RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/161  
 
15 April 2016  
(16-2139)  Page: 1/50  
General Council 
24 February 2016    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 24 FEBRUARY 2016 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr Fe rnando De Mateo (Mexico) 
During the course of the meeting, the Chairman , the Director-General and several delegations 
expressed their deepest sympathy and condolences to the Government and the people of Fiji for 
the devastating cyclone which had struck the country on 20 February.  Subjects discussed
1: 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE .................... 2  
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND NAIROBI OUTCOMES — STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 17  
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOM IES — REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMI TTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ............. 19  
4   AID FOR TRADE WORK PROGRAMME 2016-2017 — STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON  TRADE AND DE VELOPMENT .................................... 20  
5   TRADE RESTRICTIONS BY THE RU SSIAN FEDERATION — COMMUNICATION 
FROM UKRAINE .............................................................................................................. 21  
6   FOSTERING PARTICIPATION OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES 
(MSMES) IN REGIONAL AND GLOBAL MARKETS — STATEMENT BY THE 
PHILIPPI NES ................................................................................................................. 2 3 
7   APPOINTMENT OF OFFI CERS TO WTO BODIES .......................................................... 26  
8   PROHIBITION OF TRANSPORTATION OF TRANSIT GOODS ON RUSSIAN ROAD 
TRANSPORT BY UKRAINE – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ....................... 30  
9   ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMBERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 31  
10   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON ................................................................................... 32  
ANNEX 1 – STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS AT THE INFORMAL TNC MEETING AT THE 
LEVEL OF HEADS OF DE LEGATION HELD ON 10 FEBRUARY 2016 ................................... 36  
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENT BY THE GENERAL COUNCIL CHAIRMAN AT THE 
INFORMAL GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING AT THE LEVEL OF HEADS OF DELEGATION HELD ON 23 FEBRUARY 2016 .................................................................... 48
 
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENT BY LESOTHO ON BEHALF OF THE AFRICAN GROUP AT 
THE INFORMAL GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING AT THE LEVEL OF HEADS OF DELEGATION HELD ON 23 FEBRUARY 2016 .................................................................... 50
 
 
                                               
1 The Proposed Agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/714. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTI ATIONS COMMITTEE 
1.1.  The Chairman recalled that a meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation had been held on 
10 February to start the discussions on the future work of the organization further to the 
Ministerial Conference in Nairobi.2 
1.2.  The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC, said3 that in Nairobi, Ministers had given some 
clear guidance on the forward work. Paragraph 33 of the Ministerial Declaration stated that officials 
should work to find ways to advance negotiations and they had requested him, as Director-
General, to report regularly to the General Council on those efforts. He recalled the informal Heads 
of Delegation meeting on 10 February and said he would repeat a few of the points he had made at that meeting for the public record.  
1.3.  He had had a number of useful exchanges with Members in recent weeks. He had visited 
Barbados and Jamaica in January, and Nigeria, Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal in February. In each 
case he had held a series of meetings with go vernment representatives and, whenever possible, 
had also interacted with both the private sector and civil society. He had also taken part in the 
ministerial meeting convened by the Swiss au thorities in Davos on 23 January, and he had 
attended a meeting of EU Trade Ministers in Amsterdam on 2 February. In each of those 
exchanges he had been struck by the sense of optimism about the WTO. There had been a clear 
desire to build on the WTO's recent successes. A lot of ideas had been floated during those 
meetings regarding process and substance. However, he would leave it to Members to raise any such ideas themselves when they were ready to do so. 
1.4.  Over recent weeks he had also been in touch with the private sector – and with civil society 
more broadly. Those exchanges had been very positive. Several parties had expressed their 
interest in having a deeper, more interactive dial ogue about WTO work with other stakeholders. He 
had been approached by some – in particular the ICC and B20 – to facilitate such a dialogue 
amongst them and others in Geneva. The interest from those constituencies was very important, 
but he had been encouraging them to be as inclus ive as possible. He thought such dialogue should 
bring in large and small players from around th e world – from both developing and developed 
economies. He was working to see whether a first conversation of that kind could take place in 
Geneva at the end of May. He hoped that other discussions would take place, bringing a wide range of voices across civil society, representing different perspectives – including through the Public Forum in September. 
1.5.  He had also met with the Negotiating Chairs  on 4 February to listen to their views on post-
Nairobi work. And on 10 February, he had convened an informal Heads of Delegation meeting which had provided Members with an opportunity to reflect collectively on the outcomes of the 
Tenth Ministerial Conference and to discuss the way forward.  
1.6.  He thought Nairobi had shown that Members needed to improve the way they worked in 
Geneva. Despite the fact that they had succeeded in delivering some important outcomes, there 
was no doubt that there were lessons to be learned. Too much had been left to negotiate in 
Nairobi itself. In the future, by the time Members would make the transition from the Geneva process to the Ministerial Conference, they should aim to be in a much more advanced position. In this regard, he had suggested two elements which he thought were important: 
a. First, Members should be in closer contact with capitals to obtain more regular, 
substantive and updated political instructions.  
b. Second, Ministers should be engaged more throughout the process – not just at the end.  
1.7.  Members should look at how those two could be achieved. 
                                               
