RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/166  
 
3 May 2017 
(17-2411) Page: 1/113 
General Council  
27-28 February and 7 April 2017    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEET ING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 27-28 FEBRUARY , 
AND RECONVENED ON  7 APRIL  2017 
Chairperson s: H.E. Mr Harald Neple (Norway)  and H.E. Mr Xavier Carim (South Africa)  
At the outset and throughout the meeting, the Chairman, the Dire ctor-General and several 
delegations bade farewell to Amb.  Jonathan Fried (Canada) and Amb. Jianhua Yu (China) , who 
were leaving their post at the WTO, and expressed appreciation for their valuable contribution 
during their time as Permanent Representative s. They also bade farewell to  Mr. Evan Rogerson  –
Director of the Agriculture and Commodities Division and former Director of the Council and TNC 
Division – and thanked him for his service to the organization.  
 
Before resuming the meeting on 28 February, th e Chairman and the Director -General welcomed 
H.E. José Luis Cancela, Vice -Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, who addressed1 the General 
Council.  
 
On 27 February, the consideration of Item 8 was suspended.  The General Council resumed its 
meeting on 7 April to revert to item 8 and the meeting then closed. 
 
1   APPOINTMENT OF THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL  ................................ ...............................  2 
2   REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRA DE NEGOTIATIONS COMM ITTEE  ..................  11 
3   PROTOCOL AMENDING TH E MARRAKESH AGREEMEN T ESTABLISHING THE 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZA TION – AGREEMENT ON TRADE F ACILITATION – 
STATUS UPDATE  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  11 
4   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND NAIROBI O UTCOMES – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  18 
5   WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSION  OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMEN T .............  19 
6   REVIEW OF THE EXEMPT ION PROVIDED UNDER P ARAGRAP H 3 OF THE GATT 
1994  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  20 
7   REVIEW OF WAIVERS UN DER ARTICLE IX OF TH E WTO AGREEMENT  ........................  23 
7.1   UNITED STATES – AFRICAN GROWTH  AND OPPORTUNITY ACT  ................................ ........ 23 
8   APPOINTMENT OF OFFIC ERS TO WTO BODIES  ................................ ..........................  24 
9   ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON ................................ ................................ .....................  32 
10   MSMES – STATEMENT BY THE PHI LIPPINES  ................................ ............................  36 
11   MIKTA WORKSHOP ON TR ADE AND INVESTMENT – STATEMENT BY 
AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  37 
12   ADMINISTRATIVE MATTE RS FOR MC11 – STATEMENT BY THE  CHAIRMAN  ..............  40 
                                                
1 The full statement of Vice -Minister Can cela can be found in Annex 4  of this document.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 2 - 
 
  13   ADMINISTRATIVE MEASU RES FOR MEMBERS IN A RREARS – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  41 
ANNEX 1 – PRESENTATION BY DIRE CTOR-GENERAL AZEVÊDO AND QUESTIONS 
FROM DELEGATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 42 
ANNEX 2 – THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL'S REPORT AT THE INFORMAL HEADS O F 
DELEGATION MEETING H ELD ON 23 FEBRUARY 2 017 ................................ ....................  60 
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S IN RELATION TO THE  INFORMAL HEADS 
OF DELEGATION MEETIN G HELD ON 23 FEBRUAR Y 2017  ................................ ...............  64 
ANNEX 4 – H.E. VICE MINISTER J OSÉ LUIS CANCELA'S ADDRESS TO  THE WORLD 
TRADE ORGANIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................  112  
 
 
1  APPOINTMENT OF THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that , in accordance with the Procedures for the Appointment of 
Directors -General contained in WT/L/509, the so le candidate for the post, the incumbent Director -
General, Mr  Roberto Azevêdo, wa s to meet with Members at a formal Gen eral Council meeting, 
where he wa s invited to make a presentation to be followed by a question -and-answer period.  
1.2.  He recall ed that, on 17  February, he had  sent a communication  to all delegations setting out 
the mo dalities for the conduct of that segment of the meeting. He  wished to  review briefly those 
modalities.  
1.3.  Delegations would  start with Mr  Azevêdo's presenta tion, following which there  would  be a 
question -and-answer period .  At the end of the period, Mr  Azevêdo would  have the opportunity to 
make a conc luding statement if he so wished.  As had  been done in the past, names of speakers 
for the  question -and-answer period would  be drawn at r andom from the box at the podium.  The 
box contained  the names of all delegations wishing to put questions to the Di rector -General. As set 
out in his  communication, all Members wishing to p ut questions to Mr  Azevêdo had been  invited to 
place their names in  a box which had been made available for that purpose on 24 February .  
1.4.  In order to make the fairest possible use of th e time, each Member whose name was drawn 
from the box would  be allowed to ask one question, with one additional f ollow-up question 
allowed .  That would  be followed by the response from the candidate, followed by the drawing o f 
the next speaker, and so on. He urged them to keep their  questions as bri ef as possible. As set out 
in his  communication on the modalities of the proceedings, he  intended to finish that  segment of 
the meeting by 1 p.m.  
1.5.  Members we re also urged to assist the process by not asking questions that could have 
already been as ked. Mr  Azevêdo could  choose to move on to anot her question if he felt that one 
had already been touch ed on in a previous response.  
1.6.  Following the Chairman's introducto ry remarks, Members met with Mr  Azevêdo.2 
1.7.  Upon reverting to that  item on 28 February, the Chairman  recalled that  in line with the 
Procedures for the Appointment of Directors -General (WT/L/509 ), the process for the appointment 
of the next Director -General  had begu n on 1 December 2016 with a notification from him  as the 
General Council Chair to the Membership to the effect that Members  had had until 31 December to 
nominate candidates.  
1.8.  At the Jul y meeting of the General Council, the Director -General  had announced that he 
would be available for a second term if Members had believed that it  had been  something that 
would be helpful. In keeping w ith the procedures, Members had  therefore been informed in a 
communication from him  in document JOB/GC/109 dated 3 Novembe r 2016 of the candidature of 
Mr Azevêdo, the current Director -General, who had formally notified him  before the start of the 
process of his intention to seek rea ppointment for a further term . As announced in his  
                                                
2 Mr. Azevêdo 's presentation, as well as the questions put and the answers provided, can be found in 
Annex 1  of this document.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 3 - 
 
  communication in WT/GC/INF/20, by the close of the nominatio n period of 31 December 2016, 
they had not received any further candidatures.  
1.9.  In his communication, he had also announced that he  would consult with Members as to the 
next st eps in the process. In that regard, on 10 and 23 January, he had  sent faxes invit ing any 
interested Members wishing to discuss the next steps to come forward to consul t with him. In his  
consultations, Members had expressed widespread support for Mr Azevêdo 's appointment for a 
second term, and had indicated a willingness to expedite the process so that the appointment of 
the DG could take place without delay, to allow him and the whole of the Membership to fully focus 
on the preparatory process for MC11. And  in that respect, he  referred to the 2009 precedent of the 
appointment for a second term of the previous WTO Direc tor-General, Mr Pascal Lamy – a similar 
process was therefore  being  follow ed. 
1.10.   Hence, he had  sent a  fax on 6 February clarifying his  intention of taking up the issue of 
appointment of the Director -General at the February formal meeting of the General Counc il. In the 
same communication, he had given  Members the opportunity to present an y reactions to him , if 
they so wish ed.  
1.11.   Further to that whole process which he had  resumed, the item of the appoint ment of the 
Director -General had been included in the agenda of the  meeting.  
1.12.   On 27 February, Members  had had the oppor tunity to meet formally with Mr  Azevêdo and to  
hear his presentation which had been  followed by a question and answer session. He  believe d it 
was clear that there remained  widespread support for Mr  Azevêdo's appointment for a second 
term.  
1.13.   Accordingly, he f ormally propose d that the General Council agree d to appoint Mr  Roberto 
Azevêdo as th e Director -General of the WTO for a second te rm of four years, starting on 
1 September 2017.  
1.14.   The General Council so agreed . 
1.15.   The Chairman  congratulate d Mr Roberto Azevêdo , on behalf of the General Council,  on his 
appointment as the Director -General of the W TO for a second term – and wish ed him a ll the very 
best as he continued his journey at the helm of the organization.  
1.16.   The Director -General  thanked all Members for their support and for granting him the honour 
of serving them  in a se cond term as Director -General. He  pledge d to continue to serve all 
Members to the best of his ability and to do all he could  to safeguard and strengthen the 
multilateral trading system itself.  
1.17.   He took the opportunity to thank the G overn ment of Brazil for sponsoring his  candidacy 
once again. He thank ed his  family for their commitment and their continued suppor t, particularly 
his wife who had  been an untiring partner in all his  endeavours.  
1.18.   As he had said during the presentation, the WTO was on the right path. Members had  
achieved a  great deal ov er the last few years. The WTO was stronger that day than it had been in 
2013 and he had no doubts about that. He also had no doubts that they could  do much more, 
particularly for the s maller players and those who fe lt cut-off from th e econom ic benefits of trade. 
They should therefore build an even more inclusive trading system  and he  looked forward to  
working with them  to that end.  
1.19.   While the institution was imperfect, Members had something special there – something that 
was worth f ighting fo r and something that wa s mor e important than ever. As they  worked to make 
the organization better and de liver new reforms, he  urged everyone to speak up for the WTO. He  
asked Members to stand up and make  the case for the value that they put  in trade  and in  the 
trading system. The organization existed  for a reason – to support economic development, growth 
and job creation but also and more importantly, to support peace, cooperation an d solidarity 
among nations. He could not think of a more worthy and worthwh ile goal than that. He urged 
Members to  keep wo rking together to ensure that everyone  played thei r full part in deliveri ng it. WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.20.   All delegations that spoke  congratulated Mr Roberto Azevêdo on his appointment as WTO 
Director -General for a second term.  
1.21.   The rep resentative of Morocco , on behalf of the African Group , express ed the African 
Group's  support to Mr Azev êdo. The African Group  hoped that under his second term, it would  be 
possible to take stock of the issues and challenges facing the o rganization and spe ed up the 
negotiation process to pave the way for a successful MC11.  On behalf of all African countries, the 
African Group  extend ed its  most sincere and warmest congratulations to Mr  Azevêdo and  assure d 
him of i ts support in his duties at that  import ant ti me for the o rganization.  
1.22.   The A frican Group also thank ed Mr Azevêdo for his availability an d for his presentation the 
previous day. Since the Group had not been  unable to ask q uestions, it took the  opportunity to 
briefly recall some of its expectations for the Director -General's second term. The 
Director -General's constant commitment to the development dimension of the Doha  Round should 
continue to be reflected in the work programme under his second  term. One of Mr  Azevêdo's 
priorities should be to ensure a successful Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, with a balanced 
and satisfactory package for all Members and with the development dimension at its core.  The 
achievements of previous Ministerial Con ferences should  be consolidated. The Director -General 
could count on the African Group for support in fulfilling his mission, as his s uccess would also be 
its success .  
1.23.   The representative of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDCs , said that the  LDCs recognized  the 
accomplishments of the Director -General during the two  Ministerial Con ferences in Bali and 
Nairobi. They  also commend ed him for his tireless efforts for the entry into force of the Agreement 
on Trade Facilitation – the first ever multilateral trade agreement since the inception of the WTO in 
1995.  
1.24.   The LDCs  accepted the Direc tor-General's appointment for a second term not because Mr  
Azevêdo wa s the only candid ate for the position , but rather since they were convinced that he had  
a clear understanding of the development interests and concerns of poor countries, particularly t he 
LDCs. It was with that in mind  that the LDCs  invite d the Director -General to ensure the 
implementation of paragraph 24 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration  with the view to ensuring 
that all issues of  specific interest to LDCs should  be pursued on a priority basis, with a view to 
strengthening them, making them commercially meaningful and, legally binding. MC11 should 
therefore bring  the LDC issues to closure . The LDCs strongly believed that the Director -General 
would  continue to use his leadership and his offic e to continue his valuable work through MC11 , to 
advance  and to successfully conclude  the remaining elements of the Doha Development Agenda.  
1.25.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , on behalf of the Arab Group , 
congratula ted Mr Roberto Azevêdo for his successful  first four years and assure d him  of its full 
support and cooperation for the work ahead.  
1.26.   The representative of Rwanda , on behalf of the ACP , said that, a s Members  prepare d for 
MC11, the ACP Group wished  to renew it s confidence in the DG's able facilitation towards a 
successful Ministerial Co nference in Buenos Aires , and pledge d to constructively work closely both 
with the entire membership and with the DG towards positive outcomes at MC11 and beyond.  
1.27.   The representat ive of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , congratulated Mr Roberto Azevêdo 
for his work and wished him every success in hi s ongoing  and future  work. 
1.28.   The representative of Brazil , on behalf of GRULAC , said that GRULAC  trusted that 
Mr Azevêdo  would  continue t o make significa nt contributions to the WTO. He was the right person 
to lead the  organiza tion at a time when Members continue d to face the headwinds of protectionist 
and anti -trade  sentiments. As a Member -driven organization, there wa s only so much a Direc tor-
General could  do. The ultimate responsibility for achievements and  failures rested upon the 
Members. GRULAC would therefore continue to support the Director -General  and particularly 
looked forward to his further engagement,  proverbi al talent and good f ortune as Members  
mobilize d to Buenos Aires.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.29.   GRULAC also recognize d the General Council Chair's steady, strong and balanced leadership. 
He had given Members the necessary confidence to navigate through the selection process in a 
way that sp oke well of the  organization.  
1.30.   On behalf of Brazil , he mentioned that his  predecessor Marcos Galvão , the acting F oreign 
Minister of Brazil, would have liked to be there that  morning to tha nk all Members for their decisive 
support and to wish the Director -General all the b est in his second term. Brazil and even more so 
his many friends at the Foreign Ministry were  indeed proud to s ee him in that  position for four 
more years .  
1.31.   In his election four years ago, Mr Azevêdo was Brazil's candidate. His victory had  also been 
recogn ition of Brazil's active commitment to the multilateral tradin g system. At present, his 
reappointment came mainly as recognition of his own personal merits and of his  many 
achievements since 2013. He thanked him for the reference he had  made to the Governm ent of 
Brazil's support but also said that at that time around, Mr Azevêdo had run  on the platform  of his 
own performance. He had results to show. As he had said in his  presentation the previous day and 
again  at the current meeting, the WTO  was much strong er at present. Brazil wished him a very 
productive second term. His success would be Brazil's  success.  
1.32.   The representative of the Philippines , on behalf of ASEAN  thank ed Mr Azevêdo for his able 
leadership which had helped the organization achieve outcomes i n the past  two Ministerial 
Conferences. The Group  looked forward to working with Mr Azevêdo in the coming mont hs and 
express ed its support to his efforts in the run up to MC11 and beyond.  
1.33.   The representative of the Dominican Republic , on behalf of the IGDC , said that Mr Azevêdo 
re-appointment  was the result of Members' sat isfaction with his work in strengthening the  
organization and the multilateral trading system as a whole. It was a critical time for the  
organization and for the multilate ral trading system . But both ships would be skippered by an 
excellent captain and be brought  to the right port. The IGDC had  every trust and confidence in the 
Director -General's  wise leadership.  
1.34.   The representative of Pakistan  said that the  fact that no Member had opted to f ield a 
candidate for the position wa s a tribute  to his  work and achievements. The Director -General had  
been entrusted with leading the organization at a c ritical jun cture. World economy was in a flux  
with no visible signs of improvement. At a time when pro tectionism wa s becoming the default 
norm, the role of  the WTO became extremely important.  The multilateral system wa s the bes t 
defenc e against protectionism  and a strong force of g rowth, recovery and development – and the 
Director -General was its effective  advocate. Pakistan  appreciate d the manner in which he had been 
defending t rade and  the m ultilateral trad ing system. The decision by the august house that day 
further endorsed his  views.  
1.35.   Any marginalization of the WTO would hurt the smaller economies more.  The WTO wa s 
widely perceived as having greater legitimacy than many international organizations  because all 
Members had  a say. The WTO was not what it used to be. Developing countries we re more active  
and robust in their engagement and Members should valu e that. It could  add to the complexity of 
the organization but that wa s the beauty of that  institution. Transparency, inclusive ness and 
development we re at the heart of the legitimacy of the WTO and should be jealously protected by 
its Members. Mr Azevêdo had lived up to his  pledge of being an open, transparent and inclusive 
Director -General. Pakistan therefore urged him  to continue his efforts to strengthen the trust a nd 
faith of developing Members  in the multilateral trading system.  
1.36.   The representative of  India said that t he importance of the role  of the Director -General of 
the organization , more so in the current environment of  uncertainty in global trade , could not be 
over-emphasized. That role became even more c rucial as the Director -General wa s likewis e the 
Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee .  
1.37.   India believed that under his  leadership, the work of the WTO would  be conducted in a 
manner in keeping with it s Member -driven character to uphold its legitimacy and primacy in the 
global trading system. He r delegation  trusted that he would  continue to work towards ensuring 
transparency, deeper engagement and inclusiveness in the decision -making and consultative 
processes within the organization. India also trust ed that he  would be able to stir the vexed WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 6 - 
 
  negotiations in some areas success fully building an agenda which wa s fair, equitable and of benefit 
to the larger Membership.  
1.38.   India assure d the Director -General  of its support , as he  deliver ed on his promise that he 
would  work for the WTO and trade not for t heir own sake , but as instruments for reachi ng 
development to those who had  not yet received the benefits from trade or the WTO. She convey ed 
good wishes and suppor t on behalf of India in his  future endeavours to strengthen multilateralism 
and the WTO as a n institution.   
1.39.   The representative of Uganda  recalled that in  2013, in Bali, the WTO had, for the first time 
since its inception,  seen the adoption of a multilateral a greement. At that  the time all the other 
decisions, including those for least-developed c ountries,  had also been adopted. Unlike the Trade 
Facilitation Agreem ent, the decisions for LDCs had been cou ched i n best endeavo ur language and 
were not legally binding. He further said that, i n 2015 in Nairobi, for the f irst time in the history of 
the o rganization , some M embers had made strong attempts to tear away the legislative history of 
the organization  and continue d to live in denial.  
1.40.   Post-Nairobi, there had b een fervent attempts at re -introducing elements for discussion and 
dedicating human, financ ial and logistical resources to areas of work which had been highly 
contentious , and in some cases  explic itly outside the known mandates – and in any case outside 
the Doha Agenda.  
1.41.   In going forward, Uganda  request ed the Director -General to do the following : uphold the 
Member -driven nature of the organization.  The Secretariat should  be sub -servient to the Members 
and should  at all times adhere to its calling as enshrined in Article VI.4 of the Mar rakesh 
Agreement – i.e. the responsibilities of the Director -General and of th e staff of the Secretariat 
should  be exclusi vely international in character and should  refrain from any action which could  
adversely reflect on their posi tion as international officials.  The process for negotiations should be 
transparent, i nclusive, predictable and Member -driven . A dedicated session  should be convened to 
discuss and to agree on procedural  issues on the lead up to and  during Ministerial Conferences.  
1.42.   The support that his delegat ion accorded to Mr Roberto Azevêdo was  due to the  long-
standing fraternal relations  and solidarity between Uganda and the great nation of Brazil.  
1.43.   Work should largely be informed by the Africa Union's  Agenda 2063 , with the view to 
achieving structural transformation and industrialization. Towards that end , therefore, as his 
delegation  wished him well, he  hoped that he would ensure that , in his second term , more 
resources would be dedicated, as had  been in other areas , to the cause of the majority of the 
Members with the view to concluding the remaining ele ments of the Doha Development Agenda. In 
that way, developing Members , and especially the least -developed among them , could  be able to 
benefit from the increased opportunities and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system 
gener ated. 
1.44.   It wa s importa nt that in line with p aragraph  24 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, all 
issues of specific interest to LDCs were pursued on a priority basis  with a view to strengthening 
them, making them commercially me aningful and  legally binding. Finally, Uganda d id not share the 
view that technical assistance and capacity b uilding  were sufficient payment for the erosion of 
policy space in the adoption of legally binding multilateral disciplines by LDCs.   
1.45.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  wished  the Dir ector-General  the outmost 
success and more  professional achievements – as big at least as the ones he had achieved in his  
first mandate. In Moldova, there was a  proverb  which said : "It is not the place that blesses the 
man but the man who blesses the place ." It was certainly true that the DG had blessed the  WTO 
with an open and clear vision , and a result -oriented mind. Moldova  hoped that his second mandate 
would  be guided by a pragmatic, holistic and multilateral approach in the international trading 
system . His delegation was optimistic that his  charismatic skills in negotiations would help 
Members obtain consensus and  big achievement s in Buenos Aires and beyond. Moldova likewise 
conveyed its sincerest gratitude to Ambassador Harald Neple for his dedication  to the WTO 
activities during his outstanding mandate  at the General Council . His delegation also congratulated  
Ambassador Xavier Carim on his new position and wished him a successful mandate which 
Moldova wa s ready to support.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.46.   The representative of Monten egro said that  there wa s a gr owing interest from Members for 
the Director -General  to continue , in his second term , to strengthen the  internal capacity in the 
WTO to further improve gender balance and par ticipation of women in decision -making positions, 
including in the top leadership positions in the organization. Montenegro stood  ready along with 
others to give him a strong support in his  renewed efforts towards realizing that  objective.  
1.47.   Montenegro was confident that under his leadership Members would  continue to tackle the 
challenges of charting a new course  to safeguard and strengthen  the WTO as the leading 
multilateral institution governing international trade, to build a more inclusive trading system and 
to deliver meaningful and doable results in Buen os Aires and beyond.  
1.48.   The representative of Sri Lanka  noted with  appreciation the outcome of the Director -
General's  first term – in particula r, the conclusion and entry into force of the Agreement on Trade 
Facilitation and the amendment of  the TRIPS Agreeme nt with the aim of facilitating poor countries' 
access to patented medicine at an affordable cost. His delegation was confident that he would be 
able to succeed in bringing positive outcomes to other outstanding measures  and subjects related 
to the main pi llars of the negotiation. Sri Lanka 's expressed its fullest cooperation to the Director -
General and his team, and wished him all the success in his future endeavours. Sri Lanka also  
expressed its  appreciation to Ambassador Harald Neple for the cooperatio n, wisdom and diligence 
that he had demonstrated during his  term as the Chairman of the General Council.  
1.49.   The representative of Jamaica  recalled that,  four years before , the Director -General  had 
been a candidate drawn from among them. He had been a fellow Amb assador and a candidate to 
succeed in a post that had been previously held by M inisters and Prime Ministers. Jamaica was 
honoured that he had met the charge that he had been given to lead the  organization at a crucial 
time. In the sphere of negotiations, h e had  maintained a just balance between transparent and 
open formats of negotiatio n with intensive consultations,  brokering among dive rse parties in a 
manner that he had come to demonstrate particularly adept skills at. He had  shown extraordinary 
capacity as a C hair of the TNC in balancing those two demands that we re sometimes seen to be 
mutually exclusive – opennes s and transparency; and focused, intens ive and selective 
engagement. Jamaica was confident that those approaches would be deepened as the Direct or-
General  prepare d to steer  the WTO through the extraordi narily choppy waters ahead of them. His 
delegation congratulated him and wished him well in that  endeavour.  
1.50.   Jamaica likewise  congratulate d Ambassador  Harald Neple  for his ste ady and wise 
stewardshi p which wa s consistent with his personality. His delegation also  welcome d Ambassador 
Xavier  Carim  to the mantle o f the General Council Chair. Like the Director -General , Ambassador 
Carim would  have a responsibility to help stir Members  through the choppy wa ters ahead. Jamaica 
was confident in his abilities.  
1.51.   The representative of Benin  endorsed the statements made by the LDC, the African and the 
ACP Groups. Benin  appreciate d the efforts  that the Director -General  had made and the results he 
had achieved during  his first  term – most notably the successful organization  of two Ministerial 
Conferences  in Bali in 2013 and in Nairobi in 2015, and the speeding up of the ra tification and 
entry into force  of the Protocol Amending the Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects o f Intellectual 
Property Rights  (TRIPS) and the Agreement on Trade Facilitation on 23  January  2017 and 
22 February  2017, respectively.  
1.52.   Benin hoped that in his second term, the Director -General and his team would  maintain the 
same momentum and level of commi tment in their role as multilateral  trade negotiation facilitators 
and ensure that the results expected between then  and the Eleventh  WTO Ministerial Confer ence in 
Bueno s Aires in December  2017 would be  achiev ed, providing due consideration to  the 
developm ent dimension and the priorities and concerns of developing Members , in particular those 
of the least -developed countries. Benin wished  Mr Roberto A zevêdo  every success in his second 
term.  
1.53.   The representative of Paraguay  was pleased with the leadership the Director -General had 
shown. He could count on Paraguay in his efforts to strengthen the  institution , as a small nation 
relied  on the multilateral system to gain credibility, secure clear rules and benefit from a more 
cooperative world.  Paraguay express ed its sincere thanks for the work the Director -General had 
accomplished in his previous term during which they  had jointly secured major gains for the WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 8 - 
 
  development agenda, particularly t he Agreement on Trade Facilitation  and had seen  the end of the 
long fight to eliminate agricultural export subsidies.  Paraguay  was confident that he would  
maintain the positive trend towards renewed commitments and disciplines to ensure fair and 
predictable trade without restrictions or distortions.  
1.54.   The representative of the United States  wished to offer his delegation's words of 
appreciation to the Director -General. The United States appreciated him for  the capable 
stewardship that he had offered to the  institut ion; for being a good listener; for his advice when he  
observe d Memb ers falling into unproductive pathways  and perhaps especially for his sense of 
humour which had been and would continue to be essential. Members had just given him  four 
more years of ex ceptionally difficult work. The membership and the issues they  faced were not 
easy and we re unlikely to become s o. But as he prepare d for a second term the Director -General, 
he assured him that the United States would continue to respect him and to communicate with him  
honestly.  
1.55.   The United States likewise considered that the y had been lucky to benefit from Ambassador 
Neple's stewardship of the General  Council and we re equally fortunate to look forward to 
Ambassador Carim's guidance in the coming year.  
1.56.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the Economic Community of Central African States , 
thanked,  congratulate d and paid  special tribute to the Director -General and his team for their high 
standard of work and for the Director -General's  leadership of the o rganization over the past four 
years which had  led to major achievements.   
1.57.   On behalf of Chad , he said that trade was  a means to an end. It was therefore  appropriate 
to ensure that trade would contribute to promoting  a safe  environment and to improving the 
quality of life. It wa s a fact th at the international context had  profoun dly changed . For an LDC such 
as Chad, it was  vital to boost trade by investing in production and processing infrastructure to 
withstand the disastrous effects and consequenc es of economic crises which had  revealed the 
vulnerability of thei r countries to gl obal shocks.  
1.58.   Chad was  proud to have been among the countries that had deposited its instrument of 
acceptance which had led to the entry into force of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation – a major 
milestone for the multilateral trading s ystem. That unquesti onably marked  a new stage in the 
reforms aimed at facilitating tra de across the world and provided  a major impetus to trade .  
1.59.   The world wa s becoming increasingly  unpredictable. The best tool they had at their disposal 
was to continue the dialogue among Mem bers under the aegis of the Secretariat  in order to reach 
mutually  agreed solutions. Chad concurred  with the Director -General that a creative, flexi ble and 
pragmatic approach needed to be adopted. Members should keep up the momentum. Chad wished 
the Direct or-General  every success in his second term.  
1.60.   Chad likewise thanked Ambassador Harald Neple for his  outstanding performance in chairing 
the WTO General Council and also welcome d his successor – Ambassador Xavier Carim who could  
count on Chad's support.   
1.61.   The representative of China  extended his Government's best wishes to the Director -General 
for his  next four years. In China, there was a proverb saying that "we can be able to sit on board 
in the same boat only because we have had already good connections and  interactions in the last 
100 years. " In the WTO's  boat, the Director -General was the Members' captain. The waves we re 
currently huge. The boat was not light. The destination was not confirmed. The organization rested  
on the Director -General's  hands in the  voyage  to Buenos Aires and beyond. Towards that end, he 
could count on China's continuous support  – one hundred per cent.  He bade him and all Members 
safe travels.  
1.62.   The representative of Chile express ed his delegation's  satisfaction that Mr Roberto Azevêdo  
had been appointed  for a second term  and recalled that, at  the HODs meeting , Chile had already 
stated its  full confidence in his leadership , both during his previ ous term and for the coming one  
which posed  new and more considerable challenges.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.63.   Chile likew ise congratulate d Ambassador Xavier Carim for taking on the responsibility of 
chairing the General Council. His skills had  already been emphasized by other colleagues  with 
whom it  entirely concur red. He assure d both of them the full support of the Chilean Government 
and Chile's  Permanent Mission in Geneva. Chile also paid  special t ribute to Ambassador Harald 
Neple for his leadership during his tenure as the General Council Chairman. In discharging his 
responsibilities, Members had been able to forge ahead w ith the work that he had contributed 
towards and facilitated at all times.  
1.64.   He also  advise d all Members that the President  of Chile , H.E.  Michelle Bachelet , would be  
visiting the WTO on 29  March. She would  be welcomed by the Director -General and the Chairma n 
of the  General Council. All Members would be invited to join them on that day  during which the 
President intended  to deliver to the entire Membership and the internation al community a message 
in defenc e of multilateralism and free trade , with special emp hasis on the role of the WTO.   
1.65.   The representative of New Zealand , on behalf of the Government of New Zealand,  offered 
congratulations to Mr Roberto Azevêdo and assure d him o f New Zealand' s strong support. The New 
Zealand Government had  indeed been standing  up, including at the leadership level, for the 
importance of trade, open markets and the multilateral trading sys tem – includi ng for the reasons 
the Director -General  had recalle d in his remarks earlier that day . During his  brief time back in 
Geneva – and he thank ed colleagues for their words of welcome – he had  witnessed the entry into 
force of the Trade Fa cilitation Agreement  and th e reappointment of the Director -General by 
acclamation. He  looked forward to more great achievements under the Director -Gener al's 
leadership in his second term. New Zealand likewise  thank ed Ambassador Neple for the 
contribution s he had made during his tenure at the General Council and extend ed its best wishes 
to his successor,  Ambassador Carim.  
1.66.   The representative of Argentina  associated his delegation with the statement made by 
GRULAC. Argentina  wished every  success to Mr Azevêdo for his future tasks at the helm of the  
organiz ation. The Director -General could fully rely on the Argentinian G overnment 's full trust and 
suppor t to hi s future work – in particular to the travels they would be taking together up until 
MC11 i n Buenos Aires. Argentina  commend ed the Director -General for his  well-deserved 
reappointment.  
1.67.   Argentina likewise  thank ed Ambassador Neple for his  excellent work in  heading the General 
Council and  wished success to his  successor.   
1.68.   The representative of the European Union  said that  Members were currently  facing a critical 
time for the future of the WTO and of the m ultilateral trading system. Strong and active leadership  
would therefore be necessary. In that  regard , Members would be looking to the Director -General 
to steer t he organiz ation toward a positive outlook. The first priority was the organiz ation of MC11. 
But other challenges also needed to be addressed , includin g reinvigorating the WTO's regular work 
and ensuring the efficiency of the WTO's dispute settlement system. And finally, greater 
engagement and suppo rt from the business community wa s urgently needed. The European Union  
expect ed the Director -General to wor k on all of tho se issues and wish ed him all success for his 
second mandate.  
1.69.   The representative of Nigeria  assure d the Director -General  of the support of the Nigerian 
Government and wish ed him a successful second term. During his first term , Mr Roberto Azevêdo 
had facilitated two success ful WTO Ministerial Conferences : in 2013 in Bali ; and, in 2015  in 
Nairobi. Tho se back -to-back success ful Ministerial Conferences had  strengthened the credibility o f 
the WTO. They had  had a positive effect in modifying percept ions of the capacity of the WTO to 
deliver  and organize successful meetings with meaningful outcomes that respond ed to commercial 
priorities, add ress development challenges and  contribute to global welfare.  Nigeria  hoped to have 
more successes  in the subse quent Ministerial Conferences.  
1.70.   The Director -General had  worked tirelessly with Members to write new trade rules in the 
area of Trade F acilitation, A griculture and a p ackage for Least -Developed Countries (LDCs). The 
efforts of the Director -General  at the organization, confidence -building and substantive 
engagements had  expanded market access with the Information Technology Agreement 
expansions. Under his dynamic and purposeful leadership, the strategic objective of th e WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 10 - 
 
  organization of "universality of member ship" had  been advanced with five  new accessions . As a 
consequence, the WTO had become stronger . 
1.71.   Outreach by the Director -General had  restored t he standing of the rules -based multilateral 
trading s ystem and its relevan ce. The WTO was on track to deliver. Y et, amid an uncertain global 
economy  largely characterized by slow growth and secular stagnation, much work  lied ahead . 
1.72.   As the saying  went, "uneasy l ies the head that wears a crown ." Nigeria was  confident that in 
his second term, the WTO would  be well serv ed under the leadership of the Director -General. In 
doing so, Nigeria underscored  the vital importance of r eform -based growth that delivered  
development dividen ds, particularly for the weakest and the most vulnerable and those that 
confront ed the acute and  complex challenge of trade -based development.  
1.73.   Nigeria likewise thank ed Ambassador  Neple for his stewardship and for his huge 
contributions to the success of  Members' work  at the General Council , and  congratulate d 
Ambassador  Carim  and assure d him of his d elegation's full support. Nigeria had  confidence in his 
ability and professionalism.  
1.74.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  reiterated his delegation's willingness 
to work with the Director -General and all Members to provide a more just a nd balanced 
multilateral trading system that considered asymmetries among its Members and had development 
at the centre. In the Director -General's second term, it would be important to strengthen the 
principles of inclusiveness and participation of all Mem bers so that any outcome would represent 
the collective vision of all Members and take into account their various interests. In moving 
forward, their work should also be guided by multilaterally agreed principles and rules.  
1.75.   The results achieved at the Bali  and Nairobi Ministerial Conferences and the entry into force 
of the TRIPS Amendment and the TFA are examples of the kind of work the Director -General was 
able to do which led to him garnering support from Members for his re -appointment.  
1.76.   Bolivia also cong ratulated Ambassador Carim and thanked Ambassador Neple for his work at 
the General Council.  
1.77.   Bolivia reiterated its commitment to work constructively in search of results that would be 
for the benefit all Members.  
1.78.   The representative of Nepal  expressed his delegation's appreciation for the Director -
General's  able and charismatic leadership t hat would  hopefully  further  lead the  organization to be 
more vibrant and results -oriented, and  wished him  all the best.  Nepal had  a great attachment to 
the Agreement on T rade Facilitation , as Nepal had been  the Coordin ator of the LDC Group during 
MC9. Nepal  looked forward to mainst reaming the  development dimension at each level of 
discourse and negotiations of the  global architecture , giving due focus on raising the standa rd of 
living of weaker economi es - especially LDCs. His delegation also  looked forward to the effective 
implementation of the TFA spec ifically the S&DT  and technical assistance part, among others.  
1.79.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2  REPORT B Y THE CHAIRMAN OF TH E TRADE NEGOTIATIONS  COMMITTEE  
2.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, on 23  February, Members  had had a meeting at the level of 
Heads of Delegation .3 The Director -General had provided a detailed report4 at that meeting which 
was subsequently circu lated in JOB/GC/118 . 
2.2.  The General Council took note  of the Director -General's report and of the statements.  
3  PROTOCOL AMENDING TH E MARRAKESH AGREEMEN T ESTABLISHING THE W ORLD 
TRADE ORGANIZATION – AGREEMENT ON TRADE F ACILITATION – STATUS UPDATE  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, at the Ninth Ministerial Conference in Bali, Ministers had 
concluded the negotiation of an Agreement on Trade Facilitation and had established a Preparatory 
Committee on Trade Facilitation under the General Council to draw up a Protocol of Ame ndment to 
insert the Agreement into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement. On 27 November 2014, the General 
Council had adopted the Protocol and had opened it for acceptance by Members. In line with this 
decision, the Protocol would enter into force upon acceptanc e of two -thirds of the Members.  
3.2.  He further said that, as delegations were aware, on 22 February, Rwanda, Oman, Chad and 
Jordan had deposited their instruments of acceptance of the Protocol with the Director -General.  
Therefore, with the dep osit of the  4 new instruments, he understood, and took note of the fact 
that the entry into force conditions set out in Article X:3 of the WTO Agreement had been fulfilled, 
and that the Trade Facilitation Agreement Protocol had entered into force on 22 February 2017. He 
then invited the Director -General to make a statement on this matter.  
3.3.  The Director -General  stressed that this was  a huge milestone for the organization. By 
ratifying the agreement, Members ha d shown their commitment to the multilateral trading system, 
and had followed through on the promises made when this deal was struck in Bali. By bringing the 
deal into force, the work of turning its benefits into reality  could now begin . He was very  conscious 
of the considerable efforts that Members and the Geneva Ambas sadors in particular ha d 
collectively made to get to this point . He paid tribute to all Members and  thank ed them for their  
contributions. This achievement belong ed to all Members . In his capacity as depositary of the WTO 
Agreements and their amendments , he was very pleased to sign before the General Council  the 
official depositary notification of the entry into force of the Protocol Amending the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the WTO done on 27 November 2014 concerning the Agreement on Trade 
Facilitation.   
3.4.  The Director -General signed the depositary notification and formally presented to the 
Chairman the original signed text of the depositary notification on the entry into force of the TFA 
Protocol.  
3.5.  The Chairman  thanked the Director -General for his  leadersh ip in guiding the WTO and all of 
its Members to reach th at historical point . He paid tribute to those who served as Chairs of the 
Negotiating Body on Trade Facilitation – Ambassador Muhamad Noor (Malaysia), Mr Tony Miller 
(Hong Kong, China) and Ambassador Eduardo Sperisen -Yurt (Guatemala); and as Chairs of the 
Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation – Ambassador Esteban Conejos (Philippines) and 
Ambassador Mariam MD Salleh (Malaysia); as well to all WTO Members and everyone else involved 
in this process . He also thanked  the Secretariat who ha d worked so hard over many years  – and 
particular ly the Trade Facilitation team. He stressed that t he Agreement on Trade Facilitation was 
a defining multilateral achievement. It was practical, modern and global; and,  it symbolize d the 
                                                
3 The statements in relation to the 23 February Informal Meeting at the level of H eads of Delegation by 
the following delegations are incorporated in the minutes of this mee ting and can be found in Annex 3  of this 
document: Switzerland; Cambodia; M orocco (African G roup) ; Ecuador; Paraguay; Uganda; Mexico; Argentina; 
Japan; Chile; Turkey ; China; Brazil; Zimbabwe; Costa Rica; South Africa; Guyana (ACP ); Nicaragua; 
Plurinational State of Bolivia; Gabon; Fiji (Pacific Group); Chinese Taipei (Article XII Members ); Israel; Nepal; 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arab Group); United States; Republic of  Korea; Cuba; Indonesia (G -33); Pakistan; 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Iceland; Colombia; Montenegro; Mali (C -4); Russian Federation;  Senegal; 
European Union; Ghana; Benin; India; Jamaica; Cameroon; Republic of Moldova; Nigeria; Sri Lanka; Cote 
d'Ivoi re; Mozambique; Dominican Republic and Zambia.  
4 At The Director -General's request, his statement at the 23 February  Informal Meeting at the level of 
Heads of Delegation , also issued as JOB/GC/118,  is incorporated in the minutes of this meet ing and is 
reproduced in Annex 2  of this document.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 12 - 
 
