accessions. These reports helped to keep the memb ership informed about the different stages that 
each accession process was in, and greatly increased transparency. For this reason, it would like Members to consider the possibility for the DG's status reports on accession to be made at every 
meeting of the General Council. There were several accession processes that were very close to 
completion and Members should accelerate any bilateral market access negotiations that were holding up some accessions. In particular, the Group believed that the accession of Yemen, an 
LDC, Kazakhstan and Bosnia and Herzegovina should be marked as deliverables for MC9. 
7.3.  The representative of Oman, on behalf of  the Arab Group, associated the Group with the 
statement made by the Dominican Republic on beha lf of the IGDC. As Members were aware, there 
were 10 Arab countries that were still outside WTO; eight of them had observer status and two had 
no status at all. The Group would appreciate Members being updated on a regular basis at each 
General Council on the status of accessions an d fully supported the proposal made by the 
Chairman of the IGDC. 
7.4.  The representative of the United States raised a technical point of order. In the Dominican 
Republic's intervention, he had heard a formal proposal and would note that as this was an item 
under Other Business this would not be appropriate, and he asked that the Chairman note that. 
7.5.  The Chairman said he took note of the comment by the United States. 
7.6.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion supported the suggestion by the Dominican 
Republic on behalf of the IGDC. Accession of new Members was an important issue for the good 
functioning of the Organization and this proces s, indeed, should be assessed by the General 
Council in whatever form might be appropriate. 
7.7.  The representative of Colombia said that his delegation had always advocated in this forum 
the need to address the important issue of accessions. Members had not done justice to the 
detailed reports that the Director-General periodically submitted, because there was not enough 
time to do so. There was also the recently adopted decision on the accession of LDCs, which needed following up. Accordingly, Colombia support ed the request to provide better opportunities 
for regular discussion of this important topic. 
7.8.  The representative of the Dominican Republic , on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing 
Countries, referring to the statement by the United States, indicated that the Group was not 
requesting that this item be formally discussed, nor that any decision be taken at this meeting. 
However, it was asking Members to analyse, to assess this idea and have a discussion on it for it to 
be taken to the next meeting. 
7.9.  The representative of Cuba supported the st atements by the Dominican Republic on behalf of 
the IGDC, and hoped that a simple procedural matter would not hamper such an important debate, 
which should take place in the General Council, on such an important topic as new accessions to the Organization. Her delegation would not like to see this blocked or hampered by a simple 
procedural approach. All Members should agree that a topic such as this should be able to be 
discussed in this forum. This was an organization which represented, or was attempting to reach, a system which was effectively multilateral for trade. The accession of new Members would give this multilateral system its true representativity, and this would be beneficial. Her delegation hoped, 
therefore, that a procedural issue would not hamper this necessary debate, which had to take 
place in this forum. 
7.10.  The representative of Iran, speaking as an observer, associates his delegation with the 
statement by the Dominican Republic, on behalf of the IGDC. As the Director-General had well 
elaborated in his 2012 accession report, "Accession negotiations are at the core of the business of the WTO. […] it is notable that WTO Members represent approximately 97% of world trade. 
However, for an Organization which strives for universality, 97% is not enough. The challenge in 
the years ahead is to focus on the 3% that remains outside of the rules-based Multilateral Trading System. I urge particular focus and support for those Acceding Governments that are undertaking domestic reforms to advance their accession negotiations to closure." WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 12 - 
 
  7.11.  Statistically, there were now 24 countries, with approximately 8% of world population, that 
were in the process of negotiating their terms of  accession to the WTO. They were at different 
levels of progress on the way towards WTO membership. However, they all had one common concern, i.e. further endeavors as well as more cooperation were needed to facilitate and speed up 
their accession to the WTO.  
7.12.  This desire came from the gradual pace fo r the accession process since the establishment of 
the Organization in 1995. As everyone knew, duri ng this period and out of the 57 requests for 
accession submitted, 31 countries had joined the Organization, with almost four more soon on the 
verge of it. From the standpoint of public opinion, the reputation of the Organization would be improved if the remaining countries were not left, for more time, outside the door of accession. This would also help convince those who might have another opinion, according to which the 
general trend for accession seemed to contradict the pledge made in the Singapore Ministerial 
Declaration to "work to bring the applicants [of countries wishing to accede to the Organization] expeditiously into the WTO system." This commitme nt of the Members "to proceed in the accession 
process as rapidly as possible” was renewed in paragraph 7 of the 1998 Geneva Ministerial 
Declaration and at other similar events as well. 
7.13.  His delegation welcomed the positive progress made in the accession process of a few 
countries, including developing and least-developed countries. Such advancement had a significant 
role in the universalization and inclusiveness of WTO and in strengthening the multilateral trading system. It do hoped that the WTO could genuinely match up to its well-deserved name, i.e. World Trade Organization.  
7.14.  As Members were aware, the Islamic Republic of Iran had taken all necessary technical 
steps in its accession process. It had submitted its Trade Regime Memorandum in 2009 and had responded to almost 700 questions which had been put forward by interested Members and 
submitted them to the Secretariat of WTO on 11 November 2011, all of which had been formally 
distributed to Members on 8 December 2011. At the same time, the consultations for setting up Iran's Working Party and appointing its Chair,  based on the accession procedure, had been 
initiated prior to the submission of the Trade Regime Memorandum.  
7.15.  After completion of all these tasks, and showing the Government’s seriousness and 
readiness in the accession process, this was Iran's  high and reasonable expectation to see the WTO 
and its Members reinforce the consultations leading to a tangible output and result in the near 
future. As a case in point, his delegation hoped that the designation of the Working Party Chair and 
convening its first Working Party session would be realized at the earliest convenient time. In this context, Iran counted on the cooperation and support of all Members in the lengthy and 
complicated process, in a way that non-economic factors would not adversely affect the accession 
of countries.  
7.16.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
8  ACCESSION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION – STATEMENT BY CROATIA 8.1.  The representative of Croatia, speaking under "Other Business, said that 21 years after its 
recognition, Croatia would soon make another historic step. In less than one month, on 1 July, 
Croatia would become the 28th member state of the European Union. This accession would mark 
the end of one period in its history and the begi nning of another. Having decided to join the 
European Union, Croatia had also decided to assu me additional responsibilities in formulating 
European policies. As a small country, Croatia considered the European Union as a platform for 
increasing the strength of its voice in sharing the common goals, balanced economic and social 
development and the fundamental values, democracy and aspects of human rights, peace and solidarity and fight against poverty. At the next General Council meeting. Croatia would be 
participating as a member of the European Union and, as part of the European Union, Croatia 
would continue to promote and strengthen the various areas of work of the WTO and would remain committed to an open rules-based multilateral trading system – the key to growth, jobs and the well-being of all. 
8.2.  The representative of the European Union sa id it was a great privilege to welcome Croatia as 
the 28th member of the EU family. The accession of Croatia to the EU was a result of an historic WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 13 - 
 
