RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/167  
 
21 July 2017 
(17-4024) Page: 1/90 
General Council  
10 and 18 May 2017    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 10 AND 18 MAY 2017  
Chairpersons: H.E.  Mr Xavier Carim (South Africa)  
At the outset , the Chairman bade farewel l to Amb. Anjali Prasad (India ) who was leaving her post 
at the WTO and thanked her fo r her contributions.  
 
I    ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE  ..................  10 
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND NAIROBI O UTCOMES – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  11 
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AND DEVELOPM ENT .............  15 
4   ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE  ................................ ..........  16 
4.1   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 
4.2   ATTENDANCE OF OBSERVERS FROM GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  ................................ ................................ .............. 17 
4.3   ATTENDANCE OF NON -GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  ................................ ............... 17 
4.4   LAUNCH OF THE LOGO OF THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE – STATEMENT BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR -GENERAL  ................................ .......... 18 
4.5   TRUST FUND IN SUPPORT OF LDC PARTICIPATION IN MC11  ................................ ............ 18 
5   COMMUNICATIONS ON MI KTA WORKSHOP AND INF ORMAL DIALOGUE ON 
INVESTMENT FACILITA TION – COMMUNICATION FROM M EXICO, INDONESIA, 
KOREA, TURKEY AND AUSTRALIA – JOINT COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
FRIENDS OF INVESTME NT FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  – 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON, CHINA, ARGENTINA  AND 
BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  20 
6   INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON  MICRO, SMALL AND MED IUM ENTERPRISES 
(MSMES): STATEMENT B Y ARGENTINA, BRAZIL,  BRUNEI DARUSSALAM, C HILE, 
COLOMBIA, MALAYSIA, PARAGUAY, THE PHILIP PINES, SWITZERLAND, 
URUGUAY AND VIET NAM  ................................ ................................ ...............................  33 
7   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION - REPORT ON 
MEETING OF MARCH 201 7 ................................ ................................ ..............................  40 
8   CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP ON TR ADE, DEBT AND FINANC E – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ ................................ .....................  40 
9   STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE 
MEASURES FOR MEMBERS  IN ARREARS  ................................ ................................ .........  41 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 2 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 – THE REPORTS OF THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAI RS OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL HEADS  OF DELEGATION MEETIN G 
HELD ON 8 MAY 2017  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 42 
ANNEX 2 – STATE MENTS BY MEMBERS IN RELATION TO THE INFO RMAL HEADS 
OF DELEGATION MEETIN G HELD ON 8 MAY 2017  ................................ ...........................  50 
 
I ADOPTION  OF THE AGENDA  
1. At the G eneral Council  meeting on 10 May , the Chairman  said that t he items  proposed for the 
Agenda of t he meeting we re con tained in document WT/GC/W/732. He noted that under "Other 
Business", he would  have two statements to make: one related to the Chairmanship of the 
Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance and the other in connection with the revised 
Administrative Measures for Members in arrea rs. He asked if that was acceptable to delegations.  
2. The representative of India said that it was her duty that day to convey that India would like 
to express its reservations on the inclusion of the proposed agenda i tem 5 on Trade and 
Investment Facilitation at that day's General Council meeting. While her delegation thanked the 
proponents for the various submissions and proposals, India believed that the so -called subject – 
Investment Facilitation – did not lie withi n the purview of the General Council and the WTO itself. 
India could elaborate on the reasons for that position, if so desired. Procedurally, as per Rule 6 of 
the Rules of Procedure for meetings of the General Council, the first item of business at each 
General Council meeting should be the consideration and approval of the agenda proposed. If 
there was no consensus on the inclusion of any proposed item on the agenda, the item could not 
be included in the agenda. Hence, at that stage, India objected to the inclusion of item 5 in the 
agenda and expressed inability to join consensus on the adoption of the agenda as had been 
proposed. India could however support the adoption of the rest of the agenda with the exclusion of 
item 5.  
3. The Chairman  said that Members had heard the view expressed by India who could not join 
the consensus on the agenda as it stood but had indicated that it was prepared to join a consensus 
on an agenda if item 5 was removed.  
4. The representative of China  wished to clarify a few points regar ding the concern raised by 
India on the agenda.  
5. First, China and the FIFD members had requested the inclusion of the agenda item on trade 
and investment facilitation and had submitted the relevant documents according to the Rules of 
Procedure for meetings of the General Council in WT/L/161. The joint proposal aimed to provide 
transparency and to announce the informal dialogue in the WTO Membership. As had been 
suggested, substantive proposals on that topic would be discussed in the informal dialogue instead  
of the General Council.  
6. Second, China understood the legitimate concern from Members who suggested the 
withdrawal of the item from the agenda. China was committed to the remaining DDA issues and 
the Nairobi Declaration. The informal dialogue only aimed at  information sharing instead of 
negotiation. Any outcome from the dialogue would not be pre -judged. China did not believe that 
the informal dialogue would affect negotiations in the DDA.  
7. China and other FIFD members had not been seeking for any decision t o be made in the 
General Council. China believed that information sharing and raising issues in the General Council 
were consistent with WTO Rules. China therefore suggested that item 5 be kept on the agenda.  
8. The representative of the Russian Federation  was deeply concerned with the systemic 
implications of  the statement made by India. Russia could not agree with it and  insisted that 
Members  had the legitimate and fundamental right to raise  any issue they felt important to the 
Membership  in the agenda. The issue of trade and investment facilitation should therefore be kept 
on the agenda under item 5 as had been proposed.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 3 - 
 
  9. The representative of Nigeria  supported the statements made by China on behalf of FIFD 
members and by the Russian Federation. While taking  note of the concerns expressed by India, 
Nigeria appealed for India's reconsideration in light of the points mentioned by China in relation to 
the role of the General Council, particularly as far as the discussion was concerned and, more 
importantly, due to the fact that it would not in any way draw priority attention away from the 
Doha issues and other issues of paramount importance to India and to the rest of the Membership. 
The FIFD members neither intended to undermine the policy space nor the right to  regulate 
investment. The issues raised were purely on investment -related facilitation and without prejudice 
to anything that could arise therefrom.  
10. The representative of Pakistan  endorsed the views expressed by China, Nigeria and the 
Russian Federation. P akistan believed that it was an informal dialogue that was being suggested 
which would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the organization. It was not about formalizing 
Investment Facilitation into the organization's business, but rather one that would i nitiate a 
dialogue. Pakistan therefore requested India to review the situation and submitted that that item 
be kept on the agenda.  
11. The representative of Norway  noted that his delegation was not a proponent of the item but 
he raised Norway's flag out of sys temic concerns. Norway did not think it was a good approach to 
prevent Members from raising issues that they would like to discuss in the General Council – 
issues that Members considered relevant to the work of the WTO. Members had heard what China 
had sai d. The proponents were not suggesting initiating negotiations on Investment Facilitation. 
They were simply taking the opportunity to inform other Members of an informal process that they 
wanted to initiate. Members needed to think clearly about the long -term consequences of blocking 
individual items. If Members started blocking other Members from putting items on the General 
Council's agenda, they could set a dangerous precedent Norway clearly warned against – opening 
a Pandora's Box. Norway strongly argued  against that because blocking an item from being 
discussed could develop into a practice that would be to the detriment of the interest of all 
Members, including those who would oppose it on the agenda that day.  
12. The representative of Mexico  supported the statements made by China, the Russian 
Federation, Pakistan and Nigeria. The intention of that item on the agenda was simply to begin an 
informal, inclusive and transparent dialogue in topics on investment which were closely linked to 
trade such as Investme nt Facilitation. The beginning of negotiations on a multilateral level would 
have to be convened by all Members. Mexico therefore requested for India to re -think its position 
and reiterated his delegation's interest in keeping that item on the agenda.  
13. The representative of Chile said that information sharing was important and that the topic was 
closely linked to trade which warranted to be discussed. As had been mentioned by China, it was a 
topic that could perfectly be incorporated into the agenda that day . Consequently, Chile supported 
the statements of previous colleagues and would like to see that item be kept on the agenda of the 
General Council.  
14. The representative of the European Union  noted that it was not a proponent of that item, but 
wished to inter vene because his delegation also had difficulties to understand the objection. The 
European Union subscribed to the substantive and systemic concerns that had been raised by 
previous speakers because investment fell squarely within the remit of the WTO; wh at was 
proposed was a dialogue and not negotiations; the item was for transparency purposes only; and, 
what was proposed was a dialogue that was inclusive. Did Members want to have a dialogue that 
was not inclusive?  
15. The representative of Colombia  supported  China with regard to the objectives, interests and 
procedures for the informal discussions on the various aspects that Investment Facilitation 
involved. In addition to the systemic considerations that had already been mentioned by several 
delegations, Col ombia's objective in supporting a discussion on Investment Facilitation in the WTO 
framework was to seek to promote more inclusive growth including through international 
cooperation which would attend to the needs of Members particularly the developing one s. 
16. The representative of the Republic of Korea  noted that it was not a prop onent, but that Korea 
had serious concerns with India's statement  from a systemic perspective . Legally speaking, it 
could be true that the adoption of the agenda needed consensus, b ut the right to block the agenda WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 4 - 
 
  should be exercised with extreme care so that it would not create a dangerous precedent. In terms 
of the substance of matters, it was difficult to understand why they thought the item was not 
within the purview of the WTO. There were a number of provisions in the existing agreements that 
dealt with investment. The organization had even had a Working Group that dealt with the issue of 
the relationship between trade and investment.  
17. The representative of Uganda  said that as his  delegation had previously indicated, Uganda 
regretted that the item had been put on the agenda on that day's Council meeting. As had been 
indicated before, including in the Heads of Delegation meeting, Uganda believed that the item was 
misplaced and it wa s being smuggled in. There was no mandate to discuss the issue. Uganda could 
not and should not promote a process that did not seek to play by the rules simply for the 
purposes of expediency.  
18. Paragraph 1(g) of the July Framework of 2004 said inter alia  that those issues mentioned in 
the Doha Ministerial Declaration in paragraphs 20 to 22, 23 to 25 and 26 respectively would not 
form part of the work programme set out in the declaration and therefore no work towards 
negotiations on any of those issues would t ake place within the WTO during the Doha Round. 
Investment was one of those issues that had been referred to. Uganda would not agree to any 
attempt intended to create new facts on the ground without going through due process.  
19. Members had argued that they i ntended to simply use that opportunity as a platform for 
sharing experiences and to allow a dialogue to take place on investment. Uganda's view was that 
Members were free to meet whenever and to discuss whatever issue that was of interest to them. 
In fact,  Uganda had been part of some of such discussions. However, to bring an issue to the same 
Council that had prohibited it was an exceptional act of bad faith and high handedness.  
20. All Members, except for a very small minority, had been arguing for the preser vation of 
mandates including on agriculture with respect to substantial reduction of trade -distorting 
domestic support. The LDC issues were all premised on mandates – DFQF, Rules of Origin, 
Services Waiver and Cotton, among others. Would anybody pay attent ion to the LDCs if they 
raised an issue without a mandate? Even in instances where there was a clear mandate such as in 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Members continued to stonewall the LDCs. Why 
then was the current issue so urgent and so important that due process could not be followed?  
21. One of the reasons why the WTO was still of interest to developing and LDC Members was 
that it offered all of them an equal and codified platform of engagement. With that single act, 
Members wanted to re peal one by one all the protective gear available to small and less powerful 
Members. There was no such thing as mere discussion if it sought to torpedo the due process that 
all of them had relied on in that august house. How was it possible that the Membe rs who had 
acknowledged the strong legal structure of the organization in paragraph 30 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration were the same ones invited to tear it apart?  
22. Uganda called upon Members to exercise maximum restraint so as not to let the organiz ation 
transform itself into a club where only the strong would survive. As his delegation had warned 
before, Members would slowly reach that point where the great question of the day would not be 
resolved by speeches and resolutions but by might against ri ght. While it ought to be clarified that 
Uganda was not opposed to discussions on any new issues, it was its view that any issue without 
mandate should not waste Members' time.  
23. The representative of Paraguay  supported the idea that the WTO should play a ro le in 
investment. One of the key messages his delegation had taken from the MIKTA seminar was that 
trade was investment and investment was trade. In Buenos Aires, MERCOSUR members had 
recently adopted a protocol of cooperation in Investment Facilitation. P araguay hoped that they 
could replicate it in the WTO context by the end of the year and supported the keeping of item 5 
on the agenda.  
24. The representative of Hong Kong, China  was primarily concerned that Members were denied 
the opportunity to discuss matte rs that were relevant to the WTO's work and of considerable 
interest to a large number of WTO Members. Hong Kong, China echoed the systemic concerns 
expressed by previous speakers. As a proponent, her delegation wished to keep item 5 on the 
agenda and to e mphasize that the item was only for information sharing and not for launching WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 5 - 
 
  negotiations. Hong Kong, China had no intention to pre -judge the outcome of the informal 
dialogue and hoped that other Members would not pre -judge the merit of the discussion.  
25. The representative of Australia  had real systemic concerns about any attempts to block the 
adoption of the agenda or to remove any item that had been rightly included in the agenda in 
accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the General Council.  
26. The represe ntative of Turkey  reminded Members that in the February GC meeting, Australia 
had made a statement on behalf of MIKTA countries regarding the trade and investment workshop 
held in March. China had also communicated that it had been reaching out to Members to work 
together in an open -ended Friends of Investment Facilitation for Development Group. A number of 
Members had expressed interest in the trade and investment related discussions. One Member had 
pointed out that Investment Facilitation related discussi ons needed a home instead of taking it 
under the "Other Business" item of the Council's agenda. It was apparent that there was interest 
from Members for an informal discussion on the issue. Turkey also understood that there could not 
be convergence on how to move forward with such a discussion or if they should move forward at 
all. Members should be able to express themselves on issues they deemed relevant to the current 
dynamics of world trade especially if there had been an interest expressed by Members r egarding 
a specific issue. Blocking the adoption of the General Council agenda because of an objection to a 
specific matter – more so as the current one was only for information purposes – could set bad 
precedence for the future with a potential that could  hamper the smooth working of the Council. 
Turkey wished that item 5 be kept on the agenda.  
27. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that Bolivia did not have any issue 
with adopting the agenda, but it fully share d the concerns express ed by India and Uganda. 
International Investment Agreements had mostly been negative for developing Members in the 
past twenty years. Members had adopted a decision to exclude that subject which should be 
respected. The WTO was moreover not the most approp riate forum to deal with investment.  
28. The representative of Switzerland  said that his country was not a co -sponsor of item 5 on the 
agenda but it would like to express great concern on the objection. To oppose item 5 would lead to 
a grave situation with sys temic repercussions, especially when the justification for including the 
item was strong. Currently, the co -sponsors of the item on the agenda only sought transparency 
and exchange of information and did not propose negotiations. As had been raised by othe r 
delegations, the issue of investment was an integral part of the topics covered by the WTO. Trade 
in Services under mode 3 and the TRIMS Agreement were also included. Members did not need a 
mandate from the Ministerial Conference to discuss within the Ge neral Council items that were 
directly related to international trade. Switzerland believed that item 5 should be kept on the 
agenda for adoption.  
29. The representative of Singapore  shared the serious concerns expressed by others from a 
systemic perspective. Singapore called on Members to be careful with the dangerous precedent of 
blocking the GC agenda and to keep in mind the longer term perspective on the impact such a 
move would have on the WTO. The General Council should remain a platform for Members to ra ise 
and discuss all issues of interest and relevance to the WTO.  
30. The representative of Costa Rica  noted  that even if it was not a proponent, Costa Rica was 
always willing to listen to what fellow Members had to say about any trade -related issue. Costa 
Rica's concern was systemic as it understood that Members were not making rules about 
investment that day. The proponents simply wished to start a dialogue like other trade -related 
issues that had been started in the past. If Members were not able to have a ci vilized, informative, 
transparent and inclusive conversation about a world trade issue at the World Trade Organization, 
then where? If the representatives to the World Trade Organization could not speak openly and 
inclusively about a world trade issue, the n who? And if they could not address an issue that a 
group of Members considered pertinent to their world trade interests in that particular juncture of 
world trade history and its very special circumstance, then when? Costa Rica therefore wished to 
re-consider the adoption of the agenda as had been originally proposed – including item 5.  
31. The representative of Ecuador  noted that Members were dealing with a topic that should be 
the subject of a more serene and calm analysis. Investment was essential for Ecua dor – a basic, 
important subject, fundamental for all Members. Ecuador therefore recognized the importance of WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 6 - 
 
  item 5. However, Ecuador was currently denouncing two bilateral investment treaties not only due 
to its economic interest but also for its soverei gnty and economy in general. His delegation was 
anxious to see an international body that contemplated Investment Facilitation and agreed with 
what Bolivia had said as Members were confronted with that substantive issue.  
32. Being in a large body dealing with trade, Members should be able to deal with various topics 
and make progress on those topics at the same time. Ecuador however likewise understood India's 
position because what was happening in practice was that they were setting aside previous 
decisions. M embers were consequently confronted in the General Council not with a conflict of 
interests but a conflict of decisions. There was a lack of coherence between the decisions that were 
being taken by the General Council. There were decisions that had been in voked. But there were 
other decisions by Members which were being set aside despite also being agreed to by consensus 
such as the Doha Declaration and those justifying India's position and supported by Uganda. The 
absence of consistency with the decisions of that body was no exaggeration. The organization 
would therefore benefit from making its decisions more consistent.  
33. The representative of New Zealand  supported a number of interventions that had been made 
on systemic issues. Costa Rica had put the big qu estions in the most eloquent sense. Purely on the 
systemic points that had been raised, New Zealand was amongst the strongest proponents of the 
delivery of the unfinished business such as the reform of distortions to agricultural trade as had 
been identifi ed in the Doha Round mandates. He did not see how a simple discussion of an issue 
properly put on the agenda could in any way overturn or contradict a decision as had been 
referenced by Uganda unless and until another decision was taken. Clearly, it could not. The 
decision therefore stood. As Members had heard from those suggesting to set it aside on the 
agenda that day, there was no contradiction between the discussion of an issue that day and the 
decision about what the house would negotiate on. It would be a very dangerous precedent if 
Members would block the ability to put issues on the agenda for discussion. They could say what 
they thought about those issues during a discussion but if they would allow for the blocking of an 
issue perhaps they would not  have any agenda.  
34. The representative of Uruguay  said that if there were Members that wanted to include an item 
on the agenda that was their right, especially if it was a proposal for an informal dialogue. That 
was provided for in the General Council.  
35. The r epresentative of Japan  noted that his delegation was not a proponent. However, Japan 
believed that trade and investment were inseparable in today's world of global value chains. 
Having discussions on investment at the WTO was therefore relevant. Japan shar ed the concerns 
of the previous speakers on the systemic consequences. Members should have the right to discuss 
whatever issues they believed were important and relevant to the organization.  
36. The representative of Chinese Taipei  supported the inclusion of I nvestment Facilitation on the 
agenda and echoed the systemic concerns expressed by previous speakers. The proposal was for a 
dialogue and not a negotiation. The blocking of an item which Members had interest in would have 
negative impact on the WTO and the  negotiations.  
37. The representative of the United States  said that the United States was not only not a 
proponent of any of the papers tabled in connection with item 5, but it had in fact substantial 
doubts about many of the issues raised with regard to Inve stment Facilitation and would be 
prepared to express some of those doubts in the discussion that would come up under that item. 
However, the United States felt that the item had been placed on the agenda appropriately, and 
would welcome the opportunity to express its views.  
38. The representative of Canada  noted that it was not a proponent. However, Canada thought 
that it was a relevant topic for discussion – a discussion on a transparency issue. For Canada, 
blocking an item for discussion particularly where t he issue related more to transparency more 
than anything else was a systemic concern. Informal discussions on Investment Facilitation would 
take place among those that were interested in discussing it regardless of what Members would 
decide that day. But i t would be better for it to take place in a transparent manner rather than 
being smuggled or done under the table. Canada's reading of what the proponents had proposed 
was simply to share to Members what they wanted to do. They had put the item on the agen da 
following all the proper rules. Canada therefore supported keeping item 5 on the agenda.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 7 - 
 
  39. The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  said that i nvestment and WTO remained 
relevant. Members would not want to send signals. They should rather treat i nvestment as a way 
to drive prosperity  to their people. If they would not discuss the subject, it would also not help the 
discussion of other subjects particularly as the Ministerial Conference drew closer. The success of 
that meeting was of urgent importa nce to the organization.  
40. The representative of the Republic of Moldova  said that while Moldova was not a proponent , 
item 5 should be kept on the agenda. Trade and Investment Facilitation  fell under the mandate of 
the WTO. If Members disagreed on discussing  an issue especially if it involved transparency, how 
could they agree on that or any other issue and take further action given that there would be no 
decision without action? The blockage had the potential to set a bad precedent particularly in the 
contex t of the talks on MC11. The idea of consensus could also be compromised. Time was running 
out. The pressure was mounting ahead of MC11. One way to diffuse the pressure would be to start 
talking to each other. Communication on that topic would be essential.  Moldova wished to keep the 
discussions legal and to avoid any illegal activities, including other acts from the criminal 
procedure code.  
41. The representative of Indonesia  thought that the organization had failed to impress him in his 
first day as Members we re bickering over the adoption of the agenda.  As his delegation had 
listened attentively to the argument of the proponents and the opponents, Indonesia echoed the 
view of the importance of avoiding the creation of any dangerous precedents. If Members could  
not do it that day, any delegation could still do it anytime in the future on any agenda – which 
should be avoided. Any delegation had the right to have reservations or objections to any subject 
to be discussed in the organization. However, Indonesia wish ed that any delegation that would 
choose to do so would not stand in the way of the adoption of the agenda particularly if it was 
supported by majority of the Members. It could rather express its intention to disassociate with the 
agenda rather than blocki ng it totally. Indonesia shared the view expressed by various previous 
speakers that the issue of trade and investment facilitation fell under the purview of the WTO.  
42. The representative of India said that her delegation could elaborate on the reasons for t hat 
position since some delegations were alluding to that position as blocking for the sake of blocking.  
43. India recognized and respected the right of Members to put items on the agenda. But which 
item was rightly included, as one delegation had mentioned, w as to be decided as per the legal 
structure of the organization. It was equally the right of Members to object to an agenda item. It 
was precisely because of a grave systemic concern that India had raised the issue. India assured 
the Membership that it was  with extreme care that the matter had been examined and raised.  
44. The WTO was a rule -based institution. Any and every subject was not within the domain of 
the WTO as had been laid down in the Agreement Establishing the WTO. If Members had to start 
seeing it  as an institution for discussion of any and every subject, it would destroy the rule -based 
character of the institution.  
45. India believed that investment as a subject did not lie within the scope of discussions or 
negotiations at the WTO. All Members acknow ledged the strong legal structure and rule -based 
Member -driven character of the organization. An essential element of the strong legal structure of 
the WTO was that the functions and responsibilities of the WTO were informed by the Marrakesh 
Agreement Esta blishing the WTO and the other multilateral trade agreements.  
46. There were two broad functions of the WTO under the WTO Agreement: first – facilitating 
implementation of existing agreements; and second – providing the forum for negotiations among 
Members con cerning their multilateral trade relations.  
47. Article III.1 of the WTO Agreement stated that "the WTO shall facilitate the implementation, 
administration and operation and further the objectives of this Agreement and of the multilateral 
trade agreements". W hat was being referred to as Investment Facilitation did not fall within the 
ambit of implementation, administration and operation and furthering the objectives of any of the 
multilateral trade agreements.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 8 - 
 
  48. In that context, it was to be noted that the Gene ral Council should carry out the functions 
assigned to it by the WTO Agreement. Thus, the General Council could not function outside the 
ambit of the WTO Agreement. Discussion on the so -called Investment Facilitation in the General 
Council would necessaril y imply that the General Council was functioning outside the ambit of the 
Agreement Establishing the WTO.  
49. Further, Article III.2 of the WTO Agreement stated that, "the WTO shall provide a forum for 
negotiations among its Members concerning their multilate ral trade relations."  
50. Investment Facilitation which supposedly dealt with facilitating investment did not pertain to 
multilateral trade relations. Investment per se was not trade. It could or could not result in cross -
border trade which was the subject of  multilateral trade relations. Investment covered a wide 
range of assets or enterprises that were subject to a separate universe of bilateral obligations.  
51. All Members were aware of the multitude of bilateral investment treaties that covered aspects 
of fac ilitation, protection and dispute settlement in varying degrees. The so -called Investment 
Facilitation or Protection could not therefore be characterized as addressing multilateral trade 
relations and the contours of the two were totally different. Therefo re, India did not believe that it 
had relevance in the context of multilateral trade relations.  
52. Because trade could not occur without investment and therefore investment was a part of 
multilateral trade relations was too far -fetched an argument.  
53. As far as  the existing multilateral trade agreements were concerned, the Agreement on TRIMS 
and the GATS already dealt with trade -related investment aspects in the areas of goods and 
services respectively.  
54. The TRIMS Agreement dealt with investment measures that cou ld cause trade -restrictive and 
distorting effects and related only to trade in goods. The agreement was strictly trade -related and 
needed to be understood in the context of the trade -distorting investment measures. Any such 
discussion on such investment me asures should take place in the TRIMS Committee.  
55. The GATS dealt with supply of services through commercial presence in the territory of any 
other Member which was related to trade in services and not purely investment.  
56. However, neither the TRIMS Agreement  nor the GATS provided the context for a general 
discussion on policies, rules and regulations surrounding investment.  
57. Further, the work towards negotiations on the relationship between trade and investment 
issues which was outlined in paragraphs 20 to 22  of the Doha Ministerial Decision had been stalled 
under paragraph 1(g) of the July Framework.  
58. More recently, paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration noted that while some 
Members wished to identify and discuss other issues for negotiations, o thers did not. That 
indicated clearly that there was no consensus on the identification and discussion on those so -
called other issues for negotiations. The so -called Investment Facilitation was one such issue that 
was identified by a few as a new issue bu t India did not subscribe to that identification and need 
for discussion.  
59. India therefore objected to the inclusion of investment issues including the so -called 
Investment Facilitation in the WTO and was not in a position to agree to the inclusion of the 
agenda item Trade and Investment Facilitation in the regular agenda of the General Council.  
60. Members who had an interest in that subject were entitled to take up informal discussions on 
that or any other subject outside the formal structures of the WTO. The y had seen the MIKTA take 
that up outside the formal bodies of the WTO.  
61. India was not in a position that day to agree to the adoption of the agenda with item 5 
included in it as her delegation opposed inclusion of investment -related issues on account of 
grave, serious and dangerous systemic and substantive concerns.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 9 - 
 
  62. The Chairman  noted that Members had heard all the statements. They had listened very 
carefully to what Members had said. It was apparent that there was no consensus on adopting the 
agenda contai ned in WT/GC/W/732. Unless any delegation had an alternate proposal and 
suggestion that was agreeable to everyone, he proposed to suspend the meeting and to resume as 
soon as possible after he had had the opportunity to consult with delegations on the matt er. 
63. The representative of China  said it seemed that it was inevitable to suspend the meeting 
under the current circumstance. It was very unfortunate for Members and the WTO. If that was 
the case, they had to face the reality. With regard to the consultatio ns, Members needed plenty of 
time given the serious differences among them. They would need a few hours or a few days but 
certainly not a few minutes. He therefore proposed to let other Members go home rather than 
keeping them at the WTO as they waited for  the outcome.  
64. The Chairman  suspended the meeting, requested Members to remain on call and announced 
that the General Council would reconvene as soon as possible and possibly at very short notice.  
65. At the reconvened G eneral Council  meeting on 18 May , the Chairman  recalled that at the time 
of suspending the General Council on 10 May, he had indicated that he would initiate consultations 
with Members with a view to reconvening the General Council as soon as possible, and to be in a 
position to adopt an agenda a greed by all. He had indeed held a series of consultations and he 
believed they could then be in a position to adopt their agenda based on the following:  
"At the time of suspending the General Council on Wednesday 10 May, I indicated that I 
would initiate consultations with Members with a view to reconvening the General Council as 
soon as possible, and to be in a position to adopt an agenda agreed by all. I have indeed 
held a series of consultations and I believe we may now be in a position to adopt our age nda 
based on the following:  
Agenda Item 5 is reformulated as "Communications on MIKTA Workshop and Informal 
Dialogue on Investment Facilitation" to allow for an exchange of views on the initiatives that 
some Members have had, or plan to have, in respect to  informal dialogues on investment 
facilitation.  
Members will recall the July 2004 General Council Decision (as contained in WT/L/579) as 
well as paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. All the statements made at the 
General Council on 10 May 2017, at the time of considering the proposed agenda, are 
recorded in the minutes of this meeting.   
It is noted that the proponents seek to share information on informal dialogues on 
investment facilitation, and that the communications do not constitute p roposals for 
negotiations. Proponents believe that informal dialogues on investment facilitation are 
important.  
It is also noted that some Members believe that investment facilitation does not lie within 
the scope of the WTO and hence the General Council.  
Finally, pursuant to rules 2 and 4 of the Rules of Procedure for the General Council, we note 
that the General Council is not required to take any decisions under this item of the agenda.  
I am making this statement under my own responsibility, and I trus t we are now in a 
position to adopt the agenda as amended."  
66. The General Council adopted  the Agenda1 with the proposed amendments as the Chairman 
had spelled out in his statement.  
                                                
1 The adopted agenda was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/W/732/Rev.1 . WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, on 8 May, Members had had an Informal Meeting at the  level of 
Heads of Delegation2 where he  and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups had provided detailed 
reports3. 
1.2.  The representative of Cameroon  did not intend to make a specific statement having  taken 
part in the consultations organized by the Director -General. Cameroon rather  wanted  to clarify the 
item under discussion – the report of the Chairman of the Trade Negotiati ons Committee. 
Cameroon raised the poi nt that the TNC as a body had  not had a  meeting for quite some time and 
his delegation would like to know if that practice would continue in that  way or whether in the 
future  they wou ld have specific informal or formal TNC meetings, depending on the context and 
configuration , especially given the upcoming Ministerial Conference . 
1.3.  The Director -General  said that the Informal HODs was a report by him as TNC Chair and an 
opportunity for Members to talk about other issues that they want ed to reflect  upon. The TNC 
Chair's report and Members' statements  were made at the Informal HODs and were formalized at 
the General Council meeting after being taken note of and incorporated as part of the minutes of 
that meeting . 
1.4.  The representative of Cameroon  wanted to know if the  meetings of the TNC were  suspended 
formally. That was the clarification his delegation was  seeking because in the past they had  
meetings of the TNC as such and not Informal HODs  the content  of which wa s examined under  
item 1 of the agenda.  
1.5.  The Director -General  said that the TNC met  every tim e a negotiating group convened since  
negotiating groups m et under the TNC. The NG Chairs reported to the Director -General as the TNC 
Chair. In turn, the Director -General report ed to Members  on what had happened in all of those 
meetings . Those repor ts were then formalized in the General Council. That was the way it had 
been happening for quite some time  and it seemed to be working so far. But if Members would 
want to change that practice, he would not have any problem.  
1.6.  The representative of Uganda  understood Cameroon's question and took  note of the 
clarification by the Director -General. Members  used to have formal meetings of th e TNC but it 
seemed that after Nairobi they did  not m eet in a formal con figuration of the TNC. They rather met 
in what was known as the HODs configuration. As it was  informal , within that particular 
configuration, there had n ot been any  historical footprint in terms of minutes or procee dings of the 
informal HODs. From what he had understood, the question was therefore whether  there had been 
a formal suspension of the formal TNC as it used to me et in the past and if that had  then been 
replaced by the HODs.  
1.7.  The Director -General  thought he had responded to that already and noted that  the meetings 
of the TNC happened every time the negotiat ing groups  met. In Negotiating Group meetings, the 
Director -General report ed to Members through the  respective  Chairs on the status of the 
negotiations. Those reports could be done there or in the General Council under the item on the 
report of the TNC Cha ir. Those reports and statements from delegations would then be taken note 
of at the GC meeting . The only innovati on was that instead of giving those reports and statements 
at the General Council  meeting, they  had added another date for that to facilitate the 
conversations in the General Council . He did not however have any problem i f Members would 
                                                
2 The statements in relation to the 8 May Informal Meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation by the 
following delegations are incorporated in the minutes of this mee ting and can be found in Annex 2  of this 
document:  Cambodia (LDCs); Rwanda (African Group); Guyana (ACP); Nepal; Philippines (ASE AN); India; 
Costa Rica (FEDS – Friends of E -Commerce for Development); Japan; Ecuador; China; New Zealand; Cuba; 
European Union; Plurinational State of Bolivia; Montenegro; Chile; Uganda; Brazil; Republic of Korea; Mexico; 
Russian Federation; Hong Kong, Ch ina; Pakistan; Switzerland; Indonesia (G -33); Mali (C -4); Bangladesh; 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Zimbabwe; Solomon Islands; Tunisia; Paraguay; Fiji; South Africa; Morocco; 
United States; Cameroon; Colombia; Uruguay; Canada; Norway; Nigeria; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arab 
Group); and, Kenya.  
3 At The Director -General's request, his report and those of the Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups  at 
the 8 May  Informal Meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation  are incorporated in the minutes of this meet ing 
and are  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 11 - 
 
  decide to bring it back to the General Council meeting. Substantively, nothing wa s going to 
change.  
1.8.  The representative of Cameroon  said that the TNC was a body o f the DDA and confer red 
responsibilities to the Dir ector-General. W hat had been  set asid e for the informal process could 
have been an efficient set up but one could ask oneself whether that wa s appropriate in a rules -
based organization. In the HODs configu ration, delegations participated through "Ambassador plus 
one" which did not have the advantage of having the full suppo rt required unlike in  the TNC 
configuration. They had different practices in the past. Cameroon  would therefore like to know 
whether the  TNC meetings had  a particular way of functi oning which should be revived and 
whether they should go back to that.  
1.9.  The Director -General  said the most recent formal meeting of the TNC had been held in 
July 2015. Members could change the way of conducting bu siness. If Members wanted to do that, 
they would do that by changing it back to TNC.  
1.10.   The General Council took note  of the Director -General's and the Negotiating Group Chairs' 
Reports, of the statements as delivered at the HODs meeting on 8 May and of the other 
statements.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND NAIROBI O UTCOMES – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
2.1.  The Chairman4 recalled that that item was introduced on the agenda to continue to follow up 
the Ministerial decisions adopted in Bali and then Nairobi – and to do  that in an inclusive and 
transparent manner. In the same spirit, and to effectively fulfil the mandates, he suggested that 
they kept that item on the agenda and that he continued to provide a report on implementation 
matters at thei r meetings  where update s were available.  
2.2.  On 2 May,  he had met with the newly -appointed Chairs of Regular Bodies to discuss 
implementation issues and to review the collective agenda that year. They had a productive 
exchange  and he thank ed them for their cooperation and for the wo rk they were taking forward in 
their respective bodies. Their updates from that meeting formed the basis of his statement.  
2.3.  Concerning the decision on TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints, the TRIPS Council 
had discussed the matter at each of its me etings since MC10, including at its last meeting in 
March. Members remained divided on whether such complaints should apply to TRIPS, whether 
there was a need to establish scope and modalities and whose task it would be to propose possible 
elements for sco pe and modalities. The incoming TRIPS Chair would continue to explore options 
for possible ways forward with delegations before and at the TRIPS Council 's next meeting in June.  
2.4.  Regarding the decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, discussion s had 
been taking place in the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council and the CTD based 
on a number of submissions which were circulated in some or all of those four bodies . In line with 
the Nairobi Decision, the General Council  would have a review of progre ss on the work programme 
at its July meeting . 
2.5.  On Aid for Trade, the next CTD Aid for Trade session and accompanying workshop would be 
held on 30 -31 May. That workshop was a stepping stone to the 2017  Global Review of Aid for 
Trade to  be held on 11 -13 July with the theme  "Promoting Trade, Inclusiveness and Connectivity 
for Sus tainable Development".  
2.6.  Moving to Agriculture, with respect to the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, the second 
dedicated discussion on export competition would take place during the June meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture. As in the past, the discussions would be held on the basis of the 
Secretariat 's background doc ument on export competition circulated on 10 May. That document 
was based on the replies to the  export competition questionnaire received from 33  Members, 
which was comparable to the response rate in 2016.  
                                                