2 At their request, the statements delivered at the 10 February Informal Meeting at the level of Heads of 
Delegation by the following delegations are incorporated  in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in 
Annex 1 of this document: Argentina; Bangladesh (for LDC Group – requested by Benin); Bolivia, Plurinational 
Republic of; Brazil; Cuba; Guatemala (SVEs); India; Indonesia; Japan; Kenya; Mexico; Pakistan; Rwanda; 
South Africa; Uganda; United States and Uruguay. 
3 The Director-General's statement was subsequently circulated in JOB/GC/91. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.8.  Regarding the substantive outcomes of the Ministerial Conference, it was important to recall 
that some of the decisions taken under the DDA specified a number of follow-up actions – including: 
a. to "pursue negotiations" on an SSM,  
b. to negotiate, "in an accelerated time-frame", to find a permanent solution on Public 
Stockholding, 
c. and to continue holding dedicated discussions on Cotton.  
1.9.  All of those follow-up actions demanded Members' attention.  
1.10.  Part 3 of the Declaration, which was focuse d on future work, had also specified a number of 
follow-up actions. He stressed that each and every word of the Declaration was important. He was not attributing more prominence to one thing over another. But there were two areas which 
Members should look into and which were particularly notable precisely because there was no 
common view on them: the remaining DDA issues and the non-DDA issues. 
1.11.  There was no consensus on how to addres s the DDA. Nonetheless, in Nairobi, all Members 
had given a "strong commitment" to advancing negotiations on the remaining Doha issues. It was 
important to underline that point even though they did not currently have a shared view on how it 
should be achieved. He had requested that the Negotiating Group Chairs begin discussions within 
their respective Groups.  
1.12.  On the non-DDA issues, Members had not been of a common view. But it had been clear 
that some wanted to discuss issues outside the DDA. It was not clear yet how that conversation would take place but there was a clear understanding that if there would be a desire to launch 
multilateral negotiations that would have to happen with the agreement of all Members. Progress 
in those areas should be Member-driven. He urged Members to talk to each other – the only way they could begin to advance. 
1.13.  Those had been the key points which he had made during the meeting. A number of 
delegations had then taken the floor. Many had shared his concerns with the process in Nairobi. They had agreed that the process at Ministeria l Conferences should be more predictable. The 
responsibility rested with each Member. They ha d also agreed that the preparatory process in 
Geneva should bring agreed or close-to-finished outcomes to Ministers for decision, with very few issues left open, if any.  
1.14.  Different perspectives and views had been expressed on the way forward. Some had called 
to sustain the momentum from Nairobi and to resume work in negotiating groups as soon as 
possible. Others had called for a frank discussion on the key elements of the Declaration to attain clarity or even a period of reflection to buil d a shared view on how to move ahead. Some 
delegations had also reiterated their well-known positions on the DDA mandate and non-DDA 
issues. Several references had been made to the centrality of the development dimension and that 
special and differential treatment should remain an integral part of future negotiations. A number 
of groups had also reiterated the need to preserve their envisaged flexibilities. 
1.15.  What had been clear by the end of the m eeting was that there was still a lack of clarity 
among Members with regard to how the process sh ould evolve. Therefore, Members would need to 
deepen their dialogue with each other about how to advance their work.  
1.16.  The Chairs were available to facilitate any conversations – as was he – but any ideas on the 
way forward should be coming from Members themselves. It was important for them to have a rich conversation over the coming months – and to  hear the views of all. He encouraged them to 
talk to each other and to share their views on their next steps in light of the Nairobi outcomes. 
Members should not allow multilateral cooperation to suffer especially at a time when the world needed their contribution to help improve people's lives and prospects around the world – 
particularly for the poorest. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.17.  The representative of Peru thanked the Di rector-General for encouraging the much needed 
dialogue among Members on the path they were to  take on their future work particularly in 
strengthening the WTO's negotiating function. In deciding on their future work, Members should 
bear in mind three lessons from Nairobi. 
1.18.  Peru could not accept, a priori , that one particular issue should determine the level of 
ambition in the future. Based on experience, such a premise was not constructive because it prevented proper discussion on all the issues of in terest to Members. The sequential approach had 
prevented substantive discussions on issues of inte rest to Members from taking place at an early 
stage, thus reducing the potential for greater achievements at MC10. Members should therefore address each issue on its own merit and without prejudging a final outcome as a condition for 
starting negotiations. Text-based negotiations were the only way to guarantee an inclusive and 
transparent process. Members should thus promptly submit concrete proposals to the negotiating 
groups. 
1.19.  Peru felt that the structure of their future work naturally fell into three areas of action: 
Members should implement the commitments undertaken at MC9 and MC10. Not only were those 
an obligation for them but they were also an incentive for future commitments. The Nairobi Ministerial Declaration imparted a sense of urgency and challenged Members to form a shared 
vision for working on outstanding DDA issues on  which there was convergence. On rules, for 
example, two issues had been addressed at Ministerial level in Nairobi: the elimination of fisheries subsidies and antidumping. The WTO should therefor e focus its efforts on that and other areas for 
it to deliver tangible outcomes at the Eleventh Ministerial Conference. 
1.20.  Work on new issues could not wait. With each Member being responsible for supporting and 
promoting its interests in accordance with current trade and political realities, the WTO could not continue to view itself as an isolated entity on the international stage. For trade to contribute to 
livelihood and development, Members should be consistent in their efforts in other areas. They 
could, for instance, not ignore the SDGs which provided obligations specifically to work that should be conducted at the WTO including under Goal 14.6 on prohibiting certain forms of fisheries 
subsidies, an issue that remained a priority for Peru. The WTO should contribute to the 
achievement of the SDGs which were the political  expression of consensus reached by the Heads 
of State of all the countries present at the WTO and which they could therefore not ignore. 
1.21.  Many viewed MC10 as a turning point for the WTO since the incentive to continue 
negotiating was not necessarily to obtain reciprocal concessions but due to the fact that in many 
cases, the global problems faced by trade could only be resolved through a multilateral response. Members should therefore promptly identify both  outstanding and new issues with a view to 
prioritizing those that required a response at the multilateral level. In this regard, the SDGs would 
be an obligatory reference. 
1.22.  The representative of Fiji, on behalf of th e Pacific Group, expressed their appreciation to the 
Director-General and to the General Council Chai rman for convening MC10 in Nairobi and for their 
efforts in keeping the Doha negotiations alive. 
1.23.  Being comprised of SVEs and LDCs, the Pacific Group noted that MC10 had not delivered on 
its promises on development. While additional outcomes and stronger commitments on some 
negotiating areas would have been desirable, th e Group noted the decisions that had been made 
on export competition – a long standing issue fo r some Members, the LDC decisions on rules of 
origin and services waiver which were positive but incremental steps towards improving the Pacific 
LDC trade, and the continuing work on the small economies mandate. 
1.24.  The WTO had reached an important juncture as Members tried to determine the way ahead. 
The Pacific Group thanked the Director-General for initiating discussions on how to advance the 
WTO's negotiating function – which were necessary and would at times be difficult. As Members 
reflected on the question, the Group valued the principles which had guided the WTO negotiations. Therefore, whatever process would be considered  for moving the negotiations forward, Members 
should ensure that it would be transparent and inclusive and that it would allow all of them, 
including small Members, to participate equally in the consultations and decisions until their 
conclusion. The negotiations should also be anchored to the special and differential treatment principle and to the centrality of development mandate. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.25.  With small domestic markets and enormous vu lnerabilities to external shocks, the future of 
the Pacific Group rested in maintaining an open and secure global trading system. The WTO and an 
open and equitable multilateral rules-based system remained important for protecting the Group's trade interests and for allowing it to have a voice on the table, to increase its trade and to deliver 
on development. The Pacific Group therefore urge d Members to engage constructively during the 
period of reflection in findin g an acceptable way forward. 
1.26.  On behalf of Fiji, she thanked the Direct or-General and the Members who had spoken to her 
already at the meeting and outside for their best wishes to Fiji. Fiji was experiencing a difficult 
time with the situation remaining grim in many parts of the country. Villages had been wiped out of their entire infrastructure. Crops on which their people had relied on had been lost. The damage assessments, the relief efforts and the rebuilding effo rts were going to take a long time. There had 
been air assets from New Zealand and Australia which were assisting Fiji to assess the damage 
through aerial surveillance and to reach communiti es that had not yet been reached. The loss of 
life stood at 42 and would unfortunately be likely to go up as isolated communities were being 
reached. Fiji would therefore need assistance going forward – which had already started coming in. 
She thanked those who had already helped and trusted that Fiji would remain in Members' thoughts. 
1.27.  The representative of Chile said that Members had shown the international community and 
the general public through the Nairobi results that the WTO could respond to the commitments 
which underpinned its work and maintained its role in the multilateral trading system. Against all prognoses albeit not fully living up to their ambi tions, they had progressed in substantial ways – 
strengthening the WTO's role and opening doors for the future of the negotiating process. 
1.28.  He said that, at the next Ministerial Conference, Members should concentrate on three 
areas. They should ensure prompt implementation  of the Nairobi Declaration and Decisions. Any 
slowdown or any new conditions that would be imposed on implementation would undermine the 
credibility achieved at MC10 and would dampen the optimism referred to by the Director-General. The work to be done by the bodies of the organi zation would therefore be key in monitoring the 
implementation of the decisions and in moving forward. 
1.29.  Members should also continue to work on those areas where results were yet to be achieved 
such as domestic support and market access in  Agriculture. The agreement reached on export 
competition was significant but not enough to re medy and prevent restrictions and distortions. 
Other pending issues also remained in NAMA and Se rvices – areas with a fundamental role to play 
in providing the necessary balance. They should  thus ensure that they would negotiate with 
dynamism, openness and flexibility. To this end, Chile supported the work done by the CoA-SS. 
They should also fully live up to the commitments they had made on the third part of the 
declaration by making the necessary adjustments: the what, the when and the how. 
1.30.  A period of reflection was needed. In Nairobi, Ministers had reiterated the primacy of the 
WTO as a global forum and had committed to strengthen the multilateral trading system. They had 
stressed the centrality of development in their work and had reaffirmed the contribution of international trade to growth and prosperity. In  line with the Marrakesh Agreement, they had 
recognized the importance of coherence in econ omic policies worldwide and had highlighted the 
potential role of the organization in achievin g the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. All of 
those had been explicitly included in the Nairobi Declaration and were essential for the WTO in the discharge of its functions at present and in the future. Times had changed. The world was not the 
s a m e  a s  t w e n t y  o r  e v e n  f i v e  y e a r s  a g o .  W i t h i n  this context, Members should ensure that they 
would meet the demands of the international co mmunity. They therefore needed to undergo a 
period of reflection and be in a position to come to MC11 with the requisite clarity on the matter. 
1.31.  It had been said that implementation, nego tiation and reflection contradicted each other. 
Chile begged to disagree. The three-pronged approach would allow Members to move forward. At the WTO, with respect to the Secretariat, the po litical authorities and the Membership, they had 
the critical mass required to work on all three fr onts simultaneously. They simply needed to show 
the requisite will to organize their work. The processes leading up to Bali and Nairobi could have 
sparked a new awakening. They should therefore re flect as an organization on the classical human 
questions: who were they? Where did they come from? Where would they be going? WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.32.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab Group, 
congratulated the Membership and the Director-General for the success achieved in Nairobi. The 
Arab Group also thanked the Government and the people of Kenya for their warm hospitality and excellent arrangement for the Tenth Ministerial Conference. 
1.33.  The adoption of a package of measures in MC10 comprising six ministerial Decisions on 
agriculture, cotton and LDC issues was an important step toward restoring the credibility of the multilateral trading system and toward reviving a positive spirit at the WTO. However, significant 
efforts were required to continue their work ahead. Members should redouble their efforts and use 
the momentum to further succeed and to have meaningful outcomes on other outstanding issues on their agenda. Work should continue on Do ha outstanding issues, and development and S&D 
provisions should remain at the heart of future negotiations. 
1.34.  Despite achieving fruitful outcomes in Nairobi, Members should bear in mind that work 
should be done before arriving at future Ministerial Conferences in a transparent and inclusive manner. They could not take success for granted or assume that future progress would be 
inevitable without strong commitment and political will from all of them. The best way to move 
forward efficiently would be to work in a cooperative manner for the interest of all Members and for the multilateral trading system as a whole and to ensure that the upcoming Ministerial 
Conference would be another success. The Ar ab Group reiterated its commitment to the 
multilateral trading system and remained ready to engage constructively in the work ahead. 
1.35.  The representative of China said that, und eniably, the Nairobi Ministerial Conference was a 
success. China expressed its gratitude to Kenya for its outstanding organization and to the 
Director-General and his team for their efforts. MC10 was a success both for the multilateral 
trading system and for all Members. That did not mean, however, that the WTO's history had been re-written nor that the positions of Members elab orated in the big and smaller rooms had been 
changed during or after Nairobi.  
1.36.  Members were identifying their priorities  for the remaining issues. They had had export 
competition for agriculture, TFA for rules and something for development, which were far from 
satisfactory, while nothing yet had been achieved on NAMA and Services. Special attention should 
therefore be paid to the areas which had yet to yield an outcome. China did not intend to push 
anything off the table. Some Members had said that new approaches and new paths, which remained unclear in reality, should be adopted to address the unresolved issues. Others had 
suggested that the WTO move on to new issues, which China was open to explore. It had to be 
recognized, however, that those new issues were not on the same levels of maturity and consensus as the remaining Doha issues. 
1.37.  He said that, due to its constructive ambiguity, the guidance provided by the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration on post-Nairobi work had not been clearly defined. Members could consequently face the danger of all issues being treated in a fragmented and isolated manner 
which was akin to walking into the jungle without any navigational device. To respond to the 
situation and map out the way ahead, China had pu t forward in Davos the concept of a solidarity 
work programme which included two sets of issues. The first covered the remaining Doha issues including agriculture, NAMA, services, rules and development. In addressing those issues, a 
multilateral approach would be adopted in line with the Doha mandate. The other set covered 
issues relevant to the current business realities and had far-reaching significance on trade growth such as e-commerce and investment. For those issues, multilateral consensus would be necessary.  
1.38.  The key words for the work programme were direction, balance and solidarity. China 
clarified that the solidarity work programme would neither repeat the post-Bali work program nor the debate that led to the impasse. Based on past experience and lessons, such work programme 
would serve to help explore the way forward. It was not China's intention to develop another 
modality-like work programme. Ch ina simply wanted to further specify Members' work on the 
basis of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. Such work programme was thus necessary and doable. In this regard, Members should engage with a sense of urgency and in a more coordinated and 
dedicated manner. China stood ready to further discuss the matter with the Membership. 
1.39.  Faithful and timely implementation of th e Bali and Nairobi outcomes would significantly 
contribute to the credibility of the multilateral trading system. As the 2016 host of the G-20, China WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 7 - 
 