  process of change in south-eastern Europe. It showed that the European project continued to be 
an important factor for peace and stability in Euro pe and globally. It also showed once again that 
regional co-operation and deep integration amongst soverign states was the way forward in an increasingly interdependent world. Governments' challenges at the regional level were not that 
different from, and in fact were to a great extent complimentary to, challenges at the global level, 
thus the accession of Croatia to the EU was a message of hope and an important step forward for the EU and the global community. Naturally, in the WTO the EU delegation would concentrate all 
its best efforts to effectively and efficiently represent and promote Croatia's interest, as it did with 
all member states. 
8.3.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
9  INFORMATION SESSION ON LOGISTICS FOR MC9 – STATEMENT BY INDONESIA 
9.1.  The representative of Indonesia informed Me mbers that as part of the logistical preparation 
for MC9, the Indonesian Task Force (ITF) in co -operation with the WTO Secretariat Task Force 
(WTO-TF) would hold the following activities from 6 to 14 June 2013 in the WTO building. First, on 
6 June at 10 a.m. the ITF and WTO-TF would make a presentation on the logistical arrangements 
for MC9 in Bali. This would be followed by a question and answer session, to respond to any enquiries or requests for clarification from Members. Second, also on 6 June, after the information 
session, Indonesia would hold a reception and inauguration of the Indonesian exhibition in the 
gallery of the new WTO building. Third, the Indo nesian exhibition would take place from 6 to 
14 June, with information about Bali, as well as about Indonesia, including its economic growth. There would also be a counter for members to prov ide further information. Fourth, on 6 and 7 June 
2013, the ITF together with the WTO-TF would provide Members the opportunity to request more 
specific information related to the logistical arrangements for MC9 bilaterally. 
9.2.  The General Council took note of the statement. 
10  CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
10.1.  The Chairman said he had been informed that Ambassador Baati (Tunisia), Chairman of the 
Council for Trade in Goods, had been recalled to capital to take up another appointment and was 
therefore no longer able to serve as Chairman of  the Council for Trade in Goods. Accordingly, he 
would be starting consultations regarding the appointment of a successor to Amb. Baati. In accordance with Paragraph 7.1(b) of the Guidelin es for the Appointment of Officers in WT/L/510, 
he would be conducting these consultations with the assistance of Amb. Fried (Canada), Chairman 
of the Dispute Settlement Body, and the former Chairs of the General Council. In line with the practical steps to improve the implementation of the Guidelines, contained in JOB/GC/22, he and 
his colleagues would be meeting group coordinators, and would subsequently invite interested 
delegations to come forward to consult with them. They would be shortly informing delegations by fax of the dates and time for these consultations.  
10.2.  The General Council took note of the statement. 
11  ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMBERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
11.1.  The Chairman recalled that at its meeting in October 2012, the General Council had 
approved a recommendation from the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration regarding 
revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears, as contained in WT/BFA/132, Annex I. These new revised measures had entered into force on 1 January 2013. Among these 
Administrative Measures was a requirement that , at the end of each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chairman of the Committee on Budg et, Finance and Administration should provide 
information with regard to which Members and Ob servers were under Administrative Measures. He, 
therefore, invited the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr Stone (Hong Kong, China), to 
provide the Council with this information.  
11.2.  Mr Stone (Hong Kong, China), Chairm an of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said he would list all Members and Observers under all categories of Administrative WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Measures as at 3 June 2013. There were currently 8 Members in Category I: Benin; the Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Guinea; Mala wi; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; 
Uganda; and Vanuatu. There were 2 Members in Category II: Antigua and Barbuda; and Grenada. There were 8 Members in Category III: Central Af rican Republic; the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo; Djibouti; Dominica; Guinea-Bissau; Mauritania; Niger; and the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela. There were 2 Observers in Category  I: Equatorial Guinea; and the Syrian Arab 
Republic. There were 2 Observers in Category III:  Sao Tomé and Principe; and Sudan. 
11.3.  The Chairman said that under the new revised Administrative Measures, he was also 
required at each Council meeting to request Members and Observers in Categories II and III of the 
Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment of arrears might be expected. 
11.4.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
_______________ 
  WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 15 - 
 
  ANNEX 
STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS AT THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 
COMMITTEE ON 3 JUNE 2013 
At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned 
meeting are included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 1. Argentina 
We thank the Director-General for his report on the status of the negotiations and endorse the 
statements made by Brazil on behalf of the G-20 and by Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group. 
 Argentina's participation in these negotiations has been constructive and open minded. We have 
been asked for flexibility, like all participants, and we are being flexible. 
 O n  T r a d e  F a c i l i t a t i o n ,  f o r  e x a m p l e ,  w e  h a v e  s h o w n  t h i s  b y  a g r e e i n g  t o  g i v e  g r o u n d  o n  v a r i o u s  
aspects of Section I, which is why we would also like to see more involvement from all Members in the discussion of the technical aspects of Sectio n II. We believe that both sets of discussions 
(Section I and Section II) should take place at the same time and not one after the other. 
 