  essence of the WTO – Members from all corners of the globe coming together, overcoming their 
differences, and responding to pressing international trade issues for the benefit of all. He 
encourag ed delegations who ha d not yet presented t heir acceptance instruments to do so  and 
called on all Members to work collectively in effectively implementing the agreement and in turning 
its benefits into reality.  
3.6.  He then invite d the General Council to formally take note  of the entry into force of the  
Agreement on Trade Facilitation.  
3.7.  The General Council so agreed . 
3.8.  The representative of the Philippines , on behalf of ASEAN , welcomed the entry into force of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement and was particularly proud that the TFA was an outcome of the 
Bali Ministerial Conference in 2013. The entry into force of the TFA was a significant achievement 
for the multilateral trading system, and showed once again that the WTO could deliver tangible 
and practical results that would facilitate and boost global trade . ASEAN was implementing various 
measures under the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint 2025 so as to achieve competitive, 
efficient and seamless movement of goods within the ASEAN region. ASEAN would continue to 
actively contribute towards the WTO' s effort s in this respect.  
3.9.  The representative of Japan  joined  other s in welcom ing the entry into force of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement  and express ed appreciation for the tireless efforts made by the Members 
concerned as well as by the Secretariat.  The entry in to force of th e TFA  was a significant 
accomplishment;  however it was not a goal by itself , but a new start. The next target  was the 
ratification of the TFA by all WTO Members . Japan hoped that this target would  be achieved soon, 
and would  continue to provi de support to developing countries,  in cooperation with the Secretariat 
and related organizations such as WCO . Full implementation of the TFA by all Members would have 
an enormous positive impact on effective transactions across borders and would contribut e to 
making the benefits of trade a reality to everyone . In the field of e -commerce, d iscussions related 
to its impact on trade in goods  were currently being conducted . Implementing expeditious and 
appropriate customs clearance procedures was one of the ch allenges that each country had to 
address as trade of small parcels increase d by the expansion of e -commerce . This was exactly the 
issue that should be address ed through the steady implementation of the TFA.  
3.10.   Also, in considering MC11 and beyond, the TFA y ielded valuable clues which c ould be 
applied not only to customs clearance but also to other areas. In fact, many proposals and ideas 
currently on the table in areas such as trade in services and e -commerce were in essence related 
to "facilitating trade ". And the new approach adopted in the TFA  – providing developing countries 
and LDCs with the flexibility to  determine the extent and the timing of implementation according 
to their own capabilities and capacities  – could  be further  employed in other areas fo r other 
agreements . Japan was  determined to continue to play a key role toward the full implementation 
of the TFA, while actively engaging in the discussions on other issues, bearing in mind the TFA 
approach.  
3.11.   The representative of the European Union  said t hat the entry of force of the TFA was a 
major success for the WTO. The conclusion of the Agreement in Bali and the rapid ratification 
process provide d some light in an otherwise un certain multilateral landscape. The biggest scope 
for improvement – and thus  the greatest potential to reap benefits – was in developing countries. 
The EU want ed this Agreement to play a significant role in increasing developing countries' 
involvement in global value chains. For that reason, the EU ha d commi tted €400 million to assist 
them with the reforms needed to comply with the rules set by the Agreement.  
3.12.   The representative of the United States  wished  to congratulate Members on their successful 
efforts resulting in the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, and was pleased to see 
stakeholders around the world, including small and medium sized enterprises, welcoming the  entry 
into force of the TFA. The United States encourage d those Members who were yet to deposit their 
instrument of acceptan ce with the Secretariat to do so as rapidly as possible.  The important 
collective task was now working toward full implementation of the TFA, including establishment of 
a new Trade Facilitation Committee.  The United States looked forward to achieving thi s goal 
expeditiously, so that all Members could reap the potential benefits of the Agreement.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.13.   The representative of Mexico  welcomed the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement and agreed that this was a historic event for the organization. In  Mexico, there were 
already measures under way to promote compliance with commitments undertaken with the TFA 
and to benefit from it, improve the competiveness of Mexican firms and contribute to their 
participation in international markets.  
3.14.   Furthermore, Me xico had implemented in a permanent manner a series of trade and 
customs facilitation measures, in line with the objectives of the Agreement, such as the single 
window for foreign trade – through which it was possible to comply with all foreign trade 
requirements to the presentation of the necessary information by electronic means through one 
single entity.  
3.15.   Amongst other recent achievements, Mexico had been drafting a national agenda for trade 
facilitation in line with its obligations under the TFA. The fi rst measures were related to the setting 
up of the National Committee for Trade Facilitation, which would be working with all government 
departments with competencies in foreign trade and the private sector; the launch of the national 
foreign trade i nforma tion service , which was a single information portal of the Mexican 
Government that presented information required in an orderly, systemized and user -friendly 
language; the launch of the national system for foreign trade queries which simplified and brought  
flexibility to all queries through a virtual platform; and, the update of the import and export tariff 
law, which would reduce by approximately 40% of tariff codes, going from approximately 12,400 
to 7,500 tariff codes and thereby facilitating customs ope rations without having an impact on 
bound tariff rates, among others . Mexico remained  deeply convinced that through trade facilitation 
measures, among others, productive activities which promote d trade and economic growth  could 
be generated . 
3.16.   The representa tive of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDC Group , welcome d the entry into force 
of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), the first multila teral agreement in the 20 years'  history 
of the WTO. The Group  express ed satisfaction that more than two thirds of the  Members  had 
ratified the Agreement, which had entered into force on 22 February 2017.  Resources , efforts and 
other initiatives should be expedited at the highest level to achieve desired results.     
3.17.   The TFA aim ed at reducing  costs and time through the refo rms in the customs governance 
by standardization, simplification and modernization of customs procedures. It was estimated that 
the implementation of the TFA would reduce global trade cost by  14.3%, increase world GDP by 
1 trillion, increase exports of dev eloping countries and LDCs by 20% and 35% , respectively. 
However, these benefits would  not be achieved automatically. Support to enhance supply -side 
capacity including trade related infrastructures and testing labs were some of the fundamental 
aspects to b e addressed to reap the benefits.  The Group  appreciate d the launching of the TFAF 
and urge d to provide, mobilize and coordinate financial and technical assistance based on needs 
and priorities of the be neficiaries. The Group also  appreciate d the special a nd differential 
treatment (S&DT) provisions as well as flexibility of the agreement under which the Members could 
tailor their commitments depending on the specific needs and levels of development. Priority ha d 
to be given to the LDCs and LLDCs which  had notified Category A and were working for the 
categorization of B and C provisions . Finally, T he LDC Group expressed appreciat ion for  the theme 
of the 6th Global review of Aid for Trade – "Promoting Connectivity"  – to take place at the WTO on 
11-13 July . As connectivity at the global, regional and national level was fundament al to trade 
facilitation, the Group  emphasize d the importance of  additional and predictable assistance from the 
development partners.   
3.18.   The representative of Montenegro  joined other deleg ations in congratulating Members on 
the TFA's  coming into force. It was a great day for the WTO. Montenegro ha d fully supported this 
historic Agreement that would remove cross -border barriers, that would  benefit all the Members 
and that would  unlock potent ials in the least -developed ones. Montenegro would continue to work 
with other Members and partners to ensure full and timely im plementation of the Agreement.  
3.19.   Montenegro was grateful to the Trade Facilitation Facility and to all Members and partners 
which had extended their financial support to help those countries in need to comply with and to 
draw the full benefits of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. In addition, Members need ed to use this 
achievement to step up the positive narrative for trade and its benefits .  The TFA model  should be 
used in further trade negot iations within the WTO mandate.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.20.   The representative of Nigeria  welcome d the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement on 22 February 2017 upon reaching  the required threshold. Nigeria was glad  to be part 
of this milestone as the 107th Member to ratify the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Indeed, this was 
a major breakthrough. Nigeria believe d that the Trade Facilitation Agreement would achieve its 
objectives of expediting the movement, rel ease and clearance of goods across borders. More 
importantly, for Nigeria, it would enhance the ease of doing business which the Government was 
fully committed to  – by reducing barriers to trade and lowering the cost of doing business across 
borders, havin g market access opportunities and investment.  
3.21.   However, the importance of targeted technical assistance and capacity building to support 
the implementation of the TFA could not  be overemphasised.  The Nigerian Government was 
committed to achieving its objec tive of creating a conducive business environment in Nigeria. In 
this regard, the President  of Nigeria  would  enable a business environment council chaired by the ir 
Vice President , and  approved  a national ac tion plan to push through short -term reforms. The ir 
Government was trying to improve  the business environment in trade -broad respects: the entry 
and exit of goods, entry and exit of persons to Nigeria and transparency and efficiency in 
government agencies. The new plan would bring no ticeable improvement i n all key areas of 
government , and facilitate trade and commerce.  
3.22.   The representative of Australia  warmly welcom ed the entry into force of th e Trade 
Facilitation Agreement. As the seventh WTO Member to ratify, Australia had  been eagerly awaiting 
this moment  for some time. Australia  firmly believe d that  the TFA would bring considerable 
benefits to all Members. Streamlining and improving transparency around custom procedures 
would be a boon to importers and exporters alike. The TFA should prove a particular be nefit to 
SMEs , especially to developing countries. Small firms w ith niche products – although they  were 
just tipping their toes into the international export market – were the least equipped to handle 
complex or opaque customs procedures. The common sense reforms in the TFA should help level 
the playing field between these critical actors and the larger better resourced firms. Australia 
looked forward to continuing to be an active and engaged player in trade facilitation both through 
the Trade Facilitation Committee and as a donor. Australia also  looked forward to working with 
developing countries , especially those in the region through the Category C process to identify 
areas where Australian investment  could  make an impact towards TFA implementation. In 
concluding, Australia offered an official note of gratitude for all the hard work of the Trade 
Facilitation team of the Secretariat which h ad worked tirelessly to reach this auspicious day.  
3.23.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  was very pleased to se e the T FA entering into 
force. In achieving this remarkable milestone, WTO Members ha d demonstrated a strong 
commitment to free trade, and given a robust response to skeptics who doubt ed the value of the 
multilat eral trading system. The TFA reduce d costs and impr oved efficiency in doing business, for 
developed and developing Members alike.  Hong Kong, China  encourage d Members who ha d not 
yet accepted the TFA to do so as soon as possible, so as to maximize the benefits of the 
Agreement.  Hong Kong , China  was a free port with no tariffs.  Its basic law said  that the policy of 
free trade and of safeguard ing the free movement of goods  should be pursued , and it took  pride in 
having an open market policy for all trade and investment.  For the past 23 years, Hong Kong , 
China had ranked 1st in the Heritage Foundation' s Index of Economic Freedom.   It was  also among 
the top economies in the World Bank's Doing Business Index. Yet there was  no room for 
complacency when it c ame to business facilitation.  It was with this convictio n that Hong Kong, 
China  became the first WTO Member to accept the TFA, and designated all its commitments under 
Category A for immediate implementation . 
3.24.   Having taken the TFA thus far was no easy task.  It had taken  intensive and tough 
negotia tions, and hard  work to come up with a creative mod el that could cater to Members'  
different needs, before the political will to adopt the Agreem ent and to bring it into force  could 
finally  be harnessed . There were still challenges ahead, given the substantial reforms th at the 
Agreement call ed for, and the complex ity of the timetables involved.  Hong Kong, China  attache d 
great importance to the TFA, and would continue to play a constructive role in ensuring its smooth 
implementation.  
3.25.   The representative of Brazil  joined  previous speakers in celebrating the entry into force of 
the Trade Facilitation A greement. This outcome reaffirmed  the relevance of the WTO  and also 
showcase d the system' s ability to deal creatively with the different capabilities of Members to 
implement a mu ltilateral agreement. Brazil  trusted that this successful outcome would  encourage WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Members to pursue further results at the multilateral level, particularly at MC11.  Brazil attache d 
high priority to the implementation of the TFA. Since 2013, Brazil ha d started to gradually 
implement the Agreement, even before its entry into force , and was now  in the process of 
implementing the Single Window. The National Committee on Trade Facilitation, composed of 
government and private sector representatives, had held its first meeting the previous week . Brazil  
would be pleased to share its implementation experiences so far with interested Members.  
3.26.   In July 2014, Brazil  had also  submitte d its notification of Category A  commitments and 
would promptly submit its C ategory B  notification. Two of the five commitments previou sly 
excluded from the C ategory A  notification would  be implemented in advance. Brazil was not going 
to subm it a C ategory C  notification. In concluding, Brazil encouraged Members which ha d not yet 
done so to rat ify the Agreement.  
3.27.   The representative of Switzerland  said that t he Trade Facilitation Agreement was of historic 
importance as it was the first genuinely multilateral agreement concluded sinc e the establishment 
of the WTO. When taking full effect, th e Agree ment w ould contribute to significantly lowe ring 
international trade  costs. It would  benefit all Members, developed and developing countries alike, 
and its underlying architecture  was ground -breaking and promising. The commitments entered 
into by developing  and least -developed country Members  were linked to their capacity to 
implement the Agreement. In addition, they would  receive assistance and support to h elp them 
achieve that capacity. The approach taken in th e Agreement could also serve as a model in oth er 
areas currently being addressed in the WTO . Priority had to  be given  now to full and effective 
implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Switzerland intend ed to continue contributing 
financially to the efforts required to that  end.  
3.28.   The repres entative of th e Republic of Korea  welcomed the  historic moment of the entry into 
force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. He pointed out  that the TFA aim ed at streamlin ing, 
simplify ing and standardiz ing customs procedure with the view to cutting trade co sts around the 
world. However, he also  wished to stress that this was not the end of the story , but the start of the 
global customs reform. By bringing the agreement into force, work on turning its benefits into 
reality  was just beginning . In this regard, he wished to share three points.  
3.29.   First, he urged the remaining Members who ha d yet to accept the TFA to do so as soon as 
possible. It was  important not only to fully implement the TFA , but also to affirm the commitments 
of Members to the fight against glo bal protectionism at a time when anti -trade sentiment  was 
growing throughout  the world.  
3.30.   Second, the TFA was unique in the history of multilateral trade agreements in that it allow ed 
each developing Member and least -developed Members to self -determine when  they would  
implement the respec tive provisions and what was  needed in terms of relative capacity building 
support. In this sense, he encourage d Members who ha d not notified their commitments especially 
Category B and C to do so in accordance with the Agre ement.  
3.31.   Third, the TFA contain ed provisions of technical assistance and capacity building. For greater 
benefit from the TFA, Members  needed to ensure that developing and LDC Members c ould access 
the resources needed to carry out the necessary reforms. For its role, Korea would continue to 
expand its technical assistance including training programmes for developing Members , with a 
special focus on sharing Korea's advanced customs administration.   
3.32.   The representative of Norway  welcom ed the fact that the WTO Tr ade Facilitation Agreement 
Protocol had entered into force on 22 February,  at a time when anti -trade and anti -globalization 
sentiments were observed worldwide. With the TFA' s entry into force, WTO Members 
demonstrate d their strong commitment to the multila teral trading system and their ability to 
deliver important results fo r businesses around the world. The Agreement was ground -breaking. 
For the first time in WTO' s history, the commitments of developing and least -developed Members 
were linked to their capa city to implement a trade agreement. Norway had supported throughout 
the negotiations the participation of capital -based officials from LDCs. As a continuation of this 
support, Norway was  also a substantial donor to the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facilit y (TFAF) 
that was created to provide assistance and support for developing and least -developed  Members to 
implement the TFA. Norway called  on all Members to continue working in unison to ensure that the 
full potential of the TFA turn ed into reality through  effective implementation of the Agreement . WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.33.   The representative of Uganda  welcome d the coming into force of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement (TFA). This ha d come about as a result of the dedicated efforts, and also relentless 
persistence on the part of the WTO Secretariat, under able leadership, on encouraging the Member 
States to notify the acceptance of the TFA as quickly as possible. The entry into force of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement ha d also come about in record time because of the great importance  
attached to it by the Member s. 
3.34.   As an LDC , Uganda  eagerly wait ed to see how much of the benefits it would  derive from the 
TFA, especially through the operationalization of the Trade Facilitation Facility (TF F) which was 
established early in 2015 for the be nefit of developing countries. The Facility had been created  to 
make it easy and hurdle -free for developing countries, and more so the least-developed countries 
to access funding under the TFA provisions.  
3.35.   The representative of China  welcomed  the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. China would  continue to work with other Members to ensure the effective 
implementation of the Agreement. Currently, China was actively considering contributing to the 
WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility to enhance the implementation capacities of developing 
Members and the LDCs in particular so that the Trade Facilitation Agreement could  benefit all 
parties as soon as possible.  
3.36.   On a personal note, he wished to bid  farewell to all friends and colleagues both  in and 
outside the organization. He was honoured to have been working with all of his colleagues who 
were remarkable and insightful and from whom he had learned so much. He thanked them for 
their assistance and cooperation and recalled that  it had been a busy winter back in 2013 when he 
had first arrived at the WTO to join the final hours of the negotiations for the Bali Ministerial 
Conference. At present, as they were busy preparing for MC11, he would have to leave Geneva in 
short notice upon the mandate from his capital to take up a new assignment. It was with mixed 
feelings that he had to bid his farewell. For the past three years and three months, he had 
witnessed quite a number of landmark events and had participated in heated negotiations and 
consulta tions. From Bali to Nairobi, from TFA to ITA expansion, it was heartening to see that the 
joint efforts they had done in the past years had made trade flow more smoothly, had posted 
global trade by trillions of dollars each and had strengthened disciplines  while reaffirming 
development goals. He had also experienced some events less successful , or negative , or even 
setbacks. There were unfinished talks and un fulfilled mandate s but all that did not alter the strong 
belief in the multilateral trading system. Currently, Members were again standing at a critical 
juncture of history. Whatever they would choose to do would determine the future direction of 
their human history. He was proud that he had been taking part in such an epoch -making 
endeavour. Through the  interne t and the digital age, distance had been disappearing – bringi ng all 
Members closer together. As a line from a  Chinese poem  provided , "even mountains and seas 
cannot distance people with common aspir ations." He thanked  the Chairman, the Director -General 
and the Secretariat for the ir kindness and friendship. They could always count on him  to continue 
to be a strong supporter of the WTO.  
3.37.   The representative of Sri Lanka  said that t his was a historic event for the WTO and 
congratulated the  Director -General and the Secretariat for this landmark achievement of the 
successful entering into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement . Small economies such as Sri 
Lanka placed great importance to TFA implementation as a means to improve  competitiveness in 
international trade. His delegation had already liaised with the Trade Facilitation Division of the 
WTO concerning the countr y's implementation requirements, and had also established close 
cooperation with many international agencies such as the WTO, W B, ITC, W EF, UNIDO, and 
UNCTAD, among others,  with the objective of having their expert inputs and leveraging their 
resources for a successful implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement in Sri Lanka.  
3.38.   Fulfilling the commitments of TFA alone would not bring t he benefits of the redu ction of 
trade transaction cost  without addressing trade -related infrastructure development requirements. 
Therefore, Sri Lanka appreciated the donor community's support to address these gaps for a 
sustainable outcome of the TFA.  He expressed gratitude to the EU, who extended €8 million grant 
for Sri Lanka, particularly for the implementation of certain Category B and C Commitments.  
3.39.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  welcome d the entry in force of the TFA and 
commend ed the efforts of all Members which contributed to the achievement of this milestone new 
discipline o f the multilateral trading  system. In  June 2016, the Parliament of the Republic of WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Moldova ha d ratified the WTO' s on Trade Facilitation Agreement through Law no . 129, becoming 
the 83rd WTO M ember to do so . On 24 June, Mr Octavian Calmic, Deputy Prime Minister and 
Minister of Economy of the Republic of Moldova had  presented the country' s instrument of 
ratification to the WTO Director -General. The Republic of Moldov a had also made its notification of 
Category A commitments under the Agreement on Trade Facilitation.  
3.40.   Meanwhile, the Government had established the National Trade Facilitation Committee 
through Decision no. 29 of 25 January 2017, which was composed by the representatives of the 
public institutions and business community. The Prime Minister would chair the Committee. The 
Ministry of Economy and Customs Service would coordinate the activities related to the 
implementation of  the TFA. The WTO Secretariat would  be notified in due time about the  
establishment of the Committee  through the Permanent Mission. The National Committee on Trade 
Facilitation  had implemented 50% of the TFA legal provisions. Moldova encourage d other Members 
to establish the Committee and t o proceed to the implemen tation of that important  Agreement.  
3.41.   He further noted that t he Ministry of Economy and Customs Service of the Republic of 
Moldova were in the process of preparing the notifications regarding the provisions that were 
designated in C ategory B and C , along with their corresponding indicative dates for 
implementation. The notification would  be submitted onc e the evaluation of the TFA was 
completed . The National Action Plan for the effi cient implementation of the TFA provisions was in 
the process of development by the responsible authorities a long with the private sectors. The 
Government of the Republic of Moldova expresse d gratitude for the TFA Facility, to the Preparatory 
Committee and to the WTO Secretariat for the ir efforts to organiz e training courses for the 
capacity building of Moldova's National Committee on TFA  held in the period of 2016 -2017.  
3.42.   The representative of Canada  said that as Members  reflect ed on the coming into force of the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement, there were a numb er of things that were worth pausing. First, he 
recalled that  the negotiations were one of  the finest examples of India -Canada collaboration to 
lead to a successful result. Second and more importantly, the Agreement sa id that trade would be 
facilitated by lowering costs, being more efficient and  taking advantage of technology.  At the same 
time, Canada  acknowledge d that Members  could not  immediately grow into this agreement without 
some assistance.  
3.43.   The Agreement  also went on to say that all was not going to  come from the WTO. It 
recognize d that many of the needs connected with trade relate d to infrastruc ture, skills and 
capacity and the  sourc es of support for that capacity -building could  come from other institutions. 
It was for this reason that Canada, in su pport of the Agreement, had provided  capacity -building 
funding to the World Bank Facility, to the Trade Facilitation Alliance and others who ha d those 
particular skills. This was a lesson  to be kept in mind as Members  pursue d other subjects. When 
one heard about the digital divide  and the need for infrastructure and  connectivity , one could 
overload this institution . Members should  rather take inspiration from the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement and connect to those who could  provide the prope r sequencing so th at at the end, 
according to the different categories and timetables of obligation, one would truly  have a level 
playing field for both north and south. This agreement was important not only for its intrinsic value 
in saving consumers and businesses a lot o f wasted money on what would otherwise be red -tape, 
in promoting transparency and good governance, but also in providing a very important precedent 
that constitute d a brand new paradigm for the way special and differential treatment could be  
implemented go ing into the remainder of the 21st century.  
3.44.   On a personal note, he thank ed all Members for the learning they had  provided him. It had 
been a wonderful education and opportunity to explore and invite creativity in a n umber of settings 
and formats. T he Disp ute Settleme nt Body and the General Council were areas where the  WTO,  as 
a young organizati on, found itself sometimes to o early in age saying, "that was the way it had 
always been done ". However,  he believed that Members  should not be tied down that way – 
whether it involved the review of implementation of dispute settlement d ecisions: Item 1 on that 
agenda which had turned from very tried to genuine engagement; whether it was using the 
General Council  to have a genuine discussion and exchange of views rath er than a recycle of set  
pieces. The opportunity remained for each Member  to bring creativity, initiative and a forward look 
to bear. It wa s a gre at privilege to have served at the WTO . As an answer to those who urge d him 
to stay engaged, he thought from w hat he understood that each of their portfolios and mandates 
would guarantee thei r continued engagement  at the WTO . WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.45.   The representative of Rwanda  welcome d the entry into force of t he Trade Facilitation 
Agreement and said  this was a great achievement since t he creation of the WTO . His delegation 
recognize d the  collective efforts by Members – Rwanda included – the DG's efforts, the entire 
Secretariat and many more other actors that had contributed to this achievement. Rwanda 
expect ed that all necessary support  should be provided to ensure that all Members in the regions 
could reap from the potential benefits of the Agreement, particularly through easing cross -border 
trade and reducing transactional costs. It went without saying that , in addition to the TFA, 
Members needed hard infrastructure and technology in order t o develop productive capacities – 
industrialization towards structural transformation.  
3.46.   The General Council took note  of statements.  
4  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND NAIROBI O UTCOMES – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
4.1.  The Chairman5 recalled that that item remained on the agenda so that Members could  
continue to follow up on the decisions adopted in Bali and Nairobi – and to do so in an incl usive 
and transparent manner. His report that day would  be short, as sev eral WTO bodies had not yet 
met since thei r meeting in December.  
4.2.  With regard to  the so -called decisions  on "regular work", as Members were aware, he had  
reported on progress in the implementation of the Work Programme on e -commerce and in 
particular on co nsultations with Me mbers at the last GC meeting. His report had been  subsequently 
circulated in document WT/GC/W/728. The next GC review of pr ogress on the Work Programme 
would  be in July, in line with the Nairobi Decision.  
4.3.  On Aid for Trade, the CTD had met in the Aid for Trade sess ion on 10 February. Updates had 
been provided by Members and Observers on their Aid -for-Trade activities. Ambassador Gyan 
Chandra Acharya, UN Under -Secretary -General and High Representative,  had addressed the 
meeting and  had give n an overview of the work of  the UN Office for Least Developed Countries, 
Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States. The Secretariat  had 
provided an update on the submissions received on the AfT monitoring and evaluation exercise 
and preparations for the Global Review. A workshop o n trade cost indices and how those we re 
being integrated int o Aid -for-Trade programming had also been held immediately prior to the 
Committee meeting.  
4.4.  Moving to Agriculture, with respect to Export Competi tion, there had been  a significant 
development since his  last report in December. As the Director -General had also noted a t the 
HODs meeting on 23 February , Australia had  submitted to the WTO Secretariat a draft modification 
to Section II of Part IV of its  Schedule to eliminate its export subsidy entitlements, pursuant to the 
Nairobi Ministerial deci sion on Export Competition. The draft had been  circulated to Members on 
22 February  as per the 1980 Procedures for Rectification and Modification of Schedules.  
4.5.  Australia was the first Member to take that step and he  hoped that would  encourage other 
Members with scheduled export subsidy entitlements to also submit as soon as possible their draft 
revised schedules for the elimination of such  entitlements  pursuant t o the timelines set out in the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
4.6.  The next Dedicated Discu ssion on Export Competition would  take place during the June 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. The annual questio nnaire on export competition had 
been circulated i n October 2016, with a deadline of 31 March 2017 for replies. The Chair of the 
Committee on Agriculture  had sent a reminder to delegations the previous  week.  
4.7.  The monitoring of the implementation of the Nairobi Mini sterial Decision on cotton would take 
place during the dedicated discussion on cotton held on a bi -annual basis in the context of the 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. Th e last dedicated discussion had taken  place in 
November  2016 and the next one wa s planned for July 2017.  
                                                
5 The Chairman's statement was circulated in JOB/GC/119 . WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.8.  Regarding de velopment and LDC issues, the Committee on Rules of Origin had  continued 
discussions to follow up on all aspects of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on preferential rules of 
origin for LDCs. Members had held informal consultat ions at the end of 2016 and wo uld meet 
formally on 2 and 3 March. Some developed country preference granting Members had  informed 
the Committee, by the end of 2016, of the efforts that they we re making to implement the 
Decision. The Committee had  approved modalities for the calculat ion of utilization rates and had  
asked the Secretariat to prepare a first report indicating the rates of utilization of preferences by 
each LDC in 22 s pecific sectors. The Committee wa s also close to agreeing on a new template for 
the notification of preferen tial rules of origin for LDCs, which, once used by Members, should make 
a great contribution to promoting a better understanding of preferential rules of origin applicable 
to LDCs.  
4.9.  Duty-Free Quota -Free market access for LDCs,  for which the annual review ha d been 
conducted in November 2016, remained  a standing item on the CTD's agenda. And similarly , the 
Services waiver for LDCs wa s a standing item on the CTS's agend a – for which the next meeting 
was scheduled in mid -March.  
4.10.   And finally, on the Monitori ng Mec hanism on S&D, he  recall ed that no written submissions 
had yet been made and that at recent meetings, Members had  shared their thoughts and 
perspectives on why the Monitoring Mechanism had  as yet not been tested, a nd possible ways 
forward in that  regard. T he next meeti ng of the Monitoring Mechanism wa s scheduled to be held in 
June 2017.  
4.11.   The representative of Rwanda  welcomed  Australia's commitment  to implement the Nairobi 
Decision on the elimination of export subsidies which  was an important step . Rwanda  expected 
others to follow the initiative and  strongly urge d other M embers to report on where they we re in 
terms of implementing the decision at the m eeting  in June . 
4.12.   The representative of Nigeria  said that Nigeria was fully committed to the full 
implementation  of the Bali and N airobi decisions – demonstrating that  commi tment in action and 
through its constructive engagement. There wa s the need to consolidate and build on the 
successes and to deliv er meaningful and development -oriented outcomes at MC11 which cou ld be 
achieved through incremental and credible results.  
4.13.   With regard to e -commerce, Nigeria believed that the General  Council had a central role 
which include d the responsibility to consider horizontal issues of cross -cutting nature on e -
commerce. Nigeria was also open to the idea of a joint dedicated session to be facilitated by the 
Chair together with his friends and in collaboration with Chairs of the relevant subsidiary bodies. 
The concerns of developing countries, the LDCs and the SVEs in terms of capa city challenges and 
infrastructure constraints should be taken into consideration.  
4.14.   While supporting the ongoing initiatives on e -commerce, Members should also continue to 
examine the opportunities and challenges of MSMEs including small producers and suppl iers in 
accessing e -commerce. Nigeria's priority as far as that issue was concerned wa s to focus on the 
development di mensions of e -commerce and the maximization of the potential benefit s for MSMEs 
in developing countries, including Nigeria, and LDCs in te rms of domestic and cross -border e -
commerce.  
4.15.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's report and of the statements.  
5  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND DEVELOPMENT  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, in line with the framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the 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. At Nairobi, Ministers had adopted a Decision 
reaffirming their commitment to the Work Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work 
in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibil ity of the General Council. He invited 
Ambassador Christopher Onyanga Aparr (Uganda), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD, 
to report on developments in the area.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 20 - 
 
  5.2.  Ambassador Christopher Onyanga Aparr (Uganda), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of t he 
CTD, recall ed that in his  most recent re port to the General Council in December, he had  explained 
how the Work Programme on Small Economies had been  addressing follow -up activities related to 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
5.3.  In their Decision on Small  Economies, Ministers had requested the Secretariat to continue its 
work on global value chains and to also examine the challenges which small economies face d in 
their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in the area of trade facilitation.  
5.4.  The sect oral discussions and rev iews of Global Value Chains had  been completed and that the 
SVEs were then  working on an outcome document bas ed on the discussions which had taken  place 
during the meetings held in  2015 and 2016. The document would  identify the main  challenges 
discussed and possibly put forward some recommendations as to how t o overcome such 
challenges. It wa s hope d that the Dedicated Session could then analyse and discuss the  outcome 
document and its recommendations later in the year.  
5.5.  Work wa s conti nuing on the SVE proposal on "Challenges Small Economies Experience in 
Their Efforts to Reduce Trade Costs, Particularly in the Area of Trade Facilitation". The proposal in 
document WT/COMTD/SE/W/33/Rev.1 had been  adopte d by the Dedicated Session in Novemb er 
and requested  the Secretariat to disaggregate the relevant statistical information o n reducing 
trade costs from the " Aid for Trade at a Glance 2015" study and to focus the discussion on small 
economies.  
5.6.  The Secretar iat wa s currently carry ing out its re search and expected  to have a report ready 
by the end of March. A meeting would  then be organized to discuss the findings.  
5.7.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , said that as  the report  reflected, 
Members had  been successfully a dvancing o n some issues of the work p rogram me. Th ey had  
finalized the meetings on the different productive secto rs contained in the Secretariat's Study on 
Global Value Chains and the SVEs Group was currently  in the process of producing an outcome 
document  that would  summarize the challenges identified during those sessions  and would  put 
forward some possible recomm endations on how to overcome tho se challenges.  
5.8.  The SVEs also looked  forward to future work on re ducing trade costs, based on their proposal 
that had been approved by the CTD in November. Once the Secretariat would finish the research, 
they would commence the organization of the next sessions.  
5.9.  The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and D evelopment and of the statement . 
6  REVIEW OF THE EXEMPT ION PROVIDED UNDER P ARAGRAPH 3 OF THE GA TT 1994 
(WT/L/1005)  
6.1.  The Chairman  recalled that p aragraph 3(a) of GATT 1994 provided  an exemption from Part II 
of GATT 1994 for measures under specific mandatory le gislation – enacted by a Member before it 
became a Contracting Part y to GATT 1947 – which prohibited  the use, sale or lease of foreign -built 
or foreign -reconstructed vessels in commercial applications between points in national waters or 
waters of an exclu sive economic zone.  
6.2.  On 20 December 1994, the US had invoked the provisions of p aragraph 3(a) with respect to 
specific legislation that had met the requirements of that paragraph.  
6.3.  Paragraph 3(b) of GATT 1994 called for a review of the  exemption five years a fter the date of 
entry into force of the WTO Agreement – and thereafter every two year s for as long as the 
exemption wa s in force – in order to examine whether the conditions which had created the need 
for the exemption still prevail ed. The General Council  had last considered the  matter at its last 
meeting in 2015.  
6.4.  For the purposes o f the conduct of the review in 2017, Members would  proceed in a manner 
similar to  the previous reviews, which had been  based on a procedure agreed by the General 
Council in 2002 . WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 21 - 
 
  6.5.  Therefore , all interested delegations could  speak a t that day's meeting with regard to the 
current re view. Interested delegations could  submit comments and questions to the United States 
regarding the operation of the legislation under the  exemption, to which the United States would 
be invited to respond. Tho se statements, questions and responses, together with the annual 
statistical report provided by the United States under paragraph 3(c) of GATT 1994 would form the 
basis for that  year's review.  
6.6.  The mat ter would  be on the agenda of subsequent General Council meetings in the course of 
2017 as the Chair deemed appropriate  or at the request of any Member. The Council would 
consider the  matter aga in at its last meeting of the year where it would  take note of  the 
discussions, and would take any other action it could agree on. It would  also take note  that the 
subsequent review would  normally be held in 2019.  
6.7.  Finally, as provided in paragraph 3( e) of GATT 1994, the exemption wa s without prejudice to 
solutions co ncerning specific aspects of  the legislation covered by the  exemption negotiated in 
sectoral agreements or in other fora.  
6.8.  He drew attention to the annual report circulated by the Unit ed States in document 
WT/L/1005 and invite d the United States  to introduc e it. 
6.9.  The representative of the United States  welcomed the opportunity to participate in the review 
of the exemption un der paragraph 3 of GATT 1994.  
6.10.   The exemption had been  agreed to by all Members to deal with non -conforming provisions 
of domestic legislat ion of a non -discretionary character in a specific area add ressed by the 
exemption and it wa s an integral part of the GATT 1994.  
6.11.   In paragraph 3(a), Members  had agreed that as long as the legislation that the United 
States  had notified prior to the date of  entry of  force of the WTO Agreement had remained in  force 
and had  not been modified to reduce its conformity with Part II of the GATT 1994, Part II would 
not apply to that legislation. Paragraph 3(b) specified that Members should  review the exemption 
every two years to "examine whether the conditions which created the need for the exemption still 
prevail".  
6.12.   The United States confirmed that the conditions that had created the need for the  
exemption continue d to exist, including the US Navy' s reliance on com mercial shipyards for day -
to-day maintenance of naval and su rge-fleet vessels. It also remained  critical for US ship-builders 
to build commercial ships for trade in order to ensure the maintenance of a viable industrial base 
to meet fu ture US naval require ments.  In short, the United States had  the same need a s it had in 
1994: to maintain its shipyards' readiness to build and maintain naval vessels.  
6.13.   The United States had  also continued to provide WTO Members with an nual statistical 
reports under p aragraph 3 (c) of the GATT 1994, including the most recent report  submitted in 
December 2016. Tho se reports provide d detailed annual reporting of vessel orders and d eliveries 
from US shipyards. The United States  thank ed Members for their interest in the issue. His 
delegation stoo d ready to answer Members' que stions as needed and, as had been  done in past 
reviews, would later in the  year organize an informal information exchange meeting with 
interested Members.  
6.14.   The representative of the European Union  noted that as stated back in 2015, 2013 and 
before, the EU supported the review process. His delegation  thank ed the United States  for its 
notification and for its  availability to answer questions and h old informal sessions as needed . 
6.15.   The European Union  underlined once agai n its strong concerns with the  unjustified 
exemption. T he EU continued  to view the Jones Act as a pie ce of legislation that restricted  fair 
competition in the shipbuilding and shippi ng markets, and no longer served a legitimate purpose in 
the current  globa l econo my. The prevailing situation had  negative economic consequences for the 
EU's and other Members'  shipbuilding industry but also for the US mariti me industry which wa s 
faced with higher costs due to the closure of the US market for foreign built ships . In that regard, 
the EU  wanted to echo the statements made at the US Senate by S enator McCain qualifying the WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Jones Act as "an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made US industry less 
competitive and raised prices for American consum ers". 
6.16.   The European Union  sincerely hope d that the 2017 review wa s consequent. It should not 
become  simply a recurring point in the  agenda but rather the starting point to loo k into a situation 
that wa s neither justified nor satisfactory.  
6.17.   The representative  of Japan  noted that since the exemption wa s a deviation from the 
fundamental princ iples of the WTO, Japan attached  great importance to the review.  The 
explanations given by the United States  in the past reviews had  fallen short of demonstrating the 
need f or such an exemption.  Japan hoped that, through the  review, substantial consultation would 
be conducted so that Members would be  able to examine in detail whether the conditions which 
created the need for the exemption still prevail ed. 
6.18.   The representative o f Norway  thank ed the United States for the statistical documentation 
circulated in WT/L /1005 dated 5 January 2017. That wa s an important issu e as the waiver in a 
sense made  it impossible to sell ships to th e United States.  
6.19.   Norway  noted that  on 18 January 2 017, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had 
published a general notice of proposed modification and revocation of ruling letters relating to the 
CBP's application of the J ones' Act. The CBP proposal would  withdraw or modify several Jones Act 
interp retive ruling s going back to 1976. For instance, Norway understood that the CBP would  
change the exception to the Jones Act for the carriage between two US point s of vessels 
equipment which had  not been considered merchandise as defined in the Jones Act.  
6.20.   If approved, those proposed modifications would  restrict international offshore construction 
vessels from the US after cont inental shelf which up until then had  been permissible under the 
CBP's rulings  and definitions. In effect, tho se new interpretive rul ings should also be understood by 
trading partners as an expan sion of Jones Act provisions. Norway was  still studying the proposed 
modifications but would appreciate a comment from the United States about its  assessment of the 
CBP's proposals especial ly in light of the decision of th e Trade in Services Council on Maritime 
Transport – 3 July 1996 on standstill.  
6.21.   As regards how the review itself would be  conducted, Norway believed  that it should  focus 
on the salient point of p aragraph 3 (b) of the GATT 1994 wh ich wa s the explanation of whether the 
conditions which had created the need for the exemption still prevailed. It was Norway's view that 
they needed to move beyond the point of discussing on the statistic al information submitted under 
paragraph 3 (c) of GA TT 1994 and to also address  the conditions for the exemption. As far as the 
next practical steps in the process were concerned, Norway was  prepared to go along with the 
procedures suggested by the Chair man.  
6.22.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that  this was the 10th review of the Jones Act 
exemption and her delegation was  disappo inted that previous reviews had  not produced any 
positive outcomes.  Her delegation 's interest  in the  review, as in previous ones, wa s largely 
systemic . The exemption under p aragraph 3(a) of GATT 1994 was a major derogation from the 
WTO's national treatment principle and her delegation was  very concerned that th e exemption had  
been invoked by one Member , and had  remained in effect for more than 20 years after the 
establishment  of the WTO.  
6.23.   As an advocate for the  liberaliz ation of maritime transport serv ices, Hong Kong, China wa s 
also concerned that the exemption had impeded the Member in making m arket access 
commitments in the  sector.  Hong Kong, China  hoped the United States wou ld recogniz e the need 
to progressive ly liberaliz e the market for such a major mode of transport and such a crucial p art of 
the supply chain. Her delegation  encourage d the United States  to take a more open approach and  
to seriously review whether  the legisl ation covered by the exemption wa s still serving the 
objectives originally intended, and whether the conditions for the retention of the measures still 
prevail ed. As in the past, Hong Kong, China stood ready to discuss with the United States  and 
other Memb ers with an open mind and in a constructive manner.  
6.24.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked  the United  States for its notification in 
WT/L/1005. Korea had systemic and  commercial concerns regarding the United States' exemption WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 23 - 
 
  under p aragraph 3 (a) of the GATT 1994. The exemption was  a deviation from the fundamental 
principle of the WTO restr icting fair competition in ship -building and in shipping markets.  
6.25.   The Jones Act no longer served a  legitimate purpose in the present global economy. 
Therefor e, Kore a believed that a review of the  longstanding exemption in accordance with 
paragraph 3 (b) of the GATT 1994 should focus on examining w hether the conditions which had  
created the need for such exemption still prevail ed rather than undergoing a purely data-sharing 
process. Korea asked the United States to provide persuasive explanati on on the necessity  to 
continue the exemption and was willing to participate i n any further discussion on the  issue.   
6.26.   The representative of Canada  noted that there were two issues at play:  one cited by the 
United States and the other  by some of the previous interventions. First, as had been explained by 
the United States, the issue wa s premised on an ass essment of what security demanded. Members 
knew that there we re various v iews regarding how self -determined such an assessment was. But it 
was interesting to note that for aircraft s including military and civilian, and for other defensive and 
security -related concerns it seemed  that something shor t of an entirely US production was 
considered adequate for security purposes . Canada therefore thought  that the current  forum 
should be an opportunity for the United States to share part of its assessment as to whether there 
were less trade restrictive ways of achieving the same outcome , without questioning that security 
interest.  
6.27.   Second, as had been flagged by Norway, there wa s a rea l question regarding a recent 
general notice  and, interestingly enough , it had been  one of the last acts of the previous 
administration on 18 Janu ary in 19  CFR part 177 that seemed  to run counter to what the United 
States had suggested – that everything was fine at the WTO as long as things would not get 
worse. There needed  to be some clarification regard ing the impact and scope of the proposed 
notice which also, if read correctly, proposed  to revoke a number of previous ruling letters that 
had been issued by way of interpretation of the scope of the build requirement and that could 
therefore open the door to becoming much more restrictive than the grounds on which the original 
waiver had been accepted by the  membership.  
6.28.   Canada  would join others in welcoming to the exte nt possible the United States' clarification 
of the scope of the general notice, the terms on  which previous ruling letters we re being revok ed, 
and which merchandise and  equipment would be affected. It would help Members  to not only 
unders tand the "what" but also why  the long standing interpretive policy was proposed to be 
revisited. Canada  welcome d the proc edures that the Chairman had set out f or conducting the 
periodic review. Members thought in civilized fashion. It wa s therefore a perfect mechanism for 
having a non -litigious exchange of information hopefully to reach some common understanding.  
6.29.   The representative of Panama  thank ed the United S tates for its  report and  the notification 
that it had submitted. Panama remained  interested in t he topic and  request ed that his delegation 
be included in any future discussions and consultation s referred to by the United States . 
6.30.   The General Council took no te of the statements and agreed  to revert to the item at a 
future meeting.  
7  REVIEW OF WAIVERS UN DER ARTICLE IX OF TH E WTO AGREEMENT  
7.1  UNITED STATES – AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT (WT/L/1006)  
7.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, in accordance with p aragraph 4 of  Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement, "any waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the 
Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until the 
waiver terminates."   
7.2.  There wa s one waiv er before the General Council for review: "United States – African Growth 
and Opportuni ty Act". The waiver provided  that an annual report should be submitted by the 
Members concerned regarding the ope ration or implementation of the  waiver with a view to 
facilitating its annual review by the General Council. The report from the United Stat es had  been 
circulated in document WT/L/1006.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 24 - 
 
  7.3.  The representative of Morocco , on behalf of the African Group , thanked the Government of 
the United States for its annual repo rt for 2015 on the implementation of the provisions of the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act of which the African Group was a beneficiary.  
7.4.  Since its launch in 2000, the AGOA program had helped beneficiary countries to develop and 
diversify their exports t o the United States. By providing new opportunities for African exports – 
particularly to non -traditional and higher value -added exports – AGOA stimulated Africa's 
economic growth and contributed to poverty reduction.  
7.5.  As a result, since 2000, non -oil expor ts from Africa to the United States had tripled. As an 
engine of economic growth, AGOA was a symbol of a flourishing partnership between the United 
States and Africa, even though  mineral fuels accounted for  nearly 64.5% of these im ports in 2015, 
compared t o about 75.8% in  2014. Clothing and motor  vehicles and their components we re also 
important categories in US imports.  
7.6.  The African Group therefore seized  this opportunity to tha nk the US G overnment for  its 
trade -related technical assistance to  the AGOA bene ficiary countries  thereby benefiting them from 
trade opportunities  including the initiative on " African Competitivene ss and Trade Expansion".  
7.7.  That instrument of economic and trade cooperation made available to them by the United 
States encouraged them to r edouble thei r efforts in the appropriation of thei r implementation 
mechanisms so that as many A frican countries as possible could benefit particularly for those  
whose economy de pended  mainly on the sale of oil.  
7.8.  Finally, the African Group  would like to expr ess its gratitude to the G overnment of the United 
States for the outputs under the Generalized System of Preferences for the least -developed 
countries and those benefiting from AGOA as reported in  the annual review . That wa s anothe r step 
in the right direc tion which facilitated tho se countries to  better  integrate into the mult ilateral 
trading system through,  inter alia , prod uct diversification, value addition , poverty reduction an d 
employment creation . 
7.9.  The General Council took note  of the report contained i n document WT/L/1006, and of the 
statement.  
8  APPOINTMENT OF OFFIC ERS TO WTO BODIES  
8.1.  The Chairman  reported that , in accordance with the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to 
WTO Bodies approved by the General Council in 2002 in WT/L/510 and the related pr actical steps 
to improve thei r implementation in JOB/GC/22, he , together with the serving Chairperson of the 
Dispute Settlement Body – Ambassador Xavier Carim of South Africa and Ambassador Jonathan 
Fried of Canada – former C hair of the General Council , had conducted consultations on a slate of 
names for the Appointment of Chairpersons to WTO Regular Bodies listed in groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 
in the annex to the Guidelines. During t he process and in light of the coincidence in time of the 
vacancies in two negot iating bodies, consultations had  also been condu cted on new Chairpersons 
for the Dispute Settlement Body in Special Session and the Committee in Agriculture in Special 
Session.  He thanked Ambassador Carim and Ambassador Fried for their assistance.  
8.2.  He recal led that, a t the informal meeting on 24 February, he had given Members a detailed 
report on tho se consultations and  of the several meetings that the selection committee had  held, 
both with group coordinators and w ith individual delegations.  He further  recalled that in 2016 he 
had conducted consultations concerning the guidelines for the Appointment of Officers and in 
particular where the changes had been  necessary to them. He had reported in detail at the  
December GC meeting about those consultations and hi s report could  be found in the minutes of 
that meetin g. During those consultations, he had  not sense d a strong desire to revise or modify 
the guidelines. Although some delegations had brought some ideas to the table, some delegations 
however had expressed concerns during those consultations on some of tho se ideas.  
8.3.  A point which had been  highlight ed during those consultations had been  the need for clarity 
about the guidelines and the practical steps and on how the process of consultations had been 
conducted . In that  regard, a tutorial of th e guidelines for all Members had been  conducted in an 
informal open -ended meeting on 15 December.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 25 - 
 
  8.4.  At that meeting, he had  made a presentation which  highlighted the main principles and 
procedures in the guidelines and in t he so -called practical steps for the implementat ion of the 
guidelines which as he had said we re containe d in JOB/GC/22. In particular, he had  recalled the 
role of group coordinators, the principles of rotation and overall balance. Several delegations had 
intervened highlighting the point that they had considered to be important for the 2017 c ycle and 
useful suggestions had been made. At that meeting, he had  also highlighted the importance of 
starting the process early and allowing sufficient time for group coordinators to conduct 
consultations with their respective constituencies.  
8.5.  In that regard, together with his colleagues, he had  convened all grou p coordinators together 
on 14 December 2016 to allow them to hear each other out and to kick -start the 2017 cy cle earl y. 
Throughout the process of consultations, the selection committee had  remained faithful to the 
guidel ines and the practical steps. They had  kept in mind the points raised during consultations on 
the guidelines and the informal meeting on 15 Decem ber and had maintained the principles of 
transparency and inclusiveness.  
8.6.  As he had said on 24 February, despite all of tho se efforts , the 2017 appointment cycle had  
unfortunately not been easier than those of the  previous years. In fact, it had  turned out to be 
much more difficult. Despite the early start, the list of names proposed fo r the various 
Chairmanships had come  in very late. For one Chairmanship in particular – the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Sessio n (CoA-SS) – once the proposed names had been put forward, any 
spirit of cooperation among coordinators and Members  had vanished.  
8.7.  The difficult situation with the CoA -SS had led to an even more worrying situation – one 
where the whole slate of names for the regular bodies had been put into quest ion. That was  very 
unfortunate as the guidelines clearly provide d that Members should regard the appointment 
exercise as a relatively routine annual housek eeping function whose purpose was  to ensure  that 
the organization continued  to be able to handle its business in a smooth and seamless way which 
should be approached in a way conducive to the smooth conduct of ongoing business.  
8.8.  He stressed that i n line with the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies, 
representatives fro m each and every WTO Member had  the right to Chair any WTO Body at any 
level. The Guidelines point ed out that the choice of a Chairperson should primarily reflect that 
capacity and the availability of that person to undertake the special responsibilities required. In 
addition, the practical steps for the implementation of the Guidelines clearly provide d that 
Members should exercise restraint in blocking consensus on a candidate and should explain their 
reasons why if they we re doing so.  
8.9.  On 24 February, he had  announced that  consultations had  still been ongoing in an effort to 
break the impasse and reach convergence around the Chairmanship of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session and he had  suspended the informal meeting. Consultations 
continued over the weekend and  that morning he had  met again with the Group Coordin ators who 
had been  asked to present a lternative candidates so that they could  come out of the deadlock.  
8.10.   Despite all of tho se efforts including up until the very last minute, he  regret ted to inform 
Membe rs that the situation had not changed. As a result, as he had  said a t the inform al meeting 
on 24 February, the s election committee could  only put forward two names – for the Chairs of the 
General Council and of  the DSB.  
8.11.   He stress ed again how serious the si tuation wa s. Being unable to appoint Ch airs to the 
regular bodies meant that Members  risked paralysing the regular work of the organization. The 
inability to appoint the Chair of the two negotiating bodies meant  that the CoA -SS and the DSB -SS 
could not eve n meet. Work could not advance including in a reas such as Agriculture which wa s 
considered of crucial  importance for MC11 as they had  heard in the 23 February HODs meeting . 
8.12.   The appointment process was complex enough as it was. He  recognize d that being a gr oup 
coordinator wa s not an easy job. At the same time, he  also recognize d that, as he understoo d it, 
the task  of group coordinators wa s to facilit ate the process. And he  fully recognize d the right of 
each and every Member to agree or disagree w ith any part icular matter. But he also believed that 
each and every Member had  the duty to act constructively and not to resort to hostage -taking.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 26 - 
 
  8.13.   The WTO was an organization that wa s Memb er-driven not Member -stalled. Members could 
not m ake the organization work for t hem if they  refuse d to take a step forward together. They all 
came to the  organization in good faith and with the common goal of making the WTO  work for the 
benefit of all. They we re consequently called to accord a modicum of re spect to the processes that 
kept the  organization running such as the appointment cycle.  
8.14.   He believe d that the expectation wa s both reasonable and doabl e particularly as they  
continue d to consult to fill up the positions on the rest of the regular bodies as well as the two 
negotiating  bodies. With their capacity and cooperation, he  trusted that they could make that  
happen.  
8.15.   He then proceeded  with the Chairs of the Genera l Council and the DSB as followed : for the 
General Council – H.E. Mr Xavier Carim of South Africa and for the Dispute Settlement Body – H.E. 
Mr Junichi Ihara of Japan. He  therefore invite d the General Council to take note of the consensus 
for tho se two candidates.  
8.16.   The General Council took note  of the slate of names for the Chairmanship s of the General 
Council and  the Dis pute Settlement Body.  
8.17.   The Chairman  said that c onsultations  on the other chairmanships would  continue af ter the 
meeting and would be led by his successor. He  asked all Members  to wor k urgently towards a 
solution and called on thei r individual and collective  responsibility towards the organization.  
8.18.   The representative of Morocco , on behalf of the African Group , thank ed the Chairman  for all 
his efforts in connectio n with the consultation process and took note of his  conclusions. The African  
Group wished  to advi se that it put up four candidates in the hope of maintaining the same number 
of Ch airs held by the Group in 2016 , while  nonetheless realizing that that number remained  
insufficient and clearl y reflected  a serious imbalance.  
8.19.   Indeed, Africa wa s the least rep resented region in terms of Chairs of subsidiary bodies of 
the various WTO Councils. On behalf o f the African Group, Morocco had  consistently adv ocated 
better representation of the Group within the organization, as evidenced by its  statement under 
Item 17 at the previous General Council meeti ng in December.  
8.20.   The African Group  re-emphasize d the importance of  ensuring representation in the 
organization of  a majority Group which accounted  for one third of the Membership. The African 
Group  therefore insist ed that taking account of its concerns  was in the interest of all Members in 
order to promote the efficiency of a dynamic multilateral trading system and to ensure the smoo th 
running of the o rganization.  
8.21.   The representative of Kenya  congratulated and welcomed the  new Chairs that had  been 
mentioned f or the General Council and for the DSB . He said that it was a historic day . Members 
had had the entry into force of the TFA – the first one for the WTO in over twenty years an d a big 
momentous achievement. He identified  Kenya with it. They were happy and proud of it in Eas t 
Africa as t hey had  already seen the benefits of what it could  do. Although s ome of the aspects had  
been said to be common sense , they had taken a long time to get there. He  therefore welcome d 
them, looked forward to working  with all the Members who had  ratified and hoped  that t he 
remaining ones would ratify  soon.  
8.22.   He congratulated both the Director -General and the Members for the historic debate with 
the Director -General facing them and  answering  their questions. He thanked the outgoing 
coordinators of the ACP and the African Group for ably representing their respective  group s.  
8.23.   With those words, he second ed the proposal that had  been put for ward for the election of 
the Chairs of the General Council and  the DSB. He was certain that Members would surmount the 
stalemate that was facing them concerning the election of Chairs. With the wisdom that they had 
developed in Nairobi of finding ways, they should b e able to fulfil that objective . Although the new 
General Council Chairman would be entering with his hands full, he was confident that he would be 
equal to the task and that they would soon  get new Chairs on the other bodies. Members would  
need to  show flexibility in the process ahead but he was certain th at they would  get there.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 27 - 
 