  continued to support the multilateral trading syst em and the WTO negotiations – one of the G-20's 
top priorities on its trade pillar. China would join hands with other Members in marching towards their common goal of having a doable and a commercially meaningful work programme. China remained fully committed and would thus continue to participate in discussions and consultations 
in various configurations. 
1.40.  The representative of Nigeria wished to support the statement to be made by the G-33. 
Nigeria congratulated Kenya for successfully hosting the Tenth WTO Ministerial Conference. The 
first WTO Ministerial Conference in Africa had played a pivotal role in Members' efforts to preserve 
and further strengthen the WTO's negotiating fu nction, and had adopted a number of decisions 
including an outline on WTO's future work. Nigeri a nonetheless shared the view of many on the 
need to improve the preparatory process and to  ensure transparency and inclusiveness for 
subsequent Ministerial Conferences. Nigeria also commended the Director-General for building on 
the momentum particularly on his recent high level consultations and outreach to some capitals in West Africa including Abuja, Nigeria. 
1.41.  Going forward, Members' engagement should  be guided by the Declarations and Decisions 
adopted in Nairobi. Members should also quic kly build on the areas where convergence had 
emerged. Nigeria agreed with the Director-General 's overall assessment that Nairobi had delivered 
some modest and important outcomes including optimism in the WTO's future. Nigeria therefore 
supported the roadmap which the Director-General had outlined where negotiations at the level of Ambassadors and engagement with the capitals would be intensified and sustained. 
1.42.  As a member-driven organization, the negotiating process, under the leadership of the 
Chairpersons of the Negotiating Groups, should adhere to the WTO core principles and values 
particularly the primacy of the multilateral process, inclusiveness and transparency. In Nairobi, Members had thus re-affirmed their commitment to engage constructively and productively with 
each other to advance negotiations on the remain ing Doha issues. They should also implement all 
the elements of both Bali and Nairobi decisions wi thout further delay particularly those on export 
competition, public stockholding, special safeguard mechanism, LDC issues, cotton, and TFA 
ratification, to which Nigeria was fully committed. 
1.43.  Since the Doha Round was a development round, issues that dealt with development should 
be prioritized and receive adequate attention in all negotiating areas. Members should deliver on development and achieve a pro-development outcom e in the negotiations. He recalled that at 
Doha, Members had agreed by consensus to launch the DDA; it was therefore a trite law that the 
DDA could only be ended through consensus, which Nigeria believed was not currently the case. Nigeria thus welcomed the ongoing consultations by the Director-General on WTO's future work 
particularly on the early conclusion of DDA negotiations. 
1.44.  The recalibration of Members' expectations on what was "doable" should in no way lower 
the levels of ambition of the Doha Round negotiations. Nigeria considered all negotiating areas 
important. There should therefore be an overall bala nce in the levels of ambition in all areas, none 
of which should be treated to the exclusion of others. Agriculture however should remain the gateway and the engine of the negotiations – as it was an area where the negotiating outcomes 
would determine the fate of many developing countries whose economies depended on it for 
survival. 
1.45.  Confidence and trust should be built among all Members by ensuring that all issues would 
remain on the table. Technical work in proponent-led discussions should continue, especially in 
those areas lagging behind. Nigeria was committed to advancing work in all areas particularly on 
development, agriculture, NAMA and services. The concept of "new issues" was yet to be defined 
in terms of scope and content. Although every Member had the right to propose any new issues for 
negotiations, such proposals could only move forward through consensus. It was Nigeria's position, 
therefore, that new issues could only be advanced in accordance with the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions subsequently adopted after taking into consideration the significant progress that had been achieved in the discussions by Members on the issues. 
1.46.  The representative of Chinese Taipei, on behalf of the Article XII Members, welcomed the 
fruitful outcomes reached at MC10. The first priority on Members' agenda on future work should be 
to fully implement the Nairobi outcomes with emphasis on those already mandated in previous WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 8 - 
 
  decisions. The most urgent and primary tasks included harnessing positive momentum from 
Nairobi, continuing the dialogue and finding ways to collectively move forward.  
1.47.  Paragraph 33 of the Nairobi Declaration prov ided that Ministers had instructed Members to 
work on finding ways to advance the negotiations. Paragraph 27 of the Declaration stated that the 
special situation of Article XII Members, wh ich had undertaken extensive market access 
commitments at the time of their accessions, should be taken into account. Negotiations involved a "give-and-take" process. The forward movement that Members were instructed to achieve would 
only be possible if all the participants were open, flexible and prepared to respect the "bottom-
lines" of the other parties. 
1.48.  Time was not on their side. The negotiations should therefore be conducted at a certain 
pace. Members should set out their work plan up to MC11 as quickly as possible. There should be 
a strict limit placed on the time they would spend reflecting since "reflection" without any timeline 
or specific objectives could turn into "fruitless contemplation". 
1.49.  Members currently needed to take action – fast. They had to avoid a repeat of the MC9 and 
MC10 scenarios where they had failed to finish their negotiations in Geneva and had left it to their 
Ministers to try to conclude the technical negotiat ions at the Ministerial Conference. The principles 
of "transparency" and "inclusiveness" should also unequivocally be respected throughout the 
process of their future work – both up to and during MC11. 
1.50.  The Article XII Members were prepared to start working immediately and constructively with 
the Director-General, the Negotiating Group Chairs  and all Members to advance their future work 
programme. 
1.51.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela associated with the statement to 
be made by the G-33 and thanked the Director-G eneral for convening the 10 February informal 
HODs meeting. Venezuela also had some serious concerns on the Ministerial Conference, both on 
process and substance.  
1.52.  While Venezuela agreed with the Director -General that Members had to improve the way 
they worked in Geneva, they should also reflec t on doing the same for Ministerial Conferences. 
They had had a clearly framed process in Geneva with many delegations wanting to move work 
forward to arrive in Nairobi with progress made. However, there had been some delegations who had not wanted to discuss or negotiate seriously in Geneva, as they had thought that they would have the ways and means of influencing the negotiations in other formats and behind closed doors 
in Nairobi. They had consequently left Geneva with negotiating texts which were complex and with 
a draft Ministerial Declaration where the contentious issues had never been discussed multilaterally. Wording had been imposed in Nair obi without even knowin g who had drafted them. 
What then was the point of having a Room W proc ess? Why then had meetings of the negotiating 
groups been held in Geneva, if only a few Members would be deciding for the rest of them in Nairobi? Results should not be pursued at any cost simply to demonstrate that the organization 
worked.  
1.53.  The Director-General had presented some preliminary ideas for Members' reflection to 
address the situation that had led them to Nair obi. On the Geneva Ambassadors leaving their 
"comfort zones", Venezuela was concerned that such an idea would continue to be construed as 
developing country Members satisfying others wi thout getting anything in return. On Ministers 
following work at the WTO more closely, Venezuel a found the idea of them meeting and talking on 
the margins of other meetings concerning. Such a practice would take the debate outside Geneva 
where ideas would be pre-cooked. Those discussions moreover took place in groups which were 
selective and where the WTO Membership was not duly represented. 
1.54.  The architecture and the mandate Minister s had given in Doha and which had been built 
upon at the following Ministerial Conferences remain ed in force and continued to be supported by a 
considerable number of Members. Such reality should not be forgotten. To separate the issues of the Doha Round from its architecture could run counter to the objective for which the DDA had been launched – to correct the imbalances left by the Uruguay Round. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.55.  Venezuela agreed with those delegations who had said that the world had changed, but it 
was concerned that some Members had noted that other challenges existed that the organization should face. However, others differed in opinion as had been reflected in Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration. Giving Members an ambitiou s agenda after Doha without achieving consensus 
and reaching a successful conclusion of the curre nt round would not be appropriate. For some 
specific issues, Members should not forget Paragraph 1(g) of the July 2004 Framework which remained in force. Before launching any new possible negotiations, there should therefore be a 
serious exercise of reflection and discussion so that they could better know the merits an issue 
could have before including it in the WTO's agenda. 
1.56.  The representative of Lao PDR, on behalf  of the ASEAN, noted that ASEAN was a collection 
of ten small and medium-sized economies. Amid its diverse profile, the Group shared a common 
understanding of the multilateral trading system's  importance. With trade as the lifeblood of all 
ASEAN Member States – boosting growth in the re gion, predictability provided by the rules-based 
system remained essential to their economies. Their efforts to deepen regional integration had 
even built on their respective WTO commitments. It was therefore important for ASEAN that the 
WTO remained at the forefront of international trade governance. 
1.57.  A house divided could not stand. ASEAN was worried on deep divergences amongst the 
Membership as reflected in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. ASEAN often referred to itself as the 
ASEAN family. Although not perfect and with its Members not always sharing the same views, the ASEAN family had made a commitment to live in the same house. They thus found ways to manage their differences and to work towards what was good for the collective which should also 
be true for the WTO. Even if they diverged on some key issues, Members should not forget that 
they had made a commitment to the multilateral  trading system. All Members, especially the 
major ones with a special role to play, should thus remain committed to multilateralism.  
1.58.  Moving forward, Members should keep its fo cus on the principles enshrined in the Marrakesh 
Agreement – enhancing trade's role in raising stan dards of living, creating jobs, lowering trade 
barriers, and ensuring that developing countries an d especially LDCs secured a share in the growth 
of international trade commensurate with the need s of their economic development. They should 
have honest conversations, face up to difficult re alities, and creatively find ways to move forward 
together. Only then could the multilateral trading system remain strong, vibrant and relevant.  
1.59.  The representative of Ecuador agreed with  calling the period after the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference a reflection phase. During that period, Members should define the work they would 
undertake in the near future for the efficient r unning of the organization. Efforts made at all 
Room W meetings and in the different negotiatin g groups had shown that the work carried out 
until MC10 had been transparent. Small countri es and developing country Members such as 
Ecuador in one way or another had been represented by themselves or their respective group coordinators in the Geneva process. The draft Ministerial Declaration, on the other hand, should 
only have minor issues left to be resolved by the Ministers during the Conference which had not 
been the case at MC10. In Nairobi, Ministers had b een confronted with the difficulty of being faced 
with a text with a lot of unresolved issues – a situation which should be analysed before MC11. 
1.60.  Most Members had expected that the pr inciples of transparency, participation and 
inclusiveness would be maintained throughout the negotiating process in Kenya. Ecuador was 
however disappointed that those had been absent during the negotiations in Nairobi and had been left behind in Geneva. Due to the importance of those principles, such a proceeding should not be 
repeated. The process had given the Ecuadorian authorities at MC10 enough reason to be 
concerned. Their participation had been limited in a process in which only a small group of Members had been the ones to take decisions. Dialogue and discussion continued to be the best 
tools for consensus-building. Unfortunately, those tools had distinctly been lacking in Nairobi 
where Members had been presented with pre-adopted decisions. Ecuador thus reiterated its call on Members to refrain from following the same process in future negotiations. 
1.61.  On the substantive issues in relation to  Paragraphs 30 to 32 of the Nairobi Declaration, 
Ecuador reiterated its view that the unfinished Doha negotiations should continue. It would only be 
possible to begin addressing new issues not referred to in any mandate prior to Nairobi once the Doha Round had been concluded. Things should be done in the right order and concluding the 
Doha Round should thus be the priority. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.62.  The mandate approved in Nairobi was clear. Despite mentioning that some Members did not 
r e a f f i r m  t h e  D o h a  m a n d a t e s  a s  t h e y  b e l i e v e d  n e w  a p p r o a c h e s  w e r e  n e c e s s a r y  t o  a c h i e v e  meaningful outcomes in multilateral negotiations, it had confirmed the commitment of all Members to advance negotiations on the remaining Doha issu es – placing development at the centre of their 
work and reaffirming that provisions for special and differential treatment should remain integral. 
1.63.  There were other things left to reflect on. He drew the attention of Members to a number of 
questions based on his personal experience at th e WTO. A few weeks after he had started in the 
organization, work had commenced on the draft Nairobi Declaration. A couple of months after, he 
had attended the Nairobi Ministerial Conference, the first of its kind that he had attended as Ecuador's representative to the WTO. He noted that he would not be reading any statement prepared earlier by his mission. He chose to sp eak spontaneously – echoing the views of a number 
of other Members particularly those of small nations. 
1.64.  What was the purpose of a Ministerial Declaration? Should a Ministerial Declaration require 
a n o t h e r  D e c l a r a t i o n  t o  r a t i f y  w h a t  h a d  b e e n  s a i d  b e f o r e  a nd  to  e n s u r e  t h at  i t  w a s  o f  v a l u e ?  I f  
Ministerial Declarations were not directly applicable then what purpose did they serve? If a 
Ministerial Declaration was based on the principle of international justice, in their case in relation to trade, then that was obviously different from the principle of equality as there was no absolute 
equality between non-equals. If Members were to talk about equality, they had to talk about 
equality in terms of equal circumstances, yet their circumstances were not all equal. The developed countries sought and ensured the welfare of their people while the least-developed and least-advanced ones constantly fought to ensure that their people enjoyed even at least some of 
that welfare. And if the Doha Declaration had fa irly established preferential treatment for the 
LDCs, should that not be taken seriously and applied directly? 
1.65.  Was the Ministerial Conference not the high est body in the organization? And in the absence 
of the Ministerial Conference, Members had the General Council which formed part of and to which 
they came with inspiration and in good faith to express their positions. The Council was a forum for establishing the institutional framework and for developing trade relations in accordance with 
the decisions made by the Ministerial Conference . If the Ministerial Conference was the highest 
internal body and if in its absence its functions were exercised by the General Council, and if the WTO administered the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Ecuador wondered why a Dispute Settlement Understanding was necessary. The DSU served to bring order to world trade in the 
event of failure to implement what had been agreed  upon or what was felt to be fair at a given 
moment in relation to a particular issue. If a Ministerial Conference was established to adopt the provisions necessary for the performance of the WTO's functions, the WTO as such was embodied 
in the Ministerial Conference. Members should cons ider that the Ministerial Conference, and in its 
absence the General Council, had the exclusive authority to interpret, by a qualified majority of three quarters of Members, the text of all the Agreements, the main Marrakesh Agreement and all 
those deriving from that Agreement. 
1.66.  Any Member could submit a proposal for amendment to the Ministerial Conference – and it 
would only enter into effect after its approval. If however the amendment was different from what was decided by the Conference; if the Members had ceded part of their domestic competencies to 
an international body so that their legislation had an international effect on their trade relations; if 
there was differential treatment in the Doha Decl aration; and, if the rulings and agreements 
forming the legal framework for all their activiti es and for the WTO had no direct and immediate 
application then they would only be making emotional statements to no practical effect. 
1.67.  He further noted that a Ministerial Declaration was a commitment to be respected. Members 
should thus begin by respecting the Doha Declar ation. Since the previous summer, he had heard a 
lot of talk about the Doha mandate but failed to understand how they could have a mandate that 
no one complied with. A mandate that required subsequent ratifications and resolved nothing was not a mandate unless there was serious, consistent and congruent political will to move the organization and its work forward in terms of real, practical and positive results. 
1.68.  Members should immediately examine whether an interpretation by the General Council 
and, in due course, by the Ministerial Conference , should establish that the decisions taken by 
those bodies were of a binding nature and directly  applicable without going through the routine of 
new, subsequent and repeated Conferences, with out going through the routine of waiting 14 or 
20 years for a decision to be ratified when, technically, according to the most basic legal principle WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 11 - 
 
