RESTRICTED  
  
WT/PCTF/M/5  
 
17 June 2014  
(14-3507)  Page: 1/3  
Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation   
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 26 – 28 MAY 2014 
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Esteban Conejos (Philippines) 
 
 1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  The Chairman welcomed delegations to the meeting, and extended his greetings to experts 
from ACP and LDC capitals who were able to jo in the Preparatory Committee for the meeting, 
thanks to generous funding support from Norway and the EU. The participation of capital officials 
would be of valuable help to the Committee's work. 
1.2.  The Chairman recalled that the proposed agenda for the meeting had been circulated in 
WTO/AIR/4301, and contained two main items: The Committee would first start work on a Protocol 
of Amendment to insert the Trade Facilitation Agr eement into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement.  It 
would then receive category A notifications submitted by Members. This second item would also 
allow the Committee to address related questions more broadly. 
1.3.  The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that she would raise an item regarding 
the legally scrubbed text of the Trade Facili tation Agreement under "Other Business".   
1.4.  The representative of Egypt requested clarif ication regarding the need for one full day of the 
meeting to be dedicated to the receipt of notifications of category A commitments since the 
Committee had agreed that it did not have a mandate to scrutinize any notification of a Member.   
1.5.  The representative of India also raised the same request for clarification.  
1.6.  The Chairman stated that the duration of the meeting was flexible and that the entirety of 
the provisionally allocated time might not actually be required. A somewhat longer timeslot for the 
receipt of notifications of Category A commitments had been included in the agenda at the request 
of a developing and least-developed country group which had a number of broader questions that their Members wished to raise under this item.   
1.7.  The agenda was adopted. 
2  DRAWING UP OF A PROTOCOL OF AMENDM ENT TO INSERT THE TRADE FACILITATION 
AGREEMENT INTO ANNEX 1A OF THE WTO AGREEMENT  
2.1.  This part of the meeting was conducted in informal mode.  
2.2.  The Preparatory Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATIONS OF CATEGORY A COMMITMENTS  
3.1.  The Preparatory Committee received the cate gory A notifications submitted by Hong Kong, 
China (WT/PCTF/N/HKG/1), Mexico (WT/PCTF/N /MEX/1), Costa Rica (WT/PCTF/N/CRI/1) and 
Korea (WT/PCTF/N/KOR/1). WT/PCTF/M/5 
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.  The remaining part of the meeting was conducted in informal mode. 
3.3.  The Preparatory Committee took note of the statements made. 
4  OTHER BUSINESS 
4.1.  The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that during the process of reviewing the 
Agreement on Trade Facilitation, her delegation had discovered a substantial discrepancy in the 
language of footnote 23 compared to the language  that had been previously agreed upon within 
the Room E process in Geneva before the Bali  Ministerial Conference. On the morning of 25 
November 2013, Members had agreed on the follow ing language of the footnote: "Such as GATT 
Article V:7, Ad note to GATT Article VIII, third se ntence of GATT Article X:1". However, during the 
verification they found that the footnote now read as follows: "This includes Articles V:7 and X:1 of the GATT 1994 and the Ad note to Article VIII of the GATT 1994". 
4.2.  Her delegation had contacted the Secretariat at the verification stage with a request to go 
back to the language agreed upon during the Room  E process.  This request had been rejected on 
the grounds that the Committee's mandate did not allow it to make such substantial changes. If 
the changes were considered substantial, then her delegation requested even more that the 
Committee left the original language of the footnote 23, to read as follows: " Such as GATT Article V.7, Ad note to GATT Article VIII, third sentence of GATT Article X.1" 
4.3.  The Chairman took note of the Russian Fede ration's intervention. He appreciated that this 
was an issue of concern to that delegation, but, as  a matter of procedure, he recalled that the time 
for making changes to the text of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation had passed. The segment referred to had been changed in Bali. The Director -General of the WTO had submitted a text with 
that language at the Ministerial Conference and Ministers had based their decision on that version 
when concluding the negotiations last December. Th ere had been no objections to the language at 
that time. With the PCTF now having concluded its work on the legal scrub, the time unfortunately 
had passed for seeking changes to the text. Several Members still had issues that they would like 
to change, but re-opening the text now would go  against the rules that Members had agreed on 
and it would trigger a wave of changes, solicited by other Members, thereby unravelling the 
delicate balance that had been painfully struck over the course of the past months. He was 
therefore, unfortunately, not in a position to respond favourably to this request.   
4.4.  The representative of Canada shared the Ru ssian Federation's concerns. The text in footnote 
23 was important to them. It had been negotiated carefully, albeit at the very conclusion of the 
Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation's work in Geneva prior to decamping for Bali. While the 
differences between what had been negotiated in Geneva and the outcome contained in the final Bali text might seem insignificant, in Canada's view, they were nevertheless important. Canada 
was concerned that a change had been made at Bali and had not been communicated to those 
delegations that had expressed a strong interest in the issue. They understood that there were 
limitations on the Committee's ability to revisit issues and they did not want to open the door to 
any sort of backsliding in the Committee's work, but they had proposed to revert to the negotiated 
text during the legal scrub and that had been rejected by another delegation who indicated a preference for the Bali text. Consistent with the working arrangements that the Committee had agreed on, that delegation was well within its rights to do so, but Canada felt that they had limited 
recourse at that point in time because the change in the footnote had not been identified to them 
previously. They were now simply taking this opportunity to express their concerns over how this had unfolded and to voice their hope that in the future, where changes were made to negotiated 
text, these would be communicated in full transparency. 
4.5.  The representative of Paraguay informed  the Committee of a High-Level Workshop on the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement and Implications for Landlocked Developing Countries which would 
take place on 2 and 3 June 2014.  The event wa s organised by the Government of Mongolia, in 
cooperation with an International Think-Tank for LDCs and the United Nations High Representative for the Least-Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island 
Developing States.   WT/PCTF/M/5 
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.6.  The Chairman turned to the second item under Other Business, relating to the date for the 
Committee's next meeting. In light of the remaining work still ahead and the limited time for its 
conclusion, he proposed that the next meeting of the PCTF be held from 24 to 26 June. Details on 
the precise timing and the structure of that cluster would be communicated in due course.   
4.7.  It was so agreed. 
4.8.  The Preparatory Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
4.9.  The meeting was adjourned. 
 
 
__________