As regards development issues, we are again being constructive, showing that we are prepared to 
consider and accept any proposal leading to be tter integration of the developing countries, and 
particularly the LDCs, into the multilateral trading system. 
 
And then there is the question of agriculture, a sector which has always lagged behind in all the 
negotiations that have taken place in this framew ork, be it the GATT or the WTO, and which is of 
fundamental importance to us; and here again we are being flexible. Indeed, I would even say 
very flexible.  
As a member of the G-20, we have submitted, firstly, a proposal on the administration of tariff 
quotas, where we are only seeking better administ ration of these quotas and greater transparency, 
nothing more. It is not a question of market access, but simply of guaranteeing that, through transparent administration of tariff quotas, the market access we obtained in the Uruguay Round. 
 
We recently presented a proposal on export compet ition, where again we are displaying flexibility, 
despite the contrary opinion of some developed Memb ers who have said that the submission of this 
proposal endangers Bali. 
 First of all, allow me to say that quite the opposite is true. What is actually in danger is the 
credibility of the WTO itself and all its Members if we allow 2013 to pass without any mention of or 
undertaking on this issue. In Hong Kong (in 2005) we agreed on the elimination of all forms of export subsidies "by the end of 2013". Admittedly this was conditional upon full agreement on modalities, but it remains true that of the three pillars of the agricultural negotiations (market 
access, domestic support and export competition) the export competition pillar is the ONLY one on 
which we have made the commitment to "establish a definite date" for the elimination of all forms of export subsidies, owing to their blatantly dist orting nature. No such undertaking on a deadline 
was made with regard to the cutting or elimination of tariffs or the cutting or elimination of 
domestic support. Consequently, what would endanger not merely Bali but the entire system is overlooking the undertaking made for the eliminatio n of subsidies and a definite date for doing so. 
 
In drafting the G-20 proposal on this issue, as I have said, we have been flexible: we did not propose total elimination, which is the final goal we continue to support, but the adoption of a "gradual approach" for the progressive elimination of such subsidies. 
 
Reference has been made to the major imbalances in the proposal, when what is allowed for the developed countries' export subsidies represents five times what is allowed for developing 
countries. Where is the imbalance? 
 We have been asked to be flexible, and we are being flexible, not only on agriculture but also on 
the other two pillars; but we ask those who oppose this new proposal by the G-20 to reflect and 
tell us what their flexibility has been upon this question: what can we do on export subsidies? WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 16 - 
 
   
A discussion of the G-20 proposal should begin by answering this question, which will be decisive 
for the success of the forthcoming Ministerial Conference.  
Finally, we repeat what we have already said on earlier occasions: the Doha Round is centred on 
development, that is to say, agriculture. The Eigh th Ministerial Conference declared that any "early 
harvest" should take account of the development component; accordingly, it is neither realistic nor 
viable to try to agree on an "early harvest" confined exclusively to an agreement on trade 
facilitation without substantive elements on agriculture. As the South African Minister Ron Davis said in Paris, we can continue negotiating insofar as we do so on all the topics before us.  
2. Barbados 
I thank the Director-General for his update on pr ogress to date on work being done on the Bali 
package, and for his untiring efforts in that regard. 
 
On behalf of my delegation Barbados, we acknowledge the progress that is being made and we welcome that progress despite the hurdles still to be crossed. 
 
Our delegation is of the view that it is important to deliver a package that is fair and balanced. We are therefore encouraged, by progress in the three pillars and in that regard, our delegation takes 
the opportunity to align ourselves with the statement by Indonesia delivered on behalf of the G-33. 
In the area of food security concerns, and the centrality of agriculture, there appears to be 
progress and we are sure that continued dialogue on these issues will help to narrow gaps in the negotiations. Greater compromise and flexibility will however be necessary in the weeks ahead. 
 
The importance of maintaining a development focus of the Round is critical and our delegation is therefore encouraged by the proposals tabled by the LDCs. These are long awaited outcomes, 
promised over a decade ago and the credibility of the organization is in jeopardy if we are unable 
to ensure that the development pillar of the round is given the priority it deserves. We must keep 
on repeating that the playing field is not level and that flexibility must be an accepted aspect of our negotiations. 
 
Finally, our delegation would like to use this opportunity to urge that we take Ministerial decisions seriously and that we do not see a Ministerial as just a time to go through the motions, or to have 
something to show for our efforts. We must also be prepared to implement. We have seen 
situations where Ministers make decisions, and Ministers issue instructions, and then countries 
question the necessity for the decision taken and the instructions given. 
 
In closing therefore l urge members to be commi tted to what they are doing when they take 
matters to the Ministers for decisions and do not renege from those decisions once they are taken. This approach undermines the credibility of the institution and hampers progress. 
 
It is important that the small, the weak and the vulnerable maintain faith in the WTO process. Therefore, we must not only work assiduously to take credible packages to Ministerials but we 
must not veto these decisions, once taken. 
 3. Canada 
Like others, Canada agrees that the main take away from Paris is that time is short so urgency 
must be the word of the day.   Second, I agree that there is some question, including from my Minister, as to what we have been 
doing. Ministers in Davos instructed Geneva negotiators to intensify discussions, but there is still a 
considerable amount of underbrush that needs to be culled to move from a discussion mode to a negotiation mode, particularly with respect to trade facilitation.  
 
Third, I agree with others that we need to move  towards an environment of non-prejudice. Doing 
so will allow the necessary flexibility to move fo rward, and our Minister left Paris giving Canada 
broad flexibility to achieve an agreement.  
 WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Clearing out the underbrush will allow us to focus on the handful of key issues in trade facilitation, 
the small number of policy issues identified  by Ambassador Adank with respect to the G-33 
proposal on stock-piling, and to move forward quickly on the LDC proposal.   
Finally, with respect to development, if there is no  Bali package, then there is no-post Bali work-
plan.   
We know that trade facilitation reforms will contri bute an additional 15% to the GDP of developing 
countries. While agricultural disciplines will benefit, and are of keen interest to, developing countries, we won’t get to these outcomes without taking an interim step in Bali. And of course, development outcomes by definition contribute to the Doha agenda.  
 