  8.24.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  express ed Moldova's  gratitude and 
appreciation for the work done by the selection committee, animated by their sincere desire to  find 
a compromise between all four  groups regarding the  Chairmanship  of the  WTO bodies.  
8.25.   Unfortunately, the news and the updates presented on 24 February  by the Chairman of the 
General Council that there wa s no consensus on the appointment process drove Moldova to raise 
some concerns and to offer potential sys temic and holistic solutions in order to prevent such a 
stalemate between the Members  in the interior of the gr oups and also between the group  
coordinato rs and the selection committee. The situation wa s particularly worrying as March  was 
approaching  – a few months before the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. He agree d with the 
Director -General who had highlighted that problem during the Q&A session after his presentation . 
8.26.   Moldova  believe d it could offer a sustainable short -term solution for that block ed situation 
for future processe s. His delegation mad e some systemic and holistic proposal s with respect to the 
principles mentioned in the guidelines for appointment of officers to WTO bodies . At the  pre-final 
stage of consultations,  they could  organi ze a special session with all Members where the list of all 
of the candidates for every position would  be shown on the screen . For those positions having 
problems in reaching consensus or for those having two or more  candidates with similar strength s 
– an open  contest  could be organized between the candidates. To ensure transparency, each of 
the candidates would publicly express his or her own vision pertaining to the improvement of the 
negotiation process an d work of the given committee – following the similar exercise to the  DG 
appointment process.  
8.27.   Moldova strongly recommend ed that after the  end of the  phase of proposing the candidates , 
the next Selection Committee could circulate to all Members the final list of all of the candidat es 
for the existing position s. That would allow interested Members to be more informed in expressing 
their position on certain candidates to the Selection Committee . It would also be  helpful to the 
candidates to potentially reconsider their position or to engage directly in bilateral  consultations 
with other candidates.  
8.28.   The Selection Committee  would clearly benefit from that  practice. Not only would it uphold 
transparency, it would also make their job much easier. Only in that manner could they be more 
transparent and could they  avoid the never ending consultations behind closed doors. It would 
allow them  to better respect the rotation  principle and to decide altogether which group had  the 
right to designate a candidate for a certain Committee.  
8.29.   Each Member had  and should have an equal  right to apply  for certain offices. In that 
process they should look at the person rather  than the Member – his or her availability and 
capacity to moderate and further steer consultations to achieve sustainable progress. Moldova had  
notice d that there wa s no strict rule for which regions could obtain certain offices  except for one or 
a maximum of two .  
8.30.   Moldova wa s ready to be at the table  after 16 years of m embership.  Surprisingly so, there 
were several coun tries in the developed countries  group that were  European , but were not yet 
members of the European Union such as Moldova. Nevertheless, they we re steadily moving 
forward in that direction. In the case of the Republic of Moldova, it had already signed and wa s 
successfully implementing the Moldova -EU Ass ociation Agreements.  
8.31.   His delegation understoo d that for th e European Union colleagues it wa s getting much more 
difficult  to be abl e to convene the current 28 EU m embers  and much more so to include the 
several European countries  with a clear pro -EU accessi on in the discussions of the developed  
countries  group. However,  he still  believe d that his delegation could  also be i nvited once or twice a 
year for the important session of group consultations on the appointment of officers to WTO 
bodies.  
8.32.   It wa s not poss ible to enter the same water of the  same river twice. What they needed to 
do wa s to learn and to study the new water and its new composition. Members should therefore 
learn to adapt to  change  together . Unfortunately, most of the time, they  manage d to adapt  much 
later than necessary  – when the chan ge wa s not only obvious t o everyone but when it already 
became a burden and a challenge to  conducting successful consultations, efficient negotiations and 
obtaining concrete results. Members we re living in an age o f new expressions of interests, WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 28 - 
 
  potentia lly new players – with the desire to contribute to the great global organization. He 
therefore urged them to  work toget her in successfully adapting them selves to the new realities 
and win together.  
8.33.   The representative  of India congratulate d Ambassador Xavier Carim on his confirmation as 
the General Council Chair. It gave her delegation  great confidence to see someone as experienced, 
mature and knowledge able as Ambassador Carim in that  important and difficult role in a  Ministerial 
Conference year. She  assure d him  of India's constructi ve engagement and support as he  
discharge d his responsibilities as the General Council Chair. She  also congratulate d Ambassador 
Junichi Ihara and assure d him of India's constructive engageme nt in the work of the DSB.  
8.34.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
8.35.   The Chairman  announced that consultations  on the other Chairs would  continue after the 
General Council meeting and would be led by his successor. He  asked all Members  to work 
urgen tly towards finding a solution and called on thei r individual and collective responsibility 
toward s the organization.  
8.36.   The Chairman  suspended  the consideration of the  item. The General Council would  
reconvene at an appropriate time to take it up.  
8.37.   At the reconvened meeting on 7 April , the Chairman  (Ambassador Xavier Carim)  request ed 
that the report he had just made at their just concluded  General Council  informal meeting be  
reflected in the minutes of the  General Council meeting  as follows :  
"As I indicated in my convening fax, I wanted to meet with you to report on the results 
of the most recent consultations I have been conducting with respect to the Appointment 
of Officers to WTO bodies, as well as to disseminate the slate of names in accordance 
with the G uidelines (WT/L/510). As you know, these consultations relate to Chairpersons 
to the WTO bodies outlined in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Annex to the Guidelines. We 
have also consulted on the current vacancies in two negotiating bodies; the Dispute 
Settleme nt Body in Special Session (DSB SS) and the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session (CoA SS).   
Allow me to briefly recall that, at the 27 February meeting of the General Council, we 
were unable to reach agreement on the chairmanship for the Co ASS, an d this led to an 
impasse in finalising the full slate of names for the regular bodies, with the exception of 
the General Council itself and the DSB. At that meeting, the consideration of the item on 
the Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies was suspended t o allow consultations to 
continue and, after taking over the chairmanship, I suspended the General Council to 
allow us to reconvene when a solution was found.  
I continued consultations and, on 24 March, I convened an Informal General Council 
meeting to upd ate you on the status of those consultations. At that meeting, I reported 
that Members remained unable to reach agreement on the candidates for the CoA SS 
that had been proposed. As a result, the impasse in finalising the full slate of names for 
the regula r bodies persisted. I stressed that we were in a serious situation and the 
condition was deteriorating. To avoid a further downward spiral, I appealed to all 
Members to take up their full responsibilities by carefully reviewing their positions on the 
propo sed candidates for the CoA SS chairmanship, and to begin to consider the 
possibility of presenting alternate candidates for that position. I proposed to allow a few 
more days for delegations to reflect on the situation and to engage in further 
consultation s.  
Further to this appeal, and in an effort to assist the process, the African Group took the 
initiative of discussing the possibility of presenting a candidate from the Group.  In that 
context, Ambassador Stephen Karau of Kenya very kindly indicated that  he would be 
prepared to assist by making himself available for the chairmanship of the CoA  SS, if he 
had the endorsement of the African Group and if there was agreement by all  Members.   WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 29 - 
 
  On Wednesday this week, the African Group formally endorsed the cand idature of 
Ambassador Karau for the Chairmanship of the CoA SS. I am sure that the entire 
membership acknowledges with gratitude the constructive offer by Kenya and the 
African Group.  
Further to this development, with the assistance of the new DSB Chairman  – 
Ambassador Ihara and the former Chairmen of the General Council – Ambassador Neple, 
I held a meeting with all group coordinators on Wednesday afternoon, to begin to 
complete the full slate of names for the regular bodies, which would then form the basis  
for the group coordinators to continue consultations within their constituencies.  
Consultations within the groups took place on Thursday – yesterday.  
The Selection Committee also made itself available this morning for a final round of 
consultations to h ear the views of any individual delegation wishing to discuss the slate. 
Four delegations came forward to discuss with us.  
The feedback that I have received from all of these most recent consultations is that 
there is no opposition to the slate, and that M embers may therefore be in a position to 
accept the slate as it has been presented at this meeting today.  
I should draw your attention to the fact that only the chairmanship of one of the regular 
bodies – namely the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance  – remains unfilled for 
now and that we will need additional time and consultations to fill that position.  
On this understanding, I will now proceed to read out the slate, starting with the two 
negotiating bodies:  
Committee on Agriculture in Special Sessio n 
 H.E. Mr Stephen Ndungu Karau (Kenya)  
Dispute Settlement Body in Special Session  
 H.E. Mr Coly Seck (Senegal)  
 
Let us now turn to the regular bodies, as follows:  
Trade Policy Review Body  
 H.E. Mr Juan Carlos Gonzalez 
(Colombia)  
 
Council for Trade in G oods 
 
 H.E. Mr Kyonglim Choi  
(Republic  of Korea)  
Council for Trade in Services  
 H.E. Mr Julian Braithwaite  
(United Kingdom)  
 
Council for TRIPS  
 Ms Irene B.K. Young  
(Hong Kong, China)  
 
Committee on Trade and Development  
 H.E. Mr Taonga Mushayavanhu 
(Zimbabwe)  
 
Committee on Balance -of-Payments 
Restrictions  
 H.E. Mr Tudor Ulianovschi ( Republic  
of Moldova)  
Committee on Budget, Finance and  
Administration  
 Mr Peter B rňo (Slovak Republic)  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Committee on Trade and Environment  
 H.E. Mrs Zhanar A itzhanova  
(Kazakhstan)  
 
Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreements  
 H.E. Mr Walid D oudech  (Tunisia)  
Working Group on T rade and Transfer 
of Technology  H.E. Ms Zorica M arić-Djordjević 
(Montenegro)  
 
Committee on Trade Facilitation  H.E. Mr  Daniel Blockert (Sweden)  
 
 
Regard ing the Committee on Trade Facilitation, let me note that when consultations 
began, the TF Agreement had not yet entered into force, and the Preparatory Committee 
was therefore part of the consultations conducted by the General Council – on the 
understandi ng that, as of the next appointment process, consultations on the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Trade Facilitation will be conducted at the level of the 
Goods Council, given that the TF Committee has since become a subsidiary body of that 
Council on the  entry into force of the TF Agreement . 
Appointments for the regular bodies will be for one year as usual, in keeping with the 
general rule in the Guidelines.   
Let me stress at this point that this set of names is a product of months of consultations 
and ha rd work by all involved. In particular, I would like to sincerely thank Ambassadors 
Neple, Fried and Ihara for their very valuable assistance . 
The very serious implications of not having Chairs for WTO bodies cannot be 
overemphasized. In the history of the  WTO, it is the first time that an impasse involving 
almost the entire slate of Chairs has persisted for such a long period. It is an 
extraordinary occurrence that we should by all means prevent from happening again. 
Despite interim solutions put in place,  the impasse has hampered the work of the regular 
bodies affected, including the subsidiary bodies of the Goods and Services Councils, and 
the negotiating groups on the CoA SS and the DSB SS have yet to meet – and this in a 
Ministerial year.  
Before I open the floor, let me also say that if this full set of names enjoys consensus, I 
propose that we immediately resume our regular session to revert to Item 8 of our 
agenda, to take a formal decision in this regard.  
Since there is no one who took the floor today , it is apparent that we have an agreement 
on the slate of names put forward at this meeting. We will now resume our regular 
session of the General Council and revert to Item 8 – Appointment of Officers ." 
8.38.   The Chairman  formally invite d the Ge neral Council t o take note of his  statement and of the 
consensus on the slate of names for th e appointment of officers that he  had just announced in the 
informal meeting – including the chairmanships of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session 
and of the Dispute S ettlement Body in S pecial Session.  
8.39.   The General Council so agreed . 
8.40.   The Chairman  underscore d the point he had  made earlier t hat the Selection Committee 
would  continue consultations to fill the position of the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finan ce 
and that , in that respect, they would  communicate  with Members in due course.  
8.41.   He also  remind ed delegations  that appointm ents for the regular bodies would  be for one 
year as usual, in keeping with the gen eral rule in the Guidelines. Those appointments would be 
made  formally by the WTO bodies concerned at the ir subsequent meetings in 2017.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 31 - 
 
  8.42.   He announce d that, with respect to the process for the appointment of officers to the 
subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods, given that the outgoing Chairma n had  already 
left his post, the selection process would  be conducted by the incoming Chairman of the Goods 
Council.  
8.43.   Regarding the appointment of officers to subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in 
Services, and in accordance with the guidelines, th e outgoing  Chairman would  soon start 
consultations to select Chairs for t he bodies established under that Council.  
8.44.    Further informati on regarding both processes would  shortly be communicated by  the two 
respective Chairs.  Those consultations would  be conducted in ac cordance with the guidelines for 
the appointment of officers and all of the principles enshrined therein, including the principles of 
overall balance and rotation. In order to ensure the efficiency of the process and the balance 
mentioned in the guidelines , the Chairs of the Goods Council and of the Services Council would  
work in close coordination with each oth er.  
8.45.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed his delegation's appreciation for the hard 
work and efforts that  the Chairmen of the General Cou ncil and the DSB  and the coordinators of the 
regional groups had  put into the consultation process for the appointment of officers to the WTO's 
principal bodies. He congratulate d the incoming Chairpersons for 201 7 and assure d them of the 
strong support and  cooperation from  his delegation.  
8.46.   However, h e had  to remind Members  of the key point made by the previous  Chairman at 
the same juncture in the ir 27 February meeting . He had stressed that,  "in line with the Guidelines 
(WT/L/510 and JOB/GC/22 ) for the Appoin tment of Officers to WTO Bodies, representatives from 
each and every WTO Member had the right to Chair any WTO body, at any level."  
8.47.   To his  dismay, despite having played an active and constructive role throughout its 15 years 
as a "full and equal" Member of  the WTO and despite being one of the most successful economies 
and responsible trade participants, o nce again there had been one Member who had never been 
offered the Chair of a principal body of the WTO. He was certain that the Chairman could imagine  
the absurdity and the sense of marginalization and unfairness  felt by that  Member  – not to 
mention the harm that that long-standing systemic issue c ould potentially cause to the WTO as an 
organization.  
8.48.   In the lead up to the formation of the GATT some 70 year s ago, many prominent 
individuals, such as Cordell Hull and James Meade , had been  making the point that intensive 
economic and trade relations among Members could  reduce the risk of unnecessary  conflict.  His 
delegation  was of the view, which he  believe d was shared by other Members as well, that the WTO 
had been  the most important organization  that day in that respect. He  strongly urge d Members to 
exercise restraint on any unrelated issues with in the  forum.  
8.49.   No criticism whatsoever of the Selection Committee  was intended or implied by tho se 
comments. In fact,  many Selection Committee members share d the same uneasiness as he did  
about the situation. His delegation's  main concern wa s that that  kind of unfair treatment of a 
Member or any other Member  could  only s erve to undermine confidence and trust in the 
organization and would  ultimately weaken its ability to achieve its aim of sharing the benefits 
across the whole membership.  
8.50.   It wa s simply for those reasons that he had once again brought  those concerns to the 
General Council's attention . He trusted that they would  be duly noted and acted upon.  He hoped 
that that would be the last time he would  have to make th at kind of remark  and that they would 
have a different scenario and a more reasonable and  rational outco me in 2018 . 
8.51.   The representative of Zimbabwe  thanked the Selection Committee f or the work that they 
had put in  the whole process to achieve the consensus and to overcome the impasse that had 
slowed down the work of the WTO. He was also grateful for his appoi ntment and would take his  
responsibilities seriously . He could  only succeed with the support of the General Council.  
8.52.   The General Council took note of the statements.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 32 - 
 
  9  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON6 
9.1.  The Chairman  thank ed all Members most sincerely for their co operation and friendship during 
his term as General Council Chairm an and for the warm words that he had heard from them . 
9.2.  Members had just finished a challenging but very important year. A year in which – he 
believe d – they had  shared a common sense of responsib ility, in particular in ensuring an effective 
imple mentation of the results that they had been  able to achieve in the last two Ministerial 
Conferences. The recent entry into force of th e TFA wa s a testimony to that.   
9.3.  For him, 2016 had  been the year of con sultations . He did not know how many hours he had 
spent in his  office consulting with individual M embers and with groups. It had  been a demanding 
yet fulfilling pro cess. But as Members knew, they had  not succeeded in all those consultations.  
9.4.  The process of  consultation s was  good for transparency, for consensus -building and for 
maintaining the WTO's Member -driven nature. During his term, Members had engaged with him  in 
several consultative processes on a  variety of different matters.   
9.5.  They had intensive cons ultations o n the venue of the Ministerial C onference and following 
that process the General Council  had agreed that the Eleventh  WTO Ministerial Conference would  
be held  in Buenos Aires, Argentina at the end of the year . 
9.6.  On e-commerce, they had  had a const ructive dialogue following the circulation of several 
submission s by a number of Members on the  topic.  But on this issue they were  always also in sort 
of a deadlock and that the issues we re being dealt with in the individual subsidiary bodies.    
9.7.  At the end  of 2016, they had  engaged in a process of consultation s on whether clarifications 
had been  necessary to the guidelines for the appointment of offic ers. Several suggestions had 
been made and he had been referring to that the previous day when they had  had a discussion on 
the Appointment of Officers.  
9.8.  And at the beginning of the year, they had  engaged in a constructive process of consultation s 
on the DG appointment process  which had culminated that day  with the very positive o utcome of 
the appointment of the  Director -General for a second term.  
9.9.  At the beginning of the year , they also had  had a very intense consultation process on the 
appointment of off icers for 2017. He was not going to repeat all of what he had said  about that 
process but he  hoped that going f orward they would  find a more constructive m ood in the 
Membership so that they could settle that  as soon as possible.  
9.10.   Whether they had  managed to achieve historic results in some cases or had simply held a 
dialogue whic h was going to continue in others, he  believe d they  needed to keep on b uilding on 
their positive results. They  needed to continue to work for the good of the multila teral trading 
system – as the Director -General had  said "keep the jersey of the  multilateral trading system." 
They needed to wor k tirelessly to ensure that inclusive trade continued  to support  growth and 
developments.   
9.11.   Throughout the year, he had  also tried to maintain a regular dialogue with all the Chairs of 
regular bodies and with the Director -General  to ensure that the impleme ntation of the various Bali 
and Nairob i mandates in regular bodies had been given the highest priority. He  would like to thank 
them al l for the fruitful cooperation  and for their support.  
9.12.   And as he  looked ahead, he could  see that they had  other important d eadlines just aroun d 
the corner. They  should all remain committed to  ensuring a positive outcome at the  Ministerial 
Conference at the end of the year.   
9.13.   The General Council had  in Ambassado r Carim a Chairman who treasured the values of the  
organization – and he  wished him all the best in his role that  year. 
                                                
6 This item was taken up on 28 February 2017.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 33 - 
 
  9.14.   He thank ed the Dire ctor-General for his endless co operation and f or his leadership. They  all 
agree d that the organization could not be in better hands  and they had proven that by his 
appointment for a se cond term . 
9.15.   He paid  special tribute to Victor do Prado and Stefania Bernabe and the full team in the 
Council and TNC Division. Their  wise advice and assistance had made his year very easy and he 
thanked them very much.  
9.16.   He noted that his wife was also presen t at the meeting and he thank ed her for her support . 
9.17.   In going back to his  role as the Ambassador of Norway, he assure d Members that  they could 
count on his  continued support to give the new Chairman t he friendship and support that he had 
been fortunate enough to receive from all of them .  
9.18.   Moving  to the e lection of the new Chairperson, he noted that o n the bas is of the 
understanding that had  been reached on the appointment of officers to WTO bodies concerning the 
General C ouncil Chair as announced the previo us day, he  propose d for the General Council to elect 
by acclamation H.E. Ambassador Xavier C arim (South Africa)  as the next Chairperson of the 
General Council .  
9.19.   The General Council so agreed . 
9.20.   The Director -General  said that Ambassador Neple's wisdom and lea dership had  served the 
General Council in the  organiz ation extremely well during his tenure as Chair of the  body. In  facing 
the issues that had come their way, he had  confronted them all head on in his  very peculiar and 
specific pragma tic problem -solving m anner. He had  held countless consultations and meetings on 
a variety of issues from preparations to MC11 to the Appointment of th e new Director -General 
where he had done  an excellent job. At all stages, he had  listened to Members and had ensured 
that their  voices had been heard. He had  kept the door open for all and had remained available to 
provide his help and sound advice. He had been a great support to him personally throughout and 
he would note as well that he clearly had  the implici t trust of Members.  That was extremely 
important. They had seen that in his  work in the lead up to Nairobi and in his tenure as Chair. He 
thought that was something he should be proud of. He thanked him for all his  work and 
dedication. As they  looked towards MC11 and beyond,  he hoped that they could continue to count 
on his  unwavering support as a staunch advocate for the multilater al trading system. Following the 
tradition, he present ed him  with an eng raved gavel as a memento of his  time as Chairman of the 
General Council.  
9.21.   He likewise congratulated Ambassador Cari m on his election. His appointment was a 
testament to his abilities which he had  already demonstrated as the DSB Chair. He was sure that 
he would  do an excellent job as Chair of the General Council during what would be a very 
significant year for all of them . Indeed, the role o f the General Council Chair would  be especially 
crucial in ensuring a smooth process i n the lead -up to Buenos Aires. He had known him  from quite 
some time even fr om their previous existence in G eneva. He had  no do ubts in mind whatsoever 
that he would  do a terrific job . He wished him all the best and expressed his support.  
9.22.   The newly -elected Chairman  said that it wa s a rare privilege and a great honour to be 
selected Chairman of the General Council . He express ed his  sincere gratitude to all W TO 
delegations for confirming his appointment – a first time honour for South Africa and only the 
fourth time that th e Chair had been passed to an African Member since the establishment of the 
WTO. That explaine d his deep gratitude to the African Group, particularly the African Group of 
Ambassad ors in Geneva, for nominating him  as their candidate in the year when  the long rotation 
passed  to Africa.  
9.23.   That privilege  brought  with it  considerable responsibility. He w ould need Members' help in 
discharging tho se duties efficiently  and effectively. He was  fortunate to be in a position to build on 
the best traditi ons and practices of his predecessors. He understood that those "best"  traditions 
and practices demand ed dedic ation, hard work and close cooperation with all Members,  and they 
require d ongoing and practical expressions of the principles of transparency and inclusi veness. On 
that basis, the Chairman should  work to facilitate consensus amongst Members in a f air and WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 34 - 
 
  impartial manner. In the  Member -driven, consensus -based organization, he  expect ed all Members 
to hold him  to those standards.  
9.24.   Like all Members, he  had hoped to be in a position that day to congratulate all the incoming 
Chairs of the regular bodies and the two special sessions. Clearly, the current situation wa s 
untenabl e and an immediate priority should  be to conclude the work initiated by Ambassador 
Neple for an agreed f ull slate as soon as possible. He was  nevertheless pleased to be able to 
congratulate A mbassador Ihara of Japan for his confirmation that day as the incoming C hairman of 
the Dispute Settlement Body.  
9.25.   He expressed his good wishes and congrat ulations to the Director -General on his 
reappointment. His reappointment brought  stabili ty and continui ty to the organization. He  looked 
forward to working more closely with him in the year ahead. He  also look ed forward to working 
closely with and drawing on the institut ional memory and knowledge of the  exceptionally skilled 
Secretariat.  
9.26.   Members were aware  that they  faced a challenging year in which they would need to 
conduct their  regular business alongside preparations for MC11 in  Buenos Aires in December. In 
their day-to-day work and activities, they  should be more deliberate in seeking to build a more 
inclusive multilateralism characterized by greater cooperation and a real sensitivity and empathy 
to the challenges Members confront ed particularly the developmental challe nges of the poorest 
amongst them.  
9.27.   He paid tribute  to Ambassador Neple who had  so ably  and professionally steered the work of 
the Council over the past year. They would  continue to collaborate on some  of the files in the year 
ahead and he  trusted he would  be able to continue to draw on his valuable experience and skill.  
9.28.   The representative of Morocco , on behalf of the African Group , paid tribute to Ambassador 
Neple for the careful attention he had given to the  proceedings a nd for all the contributions he had 
made during his  Chairm anship. The African Group congratulated  Ambassador Carim for t aking over 
the task an d wished  him the best.  The Group also offered him  its congratulations for the 
outstanding way in which he had performed his duties as Chair of t he Dispute Settlement Body, a 
task that wa s by no means  easy.  The Group  therefore welcomed  the appointment of Ambassador 
Carim a s incoming Chair of the Council  as it did that  African Chairmanship. The African Group also 
congratulated Ambassador Ihara for his appointment and wished  him every success and assur ed 
him of the Group's support.  
9.29.   Regard ing the coordination of the African Group , he inform ed the General Council  that 
Morocco' s role as Group Coordinator would end at the close of the meeting. The task then fell to 
Ambassador François Xavier of the Republic of Rwanda who would be  taking over t he coordination 
of the Group for the coming year – a task for which he  offered him his congratulations whilst 
assuring him of his  full support and cooperation.  
9.30.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  thanked  Ambassador Neple f or his 
outstanding e ffort and c ongratulate d Ambassador Carim  for his election as Chairman of the 
General Council.  
9.31.   The representative of Rwanda , on behalf of the ACP , paid tribute to Ambassador Neple for 
his tireless effo rts in steering the work of the General Council . His lea dersh ip and wisdom had  
contributed in facilitating the Membership's decision -making on key number of issues. The ACP  
Group also  welcome d the election of Ambassador Carim. His  long experie nce, wisdom and 
knowledge on  WTO matters and processes should undoubt edly be a grea t asset in ably discharging 
his responsibilities in his new role. The ACP  assure d him of its  relentless support throughout the 
whole process towards MC11 and beyond.   
9.32.   The representative of Brazil , on behalf of GRULAC , thank ed Ambassador Neple  for his 
extraordinary contribution. Members had learned to respect and admire him. They all trusted him. 
He was exemplary, full of wisdom and  always  serene.  GRULAC also welcomed Ambassador Carim 
in his new position and  wished him all the best. He could co unt on GRULAC's support. The Group 
also congratulate d Africa on his nomination. On a per sonal note, he had been honoured to be his  
counterpart in Mercosur -SACU negotiations ten years ago – making it a pleasu re to see him in that  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 35 - 
 
  position. GRULAC likewise e xtended  its best wis hes to Ambassador Ihara . In a moment of growing 
pressure on t he dispute settlement system, Members  could not be in better hands.  
9.33.   The representative of Uganda  express ed his delegation's  sincere appreciation and 
congratulations to Ambass ador Hara ld Neple for the manner in which he had conducted the work 
in the Council. In him, Uganda had seen balance, trans parency and objectivity that he had brought 
to the office  including but not limited to the delicate matters  and for continuing the tra dition in the  
Council of reviewing the implementation of all the Bali and N airobi Ministerial Decisions. Uganda  
wished him well in his  future endeavo urs. 
9.34.   Uganda also congratulate d Ambassador Xavier C arim for his election . It always gave his 
delegation imme nse pride to see an accomplished Afr ican elevated to high office. Uganda was 
confident in his ability to execute that  task with skill, patience and  calm as he had  always done. As 
proud Africans themselves, his delegation  wished him well and expressed its support  to him .  
9.35.   The representative of Kenya  congratulate d the ne w Chairs of the General Council – 
Ambassador Xavier Carim  and of the Dispute Settlement B ody – Ambassador Junichi Ihara, and 
wished them well in their new appointments. He also  welcome d new co lleagues, among them 
Ambassador Dr  James Alex Mjekela of the United Republic of Tanzania, a fellow East African 
colleague . He associate d him self with the statements made by the African and the ACP Group s and 
congratulate d the two coordinators for their exc eptional performance in discharging their duties.   
9.36.   The representative of Cameroon  congratulated Ambassador Carim for his new role which 
was important for the  organization especially during a Ministerial year. In his introductory words, 
he had  mentioned inclusive multilateralism. It had been wonderful to hear him mention that 
because it recalled the fact that all Members  wished his  mission to end in success.  
9.37.   Cameroon  also welcome d the work of Ambassador Ne ple who, amongst his other high 
qualities, had  shown  his ability to listen especi ally on contentious issues . Cameroon likewise 
welcome d the work of the Director -General. Even if he had  not yet come to Cameroon, he had  
nevertheless done some exce llent work at the WTO. Cameroon knew that it had  not been due t o 
his omission and noted that his upcoming work would  just be as successful.  
9.38.   The representative of the Dominican Republic , on behalf of the IGDC , thank ed Ambassador 
Harald Neple for his work as the Ch airman of the General Council. The IGDC also  congratulat ed 
Ambassador Xavier Carim – an ambassador of a country that had been a proactive member of the 
IGDC. He could  count on the IGDC's full support for the successful  implementation of his work . 
9.39.   The representative of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDCs , congratula ted Ambassador Neple for 
his accomplishments during his tenure and wished him all the best in his future endeavour s. The 
LDCs also welcome d and congratulate d Ambassador Carim on his  election as the Chairman of  the 
General Council. Under his  able leade rship, the interest of LDCs would be taken into account at 
MC11. The Group likewise  congratulate d Ambassador Ihara for his election as the DSB Chair.  
9.40.   The representative of Iran, speaking as an Observer , expressed Iran's appreciation to 
Ambassador Harald Neple for his  unsparing efforts during his term . Iran congratulated Ambassador 
Carim on his new role as the Chairman of the General Council – an important body of the WTO, 
and wish ed him  great success. He also conveyed sincere congratulations from the Islamic Re public 
of Iran to Mr Roberto Azevêdo  for his well -deserved appointment as the WTO Director -General for 
a second term. His wisdom and leadership we re notewor thy and appreciated as they would  shed 
light for the future work of such an important organization t owards achieving its o bjectives.  He 
wished him success a nd prosperity for the task he was  entrusted with in the years ahead.  
9.41.   The newly -elected Chairman  thank ed all delegations who had  spoken for thei r kind words 
and offers of genero us support for the year ahead. He would certainly  need to draw on that.  
9.42.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
9.43.   The newly -elected Chairman  recalled that the General Council had agreed to suspend the 
consideration of Item 8 on the appointment o f officers to WTO bodies. H e would  therefor e continue 
consultations on that  matter. T he General Council would  be reconvened at the ap propriate time to WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 36 - 
 
  revert to that item. He  reiterate d the call made by Ambassador Neple to work urg ently towards 
resolving the  issue and t o show flexib ility. He  asked all Members to be ready to be called back to 
that meeting  at short notice. With those words, the General Council meeting wa s suspended.  
10  MSME s – STATEMENT BY THE PHI LIPPINES7 
10.1.   The representative of the Philippines , on behalf of Brunei Darussa lam, Lao P eople's 
Democratic Republic , Malaysia  and the Philippines , speaking under "Other Business" , report ed that 
the MSMEs initiative continued . In the recently concluded informal Ministerial  meeting in Davos, 
they had  heard some Members cite d MSMEs as a possible deliverable for the u pcoming MC11. In 
the United Nations , there wa s a resolution to celebrate Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Day on 
27 June every y ear. Numerous other activities we re spearheaded by UNCTAD, ITC, World Bank 
and other organizat ions to benefit MSMEs.  
10.2.   In the WTO, it was well -known that there wa s scope within the work of the committees in 
terms of the implementation and monitoring of existing agreements to further improve the 
mechanism and the delivery of service in a manner that MSMEs would understand, benefi t and 
take advantage of. It did  not make sense that WTO provisions we re operational only up to the 
level of medium and large enterprises. Those  would be useful also  for micro and small en terprises . 
10.3.   Hence, they  recognize d the w ork undertaken by the WTO in particular the Council for Trade 
in Services, the Council for Trade in Goods, the TRIPS Council, the Committee on Trade and 
Development, the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance, and the Aid for Trade  initiative  to 
continue  its discussion and examination on aspects of MSMEs relevant to their respective areas of 
competence.  
10.4.   Given MSMEs' potential to d rive growth and job creation, they had a responsibility to 
examine tho se issues and explore what steps could be taken in the W TO and elsewhere to lower 
the barriers and release  the full potential of MSMEs. They  believe d that there was a need to 
continue thei r conversation on MSMEs by pursuing more substantive and concrete interventions in 
the specific committees to enhance partic ipation of MSMEs by seeking appropriate arrangements 
within the existing framework of the  WTO and its subsidiary bodies. Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, 
Malaysia and the Philippines would  continue t o consult with Members on how they could  bring that  
initiative  to MC11. The Philippines had also  circulated a summary report in  document  
WT/GC/ W/731. 
10.5.   The representative of Nigeria  recall ed and underscored the fact that one of the five pillars in 
the Visions of Nigeria regarding Industry, Trade and Investment wa s to ensure that Nigeria 
achieved  inclusive growth within their economy by also championing the cause o f MSMEs to create 
jobs and inclusi ve growth. To that extent, the Nigerian Government had  been organizing a series 
of clinics to enable bureaus to regulate free  agencies to direct ly interview  MSMEs in orde r to 
address their challenges. Based on the int ervention by the Philippines, Nigeria took  note of the 
resolution by the UN to celebrate MSMEs Day on 27 June  every year – a commitment that the 
Nigerian G overnment  was also associated with. His delegation also took  note of th e 2015 World 
Report referring to  MSMEs ' potential to drive growth and create jobs. Members had  the 
responsibility to examine those issues. The exploratory step could be taken at the WTO and also  
elsewhere in order to lower the barriers and release the full potential of MSMEs.  
10.6.   Nigeria believed that there was a need to continue their  conversation on MSMEs by pushing 
more substantive and concrete interventions in the specific committees in order  to enhance the 
participation of  MSMEs by seeking appro priate relations between the existing frameworks of t he 
WTO and its subsidiary body. Nigeria would  continue to engage constructively and with an open-
mind to ensure that Members  would advance that  particu lar initiative.  
10.7.   The representative of Argentina  recalled that his delegations had express ed on several 
occasions its  interest in  the enhanced  participation of MSMEs  in the work carried out by the 
organization. In that sense, Argentina support ed the Philipp ines and other Members' initiative and 
express ed its  openness to working with the Philippines and others who wish ed to see concrete 
results in the field of MSMEs at MC11 in Buenos Aires.  
                                                
7 Items under Other Business were  taken up on 27 February 2017.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 37 - 
 
  10.8.   The representative of Switzerland  reiterate d its support to the initi ative of the Philip pines 
and other Members  and their efforts to build a dialogue dedicated to the challenges faced by 
MSMEs when accessing foreign markets and competing in i nternational trade. Switzerland thank ed 
them for the recent circulation of a summar y report of the activities that had taken place in 2016 
under the initiative and looked  forward to an in -depth reading of its findings and 
recommendations.  
10.9.   A first read seemed  to confirm that MSMEs face d bigger trade costs, had  less access  to 
information and we re more vulnerable to non -tariff barriers than medium and large one s 
particularly in developing countries. As a result, even in novative and competitive MSMEs we re 
sometimes unable to acces s global markets. To reduce the gap, Members  needed to strengt hen 
their efforts towards developing solutions and tools through cooperation in order to make trade 
truly inc lusive. In order to achieve that, Switzerland echoed the suggestion made by the 
Philippines and their co -sponsors to pursue more substantive and co ncrete discussions in specific 
committees and groups relevant to their areas of competence such as, inter alia , trade facilitation, 
non-tariff barriers, non -preferential rules of origin and e -commerce.  
10.10.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
11  MIKTA  WORKSHOP ON TRADE AN D INVESTMENT  – STATEMENT BY AUSTRAL IA 
11.1.   The representative of Australia , on behalf of Mexico , Indonesia , Republic of Korea , Turkey , 
and Australia , speaking under "Other Business" , announce d that the MIKTA Countries would  host a 
MIKTA Wor kshop on Trade and Investment on 20 March 2017.  
11.2.   The Workshop would  bring together experts from WTO Members , relevant international 
organiz ations and institutions, industry and other non -government st akeholders to exchange views 
on the important link betwee n trade, investment and development, recent developments in trade 
and investment facilitation, and the role of the WTO.  
11.3.   Like previous MIKTA activities held in 2016 including the Workshop on E -Commerce in July 
and the Works hop on the WTO and Agenda 2030 in October, the Workshop aimed  to facilitate an 
open discussion among WTO Members on issues r elevant to international trade. MIKTA would  be 
circulating the program in the coming days and would encourage all interested Members to 
participate actively in the di scussion.  
11.4.   The representative of Mexico  joined Australia and reiterate d the invitation to other WTO 
Members for them to take  part in the workshop which would be held on 20 March. The event , 
which was open to all Members , could provide an ideal platform fo r experts from different 
organiz ations, NGOs, representatives of the private sector and other Member s to exchange their 
opinions on the relationship between global trade, investment and economic development, as well 
as on the r ole that could be played by the  WTO with a better understanding of that  relationship.  
11.5.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  recalled that in 2016 MIKTA had held  a 
consultative forum based on innovative partnership and  had started the cooperati on activities in 
the WTO like what th ey did in other international organizations. It had been  a fairly successful 
launch with two workshops: one on e -commerce and the other one  on the WTO and the UN 
Agenda 2030. In 2017, Australia had introduced the start of thei r work with the work shop on 
investment – an important subject at  the G20 meeting. Like the  workshop on e -commerce, the 
MIKTA countries hoped that it could provide the  opportunity  for all Members to discuss  important 
issues. The workshop would  be held on 20 March at the WTO and hoped that they  could have as 
many Members as possible.  
11.6.   The representative of China  welcome d the initiative  and look ed forward to the work shop 
initiated by MIKTA which would be a valuable platform for Members  to explore how the WTO could 
enhance the coherence of trade and investment policies.  
11.7.   During t he G20 Hangzhou Summit in 2016 , G20 economists had adopted the "Guiding 
Principles for Global Investment Policymaking ", which had provided important guidance at the 
policy level. The business communities  – represente d by the B20 – had called on the WTO to WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 38 - 
 
  further explore the possibility of advancing discussions on trade and investment issues, particularly 
on investment facilitation.  
11.8.   Along those lines, China  believe d that it could be the time for  Members to deepen the  
discussion on what the role of the WTO could be in coordinating investment  facilitation and trade. 
In that  regard, an open and informal dialogue on investment facilitation for development could  be 
necessary in the WTO. The purpose of such a dialogue would  be to exchange information and 
views, without limiting or prejudging the possible outcomes, on how the WTO could  contribute to 
facilitating investment flows with the aim of helping its Members – especially developing Members 
and LDCs – to build their expo rt capacity, enhance trade facilitation, both their ability to 
participate in Global Value Chains and e -commerce, and achieving the 2030 Sustain able 
Development Goals. All Members should be welcomed to participate in the dialogue and to submit 
proposals fo r further discussion and study.  
11.9.   Bearing that  in mind,  China and like -minded Members we re reaching out to as many 
Members as possible with the aim of  working together in an open -ended " Friends of Investment 
Facilitation for  Development  (FIFD) Group ".  China  encourage d Members to join. The FIFD would  
focus its discussion on new and cooperative approa ches to facilitating investment  rather than on 
more controversial subjects such as investment establishment, protection and dispute settlement.  
11.10.   Following the MIK TA event, another workshop on Investment Facilitation for Development 
could also be  neces sary before the summer break. China  looked forward to working with  Members 
to explore possibilities to move that  discussion forward in the near future.  
11.11.   The representat ive of the Russian Federation  thanked MIKTA countries for their initiative to 
organize a workshop on tra de and investment in the WTO. Russia  welcome d investment -related 
issues as important issues for the discussion on the  way forward to MC11.  
11.12.   Taking into account the growing interest in the topic, Russia  hoped that the workshop 
would  contribute to building a common und erstanding on how investment could  benefit trade, 
economic growth and development and provide the membership with a precious opportunity to 
share views and policies on investment facilitation.  
11.13.   Both foreign an d domestic investors could benefit from  investment facilitation as it would 
boost  economic growth and development. As discussion s within various international fora show ed, 
the demand for disciplines focusing on facilitation measure s was widely recogniz ed.  
11.14.   Investment facilitation measures contribute d to a healthy investment climate, decreasing 
administra tive burden on the investor. Those measures could  include, inter alia , transparency, 
streamlining and simplifying procedures, government -investment feedback, dispute prevention and 
amicable resolution of disputes, responsible business conduct and corporate govern ance standards 
for investments.  
11.15.   While giving its  warm welcome to the MIKTA initia tive, Russia believed that it wa s time for 
Members to disc uss ways for further improving the  investment climate  by focusing  on increased 
efficiency for both inve stors and recipient economies. He  announce d that the Russian Federation 
intended  to circulate i ts more detailed pos ition on the  issue shortly.  
11.16.   The representative of Chile said that  that wa s an issue that had always been present in the 
framework of GATT, the WTO, the General Agreemen t on Trade in Services and others. T he 
worksho p was therefore timely . Chile  welcome d the initiative and had great expectations of it 
particularly in  looking at how the WTO could  handle the situation of trade and investment.  
11.17.   Furthermore, Chile believe d that the proposal from China was  interesting  for it would help 
Members exchange information, ideas and  initiatives and open up dialogue in  an informal 
environment, as had  been pro posed in order to deal with that  topic and to move on to a more 
formal handling of that  topic further down the line. Chile joined others in con gratu lating both 
initiatives. His delegation would put across to the Chilean Government tho se two initiatives in 
order to see the concrete way in which they would  be involved in the process being proposed.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 39 - 
 
  11.18.   The representative of Argentina  referred to its stateme nt at the  23 February HoDs meeting 
and reiterated Argentina's  great interest in begi nning a conversation on  trade and investment. As 
had been stated by China, Argentina understoo d that a dialogue on facilitat ing investment in the 
WTO wa s important for the integration of deve loping Members  in exports. His delegation therefore  
support ed the Friends of Investment Facilitati on for Development Group and would like to join it.  
11.19.   Argentina  also believe d that the workshop organiz ed by MIKT A was a contr ibution to the  
dialogue on that important topic  for the WTO given the intimate relationship  between trade and 
investment. The open dialogue in the WTO would undoubtedly  lead to improving opportunities for 
developing Members  facing the challenges of an ever more complex world.  
11.20.   The representative of Nigeria  noted with keen interest the announcement  by Australia on 
behalf of MIKTA and thanked China for the initiative on investment facilitati on for development. 
Nigeria would fully support that  initiativ e and was already a  part of the Friends of Investment 
Facilitation for Development.  
11.21.   At the recent Davos I nformal Ministerial gathering, the Honourable Minister of Industry, 
Trade and Investment  of Nigeria,  Dr. Enelamah , had gi ven positive reactions on Nigeria's  proactive 
engag ement on trade a nd investment issues at the WTO as preparatory work continued  for MC11.  
Investme nt attraction and facilitation we re key priorities for Nigeria for growth and diversification. 
The dialogue should be defined and managed in such a way that wa s open and  that engaged  all 
WTO Members inclusively, constructively, positively and without prejudice to the final outcomes. 
Therefore, Nigeria wished  to express its support and willingness to work cooperatively with other 
Members to deepen the technical d iscussions and to explore the possibility of a future work 
programme in  the area. That initiative wa s considered as supporting Nigeria's overall priority push 
for economic recovery and an enabling environment for business and reaping the gains from 
investm ent facilitation.  
11.22.   In addition, Nigeria  welcome d the announcement by Austral ia on behalf of MIKTA to 
organiz e a technical workshop in March 20 17 aimed at reaching techni cal discussions. T o date, 
national and intern ational investment policies had  paid relat ively little attention to investment 
facilitatio n. To that end, the need to create a framework in  which Members would be comfortable 
to take the  initiative forward and build consensus would be crucial given its  growing relevance.  
11.23.   The representative of Pakistan believe d that there we re increasing interlinkages between 
trade, investment and sustainable developmen t in the global economy. In that context, Pakistan  
welcome d the MIKTA initiative of organiz ing the workshop . His delegations also  strongly endorse d 
the views expressed by China  and welcome d the idea of a  Friends of Investment Facilitation f or 
Development (FIFD) Group. A n exchange of information and ideas in that area was important. 
There wa s a need to provide a forum for Members to discuss the growing importance of foreign 
investment for developing and least-developed country Members . 
11.24.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that attracting investment wa s a priority for 
many economies but  so far the overall emphasis had  been on promotional efforts an d providing 
incentives. More could be done on this area to make  it easier to actually invest. With enhancing 
coherence between trade and investment policies, the determination of the role the WTO could 
play in facilitating investment  would be helpful . 
11.25.   Hong Kong, China looked  forward  to the MIKTA workshop where those points would  be 
addressed. Given G20's substant ive work on investment in 2016  and the renewed interest of many 
Members in that topic, the MIKTA workshop wa s both timely and useful.  
11.26.   Hong Kong, C hina also welcome d China's initiative to launch an informal dialogue on 
investment facilitation for development and to  set up a friends group for that purpose. Her 
delegation  appreciate d the fo cus on development. Investment wa s a driver for development and  
sustainable economic growth. It wa s important for investment to be ch annelled to developing 
country Members  and LDCs so that th ey could  build export capacity and participate more actively 
in global value chains.  
11.27.   Hong Kong, China took  an interest in the v arious initiatives taken by Members in relat ion 
to investment facilitation and hoped that more discussions would deepen thei r und erstanding of WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 40 - 
 
  that subject and s hed light on the way forward. Her delegation  encourage d Members to work 
together and to make us e of every opportunity to identify and ar ticulate common interest in that  
area. Hong Kong, China would make its  best efforts to contribute.  
11.28.   The representative of Singapore  thanked  MIKTA and China for their initiatives on trade and 
investment and investment  facilitation for development. Those we re important issues for 
developed  and developing country Members  alike and we re relevant to the WTO's work. Singapore  
looked forward to en gaging with other Members on tho se important issues.  
11.29.   The representative of Brazil welcome d MIKTA 's announcement made by Australia and  
looked forward to the seminar in March. Brazil  consider ed it to be a timely initiative as investment 
facilitation wa s an issue of interest for an  increasing number of Members. As it had mentioned  at 
the 23 February HoDs meeting, Brazil was also interested in that issue as long as there was an 
agreement that they would not discuss investment protection  rules and dispute settlement. In that  
spirit, Brazil  welcome d China's proposal to launch an open and in formal dialogue on investment 
facilitation for development and to create a Friends of Investment Facilitation for D evelopment 
Group. Brazil intended  to take part in that group's discussions . 
11.30.   The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  welcomed the  various initiati ves relating to trade, 
facilitating investment and development by MIKTA and China. However, C ôte d'Ivoire  would 
greatly appreciate if the Secretariat, under the auspices of the General Council, could organize an 
activity to discuss  the link between trade a nd investment facilitation, and development.  
11.31.   The representative of Turkey  thank ed Australia for  leading trade and inv estment issues in 
MIKTA. As MIKTA's coordinator for 2017, Turkey and the MIKTA Countries would  continue their  
efforts on trade -related iss ues in an explanatory, innovative manner compatible with WTO 's spirit 
of dialogue. Turkey was  hopeful that all Members would join MIKTA in tho se efforts.  
11.32.   The representative of Canada  appreciate d such broad indications of interest – Australia and 
MIKTA, Ch ina building on its  successful G20 Chairm anship and others – to discuss or to encourage 
Members to discuss how facilitating investment could  assist in sustainable development alongside 
promoting trade and t he kinds of domestic policies they had talked abou t. If there was – as it 
sounded  like from Brazil and others – going to be a group offsite that we re Friends of th e Chair or 
Friends of the Issue and there was a workshop , the next question would be where could the topic 
be discussed? That would  certainly not be under " other busi ness"  at the General Council.  
11.33.   Canada  encourage d those – and it was happy to join – who we re Friends, to think about 
how best to promote a constructive conversation that would  not be a negotiation abou t investment 
protection, that wo uld not be rule -making but would be  an exploration of facilitating investment in 
aid of development – whether at the WTO or looking at what other organiz ations like the World 
Bank and UNCTAD were doing – but the topic needed a home. Canada would be happy t o see that 
happen  and thanked those who  had introduced  that topic at the meeting.  
11.34.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
12  ADMINISTRATIVE MATTE RS FOR MC11 – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
12.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", said a few words a bout the Ministerial 
Conference which – as had been  agreed by the General Council – would  take place in Bu enos Aires 
in December. As Members  move d on in the prepa ratory process for MC11, there we re a number of 
administrative matters on which the General Co uncil should  to take a decision on in the first part 
of 2017.  Tho se include d: the Election of Officers for the Conference; the Attendance of Observers 
from Governments and International Intergovernmental Organizations;  and the Attendance of 
NGOs. His succ essor would  theref ore conduct consultations on tho se matters for the General 
Council to be in a position to take a decision as soon as possible.  
12.2.   He also remind ed Members that they  urgently need ed their  support f or the LDC Trust Fund 
which would  be used to support LDC participation at t he Conference. So far, they had  received one 
commi tment for a contribution which was deeply appreciated. But they still had a long way to go.  
It was  estimate d that the overall cost of the  normal level of support fo r LDC parti cipation in MC11 
would  approximate CHF 840,000.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 41 - 
 
  12.3.   The longer it would take to receive  contributions, the more expensive the endeavour would 
become since air ticket prices would  increase as the conference drew closer. He  therefore strongly 
encourage d Members  to ask thei r authorities to consider making a contribution and to do so as 
soon as possible.  
12.4.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
13  ADMINISTRATIVE MEASU RES FOR MEMBERS IN A RREARS  – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
13.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Bu siness" , recalled  that at its meeting  in 
October  2012, the General Council had approved a recommendation from the Budget Committee 
regarding revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears which had entered into force on 
1 January  2013. Among those Measures there was a requirement that at the end of each 
GC meeting the CBFA Chair should provide information with regard to which Members and 
Observers were under Administrative Measures. He invited Ambassador Inga Ernstsone (Latvia) to 
provide the Counci l with that information.  
13.2.   Ambassador Inga Ernstsone (Latvia), Chairperson of the CBFA , stated all Members and 
Observers under all categories of Administrative Measures  as at 27 February 2017. There we re 
currently 33 Members and 5 Observers under Administrat ive Measures. She  recall ed that Members 
and Observers had received their assessment letters for the 2017 Contributions to the WTO 
Budget in early December 2016 . As at the start of every year, a numb er of Members and 
Observers beca me subject to Administrati ve Measures and some change d categories. In addition, 
the Director -General had notified tho se Members by letter on 13 February 2017.  
13.3.   There we re currently 19 Members and 2 Observers in Category 1: Afghanistan; Antigua and 
Barbuda; Benin; Plurinational State  of Bolivia; Democratic Republic of Congo; El Salvador; 
Grenada; Guinea; Lesotho; Malawi; Mozambique; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Rwanda; Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines; Solomon Islands; Swaziland; Uganda; Vanuatu; Lebanon (Observer) 
and Uzbekistan (Obse rver). There we re 3 Members and 1 Observe r in Category 2: Cameroon; 
Congo; Dominican Republ ic and Sudan (Observer). There we re 11 Members and 2 Observers in 
Category 3: Burundi; Central African Republic; Djibouti; Dominica; the Gambia; Guinea -Bissau; 
Mauri tania; Niger; Sierra Leone; Suriname; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Libya (Observer) 
and São Tomé and Príncipe  (Observer).  
13.4.   The Chairman  said that under the new revised Administrative Measures he was also 
required at each meeting to request Members and Observers in Categories II and III of the 
Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment of arrears could be expected.   
13.5.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
 
_______________  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 42 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
PRESENTATION BY DIRE CTOR -GENERAL AZEVÊDO AND QUESTIONS FROM DELEGAT IONS  
Presentation  by Director -General Azevêdo  
 
Let me start by thanking the Chair and members for the opportunity to address you today.  
 