  and under the texts of the Agreements, it did not n eed to be ratified. In that way, Members could 
put an end to the doubt and uncertainty regarding the direct application of the decisions adopted by the WTO's highest body – the Ministerial Conference. 
1.69.  The representative of Turkey echoed th e Director-General's statement that the Nairobi 
Ministerial Conference was a success. Expectations before MC10 had however been so low that the 
Nairobi outcome was perceived even greater than it actually was as any outcome concerning some main subjects were yet to be achieved.  
1.70.  The decision on export subsidies, which undoubtedly was the most concrete outcome of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Conference, had been achieved  due to the flexibility shown by a handful of 
Members, including Turkey. However, to strengthen  the multilateral trading system, all Members, 
and not just some, should contribute. 
1.71.  Most of the work in agriculture remained untouched as it was the case for domestic support 
and market access. Very limited success had been re ached on export credits, STEs and food aid. 
Members should thus work hard and contribute in the negotiations for obtaining a fairer and 
development-oriented framework in agriculture by MC11. 
1.72.  Disciplines adopted in Nairobi should also be improved. Turkey's applied tariff rates on 
NAMA products were on par with most developed Members. It would only be just, fair and 
legitimate to demand the immediate commencement of structured and ambitious negotiations in 
NAMA and services to agree on improved market access by MC11. 
1.73.  On future work, transparency and inclusiv eness were the key elements in the negotiations. 
All Members should have the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process as 
outcomes should not be based on the preferences of a few. Members needed to strengthen the 
Geneva process. Substantial work should not be left to the Ministers at the last minute. Implementation was crucial. Turkey expected Memb ers to participate in the negotiations on SSM, 
among others, with an open mind and to reach a satisfactory outcome on the issue soon. As the 
outcome achieved in Nairobi had been limited, furt her work should also be done on LDC issues.  
1.74.  The world was neither safer nor economical ly better than when the DDA had been launched. 
The considerations behind its launch were conversely even more valid and pressing at present. 
Members should therefore find ways to address the remaining DDA issues. On new issues, Turkey 
was open to discuss them after properly explor ing their content and framework. Those issues 
should however not come at the expense of the outstanding issues.  
1.75.  The post-Nairobi period came with many  uncertainties. Turkey hoped Members could turn 
them into opportunities that could help increase the volume of international trade, create robust 
and sustainable growth and new jobs for all. On its part, Turkey would continue to support the 
multilateral trading system and would engage constructively in the WTO's future work. 
1.76.  The representative of Nepal thanked the Kenyan Government for successfully hosting MC10. 
Though Nairobi could not fulfil Nepal's expectations, substantive decisions had been made on some 
key areas including in the LDC-specific issues. Nepal expected that all decisions, including those on 
LDCs, would be implemented in good faith and in their letter and spirit. 
1.77.  Least integrated in the multilateral tr ading system among the Members, suffering from 
structural weaknesses of their economies and struggling for substantial growth and diversification 
of their export products, the LDCs would naturally aspire for a robust trade regime that enabled 
development. Nepal could not think of disbanding  from the development dimension envisaged in 
the DDA. The DDA was necessary to create an inclusive and equitable world that would ultimately 
help LDCs achieve sustainable development. Ne pal therefore supported the advancement of the 
DDA to reach its logical conclusion in an inclusive manner.    
1.78.  Special and differential treatment provisions were meant to address the pressing 
developmental needs of the developing country Members and the LDCs to enhance their policy 
space in international trade and support their industrialization. Making the S&D provisions binding, effective and operational for the intended results was the only known way to prepare a level WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 12 - 
 