Thus, making progress on all three pillars is critical to support a post-Bali work-plan to achieve the Doha Development Agenda.  
 
My Minister has identified the end of July is a ke y point to take stock of whether we can succeed in 
December, and I look forward to constructive engagement so that I can report back positively in 
July. 
 4. China 
Thank you for convening this meeting as well as for your informative report. At the outset, we 
would like to associate ourselves with the statements delivered by G-20, G-33 and Asian Group of 
Developing Members, and to support the interven tion made by LDCs group. As the summer break 
is imminent, it’s high time for us to take stock of the negotiations and deliberate upon the work 
ahead. 
 Members’ collective sense is that the limited progress achieved in all three pillars was far below our 
expectation for a successful Bali ministerial and that we have only eight weeks left before the 
summer break. Bearing this in mind, we have no choice but to redouble our efforts to push forward the negotiations. Everyone must engage and demonstr ate flexibilities. To that end, we recall with 
appreciation the urgent call from H.E. Minister Gita of Indonesia in his letter of May 15th 
addressing all our ministers.  
 Now let me turn to the substance of the negotiations. On agriculture, it’s clear that the G-33 
proposal on food security is a gateway issue for th e Bali package. We are pleased to note that the 
Paris ministerial has shed some light on the possi ble path towards its solution. Therefore, we call 
upon all Members, major developed stakeholders in  particular, to be pragmatic and creative in 
working together with G33 for a landing zone acceptable to all so that the legitimate concerns of 
G33 will be somehow accommodated. We also remain open to discuss both proposals of G-20.   For trade facilitation, we believe that it is another important component of the Bali package. While 
encouraged for the 60 square brackets removed recently, we are concerned that there are still 
more than 500 brackets left and with this slow pace , we will not be able to clinch the deal by MC9. 
We hope that the text-based negotiation on trade facilitation could progress at an expedited pace 
and substantially reduce brackets in the next few weeks. 
 On development, we appreciate the recent initiative of informal ambassadorial consultations in 
parallel with technical ones under CTDSS. For us, a modest outcome encompassing Monitoring 
Mechanism and Cancun proposals, among others, is absolutely doable. We will continue to engage with other Members in the coming weeks and exer cise maximum flexibilities. We also welcome the 
LDCs proposal tabled last Friday and remain cons tantly supportive to their legitimate concerns. We 
would urge all other Members to engage with them in a pragmatic manner for tangible results as 
soon as possible.   
As the Chinese ministerial representative stated in Paris, despite the challenges in front of us, 
China does not believe that there is a “Plan B” for this organization, and actually we have no route of retreat. We all know what is at stake here: the negotiating function of this organization, the 
confidence of outside world in this system and, most importantly, the interests of each and every 
of us, particularly the weak ones. I recall that, at the Paris mini-ministerial, all ministers present were urged by the Chair Minister Emerson to give full mandate to their Geneva negotiators to show more flexibilities, to negotiate on a “without prejud ice” basis, to engage with each other intensively WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 18 - 
 
  in the next two months. Zero ministers there said no. Therefore, let’s put our hands to the plough 
and engage with each other fully using every minute for a Bali harvest.  5. Colombia 
We wish to thank you for your status report on the negotiations. As this is my last TNC meeting, I 
should like to pay tribute to your steadfast efforts to push forward the Doha negotiations.  
We all say that our goal is to hold a successful Ninth Ministerial Conference. If that is the case, the 
first step is to be frank with each other. Thus, we must recognize that we are in a deadlock which we must overcome in the negotiations for a package of deliverables for Bali. While there has been some progress in the various areas over the last few weeks, it has not been as deep or 
comprehensive as needed. We are still seeing the tactical games, the repetition of inflexible 
hard-line positions by those on the different sides while at the same time saying they are ready to 
do everything that is necessary for a successful Ministerial Conference. Today we must honestly 
say whether or not we wish to negotiate. 
 This exercise of frankness must start with the biggest Members, by at once beginning 
an across-the-board discussion to try to identify the outlines of a viable package for Bali, 
and showing the necessary will and flexibility. This exercise will certainly involve tough talk, but it will be yet more difficult to find explanations in December if we are incapable of outlining a basic set of deliverables. Meanwhile, the work efficiently conducted by the Chairmen 
of the various negotiating groups must continue. 
 For our part, we join with those who are proposing a reasonable package with 
the following elements: 
 
- In Agriculture, the mechanism for the administration of tariff quotas; political 
recognition of the importance of food security, an effective transition mechanism catering for the needs of countries with problems in this area and a serious work programme in this area following Bali; and a strong political message, in line with the commitments already made on export competition. 
 
- In Trade Facilitation, a balanced agreem ent with clear commitments but sufficient 
graduality, transparency and cooperation for those who need it, in order to commit to 
the obligations under the Agreement. 
 
- In Trade and Development, an efficient an d clear monitoring mechanism, that does 
not duplicate the work of other bodies, and the approval of as many as possible of 
the 28 measures in Annex C of Cancún, as well as all the proposals of the LDCs on which a good-faith consensus can be built. 
 
Finally, you have stressed that there are barely 40 working days before the summer recess. With 
good will, flexibility and dedication, it is still possible to arrive by then at the basis of a reasonable and balanced agreement that is politically presentable in our capitals. 
 
6. Cuba 
It is a privilege for Cuba once again to close the list of speakers concluding this major meeting. 
We thank you for your report on the status of negotiations. We try to be optimistic, but according 
to your report and from what we have heard from the other delegations, the outlook is really not at all encouraging.  
Cuba endorses the statements by the G-33, the G-20 and the C-4 Group. 
 One of our main concerns is the course of the ne gotiations over the short time remaining before 
the Ninth Ministerial Conference, where the development dimension should be crucial. 
The agriculture component of the so-called Bali pa ckage is also fundamental for the developing 
countries, which are the victims of unfair competition by the developed countries. 
 