4 The Chairman's statement was circulated in JOB/GC/125 . WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.7.  With respect to the implementation of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration, several 
Members were reporting fill rates. According to the Decisi on, a review of the operation of that 
Decision should begin no later than the end of 2017.  
2.8.  As regards the implementation of the Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes, no Member had sou ght to use the interim solution. T he Committee on A griculture had 
not therefore  been called upon to take action and no information had been provided by Members 
in the context of the monitoring foreseen.  
2.9.  Regar ding Development and LDC issues,  Duty-Free Quota Free market access for LDCs, 
which was among the B ali Decisions, remained a standing item on the agenda of the CTD. 
Discussions would continue at the next CTD meeting in June.  
2.10.   The situation remained unchanged with respect to the Monitoring Mechanism on Special and 
Differential Treatment, where no written submissions by Members had yet been made. In recent 
meetings, a number of Members had shared their thoughts and perspectives on why the 
Monitoring Mechanism was not being tested and also what they saw as possible ways forward. The 
next meeting of the Monit oring Mechanism would be held in June.  
2.11.   Concerning Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs, several preference granting Members had 
informed the Committee on Rules of Origin of the efforts they were making to reform their rules of 
origin and to align them to the provisions and guidelines of the Ministerial Decision. In the 
Committee, Members had also adopted a new template for the notification of preferential rules of 
origin for LDCs. The templates should  be submitted by all preference -granting Members by 30 
June 2017. All preference -granting Members sh ould submit  information using the template  even if 
notifications were made in the past to  ensure the availability of  updated and comparable 
information. The Committee had adopted a methodology for the calculation  of utilization rates and 
the Secretariat had therefore prepared a first draft report of utilization rates in LDC duty -schemes. 
The format of the Report was being fine -tuned in collaboration with preference -granting Members 
so that it may be discussed late r in the year. Discussions on those and other related aspects of the 
Ministerial Decision would continue throughout 2017 in the Committee.  
2.12.   On the operationalization of the LDC services waiver, at the March meeting of the Council 
for Trade in Services, LDC s focused on the preferential treatment notified by one Member, who 
then provided several answers and indicated that it would follow -up on the remaining questions 
bilaterally . The LDC Group also called on all preference -grantors to provide technical assist ance 
aimed at building supply capacity in LDCs, and to undertake initiatives to raise awareness of the 
waiver preferences domestically. With the new notification submitted  by Panama,  the tally of 
notifications of preferences for LDC services and service su ppliers received by the CTS was 24. As 
the Operationaliz ation of the LDC Services Waiver was a standing item on its agenda, the Council 
would take up the new notification and the waiver more generally  at its next meeting in June.  
2.13.   Work on Trade Facilitation  continued to advance. Six additional Members had completed 
their ratification process since the Agreement en tered into force on 22 February  bringing the 
overall number of acceptance in struments to 118.  
2.14.   Progress had  also been made on the notification side  with five Members submitting input on 
their commitment designations since the Agreement 's entry into force, mostly with respect to 
categories  B and C. While that marked a welcome step in the efforts to bring those notifications up 
to the level of category  A input, there was still a considerable amount of catching up to be done. 
Notifications were still outstanding on other parts of the Agreement  such as on Articles 1:4 on 
10:4, 10:6, 12:2 and 22.  
2.15.   Work would continue in the newly established Trade Facilitat ion Committee, a regular body 
under the Goods Council, which had he ld its inaugural session on 16 May. Members would be 
updated on progress of work in the Committee in the format used in other CTG subsidiary bod ies 
such as via annual reports.  
2.16.    He hoped th at the positive trajectory of WTO work on Trade Facilitation would continue . He 
urged all Members to do their best in fulfilling their commitments so that they could move that 
important agenda forward.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.17.   The Director -General  update d Members on the  Global Rev iew of Aid for Trade  which was 
just around the corner. The event would be held on 11 -13 July  and preparations were advancing 
well. They had received an enthusiastic respon se to the call for side events  from Members 
and international organizations  including  regional development ban ks and others regional bodies. 
They had been able to accommodate all the req uests communicated by Members  and almost all of 
those that they had received from external sources.  
2.18.   In total , there would be slightly over 50 sessions spr ead across the three days of the Global 
Review. The diversity of submissions received and the broad range of topics should make for a rich 
discussi on. In addition to the high -level plenary sessions, they also intended to  have a few special 
thematic events including on the SDGs, LDCs, Gender Em powerment and Trade Facilitation. A 
draft outline of the agenda would be put on the WTO website later that week which  would also 
include a link to the registration page. He encourage d all those who plan ned to attend  including 
those based in Geneva to  register so that they could put in place the appropriate 
arrangements.  The deadline for online registration was 26 June. He thank ed Members  for their  
interest and urged  them to ensure its success.  
2.19.   The representative of China noted that it was his first time to speak at the General Council 
as China's Ambassador to the WTO. He recalled that during  his visit to Ecuador  in October 2016, 
he had gone to the Museum of Osw aldo Guayasamin, the Ecuadoria n master painter. On the wall, 
he had seen  his famous quote in Spanish: "Mantengan encendida una luz que siempre voy a 
volver, " which meant , "Keep a light burning , for I will always return. " 
2.20.   When he had read that, he had been caught up in a moment of nostalgia. He had been  
thinking of the Geneva he had been away f rom over 6 years and he had been wondering when he 
could get back there. He had  not expect ed to get back so  soon.  
2.21.   The first time he had co me to G eneva was in 1992 for the negotiations for China to rej oin 
the GATT. Ever since the n, he had made about 52 visits to Geneva. After China had joined the 
WTO in 2001, he had  traveled frequently between Beijing and Geneva for the Doha Round 
negotiations. Later on, he had been  posted there as the DPR  of China's Mission to WTO from 2008 
to 20 11. Within those twenty -plus years, he had been fortunate to have witnessed and 
participated in the historic process of China 's integration into the multilateral trading system.  
2.22.   In the past six years since he had  returned from Geneva to Beijing, he had mai nly been in 
charge of China 's outbound investment, foreign  aid and bilateral economic and  trade relations 
between Chi na and countries in the regions of Americas and Oceania. He had  been involved in  the 
"Belt and Road" initiative  including building infrastr ucture projects such as the Hambantota Port in 
Sri Lanka, the highway in Pakistan, the railway betwee n Nairobi and Mombasa in Kenya and the 
industrial park in Sihanoukville in Ca mbodia, among others . 
2.23.   Those two types of entirely different working experience s remind ed him of a debate that he 
had had with one of his colleagues at the mission when he had last held a post in Geneva. His 
colleague had been working on foreig n aid and investment before com ing to Geneva. She had told 
him that she had not liked her w ork there since s he had preferred to work in Africa to build  roads 
and bridges with China 's aid and investment. With each road and brid ge built, the African people 
had received real benefits. She had further added that in Genev a, one needed to spend days a nd 
nights fighting over a comma or a full stop, haggling over the word "shall" or "should" – typical 
much ado about nothing.  
2.24.   At that time , he had disagreed with her and had defended the work in Geneva. He had told 
her that their work had been  as sacred and  as useful as building roads and bridges. It wa s true 
that mult ilateral trade negotiation took time  but once the international rules were agreed upon, 
those rules would  have a lasting and systemic effect. After working for six years building roads and 
bridges around the world, he still believed he had not been wrong in that debate. But he had also 
achieved a better understanding of the complexities of the issue and its far -reaching background.  
2.25.   He often thought of the July Mini -Ministerial meeting in 2008 wh ich had collapsed after nine  
days o f painstaking negotiations in Geneva. His then Minister Mr. Chen  Deming had used the 
Chinese word "Bei Zhuang " to describe that setback. "Bei" meant tragic and  "Zhuang " meant 
heroic. It had therefore been  a tragically h eroic moment in the history  of negotiations. Being WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 14 - 
 
  heroic meant that all Members had shared  high hopes and great expectation s to make a better 
world while being tragic meant  that the Doha Round had stalled at the very moment when 
globalization had been  badly  in need of a strong push  and Members had failed to stand united at 
the very moment when the  multilateral trading system had been  called upon to take action and 
play its role.  
2.26.   He had a strong awareness of how crucially important the multilateral trading system was. 
Over the past sixteen years, they had  witnessed the  dramatic changes that China had  had since its 
WTO accession. It was true that China was a  beneficiary of the multilateral trading system. One 
could even say that China wa s one of the major benef iciaries. But he could not agree that China 
was the largest beneficiary because it was untrue and did not reflect  facts. 
2.27.   Members should put things in perspective and see the whole pic ture. The benefit that China 
had received from the WTO wa s inextricably r elated with and proportional to the  hard work that 
China had  done.  China was  a new -comer to the WTO so his delegation was  much hu mble and 
serious with WTO rules. China had  to redouble its efforts to catch up in the global competition.  
2.28.   In the earl y years fo llowing its  WTO accession, China had amended th ousands of laws and 
regulations  and had conducted extensive  training and education of WTO rules nationwide. The 
Chinese people had  gradually learned and understood the spirit of the WTO featuring open m arket 
and rule of law and they had put tho se principles into their daily economic activities.  
2.29.   In the early 1990s, he had  worked in a clothing factory in the Henan pro vince located in the 
middle part of China. He still remember ed that it  had taken  44 different wor king proce sses to 
make a shirt for export and for each shirt the profit had  only been twenty  cents. At that time, 
almost all workers in that shirt factory had been young girls around twenty  years old.  
2.30.   Twenty years later he had gone back to visit that  factory and had only found t hat the old 
factory building had been deserted. T hose young girls who used to work there had become 
mother s with grown -up children. They we re livin g different lives after leaving the factory. But what 
they had in common wa s its physical impact upon their bodies resulting from those days of hard 
work with their crooked fingers and fading eye sight.  
2.31.   To a certain ext ent, China's economic success that day owed  much to the sacrifice made by 
generations of young girls working hard in factor ies with the ir hands and eyesight. Hence, they did 
not owe an apology to anyone because what they had achieved wa s through thei r own hard work.  
2.32.   China was  more than willing to continue to work  together with countries around the world  to 
make the cake bigger  together  and to share  the cake in a much fairer manner. His delegation was 
ready to shoulder more responsibilities and to provide more global public goods  ultimately 
achieving shared prosperity an d win -win development. China had no intention to replace an yone or 
any country but it did not believe that some countries were more equal than oth ers in global 
economic governance.  
2.33.   It was clear that the DDA was experiencing difficulties. But development remained the top 
priority at present . Like other develo ping c ountries, China also faced numerous challenges 
including optimizing the economic structure,  reforming the financial system and  making growth 
more sustainable. The road ahead continued to be  long and winding.  
2.34.   Thirty  years  of experience  of development in Chi na had shown  that, for develo ping countries 
to catch up, it wa s critically important to par ticipate in the global value chains  and then to move 
up to the h igher end of the chains. That was no easy task and China  expect ed the WTO to play a 
bigger role in cr eating a more favorable environment for developing countries to engage in trade.  
2.35.   Globalization and  new technologies had  brought both opportunities and challenges to all 
countries. Faced with  challenges, building up walls was not a solution. Blaming each ot her would 
likewise not work. The only way out was to strengthen cooperation and coordina tion and to further 
enhance capabilities and effectiveness of global economic governance.  
2.36.   Members  needed mandate for their work in the WTO. Mandates however did  not fal l from 
the sky but rather, to a large extent, from bottom -up discussions.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.37.   In Geneva, there were many colleagues who were having great vision and profound 
experiences which had enabled them to see more things and to have deeper thinking. Members 
should have  more brainstorming to allow  different thoughts to interact with each other  from wh ich 
insight and convergence would  eventually emerge.  
2.38.   Members should respect the existing rules even if they were far from perfect. But their 
move to set new rules would  not go far  if they  abandon ed the existing rules. It would be like water 
without its source or  a tree without  its roots.  
2.39.   Although the task wa s daunting , Members should work hard on making new rules. If they 
did not do so, the organization would  lose its relev ance in the waves of innovation  and finally drift 
into non -existence.  
2.40.   Members should not stay aloof to the difficulties encountered by inves tors from developing 
countries and they should not turn  a blind eye to the demands of billions of people engaged in t he 
global e -commerce.  
2.41.   One could say that there wa s no better form of democracy than the consensus -based 
decision -making and there was  no better way to organize discussions  than the bottom -up 
approach. The key to success however rested on how they could mak e full use of those good 
practices to  help them better ta ckle current complex issues  and to achieve tangible results.  
2.42.   2017 marked  the 200th anniversary of the publication of the book written by David Ricardo 
entitled "On the Principles of Political Economy  and Taxation" which set  out the theory of 
comparative advantage for inter national trade. History told them that trade remained  the engine 
for ec onomic growth and recovery. But  as the Director -General had said at the B20 Summit  in 
Berlin the previous week,  "People began to  forget the value of trade". WTO Members had  the duty 
to take action and make more trade happen.  
2.43.   Members had an opportunity with the upcoming Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires in 
December. All of them should therefore  work to wards a s uccessful  MC11 in the spirit of solidarity 
and pragmatism. And he  looked forward to joining others in  striving to achieve concrete results 
which would  show to the worl d the value and the role of the WTO.  
2.44.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's repo rt, the Director -General's statement 
and of the other statement.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, in line with the framework and proced ures 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 Sess ions. 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 responsibility of the General Council. He invited 
Ambassador Taonga M ushayavanhu (Zimbabwe) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD, 
to rep ort on developments in the area.  
3.2.  Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, recalled that  the most recent report to the General Counci l had been made in February when 
it had been explained how the Work Programme on Small Economies had been addressing follow -
up activities related to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
3.3.  In their Decision on Small Economies, Ministers had requested the Secret ariat to continue its 
work on global value chains and to also examine the challenges which small economies faced in 
their efforts to reduce trade costs particularly in the area of trade facilitation.  
3.4.  He reported that the sectoral reviews of Global Value C hains had been completed and that 
the SVEs had circulated a document based on the discussions which had taken place during the 
meetings held in 2015 and 2016. The document (WT/COMTD/SE/W/35) had been issued earlier WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 16 - 
 
  that month with the title "Outcomes from Discussions on the Challenges and Opportunities 
Experienced by Small Economies when linking into Global Value Chains in Trade in Goods and 
Services" and had been discussed at their recent Dedicated Session on Small Economies.  
3.5.  Also at the dedicated session,  Members had heard a presentation by the Secretariat on its 
recently circulated paper (WT/COMTD/SE/W/34) entitled "Challenges and Opportunities 
Experienced by Small Economies in their Efforts to Reduce Trade Costs, particularly in the area of 
Trade Facilit ation". He had asked Members to recall that the Secretariat had been asked to conduct 
work on that subject in line with the MC10 Decision in Nairobi. The document provided definitions 
of trade costs, described the most common sources of trade costs for SVE s and examined how 
trade policies, aid for trade and trade facilitation reforms could further reduce trade costs.  
3.6.  Some SVE Members had talked about their national efforts to reduce trade costs in specific 
sectors. There had also been a presentation by the STDF about how SPS controls could be carried 
out in a way that facilitated safe trade while minimizing transaction costs.  
3.7.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , thank ed the CTD Chair for his report 
on the p rogress in connection with the Wo rk Programme on Small Economies.  As indicated in the 
Chair's report , they had concluded the discussion on the topic of challenges and opportunities 
experienced by small economies when linking into the global value chains in trade in g oods and 
services. The  SVEs had issued an outcome document circulated in  WT/COMTD/SE/W/35 which  
identified the main challenges and recommendations for the group. That document would serve as 
a guideline for the group 's future work.  As mandated by the Ministers, their next topic  for 
discussion would be on reducing trade cost. The SVEs thank ed the Secretariat for t he background 
document produced. They were  analysing it as a group  and they would come back with inputs for 
discussion at the next CTD dedicated session.  
3.8.  The General Cou ncil took note  of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the statement.  
4  ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE  
4.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that in 2016  the General Council  had agreed on the date and venue 
for the Eleventh Session  of the Ministerial  Conference which would  take place in Buenos Aires, 
Argentina, in December 2017. As Members  move d on in thei r prepa ratory process for MC11, there 
were a number of administrative matters on which the General Council had to take a decision. 
Those we re indica ted in the agenda for the  meeti ng in sub -items (a) to (c) and we re: (a) Election 
of Officers; (b)  Attendance of Observers from Governments and International Intergovernmental 
Organizatio ns; and (c)  Attendance of NGOs. In that regard, he  recall ed that they had held an 
informal G eneral Council meeting on 2 May where he had gi ven an overview of the actions that the 
General Council w ould be expected to take at that day's meeting – and it appeared to him  that the 
approach to be taken with respect to those admini strative matters had been agreeable to 
delegations. They also had a fourth sub -item (d), in which the Logo of the Eleventh Session of  the 
Ministerial Conference would  be launched by Deputy Director -General Shark and a fifth sub -item 
(e) concerning the Trus t Fund in support of LDC Participation  in MC11.  
4.1  ELECTION  OF OFFICERS  
4.2.  The Chairman  noted that the Rules of Procedure (Rule 12) for the Ministerial Conference 
establish ed that "During the course of each regular session a Chairperson and three Vice -
Chairperso ns shall be e lected from among the Members. They shall hold office from the end of that 
session until the en d of the next regular session." He also recalled that  at MC10, Ministers had 
requested the General Council to hold consultations with a view to deci ding on the E lection of 
Officers of the next  Ministerial Conference. In that respect, he noted that the customary practice 
had always been that the Minister of the Government hosting a Minister ial Conference outside 
Geneva was elected as Chair. T he three  vice-chairmanships we re then shared across the oth er 
broad groupings of Members. From the exchanges he had  had with Members, including the 
informal Gen eral Council meeting on 2 May, he  believe d that they could repeat that  past practice 
for MC11 .  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.3.  He therefo re propose d that the General Council formally elect H.E. Minister Susana Malcorra, 
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Republic of Argentina, to chair the Eleventh Session 
of the Ministerial Conference .  
4.4.  The General Council so agreed . 
4.5.  The Chair man said that as regards  the three Vice -Chairs, in view  of the fact that the Chair 
would  come from Latin America and the Caribbean, and in  line with customary practice, he  would 
like to invite the coordinators of the other three broad groupings – i.e. (i) Africa, (ii)  Asia and the 
Pacific, and (iii) developed countries – to consult wi th their constituents so that they could revert 
to that  matter at the July Council meeting, and agree on the Vice -Chairs for MC11 at that time. He 
would  also send a communicati on to the group coor dinators on that  matter af ter the General 
Council meeting.  
4.2  ATTENDANCE OF OBSERVERS FROM GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  
4.6.  The Chairman  said that w ith regard to attendance of observers from Governments, as he had 
said at the meeting the previous  week, his suggestion was to repeat past practice which wa s to 
invite the Governments with Observer Sta tus at MC10 to attend MC11. That therefore concerned  
the governments with regular observer status in the General Coun cil – with the due adjustments 
related to  the accessions they had  had since MC10 – plus the follo wing five Governments which 
had previously been granted observer status only at Ministerial Conferences: Cook Islands, Eritrea , 
Niue, San Marino, and Tuvalu. T imor-Leste had  also been among those Governme nts in the past. 
Members however knew that the situation had changed as Timor -Leste was already  an Observer 
Government in the WTO following the start of its accessi on process in December 2016 . He 
therefore  propo sed that the General Council agree  to follow the procedure he had  just outlined.  
4.7.  The General Council so agreed . 
4.8.  The Chairman  said that with  regard to the attendance of IGOs  the Rules of Procedure 
establish ed that,  "Representatives of international intergov ernmental organizations may attend the 
meetings as observers on the invitation of the Ministerial Conference in accordance with the 
guidelines in Annex 3 to these Rules. " 
4.9.  In that respect, he  recall ed that past practice up to MC7 (2009) had been to invite t hose 
IGOs which had observer status in the previous Ministerial Conference to attend the following one. 
The list of IGOs attending MC7 could be found in WT/MIN(0 9)/INF/6/Rev.1. Delegations would also 
recall that during  the preparatory period for MC8  despit e intensive consultations consensus on 
repeating that  past practice could not be achieved  due to a lack of agreement on granting ob server 
status to an IGO that had  not been an observer at previous Conferences or in the WTO.  
4.10.   The same situation had ari sen for MC9 and MC10 and therefore  no IGOs could be invited as 
observers to the last three Ministerial Conferences. He was informed that all his  predecessors had 
conducted consultations on that matter – not only in Ministerial years – in an effort to break that 
impasse  but to no avail.  
4.11.   He was  well aware of the difficulties regardi ng the issue. He however stressed  how 
impor tant the participation of IGOs was in WTO's work  including  at Ministerial Conferences. 
Members we re all  aware of the issues at stake and he urg ed them  to work with a positive spirit 
and constructive approach to allow IG Os to participate at MC11. He was entirely in their hands and 
his door also remained  open to all delegations that wish ed to discuss that matter with him and in 
particular if there were any new developments.  
4.3  ATTENDANCE OF NON -GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  
4.12.   The Chairman  noted that for all p revious Ministerial Conferences  attendance of Non -
Governmental Organizations had  been governed by a procedure that had been  agreed by the 
General Counc il in July 1996 .  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.13.   This procedure was as followed : "A limited number of accredited NGO representatives are 
allowed to attend only the Plenary Sessions of the Conference, without the right to speak;  
applications from NGOs to be registered are accepted on the  basis of Article V, paragraph 2 of the 
WTO Agreement, i.e. NGOs "concerned with matters related to those of the WTO "; and  a deadline 
is established for the registration of NGOs that wished to attend the Conference. " 
4.14.   As he had indicated on 2 May, he propos ed that Members  follow t hat past p ractice based on 
the procedure he had just read out  with a deadline for registration fixed at 15 November 2017 . 
Once the registration procedure wa s finalized, the Secretariat would  circulate the list of registered 
NGOs to all Members.  He trusted that  it was acceptable to delegations.  
4.15.   The General Council so agreed . 
4.16.   The Chairman  said that one deleg ation had raised the issue of the participation of members 
of Parliament at MC11  and had stressed the importance of en suring that  Parliamentarians had  a 
clear status in terms of their participat ion in Ministerial Conferences. In that respect, he  also 
recall ed that pragmatic solutions had been found to that  issue for past M inisterial Conferences 
including MC9 and MC10. He, t ogether w ith the Secretariat, remain ed committed to  working 
towards addressing that  issue.  
4.4  LAUNCH OF THE LOGO OF THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE – STATEMENT BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR -GENERAL  
4.17.   The Chairman  invited the Deputy D irector -General David Sha rk to official ly launch the logo 
of the Eleventh Session of the Ministerial Conferenc e to be held in Buenos Aires in December.  
4.18.   Deputy Director -General Shark  said that the WTO MC11 Task Force was  doing an 
extraordinary work with the dele gation of Argentina because that was a joint project. The WTO 
MC11 Task Force wa s working well w ith its Argentine counterparts. The Argentine Authorities had  
excellent facilities and they had shown a strong commitment to provide all that wa s needed for a 
productive and effect ive working environment fo r the Ministerial Conference. They would  be 
organ izing with the Argentine Authorities the first of their usual Members' Information S ession in 
July i n conjunction with the July GC meeting. The dates would be announced later. He  then 
introduced the logo for MC11 which they had developed in collaboration with Argentina.  
4.5  TRUST FUND IN SUPPORT OF LDC PARTICIPATION IN MC11  
4.19.   The Chairman  said that as MC11 drew closer he reminded  Members of the  urgent need of 
their support f or the LDC Trus t Fund which would  be used to support LDC part icipation at the 
Conference. It was estimate d that the overall cost of the  normal level of support fo r LDC 
participation in MC11 would approximate CHF 840,000. So far, fairly firm commitments  had been 
received  from fiv e Members and their generosity wa s deeply appreciated. They we re however  still 
quite far away from t he total level of funding that was needed.  
4.20.   The issue was time -sensitive since the longer it would take to receive thei r contributions  the 
more expe nsive the endeavour would get since air ticket prices were increasing as they go t closer  
to the date of the Conference. T he assistance provided to LDCs through the Trust Fund was of 
great importance to LDCs so he  strongly encourage d Members to ask thei r authorities to consider 
making a contribution and to do so as soon as possible.  
4.21.   Mr Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic) , Chairman of the CBFA , support ed the Chairman's call to all 
Members to positively consider and make contributions to the LDCs ' trust fund. Estimat ion of the 
total amount required would approximate CHF 730,000 yet the current actual balance of the trust 
fund wa s only CHF 89.000 . The contributions made so far were lower than half of the necessary 
funds. He therefore appealed to M embers to make contrib utions to the trust fund to facilitate the 
particip ation of delegates from LDCs. It would be appreciated by all Members if all of them would 
be adequately represented at that important C onference.  
4.22.   The representative of Argentina  referred to the date of th e Conference. After the meeting 
that had been  held in Buenos A ires between the logistics team, their task force  for security and 
transport and the secretariat, he had  been asked  to request M embers to start the Ministerial WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Conference one da y ahead. The prop osal before had been  to start  on 11 December (Monday) until 
14 December (Thursday). Their request was to start on 10 December (Sunday) and end on  
13 December (Wednesday) because on a city of 15 million inh abitants  moving 170 deleg ations for 
the opening cer emony would  be much easier to do on a Sunday which was a non -working day than 
on a Monday which wa s a working day and also a after a long weekend as  8 December wa s also a 
non-working day  in Buenos Aires. Argentina understoo d that that  change could lead to 
complications to Members who had  already made reservation s for hotels and flights but given the 
time that remained he also understood that those problems could be resolved. He thought that the 
change wo uld cont ribute to a successful Ministerial that all Me mbers were hoping for so Argentina 
request ed the indul gence and the understanding of Members on that matter .  
4.23.   The Chairman  said that Members had  heard the request of Argentina to advance  the dates 
of MC11  by one day for logistical reasons. He  believe d it w as on everyone 's interest that the 
conference would run smoothly. He therefore asked delegations to consult to the ir respective 
capitals about the slight revision of the dates that was changed to 10 December  to 13  December , 
and if he would no t hear any com ments fr om delegations by 24 May, he would  confirm the new 
dates through a communi cation to all the delegations. He  trusted that it was  acceptable. 5   
4.24.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the LDCs , welcome d the opportunity to discuss 
those important issues and for the Chairman's commit ment to them. The WTO Ministerial 
Conference played  an important role in the multilateral trading system. The WTO 's practice of 
assisting LDCs to participate in th e Ministerial Conference through generous  contributions  to the 
Trust Fund wa s essential to ensur e the participation of all LDCs. The LDCs had been grateful to 
Members for their contribution in faci litating the participation of their M inisters and o fficials in the 
previous MCs. They thanked those Members  whose co ntributions had facilitated thei r participatio n 
at MC10 in particular Australia, Canada, the European Union , Finland, England, No rway, Sweden, 
Switzerland and the United Kingdom . They thank ed China for the Round Table in Nairobi  which had 
also facilitated the p articipation of LDCs in MC10. They  deeply appreciate d the commitment that a 
number of Members had already made for MC11 but they  noted with concern the Chairman's 
statement that they wer e still quite far away from the amount of fun ding that wa s needed  to 
accommodate all the elig ible LDCs to participate at MC11. The LDCs therefore called upon 
Members  including in particular those who could  not have been in the pos ition to contribute in the 
past to positively consider contributi ng to the Trust Fund.   
4.25.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , on behalf of the Arab Group , said that 
the participation of all qualified IGOs at MC11  was very crucial and every effort should be made to 
facilitate it. All IGOs should  be treated on an equal manner . The pro cess of conside ring their 
participation in MC11  should remain technical, transparent and objective and  the screening 
process  should be undertaken on  the basis of Annex III of the Rules of P rocedure of the Ministerial 
Conference. The Arab Group remained com mitted to supporting the consensus to welcome each 
qualified IGO as an observer at  MC11. A ll requests should  therefore  receive equal treatment by the  
house. In providing  ways and  means for the prosperity of their people, the WTO needed  to 
convince all acto rs in the world that  they were moving to that direction. O ne ma in tool to do that 
was through reaching out, building consensus  and engaging other organizati ons. The participation 
of observers was crucial to achieve  that consensus that Members we re looking for.  
4.26.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
                                                
5 The communication confirming the date of 10 -13 December for the Eleventh Session of the Ministerial 
Conference 10 -13 December was then circulated in WT/GC/INF/21.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 20 - 
 
  5  COMMUNICATIONS ON MI KTA WORKSHOP AND INF ORMAL DIALOGUE ON 
INVESTMENT FACILITAT ION – COMMUNICATION FROM M EXICO, INDONESIA, KO REA, 
TURKEY AND AUSTRALIA  (JOB/GC/121) – JOINT COMMUNICATION FROM THE FRIENDS  
OF INVESTMENT FACILI TATION FOR DEVELOPME NT (JOB/GC/122 AND 
JOB/GC/122/ADD.1) – COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON 
(JOB/GC/120), CHINA (JOB/GC/123), ARGENT INA AND BRAZIL (JOB/ GC/124)  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that as had been indicated at the beginning  of the reconvened meeting, 
the title of the agenda item was amended as  "Communications on MIKTA Workshop and Informal 
Dialogue on Investment Facilitation ". He drew Members' attention to the Communication from 
Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia (MI KTA) in JOB/GC/121; the Joint Communication 
from the Friends of Investment Facilitation for Development in JOB/GC/122 and Addendum 1; and 
the Communications from the Russian Federation in JOB/GC/120; China in JOB/GC/123; and 
Argen tina and Brazil in JOB/GC/ 124. He then ga ve the  floor to the proponents to introduce their 
submissions  if they so wished . 
5.2.  The representative of Australia , on behalf of MIKTA , welcome d the high level of interest from 
a broad ran ge of WTO Members in having the  item on the General Cou ncil agenda.  
5.3.  At the last General  Council meeting in February, MIKTA had  announced plans to host a MIKTA 
Workshop on Trade and Investment on 20 March. In the spirit o f transparency and inclusiveness, 
they had undertaken  to report back to the next General C ouncil meeting on the  key messages they 
had taken away from the workshop. Those we re summarized in the MIKTA Investment Workshop 
Reflections Paper in JOB/GC/121.  
5.4.  The workshop  had facilitated a full and interesting day of discussions on tra de and 
investmen t. MIKTA  had noted consistent messaging from speakers and workshop participants 
about the dynamic links between trade, investment and development and  the important role the 
WTO had to play in discussions on investment given its broad Membership and as the only global 
international organization de aling with the rules of trade.  
5.5.  They had heard that the WTO Agreemen ts covered investment in a piecemeal way . For 
example, the GATS covered  foreign direct inves tment in services which accounted  for two -thirds of 
all inward foreign direct investm ent. The TRIMS, ASCM, TRIPS and GPA all deal t with investment 
measures as did  accession neg otiations. Investment wa s very much a part of WTO work.  
5.6.  There had been  a lot of discussion about how recent tre nds in trade and invest ment had been 
changing the way people thought  about investment noting in particular that developing countries 
account ed for an increasing share of inward and outward foreign direct investment and that 
foreign direct investment wa s a vital force of funding to close the 2.5 trillion dollar development 
investment gap to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.  
5.7.  MIKTA had noted that discussions in the WTO could contribute to strengthening trade and 
investment policy coherence, facilitating trade and investmen t for development and exploring 
where multilateral rules could be usefully strengthened or expanded t o support those objectives.  
5.8.  There had been recognition that it would  not be easy given long -standing sensitivities around 
investm ent in the WTO. However, there wa s a high level of interest and willingness among some 
Members to engage in open and inclusive discussions on investment and consideration that a focus 
on investment facilitation could be a good starting point for discussions that would avoid known 
sensitivities and complement the Trade Facilitation Agreement and current discussions on trade 
facilitation  for services.  
5.9.  Finally, MIKTA was  encouraged by the high level of participati on at the March workshop and 
would like to thank all Members that had en gaged actively in tho se discussions.  
5.10.   The representative of China , on behalf of FIFD , joined Australia in  thank ing the Chairman for 
his tireless effort, wisdom and patience during his consultations with Members . 
5.11.   Given the increasing interlinkage  between  trade and investment, both had  mutually 
reinforcing roles in f ostering global development, inclusive ness and the growing intere st in the  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 21 - 
 
  area in the WTO. Argentina; Brazil; Chile; China; Colombia; Hong Kong, China; Kazakhstan; 
Mexico; Nigeria and Pakistan had  decided to work together as Friends of Investment Facilitation for 
Development (FIFD) to further advance the discussions on how the WTO could contribute to 
facilitating cross -border investment with the ultimate aim of promoting more inclusive trade and 
growth with Members especially developin g and least -developed Members.  
5.12.   To facilita te discussion in the WTO, FIFD wa s launching an open -ended informal dialogue on 
investment facilitation for develo pment in which all WTO Members we re invited and encouraged to  
participate. Such dialogue would  be coordinated by Ambassador Cima (Ar gentina). The first 
meeting would  be convened in the second hal f of May – details of which would  be shared with WTO 
Members sho rtly. The informal dialogue would  seek to explore without limiting or prejudging 
possible outcomes, the role that WTO could play as a forum to discuss matters that Members could 
take to facilita te investment. The dialogue would  examine possible elements in areas such as 
improving regulatory transparency and the p redictability, streamlining and addressing the need s of 
developing Members. It would  not tackle market access, investment protection and investor -State 
dispute settlement as part of the  dialogue. Key elements of WTO Members ' current and future 
proposals co uld be discussed.  
5.13.   The representative of China  said that investment facilitation wa s increasingly relevant to 
WTO Members especially for developing Members. It provided  a timely and meaningful topic for 
shared discussion in the WTO while avoiding  more cont roversial subjects. China  regard ed 
development as the centrepiece of  the informal dialogue and looked forward  to discussing areas 
such as transparency and streamlining administrative matter s. China's proposal included  a non -
exclusive list of possible eleme nts of invest ment facilitation which could serve as a reference in 
future discussions. China  looked forwa rd to exploring the matter and its detailed elements in depth 
in the dialogue.  
5.14.   It wa s quite obvi ous in the past few days that Members had endured a dif ficult period . The 
French thinker Voltaire who used to live in a small town not far from Geneva had once said, "The 
longer we  dwell on our misfortunes, the greater is their p ower to harm us". Therefore he was  
calling for reconci liation and understanding an d urged  Members to get out of that  difficult  situation  
and look forward together. He had learned  a lot from what had happened.  
5.15.   In Beijing  he thought that everyone would support a dialogue on Investm ent Facilitation but 
in Geneva he had realized that some Members had  strong reservations. Confucius  had said that 
one should not impose on others what one did not desire. That wa s a basic principle of being a 
person. It should be r elatively easy to do but there wa s another philosopher of China who had said 
"Don't impose on others what you want to do". That was more difficult. Members should take the 
differences among themselves seriously and see how to seek a common  ground with tho se 
differences in mind.  
5.16.   The WTO was a big family. Everyone wa s unique and irreplac eable. He therefore said to the 
opponents that the proponents  needed them and that they we re more than happy to work with 
them. Perhaps the truth was in their hands. Time would tell. He asked them to tell the proponents 
if they thought they were naïve sinc e sometime s they were. He  promise d that they would listen to 
their concerns and  opinions carefully and in a humble manner.  
5.17.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thank ed Members, the Sec retariat, the  
Chairman and the Director -General for  their engage ment and for finding a workable compromise 
on the investment facilitation agenda item. In recent months, Russia had seen Members taking a 
keen interest in discussing investment facilitation that had been  reviewed at the MIKTA Seminar 
and in informal dialog ue. There had been a  clear recognition of those  activities ' value addition  and 
intention to continue the discussion.  
5.18.   Investment Facilitation wa s a powerful enabler for trade.  Its relevance wa s affirmed by 
Members ' interventions and wr itten submissions on  investment facilitation discussion s within the 
WTO. A longside other proponents , Russia had  made its own contribution in a communi cation on 
31 March that suggested  launching a  group of interested Members to discuss investment 
facilitation and that expressed their views on possible substantive elements.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 22 - 
 