  playing field. Members should therefore seriously pursue S&D to achieve inclusive results, build 
upon the Nairobi outcomes and expeditiously accomplish all the remaining tasks. 
1.79.  Members should ensure credibility, tran sparency and openness in the WTO decision-making 
process. As a Member-driven organization, the princi ples of equality and inclusiveness enshrined in 
Article 9 of the Marrakesh Agreement should make equal participation an imperative in deciding on 
all of their concerns at the WTO.  
1.80.  Members could only move ahead on a sustainable path by rectifying the imbalances and 
inconsistencies resulting from the previous round of trade negotiations. Nepal thus reaffirmed the 
DDA and called upon Members to speedily conclude the Doha round and achieve meaningful outcomes by approaching the negotiations with the requisite flexibility. 
1.81.  Much remained to be done for the LDCs to have meaningful market access opportunities, 
overcome constraints, enhance supply side capacity and make trade a strong enabler of 
development. The formidable challenges posed by  the plurilateral and mega-regional agreements 
outside the organization made strengthening the WTO as the sole platform for advancing the 
multilateral trading system equally important. LDCs tended to suffer from preference erosions as a 
result of increased trade liberalization and only a robust, transparent and dynamic WTO could deliver meaningful results to the LDCs. 
1.82.  Members should build upon Paragraph 24 of the Nairobi Declaration that accorded due 
priority to the issues and concerns of LDCs in the multilateral trading system. Turning that notion into reality could only be done when all Members, particularly those from the well-off countries, showed the necessary commitment and willingness that were called for. 
1.83.  Nepal expressed its heartfelt gratitude to the Chairman for successfully completing his term 
and congratulated in advance the soon-to-be-elected General Council Chairman and assured him of its full support in discharging his new responsibility. Nepal also extended its congratulations to 
all incoming Chairs of the various WTO bodies and wished them all a successful tenure. 
1.84.  The representative of Indonesia, on beha lf of the G-33, appreciated the opportunity to 
discuss the follow-up of Nairobi outcomes and the way forward. They had formidable challenges 
ahead and resuming discussions earlier would greatly help their deliberations in achieving 
meaningful deliverables by MC11. The G-33 welcomed the Nairobi outcomes which called for post-Nairobi work programmes on public stockholding for food security purposes and on SSM. Members 
had yet to agree on a permanent solution for public stockholding and on accessible, simple and 
effective SSM. The Group thus urged Members to immediately begin meaningful engagement on 
these two priority issues. 
1.85.  The G-33 valued Members' unequivocal confirmation that developing country Members 
would have the right to have recourse to an SSM as envisaged under Paragraph 7 of the Hong 
Kong Declaration and that negotiations on the issue would be undertaken in dedicated sessions of the CoA SS. The Group also appreciated Members' commitment to continue negotiations on public 
stockholding for food security purposes in dedicated sessions and to make all concerted efforts to 
agree and adopt a permanent solution in an accelerated time frame distinct from the agriculture negotiations under the DDA. The G-33 remained determined to have meaningful outcomes on those two issues and would necessarily continue to pursue to have special products for developing 
country Members as soon as discussions on tariff reduction in the market access pillar resumed. 
The G-33 stood ready to continue working constructively with other Members to follow up the said Nairobi Decisions and looked forward to eq ually constructive engagement from all. 
1.86.  The representative of the Republic of Ko rea associated with the statement of the G-33. 
Members needed a period of reflection which shou ld neither constitute inactivity nor lead to a 
prolonged uncertainty surrounding the WTO negotiations. Members should start discussions on 
how to address the remaining DDA issues without much delay. In doing so, they should be mindful 
that discussions of a general nature would not be helpful at that stage. Each negotiating group should play a central role in identifying a way forward in respective areas without being held hostage to sequencing. Negotiating group Chairs sh ould begin informal contacts with Members in 
various configurations.  WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.87.  There was a broader support that the WTO needed to explore non-DDA issues to remain in 
keeping with the evolving global trade environment.  Giving priority to outstanding issues should 
not prevent Members from addressing issues of great relevance to the work of the WTO. They 
needed to start discussions on an exploratory and without prejudice basis and move beyond 
expressions of general interest towards more concrete discussions.  
1.88.  Members should fully implement the Bali and Nairobi packages including the early entry into 
force of the TFA.  
1.89.  Korea welcomed the idea to further engage the private sector. The support of the business 
community was essential to the success of their work. Business would be interested to see concrete outcomes that would contribute to expanding opportunities and facilitating transactions. The best way to regain the community's interest would be to prove that the WTO could deliver in 
that respect.  
1.90.  As the Director-General had said, Members had left too many things open when they 
headed to Nairobi and as such they should enhanc e engagement of capital and their Ministers. It 
was however more likely that they would engage less in Geneva as long as some of them knew 
that they would be assured of time and opportunity to negotiate until the last second of the Ministerial Conference – which was what had happened before leaving for Nairobi. They should 
look into it to ensure more predictable and tran sparent Ministerial Conferences in the years ahead. 
1.91.  Critical and open-minded discussions were needed. Indulging in abstract and theoretical 
debates would carry the risk of driving Members into ideological confrontation which would only prolong the uncertainty. Putting on the table concrete ideas and suggestions would be important to 
ensure productive deliberations. 
1.92.  The representative of Paraguay said that the results obtained at the last two Ministerial 
Conferences – Bali and Nairobi – were historic. Those outcomes had given Members platforms to 
build the future and ensure that the multilateral  trading system provided the means to ensure 
greater predictability for their economic players. Th ey should thus strengthen that system for it to 
perpetuate growth and to allow them to genuine ly enjoy the benefits of international trade. 
1.93.  The WTO remained the forum for multilateral trade negotiations. Amid ups and downs, 
fluidity of international markets and financial uncertainties which had become the hallmark of the current era and which could persist, Members should not forget the WTO's central role in the architecture and construction of a free market. All of them benefitted from it through the 
opportunity it provided to ensure their productivity and competitiveness.  
1.94.  Members should take a practical and realistic approach in light of the recent Ministerial 
Conferences. The negotiating groups therefore had a significant role to play – immediately getting 
down to work. Market access negotiations warranted further attention, being an area which was 
very tangible to the general public but had not been fully dealt with in past Ministerial Conferences. It was an area of great significance and could be a way to make the international 
community understand WTO's work. It was equally true for agriculture. Paraguay would advocate 
greater discipline on domestic support with distor ting effects on market access. Work should be 
done in that area to allow predictable and secure trading conditions. 
1.95.  Members should strengthen the WTO's role and ensure that all issues of importance to 
international trade would be dealt with. The global value chains and digital economy, among 
others, were central to the multilateral trading system. Those issues had to be dealt with by them on a daily basis and had been highlighted as priority areas for landlocked developing countries.  
1.96.  Paraguay hoped that all Members would renew their commitment to negotiate and ensure 
constructive and inclusive dialogue in a transpar ent framework. They should therefore not forget 
their role as Members working with the Secretar iat, other organizations and the civil society. 
1.97.  The representative of Burkina Faso thanke d the Director-General and the delegations that 
had welcomed H.E. Mr Moussa Nebie, wh o would arrive in Geneva shortly.  WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.98.  The representative of Cameroon welcomed the Director-General's analysis and would revert 
to it in greater detail in relation to the proposed lines of action. Cameroon supported the 
statements made on 10 February by  the African Group and by Uganda. 
1.99.  While MC10 had yielded significant results in several areas, those results were insufficient 
when it came to development, particularly on S&D treatment. Nairobi had failed to produce any 
results that favoured industrialization which was a priority for Cameroon and a pre-requisite to development and proper integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system. 
1.100.  Given that development remained at the heart of their work under the current Round and 
that Members had not yet managed to complete the Round or end it, Cameroon called upon Members to rapidly resume their work with as much clarity as possible and with greater commitment in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals. Cameroon would express its views 
on specific subjects in the corresponding negotiating groups and other appropriate WTO bodies. 
1.101.  The representative of Morocco, on behalf  of the African Group, thanked the Director-
General for his vision in setting out the new stages of the post-Nairobi work programme. He 
thanked the Chairman for his reports on the implem entation of the Bali and Nairobi results and for 
his bold and tireless efforts during his term. 
1.102.  Members should safeguard WTO's credibility as a forum for multilateral negotiations. The 
Nairobi outcomes should therefore be implemented in a manner satisfactory to all and they should 
all be committed to the remaining Doha issues and resolve them as rapidly as possible. Their success in implementing those two components would send out a clear signal that the WTO continued to play a crucial role in the multilateral trading system.  
1.103.  African economies were most likely to see their interests supported and the development 
processes consolidated in the multilateral framework provided by the WTO. Morocco's case for Africa's improved integration into world trade had thus never been stronger. The task had not 
been easy but the African Group was committed and would do what it could to ensure their post-
Nairobi success by offering a pragmatic approach – Members' focus should centre on the development dimension in moving ahead. 
1.104.  The progress accomplished in the three pillars for which there had been results – trade 
facilitation, agriculture and development issues, was generally acknowledged to be insufficient. The Group consequently called upon all Members to engage in further negotiations in good faith and on the basis of the progress achieved so far, bearing in mind Members' proposals and 
comments. They should urgently prioritise a pack age of measures centred on issues relating to 
developing countries and LDCs, implementation-related concerns, and ambitious S&D treatment to be agreed in an inclusive and transparent proc ess. The post-Nairobi agenda should cover the 
remaining areas of the DDA, which were critical for Africa, particularly in agriculture, services and 
NAMA. In concluding, the African Group congratu lated the new Chairs of the WTO bodies and 
wished them every success. 
1.105.  The representative of Benin, on behalf of  the LDCs, associated with the statements made 
by the G-33 and the African Group. The LDCs thanked the negotiating group Chairs for the 
organizational steps they had taken as part of the follow up to the Nairobi outcomes and for the continuation of the Doha Round negotiations. The LDC Group congratulated Ambassador Ahsan 
and his team for the significant contribution they had made to the multilateral trade negotiations 
during Bangladesh's term as the LDC Group C oordinator. The Group also thanked Ambassador 
Monyane (Lesotho) and Ambassador Williams (Barbados)  for the significant contributions that they 
and their delegations had made to their work in 2015 as African Group Coordinator and ACP 
Coordinator, respectively. 
1.106.  The issues of interest to LDCs such as those pertaining to the LDC package and the Doha 
Round of negotiations which had not been addressed in Nairobi should be included in the current 
phase of Members' work, in accordance with the Doha Agenda and Paragraphs 24 and 34 of the Nairobi Declaration. Those issues included substantial reduction in distortive domestic support in agriculture, cotton, DFQF market access for products exported by LDCs, preferential rules of origin, 
the implementation of the trade in services wa iver, the proposals submitted on S&D treatment, 
fisheries subsidies, non-tariff barriers and intellectual property. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.107.  The LDC Group thanked the partners that had made pledges for Phase II of the EIF 
Programme. The budget for the second phase of the Programme was estimated to be between 250 and 300 million US dollars. The LDCs urged Members that had not been able to do so during the Pledging Conference in Nairobi to contribute to the Programme's resources to ensure predictable 
support for the trade-related activities conducted by LDCs taking into account their needs 
identified in Phase II of the EIF Programme. The Group urged other partners to follow the trend by supporting the trade promotion efforts of LDCs and contribute to the fundamental objective of 
their integration into the multilateral system and the fight against poverty. 
1.108.  On new issues, the Group urged all Members to work towards concluding the Doha Round 
between then and MC11 taking into account the development dimension – which could give sufficient time and context to examine any other issues that they would wish to address. 
1.109.  The representative of Zimbabwe supported the statements made by the African Group, the 
ACP Group, the C-4 and the G-33. Zimbabwe welcomed the progress made in export competition 
and in other areas where some advances had been  made. There should however be clarity on how 
the decision on Export Competition could be legally enforceable under the WTO's DSU, due to the 
lack of a mandate to amend the WTO Agreemen t in line with Article 10 of the Marrakesh 
Agreement establishing the WTO. 
1.110.  Zimbabwe remained concerned that not much progress had been made on the important 
issues in the DDA including an outcome on SSM, Pu blic Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, 
domestic support and development. Though the Nairobi Declaration had not provided a clear 
mandate on the DDA, Zimbabwe identified itself with the first part of Paragraph 30 of the 
Declaration which provided, "We recognize that many Members reaffirm the Doha Development 
Agenda, and the Declarations and Decisions adopted at Doha and at the Ministerial Conferences held since then, and reaffirm their full commitment to conclude the DDA on that basis." 
1.111.  He said that negotiations on the remaining DDA issues should continue to be based on the 
DDA architecture i.e. the DDA mandate and the principles of S&D Treatment, Less Than Full 
Reciprocity and Single Undertaking. Until Members reached consensus to close the Round, it 
remained subsistent and ongoing as had been agreed in Paragraph 45 of the Doha Declaration – a 
point buttressed by the position that they had ta ken in Nairobi: "We acknowledge the strong legal 
structure of this Organization." 
1.112.  Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration stated that "some wish to identify and discuss 
other issues for negotiation". Zimbabwe was concerned that Members would reach that stage 
without establishing the scope of those issues. In line with Paragraph 1(g) of the 2004 July 
Package, work on new issues should only be brought to the table upon conclusion of the DDA. On 
the Relationship between Trade and Investment, Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy 
and Transparency in Government Procurement, Para graph 1(g) of the 2004 July Package provided, 
"The Council agrees 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 of these issues will take place within the WTO during the Doha Round." The July Package remained applicable and should be respected. Diverting from Paragraph 1(g) could only  be done by consensus. They should prioritize 
work where results had not yet been achieved. Decisions to start negotiations on new issues 
should be agreed by consensus in line with Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration which Zimbabwe would not be in a position to join before the conclusion of the DDA. 
1.113.  On process, he stressed that the WTO should establish basic rules of democracy, good 
governance and accountability at Ministerial Conf erences. If Members were effectively excluded 
from the decision-making process, how then could they be made responsible for the outcome that 
was presented to them as a take-it or leave-it package with the absence of an equal or any real 
opportunity to voice their positions, objections and concerns? Once excluded from the negotiation process, it would be near impossible for delegations to reject a text and cause the collapse of the Conference at the final moment. It had been pu t to Members by those who had been doing the 
process longer that it was either that current uneven process or there would be no outcome at all; 
that that was the way things had always been; that there were imbalances in power relations within international institutions; and, that the same scenario beckoned for MC11. Those were 
exactly the reasons why they were there to make sure that their voices were heard, that 
institutions such as the WTO adopted a range of procedures to offset the imbalance by respecting WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 16 - 
 