The demands of the G-33 and G-20 with respect to their entirely legitimate rights to food security and the elimination of all kinds of trade-distorting support cannot continue to be ignored. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 19 - 
 
   
In Trade Facilitation much work remains to be done and we do not expect to see before the summer recess a solution to the existing imbalances between Section I and Section II and within each of those sections. They are two sides of the same coin, but at the moment 
we are only seeing the Section I side, and therefore we cannot agree with arriving at Bali solely 
with trade facilitation.  
We are extremely concerned to hear that Section II only makes sense if binding commitments 
are reached in Section I. The double standards used in dealing with the two Sections are also a matter of great concern. It is important to realize that any attempt to sabotage Section II will mean failure for Bali. 
 
The fact that we have been negotiating for so many years reflects the importance we all attach to this area and the benefits that could flow from an agreement of this kind, 
but NOT ANY AGREEMENT . Trade Facilitation is a single, indivisible whole; and it is supposed 
to form part of a package of issu es that has not yet been defined. 
 
In Agriculture we observe what is happening to the G33 proposal on food security: every day new 
questions are raised, and we would call this dilatory manoeuvring. As for the G-20 proposal on export competition, without any in-depth discu ssion a Member has already said that he would 
report to his capital that we are moving away from an agreement for Bali. It was also said 
today that the proposal came at a bad time, and that the G-20 is not facing up to the current 
imbalance. Actually, this is the first modest step by the Group in the face of a long-standing imbalance. It is no secret that the Uruguay Round agriculture agreement legitimized the 
high levels of subsidies that the developed countries grant their agricultural sector, 
and this has to be rectified.  
With respect to the development issues, the situation is again discouraging. 
 Going back to Trade Facilitation, we ask those who have voiced good intentions to reflect them in concrete negotiating positions. We cannot run the risk of leaving in a legal vacuum or as dead 
letters provisions that could potentially have a positive effect for developing countries. 
 We must ensure this at the present stage becaus e we are not ready to sign up to an agreement 
at any price, but rather to an agreement that genuinely facilitates trade on behalf of all Members, 
large and small, and ensures that one of the ba sic principles of the WTO, non-discrimination, 
is implemented. 
 
In recent weeks, brackets have basically been eliminated in Section I (more than 50). We understand that only four have been eliminated in Section II, and it has been said that at this rate we would be negotiating until 2016. If that were the case, Cuba has been prepared 
to continue negotiating until now but what we will never do is sign an agreement that rides 
roughshod over our priorities and restricts our country's ability to take sovereign decisions on the trade instruments and policies that serve our legitimate development objectives. 
 
Recently we have repeatedly heard mention of flex ibility, constructive spirit and other diplomatic 
commonplaces, but that is not what is important. Wh at matters to us is that there should be some 
reflection about whether it is fair to ask the de veloping countries for flexibility when the mandate 
of the Doha Round is in danger and the possibiliti es of implementing it grow ever more remote. 
The time-frame for Bali is now certainly short and tension is building, because we all wish to avoid the conference going down in history as yet another without any tangible results or economic 
value. Thus, the pressure is building on those who do not have the capacity to respond 
immediately to consider last-minute texts or proposals.  
We are also concerned at the lack of progress on the development issues, as can be seen 
from the recent discussions in the Committee on Trade and Development at both its regular and special sessions. Some Members are trying to  restrict the interpretation of paragraph 44 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the provisions of special and differential treatment, 
which gives a very clear mandate: to review these provisions in order to strengthen them, make them more precise, effective and operational.  WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 20 - 
 
  In the coming months we must therefore resolv e once and for all the pending implementation 
issues and give priority to the items of interest to the least-developed countries (LDCs).  The WTO must offer immediate solutions to the problems of the LDCs, such as duty-free 
and quota-free access to the developed countries' markets, and the cotton issue. It would 
be unacceptable not to resolve these long-standing problems. Another major issue is the extension of the transition period for LDCs in the TRIPS Ag reement. However, this is a regular matter that 
must be solved before the summer recess and cannot be interpreted in any way as 
a pro-development result for Bali.  Cuba wishes to reiterate that it utterly rejects the plurilateral approaches and any attempt 
to impair the multilateral nature of the Organization. 
 Likewise we are firmly committed to saving the Doha Round and implementing the agreed 
negotiating mandates. We urge other Members to ac t responsibly and constructively in the coming 
months so that we can reach significant results for all the developing countries in Bali and beyond.  
We wish to say something that we have already said in the past. This is an intergovernmental 
Organization and therefore the Cuban officials resp onsible for WTO issues are working with specific 
instructions from our Government. From the Ambassador to the lowest-ranked delegate, we are all acting in a coordinated manner. I think that all Members work in the same way. 
Consequently, we do not think that on difficult issues where we have been unable to reach 
agreement for many years there should be a call for discussions between ambassadors or high-level officials. Frankly, we think this is a tactical and dilatory move on the part of those 
who do not wish to solve the problem. If there were the will and readiness to do so, we would 
not be in the quagmire we are in today.  
We urge Members to drop the rhetoric and stop calling on others to do what they are not prepared 
to do themselves.  We will never accept that the calls for flexibility we have heard so often in recent days 
should become a matter of blackmail. Either Members want flexibility and will work sincerely 
to achieve it, without pursuing petty interests, or else they do not in fact want this much-proclaimed flexibility. 
 
We wish to make it clear that it is not the vast majority of the WTO Members who are lacking flexibility, and we have not taken arrogant positions or brought pressure to bear to impose 
our views. 
 The selfish, intransigent and overbearing stance of some Members does not come as a surprise. That has been the rule in similar circumstances, wh en we are seeking to find a solution favourable 
to those of us who have waited for a long time for this Organization to respond to our basic 
priorities and needs.  
This casts doubt upon the sincerity of the desire expressed by some Members for the success 
of the efforts to take to Bali a decent package that  responds to what the majority of us have been 
seeking for years. 
 