I'd like to thank you for your support over this period, as well as the team here — the Deputy 
Directors-General, those who support me directly in my office, and the whole Secretariat.  
 
It has been a great honour to serve you all over these last almost four years.  
 
There is  no doubt that these are challenging times for the multilateral trading system. B ut, in a 
different way, this was also the case four years ago.  
 
In 2013 it was commo nplace to say the WTO was at a "critical moment" or even "on the brink" . 
 
There was a tangible sense of crisis back then — and it was very real. We had not delivered any 
major multilaterally negotiated outcomes since 1995. The credibility of the organization was in the 
balance.  
 
I recall very well my presentation to you as a candidate for the position of Director -General in 
January 2013 in this room. I took the opportunity t o set out my aims for the role. And I pledged: 
to strengthen all pillars of the organization; to help you breathe life into our negotiating work; and 
to hit the ground running.  
 
I think that, with your help, I have delivered on those pledges.  
 
Within 100 d ays of taking office as Director -General we agreed the Bali package.  
 
That success belongs to you all, and I would like to think that I helped you to make it happen.  
 
The Bali package was a historic moment. It was a first for the organization. And it deliv ered 
reforms that will make a real difference — particularly for our poorest members.  
 
Then, just two years later, we did it again.  
 
We delivered a new package of measures in Nairobi — including our biggest agriculture reform. 
Again, development was at the  centre of the package.  
 
And at the same time, some M embers also struck a deal to expand the Information Technology 
Agreement, delivering the first major tariff -cutting agreement at the WTO since 1996.  
 
This is, by any measure, a dramatic shift in gears. I t is a success story for the organization.  
 
And these breakth roughs were no fluke. They didn' t happen because conditions became favourable 
all of a sudden. They happened because we worked hard and — crucially — because M embers 
were creative, flexible and p ragmatic. The stars didn’t align; we aligned the stars. We need to 
learn from that experience.  
 
In my presentation four years ago I also pledged to bring the DDA to the fore — and that is what 
we did, though progress was hard to come by.  
 
You will recall t he situation back then. The DDA had been stalled since 2008. Engagement had all 
but ceased. So, after Bali, we tried to get the round moving once again. We stopped avoiding the 
tough issues. We put them front and centre. We tried fresh approaches. We built  trust. And we 
achieved a huge amount of engagement.  
 
We set parameters for this work: development at the centre; doability; balance; creativity; 
inclusivity; urgency; and open -mindedness.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 43 - 
 
  Members were talking to each other and putting forward new ideas o n many of the key issues. We 
tried every approach we could think of — particularly during 2015.  
 
We worked hard and faced difficulties openly and honestly.  
 
We did all that, but still we could not bridge the gaps between members'  positions.  
 
Those gaps rem ain today, and so the work must continue. These issues are critical for a large 
number of M embers. We must keep working to take them forward and find ways to bridge those 
gaps.  
 
Clearly M embers have different views on how this should be done, as we saw in  the Nairobi 
declaration. However, all Members  are committed to pushing these issues forward.  
 
This is something I hear frequently from Members . But I also hear about the need for the system 
to continue to deliver — and to maintain the momentum that we hav e built up.  
 
The successes of Bali and Nairobi achieved more than the sum of their parts; much more than 
simply 2 packages or 16 ministerial decisions.  
 
Beside s making a difference to people' s lives and livelihoods across the membership, they also 
showed that the WTO is a place where you can do busi ness. And they showed that 164 M embers 
can work together in a meaningful way to solve the complex problems that they face.  
 
We need to maintain this habit of delivering — we should keep trying to make incrementa l 
progress and harvest outcomes wherever and whenever we can.   
 
Aside from negotiations, progress has also been made in strengthening the other pillars of our 
work.  
 
The dispute settlement system is in higher demand than ever — and it is performing well.  
 
The system is being used very actively. 98 Members  have participated as parties or third parties, 
with equal participation from both developed and developing Members . The system has dealt with 
well over 500 complaints since the WTO was created. And over t he last few years we have seen a 
significant increase in the number and complexity of cases.  
 
When I became DG the system was under significant strain, and we acted quickly to respond to 
this. We made a series of changes to increase the resources available  for this work — within the 
budgetary parameters set by you.  
 
As a result we got rid of the queue, and we continue to deal effectively with a huge caseload. But 
that doesn 't mean the situation is sustainable. I have to be frank with you. The system has no 
spare capacity to respond to any future rise in cases. We must continue finding ways to strengthen 
this pillar of our work.  
 
The reallocation of resources to the dispute settlement system was carried out as part of a 
thorough strategic review of the whole Secretariat.  
 
Working within the confines of a zero -growth budget and the cap on personnel, my aim was to 
respond to Members ' concerns in a range of areas, including on the structure of the Secretariat 
and on some particular processes.  
 
The reforms leading  from that exercise are now being put in place, and I think we are on track to 
make a very significant range of improvements. This will allow us to provide better services to 
Members  and better opportunities and working conditions for staff.  
 
The regular w ork of the WTO bodies continues to grow in importance. For example, the SPS and 
TBT committees are increasingly active, with Members  using these forums to raise and solve 
problems in a practical way and on a rolling basis. This is essential work — and it r ecalls the 
original vision for the WTO: a permanent negotiating forum.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 44 - 
 
  In addition to the task of monitoring existing commitments, the committees were also envisioned 
as standing bodies where Members  could be engaging, talking and bringing in experts with  the 
idea of helping to advance rules and improve the texts in a pragmatic, incremental manner on a 
day-to-day basis. Perhaps this is something that Members  should consider encouraging more of in 
the future.  
 
Our monitoring work has also gained prominence in recent years. We are working to refine and 
strengthen this effort, including through improvements to the Trade Policy Review process.  
 
The entry into force of the TRIPS amendment and Trade Facilitation Agreement are clear signs that 
Members  are implemen ting the commitments made. We need to see this kind of resolve in 
implementing all decisions. Nonetheless these recent breakthroughs are very welcome.  
 
The TRIPS amendment languished for 11 years between being agreed in 2005 and coming into 
force last mont h. 
 
I queried the status of the amendment when we started discussing ratification procedures for the 
TFA and I was shocked to realise that this important measure had not been followed through. This 
was a developing country initiative — mostly an African in itiative — that could have tremendous 
impact on the ground and we needed to deliver it promptly.  
 
That is  why we decided to try to put fresh momentum behind the amendment — and to good 
effect. Around 37% of the ratifications needed were received in the las t 2 years.  
 
Its entry into force last month means that this additional legal certainty around access to 
medicines is now formally enshrined in the legal texts.  
 
And it is a sign that we’re getting the system working again.  
 
This is underlined by the fact t hat the process with the Trade Facilitation Agreement was 
completed in just over 2 years — from the adoption of the protocol of amendment in November 
2014 to entry into force, passing the threshold of 110 ratifications last week.  
 
I think this shows an imp ressive level of energy and commitment among the membership — and 
this is reflected in the desire of others to join the organization.  
 
We have welcomed five new Members  since September 2013 — including three LDCs. This is very 
positive, and many more are w orking to accede.  
 
But of course that is  only part of the picture. Building a more inclusive trading system means not 
only expanding the membership — but also supporting our Members  to get the most out of it.  
 
Progress can only happen with full engagement by Members . But the ability to engage is bound up 
with the question of capacity. I want to do more to empower Members  so that they feel ownership 
of the system — this applies to the smallest and least -developed Members  the most.  
 
Therefore technical assist ance and capacity building is increasingly important. The WTO’s founders 
may not have conceived this as a central element of our work — but it is unquestionably central 
today. And it is also vital for trade to play its full role in powering development as foreseen in the 
Sustainable Development Goals.  
 
We are delivering good work in trade -related technical assistance, as the recent independent 
evaluation showed. WTO initiatives like Aid for Trade, STDF, the TFA Facility, and the EIF, which 
launched its seco nd phase in 2015, are also bearing fruit. The Aid for Trade Global Review in July 
will be an important moment.  
 
Needless to say, donors play a fundamental role in making much of this work possible. They have 
been generous in the past and, as the Organizati on grows, we will continue to count on their 
humanism and sense of solidarity.  
 
Partnership with other institutions is also vital in delivering such support. In recent years we have 
strengthened our links with a wide range of partners, such as the IMF, the  World Bank, the various WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 45 - 
 
  UN agencies — as well as other bodies like APEC, the African Union or the G20. This can be helpful 
across many areas of our work.  
 
Looking back to where we stood four years ago, I am confident in saying that the WTO is stronger 
today. We have achieved a great deal together and, looking forward, I think we can achiev e much 
more, in all the areas I' ve outlined today.  
 
This is still  a young organization. We haven' t yet realized our full potential.   
 
And, as a young organization, I thi nk in some ways the WTO is still in transition.  
 
We have moved from the long established GATT model, of a relatively small membership, with a 
decision -making process that was less than inclusive, to a completely new paradigm. The WTO is 
now an organization  of 164 Members , and in some senses I think that the culture and processes of 
the organization are yet to fully adapt.  
 
We have made significant changes in the last few years, but that progress must continue and 
accelerate.  
 
We must seek to be ever more op en and transparent. We need to find a balance that allows us to 
move forward more quickly and effectively, but to do so in a way that is truly inclusive — where all 
voices are heard, and all play their full role in shaping the outcomes that we seek to deli ver. 
 
Bali and Nairobi were strikingly different experiences. Neither of them perfect, but both successful. 
We must learn from those lessons: the good and the bad. There is a lot to learn, for example, from 
the innovative and flexible approaches that gave us the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
 
And here I come back to the centrality of technical assistance and capacity building. These 
elements are surely indispensable to an inclusive, 21st century trading system. I want to explore 
how we can improve the quali ty and coordination of our capacity -building support and build on 
what has been achieved to date.  
 
As we look ahead to MC11, and beyond, I think there is much that we can achieve, on the DDA 
issues, LDC issues, or on other issues which Members  want to brin g forward.  
 
I want to see us moving further, faster across the board, and particularly in support of the smaller 
players. I want to continue to do all I can to help — to walk the extra mile for you.  
 
I do not deny the difficulties we face, the complexities  of many issues and the gaps that exist. But 
we have shown that progress is possible when we are open, inclusive, and pragmatic.  
 
I began this presentation by saying that these are challenging times for the multilateral trading 
system.  
 
Global economic gr owth is low. Trade growth is low. The threat of protectionism cannot be 
ignored. Multilateralism faces momentous hardships. And we struggle with the persistent 
challenges of poverty, inequality and under -development.  
 
Many feel excluded from the benefits o f trade. It is being connected — wrongly I must note — with 
structural unemployment.  
 
So how should we respond?  
 
I think we must work harder to ensure that the benefits of trade reach more people, especially in 
the most vulnerable countries.  
 
We need to wo rk with governments to help them build policies which respond to the many 
challenges in the economy today — policies which leverage trade as part of the solution. Trade 
may not be an all -powerful magic potion that will by itself deliver growth, but it is a  fundamental 
and necessary ingredient for any strategy aiming at sustainable social and economic development.  
 
And we need to encourage cooperative efforts at the international level.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 46 - 
 
   
It seems to me, in these challenging times, that the value of mutually -agreed global rules is 
evident, as is the ability to resolve economic problems between nations according to those rules.  
 
These structures were built in direct response to the bloody lessons of history.  
 
They represent the world' s best effort to ensure tha t the mistakes of the past are not repeated.  
 
And they provide the tools to deal with many of the problems that are at the forefront of the 
debate today.  
 
Therefore, in my view, this organization is more important than ever.  
 
We must all work to defend the  system. We all have a role to play to safeguard this key element of 
global economic governance. The role of Members  is vital here — so too is the role of each 
individual: ambassadors, permanent representatives, WTO staff… everyone — myself included.  
 
We m ust not take the multilateral trading system for granted. We must work together to 
strengthen it further and ensure it is more inclusive, so that the benefits of trade can be spread as 
far and as wide as possible. So that the system can perform its role, f ostering collective and 
collaborative global efforts to promote better lives and living conditions wherever we can reach.  
 
If Members  grant me the honour of serving a second term as Director -General that will remain my 
clear goal. Not to pursue trade for t rade’s sake, but as an essential means to support jobs, growth 
and development. Not to strengthen the WTO for the WTO 's sake, but as a means to ensure that 
the rule of law is maintained, and that stability and security in global economic relations will lon g 
endure. So that the WTO 's work — our work — can continue to foster peace and solidarity among 
nations.  
 
We have seen challenges in the past, and we have steered the ship through those troubled waters. 
We should seek now to maintain that relentless, stead y, but pragmatic approach in the years 
ahead.  
 
So thank you all on ce again for the trust that you' ve placed in me over these almost 4 years.  
 
I hope that I will have the opportunity to continue to work with you in the years ahead.  
 
 
Questions and Answers  
 
Q: As the sole candidate to lead this institution for the second term, you said you will 
continue to do all you can. Please tell us what you will do to help the Membership in 
your capacity as DG and Chairman of the TNC to engage and achieve developmental 
deliverables that can support economies that are behind in climbing the development 
ladder. (Guyana – on behalf of the ACP)  
 
A: I suppose a lot of my presentation was precisely about that , but I think there are a couple of 
things that are worth mentioning. As we have stressed over and over again, and as far as I am 
concerned I tried to encourage Members to make sure that whenever we are talking, whenever we 
are negotiating, even if these are not negotiations, even if these are just conversations exploring 
things, we need to think first and for most on how development can be at the centre of the 
conversation. Many of these issues, for example in the DDA, they have development there because 
that was a long and difficult conversation and we tried to put a lot of  that in there. But in the areas 
which are beginning to pop up and as Members are beginning to talk about different things, I think 
we cannot lose that focus. For example, technical assistance and capacity building – like I said in 
my presentation, I think  this is a must for anything we do from this point on , especially if we are 
talking about issues where there is a large degree of asymmetry between advanced economies 
and developing countries. Sometimes some economies are not even part of the conversations  
because they don't have the basic means. People were talking here . I saw a seminar the other day 
on electronic commerce for example. Some countries don't even have connectivity. They lack the 
physical means, the infrastructure to participate in that kind of technology. So you cannot have a 
conversation about anything like that if you are not talking also about how to build and bridge that WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 47 - 
 
  particular gap. And I am giving you just one example. The other thing that I think is also 
important is on the implemen tation of the WTO commitments – the implementation of things we 
have already agreed like the LDC package on DFQF, on R ules of Origin , on Services waiver, Cotton 
market access, for cotton and cotton related products. Those things cannot end in the Declarati on. 
Those things need to be pursued and it's not going to end in one year or two. We want to make 
sure that we have a process that keeps those things on the Agenda. These are not easy issues. 
Rules of Origin is a terribly difficult issue. I am telling you because I did that for a while when I 
was still a delegate sitting over there. And it was very difficult to understand. And I am sure that if 
it was difficult for a delegation like mine at that point in time which had a lot of people working on 
this – I imagine for a small delegation that has to do that and a number of other things. So I think 
we need to keep this effort ongoing. There is so much that I can do, but whatever is in my power, 
whatever is in within my ability and jurisdiction, I will definitely  do my best to support that.  
 
Q: What new initiatives have you considered to continue to attract the best pos sible 
talent to the WTO taking into account aspects such as how regional representation and 
gender balance can be reflected? (Colombia)  
 
A: I beli eve that t he recruitment process of the WTO, and I have seen many recruitment 
processes in different organizations, is one of the best that there is out there. First and foremost , 
because it is truly merit based. We look at the CVs. I very rarely get conta cted by delegations 
saying "We have a candidate from my country or from my region, etc." And when I do get that, 
my response has always been that we are going to be looking particularly at the issues of gender 
and geographical diversity, definitely we will  be doing that. But we are also going to be looking at 
the merit of the candidates. I have some numbers in this regard. On gender for example, I think 
one problem that we have is the number of females applying for the position. Sometimes we have 
to encoura ge delegations and candidates to apply even within the Secretariat. Just to give you an 
idea, in 2016 we had Director posts - and only 23% of the applicants were female. However, we 
have been in a position to foster female participation at the Secretariat in different ways. Out of 
the 44 promotions that we had in 2014 and 2015, 24 were attributed to women and 20 to men, so 
it was a significant number there. In 2016 out of the 58 promotions 33 were for women and 25 for 
men. I think right now at the level of the Secretariat there is a pretty significant balance achieved. 
At the non -professional level, at the total staff women are more numerous but the higher level, at 
the professional level, we are approaching 50%. We are now at 45% it used to be 31% in 1995. 
So we are making progress in that sense as well.  
 
As for geography, we are also improving. There are some regions which are underrepresented. We 
have 82 Members represented in the Secretariat. The share of the LDC and Developing Countries 
has increased fr om 21% in 1995 and now it is 35% in 2016. We can do even better. In senior 
management we are making progress as well. So the African representatives increased from 0 in 
1995. Now they are 23% of all Directors on 2016 – so almost 1 in 4 are from Africa. Asi an 
representatives – there were 2 only in 1995, now they are 15%. In senior management also from 
developing countries and LDCs it was 8%, now it is 42% from developing countries. So we are 
making progress in that sense. But one major problem we have, I wou ld urge Members to 
encourage to get candidates from your countries applying to the WTO. And I know that in many of 
your countries the WTO is not necessarily something in the minds of the young professionals. But 
please make an effort. I received the other day one Ambassador that said they had nobody in the 
Secretariat. I asked for a list of candidates for two positions that were opening. I said, "Do you 
know how many candidates I have from your country? – None." We cannot help if that does not 
happen. We ar e trying to be proactive. We created for example the "Young Professionals Initiative" 
which is an initiative for internships and training for young professionals from countries that are 
not represented in the WTO. We put them in the WTO. They go to differe nt positions. They learn 
the work. They learn what we do and by doing that, they become better candidates. We are also 
getting interns. In 2015, we had 133 interns. They came from 79 different countries and the hope 
is that those interns will be good candi dates when they apply. We clearly want to support 
geographic and gender representation but we do not want to compromise also the quality of the 
recruitment. We are doing our very best and we welcome any ideas or suggestions that Members 
may have on this is sue.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Q: In the context of the increasing pressure on the dispute settlement system  and the 
zero nominal growth b udget , what would your human resources plan be – in particular 
in terms of streamlining and allocating resources among divisions and staff mot ivation 
in order to carry out the improvements that you spoke of in your presentation and to 
implement your work programme with the necessary quality  in your next term ? (Mexico)  
 
A: It is not easy. We have been doing our best particularly with dispute sett lement. Dispute 
settlement has a number of challenges. We tried at first to reallocate the resources we have in the 
Secretariat such as by putting good lawyers who are in a position to work in the divisions that deal 
with dispute settlement. But there were  very few. There were only 4 or 5 who were working in 
different divisions that were not doing dispute settlement. I met them in my office and I managed 
to get two of them who had spare capacity to help us briefly with the dispute settlement work. So 
they h elped with cases that were pressing at that point in time. But it is not enough. We have to 
have new people. Inside the organization you don't have that kind of expertise. It is a very special 
type of person who can hit the ground almost walking in dispute  settlement. That is the challenge 
we have. Every time there was an opening in another area of work or a retirement, we would not 
fill that vacancy but we would open one in dispute settlement. One problem we had was to hire 
senior lawyers – the ones who co uld lead a case. We opened the recruitment process and in 
several instances we couldn't recruit anyone. There were no candidates out there in the whole 
world who could lead a case in the WTO the following day. We have to train them. We managed to 
do that a nd that resulted in 29 new posts assigned to the Legal Affairs Division, to the Rules 
Division and to the Appellate Body Division. These are lawyers who we have to train. Even with 
those 29, it takes time to train them – between 1 to 3 years sometimes. Mor e than that, we are 
now also hiring interns or temporary workers who will work on particular disputes for the duration 
of that dispute and then they leave. The important thing there is that they help with the less 
demanding legal analysis that is required but we get to know them so that if an opening comes up 
down the road, we already have a pool of people who have been somewhat trained even before 
they come to the WTO. So we are also setting up an eligibility list. So if we have really good 
candidates for one position, we hire one and we set one or two in an eligibility list so that if 
another position opens up we know that they are good enough. We can already recruit from there. 
We do not have to go through the whole process and waste six or seven months d oing that. It is 
thought. I made a presentation to the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration on 
Friday . It was a very specific and detailed presentation on that and I encourage those of you who 
would like to have more details to take a look at it. I am sure the Secretariat will h elp you with 
that as well.  
 
Q: One of the recent milestones of multilateralism has been the adoption of the 2030 
Agenda relating to the SDGs.  The current international context is unclear and even 
threatening with regard to  our chances of meeting those goals. There have been a series 
of calls for commitments in specific areas such as agriculture, fisheries subsidies and 
intellectual property and public health, among other trade -related areas. There are also 
areas in which th e WTO is already working with other agencies. Given the current 
context, how do you think you can push forward greater strategic and operative 
relations with all of the international organizations that are confident and involved in 
the efforts to achieve t hese SDGs?  (Chile)  
 
A: When the Sustainable Development Goals  were being negotiated  in New York, we interacted 
particularly with the UN Secretariat. I met with Secretary -General Ban Ki -moon a few times. We 
explained that in that conversation trade could no t be lost because in our view trade was 
fundamental to achieve many of those goals that were being discussed. One good thing happened 
which was that trade was recognized as a very important element in the SDGs and in many of the 
goals trade is mentioned. T he tough thing is that there is no one point for trade because trade is 
pervasive. It is pretty much present everywhere. We have to be sure that we do not lose 
perspective of trade because "trade" is not one item. It does not mean that trade and what we do  
here is not important for the SDGs. Quite the contrary, pretty much everything we do here 
impacts on the SDGs and that is something we have to keep in mind. Some of those issues are 
easier to identify such as fisheries subsidies. We are developing work on  fisheries subsidies to see 
how we can advance and I am hopeful that the WTO can give a contribution in this area as well. 
On agricultural issues, we managed in less than three months after the adoption of the SDGs in 
New York to deliver one of them which was the elimination of export subsidies for agricultural 
products. That was one of the SDGs related to the zero hunger goal. In many others, public health 
and sanitation, all of those somehow have trade in them and we need to work in the WTO in that WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 49 - 
 
  direct ion. It is always useful to be in touch with the other UN agencies because they are also 
working in these areas. For example, we are developing work very close with the ILO on trade and 
employment and conditions on employment; on how trade helps gender bal ance; and, on how 
trade helps to empower women and small businesses. All of these are very important and they are 
all part of SDGs. That is something that we have to encourage. We are working very closely with 
the UNCTAD and also with the WHO and others. T rade and the SDGs are everywhere. We are 
doing our best to develop work together with these organizations. If there is something that we 
are not doing and that Members notice, let us know and we will pursue that as well. But I think we 
have been developing  a very comprehensive approach with regard to the SDGs.  
 
Q: What do you consider to be your main achievement and your main disappointment 
over these last four years? What lessons would you draw from your experience and how 
will these influence your role as  the Chief Executive Officer of the WTO in your second 
term? (Luxembourg)  
 
A: I will try to be very objective. I think the biggest achievement of the last 4 years was to put 
the WTO back on the map. I remember when I took office and I visited countries, on e very 
important thermometer to test the temperature of the WTO is the private sector. In the early 
years, in 2013 before Bali in particular, I went to these places and the private sector was almost 
sleeping at the table. They were not paying attention. No body really cared at that point in time 
about what the WTO was doing , because they felt that the WTO could not do anything. And I am 
not talking about one country. I am talking about many different countries. After Bali, people 
began to pay attention. Beca use of the magnitude and the impact of the TFA, there was a lot of 
attention being dedicated to the WTO already. After Nairobi, there was even more , since people 
began to understand that that was not a one shot thing. The WTO can in fact negotiate deals 
which are meaningful. And people began to pay attention to us. At that point of time it was not 
only the private sector, it was governments, NGOs, and academia. The demand for the WTO 
increased substantially.  
 
As regards the challenges or frustrations, the more recent one is that the WTO now is in even 
more demand than before , but for the wrong reasons. Because of this anti -globalization and anti -
trade sentiments around the world, everybody wants to know what we are going to do about it. As 
the Director -General, I can say so much about the importance of the system and what we are 
going to do about it. But what we are going to do about it is up to Members. At the end of the day, 
Members will have to get their act together and respond by strengthening the syste m. I will be 
there to help you. I will put my face out there. I will say whatever needs to be said. I would do 
whatever needs to be done. But at the end of the day, you would have to prove to those who say 
that trade cannot be and is not a common good; tha t trade is not a positive element for growing 
development. It is you who will have to help us to deliver that message . We have a joint task 
together. W hen I took office, my immediate challenge was to deliver. We needed to deliver 
because nobody believed at  that point in time that we could do anything and we proved that that 
was not the case. The question now posed before the organization , given the sentiment seen 
globally , is whether we have a role in it at all. That is again another major challenge and we have 
to respond by showing that this organization can deliver in meaningful ways that will respond to 
the anxieties of those who feel that they are being left behind. We have to reach more people, 
make trade more inclusive, give a chance to SMEs and prove what we already know which is that 
trade can be an opportunity for growth, development and employment particularly for the small 
and medium companies out there. If we can do that, it would be a big response to what we see 
out there today. Those are my view s in terms of what we achieved, what we didn't, what can be 
done and what should be done in the next few years.  
 
Q: In the past four years, the Director -General's leadership contributed to the success 
of MC9 and MC10. It is far from easy to achieve consens us among 164 Members yet 
Japan's priority has always been to achieve multilateral outcomes. However, an MFN -
based plurilateral approach, such as the ITA or the EGA, or a GATT Reference Paper type 
of solution should be more positively appreciated as a way f orward in the WTO 
negotiations. What is your opinion on the MFN -based plurilateral approach? (Japan)  
 
A: I have been very clear as Director -General on this issue. My true personal belief is that 
multilateral outcomes are to be prioritized. We should try to  do multilaterally whatever we can as 
much as we can because everybody is sitting at the table. Everybody benefits and has a chance to 
contribute and outline the agenda. The impact of harmonization even of practices is much bigger WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 50 - 
 
  across the globe. I have no doubt in my mind that going multilateral is the preferred path. Having 
said that, multilateral agreements are not easy. We have tried before. We have a new road map 
for multilateral agreements particularly after Bali with TFA which is a specific and dif ferent 
agreement from anything we have done before. Maybe the reason why it is so different from 
everything else that was done before is because the process of negotiating that agreement was 
truly inclusive and very open and transparent. Everybody was sitt ing at the table. Even small 
delegations and the most vulnerable economies had a chance to participate. The flexibility that you 
see in that agreement reflects that diversity in the negotiations because we had to make sure that 
everybody was comfortable wi th the outcome. I hope and I am sure that we can do that again. If 
we are flexible enough, we can often do that again multilaterally. Some other types of agreements 
are tougher. There should be a balance there. If you want something that is truly multilate ral, you 
have to have a considerable degree of flexibility in it to take into account the diverse situations of 
Members across the board – 164 diverse economies. If you want something which is much stricter 
and deeper, it is not by accident that the market  access negotiations, for example, are done 
bilaterally or regionally because it is easier. It is easier to do it with less players. That kind of 
rigidity and "one size fits all approach" is really hard to get multilaterally. If that is something that 
a group of Members here want to do, I think they are perfectly entitled to do that. They should do 
that because these are building blocks towards trade liberalization. They should attempt to do that 
and I do not have a problem at all with that. In fact, I help ed in the ITA negotiations. I was very 
much engaged in trying to make that outcome possible. It was MFN. Every Member of the WTO 
can benefit  from that. It was a good and meaningful outcome. But even in those circumstances, 
my suggestion to the proponents a nd to the ones who are leading the exercises is to keep it open -
ended so that anybody that wants to participate can participate and can be a part of the process. 
Be inclusive even when the outcome is not necessarily a multilateral one.  
 
Q: In terms of bei ng the chief manager of the organization and in highlighting 
diversity in the Secretariat, one aspect of diversity is the "glass ceiling" that officials 
from developing and least -developed countries face. What direction do you plan to take, 
if any, to help  people handle this "glass ceiling "? (Pakistan)  
 
A: I responded  to some of that when I answered  the question asked by  Colombia. One thing 
that I have been trying to do actively is to ask the Secretariat in the recruitment process for 
example, as well as in  promotions, and it is not by accident that these things are happening. On 
the recruitment side, I have been in a situation when I saw the short list and the short list did not 
have any women or had just one – and I would say to k ook again. I said that thi s was  not 
accepta ble, since  I cannot believe that i n 400 CVs you cannot find more.  And they go back and 
look. It is not easy because there are not as many as we wish there would be. Sometimes even in 
internal processes I know women who are perfectly capabl e to occupy certain positions in the 
Secretariat , and they do not apply for the position. We then ask why they do not apply, and the 
answer sometimes is  whether they have a chance. And I say that y es absolutely  there is a chance. 
Sometimes they are success ful. Sometimes they are not. I have been to many seminars and round 
tables about gender balance and what can be done to help make things more uniform. The one 
lesson that I can take from there is that it is not only us experiencing that. All other organiza tions 
experience similar situations. The other lesson I take from that is that we are doing the right thing. 
We are being proactive. Everywhere that I go I sense that we are at the forefront of the kind of 
things that it has been recommended for organizati ons to do. I mentioned the Young Professionals 
Programme, for example, for countries that are not represented in the WTO so that we can train 
people to become good candidates in the future. I think we can do more. One area that may be we 
are not doing enou gh is internships. Internships are very good because the interns leave the WTO 
with a much better understanding of what we are and of what we do. They go back to their 
capitals or their cities. They study more and take more interest in the WTO so that when  the 
position opens, they apply. We have to do a little bit better. We have a lot of candidacies for 
internships but I think we could maybe do better in trying to target countries that do not have 
enough representation in the Secretariat so that they submi t and they bring more interns. But 
interns are not a panacea because it is also tough. You have to train them and it takes time. Of 
course they help but they also take time and take away resources because we need to train them. 
If you have ideas or any sug gestions on how we can improve the situation, we are more than 
happy to entertain that . 
 
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 51 - 
 
  Q: In your presentation, you mentioned the threat of protectionism. What specific 
actions are you going to take or the WTO Secretariat is going to do to contain and r esist 
the trend of the new protectionism? (China)  
 
A: This is a joint effort. We all have to do our part and I mentioned that even at the individual 
level. You are all opinion makers whether you like it or not. Your word is heard. Use it. As far as I 
and t he Secretariat are concerned, we will be speaking up for trade and we have been doing it 
consistently. When I was in the G20 meeting in Hangzhou, China, I took the floor to say that I was 
extremely concerned with this. Most of the times I go to the G20 and  I say how wonderful we are 
and how much they can help us look even better. But that time around, that was not my message 
to the leaders. I rather said that I am extremely concerned with what I am hearing and what I am 
seeing. We hear a lot of blame on tra de, particularly from people who are being left behind. Eight 
out of ten jobs that are lost in advanced economies are neither due to trade nor to cheap imports. 
It is about new technologies, innovation, higher productivity and things like that. After the s ession 
was over, a number of people came to me asking where I got those numbers. I told them that 
they are out there and they are not new. Now, those numbers and that idea is widespread. 
Everybody is talking about that because in one meeting we spoke up. P eople began to take it up 
because we are not making this up. This is actually true. Now we need to do more of that. When I 
went to Washington DC for the winter meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, I made a joint 
presentation with Christine Lagarde and Jim Yong Kim  to everybody who was there about this 
point – how trade is being blamed for something that it does not , and the need to change that 
perception. The momentum is getting bigger. We need to do more of that. But at the end of the 
day, this is ratio nality. We also need to bear in mind that this is not necessarily going to be enough 
as we try to be part of the conversation which is mostly emotional. We need to do things at the 
WTO as well. We need to do monitoring and reviewing which are currently bei ng done in the 
organization. We have the Trade Policy Reviews and the reports that we do on trade restrictive 
measures that many of you complained about. We do the best that we can. We are not saying that 
this is protectionism. But these are trade restrict ive measures in the sense that they constrain 
trade. We need to give more visibility to that and make sure that people  understand . The best that 
we can do is to monitor, give you the opportunity to speak up and monitor each other and also to 
speak up when trade is being blamed for things that it is to avoid some of those protectionist 
rhetoric out there.  
 
 
Q: The view of the United States is well -known that we do not consider trade 
remedies to be protectionist. Countervailing duties are intended to countera ct the use of 
a government's financial resources that cause injury to a domestic industry through 
subsidized imports. Antidumping duties are intended to counteract price differences 
including distortions caused by governmental policies which cause injury t o a domestic 
industry through dumped imports. Could you briefly summarize your thoughts on the 
relationship of trade remedies as provided for in the WTO Agreements to the WTO's 
work in monitoring protectionist mea sures and would you agree that t rade remedi es are 
an essential part of the global trading system?  (United States)  
 
A: Absolutely. They are rights of the Members. They can use those rights and that is what they 
were negotiated for. I was a delegate at the Anti -dumping Committee, the CVD Committee an d the 
Safeguards Committee when I was a delegate – the first time that I was posted in Geneva. Part of 
the exercise at that point in time was peer review.  We were asking questions to each other about 
how the system worked in each of our countries. What I t ook from that exercise was that even 
though you had a common set of rules that applied to everyone which are enshrined in the 
Agreements, i.e. the Anti -dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the Safeguards 
Agreement, they were applied in very different w ays by countries. It was a very diverse type of 
implementation that we had at that point in time. Part of the work that we had in the Committees 
was precisely to see how we could understand each other's practices – whether there was 
something that we could  do to provide more clarity and more uniformity even in the practices of 
Members. There was one paper that we managed to agree in the Anti -dumping Committee. I was 
the Vice -Chair at the time. The Chair was absent for some reason so I chaired that meeting a nd 
we managed to agree on a paper , which was a  very interesting paper because it summarized 
practices by Members and encouraged people to follow approximately the same kind of practices. 
The paper and the conversation helped. At that point in time we said "be careful with the report 
because anti -dumping and countervailing duties are not protectionism." If it is applied correctly, 
one could blame protectionism on the other end of the line because the distortion is coming from 
dumping practices or subsidies w hich are being implemented elsewhere. Those measures are WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 52 - 
 
  actually correcting the distortion. Each case is different and the WTO Secretariat is not going to be 
deciding who is to blame in any of these situations.  We cannot and will not do that. What we try to 
do is that in the section where we list anti -dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures, we 
mention that we are not saying that those are protectionist measures. We are simply listing 
measures which do have the effect of restraining trade. That is u ndeniable. The whole point of 
these measures is to restrain trade which is deemed to be unfair, dumped, subsidized, injurious for 
one reason or another. We will try our best in the reports to characterize it as such but we have to 
also understand that it i s not the WTO Secretariat that is going to be calling who is the 
protectionist  - if there is a protectionist party in any of those measures.  
 
Q: There has been a growing perception and fear that you as Chair of the TNC shown 
tendency to lean more heavily towards the developed countries as was evident in 
Nairobi. What do you intend to do differently during your second term that would help 
address the needs, concerns and interests of the developing countries and especially the 
LDCs in a more balance manner.  (Uganda)   
 
A: I disagree with the question. I do not think there is any tendency on my side to help any 
group of countries whatsoever. What I tend to do is help to ensure that the negotiations move 
forward. In fact if you look at the outcomes, both in Bali  and Nairobi, developing countries in 
particular were big beneficiaries. I have no doubts about that whatsoever. I had numerous 
negotiations with the coordinator of the LDCs before both meetings. We exchanged views and 
talked about how to push that forward  and how to make sure that we got good results on what 
were possible and achievable at that point in time. Every time that I talk to Members and in 
everything I did, I tried to have development at the centre of the effort. The Trade Facilitation 
Agreement and the elimination of export subsidies are fantastic outcomes for developing countries. 
I have a very clean conscience on this. I do not lose a night's sleep when I hear somebody say 
that I am favouring this group or that country. I do my best. Of course,  nobody gets what they 
want – not developed, not developing, not least -developed. But they get the best of what is out 
there. If we look for example at LDCs, after Bali we have a whole Agenda for the LDCs. You have 
the DFQF discussion. It is not done yet b ut a lot of progress was made on DFQF and I have been 
doing this for a long time. I remember that I was in Hong Kong and I remember how much 
progress we made on DFQF since then. It is neither perfect nor over , but we did it. On Rules of 
Origin, it was not even asked by the LDCs. We put that on the Agenda and I remember that 
because I was in the room so I know how that happened and we are pursuing that. On the 
Services Waiver, we did not get everybody but we do have the services waiver discussion on -going 
and we have a number of developed countries who can and are working to get preferential access 
to least -developed countries. One problem we have is also the problem of supply -side which we 
have to help. How do you do that? It is not easy. We are trying to se e whether it may be through 
technical assistance or capacity building but they are so far that you can go to help supply -side 
concerns here. I am more than happy to do that. The Coordinators of the LDC, ACP and the African 
Groups are often invited to my of fice. We talk about the challenges, what can be done and how to 
push things. I am willing to do more. If they think that we need to do more, we will do more. On 
Cotton, we had a fantastic outcome in Nairobi as well with duty -free access for cotton and cott on- 
related products. In balance, developing countries and least -developed countries had very 
significant outcomes and were the main beneficiaries of both Bali and Nairobi clearly from my 
perspective. Could they get more? Yes, let's work on that but to say  that they did not get a lot – I 
would not agree with that assessment.  
 
Q: As a follow -up question, is technical assistance and capacity building sufficient 
compensation for the adoption  of legally binding multilateral discipline by LDCs even if it 
would lead to loss of policy space for inter alia  structural transformation and 
industrialization? (Uganda)  
 
A: We absolutely have to do that. We are going to have the Aid for Trade review next July – a 
very important moment for the organization. We are in const ant contact with donors. I am trying 
to reach out also to other partner organizations like the World Bank to see how much we can do. 
On the disbursements area in the Aid for Trade Programmes, they have gradually increased over 
time. They were 20.8 billion in 2006 and in 2014 there were 42.8 billion dollars. There was an 
increase of a 105%. I am not taking credit for that because we rely on donors to be forthcoming. 
The TFA Facility has been very helpful in helping Members to notify the categories A, B and C  and 
to ratify their protocol of ratification. Now that the agreement is in place we can do a lot more in 
terms of trade facilitation. I have visited 15 countries in Africa already and every time that I go to WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 53 - 
 
  developing countries in Africa and everywhere I  go trade facilitation is a big issue – not because I 
raise it but because they raise it. There is a lot that can be done in terms of technical assistance. 
The African Union has been talking a lot about industrialization in Africa. I cannot be more 
support ive than I am for any project of industrialization. We will have to find how that can happen. 
I have been talking to people about this. Each one has a different view about how to achieve 
industrialization and what the best steps are to do that. One step fo r industrialization of Africa is 
better integration in Africa. Trade Facilitation helping to get more trade among African countries is 
absolutely fundamental. To the extent that we can, we will help in that regard and that applies to 
every other area of th e WTO membership. Whatever we can do to improve technical assistance 
and capacity building will be fundamental because engagement in the WTO can only happen if the 
delegations are in a position to engage and that requires technical assistance and capacity 
building. Uganda has a pretty good technical expertise team. Not every other delegation has that 
and they will need help in that regard as well. So we will be working in that direction. I have been 
encouraging Members to think about how technical assistanc e and capacity building can be part of 
the outcomes of any agreement or conversation that we try to have here in the WTO.  
 
Q: Transparency has always been a key cornerstone of GATT and then the WTO but 
the lack of notifications in some cases can give rise a problem  relating to credibility in 
the organization. What is your view of this and what steps can be taken to improve the 
notification process? (Spain ) 
 
It is a good question as it is a recurring theme. When we were in the middle of the negotiations of 
the Doha Round, one of the key aspects in many areas was how to make the notification 
procedures more respected and observed by Members. A lot of it depends on Members 
themselves. We ask the Chairs to make a particular push, to encourage people to notify, t o cite 
those who have and those who have not. But it is tricky. If a dispute comes up, notifications 
ceased altogether. Notifications in different committees and areas of the organization serve 
different purposes. They have a different nature and various c onsequences in the notifications. The 
best way to improve notification is to look at them individually and to see in a particular forum 
how notifications are and what the status of notification is. Often, countries do not notify because 
they do not even ha ve the capacity to notify and do not know how to do it. When I was in Brazil 
before as a delegate, it was difficult to get notifications coming from capital. It is not that they did 
not want to do it. But the interpretation on what falls under an item, on what kind of programmes 
fall under a certain kind of notification, on how to notify and on what to notify elicited lengthy 
conversations in capital. I imagine that that is similar in many other countries including in 
countries that have not enough institut ional capacity to be dedicating resources to this kind of 
discussion. The Secretariat can help. One thing that we are trying to do is see whether in TPRs we 
can introduce this element of technical cooperation to help notifications in other areas if the 
country wants to do that. A conversation in the subsidiary bodies on transparency could be very 
useful. But Members have to do that. We cannot introduce this item on the agenda. My 
recommendation is that you look at them on the specific forum where they are d one. They are 
very different from each other. You will see that the reasons for non -notification may vary 
considerably from body to body.  
 
Q: Thinking practically about the next Ministerial Conference, you recently mentioned 
that we needed to learn from t he lessons of Bali and Nairobi. What should we learn from 
the negotiating process? What should be done similarly? What should be done 
differently between now and Buenos Aires? (Argentina)  
 
A: On the negotiating process, the process towards Bali was a good process. It was different 
from Nairobi because it was mostly concentrated on a few things – the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. We had some negotiations also on Public Stockholding, on the LDC package and 
cotton. There were negotiations on development as wel l but not so much because the development 
group withdrew the proposal s. It was much more concentrated. In Bali, we were close to what we 
could see as outcomes. So when we got there, we did not have any need for big negotiating 
meetings or anything of the k ind. We did have few conversations – delegation by delegation, or 
bilaterally  – until we managed to get the outcome done. You recall that even in the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement we had to put another text there because the text that Members were 
negotiati ng did not get all the way. We had to do our best guess of what people could live with at 
that point in time. Nairobi was different. I had been warning. Before we got to Nairobi I said that 
we were not making progress anywhere. Everything was falling behin d; we were  not going far 
enough wherever we need ed to go. It was  going to be complicated. When we got to Nairobi, it was WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 54 - 
 
  a very difficult situation to handle if we wanted to deliver something. If the option was to stop and 
do nothing – then it was easy. We  would just sit back and enjoy the sights of Kenya. But 
otherwise, we had to roll up our sleeves and push some delegations who were being particularly 
critical at that point in time to get the things that we needed to do. As for MC11, I am very 
concerned b ecause I also do not see a lot of progress happening in many of the areas. But this 
does not despair me frankly , because I have been saying also that I do not think Buenos Aires is 
the end of the road. But it is a very important milestone because it follow s two examples of 
success. It would be very important to maintain the momentum  and my hope is that we can 
achieve good results there. Good results do not have to be, in my view, the finished product. I 
think we take what we can in Buenos Aires and we move on – on the same issues even, trying to 
deepen the conversation. But I am very concerned ; we have to move from the general and 
conceptual conversation that we are having now to a more focused, delivery -oriented conversation 
where the proponents think and h ope that they will get deliveries. If they are not shooting for 
deliveries, that is a different story. Then let us build the conversation so that in Buenos Aires you 
set up the stage for deliveries down the road which is also a positive move I think. But i t is up to 
proponents to decide which areas of the negotiations they want outcomes. And if they do want 
outcomes , we are late. That is what I would say. We are late. I hope that we can avoid what 
happened in Nairobi. In Geneva, you need to walk 90% of the way at least. On the last 10%, 
maybe the Ministers will discuss  and figure it out. But you need to walk a long stretch of the way 
here in Geneva and I do not think we have walked even 20% yet. There is a lot of road to cover.  
 