  5.19.   Participating countries would benefit from the discussion by allowing them to learn new 
ideas and best practi ces. The WTO currently addressed  only certain aspects  of investment 
facilitation – largely in servic es. The discussion could inter alia  look at tho se imbalances and 
possibilities on how other trade sectors could benefit from investment facilitation provisions. 
Russia therefore support ed the start of informal discussions by Members on investment facilitat ion. 
5.20.   The representative of Brazil , also on behalf of Argentina , thanked the Chairman and the 
Director -General for their  engagement and efforts to facilitate the approval of the agenda.  The 
developments of the pas t few days had not changed Argentina and Bra zil's approach with regard 
to that agenda item. Their joint statement repeated the same messages they had prepared for 
10 May. They  continue d to believe that the approach they  proposed was sensible and balanced.  
5.21.   The proponents had included that  item i n the agenda to share with Members two points:  
First, the document circ ulated by Argentina and Brazil wa s meant to provide inputs for i nformal 
discussions. Members could consider what elements of investment facilitation could be of interest 
in a WTO context. S econd, they  could only consider possible ways forward if they would be  able to 
achieve common ground in such informal dis cussions.  
5.22.   Argentina and Brazil did not intend  to lau nch a substantive discussion on investment 
facilitation particularly on the content  of thei r joint document at the session of the General Council. 
After listening  carefully to concerns expressed by some Members in the  HODs meeting on  8 May, 
Argentina and Brazil had however been  careful in proposing to frame a discussion on investm ent 
facilitation in terms that we re suitable to develo ping countries excluding s ensitive issues from thei r 
possible considerations  such as investment protection or investor -State dispute settlement.  
5.23.   Brazil and Argentina had therefore welcomed the joint communica tion submitted by China 
on behalf of the Friends of Investment Facilitation for  Development. As Members of that group, 
they both saw  the proposal to start an open -ended informal dialogue on investment facilitation for 
development as a good opportunity to p romote a frank and transparent exchange of views without 
prejudging any outcome.  
5.24.   The representative of Nigeria  thanked  the Chair man, the D irector -General, the sub -chairs 
and all Members that had walked them  back to co ntinue with the meeting that had been 
postponed on 10 May. Nigeria  support ed the initiative le d by China on investment facilitation for 
development. Investme nt attraction and facilitation were key priorities for Nigeria to diversify its 
goods, among others. The  informal dialogue would be open, inclusive, transparent and without 
prejudice to an outcome.  
5.25.   Nigeria  was willing to work completely with all interested Members through in -depth  
dialogues and to  explore the possibility of future rules for the WTO on that  important s ubject. His 
delegation however took note of and  support ed the C -4 as regards their sensitivities. Members 
should redouble the ir efforts to ensure the WTO's respons iveness to the needs of the entire 
Membership and to an  evolving global economy.  
5.26.   The representative of Cameroon  recalled that the Doha Programme had committed 
international opinion t o fulfilling the expectations Members had set, while t he issue of investment 
had cau sed waves globally since the 1990s  and should therefore be addressed with great  caution . 
Members should e nsure that the WTO could  be strong enough to overcome those waves. The 
legitimacy of the interests of the proponents and the importance of investment  for development 
and the economy should not mean that Members should lose sight of the existence of the rul es on 
subject s without a mandate that various M embers believe d to be sensitive. As progress still did  not 
seem to be  evident, Cameroon therefore support ed the statement  made by Uganda before the 
suspension  of the meeting and of Ecuador which had raised the  importance of following the rules 
that Members had in place to deal wit h specific subjects in the WTO.  
5.27.   The representative of Mexico  thanked the D irector -General , the Chair man and the 
Secretariat for their efforts and for enabling them to have the space  to share their interests and 
concerns on issues that they  believe d to be relevant . Mexico also thank ed Austr alia for presenting 
their reflect ions from the MIKTA  workshop on investment held i n March . The discussions had been 
extremely productive – motivating Members to thin k further on  all the linkage s between trade and 
investment; and had highlighted the close relationship between FDI and trade and a certain WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 23 - 
 
  degree of understanding of investment as it appeared in various WTO agreeme nts such GATS and 
TRIMS. Re flections on the workshop had been circulated in JOB/GC/121. T he workshop had 
allowed a greater understanding of trade and investment  which could serve as a guideline  for 
further discussions on that linkage. Mexico  also welcome d the open and transparent di alogue 
headed by China on behalf of the "Friends of Investmen t Facilitation for Development" which 
Mexico was also a part of. His delegation  hoped that the dialogue would  bring additional elements 
to better understand the importance of investment facilitat ion as foreign investment could be 
linked with development  particul arly in terms of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.   
5.28.   The representative of Pakistan  thanked the Director -General and all M embers for he lping 
them to get back to business. Pakistan  endorsed  the views expressed by China, Brazil,  the Russia n 
Federation  and other Friends of Investment  Facilitation for Development. The other day, Paraguay 
had said that "Trade is i nvestment and investment is t rade". Pakistan viewed trade and investment 
as two sides of the same coin — one could not thrive without the other.  
5.29.   In the present  economic backdrop, investment wa s extremely important fo r LDCs and 
developing country Members more so since they we re seeing encouraging increase in South –South 
FDI. Acc ording to the OECD, the share of South -South FDI in total world FDI had  grown from some 
3% at the beginning of the century to around 14% in 2009. South -South FDI had  stayed strong 
even as global FDI had  been volatile. Despite a fall in FDI from OECD countr ies by 57% below 
2007 levels in 2012, FDI from developing countries had ri sen by 19 percent. Members were aware 
of the 2.5 trillion dollars gap  if the development needs for ach ieving the globally agreed SDGs had 
to be financed. That gap could  only be parti ally plugged by private investment.  
5.30.   Attracting FDI and conne cting it to local businesses was just one way for developing 
countries to access the benefits of regional a nd global value chains. FDI had  become a key source 
of financing for developing countrie s and  a means to transfer standards, technology, knowledge, 
and successful business models. Tho se trade and financial flows also support ed increased regional 
integration, increase d bilateral and regional trade with the potential to generate more jobs  and t o 
bring down the cost of goods and services making the m more affordable for the poor. Pakistan had 
always been a believer of i nvestment as an essential ingredient  and an enabler of  development.  
5.31.   The Friends of Investment  Facilitation for Development was or ganizing a workshop 
coordinated by Pakistan on 10 July on I nvestme nt Facilitation and development . The detail ed 
programme would be shared to Members soon. The FIFD  encourage d all Members to join them in 
making that  workshop a mutually beneficial exercise. The FIFD's objective wa s to advance and 
deepen the discussions on how the WTO could contribute to facil itating cross -border investment  
with the ultimate aim of promoting more inclusive t rade and growth for its Members  especially  the 
develo ping and least -developed ones .  
5.32.   The representative of Ecuador  thanked the Chairman and the Director -General for their 
efforts that had made it possible to resume their work for the good of the organization.   
5.33.   Ecuador's position had been clearly expressed during the HODs mee ting on 8 May. Under 
the WTO rules, an existing mandate adopted by the Membership could not remain unfulfilled nor 
could it be amended or annulled. Consequently, the reverse would happen in the absence of an 
express agreement to that effect. In that regard , the Doha Work Programme which placed 
development at the centre of Members' concerns continued to be in full effect as it was a valid 
commitment agreed upon by the Ministerial Conference. The completion of the Doha Round was 
therefore essential for things  to be done in the right order and with legal certainty as the 
outstanding issues should be addressed and resolved.  
5.34.   Trade and investment facilitation had been the subject of proposals by several delegations. 
At present, there was no mandate on investment. Ecuador confirmed that it was not opposed to 
discussing new issues as long as those would not lead to specific negotiations requiring the 
consensus referred to in paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration and that the commitments 
assumed under the Doha Work Programme should be respected.  
5.35.   Attracting investment was essential to the development and growth of countries since public 
or private and national or foreign investment, or a mixture thereof, contribute to advancing the 
economies of the developing countrie s that needed it. In the case of Ecuador, in accordance with WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 24 - 
 
  the Constitution of its Republic, foreign investors were welcomed and had the same rights as 
domestic investors. Such investment should however be regulated to prevent the occurrence of 
abuses ma inly in the areas of taxation and environment. In the context of an informal dialogue on 
investment facilitation bearing a close relationship to trade, precise guidelines should be 
established to place development at the centre of Members' work on behalf o f their people.  
5.36.   The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa was  taken aback and surprised to 
see that a n umber of Members had placed the item on investment faci litation on the agenda since 
they would have  already  heard repe ated opposition to bringing that  matter to the WTO from many 
other  Members  – most recently at the 8 May HODs  meeting. In a con text and at a time where 
there we re so many challenges in moving  work forward, bringing another co ntroversial issue to the 
WTO could only make thei r path t o MC11 so much more difficult.  
5.37.   South Africa had been consistent on that matter and would  not enter into a discussion on 
investment facilitation , except to underline that there wa s neither a mandate nor an agreement to 
either discuss or negotiate inve stment facilitation in the WTO.  
5.38.   With resp ect to mandates, South Africa  recall ed the General Council Decision of 2004 that 
had removed the issues of trade and investment from the only agreed negotiating ma ndate in the 
WTO.  South Africa also recalled the rel evant paragraphs of the Nair obi Ministerial Declaration on 
other  non-Doha issues. Para graph  34 had stated: "While we concur that officials should prioritize 
work where results have not yet been achieved, some wish to identify and discuss other issues for 
negotiation; others do not. Any decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on such issues would 
need to be agreed by all Members." The phrase "others do not " was a clear recognition that their 
Ministers had not agreed to identify or discuss other issues  for negotiations.  
5.39.   South Africa also recalled  the last sentence of p aragraph 30: "We acknowledge the strong 
legal structure of this Organization. " That sentence reminded Members that it would not be 
possible to enter into dialogue and discussions in the W TO on any new issue lightly – including on 
investment facilitation . The communications created confusion and to varying degrees raised many 
questions of serious concern such as on the integrity of existing mandates in the WTO and their 
possible implication s for national policy positions.  
5.40.   For all those reasons, South Africa wa s not able to agree to any proposal to initiate a 
discussion – formal or informal – on investment facilitation in  any regular body of the WTO but 
was prepared to exchange views with ot hers on investment facilitation in an informal mode such 
as seminars or workshops and would do so for as long as those would be  conduct ed in a non -
negotiating context  outside the formal WTO structures.  
5.41.   The representative of the European Union  expressed  his delegation's  serious concern on the 
events of recent days. While the WTO 's negotiation  function had  not operate d well for quite some 
time, it was now worrying that even its deliberative function had been challenged. The 
organization had been  founded on t he principle of fostering cooperation among its Members on  
trade issues. While there could  not always be agreement among all Members on particular topics, 
the readiness and openness to consider and discuss issues raised by Members including 
proponents had been a cornerstone of their common work. It was all the more valid as they were 
not considering that day an issue for multilateral negotiation but only for exploration and 
deliberation. Th e European Union therefore hoped the events of recent days would  not develop 
into a syste mic menace to the future of the  organization. At a time of increasing challenges to 
international trade and to the multilateral trading system, the l ast thing the organization needed 
was paralysis of its decision making s tructures. Mor eover, although Members we re all  in 
agreement that little time was left before MC11,  they had  been wasting quite a lot of it on matters 
of pro cedure or management. It had taken them  several months to appoint  a new CoA -SS Chair 
and the work of the highest b ody of the WTO ba r the Ministerial Conference had been  blocked for 
more than a week. Time and energy before Buenos Aires should  be used  on the substance of the 
work.  
5.42.   The European Union  welcome d the initiatives and  congratulate d MIKTA countries for 
organiz ing a very successful semi nar on trade and investment in March and for bringing that  topic 
to the Council's agenda. The seminar had been  extremely useful and had proven a wide interest 
among Members in discussing the relationship between trade and investme nt and in p articular WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 25 - 
 
  policy coherence. That interest had  been further confirmed by many Members in their written 
submissions which inter alia  request ed an open and inclusive dialogue on investment issues in the 
WTO. The EU  share d many arguments and ideas t o move  forward in those submissions.  
5.43.   In current  world of global inter -relationships and interdepe ndencies, trade and investment 
were two sides of the same  coin – widely recognized except in the WTO. At national policy lev el 
efforts to enhance trade had  always been accompanied by parallel efforts facilitating investment. A  
call by Members most of which we re developing countries for a dialogue in inves tment issues in 
the WTO wa s a timely initiative. In view of its role and mission, the WTO should take a lead  in 
analysing the relationship between trade an d investment.  
5.44.   Although there could be other areas worth exploring in the context of policy coherence,  the 
EU fully agree d that the discussions could focus on inv estment facilitation first. That wa s the area 
on investmen t public policy in which there wa s widest convergence since most countries around 
the world already implement ed many actions that could  be understood  as investment facilitation. 
The EU supported the initiative and declare d its willingness and re adiness to fully participate and 
contribute. Such a dialogue would  be without prejudice to its outcome.  
5.45.   The representative of Qatar  thank ed the  Chairman for his  efforts in resolving the deadlock  
and the Members who had  reque sted the  agenda item as s uch di alogues would greatly enhance 
the eff ectiveness of the organization. Qatar consider ed itself  as a proponent of such a discussion 
and was looking to work with the Friends for Investment Facilitation. In that regard, Qatar  
endorse d their submission an d the s tatement made by China. There wa s a divergence of opinions 
on that issue but there was also value in pursuing an informal dialog ue and in  exploring  the 
developmental aspects of investme nt as had been highlighted by the proponents. MIKTA had also 
shown inte rest to continue discussions on that issue. Qatar had participated in MIKTA's previous 
workshop on trade and investment and would be interested to participate in future events, and 
looked forward to continuing to work with the Friends for Investment F acilitation  in the future.  
5.46.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  was grateful for the Chairman's 
efforts to reach agreement on the issue. Investments were important for all countries and that 
topic had been widely discussed in the United Nati ons system for years where they had seen all 
the problems that it entailed. Bolivia was however one of the Members that considered the matter 
not falling within the competence of the WTO.  
5.47.   As India had stated, from the legal standpoint, the Marrakesh Agreem ent was the one that 
defined the scope of the WTO which was not open to any or all themes – only to those that were 
relevant to trade. In the case of investment, the trade -related aspects of investment had already 
been dealt with by GATS and TRIMS. There w as also a Decision of the General Council acting on 
behalf of the Ministerial Conference in July 2004 which established that investment should not be 
included in the work of the organization. The July 2004 decision to exclude that issue from the 
negotiatio ns within the WTO had been adopted because international investment agreements had 
been some of the most harmful agreements for developing countries over the past twenty years.  
5.48.   That type of agreement had led many developing countries including Bolivia int o a series of 
international processes of highly doubtful transparency and had been extremely burdensome for 
the regulatory capacity of States by seriously limiting policy space and the capacity to regulate on 
subjects such as the environment, labour rights , public health and universal access, among others. 
Knowing how the organization operated on the basis of trade -offs and sometimes murky 
negotiations, it was unrealistic not to include protection of investment or dispute settlement 
mechanisms. That topic l acked a mandate and Bolivia did not therefore approve of any type of 
process, formal or informal, within the WTO. That type of initiative would only complicate the 
achievement of results at the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
5.49.   The representative of Turkey  thank ed the Chairman for his  efforts that enabled them to 
resume the General Council Meeting as quickly as possible. As Turkey had underlined in its  
statement on 10 May , the MIKTA workshop on Trade and Investment had provided Members with 
good input  and ideas. Turkey once again thanked  all of those who had participated in the 
workshop and in the  stimulating di scussion that had ensued. The conclusion of the workshop had 
been importa nt. All of them had wanted to make sure that the information sharing h ad taken  place WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 26 - 
 
  as transparent and as effective as possible. And they had made it all happen thanks to  the efforts 
of the Australian P ermanent  Representative, her team and all MIKTA members.  
5.50.   During what had transpired on 10 May and since then, aside from t heir initial goal of sharing 
information on an event that had attracted much attention from many delegation s and 
stakeholders, Turkey had kept in mind that the WTO had  always been a platform to discus s what 
Members believed to be relevant trade issues that  impact ed them. That was what the WTO offered 
– a medium to discuss issues that could  have a prospect for negotiation s that would benefit 
Members' economies through trade.  
5.51.   The difficult ies laid  in the divergences of opinion. While his delegation would con tinue to 
respect tho se dif ferences, Turkey would also  continue to see k common ground for cooperation and 
convergence on the issues. Throughout the process, Turkey had  however beco me concern ed about 
the systemic effects of the idea of categorical ly naming a n issue to be irrelevant to the WTO. 
Turkey believed that investment wa s immensely relevant to trade. It was a tough issue to tackle 
but nevertheless important and  necessary. If and when there would be  permissive co nditions to 
move that relationship forwar d, Turkey would  consider it with an open mind and would come to 
the table with what it thought to be priorities and genuine ideas based o n necessity. In the 
meantime, Turkey would  follow the informal discus sions on the issue.   
5.52.   The representative of Uganda  said that as indicated on 10 May, Uganda regretted that the 
item had been put on the agenda of the Council meeting, even with the suggested amendments. 
As had been indicated before, including in the HODs meeting, Uganda believed that the issue was 
misplace d and that there was no mandate to discuss it in the WTO.  
5.53.   Uganda recalled that Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO 
had set out the functions of the organization to include facilitating the implementation of existing 
multil ateral trade agreements and providing a forum for negotiation among Members concerning 
their multilateral trade relations. Uganda therefore believed that investment facilitation did not fall 
within the scope of the WTO. Further, Uganda could not and should  not promote a process that did 
not seek to play by the rules simply for the purposes of expediency.  
5.54.   Paragraph 1 (g) of  the July Framework of 2004 said inter alia that those issues mentioned in 
the Doha Ministerial Declaration in paragraphs 20 to 22, 23 to 25 and 26 respectively would not 
form part of the work programme set out in the declaration and therefore no work towards 
negotiations on any of those issues would take place within the WTO during the Doha Round. 
Investment was one of those issues that had  been referred to. Uganda would not agree to any 
attempt intended to create new facts on the ground without going through due process.  
5.55.   Members had argued that they intended to simply use that opportunity as a platform for 
sharing experiences and to allow a  dialogue to take place on investment. Uganda's view was that 
Members were free to meet whenever and to discuss whatever issue that was of interest to them. 
In fact, Uganda had been part of some of such discussions. However, to bring an issue to the same 
Council that had prohibited it was an exceptional act of bad faith and high handedness.  
5.56.   All Members, except for a very small minority, had been arguing for the preservation of 
mandates including on agriculture with respect to substantial reduction of trade -distorting 
domestic support. The LDC issues were all premised on mandates – DFQF, Rules of Origin, 
Services Waiver and Cotton, among others. Would anybody pay attention to the LDCs if they 
raised an issue without a mandate? Even in instances where there wa s a clear mandate such as in 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Members continued to stonewall the LDCs. Why 
then was the current issue so urgent and so important that due process could not be followed?  
5.57.   One of the reasons why the WTO was sti ll of interest to developing and LDC Members was 
that it offered all of them an equal and codified platform of engagement. With that single act, 
Members wanted to repeal one by one all the protective gear available to small and less powerful 
Members. There  was no such thing as mere discussion if it sought to torpedo the due process that 
all of them had relied on in that august house. How was it possible that the Members who had 
acknowledged the strong legal structure of the organization in paragraph 30 of t he Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration were the same ones invited to tear it apart?  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 27 - 
 
  5.58.   Uganda called upon Members to exercise maximum restraint so as not to let the 
organization transform itself into a club where only the strong would survive. As his delegation h ad 
warned before, Members would slowly reach that point where the great question of the day would 
not be resolved by speeches and resolutions but by might against right. While it ought to be 
clarified that Uganda was not opposed to discussions on any new i ssues, it was its view that any 
issue without mandate should not waste Members' time.  
5.59.   The representative of India said that India had already expressed strong reservations on the 
inclusion of agenda item 5 entitled "Trade and Investment Facilitation " in the proposed agenda of 
the GC meeting on 10 May and reiterate d her delegation's strong opposition to discussions in any 
formal structures of the WTO on  investment facilitation, as that subject wa s outside the scope and 
ambit of the Marrakesh Agreement E stablishing  the WTO. India  thank ed the Chair man for holding 
consultations in that regard in which her delegation had participated constructively.  
5.60.   In India's view , the Chair 's statement adequately reflected the position on the issue. India's 
opposition to the di scussion on inve stment facilitation in the WTO wa s based on serious, 
substanti ve, systemic concerns which had been expressed in its  earlier statement.  
5.61.   Discussion  on investment facilitation did  not fall within the ambit and scope of the WTO and 
hence the Ge neral Council or any of the formal structures of the WTO , since inv estment facilitation 
did not concern multilateral trade relations. India understood that discussions in the organization 
did not occur with out a context and that context wa s setting enforce able multilateral disciplines or 
rules. Any discussions or negotiatio ns in the formal structures, therefore,  had significant 
repercussions and implications.  
5.62.   Investment itself covered  a wide range  of assets or enterprises that we re the subject of a 
separat e universe of bilateral obligations. Investment issues including investm ent facilitation we re 
much more deep -rooted within the domestic regulatory mechanisms and complex in nature as 
compared to tariff issues which often could  be controlled by taking borde r measures. The 
regulation of investment therefore  involved measures which we re specific to national 
circumstances involving multiple stake holders and complex processes.  
5.63.   Specific criteria for investment policy -making would have to be consistent with natio nal 
development objectives and a State 's constitutional authority and obligations. A multilateral trad e 
organization like the WTO did  not have the authority or competence to discuss investment -related 
issues , including investment facilitation.  
5.64.   The importa nce of investment facilitation and attracting foreign investment for  development 
was substantially different from the need for discussing or negotiating disciplines on investment 
facilitation at th e WTO. Investment facilitation wa s not directly related to multilateral tra de 
relations and the WTO hence wa s not the appropriate forum to have that  discussion. Merely 
because trade and investment had  a complementary rol e in a nation's development that  ipso facto  
did not justify the relevance of the WTO to discuss  or make rules in that  respect.  
5.65.   India noted that some Members sought  to share information on informal dialogues o n 
investment facilitation. As India had said before, Members who had interest in that  subject could 
hold informal dialogues outside the  formal structures of the WTO.  
5.66.   India noted that the agenda item was  only to allow for an exchange of views on the 
initiatives that some Members had  had or plan ned to have with  respect to informal dialogues on 
invest ment facilitation and reiterated  its strong oppo sition to discussion and negotiation of 
investment facilitation within the formal structures of the WTO and the General Council.  
5.67.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined others in thanking other M embers for bringin g 
the issue of investment to their atte ntion. Chinese Taipei  recognize d the role of investment as a 
major engine for economic growth in the global economy. His delegation had  heard quite a lot pros 
and cons, but if the WTO wa s to remain releva nt to world trade in the future then investment had 
to be one of the corner stones of the WTO s tructure. In that regard, Chinese Taipei thank ed MIKTA 
for its workshop which it found very useful.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5.68.   In general, Chinese Taipei  was pleased that  the informal dialogue between Members on 
investment wa s abou t to star t. His delegation was  willing to share  its good pra ctices and policies 
with other Members  to promote the discussions on the issue. Given the importance of investment 
in the global economy, Members should however consider that  issue from a broader perspecti ve in 
the future. The WTO wa s a system of rules dedicated to open fair and undistort ed competition and 
Chinese Taipei would continue to engage with the Chairman and all Members on all aspects of that  
most important topic and would endeavour to contribut e as constructively as possible. As the old 
saying went, "We try to pursue or search unity  but we really appreciate the difference ".  
5.69.   The representative of Paraguay  welcomed the documents submitted under that item. Those 
contributions were interesting proposa ls that clarified the existing ties between trade and 
investment and put forward initiatives that could be developed by Members in the future under the 
WTO. Negotiations on a Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Protocol had been concluded in 
the framew ork of MERCOSUR. Unlike the MERCOSUR Agreement, the documents submitted by 
WTO Members embraced more cross -cutting issues such as measures on transparency, the 
acceptance and processing of applications, the single electronic window, corporate social 
respon sibility, national and multilateral institutional arrangements, special and differential 
treatment, and investment -related cooperation and technical assistance among WTO Members. 
They did not contain substantive investment protection measures or dispute se ttlement provisions.  
5.70.   The relationship between trade and investment had been on the agenda of a number of 
international economic fora such as the G20, UNCTAD, the OECD and the World Economic Forum. 
The WTO currently lagged far behind in that area, but Parag uay nevertheless hoped that the 
situation would be remedied within the week to come.  
5.71.   The representative of Singapore  welcomed the papers that had been tabled  and the launch 
of an open -ended informal dialogue on Investment Facilitation. Investment F acilitat ion was an 
important issue for developed  and developing countries alike and there wa s a role for the WTO to 
play to foster such discussions through the trade policy perspective.  
5.72.   Preliminarily, Singapore would be interested to further explore issues such as  enhanced 
transparency, streamlining documentation and procedures, and keeping costs of inves tment 
approval processes low. Singapore  would also encourage Members to look at the existing body of 
work already done in other fo ra such as G20, APEC and UNCTAD w hich could  help to inform some 
areas of foc us for the informal dialogue. Singapore stood ready to engage, share its experience  
and c ontribute constructively on that issue.  
5.73.   Singapore thank ed the Chairman and the Director -General  for condu cting consultations  to 
allow the  adoption of the agenda. W hen the Ministerial Conference wa s not i n session, the General 
Council was the highest WTO body acting  on behalf o f the Ministerial Conference. Members  should 
not have been confronted with such a controversial ad option of its agenda. To avoid its repe tition, 
Singapore  urged Members  to take  a greater collective responsibility to up keep and strengthen the 
WTO, in a way which was consultative and collegial and which took  into account the views of all.  
5.74.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thank ed the Chairman and the Director -General 
for thei r efforts  to find a solution to the unfortunate situation that Members had  had in adop ting 
the agenda. Korea  also thank ed those Members involved in the consultations for their f lexibility .  
5.75.   Korea had  a couple o f brief observations on what had happened and how Members' future 
work should be guided. First, it had been  a powerful reminder that some Members had  serious 
concerns in discussing investment  at the WTO. Their concerns woul d have to be duly taken into 
account in future consideratio n of investment -related issues. At the same time, it had been  really 
unfortunate that there had been  a motion to deny the Membership an opportunity to discuss a 
certain item by removing it from the  agenda. It was essential for Members to  be able to discuss 
issues whi ch they  believe d to have an important bearing on trade  such as investment facilitation – 
an appropriate and responsible wa y to express their sensitivities. In fact, the agenda item  on 
investment facilitation had been proposed b y a little less than 20 Members  including the Friends of 
Investment Facilitation for Development (FI FD) and MIKTA. That alone showed  the significan t 
interest among Members on that issue. The WTO should therefore  be able to a ddress emerging 
issues to function in keeping with a rapidly evolving global economy and trade environment. 
Otherwi se, it would  lose its relevance and credibility.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 29 - 
 
  5.76.   Second, t hat unfortunate situation had led Members  to think once again about the WT O's 
decision -making by consensu s. The principle of consensus was  necessary to protect t he rights of 
all Members. D ecisions should continue  to be made by consensus in the organization  except in 
situations provided for i n the DSU. Consensus however should no t be understood as giving an 
unrestrained veto power to each and every Member on each and ever y issue. To ensure that 
consensus decision -making served  all Members as had been intended, it wa s important for all 
Members to do their best to understand and res pect the di fferent views of other Members. In 
partic ular, they had  to be extremely careful about inv oking the consensus rule when  dealing with 
procedu ral issues. I n the history of the WTO, the adoption of an ag enda for the General Council 
had never been bl ocked. There wa s an important systemic reason for  that and Korea  hoped that 
Members would preserve that  precious tradition.  
5.77.   Korea welcomed  the MIKTA workshop reflection note, the proposal for an informal dialogue 
by the Friends of Investment Facilitation f or Development (FIFD) and three communications b y the 
Russian Federation, China and Argentina and Brazil. As had been  discussed at the MIKTA 
Workshop on T rade and Investment, the WTO could  play an important role in strengthening trade 
and investment polic y coherence. Such coherence would in turn help Members  achieve expansi on 
in trade and investment flow  and event ually economic growth and SDGs. To translate such 
poten tials into concrete outcomes, they  should be prudent and take into consideration different 
concerns a nd perspectives so that they would  not repeat the experience of past fa ilure.  
5.78.   Korea supported  an informal dialogue on investment facilitation without venturing into a reas 
for which many Members had  registered their need  for appropriate policy sp ace. Members should 
make sure that their dialogues would not detract them  from on going important negotiations. They  
should also cooperate with relevant fora and organizations to avoid duplication of work and make 
real added value to investment facilitation  discussion.  
5.79.   The representative of the United States  thanked the  Chairman and all others who  had 
contributed to efforts to enable the General Council to pro ceed with the discussion of the agenda 
item and the rest of its work. The past week had  generated im portant questions for Members to 
reflect upon. In l ight of recent developments, the United States was  more than ever interested in 
the recent suggestions from some Membe rs that institutional reform could  be an appropriate 
subject  for reflection within the WTO.  
5.80.   The United States  thank ed the proponents for their papers and for  the introductions offered 
that day. The papers we re a clear indication of the recent increase in interest on investment which 
was reminiscent of a similar wave of interest seen on  e-commerce i n the Council some months 
ago. His delegation was  continui ng to study the papers that had  been submitted. For the United 
States, the fundamental question was what specific problem was  investment facilitat ion trying to 
solve? How could  the WTO 's rule-making framework provide a solution, if there was a problem? 
Proponents could further reflect on  such basic  definitional questions as their discussion, following  
so much dram a, had  not reveale d a great deal in that respect.  
5.81.   The United States  welcome d information about informal dialogues being organized by some 
Members on those issues and would  follow such discussions careful ly. Due in part to the reasons 
he had just stated, his delegation was  dubious about the prospect of arriving at a common position 
amon g the Membership on inclusion of that  issue in the WTO agenda in the near term. At that 
stage, it wa s not even clear that proponents had  a shared view o n the precise scope of what that  
topic could cove r. Among the topics that had  been identified (i.e. requ irements and procedures for 
obtaining licences) experience would tell them that develop ing multilateral disciplines could  be a 
daunting task. In any case, the United States would continue to follow that  discussion with int erest 
to particularly see if it became more tangibly defined.  
5.82.   The representative of New Zealand  associate d with the EU's systemic concerns, found 
Korea's  comments on consensus  interesting to reflect upon and thank ed Members for the  work 
done on their papers, including examining the various  work on investment by other international 
institutions. As Australia, Mexico and others had  observed, in the real world, the linkage s between 
trade and investment we re many. For exampl e, the location of investment could  significantly 
impact trade patterns . Investment facilitation wa s a signi ficant topic that kept  a range of potential 
elements including interaction with developm ent. New Zealand therefore looked  forward to 
participating in an ongoing dialogue among M embers on investment facilitation.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 30 - 
 
  5.83.   The re presentative of Switzerland  thank ed the Chairman and the Director -Genera l for their 
efforts to enable Members to resume discussions on that agenda item. Switzerland had expressed 
its systemic concerns on 10 May and believed that it was  essential to preserv e the WTO 's 
deliberative role and to ensure that question s of interest to its Members could be addressed  
whatever the outc ome of the discussions would be.  
5.84.   Trade and investment we re twin pillars of the modern global  economy. It wa s important to 
establish th e best possible relationship between trade and investment and to improve the 
coherence of the  rules governing them. A fter trade facilitation, it seemed natural that Members 
should turn thei r attention to investmen t facilitation. The WTO had  a role to play in that context.  
5.85.   Members  should  remember that like trade, forei gn direct investment contributed  to 
developmen t and sustainable growth. Aspects such as transparency and rational and efficient 
administrative pro cedures we re important fac tors to facilitate i nvestment  and could be addressed 
in future discussi ons on investment facilitation. Switzerland  hoped that the processes put forward 
would  be of interest to as many Members as p ossible and it  intended to participate  in them . 
5.86.   The representative of Norway  thanked the  Chairman and the Director -General for their 
efforts in bringing them back to work again. Norway had made its systemic concerns known on 
10 May. It wa s very important for the future relevance of the organization that  Members  retain ed 
the opportunit y to discuss issues of interest to them . 
5.87.   Norway thank ed the proponents for their  initiative and for sharing that  information and their 
papers with the whole Me mbership. In Norway's view, that initiative wa s timely. Trade a nd 
investment we re strongly interl inked – and had  become even more so in the course of the last two 
to three decades.  
5.88.   To engage in an informal open -ended exchange of views on investment facilitation could be 
a good starting point with its elements of regulatory transparency, streamlining of administrative 
procedures and information sharing.  
5.89.   As had been  stated by Mexico, investment could  be a catalyst for development to attain t he 
SDGs  and as Pakistan had said, investment wa s important to address the finance gap. 
Furthe rmore, investment fa cilitation wa s of particular interest for SMEs, and important for their 
ability to  compete. Norway was looking forward to participate actively in the dialogue.  
5.90.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Chairman, the Director -General, the S ecretariat 
and th ose involved in the  consultation s for efforts to bring Members back to work and associated 
with the systemic concerns raised by th e EU, Singapore and Korea on the issue of M embers 
blocking the dis cussion of an issue that other Members fe lt was appropriate.  Decision -making by 
consensus was important, but M embers should also have the abi lity to discuss issues particularly 
those that did not  involve substantive decisions.  
5.91.   Canada thank ed the MIKTA countries  and all the proponents for th eir papers and for 
bringing the issue forward. Investment played  a central role in promoting economic gro wth and 
sustainable development. P olicies that support ed open and transpar ent investment regimes and a 
predictable and st able environment for investors we re important for all countries at all level s of 
development. Canada therefore supported the move to further explore whether the WTO could 
contribute to this area. That was a question to be explored and not a foregone conclusion.  
5.92.   The United States had raised two pertinent quest ions that an informal dialogu e on 
investment facilitation could  help answer and better frame that  discussion. Canada  also 
acknowledge d the concerns raised by previous speakers including questions regarding th e WTO 
mandate but did not  share those views or u nderstandings. As had been pointed out by Aus tralia, 
aspects on investment we re inter -related to several WTO grounds.  
5.93.   The transparency from being able to bring an issue to the General Council was important as 
it was better to have an open conversation tha n non e at all or if it took  place behind closed doors 
without the corresponding  process to inform the broader M embers hip. In that regard, Canada 
looked forward to par ticipating in the informal open -ended dialogue on investment facilitation .  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 31 - 
 
  5.94.   The representa tive of Japan  believed that trade and investment we re inseparable in the 
current  world of global value chains and that fac ilitating investment contributed  to inclusive trade 
and economic growth. H aving discussions on inv estment at the WTO was therefore rel evant.  
5.95.   Regulatory transparency and streamlinin g of administrative procedures we re important to 
facilitate and promote cross border investment  particularly the investment whic h went to 
developing countries. Japan therefore welcomed  the proposals and papers on investment 
facilitation put forwar d by a wide range of proponents and supported  the sta rt of informal dialogue 
on the  issue.  
5.96.   Even if it did not cover the entire issue of investment, facilitation could be a good starting 
point for  the dialogue . Japan wo uld engage in discussions on the proposals in a po sitive and 
constructive manner.  
5.97.   The representative of Bahrain  thank ed the Chairman and the Director -General  for the 
consultati ons and their efforts to bring Members back to the Council. Bahrain  thank ed the 
proponents for their communications and acknowledge d their initiatives to further the  important 
discussion on trade and inve stment facilitation at the WTO and looked forward to further 
discussing that  issues in the future .  
5.98.   The representative of Cuba said that the Doha mandate was still in effect and that the issue 
of investment had not had a mandate from the WTO since 2004. Cuba was firmly committed to 
concluding the outstanding DDA issues many of which had been put on the back burner. The 
reality was that  none of the new issues which included investment facilitation had achieved the 
necessary consensus to secure a fresh mandate in Buenos Aires as they had been comprehensively 
informed both during the current discussion and at the meetings of 8 and 10 May.  
5.99.   The negotiations on the outstanding Doha Round issues should be the Members' priority in 
terms of work until they honoured the commitments that they had made – one of which had 
precisely been to set the issue of investment aside. Until such time as substan tial results would be 
visible under the DDA, Cuba would not be in favour of including new issues on the WTO agenda, 
especially when those issues were sensitive for many developing economies as had been made 
quite clear that day.  
5.100.   Like other Members, Cuba no ted the new format in which that item was being introduced 
on the agenda it being understood that the issue of investment facilitation would be addressed 
informally and outside the WTO structures. Cuba thanked the Chairman and the Members involved 
in the c onsultations and in particular India for its leadership in making that outcome possible.  
5.101.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  said that the i nvestment facilitation 
dialogue wa s a step in the right direction. Saudi Arabia's foreign economic pol icy was to help 
developing and LDC economies grow by allocating a percentage of its  GDP for that cause which 
had amounted to  130 billion  over the past ten years . Trade facilitation wa s essential  to generate  
more growth and more employment and produce  more tradeable goods  in developing and LDC 
economies. As the flow of investment wa s as important as the flow of goods and serv ices, Saudi 
Arabia had made investment facilitation a priority and would like to en sure that the dialogue would 
help close  the gap betw een developing and developed  countries and build a more  sustainable 
global economy. Saudi Arabia therefore supported the dialogue which it would actively participate 
in and hoped that that would help make the g lobal economy more sustainable.  
5.102.   The representa tive of Israel  thanked the Chairman, the Director -General and the 
Secretariat for their tire less efforts to fin d a solution to the situation Members had experienced 
over the past week. A ll Members agreed on how important it was to allow the substantive 
conversations to take place and build on the momentum of previous Ministerial results. Even if that 
was not an easy task, Israel was encouraged by the willingness of most Members to engage in 
fruitful discussions in the past months.  
5.103.   Progress would only come i f Members we re able to have frank discussions, keeping an 
open-mind and a flexible attitude as they had  the important task of crafting a pa ckage of 
deliverables and that time was running short.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 32 - 
 
  5.104.   Members had  a mandate to fulfill through negotiations but Isr ael did not consider that it 
precluded them  from discussing any issue that could  be of interest to Members. Setting procedural 
issues aside, and regardl ess of the format, Israel valued the possibility that Members had, to raise 
issues that they could deem important and relevant  to trade without prejudice to the negotiations.  
5.105.   The representative of Colombia  thanked the Chairman and the Director -General  for the 
prompt resumption of the meeting and associated with the statement made by C hina on behalf of 
FIFD. Based on Colombia's experience, FDI was one of its development al pillars as it increased 
economic growth rates, had  a favourable impact on formal labour innovation and brought  direct 
and indirect investment in go ods and services to companies especially to SMEs. In fact, FDIs made 
the inclusion of SMEs to global value chains much easier.  
5.106.   There wa s a great asymmetry in terms of t he access and capacity that SMEs had  when 
they want ed to expand internationally and when they tried  to und erstand the opportunities , the 
legal regime, the facilities  offered and their chances of succeeding in case they want ed to expand 
internationally. That was why Colombia had been paying attention to M embers ' interest  in the 
workshop organized by MIKTA in March. The event highlighte d the need to deepen the discussions 
in aspects related  to investment facilitation especially with regard to its contribution to 
development. Colombia was  theref ore convinced of the necessity of having  an informal dialogue 
open to all interested M embers . That was what pushed Colombia to join  and to actively participate 
in the Friends of Investment Facilitation for Development  Group.  
5.107.   Colombia  welcome d that item on the General Council's agenda on the format that had  
been accorde d to it because the Council pr ovided the forum for discussion s on such matters to 
take place. At the General Council, Members could take  into acco unt the various opinions on an 
issue or on any other topic of interest to them . Without prejudice to the results, such was  
extremely importa nt for  the WTO's future. Colombia therefore encourage d and would welcome  
Members' support to those initiatives.  
5.108.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  saw merit in discussing inve stment facilitation in 
the WTO given the important role played by investment  as an engine of economic growth,  the 
proliferation of regional and bilateral invest ment agreements in recent years  and the relevance of 
investment to  key areas of WTO work such as s ervices a nd development.  
5.109.   The workshop on investment organised by MIKTA in March had received  with very positive  
response. The outcome document which neatly summarized  the delibera tions provided  a soli d 
basis for further discussion.  
5.110.   Building on that momentum, Hong Kong, China wa s happy to join others as Friends of 
Investme nt Fac ilitation for Development  to launch an informal open -ended dialogue on inves tment 
facilitation in the WTO. Members could then have a deeper di scussion on what WTO Members 
could  do to fac ilitate cross -border investment  thereby promoting inclusive trade and devel opment.  
5.111.   The FIFD was clear that the informal dialogue was  not intended to limit or prejudge any 
outcome. It would  be open and transparent and all Members were welcome to join. The FIFD  
expect ed participants to have a fruitful exchange, sharing their v iews, experiences, practice s, 
challenges and expectations. Hong Kong, China would keep an open mind on how that dialogue 
could develop and would  work closely wit h other Members in the process.  
5.112.   Hong Kong, China thanked the Chairman and the Director -General  for conducting the 
consultations that  had made that discussion possible. Although her delegation  had hoped th at 
Members would respect others'  wish to introduce issues for discussion at the  General Council from 
the start  and to share many of the systemic co ncerns expresse d by previous speakers that that 
had not been the case, Hong Kong, China found  comfort in seeing that even when Members held 
very different views  in the end the consensus -building mechanism of the WTO wa s still  performing 
its vital functions  and that allowing issues to be discussed in an open, inc lusive and transparent 
manner was  still the Members' preferred option.  
5.113.   Hong Kong, China hoped  that the flexibility, pragmatism and spirit of co -operation that had 
helped Members reach a solution that  day would continue to help them  overcome possible 
challenges i n the future.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 33 - 
 