7. Indonesia (for the G33) 
First of all, I would like to than k you for your assessment on the state of play of the negotiations. 
The G-33 also would like to commend your able and consistent leadership.  
 
The G-33 would like also to thank COA-SS Chair, Ambassador John Adank for his tireless efforts in steering the agriculture negotiations to move forward.  
 
The G-33 welcomes the intensified talks on the G-33 proposals including on the Public Stockholding for Food Security purposes through the small group discussions. Indeed, the discussions have 
somehow already produced some progress including th e affirmation for a sort of a solution in Bali. 
We need to build on this in the coming months so that we can define the contour of such solution that is meaningful, operational and effective for all developing countries.   WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 21 - 
 
  The G-33 has been open and engaging, since the beginning, to look at possible disciplines that 
would also address the concerns of other Members. We think this is important but let me just emphasize that such disciplines must at the same time respect and address our legitimate food security priorities.  
 
That said, the G-33 would remain constructively engaged and continue good–faith negotiations with Members to further facilitate and help our processes. The Group has been showing flexibility 
and openness to any possible concrete solution in Bali. We are hopeful that our negotiating 
partners will also demonstrate theirs.  Finally, the G-33 would like to underscore the criticalness of ensuring food security in developing 
countries and the centrality of agriculture if we are to deliver on the development dimension of 
Doha in Bali and beyond.  
8. Jamaica (for the ACP Group) 
We thank you for your frank assessment of the state of play in the negotiations and we welcome 
the positive signal that have emanated from the rece nt mini-Ministerial in Pa ris. We look forward to 
political Declarations being translated into effective commitments on the ground in the 
negotiations. We are aware of the significant importance of Bali and the imperative of securing an outcome across the three pillars namely Trade Facilitation, Agriculture and Development.   
In Trade Facilitation, the ACP will continue to pl ay a very constructive role and we have already 
demonstrated that by submitting comprehensive proposals on Section II. We will continue to work with all stakeholders in advancing the work within  the "Friends of the Chair" process, and in the 
wider NGTF to move the recommendations forward. On Section I, the ACP is committed to 
achieving substantive outcomes in the various areas of the negotiations and we look forward to development-centered outcomes.  
 
With regard to Development, we will continue to engage in the work under way by the Chair of the CTDSS, we also welcome the recent submission of the paper by the LDC Group, and we will continue to support efforts to take it forward.  
 
With regard to Agriculture, we are convinced that a meaningful outcome on Agriculture is important for securing substantive results in Bali, and the ACP Group will contribute to efforts to 
find appropriate compromises that will lead to consensus and have development at their core. 
 Finally, we reaffirm our strong commitment to the primacy of safeguarding the multilateral trading 
system.  
 9. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (for the Asian Group of Developing Members) 
The Asian Group of Developing Members wishes to thank you for your comprehensive report on the 
state of discussions relating to the preparation for the Ninth Ministerial Conference (MC9) and the 
Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations.  
The Asian Group of Developing Members continues to consider that it is essential -- for us as 
Members and for the future of the multilateral system -- that a successful outcome is reached in Bali. A balanced package, addressing the three pillars on which our discussions have focused in 
recent months, i.e., agriculture, least-developed country (LDC) issues and trade facilitation, and 
reflecting the interests and concerns of Members, will directly contribute to economic development 
and the promotion of trade. An agreement on a Ba li package will also restore confidence in our 
ability to negotiate and conclude trade deals and in the multilateral trading system.  
 
There has been an intensive work but without suffi cient outcome and this is a cause for a serious 
concern, because time is short and running against us. We now only have weeks to agree on a 
framework for the Bali package. This requires us to further intensify our work and efforts and to 
focus on realistic goals. As recently urged by H.E.  Gita Irawan Wirjawan, Minister of Trade of the 
Republic of Indonesia and Chair of MC9, Memb ers should take a pragmatic approach and be 
flexible in their positions to ensure that success can be achieved in Bali.  
 WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 22 - 
 
  As Members of this organization and beneficiarie s of an ever more predictable and transparent 
multilateral trading system, we have a collective responsibility to actively work towards the conclusion of an important early-harvest package for the Bali Ministerial. Nearly 20 years after the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round and over  10 years after the launch of the DDA, MC9 is 
a unique opportunity for us to restore credibilit y in the negotiating -- and deal-concluding -- 
function of the WTO. We should all always have this greater picture and the interest and benefits 
of the multilateral trading system in mind while negotiating as we will all benefit from a reinforced 
system.  
 While a priority, a successful Bali Ministerial should be considered within the context of the DDA. The conclusion of a comprehensive multilateral trade agreement remains the  ultimate objective of 
the Asian Group of Developing Members and Memb ers should consider when preparing for MC9 
and negotiating the Bali package. We invite Memb ers to actively engage and show the necessary 
flexibilities to ensure that the Bali Ministerial is a success as well as to work on a post-Bali agenda 
so as to permit a resumption of all the negotiations that are currently suspended. 
 In concluding, let me reassert the resolute commitment of the Asian Group of Developing Members 
to continue to actively and constructively work to ensure the success of the Bali Ministerial 
Conference and to advance all DDA issues.  10. Lesotho  
At the outset, Lesotho associates herself with the statement delivered by Morocco on behalf of the 
African Group and Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Gr oup. The Statement made on behalf of LDCs is, 
for obvious reasons, of significant interest to Lesotho. 
 
Lesotho further wishes to thank you for your very illuminating brief. A brief that has generally provided Lesotho delegation with a useful situational analysis concerning where Members are in 
the MC9`s process of negotiations. By inference, your brief has impliedly prescribed the measure 
of efforts that would be required from the Memb ers in order to have a successful MC9 outcome. 
Lesotho also takes note of your report on the outcome of the Informal Mini-Ministerial meeting which was held in Paris last week on Thursday and contacts you had both in and outside Geneva. 
 