Q: The expansion of the WTO has been one of the major achievements on your first 
term. Along the same lines as all the recently acceded countries, we thank for your 
vision and your leadership in expanding the rules -based multilateral trading system into 
new markets. In this regard, h ow do you see the status of the current process of 
accession for the candidate countries and in particular of our regional partners Serbia 
and Bosnia and Herzegovina? (Montenegro)  
 
A: On the two particular accessions that you mentioned, we are doing quite well. If there is one 
area of WTO work where I keep my hands as off as I can, it is accessions. Accessions is 99.99% 
completely Member -driven. Members have to figure things out for themselves and they have done 
a good job. We had five accessions already si nce I took office and more a re coming – you 
mentioned a few. I think we can do it. Sometimes we have topical problems – sometimes of a 
political nature. Until I am asked I do not do anything. In those situations, I was asked to help and 
I had been in touch  with capitals. Fortunately, in those instances, we managed to find the solution. 
I am happy that we concluded all of them. The Secretariat has been doing a good job at helping 
countries to prepare themselves technically. We make ourselves available for th at, because it is an 
extremely difficult process and  can be  very painful sometimes. But if there is commitment on the 
part of the acceding countries to do the reforms which are necessary to answer the questions, to 
prepare for the meetings, things tend to move and they tend to move fairly quickly. I am 
optimistic. I do not see anything there that could be impossible . We have to work, sit down and 
roll up our sleeves and do the best that we can. But there are no two accessions that are alike. 
Each accession is a different story and we have to look at each one of them under their own 
specificities.  
 
Q: As you mentioned, we have reached outcomes in Bali and Nairobi. But it seems 
very difficult to make progress especially in the major areas. The progress on the 
negotiations depends on the membership but we think that the engagement of major 
Members and the leadership of the Director -General can also play an essential role to 
move forward and make progress in these major areas. In this regard, we would like to 
hear your views on how you will lead during your second term to advance the 
negotiations and on how you will engage major Members in MC11 and beyond. (Republic 
of Korea)  
 
A: I agree with you that major partners of the WTO are critical to advance things but so  are all 
the others as well. The major participants are a fundamental ingredient but they are not the only 
necessary ingredients. We have to talk to everyone if we want to make sure that everybody is on 
board. I often sit down and talk to different people particularly the ones who had been pushing for 
certain issues or putting proposals on the table. I get regional coordinators to sit down with me, 
explain and tell me their views. Unless I am asked to step in and help, I try to let Members do 
what they do. I very rarely step in unless they ask me to do that. But if I see something that I 
think Members are losing too much time on but is something I personally perceive as solvable if WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 55 - 
 
  we take a different approach then I will invite them in and I say, "why don't  we do this?" 
Sometimes they agree. Sometimes it works and we move forward more quickly , but otherwise I let 
Members do what they want to do. Sometimes they do not want me to interfere at all. And it is ok. 
It is about this kind of constant dialogue betwee n proponents, Members, coordinators and myself. 
I keep on telling everybody that my doors are open. There is no delegation that can claim that 
they tried to talk to me and could not. Come to me. Talk to me if you feel like there is a role or 
something that  I can do. We have mostly been flexible enough to have this kind of conversation. 
There is nothing that I can do to push a negotiation or an issue forward if Members do not want to 
do it. If they do not want to do it, forget it. But my feeling is that this  kind of dialogue has been 
fruitful. My disposition is to be helpful when Members want me to help and I am always available 
to have this kind of dialogue to any delegation that wants to push a particular issue. But Members 
have to do it. I can help facilit ate convergence but I cannot push an issue nor do more than that.  
 
Q: What is your strategy for concluding existing issues from the Doha Round 
especially the issues of Market Access and Domestic Support for Agricultural Goods 
when there seems to be a lot of appetite from Members to discuss new issues such as e -
commerce, Trade Facilitation in Services and MSMEs?  (Thailand)  
 
A: On how to move ahead the Doha issues, I have been having constant conversations with the 
Secretariat and Chairs. Unfortunately, we currently do not have a Chair in agriculture. But I was 
constantly talking to Ambassador Vitalis, the former Chair, and I hope that we will have a Chair 
soon. It is up to Members. Do not expect to have progress in negotiations if we do not have a 
Chair. It  is easy to blame the lack of negotiations on different things but you have the power to 
appoint a chair for the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, and we need one.  It is not 
easy. We spent all of 2015 trying to find ways to advance the three pil lars of agriculture: export 
competition, domestic support and market access. On export competition, in Nairobi we harvested 
a number of things. On the other two pillars it was absolutely impossible. We tried everything. We 
put all ideas on the table but fo r one reason or another, a group or a number of Members could 
not do it. It was acceptable to some but not to others. That situation exists until today. There are 
still a number of ideas that are being floated out there. I am aware of many of them. There s hould 
be or could be space for progress particularly in domestic support. In market access I have not 
heard anything encouraging in the sense that it is different from things that I heard before and 
that did not work. Like everything else, we need to align  the stars. I do not think that if we sit 
down and wait that the stars are going to align themselves. We have to help the stars to align. We 
have to keep thinking, pushing and testing ideas because political situations and political 
circumstances change ov er time and maybe ideas that did not work before could now work. 
Currently, what we have is a situation that is more difficult than before. But again that should not 
discourage us. If we stop , then for sure it is not going to happen. We have to continue. B ut once 
again, we need to get the process in place and to keep talking to each other.  
 
Q: The WTO has made incontestable  progress in the systematization in dealing with 
trade concerns and all kinds of technical and other barriers to trade including recent ly 
acquired transit problems. In view of the increasing burden of the DSB, what scenario 
can you propose to improve the efficiency of the WTO regular bodies with their 
sophisticated analysis of Members' measures that affect international trade? (Ukraine)  
 
A: The whole notion of the WTO is to be a forum for conversation to address the issues that 
you just mention. We have many bodies and each of them is in charge of different aspects of 
trade. My suggestion is that Members use those bodies to raise concerns that they have bilaterally 
or multilaterally. For example, if you have a Member that is introducing sanitary measures that 
you are particularly affected by them, raise it in the SPS Committee. Use that and talk to the other 
Member. Raise and explain the is sue. Others will want to understand that as well so they could be 
part of that conversation as they understand better what is happening. Some of those issues do 
not fit sometimes in one of the subsidiary bodies , so then you have the General Council. In oth er 
situations we are having technical assistance or other activities like in trade facilitation where the 
Secretariat can help sometimes. It depends on the issue and on the objectives on what you want 
to achieve. My recommendation is to use the WTO tools. We have tools to address many of the 
concerns that I hear out there. Use the tools and the Secretariat. Use them to get more 
information. Use the bodies to talk to each other. At the end of the day, use me if you have a 
problem with another delegation. I c an facilitate a conversation like that. I will bring you to my 
office and we talk. I have done that before, several times. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does 
not. At the end of the day, you still have the dispute settlement system if it involves a probl em of WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 56 - 
 
  the interpretation of the rules and whether or not you are interpreting it on a different way. The 
role for that is to depoliticize the disputes. You have a technical, independent, legally -oriented 
body that will try to solve the dispute. The name of  the mechanism is dispute settlement so we will 
try to settle the dispute. That is also the last resort that we have in the WTO but I would say use 
all the tools beginning with bilateral conversations and multilateral conversations in the bodies. 
The tools  exist and I would encourage you to use all of those. My intention is to make sure that all 
those bodies and all those tools work properly even in the context of the budget limitations that 
we have today. Despite all the manoeuvres – the re -shuffling in th e Secretariat that we have done 
– we did not cut any of the activities of the Secretariat yet. We are still doing all the things that we 
were doing before , with fewer resources. We put strain in the system but we are still doing that. 
All the tools that yo u are familiar with are still available and my intention is to keep them and not 
to give up or cut them because of budgetary limitations.  
 
Q: Do you believe that the WTO can play a role in addressing policy coherence in the 
fragmented global trade and inv estment policy landscape? What strategy would you 
design and implement for the WTO on investment in the short and longer term? (Finland)  
 
A: On policy coherence, one key element is our conversation and continuous interaction with 
the other international or ganizations particularly those that are more involved in global economic 
governments in particular the IMF and the World Bank – the Bretton Woods institutions. We talk 
constantly and meet several times a year. We meet at the IMF and the World Bank semi -annual 
meetings, in the G -20 meetings about once or twice a year and in the Chief Executive Boards 
meeting of the United Nations. We constantly talk to each other. Right now, under the global 
scenario that we see today with all the anti -globalization and anti -trade sentiments emerging 
everywhere, this conversation has been much more intense than before. We are developing 
studies jointly. We already published a study with the World Bank on the role of trade in ending 
poverty. With the ILO, we are issuing anothe r one that is going to come shortly. I am also 
developing a work with the International Finance Corporation to work on trade financing for SMEs. 
We are talking to them constantly. If there is any particular area that we are not doing enough, 
that you feel that we should be doing more for some reason, let us know. We try and do our best. 
We are reaching out constantly to them. If there is more that we can do and if there is an area 
that has been overlooked, I am more  than happy to hear from you.  
 
On investme nt, we have TRIMS but it is very limited. I understand that some Members are talking 
about investment. They have not talked to me yet so I understand that they are talking among 
themselves. There is a lot of talk about investment facilitation. In that scen ario, if the right 
approach is taken, it may prove to be something interesting , particularly for developing countries 
because the attraction of investment and setting up a regulatory framework that facilitates 
investment would be useful. They would have to  be creative about that because if we just go back 
and repeat the old conversations about protection of investment, I would not be very optimistic 
about the likelihood of making progress there. But if it is a different and new approach, I hope that 
Members  would be open -minded to have that conversation. As of this point in time, I do not have 
any elements that would clarify what can be done because I do not think the conversation among 
Members has gone far enough to allow that.  
 
Q: As the Director -General,  as decided at the outset of the Doha Round, you have 
been and you will be the Chair of Trade Negotiations Committee. What do you draw on 
from your four years of experience in this position in a Member -driven organization? 
(Cameroon)  
 
A: As Chair of the TN C, one thing that I try to do is to be constantly in touch with the Chairs of 
the negotiating bodies and to test what is being done. Sometimes they come very discouraged 
with the conversations among Members. They say that they do not see any convergence – only 
people entrenched in their positions and a repetition of old positions. What I try to encourage the 
Chairs is to be more active. I entirely agree with you that this is a Member -driven organization but 
it is also  the role of the Chairs to test ideas an d facilitate convergence in any way they can. 
Sometimes a Chair will put a proposal on the table and everybody around the table will shoot it 
down. I did that several times and people shut it down frequently. But that should not discourage 
people to keep t hinking. In negotiations, my experience has been that sometimes a Member 
cannot put a proposal or an idea on the table because even the instruction he has does not allow 
him to do that but sometimes a crazy Chair or an even crazier DG says "why don't we do  that?" He 
can go back to capital and say that he did not say nor put that. It was a crazy Chair that did that WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 57 - 
 
  but this may not be a bad idea. Maybe this is something we could explore. Sometimes the Chair 
has the ability to put something on the table that the delegations themselves cannot put on the 
table. What is the worst that could happen? People could blame him for not going anywhere or for 
taking sides. That happens. But at least we try to put things on the table that would be food for 
thought – that d elegations may test those ideas in one way or another. As TNC Chair, what I 
would like to see is renewed will to continue the conversations – that we are not discouraged 
because we have not made progress in some areas. We should try something different. We  should 
be thinking about different approaches. Things change. Politics change in different place. If you 
look around, it is not necessarily becoming any easier but that should not discourage us. If we 
stop then for sure we are not going to go anywhere. My  recommendation to the Members is 
continue to think outside, inside and beside the box and with no box. If you do not think then for 
sure it is not going to help. And I will not stop thinking myself.  
 
Q: The Director -General has enhanced the governability of the organization b ut there 
still remain some issues on this matter which we need to solve. Perhaps you could give 
us some more details about this. Does moving towards universal membership mean 
more wealth or more complications for the organization?  The difficulty in achieving 
concrete results goes back to capital making the organization hard to manage and to 
govern. The public opinion that the WTO is a vehicle for globalization has its advantages 
and disadvantages. What are your thoughts on these two mat ters? Do you think that 
plurilateral agreements are good despite them leading to more fragmentation ? Do we 
need more disciplines on regional agreements?  I would like to hear more details from 
you as well on matters such as the importance of consensus and t he need for review; 
including more provisions on special and differential treatment and how to make more 
progress on current work in the area of development.  (Uruguay)  
 
A: On governability and decision -making, you need consensus to give up consensus. I do not 
think you would ever agree on anything like that. This does not however mean that we cannot do 
things. On the contrary, we have proven that we can. My inclination has always been to be flexible 
and pragmatic. The Bali outcome was a clear indication tha t we can do this. There is tension 
between the rigidity that you want in the agreement and the format of the agreement. The more 
rigid, strict and "on e size fits all" that you want to be, the less likely it is that you are going to get 
a multilateral outco me. You have to go a different path. If you want to get a multilateral outcome 
– and I think that is the best outcome that we could have – you need to have flexibility embedded 
in the agreement. I have no doubts about that. The way to introduce this flexib ility will vary from 
agreement to agreement, from issue to issue. The TFA is an example but is not necessarily a 
template. You will have to find different templates for the different things that you do. That goes 
to S&D. Special and Differential Treatment is not something that you are going to be able to deal 
independently or on a pillar by itself because it is going to be present or at least it should be 
present in all the conversations that we have in the organization. Every time that you have a 
conversat ion about no matter what issue, S&D should be part of that conversation. If you do not 
want it to be part of the conversation at all then it is very unlikely that you are going to get a 
multilateral result. You have to try something different. But I think that S&D is fundamental if you 
want to get outcomes in this organization in whatever format. If you want to have developing and 
least developed country Members on board, you will need that. As far as the Secretariat is 
concerned, our job is also to prepare  those delegations that want to be better prepared to 
participate and engage in those conversations by giving them information, technical assistance, 
precedents on things that have been done which are similar. We should give them whatever it is 
that they n eed to engage better and to engage more.  
 
Q: What are your plans to further develop your initiative related to the issue of Trade 
Financing? You have produced a paper on this issue. Together with the World Bank and 
other financial institutions such as the  International Credit Corporation, you could make 
some proposals for members of the other organizations to also discuss this issue 
particularly to help SMEs. (Bulgaria)  
 
A: We are looking at that very carefully. There are a number of studies that we did al ready in 
the Secretariat on this issue. What we have found is that there is a big gap in financing mostly in 
the developing countries. Ever since the crisis, the financing for trade has never recovered. There 
was already a gap and now it is even bigger and  difficult to recover. More than that, we also have 
numbers in the study which break down the statistics for the big corporations and for the SMEs. 
For the SMEs, the numbers are very poor to say the least. Most of the time when SMEs try to get WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 58 - 
 
  financing an d when they get rejected they do not try again. If I am not mistaken, around 80% of 
global trade is done with financing. If you want to trade, eight out of ten times you will need 
financing. For the SMEs, that number is reversed. Around 20% of the time the y get financing, 80% 
of the time they do not. On top of all the difficulties that SMEs already face in terms of costs – 
because logistics is more expensive and technical capacity is limited – they also have the financial 
difficulty. They do not have the fi nancing for working capital or even the transaction itself by 
letters of credit for example. I am talking to people who can help. I think the IFC is one possibility. 
I already met with the President of the IFC when I was in Washington last year. We agreed to 
have a seminar particularly on this. We are trying to find a date for that but this is something we 
would like to pursue further. When we do have a date for that, I will make sure that we are in 
touch in particular with your delegation. We will let Memb ers know of course but to your 
delegation in advance to let you know that this is going to be pursued. If you have any ideas or 
any suggestions for that event, it would be most welcome.  
 
Q: We tend to define your role. We hired you not to perform a job bu t three jobs. You 
are the public face of the organization – the spokesman -in-chief, you are the chief 
operating officer of a lean and efficient Secretariat and you are the facilitator -in-chief 
for negotiations and moving an agenda forward. On your chief op erating officer role, as 
was mentioned, your first term included p ressures  on personnel leading to urgent 
actions to respond to dispute settlement; budgetary pressures given the increased 
demand on the one hand and zero -based budgeting on the other; and, y ou described the 
agility you brought to bear in responding to some of those urgencies. For a second term, 
do you see the prospect bringing a more comprehensive and strategic view to bear on 
expenditure? You have said that you are going to try and continue to do everything. 
Many of us who have lived through periods of austerity are often asked what are the top 
three things you must do and what are the three bottom things you may have to give up 
doing – whether it is travel budgets or publications – is it not  time for a top to bottom, 
directorate by directorate review in collaboration with the Budget and Finance 
Committee? On the personnel side, given the rapidity of movements and the need for 
placements, is it time for a more comprehensive review, not so much  on the recruitment 
process, but the performance and the promotion process in a way that can improve 
moral, motivation and opportunities for advancement, given the struggle you admitted 
to balance merit on the one hand with certain imperatives be they gend er or geography 
on the other? In both respects, could you elaborate for us how you would see and how 
would you describe the role of the Directors versus the role of the Deputy -Directors 
General versus the role of the Director -General? (Canada)  
 
A: One thin g that was clear to me when I took office is that the WTO was lacking in many areas 
where either the rules were not very clear or there was not predictability on what would happen. 
There was neither an organizational structure nor a "blue -print" for the or ganization that was 
planned and organized. From my perspective, things had evolved in a random way. And this is 
unacceptable. Even though it is not a huge organization but a fairly -sized one, we need more of an 
organizational structure here. We therefore u ndertook a "strategic review". We took several 
elements of the work such as management, mobility, promotions, the right to representation by 
the Secretariat, mediation, the right to reasons, the office of internal oversight, among others. We 
had none of th at, and we began to do that. My intention was to have this come from a bottom -up 
approach. Early on we noticed that the morale in the Secretariat could be improved , to say the 
least. We thought we would  allow them to tell us what was going wrong. We did th at and we got 
the groups to report to the Directors and to the Senior Management on what they thought was 
going wrong. As a result of that, we already have a number of policies that were put in place. In 
close consultation with the JAC, the Staff Council a nd the Senior Management, we all talked to see 
what kind of policies we put in place. That has been done. We are now working on the feedback – 
the reviews. We have peer reviews looking down and looking up , so that everybody gets feedback 
from their peers a nd their colleagues on how well they are doing. We are trying to feed that into 
the process of promotions for example. When somebody applies for promotion we have a pretty 
good picture on the kind of work and relationship that that person has established n ot only with 
his peers but with his superiors and subordinates. All this has been done and I feel now that the 
mood has improved significantly with the Secretariat. I have to tell you that in some situations I 
felt that the relationship was almost adversar ial. This is definitely not the case now. We are all 
looking in the same direction which made a world of change in terms of the mood in the 
Secretariat. We are trying to work with the zero nominal growth budget. I explained to the 
Secretariat not to expect  for us to perform miracles. We cannot do that with this but we are going WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 59 - 
 
  to find ways of rewarding good work. The promotions for example have been reinstated and we 
are doing that within the parameters of the budget , which is something that is quite an 
achievement. On travel, together with the DDGs, we gave part of the compensations that we were 
originally entitled to help the budget as well. This includes the Directors. We are cutting down on 
those things to the extent that is possible. But we are talking  about big numbers here. We need to 
do better particularly with the long term contingencies like the after -service health insurance. If 
you add the retirement pension and things like that, those things weigh heavily. Some people say 
we still have a small s urplus at the end of the year but if you add those in we are 49 million in 
deficit. It is constant work. I feel now that the organization already has a better notion of what the 
path forward is. I have already talked to each Director. Now each division has  now an ideal 
structure that is flexible. We can adapt according to circumstances. When I took office there was a 
big complaint from Members about an  "inverted pyramid" . We had more Grade 9s and 10s than 
we had below. Now we changed from 118 to 85 Grade 10 s. It is already beginning to take the 
shape of the pyramid. We are making progress in that area as well and in a way which is gradual. 
Nobody is being taken away from their positions. There is no drastic attack on the lives of the 
Secretariat. Quite the c ontrary, I think we are managing to do the things that we needed to do in a 
way that also improved the mood in the Secretariat. I am quite happy there. On Directors, DDG 
and DG, I think one thing that we need to do is talk as much as possible. I often have  a meeting 
with the Directors. I explain to them whe re we are and what is happening and  I try to listen to 
them. It is a moment also when they talk to each other. I have lunches with the DDGs where we 
discuss everything we have in our agenda. Everybody nee ds to put their item on the agenda. We 
have a rapporteur as well. It is a good and open -minded conversation. We put ideas on the table. 
As the DG, I am blessed to have such a group of individuals in those levels. They are highly 
competent and committed. I am happy to have them.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 60 - 
 
  ANNEX 2 
THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL'S REPORT AT THE INFORMAL HEADS O F DELEGATION MEETING  
HELD ON 23 FEBRUARY 20171 
There has been a lot of activity over the last few weeks, so I thought it would be useful to meet 
today t o report on those discussions ahead of the General Council meeting next week. 2017 is an 
important year as we prepare for our Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires in December. It is 
therefore encouraging that the year has gotten off to a very good start for the WTO.  
On 23 January 2017, after a wait of just over 11 years, the Protocol Amending the TRIPS 
Agreement finally entered into force, bringing with it additional legal certainty on access to 
medicines. This is a significant achievement.  
There is a s aying that: 'you wait ages for a bus to come, then two come along at once.' So I'm 
pleased to confirm that yesterday we marked another breakthrough with the entry into force of the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement. And of course we have not been waiting idle. We have all been 
working to get to this point and I want to thank Members – and Geneva Ambassadors – for your 
efforts to push your ratification processes forward. This is a big moment for global trade and for 
the WTO – and I look forward to making a formal  report on the Trade Facilitation Agreement at the 
General Council on Monday.  
In addition, Members are taking steps to implement the Nairobi decision on export competition. 
Last Friday Australia became the first of the 16  developed and developing Members w ith scheduled 
export subsidy entitlements to submit its draft Schedule modification to eliminate those 
entitlements. I hope others will be in a position to do so in the very near future. And I hope that 
this positive news will provide us with the momentum to make further progress this year.  
So let me report now on the consultations that I have had so far in 2017. I will warn you now that 
it is going to be quite detailed and therefore quite long – but I think it is important for the sake of 
transparency and  inclusivity that I report on my conversations in full.  
On 20 January I attended the Swiss -hosted informal ministerial gathering in Davos. It was a very 
productive meeting. I understand that Switzerland will provide a summary of the meeting in a few 
momen ts, so I won't preempt that statement. In recent weeks I have also made bilateral visits to 
France, Senegal and India, and in each case I think the conversations were very constructive. And 
there has been a lot of activity here in Geneva.  
In December I re ported to you that I was hearing divergent views in many areas – and in other 
areas I was hearing convergent views, albeit with different approaches. I therefore promised to 
facilitate exchanges amongst delegations in various configurations and on various issues. The idea 
was to get a better sense of Members' views – particularly from proponents.  
There was no fixed format to these exchanges. It was simply a way of resuming our engagement 
complementing the activity that I know is going on amongst Members on  many of these issues. I 
am aware that all of you have an interest in how all these issues are carried forward. As you know, 
my door is always open to any delegation that wishes to express its views on any specific issue.  
Related to this, let me re -emphasi ze two points:  
First, as you know, my work as Director -General and Chair of the TNC runs in parallel and 
complements the work of the Chairs. Their work is the main engine, and it remains absolutely 
crucial to our chances of success. It is through the Chai rs' processes that negotiations take place – 
and of course they keep me briefed.  
Second, progress has to be driven by Members. The Chairs and I can facilitate your work. I think 
there is a particular onus on proponents to get traction and convergence behi nd their issues. In 
the end this is what will determine what we can deliver in Buenos Aires and beyond.  
                                                
1 Also issued as JOB/GC/118.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 61 - 
 
  So, let me now report on my consultations. In each case, for the sake of transparency, I will recap 
the delegations in attendance at each of the meetin gs. In general terms the attendees were mostly 
proponents and, sometimes, group coordinators. In all of these consultations Ambassador Neple 
was present, as the Chair of the General Council, as well as Ambassador Cima, as the host of 
MC11. In addition, the  relevant Chairs attended the meetings – except for Agriculture, where we 
do not have a new Chair in place as yet.  
So let me start now by reporting on my meeting on Services Domestic Regulation and Services 
Trade Facilitation. I held these consultations o n 2 February. This was a meeting with proponents – 
that is, those delegations that had submitted or co -sponsored papers or non -papers in these areas 
since Nairobi.  Those invited to the consultations were: Australia, Chile, Colombia, EU, Japan, 
Mexico, Peru , Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei and India.  Also attending were the Chair of the 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation, the GC Chair, and Argentina – both as MC11 host and 
Chair of the CTS SS.  
There are two streams of work here.  The first is domestic re gulation and the other, services 
facilitation.  In my view, there are significant overlaps in the two tracks. But, they also differ in 
terms of depth and breadth, as well as in the level of maturity. In fact, domestic regulation can be 
seen in some respects  as a subset of services facilitation in terms of what Members are trying to 
achieve.  I heard positive views about the work under both tracks. But, it was also clear that 
further substantive work was required in both tracks in order to better appreciate wh ere Members 
are going.  For example, on domestic regulation other elements need to be tabled soon in order to 
better appreciate the entire potential package. More specificity was also required on services 
facilitation.  I understand that India has just submi tted a new contribution on this topic. This is 
welcome and it will be circulated to delegations very soon.  
So, in the services area, there seems to be a good dynamic. But, we need sustained active 
engagement from all Members to move the discussions forward . 
Moving on, I held a meeting on development issues on 3 February. Although new or revised 
proposals have not been submitted on S&D or on LDC issues  since Nairobi, development 
continues  to be central to our work. I had called a meeting of the  proponents  in these areas to 
listen to  their views about potential outcomes in these two areas,  and how the Chair and I could 
help in advancing those issues. Those invited to these consultations were: Rwanda as ACP 
coordinator; Cameroon as S&D Focal Point for the ACP G roup; Morocco as African Group 
Coordinator; Uganda as S&D focal Point for the Africa group; Benin as the LDC Coordinator; Nepal 
and Bangladesh at the request of the LDC coordinator; and Fiji, who were due to assume the 
coordinator role of the ACP – though I understand that this may no longer be the case. Also in 
attendance were the GC Chair, the CTD SS Chair and Argentina.  
In the discussion, the proponents emphasized the importance of delivering on development in 
whatever outcomes there will be at MC11. On S&D, my understanding was that work was on -going 
to revise and recalibrate previous proposals. In this regard, the CTD SS Chair urged the 
proponents to table their revised proposals soon, so as to allow sufficient time for substantive 
discussions ahead of MC11.  
On LDC issues, an important area of engagement was the implementation of the decisions taken in 
Bali and Nairobi. Further outcomes could be considered in these areas. The LDC Group emphasized 
the importance of a clinical examination of DFQF market ac cess to improve understanding of their 
needs and priorities. They indicated that they were continuing consultations and would soon 
update Members.  
At the same time, I thought that it would be important to consider introducing elements of 
technical assista nce in any outcome, where it was appropriate. On this subject, a concern was 
raised about the contributions to the EIF. I met with the EIF Board Chair, Ambassador Stevens, a 
few weeks ago and assured her that I will do everything I can to reach out to dono rs and ensure 
that the proper levels of support are provided.  
This is a topic that we will be returning to again and again. I would ask all Members to keep 
development and LDC issues at the forefront of their minds over the coming months.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 62 - 
 
  Let me turn now  to Fisheries Subsidies, where I held a meeting on the afternoon of 3  February. 
This meeting was with those delegations that had submitted papers or co -sponsored proposals, or 
that were representatives of groups with proposals. Those invited to these consu ltations were: the 
EU; Rwanda as the ACP Group Coordinator; Dominica as the ACP focal point on these issues; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; Panama; Peru; Uruguay; Uganda; Senegal; Iceland; New Zealand; 
Pakistan; and Canada – plus the GC Chair; the Rules Chair; and Argentina.  
In this area, there are a number of proposals on the table which do not wholly align at present. 
There are also different processes – the Negotiating Group process and a plurilateral one. It is also 
worth noting that the Rules Chair has also sen t out to all Members a set of questions on which he 
would like to hear responses in his bilateral meetings. The proponents stated that an outcome on 
fisheries subsidies at MC11 was a priority for them – with some referring to SDG 14.6. Many hoped 
that prog ress could be made without unnecessary linkages – and said that this issue should be 
addressed on its own merits. The Rules Chair pointed out that one of the questions that he had 
circulated was a broad "process" question. His expectation therefore was tha t delegations would 
provide him with their sense on the approach ahead.  
Regarding the two processes – all proponents expressed preference for a multilateral approach. 
However, the point was made that plurilaterals could help in showing the possible ways ah ead. In 
this regard, the facilitator of the plurilateral provided assurance that there was no competition or 
conflict between the two approaches. My sense was that the question here would be how to 
convince those that were not yet attracted to this issue t o engage. In my view, if Members were 
aiming for a multilateral outcome, then strong political engagement at the highest level would be 
required.  
Everyone was in favour of special and differential treatment in this area. However, the issue was 
what kind o f S&D. It was clear that blanket carve outs from commitments would be difficult. There 
was also recognition that LDCs were more vulnerable. Elements of technical assistance were also 
discussed.  
Let me now move to e -commerce. I held consultations on this i ssue on 6 February in response to 
the level of activity in this area. As you all know, 11 submissions have been received. Like the 
previous consultations, this was a conversation with proponents – that is, those that have 
submitted or co -sponsored papers o r non -papers on this issue since MC10. Those invited to these 
consultations were: Argentina, as a proponent this time; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; Côte d'Ivoire; EU; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Korea; 
Malaysia; Mexico; Montenegro; Nigeria; Pakistan; Paraguay; Qatar; Russian Federation; 
Seychelles; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Turkey and the US. Also present were the GC Chair; and 
Panama, both as a proponent and as the Friend of the GC Chair on E -Commerce.  
The 11 submissions represent a broad range of ideas and approaches. Some go into detail on what 
they want to achieve, while others remain more general. There is also a certain degree of overlap 
on some of the issues raised. The General Council Chair reported that from his consultations – as 
he had reported to the General Council last December – there was no clear path on how to move 
forward.  
With regard to MC11, some said that they saw it as both a delivery and stocktaking exercise. In 
this regard, they said that the moratorium should be extended for two years or longer and, if 
agreeable, be made permanent. Others thought the Ministerial could be an occasion to reflect what 
had been discussed and build a forward looking agenda or some kind of work programme. S ome 
were more cautious, arguing that a number of unresolved issues still needed time.  
On process, a number of Members agreed that the lack of locus was a reality. Therefore, every 
opportunity to have discussions in a bottom up inclusive process should be explored. The need to 
streamline the process was mentioned. There are many ideas and views out there – on both 
substance and process. Members may want to reflect on them and decide what we need to do, or 
not do, in this area.  
Finally, let me turn to agricu lture – on which I held consultations also on 6 February. Although we 
do not yet have an Agriculture Chair, I thought it would be timely to hold this meeting given the 
importance of this area to so many Members. In this instance, I met with a group that I thought WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 63 - 
 
  was broadly representative of the various interests in the negotiations. I invited a total of 40 
delegations to these consultations.  These were: Australia; Benin; Bolivia; Brazil; Cambodia; 
Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Egypt; EU; Fij i; Guatemala; India; Indonesia; Japan; 
Kenya; Korea; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Morocco; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Paraguay; Peru; 
Philippines; Russia; Rwanda; Singapore; South Africa; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; 
Turkey; Uruguay; US; and Viet nam. Also present were the GC Chair and Argentina.  
The key areas in agriculture as I saw and described them to this group were:  
First, public stockholding. Here I noted that Members agreed that there was a clear mandate to 
find a permanent solution by MC11 . Many said that they were ready to work on a permanent 
solution here. Having said that, since MC10, Members have remained attached to their usual 
positions.  
Second, domestic support in general, and cotton in particular. These have been identified as issu es 
of priority for MC11 by a large number of WTO Members and that was again reflected in my 
consultations. Many papers have been submitted, the latest having been presented last month by 
the LDC Group.  
Some delegations also emphasized the importance of SSM , and others pointed out that a number 
of issues remained unresolved here. A few delegations mentioned market access as being 
important. Some specific topics here had been highlighted in new submissions last year. Among 
other issues, a submission on transp arency by Singapore related to Export Restrictions attracted 
interest from many Members.  
I heard from many delegations that agriculture was fundamental and had to be part of the 
outcomes for MC11. But, at this point, delegations were not in a position to s ay with precision 
what could be done. On the process, many delegations pointed out the crucial role of the 
Agriculture Chair and hoped that the selection of a new Chair would be completed soon.  
So, this concludes my report on the five areas that I have he ld conversations on so far.  
Let me stress of course that these are not the only areas which Members are focused on. The 
Chairs' work continues across the full range of issues, and no doubt you are consulting each other 
on any issues which are of interest.  Similarly, it is quite likely that I will be holding consultations 
on other issues as well. The issues I convened meetings on to date, were simply those where I 
perceived that there was the greatest level of activity, or maybe even the greatest demand.  
So, on the basis of all this, where do we stand today? My honest assessment is that in all areas we 
still have a long way to go – and a huge amount of work ahead if we are to arrive at concrete 
outcomes. In practical terms we have just 8 months between now and MC11. Members will have 
to quickly think about how they wish to advance, and on which areas. I think the proponents in 
particular must further intensify their engagement with other Members in order to move forward. I 
welcome that many of you are doing this, but we need to be mindful that time is moving quickly. If 
proposals are to be forthcoming, I think Members need to see them as soon as possible.  
The time is fast approaching when we will have to transition from the current stage of conceptual 
and ge neral discussions to much greater specificity. I hope we can achieve this by the summer 
break. Of course MC11 is not the end of the road. I think the most productive approach if we want 
to deliver substantive outcomes, is to aim to achieve outcomes pragmat ically and – if needed – 
incrementally. Those areas that are not ripe by then - even on the same issue - could be delivered 
at a later stage. Of course as part of this we need to keep focused on the implementation of 
existing decisions, and development nee ds to be a key element as we look to advance any issue.  
As ever Members' willingness to be flexible, open -minded and pragmatic will be essential. 
Continued engagement from capitals will also be key. This should be happening now. And, finally, I 
would urge you to try to build the needs of others into your proposals – particularly the needs of 
the least -developed Members.  
 
_______________  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 64 - 
 
  ANNEX 3 
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S IN RELATION TO THE  INFORMAL HEADS OF DE LEGATION 
MEETING HELD ON 23 F EBRUARY 2017  
Following  the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Switzerland; Cambodia; Morocco (African Group); Ecuador; Paraguay; Uganda; Mexico; 
Argentina; Japan; Chile; Turkey; China; Brazil; Zimbabwe; Costa Rica; South Africa; Guyana 
(ACP); Nicaragua; Plurinational State of Bolivia; Gabon; Fiji (Pacific Group) ; Chinese Taipei 
(Article  XII Members); Israel; Nepal; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arab Group); United States; 
Republic of Korea; Cuba; Indonesia (G -33); Pakistan; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Iceland; 
Colombia; Montenegro; Mali (C -4); Russian Federation; Senegal; European Union; Ghana; Benin; 
India; Jamaica; Cameroo n; Republic of Moldova;  Nigeria; Sri Lanka; Côte d'Ivoire; Mozambique; 
Dominican Republic and Zambia  are inc luded below as part of the Minutes of the General Council 
meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Switzerland  
 
The informal WTO Ministerial Gathering held on 20 Janu ary in Davos was attended by 
29 delegations – a significantly higher n umber than in preceding years – representing a broad 
spectrum of the WTO's M embership.  
  
A summary of the Ministerial discussions was made at the end of the meeting by Federal Councillor 
Johann Schneider -Ammann in his personal capacity as hosting Chair. That summary was published 
on the W TO website the same day, along with the list of attending Ministers.  
 
Five weeks after Davos, all ow me to recall Minister Schneider -Ammann' s concluding remarks, as 
follows:  
 
A. Ministers highlighted the key role of the rules -based multilateral trading system in 
ensuring a stable and predictable framework for world trade. They stressed the 
importance of safeguarding the integrity and the benefits of this system and of further 
strengthening the WTO.  
 
B. Recalling the importance of trade as an engine for development  and growth, Ministers 
stressed the priority of working towards further integration into world trade of developing 
countries, and in particular of least -developed Members.  
 
C. Ministers noted that protectionism was not the right answer to anti -trade sentiment s and 
to concerns about technological change. Instead, trade should be made more inclusive 
and its benefits spread more widely.  
 
D. Ministers expressed their appreciation for the informal WTO Ministerial meeting organized 
by Norway on 21 -22 October 2016 in Os lo, and the Chair’s summary from those 
discussions.  
 
E. Ministers also expressed their gratefulness to Argentina for hosting the 11th WTO 
Ministerial Conference in December this year in Buenos Aires.  
 
F. Recalling the important outcomes achieved at the 9th and 1 0th WTO Ministerial 
Conferences in Bali and Nairobi, Ministers welcomed the imminent entry into force of the 
multilateral Trade Facilitation Agreement – a major result of MC9 in Bali – and reaffirmed 
their commitment to the implementation of all outcomes.  
 
G. Ministers underlined the need to build on the successes of the last two Ministerial 
Conferences and to deliver further incremental, yet substantive results at MC11 in 
Buenos Aires and beyond, with development at its centre. To this end, they expressed 
their determination to pursue their engagement and political support in the lead -up to 
MC11.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 65 - 
 
   
H. Ministers undertook to mandate their officials to intensify their efforts in the different 
areas through a proposal -driven, inclusive, transparent and timely process . 
 
I. Further to the Oslo summary, issues most referred to by Ministers for further work in the 
lead-up to MC11 comprised:  
 
i. elements of domestic support in agriculture, including cotton;  
ii. a permanent solution for public stockholdings for food security purposes ; 
iii. other mandated tasks from Nairobi;  
iv. fisheries subsidies, in line with Sustainable Development Goal 14.6;  
v. domestic regulations and trade facilitation in services;  
vi. special & differential treatment for developing countries and LDC issues.  
 
Among so -called ne w issues, e -commerce was confirmed to be of particular interest to many 
Members, as well as micro, small and medium -sized companies (MSMEs).  
 
Topics further referred to notably included non -tariff barriers to trade; investment facilitation; and 
issues rela ting to market access, rules and export restrictions.  
 
2. Cambodia  
 
At the outset, I express my sincere thanks to the Republic of Benin for coordinating and steering 
the LDC Group for the last t welve months. I also thank all M embers who have done an outs tanding 
job to support the LDC Group. This year, Cambodia is assuming  the important role of  being the 
LDC Coordinator . Cambodia c ounts on your continued support . This pivotal t ask as the LDC 
coordinator is vital particularly with the upcoming WTO Eleventh Minis terial Conference in 
December . This is, therefore, a critical year for  the WTO. The process of identifying the 
deliverables for MC11 has begun. We need to engage actively and redouble our efforts so that we 
can achieve a mea ningful result in Buenos Aires.  
 
We are about nine  months away from  the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference in Buenos A ires. There 
are several proposals waiting for Member s' comments and approval . That is why the LDC Group 
would like to urge all WTO Members to make a genuine commitment to th e process and to follow 
up on our work with a spirit of consensus.  
 
The poi nts you have just made and the progress reports presented by the Chairmen of the Bodies 
and Negotiating Groups indicate that substantive work has been done recently or is being prep ared 
by some Members and Groups of Members. The LDC Group would like to recommend that the 
LDCs' concerns, subjects of interest and priorities be considered and taken into account as part of 
the process of consensus -building in the work and overall outcome s of the negotiation process, by 
Buenos Aires, in accordance  with p aragraph 24 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
 
The LDC Group has already submitted its list  of priorities in document WT/GC/W/717 – 
TN/C/W/7 3. However for the interest of M embers, we would like to recall the following key points:  
 
Agriculture  
 
Substantially reduce trade -distorting domestic support for agricultural products, including cotton, 
while putting in place an effective notification, control and supervision system for the vario us 
categories of support. Given that an outcome on domestic support in agriculture, including cotton , 
is eagerly awaited, the Group will submit concrete proposals in this regard, with elements relating 
to the crucial issue of cotton.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
LDCs remain committed to disciplines on fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and 
overfishing and to the elimination of subsidies for illegal unreported and unregulated fishing in 
accordance with the Doha and Hong Kong Mandate and Goal 14.6 o f the 2030 Development 
Agenda. Given the importance of this sector as a source of income and its direct contribution to 
the food and nutrition security of LDC populations, the disciplines that could be discussed should 
take into account the leve l of develo pment of individual M embers and appropriate special and WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 66 - 
 
  differential treatment, including the exemption of LDCs on certain disciplines, in particular capacity 
enhancing subsidies, longer transitional periods if necessary, flexibilities on transparency and the 
need for technical assistance.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
In line with paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration with the view to making them pr ecise 
effective and operational, the G roup will be submitting a proposal, which seeks to ad dress the 
industrialization cluster with the view to meeting our targets in the Istanbul Program of Action. The 
proposals will be structured around three themes: structural transformation; industrialization and 
diversification.  
 
DFQF  Market Access   
 
We nee d to en sure the implementation of the Hong Kong Ministerial Decision on Duty-free and 
Quota-Free Market A ccess for all products originating from all LDCs in a manner that ensures 
stability, security and predictability.  In so doing, it is essential that de veloped countries, and 
developing countries in a position to do so, ensure that products of commercial interest to LDCs 
are effectively included in their Market Access schemes.  
 
Preferential Rules of Origin  
 
In the same vein , we should also  ensure the imp lementation of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on 
Preferentia l Rules of Origin for least -developed countries.  As you are aware, the question of Rules 
of Origin is as important as the initiative on DFQF itself. Both of them need to be treated in 
tandem wi th each other so as to derive meaningful benefit. We call upon  Members to conduct 
meaningful reforms of their rules of origin with the view to making them simple, objective and 
transparent to facilitate LDC exports.  
 
As a next step, Members are urged to n otify the implementation using the agreed template as well 
as to provide information about import data as per the established PTA transparen cy mechanism. 
In this regard , the LDC G roup also invites you a ll to reflect upon what we could  further  do in this 
area. Once the necessary information has been notified by preference granting members, we 
would like the Com mittee on Rules of Origin to hold a special session preferably before the second 
Committee meeting to assess the value and usefulness of the informati on provided.  
 
Services Waiver  
 
The G roup will be working to pursue outcomes that would ensure that the preferential treatment 
that has been generously provided by the preference -granting members is effectively utilized by 
addressing what has been termed a s the non -tariff barriers of services trade. These were variously 
highlighted as the Section B and C elements in the LDCs ' Collective Request.   
 
E-Commerce  
 
The Group attaches an important interest to discussions on electronic commerce. We are 
discussing on our submission and may present to members soon. The LDC Group would therefore 
recommend continued discussions on this matter in order to identify the needs, constraints and 
priorities of developing countries  particularly LDCs in the regular bodies of th e WTO in accordance 
with the mandate of the 1998 Work Pr ogramme on Electronic Commerce and with the involvement 
of all the technical institutions concerned.  
 
Enhanced Integrated Framework  
 
We recognize and commend the EIF as a vehicle for the delivery of a id for trade. However, we 
have taken note of the funding gap that the EIF continues to face. We would call upon Members to 
heed the instructio n of Ministers as enshrined in p aragraph  15 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration 
to secure the necessary level o f financi al contributions to the program  with the view to enabling 
the delivery of predictable trade -related support to LDCs. The LDC G roup thanks the development 
partners that have continued to provide funding to the EIF.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 67 - 
 
  Finally, the LDC G roup would lik e to recommend that M embers need to build upon and take 
forward their priorities both in terms of preparation for the  11th Ministerial Conference this year 
and in terms of on -going work. This includes effective implementation of decisions taken in favo ur 
of LDCs at pre vious WTO Ministerial Conferences.  I strongly believe that  the implementation of 
LDC decis ions will create wealth for nations and contr ibute to the economic growth of  all LDCs.  
 
3. Morocco (African Group)  
 
This year began on a positive note, with  the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
yesterday and last month of the Protocol amending WTO Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which secures for developing countries a le gal basis to access 
affordable  medicines.  
 
These two important successes provide encouragement for the future, enabling us to continue 
working together in a constructive spirit.  
 
It is in this spirit that the African Group would like to pursue the post -Nairobi negotiating agenda 
with concrete outcomes at the Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference. The issues of interest to the 
African Group are, inter alia, domestic support in agriculture, the SSM, public stockholding, 
fisheries subsidies, and cotton. Special and differential treatmen t and less -than-full reciprocity 
should remain as an overarching priority in all these areas.  
 
And yet, as the first half of 2017 begins to show continued signs of slackening and uncertainty, the 
current pace of negotiations appears insufficient.  
 
In this regard, the African Group would like to recall the urgent need for a clear plan regarding the 
subjects on which we need to focus our efforts in the  ten months remaining until MC11 , and the 
importance of achieving tangible outcomes that take account of the development priorities of the 
LDCs and the developing countries.  
 
You will recall that the African Union Ministers of Trade, meeting in Addis Ababa last November, 
reiterated the priority given to industrialization and regional integration, as well as the n ecessity of 
the structural tr ansformation process across  the African continent.  
 
The same goals were expressed by Morocco on behalf of the African Group at the informal 
ministerial meetings in Davos  last month, and in Oslo last October.  
 
The African Group remains engaged for significant outcomes at the MC11 – outcomes which would 
take into account the development priorities and aspirations of the LDCs and the developing 
countries. But this also requires the commitment and support of all Members, whose ambit ions will 
have to be reoriented towards convergence, and towards finding a successful conclusion to the 
Doha Round and consolidating what the multilateral system has already achieved.  
 
Let me conclude by saying  that the African Group shares  your hope that this Organization  will 
continue to play its full role in helping to fulfil the aspirations  of its  Members.  
 
Morocco, which shares this vision, places considerable hope in the third informal ministerial 
meeting that it will be hosting next October in prepa ration of MC11 to clear the way for success in 
the trade negotiations before we go to Buenos Aires.  
 
4. Ecuador  
 
Ecuador trust s that our current work will produce concrete outcomes at the upcoming Ministerial 
Conference in Buenos  Aires in order to ensure the proper functioning of this Organization. We see 
the mandates contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration as forming 
the basis for our future work.  
 
As we have said before, the agricultural pillar is an extremely important part of the negotiations 
for Ecuador. W e are in favour of a comprehensive reform in that area based on balanced 
commitments for all Members. If we are to obtain results under that pillar, the negotiations will 
have to focus on the sub -pillars of domestic suppor t and market access. We are convinced that the 
2008 agricultural modalities text, negotiated over more than a decade, should continue to serve as WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 68 - 
 
  the basis for our negotiations. We have also insisted on the importance of the initiatives on special 
safeguar d mechanisms, and public stockholding for food security, which have specific mandates 
adopted by Members of this Organization and could be among the outcomes to be adopted at the 
next Ministerial Conference.  
 
As regards non -agricultural market access, we r epeat the need to preserve flexibility and special 
and differential treatment for the developing countries, since these are indispensable tools in the 
multilateral trading system. With respect to non -tariff measures, we consider that any action taken 
in this area must guarantee priority and unrestricted access for developing country exports to the 
markets of the developed countries. These actions should involve no increase in disciplines that 
are not provided for in the mandate and/or loss of public policy space for Members.  
 