  5.114.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  recognized the efforts of the 
Director -General and the M embers involved in terms of allowing them to move forward on the ir 
work. As it had  expre ssed at the HODs meeting on 10 May, Venezuela believed that it was 
important not to distract Members' attention with regard to  issues that did not have a mandate. It 
was not the r ight time to explore other issue s given the upcoming Ministerial  Conference and the 
Doha issues that remained pending. Venezuela remained convinced that investment was not an 
issue that fell under the scope of the WTO. Its inclusion on the agend a and on the discussions that 
they were having that day only dis tracted their attention and limited the time they had .  
5.115.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
6  INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON  MICRO, SMALL AND MED IUM ENTERPRISES (MSM ES): 
STATEMENT BY ARGENTI NA, BRAZIL, BRUNEI D ARUSSALAM, CHILE, CO LOMBIA, 
MALAYSIA, PARAGUA Y, THE PHILIPPINES, SWITZERLAND, URUGUAY  AND VIET NAM  
6.1.  The Chairman  recalled that on 26 April  the delegations of Brazil and Argentina  on behalf of a 
number of Members as had been indicated in the agenda had  requested in writ ing to the 
Secretariat that that  item be included in the agenda. He was informed that in the meantime more 
Members had  requested to be added to t he list of sponsors. He invited Argentina to take the floor 
to introduce the  item. 
6.2.  The representative of Argentina , on behalf of Argentina , Brazil, Brunei Darussalam , Chile, 
Colombia , Costa Rica , the European Union , Guatemala , Malaysia , Mexico , Panama , Paraguay , Peru, 
the Philippines , the Russian Federation , Singapore , Switzerland , Uruguay  and Viet Nam , said that 
in the last two years the interest  in promoting the participation of MSMEs in international trade had 
been increasing among WTO M embers. Some of t he main obstacles preventing MSMEs from 
engaging m ore in export -import activities included, but we re not limited to , insufficient access to 
information on market opportunities, high costs to access information on and comply with relevant 
regulatory measures, high transportation or shipping and other costs related to logistics, limited 
access to trade finance, digital connectivity and technological  development.  
6.3.  Efforts at the multilateral level in support of domestic policies and development strategies 
that could increase MSMEs participation in international trade seem ed necessary and the WTO had  
an important role to play in that  respect. Enhan cing the participation of MSMEs  particularly fro m 
developing countries and LDCs  could also contribute to st rengthening global trade growth which 
had been slowing down in recen t years. Recent initiatives had  contributed to raising the profile of 
MSMEs and to fo stering debate in the organization. Within that  context, Argentina, Brazil, Brunei -
Darussalam, Chi le, Colombia, Costa Rica, the European Union , Guatemala, Malaysia, Mexico, 
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland , Uruguay 
and Viet Nam had expressed their willingness to wor k together with all interested M embers in 
order to set up a process.  
6.4.  Friends of MSMEs  aimed at identifying possible ways forward on MSMEs in the WTO based on 
concrete proposal s and suggestions s ubmitted by Members and at achieving multilateral outcomes 
at MC11 in Buenos Aires  including by building an appropriate platform for future discussions on t he 
subject of the WTO in a long -term and strategic perspective. To facilitate further discussions on  
MSMEs in the WTO, the co -sponsors would  organize an open -ended informal dialogue in which all  
Members we re encourage d to actively  participate. Such dialogue would  be coordinated by 
Ambassador Hector Casanueva (Chile). The first such meeting would  be convened in May  with 
details to be shared with interested Me mbers shortly.   
6.5.  The representative of Chile welcome d the work done by the Friends of MSMEs and consider ed 
it positive that a  significant group of M embers had  decided to have an exchange of ideas and  
experiences and to reflect on that  area. He was pleased with that commitment. The Friends of 
MSMEs were trying to identify  ideas through  relevant tools in regional and bilateral agreements  
which  could improve MSMEs ' participation in international trade. They also aimed at  making all 
efforts necessary within the framework of the tasks to be carried out by the WTO  and at keeping 
an eye  on MC11 in Buenos Aires which would be an important event for multilateralism. Members 
should move towards building consensus o n having  an appr opriate platform to discuss that topic to 
achieve important results. He  thank ed the members of the group  for trusting him and his  
delegation to ca rry out the coordination of the informal dialogue of the Friends of MSMEs .  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 34 - 
 
  6.6.  The representative  of Paraguay  endorsed the statement by Argentina on behalf of the Friends 
of MSMEs. Paraguay reiterated its interest in the greater participation of MSMEs in export and 
import activities, particularly from the perspective of a landlocked developing country  where such 
enterprises were subject to higher transport and logistics costs. Paraguay would participate in 
future discussions on that issue with a view to finding areas of work within the WTO framework.  
6.7.  The representative of Pakistan  support ed the stateme nt by Argentina  that launched that 
initiative. MSME exporters represent ed an important source of economic growth in both developed 
and developing countries. In addition to those firms that export ed directly t o foreign buyers, many 
more sold  products and se rvices to other domestic businesses that in turn incorporate d them into 
export products.  
6.8.  Globally, SMEs and MSMEs we re the leading providers of employment and significantly 
contribute d to value addition. They we re in effect directly and indirectly embedde d in the 
international trading system. In Pakistan, more than 90% of its enterprises were SMEs employ ing 
45 million people – around 70% of its  labour force. But only 25% of them export ed.  
6.9.  Although MSMEs we re responsible for the bulk of job creation, econo mic dynamism and 
innovation  and we re engine s of growth and innovation , oftentimes those young, dynamic MSMEs 
did not participate in trade and in the global  economy to a level that matched  their potential. SMEs 
had been largely absent from t he broad trade d ebate and it seemed that Members could  be 
missing  an opportunity to support that vital part of every economy. It wa s an undeniable fact that 
tradin g internationally was often much more costly and difficult for MSMEs. The smaller the 
business, the bigger an d more dif ficult the barriers they faced.  
6.10.   Pakistan considered  that MSMEs ' development was directly linke d with the development of 
cross-border e -commerce. Companies could  be born g lobal if they were born digital. T he benefits 
and economic growth potential  of e-commerce or digital trade should therefore be accessible 
equally  to all people in all countries  particularly MSMEs in  the developing world. A t ruly inclusive e -
commerce market would be one where anyone could  sell to anyone, anywhere, anytime.  
6.11.   For MSM Es, e-commerce could break the "Iron Law"  of International Trade: that only large 
companies could export. While less than 5% of big c ompanies currently export ed, the WTO's 2016 
World Trade Report had  cited that 97% of internet -enabled SMEs export ed. As sha red by the 
Nextrade Group during the e -commerce week of UNCTAD, a survey of 3000 developing country 
companies had revealed that half of small online sellers export ed as opposed to only 20% of offline 
sellers a nd more than 60% of online sellers exported to two or more markets.  
6.12.   Members should support MSMEs to fully integrate into global trade. They  needed to 
prioritize the needs of MSM Es in all streams of their work. That was an issue which they should 
address and which could make  a significant contribution to supporting growth, dev elopment and 
job creation. In their work towards MC11, they  needed to keep in mind the challenges fac ed by 
MSMEs for them to build a more open and inclusive trading system the benefits  of which were 
available to all. Pakistan  reque sted to be counted as a  co-sponsor of that initiative.  
6.13.   The representative of Switzerland  endorse d as a co -sponsor  the statement made by 
Argentina and said that ever since that subject had been  introduced at th e WTO by the Philippines 
two years before, Swit zerland had always come out in favour of constructive dialogue on MSMEs . 
As MC11  was fast approac hing, Members needed to step up a gear.  
6.14.   The information sessions and studies conducted by the ITC, the WTO and UNC TAD over the 
past two years had shown that MS MEs we re significantly less well integrated in world  trade 
particu larly in the poorest countries. MSMEs often had  to face transaction costs that we re 
significantly higher than average. Access to international markets was sometimes difficult  or even 
impossi ble for some of them. Traditional trade barriers, the cost of compl ying with disparate 
regulations  and the  cost of access to information we re not easy obstacles to overcome.  
6.15.   Members could not keep on ignoring the particular situati on of MSMEs. In Buenos Ai res, 
they would  have an opportunity to develop multilatera l solutions for  the benefit of all. Switzerland 
was ready to engage in that process energeticall y and in a constructive spirit and  urged all of them  
to parti cipate in the meetings that would be held  on that  subject in the near f uture.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 35 - 
 
  6.16.   The representative of the European Union  was happy to co -sponsor that initiative because 
MSMEs  needed more attention as they we re more vul nerable than larger companies. The EU would 
call for expanding WTO rules  in areas  addressing SME needs. That did  not however mean that 
Members  should elaborate specific SME provision s as a new layer in WTO rules. They  needed WTO 
work on rules whose incidence would help SMEs in particular. In that spirit, the EU wa s developing 
ideas tow ard facilitating SME trade by enhancing transparency of regulato ry measures for Trade in 
Goods. E -commerce wa s another issue where an update of the W TO rulebook would benefit SMEs.  
6.17.   The representative of Colombia  subscribe d as a co -sponsor to the statement made by 
Argentina. Members  should realize the importance of MSMEs in the economic and sustainable 
development of the world . MSMEs generate d 80% of emp loyment in Colombia. As part of its  
National Production Development Plan , Colombia had therefore  been work ing with MSMEs to try to 
identify the national barriers that impede d development and was trying to enhance their  
participation on the international  market through innovation. A t the national level , the strategy 
proposed was  to facilitate access to financia l facilities, to  relaunch innovation and to  help the 
transfer of knowl edge and technology. Colombia was however fully aware that that work could not 
be done merely at the national level. According to the 2016 WTO World Trade Report , small 
enterprises conti nued to confront disproportionate  trade barriers. It highlighted  the possibility of 
adopting consistent measures of national and intern ational policies that undermined  MSMEs ' 
potential to effectively take part in the international market. Colombia therefor e consider ed that an 
open informal dialogue which was what their Group intended to launch would help Members  reach 
consensus and achieve multilate ral results in favour of MSMEs at MC11 .  
6.18.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that promoting  the participation o f MSMEs 
in international trade wa s important and fell  into the priorities list of the Russian Government. 
Russia therefore supported  the endeavo ur of Brazil, Argentina and other proponents to foster the 
participation of  MSMEs in internationa l trade. It  was vital to advance an informal dialogue in the 
WTO to raise MSMEs ' profile in the multilateral trading system.  Russia was  ready to work with the 
Friends of MSMEs  and exchange experiences in that field and  looked forward to discuss Members ' 
inputs to that  end and lay groundwork for an engagement on MSMEs ' better inclusion in 
international trade.  
6.19.   The representative of Japan  thanked Argentina and other Members for their initiative  with 
regard to the wor k on MSMEs in the WTO. Making trade more inc lusive was  an important challenge 
for all Members when they  faced skeptical views ab out trade. They had  to mak e sure that all 
stakeholders could  reap and feel the bene fits of trade. I ncreasing MSMEs participation in 
international trade was therefore signif icant.  
6.20.   It was in that context that Japan wa s already engaged in various discussions  for example on  
how to make new tools such as e -commerce  widely available and how to promote enhanced 
transparency of domestic regul ations, among others. T he new initiative  by Argentina and other 
Members was timely and would  intensify the ir work on MSMEs. Members  should explore what 
outcomes could  be sought in the W TO to address MSMEs' challenges. Japan looked  forward to 
constructive discussions at the first open -ended, info rmal dial ogue on MSMEs later that month.  
6.21.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  thanked the Director -General and the 
Chairman for thei r negotiating skills and patience. Regarding the informal dialogue on MSMEs , as a 
landlocked developing country, the Republic of Moldova would like to officially join the p roposal on 
MSMEs presented that day  by Argentina and other co -sponsor s. MSMEs, i nvestment facilitation and 
e-commerce  were essential in the  digital era of human dev elopment. E -commerce and MSMEs 
were main priorities for the Moldovan G overnment and the WTO had  a role to play to help 
elaborate the digital economy for inclusive economic growth of SMEs and to encourage growth and 
economic i ntegration among participating M embers.  
6.22.   Regarding MC11, Moldova f elt that a huge pressure was mounting up on all of them  to come 
up with a real a nd achievable proposal at MC11  in Buenos Aires. Members we re animated by their 
sincere desire  to obtain good results at MC11 as they had  seen d uring the informal and formal 
HODs meetings in the last two weeks. Moldova  however doubt ed it. When pressure was high and 
time was short, what did "good results" mean for them? Should they agree in Buenos Aires to  take 
a decis ion about an action or  to take action? A decision was measured by the fact that one had 
taken new action. If there was no action, one had not truly decided yet. Could that be done?  Could WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 36 - 
 
  they decide and take action? Moldova said they could and they had  proven so in  the Ministerial 
Declarations of Nairobi and Ba li.  
6.23.   Moldova express ed its support and openness to the ideas of the WTO on commitments t o 
identify efficient decisions for which they  could and would  find consensual approval. His delegation  
reiterate d the importance for the initiation of discus sions before the d raft of the Ministerial 
Conference Declaration to be approved in Buenos Aires.  
6.24.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada was  committ ed to advancing the integration 
to the multilateral trading s ystem particularly of MSMEs. Those enterprises we re an important 
component on all of their economies. Canada welcomed  the suggestions by the group of Members  
to launch an informal dialogue and would  actively participate in d iscussions to determine what 
could be done in the o rganization to assist MSMEs to ad vance t heir trading interests without 
prejudice to  any potential outcomes for MC11 .  
6.25.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thank ed the Philippines and co -sponsors for the 
proposal on an Infor mal Dialogue on MSMEs and  their efforts during the past years to b ring that 
issue to Members' attention. There had  been a number of activities on MSMEs including a 
workshop and a Public Forum session in 2016  which had been useful opportunities to enhance 
understanding on that initiative.  
6.26.   MSMEs play ed an important role f or employment  and economic output  particularly in 
developing and least -developed country Members. It wa s all the more im portant to ensure that 
MSMEs mad e the best of the opportunities their parti cipation in global trade offered  by helping 
them overcome suc h obstacles as had been presented in th e statement of the Philippines.  
6.27.   In the run -up to MC 11, the proposed Informal Dial ogue would  be another good opportunity 
to identify the role  that the WTO could play in that regard. Korea  looked forward to participatin g in 
the proposed Informal Dialogue and wish ed its success.  
6.28.   The representative of Nigeria  welcomed  the informal dialogue on MSMEs by Argentina and 
several other proponents. MSMEs we re critical to  the development of any economy  including 
Nigeria. As they po ssess ed great potential for future  generations, improvements of local 
technology, output diversification and  developm ent of local entrepreneurs would further  the 
integration of the low-skilled industry. Nigeria therefore supported the informal dialogue  to 
facilitate and sustain the MSMEs sector which was right for  national economic growth and 
employment. Nigeria  acknowledge d the importance of having informal dialogues to facilitate the 
participation of  MSMEs in global trade and to ensu re the maximum benefit s for that sector and  
looked forward to active ly participating  in an appr opriate platform to discuss that  important 
subject in an equal manner without prejudice to the potential outcomes.  
6.29.   The representative of Thailand  thank ed Argentina and the c o-Sponsor s for their Joint 
Communication on  an Informal  Dialogue on MSMEs at the WTO. As wa s the case for many 
developing countries, SMEs  played a significant role in the Thai economy. At present , SMEs made 
up over 90% of Thailand' s total en terprises  accounti ng for  approximately 40% of GDP providing 
jobs for over 80% of the workforce. In recognizing their inv aluable contribution, Thailand was 
committed to enhance MSMEs' capacity so that they could  be integrated into the global value 
chains . The complet e implementati on of the TFA would  substantially help MSMEs in that regard. 
Technical cooperation under various international frameworks including the WTO Aid for Trade 
Programme would  further contribute to th e development of MSMEs. Thailand stood  ready to 
constructively  engage in the discussion to further strengthen MSMEs'  participation in global trade 
under the WTO framework.  
6.30.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined the Philippin es, Argentina, Chile and other 
Members in co -sponsoring the joint communication on an in formal dialogue on MSMEs. Chinese 
Taipei was glad to see Members continuing to keep MSMEs on the a genda. The participation of 
MSMEs in international tr ade and production networks had  always been one of the priorities of 
Chinese Taipei's industrial policy. They could however also se e that some MSMEs of different 
Members face d trade barriers to participate in  the multilateral trading system and the GVC. MSMEs 
were at a s evere disadvantage when it came to accessing global markets as  compared to 
multinationals.  MSMEs should be a high priority for MC11. Chinese Taipei therefore welcome d the WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 37 - 
 
  initiative by the Philippines and other propon ents. If Members  wanted inclusive and fair trade, 
MSMEs s hould have the ability to share  in the benefit s of the global economy. Members should tr y 
to identify and examine cross –cutting issues relevant to the WTO such as the challenges MSMEs 
were facing while  international trade landscape was changing  and what the m ultilateral trading 
system did and could do  to encourage more widespr ead and inclusive MSMEs  participation in the 
global market. Chinese  Taipei looked forward to discussing const ructively with other Members on 
that topic  through the coming informal dialogue.  
6.31.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  welcomed deeper conversatio ns on MSMEs and 
thank ed the p roponents for their initiative. Hong Kong, China was  aware of the huge potentials 
available to MSMEs and the significa nt benefits to the economy if Members could  enhance the 
participation of tho se co mpanies in international tra de. At the same time, her delegation was  
aware of non-tariff barriers and capacity, infrastructural and technological constraints that 
prevent ed them from fully exploiting the ir potential. Given the large number of S MEs and MSMEs 
in Hong Kong, China, her d elegation found it useful for Members to have informal dialogues to 
explore how the WTO could  help SMEs and MSMEs integrate into the global market. Hong Kong, 
China  looked forward to more work to be done i n that regard.  
6.32.   The representative of Singapore  said that e nhancing MSMEs partic ipation in international 
trade wa s an important issue for developed a nd developing countries. MSMEs were vital to 
Members'  economies and a key engine of economic growth. Integrating MSMEs in international 
trade and GVCs could ma ke trade more inclusive. Singapore  encourage d other interested M embers 
to join the in formal dialogue on MSMEs and looked forward to  productive discussions on the topic.  
6.33.   The representative of the Philippines , on behalf of ASEAN , noted that ASEAN was current ly 
the world' s third largest market with more than 600 million people. MSMEs  which account ed for 
more t han 96% of all enterprises and up to 97% of employment in ASEAN played a critical role in 
the region' s economic development and growth. As ASEAN began  the implementation of the  
ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint 2025  particularly the third pillar on "Equitable 
Economic Development"  the impor tance of MSMEs development was  highlight ed where the 
progress of MSMEs wa s key towards narrowing the  developmen t gap. ASEAN also had  in place a 
Strategic Action Pl an for MSME Development where it was  committed to realizing the vision of 
globally competitive, resilien t and innovative MSMEs by 2025. In that context, ASEAN was happy 
to share its regional experience  and work together with inter ested Members in identifying ways to 
achieve an outcome on MSME in  the WTO without prejudice to their respective national positions.  
6.34.   The representative of Australia  welcomed  the prop osed informal dialogue on MSMEs and  
looked forwa rd to participating and working with others towards ou tcomes for MC11 that would 
facilitate trade and deliver  for MSMEs. An MC11 outco me on MSMEs would  complement Australia 's 
broader i ndustry and innovation policy w hich consist ed of  promoting g rowth opport unities for 
SMEs. Australia knew  the important contribution MSMEs made to the economies of all Members 
and noted the significant ben efits that would come from increasing the participation of MSMEs 
from developing and LDC Members. Australia  looked forward t o participating on that  initiative .  
6.35.   The representative of New Zealand  noted that MSMEs was  a very important component of 
the New Zealand economy and  realize d that they faced particular challenges to en gage in 
international trade. Some of them had been men tioned that d ay: access to information about 
regulation on other markets and what Members could  do to enhance transparency and facilitate 
access to th at information; other costs that enterprises face d and what they  could  do to reduce the  
expenses associate d with trade  including the implementation of  the TFA; and more significantly  
overheads for smaller enterprises and what they could  do to ensure the removal o f unnecessary 
differences on their  regulat ions in both goods and services. New Zealand looked forwa rd to 
participate in the upcoming d ialogues on tho se issues.  
6.36.   The representative of South Africa  said that as was the case with  investment facilitation, 
South Africa had  a similar a ttitude and approach towards MSMEs. There was no agreement to 
bring that  issue into the formal processes of the WTO . Informal discussions on MSMEs had  been 
going on outside t he formal structures of the WTO. South Africa  propose d that that approach 
continued and it was prepared to engage. South Africa was  yet to be convinced  that the problems 
faced by their SMEs could  be addressed in the WTO through its rule -making functions. Most 
importantly at that time South Africa did  not accept or agree with t he proponents' view that 
MSMEs wa s an issue for decision for guidance by Ministers at  MC11 .  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 38 - 
 
  6.37.   The representative of India thank ed Argentina and the other propon ents for their joint 
statement and n oted that those delegations had  proposed launching an open -ended informal 
dialogue. India also  noted that that initiative wa s aimed on achieving a n outcome at MC11. 
Delegations had  emphasized the importance of MSMEs in their  national context, but India wished  
to raise some serious concerns in that  regard.  
6.38.   India wondered what specific results the proponents  sought to achieve, and notice d many 
ideas from the submission of some of the p roponents. M ost of them, however, such as eliminating 
NTMs and implementing the TFA had general nature and were not specific to MSMEs. That was an 
issue that India had  raised on previous occasions as well. WTO  discipline s and flexibilities we re not 
amenable to be used to target som e national entities exclusively  such as MSMEs. The WTO 
provisions we re neutral to the size  or type of business entities. For instance on how it would be 
feasible to specifically target the goods  and services emanating from MSMEs for applying, for 
example , reduced border procedures, it could  be quite hard for an importer to  demonstrate that 
the goods had  actua lly originated from a MSME. That  would in fact add another layer of scrutiny 
and perhaps other procedu res which we re surely not intend ed.  
6.39.   Likewise, issues such as transparency, access  to information and single -window were very 
broad in nature and applied equally to all businesses, whether big or small. Conversely, were they 
implying that MSME s would  be exempt from those requirements?  
6.40.   Secondly, it wa s important to understand the basic concept of MSMEs. India acknowledge d 
that the MSMEs concept existed in most economies. T he definition however varied widely. What 
was small in a developed Member  could not be so in a developing country. T herefore, before 
initiating discussion on what Members could do to benefit MSMEs on a rule -based organization, it 
would be  essential to have a common understanding on the basic concept of MSMEs. The rule -
based nat ure of the WTO placed  it on a completely different level compared to other organizations  
in which discussion s on various subjects could take  place in generalities.  
6.41.   Thirdly, it wa s clear from WT/GC/W/731 dated 24 February 2017 that e -commerce issues 
had also been raised on the MSMEs concept. The Ministerial Declaration of 20  May 1998 had  
already established a comprehensive work programme to examine all trade -related issues of 
Global E lectronic Commerce. If some M embers  therefore  wanted discussions on any tr ade-related  
aspect of e -commerce, they should approach the relevant bodies  as had been  set o ut in that 
programme. India did  not endorse any discussions related to e -commerce in any other bodies or 
formats under various pretexts  like MSMEs.  
6.42.   Fourthly, India noted the proponents ' intentions to bring results of th eir informal dialogue to 
the General Council for review at a late stage. While a group of Members could  continue the 
informal engagement of a ny issue of their interest that did  not require  a formal en dorsement of 
the General Council. For  an issue  to be formally reviewed by the Council, it wa s however  essential 
that the matters should first f all within the mandate of the General Council to be endor sed by all 
Member by consensus . And it was clear that th ere was no consensus on that issue.  
6.43.   The representative of Nicaragua  said that the importance of MSMEs in the economies of 
developing countries could not be denied such as their effect on job creation . For Nicaragua, those 
economic structures were extremely  important as t hey generate d approximately 65% of form al 
employment registered, 45 % of GDP and 35% of the total export of its  country.  
6.44.   The vast majority of MSMEs were family -based enterprises. In the context of Nicaragua's 
national development plan, it had  included guidelines for activities to develop family economies 
through the promotion of fair trade a nd the trading of products of its  national a nd international 
markets . The internationalization of those kinds of enterprises wa s crucial fo r the developmen t of 
the sector because it extended  their trading opportunities and allowed  them to compete in a much 
better capacity in terms of tradi ng on goods and services.  
6.45.   Members should not forget the various obstacles faced by MSMEs  in the operating 
environment. B ecause of the organization al culture it meant  that their sustainability wa s made 
more complicated. B ut through dialogue and exchange of experiences it wa s possible to c ooperate 
and try to correct those obstacles which to a large extent wer e faced by MSMEs in terms of 
interna tionalizing their products. Members should therefore  take into account  the needs of WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 39 - 
 
  everybody  especially those from developing cou ntries and small economies. Nicaragua  was 
interested in that topic and hoped to have more detail s from the proponent s about the approach 
they intended  to take.  
6.46.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  thank ed Argentina and other 
proponent s for their statement on MSMEs. MSMEs play ed a s ignificant role in many aspects of 
Bolivia's economy, includ ing job  creation. Bolivia had  been following a number of events and 
proposals on MSMEs and note d that discussions as they had been progressing to date  failed to 
raise the key issue of  the real and tangible fact that  MSMEs in developing countries we re 
compl etely different fr om those in developed countries posing  a substantive problem.  
6.47.   Members could meet to discuss that  or any other issue in whatever format they would chose 
provided that it wa s consistent with WTO rules. There wa s, however, no consensus on th e WTO 
taking  any action on that topic. T he issue of MSMEs should be analysed in the context of 
paragraph 34 of the Nai robi Declaration and priority should be given to concluding the outstanding 
DDA issues at the MC11. Bolivia hoped that proposals of that k ind would  not affect the possibility 
of agreements be ing reached on DDA issues at  MC11.  
6.48.   The representative of Norway  welcome d the initiative to start an informal dialogue on 
MSMEs. Making trade more inclusive wa s an overall challenge for everyone  and incre asing MSMEs 
participation in international trade would be a w elcome contribution towards that goal. Several 
delegations had  mentioned that implementing the TFA comb ined with technical assistance was 
important. Norway agreed. Members knew that that was one of the main tasks ITC wa s already 
working on . As with the EU, Norway  would not seek particular rules for MSMEs  but would  rather 
look at how Members could increase MSMEs  participation through other measures such as by 
simplifying the procedures they were fa ced with. Norway again  referred to trade facilit ation and 
access to information and looked forward to participate in further informal talks on MSMEs . 
6.49.   The representative of Cuba thank ed Argentina and the other proponents for their initiative . 
The topic of S MEs was  not included under the Doha Mandate and should not  therefore become a 
priority. A s Cuba had  pointed out under item 1 of the Agenda, the purpose of bringing that issue to 
the o rganization  which established  multilateral norms  had not been clear . Cuba did not see  how 
the traditional rules of the WTO could addr ess for example  the existing differences between SMEs 
in developing countries and in devel oped countries. It would appear  that that wa s a stepping stone 
towards a reinforced  mandate on electronic commerce  with which Cuba  did not agree. Cuba had 
made its position on new issues perfectly clear and took note of the  wish to m aintain the informal 
dialogue Members had had until then but did  not envisage a hasty result  or mandate on that topic  
on which ma ny developing countries still had  serious misgivings . 
6.50.   The representative of Colombia , speaking on  behalf of Panama , said that Panama had co-
sponsored that  initiative because of the social and economic  functions accomplished by MSMEs  for 
developed, developi ng and LDC nations. In Panama, there we re currently more than 600,000 SMEs  
which employ ed around 900,000 individuals in a country whose population was 3.5 million. That 
meant that more than  28% of the economically active population  were part of MSMEs. Panama 
had consequently  been implement ing a strategic plan which sought  to strengthen the 
comp etitiveness of MSMEs. Despite their efforts however  MSMEs continue d to be less competitive 
and more vulnerable with regard to trade barriers  and that was where the WT O could  play an 
important role through promoting an inclusive t rading system where enterprises  no matter their 
size, sector o r location could  benefit from equal access to glob al trade. It wa s important for a 
dialogue to be mai ntained within the WTO that wo uld allow Members  to explore the ways in wh ich 
current rules of the WTO could  contribute to strengthening and empowering development of  
MSMEs.  
6.51.   The representative of China  welcomed  the joint communication made and the initiative 
launched by the Friends of M SMEs. H ow to better integrate MSMEs  into the global value chain had  
been a priority for a long time of many Members,  including China. An exchange of information and 
ideas in that area had been important. There had been a need to provide a forum for Members  to 
discuss how they could  define the scope of MSMEs and enhance  their ability to trade. In that  
regard, China welcomed  the informal dialogue launched by Fr iends of MSMEs and  express ed its  
interest to participate in the dialogue of MSMEs.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 40 - 
 
  6.52.   The representati ve of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that in line with Venezuela's 
view on th e issue of investment, it was important  to co ncentrate on completing the remaining 
issue of  the Doha Round before tackling new issues. And as other delegations had said , there was 
no consensus to address the  MSMEs issue. 
6.53.   The representative of Uruguay  supported the interesting initiative and thought that it wa s 
somehow an unexplor ed territory. I t could be fruitful and interesting if Members would continue 
with it. Uruguay  congratulate d Argentina for the p roposal and the work undertaken and hoped that 
they would be able to continue that  in Buenos Aires and achieve a successful MC11 .  
6.54.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION - REPORT ON MEETING OF  
MARCH 2017 (WT/BFA/1 62) 
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the reports of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration (CBFA) in document WT/BFA/162 and invited Mr Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic) , 
Chairman of the Committee, to introduce the reports.  
7.2.  Mr Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic) , Chairman  of the CBFA , reported that t hrough the An nual 
Risk Report, the CBFA had been  informed of the two risks deemed as most critical as well as the 
mitiga ting actions being undertaken. Those risks were the financial risk pertaining to the After 
Service Health Insurance liability  and the risk of a cyber -attack.  
7.3.  The Committee had also deliberated upon a document that  had made proposals emanating 
from the salary survey and for an adjustment  of WTO dep endency allowances. Given the  
complexity and intricacy of tho se two topics, the Members had raised a lot  of questions. The 
subjects had to be presented in two separate documents and enhanced to improve their clarity 
ahead of further discussion s at the next  CBFA meeting.  
7.4.  The Committee had reviewed the 2 016 Annual Report on Diversity which  had shown  positive 
trends in both gender and geographic diversity since 1995. Highlights include d the fact that 
representation of professional staff members from developin g countries and LDCs had increased 
from 21.6% in 1995 to 35.2% in 2016 and that females had made up 44.6% of the professional 
staff compared to 31% in 1995. The Committee had noted that ge nder parity at senior grades had 
been challenged by the fact that on ly 35% of applicants for Grade 10 and 23% of ap plicants for 
Grade 11 vacancies respectively in the recent past had been  women. The Committee had 
appreciated the efforts being made by the Secretariat to broaden the platforms fo r placing vacancy 
announcement s including social media. The Committee had encouraged the Secretariat to conti nue 
its efforts in that regard.  
7.5.  The Committee had been  updated on the status of external audit findings and 
recommendations and the steps that had been taken by the Secretariat to address them. The 
Committee had  also been informed that in 2017 performance aud its would be undertaken on the 
organization of the WTO Ministerial Conferences, Information Security and Confidentiality and a 
follow -up on IT S trategy and Business activity.   
7.6.  At the end of the CBFA meeting, t he Chairperson had urged Members to liaise with their 
capitals to request them to make contributions to replenish the Trust Fund earmarked to finance 
the participation of LDC Delegat es at Ministerial Conferences.  
7.7.  The Gen eral Council took note  of the statement of the Chairman of the CBFA and adopted  the 
report in WT/BFA/162.  
8  CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP ON TRA DE, DEBT AND FINANCE  – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
8.1.  The Chairman  recalled that  at the reconvened meeting of the G eneral Council on 7 April, the 
Council had taken  note of the consensus on the slate of names for officers to  WTO bodies. At that 
meeting, he had  announced that consultations had been  continuing to fill the position of the 
Working Group on T rade, Debt and F inance and that in that respect  the Selection Committee WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 41 - 
 
  would communicate with Members in due course.  One delegation  had expressed an  interest in 
chairing the group and they we re in the process of consultin g group coordinators on that 
expression of interes t. The Chairman would  communicate with Members in due course.  
8.2.  The General Council took note  of the statement.  
9  STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES 
FOR MEMBERS IN ARREA RS 
9.1.  The Chairman  recalled that t he revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears, 
contained in WT/BFA/132 Annex I  had entered  into force on 1 January 2013. Tho se measures 
include d a requirement that  at the end of each  meeting of the General Council the Chairperson  of 
the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should provide information with regard to 
which Members and Observers we re under Administrative Meas ures. He invite d the Chair of the 
Budget Committee, Mr Peter BRŇO (Slovak Republic), to provide the Council with that  information.  
9.2.  Mr Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic) , Chairman  of the CBFA , reported that t he Administrative 
Measures applicable to Members and Observers w ith ar rears in contribution had been implemented 
since 1  March 2013. In accordance with the de cision of the General Council, he should  state all 
Members and Observers under all categ ories. As at 9 May 2017, there we re 26 Members and 2 
Observers  under Administrat ive Measures.  
9.3.  He recall ed that Members and Observers had received their assessment letters for the 2017 
contributions to the WTO budget  in early December 2016. A number of Members and Observers 
had beco me subject to Administrative Measures at the beginning  of 2017 and some had changed 
categories. The Director -General  had notified those Members by letter on 13 February.  
9.4.  The following 15 Members we re currently in Category I:  Afghanistan; Antigua and Barbuda; 
Plurinational State of Bolivia; Democratic Republic  of the Congo; Dominica; El Salvador; Guinea; 
Malawi; Mozambique; Papua New Guinea; Rwanda; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Solomon 
Islands; Uganda; and Vanuatu. Cameroon was  the only Member in Category II.  The following 
8 Members we re in Category III: Burundi; Central African Republic; Djibouti; Guinea -Bissau; 
Mauritania; Niger; Sierra Leone; and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. A request for the 
suspension of administrative measures  had been made by Guinea -Bissau. That request had been 
presented to  and co nsidered by  the CBFA. A recommendation would  be submitted to the General 
Council for consideration and approval  at its next meeting.  There we re 2 Observers in 
Category  III: Libya and Sao Tomé and Principe.  
9.5.  The Chairman  said that he was also  required at eac h Council meeting to request Members 
and Observers in Categories II and III of the Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their 
payme nt of arrears could be expected.  
9.6.  The General Council took note  of the statement.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 42 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
THE REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAI RS OF THE NEGOTIATIN G 
GROUPS AT THE INFORMAL HEAD S OF DELEGATION MEETING HELD ON 8 MA Y 2017  
Report of the Director -General  
 
In discussing our work here, I think we must always be conscious of the broader context.  
 
Last month we published the WTO trade forecasts and statistics, providing a timely reminder of the 
situation before us today.  
 
We reported that in 2016 world trade grew at the slowest pace since the financial crisis. The final 
figure for trade growth was 1.3% – below even our revised estimate of 1.7%, which itself was 
already below the estimates of other institutions.  
 
In 2017, some early indicators poin t to a recovery in trade growth.  And this, combined with an 
expected recovery in global GDP, provides s ome cause for cautious optimism.  
 
So, we expect world trade growth to rise to around 2.4% in 2017. However, because of the high 
level of economic and policy uncertainty, we placed this figure within a range from 1.8% to 3.6% . 
So, anything within that rang e could be happening.  
 
This uncertainty that we see is the key poi nt. And in more ways than one, it will remain a 
determining factor in our work here. We know, however, that through our work we can affect this 
outlook.  
 
So let me turn now to my recent co nsultations . 
 
Since we last met I have had discussions with a wide range of Members here in Geneva.  
 
I was honoured to welcome President Michelle Bachelet of Chile to the WTO at the end of March, 
and pleased to see hear her strong message of support for t he trading system.  
 
I have also met with the Group Coordinators and various Ministers – and conducted bilateral visits 
to Sweden, Finland and Portugal.  
 
In addition, I attended the EU Trade Ministers meeting in Malta and also the UN Chief Executives 
Board for Coordination here in Geneva, convened by the new UN Secretary -General, Antonio 
Guterres.  
 
On the 10th of April I met with Chancellor Merkel in Berlin, together with the heads of the IMF, 
World Bank, ILO and OECD. That meeting was convened by the Cha ncellor herself, and focused on 
how to make trade and globalization more inclusive.  
 