  the needs of the less powerful among them and building democracy through more inclusive and 
transparent rules. 
1.114.  Concerning WTO mini-ministerial meetings held on the margins of other meetings, nobody 
could stop any group of countries from meeting anywhere and at any time. Given that such 
meetings would however not cover the entire membership, the Secretariat's advocacy of such 
meetings remained problematic. Zimbabwe could not accept a process where a few selected countries would discuss key WTO issues at Ministerial level, proceed to set the agenda and build a 
process which would then railroad the rest into a manufactured consensus around the positions of 
a few countries. Normalising such practices in the course of negotiations even if those were "informal" would erode trust and confidence and would plant the seeds of disaffection amongst the 
excluded majority. Such a situation was neither productive nor desirable. 
1.115.  Those who had studied international trade cl aimed that equal participation of all countries 
in the shaping of a just, equitable, democratic and inclusive trading system could in fact contribute 
to a better world. Going forward, Members should  therefore not lose sight of the development 
objective reaffirmed in Nairobi. They should work for a balanced outcome that would uplift the 
LDCs, small and vulnerable and poor economies from poverty and not vice-versa.  
1.116.  The representative of Jamaica associated with the statement made by the G-33 and 
thanked the Director-General for his constructive engagement with the Jamaican authorities during 
his visit in Jamaica. Nairobi had not been an atypical Ministerial. What had transpired was normal. The two elements that had been raised by Members – exclusion and brinkmanship – were 
engrained into the WTO working methods and Member s should reflect upon them. They tended to 
enunciate the FIT principles then abrogate them on key issues and in key moments perhaps with a 
valid reason but with deep concern on the part of Members more broadly. Jamaica offered no comment on how to resolve those challenges since those had all been acts of choice. The collective 
call to find better ways of doing business had nevertheless been encouraging especially when their 
Ministers would be involved. Variable geometry  should be kept variable and democratic.  
1.117.  On future work, Members should deepen their conversation and make the post-Nairobi 
period one of practical steps to find multilateral  outcomes, with due respect for the value of the 
work that they had done in the past while focusi ng on issues and approaches that would promise 
for consensus-based outcomes in the future. They had neither time nor resources to waste even as they sought to proverbially make haste slowly. 
1.118.  The representative of Gabon looked forwar d to working with all of the delegations in a 
constructive way to help move their respective agenda forward. She thanked the Director-General 
for his report on the Nairobi Ministerial which provided an idea of the enormous work that awaited 
her delegation. Gabon supported the statement ma de by the African Group and reaffirmed the 
importance of the multilateral trading system for its development, being a country with an intermediary income. Gabon remained fully committed to working together with all Members and 
with the Secretariat. 
1.119.  The Director-General said he had taken note of all the statements made and would 
continue to facilitate that dialogue. It was a job incumbent upon Members. If they wanted to move 
forward, they needed to engage more frequently and more deeply on how to advance 
negotiations. The negotiating groups should be meeting regularly which would be facilitated by 
their respective Chairs and he urged Members to engage in them. Those who wanted to discuss non-DDA issues should figure out how to do it, and he urged them to engage with others and 
propose ways to discuss the matters they wanted to discuss. The onus was on them. He would 
continue to listen to all Members carefully. 
1.120.  The General Council took note of the Director-General's report and of the statements. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 17 - 
 
  2  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND NAIROBI OUTCOMES — STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled4 that the agenda item on implementation of the Bali outcomes had 
been on the agenda since July 2014, to provide an  opportunity to assess the work taking place in 
those regular bodies which had directly been working on the various Bali Decisions. Regular 
reports had been provided and circulated to all de legations under the item. At the Tenth Ministerial 
Conference, Ministers had also agreed on a numbe r of other decisions – some of which had been 
an "evolution" of the Bali Decisions and as such he had included under the item also a report on 
the implementation of Nairobi Outcomes, where applicable. 
2.2.  He noted that some of the Bali and Nairobi Decisions contained specific reporting provisions 
to the General Council. He would therefore leave it to his successor and to delegations to assess 
whether the item was needed on the agenda on a regular basis, or whether only specific reports 
on individual issues should be provided when re quired. For the meeting, he would provide updates 
on the implementation of the various decisions where those were available. 
2.3.   Concerning the decisions on regular work, on TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints, 
at MC10, Ministers had directed the TRIPS Council to continue its examination of the scope and modalities for such complaints and to make recommendations to their next Session. It had been 
agreed that, in the meantime, Members would not initiate non-violation and situation complaints 
under the TRIPS Agreement. The Council for TRIPS would continue to discuss the matter at its next meeting on 1-2 March. 
2.4.  On the work programme on electronic commerce, in line with the Decision adopted in Nairobi, 
the General Council would conduct its first review of progress at its July meeting. 
2.5.  On the work programme on small economies,  the Chair of the CTD would provide his regular 
report under the following agenda item. Similarly, the General Council had a dedicated agenda 
item on Aid for Trade – which had been among the Bali decisions. Concerning Trade and Transfer 
of Technology, he would refer delegations to the update he had provided in November. 
2.6.  On Agriculture, he said that the Committee on Agriculture would monitor the implementation 
of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. The monitoring function would be 
achieved in accordance with existing notifi cation requirements under the Agreement on 
Agriculture, complemented by the annual dedicated discussion process on export competition resulting from the Bali and Nairobi outcomes. In preparation for the annual examination process 
scheduled during the following June CoA meeting,  the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture had 
circulated on 20 January 2016 a questionnaire to Members. 
2.7.  Ministers had also agreed to review the provisions on international food aid contained in the 
Nairobi decision within the CoA monitoring of the implementation of the Marrakesh Ministerial 
Decision of April 1994 on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on LDCs and NFIDCs. The monitoring exercise which usually took place during the 
November meeting of the CoA had been postpone d in 2015 due to the preparatory work for MC10, 
and would take place at the Committee's next meeting on 9 March. Ministers had also decided that the Committee on Agriculture should review ever y three years the disciplines contained in the 
Nairobi decision on export competition. 
2.8.  The Committee on Agriculture was also re sponsible for the implementation of the Bali 
Decision on TRQ administration. There were no updates regarding previous reports on the issue. 
2.9.  According to the Nairobi Decisions on Public  Stockholding for Food Security Purposes and the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing country Members, the General Council would 
regularly review progress in the negotiations on those two issues which would be held in dedicated sessions of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. 
                                               
4 The Chairman's report was subseq uently circulated in JOB/GC/90. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 18 - 
 
  2.10.  With regard to Cotton, the implementation  of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision would be 
undertaken through bi-annual Dedicated Discussions in the context of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. 
2.11.  On LDC issues, regarding the Decision on th e Operationalization of the LDC Services Waiver 
adopted in Bali, he was pleased to report as of that day that the Council for Trade in Services had 
received a total of 23 notifications of prefer ences for LDC services and service suppliers. 
2.12.  Ministers in Nairobi had adopted a Decision on the "Implementation of Preferential 
Treatment in Favour of Services and Service Suppliers of Least Developed Countries and 
Increasing LDC Participation in Services Trade".  The Decision extended the period of the waiver 
under which WTO Members could grant preferenti al treatment to LDC services and service 
suppliers until 31 December 2030. It also instructed the Council for Trade in Services, under a 
standing item on its agenda, to expeditiously cons ider approval of preferential measures beyond 
Article XVI, facilitate discussions on technical assi stance aimed at promoting LDCs' participation in 
services trade, set up a review of the operation of the notified preferences and further discuss any 
issues that could facilitate benefits under the preferences. The Services Council would take up the 
issue at its next meeting on 18 March. 
2.13.  The 2013 Ministerial Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs had been implemented 
in 2015, as already reported in a communication from the Committee on Rules of Origin to the 
General Council at the end of 2015. Since then, Members had engaged in an intensive negotiating process which had culminated at MC10 with the adoption of an Addendum to the 2013 Decision. 
The Nairobi Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs built on the Bali Decision by providing 
more detailed directions on specific issues. It also provided that developed preference-granting 
Members and developing country Members declarin g themselves in a position to implement the 
Decision should notify, by the end of 2016, the me asures being taken in order to implement it. The 
Decision would be on the agenda of the follo wing meeting of the CRO on 22 April and the 
Committee would inform the General Council of any new developments in due course. 
2.14.  Regarding the Bali Decision on DFQF, it had remained under regular review in the CTD. At 
its November meeting, the CTD conducted its annual DFQF review on the basis of a Secretariat 
report, which had been prepared on an annual basis since the Bali Ministerial Conference. Prior to the Nairobi Ministerial Conference, the Director-Gener al had issued a report on the progress on the 
implementation of the decision on providing DFQF market access to LDCs. Continuous progress 
had been noted. DFQF market access remained a standing item on the CTD's agenda and that 
provided a regular opportunity to Members to advance DFQF market access for LDC products.  
2.15.  On the Monitoring Mechanism on S&D Treatment which operated in a Dedicated Session of 
the CTD, the Bali Decision stipulated that it had to serve as a focal point within the WTO to analyse 
and review the implementation of S&D provisio ns. Although four meetings of the Dedicated 
Session had been held, no written submissions from Members had yet been received. The CTD 
Chairman had called on Members to make written submissions in order to make the Mechanism 
operational. The next Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mechanism would be held in June. 
2.16.  Work on the TFA's entry into force and efficient operation had continued to progress since 
his last report. Members had submitted additional category A notifications, bringing their current 
total to 79. The PCTF had also started to receive a number of category B and C notifications which 
was good news. He could further report positive  advances on the ratification front. Several 
Members had deposited their acceptance instrument and even more were reported to be in the 
works. As of that morning, a total of 69 instruments had been recorded counting for over 60% of 
the ratifications required for the TFA to enter into force – a very positive development that he hoped to see continued and accelerated in the near future. 
2.17.  The representative of Sierra Leone cong ratulated the Director-General and the MC10 Chair 
for the successful outcome of the Conference and associated with the statements made by LDCs 
and the African Group under the previous agenda item. She said that she was taking the floor as the Chair of the Enhanced Integrated Framework, to express the EIF's gratitude to all the Member 
States which had pledged their generous contributions to Phase II of the EIF in Nairobi on 
15 December.  She also wished to recall Paragraph 15 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.18.  The EIF supported LDCs to be more active players in the global trading system by helping 
them tackle supply-side constraints to trade. The programme worked towards a wider goal of promoting economic growth and sustainable develo pment and helping to lift more people out of 
poverty. The programme currently helped 51 of th e poorest countries worldwide with the aim to 
mainstream trade into national development strategies, set up structures needed to coordinate the 
delivery of trade-related technical assistance and build capacity to trade, which also included addressing critical supply-side constraints.  
2.19.  She said that the EIF process aimed at strengthening donors' support to a country's trade 
agenda. LDCs could use the EIF as a vehicle to assist in coordinating donors' support and to leverage additional Aid for Trade resources whereas donors could sign up to the EIF as a vehicle to deliver on their initial Aid for Trade commitments. The importance of the EIF had been recognized 
in both the Addis Ababa outcome document on Fi nancing for Development, and the United Nations 
2030 Development Agenda, as well as by the MC10 Ministerial Declaration as an engine to boost trade in LDCs.  
2.20.  The Evaluation of Phase I of the EIF whic h had finished at the end of 2015 had concluded 
that the EIF had been value for money and had recommended it to be extended to a second phase from 2016 to 2022. The second phase hoped to achieve the strengthened role of trade to benefit 
the poor and reduce poverty, to increase productive capacity and presence in international 
markets and to create fully sustainable trade policy and institutional capacity.  
2.21.  The funding requested for Phase II was to cover up to 33 Diagnostic Trade Integration 
Studies and Updates, 14 projects to support the integration of trade priorities into national 
development strategies, up to 79 catalytic sector support projects based on country-identified 
priorities. The estimated budget for those ac tivities was between $274 and $320 million. At the 
Nairobi Pledging Conference, close to US$90 million  or less than 33% of the required amount had 
been pledged and while they were most grateful fo r those pledges, they would still like to appeal 
to donors to consider increasing their pledges over the next 5 years and to encourage those Member States who had not yet done so to make contributions to the EIF Trust Fund.  
2.22.  Those might be modest sums but for LDCs the small projects funded by the EIF were 
invaluable to break down formidable barriers that  were preventing them to derive full benefits 
from the multilateral trading system. Funding thro ugh the EIF had a great potential to enhance the 
capacity of LDCs to benefit inter alia  from the concessions offered by  the existing WTO decisions.  
2.23.  LDCs were looking up to the developed countries and developing countries in a position to 
do so for support. They were encouraged by the reference to the EIF in Paragraph 15 of the Nairobi Declaration which stated, "We are determined to further intensify our efforts to secure the 
necessary level of financial contributions to the programme with a view of enabling the delivery of 
predictable trade-related support to LDCs ..." Members should make good on that promise.  
2.24.  The General Council took note of the Chairman's report and of the statement. 
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES — REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that in line with the framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda and the Committee on Trade and Development reported regularly to the Council 
on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on the subject. At Nairobi, Ministers had also 
adopted a Decision reaffirming their commitment to the Work Programme and instructed the CTD 
to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibility of the General Council. 
He invited Ambassador Juan Esteban Aguirre (Paraguay), Chairperson of the CTD, to report on developments in the area. 
3.2.  Ambassador Juan Esteban Aguirre (Paraguay), Chairperson of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, was pleased to report that at the Ministerial Conference held in Nairobi, Ministers had 
reaffirmed their commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies and had taken note of 
all the work conducted to date. In their Decision, Ministers had instructed the Secretariat to 
conduct further work on global value chains and small economies, as well as on the challenges WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 20 - 
 