Regarding the negotiations under the services pillar, we believe that any outcome achieved must 
be founded on development principals and take into account the flexibilities, advantages, and 
realities of the developing and least develope d countries. For this reason, we believe that the 
special and differential treatment model in the Trade Facilitation Agreement could be an option for 
services.  
 
As a developing country with an economy that depends partly on marine resources, we support 
the call for multilateral legislation on fisheries subsidies – and this would include small -scale 
fishing. We share the renewed interest in the negotiations on this issue as reflected in the 
four proposals submitted by different Members, and we favour an inte nsification of the discussions 
in whatever format the Chair of the Working Party on Rules deems appropriate. Ecuador is ready 
to participate actively and constructively in those discussions with a view to achieving a significant 
outcome in terms of trade, the environment and development at the 11th Ministerial Conference.  
 
Ecuador supported the text of paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration which provides that the 
identification and discussion of issues other than the Doha issues would need to be agreed by  
consensus in order to be discussed multilaterally. In this context, it has participated with great 
interest in the talks on e -Commerce and in the discussion of the proposals submitted by various 
Members. This does not mean that we are establishing a basis  for negotiations – rather, this is 
part of a necessary exercise in this area, since we need to remain abreast of the daily progress in 
technology and to exchange experiences with other Members. Finally, we reaffirm the need to 
deepen and advance the multi lateral negotiations in this Organization in accordance with the 
guiding principles underlying our work.  
 
5. Paraguay  
 
The mu ltilateral trading system must be preserved  and there is no better way of doing that than  
reinforcing  it. We welcome the entry into  force of the TFA, an important outcome for which we are 
proud  of. It was the first of many realistic, pragmatic and doable steps we all decided to take as 
we look for a way forward  in merging international trade  into an instrument for development. W e 
need to  maintain the strength and  keep revitalizing the multilateral trading system  with revised 
disciplines and renewed commitments.  
 
The Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires must deliver new results and as I said, our level of 
ambition should continue to be guided by what is realistic and doable. A result should be tangible 
and always a imed at defining a path towards an open international trade. We are ready to 
contribute positively to that goal.  
 
Agriculture continues to lag  behind in terms of disciplines a nd market openness. We have a 
commitment establishing A rticle 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture  on the continuation of the 
reform pro cess in the Doha Declaration to elimina te restrictions and distortions as well as to 
deliver  meaningful market ac cess. O n domestic support, revised disciplines and commitments are 
needed to reduce  any kind of distortive support. L imiting this kind of support is necessary to 
promote fair competition. Anti -circumv ention disciplines  need to be designed and we must frame 
outcomes  that deliver some  of those  elements in the short and medium term.  
 
The same approach is needed in Market Access. We need to address imbalances inhe rited from the 
Uruguay Round. T o do this we need to go through s implification of complex and non ad valorem  
tariffs, r eduction of tariff peaks through reduction of tariff escalations and through the elimination 
of the limited entitlement of agricultural safeguards. We also need to take a step further in WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 69 - 
 
  creating  new market opportunities. T his will be achieved t hrough further tariff cuts. At MC 11 we 
want to consolidate these  objecti ves and set a clear way forward  for future work. We will start 
reaching out to other Members to promote and discuss the elimination of agricultur al safeguards 
and its possible reductio n by the next M inisterial  Conference . We remain respectful of the 
commitments to work on a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security  purposes  
and we are ready to discuss any necessary ad justments that may be necessary  especially in terms 
of transparency and predictability.  
 
Paraguay is also determined to reinforce the WTO work programme on e -commerce and deepen 
this discussion at the WTO. E -commerce is an area of interest for our G overnment and most 
importantly for the promotion o f SMEs an d it does open new channels of trade as well  especially 
for landlocked countries. Paraguay supports the view that the WTO could play a key role in the 
digital trade environment  especially in the areas of trade facilitation, transparency, regulatory 
framewo rks and development. In this context it is essential to enhance the existing WTO 
architecture and to promote debates  not only in old WTO bodies responsible  for the work 
programme such as  the GC, the TRIPS  Council , the CTS, the CTG and the CTD but also in r egional 
and national meetings of stakeholders to determine the scope a nd the needs of each Member . 
 
6. Uganda  
 
I would like to associate myself with the statement delivered by Guyana, Cambodia, and Morocco 
on behalf of the ACP, LDC and Africa Group respective ly.  
 
Allow me to highlight the fundamental issues of our current situation as LDCs. The objective is to 
provide a context to remind Members  that we are not on eq ual footing and that therefore 
Members, including the Director -General as you  seek your second  term, ought to seriously take 
more fully into account the needs and concerns of LDCs.  
 
You may be aware  that more than 75% of our population still live in poverty. While we constitute 
12% of the world’s population, we only contribute less than 2% to the world’s GDP and around 1% 
of world trade. According to the 2016 LDC Report by UNCTAD: entitled: The path to graduation 
and beyond: M any LDCs will not meet the target for graduation in line with the Istanbul Program 
of Action. Economic growth has declined s teeply since 2012, to 3.6% in 2015. The merchandise 
trade deficit increased from $36 billion in 2014 to $65 billion in 2015. The services trade deficit on 
the other hand stood at $39 billion; while our current account deficit was a record $68.6 billion . 
 
It should not therefore be a surprise that the African Ministers of Trade in their November 
Declaration, instructed us to focus on the Structural Transformation and Industrialization of Africa 
in line with Agenda 2063 and in so doing to ensure that no one i s left behind. The state of 
unemployment on the continent which is home to 2/3 of LDCs is precarious. In Uganda alone, 
beyond 60% of our youth population is unemployed. It is therefore upon this background that we 
call upon members to embrace the fierce ur gency of now.  
 
For long, we have reiterated the dire situation we face, during the time leading to, and after MC10. 
We were told that if there was no bread, we should eat cake, which is why we are delighted by the 
strong and credible voices from the north;  shouting from mountain tops about the need to address 
the concerns resulting from the unintended consequences of, about, and against globalization. You 
ought to pause and ask yourself one question: If the rich also cry; what must the poor LDCs do 
before m embers heed their call?  
 
It ought to be recalled that M embers agreed to seek to place the needs and interests of the 
developing cou ntries and especially the least -developed among them at the cent re of the work 
program me so as to ensure that all our peoples  benefit from the increased opportunities and 
welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates. Accordingly, therefore, we call upon 
members to do two things: (i) To desist from the temptation to recreate the legislativ e history of 
this Organiz ation in the name of expediency; and (ii) to implement in full, all that has been agreed 
including, but not limited to, the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. Further, Buenos Aires 
should be the venue to iron out the elements we missed in Nairobi. Thi s should be the time to 
conclusively address the question of LDC issues. Ministers agreed in paragraph  24 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration that all issues of specific interest to LDCs shall be pursued on a priority 
basis, with a view to strengthening  them, making them commercially meaningful and, legally 
binding.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 70 - 
 
   
Agriculture  
 
80% of our population heavily depends on agriculture for their subsistence and livelihood. Our 
objective is to improve food security through increased agricultural production, p roductivity, and 
export. Increase export earnings; and protect our producers in case prices decline. However, our 
farmers continue to face the unmitigated flood of highly subsidised imports that for several 
decades have had a negative impact on their produ ction. It is therefore important to observe that 
if there are no substantial reductions in domestic supports in major economies in line with Para 13 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, even if we have 100% DFQF, we shall have no effective 
market access. M embers however, are looking to access our markets to flood them with subsidised 
imports. This would make our farmers uncompetitive even on the domestic market. It is therefore 
important that we find solutions that substantively discipline domestic support.  That said, the draft 
modalities text in Rev 4 should be the basis for our discussions, and the LDCs flexibilities, must be 
preserved.  
 
Development  
 
The African Ministers of Trade have pronounced themselves clearly on this issue, and, on other 
WTO issues i n their Declaration. In any foreseeable outcomes for MC11, our Ministers reaffirmed 
that S&DT shall be an integral part of all WTO Agreements and future multilateral outcomes and 
shall be embodied, as appropriate, in schedules of concessions and commitment s and in the rules 
and disciplines, so as to be operationally effective and to enable developing countries, in particular 
LDCs, to effectively address their development needs in line with Africa’s industrial development 
priorities as encapsulated in the Ag enda 2063. There is wide consensus in our community that we 
can use trade policy instruments for industrialization. It is in this regard that we shall be pursuing 
outcomes on Special and Differential Treatment in line with Paragraph 44 of the Doha Minister ial 
Declaration with the view to strengthening them and making them precise, effective and 
operational with the purpose of supporting our industrialization objectives.  
 
Process  
 
We would like to call upon the Director -General  to put in place a credible pro cess that does not 
seek to replicate Nairobi. It has to be bottom up, transparent, predictable and inclusive. The small 
club of five should be abandoned. We are all equal representatives of sovereign states and are so 
recognized under public international law. Any text to be presented to the Ministerial Conference 
must have been  agreed to by consensus by the M embership of the whole at least six weeks before 
the Ministerial Conference. Towards that end therefore we call for the convening of a dedicated 
session to discuss process issues before MC11.  
 
7. Mexico  
 
It should be pointed out that we stand at a critical juncture in the history of the multilateral 
trading system  marked by rising anti -trade and anti -globalization sentiment in different parts of 
the world . 
 
Although such sentiment is not new and has in fact existed for some time now, especially in a 
number of developing countries, it is extremely disturbing to see it rising today – and even being 
deliberately stoked at the highest political level – in the very countries that have promoted and 
benefited the most from international trade liberalization and globalization.  
 
As this year begins, we clearly cannot tackle our work and activities under a business -as-usual 
scenario. In recent weeks we have witnessed  the curbing of major regional and plurilateral t rade 
liberalization initiatives  which required a huge collective investment of effort and had the potential 
to give new and much -needed impetus to trade, investment and economic growth the world over.  
 
We ar e facing the potential threat of important integration processes and supply chains being 
affected by doubtful, inward -looking policies anchored in protectionism. Without their having even 
been approved or implemented, the mere awareness that such policies might see the light of day 
are further depressing investment and giving rise to considerable uncertainty and volatility in some 
economies.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 71 - 
 
  It goes without saying that in the interconnected world in which we live, what happens in one 
region or another or w ithin one trade bloc or another could have an enormous global impact and 
serious repercussions for the multilateral system as a whole, including the dispute settlement 
mechanism.  
 
We therefore need to ask ourselves how we are going to steer our work this y ear in such a way as 
to contribute effectively to ensuring that the multilateral trading system is, first and fore most, 
safeguarded and preserved – if not actually strengthened.  
 
As Members of this Organization, we unquestionably need to acknowledge the cu rrent anti -trade 
sentiment, as well as the challenges it presents. But we must also honestly and fully recognize 
that all Members have benefited from trade based on clear and stable common rules such as those 
provided under the WTO. Proof of this is that t he number of Members has increased steadily since 
the creation of the Organization and as diverse as we may be, we are capable of agreeing on and 
launching high -impact initiatives such as the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
 
We should accordingly step up our  efforts to become more efficient in analysing and making the 
public aware of the benefits of trade (i.e. in terms of price reduction, greater variety for 
consumers, generating productivity gains, and so forth). This should in fact be one of the key 
messag es of any document issued by our Ministers in Buenos Aires.  
 
This is the framework in which we could pursue our efforts to move ahead with the implementation 
of the Bali and Nairobi outcomes, on the one hand, and to advance the negotiations on 
outstanding Doha Development Agenda issues and a range of other topics that are of common 
interest and importance, on the other.  
 
Mexico is committed to all of this and therefore finds it encouraging that the Ministers who 
attended the Davos meeting last January have agreed to work on securing a substantive outcome 
by the 11th Ministerial Conference.  
 
Indeed, the issues on which progress is most likely to be made between now and Buenos Aires and 
which, given the current climate, we should undertake to do everything pos sible to ensure yield 
positive results and are part of a potential package are those which you have addressed in your 
consultations, and there may be others.  
 
Beyond these and other possible minor deliverables and a stock -taking by Ministers, our hope is 
that Buenos Aires may also provide an opportunity for Members to offer their vision for the 
Organization with an eye to the future.  
 
We therefore support your call for us to pick up the pace and not stand idle in the face of the 
political uncertainties surr ounding us. We need to press ahead with the technical work so that it 
will be easier to make decisions when the time comes and so that we do not get caught up in the 
rush leading up to and at the conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
We also endorse your call to Me mbers to exercise leadership so that, collectively, we can make 
sure that today's complex global economic climate represents an opportunity and not a threat to 
the international community.  
 
8. Argentina  
 
We are clearly going through a period of much uncertain ty. Some colleagues have expressed 
pessimistic views as to the possible outcomes of the 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. 
We do not share these views. The void left by some Members has been filled by others who are 
seeking to achieve concrete ou tcomes at the Buenos Aires Conference.  
 
We would therefore like to take this opportunity to refer, once again, to the package of issues that 
Argentina hopes will deliver results in Buenos Aires – issues regarding which there is widespread 
interest among th e Membership.  
 
We note that agriculture is the central priority of most Members, in particular the developing 
countries, and within agriculture, domestic support, together with a specific solution for cotton and WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 72 - 
 
  a permanent mechanism on public stockholdin g in developing countries for food security purposes, 
as mandated by our Ministers in Nairobi.  
 
Fisheries subsidies constitute another key issue for the 11th Ministerial Conference. We also see a 
window of opportunity for all aspects of trade in services,  most notably domestic regulation and 
facilitation.  
 
Services linked to e -commerce constitute another issue with the potential for delivering results in 
Buenos Aires. We have also noted interest in beginning discussions on investment facilitation.  
 
We believe that the best way of bringing the WTO closer to our people is by making progress on 
cross-cutting issues and facilitating and broadening the participation of micro, small and 
medium -sized enterprises in international trade, since such enterprises for m the backbone of our 
economies. This is something we are working on.  
 
It is up to us, the Members, to identify the areas in which an outcome is possible in Buenos Aires 
and to move forward in those areas. We need to learn from our past mistakes and avoid 
submitting for the consideration of our Ministers in Buenos Aires issues that we have failed to 
agree upon in Geneva.  
 
After Oslo and Davos, it became clear  that Ministers would have a decisive role to play in preparing 
the Buenos Aires agenda while close ly following the process in Geneva, with two meetings at the 
highest level before Buenos Aires, in June (Paris) and October (Marrakesh). Each and every one of 
us should feel responsible for ensuring success in Buenos  Aires.  
 
We are aware that Buenos Aires will be one more stage in the incremental approach  that reality 
has imposed on us  which is why we must use all our energy and knowledge to find convergence on 
issues that will deliver results in Buenos Aires.  
 
Lastly, we cannot allow ourselves to continue delaying the decision on who will become the next 
Chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. We hope to be able to reach 
agreement on this matter – one of key interest to the majority of Members – as soon as possible. 
This is imperativ e. 
 
Argentina will do everything possible, including at the highest political level, to work together with 
those Members who continue to support the strengthening of the multilateral trading system and 
who wish to commit themselves to achieving a successfu l outcome in Buenos Aires.  
 
9. Japan  
 
As pointed out by some previous speakers, the world is currently facing widespread uncertainty. 
The rise of protectionism and anti -globalism remains a serious challenge to us, and concerns 
continue to grow. To counter suc h negative tendencies, as reemphasized by ministers in Davos 
last month, we must seize every opportunity to send a strong message about the value and 
significance of trade liberalization and the rule -based multilateral trading system.  
 
For this purpose, we  should take concrete action on both the remaining and other issues, including 
those which need to be addressed in the context of the SDGs. Bringing about tangible results at 
MC11 is of course very important. Simultaneously, we should also make every effor t to present a 
clear pathway and agenda beyond MC11. This corresponds to the concept of an incremental 
approach, and is critical for strengthening the multilateral trading system and maintaining its 
credibility in the mid -to-long term.  
 
In considering MC11  and beyond, I believe that the Trade Facilitation Agreement yields valuable 
clues. While the TFA is primarily about trade in goods, it would be meaningful to think beyond it 
and review the current discussions in other areas from the viewpoint of how they could contribute 
to facilitating trade, bearing in mind the new approach which was adopted in the TFA.  
 
Indeed, many of the proposals and ideas currently on the table, such as trade facilitation in 
services, domestic regulation in services sectors, and enh ancement of transparency, have trade 
facilitation components in common. Investment facilitation also includes elements which contribute 
to facilitating trade. In the same vein, Japan attaches great importance to e -commerce and digital WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 73 - 
 
  trade because ICT has  significant potential to enable various actors to have better access to the 
global market, thereby facilitating trade worldwide.  
 
While these proposals and ideas differ in terms of scope and maturity, they are all related to 
facilitating trade. Indeed the y have the potential to contribute to achieving “inclusive trade”, which 
enables developing countries, in particular LDCs, SMEs, farmers, women, and youth alike to reap 
the benefits of trade.  
 
Based on this reasoning, we believe it would be useful and inte resting to consider presenting a 
“facilitation package” at MC11 by combining all relevant elements from a horizontal perspective. 
Such an approach and narrative would help not only to showcase the role of the WTO at this 
challenging moment but also to guid e our discussions beyond MC11.  
 
Japan looks forward to expanding on these points while actively contributing to a lively debate in 
the relevant forums.  
 
10. Chile  
 
We are all well aware of the huge amount of work that we urgently need to get through in order t o 
ensure a successful Ministerial Conference in December. We welcome the clarity and strength with 
which our Argentine colleague expresses Argentina's political will as host of the next Ministerial 
Conference. In each working group, in each committee and a t each formal or informal meeting, 
Chile has joined other Members in making careful, respectful, creative and constructive 
contributions with a view to finding the consensus needed to obtain results. We will continue 
to do so. 
 
We know that these are criti cal times for the multilateral system, be it in terms of political, 
commercial, cultural, scientific or technological aspects.  
 
Today, the achievements we have made in the past decades as an international community, in 
moving towards greater levels of free dom and well -being, are under threat. Mankind has always 
moved progressively towards development, despite numerous twists and turns along the way. 
GDP per capita has increased worldwide, as has access to healthcare and education, democracy, 
and life expect ancy, and the steps taken to alleviate poverty within the framework of the 
millennium goals have achieved significant results.  
 
While these are all signs that we are moving in the right direction, there is still much to achieve, 
and it is therefore importa nt that we remain on course. The 2030 Agenda and the sustainable 
development goals herald a new era, one in which the WTO must play an important role.  
 
Because in this process, international free trade has undoubtedly played a key role, contributing to 
economic growth and ever broader access to goods and services, increasing work opportunities, 
and generating social policy resources.  
 
Now more than ever, it is important to remember that the opening up of trade under WTO rules 
has, in the last 20 years, glob ally reduced tariffs by half and increased trade twofold. While it has 
benefited  millions of people in developing countries, which have seen their share in world trade 
rise from 27% to 42%, it has, above all, created a particular climate, a feeling in publ ic and 
private actors that growth is possible and its benefits tangible.  
 
The threat of protectionism, and what has been called "de -globalization" – i.e. the return to 
"national fortresses" – poses a risk to our achievements, and, above all, jeopardizes th e future, 
which up until only a couple of years ago, we viewed with more optimism.  
 
The future is no longer what it was.  
 
We must fight to get back on course, with a vision of the common good and community spirit.  
 
As noted by the Director -General , there i s some good news: the TRIPS amendment that has 
entered into force shows us that trade can connect to human and social aspects.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 74 - 
 
  We very much hope that from now on, with the full implementation of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement, international trade will b ecome more dynamic, thereby reflecting OECD and 
WTO forecasts.  
 
The Trade Facilitation Agreement is without doubt a major milestone for the WTO and the entire 
multilateral trading system, one which proves that we are capable of reaching agreements and 
finding concrete solutions to the problems affecting international trade. The news of its ratification 
could not come at a better time.  
 
It is true that we could have taken less time to complete this process, which reminds me that 
more than a year has passed s ince the Nairobi agreement on the elimination of agricultural export 
subsidies, something we have not yet implemented fully. We cannot begin the Buenos Aires 
Ministerial with this task still incomplete after two years.  
 
As we have pointed out before, the W TO is a global public good that we are all responsible for 
protecting and supporting. Each Member of this Organization has the right and the duty to 
contribute to this purpose in the way it sees fit, but always in view of our common goal.  
 
The WTO is centr al to establishing the global rules that make it possible – as indicated in 
Sustainable Development Goal 9 – to encourage the development of infrastructure, to promote 
industrialization and, in particular, to foster innovation, that human ability to find w ays of 
responding to our problems and needs and to make technological progress, thereby increasing 
industrial sector capacity. In regard to all these aspects, frank dialogue, proposals, and ultimately, 
agreements and commitments, are the response that our societies expect from us.  
 
We reiterate our interest and commitment, especially regarding the negotiations and discussions 
on outstanding issues pertaining to agriculture, food security, fisheries subsidies, trade in services, 
e-commerce and the centrality  of development. These economic activities involve  millions of 
people around the world and we have a historical debt in these areas.  
 
There is no denying that the world has changed, and the fourth industrial revolution is presenting 
us with new challenges.  The Trade Facilitation Agreement is entering into force to resolve 
problems left over from trade in the 20th century, which will free up latent energies and capacities 
in our economies. At the same time, however, we might need to think about negotiating a  
"Trade  Facilitation Plus" Agreement with facilitation components for trade in the 21st century, 
which would be centred on the new technologies, services and complexities associated with the 
digital environment.  
 
To all those voices advocating isolationism  and protectionism, Chile responds with proposals for 
dialogue and further integration.  
 
Fair global trade contributes to an atmosphere of peace and stability. We must send out a clear 
message regarding the beneficial effects of open international trade an d ensure that this message 
is reflected in both public opinion and "published opinion". We must also make clear that 
multilateralism is the best tool for this task.  
 
Lastly, Director -General, I would like to express, on behalf of my Government and my Missi on, our 
pleasure in knowing that you are to take on the role of Director -General for a second term. We 
have every confidence in your running of this Organization. The report you have given us today on 
your many and varied meetings and consultations, in var ious formats and on various issues, with 
group and committee Chairs and the Membership, is further evidence of this. The person who led 
us to t he Bali A greements, the Trade Facilitation Agreement and Nairobi, who has tirelessly 
advocated the importance of multilateralism and free trade, in all forums and at all levels, all over 
the world, is the best person to help us steer this vessel through rough waters safely into port.  
 
11. Turkey  
 
Turkey congratulates Members and the WTO Secretariat for having brought the  TFA to the 
implementation stage. We expect an effective implementation of it.  
 
When we look at the global trade and investment landscape, we see sluggish growth coupled with 
increasing concerns about anti -trade tendencies. Protectionist measures are also on the rise. In WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 75 - 
 
  the face of these challenges, any breakthrough at the multilateral level would matter more than 
ever for inclusive trade, development and growth. The upcoming MC11 is a good opportunity to 
grasp and utilize for delivering on trade and to co nvey reassuring messages to the international 
community.  
 
The past two Ministerial Conferences showed our ability to deliver multilateral results. However, on 
the lead up to Nairobi, many issues were left unresolved and a lot of work was left to the 
Ministers. We should not repeat the same in Buenos Aires. We should rather strive to achieve 
convergence in Geneva. This would require commitment, cooperation, hard work and a sense of 
urgency on everyone's part. The time ahead of us should therefore be used ef fectively to convert 
this momentum to concrete undertakings.  
 
On the way forward, advancing all outstanding issues should be our ultimate goal. Let me 
therefore briefly express certain priority issues from Turkey's perspective under three main areas.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Turkey is ready to engage in negotiations for moving forward the reform process in a balanced and 
meaningful way as a continuation of what we have achieved in Nairobi. In this respect, delivering  
on the SSM and Public  Stockholding for Food Securit y Purposes is of utmost priority not only for 
Turkey but also for an overwhelming majority of developing Members. It would be very difficult to 
work on any package in Agriculture for MC11 without those elements. Turkey also supports and is 
ready to engage in negotiations for reaching a fair and development -oriented outcome on domestic 
support including on cotton and for reducing the imbalances of the Agreement on Agriculture in 
this area. In this sense, we should work to eliminate the inequality between the  Members who 
have AMS Commitments and those who are bound with only de minimis as well as to develop the 
disciplines for the Green Box and the Blue Box supports to limit as much as possible their trade 
distorting effects.  
 
Services  
 
We believe that the mos t effective way for liberalizing services is the multilateral forum. Trade in 
Services is a potential area where we can achieve concrete results. Turkey appreciates very much 
the work undertaken by the Council for Trade in Services. Domestic regulations an d e-commerce 
issues standout due to the attention they received from the Membership. The intensive work done 
on domestic regulation and on e -commerce is encouraging towards producing outcomes for MC11. 
The efforts of Australia and others to table written p roposals on the Working Party on Domestic 
Regulations are welcome. We are closely following the evolution of the paper and expecting new 
articles so that a comprehensive GATS plus text can come out of these efforts. We are also excited 
by the extensive wor k of other countries and looking forward to text -based proposals. We are very 
hopeful that all these efforts could be delivered in MC11 and beyond.  
 
E-Commerce as a sub -set of Services  
 
Turkey has observed the growing interest of Members in issues related to e-commerce to develop 
disciplines on e -commerce in the interest of all regardless of our regional differences or level of 
development. We can make significant contributions to world trade by addressing the basic issues 
of e-commerce. The seven papers ta bled last year on e -commerce have touched upon very 
important aspects of e -commerce and they share many common points which can be stepping 
stones in our discussions. Given the broad range of e -commerce, we could take on the most 
common and urgent issues f irst. Turkey sees a close relationship between e -commerce, the 
participation of SMEs in international trade and development where multilateral rules would add 
great value. Turkey is ready to actively engage in the discussions and work with interested parti es. 
 
Turkey emphasizes that issues related to the least -developed countries should continue to be at 
the forefront of our agenda.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 76 - 
 
  12. China  
 
I would like to share some thoughts on road to the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires by the 
end of this year.  
 
First, the upcoming MC11 will be very different from MC10 and MC9 we have had in the recent 
years.  The overwhelming task for MC11 is to avoid any crisis of the multilateral trading system 
and make sure that no issue is dropped after MC11.  We are going to  make some mistakes if we 
take it as business as usual.  
 
Second , for the shared future and the greatest benefits for all of us, members must work hard and 
harvest those easier fruits, particularly those issues with clear mandate.  This calls for strong 
political guidance and aspirations for our next step.  
 
Third, time is not our friend.  We have only less than 10 months left for MC11.  Two years ago, 
when we were preparing for the MC10, we had already intensified discussions, communications 
and dialogues in  various configurations and occasions at the start of the year.  However, this year 
around I have not seen much work going on.  All we need to do now is to jump start our work with 
sense of urgency.  
 
With this sense of commitment, let me turn to our preli minary thinking on some specific issues.  
 
Agriculture  
 
We must have a permanent solution on PSH and find way out on SSM.  Without achievement on 
these two important issues, it will be even harder for us to deliver on other issues.  We echo the 
statement to  be made by Indonesia on behalf of G33.  As for domestic support, including AMS and 
de minimis , our position is quite clear and remains unchanged.  If necessary, new colleagues could 
refer to my statement at the previous HODs meeting of last December.  
 
NAMA and Services  
 
Both of them are indispensable part of the Doha mandates and Nairobi Declaration.  We are 
expecting the two Chairs to play a proactive role in both advancing negotiations on reducing tariff 
and non -tariff measures in NAMA, and on domestic r egulations and market access in Services.  
 
Rules  
 
Trade remedies is an integral part of rules negotiations.  In this regard, China is preparing a 
proposal and seeking members’ comments.  In our view, further discussion could concentrate on 
preventing trade  remedies measure from getting permanent, enhancing transparency and due 
process, responding to concerns of developing members, LDCs in particular.  
Meanwhile, China supports development -oriented and balanced multilateral disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies,  however, there are some red -lines that shall never be crossed on certain issues, 
jurisdiction over certain waters for instance.  We believe that negotiations of trade remedies and 
fisheries subsidies should be pursued in tandem, with equal inputs and leve l of outcomes.  
 
Development  
 
China calls for further implementation of LDC -related issues, to respond to the needs in the 
process of industrialization  and development of developing M embers, LDCs in particular.  We also 
support to facilitate the accessions  of relevant developing countries.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
The Proposal we have submitted calls for discussion on cross -border trade in goods enabled by 
internet, and payment and logistics directly related to the trade in goods.  Development should be 
placed at the h eart of the discussion, bridging the digital divide of developing members, LDCs in 
particular.  More controversial issues including cross -border data flow and server localization 
requirement should be avoided.  The consensus of all members has to be reache d before the 
negotiation is launched.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 77 - 
 
  Investment Facilitation  
 
China is ready to move ahead with discussion on investment facilitation  within WTO, not 
prejudging any possible results.  We could start with informal dialogues, workshops, seminars, 
focusing on how to enhance policy transparency, improve licensing and approval efficiency, 
streamline regulatory measures, increase capacity building for developing members and LDCs in 
particular.  Such discussion should serve to help the developing members and esp ecially LDCs to 
better integrate into the global value chains and achieving 2030 SDGs.  
 
Process  
 
In the coming discussions and negotiations, all members should join hands together, and 
inclusiveness, transparency and bottom -up should be the principles of o ur work in this 
organization. Each member’ s interest, including its redlines, must be equally respected. No one 
can speak for anybody else, unless this member delegates others to do so.  
 
Before concluding, I would wish all of us a good luck in the run -up to MC11.    
 
13. Brazil  
 
After Bali and Nairobi, we trust that the Director -General will once again  make a uniqu e 
contribution to a successful M inisterial  Conference . 
 
We continue to believe that a positive and substantive outcome in Buenos Aires is crucial, as  part 
of a response to anti -trade sentiments. We face the common challenge of preserving and 
strengthening the System and reaffirming the relevance of this Organization. For that, like in the 
bicycle metaphor, and forgive me the cliché, we need to keep mov ing. 
 
Brazil continues to see the DDA and its mandates as a reference. However, in light of present 
circumstances, incremental results appear to be the best viable alternative for Buenos Aires. 
Incremental results are better than none at all.  
 
We will cont inue to discuss all topics on the table, including the so -called new issues, o n their own 
merits. Before the s ummer break, or maybe later, we will have opportunities to assess whether we 
are on track for a balanced package. The litmus test, in Brazil's per spective, will be to gauge 
whether we are on track for a development -oriented outcome.  
 
In any case, it seems fair to say that, if we are able to achieve deliverables for Buenos A ires, and 
hopefully we will , the list of possible candidates seems to be narr owing down around topics which 
are supported by significant numbers of Members: agriculture, fisheries, regulatory i ssues 
including TBT and SPS , e-commer ce, domestic regulation, trade facilitation in ser vices, SMEs, 
development issues as well as perhaps one or two more topics.  
 
However, let me underscore that we are not taking anything for granted. As the Director -General 
said, we see many divergent views in many areas. A number of countries, including key players, 
continue to express reservations about th e balance of what is on the table. We need to address 
these concerns.  
 
Agriculture  
 
In any scenario, agriculture must be central for Buenos Aires. We welcome the recent 
contributions by the LDCs and the ACPs. Their two papers are further evidence of the ce ntrality of 
agriculture for an overwhelming majority of Members.  
 
Within the agricultural agenda, cotton is a priority. We also recognize the commitment to negotiate 
a permanent solution to the issue of PSFS. Brazil is ready to engage in consultations.  
 
In domestic support, we renew the invitation to all Members to consider, and give us reactions on 
the concept papers circulated by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 
offering four non -exclusive alternatives to improve discipline s in this field. Brazil's vision for 
incremental results in Buenos Aires includes the goal of a feasible framework for continuous 
progress and commitments in the area of domestic support.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 78 - 
 
   
Fisheries subsidies  
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies, t he multilatera l track remains the favo urite option for Brazil. The 
proposals on the table offer positive elements. At the same time, given our sense of urgency, we 
are also participating in the ongoing plurilateral process, which we see as a stepping stone towards 
a mul tilateral outcome.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
Brazil has been actively engaged in consultations. We submitted three papers, one of them 
together with Argentina and Paraguay. E -commerce is a reality, and the WTO has a key role to 
play in shaping an international regulato ry framework that truly works for all, developing and 
developed countries, companies and consumers.  
 
A balanced outcome in e -commerce in Buenos Aires would contribute to a successful MC -11 overall 
package. Such an outcome could be focused on three areas: a clear way forward for post -MC11 
engagement; concrete recommendations and decisions on how the WTO could contribute to 
address the digital divide; and specific decisions on practical, trade -facilitation aspects, such as e -
signatures.  
 
Services  
 
We look f orward to discussions on the papers that were circulated by Australia, on behalf of a 
group of Members. We also welcome the draft TFS agreement to be circulated by India, a valuable 
contribution which we will carefully consider. Brazil proposes that Member s remain focused on 
elements of domestic regulation, trade facilitation.  
 
Investment Facilitation  
 
Investment facilitation has been raised as an issue of interest. It is certainly so for Brazil, whose 
template for investment agreements incorporates such co ncept in its very title and many key 
provisions. At the same time, we all know that any WTO effort on investment facilitation can only 
succeed on the basis of a clear understanding that investment facilitation does not include, in any 
way, protection rules  and dispute settlement, in particular ISDS. Thus framed, discussions on 
investment facilitation may be a win -win topic for Buenos Aires and Members may count on 
Brazil´s active participation.  
 
In conclusion, and avoiding rhetorical exhortations at this po int, we welcome the engagement of 
Members towards Buenos Aires. We sense that there is broad support for tangible, realistic results, 
and we consider this to be a good enough basis to work on. At the same time, we have in mind the 
same message mentioned by  China: we need to enhance the pace of work and have a sense of 
urgency.  
 
14. Zimbabwe  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statements made by African, ACP and C4 and G33 groups.  
 
I would also want to welcome the coming into force of the Trade Facilitatio n Agreement, for which 
we would like to thank you Director General and the Chair of the General Council for the work that 
you all put to achieve this milestone. Additionally we would also like to welcome the coming into 
force of the TRIPS Amendment which s hould help us to access medicines.  
 
Let me now make some comments regarding the road to Buenos Aires.  
 
Firstly , Zimbabwe reaffirms its commitments to engage constructively in all areas as we work 
towards the outcomes for Buenos Aires. In the same way, we i mplore others to equally commit to 
constructive engagement on the road to Buenos Aires.  
 
Secondly , as we prepare for this important event I would like to reiterate that we need to examine 
issues of process both in Geneva and  at the Ministerial Conferences.  In this regard, is our view 
that the WTO adheres to basic principles of full participation, inclusivity and transparency. This WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 79 - 
 
  calls for Green Room processes to be more inclusive and transparent, especially at Ministerial 
Conferences to ensure that all me mbers are represented and feel that they are participating in the 
decision making process. To be clear, we do appreciate that in an organisation as big as the WTO 
there will always be need for consultations in different formats to arrive at consensus. Howe ver 
these formats have to be inclusive, accountable and transparent.  
 
Thirdly , we need to start engaging constructively and work towards completion of our negotiations 
agenda here in Geneva so as to avoid overburdening the Ministers to go into negotiations  in 
Buenos Aires whilst at the same time leaving agenda setting to a few most privileged members. 
Any issue for adoption by Ministers at the Ministerial Conference should be agreed to by members 
well before the event. To this end,  we could take a cue from  the “gentlemen’s agreement “ in 
preparation for MC7 and MC8 Conferences where members came to the understanding that  any 
agenda for the Ministerial Conference should have gained consensus of members by at least 6 
weeks before the Ministerial Conference.  
 
Fourthly , we call on all chairpersons to WTO bodies and its subsidiaries to respect the views of 
members as this is a member driven organisation which is based on consensus for its decision 
making. To this end,  decisions should not be adopted before arriv ing at the requisite consensus.  
 
Regarding substance, I would like to underscore and reiterate that we have a mandate from the 
Nairobi Ministerial Conference to prioritise the remaining issu es of the DDA. The Africa Union' s 
recent Declaration of  November 2 016 emphasises that, " Continental integration, structural 
transformation and industrialization shall remain the overriding priorities for Africa, following the 
establishment of the Continental Free Trade Agreement (CFTA),  in line with the Agenda 2063: The 
Africa We Want". In this regard our interest as an African country is that the outcome of the 
negotiations should promote industrialization and regional integration in Africa.  
 
My delegation would therefore like to have commercially meaningful outcomes in agriculture, in 
line with the revised version 4 modalities text of 2008 specifically; substantial reduction of trade 
distorting domestic supports,  including cotton, a permanent solution on Public Stockholding for 
Food Security Purposes and effective and s imple to use Special Safeguard Measures. Development 
should remain central to all outcomes of the negotiations. Furthermore, the outcome on Special 
and Differential Treatment proposals sho uld fulfil  the mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Declaration and p romote our industrialization effort. I therefore call upon members to step up 
efforts towards achieving concrete outcomes on the remaining issues of the DDA.  
 
Lastly , regarding e -commerce our position remains that, we acknowledge the increasing 
importance of e-commerce and digital trade and welcome discussions on this based on the current 
mandate. We however do not believe that e -commerce rules or disciplines are necessary for us at 
this stage. Furthermore, we do not have any mandate on any work on e -commer ce rules or 
disciplines, even on the so called "soft disciplines" . My delegation is not e -commerce ready 
because of the digital divide resulting from the knowledge gap, inadequate connectivity, lack of 
infrastructure, electricity and appropriate legislatio n. According to recent statistics from the AfDB, 
the level of internet penetration in Africa is still very low, at 16%, even if we take t he more 
optimistic figure of 28. 7% put forward by Internet World Statistics., it is still very low. In short 
there is s o much for us to learn and understand about e -commerce. In this regard, it is premature 
to launch n egotiations on e -commerce at MC 11. It is logical therefore, that under a scenario where 
there is a digital divide, the best way forward is for us to seek way s to bridge this divide in order 
to give developing countries the opportunity to participate and benefit from the fast developing 
digital trade and internet of things. To this end, I call for more aggressive effort and a fresh 
mandate to deepen our work on  the work program me on e -commerce, focusing o n the 
development aspect of it.  
 
15. Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica a ssociates  with Mexico' s interventi on on  the state of affairs of glob al trade, as well as 
with Chile' s assessment of the broad, long -term challenges ahead.   
 
Much has changed since the Davos M inisterial gathering, even though it took place only one month 
ago. Let us focus on the appreciative. The Trade Facilitation Agreement ratification is a timely 
reminder of what the WTO is all about and the transformativ e value it can create.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 80 - 
 
  In the face of uncertainly, we cannot sit on our hands to wait and see. We must co -create the 
future we expect, one that can include all of us.  
 
Most of our efforts under this House are spent on the WHAT and HOW of our agenda but 
sometimes we lose focus on the WHY. Towards MC11, our conversation should be about how to 
achieve the SDGs and the Agenda 2030. That is the future we agreed to co -create and it includes 
all of us.  
 
As we embark in this venture, let us remind ourselves tha t trust is the most important currency in 
our line of business. Let us put our leadership to the service of the global community and our 
character to the test in order to paddle through the rough waters ahead.  
 
On a fi nal note, I wish to invite the M ember ship to the seminar on electronic payments and 
financial inclusion organized by the group of Friends of E -commerce for Development, which will be 
held on Monday, March 13 at the WTO. We especially wish to invite the ACP and LDC G roups, as 
they have success  stories and best practices to share in this topic, and they have a lot to gain from 
e-commerce as a vehicle for development. Likewise, w e invite all M embers that see payment 
systems as challenges and wish to see it as an opportunity.  
 
16. South Africa  
 
We as sociate with the s tatements made by Morocco on behalf of the African Group and the 
statement to be made by Guyana on behalf of the ACP.  
 
I will make three brief comments:  
 
First, as Morocco and others have reminded us that the African Union Meeting of Tra de Ministers at 
the end of last year, re -emphasized their commitment to advance integration and industrialization 
across the African continent: This is the top priority of our Ministers. In respect to the WTO, 
African Ministers reiterated their commitment to the development mandate of the DDA and 
indicated that they will continue to seek positive outcomes in domestic support; cotton; public 
stockholding; SSM; fisheries; special and differential treatment; and on LDC issues. They see 
these as the priority is sues at the heart of the developmental agenda. I wanted to underline that 
point.  
 
Our second set of observations concerns the exchanges at the recent Mini -Ministerial meetings in 
Oslo and Davos. Of course, these mini Ministerial meetings are not fully repr esentative but they do 
give an insight into the dynamics we will need to confront. The engagement took place against the 
heightened political uncertainties, and a growing backlash against trade and globalization and the 
exchanges on negotiations were again  marked by the divergences of which we are all too familiar. 
The divergences turn both on the mandate for the negotiations and on the issues to be pursued, 
and it was evident that Members have different priorities, different sensitivities and that they dra w 
linkages in different ways. It is also evident that while there are varying degrees of support for the 
different issues, there is no unanimity on any. We have not heard anything that changes this 
broad assessment. Clearly, as has been said, a great deal of further work is needed.  
 
As we have indicated previously, South Africa is prepared to continue to examine e -commerce 
issues in a comprehensive manner in the WTO within the existing non -negotiating mandate. Many 
of us are only just beginning to come to g rips with what appears will be very profound changes 
brought on by the digital transformation of which e -commerce is integral. What is clearer is that e -
commerce is developing rapidly but unevenly across the world. It is also clear that countries and 
firms around the wo rld are at different stages of 'e -commerce readiness'  and that this reflects the 
persistence of the deep and wide 'digital divide' . In our view, any talk of rule -making in this 
context is entirely premature.  
 
Let me conclude by saying that S outh Africa will continue to engage to assess whether a balanced 
package built around the priority developmental issues as set out by the African Trade Ministers 
can be achieved. The search for consensus, as always, should be conducted in a transparent and  
inclusive manner that takes all Members’ interests, capabilities and sensitivities fully into account.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 81 - 
 
  17. Guyana (ACP)  
 
At the outset, I wish to strongly affirm the importance of development across all negotiating 
mandates as rooted in the Doha Development  Agenda. When the DDA was initiated in 2001, 
development countries including the ACP were full of hope that the WTO would substantially 
deliver in addressing historical imbalances and in ensuring that rules are fair and development -
driven.  
 
In recent year s, we have been facing resistance from some delegations in the recognition of 
development as a central part of the WTO deliverables. It is therefore timely as we kick -start 
discussions towards MC11 to reaffirm development as the centre of all our work with  S&D 
treatment being an integral part of any outcome. We encourage the Director -General and all the 
Chairs in your future consultations to take into account this request.  
 
The following are some key issues that the ACP Group considers as important for MC11 : 
 
Agriculture  
 
The long -standing agriculture reform for the realization of a market -oriented agricultural trading 
system remains our long term objective. Since the Uruguay Round and through the Doha Round, 
promises for reform were made but distorting subs idies remain and our farmers have been hard 
hit by cheap and heavily subsidized imports for decades. It is imperative to address this crucial 
situation. The ACP Group has submitted a realistic proposal in December 2016 for a gradual 
elimination of agricult ure trade -distorting subsidies. We hope that by mid -2017 we shall be at an 
advanced stage in discussions on a clear framework for a gradual elimination which will allow us to 
expedite the work after the summer break towards a credible and tangible delivera ble at MC11.  
 
Equally important are other key Nairobi Ministerial Decisions in the agriculture pillar notably the 
Permanent Solution for Public  Stockholding for Food Security Purposes by the end of 2017 and the 
SSM. We must faithfully engage in the remaini ng time to ensure delivery in these important areas 
that are critical to food security and rural livelihoods.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  constitute another important potential development outcome. The ACP Group's 
submission calls for a prohi bition of subsidies negatively affecting overfished stocks and subsidies 
to IUU  fishing as explicitly expressed under SDG 14.6. The ACP's submission also proposes to 
discipline subsidies which contribute to over -capacity and over -fishing with S&D treatment  for 
developing country Members as an integral part of the outcome. Delivering in this important area 
can contribute to realizing a global, sustainable fishing environment while ensuring food security, 
livelihood security, job creation and value -added acti vities for our populations.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
The development dimension has also to be reflected in the rules governing multilateral trade. 
Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration reaffirms that "provisions for special and differential 
treatment are an integral part of the WTO Agreements" and calls for the review of all special and 
differential treatment provisions with the view to strengthening them and making them more 
precise, effective and operational. We call upon Members to deliver on this important development 
pillar by MC11. Our countries are still struggling today to industrialize. The S&D provisions must be 
strengthened to provide us with the possibility to take measures that can support our industrial 
transformation.  
 
Services  
 
On domestic regulation, the flexibilities accorded to developing country Members are enshrined in 
the GATS and must remain part and parcel of any discussion. The ACP Group encourages Members 
to respect existing mandates, recognize that many Members are still developing their regulations 
in their services sectors and take note that ACP Members would not want to see any further 
interference in our domestic policy making processes.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 82 - 
 
  E-Commerce  
 
We should continue exploring the developmental dimension in this area  and we look forward to a 
constructive, continuing dialogue.  
 
Process  
 
Transparency and inclusiveness must remain key principles guiding our work. The ACP Group must 
be a part of any decision -making. We do not agree that a few Members can or should decide on 
behalf of the majority. We need to discuss and agree on the best way to strike the balance 
between efficiency and inclusiveness particularly in the Green Room meetings including at 
Ministerial level. We must learn lessons from the past and improve upon them.  
 
In conclusion, the ACP Group shall continue to engage constructively in advancing the 
development dimension across all negotiating mandates and I hope all Members shall join in 
making this a collective endeavour. The best way to counter any uncerta inty and to strengthen the 
multilateral trading system would be to achieve tangible development outcomes agenda at MC11.  
 
18. Nicaragua  
 
The Nicaraguan delegation wishes to be associated with the statement that will be delivered by 
Indonesia on behalf of the G -33. 
 
We welcome all the consultations on potenti al issues to address in the run -up to the next 
Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
As a developing country, Nicaragua's priority for the forthcoming Ministerial Conference will be to 
achieve concrete pr ogress in Agriculture, and we strongly encourage  the implementation of the 
Nairobi mandate. It is very important that the negotiations de liver outcomes on market access  as 
well as unambiguous guarantees aimed at gradually and definitively reducing domestic  support. 
The latter will help to ensure more equitable and transparent international trade  which in turn will 
facilitate access to international market s for our agricultural products  which are still largely 
restricted by the export support and subsidies g ranted by the developed countries.  
 
Likewise, Nicaragua is in favour of pursuing the negotiations on the special safeguard mechanism 
and public stockholding for food security p urposes. It will be essential at all times to adopt a 
balanced approach to nego tiations as has been said  in order to reach an agreement that takes the 
interests of all countries into consideration. This should be done with respect for the principle of 
special and differential treatment  whilst maintaining the foc us on the development dimension  not 
only for the developing countries b ut evidently also for the least -developed countries.  
 
As reaffirmed in the Nairobi Declaration, it will be equally essential to secure the appropriate 
flexibilities for  small and vulnerable economies aimed at clearly safeguarding albeit in a modest 
way the specific needs of these Members  so as to adapt their participation in the multilateral 
trading system.  
 
Nicaragua will continue to bear in mind the importance of the Doha Development Agenda and 
hopes that the DDA will be pursued through the mult ilateral negotiations under way  pursuant to 
the Nairobi mandate. Implementing the commitments made under this mandate is not an end in 
itself – the aim being to complete the fundamental outstanding task of laying the  general and 
necessary groundwork for the conclusion of new agreements.  
 