On the 24th of April I was pleased to welcome Susana Malcorra, in her roles as Argentina 's Minister 
for Foreign Relations and host of MC11 .  
 
She and I together hosted a r oundtable meeting with the Chairs of Negotiating Groups. This was 
actually the first time we have had such a meeting between a Ministerial Conference host and 
Negotiating Group Chairs during a preparatory phase for a Ministerial Conference.  
 
I think this demonstrates Argentina 's engagement and commitment to a successful Ministerial – 
and I have no doubt that this will be very welcome by all members.  
 
The Chairs briefed the minister of progress in their respective areas.  
 
Minister Malcorra stressed her view  that we are in uncertain and challenging times, and that 
Buenos Aires should be the occasion where all Members recommit to safeguard the multilateral 
trading system. I think this underlines the critical importance of our work and the serious 
responsibilit y that we each have on our shoulders.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 43 - 
 
  She stressed that we should not recommit to the system for its own sake. Rather, she suggested 
we should do so in order to forge a positive way forward for cooperation on trade issues in the 21st 
century .  
 
Of course,  MC11 is an opportunity to advance in this direction. And, as ever, achieving results will 
require flexibility, open -mindedness, realism, clarity and creativity. We should avoid simply staying 
in our comfort zones and repeating old positions .  
 
A lot of ac tivity was happening during UNCTAD 's E-Commerce week. This event provided the 
opportunity for a range of exchanges between members and other stakeholders on a number of 
important  issues.  
 
For example, the Friends of E -Commerce for Development used that occ asion to hold a ministerial 
meeting, which I was pleased to attend at their invitation – alongside UNCTAD Secretary -General 
Kituyi.  
 
This was the first meeting of that group at the ministerial level – and was also attended by some 
who aren 't formal member s of the group. It was a good discussion with a range of ideas being put 
forward. There was a clear sense of strong political engagement – and a clear desire to maintain 
this dialogue.  
 
I also participated in a number of other events during the e -commerce  week, including UNCTAD 's 
high-level panel session. And I had a series of discussions with other stakeholders from the private 
sector and elsewhere – including meeting with Jack Ma,  the founder and Executive Chairman of 
Alibaba,  here at the WTO, in his rol e as Special Advisor to UNCTAD for Youth Entrepreneurship and 
Small Business.  
 
The high level of business engagement which we saw during 2016 has clearly continued into 2017. 
I saw this again at the B20 Summit in Berlin last week, and it has been quite cle ar week -in, week -
out here in Geneva.  
 
I think that this is very helpful for our discussions as it provides an alternative perspective. 
Moreover, we are increasingly seeing these stakeholders put forward concrete ideas which may 
help members to develop thei r thinking on particular issues.  
 
And, indeed, Members have been very active themselves in recent weeks.  
 
You have been exploring different areas and in some of them you are beginning to move towards 
higher levels of specificity.  
 
As we will hear, the Do ha negotiating groups have been continuing their work, and some have 
been particularly active – for example:  
 
 the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services,  
 the working party on domestic regulation,  
 and the Rules Negotiating Group – specifical ly regarding fisheries subsidies.  
 
With Members now having finally appointed the remaining Chairs, activity is quickly picking up in 
the other areas too. The new Agriculture and Dispute Settlement Negotiating Chairs have already 
been engaging with Members . Other Chairs have also been continuing their contacts with 
delegations on the way forward.  
 
We have seen a number of new papers and ideas being put forward – covering issues such as 
domestic regulation; trade remedies; services facilitation and investmen t facilitation . I am 
informed that other papers and ideas are in the pipeline in areas such as Special and Differential 
Treatment and SMEs.  
 
Groups of Members have organized seminars or informal dialogues to help inform some 
discussions – and more of these  are being prepared .  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 44 - 
 
  I welcome the energy that these informal sessions are injecting into our work. Importantly, there 
is a genuine openness in the approach undertaken by the proponents – given that all Members 
have been invited and encouraged to activel y participate .  
 
My hope therefore is that we can sustain this prevailing momentum and positive engagement.  
 
Of course this should include steps on development and in support of LDCs – as well as steps in 
those areas where action is mandated at MC11, such as public stockholding.  
 
The forthcoming Aid for Trade Global Review will help to put a very welcome spotlight on some of 
these issues.  
 
It is already May. Time is passing quickly.  
 
By the summer break our preparations for Buenos Aires should be advancin g with a much greater 
sense of clarity and purpose.  
 
As I have said before, proponents have a particular responsibility here to build momentum behind 
their ideas.  
 
The Chairs and I will do our part to keep the entire membership on board for any progress th at 
you can collectively achieve.  
 
 
Reports of the Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups  
 
1. Committee on Agriculture – Special Session  
 
Following my election as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture  in Special Session on 
26 April 2017, I started consulting wi th Group Coordinators and individual Members who wished to 
meet with me on 27 April. In the last six working days, I have gone through 20 consultations, 
some of them with group coordinators representing the bulk of the membership. This is work in 
progress and I will see five more delegations tomorrow. And, I will continue with all those who 
wish to see me . My door as I mentioned during my acceptance speech will remain open in the 
service of Members.  
 
During these meetings, I listened to delegations ' views about what could be realistically achieved 
in Buenos Aires and how progress could be made on these subjects.  
 
More specifically, I focused on Priorities, Process and Prospects - my 3 Ps - for MC11. I therefore 
invited delegations to respond to the followi ng three questions:  
 
First, what are your priorities for MC11 as a delegation?  
 
Second , what process in your view would lead to outcomes for your stated priorities?  
 
Third, on prospects, where do you see the main difficulties given the current negotiation  
situation?  
 
In terms of the 3 P - Priorities, Process and Prospects for Agriculture in MC 11, I was constantly 
reminded during the consultations that MC 11, is just one of many future steps to be taken one at 
a time. Members are determined for a successfu l Ministerial . They appear wishing to continue with 
guarded optimism, informed prioritization and desired creativity.  
 
I also asked delegations to express their detailed view on the various issues identified by my 
predecessor in his last stock -taking exerc ise. 
 
The first round of consultations, as I mentioned is not yet finished and I am therefore not in a 
position to report in an exhaustive and detailed manner on these consultations today.  
 
I will therefore limit myself to a couple of observations.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 45 - 
 
  First, I was encouraged during my consultations by the level of engagement of most delegations 
and by the on -going reflections on various issues under consideration.  
 
In terms of the process forward, I was informed that some of these discussions were more 
advanc ed than others and more time was needed before submissions could be circulated.  
 
In terms of priorities for MC11, what I have heard so far confirmed to a large extent the picture 
drawn by my predecessor at the end of last year, and more precisely:  
 
Domest ic Support  
 
On domestic support, the views diverge on what could be achievable at MC11 . For many Members 
that were consulted, Domestic Support remains a priority issue . Some have nevertheless 
highlighted contextual difficulties, and a few others have indic ated their red -lines. On a positive 
note, however, Members are generally ready to continue working to identify potential deliverables.  
 
On cotton domestic support, an overwhelming majority of Members reiterated their support for a 
meaningful and specific o utcome on cotton.  
 
Public stockholding for food security purposes  
 
All Members are cognisant of the mandate to find a permanent solution to this issue by MC11 . 
However, the positions of Members have not evolved, most notably regarding who should suggest 
ways to address the concerns expressed by the non -proponents .  Nonetheless, I noticed that more 
thought has been put by some Members into this issue, including how to better use the dedicated 
sessions – and I will mention something toward this later.  
 
Market  Access  
 
Some Members continue to be interested in outcomes in agricultural market access for MC11 and 
consider that outcomes on specific elements within this pillar could be possible. Others are of the 
view that achieving outcomes in MC11 could be difficu lt in the absence of outcomes in other areas.  
 
SSM 
 
Members recognise the need to pursue negotiations on the SSM in dedicated discussions of the 
CoASS. However, Members continue to have divergent opinions regarding what outcome would be 
realistic in the c urrent context.  
 
Other Issues  
 
As regards other issues, I heard in particular a number of importing Members expressing an 
interest in the area of export restrictions. The specific contribution from Singapore of July last year 
related to enhancing transpare ncy of these measures continues to attract both interest and 
support from a large number of Members.  
 
To conclude on the substance, based on my consultations to date, I must say that there were 
varied expectations amongst Members on what is realistically achievable at MC11.  
 
I will continue, as I said, with a round of consultations tomorrow.  
 
I will then convene an informal open -ended Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture on 1 
June and two separate open -ended Dedicated Sessions on Public Stockho lding for Food Security 
Purposes and on Special Safeguard Mechanism on 2 June.  
 
These meetings will constitute our first collective in -depth stock -taking exercise since I assumed 
the Chairmanship of the Special Session.   
 
During these meetings, I will fir st report in detail on my consultations. Delegations will be given 
the opportunity to express their views on what can be realistically achieved in Buenos Aires. They 
can also give an assessment of the progress that has been made in the last couple of month s to WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 46 - 
 
  the whole Membership and may introduce any submission circulated since the last informal 
meeting of the Special Session.  
 
2. Negotiating Group on Rules  
 
The Negotiating Group on Rules has been actively engaged on the issue of fisheries subsidies since 
last fall, when we received the first of five new proposals, to date, by Members. I should note that 
all of the proposals make reference to Sustainable Development Goal Target 14.6, which calls for 
the elimination of certain fisheries subsidies and refers to  the WTO negotiations on this issue; and 
all of the proposals are aimed at achieving outcomes at MC11.  
 
Our process has been proposal -based and Member -driven. After each new proposal was received, 
it was discussed in open -ended informal plenary session. I n parallel with these sessions, we have 
earlier this spring begun a process of topical discussions of common themes and issues that have 
been raised in the proposals themselves as well as in the related discussions in the Negotiating 
Group. This process, i n which all Members are free to participate, runs in parallel to our normal 
open-ended sessions. The idea of the topical sessions is to deepen the technical discussions of the 
issues that will somehow need to be addressed and resolved if we are to find a c onsensus solution 
on this issue. We have further open -ended informal meetings and topical sessions scheduled for 
mid-May and mid -June. For these topical sessions, the topics have been identified, and questions 
for discussion have been submitted, by the pro ponents. Other Members also are free to submit 
questions, as well as any written responses or comments on any of the topics, for consideration at 
these sessions.  
 
In addition to these sessions, and to prepare for our intensified work on fisheries subsidie s, earlier 
this spring we held a one -day technical briefing for the Negotiating Group. At the session, experts 
from UNCTAD, UNEP, the World Bank, the FAO, and some regional fisheries management 
organizations made presentations relating to technical fisheri es topics that have been identified as 
relevant to the Group's work.  
 
Turning to the other main pillar of Rules, trade remedies, we recently received a new proposal 
from one delegation which has been circulated in document TN/RL/GEN/185. Consistent with m y 
commitment to provide any proposal, under any pillar of the Rules negotiations, with an equal 
opportunity to advance, on its own merits, I have scheduled a meeting with selected delegations in 
respect to that proposal this Thursday - 11 May, to be follow ed by an open -ended informal 
meeting for the presentation and discussion of that proposal on 31 May.  
 
3. Council for Trade in Services – Special Session  
 
In my last report to Heads of Delegations, I had summarized the state of play by saying that there 
was a  readiness to advance the negotiations and to engage, subject to adequately taking into 
account development aspects. The areas that had been highlighted by various Members as 
priorities for negotiating work were domestic regulation, services trade facilita tion, market access, 
and services aspects of e -commerce.   
 
Since then, I have held numerous consultations with delegations, either one -on-one or in groups.  
The state of play now differs markedly on each of these topics.  
 
First, concerning market access and services elements of e -commerce, I see that a number of 
Members have interest in these two topics. However, I have stressed for some time the need for 
concrete proposals from Members in order to move ahead.   I understand that delegations are 
reflectin g and discussing amongst themselves, but we do not currently have proposals on these 
topics. Obviously, for any constructive discussions to take place this year, proposals would have to 
be made very soon.  
 
Second,  with respect to domestic regulation, work  in the WPDR has moved to discussion of several 
text proposals from a number of Members. These cover 'administration of measures', 
'transparency', 'development of measures' and, more recently, 'technical standards'.   
 
From my consultations with the Chair of the Working Party, I understand that substantive 
discussions of all proposals are taking place with a wide level of engagement. The WPDR Chair 
considers that the next steps would be to have a complete set of substantive proposals on the WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 47 - 
 
  table ideally be fore the summer, and then to integrate these texts on the basis of discussions 
among Members. This should permit a better appreciation of the overall potential package. While 
specific proposals development aspects have yet to be tabled, there is a general appreciation that 
this would form an important part of an outcome.  
 
Clearly, negotiations on this aspect are more advanced than on other services topics, and I 
encourage further engagement from all sides in the WPDR with the aim of working towards 
conclus ion of these long -mandated negotiations in a manner that brings benefits to all.   
 
Third,  India has submitted a proposal on Services Trade Facilitation. India's latest communication, 
which proposes the legal text of a TFS agreement, has been presented in the WPDR, the regular 
session of the Council for Trade in Services, and last week in the Special Session. The level of 
discussion has been good, in that many issues were raised and discussed. Clearly, the views of 
Members differ significantly, and more dis cussions will need to take place. At the request of 
Members, I undertook to consult to see how to best facilitate further discussions on this topic.  
 
In conclusion, the Special Session, as well as the WPDR, will continue to hold informal and formal 
meeting s as appropriate to allow full discussion of proposals and to encourage progress in all areas 
where feasible. I stand ready to hold a meeting of the Special Session in June. Already, the Chair 
of the WPDR has convoked an informal meeting tomorrow, and furt her discussions will take place 
in the services cluster in June.  
 
Overall, I still sense a desire to engage if the proponents are realistic, pragmatic, and take due 
account of development considerations.  
 
4. Negotiating Group on Market Access  
 
I provided deta iled reports on the state -of play of the NAMA negotiations in two documents issued 
on JOB/TN/MA/1 (dated 29 November 2016) and JOB/TN/MA/2 (dated 5 December 2016).  
 
The reason I refer to them today is that unfortunately, I have not yet received indication s that the 
situation has changed.  
 
In these circumstances, I would like to briefly summarize my understanding of the positions 
expressed by Members so far.  
 
On tariffs – the positions continue to remain far apart as follows:   
 
 There are those members tha t don't want to cut tariffs at all; they would like to maintain 
their level of protection.  
 
 There are Members who condition tariff cuts in NAMA to results in other areas especially 
in agriculture;  
 
 There are Members who are sceptical about tariff cutting a t the multilateral level and 
prefer plurilaterals e.g. ITA -type initiatives.  
 
 Other Members believe that tariff cuts are not feasible today and that the focus should be 
to increase tariff bindings and reduce water;  
 
 Having recalled these positions, I would  also note that there are a few Members who 
have expressed some interest in a NAMA multilateral tariff cutting negotiation. But, and 
this is a big BUT, there have been no new proposals from any quarter. So it is difficult to 
re-engage given that we are wor king on the basis of a member -driven approach and 
process.  
 
 On NTBs, the situation is less bleak. NTBs have been mentioned frequently by Members 
in my consultations and in the negotiating group meeting. But similarly to tariffs, no 
proposals have been tabl ed so far.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 48 - 
 
   At the same time, I understand that there may be a proposal in the pipeline. We will 
need to see how to resume work and possibly provide a deliverable for MC11 following an 
eventual tabling of this proposal.  
 
In terms of next steps, I repeat my  call for proposals from those who would like to see re -
engagement in the NAMA negotiations, either on tariffs or NTBs. This is critical to re -injecting 
momentum in the discussions. Based on upcoming developments, I will hold consultations and 
convene a NA MA meeting to report on these consultations and discuss any possible new proposals.  
 
5. Committee on Trade and Environment – Special Session  
 
Since our last HODs meeting in December 2016, I have held a round of bilateral consultations 
reaching out to all dele gations. I am pleased to report that several delegations responded 
positively, and met with me last week.  
 
My intention with the consultations was to have an update on delegations' views on whether there 
was scope in this ministerial year to turn delegatio ns' repeated expressions of goodwill and support 
for the topics of the environment and sustainable development into restarting work in the CTESS. 
Moreover, through the consultations process I was seeking to get a better sense of whether the 
level of priori ty that some delegations gave to the CTESS may have changed in light of recent 
developments, including efforts on environmental goods pursued by a subset of WTO Members in 
the context of EGA negotiations.  
 
Like on previous occasions, delegations reiterated  their continued support for, and interest in, the 
issue of trade and environment in the WTO. That said, I did not detect any change in Members' 
underlying positions, nor did I sense any intention on the part of Members to come forward at this 
juncture wit h concrete proposals on how to advance our work. This leads me to believe that time 
is needed for delegations to define with a greater degree of precision how to proceed with the 
CTESS mandate.  
 
I also recognize that several delegations are carefully consi dering the CTESS mandate within the 
broader context of the many other moving parts involved in our preparations for MC11. In this 
regard, one Member pointed out that the ongoing discussions on fisheries subsidies had a strong 
trade -and-environment dimensio n. Another Member highlighted that its existing proposal on 
environmental goods was still on the table and it hoped that this part of the work of the CTESS 
could be resumed. Several delegations recalled their work on eliminating tariffs on environmental 
goods in the context of the EGA and that it was still a priority for them. A few Members also 
pointed to the good work already undertaken to pursue cooperation between WTO and MEA 
secretariats under paragraph 31 (ii) of the mandate and that this together wit h paragraph 31(i) 
might provide a framework for discussions but no specific details were given. In any case, all 
delegations with whom I met agreed that environment should not be forgotten if Doha mandates 
are recalled, as it was in Nairobi, in any ministe rial declaration that might emerge from Buenos 
Aires.  
 
Regarding the CTESS three -pronged mandate, I perceived interest from delegations in refreshing 
our collective memory about the valuable work on our mandate that has taken place over the 
years. These n egotiations have stretched many years and delegations have naturally changed over 
this time. I will be giving more thought to the possibility of holding, in due course, a factual 
information session with the assistance of the Secretariat, and will keep Mem bers fully informed.  
 
As always, I would like to remind delegations that I stand ready to play my part in the work of the 
CTESS and to assist delegations in any way I can.  
 
6. Committee on Trade and Development – Special Session  
 
The LDC Group and the African  Group have been working on the S&D proposals for some time 
now. They are looking to shorten the list of proposals that they had submitted earlier, and to focus 
on areas that are critical to them, in particular their quest for industrialization. They are r eportedly 
working towards tabling a formal submission in the coming weeks.  
 
Future steps, including the convening of a formal meeting of the Special Session will depend on 
the timing of their submission. The Chairperson plans to convene a formal meeting o f the Special WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Session as soon as a submission is received. This will provide an opportunity to the proponents to 
formally introduce their proposals.  
 
The Chair 's objective continues to be to work towards a constructive engagement that leads to 
tangible de liverables at MC11.  
 
7. Council for TRIPS – Special Session  
 
Since my last report to this meeting in September, and the issuance of my last written report 
TN/IP/24 on 8 December last year, the situation in the TRIPS Special Session has not advanced. 
The tradi tional differences on the substance and the scope of the negotiations continue to 
dominate the habitual exchanges between the two groups, and delegations on both sides show no 
appetite to engage in substantive work in the TRIPS Special Session in the conte xt of the overall 
negotiating landscape.  
 
While the traditional demandeurs, supporting document TN/C/W/52, continue to emphasize the 
importance of the TRIPS negotiations and the role of the TRIPS Special Session, they still consider 
the current context as unfavourable  to engagement in this area. Earlier indications of plans to 
reinvigorate the discussion in this forum have so far not developed into concrete initiatives.  
 
The delegations supporting the Joint Proposal mostly consider that, due to the diverge nce of views 
on the extent of the mandate, there was little likelihood for a realistic outcome in this area, and 
they were therefore not in favour of intensifying work in the TRIPS Special Session. While they are 
therefore not likely to take the initiative  in this forum, some have nevertheless signalled  to be 
open to discussions within the negotiating mandate.  
 
In view of the apparent reluctance of Members to engage in this area, I have mostly adopted a 
"listening mode" approach, and have kept in close inf ormal contact with the most active 
delegations, without holding full meetings of the TRIPS Special Session. Depending on 
developments, I am considering calling a meeting before the summer break for an exchange of 
views on the prospects in this negotiating group, and to begin preparing for MC11.  
 
In the meantime I am keeping my ear to the ground for any concretization of new initiatives – and 
remain ready and available for delegations to facilitate their work and progress in the TRIPS 
Special Session.  
 
8. Dispu te Settlement Body – Special Session  
 
I am in the process of planning upcoming work in the DSU negotiations. The next phase of work 
will follow the approach taken by my predecessor, Ambassador Karau. This involves going through 
each of the 12 issues in the  negotiations sequentially, with the goal of finding convergence and 
preparing possible textual outcomes for Members' subsequent consideration at the political level.  
 
The negotiating group will resume work next week by discussing the issue of strictly co nfidential 
information (SCI). I am still in the process of considering the schedule of work for the weeks 
ahead and which issues will be considered after SCI.  
 
My tentative intention is to conduct a stock -taking exercise either just before or after the su mmer 
break with a view to assessing with Members whether a possible outcome on one or more issues 
could be prepared for MC11.  
 
_______________  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 50 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S IN RELATION TO THE  INFORMAL HEADS OF DE LEGA TION 
MEETING HELD ON 8 MA Y 2017  
Follow ing the Director -General 's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Cambodia (LDCs); Rwanda (African Group); Guyana (ACP); Nepal; Philippines (ASEAN); India; 
Costa Rica (FEDS – Friends of E -Commerce for Development); Japan; Ecuador;  China; New 
Zealand; Cuba; European Union; Plurinational State of Bolivia; Montenegro; Chile; Uganda; Brazil; 
Republic of Korea; Mexico; Russian Federation; Hong Kong, China; Pakistan; Switzerland; 
Indonesia (G -33); Mali (C -4); Bangladesh; Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela; Zimbabwe; Solomon 
Islands; Tunisia; Paraguay; Fiji; South Africa; Morocco; United States; Cameroon; Colombia; 
Uruguay; Canada; Norway; Nigeria; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arab Group); and, Kenya  are 
included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
1. Cambodia (LDCs)  
 
We would like to urge all Members to prioritize all LDC issues in our current negotiations and in our 
regular work. This is particularly important as we prepare for MC11 in Buenos Aires, Arg entina.  
 
In the road to MC11, we only have about 7 months to go. LDCs need to obtain concrete measures 
to allow us to better integrate into the multilateral trading system in accordance with our LDC 
status and for us to benefit from our participation in th e WTO to help our people who are living 
under capacity and experiencing developmental difficulties. Therefore, the group calls on Members 
to do their best to respond to the LDC priorities and concerns in the negotiations. Many of our 
priorities are well -known to the Members following the implementation of decisions taken which 
have not transpired in our current negotiations. There is no agreement yet in some areas in the 
negotiations of important issues to LDCs. The group has actively participated by submit ting 
proposals on their priorities.  
 
First, on agriculture, the group submitted proposals last year to the CoA in Special Session. 
Consideration should be given to the importance of a substantial reduction on domestic support in 
agriculture applied by Mem bers considering that about 70 to 80% of our people depend on its 
subsistence and livelihood purposes. For this, LDCs are calling upon Members to ensure that all 
forms of domestic support subsidies to cotton are substantially reduced until they are totally  
eliminated. LDCs need results on the issue of domestic support.  
 
Regarding the negotiation on the permanent solution on public stockholding for food security 
purposes, it is important to take into account the needs of LDCs that do not have public 
stockho lding programmes. The permanent solution to capture both existing and future 
programme s for LDCs should be taken into account in negotiations to meet the deadline set in Bali 
for a permanent solution by the Ministerial Conference this year.  
 
Other prioriti es for LDCs include their capacity for industrialization and success for transformation. 
These are necessary conditions for development and better integration to the multilateral trading 
system to benefit all. The LDCs are therefore calling upon Members to  provide meaningful and 
maximum flexibility in accordance with paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration in the 
context of the CTD in Special Session.  
 
The LDC Group together with the G -90 attempted to achieve results on the longstanding S&DT 
propo sals submitted earlier. A decision was taken for the LDCs at the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference in 2005 which is about to expire but has not been implemented. A proposal from the 
G-90 will be submitted to Members as mentioned earlier. We urge Members to take a meaningful 
approach by responding with contributions on how to agree on our proposal rather than to ignore 
or reject them.  
 
The LDC group is also expecting results at MC11 on fisheries subsidies. We submitted an elements 
proposal last year which re ceived welcomed responses and questions. The LDC group has engaged WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 51 - 
 
  in the Negotiating Group on Rules to respond to the questions and to give clarifications on the 
proposal. The LDCs want sustainable fishing and the possibility to develop our fishing capaci ty 
including through subsidies that do not contribute to overfishing or to the depletion of the stock. 
But first, we must prohibit those subsidies that are contributing to illegal, unreported and 
unregulated fishing and to overfished conditions. In additio n, we must discipline subsidies 
contributing to overcapacity and overfishing.  
 
Regarding the LDC implementation of the decisions on DFQF market access, rules of origin and 
notification on services waiver, they still have not yet generated concrete results  for our 
constituencies. The group thanked Members for the adoption of the template for notification for 
preferential rules of origin and of the acceptance deadline for notification by 30 June 2017. We ask 
Members to redouble their efforts so that the posi tive outcomes for LDCs in Hong Kong, Bali and 
Nairobi are implemented. On DFQF, we strongly urge Members not to detract from the 2005 Hong 
Kong Decision and the 2013 Bali Decision. We wish Members to reconsider to agree on the 
element we introduced in our submission for a clinical examination on DFQF. We want Members to 
tell us about their concerns on the said study and we are ready to revive the study accordingly.  
 
On EIF, we call upon Members to fulfil their commitments made in Nairobi in terms of contri butions 
to EIF Phase II. We urge Members who have not yet contributed and are in the position to do so to 
come forward to enable Phase II to be a robust mechanism to support LDCs in the trading system.  
 
The WTO cannot also forget the problem of the access ion of new LDC Members to the WTO for 
whom their integration to the institution and to the multilateral trading system should be easier 
and quicker. In that aspect, the candidate country should be able to benefit from adequate 
technical assistance and capa city building support.  
 
On the issue of e –commerce for which discussions are ongoing, the LDCs are concerned by the 
question on how e -commerce can be beneficial in our process of industrialization and structural 
transformation. The ongoing discussion shou ld remain within the framework of the 1998 work 
programme. Since 1998, the digital divide remains enormous. We are shocked with the challenges 
for LDCs particularly in light of the lack of necessary infrastructure. A contribution from the LDC 
group as part  of the work programme is being elaborated to present its view and concerns.  
 
We hope that MC11 will provide an opportunity for us to achieve concrete implementable results 
for the LDCs and their development process. We are ready to work with you to obtai n a successful 
outcome in Buenos Aires.  
 
2. Rwanda ( African Group ) 
 
We wish to recall the African Group' s key position and reaffirm the importance of development 
across all negotiating mandates, objectives and principles as rooted in the Doha Development 
Agenda (DDA), and our commitment to it.  
 
You will recall that the Doha Development Agenda was launched with the promise to help 
developing countries integrate into the global economy, in part by correcting the systemic 
imbalances in agricultural subsidies tha t remain among the most seriously trade -distorting policies.  
Bearing in mind that Agriculture employs a high proportion of our populations in all African 
countries, the historical imbalances in this sector continues to undermine Africa 's economic gains . 
Therefore, Agriculture continues to be our main economic priority  and as pronounced by t he 
African Ministers of Trade, " agriculture remains central to Africa 's agenda at the WTO, and will be 
the determinant of the level of ambition in the negotiations ".  
 
From our perspective, the degree of movement, and the level of ambition in Agriculture shall:  
determine and set the balance in the overall negotiations and in any outcome as we move towards 
MC11. In this regard, it is essential that the following elements ar e addressed for a favorable and 
balanced outcome in Buenos Aires:  
 
Agriculture  
 
There is need for a clear approach that will ensure that developed countries eliminate trade 
distorting subsidies; while addressing Cotton ambitiously, expeditiously a nd spec ifically; a 
Permanent Solution on Public Stock holding f or Food Security Purposes; and a Special Safeguard WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Mechanism (SSM) that will enable our countries to protect our agriculture sector from import 
surges.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
We reiterate our call for a multilateral outcome with provisions for elimination of subsidies to IUU 
fishing activities, as well as disciplines on subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, 
while taking into account the legitimate interests and rights of developing countries .  
 
Development  
 
The African Ministers of Trade have been explicit on this issue in their last Declaration. 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 
commitments 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 Agenda 2063 on structural 
transformation and industrialization  ". It is in this regard, that we shall be pursuing outcomes on 
Special and Diffe rential Treatment in line with p aragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
with the view to strengthening them and making them precise, effective and operational with the 
purpose of supporting our industrialization objectives.  
 
With respect to the broader discussion on domestic regulations disciplines, we consider current 
proposals as an attempt to narrow the policy space of many developing countries to address 
broader domestic economic imperatives. Given that most African countries are still developing 
their institutions and regulations, impinging on our r ight to regulate is not conducive to the 
development of African economies. It was precisely for this reason, that our Ministers of Trade 
instructed that "any outcome on GATS Article VI.4 disciplines shall not involve the implementation 
of new and/or onerou s administrative requirements or requirements that intrude into the domestic 
policy -making processes ".  
 
We also have systemic concerns about proposals being introduced without any mandate. On such 
matters, the African Group strongly believes that paragrap h 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration shall prevail.  
 
Process  
 
The African Group reiterates the importance of upholding the principles of inclusiveness and 
transparency in the ru n up to, as well as during the E leventh Ministerial Conference. The Afr ican 
group remains constructively commit ted to work with you and other M embers to reach a positive 
outcome in Buenos Aires.  
 
3. Guyana  (ACP)  
 
Last Friday, the handover of the Coordinatorship of the ACP Group in Geneva was formalised and I 
would like to public ly recognise here the sterling contribution of the Government of Rwanda as the 
outgoing  Coordinator of the ACP Group. Guyana as the new official Coordinator is delivering this 
statement on behalf of the ACP Group.  
 
The WTO is at a critical point as we prep are ourselves to join our Minister s in Buenos Aires this 
year. The ACP Group attaches great importance to achieving outcomes for MC11 on key remaining 
DDA issues for developing countries. We should not falter in picking up the momentum the WTO 
captured in Bali and Nairobi. In that regard, we must resolve to deliver a truly development 
outcome at MC11 .  
 
Areas o f importance to the ACP for MC11  are essentially unfinished business from Nairobi. I will 
speak specifically on these areas:  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
The ACP Group led in proposals for Nairobi to discipline fisheries subsidies that cause overcapacity 
and overfishing . ACP approaches achieved consensus within its group and among other WTO WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 53 - 
 
  Members . Last year we submitted a new proposal of principles and elem ents that we think will 
better address concerns of many developing countries . Specifically we take an approach that for all 
WTO Members subsidies to IUU fishing and fishing of overfished stocks should be prohibited in a 
decision at MC11 . We also supported a scope that as a priority disciplines large scale industrial 
fishing benefitting from subsidies leading to overcapacity a nd overfishing. On both counts,  we 
must take into account the legitimate interests and rights of developing countries.  
 
Indeed, w ith respect to unreported and unregulated fishing, many of our Members will require 
special technical assistance and capacity building as in some cases, the situation may involve a 
lack of capacity to implement reporting and regulatory mechanisms . In addition,  for subsidies 
contributing to overcapacity and overfishing, we propose that subsidies to domestic fishing, 
artisanal, subsistence and small -scale fishing in their own EEZ be excluded from disciplines.  
 
In light of SDG 14.6, the ACP Group attaches a high p riority to obtaining a multilateral outcome in 
Buenos Aires without any linkages to other negotiating areas .  
 
To do our part, we are currently finalising a revision of our 2016 elements document to take into 
account internal discussions and those with oth er WTO Members, with a view toward consolidating 
our position further . We expect that we will be able to make this available for wider circulation in 
the coming weeks. In tandem, we are working on a text proposal based on the revised elements 
paper .  
 
Agriculture  
 
The ACP Group also took the initiative in 2015 before Nairobi to offer possible bridging ideas to 
overcome the impasse and meet the objective of substantial reductions in agriculture domestic 
support . These ideas were contained in JOB/TNC/50.  
 
Following on the building block success at MC10 on export subsidies, we hope that an outcome on 
trade distorting domestic supp orts can be achieved at MC11. This is important for many ACP 
States whose exports  are impacted by such subsidies , in particular for N et Food Importing 
Countries) .  
 
Committed to the process and resolved that we should continue to assist the debate and the 
progress, the ACP Group submitted a proposal at the end of last year.  
 
We hope that we can further discuss this proposal in consulta tions with the new Chair of the CoA - 
SS and other Members . Nevertheless, we are actively considering other ideas that might help 
bridge differences further.  
 
Cotton  
 
The ACP Group insists  that an  agreement is reached at MC11. If the major players are abl e to 
resolve differences by Buenos Aires on both market access and domestic support, we also register 
that ACP States would benefit from an SSM and SP .  
 
Public Stockholding  
 
We have support on the objective of fulfilling the Bali decision mandating agreem ent on a 
permanent solution by 2017 . The ACP Group also register s the necessity for an accessible and 
effective Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) which enables  its members to protect their 
agriculture sector from import surges) .   
 
Special and Differential  Treatment  
 
The ACP Group worked closely with the G90 to find a package deal on the outstanding agreement 
on specific proposals.  
 
This pillar is a core remaining DDA issue and is a priority for G90 . The proposals on SDT were 
placed on the table in the DDA  since 2001 by our members . Yet decision on these, even 
incrementally, continues to be devoid of any support from developed countries .  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 54 - 
 
  It is a high priority for our Members to work toward a consensus on this signature "development " 
aspect of the DDA.  
 
The G90 is currently deliberating on what happened in Nairobi on these proposals and discussing a 
draft based on a moderated, selected  and integrated set of proposals. The proposals are based on 
the CTD -SS chair 's draft and the G90 additions in Nairobi.  
 
Services  
 
With regard to services, we note that there has been active discussion in the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulations in negotiations under GATS Article VI.4 . Papers have been tabled by various 
Member s. 
 
The ACP Group is still in the process of exami ning the papers both here in Geneva and in capitals 
and wil l revert on these as necessary.  
 
We appreciate that these papers are textual in nature and in light of our capacity constraints as 
developing countries and LDCs; it will take some time for us to as sess them . We will therefore 
echo the need for adequate time to examine any proposals tabled. We hope the proposals in this 
area do not put additional onerous burdens on our members.  
 
The ACP Group has stated in past submissions that the architecture of th e GATS negotiations must 
be maintained, in particular the flexibilities for developing countries to schedule commitments in a 
positive list methodology, and that the development aspect of services negotiations must include 
sectors and modes of interest to developing countries . The ACP Group identified priority sectors 
annexed to its submission in March 2015.  
    
The ACP Group has also said in the past, if the negotiations on this issue are to move forward, we 
would require a meaningful application of the pr inciple of development and special and differential 
treatment remains central to any outcome on domestic regulation.  
 
ACP Members have placed particular importance on the necessity for a robust development section 
including upgrading past proposals to incl ude but not limited to the principle of self -designation of 
transition periods and implementation on acquisition of capacity for developing countries found in 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
  
Also central to the delivery on the development component in domestic regulations negotiations, 
the Group has emphasized  our offensive interests in the elimination or reduction of restrictions in 
qualification requirements and procedures; and licensing requirements and procedures, in favour 
of developing countries a nd LDCs. These requirements have become barriers or obstacles to 
market access of our services suppliers under Mode 4.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
We note that this is a non -DDA issue and should not replace the priority Ministers gave to 
remaining DDA issues . The electr onic commerce work programme together with the moratorium 
on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions are treated under Regular Work of 
the WTO based on separate Ministerial mandate and a separate decision taken in Nairobi . This 
mandate  is renewed every two years.  
 
Clearly the time limited mandate for the moratorium and work programme will be presented to 
Ministers for renewal at MC11 .  
 
We take note of the wave of interest and information on electronic commerce and believe that 
Members should continue to engage constructively in the work programme across the four 
designated bodies for the work programme and in the General Council for cross cutting issues . An 
opportunity is presented in the WTO to clarify what aspects of the world of digi tal trade, or 
electronic commerce belongs in the WTO domain and what does not .  
 
Our communities are active in the electronic commerce platform with or without deliberations in 
the WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Most Members of the ACP Group strongly believe that there is much mo re work to be done on the 
development component under the current mandate of the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce.  
 
We close our remarks today with an appeal that all WTO Members place key proposals from 
developing countries, linked to the level of am bition for developing countries as a priority for the 
deliverables at MC11 . We did our part to ensure that Bali and Nairobi Ministerials were a success . 
On the road to Bali, it was said that we must strive for a deal on TFA as this would break the 
menageri e that the WTO could not deliver a multilateral agreement from the DDA .  
 
As developing countries were told that the path would be cleared to then agree on proposals that 
were put on the table by our Members as priorities we have set, agendas that we have set rather 
than simply a participant in agendas set by others that happen to benefit us.  
 
Differences among the elephants in the room should be put aside to achieve a true development 
outcome in Buenos Aires, one that all developing countries that have be en struggling to integrate 
into the multilateral trading system can relate to and sell to their constituencies, and would do no 
harm to the positions of other Members .  
 
The ACP Group is working actively on proposals related to fisheries subsidies, on agri culture, on 
SDT and services. The ACP Group will continue to do its part to work with you towards a successful 
Eleventh Ministerial Conference .  
 