  small economies faced in their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in the area of trade 
facilitation. 
3.3.  The next meeting of the Dedicated Session scheduled for 9 March would address both of 
those issues and would focus on global value chains. Members would also continue their discussion 
on issues raised in the Secretariat paper in WT/COMTD/SE/W/31. At the last meeting of the 
Dedicated Session in October, Members had focused on the Secretariat paper's chapters concerning the agri-food and fisheries sectors. At the 9 March Session, they would focus on the 
textiles and apparel sector and the challenges small economies faced with accessing and upgrading 
in those value chains section. Work would also begin on the challenges that small economies faced with reducing trade costs particularly in the area of trade facilitation in keeping with the decision taken by Ministers at MC10. Later in the year, the Dedicated Session would examine small 
economies' participation in services value chains, in particular the challenges and opportunities 
they faced in linking into business outsourcing and tourism services. 
3.4.  The representative of Guatemala, on behalf  of the SVEs, gave great importance to the work 
programme. The SVEs believed that the future work of the CTD Dedicated Session would be 
fruitful and would comply with the Ministerial Decision adopted in Nairobi. They looked forward to the next CTD Dedicated Session that would deal with global value chains in textiles and apparel as 
well as the initial discussion on how to tackle the challenges that their economies faced in their 
efforts to reduce trade costs especially in trade facilitation. 
3.5.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation looked forward to the 
9 March CTD Dedicated Session on Small Economies and to the continued work on both the 
opportunities and challenges experienced by small ec onomies.  He said that it could be useful for 
Members to use the March meeting to take up a highly relevant question: which Members should be considered "small economies" in the current context? The United States also welcomed 
discussion of the question in other committees wh ere issues were being raised by the group of 
Members that identified themselves as small econ omies. There could be further discussion on the 
characteristics of small economies that would warrant special examination, and on how those 
characteristics distinguished them from other developing economies. 
3.6.  The General Council took note of the report  of the Chairperson of the Dedicated Session of 
the CTD and of the statements. 
4  AID FOR TRADE WORK PROGRAMME 2016-2017 (WT/COMTD/AFT/W/60) — 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
4.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the recently circulated biennial Aid for Trade Work 
Programme contained in WT/COMTD/AFT/W/60. He invited Ambassador Juan Esteban Aguirre 
(Paraguay), Chairperson of the CTD, to take the floor. 
4.2.  Ambassador Juan Esteban Aguirre (Paraguay), Chairperson of the CTD, recalled that the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration read: "We recognize the importance of the Aid for Trade initiative in 
supporting developing country Members to bu ild supply-side capacity and trade-related 
infrastructure and we shall accord priority to the LDCs' needs. We take note of the outcomes of the WTO global reviews on Aid for Trade, in particular the Fifth Global Review, and recognize the continuing need for this initiative." 
4.3.  The new biennial Aid-for-Trade Work Programme for 2016-2017 in WT/COMTD/AFT/W/60 
was the first action to be taken in support of the Aid-for-Trade mandate elaborated in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. 
4.4.  Since the beginning of the year, he had co nvened one informal and one formal meeting of 
the CTD in Aid-for-Trade session. Those meetings had given Members the opportunity to feed in 
their ideas and perspectives. The meetings had allowed for a useful discussion on issues and 
priorities that could be considered in the new work programme. Those included suggestions that 
had been made by Members at the Fifth Global Review.  
4.5.  Members continued to demonstrate a high degree of engagement in the Initiative. The work 
programme had been revised twice to add in suggestions made by Members. The organizing WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 21 - 
 
  theme of the Work Programme was "Promoting Connectivity" which sought to build on the insights 
generated by the Fifth Global Review on the burden  of trade costs. High trade costs inhibited the 
trade integration of many developing countries and LDCs and acted as a brake on their development. That burden was particularly evident on landlocked and small economies. 
4.6.  As per past biennial programmes, the centrepiece of the work programme would be a Global 
Review of Aid for Trade which would most likely be scheduled for mid-2017. The Sixth Global Review would again be based on an extensive mo nitoring and evaluation  exercise undertaken 
jointly with the OECD and other partners. A series of outreach activities, thematic workshops and 
CTD Aid-for-Trade meetings were also foreseen. More details could be found in the Work Programme he was submitting to Members that day. 
4.7.  By focusing on "Promoting Connectivity", the 2016-2017 Work Programme would seek to 
further deepen analysis of the supply-side capaci ty and trade-related infrastructure constraints 
faced by developing countries with an increased focus on services trade and upgrading infrastructure. Taken together and individually, those activities would continue to support 
implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and relevant Programmes of 
Action including the Istanbul and Vienna Programmes and the Samoa Pathway. 
4.8.  As per existing practice he was submitting  the Work Programme under his own responsibility. 
The Work Programme reflected a shared vision of how to take the Aid-for-Trade Initiative forward 
and stroke an overall balance of delegations' views, comments and suggestions. He requested that the General Council took note of his statement and the related Aid-for-Trade Work Programme for 2016-2017. 
4.9.  The representative of the United States said that helping to enhance developing Members' 
participation in the global trading system especially through Aid-for-Trade related efforts remained 
a cornerstone of US Trade Policy. The United States reaffirmed its commitment to active 
participation in the implementation of the Aid for Trade Work Programme with the ultimate goal of 
addressing difficulties faced by Members as a resu lt of high trade costs. The US, however, noted 
with concern the inclusion of the specific reference to "small and vulnerable economies" in the 
work programme. As had been previously indicated, it was unclear what constituted small 
economies. The addition of the term vulnerable was more unclear in terms of any possibility for there being an agreed definition. The US did not know which countries were included in Members' efforts under the work programme on Aid for Trade – something which would be problematic for 
many. As small economies continued to push in 2016 for special consideration, the United States 
looked forward to a corresponding discussion to determine exactly which WTO Members they were actually discussing and the implications of cons idering those Members differently from all other 
developing Members. 
4.10.  The General Council took note of the new Aid for Trade Work Programme, of the statement 
of the Chairperson of the CTD and of the other statement. 
5  TRADE RESTRICTIONS BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION — COMMUNICATION FROM 
UKRAINE (G/C/W/720) 
5.1.  The Chairman noted that the item had been  included in the agenda at Ukraine's request 
made to the Secretariat on 2 February. Ukraine had also requested to include in the item its 
communication to the Goods Council circulated in document G/C/W/720. He invited the delegation 
of Ukraine to take the floor. 
5.2.  The representative of Ukraine drew Members' attention to the new measures being applied 
by the Russian Federation which restricted the international transit of cargo from the territory of 
Ukraine to Kazakhstan via the Russian Federation. Those restrictions were applied on top of other measures which Ukraine had brought to Members' attention since 2014 and particularly raised in 
its communication dated 13 January 2016. Ukraine sa id that the Russian Federation had failed to 
provide any relevant justification for the measures applied. When considered jointly, all those measures were seriously disrupting not only bila teral trade but international trade as a whole.  
5.3.  According to Presidential Decree No.1 and Government Resolution No.1 of 1 January 2016, 
from that date all international transit of cargo by automotive and railway transportation from the WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 22 - 
 