The DDA cannot be seen in isolation from new points of view relating to more recent issues, 
because it remains valid in order to give clarity and understanding in the negotiating app roaches 
to be adopted , and remains valuable for the purposes of clarity and understanding in the 
negotiating approaches to be adopted.  
 
At all times, the minimum common principles should be those of exclusivity, transparency and 
good faith. In simple term s, traditional practices must be reviewed in such a way as to guarantee a 
proper balance, which is necessary, even vital, if we are to maintain the credibility of this 
institution.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 83 - 
 
  We continue to closely analyse the different proposals relating to the iss ues of trade in services, 
fisheries subsidies and electronic commerce, amongst others, because we recognize their 
relevance and importance in making concrete progress.  
 
As regards trade in services, although we are not demandeurs , we encourage pursuing the  
established work programme, in keeping with what was agreed in Nairobi and bearing in mind the 
key interests of the developing countries. In terms of electronic commerce, we believe that 
progress must be made within the established framework of the Work P rogramme on Electronic 
Commerce, taking into account the different realities, needs and challenges of countries which 
must at some point be integrated into trade in digital markets.  
 
There is clearly an emerging general interest in fisheries subsidies, and  we favour approaches that 
contribute to controlling excess capacity and overfishing and take into account special and 
differential treatment not only for the developing countries but also, as I said at the beginning, for 
the least developed countries. Fin ally, we conclude with a genuine commitment to keep 
contributing effectively to securing outcomes for the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
I would also like to express thanks from both our delegation and our Government for your 
presence here for a second term  as Director -General  so that you may continue to guide us in the 
proceedings of this institution.  
 
19. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
  
We would like to begin by associating this statement with Indonesia's statement on behalf of the 
G-33. 
 
We would also like t o thank you for the information on the outcome of your consultations. The 
entry into force of the amendment to the TRIPS Agreement on public health and the Agreement on 
Trade Facilitation is undoubtedly important news.  
 
Going back to current issues, we wou ld like to reiterate how important a fair and balanced 
international trading system, with development at its core and based on multilaterally agreed rules 
and principles, is for Bolivia. The principles of transparency, inclusiveness and participation, and a 
bottom up approach, are of the utmost importance for this Organization's work.  
 
We believe that, throughout all these years, the progress made under the Doha Round has 
continued to be the most important reference for the WTO's work. This is emphasized in  the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which also advocates the conclusion of outstanding Doha Round 
issues, including of course agricultural reform, in the interests of most of the developing countries.  
 
In this respect, the issues of public stockholding f or food security purposes and the special 
safeguard mechanism are of much interest to Bolivia. It is also in our interest to eliminate not only 
agricultural subsidies, but the elements causing the greatest amount of distortion in agricultural 
trade, such a s tariff peaks and tariff escalation.  
 
Regarding services, we note that momentum has increased, but believe that work in this area 
should not lose sight of the development dimension and flexibilities and special and differential 
treatment for developing co untries.  
 
As regards new issues on which there is no consensus, they will not be viable until we have 
resolved outstanding issues from more than 25 years ago.  
 
In this respect, we have noticed the momentum gained by the issue of electronic commerce. 
Bolivi a reiterates the importance of efforts to work within the framework of the Decision of 
September 1998.  
 
Lastly, we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that Bolivia does not support plurilateral 
initiatives that undermine the multilateral natur e of the Organization. Exclusionary initiatives of 
this kind that seek to impede open discussion and promote the interests of a limited few are not 
beneficial to the multilateral trading system.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 84 - 
 
  20. Gabon  
 
My delegation endorses the statements made by Morocco  on behalf of the African Group and by 
Guyana on behalf of the ACP Group . 
 
Gabon notes that beyond the acquis of MC10, the entry into force of the Protocol amending the 
Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) an d the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), a great deal remains to be done. In particular, I would 
emphasize the importance of issues such as domestic support in agriculture, fisheries subsidies, 
and special and differential treatment (S&D), which must form  part of the outcomes that need to 
be achieved during MC11.  
 
Our countries, with their vulnerable and developing economies, suffer from an industrialization and 
infrastructure deficit that limits their ability to address ongoing changes and their determine d drive 
towards the sustainable development goals, which no one should be side-lined from attaining.  
 
Gabon does not doubt the determination of Members to overcome current divisions for the benefit 
of all.  
 
My country thus views MC11 as a challenge to be a ddressed so that development -related matters 
are considered as key issues. We must be able to count on a collectively constructive spirit and on 
the Director -General's personal efforts to that end.  
 
21. Fiji (Pacific Group)  
 
The Pacific Group supports the stat ements made by the ACP and the LDC Groups.  
 
As we prepare for the Eleventh Ministerial Conference in Argentina in December, the Pacific Group 
stands ready to contribute its part towards a successful conference. Success will be determined by 
tangible and m eaningful outcomes. In this regard, the Pacific Group reiterates the centrality of 
development as agreed by Ministers at Nairobi and the importance of delivering on the 
development dimension across all outcomes to be agreed at MC11.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
The Pacific Group underlines the importance of the fisheries sector to food security, livelihood, the 
economic development of their economies and the sustainability of their fisheries resources to 
sustain future generations. The Group therefore welcomes the  four proposals which are on the 
table and looks forward to engaging with Members on continued dialogues and discussions.  
 
The Group reiterates its support for a multilateral outcome that delivers on both the Doha Mandate 
and the SDGs specifically SDG 14. 6. This outcome must provide effective disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies that cause over -fishing, over -capacity and IUU fishing with meaningful special and 
differential treatment for LDCs and SVEs particularly the small island developing States (SIDS) 
which are heavily reliant on the fisheries sector.  
 
S&D treatment must provide sufficient policy space for the future development of our fisheries 
sector as well.  
 
Agriculture  
 
The Pacific Group supports work towards an outcome on domestic support that also provides 
appropriate special and differential treatment for the Group including policy space for the 
development of our small agricultural sectors.  
 
Process  
 
The Pacific Group would like to encourage the Director -General to uphold the principles of 
transp arency and inclusiveness particularly on matters which are of special significance to small 
Members like us such as on fisheries subsidies. In this regard, the Pacific Group would like to 
request that it be specifically included on all important matters mo ving forward in the consultative 
process.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 85 - 
 
   
22. Chinese Taipei (Article XII Members)  
 
Our Group is expecting to achieve a balanced and meaningful outcome at the MC11. It should 
accommodate the interests of Members at different levels of development. We are open  to 
advancing negotiations on the remaining DDA issues, such as agriculture, NAMA, services and 
development, which still remain on the top of many Members’ negotiation agendas, and there are 
Ministerial Decisions from the MC9 and MC10 to be implemented as well. At the same time, we 
should not refrain from exploring other issues.  
 
I have to remind that all the Article XII Members have undertaken extensive market access 
commitments in the course of their accession processes. We strongly believe that negotiati ons on 
further liberalization will see commitment levels of the Original Members be equivalent or much 
more closely matched to ours than they are at the moment. As such, we just want to reiterate that 
the market access issue should not be left behind.  
 
23. Chinese Taipei  
 
Like many others, e -commerce is of particular interest to my delegation. It has completely 
changed the way of doing trade, and has already created unprecedented opportunities for micro, 
small and medium -sized enterprises, as well as young entr epreneurs, to participate in global trade 
for the very first time. We urge Members to intensify the dialogue and to take timely action to 
respond to these new global needs. Nevertheless, the suggestion for accelerated discussions on e -
commerce or digital t rade doesn’t imply that this issue should be necessarily included in the MC11 
agenda.  
 
24. Israel  
 
After closing 2016 with dynamism and engagement, it is time to re -engage in more specific 
conversations testing ideas and potential outcomes, and in that way sta rt defining with more 
clarity the contou rs of potential outcomes for MC 11. 
 
It is Israel's  priority to have a healthy negotiating function at the WTO, one that is able to deliver 
outcomes that are beneficial for everyone.  
 
Just now, we are also here to cel ebrate the ratification of the TFA, and while doing so we should 
take collective pride on the achievement that the coming into force of the first multilaterally 
negotiated agreement means. We hope that shortly our ratification domestic proc ess will be 
finalised as well.  
 
In this regard, without prejudice, please allow me to refer to areas where Israel sees the 
conversations could continue in a positive direction.  
 
Services  
 
From our recent consultations , we were glad to hear confirmation that there is readi ness to 
advance the services negotiations. Indeed, as noted by the Chair, the general willingness to 
engage, the notion of clear negotiating mandates, and the acknowledgment of a flexible approach 
are also in our opinion ingredients of success. We subscrib e to these notions and with pragmatism 
and realism consider them important guiding principles in our support of the three broad areas as 
priorities for negotiating work: domestic regulation, market access, and e -commerce.  
 
On domestic regulation  we are spi rited by the proposals that are on the table and are looking 
forward to discussing them in more detail.  
  
As for market a ccess , some ideas have been floated around in the past and we would like to hear 
again from proponents’ coordination for such an exerci se. 
 
On e-commerce, w e need to continue our exchanges of information, practice, understanding and 
visions, and consider formats to discuss in a more holistic way different elements of an area of 
work that it is of the utmost importance for the developing w orld. In this context we are WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 86 - 
 
  supporters of workshop activities or indeed any other format to discuss the various approaches 
and eventually agree on a way forward to fulfil  our mandate.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Fisheries subsidies  is an area of work we are int erested in as well  and where we would welcome 
the good conversations that have being held among various de legations. It would be desirable that 
we agree on the common areas found in these proposals. We are looking forward to achieving 
further clarity about  this in the open -ended meeting scheduled for 1 March . 
 
Agriculture  
 
In Agriculture, w e have paid a price as we are among the delegations that had to undergo changes 
pursuant the Decision on Export Competition – which we are implementing. Recalling the las t 
report of the CoA -SS, we trust that we would pay heed to the guidelines by Ambassador Vitalis, 
identifying the elements balanced outcome for MC11.  
  
We understand that proponents have a direct responsibility on promoting discussions and 
progression of th eir proposals. We remain optimi stic by your observations that M embers share a 
clear desire to achieve concrete outcomes in MC11.  
 
Let us remain pragmatic, open -minded,  inclusive and most importantly – multilateral.  
 
25. Nepal  
 
Nepal associates itself with the  statement delivered by Cambodia on behalf of the LDC Group.  
 
As time is running short, there is a need to redouble efforts to secure a bala nced and meaningful 
outcome at  MC11.  
 
We emphasize that the development  dimension should be at the centre  of the multilateral 
negotiation s to ensure a fair, inclusive and equitable global trading system. The spirit behind 
paragraph s 24, 31 and 32 of Nairobi D eclaration which seek to mainstream LDC interests and 
concerns with priority and address their marginalization, a mong others, should be translated into 
action. Trade agenda of LDC interests are fundamental tools to be leveraged in  meeting the 
globally set goals and targets of Istanbul Programme of Action and the 2030 Age nda for 
Sustainable Development – the SDGs.  
 
Strengthening some key agreement -specific Special and Differential Treatment provisions in the 
interests of developing countries and particularly LDCs, has remained and outstanding agenda. We 
view that the industrialization cluster of S&D  helps in structura l transformation and diversification 
of weaker economies and ameliorates their export trade should be an important area that delivers 
results at the Ministerial  Conference  in Buenos Aires . 
   
Effective implementation of all measures adopted in favour of LD Cs in preferential rules of origin, 
services waiver and DFQF market access and cotton is of utmost importance. Removing hurdles in 
implementation of the past decisions should get attention, apart from addressing other remaining 
issues in the Doha agenda.  
 
We look for a balanced, fair and equitable approach while advancing the proposals for MC11. We 
take positive view of new iss ues such as e -commerce and MSMEs  as they are futuristic 
development agenda. However, there are serious gaps in the infrastructure an d supply side 
capacity of LDCs in the sectors, which I believe, need to be addressed properly and sufficiently at 
the grass root level, before they become ready in these areas.  
 
We welcome the coming into force of the protocol amending TRIPS agreement whic h has secured a 
legal pathway to affordable medicines for developing country Members who have insufficient or no 
production capaci ty of pharmaceutical products.  
 
Similarly, Nepal also welcomes the very recent entry into force of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. We hope that the implementation of various measures under this agreement would 
have positive bearings on  the trade performance of LDCs and LLDCs  like Nepal.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 87 - 
 
   
Additional ly, predictable and sustainable international support mechanism s through the TFA 
Facility, AfT and EIF should remain in place and their efforts directed towards  the enhancement of 
export products and their facilitation by addressing supply -side constraints.  
 
26. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arab Group)  
 
During the last year, there has been  some progress in certain areas  but there has been none in 
many others. However, this should not frustrate us from continuing our work in a positive manner 
to achieve tangible and balanced outcomes in MC11.  
 
We believe that now is the time to have frank disc ussions to reach at a common understanding of 
the issues where we can have deliverables at MC11. We should capitalize on the positive 
momentum and build on the success of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Conferences.  
 
Our future work should be guided by th e Decisions adopted in the previous Ministerial Conferences 
and maintain development at the heart of our negotiations.  
 
The Arab Group welcomes the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement as a huge step 
forward in making trade around the world  easier, faster and less costly for both traders and 
consumers.  
 
Finally, the Arab Group re iterates its commitment to the multilateral t rading system and remains 
ready to engage constructively in the work ahead.  
 
27. United States  
 
Due to the pending confirmat ion of incoming leadership at the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, the United States is unab le to engage in detail in today' s discussion.  We 
appreciate the understanding of other Members as our executive branch transition continues to 
unfold, and we will do our best to keep Members informed of that process.  
 
While detailed US views on issues raised today by other Members will need to wait for a later 
meeting, I am able to make a few very broad points.  
 
First, Members can assume that the ca utionary notes delivered last year by the United States, with 
regard to expectations for major outcomes at MC11, will continue to prevail.  We have effectively 
eight months to work with, and there are currently absolutely no clear points of convergence on 
specific outcomes.  If this situation continues to hold at mid -year, we will need to draw some 
obvious conclusions.    
 
Second , the United States remains committed to achieving an open and market -driven global 
economy. There are significant challenges to f ully realizing this goal, and we will be evaluating any 
MC11 negotiating proposals put forward by Members against their ability to advance openness and 
market -driven rules.  
 
Third, it will be important that an understandable focus on MC11 outcomes should not distract us 
from important work beyond the WTO’s negotiating functions.  We should continue, for example, 
to direct attention to making our regular committee work more effective.  
 
Lastly , and acknowledging that this is beyond the direct scope of today’ s meeting, I would note 
that the United States expects to devote additional attention to concern regarding the dispute 
settlement function of the WTO.  In particular, dispute reports that reach unnecessary issues or 
impose new rules never agreed by us here , or approved by each of us domestically, can only 
diminish support for the WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 88 - 
 
  28. Republic of Korea  
 
At the outset, we associate ourselves with the statement that will be made by Indonesia on behalf  
of the G-33. 
 
Let me begi n by congratulating all Members . We made an excellent start this year with the entry 
into force of the TRIPS amendment and the Tr ade Facilitation Agreement.  I hope these significant 
accomplishments will inspire us in our work heading towards  Buenos Aires.  
 
We hope that we will have a successful MC 11 with a meaningful  package  following th e examples of 
Bali and Nairobi.  This is all the more important in this challenging and uncertain period, not least 
to demonstrate to the world that the WTO remains a bastion for free trade whose benefits are 
widely shared.   
 
The package may comprise substantive outcomes on outstanding or new issues, whether 
multilateral  or plurilateral.  Establishing a negotiating mandate for certain newly emerging areas 
could also be part of the package.  
 
Likely candidat es have emerged, but there is no guarantee  that the frequently mentioned areas 
will become part of the Buenos Aires package . In each area, striking a compromise will be  an 
enormously  difficult  if not impossible  task.  Nonetheless, we should endeavo ur to ma ke sure that  
MC11 delivers, albeit in an incremental manner, meaningful outcome for all Members.  
 
Today, we would like to share our views on e -commerce, while reserving our comments on other 
areas for future occasions when there are further updates on the state of play.  
 
It would be excellent if we could agree on substantive outcome s on the less controver sial issues of 
e-commerce at MC 11.  While pursuing such a goal, establishing a clear mandate for the future 
work on e -commerc e should also be part of the M C11 outcome . 
 
We should set aside procedural debates and immediately resume substantive discussions.  It is 
particularly  important to deepen our understanding on the implications of e -commerce for trade 
and development in order to facilitate well -informed discussions.  In this regard, the Secretariat 
report (JOB/GC/114 on 20 December 2016) on fiscal implications of the customs moratorium on 
electronic transmissions2 was very useful.  Similar exercises should continue, especially with 
regard to e -commerce an d its development aspects.  
 
Regarding the forum for discussions, while addressing e -commerce issues at relevant Councils and 
Committee s, we should continue to have horizontal deliberations, given their cross -cutting nature, 
under the auspices of the Genera l Council.  
 
Last but not least, we could not agree more with the call made by many Members in Davos and 
today on the importance of sufficient  preparatory work to build consensus in Geneva before 
heading to Buenos Aires.  We dearly need the leadership of ma jor Members, but we have to make 
sure that the final decisions are made in a transparent and inclusive manner.  
 
We have no time to waste and should accelerate our substantive work in all areas based on 
Members ' proposals.  
 
29. Cuba  
 
We endorse the statement ma de by Guyana on behalf of the ACP Group and that which will be 
made by Indonesia on behalf of the G -33. 
 
In concrete terms, we wish to raise matters that are fundamental for our delegation in the lead -up 
to Buenos Aires.  
 
                                                
2 The share  of digitisable goods to total trade in both developed and developing countries is less than 
1% of total goods trade; the average MFN duty on digitisable goods was 6.7% in 2014 which is a fourth  lower 
than in 2000; the estimated fiscal revenues collected from these  goods are small, averaging about a quarter of 
one per cent of all customs revenues in 2014, although there are some prominent exceptions.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 89 - 
 
  Our conclusion is that many Membe rs and alliances are thinking alon g the same lines. W e agree 
with your assessment that there is still a long way to go. Hence, the Doha Agenda should be our 
priority and the focus of our attention. We must direct our work in a way that ensures that the 
outstanding Doha issues lead to substantive outcomes at the next Ministerial Conference, including 
on the specific mandates that were determined in Nairobi.  
 
Development is a cross -cutting issue which must form part of any work we do in the lead up to  
Buenos  Aires. We are concerned to see that this is still not clearly understood. There is a 
reluctance to recognize this principle, which is part of the WTO rules and negotiating mandates, 
and which we are not prepared to give up. For Cuba, the development dimen sion must be clearly 
highlighte d in every negotiating process.  
 
Under the current scenario, we are not in favour of advancing in Buenos Aires new or additional 
mandates to those established in the Doha Round, on which we are still awaiting results.  
 
With regard to electronic commerce, we note that the time remaining is very limited and that there 
has been no clear discussion of the objectives pursued. There is great uncertainty for many 
developing countries on the future impact on our economies and jobs, and on how to truly bridge 
the digital divide. Moreover, special and differential treatment still needs to be addressed in these 
discussions.  
 
We also note that, in the meeting held on 6  February, a group of Members adopted a more 
cautious stance since so me outstanding issues have yet to be resolved. From our point of view, 
going beyond what we have today in regard to electronic commerce would be premature. This 
does not stop us from continuing our discussions. We understand that the 1998 Work Programme 
on Electronic Commerce remains valid for continuing exchanges in this area, which is known for its 
high level of technical complexity. This should include the review of contributions submitted.  
 
Finally, at this stage it is important to be diligent in ensuri ng that all discussion, consultation and 
negotiation processes are conducted in accordance with the principles of inclusiveness  and 
transparency in a clear and effective manner. All processes must take into account the diversity of 
positions on th e subject  in question to guarantee that any consensus reached or d ecision made is 
in the interest  of the majority of Members, and not just a select few. This is very important, 
including during the Ministerial Conference itself. We understand that there is room for  
improvement in this area.  
 
In view of the foregoing, Cuba wishes to reaffirm its continuing commitment to working 
constructively throughout the entire process prior to the 11th Ministerial Conference.  
 
30. Indonesia (G -33) 
 
While welcoming various proposals that have been put forward by Members to move overall 
negotiations forward, Members must not lose sight of the specific mandates agreed by our 
Ministers to continue the negotiations on the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  and 
the Sp ecial Safe guard Mechanism through the dedicated sessions. Since both issues are Nairobi 
priorities, the Group considers it of utmost importance that these issues are taken forward in a 
dedicated expeditious manner to having  these harvested at MC 11. 
 
The Group theref ore calls  on Members to make the best use  of the remaining time until Buenos 
Aires and  continue the discussion s on both issues with sense of urgency. As shown in the past, the 
Group stands ready to consider any reasonable, warranted, credible and solution -finding ideas that 
are consistent with existing mandates since Doha.  
 
While expecting Member' s constructive engagement in discussing the issues of PSH and SSM, the 
Group also wishes to reiterate that it will continue to p ursue the special products for dev eloping 
Members in case discussions on tariff reduction in the market access pillar are taken up.  
 
In conclusion, the G roup stands ready to continu e to work constructively with the Director -General  
and with other Members to follow up on the Bali and Nairo bi Ministerial Decisions.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 90 - 
 
  31. Indonesia  
 
In advancing the negotiation on the remaining issues of DDA, my delegation wishes to reiterate 
that the negotiations shall continue to be guided by the centrality of development, as clearly 
mandated by the Doha Develop ment Agenda and the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
 
With regard to the discussion on Fisheries Subsidies, Indonesia is of the view that it is important 
for Members to bear in mind the SDG 14.6, where all Members need to put forward their 
commitments to r each that goal. Indonesia sees there is a need to combat IUU fishing, 
overcapacity, and overfishing, among others, through fisheries subsidies discipline.  
 
Having mandate s from the Doha and Hong Kong Declaration s, and further restated in paragraph 
31 of Na irobi Declaratio n, Indonesia reiterates that S&D treatment for developing and LDC 
Members  shall be an integral part of any discipline t hat Members are going to have.  
 
Indonesia sees  that the  multilateral track is the best forum to address this important i ssue.  
 
32. Pakistan  
 
We congratulate the M embers and the S ecretariat for having accomplished the entry into force of 
Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
 
In the back drop of current developments, in the field of economy and trade, it is most needed 
that we brainsto rm, and have a frank exchange of views about challen ges we face and deliberate 
on the way forward. Turbulence in the g lobal political and economic environment is unfortunately 
increasing rather than subsiding. This makes our work in the coming weeks and mo nths even 
more important.  
 
The g lobal economy is faced with the threat of protectionism and testing economic times. 
According to the WTO, within G -20 Economies protect ionist barriers are on the rise. O bstacles to 
trade are growing faster than facilitating  measures.  
 
In the present context, we have to come ou t as the most vocal and united v oice for free and open 
trade. We have to be a voice for reduction an d elimination of trade barriers. W e have to counte r 
the threat of protectionism. We have to collective ly resist the forces of protectionism and those 
fanning anti -trade rhetoric.  
 
Trade is a proven tool for deve lopment and poverty alleviation. W e should not allow the barriers 
and protectionism to blunt this tool.  
 
In present times , the multilateral appro ach becomes even more important.  The WTO is the corner 
stone of global economy  which has wo rked for benefit of our people. Through our collective efforts 
we have to build a stable, common prosperous future.  
 
We would strongly advocate  continuous work in al l three pillars of agriculture in the light of MC 10 
decisions, capping of uncapped flexibilities in the domestic support  with the view to ensure reform -
oriented policies, market access for a balanced outcome that addresses concerns of divergent 
views, expo rt competition to ensure implementation of th e decisions already taken in MC 10 and a 
road map to address the outstanding issues.  
 
For us, with 93% of our farmers being subsistence farmers, an outcome in form of substantial 
reduction of trade distorting dom estic support on agriculture products, including cotton, is top 
priority. We are deeply concerned about growing trade distortions in agriculture caused by 
domestic support policies. Long -term reform of domestic support in agriculture is critical for our 
farmers. We are greatly encouraged by number of papers on the table. We will constructively 
engage with all M embers, to discuss, develop and bring forward credible and tangible options for 
reducing trade distorting domestic support in agriculture.   
 
Welfare  aspect of food security is undeniable , in our view the Public Stockh olding programs used 
to achieve this purpose often lead to distorting global agriculture trade of staple food. So any 
future outcome should ensure that it does not undermine  food security  of other Members . 
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 91 - 
 
  Sustainable Development Goal 14 in general and 14.6 in particular is very significant for many 
developing countries because of the fisheries sector's role in poverty eradication, employment 
generatio n and sustainability of natural  habitat.  
 
We welcome the papers submitted by EU, ACP Group, LDCs Group, Argentina, Peru and others. In 
the current environment of making incremental progress it will be necessary to focus on some of 
the more harmful subsidies and establish a built-in agenda  to continue the reform process beyond 
MC11.  
 
We also believe that special & differential treatment for developing countries and LDCs is 
imperative. Pakistan also supports the TFA approach proposed by Argentina, Peru and others in 
their paper since developing  countries will require technical assistance and capacity building in 
certain areas.  
 
Artisanal fishing, subsistence fishing, small scale fishing should be dealt separately from industrial 
fishing. However, any exceptions from subsidy disciplines should b e justified on a development 
basis and without being harmful.  We are carefully looking at all the proposals and ready to work 
with the membership for a balanced outcome.  
 
Pakistan also considers discussions on non -tariff barriers as a priority as they are not transparent 
and have major distortionary impact.  
 
We are of the view that Services are central to the global economy, connecting countries, 
enterprises, and citizens.  The services sector, for majority of countries, accounts for the greatest 
share of do mestic production and employment.  Services act as enablers of global value chains.    
When measured in value added terms, services accounts for almost 50 per cent of world trade 
today. This is a greater share than manufacturing or agriculture, which are mor e traditionally 
associated with trade.  
  
The importance of services for growth, development and connectivity is critical.    
 
The interest exhibited by Members in Services negotiations is very positive and welcomed. We are 
very supportive of efforts of CTS Special Session chair Ambassador Cema for a consensual 
outcome. We will constructively engage with all the services proposals on the table.  
 
We believe that there are increasing interlinkages between trade, investment and sustainable 
development in the gl obal economy. We believe that an exchange of information and ideas in this 
area is very important. There is a need to provide a forum for Members to discuss the growing 
importance of foreign investment to building export capacity, advancing trade facilitat ion, 
participating in Global Value Chains, connecting to the digital economy, and achieving the 2030 
Sustainable Development Goal, particularly for developing and least developed countries.  
 
Internet revoluti on contributes 8% of global GDP.  The development  of mobile broad band holds 
the promises  to bring  billions more on line, thus narrowing the digital, economic, physical and 
educational divide.  The internet of things or internet of everything has the potential of contributing 
$11 Trillion to global GDP by  2025. Internet related consumption and expenditure has already 
surpassed the size of the global agriculture and energy sectors. Digital Economy is rapidly 
becoming mainstream economy.  But only a small proportion of this is happening in LDCs and 
developin g countries.  
 
It was this reality which motivated our group of like -minded countries to launch, Friends of 
Ecommerce for Development. Key motivation being to narrow the knowledge gap, that exists 
between members in understanding and apprec iating different dimensions of e -commerce.  
 
Considering t he complexities of e -commerce, we would specially suggest more engaged interaction 
betwe en experts in the technologies,  and trade negotiators in order to bring out and understand all 
the challenges associated with di gital economy for developing and LDC M embers.  
 
The Friends of E -Commerce for Development believe  that e -commerce provides an opportunity for 
developing country and LDC enterprises to overcome some of the logistical and geographic 
challenges they face in t erms of access to markets. Digital trade allows many small enterprises to WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 92 - 
 
  participate in the global market. Ecommerce and MSMES are inextricably linked. Used well, e -
commerce is a real development tool, an enabler for small players . 
 
In a recent national c onsultation held in Pakistan, our stakeholders identified efficient, frictionless 
and low cost payment systems and consumer trust and protection as key challenges faced by 
Ecommerce in Pakistan.  
 
We have had numbe r of workshops and seminars on e -commerce, we would suggest more focused 
and WTO specific discussion on the subject, in order to forge a commonly agreed agenda on 
Ecommerce for MC -11 and beyond. However , we would  submit against any linkage of e -
commerce, with other aspe cts of our work.  
 
The vital l ink between trade and development is enshrined in the WTO agreements; they provide 
special provisions for developing countries, which comprise of almost 75% of WTO membership. 
The WTO has provided more and more developing countries with a seat at the table  – where their 
voice is heard just as loud as any other, and they play a key role in managing the system, shaping 
its agenda, and negotiating its agreements. The development dimension is essentia l for an 
inclusive rules -based multilateral trading s ystem.  Ultimate aims of trade policy and trade rules 
must be poverty reduction, growth, welfare and development that work for all members of the 
global economy.  
 
In the end, we would submit to all Members. L et us repeat Nairobi in terms of substance and 
outcomes  but not in terms of the process.  
 
33. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We endorse the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of the  G-33. 
 
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela believes that it is necessary to reflect on the complexity 
involved in the lead -up to Buenos Aires. The challenges we face in this o rganization are highly 
complex in terms of bridging the gap between us.  
 
The objectiv e and beneficiaries of our work  
 
On the WTO website, and in many texts relating to this o rganization, it is made clear  that the main 
function of the o rganization is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as 
possible. Undoubtedly, at times we act as if this were the only function, however, I invite you to 
read the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement Esta blishing the WTO. In the first paragraph we 
find that the overriding objective is sustainable development. What is more, the second paragraph 
mentions the need for efforts to ensure that developing countries, especially LDCs, secure a share 
in growth in in ternational trade commensurate with their economic and developmental needs. 
Indeed, in our view, the main work of the WTO should be to create the conditions for trade to be 
an instrument that fosters development, and not an end in itself. Our primary funct ion should be 
to act in line with the slogan for the 2013 Agenda to "leave no -one behind". In fact, in the 17 goals 
that make up this Agenda, adopted in 2015, in the same year as our most recent Ministerial 
Conference, we find multiple references to trade as a possible instrument for development, but 
always under the assumption that certain conditions are met. On the basis of these reflections, we 
are convinced that reaffirmation of the Doha Development mandate should serve as a starting 
point for all progr ess in our work, as was recognized by our Ministers in paragraph 31 of the 
Nairobi Declaration, also adopted in 2015.  
 
Expectations versus reality  
 
At some poi nt in the short history of our o rganization, we became convinced that a successful 
Ministerial Co nference depended on producing deliverables that were beneficial to the entire 
Membership. Although deliverables are welcome, the best deliverable that we c an give the world is 
a healthy o rganization. In this regard, we believe that it is more sound to pro ceed with caution, 
but also with firm steps as far as possible, rather than try to hasten results in matters that have 
not been sufficiently analysed, or on which there is no consensus. The Doha Development Agenda 
is stil l unfinished business for this o rganization. Any deliverable on which we manage to reach a 
consensus at the end of the day should be in line with the DDA, and be truly beneficial for all 
Members, particularly developing country Members, including the least -developed countries.  WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 93 - 
 
   
Processes  
 
In any negotiation, confidence in the process is fundamental. Transparency is a key element in 
generating confidence. We thus believe that the composition of Green Room meetings should 
always be a decision made by Members. The notice should be circulated to  everyone, and it should 
be up to each and every one to decide whether or not they are interested in participating, or they 
should allow another Member to represent their interests. Having to guess what is going on in the 
Green Room is exhausting and stres sful, with a constant sense of uncertainty which does nothing 
to help the climate of confidence that should prevail between parties. Moreover, it is necessary to 
remember that the WTO is a member -driven organization. This means that all Members must 
decide  on its direction and priorities. With this, I wish to depart from the words I wrote and refer 
to the proposal submitted by Uganda. We wish to support this laudable proposal for a special 
session to agree on procedural matters prior to the Ministerial  Conference.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
We are aware of the magnitude of technology development. The idea of a fourth industrial 
revolution will have consequences for everybody, which are still unquantifiable for the majority of 
us. Electronic commerce is just one p art of a much more complex revolution which we are not all 
prepared for, nor on an equal footing. The WTO already showed foresight in this matter in 1998 
when it agreed, during the second Ministerial Conference, on a work programme and a moratorium 
on cust om duties on electronic transactions. We believe that this work programme is the proper 
framework to continue addressing the issue from a development standpoint.  
 
Possible deliverables  
 
In terms of possible deliverables, we are in agreement with regard to  disciplining fisheries 
subsidies which contribute to excessive fishing capacity and overfishing and to eliminating 
subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. At the same time, we support the primary 
focus of disciplines on subsidies provid ed to large scale commercial or industrial fishing and 
subsidies to fishing activities outside of Members' maritime jurisdictions.   
 
In services, Venezuela is not a demandeur on domestic regulation, as any proposed change in this 
area would affect national  policies implemented in our country. Therefore, we believe that it is 
necessary to include effective and efficient special and differential treatment in any tabled 
proposal, with safeguard elements to protect the country. We also emphasize the need for ba lance 
between the other Doha Round negotiating areas, as set out in paragraphs 30 and 31 of the 
Nairobi Declaration.  
 
Instead of focusing on new deliverables, the Organization needs to translate the commitments 
already undertaken in Doha into concrete fact s. The Nairobi Declaration was clear in giving priority 
to negotiations on public stockholding for food security purposes and the special safeguard 
mechanism for developing country Members. The text on agricultural modalities contains a large 
number of iss ues relating to development, on which significant progress has already been made. 
In fact, many of these issues have already been stabilized.  
 
34. Iceland  
 
Iceland reaffirms its commitment for achieving a meaningful outcome at MC11.  
 
Today’s challenging global  environment gives more urgency to show the relevance of the WTO as a 
negotiating forum.  
 
Iceland is mindful that MC11 will not address all outstanding issues but should be seen as an 
important milestone in our ongoing work.  
 
Any MC11 package, however lim ited, must embody a shared sense of balance and fairness to gain 
consensus. It must also reconfirm the central role of Development at the heart of our future work.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 94 - 
 
  Iceland is prepared to engage constructively and we urge all members to share a collective  
responsibility to ensure the effectiveness and legitimacy of the WTO going forward – especially the 
major trading powers.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Let me echo the growing and cross -regional chorus of States - developed and developing - calling 
for an outcome  on fisheries subsidies at MC11. This is reflected in some of the interventions 
already made here today.  
 
Let me in particular thank the Chair of Rules Committee for his constructive approach and 
leadership on this issue and also the Director General for h is recent push on all of us to make 
progress on this issue.  
 
There is a broad and growing acknowledgement by a large majority of WTO members that we 
need an outcome on this issue, and many members have made a clear and articulate case to 
distinguish this i ssue from all others – as a development issue, as a pressing environmental issue 
and as a broader sustainability issue with reference to the SDGs.  
 
Doing nothing is simply no longer an option, considering the dire consequences the continued 
inaction on ha rmful fisheries subsidies will have on the worlds fish stocks and the millions of 
people all around the globe that rely on responsible and sustainable fisheries for livelihood and 
nourishment. This is  particularly acute for LDCs.  
 
Iceland was among a small  group of countries that fought for the explicit inclusion of fisheries 
subsidies in the Doha mandate. Since then, our commitment to including more robust disciplines 
and transparent rules governing harmful fisheries subsidies has remained steadfast.  
 
Heartened by the growing consensus emerging in this house to act now; from the Declaration of 
28 States in Nairobi to the active engagement of members in the Rules Negotiating Group – which 
is currently assessing four proposals from the EU, ACP, LDC and Latin American countries – we 
believe a meaningful outcome is within our grasp.  
 
We are open to working with all proposals that aim to achieve a robust outcome on eliminating 
harmful fisheries subsidies. In particular, any outcome should contain disciplines on IUU, 
overfishing, overcapacity and transparency, along with appropriate S&D elements to help 
implement those disciplines.  
 
Iceland seeks an ambitious and meaningful outcome but realise that time is limited; we are willing 
to work in a spirit of compromise to address legitimate concerns of all members.  
 
We are also advocating for an intensification of work in Rules Committee that aims to forge 
together many of the common elements/principles seen in all four proposals by summer break. 
The role of the Chair wi ll be crucial, and we call on all WTO members to engage and show the 
strong political will to achieve an outcome.   
 
35. Colombia  
 
In our country's view, we have been conducting a constructive process so far, but it is not easy to 
find a way out of the positio ns in which we have been entrenched for years. This has already been 
mentioned by the Ambassadors of Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica. We need to do more, and concern 
over signs of growing protectionism and anti -globalization call for a strengthened multilater al 
system that is both respected and able to deliver results.  
 
The efforts made to date are insufficient. We are clearly still a long way from finishing the task in 
hand with a view to the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, and we urge everyone to sim ply 
"get the job done".  
 
We need to be more active in studying alternatives and involving our capitals to help us to 
examine possible solutions. Now is the time to develop new proposals and run any necessary 
scenarios. This also means that we must work in all areas.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 95 - 
 
  Colombia, like many other countries, places great importance on the outcomes in Agriculture. 
However, we are aware that the ability to finish our work successfully requires delivery on other 
issues, and we are willing to move ahead in parallel in discussions on the latter. These issues, 
including domestic regulation in services, fisheries subsidies and electronic commerce, can, in turn, 
help to strike the necessary balance.  
 
We have a clear mandate from the Ministers to work on all outstanding D oha Round issues, and 
we must continue exploring possibilities to advance in this task.  
Lastly, as the date of the Ministerial Conference draws near, there is obviously reason for concern 
as there is still much work to be done. The solution is to begin wit hout delay, in preparation 
for MC11.  
 
We are sure that these efforts will be worthwhile. In 2015 we saw that great progress could be 
made in a short space of time, provided that there was political will and engagement on 
everyone's part to achieve results.  Today, we call on the Membership to commit to addressing the 
task without delay.  
 
36. Montenegro  
 
The Director -General has  led the process that over several years has led in my view to the 
beginning of the revitalization of the multilateral trad ing system and  the WTO. In Bali,  we all 
agreed to turn the page by exploring new approaches based on result s-oriented negotiations. 
Today we harvest the fruits of that approach as TFA came into force yesterday. In preparation for 
Nairobi we knew agriculture was a difficult issue but countries took an important first step in 
dealing with export subsidies.  Now, it is up to all M embers to further explore how we a re going to 
deal with domestic support and the com plexity it brings to the Member' s programs.  
 
Like many other delegations Montenegro recognizes the importance for Members to agree early on 
the directio n and potential package for MC 11 and to more actively engage in certain multilateral 
topics. Your report today indicates your cautious optimism and call for continuo us substantive 
consultations an d flexibility in the remaining eight mo nths. Indeed, time is running out and we 
need greater specificity in the potential issues and deliverable s that are realistic and doable.  In 
moving forward , Montenegro supports  having a  pragmatic approach in the negotiations and the 
Director -General's  leadership role in this process. As was highlighted by the Director -General and 
many Members today, Montenegro believes that elements of development and technical support 
for the LDCs should  stay as an importan t focus in consensus building.  
 
With that in mind Montenegro has been working with like -minded delegations to advance 
discussions based on the concrete submissions, as in the case of e -commerce, which is part of 
digital economy that is revolutionizing everything. We believe that the fur ther substantive 
discussion on e -commerce could strengthen the existin g customs moratorium and open up  trade 
opportunities th at e-commerce could facilitate. We also need to address concerns of many aroun d 
the table in particular as regards the relations between the rules on e -commerce and existing 
digital divide.  
 
In addition, Montenegro will continue to follow closely the discussion on fisheries  subsidies and 
consult with the EU and a ll interested Members  in line with  preserving  the support for artesian 
fisheries and the well-being of the local communities as outlined in our Strateg ic program for 
fisheries 2015 –2020 and UN SDG  14.6. 
 
As in our previous statements Montenegro wishes to highlight its firm bel ief that enlargement of 
the WTO has been an important achievement in  strengthening the multilateral trading system. We 
therefore strongly support the curren t accession negotiations with the hope of welcoming new 
Members to  the WTO in Buenos Aires.  
      
Montenegro  is confident that if Members continue to take seriously the challenge of charting a new  
course as we have done in Bali and Nairobi, we will achieve  success in Buenos Aires. In that spirit, 
Montenegro will stay as an active and committed participan t in this process.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 96 - 
 
  37. Mali (C -4) 
 
The C -4 fully endorses the statements made by Morocco on behalf of the African Group, by 
Cambodia on behalf of the LDCs, and by Guyana on behalf of the ACP countries.  
 
The C -4 commend s the Director -General for his  commitmen t to transparency and inclusiveness.  
 
The C -4 welcomes the entry into force of the Amendment to the TRIPS Agreement and the 
Agreement on Trade Facilitation, which mark important progress for  our organization.  
 
At a time when we are about to enter a more ac tive phase of preparation for the next Ministerial 
Conference in Buenos Aires, the C -4 would like to give the assurance of its constructive 
commitment to ensuring a meaningful outcome for the  benefit of Members  with particular 
attention to the poorest amon g them.  
 
To that end, the D oha Development Agenda and its m andate are the key points of reference for 
the C -4. Development must remain a primary concern.  
 
We note with satisfaction that from the time it was launched in 2003, 14 years ago, up to the 
latest Ministerial Conference in Nairo bi, the Sectoral Initiative in f avour of Cotton has kept the 
African cotton issue at the heart of the WTO negotiations.  
 
However, it is clear that the commitment made by all Members to finding a fair solution for cotton, 
as set out in the different decisions and statements made in the Ministerial Conferences over the 
last 14 years, has still not reached its expected conclusion, and the 3rd negotiating pillar, namely 
domestic support, has not made any tangible progress.  
 
Althou gh domestic support is largely responsible for distortions in world cotton prices, the issue 
was only raised in the Nairobi Decision to recall the policy reform efforts made by certain Members 
to reduce their domestic subsidies for cotton, and to stress th e need to strengthen transparency 
through regular notification of measures taken in this area.  
 
Therefore, as emphasized by our Ministers in Nairobi, and in Bamako last October, making 
significant progress on domestic support remains a priority for the C -4. 
 
On the strength of the achievements of the 10th Ministerial Conference held in Nairobi in 2015, 
notably the decisions on market access, export competition for cotton and cotton products, and 
the development component, the C -4 therefore reaffirms its com mitment, ahead of the 
11th Ministerial  Conference in Buenos Aires in  December, to achieve a negotiated, fair and 
balanced outcome on the issue of domestic support and the gradual elimination of all forms of 
subsidy that have a distorting effect on world co tton prices.  
 
Aware as we all are of today's particularly difficult international environment and its impact on the 
trade negotiations underway here at the WTO, the C -4 is counting on the constructive engagement 
of Members to take appropriate action with r egard to the various mandates on cotton, under the 
3rd negotiating pillar, namely domestic support.  
 
What is at stake is the preservation of the credibility of the multilateral trading system  despite the 
prevailing uncertainties.  
 
The recent bilateral cons ultation meetings held by the C -4 with the major players on the cotton 
issue at the WTO have given rather encouraging signals.  
 
Furthermore, in the coming weeks the C -4 will submit a proposal to Members with a view to its 
adoption at the 11th Ministerial C onference.  
 
The C -4 remains convinced that trade is an important catalyst for growth, sustainable 
development and poverty reduction in several small countries which depend heavily on cotton 
exports, and that it will enable these countries to reap real bene fits from opening up to the 
multilateral trading system.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 97 - 
 
  More than ever, the relevance of the outcomes that will emerge in Bu enos Aires will prove that our 
organization is a genuine tool that serves the entire Membership.  
 
38. Russian Federation  
 
In Oslo and Davos , our Ministers have reaffirmed the key role of the rules -based multilateral 
trading system in ensuring stability and predictability of the world trade. They made it clear that 
they are expecting substant ive and valuable outcomes at MC 11. 
 
With this i n mind, we do believe that it is our task, here in Geneva, to decide the direction of our 
negotiating work and to build convergence. We should intensi fy the discussions in search of  
deliverables that would support the multilateral trading system and ensure  that MC11 in Buenos 
Aires will be a success.  
 
The Russian Federation is ready to explore, together with other Members, those areas that have a 
high potential of reaching consensus. From the Russian perspective, they could include agriculture, 
certain disc iplines in domestic regulation in services, fisheries subsidies, e -commerce and 
investment facilitation.  
 
Agriculture is crucial for the majority of Members. So it should form a par t of any outcome   at   
MC11. We would like to determine the following prio rities within the agriculture dossier:  
 
Domestic S upport – Levelling the playing field remains critical ly important. Russia believes that 
trade -distorting support, particularly the amber box support, should be reduced to the minimum   
by the developed coun tries.  We would like to thank certain Members who invested their efforts in 
submitting particular approaches to future cuts to domestic support. We express our readiness to 
work towards such an outcome.  
 
Special Safeguard M echanis m – We could not share t he position to design such an instrument.   
Russia believes that implementing of SSM may results in loss of the developing countries markets. 
We should do our best to avoid using such tool.  
 
Special Agricultural Safeguard  – Russia supports the elimination of the existing provisions on 
Special Agricultural Safeguard . When Russia joined the Organization and undertook significant 
reforms, SSG was already supposed to be eliminated, and we strongly believe this is a right way 
forward.  
  
Public Stockholding for F ood Security Purposes  – We would like to stress the importance of Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. It should be clear that food security schemes should not 
disrupt markets or damage the food security of Members. Russia is ready to   engage   in   any   
process   leading   to   permanent   solution   addressing concerns of food security for all the 
membership.  
 
We welcome the intensification of text -based discussions in domestic regula tion in services. One of 
Russia' s priorities is the issue o f services transparency, which is of particular interest to economic 
operators. Besides transparency, we believe that licensing procedures should not be in themselves 
a restriction. In our view, much attended practical results could be de livered on this tr ack in 
Buenos Aires.  
 
In Rules, Russia is interested in anti -dumping and countervailing issues. We hope that the work on 
this topic will gain momentum, and we are ready to give serious consider ation to any proposal 
from the M embership. We also see certain progress in negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Russia 
welcomes the proposals that have been tabled, and we are ready to discuss them further.  
 
Several Members have put forward new proposals on e -commerce and investment. We are open to 
discuss all the ini tiatives that are on the table. We are confident that we will be able to find 
common understanding of these topics.  
 
We also believe that the commitments made by Article XII Members in the course of their 
accession should be taken into account in the negot iations.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 98 - 
 
  39. Senegal  
 
Senegal endorses the statements made by the African Group, the ACP Group and the LDC  Group.  
This is the first meeting that brings us together at this level and in this format in 2017. Therefore, 
it gives me the opportunity to wish us all  every success in our proceedings.  
 
I hope that the 11th Ministerial Conference scheduled for next December in Buenos Aires will 
enable us to deliver tangible and significant results for development.  
 
In this regard, I would like to remind you of the call by the Senegalese delegation last December 
to redouble efforts to reach an outcome in the negotiations on Agriculture, particularly concerning 
domestic support, the special safeguard mechanism, and public stockholding for food security 
purposes.  
 
Senegal i ntends to draw repeated attention to the importance it attaches to the negotiations on 
fisheries subsidies. We welcome the remarkable work already accomplished by the Chairman of 
the Rules Negotiating Group and reiterate our commitment to pursuing the disc ussions with a view 
to achieving an outcome on disciplines for certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to 
overcapacity and overfishing, and to eliminating subsidies related to illegal, unreported and 
unregulated fishing.  
 
On this subject, my d elegation insists on the need for sufficient policy space and due regard for 
the development dimension, in particular flexibilities for the developing countries, especially LDCs, 
and the technical assistance that is necessary for them to implement future d isciplines.  
 