4. Nepal  
 
The delegation of Nepal associates itself with the statement delivered by Cambodia on behalf of 
the LDC  Group.  
 
Recent economic outlook clarifies that the LDC 's share of world exports dropped to below 1% 
because of continuous commodity trap, low value addition, fragile productive and supply side 
capacity, vulnerability to external shocks and the problems as sociated with market access.  
 
We, therefore, emphasize that development dimension, and particularly S&DT, should be at the 
center of the multilateral trade negotiations to ensure a fair, inclusive and equitable global trading 
system that serves the intere st of LDCs. We want to see that there is an effective implementation 
of all LDC -related decisions reached in Hong Kong, Bali and Nairobi by overcoming known and 
potential hurdles .  
 
To address continued marginalization of most of the LDCs, we expect substa ntial outputs in 
Buenos Aires under the DDA. Moreover, closer attention to the provisions of para 24, 31 and 32 of 
Nairobi declaration is essential to move ahead with a balanced approach without hurting the LDCs 
trade. We strongly emphasize that the LDCs s hould be exempted from adopting any new rules and 
making further commitments.  
 
A breakthrough is desirable in the S&DT in order to achieve industrialization, structural 
transformation, economic diversification, technological upgrading and productive capaci ty-building 
of the LDCs . Locked into the production of primary commodities or low -value -added products, we 
suffer from low performance in trade and low integration into the global value chains.  
 
We are of the view that the non -Doha issues suc h as e -commerc e, MSMEs , Trade Facilitation and 
Domestic Regulation in Services, Investment Facilitation and the like are futuristic agenda . 
Discussions on these new issues must take place within the framework of the existing mandates 
with focus on an inclusive, balanced , and multilateral approach. Any decisions on these new 
agenda should be consensus based. Concerted efforts should be made to bridge existing gaps 
among the Members, create a level playing field, and in getting prepared to move into new 
agenda.  
 
Needless to mention, the LDCs are the battleground for achieving global commitments including 
the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and Istanbul Programme of Action (IPOA). Greater 
policy space and meaningful global partnership plays a vital role in this resp ect.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 56 - 
 
  The implementation of the category C measures under the TFA is a fundamental aspect for the 
effective implementation of the agreement. To this end, we request all donor Members to provide 
information, according to Article 22.1 of the TFA.  
 
Despite un certain global environment, we should be able to deliver at the Buenos Aires, upholding 
the ethos of enlightened multilateralism. As time is running short, there is a need to redouble 
efforts to secure a balanced and meaningful outcome from MC11.  
 
5. Philippi nes (ASEAN)  
 
With the 11th Ministerial Conference set to take place approximately seven months from today, 
ASEAN takes note of the work that has been undertaken in formal WTO Committees and 
Negotiating Groups, as well as in informal consultations and works hops, with the view to achieving 
meaningful outcomes at Buenos Aires in December.  
 
ASEAN welcomes the proposals that have been tabled by Members on various remaining DDA 
issues, such as agriculture and fisheries subsidies, as well as proposals relating to domestic 
regulation as mandated under Article VI:4 of the GATS. Similarly, ASEAN takes note of the 
exploratory discussions on electronic commerce and MSMEs that have gained traction in the past 
few months.  
 
ASEAN is now at the stage of implementing the ASE AN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint 
2025. Under the third pillar "Equitable Economic Development, " the development of micro, small 
and medium enterprises (MSMEs) is highlighted where the progress of MSMEs is key towards 
narrowing the development gap. In this context, we express openness in working together with 
Members to identify ways to achieve an outcome in this area in the WTO.  
 
The AEC Blueprint1 also directs work on e -commerce within ASEAN, including the laying of the 
policy and legal infrastructure  for e-commerce to enable online trade in goods within ASEAN 
through the implementation of the e -ASEAN Framework Agreement and based on common 
reference frameworks. ASEAN has also been making an effort to broaden our, and also Members ' 
understanding of e -commerce issues, including how they intersect with MSMEs. To this end, 
ASEAN organized a lunch panel on the 27th of April during the UNCTAD E -Commerce Week on e - 
commerce trade rules and MSMEs in developing countries. We will be sharing our reflections from  
the lunch panel with Members in due course.  
 
ASEAN reaffirms its commitment to engage constructively in all areas of WTO work in order to 
achieve concrete outcomes that are agreeable and beneficial to all M embers, particularly the 
Least -Developed Countrie s (LDCs). ASEAN places great importance on the inclusive, rules -based 
multilateral trading system, with the development dimension at its core.  
 
6. India  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statement by Indonesia as co -ordinator of the G -33. 
 
Members may  kindly recall that in the last meeting of the HoDs my delegation had raised some 
very important issues and challenges facing this organization both on process as well as on 
substance. We believe that those issues still remain valid and we need to keep rem inding 
ourselves of them as we move ahead towards MC11.  
 
The pressure to deliver outcomes at MC11 continues to persist. Papers and proposals by members 
are being put forward in various fora. Most of these seem to address issues other than those on 
which ma ndates already exist and which have not yet been implemented. A number of these 
papers constitute the so -called 'new issues' or 'other issues' mentioned in the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration. Needless to recall para . 34 of the Declaration which states tha t work where results 
have not yet b een achieved should be prioritiz ed. It notes simultaneously that while some 
members wish to identify and discuss 'other issues', others do not. This indicates clearly, that 
there is no consensus on the identification and discussion of these so -called 'other issues'. It is, 
therefore, problematic that the outcomes or package sought to be taken forward for MC11 seem 
overwhelmingly to be constituted of these issues. These issues like e -commerce, MSMEs and 
                                                
1 AEC Blueprint B6, paragraph 59 (page 23).  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 57 - 
 
  investment, we belie ve firmly, are highly premature for rule -making as the membership first needs 
to deal with the gateway issue of the extent to which these subjects actually lie within the domain 
of the WTO.  
 
Secondly,  their far reaching, long -term implications are not cle arly understood. In our view, the 
common theme running through most of the papers on the table, in almost all areas is to do with 
constraining policy space of developing members. It is true that some co -proponents are in fact 
developing members. Their obje ctives, intent and perceived benefits for seeking discussions on 
these issues in the WTO are perplexing and at this stage throw no light in tangible terms on what 
benefits would accrue to developing countries. This is a cause of concern for us.  Let's not forget 
that the WTO is not a forum merely for discussion. It is indeed the pre -eminent global forum for 
trade rules setting and governance. Hence, what is seriously problematic for us is the fact that the 
kind of policy space used by major members to reach  a level of development and market 
dominance in some of these areas is sought to be constrained or even denied in many ways to 
those members that are still on that path to development.  
 
Thirdly,  as we discuss and debate various papers, it is more than obv ious that there is major 
divergence on mandates. A large part of the membership still looks up to the Doha mandate. In 
the absence of an alternative framework or mandate which is generally accepted, stand -alone 
issues and papers do not provide the requisit e sense of balance and give -and-take which is a 
central element of negotiations in this House. Addressing existing mandates is one thing but 
introducing new dimensions and issues which do not even have consensus amounts to raising 
expectations which, we be lieve, is contrary to the prevailing mood among the membership.  
 
Given the current global environment, arriving at an answer to the question 'trade for whose 
benefit' is absolutely crucial. This question has consistently been raised in India since the Uru guay 
Round and also seems to have taken centre  stage in many other major economies of the world 
today. People are questioning the inclusiveness aspect of free trade, its impact on domestic policy 
space, employment, income distribution, etc. We believe that  we need to address this question 
frontally while not limiting ourselves to the very short -term objective of seeking outcomes for the 
next Ministerial. The relevance of this institution is not confined to producing outcomes at every 
Ministerial. Its releva nce also needs to be tested by taking stock of the manner in which it has 
performed and its rules have affected the lives of people in different situations. For instance we 
could look at institutional matters like reorganizing and reviewing the regular and  negotiating 
structures of the organization orienting them towards the priorities of the wider membership. 
Another area which could be looked at closely is austerity and cost cutting measures at a time 
when several members are facing budgetary and resource  constraints. This Ministerial could well 
take stock of all these very important question marks being raised on this institution and arrive at 
a possible conclusion of its relevance, inclusiveness and centrality in the global economic 
architecture. In our view, a Ministerial declaration by consensus putting inter alia the question 
marks to rest could also be a substantive Ministerial outcome.  
 
On the specific issues, we reiterate the primacy of the development dimension and priority to the 
unfinished work f rom Bali and Nairobi. Needless to say that these issues have gone through long 
years of discussion and are definitely not in that sense, in the same category as some of the issues 
being floated currently. There is need for constructive engagement on public  stockholding and SSM 
as these instruments seek to level the playing field and affect millions and millions of people who 
would otherwise end up suffering because of the iniquitous trade rules rather than benefitting from 
trade. Public stockholding has a m andated deadline of 2017 and we reiterate that this will be a 
major issue in MC11. On e -commerce, our position has been very clear and consistent. The 
mandate is exploratory and we will not support any discussion on rule making. India has 
introduced a pape r on trade facilitation in services. We have carefully heard the membership in 
various formats and are open to considering the timing and manner of taking the matter forward. 
We believe that the proponents of domestic regulation should also be open to look ing at their 
proposals similarly. We consider discussion on investment and MSMEs as completely outside the 
purview of the WTO.    
 
In conclusion, we would reiterate that it would be dangerous to project consensus or a critical 
mass on a set of issues which  actually does not exist. It would risk deepening the divide further in 
case undue importance is given to the so -called 'new issues' at the cost of relegating to the 
background consensus decisions on subjects on which substantive work has been done over th e 
last many many years. We would, therefore, urge caution in the way we are attempting to WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 58 - 
 
  approach MC11 in order to avoid failure causing questions to be raised on the credibility of this 
institution and the multilateral trading system in general.  
 
Finall y, let me re -assure you that India remains strongly committed to the multilateral trading 
system and to constructively engaging in discussions within the WTO.  
 
7. Costa Rica (FEDs  – Friends of E -Commerce for D evelopment)  
 
The Friends of E -Commerce for Develop ment (FED) is a non -negotiating group of members, with 
different levels of development and with a common understanding of the positive impact of E -
Commerce and its versatility to create sustainable economic opportunities for all. We have come 
together to b uild an inclusive and open space for discussion on E -Commerce seen from its 
development dimension. As such, we view it as an instrument that can help bring together the 
digital, development and trade agendas, as a tool to narrow existing gaps in such areas , 
facilitating sustainable and economic growth for all developing members.  
 
In the spirit of creating awareness and engaging in an open conversation, the FEDs organized their 
first Ministerial meeting on April 25th within the framework of UNCTAD 's E-Commer ce Week. We 
were honored with the attendance of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, H.E. Susana 
Malcorra; the Federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment of Nigeria, H.E. Dr. Okechukwu 
Enelamah; the Minister of Commerce of Pakistan, H.E. K hurram Dastgir Khan; the Minister of ICT 
of Pakistan, H.E. Anhusa Rahman; and the Minister of Foreign Trade of Costa Rica, H.E. Alexander 
Mora. We were also honored with the participation of non -FED members, such as the Minister of 
Economic Affairs of Camb odia, the Minister of Trade of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Vice 
Minister of Commerce of Thailand, and the Minister for Economic Affairs of Bhutan. FED Permanent 
Representatives to the WTO from Mexico, Sri Lanka, Chile, Uruguay and Colombia partic ipated 
representing their capitals confirming the overall outlook the group embodies.  
 
During this first meeting, the high -level government officials had the opportunity to share and 
listen to the different perspectives of fellow developing members, their interests, concerns and 
also successful and encouraging stories. This laid important footing for our current efforts 
preparing the field for - what we foresee – could be the future of the conversation regarding E -
Commerc e. 
 
With this drive, FEDs Ministers put forward a roadmap built upon the policy areas identified by 
UNCTAD 's E-Trade for All Initiative, that recognizes seven key topics as the foundation for 
sustainable and inclusive economic development and that will pave the way for the conversation in 
Geneva, particularly towards the WTO 's 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
These seven key areas are:  
 
1. e-commerce readiness;  
2. access to ICT infrastructure and services;  
3. trade logistics and trade facilitation;  
4. e-payment solutions;  
5. legal certain ty and regulatory frameworks;  
6. capacity building and technical assistance; and  
7. access to financing.  
 
We are convinced that this Ministerial Meeting was the tipping point for the discussions related to 
E-Commerce here in town. It is now more important tha n ever to support the momentum the 
discussion has reached, because we can accomplish real, concrete solutions for the hindrances that 
affect developing and least developed members if we can continue engaging with each other.  
 
We have already gained terrai n by facilitating trade for developing members, MSMEs in particular, 
with the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Therefore, we must build on top of our past success and 
ensure we overcome other challenges that developing MSMEs still face through digital 
technol ogies, which are the most effective means to narrow the development gap.  
 
The Friends of E -Commerce for Development will continue moving forward facilitating spaces for 
all interested stakeholders. Over the last few months, it has been tangible how trust h as been built 
in Geneva around E -Commerce. More than a thousand participants attending E -Commerce Week 's WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 59 - 
 
  events are a testament to the willingness to engage from public and private sector, developing and 
developed economies and most importantly LDCs, who a re the ones who can win the most out of 
this initiative. To continue growing in this direction, we must carry on promoting engagement 
among the WTO membership. You can count on the FEDs to work hard on these endeavors, as we 
walk along the path towards Bue nos Aires with renewed strength and optimism.  
 
8. Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica has been an active M ember of the multilateral trading system ever since the foundation 
of the WTO and previously within the GATT. As many other developing M embers, we seize the 
opportuni ties and experience the challenges generated by a globalized economy. We have been 
able to adapt to the changing economic landscape transforming into an economy that is gradually 
moving towards Services. All the same, the agriculture and industrial sectors  maintain a prominent 
role and 95% of our productive enterprises are MSMEs. More than half of these MSMEs are located 
in the agriculture, trade or industry sectors, and that makes it even more important for us to 
develop policies that can ensure their matu rity and permanence within the productive ecosystem.  
 
Ten months ago, in line with its constructive orientation to build spaces for consensus from 
relevant topics, Costa Rica embarked on a journey, along with nine other members, aimed at 
preparing the fiel d for the discussion of the development dimension of E -Commerce here in 
Geneva. For all developing and least developed members, e -commerce offers something that can 
adjust to our realities and needs and help us leap into the digital economy. Over the past few 
weeks we have seen the conversation gain a new impulse. UNCTADs E -Commerce Week set the 
tone for our discussions for the following months, and as we approach the Ministerial Conference in 
Buenos Aires, this momentum reminds us that we must redouble our  efforts and start moving from 
conversations to concrete actions and strategies. This is the intention behind the roadmap put 
forward by the Friends of E -Commerce for Development. Costa Rica believes this roadmap can 
serve as an instrument for policy -makin g that supports entrepreneurship and leads the way for 
MSMEs to be competitive and improve their productivity . Costa Rica, as a member of the Friends 
of E-Commerce for Development wishes to invite other members to read the roadmap and join the 
group to enr ich our discussions with your opinions.  
  
Expectations for MC11 in Buenos Aires  remain  high and our task is to level up our ambition in 
accordance with these expectations: the WTO must continue advancing on the successes at MC9 
and MC10 and design an agend a for this XXI Century . Costa Rica expects, as part of this 
renovated agenda,  results on issues like fishery subsidies, domestic regulation on services and 
trade and climate action.  
 
Buenos Aires will be, for all practical purposes, the first Ministerial C onference since the 
Sustainable Development Goals are in place. For the next 10 or 12 years, the SDGs give us a clear 
sense of purpose and direction, as members of the multilateral system, to get some fundamental 
things done. As we move towards Buenos Aire s, every effort we make and every discussion we 
have must be harnessed to the SDGs to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. Precisely 
because of that, at MC11 we all must do our share, put our leadership to service and our character 
to the test  in order to paddle through the rough waters ahead. The higher our level of ambition, 
the greater the challenge and the bigger the effort that leaders will make.  
 
9. Japan  
 
The multilateral trading system continues to face great uncertainty. Collectively, we  need to show 
that the system is working and addressing challenges by making trade more inclusive ; that means,  
ensuring that all the stakeholders, including LDCs and MSMEs, can reap and feel the benefits of 
trade.  
 
Since the last HoDs meeting, many proposa ls have been put forward and active discussions are 
taking place on the agenda for MC11, in view of achieving concrete results in December. MC11 is 
in fact an important milestone, but it is not the ultimate end goal. This incremental thinking 
applies not o nly to the timeframe but also to the modalities of outcomes: when a binding solution 
is premature, we start by sharing a common understanding; if multilateral agreement is not 
possible, we may use the plurilateral format, which is already provided for in W TO agreements.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 60 - 
 
  With that flexible thinking in mind, Japan will continue to be engaged in the entire negotiating 
agenda, including on agriculture. Here, I will just briefly mention some issues in which we have a 
particular interest.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
Although J apan recognizes the utility in handling less controversial elements first, such as e -
signatures or logistics, we should not avoid the discussions on more fundamental issues like free 
flow of data. Japan will seek a common understanding on such basic and im portant principles.  
 
Domestic Regulation in Services  
 
Now that almost all the elements are on the table, we can discuss this issue as a whole, while also 
taking into account the TFA approach in relation to development  element . 
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Japan  welcomes the various proposals including the new comprehensive one from New Zealand. 
We look forward to fact -based discussions that give due consideration to resource management.  
 
Investment  
 
We believe that having discussions on investment at the WTO is relevant. Japan will engage in 
discussions on the proposals on investment facilitation.  
 
Transparency  
 
Improving transparency is imperative for facilitating trade , and  Japan is engaged in discussions 
among the Membership on means of promoting enhanced tran sparency, which will be most 
beneficial to MSMEs.  
 
As pointed out in the previous HoDs meeting, many of the issues I have just mentioned have in 
common "trade -facilitating " elements, which contribute to realizing inclusive trade. I believe it is 
worth cons idering making "facilitating trade " one of the key concepts in our positive narrative of 
MC11.  
 
Finally, I would add that it is not yet the time to discuss balance. We should continue in -depth and 
proponent -driven discussions until the summer. After that w e should figure out the specific 
modality of each outcome based on the maturity of each topic, and at the same time we will need 
to try to come up with the overall picture of the outcome at MC11. With these points in mind, 
Japan will make every effort to f urther contribute to the negotiati ng process.  
 
10. Ecuador  
 
Ecuador  welcomes the consensus reached in April which appointed the chairs of the negotiating 
bodies and regular bodies and hopes that the process to appoint the remaining chairs of the bodies 
of the Goods and Services Councils is brought to a successful conclusion, so that we may focus our 
efforts on the work that must be undertaken in the near future to achieve positive and concrete 
results at the upcoming Ministerial Conference to be held in Buenos Aires and thus contribute to 
the smooth functioning of this Organization.  
 
I will not refer to our position on specific issues, as it is known and can be found in the minutes of 
previous meetings. I will therefore limit myself to recalling the mandates tha t we, as Members, 
have adopted and believe must be fulfilled without delay in order to ensure the reliability of the 
system, with its legal order and the necessary legal certainty that Members demand for their 
submission to that order.  
 
Ecuador reiterates that for the architecture of this order to be credible, we must encourage the 
negotiations so that the remaining Doha Work Programme issues continue to be developed, giving 
priority to the development dimension and special and differential treatment, which  are 
fundamental principles of this House, the World Trade Organization. We firmly believe in the 
mandates contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Nairobi Declaration, on which this WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 61 - 
 
  Organization 's future work should be based, so that any progress on new i ssues, including 
e-commerce, are based on the assumption that adopted mandates and rules must be truly and 
effectively observed. We therefore invite Members to consider a formula which enables Ministerial 
Conference decisions and, when the Conference is in  recess, Council decisions to have lives of their 
own and to be applied and in effect when they are established, without having to subsequently 
enter into complex implementations which simply make these decisions useless when, 
if implemented, such decision s would result in the express and tacit development and even reform 
of the authoritative instruments and declarations that regulate the WTO 's activities.  
 
In that connection, I must remind Members that the mandate approved in Nairobi was very clear, 
and de spite mentioning that some Members do not reaffirm the Doha mandates, as they believe 
new approaches are necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes in multilateral negotiations, 
it confirmed the commitment of all Members to advance negotiations on the remain ing Doha 
issues, placing development at the centre of this work and reaffirming that provisions for special 
and differential treatment shall remain integral for the benefit of the developing and least 
developed countries.  
 
An existing mandate, adopted by t he Membership, cannot remain unfulfilled, nor can it 
be amended without an express agreement to that effect. Therefore, the Doha Work 
Programme,  which places "development " at the centre of our concerns, continues to be in full 
effect, as it is – and I insi st – a valid agreement that was undertaken by the Membership at a 
Ministerial Conference, the supreme governing body of this House.  
 
We must work on this, and once we have reached agreements that satisfy all, we will be ready to 
begin negotiations on other  issues, on which we must first establish a mandate that does not 
create confusion among Members. In other words, fulfilment of the Doha Round must be our 
priority in this process so that we do things in the right order.  
 
Ecuador has also stated that it is  not against discussing and learning about the progress and new 
advances that have been made in various areas, such as – and I repeat – e-commerce. To the 
contrary, we are a developing country that needs such progress, but in light of our position on 
previous mandates, we believe that we should first address and resolve the remaining issues.  
 
We have noted that one of the agenda items to be discussed at the General Council meeting 
of 10 May 2017 refers to trade facilitation and investments. We reiterate onc e again that Ecuador 
is not opposed to discussing new issues, as long as this does not lead to negotiations, as there is 
no mandate for negotiations on agriculture. Any new negotiations would have to be preceded by a 
mandate and the fulfilment of the previ ous mandates.  
 
Lastly, you may count on our support in the search for consensuses that are satisfactory to all 
Members.  
 
11. China  
 
I will not elaborate on every issue today, as China 's position is quite clear and remains unchanged. 
I will briefly touch upon t he status quo area of rules negotiations as well as investment facilitation.  
 
In light of the operation of WTO rules and trade remedies, we believe it is necessary to clarify and 
to improve the existing rules. Hence, China submitted a proposal on trade re medies, which has 
5 elements such as transparency and due process .  
 
We welc ome constructive comments from M embers, and would analyse and evaluate them in an 
honest manner. As for fisheries subsidies, China knows the submission co -sponsored by New 
Zealand and some other members. We welcome the proposal and we believe fishery is very 
important to people 's life. For example, as Ambassador Shah (Pakistan) said just know, it has 
strong trade and environmental dimension. However, in this regard, we have certain concerns of 
issues like the definition, fisheries management, evaluation of the fishery resources and etc. We 
assume those issues may exceed the functions of the WTO, and are beyond our professional 
knowledge and experience . As Confucius said, do not prete nd to know, what you don 't know. As 
such, it is advisable for members to take a pragmatic attitude and have discussions focusing on 
those issues with a higher level of consensus, for example the regulation of IUU fishing.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 62 - 
 
  Both trade remedies and fishery s ubsidies are within the framework of rules negotiations. We hope 
that these two issues will receive equal attention and be pursued in tandem with a view to 
achieving a balanced meaningful and development -oriented outcome.  
 
Besides the formal negotiation i ssues, China also supports to start the discussion on investment 
facilitation within WTO in an informal manner, which will be carried out in the forms of open 
dialogues and workshops, focusing on information exchange , experience sharing and in in -depth 
discussions. Such exercise is responding to the call of the international community and to specific 
demand from the industries, particularly from that of developing countries.  
 
12. New Zealand  
 
New Zealand is strongly committed to the rules -based multilateral t rading system which we see 
creates significant benefits for all Members from the smaller to the larger, which we underestimate 
at our peril, both individually and collectively.  
 
In terms of the negotiations, New Zealand is encouraged to see increased enga gement across a 
wide cross section of issues. This is a positive development and one to be sustained and 
supported. Across the board it is important that these issues be progressed on their own merit.  
 
A significant body of Members, including New Zealand a nd other Cairns Group Members, have 
identified enhanced disciplines on trade distorting agricultural domestic support as an important 
deliverable for MC11. This has obvious systemic and development benefits. With the new CoA -SS 
chair now appointed we look forward to picking up active discussions in this area.  
 
We are also very encouraged by the heightened negotiating activity on fisheries subsidies 
prohibitions. The Friends of Fish are actively considering how to progress these negotiations to 
ensure we arr ive at an effective MC11 outcome that contributes to implementing SDG Target 14.6. 
The most recent contribution in this respect is New Zealand's joint proposal with Iceland and 
Pakistan, which is being considered in the Rules Negotiating Group, and we than k members for 
their comments on this proposal during this meeting.  
 
New Zealand also looks to MC11 for a commercially meaningful outcome on services. We are 
pleased with the progress being made in domestic regulation discussions in the WPDR. New 
Zealand i s working with other interested delegations to get texts on the table to progress a 
possible outcome for MC11, and is cosponsoring proposals on development of measures, technical 
standards and transparency.  
 
It is also important to create pathways to addre ss 21st issues to ensure that the WTO reflects 
business reality. In this context, New Zealand commends the fruitful discussions on e -commerce 
last week at UNCTAD and the numerous papers presented at the WTO, and we look forward to 
turning the enthusiasm an d proposals into ways forward for MC11.  
 
We note the large amount of interest that is being generated on investment facilitation, and 
MSMEs and look forward to participating in the ongoing dialogue amongst Members to see what 
might be possible at the WTO. In the area of MSMEs we are focused on work we can do here to 
foster transparency and reduce red tape, including through trade facilitation and the reduction of 
unnecessary differences of regulation – addressing NTBs on both services and goods.  
 
13. Cuba  
 
As this is the first time that I am taking the floor as the Ambassador of Cuba to the WTO, please 
allow me to extend a warm welcome to you, to the Chair of the Council and to all the Members 
and delegates attending this meeting. It is a pleasure and an honour to represent my country at 
this Organization in the coming years. I am therefore ready to begin working right away and hope 
that our delegation will benefit from the same cooperation that it has always enjoyed.  
 
For Cuba, the Doha mandate is still in effec t, even though some Members do not share this view, 
particularly in light of the fact that a proposal for an alternative mandate which we could examine 
has not been presented. We are therefore firmly committed to prioritizing the outstanding issues 
on the work programme, many of which have been put on the back burner.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 63 - 
 
  With regard to the issues which have been proposed as possible outcomes in Buenos Aires, the 
reality is that, at this point, none of the new issues have achieved the necessary consensus. At t he 
same time, there is a very worrisome state of imbalance in the activities of the various bodies.  
 
For example, agriculture has always set the level of ambition in other areas, but at present is stuck 
in a situation of total uncertainty. In the meantime,  successive meetings are held to analyse issues 
that are not part of Doha and do have the consent of a representative number of developing 
countries. This imbalance must be rectified. The negotiations on the outstanding Doha Round 
issues must be our priori ty in terms of work so that we can try to honour the commitments that 
we have made.  
 
I will briefly comment on the issues that do not form part of Doha, the discussions of which 
concern my delegation.  
 
With regard to e -commerce, we reiterate our commitment  to the 1998 Work Programme. There 
remains, no doubt, much to be done in order to fulfil that mandate. We are therefore not in favour 
of moving forwards in Buenos Aires.  
 
With respect to SMEs, we still have not heard what is the purpose of bringing this is sue to this 
Organization, which still establishes multilateral norms. We do not see how the traditional rules of 
the WTO could address, for example, the existing differences between SMEs in developing 
countries and in developed countries.  
 
The protection o f multilateralism, the preservation of the development dimension in all areas of 
work, the principles of transparency and inclusiveness and decision -making by consensus guide, 
and will continue to guide, Cuba 's participation in the WTO.  
 
Therefore, in the process of preparing for the Eleventh Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, we 
reiterate our willingness to continue participating in an active and constructive manner, in 
accordance with the criteria mentioned above, in order to achieve tangible outcome s on the 
outstanding Doha Round issues.  
 
Before I conclude, Cuba wishes to associate itself with the statement made by Guyana on behalf of 
the ACP Group and the statement which Indonesia will make on behalf of the G -33. 
 
14. European Union  
 
We note a recent in crease in the level of activities in the preparations of MC11. Seven months 
ahead of the Ministerial Conference, this is positive. But beyond talk, there is also a need for 
action. We would therefore welcome to see more concrete proposals on all issues tha t remain in 
play and more concrete engagement in terms of finding viable solutions forward,  
 
In that regard, we value very much your contribution, and expect you to continue playing an 
active, positive and constructive role in the process of bringing Membe rs toward consensus. And 
we have the same expectation towards the Chair of the General Council and the newly appointed 
Chairs of the regular and negotiating bodies. The WTO is a Member driven organization but the 
contribution of the Chairs remains crucial to the success of the negotiations.  
 
Colleagues, the time that separates us from MC11 is short. And at this moment in time, none of 
the issues that we are collectively discussing is ripe for any sort of decision. This is troubling in 
itself. However, equal ly troubling is the fact that some Members already seem to be making 
linkages between the issues and are preventing certain topics from being advanced technically. 
This is a recipe for failure. All issues need to be allowed to advance on their own merits a t least in 
the weeks to come.  
 
Consequently, like others, we consider that we should use the time before the summer to push 
technical work on all issues and reserve the recalibration and package discussions for this autumn.  
 
Let me briefly share our assess ment of the progress on the main issues. Fisheries subsidies and 
domestic regulation in services remain the areas where most advanced discussions are taking 
place.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 64 - 
 
  Following the EU's textual proposal and the recent submission by New Zealand, Iceland and 
Pakistan, we now have two concrete textual proposals on the table on fisheries subsidies, in 
addition to three other submissions. This shows the clear and shared interest of the Membership to 
deliver in this area. We should pursue our discussions and do the  utmost to come up with a 
consolidated draft text by the summer.  
 
On domestic regulation in services, basically all the building blocks of a comprehensive textual 
proposal have now been put forward and we would welcome any complete proposals on the 
develop ment dimension. We have noted the elements on domestic regulation submitted by India 
in its proposal for a Trade Facilitation Agreement for Services. Having different text proposals will 
contribute to the preparations of a solid body of horizontal discipli nes on domestic regulation. We 
should avoid at all costs letting other elements interfere into this well advanced discussion and 
rather ensure that a stand -alone common textual proposal on domestic regulation in services can 
quickly emerge.  
 
In other areas  significantly more work remains. Nevertheless the EU is working hard to ensure that 
all avenues will be explored in the near future.  
 
Two weeks ago, in the margins of UNCTAD's E -Commerce Week, a number of Ministers from 
developing countries acknowledged t he relevance of E -Commerce as a tool to narrow the digital 
divide and agreed on a roadmap towards MC11. This is yet another evidence of the interest not 
only from developed but also from developing countries to see the WTO adapting to the e -
commerce challe nges. Against this background, and in a further effort to engage into a concrete 
discussion, the EU believes that WTO Members need to focus attention on a few issues that can 
gain consensus, including for example principles on Consumer Protection, Unsolici ted Messages, 
Authentication and Trust Services and Electronic Contracts. Advancing on these issues would be an 
important first step in contributing to a better integration especially of SMEs in the world economy.  
 
Speaking of SMEs, the EU firmly believes in the importance of ensuring that the WTO has respond 
to the needs of our small companies. We therefore intend to come forward with a submission 
developed around three main dimensions: ensuring the availability of information on regulatory 
measures over t he Internet, building a user -friendly web portal on regulatory information and 
being inclusive by enhancing public consultation and good regulatory practice.  
 
Finally, it is clear that a further acceleration is needed in our consideration of how to advance  on 
domestic supporting as of where, despite the broad interest, concrete discussions have not yet 
started. The EU shares the concern of many Members on this issue and believes that an effort 
needs to be made to come up with concrete ideas on a possible ar chitecture allowing us to take an 
incremental step forward on this issue. Advancing on domestic support could go hand in hand with 
finding a permanent solution on public stockholdings.  
 
We should not let the negative voices on the WTO prospects become self -fulfilling. Uncertainties 
surrounding MC11 preparations will not soon fade away and we need to factor them in. In the 
short term the threats on the multilateral trading system should call on greater, not less, efforts 
towards achieving concrete outcomes i n Buenos Aires. This is the first and immediate priority to 
ensure that the WTO retains its credibility.  
 
15. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
Given how little time remains before the meeting, I would like to speak about how Bolivia 
envisages the upcoming Minis terial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
For Bolivia, the only legal framework for the negotiations is the Doha Development Agenda. We 
therefore believe that in Buenos Aires, development must be repositioned as a substantive 
element of the multilateral trading system, which has been reflected in all the ministerial decisions 
since Doha, including the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, paragraphs 30 -32 of which reflect the 
current state of affairs in the Organization.  
 
Bolivia will continue supporting initiatives w hich enable the Doha Round to be resolved in a 
satisfactory manner, particularly with regard to agricultural reform, where we have noted with 
concern that very little progress has been made in view of the Eleventh Ministerial Conference.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 65 - 
 
  As to new issues,  in accordance with paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, we 
reiterate that Bolivia will not support the inclusion of new issues which have not been agreed by all 
Members. We have serious misgivings about discussing, without a mandate, issue s such as 
investments, e -commerce and MSMEs in this Organization, without first having resolved issues 
that have been outstanding since the Uruguay Round, such as agricultural reform and 
implementation matters. Moreover, we do not support the encouragement  of plurilateral initiatives 
which essentially undermine the foundations of a multilateral system.  
 
We are open to continuing the debates on e -commerce, provided that they are based on the work 
plan adopted in the General Council Decision of 30  September  1998 and the Ministerial Decision of 
19 December  2015.  
 
As to agriculture, I am not going to describe our position in detail, but instead would like to 
mention the issues on which we are hoping for substantive, pro -development outcomes in 
Buenos  Aires: the elimination of domestic support based on revision 4 of the modalities for 
agriculture, the adoption of the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries and a 
solution to the issue of public stockholding for food security, which includes a permanent  solution 
for all the developing countries, as proposed by the G -33. 
 
We have also watched with systemic interest the increased momentum gained by the negotiations 
on the elimination of fisheries subsidies. We hope that this will serve the interests of the  
developing countries, take into consideration the asymmetries between Members and lead to 
robust and useful special and differential treatment.  
 
To conclude, I would like to reiterate that Bolivia will work in a constructive and appropriate 
manner, taking  into consideration the interests of the vast majority of the Members of this 
Organization, in view of the upcoming Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
16. Montenegro  
 
We are entering a new phase  of the work in the WTO in preparation for the MC11. With so me 
delay, all regular, working and negotiating bodies are ready to go with their new chairpersons and 
renewed dose of enthusiasm to ensure timely, transparent and inclusive negotiations that will 
provide further strengthening of the multilateral trading sy stem and the centrality of the WTO.  
 
Montenegro welcomes the election of H.E. Susana Malcorra, Argentina' s Minister of Foreign Affairs 
as the chairperson of the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference and congratulates again the Government 
of Argentina as the host . My Delegation wants to convey the Government of Montenegro 's full 
support in the months to come to you Director General, and to the Minister Malcorra and her team 
in their effort to bring yet another success for the multilateralism, Latin America region and the 
WTO membership.  
 
Montenegro is strongly committed to the rule based multilateral system and understands that 
agriculture stays as the core issue that drives negotiations in other sectors of current negotiations. 
In this context, we would like to re cognize the commitment and confidence expressed by 
Ambassador Stephen Ndung 'u Karau of Kenya as the new chair of the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session. We appreciate his vision in support of two topics as the priority in the work and 
submissions of the members regarding: permanent solution of public stockholdings for food 
security purposes, and special safeguard mechanism for developing countries (actions that are 
mandating). We have a strong hope that the most significant reform of the agricultur e trade in the 
WTO's history achieved in Nairobi, will continue with new results in helping to level the playing 
field for the benefits of farmers and exporters, particularly in developing and the least developed 
countries .  
 
However, we also believe in in cremental steps and result in negotiations and, with that in mind, 
Montenegro is active in a number of issues currently under constructive engagements of 
membership. I would like to highlight some of these issues that are of particular interest for 
Montene gro: 
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 66 - 
 
  E-Commerce  
 
With the possibility of convergence in narrowing down specific issues related to the relationship 
between trade policy, the WTO and digital economy, Montenegro strongly believes that the 
expansion of the digital economy fosters new opport unities to promote inclusive economic growth. 
Among other things it helps to connect rural and urban economies, open new channels for trade 
for landlocked countries, and facilitate the participation of women and micro enterprises in the 
formal economy. Mon tenegro takes part as a proponent and cosponsor in submission of one of the 
discussion papers that reflects way forward, including the set of concrete rules in electronic 
transactions, already mentioned by the EU delegation, such as: e -contracts, e -signatu res, 
regulatory frameworks pertaining to consumer protection and unsolicited messages (or spam). I 
would also like to reiterate the value of ideas put forward by a number of countries regarding 
initiatives, measures or technical assistance for LDC countrie s contributing to enhancing e -
commerce and in closing the current digital gap. Montenegro believes that the discussion so far 
provides substantive approach and enough flexibility so that these ideas and elements might foster 
further intensive exchange on e -commerce across the board in the WTO toward the MC 11.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
In line with 14.6 UN sustainable goal: Within the current discussion Montenegro continues to 
advocate the road map for protection of artisan fisheries ' communities and capacity  building for 
the countries in need to step up elimination of Illegal and unreported fisheries;  
 
Expansion of the WTO  
 
Expansion of the WTO remains high on our list and we strongly believe that with additional efforts 
we could welcome new members  at the MC XI. To this end we would like to see the intensifying of 
accession process of Sudan and Belorussia and particularly for BiH and Serbia as their membership 
to the WTO would be a value added to the implementation and benefits of the TFA for the Western 
Balka n region.  
 