Coming to the LDC`s package before us, Lesotho would like to focus on one of the proposals of the LDCs Group. In particular, my delegation wishes to zero-in on the Duty Free Quota Free Market 
Access proposal. 
 It will be recalled that the proposed Decision on DFQF has been a subject of consultations and 
discussions by Members on LDC status over a co nsiderable length of time. Primarily due to 
sensitivities, inclusive of sovereign economic and trade interests, that may follow consequent to the implementation of the proposed Decision. Our interests as Lesotho left us with no option other than not to join the consensus on the proposed Decision on DFQF throughout the LDC`s 
consultations processes in the past and to date. A position that is informed by the following factual 
circumstances:  
Firstly, allow me to draw the attention of this Committee to the footnote in the proposed DFQF 
text. Lesotho takes this opportunity to clear any speculations regarding the delegations being referred to in the footnote by informing Member s that Lesotho is one of the two delegations. 
 
Secondly and turning to the substance of the footnote itself, it is incumbent upon me to inform WTO Members that Lesotho did not express mere reservations on the DFQF text during consultations within the LDC Group. Rather, and in  reiteration, Lesotho did not join consensus on 
the proposed DFQF Decision, a position which we place on record as such. 
 Concerning what we all heard this morning on th e presentation regarding LDCs issues, the Lesotho 
delegation listened carefully, particularly on the point relating to the pledge of LDCs delegations 
not to block any of the LDCs issues. I find myself obliged to clarify that Lesotho fully supports only those proposals that enjoy consensus in the true sense of the word. 
 
In view of all the issues my delegation just outlined in respect of DFQF proposal, it is with deep sense of regret to inform this meeting that Lesoth o will not be in a position to support the DFQF 
proposal. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 23 - 
 
   
The Lesotho delegation is almost hesitant to re mind this august body of the obviously vivid 
memory of how the DFQF proposal proved to be an intractable issue in the not so distant past. It was on the eve of the MC8 that DFQF issue fell-off the negotiations table for the reasons that 
Lesotho considers as holding true today. 
 My delegation fully endorses a letter by the C oordinators of the Sub-Saharan African Group in 
Washington concerning the impact of DFQF Decision on the AGOA beneficiaries. 
 In closing, it will be remiss of my delegation  not to recognize the relentless efforts that the 
coordinator of the LDCs Group has expended in a bid to resolve contentious issues within the 
Group. 
 11. Mauritius 
My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by Morocco on behalf of the African Group 
and Indonesia for the G-33.  
My delegation also thanks the TNC Chairman  for providing the meeting his sense of the 
negotiations and the direction we are heading in view of the summer break deadline which we as Members set ourselves in December 2012.   
All the proposals on the table are important and re quire the full consideration of all Members for a 
positive outcome in Bali.  
However, as we prepare for the December Bali Ministerial Conference, my delegation is of the view 
that we have now entered a critical stage and we as the membership should take important decisions on coupling the Bali deliverables with a post Bali work programme. 
 
Indeed, currently, we have on the table very co mplex proposals and which would most probably 
require further work. Time is of the essence and for a real engagement on these complex issues we would require additional time. 
 
In this regard, we need to take heed of what Ministers in December, 2011 stated:  
“to advance negotiations, where progress can be achieved, including focusing on the 
elements of the Doha Declaration that allow Members to reach provisional or definitive agreements based on consensus earlier than the full conclusion of the single undertaking”. 
 
Preferences and preference erosion is a very se nsitive issue for Mauritius and some developing 
countries. Mauritius has listened to the various proposals tabled and any proposal which erodes preferences which a Group of countries is benefitting under any preferential regime should be 
recognized as a red line. Such proposals would not enjoy the consensus and should be placed in 
the post Bali package.  
The real issue is not on having decisions but rather on how decisions are implemented and what 
benefit they will bring. Otherwise, we will not achieve a win-win package, and in our case, adequate steps are necessary to address possible negative impacts on countries benefitting on 
preferences. 
 Mauritius believes that a balanced, consensus-based Bali Package is a tool for rebuilding confidence in the WTO as a forum for trade negotiations an d eventually a completion of the Doha Agenda. 
 
12. Nigeria 
Let me join other delegations before me to thank you for your report. Nigeria also wishes to 
express its appreciation for your untiring effo rts and unwavering commitment to advancing our 
work towards a package of “deliverables” at the Ba li Ministerial Conference (MC9), as a “stepping 
stone” towards the eventual successful conclusion of the DDA negotiations. In that respect, we 
wish to commend you and the Chairs of the Negotiating Group Trade Facilitation, Special Session 
of the Committee on Agriculture and the CTD fo r their hard work and progress so far made. 
 WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Nigeria welcomes your frank report on the state-of-play in the DDA negotiations, including the 
overall assessment and outline of possible options on the way forward. However, in view of the 
growing anxiety and uncertainty surrounding the fate  of a possible package of deliverables at Bali, 
and ultimately the future of the Doha Work programme, we call on all Members to intensify 
negotiations in an honest and productive manner, especially as the window of opportunity is 
rapidly closing. Moreover, the progress and impetus that have been achieved, so far, remain uneven both within and across the three areas of possible deliverables, namely, trade facilitation, 
agriculture and development.  
 Nigeria agrees with the view expressed by many other delegations that this is not the right moment to point accusing fingers on the reasons for the lack of progress or prospects for a 
credible outcome at Bali. In that context, we wish to reiterate our call on Members, particularly the 
major players to exercise the required flexibiliti es and political will so that we can reach a 
successful outcome that would safeguard the credib ility and integrity of our Organisation and the 
multilateral trading system. Nigeria is deeply concerned that all our previous appeals remain 
unheeded. What is more, the same fate has befallen similar previous calls, including by political leaders at the level of G20, and by Ministers at different fora and in different configurations. 
Nigeria, therefore, hopes that the recent instructio ns by Ministers at last week’s OECD Meeting in 
Paris would not be accorded the same ignorable treatment. To improve the climate of trust and confidence within the entire membership of our Organisation, Nigeria wishes to stress the need for constructive engagement by Members on all those areas where convergence on scoping for a 
possible Bali package has emerged, particularly a binding agreement on trade facilitation; the 
elements of tariff rate quotas, public stockhol ding for food security reasons, and export 
competition in agriculture; and development, with specific priority to issues of special interest to 
LDCs. 
 At difficult times like this, it is important that we all act responsibly, particularly so that we can 
safeguard the integrity of our Organisation and the multilateral trading system. We, therefore, 
urge delegations to avoid giving the impression that any one issue has been responsible for the prevailing setbacks that we continue to experience with our negotiating agenda in the WTO. It is Nigeria honest assessment that the only major diff erence within the membership is the fact that 
some issues of high importance to some delegati ons are yet to be treated in a fair and balanced 
manner. But that is to be expected, more so as  we cannot all benefit from a small package of 
deliverables at Bali. Nigeria, therefore, encourages Members to continue to look at the big picture, 
that is to say, we should focus on the forest rather than the trees within it. For our part, Nigeria 
remains willing and committed to working closely with all Members towards advancing the negotiating agenda for Bali and the subsequent su ccessful conclusion of the DDA work programme. 
 