I would like to conclude by conveying the sincere thanks of the highest Senegalese authorities and 
the organizers of the African Ports Forum, which was held in Dakar on 16 and 17  February  2017.  
On that occasion, you were able to witness the ef forts made by African ports to facilitate trade by 
reducing costs and implementing more appropriate procedures. This bodes well for the 
implementation of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, and we congratulate you, along with all 
Members, on its entry int o force.  
 
Now is the time to help the developing countries, particularly the LDCs, with the implementation of 
Category C measures, notably through the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility.  
 
40. European Union  
 
We all agree that a rules -based multilateral trad ing system is vital to ensure a stable and 
predictable framework for world trade. At a time when protectionist tendencies around the world 
are putting strain on this system, it is of utmost importance to strengthen the WTO. The next 
opportunity will come a t the end of the year in Buenos Aires and we should seize it.  
 
We remain convinced that we can work towards deliverables at MC11. We are ambitious as well as 
realistic. We are not expecting the same level of result on all issues. But we consider that it is  too 
early to talk about reducing ambition and we should rather focus on preparing the ground for 
results. Concretely, this means that we should aim at translating the ideas and objectives we have 
into textual proposals and sharing these texts to start con crete discussions.  
 
We cannot conceive to drop issues from the Buenos Aires agenda without having had a chance to 
seriously engage on their merits.  
 
This has been our long -lasting call for the last months but this has now become an urgent 
necessity. As you , have noted time is not on our side. If we do not manage to have texts on the 
table before summer, then we take the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past, with issues not 
matured enough by the time of the meeting in Buenos Aires. Some may say that wi th nine months 
ahead of us, there is ample time. Let me be clear: there is no low hanging fruit and hard work as 
well as time will be needed in all areas to get results.  
 
The EU remains committed to actively contribute to the process. We have tabled, or co ntributed to 
table, texts in the areas of fisheries subsidies and domestic regulation. We will continue to be 
active in all areas.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 99 - 
 
  As regards fisheries subsidies, thanks to the active engagement of a number of Members, we have 
entered into substantive dis cussions aiming to implement SDG 14.6. We welcome the fact that 
there is now a broadly shared sense that we need to work toward a consolidated draft text. The 
political will is there but the issues at stake are complex.  
   
As regards services, developments  in the area of domestic regulation augur well for an outcome at 
MC11. We should maintain the same level of engagement on the further blocks of proposals that 
will soon be discussed in March. As regards Services Trade Facilitation, we are studying the new 
Indian proposal.  
 
In other areas the outlook is much more uncertain. On domestic support, there is a broad interest 
to work toward a deliverable for Buenos Aires, the discussions remains very general in nature and 
is tainted by those opposing to undertake any commitments. While there are clearly different 
interests at play, we need to make a genuine effort to discuss a possible architecture allowing us 
to take an incremental step forward on this issue. And we acknowledge that a solution on domestic 
support would need to include a solution on PSH.  
 
Equally we remain concerned about the state of discussions on e -commerce. The engagement of 
multiple Members, both developing and developed as well as support from industry, clearly show 
that there is interest in t his area and that WTO work is long overdue. Nevertheless, there appears 
to be a minority yet vocal call to prevent any progress in this area. We reject any such attempts 
and urge Members to engage in this discussion. Turning our backs on e -commerce in the 21st 
century is not just counter -productive, it is purely and simply dangerous. It highlights the inability 
of this organisation and its Members to address issues of primary concern to traders. By doing so 
it pushes those wanting to advance toward alternat ive approaches, including plurilat eral 
agreements. We call on the Director -General to allow for an open and concrete dialogue to 
resume, where we could discuss all concerns and consider all options. The special needs of 
developing countries should be in th is context, fully taken care of.  
 
We have received some support and encouragement to further work on an initiative to facilitate 
SME trade by enhancing transparency of regulatory measures and should be in a position to 
further engage with Members in the co ming weeks.  
 
On development, the EU believes that an outcome on fishery and agricultural subsidies in line with 
Sustainable Development Goals would be the best evidence of how trade and the WTO can 
contribute to furthering the interest of LDCs, who have to day highlighted them as their first 
priority, and developing countries. Finally, we have noted the interest of some Members to discuss 
investment facilitation and are ready to participate in this discussion.  
   
We celebrated yesterday the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, one of the major 
achievements of the Ministerial in Bali. The current difficult times, clouded by considerable 
uncertainty, should not prompt us to sit back and wait until the storm passes. This should rather 
encourage us to maintain efforts to confirm the central position of the WTO in the multilateral 
system and remain ambitious for the next Ministerial in Buenos Aires.  
 
We commend your engagement in the process. We call on the Membership to take a strong 
leadership a nd intensify our efforts. The coming weeks and months before the summer break will 
be crucial for the success of MC11. The European Union will continue to contribute its share and 
would welcome the efforts of others to do the same.  
 
41. Ghana  
 
My delegation a ssociates with the statements delivered by Morocco on behalf of the African Group, 
and Guyana on behalf of the ACP group.  
 
My delegation was encouraged by the positive momentum that was generated, with regards to 
moving forward the negotiations, just befor e the Christmas break, the enthusiastic flow of ideas 
and the submission of papers and proposals on many topical issues under consideration and trust 
that we will approach the negotiations with the same enthusiasm.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 100 - 
 
  We are optimistic about the resilience a nd prospects of the multilateral trading system, and are 
committed to ensuring that we redouble our efforts in order to harvest substantial outcomes in 
Buenos Aires, in December.  
 
Ghana, committed to benefiting from development outcomes, reiterates the nee d to further 
advance negotiations based on paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which among 
other things, highlights “strong commitment of all members to advance negotiations on the 
remaining Doha issues” including expediting work on all th e three pillars of Agriculture, namely 
Domestic support, Market Access, Export competition, as well as Non -agricultural market access 
issues, services, TRIPs and others.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture remains central to Ghana’s economic growth and poverty reduc tion. Correcting the 
existing distortions and systemic imbalances in Agriculture, particularly through disciplines on 
domestic support is therefore a priority.  
 
Ghana, like other developing countries, has been at the receiving end of the negative impact o f 
domestic support measures of developed countries which have resulted in the reduction in food 
security and rural unemployment of our people.  
 
For example, the once vibrant poultry industry that provided almost all the chicken and egg 
requirements of the country, and provided employment to many youth, has now been crowded out 
of business by import surges of poultry from developed countries. The industry now produces at 
less than 25% capacity and this is not different from what pertains in many other sector s.  
 
To this end we call on WTO members to abide by the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, and fulfil their 
commitments, including adopting the permanent solution for Public Stockholding for food security 
purposes, covering the existing and future programme,  by MC11.  
 
Cotton  
 
On cotton, we wish to stress the importance of cotton to the economies of many African countries, 
particularly African LDCs, and note with concern the lack of progress in implementing the results of 
WTO Ministerial Conferences since Hon g Kong, which have sought to eliminate all trade distorting 
policies affecting cotton .  
 
As a cotton producing country, we acknowledge and support the efforts of the Cotton Four and 
urge Members to approach the cotton issue in a fair, balanced, ambitious  and expeditious manner 
for harvest at MC11.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Regarding Fisheries subsidies, Ghana calls for disciplines on certain forms of subsidies that 
contribute to overfishing and overcapacity as agreed in goal 14.6 of the 2030 Agenda for 
developm ent, taking into account the importance of the LDCs fishery sector to their economic and 
social development.  
 
Africa' s Integration and Industrial Development  
 
As a pioneer in African’s integration agenda, Ghana reaffirms that, continental integration, 
structural transformation and industrialization remain an overriding priority, following the 
launching of the Continental Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), in line with the “Agenda 2063:  The 
Africa We Want”.  
 
This is the only way Africa can solve the critical iss ues of income generation, poverty alleviation, 
employment creation, sustainable development and inclusive growth, currently bedevilling its 
citizens.  
 
Ghana therefore supports the African Union Ministers of Trade in their call for the negotiations to 
be based on developmental objectives and principles of the DDA, including Special and Differential WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 101 - 
 
  treatment and less than full reciprocity,  in line with Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration . 
 
Trade Facilitation Agreement  
 
Regarding the TFA, Chair,  on the first WTO working day of the year, Ghana deposited its 
Instrument of Acceptance of the Protocol as the 104th Member and followed it later with 
notification of Category A commitments. As Ghana prepares to notify the other two categories in 
due cours e, we wish to underscore the need for financial and technical assistance as well as 
support to build capacity to address the broad categories of costs identified, which include, but is 
not limited to Infrastructure; Human Resource training; Regulatory/Legi slative; and Administrative 
costs, to implement the category C measures. Development Partners and the Donor community 
are called upon to respond to this need.  
 
With the coming into force of the TFA yesterday, we trust that our SMEs too will be able to 
increase their share of international trade as a result of lower transaction costs, in respect of 
service charges, business opportunity costs, and costs associated with uncertainty and corrup tion, 
and thereby enhance Ghana' s competitiveness.  
 
My delegation t akes this opportunity to congratulate all of us for this memorable feat, which we 
have achieved together.  
 
42. Benin  
 
The delegation of Benin thanks you for your report this morning on the state of play as regards the 
work taking place within the framework of the multilateral trade negotiations.  
 
We endorse the statements made by Cambodia on behalf of the Group of Least Developed 
countries (LDC Group), Morocco on behalf of the African Group, Guyana on behalf of the African, 
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States  (ACP Group), Mali on behalf of the co -sponsors of the 
Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton (C4), and Indonesia on behalf of the G33.  
 
I would like to inform WTO Members that, having reached the end of its year -long term as 
LDC Group Coordinator, Benin passed the baton to Cambodia on Monday 20  February  2017. May I 
take this opportunity to thank all WTO Members and Member groups, and you Director -General, 
the members of your Office and your technical services, for all the support given to my delegation 
during Benin's term as Coordinator in 2016.  
 
I invite all WTO M embers to give the delegation of Cambodia as much support and time as they 
gave to Benin. My delegation wishes Cambodia every success.  
 
We recommend that the consultations and negotiations pick u p speed and be based on texts, 
i.e. those already available and others yet to be submitted, taking into account the LDC needs, 
priorities and concerns that have been mentioned today by Group Coordinators and other 
individual delegations.  
 
By doing this, we  will be paving a sure path towards the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference in 
Buenos Aires.  
 
Lastly, the delegation of Benin welcomes the entry into force of the Protocol amending the 
Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),  and the Agreement 
on Trade Facilitation.  
 
43. India  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statement by Indonesia as co -ordinator of the G -33. 
 
As we look ahead towards MC11, we believe there are challenges and issues that we need to 
address both on proces s and on substance.   
 
First and foremost, there seems to be pressure to deliver outcomes which in itself could be 
problematic given the overall political and economic context.  It is further problematic because the WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 102 - 
 
  outcomes or packages sought to be presen ted we believe are not balanced for the membership as 
a whole or are highly pre -mature for rulemaking with their far reaching, long -term implications  not 
clearly understood.  This is the overall environmen t my delegation finds itself in  at this juncture.  
 
May I seek your indulgence to reiterate that the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, the most recent of 
such Min isterial expressions of Members' expectations from this o rganization, states inter alia that 
“the majority of WTO Members are developing country me mbers.  We seek to place their needs 
and interests at the centre of the work in the WTO.”  It is important to remind ourselves of this 
Ministerial direction, as we attempt to formulate a package or possible outcomes for a Ministerial 
meeting.  It needs to be emphasized that certain issues being pushed presently by some members 
cannot be said to be placing the needs and interests of developing country members and the  LDCs 
at the centre of the work in the WTO.  This goes against the letter and spirit of what the Ministers 
have said.  It is almost as if at least some parts of Ministerial Declarations remain merely on pieces 
of paper to be placed on the shelf after each ministerial rather than directions to be acted upon.   
 
Thirdly, there seems to be selective visibility and hearing in favour of such issues and against 
those that are being taken up by many developing and least developed members to correct or 
rebalance existing asymmetrical rules.  While it is indeed the duty of the concerned officials to 
assess the state of play and provide their assessment, this assessment must be impartial – more 
factual and less impressionistic otherwise it is bound to vitiate the discussions on all issues and 
raise questions on the conduct of the concerned officials.  Consens us being the rule in this 
Organization requires the officials chairing the different bodies to assess the state of play and the 
extent of consensus or divergence, impartially objectively and factually and not in a value l oaded 
manner.  Even words like 'man y' or 'few', 'some' or 'most'  can present the situation in ways that 
could be different from the reality.   We are therefore of the view  that we should strictly desist from 
value loaded assessments as we move towards MC11 in order not to vitiate the process . 
 
In this context, the formats of discussions, in our view, also play a major role in shaping the 
outcome.  We have seen in the past that often the constitution of the groups is such that there are 
more members holding one type of position as compared to those holding the opposite or a 
different position. This lends itself to selective hearing and visibility on the part of those assessing 
consensus or divergence.  Therefore, it is imperative that the Geneva process should be as 
transparent, impartial and f air as possible with negotiations being structured in inclusive and 
representative formats.  Only if this is done can we as M embers have faith in the legitimacy of the 
process.  
 
Another issue of se rious concern to my delegation is the role of the Secretari at.  Nee dless to say 
that the WTO is a Member -driven organization. The Secretariat is meant to be an impartial 
institution exclusively international in character.  The Agreement Establishing the WTO bars the 
Secretariat from taking any action which might a dversely reflect on their position as international 
officials.  The Secretariat, therefore, should not only be impartial but also be seen to be so. In this 
context, the recent presentations made by the WTO Secretariat to the Working Group on Trade 
and Inve stment under the G -20 at Berlin are a case in point.  On investment facilitation the 
presentation not only attempts to define investment facilitation but has also proposed next steps. 
Needless to say that this is still a contentious issue within the WTO.  The second such presentation 
is on e -commerce which is factual in most parts except the last two slides and especially the last 
one which actually calls for “further discussion towards a multilateral outcome”.  E -commerce 
remains a highly contentious area in the WTO which is a fact not even mentioned in the 
presentation. We wonder what gives the WTO Secretariat the authority or the mandate to propose 
next steps or multilateral outcomes on subjects on which discussions have not even begun in the 
WTO.  Were t he contents of these presentations discussed by members and was there a consensus 
on the propositions contained therein that the WTO should be encouraged to launch a dialogue on 
strengthening trade and investment policy coherence or that there should be fu rther discussions 
towards a multilateral outcome on e -commerce?  Such presentations by the Secretariat within or 
outside the WTO, in our view, go far beyond the remit of the functions of the WTO Secretariat, and 
violate the letter and spirit of the Agreeme nt Establishing the WTO.  In fact, these two 
presentations seem to convey to my delegation that the WTO Secretariat holds a brief for a certain 
constituency of members thereby raising a question on its impartiality and international character 
as required i n the Agreement Establishing the WTO. You, yourself have said many a time and have 
also been quoted in a very recent news report in India as saying that the primary responsibility for 
pushing any proposal rests with the proponent and not the WTO.  You are quoted in the context of 
PSH and SSM of course, not e -commerce or investment.  If this be the case, the question that WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 103 - 
 
  comes to mind is whether the WTO Secretariat has also become a proponent on these two issues? 
May I state, therefore, that if the Secretar iat continues to act in this manner, it would further 
vitiate the negotiating process in the WTO and the members’ attempts to reiterate strongly the 
relevance and primacy of the WTO as an institution central to the global trading system.  
 
In addition to pr ocess, on the substantive issues, we would like to reiterate the primacy of the 
development dimension of the DDA and that the unfinished work in the decisions taken at the Bali 
and Nairobi Ministerial Conferences must get precedence over any other areas wh ich can only be 
negotiated multilaterally if there is agreement by all the members as stated in the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration.  There needs to be urgent constructive engagement on public stockholding 
and SSM without linkages with other areas of agric ulture negotiations.  These issues are 
fundamental to bringing about development that is broad based and balanced in many developing 
and least developed countries. In order to invigorate negotiations in the WTO we introduced a 
concept note on trade facilit ation in services followed by a paper on possible elements of an 
agreement for trade facilitation in services.  The proposal aims to remove unnecessary regulatory 
and administrative obstacles to trade in services.  We have introduced a text based proposal now 
to carry the discussion forward on which we would urge members to engage constructively. On e -
commerce our position is very clear.  Discussions must take place in accordance with the work 
programme in the relevant bodies.  The mandate is exploratory an d a discussion on rules 
completely premature.  This is particularly so given the highly monopolistic nature of the existing 
e-commerce market which would result in the benefits of any rules being concentrated in the 
hands of a few while at the same time co nstraining the policy space of the developing countries to 
develop their e -commerce space.  Proposals that are seemingly innocuous require a deep cost -
benefit analysis to assess their implications in different situations.  To say that e -commerce rules 
would meet the needs of MSMEs or that they would automatically help economic development in 
developing and least developed countries is profoundly simplistic – almost like the one trillion 
dollars spin -off of the TFA. Despite these realities, we see attempts b oth within and outside the 
WTO to project a consensus in these areas.   
 
In conclusion, may I state that we need to be cautious about the fact that there is a risk of further 
deepening the divide, in case, undue importance is given to the so -called new iss ues where even 
the narratives are still not clear, at the cost of relegating to the background, the implementation of 
earlier decisions and areas in which substantive work has already been done over the last decade.  
Needless to also add that any attempts to cherry pick ministerial decisions or a few members 
projecting consensus on issues where none exists, would also seriously undermine the credibility 
of the WTO.  We accordingly support any approach which seeks inclusive and balanced outcomes 
as the way f orward for achieving outcomes at MC11.  Finally, let me re -assure you that India 
remains strongly committed to constructively engaging in consultations in all areas of work within 
the WTO.  
 
44. Jamaica  
 
2017 is a ministerial year and therefore our immediate pr iority and focus must be placed on the 
agenda and outc omes to be pursued at Buenos Air es.  This focus must complement, and be 
complemented by, our commitment to secure and strengthen the WTO in all its pillars and ensure 
the continued stability of the mult ilateral trading system .  Indeed this will be the most important 
task for Ministers in Buenos Aires.  
 
We approach MC 11 at a time of great debate on the benefits of trade and the fu ture of trade.  We 
must seek to understand the meaning of the sentiments bei ng expressed in several countries, 
especially those questioning and challenging the impact of globalization.  We must be careful not 
to conflate the loud and strong anti -import/pro domestic jobs messages into a simple anti - trade 
narrative. The concern abo ut perceived displacement of domestic production and loss of jobs and 
livelihoods through imports must be addressed, but on the basis of sound data and analysis.  
 
Is this a failure of the bargains struck by trade negotiators who after all are to ensure tha t the 
gains from trade inure to the benefit of their constituencies? Is it the failure of trade adjustment 
policies that have failed to offset losses and displacement with livelihood sustaining alternatives? Is 
this a rejection of the value of all imports in favour of autarky or export only options?  
 
These are matters on which our respective policy makers must reflect. Nothing in this reflection 
requires a revisiting of the rules based system and approach.  Indeed it should reinforce the WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 104 - 
 
  importance of the rules based system and perhaps inspire more responsive measures in future rule 
making.  It is instructive that we are discussing these things at the time when the ratification of 
the TFA underlines the importance of choosing normative outcomes that offer b road benefits 
without  setting winners against losers.   Of course we must not forget the commitments to provide 
technical assistance and capacity building embedded in that agreement.  
 
We do have unfinished business in the quest to address perceived imbalan ces in the current rules, 
particularly in Agriculture.  The calls for action on rules addressing domestic support by several 
members are an example of this concern.  
 
Returning to the prospects for Buenos Aires, my delegation feels that realism and pragmat ism 
must guide t he setting of the agenda for MC 11.  Not all that is desirable will be doable and it will 
be up to us to resist any temptation to dissipate our efforts and pursue goals that might not be 
attainable in the time we have.  At the same time we n eed to be reassured that overall interests 
and longstanding mandates and goals are preserved for future consideration and action - 
recognizing that Buenos Aires is not the end of the road.  We must apply the letter and spirit of 
Nairobi, which recognize th e centrality of a development focus addresses certain specific pursuits 
such as the SSM and PSH, calls for further action on Doha Issues and prescribes the approach to 
be taken to consideration of potential new issues. There is no need to reinvent the whee l.  The 
road to Buenos Aires was paved in Nairobi.  
 
My delegation stands ready to work towards outcomes that are capable of securing consensus in 
line with the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions.  
 
45. Cameroon  
 
We would like to support the statement made by the ACP  and the African Groups. Cameroon also 
supported the statement made by South Africa regarding the reiteration of the DDA on the process 
in the lead up to Buenos Aires and the recent comments by Jamaica regarding the centrality of 
development and stressing structural transformation, industrialization and diversification.  
 
Industrialization is a priority for Cameroon and its President. Cameroon therefore proposes that we 
look at the issue of industrialization facilitation which will enable low -income countrie s to link up to 
international trade. If trade is for everyone then countries that most need it must be enabled to 
participate actively. We can facilitate industrialization for trade.  
 
We have looked at possibilities in that respect. We have looked at the d ifficulties that countries 
face but we know it is possible. Some Members have asked for Services Trade Facilitation and 
Investment Facilitation. But for the vast majority of Members of the WTO, the most urgent need is 
facilitation for industrialization.  
 
E-commerce is a topical issue. A lot of people have mentioned it. Cameroon wants to link to that. 
We are developing a policy in that respect and we are interested in the issue. However, we need to 
continue to work within the mandate and the established fram ework. We have heard some 
delegations asking for procedural issues to be put to one side but without prejudice. The WTO is a 
rules-based organization and it is important that we respect that especially to those who do not 
think there should be rules to a c ertain extent in some areas.  
 
Cameroon hopes that the process is really Member -driven, inclusive and transparent. Many 
delegations have spoken about that.  
 
With regard to what India mentioned earlier about the role of the Secretariat, some members of 
the Secretariat seem to be adopting bold positions on some of the more controversial issues. We 
hope that members of the staff of the organization support Members rather than speaking on their 
behalf.  
 
With your leadership and professional which we have seen , Members have made progress in the 
negotiations and we hope that those standards are maintained.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 105 - 
 
  46. Republic of Moldova  
 
The Delegation of the Republic of Moldova welcomes and congratulates the Director -General and 
the WTO family for the entry into force of  the Trade Facilitation Agreement. We commend the 
efforts of all the Member s which contributed to the achievement of this milestone new disc ipline on 
the multilateral trading  system.  
 
In this context, I would like to inform you that the Government of the Republic of Moldova has 
already established the National Committee on Trade Facilitation which has implemented more 
than 50% of the 12 provisions/articles stipulated in the TFA. We decided to involve the  economic  
suppliers and representatives of civil soci ety with a view to secure support from the private sector 
and public private partnerships, which will contribute to Trade Facilitation and UN 2030 Agenda. 
The Republic of Moldova strongly believes that through the implementation of this Agreement we 
can re inforce  the importance  of the multilateral trading  system . 
 
Regarding the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, the Republic of Moldova would like to reiterate the 
importance of the elimination of all types of agriculture subsidies which is essent ial in mitigat ing 
the distorting  effects in agricultural sector and in advancing domestic reforms. The Republic of 
Moldova has eliminated the agriculture subsidies during our previous c ommitments undertaken 
under Article XII upon the accession to the WTO.  
 
We look for ward to continue the negotiating  process in the WTO regarding public stock holding and 
special safeguard mechanism, by respecting the principles which should be our guidelines for the 
MC11 – inclusiveness, non -presumption, parallelism and transparency.  
 
The Republic of Moldova has a pragmatic, holistic and multilateral approach in the liberalization of 
the international trading  system .   
 
Our country has undertaken extensive commitments during the 16 yea rs of its M embership to the 
WTO family and has reduced t he agriculture domestic support and has implemented our 
commitments taken in Bali and Nairobi.  
 
Regarding the upcoming MC 11 in Buenos Aires, we would strongly recommend to consolidate the 
sectorial approach and to find a convergence between developed,  developing countries and least -
developed coun tries regarding the negotiation  process on NAMA and market access in order to 
deliver a strong and constructive message for MC 11 and to obtain a first draft of our next 
Ministerial Declaration before September 2017 in order to avoid the long session and long debates 
before our departure to Buenos Aires.  
 
The Republic of Moldova strongly believes that our efforts of WTO negotiations will bring a 
common result in the area of trading services, e -commerce, SMEs and compe tition of trade 
policies, which needs to be stipulated in the next WTO Ministerial Declaration. E -commerce will 
always remain the fundamental pillar of trade in services policies.  
 
E-commerce and investment are the main priorities fo r the Moldovan Governm ent. E -commerce is 
essential in our di gital era of human development. We have to be able to del iver concrete results 
at the MC 11 and to o ffer a better solution for the e -commerce barriers to trade and development.  
 
The Republic of Moldova is ready to parti cipate in the negotiation process for the next Ministerial 
Declaration, and looks forward to have an interactive debate before Buenos A ires, but not really 
too long.  
 
47. Nigeria  
 
We commend the Director -General  for building on the momentum, particularly, on h is recent high 
level consultations in Geneva, and outreach to some capitals.  We need to focus our efforts on the 
implementation of the Bali and Nairobi decisions. We also need to shift gears towards scoping out 
possible deliverables and we still need to i dentify the possible deliverables. In this regard, our 
emphasis should be putting development at the centre, including prioritizing LDCs issues.  
  
As a M ember -driven organization, there is the need to ensure that the negotiating process, under 
the leadersh ip of the Chairpersons of the Negotiating Groups, adheres to the WTO core principles WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 106 - 
 
  and values, particularly, the primacy of the multilateral process, inclusiveness and transparency. It 
is important that we implement all the other elements of both Bali an d Nairobi decisions without 
any further delay, particularly the decisions on export competition, Public Stockholding, Special 
Safeguard Mechanism, LDC issues, Cotton, following the entry into force of  the  Trade Facilitation 
Agreement.  
 
Permit me to briefl y highlight some points of general nature. Firstly , we are fully in support of the 
view that since the Doha Round is a development round, issues that bother on development should 
receive adequate attention in the entire areas of the negotiations. We must d eliver on 
development and achieve a pro -development outcome in the negotiations.  
 
Secondly , it is also the view of my delegation that recalibration of our expectations on what is 
"doable"  should not in any way lower the levels of ambition of the Doha round  negotiations. We 
would rather, like to reiterate the need for an overall balance in the levels of ambition in all areas. 
We consider all areas of negotiations as important and non -should be treated to the exclusion of 
others. However, my delegation still believes that Agriculture remains the gateway and the engine 
of the entire negotiations. Understandably, it is an area where the outcomes of the negotiations 
would determine the fate of many developing countries whose economies largely depend on it for 
survival. For this reason, we look forward to the appointment of the chair of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Special Session, as a matter of urgency.  
   
Thirdly , Nigeria would like to reiterate the need to build confidence and trust among the entire 
WTO member ship by ensuring that all issues remain on the table, while technical work, in 
proponents -led discussions, must continue especially, in those areas that are lagging behind.  
   
Fourthly , we wish to congratulate the Director -General, the WTO Secretariat, and  the entire 
membership for the tireless efforts and for working assiduously towards making it a reality. Nigeria 
welcomes the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement on 22nd February, 2017, 
following the attainment of the required threshold.  We are happy to be part of this milestone, as 
the 107th Member to ratify the TFA. Indeed, this is a major breakthrough. We believe the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement will achieve its objectives of expediting the movement, release and 
clearance of goods acros s borders and more importantly, for Nigeria, it will enhance the ease of 
doing business, which our government is fully committed to. By reducing barriers to trade and 
lowering the costs of doing business across borders, there will be market access opportun ities and 
attraction of investment. However, the importance of targeted technical assistance and capacity 
building to support the implementation of the TFA cannot be over -emphasized. Let me seize this 
opportunity to inform members that our Government is co mmitted to achieving its objectives of 
creating a conducive business environment in Nigeria. In this regard, the Presidential Enabling 
Business Environment Council (PEBEC) chaired by the Vice President, H.E. Professor Yemi 
Osinbajo, has approved a 60 -day n ational action plan to push through short term reforms.  The 
Government is trying to improve the business environment in three broad respects; the entry and 
exit of goods; entry and exit of persons into Nigeria, and the general government transparency 
(transparency and efficiency in government agencies and parastatals). The expected outcome of 
the new plan will be noticeable in improvements in all the key areas of government that facilitate 
trade and commerce.  
 
Fifthly , with regards to e -commerce, as a fri end of Friends of Development on e -commerce, and 
also as a proponent, our perspective on e -commerce is that of opportunities for businesses, 
especially for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), while also recognizing the important 
challenges, such a s logistics and infrastructure which must be addressed. As previously stated by 
our Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, H.E. Dr. Okechukwu Enelamah, the digital 
economy, of which e -commerce is one of the key aspects, are priorities, inter alia, in the 
Government plan for diversification, modernization and growth of the Nigerian economy. In this 
regard, Nigeria will continue to engage proactively with the expectation of concrete deliverables at 
MC11, beyond the traditional extension of moratorium and  the reinvigoration of work in this area. 
We, therefore, look fo rward to an expanded work progra mme and a future WTO rules, similar to 
trade facilitation measures. It is instructive to note that some of the WTO members are already 
implementing e -commerce f acilitation -related measures.  
   
Sixthly , Investment attraction and facilitation are key priorities for Nigeria, for growth and 
diversification.  The dialogue on this topic, should be designed and managed in such a way that is 
open and engages all WTO Memb ers, inclusively, constructively, positively and without prejudice to WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 107 - 
 
  the final outcomes.  Therefore, Nigeria wishes to express its support and willingness to work 
cooperatively with other members to deepen the technical discussions, and to explore the 
possibility of a future work programme in this area. This initiative is considered as supportive of 
Nigeria’s overall priority push for economic recovery, an enabling environment for business and 
reaping the gains accruable from the Trae Facilitation Agreemen t. In addition, we welcome the 
proposal by MIKTA to organize a technical workshop in March, 2017 aimed at enriching the 
technical discussions. We note that to date, national and international investment policies have 
paid relatively little attention to inv estment facilitation. There is the need, to create a framework, 
in which members will be comfortable to take this initiative forward, and building consensus will be 
crucial, given the gro wing relevance of this subject.  
 
Finally , we all have the opportunity  to ensure that the future work of the WTO delivers for all, 
particularly, for the developing countries, especially, the LDCs and SVEs.  It is important that 
collectively, we sustain the relevance and credibility of the multilateral trading system. It is e qually 
important that the WTO negotiating function continue to deliver meaningful outcomes for all 
Members, particularly, for the developing and the LDCs. We are confident that with a second term, 
the WTO will be well served under the leadership of the inc umbent Director -General, especially, 
given the back -to-back successes of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Conferences, which the 
Director -General ably facilitated, with the support of the membership. We believe we are on the 
right track, and we need to sus tain and build on the unprecedented achievements of the recent 
years.  Nigeria, will continue to engage constructively, and proactively in all the discussions, and 
shall contribute our quota within our capacity to the overall success of our work, leading t o MC11 . 
On this note, we support the statements made  by Morocco, on behalf of the African Group, 
Rwanda, on behalf of the ACP, Indonesia, on behalf of the G -33, and Mali, on behalf of the C -4.  
 
48. Sri Lanka  
 
We are left with eight months but possible areas f or negotiations  for concrete outcome at MC 11 
are yet to emerge . Although it is not our wish to convert the Minister ial to an extended negotiating 
forum, it appears that we are likely to experience the same.  
 
I take the opportuni ty to congratulate the Direc tor-General on his reapp ointment for another term.  
My delegation noted with appreciation the outcomes of his first term particularly the conclusion 
and giving legal effect to the Trade Facilitation Agreement and giving effect to the amendments to 
the TRIP S Agreement with the aim  of facilitating poor countries'  access to patented medicines at 
affordable cost.  We are confident that he would be able to succeed in bringing positive outcomes 
to the outstanding major subjects relating to main pillars of the neg otiations.  
 
My delegation associates with the s tatement made by the G -33 and t he SVEs. In this regard, we 
wish to draw the attention of the Council to paragraph 26 where the Ministers reaffirmed their 
commitments to facilitate the SVEs ' fuller integration into the multilateral trading system. Sri 
Lanka, as a small and vulnerable economy, expects such flexibilities during the negotiations.  
 
Once again I wi sh to congratulate the Director -General and the Secretariat for their achievement 
in implementing the  Trade Facilitation Agreement. However, fulfilling the commitments in the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement may not by themselves  bring the benefit of the reductio n of the trade 
transaction cost without addressing trade -related infrastructure d evelopment requireme nts. We 
therefore  believe that the aid -for-trade initiative can play a bigger role in addressing this gap.  
 
We also draw the attention of the Council for the Ministers ' commitments in paragraph 17 of the 
Ministerial D eclaration on sustainable financial, te chnical and capacity building assistance 
programmes to support the developing country Members to implement their agreements, to adjust 
to the reforming process to benefit from the opportunities in the multilateral trading environment.  
 
With reg ard to fishe ries subsidies, my d elegation is confident i n achieving some outcome at MC 11 
in line with the s ustainable development targets.  However, such an outcome should provide due 
regards to the small  Island nations such as Sri La nka who depends on fisheries produc tion for food 
security, livelihood and nutritional requirements. In my country, 70% of the nutritional 
requirement s of the population are met by the fisheries sector.  The proposals submitted by the 
ACP Group and the LDC Grou p provide sound basis in address ing the above requirements of 
smaller economies.   
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 108 - 
 
  My delegation looks forward to actively engage in the negotiati ons towards achieving consensus -
based , meaningful outcome s at MC11 particular ly in addressing the development needs of the 
small economies fo r their fuller integration into the multilateral trading system.  
 
49. Côte d'Ivoire  
 
The delegation of Côte d'Ivoire, like other Members, welcomed the overall results achieved 
successively by our Organization at the MC9 and MC10. Even better, we now welcome, i n 
particular, the implementation of the Protocol  amending the TRIPS  Agreement (23  January  2017) 
and the entry into force of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation (22  February  2017).  
 
This double success for multilateralism at the start of 2017, a year which so far seems to confirm 
certain nations' clear preference for protectionism, nevertheless presents bright prospects for 
liberalism guided by the rules of the multilateral trading system - a system which has the WTO at 
its helm.  
 
In order to enjoy this dyna mic of shared success on a long -term basis, not only as regards the 
achievements of the MC9 and MC10, but also in respect of the implementation of the 
above -mentioned Agreements, it seems unavoidable and indeed beneficial for all WTO Members to 
learn from the lessons and experiences of the last two Ministerial Conferences, including the 
preparatory work done for these events.  
 
For our delegation, the achievements of these last few years provide tangible proof of the 
WTO Membership's ability to introduce pro visions that take into account everyone's interests and 
capabilities.  
 
To be more specific, the customized adjustments made by WTO Members to the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement, a multilateral agreement, and the operational amendment made to the 
TRIPS  Agreem ent in order to address public health needs must serve as a reference in future 
negotiations, particularly those in the run -up to the MC11.  
 
All of this shows our Organization's ability to establish texts that go some way to meeting 
everyone's needs. The d elegation of Côte d'Ivoire therefore believes that Buenos Aires will be 
whatever Members decide to make it in the eight months we have between now and that meeting, 
which will take place in a climate tainted by protectionism.  
 
Furthermore, in order to ensu re the success of the MC11, we must identify in the short term, in 
eight weeks at the most, on the basis of agreed parameters, what is achievable in terms of 
agriculture, services, non -tariff measures, development and S&D.  
 
We must also be specific about w hat can be achieved in terms of the important matter of 
electronic commerce, or digital trade, on the understanding that we cannot just be satisfied with 
the terms of the Decision of 1998 in this regard.  
 
As for the thorny issue of fisheries, it should be clarified on the basis of the work of the MC10, 
as must cotton.  
 
We must try to avoid going into extra time. This would lead to a penalty shootout like in a football 
match final, where a few players come together to determine which team will win. If that 
happened at the MC9 and MC10, where the negotiations, "the matches", took place in countries 
that have no history of success in football, what might we expect in Argentina? This is why it now 
seems more appropriate than ever to have a work schedule, one tha t would set deadlines for the 
issues chosen and, more specifically, the negotiations, so as to spare Ministers from the same 
situations as in the past.  
 
By doing this, our work in the run -up to the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires will 
give all WTO Members a historic opportunity to collaborate in a spirit of solidarity with a view to 
finding appropriate, balanced and fair solutions conducive to multipolar development.  
 
Moreover, the delegation of Côte d'Ivoire believes that the multilateral n egotiating framework is 
the best option for the introduction of trade disciplines, as it enables each and every one of us to WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 109 - 
 
  benefit from the opportunities arising in this context. The results sought in the run -up to the MC11 
should be consistent with this  notion.  
 
50. Mozambique  
 
At the outset, we align our intervention with the statements delivered by Morocco, Rwanda and 
Cambodia on behalf of the African Group, ACP and LDC’s Groups.  
 
We are of the view that as we head towards the 11th Ministerial Conference, the Doha 
Development Agenda should always be guiding any developments, in line with the existing 
principles of Inclusivity, participation and bottom up approach for the work ahead.  
 
The SDGs and the Post -2015 Development Agenda are core to the attainment of development, 
therefor e, we subscribe to the need for commitment on the issue of 'development focus'  of our 
negotiations.  
 
For a future in which no one is to be left behind, it is our point of view that Developing countries, 
especially, LDC’s from which a considerable number are African, should be given a historic 
opportunity in allowing deliverables on S &D treatment , so as to advance the noble cause of 
industrialization and structural transformation, in line wit h the recent AU Trade Ministers'  
Declaratio n.  
 
I would like to emphasize that the mandate from the Nairobi Ministerial Conference, is to prioritize 
the remaining issues of the Doha Development Agen da, and, that the African Union' s Declaration, 
of November 2016 Ministerial Meeting gives emphasis to  the need of prioritization of 
industrialization, structural transformation and Continental integration, as the overriding priorities 
for Africa, within the establishment of the Continental Free Trade Agreement, and the fulfilment of 
the Agenda 2063: " The Africa We Want".  
 
The interest of Mozambique as an LDC African country is that the outcomes of the negotiations 
must promote industrialization, structural transformation in line with the Agenda 2063, defined for 
Africa.  
 
Mozambique is convinced that an ou tcome on the Special and Differential Treatment provisio ns are 
extremely important if developed c ountry Members are to meaningfully contribute to this 
development objective and its realization.  
 
Allow me, on behalf of H .E. Ambassador Pedro Comissário, to congratulate DG Roberto de Azevêdo 
for His election to the 2nd Mandate as the Director General of the WTO, in  this period of 
uncertainties. We welcome you with a great expectation on y our leadership in view of our 
expectations on  substantive positive resu lts in the MC11 outcomes mainly i n favour of those who 
are most in need.  
 
Mozambique expects guidance from the Director -General  that will help Members to achieve a more 
realistic approach in which the 'leave  no one behind'  principle can be transformed into  a reality.  
 
51. Dominican Republic  
 
We endorse the statements made by the G -33, ACP and SVE country groups. In handing over the 
Presidency of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) at the Fifth Summit 
of Heads of State and Government in  Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, last January, 
President  Danilo Medina expressed his country's support for open, free and fair trade.  
 
The Dominican Republic firmly supports and is committed to a stronger multilateral trading 
system. For small, vulnerable economies such as ours, foreign trade is a vital source of 
opportunities to generate wealth, create jobs and reduce poverty.  
 
Because of their high poverty levels, low accumulation of capital and considerable technological 
disadvantages, these economies ne ed special and differential treatment under the international 
trade rules in order to sustain their growth momentum and further their development.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 110 - 
 
  In my country's view, it is essential to accelerate the negotiating process at this point if we are to 
secur e meaningful outcomes at the 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. This needs to be 
done given the little time we have left.  
 
For the Dominican Republic, achieving results in the agriculture negotiations is indispensable if we 
want results in other negotiating areas as well.  
 
In Buenos Aires we will have to begin the process of eliminating the distorting domestic support for 
agriculture which the developed countries are providing their wealthy farmers, to the detriment 
of millions of small -scale prod ucers in the developing countries, and which are becoming a 
permanent feature of the poverty trap.  
 
As we also emphasized at the previous meeting last December, it is important to adopt the 
proposals for the permanent establishment of public stockholding p rogrammes for food security in 
the developing countries and the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries.  
 
The Dominican Republic is willing to offer its support in other negotiating areas where progress can 
be made and which enjoy broad consen sus among the Membership.  
 
52. Zambia  
 
Zambia associates herself with the statements made by Cambodia on behalf of the LDC Group, 
Morocco on behalf of the African Group and Rwanda on behalf of the ACP Group.  
 
We welcome the efforts the Director -General  has ma de in his various consultations with the WTO 
membership as well as with other development partners towards bringing substantive progress in 
the negotiations. We commend his tireless efforts and able leadership in this consultative process.  
 
Zambia wishes t o highlight the following priorities with respect to our future work in 2017 as we 
head towards MC11:  
 
Agriculture  
 
The Zambian Government in its Seventh National Development Plan has prioritised agriculture as 
one of the key drivers of Zambia’s diversific ation programme. As such, my delegation would like  to 
see concrete outcomes at MC 11 on domestic support including cotton that will substantially reduce 
trade distorting su pport for agricultural products.   
 
In the same vein, it is our expe ctation that negot iations on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes  and SSM will be prioritised in the coming months so that a permanent solution can be 
found on these in line with the d irective given by our Ministers.  
 
LDCs 
 
Further, addressing issues of low indust rialisation and low beneficiation in our domestic economy is 
one of the strategic focus areas for Zambia in its overall economic diversification agenda. I n that 
regard, Zambia believ es a solid LDC package at MC11 in line with the LDC post -Nairobi prioritie s 
will not only give a boost to the economies of LDCs but also reinvigorate the multilateral trading 
system.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
On e-commerce, while recognising the increasing importance of e -commerce, Zambia like many 
other LDCs faces huge infrastructu re challenges and the digital divide is too wide for us to 
effectively participate and reap the benefits of electronic commerce. As such, we are of the view 
that work in this area should continue under the bodies responsible for implementing the 1998 
Work Programme. It remains important that we do not lose focus of the centrality of the 
development dimension in our discussions on this subject.  
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 111 - 
 
  Process  
 
We believe MC11 presents another opportuni ty to deliver credible outcomes. I n that regard, the 
importance  of maintaining engagement at all levels (political and technical) and the participation of 
all constituencies (whether small or big) cannot not be over -emphasised. Therefore, it is the 
expectation of my delegation that the outcomes of consultations made i n var ious formats (e.g. 
green room, "informal Ministerials"  or plurilateral consultations) will continue  to be made known to 
the wider M embership and all efforts must be made to ensure that the multilateral process remains 
the main mode of negotiation. At the same time, the principle of full participation, inclusiveness 
and transparency must continue to be upheld at all times.  
 
I wish to conclude by  reiterating Zambia' s commitment to the multilateral trading system and 
remains ready to engage co nstructively  in the work ahead.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 112 - 
 
  ANNEX 4 
H.E. VICE MINISTER J OSÉ LUIS CANCELA'S A DDRESS TO THE WORLD TRADE 
ORGANIZATION  
First of all, I woul d like to congratulate Director -General Roberto Azevêdo on his i mminent re -
election as Director -General of th is Organization and assure him of Uruguay's trust and support for 
his efforts and work.  
 
Uruguay wishes to emphasize two very important historical results for this Organization; the 
recent entry into force of the Protocol of Amendment to the TRIPS Agreemen t which contemplates 
an important non -commercial objective, as well as the entry into force of the Agreement on Trade 
Facilitation.  
 
WTO MULTILATERAL TRADE SYSTEM  
 
From the point of view of Uruguay, a country with a strong international and commercial inse rtion, 
the multilateral trading system established in the WTO is absolutely fundamental. This statement 
is also valid for countries with larger economies, for developing countries and also for developed 
countries. The WTO and the multilateral system are th e guarantee for trade as well as for the 
transition to economic and social development. This is the forum of big rules and important 
commercial solutions and is the main mechanism that exists for the development of international 
commercial cooperation thro ugh rules and negotiation.  
 
We must therefore preserve and care for the system, complying in good faith with its provisions, 
actively participating, complying with transparency requirements and using the dispute system as 
the main dispute resolution mechan ism. 
 
Uruguay is convinced that the preservation of the system generates tangible and positive results 
for all members of the organization and is the system that can maintain order of international 
trade while maximizing its benefits and mitigating its neg ative aspects.  
 
The growth and development of a small country like Uruguay is inexorably linked to the expansion, 
diversification and modernization of its external sector. Surely you have already heard us underline 
that Uruguay, a country of 3 and a half m illion inhabitants, has the potential to produce food for a 
population of 50 million. Thus, we do not position ourselves purely from a mercantilist point of 
view of opening markets, but we want, and can, contribute to solving global food security 
problems.  
 
NEGOTIATIONS IN AGRICULTURE  
 
For Uruguay, the international process of agricultural reform must continue in accordance with the 
mandate of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In Nairobi, a very important result was 
achieved by eliminating the dir ect export subsidies for agricultural products, which was not a 
minor result.  
 
We should now achieve a meaningful result at the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires in 
December. We must take considerable steps, even if they are not spectacular. Uruguay w ill 
support efforts to achieve a significant result in reducing domestic support in agriculture. We are 
bound to continue to discipline and eliminate distorting support measures that continue to cause 
so much damage to the economies of all members and espe cially to developing countries. We are 
willing to analys e and work on a simplified and meaningful reduction mechanism or formula and 
we would also like to achieve a discipline by setting a total ceiling on OTDS (Overall Trade 
Distorting Support) subsidies,  even though we are aware of the contentious nature of this idea.  
 
A result in market access in agriculture is also crucial to our aspirations. This could be achieved 
through an average reduction combined perhaps with a process of bilateral talks. We under stand 
that market access in agriculture is fundamental and if there are no results on access, there may 
not be in the special safeguard mechanism.  
 
We understand the concern of several members regarding food security and Uruguay believes that 
the WTO must still have a thorough discussion on the subject. However, a public stock system WT/GC/M/166  
 
- 113 - 
 
  using managed prices has the potential to affect the trade of non -subsidized members. For this 
reason we understand that transparency and a robust system of notifications must accompany any 
solution regarding the public stock mechanism.  
 
We cannot accompany a result that would mean a setback or regression in the disciplines on 
agriculture.  
 
Uruguay deems appropriate the consideration of new topics and to work on any formula or 
proposal that will allow us to advance in the negotiations. In e -comme rce, for example, we joined 
the Group  of Friends for the Development of Electronic  Commerce along with Costa Rica, 
Argentina, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Colombia, see king to play an active role, and 
convinced of the enormous potential of development, especially for small economies and for small 
and medium -sized companies. We are confident that we will be able to develop a facilitating 
framework for electronic commerce towards the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
We also consider important to reactivate negotiations regarding development issues and seek 
more ambitious outcomes that address the challenges that developing countries face, especially 
LDCs, in order to integrate them in to the multilateral trading system.  
 
Regarding Fishing Subsidies, we expect an immediate result in the prohibition of subsidies on 
illegal fishing as well as a work program and a route map to continue with the negotiations in this 
matter, that as you know,  include not only commercial measures but also the delicate subject of 
the conservation of fishery resources; subject of great concern to the international community.  
 
Finally, I would like to express that Uruguay will support and collaborate to the fulles t extent with 
the work of Argentina as venue for the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
A special greeting and recognition from Uruguay to the work of D irector -General  Roberto Azevêdo.  
 
Thank you very much.  
 
__________