TN/RL/26  
 
30 July 2015  
(15-3951)  Page: 1/2  
Negotiating Group on Rules    
 
 NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, H.E. MR. MCCOOK TO  
THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE 
31 July 2015 
1.1.  Since this is the last TNC before the summer break, I would like to take a few moments to 
review what we have done in the first semester of 2015 and where we are in our Rules work.  
1.2.  A key challenge for the Group has been how to situate our work in the broader context of the 
DDA. Some delegations have deemed it premature to engage on possible outcomes in Rules until there is greater clarity in other areas of our work, such as Agriculture and NAMA. Other delegations have been concerned that if we did not engage we will run out of time later. 
1.3.  While this tension has not disappeared, we have managed to develop a working method that 
has accommodated all delegations' concerns and that has allowed us to advance our work this semester.   
1.4.  Following several open-ended meetings and a Secretariat information session in the spring, 
we have had a number of papers from delegations seeking to identify recalibrated contributions from Rules to the Work Program. 
1.5.  Among these papers were three submissions from a group of delegations on anti-dumping, a 
submission from a group of delegations on fish eries subsidies, and a submission identifying 
possible outcomes on transparency in all four Rules pillars. 
1.6.  The Negotiating Group has discussed all of th ese papers, including most recently earlier this 
this week. Sponsors have presented their proposal s, and delegations have provided reactions. I 
appreciate that, without prejudice to your views about the role of Rules in the broader context of the DDA, all delegations have participated constructively within the limits implied by their overall 
positions.   
1.7.  With respect to anti-dumping, a group of  delegations submitted a paper that identified 
various un-bracketed elements of the 2011 Chair text  related to transparency and due process in 
AD investigations as possible "core deliverables", while reserving the right to raise other issues "as 
appropriate". More recently, a similar but not identical group of delegations submitted a further paper completing the overall view of their obje ctives by identifying additional anti-dumping 
outcomes, including on sunset, public interest and lesser duty, aimed at enhancing predictability, 
for consideration. After our discussion, the sponsors signalled that they may submit a further document clarifying their ideas. 
1.8.  With respect to fisheries subsidies, the Group received a paper from a group of delegations 
proposing a "recalibrated" outcome. The elements included a number of prohibitions, transitional 
arrangements, special & differential treatment, a standstill provision, transparency & monitoring, and a built-in agenda. The prohibitions related to subsidies affecting overfished stocks and for 
IUU fishing. A number of technical questions were raised regarding the proposal; a paper 
addressing some of these technical points has just been submitted. TN/RL/26 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.9.  Most recently, the Group received a paper proposing WTO transparency outcomes in all four 
pillars of the Rules negotiations. The paper suggested a review mechanism for Members' anti-
dumping law and practice, making the RTA transp arency mechanism permanent, and bolstering 
notifications both of subsidies generally and fisheries subsidies specifically. In this last respect, 
ideas included linking notification or non-notification to substantive disciplines, and for more 
proactive Secretariat efforts to improve notifications. Again, the sponsor signalled that a further technical paper might be forthcoming.  
1.10.  Overall, while the possible contribution of Ru les to an outcome in Nairobi is far from clear, 
some delegations clearly consider that some ou tcome on Rules is indispensable to a balanced 
overall result. Others remain of the view that whether, and to what extent, there are Rules 
outcomes in Nairobi will depend upon developments outside Rules. 
1.11.  I have no magic formula for how we can pr oceed with our work in the fall in a way that 
allows us to be ready for MC10 without prejudicing the position of any delegation. In my view, however, given the importance of Rules to some Me mbers, inactivity is not an option. I will be 
consulting with the Chairman of the TNC and fellow Chairs, and listening to your views and ideas, 
about how to advance our work in the autumn. 
1.12.  In the meanwhile, I encourage those of you who have advanced ideas to reflect on and 
respond to the reactions of delegations, for example through technical papers. And I would 
encourage all of you to think creatively about what doable Rules outcomes might be pursued for Nairobi.  
 
__________