In conclusion, Nigeria supports the statements made by Morocco on behalf of the African Group, Jamaica on behalf of the ACP, Brazil on behalf of the G-20, and Indonesia on behalf of the G-33.  
13. Paraguay 
Thank you very much for your report on the status of the negotiations. We are approaching 
the final stage of the preparations for the WTO's Ninth Ministerial Conference and in the remaining 
months we must further speed up the pace of the negotiations, especially as regards the technical 
work, in order to shape the package that we wish to form the initial step or positive signal that the Doha Round is possible and that the Ministerial may produce results. 
 
The delegation of Paraguay has worked intensively over the last few weeks, making constructive contributions to the discussions. Thus, my dele gation has coordinated working meetings with 
the Group of Landlocked Countries for the trade facilitation negotiations. This exercise had good 
results and we have presented concrete proposals during the last week of negotiations. 
 Taking into account that the present draft text still has many brackets, we support the idea 
of continuing to advance at a more intense pace, without impairing expectations and without time 
constraints. The delegation of Paraguay will conti nue making its contribution, both as part of the 
Group of Landlocked Countries and on its own account, to the work of the Chairman of the Group 
on Trade Facilitation and the friends of the Chairman, whom we thank for their efforts. 
 Likewise, Paraguay endorses the statemen ts by the Cairns Group and the G-20. 
Agriculture is a vital component of the package and a signal that the Doha Round is alive. WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 25 - 
 
  The Secretariat's updated report on export competition confirms that there is room for making 
small steps in this pillar.  As regards export competition, Paraguay supported  the G-20 proposal in the hope that it would 
be seen as a basis for discussion in the special session of the Committee on Agriculture, 
and we support it on the understanding that the Gr oup has flexibility in its elements, though with 
the idea of showing the world that we in the World Trade Organization are not abandoning 
the objective of eliminating trade-distorting measures and that we are continuing to search 
for a balance in the disciplines of this House with respect to the various areas of work and the various groups of countries. Export subsidies are not permitted in any other area than agriculture. It is primarily the developed countries who are allowed to apply such subsidies, which 
would run into the billions and distort markets if they were implemented. However, we recognize 
the effort made by developed countries to use them sparingly, and they only use 5% of the room they have been given. The signal requested from developed countries is the elimination 
of a political space that is recognized as being potentially distorting and which is not actually used. 
 Likewise, at the last meeting of the special session of the Committee on Agriculture we said that 
it would be constructive to analyse all the scenarios for a possible solution to the concern of the G-
33. Our country recognizes the importance of food security and considers that work should progress in this area. The G-33 proposal presents  a particular concern, and we believe that a 
response should be given to this specific concern without affecting the general interests 
and primary objectives of the reform of the rules on agriculture, that is to say fair, transparent, 
predictable and non-distorting trade. We than k the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
for his efforts to enhance the discussions on this proposal. 
 
We also support the proposals of the Chairm an of the Committee on Trade and Development 
aimed at boosting efforts to design the monitoring mechanism and discuss the status 
of the specific proposals on special and differential treatment indicated in Cancún. We hope to find 
in them elements to strengthen the Bali package.  Lastly, as I said at the last meeting of this Committee, we should not leave aside discussions 
on a post-Bali agenda. The Doha Round is not ending  in Bali and the World Trade Organization will 
remain very much alive after Bali.  
14. Uruguay 
Thank you for convening this meeting at this very propitious moment, and for your report this 
morning, which broadly gives an overview of our present situation. 
 
B e f o r e  c o n t i n u i n g  I  w i s h  t o  s a y  t h a t  m y  c o u n t r y  e n d o r s e s  t h e  s t a t e m e n t s  o f  B r a z i l  o n  b e h a l f  of the G-20 and of Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group.  
While we can see that work has gone forward on the various issues under consideration 
for the forthcoming Bali Ministerial Conference, we continue to view the results in agriculture, a sector which continues to lag behind, as the central priority. 
 
With regard to the proposals on agriculture, we welcome the discussions that are taking place, but we must speed up the technical work and be frank in our political discussions if we wish 
to advance. 
 With regard to the other areas of the negotiations, it is essential to reach a balanced approach which takes into account the Members' needs and possibilities of action so that all representatives 
are genuinely and definitively involved. We therefore once again call for strong 
political commitment by all actors, big, medium and small, so that we can reach December with concrete results. 
 
On a personal note I wish to thank all the Chairmen and facilitators for the efforts they have been making with all Members to make progress towards Bali. 
 WT/GC/M/145 
 
- 26 - 
 
  In conclusion, we agree with you that time is running out and we therefore urge all Members to get 
involved constructively and resolutely if we wish to have a successful Ministerial Conference in Bali.  My delegation stands ready to make a positive contribution to this process. 
 
__________