SMEs  
 
There is an additional issue that Montenegro would like to se e more intensively discussed toward 
MC XI. As you have stated in the recent annual report on SMEs, you "always sought to make the 
work of the organization more inclusive but, ov er the years, you felt that the interests of SMEs 
have sometimes been overlooked ". This is an issue, which members could seek to address and 
which could make a significant contribution toward supporting growth, development and job 
creation in the current g lobal economic environment. What further action is taken in favor of SMEs 
is for WTO members to determine . Montenegro would like to ensure that SMEs ' interests are not 
only remembered but also advanced in MCXI, so that we can continue building a more open and 
inclusive trading system, the benefits of which as yare available to all. Montenegro calls upon all 
the member states to seek this moment in which trade facilitation holds particular benefits for 
SMEs, fostering their entry into international markets. We need additional actions in identifying 
how WTO 11th Ministerial conference could support SMEs and how SMEs around the world can 
further unlock the growth potential of e -commerce and create more jobs. Montenegro is looking 
forward to contributing to the upcoming submission on this specific topic.  
 
Montenegro is committed to stay engaged in achi eving a higher level of specifici ties toward 
commercially meaningful outcomes that will forge multilateral trading system and provide new 
success of the WTO in Buen os Aires.  
 
17. Chile  
 
As our Chair indicated in her statement before the members of the Council a few weeks ago, the 
WTO plays a fundamental role in the system and must continue working on the regulatory function 
and on negotiations in order to keep pace with the 21st century economy, without forgetting the 
outstanding issues.  
 
In this connection, I would like to reiterate our political, diplomatic and technical willingness to 
contribute to the success of the upcoming Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 67 - 
 
  We do not see a contradiction between "new issues " and "outstanding issues " and we firmly 
believe that many of the so -called new issues are an effective tool for strengthening the 
development dimension, which concerns us all.  
 
We do not doubt the benefits th at free trade has brought  millions of persons. Not moving forwards 
means moving backwards and putting those same people and future generations at risk. This is 
why, as a developing country that can speak to the benefits of international trade, Chile is foc using 
its efforts in the WTO, along with other Members, particularly with respect to agriculture, fisheries 
subsidies, e -commerce, MSMEs, trade facilitation for services and investment, always in view of 
Buenos Aires.  
 
18. Uganda  
 
At the outset, we would like to associate our delegation with the statement delivered by Rwanda 
on behalf of the African Group; Cambodia on behalf of the LDCs Group; and the statement to be 
delivered by Indonesia on behalf of the G33. We would also like to recall the statement we 
delivered on 23 February 2017. Today, we have a few points to raise:  
 
Agriculture  
 
My delegation has great interest in agriculture given the fact that 80% of our population heavily 
depends on it. It is a major contributor to national income and the largest emp loyer. The success 
of this sector is vital not just to our economic growth and development but for food security and 
the alleviation of poverty, particularly in rural areas. It therefore follows, that trade in agricultural 
products, both domestically and i nternationally affects the performance of the sector and the 
profitability and viability of farming. It is important that we move to undertake the requisite reform 
envisaged in Para 13 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration with the view to the substantial re ductions 
of domestic supports. We have said before that even if as LDCs, we were to have 100% DFQF, 
without disciplining the trade distorting domestic supports, the market access will meaningless. In 
our view, Agriculture will have to set and determine the  level of ambition. Further, and consistent 
with the Nairobi Ministerial decisions, we shall be looking for the conclusion of a Permanent 
Solution on Public Stock Holding for Food Security Purposes; and the establishment of an effective 
and easy to use Spe cial Safe Guard Mechanism.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
We have variously indicated, the focus in Africa is on structural transformation and industrialization 
in line with Agenda 2063.  There is a strong conviction that, Africa cannot survive withou t value 
addition; and that therefore, we must use trade policy instruments to promote the industrialization 
of the Africa we want. In 2015, Africa 's share in global trade was only 3%, with total exports 
comprising 80% raw commodities and 20% manufactured. In order for us to realize Africa 's 
structural transformation, it must be driven by a manufacturing sector that will add value to 
Africa 's primary products before exporting them to international markets. Otherwise, we risk 
turning into an enclave economy w here we produce what we don 't consume and consume what we 
don't produce. UNECA predicts that by transforming Africa 's mineral export volume alone, by just 
5 per cent before export, it can create 5 million jobs a year. Ours is a win -win proposition. With 
this approach, our people would not have to travel to far off lands to cause immigration 
challenges. As you may be aware, we are working within the African Group in line with Para 44 of 
the Doha Ministerial Declaration to develop proposals that will address the issue of industrialization 
within the special session of the committee on trade and development . We hope to be able to 
submit our proposals as soon as possible.  
 
Domestic Regulation  
 
LDCs are net services importers. In 2015 LDCs Services trade deficit  reached US$36bn. It 
therefore follows that in assessing the cost and benefit of Dom estic Regulation  rules, it would 
depend on whether or not a member is a services exporter and faces various sorts of barriers 
entering other members markets, or a net servi ces importer, given the fact that DomReg is about 
effective market access. It would therefore mean that if we were, as has been suggested by the 
proponents, to undertake these onerous, intrusive, and unnecessary, disciplines ; we would be 
granting unfettere d market access to the proponents, which is contrary to the object, purpose, and 
spirit of the LDC Waiver Decision. are the proponents seeking to roll back the benefits envisaged in WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 68 - 
 
  the waiver decision? Do the proponents consider the waiver mechanism to ha ve been a reciprocal 
arrangement? To what extent would the potential adoption of these disciplines by the LDCs impact 
on the preferential treatment already provided under the LDC Services Waiver considering that 
LDCs are net services importers? And who det ermines what is objective and or reasonable? What 
is the standard measurement or criteria for these concepts? LDCs have language agreed ad ref in 
both the chairs texts of 2009 and 2011. This flexibility should be preserved.  
 
New Issues  
 
We also have syste mic concerns about proposals being introduced without any mandate. We 
strongly believe that respecting the mandates and rules at the WTO should not be taken lightly, 
otherwise we risk knocking down the only protective wall that developing and least develop ed 
countries have. Rules! Imagine a situation where LDCs argued a case on the basis of zero 
mandate. Who would listen to us? If we break down this wall of protection, what do we have as 
non-powerful countries? We risk creating a situation where in the most  immediate future, the 
great questions of the day shall not be resolved by speeches and resolutions, but by might against 
right. It is therefore important that we uphold, promote and protect, the object and purpose of 
paragraph 1(g) of the July Framework, it says inter alia :"…….that these issues, mentioned in the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration in paragraphs 20 -22, 23 -25 and 26 respectively, will not form part of 
the Work Programme set out in that Declaration and therefore no work towards negotiations on 
any o f these issues will take place WITHIN the WTO during the Doha Round. We therefore do not 
agree to any attempts to the contrary intended to create new facts on the ground without going 
through the due process . It is not fair to this Organiz ation and to our predecessors for some of 
these elements to even feature on the agenda of the very body that prohibited them . It is our view 
that any issue, which is without a mandate, should not waste Members ' time. It must be clarified 
chair that we are not opposed to di scussions as such on any  new issues.  
 
Process  
 
As we have said in the past, we would like to call upon you to put in place a credible and 
transparent process that does not seek to replicate the Nairobi files. In order to do that we would 
invite you to put in place a two -track process. On one track we engage on the possibility of a 
package; while the second stream deals with the drafting of an outcome document for Buenos 
Aires. That document should provide clarity on all aspects. We mean all aspects includin g on what 
happens to the reform program that had been envisaged in Doha, with respect to agriculture and 
all the other elements. This process would provide all of us: developed, developing and least 
developed countries, with an opportunity to engage in det ermining the future of this Organization. 
If we have learnt anything from the past, it is that Nairobi did not give all of us the opportunity to 
negotiate the most critical parts of the Declaration. They were imposed on us at the last minute, 
by a small gr oup in concert with the Secretariat . The process should therefore be bottom up, 
transparent, predictable and inclusive. The small club mentality should be abandoned. Further, any 
text to be presented to the Ministerial Conference must have been agreed to b y consensus by the 
membership of the whole at least six weeks  before the Ministerial Conference. It would therefore 
be most important to convene a dedicated session to discuss process issues before MC11.  
 
19. Brazil  
 
A positive outcome in Buenos Aires is cruc ial. However, we still don 't have a common set of goals 
or landing zones.  
 
For Brazil, the DDA remains the main reference, a view that translates in the centrality of 
development issues. At the same time, we are ready to discuss all topics on the table, on  their 
own merits, including the s o-called new issues. After the s ummer, we would be able to assess 
whether the package being discussed passes the test of balance and development -orientation. If it 
doesn 't pass the test, then we will draw the consequences.  
 
We suggest that this approach could provide us a common ground to start real consideration of the 
issues that have been proposed so far, without prejudging any outcome.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 69 - 
 
  Agriculture  
 
Agriculture is of paramount importance. We could  not agree more with th e point made by the 
delegate of Rwanda, on behalf of the African Group: the overall level of ambition in Buenos Aires 
will be determined by agriculture. We trust that the selection of Ambassador Karau as CoA -SS 
Chair will help to promote further real engag ement.  
 
Brazil will continue to focus primarily on domestic support, with special consideration for cotton. 
Our vision for Buenos Aires includes the goal of a concrete and feasible framework for continuous 
progress and commitments in this area. We are inte nsifying our work in order to submit concrete 
ideas.  
 
We also recognize that Public Stockholding  is a core issue.  
 
SPS 
 
Brazil is starting to hold informal consultations on a paper with ideas to reinforce core principles 
such as the science -based approach,  equivalence and regionalization recognition, and the use of 
good offices. We will consider next steps in light of reactions to the paper. In any case, SPS issues 
are an indispensable component of initiatives in the area of good regulatory practices.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Brazil remains committed to achieving a multilateral outcome in line with SDG 14.6. The situation 
of developing countries which are in a situation of under capacity and actually under exploit fishing 
resources must be taken into account.  
 
Services  
 
We should remain focused on elements of domestic regulation/ trade facilitation. While having 
specific concerns regarding the Indian proposal for a TFS agreement, Brazil considers it to be an 
important contribution.  
 
Investment Facilitation  
 
On the  related issue of investment facilitation, a topic of interest for Brazil, we support the goal of 
starting a dialogue. Together with Argentina, we circulated a document, which is meant to provide 
inputs for informal discussions.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
On e -commerce,  a topic in which we circulated three papers, it is important to take into 
consideration the concerns expressed by a number of Members. Therefore, a possible outcome for 
Buenos Aires could include three straightforward elements: (one) guidance from the Min isters on a 
possible way forward; (two) concrete recommendations and decisions on how the WTO could 
contribute to address the digital divide; and (three) specific trade facilitation measures on issues 
like e -signatures, for example.  
 
MSMEs  
 
We also highlig ht our interest in MSMEs.  
 
In conclusion, we repeat the message that we shared in the previous HoDs: we are not taking 
anything for granted.  
 
Managing expectations is crucial. Incremental results seem to be the best possible scenario. 
Others refer to an ev en more modest approach, seeing the Ministerial as an opportunity for 
"planting ", rather than "harvesting ". 
 
In any case, we continue to believe that it is our duty to remain engaged.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 70 - 
 
  20. Republic of Korea  
 
Given the uncertainty surrounding the future of the global trading system, we hope that Buenos 
Aires will be the place where the trade pendulum swings back in the right direction. In this respect, 
it is encouraging that global trade is picking up as demonstrated in the WTO Trade Statistics and 
Outlook publi shed last month.  
 
It is up to us to create a conducive environment to further strengthen the recent upswing in global 
trade. Such an opportunity in Buenos Aires should not be missed. The best way to make people 
around the world embrace the trade for their benefit is through concrete actions for further 
expansion of trade and development of sound trade rules, rather than through entreaties, however 
persuasive they may sound.  
 
As reported by the Negotiating Group Chairs, there have been activities in differen t areas with 
varying intensity. We have seen fresh proposals in various areas including in fisheries subsidies, 
trade remedies, services, e -commerce and investment facilitation. We are also aware of interests 
of some Members on NTBs.  
 
Yet, we do not see a clear path towards Buenos Aires. This lack of clarity, however, should not 
discourage us. We have to carry on to  ensure that the contours of MC 11 deliverables emerge 
sooner rather than later.  
 
We are aware of the concerns of many Members on some of the iss ues on the table, including 
services domestic regulation, e -commerce and investment. We believe that sharing best practices 
and exploring rules and principles in these areas will help us better take advantage of new 
opportunities that the current global ec onomy offers.  
 
Our goal is ensuring that all WTO Members make the best of trade opportunities for their 
prosperity. Restraining policy flexibility per se is not our purpose. In this spirit, we should be able 
to find ways to address specific concerns while  advancing our discussions.  
 
With this, we would like to offer our thoughts on some areas, namely Agriculture, Rules, E -
commerce, and Investment Facilitation.  
 
Agriculture  
 
First of all, we associate ourselves with the statement (to be) made by Indonesia o n behalf of the 
G-33. Agriculture will remain a gate way issue for the success of MC 11. We should deliver the 
mandate from Bali and Nairobi on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH). We 
should also secure meaningful outcomes in other areas inc luding SSM and Domestic Support.  
 
We all know where each Group or Member stands. Now is the time to discuss pragmatic and 
creative alternatives to bridge the long -standing gaps. New submissions made in this spirit would 
help advance our discussions. We lo ok forward to working together with the new Chairman of the 
COA-SS and other Members so that we can continue the long -term reform process that respects 
unique conditions and sensitivities of each and every Member.  
 
Rules  
 
Text proposals in the form of fish eries subsidies disciplines are on the table. Additional such 
proposals are expected. However, this intensity of activity has not been met with a commensurate 
degree of convergence. Gaps remain wide apart on key issues, in particular, the scope of 
prohibit ion and S&D treatment.  
 
We should remain conscious of the importance of this issue as a test for whether the WTO can 
make substantial contribution to achievement of SDGs. We should not let over -reaching ambition 
fail this test. We hope that pragmatism wil l guide us in identifying balanced disciplines that would 
allow sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources for all of us.  
 
We also appreciate China's recent proposal on trade remedies. We should give this proposal a fair 
chance of examination without  any presumption.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 71 - 
 
  E-Commerce  
 
Members have explored diverse trade -related dimensions of e -commerce at the relevant Councils 
and Committees. We hope that Members can build on these discussions to clarify the potential role 
of the WTO on e -commerce.  
 
In doi ng so, the development aspect of e -commerce should be fully reflected. We welcome all 
efforts in this regard, such as UNCTAD E -Commerce Week and mapping paper of the Friends of E -
Comm erce for Development (FEDs). MC 11 should give us more clarity, in the for m of an updated 
work program or fresh mandate, on the role of the WTO on this important topic for devel opment. 
We also hope that at MC 11 we will be able to deliver a set of practical steps to facilitate rapidly 
expanding e -commerce of today.  
 
Investment Fa cilitation  
 
MIKTA organized a workshop on trade and investment in March. The reflection note on this 
workshop was circulated in a WTO document (JOB/GC/121). We also welcome the proposal for an 
informal dialogue from the Friends of Investment Facilitation f or Development (FIFD), and the 
three communications by the Russian Federation, China, and Argentina and Brazil. We expect 
candid exchange of views on these submissions at the General Council this week.  
 
21. Mexico  
 
We are witnesses to a worrisome situation in which the functioning of trade policies aimed at 
openness is being questioned; previous agreements, the signing of which we take for granted, are 
being rejected; and the very foundations of the rules of the multilateral trading system are being 
called into  question.  
 
We therefore cannot assume that the agreements that were collectively reached in recent years 
will be guaranteed. As a result, the first step towards Buenos Aires must be to preserve the 
integrity of an open, rules -based, transparent and predic table multilateral system.  
 
This must be the objective that guides our path in the coming months. Our goal is, no doubt, to 
move from the abstract to the concrete, but what we must not lose sight of, in all the areas which 
are relevant to the smooth functi oning of this Organization, is the integrity of the system.  
 
There are various ways to achieve this, but none of them involve staying put and hoping that 
others will do the work or change their position. Now is the time to decide what we want to happen 
at the Eleventh Ministerial Conference in order to guarantee the sustainability of this  
Organization's work in the long -term.  
 
In the negotiating agenda, agriculture, the issue which, for the vast majority, should be prioritized 
in Buenos Aires and which undo ubtedly will be the catalyst for results in other areas, merits a brief 
discussion based on concrete proposals. We urge Members who have ideas to present them as 
soon as possible, as we are sure that the time has come to debate them.  
 
At the same time, we cannot be restrictive and make the rest of the agenda conditional on the 
achievement of immediate progress in agriculture; we must try to address all the issues in a 
comprehensive manner. The Membership must give itself the opportunity to discuss and make 
progress on other issues, with a view to developing other possible alternatives for consensus in 
areas in which our productive sectors require updated rules for 21st century challenges, such as 
fisheries subsidies, services and e -commerce, and for other is sues, such as investment and 
MSMEs, which at the very least deserve to be discussed in this Organization, given their 
obvious  link to investment and trade. With regard to e -commerce, we agree with the statement 
by Costa Rica with respect to Friends of E -commerce for Development.  
 
Lastly, in times such as these, we cannot afford to use procedures that undermine this 
Organization 's credibility and our ability to address the challenges presented to us by the 
international environment. Members must be up to suc h challenges, which is why we need to 
ensure that our work runs smoothly and that we do not get distracted from urgent matters.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 72 - 
 
  We acknowledge that the multilateral trading system can be improved and that there is work still 
ahead of us, in light of both traditional issues and new challenges that international trade and 
investment present for our societies. It is therefore crucial that this Organization develop a future 
vision of the Eleventh Ministerial Conference. Buenos Aires provides us, perhaps, with a unique 
opportunity, one which we might not have again for several years, to send a strong message that 
the WTO is stronger than ever and that we, its Members, are prepared to defend it and  to behave 
responsibly. Mexico certainly is.  
 
22. Russian Federation  
 
We welcome wholeheartedly recent consensus reached on the slate of chairpersons of the WTO 
bodies, including Committees on Agriculture and Dispute Settlement in their Special Sessions. 
Discussions have intensified in many negotiating groups, and several po sition papers have been 
put forward.  
  
However, we bear in mind that MC 11 will take place in exactly 7 months from now. Time is 
running out inexorably fast. We believe we have to do our utmost in order to prepare a meaningful 
package for the MC 11 and agree  on it before we leave to Buenos Aires. I reiterate that it is our 
task to ensure that the rules -based multilateral trading system responds adequately to the 
challenges of the global economic environment to provide predictability and security.  
 
As I have s aid before, the agricultural track is an extremely important part of the negotiations for 
the Russian Federation. In domestic support, we would welcome a solution that puts agricultural 
producers on an equal footing. Russia believes that key agricultural p layers should make necessary 
steps to reduce trade -distorting domestic support. We hope that under able leadership of 
Ambassador Karau negotiations in this area will be aimed at bringing the level of commitments of 
original Members to the level of those th at acceded under Article XII of the WTO Agreement.  
 
We are in favor of elimination of the existing provisions on SSG. In our opinion, current provisions 
do not reflect our common goals of liberalizing trade and avoiding creation of new trade barriers.  
 
Let me stress the importance of Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, as mandated by 
our Ministers in Nairobi. In our view, any permanent solution should address food security 
concerns of all the membership.  
 
In Rules, Russia welcomes developments i n anti -dumping and countervailing issues. We welcome 
the document submitted by China on trade remedies. We also note the proposals on fisheries 
subsidies that were put forward, and will participate in future discussions.  
 
We are open to substantive discuss ions on new issues, such as e -commerce and investment. 
Russia has tabled a proposal on investment facilitation, and we are looking forward to discuss this 
issue further at various formats.  
 
We welcome the practical work on p aragraph 28 of the Nairobi Decla ration on systemic 
implications of Regional Trade Agreements for the multilateral trading system and their 
relationship with WTO rules. We are looking forward to continue this dialogue under the leadership 
of the new Chairman of the RTA Committee.  
 
We rema in positive in our assessment of revitalizing the Dispute Settlement review process. We 
hope that it will remain active after the new Chairman assumes his duties. With a view to facilitate 
convergence, Russia has tabled its first textual proposal on this n egotiation track. We remain 
committed to work constructively with all the delegations for p ositive deliverables towards MC 11. 
  
To conclude, let me underline that the coming weeks and months before the summer break will be 
crucial for the success of our wo rk. The Russian Federation will continue to play an active role in 
the negotiations and would welcome the efforts of other Members promoting issues in their own 
merit and aimed at ensuring that Buenos Aires Ministerial is a success.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 73 - 
 
  23. Hong Kong, China  
 
As I listened carefully to your report and those of the Chairs, I was thinking how Members of the 
WTO, notwithstanding our different interests and priorities, could collectively take the negotiations 
forward and, more specifically, how HKC could contribute.  
 
Services  
 
HKC is a well -known demandeur in Services, in particular in domestic regulations disciplines . For 
many years we have been working to fulfil the mandate of Art.VI.4 of the GATS . We certainly want 
an outcome at MC11.  
 
Building blocks have emerged, c overing the administration of measures, transparency, technical 
standards and the development of measures . HKC as one of the proponents is heartened to see 
the broad engagement and the increasing momentum at the WPDR . If Members manage to put 
together a co mprehensive proposal before the summer break, we should have a good chance to 
succeed . This is what we will be driving at in the coming months . We also stand ready for market 
access negotiations if Members are interested.  
 
Rules  
 
Another area clearly gaini ng traction is fisheries subsidies.  
 
HKC is not in the driving seat there, but we have been watching closely the development . Like 
many Members, we are concerned about the depleting fisheries resources, and see a need to 
address this issue by clarifying an d improving WTO disciplines.  
 
It is encouraging to see textual proposals coming up, and to have Ambassador McCook, Chair of  
the Negotiating Group on Rules,  leading a systematic, transparent and inclusive process at the 
Negotiating Group . We need this not o nly for fisheries, but also for trade remedies where better 
rules can more effectively guard against the abusive use of anti -dumping and other measures . We 
hope the upcoming discussions will help Members find common grounds soon.  
 
NAMA  
 
HKC also has ambiti on in NAMA . We understand that, realistically, there aren 't many options for a 
NAMA outcome at MC11, but we remain hopeful that action can be taken to tackle non -tariff 
barriers, because they are posing major hurdles to our businesses, in particular SMEs . We need 
rules and practices that are more transparent and predictable for them to thrive.  
 
Agriculture  
 
We appreciate that, for many Members, Agriculture is a gateway issue and having concrete 
deliverables there is a must . In the coming months, we can expe ct negotiations to speed up and 
intensify . This ought to be the case for Agriculture, as in other areas . HKC believes that the 
various negotiations should progress in parallel to maximise the benefits of the deal.  
 
E-commerce and Investment Facilitation  
 
Regarding E -commerce and Investment Facilitation, HKC has interest in both, not only because 
they are already an indispensable part of global trade, but also because they are very relevant to 
key areas of WTO work such as Services and Development.  
 
Given th ese links, and Members ' increasing interest and heightened activities in these areas, HKC 
believes that the prospect of such interest being sustained by a deeper, albeit exploratory or 
informal, dialogue in t he WTO should not be dismissed.  
 
There is no lac k of potential deliverables at MC11, but the WTO is not working in a favourable 
economic and political climate, and we do not have a lot of time . If we want to deliver, we need 
not only Members to propose, but also Members to engage; we need to harness pol itical strengths, 
not to frustrate, but to facilitate the process.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 74 - 
 
  Between now and MC11, HKC will stay focussed, driving our own proposals and supporting others . 
As a strong advocate of the multilateral trading system, HKC cares about systemic interest as  
much as we care about our own . You can count on us to be a constructive player, a consensus 
builder and an honest broker.  
 
24. Pakistan  
 
WTO reports show a serious slowdown in international trade, which in 2016 only grew by1.2%. 
This contrasts with global eco nomic growth of 2.2% for the same period, which is the lowest 
registered level since 2009.  
 
This slowdown is worrisome because it has serious implications for employment and economic 
development, particularly in developing countries.  
 
Although WTO projecti ons for 2017, signal some improvement in economic activity, such growth 
may be affected by the global political uncertainty and financial vulnerability that threatens 
markets.  
 
Furthermore, over the last decade, international trade has seen a sustained inc rease in non ‐ tariffs 
barriers. We are faced with the challenge of eliminating distortions and obstacles that affect the 
trade exchanges, especially among developing and least developed countries.  
 
We have been following your advocacy and defense of Trade as a proven tool for development and 
poverty alleviation, you have been most v ocal in highlighting the fact that barriers and 
protectionism will further complicate the situation rather than resolving it. We appreciate your 
efforts.  
 
In present times multilateral appro ach becomes even more important, WTO is corner stone of 
global economy, which has worked for benefit of our people.  
 
The m essage that we have to give at Buenos Aires is that together we will build a stable, common 
prosperous future.  
 
For us, Agriculture is  of paramount importance, with 93% of our farmers being subsistence 
farmers, an outcome in form of substantial reduction of trade distorting domestic 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 member s, to discuss, develop and bring 
forward credible and tangible options for reducing trade distorting domestic support in agriculture .  
 
Pakistan is committed to the mandate of our Ministers to discuss all the three pillars of Agriculture 
Negotiations inclu ding Public Stock Holding. We are aware that, Stockholding plays an important 
role especially in countries with high population. It is important for emergencies, natural calamities 
or during high international prices. Welfare aspect of food security is und eniable. Howeve r 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, and does not adversely impact export markets. A sustainable 
permanent solution on Public Stockh olding has to work for everyone.  
 
Fisheries sector 's plays a critical role in poverty eradication, employment generation and 
sustainability of natural habitat in our  coastal areas. Paki stan has a coast line of 1100  km, 
effective implementation of SDG  commitments will ensure  socio-economic wellbeing of the poor 
coastal communities.  We have to demonstrate some concrete steps to fulfill our commitment to 
goal 14.6 of SDG s that requires prohibiting by 2020 those fisheries subsidies that threaten 
sustainability of fish stocks. We are carefully looking at all the proposals and ready to work with 
the membership for a balanced outcome.  
 
Pakistan is open to discussions on Marke t Access for Industrial products including tariff peaks, 
tariff escalation and non -tariff barriers. Non -tariff measures (NTMs) are of particular concern to 
exporters in developing countries, as they are a major impediment to international trade and can 
prevent market access.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 75 - 
 
  The importance of services for growth, development and connectivity is critical.  
 
The interest exhibited by Members in Services negotiations is very positive development. We are 
very supportive of efforts of members and Amb assador  Cima in the services track. We will 
constructively engage with all the s ervices proposals on the table.  
 
Micro, small and medium -sized enterprises are responsible for the bulk of job creation, economic 
dynamism and innovation. But most times they do not partici pate in trade and in the global 
economy to a level that matches their potential. Alt hough these young, dynamic MSMEs  are 
engine s of growth and innovation, it is estimated that about 20 % of new SMEs go out of business 
after their first year, and that over 5 0% eventually wind up after five years. We have to support 
these MSMEs in fully integrating into global trade. We ne ed to prioritize needs of MSMEs,  in all 
streams of our work.  
 
MSMEs  and E -Commerce are inextricably linked.  
 
We had E -Commerce week, at UNCT AD recently, this was third Ecommerce week organized by 
UNCTAD. Colleagues, 60 Participants registered for first one, 300 participated in second one, the 
one held last month saw participation by more than 1000 representatives, from governments, 
private sec tor, international organization and civil society, debating Ecommerce.  
 
Chair, in our view one ke y lesson from Ecommerce week is listening to the needs of your 
constituents and institutional relevance. If WTO as a premier institution responsible for Trade has 
to remain relevant for our constituents, especially private sector, we have to address Ecommerce 
at MC 11 in a meaningful and futuristic manner. We welcome contributions made by members on 
ecommerce and will constructively engage with them. Chair, it is  our view and experience that, 
done right, key beneficiary of e -commerce will be LDCs and developing countries  
 
In our view facilitating investment is crucial for the post -2015 development agenda. UNCTAD' s 
Global Action Menu for Investment Facilitation alr eady provides policy options to improve 
transparency and information available to investors, ensure efficient and effective administrative 
procedures, and enhance predictability of the policy environment, among others. We would like 
members to explore how the WTO could contribute to facilitating cross -border investment, with the 
ultimate aim of promoting more inclusive trade and growth for its Members, especially developing 
and least -developed Members.  
 
The vital link between trade and development is enshri ned 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 essential for an 
inclusive rules -based Multilateral Trading System . Ultimate aim of trade policy and trade rules  
must be poverty reduction, growth, welfare and development that work for all members of the 
global economy.  
 
25. Switzerland  
 
The Buenos Aires Conference is approaching fast and there is little time left to make the necessary 
preparations. The Conference will  take place at a time when trade and globalization have come 
under fire from different quarters.  
 
Globalization and technological change are indeed posing new challenges for which adequate 
responses are often not readily avail able. But as the Director -General has  been stressing on 
multiple occasions, protectionism cannot be the answer.  
 
The Nairobi Ministerial Conference ended with directions for our work that should be followed, 
particularly where guidance is as specific as for Public S tockholding .  
 
We a lso recognize the relevance of other outstanding Doha issues, including in agriculture, but 
wish to reiterate the importance of a much better balance in future outcomes than at MC10.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 76 - 
 
  At the same time, the multilateral system needs to remain open and respo nsive to changes in the 
global economy and promote a more sustainable world as envisaged by Agenda 2030.  
 
Here, we would like to stress the importance of bringing the work on fisheries subsidies to fruition.  
 
We also appreciate initiatives by Members aime d at also exploring and deepening the 
understanding of topics that may fall outside of existing negotiating mandates, such as e -
commerce and investment.  
 
We furthermore are supportive of proposals aiming at reducing transaction costs for MSMEs, in 
particul ar the cost of accessing information on trade regulations in foreign markets.  
 
Much useful thinking and written material has already come to formal and informal tables since 
last year, both on Doha and on other themes, and we understand that more is on it s way.  
 
For MC11, we should aim at demonstrating the utility of the WTO for Members, their workers and 
businesses through fresh concrete outcomes and work streams for the future.  
 
For now, let us advance work where there is interest and momentum, and move  to framing 
potential deliverables for MC11.  
 
We also hold that, for the time being, topics should be discussed openly on the basis of their own 
merits. Achieving an overall balance is a question that should be addressed in the autumn .    
 
26. Indo nesia (G -33) 
 
We understand that time is very short as we are now only months away from Buenos Aires. We 
have to redouble our efforts and to intensify our works immediately if we are really to deliver 
credible and dev elopment -oriented outcome at MC 11.   
 
While welcomi ng various proposals that have been put forward by Members to move overall 
negotiations forward, we must keep in mind the specific mandates agreed by our Ministers in 
Nairobi to continue the negotiations on the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purpose s (PSH) 
and the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developing countries through the dedicated 
sessions. Since both issues are Nairobi priorities, the Group firmly believes these issues shall be 
taken forward in a dedicated expeditious manner  to having t hem harvested by MC 11. 
 
A permanent solution for the PSH and an accessible and effective SSM are important tools needed 
by the developing Members, SVEs and LDCs for sustaining investments in agriculture for food 
security, livelihood security and rural deve lopment, as well as addressing the destabilizing and 
crippling effects of import surges and downward price swings in the increasingly volatile global 
agricultural markets largely due to huge subsidies in productions and exports by developed 
Members .  
 
The Group is willing to work closely with the Director -General  and all Members to best use of the 
remaining time to continue the discussions on both issues with the sense of urgency. As shown in 
the past, the Group stands ready to constructively engage in the discussions and to consider any 
reasonable, warranted, credible and solution -finding ideas that are consistent with existing 
mandates since Doha.  
 
The Group also wishes to reiterate that it will continue to pursue the special products (SP) for 
developing Members should discussions on tariff reduction in the market access pillar be taken up.  
 
27. Indonesia  
 
First of all, Indonesia would like to associate itself to the statement made by the delegation of 
Philippines on behalf of the ASEAN Member States . 
 
Indone sia fir mly believes that it is of Members'  interests to deliver credible, tangible and balanced 
outcomes in Buenos Aires. In this regard, my delegation wishes to reiterate that our negotiations 
shall continue to be guided by the centrality of development, as clearly mandated by the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 77 - 
 
  As the Buenos Aires is only months away, while welcoming any proposals to advance the 
negotiations on the remaining Doha issues, my delegation is of the view that Members need to 
focus on issues,  which will deliver development benefits to the whole Membership and have 
potentials to be agreed in Buenos Aires. Taking those into consideration, Indonesia believes that 
the discipline on Fishery Subsidy and Domestic Regulation may become deliverables in  Buenos 
Aires.  
 
In moving the negotiations forward, however, Indonesia wishes to reiterate that special and 
differential treatments for developing and LDCs Members, shall be an integral part of any discipline 
that we are going to agree.  
 
Finally, Indones ia stands ready to closely work with the Director -General  and all Members  to 
deliver credible and development -centered outcomes in Buenos Aires .  
 
28. Mali (C -4) 
 
The C -4 said that the spirit of transparency and inclusion prevailed throughout this process and 
fully supports the statement made by Rwanda on behalf of the African Group, by Cambodia on 
behalf of the LDC and by Guyana on behalf of the ACP group.  
 
The sectorial initiative for cotton, since its launch in 2003 until MC10 in Nairobi in December 2015, 
has enable to ask to put cotton in top position in the agenda of the WTO negotiations, and we are 
pleased about it.  
 
However, we need to acknowledge that despite the reaffirmed and renewed engagement of 
Members to find a fair solution to the emblematic pro blem of the African Cotton, as announced in 
the various decisions and statements of the previous Ministerial Conferences, the results are not 
enough for our ambitions.  
 
In fact, the third pillar of the negotiations - domestic support – remains a Gordian K not despite the 
recognition by Members that further efforts need to be made and transparency measures that 
have been announced cannot replace the fulfilment of the targets we set which are to eliminate 
domestic support, as established in the paragraph 8 of  the Ministerial Decision in WT/MIN(15)/46 
and WT/L/981 of 21 December 2015 on Cotton.  
 
The Fifth Ministerial meeting of the C -4 has just been held in Cotonou on 18 to 21 April after which 
Ministers have instructed us to engage in an active phase of negoti ations with the specific tangible 
projects to come up with a fair and appropriate solution to the issue of Cotton in line with our 
ambitions.  
 
This statement from Cotonou which sanctions this work, which will be circulated to Members, 
reaffirms the two ma in objectives, which are:  
 
- The follow up to the implementation of the achievement in the various Ministerial Decisions 
adopted.  
 
-  The conclusion of the negotiated, equitable and balanced solution to domestic support and 
other forms of support and tra de distorting measures, a pillar which has not yet seen any 
binding agreement.  
  
The C -4 intends to follow the discussions agreed at MC10 in different formats – bilaterally and 
quadrilaterally at the WTO.  
 
Based on consensus and the need to record progre ss on issues surrounding domestic support, for 
MC11, the C -4 would like to call upon Members to work constructively and to invite them to work 
and to make tangible efforts in order to come up with substantive results at MC11.  
 
The C -4 on its part renews t he willingness to participate in any discussion proposed on the basis of 
textual negotiations. On this area, the C -4 is planning in the next few days to submit a draft 
negotiating text on the issue of domestic support for a negotiated and fair solution for  all in our 
path towards MC11 in Buenos Aires in December 2017.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 78 - 
 
  The search for substantial results for domestic support remains our priority.  
 
Despite the uncertainty that prevails in the international environment and the impact on 
multilateral trading negotiations, the C -4 urges Members to provide an appropriate follow up to the 
different mandates on cotton within the third pillar of the negotiations and on domestic support. 
The credibility of the multilateral trading system rests on this.  
 
We remain c onvinced that trade is important in order to combat poverty and achieve sustainable 
growth, particularly for African countries that produce and export cotton, and for other developing 
countries or LDCs in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean for whom we n eed a better strategy for 
their inclusion and integration into the multilateral trading system.  
 
As noted before, the relevance of the outcomes we achieve in Buenos Aires will prove that our 
organization is a genuine tool that is at service to all Members . 
 
29. Bangladesh  
 
We associate ourselves with the s tatement of Cambodia made on behalf of LDCs. In my view, it is 
a timely one since we are moving towards MC11. We need to have sufficient time to  discuss issues 
of importance to most M embers. As you may recall , during Nairobi we all expressed our 
commitment to work on the remaining DDA issues. However, what we observe is that there is little 
movement in any of the remaining DDA issues.  Rather, we have observed that M embers have 
proposed to discuss the issues wh ich are outside the DDA.  
 
In our view, our way forward should be to first focus on our unfinished age nda. In this regard, we 
like to  raise several  issues which need ed to be discuss ed before the summer break so that we can 
take a decision on further action after the summer break.  
 
First, we have taken a landmark decision on  the Rules of O rigin. Accordingly, we have agreed on a 
template for the notification and methodology for calculating the utilization rates of preferences 
LDCs are receiving. However, no no tification has been made so far on the implementation of the 
Nairobi decision. We expect that M embers granting DFQF market access to LDC will submit 
notifications on their implementation so that we can have fruitful discussions in October.  
 
Second,  in Sept ember 2015 we have agreed to have a clinical examination on the implementation 
of the Hong Kong Ministerial decision on DFQF market access for LDCs by the Secretariat. It is yet 
to be done because of disagreement on p arameters of the study. We the LDCs  revised our 
submissions in or der to take into consideration the observations of M embers. We sincerely hope 
that Members are ready now to accept the parameters proposed by LDCs.  
 
Third,  we need to initiate the process of review and operation of  the notified pr eferences which has 
been agreed upon in Nairobi and has not yet started.  
 
On the remaining DDA issues, we  like to bring to M embers ' attention the  following issues:  
 
Development  
 
It was very unfortunate that we could not reach any agreement on S&DT during N airobi. We need 
to finish this work. We are going to make our submission taking into consideration the comments 
received before and during the Nairobi Ministerial  Conference . We hope that constructive 
discussions on our proposal will bring fruitful result s. 
  
Rules  
 
We are having discussion s only on fisheries subsidies. We understand the importance of 
addressing the fisheries subsidies in line with the SDG 14.6. However, it is important to address 
the concerns of small scale fishing and undeveloped reporti ng system of developing countries in 
particular the LDCs.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 79 - 
 
  SSM and Public Stockholding  
 
For us, it is very important that we have an outcome on SSM in agri culture in order to protect our 
farmers from  unforeseen import surge. We would also  like to see a per manent solution on public 
stockholding for food security purposes.  
 
Other Issues outside the DDA  
 
We have observed that no discussion is taking place on the issues identified in the work 
programme on e -commerce although our Ministers have reinvigorated the  work programme during 
Nairobi. We need to have extensive discussion s on the core issues of e -commerce as identified in 
the work programme if we want to have constructive discussions on the necessity of having trade 
rules on e -commerce. If we can have exte nsive discussions on those issues, it will help our capital 
to deliberate on fu ture courses of action. Regarding the recent initiative on investment facilitation, 
we need more time to reflect on this.  
 
Before concluding, I would like to assure you that my  delegation is ready to engage constructively 
in discussions on any issues with a view to having a fruitful outcome at MC11.  
 
30. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We have seen many proposals and meetings in recent months, which, in the opinion of our 
delegatio n, have been very useful in providing a better understanding of Members ' positions on a 
range of issues.  
 
We are nevertheless greatly concerned that, with the Ministerial only a few months away, efforts 
are being diverted to issues on which there is no neg otiating mandate or to proposals which 
overstep the existing mandate, putting what we should really be focusing on the back burner.  
 
In light of the above, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considers it necessary to remind 
Members that the path that we are following is not line with the instructions received from our 
Ministers in Nairobi.  
 
Reaffirmation of the Doha Development mandate should serve as a starting point for all progress 
in our work, as was recognized by our Ministers in paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration.  
 
Any discussion of new issues should not be at the expense of the Doha Development Round. The 
dichotomy described in paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration is, no doubt, slowing down our 
efforts in view of the Ministerial in Buenos Ai res. 
 
The Doha Development Agenda is still unfinished business for this Organization. Therefore, 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, particul arly developing country Members. Instead 
of focusing on new issues, this Organization needs to translate the commitments already 
undertaken in Doha into concrete facts.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agricultural reform is the priority of the DDA. We are concerned that agr icultural issues are at a 
disadvantage in comparison to other issues. We therefore welcome the recent appointment of 
Ambassador Karau as Chair of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture. We are sure 
that under his leadership, the issue will be brought to the forefront, as it should.  
 
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.  
 
As a member of the G -33, we  trust that a special safeguard mechanism can be agreed irrespective 
of the market access negotiations, in which new commitments cannot be undertaken until the 
existing trade distortions have been corrected.  
 
With regard to public stocking for food securit y purposes, we call for an outcome that goes beyond 
the peace clause, for the expansion of the programme to new programmes and for more products WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 80 - 
 
  for all the developing countries. On the basis of the development dimension, which should guide 
our decisions, we need to find a permanent solution that benefits all the developing country 
Members, regardless of whether or not the food stock programmes are being implemented or the 
right to use these programmes is conditional.  
 
We do not agree with limiting the poli tical space of developing countries in the domestic support 
discussions. Developing countries need to invest more in agriculture and therefore need to protect 
their political spaces. Revision 4 of the text on agricultural modalities contains issues relatin g to 
development on which significant progress has already been made, such as domestic support. In 
fact, many of these issues have already been stabilized.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
As to the issue of fisheries subsidies, we recognize the valuable exchange of ideas that has been 
taking place. Our country is committed to this exercise as long as disciplines primarily focus on 
subsidies provided to large scale commercial or industrial fishing and subsidies to fishing activities 
outside of Members ' maritime jurisd ictions. However, while we recognize that we are making 
progress at a decent pace, we believe that there are many issues that require further examination 
and which, due to their strategic nature, should not be rushed.  
 
Services  
 
We reiterate that Venezuela  is not demanding domestic regulation. We believe that this issue 
places an additional burden on developing countries and might undermine the political spaces 
necessary for development policies. We therefore believe that in order to make headway on this 
issue, we need to incorporate safeguard and special and differential treatment elements. As to the 
services facilitation proposal, we believe that it oversteps the existing mandate.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
We also believe that the proposals overstep the existing mandat e. As to investment facilitation, 
there is no balance between the Doha Round areas of negotiation, as set out paragraphs 30 and 
31 of the Nairobi Declaration.  
 
I would like to reiterate  the commitment of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the multilat eral 
trading system, which is the most appropriate way to correct, in a concerted manner, the existing 
imbalances in world markets so that trade can truly be an instrument for the development of all 
peoples. We are therefore prepared to work tirelessly to achieve what is viable for the Ministerial in 
Buenos Aires, with development as our objective, the existing mandates as our tool and balance 
and transparency as our procedure, in a rational and objective manner, bearing in mind the 
difference between expec tations and reality, to which we referred at the last meeting.  
 
31. Zimbabwe  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statements made by African, ACP, C4 and G33 groups.  
 
Time is not on our side and there is still a lot to be done before MC11. We therefore ne ed to start 
engaging constructively and work towards completion of our negotiations here in Geneva.  
 
We would like to underscore and reiterate that we need to work in line with the mandate from the 
Nairobi Ministerial Conference and prioritise the remainin g issues of the DDA. Our main concern is 
that there is no balance between work on the DDA issues of interest to us specifically, agriculture 
and other areas of work and this needs to be redressed in order to have commercially meaningful 
and balanced outcom es at MC11.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture should set the level of ambition of our work. We need to address the imbalances in the 
Agreement on Agriculture. To this end, there should be a substantial reduction in trade distorting 
domestic support, including cot ton. 
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 81 - 
 
  In line with the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial mandates we should work towards an outcome on a 
permanent solution on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. Effective and simple to use 
Special Safeguard Measures to protect our farmers against import surges are long overdue. We 
therefore need to work on the basis of the G33 proposal and bring up constructive ideas on what 
type of safeguards we can accommodate and thus move the process forward.  
 
Development  
 
Development should remain central to  all outcomes of the negotiations. Furthermore, the outcome 
on Special and Differential Treatment proposals should fulfil the mandate in paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Declaration as well as promote our industrialization strategies.  
 
E-Commerce and Digital Trade  
 
We embrace developments in this area as this is our future industrial revolution and we welcome 
discussions on this based on the current mandate, noting that we do not have any mandate on e -
commerce rules.  
 
Rules on e -commerce will impinge on our policy space to industrialize, including future efforts to 
digitally industrialize. Our delegation is not e -commerce ready because of the digital divide 
resulting from the knowledge gap, inadequate connectivity, lack of infrastructure, electricity and 
appropriate  legislation. There is still much for us to learn and understand about e -commerce and 
digital trade.  
 
It is therefore logical, that we continue with our work under the work program on e -commerce and 
seek ways to bridge this divide in order to give develop ing countries the opportunity to participate 
and benefit from the fast developing digital trade and internet of things.  
 
Domestic Regulation  
 
We are not demandeurs of this and we are concerned that the proposals on the table go beyond 
the GATS mandate and  the scope of WTO work, and will also intrude into our domestic processes. 
Some of the proposals are not practical and will also result in burdensome transparency obligations 
for our country.  
 
MSMEs and Investment Facilitation  
 
We are not supportive of thi s because these are new issues. In this regard, we recall paragraph 34 
of the Nairobi Ministerial Conference which calls for consensus for rule -making of such issues. We 
therefore do not have any mandate to discuss these issues. Investment is a Singapore i ssue which 
cannot be discussed before the DDA is concluded, in line with paragraph 1g of the 2004 July 
Framework. Furthermore, we do not understand the objective or the problems to be addressed by 
such rules.  
 
Zimbabwe reaffirms its commitments to engage c onstructively in all areas of our work as we move 
towards MC11 and implore others to do so in order to achieve balanced outcomes.  
 
32. Solomon Islands  
 
This statement is in support of the Statements made by the LDC and the ACP Group s. 
 
Solomon Islands is an LD C and looks forward to achieving meaningful outcomes at the Eleventh 
Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires in December. In this regard, meaningful outcomes would 
only be achieved if development is an integral part of these outcomes .  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Solomon Islands underlines the critical importance of the fisheries sector to its economy, to its 
livelihood security  and sustainable development. Solomon Islands therefore supports a multilateral 
outcome on fisheries subsidies, which should not be linked  to other pillars in the Rules negotiations 
and welcomes the intensification of discussions in the NGR . An outcome on fisheries subsidies 
should address subsidies to IUU and overfished stocks as a priority . Beyond these two, disciplines WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 82 - 
 
  on subsidies to ove rcapacity and overfishing should provide for appropriate and effective special 
and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries which should be an integral 
part of any agreement reached on fisheries subsidies, as required by the Doha  (2001 and Hong 
Kong (2006) mandates and the SDG 14.6 (2015) . Effective S&D for Solomon Islands would mean 
providing for the required policy space to small island LDCs to develop its fisheries sector, 
appropriate transition periods and technical assistance  and capacity building.  
 
Development  
 
Solomon Islands supports effective flexibilities in the WTO rules to strengthen its trade capacity, 
and support its economic diversification and transformation .  
 
MC11 is only 7 months away and as we advance the prepar ations for MC11 in the remaining 
months, Solomon Islands would like to stress the importance of ensuring a transparent and 
inclusive process that enables small LDCs to participate actively.  
 
33. Tunisia  
 
We cannot but acknowledge the slow pace of the negotiat ions and the absence of any clear 
guidelines as regards their content, with the Buenos Aires Conference only a few months off. We 
have to recognize that this is partly due to the enormous challenges facing our countries, in 
particular the developing countr ies, in building up our trade and generating the expected growth.  
 
Tunisia has always advocated a fair and balanced outcome of the trade negotiations, an outcome 
that meets the aspirations of all Members while focusing particularly on the development 
dimension and ensurin g that the developing countries  in particular the LDCs are not marginalized.  
 
We continue to assess the results of all trade negotiations on the basis of the real opportunities 
they provide for developing countries to benefit from the mult ilateral trading system.  
 
Having said this, we see no reason why we shouldn 't be capable of achieving significant results at 
the next Ministerial Conference in areas where conditions could be favourable, such as domestic 
support in agriculture, and above a ll, fisheries subsidies.  
 
Agriculture  
 
As regards reviving the agriculture negotiations, and domestic support, we believe that net food -
importing developing countries and LDCs need to be exempted from any commitment to reduce 
their AMS. We would also like  to see greater attention given to the net food -importing developing 
countries and LDCs and to ensure that they receive the treatment they need to develop modalities 
that take account of their specificity. This is in line with paragraph 25 of the Nairobi D eclaration.  
 
NAMA  
 
We believe that it is essential to maintain adequate flexibilities for the developing countries, which 
means that less -than-full reciprocity and the thorny issue of tariff preference erosion need to be 
dealt with properly during our future work and consultations. It is vital that nothing should affect 
the policy space that a number of developing countries have when formulating and implementing 
their economic and social development policies, particularly in the case of infant industries.  
 
Services  
 
We are in favour of progressive liberalization in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 
WTO Agreement on Trade in Services, as well as the granting of appropriate flexibilities to 
developing countries, taking into account the sectors o f export interest to those countries.  
 
Rules  
 
We support the acceleration of negotiations aimed at prohibiting certain forms of fisheries 
subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. At the same time, it is crucial to grant 
appropriate specia l and differential treatment that takes account of the major importance of the 
fisheries sector for the developing countries in terms of job creation and food security.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 83 - 
 
  Finally, let me make it clear that we continue to stress the need to preserve the WTO a s an 
international organization that upholds multilateralism and ensures the promotion of trade in the 
interest of all, without marginalizing any category of country. We hope that the negotiations 
leading up to MC11 will continue in that spirit.  
 
Let me en d my statement by endorsing the statement made by Rwanda on behalf of the 
African  Group.  
 
34. Paraguay  
 
Since Nairobi, my delegation has been active in various negotiating areas with an  open, realistic 
and constructive approach, because Paraguay has great int erest in strengthening the multilateral 
system, especially its negotiating pillar.  
  
Regarding our way forward to Buenos Aires, we support the intensification of work on specific 
issues that will constitute the final package. In this package, we hope to fi nd topics requiring a 
final decision in Buenos Aires, but we also should use this Ministerial as a platform from where we 
could take an updated and enhanced WTO agenda, with incremental progress on new issues.  
 
We must keep delivering outcomes and strength en the commitments to pursue reforms in 
agriculture. This pillar continues lagging in term of trade liberalization. The treatment of 
agricultural products in Members ' schedules have big imbalances comparing to industrial goods, 
imbalances between Members, and even a single Member schedule may include a wide range of 
protection. A lot of overhang exists in relation to apply policies.  
 
A correct framework f or delivering steps and for continuing  our work in the future must be agreed 
in the Buenos Aires Ministe rial. We will continue our contribution for outcomes in market access, 
domestic support and other issues in the agenda of agriculture. We believe we may advance, and 
there is scope to agreed reforms in domestic support, to achieve some improvement regardin g 
tariff simplification, peaks and escalation. We want certainty that the reforms in Market Access, 
domestic support will continue after Buenos Aires.   
 
In e-commerce, Paraguay is interested in having a more substantive result than in previous 
occasions. W e've been having more dynamic debates within the framework of the Work 
Programme and this is much welcome. Paraguay will continue to support this subject with the 
submission of new documents before the summer break.  
  
We have cosponsored a document to stre ngthen dialogues on Micro, Small, medium enterprises 
that will be addressed in the next General Council. As it is stated in the document, the initiative 
may help MSME to engage more in export and import activities by addressing issues related to 
insufficie nt access to information; technical regulations; high transportation/shipping and other 
costs related to logistics; limited access to trade finance; digital connectivity and technological 
development.  
 
We are also supportive of the idea that the WTO should  play a role in investment. One of the key 
message we took from the MIKTA seminar is that "trade is investment and investment is trade ". 
MERCOSUR Members adopted recently in Buenos Aires a Protocol of Cooperation in Investment 
Facilitation. We hope to repl icate this in the WTO context at the end of the year.  
 
We are aware of possible progress on services, fisheries subsidies, cotton, sanitary and 
phytosanitary issues, LDC priorities, among other things. We have a positive and constructive 
approach on these areas and hope that they will also contribute to reinforce and update the WTO 
agenda, which is a healthy sign vis -à-vis the international trade community.  
 
35. Fiji 
 
Fiji wishes to reiterate its commitment towards the WTO's multilateral trading system. As the 
membership is working towards outcomes for MC 11, Fiji wishes to join other Members in 
supporting that the conclusion of existing Doha issues, including Agriculture, Fisheries and Special 
and Differential Treatment, prior to others. Development outcomes hav e to be at the centre of 
these negotiations.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 84 - 
 
  In addition, Fiji also wishes to underscore para . 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial declaration and that 
any decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on new issues would need to be agreed by all 
Members.  
 
Fiji remains committed to engaging with Members on existing Doha issues under the multilateral 
format and will contribute constructively towards development -friendly outcomes for MC11.  
 
36. South Africa  
 
We associate ourselves with  the statement s made by Rwanda f or the African Group and by Guyana 
for the ACP.  
 
We will make three sets of brief comments. First, we are fast approaching the time when Members 
will have to make a serious assessment of what, if anything can be delivered at MC11. Although 
we have seen an  intensification of discussion on a range of issues, the essential difficulties that 
have plagued our negotiations have not disappeared. In fact, in some respects, the prospect for 
delivering outcomes at MC11 is becoming more difficult: Time is not on our side.  
 
Second,  as we have said previously, divergences amongst Members remain in respect to the 
negotiating mandate: Many of us reaffirm the Doha development mandate and others, who call for 
new approaches, have not yet proposed any agreed alternative. Th e notion of an 'incremental 
approach ' to advance negotiations does not itself offer a way out, as that does not constitute an 
agreed mandate.  
 
Indeed, while there are many issues on the table with different degrees of support, it is also very 
clear that t here is no unanimity on any. Members have different priorities and sensitivities, and 
they draw linkages in different ways. With respect to non -Doha issues proposed by some, the 
situation is no different. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see a consen sus emerging amongst 
Members to even discuss any new issue, so long as we are unable to discern meaningful advances 
on longstanding issues of core interest, notably in agriculture .   
 
Third,  as we have indicated, South Africa is prepared to continue to exa mine e -commerce in the 
WTO within the existing non -negotiating mandate. Many of us are only starting to assess the 
profound changes and disruptive implications of the digital and technological transformation now 
underway. E -commerce is integral to this wid er transformation and is evolving rapidly - but 
unevenly. Data shows a high concentration amongst a few economies, a persistence of the deep 
and wide 'digital divide ', and that countries and firms are at very different degrees of e -commerce 
readiness. We n eed a shared understanding of the full range of measures that are required to 
spread e -commerce capabilities more evenly and to ensure greater inclusivity and equity. Until 
then, talk of multilateral rule making would be entirely premature.  
 
We conclude w here we started.  Members will very soon have to seriously consider what can 
realistically be delivered at MC11 both in terms of issues and levels of ambition. All this must be 
undertaken in a process that is transparent and inclusive and that takes all Mem bers' interests, 
capabilities and sensitivities fully into account.  
 
37. Morocco  
 
Morocco supports the statement made by Rwanda on behalf of the African Group.  
 
If our discussions here are to lead to any significant results in the current context of uncertain ty, 
the negotiating process must be prioritized and cumulative, and must rely on a solid and unified 
impetus from the Doha Development Agenda, the Agreement on Trade Facilitation and the 
TRIPS6 Agreement.  
 
World trade cannot prosper if the least developed countries (LDCs) are left behind or the 
developing countries confronted with excessive requirements in the infant sectors without having 
access to significant and sufficient technical assistance and technology transfer.  
 
                                                
6 Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 85 - 
 
  Moreover, if we are to consolidate our gains in the multilateral system, we must inject fresh 
energy into our discussions and progress beyond our conventional positions. To a certain extent, 
however, this will depend on our ability to ensure that all Members acquire a better understanding 
and mastery of a number of topics, such as e -commerce.  
 
In this connection, Morocco would like to thank all of the delegations that have shown solidarity 
and creativity, particularly when it comes to sharing experiences and communicating with a view 
to achi eving and consolidating convergence.  
 
The challenge before us is to agree on collective and fair commitments and turn them into 
promising opportunities for the populations of all Members.  
 
Morocco has high hopes in this critical phase leading up to the thi rd informal Ministerial Meeting to 
be hosted in Marrakesh next October in preparation for MC11 in Buenos Aires.  
 
38. United States  
 
I would like to refer to the statement that my delegation delivered at the previous Heads of 
Delegation meeting on February 23. That statement continues to reflect our views at this time.  The 
views that we previously expressed with regard to expectations for MC11 have only been 
reinforced over the past two months  during which there has been no apparent evidence of 
convergence on po ssible negotiated outcomes.  
 
39. Cameroon  
 
We support the statements made by Rwanda on behalf of the African Group and by Guyana on 
behalf of the ACP Group.  
 
We also endorse the statements ma de by Zimbabwe and South Africa  but I shall not elaborate on 
the issu es they addressed.  
 
We support Venezuela 's statement as well as that of India, specifically as regards abiding by the 
mandate. This is a point on which my delegation 's position has remained unchanged and has been 
repeatedly stated. If we submit topics or e lements of text for which we have no clear mandate, we 
will only be wasting the precious time that we sorely need in order to move forward in negotiating 
the agreed topics. The proposal on trade facilitation in services is among those texts on which my 
delegation has commented very precisely. We are ready to talk about anything as long as the 
discussions abide by the rules.  
 
On a different subject, certain Members would like to see delegations direct their commitment 
towards moving the negotiations forward rather than blocking them. In this connection, my 
delegation would like to point out that the best way of moving the negotiations forward is to abide 
by the rules underlying the structure and framework of those negotiations. A careful reading of the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement – which we all welcome – clearly shows that the text forms part of a 
coherent process that abides by the rules. In any case, it is in that spirit that Members adopted it.  
 
Finally, my delegation would appreciate clarification from yo u, Mr  Director -General, on a legal and 
procedural matter. In your introductory remarks, you referred to the General Council meeting and 
said that today 's discussion would be under Agenda Item 1 of that meeting, as indicated in the 
Airgram convening the mee ting. In fact, you plainly stated that there would be no exceptions as 
regards taking the floor during this meeting or during the discussions on this item. This leads us to 
believe that the Heads of Delegation consultation process in Room W, which is an in formal process 
whose legal status remains to be determined, has an authority that could undermine Members ' 
right to express themselves freely at a meeting of the General Council, which remains the most 
important WTO body apart from the Ministerial. In view  of these considerations, could you provide 
us with clarifications as regards the status of the Room W consultation process in connection with 
the Trade Negotiations Committee, which has not had any meetings in the framework of that body 
for some time now?  My delegation asks that this statement, together with the Director -General 's 
clarification, be included in the minutes of the General Council and the TNC.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 86 - 
 
  40. Colombia  
 
Thus far, in the opinion of my country, a constructive process has been under way, in whi ch a 
growing disposition and willingness to consider new approaches can be seen. It is important for us 
to maintain and foster this spirit, as the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires is approaching and 
we all have the shared objective of taking advantag e of this meeting to convey the strength and 
relevance of the multilateral trading system.  
 
Agriculture  
 
First of all, we would like to highlight the efforts made and the progress that can be seen from the 
report presented by the new Chair of the Special S ession of the Committee on Agriculture. 
Colombia, like many other countries, attaches great importance to the outcomes in agriculture, 
particularly in the area of domestic support, and is ready to continue participating in a constructive 
manner in the info rmal meetings scheduled for early June. We need to be more active in studying 
various alternatives and involving our capitals so that they help us to examine possible solutions. 
It is time to consolidate proposals and to consider the measures needed to ach ieve concrete 
results in Buenos Aires. Colombia will continue, as it has done in past, to actively participate with 
other proponents of this issue at the table and to seek an outcome, which is crucial for the success 
of the next Ministerial.  
 
Rules  
 
We thank the negotiating group chair for the efforts made to make progress on the proposals put 
forward. Colombia, along with other Latin American countries, has been actively participating, 
supporting proposals that seek to discipline the harmful subsidies rela ted to illegal fishing, 
overfishing and overcapacity, as well as the subsidies which have an impact on deep -sea fishing 
and overfishing and the subsidies which enable some Members to maintain their overcapacity. We 
have also highlighted the importance of t aking into account special and differential treatment for 
the least developed countries, proposing an agreement architecture that follows the principles of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement. An outcome on this matter will be of the utmost importance as a 
sign of this Organization 's commitment to the objectives prioritized by our Heads of State.  
 
Services  
 
Colombia acknowledges the interest and efforts undertaken by a large number of Members, 
including our country, to deepen the discussions on domestic regul ation which are being held in 
the relevant working group. In particular, we welcome the presentation of most of the aspects 
necessary for a comprehensive negotiation proposal, including "administrative measures ", 
"development of measures ", "transparency " and "technical standards ". The inclusion of the 
development dimension is nevertheless still necessary. Once again, we would like to express our 
willingness to work on specific proposals with a view to finding an appropriate balance in the 
provisions. In our  opinion, an outcome on domestic regulation on services, combined with the 
previously mentioned outcomes on agriculture and fisheries subsidies, would generate beneficial 
and balanced results for the entire Membership in the context of the Eleventh Ministe rial. 
 
E-Commerce  
 
Our delegation associates itself with the statement made by Costa Rica on behalf of the Friends of 
E-commerce for Development. Colombia will continue to work constructively in collaboration with 
this group of countries in order to deepen  understanding of how e -commerce offers a concrete tool 
for promoting inclusive development and, in particular, enables SMEs to integrate themselves into 
the global economy, facilitating their growth.  
 
41. Uruguay  
 
Uruguay sees Buenos Aires as an opportunity. Our country is hoping for a significant, albeit not 
spectacular, threefold outcome in agriculture:  
 
­ a substantial reduction in domestic support;  
­ an outcome in agricultural market access that has an impact on trade; and  
­ a considerable improvement in respect  of transparency mechanisms.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 87 - 
 
  Uruguay is not in favour of the introduction of potentially trade -restrictive tools or measures. 
Reality will show that this will not lead to a level playing field, rather to a weakening of the existing 
set of disciplines in ag riculture.  
 
We believe that the current preparations for Buenos Aires do have positive elements, as we have 
been informed, but sense that there is a risk of this process becoming confusing, which must be 
avoided.  
 
The WTO and the multilateral system are vi tal to all Members and must be safeguarded, developed 
and updated to keep pace with the changing times and new issues on pain of being left lagging 
behind. Buenos Aires affords us an opportunity to make up for lost time and perhaps to establish 
clear-cut w ork programmes in newer areas, such as fisheries subsidies and electronic commerce.  
 
42. Canada  
 
Canada 's objectives and priorities have not changed, so I will not dwell on long -held posit ions but 
merely highlight them.  
 
Agricultural domestic support and unfin ished business in export competition remain key priorities 
for Canada. We are ready to engage on these and other areas of interest to other members i n the 
agriculture negotiations.  
  
DSU Review is another area where we need to re -invigorate our negotiation s to address some of 
the elements that are causing our current workload issues.  
 
Advances in Services areas such as domestic regulation, including Canada 's recent proposal on 
gender equality, are important areas where we see good chances of progress.  
 
In Rules, we are actively participating in the very encouraging fisheries subsidy discipline 
discussions. Given the increased impetus brought by the SDGs, we are hopefully for a substantive 
result in this area in time for MC11. We are also open to discussions on other Rules areas such as 
China 's trade remedies proposal, but we do not believe that progress in one area should be linked 
to progress in other areas.  
 
We also see e -commerce as an area ripe for deepened discussions and we are encouraged by the 
level o f engagement by developed and developing countries alike. We also see this as an area 
where substantive advances could be made by MC11.  
 
Canada is committed to advancing the integration of all stakeholders in the multilateral trading 
system, particularly M SMEs - these enterprises are an important component of all of our 
economies. We will actively participate in discussions to determine what can be done in this 
Organization to assist SMEs MSMEs to advance their trading interests. In this regard, one concret e 
step that all members could take is to fully implement the TFA as soon as possible.  
 
Canada is also interested in starting discussions on investment facilitation. We understand this to 
be a discussion on what might help to facilitate the attraction and r etention of investment, which is 
an important driver of sustainable development. In this light, we feel that it is incumbent upon us 
to at least explore what might be done within the WTO in this area.  
 
Along with these multilateral areas, Canada is also pa rticipating in, and indeed chairing, the 
plurilateral discussions on disciplining fisheries subsidies. We have had good discussions on the 
issue of addressing subsidies to IUU fishing and overfishing situations. These efforts are not in 
competition with th e Rules Group discussions and we all hope that progress there will make our 
plurilateral discussions redundant. We have had and are currently having discussions that we hope 
will complement the discussions under Ambassador McCook 's chairmanship in the NGR. ‎ 
 
In conclusion, Canada is looking forward to increased engagement in all relevant negotiating areas 
and we are heartened by the promise of further text -based proposals as we collectively head 
toward what we hope will be a successful ministerial conferenc e in Buenos Aires.  
 WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 88 - 
 
  43. Norway  
 
This has been a sobering day with very wide divergences that it will require lots of hard work to 
reconcile but we must not let ourselves be paralyzed by uncertainty.  
 
We must continue our work to demonstrate the importance we a ttach to the Multilateral Trading 
System, by making Buenos Aires as successful as possible and by providing further guidance for 
our work in the WTO beyond MC11.  
 
We need to look for ways to capture incremental progress in various areas of the negotiation s, but 
we should also strive to make substantive progress at MC11 where that is possible. We should deal 
with each issue on its own merits; fisheries subsidies, domestic support, public stockholding and 
domestic regulations.  
 
As always development and in particular the interests and needs of the LDCs will have to be 
central in all our discussions.   
 
In addition in Buenos Aires ministers will hopefully as a minimum provide further guidance on 
future work on both e -commerce and investment facilitation.  
 
We need to keep up our work in Geneva. It is perhaps more than ever before a need for 
pragmatism and creativity.  
 
Political engagement will indeed be crucial in order to find the right balance between old and new 
issues in the preparations for Buenos Aires.  
 
And this is extremely important: we need to have realistic expectations, and should well in 
advance of departing to Buenos Aires check that all Members are more or less on the same page in 
this regard. That will be essential to maintain the crucial role o f the WTO and the Multilateral 
Trading System going forward.  
 
44. Nigeria  
 
At the outset, our delegation associates itself with the statements delivered by Rwanda, on behalf 
of the African Group; Guyana, on behalf of the ACP Group; Indonesia, on behalf of the G-33; and 
Mali, on behalf of the C -4. Also, our delegation would like to thank the Director -General, for the 
comprehensive report, on the state -of-play, and the subsequent assessment. We note with 
encouragement the increased activity and the level of engag ement in Geneva. We are also grateful 
to the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups, for the hard work and the updates provided to us, on their 
respective consultations. As the discussions evolve, and in the light of the ongoing consultations in 
our capital, we wish to briefly highlight the following, as we approach MC11:  
 
First, we note the intensification of work as reported by the DG and the Chairs of the Negotiating 
Groups, and would like to underscore the importance of sustaining the momentum, without 
backtr acking.  
 
Second,  outcomes in agriculture, as the centre piece of the Doha Round, across the three pillars, 
are essential, especially to correct the existing imbalances, including trade distorting domestic 
support. Therefore, 2008 Rev.4 Draft modalities sh ould be the basis for our engagement. In this 
regard, we welcome with relief, the appointment of Ambassador Dr. Stephen Karau of Kenya, as 
the new Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. . We wish to assure him of our full 
support, in the d ifficult, but not insurmountable task ahead.  
 
Third,  development, cotton and LDCs issues must remain central in our work. Special and 
Differential treatment must be integral part of the various pillars under negotiations and should 
not be seen as concessio n or measures against overall balance.  
 
Fourth,  the process of progressive liberalization in services, and future discipline on domestic 
regulations, should be consistent with GATS Article VI.4, and should also recognize and accord due 
respect for nationa l aspiration, level of development, and the size of the economy of individual 
members. In this regard, we need an appropriate balance between ensuring transparency and WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 89 - 
 
  predictability of our regulatory regime, and the right to regulate, including introducin g new 
regulations so as to fulfil national policy objectives.  
 
Fifth, the Rules negotiation on fisheries subsidies constitutes a central element of the development 
component of the Doha Round, given the critical importance of the sector to poverty reducti on, 
livelihood and food concerns of developing countries. In this regard, we support the call for urgent 
prohibition of subsidies to IUU fishing, including fishing of overstocked stocks, while recognizing 
the legitimate interests and rights of developing c ountries at MC11, c onsistent with SDG 14.6 goal.  
 
Sixth,  as regards MC11, we expect full commitment to delivering on Bali and Nairobi mandates. 
We also expect, and urge all Members to show the required flexibilities, and political will, needed 
to achieve c onsensus at MC11. Therefore, a permanent solution on public stockholding and special 
safeguard mechanism (SSM) must be addressed as a matter of priority, as mandated.  
 
Seventh,  we support the statement delivered by Ambassador Alvaro Cedno of Costa Rica, on  
behalf of Friends of e -commerce for Development (FED), and welcome the FED 's roadmap, as a 
basis for our continued dialogue. As a proponent, our perspective on e -commerce, is that of 
opportunities for businesses, especially for micro, small and medium ent erprises (MSMEs), while 
also recognizing the important challenges, such as logistics and infrastructure, which must be 
addressed. In this regard, Nigeria will continue to engage proactively with the expectation of 
concrete deliverables at MC11, beyond the traditional extension of the moratorium.  
 
Eight,  we support the joint initiative led by China, on investment facilitation for development. 
Investment attraction and facilitation are key priorities for Nigeria, for growth and diversification. 
However, the dialogue on this topic, should be designed and managed in such a way that is open 
and engages all WTO Members, and without prejudice to the final outcomes . Therefore, Nigeria 
wishes to express its support and willingness to work cooperatively with other me mbers to deepen 
the technical discussions, and to explore the possibility of a future role for the WTO in this area . 
This initiative is considered as supportive of Nigeria 's overall priority push for economic recovery, 
an enabling environment for business.  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 growing relevance of this subject . On MSMEs, we support the ongoing dialogue led by 
Philippin es and others. Our objective is to facilitate and sustain a vibrant MSMEs sub -sector that 
will be a driver of national economic growth and employment. In this regard, we would like to 
acknowledge the importance of having an informal dialogue to facilitate the participation of MSMEs 
in global trade and also to ensure they derive maximum benefits accruable therefrom .  
 
Ninth , regarding process, the process guiding our work, as we approach MC11, must be credible, 
transparent, inclusive and bottom -up. In additi on, development must be central, including 
necessary flexibilities and sensitivities to the concerns of the LDCs, SVEs and Developing countries, 
including Nigeria, given our current exceptional situation, even as we remain an open economy.  
 
Finally,  we mu st redouble our efforts to ensure that the WTO is responsive to the needs of the 
entire membership, and of an evolving global economy. Permit me to reiterate Chair, that Nigeria, 
is implementing a bold plan for structural transformation to industrialize as  well as diversify its 
economy. The "Smart Nigeria Digital economy Project ", is Nigeria 's response to an area of intense 
economy and technological activity by Nigerian youths, where there is a growing pool of talent. 
Therefore, it is our collective respons ibility to ensure that trade rules contributes to narrowing the 
digital divide as well as enable our MSMEs to be globally competitive by facilitating their 
participation in global trade.  
 
Nigeria remains willing and committed to working closely with all Me mbers, towards advancing the 
negotiating agenda, particularly, for the successful and meaningful outcomes at MC11 .  
 
45. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arab G roup)  
 
We believe that now is the time to have frank discussions to reach at a common understanding of 
the i ssues 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 the Decisions adopted in the previous Ministerial Con ferences 
and maintain development at the heart of our negotiations.  WT/GC/M/167  
 
- 90 - 
 
  Our priority maybe is different, nine countries in the Arab region are not members of the WTO and 
we have some members in the pipeline of the accession to the WTO. We are hoping to speed u p 
the negotiating and to see some of the members within the conclusion of the MC11 and this 
defiantly will strengthen the stability and prosperity of the region .  
 
Finally, the Arab Group reiterates its commitment to the Multilateral Trading System and rem ains 
ready to engage constructively in the work ahead.  
 
46. Kenya  
 
We wish to associates ourselves with the statements made by Guyana on behalf of the ACP, 
Rwanda on behalf of the African Group, and Indonesia on behalf of the G33.  
 
We appreciate for the engage ment that we have had so far in different configurations. We have 
witnessed the submission of new proposals in some areas which have facilitated our discussions on 
the possible package for MC11. We need therefore to move quickly in identifying a possible 
package for MC11 before summer break.  
 
Some of the lessons learned from Bali and Nairobi are that we can still achieve outcomes on 
incremental basis. In this regard, the agenda for MC11 should not be overloaded. Also, as we work 
towards MC11, we should avoi d creating linkages so that progress on various issues can advance 
on their own merit . This will enable us to conclude those issues that would have attracted 
substantial progress while at the same time we continue to advance the negotiations on the 
remaini ng issues.  
 
We must now focus on tangible outcomes with strong development content between now and 
MC11 in Buenos Aires. Core principles of special and special differential treatment, and less than 
full reciprocity should remain fundamental in our work.  
 
In Nairobi, the Ministers provided political guidance on how to accelerate discussions on of some of 
issues of interest to developing countries. For instance, it was agreed that negotiations on Special 
Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developing countries and  Public Stockholding for Food Security 
should be held in dedicated sessions, and the General Council to regularly review the progress. It 
is important therefore that Members show flexibility in the discussions in dedicated sessions so 
that we reach agreeme nt on these two issues by MC11.  
 
Farm subsidies have continued to cause trade distortions in world markets for agricultural products 
and thereby denying trading opportunities to farmers from poor countries. From a development 
perspective, substantial reduc tion of domestic support must remain a priority for MC11. 
Substantial reduction of trade distorting domestic support is therefore necessary in order to 
achieve the long -term objective of progressive reductions in support and protection as envisaged 
in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Establishing disciplines on fisheries subsidies is also a priority for Kenya. This issue has attracted 
proposals from developed and many developing countries in support of banning illegal, 
unregulated and unreported (IUU) fis hing as well as disciplining subsidies that contribute to 
overcapacity and overfishing. The figures on illegal fishing are very worrying. The UN estimates 
that illegal fishing strips the global economy of more than US $23 billion every year .  Illegal fishin g 
has been responsible for draining of revenue, overfishing and harming marine environment. It 
therefore destroys local communities, who rely on fishing for livelihood and food security. The WTO 
therefore must be part of the global efforts in combating ill egal fishing and overfishing.  
 
In terms of process, we are also looking forward to having a process that is transparent and 
inclusive – a process that is progressive and interactive and which allows Members to monitor the 
progress in various groups and bod ies and also which provides the opportunity to seek 
compromises whenever they are required . 
 
In conclusion, Kenya would like to assure the Director -General of our support. We are confident in 
your leadership and that of the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups  to advance our work in order 
have a successful and meaningful outcome at MC11 in Buenos Aires.  
__________