  territory of Ukraine to Kazakhstan could only be carried out via two check points at the Russian-
Belarusian state border (one for automotive and another for railway transport) instead of the twenty-five check points at the Ukrainian-Russian  border. That impeded trade from taking place 
via the routes most convenient for international transit. Moreover, all international transit cargo 
from the territory of Ukraine to Kazakhstan should in law be sealed with a satellite system (special 
system GLONASS), additional registration requirements had been applied to drivers and in practice, cargo should move in police convoys of up to ten trucks, two days a week.  
5.4.  Application of those restrictions by the Russian Federation from 1-15 January had led to a de 
facto ban of Ukrainian transit to the Caucasus, Central Asia, China and Mongolia. Further export 
had been allowed subject to the restrictions prov ided above. As a result of those restrictions, 
Ukrainian exports to the above countries had decreased by 60-80% in January 2016 when 
compared to the same month in 2015. During the same period, cargo from Moldova, Turkey, Italy 
and Hungary had been rejected for customs clearance by the Russian Federation's customs authorities at the Ukraine-Russian Federation bord er. Some of the traffic in transit had been re-
routed via Belarus. Trade data had shown that the current transit conditions decreased the volume 
of Ukrainian exports – worsening trade relations between Ukraine and other countries, diminished the transit potential of Ukraine and caused a negative impact on regional transit and trade.  
5.5.  Ukraine had serious concerns about the compliance of the Russian Federation measures with 
Article V of the GATT 1994 on "Freedom of Transit". Ukraine would raise concerns at the Council for Trade in Goods, the Committee on Agricult ure and in other relevant WTO Committees and 
herewith requested the Russian Federation to immediately lift those unreasonable and restrictive 
trade barriers and renew non-discriminating treatment accorded to traffic in transit to or from any 
third country via the traditional and most convenient routes for international transit and without unnecessary delays, costs and restrictions. Ukraine said it wished to draw Members' attention to 
the substantial negative impact on global trade of such measures and urged the Russian 
Federation to respect WTO rules. Rules should be respected. 
5.6.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said his delegation had listened attentively to 
the statement by Ukraine. The Russian Federation  took the implementation of its commitments 
under the WTO very seriously, including those in its trade relations with Ukraine. The trade regime that the Russian Federation was applying to Ukraine from 1 January 2016 was based on WTO rules and in essence did not differ from the regime app lied by Russia in its trade relations with other 
major partners such as the EU. As for the transit, Russia would defer its intervention to the agenda 
item under "other business" where it was also supposed to make another statement on the matter. 
5.7.  The representative of Turkey attached impo rtance to its bilateral relations with the Russian 
Federation as a neighbour and traditional economic and commercial partner. However, Turkey 
found itself among the Members which had been targeted by Russia's arbitrary trade measures at the end of 2015. Russia also applied bans on import s of a wide range of products from Turkey and 
restrictions on services since the beginning of 2016.  As a result, import of about 20 categories of 
agricultural products of Turkish origin, fresh fruits and vegetables in particular, had been banned. A number of industrial products were also affe cted by the ban and the arbitrary practices and 
restrictions of the Russian customs authorities. Similar arbitrary practices and restrictions had 
been imposed on a number of services provided by Turkish companies and many Turkish business 
people operating in Russia were denied basic righ ts of doing business. Some of them had even 
been forced to leave the country without giving them enough time to properly liquidate their 
business. He said that all those restrictions and practices were arbitrary and in direct violation of 
WTO Agreements and Russia's commitments to the WTO. Turkey thus urged the Russian 
Federation to abide by its WTO obligations and lift all those unjustified restrictions on trade in 
goods and services. 
5.8.  The representative of the European Union regretted the trade restrictive measure introduced 
by the Russian Federation on 1 January 2016 notably through Decree No.1. He said that those 
trade restrictions were a clear violation of important WTO rules in particular on freedom of transit. 
They had a direct economic impact on other WTO Members including the European Union by 
complicating the transit of EU goods to Kazakhstan. The EU would closely follow the situation and reserved its right to further address those me asures in appropriate WTO fora should those 
measures not be repealed. The EU called on all pa rties to abide by the existing provisions of the 
multilateral and bilateral legal frameworks. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 23 - 
 
  5.9.  The representative of the United States joined others in expressing concern for the 
disruptions in trade resulting from Russia's measures which also affected Members beyond 
Ukraine. The United States encouraged a fulsome discussion of those measures in the appropriate committees, urged Russia to be responsive to any questions and concerns that were raised and 
emphasized to all parties involved the importance of respecting WTO rules. 
5.10.  The representative of Canada was concerned that it appeared that Russia was far from 
living up to its WTO obligations. Canada had heard that those measures had an impact not only on 
Ukraine but on several other countries regarding transit trade and beyond that, those measures, if 
left in place, would have systemic implications for all Members. Canada encouraged Ukraine and Russia to resolve those issues as fully as possible, and would be active in participating in the discussion of the various dimensions of those measures in the appropriate WTO Committees and 
Councils in which they would be raised. 
5.11.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
6  FOSTERING PARTICIPATION OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSMEs) 
IN REGIONAL AND GLOBAL MARKETS — STATEMENT BY THE PHILIPPINES 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that Members had ha d a discussion on the issue of participation of 
MSMEs in regional and global markets at their October and November General Council meetings, 
following a communication by the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR and 
Singapore. At their November Council, they had noted that they would revert to the consideration of the matter. On 10 February, th e Philippines had confirmed to the Secretariat its intention to 
include the item on the agenda. He invited the delegation of the Philippines to make a statement. 
6.2.  The representative of the Philippines, on behalf of the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Lao 
PDR, Malaysia and Singapore, recalled that at the previous meeting of the General Council the 
MSME proponents had said that they would conti nue to consult Members on how to take the MSME 
initiative forward. From those consultations, tw o things had been striking. First, Members were 
genuinely interested to hold an open and comprehensive discussion on MSMEs. Second, they wanted new and useful information coming out from the discussion.  
6.3.  Members wanted to move away from rhetor ic and recycled statements, and instead wanted 
to focus on clear objectives. For instance, they said that there were existing WTO rules which provided opportunities for MSMEs and that all Members should be aware of them. They also said that sharing actual experiences of MSMEs engaged in trading activities would bring out instances 
where gaps could be identified and impr ovements could be discussed informally.  
6.4.  Taking heed of the advice of Members, he said that the proponents would not present a 
revised proposal at the present meeting. They instead wished to lay out an indicative work plan 
and timetable for addressing MSMEs in 2016 cons isting of three proponent-led activities. 
6.5.  First, at the beginning of the year, the prop onents intended to hold a seminar on trade policy 
and MSMEs. The seminar would address three issues : identify existing rules in the WTO toolbox 
that could benefit MSMEs, identify gaps and ways of improving informally the ability of MSMEs to 
participate in global markets and inquire into the treatment of MSMEs in various regional trade agreements. The one-day seminar would open with a brief presentation of the topic to be followed 
by panel discussions and an open forum. Second, towards the middle of the year, the WTO would 
issue the 2016 edition of the World Trade Report . The proponents hoped to link up with the 
Secretariat, with the end in view of including some of the findings and results of the seminar into the World Trade Report 2016. Third, towards the end of the year, at the annual Aid for Trade 
Review, back to back with the Public Forum, they  intended to organise a session to revisit the 
issue of Trade Policy and MSMEs. The result of those three activities would be assessed and analysed at the end of the year and would provid e the basis for charting a new course for MSMEs 
in 2017. 
6.6.  The proponents would continue their conversations with Members as they moved forward 
with the roadmap that had been outlined. They enjoined all Members to participate actively and engage constructively in the various fora that they hoped would enhance their understanding of 
trade policy as they related to MSMEs. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 24 - 
 
  6.7.  The representative of Turkey said that give n the important role that the SMEs would play in 
achieving inclusive economic growth and robust global trade, Turkey's G-20 2015 Presidency had 
included in its agenda the integration of the SMEs into the global value chains. There was merit in the proponents' previous Communication. At the December General Council meeting, Turkey had 
therefore supported the idea of having a Nairobi outcome on fostering the participation of MSMEs 
in regional and global markets. Members had however failed to reach an agreement. 
6.8.  Turkey thanked the proponents for keep ing the important subject on the agenda. After 
listening to the roadmap that had been laid down  by the proponents to explore how MSMEs could 
benefit more from trade, his delegation shared their assessment that 2016 could be a year in which Members addressed opportunities and needs of MSMEs to participate more in the markets. The outlined roadmap would be beneficial for th e Membership to put something concrete on the 
table for MSMEs. On its part, Turkey was ready to engage constructively in the work ahead. 
6.9.  The representative of the Russian Federati on supported the timely initiative of the MSME 
proponents. The Russian Government prioritized de velopment of MSMEs domestically and globally. 
Russia thus supported a broad and substantive discussion that would lead to a better 
understanding of the role of MSMEs in the international trading system and global value chains. 
6.10.  The representative of New Zealand had interest in the subject and saw the relationship 
between MSMEs and trade policy. New Zealand wanted to further reflect on how that could be 
articulated and was therefore interested on th e roadmap that the Philippines had set out. 
6.11.  The representative of the United States thanked the Philippines and the other co-sponsors 
of the initiative for keeping the issue on th e agenda. He thought that Ambassador Conejos 
(Philippines) had laid out an extremely sensible way of organizing Members to elicit views on the 
subject in a neutral and fact-based manner. The United States was particularly interested in the reference that had been made to looking at how issues related to SMEs and MSMEs had been dealt 
with in regional trade agreements and looked forward to participating in the work plan. 
6.12.  The representative of Japan supported the proposal. Fostering the participation of MSMEs in 
domestic and international markets and facilitating their business activities had always been one of 
the priorities of Japan's industrial policy. In  many countries, both developed and developing, 
policy-makers were concerned on how to help MSMEs. It was thus appropriate that Members discussed MSMEs at the WTO. To begin with, they  could exchange and share experiences from 
each of them. They could then try to identify and examine cross-cutting issues relevant to the 
WTO which could help integrate MSMEs into global trade. Japan therefore welcomed the initiative 
taken by the Philippines and other proponents. 
6.13.  The representative of India thanked the Philippines for its statement suggesting a roadmap 
for exploring ways to enhance MSME participation in regional and global markets. India had 
carefully listened to the statement and interven tion of other speakers. The matter of MSMEs had 
been under discussion since 2015. As outlined in the previous General Council meetings, India had 
a substantial interest in the issue. Her delegation had had bilateral consultations prior to the 
Nairobi Ministerial with the proponents where some  of its fundamental concerns had been raised 
on the amenability and desirability of WTO rules for sub-national entities, the concept, the definition, the open-ended nature of the issues  and scoping – concerns which had also been 
mentioned by her delegation in previous GC meet ings. India awaited the proponents' feedback on 
those concerns and believed therefore that it wa s premature for it to endorse a work plan on 
MSMEs even if exploratory at that stage within the WTO framework and structures. However, in 
addition to the substantive issues earlier raised, her delegation would appreciate more details on 
the proposed seminar and the proposed subsequent steps to take a further view on the matter. She assured of India's constructive engagement. 
6.14.  The representative of the Republic of Kore a welcomed the practical approach that the MSME 
proponents had taken by presenting an indicative work plan instead of making a revised proposal. 
The initiatives presented in the work plan would help Members identify relevant areas of work and a suitable approach in the WTO to better address MSMEs. Korea supported the efforts to kick start 
a conversation on MSMEs at the WTO given its importance in job creation, fostering innovation and 
boosting economic growth in developing countries  and LDCs and looked forward to being part of 
such discussions. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 25 - 
 
  6.15.  The representative of Switzerland welcomed the initiative of the Philippines and other co-
sponsors and shared the objective of paying clos e attention to MSMEs. Switzerland welcomed the 
dialogue suggested and the road map outlined by the Philippines at the meeting. 
6.16.  The representative of Pakistan thanked th e Philippines and other proponents for consistently 
following up their proposal on MSMEs. Pakistan's Minister in Nairobi and in Davos had also 
highlighted that the WTO should make efforts to mainstream the work on MSMEs. Pakistan looked 
forward to a meaningful engagement and experi ence-sharing and fully supported the proposal. 
6.17.  The representative of Benin, on behalf of the LDCs, thanked the Philippines and its co-
sponsors for their initiative. The LDCs and developing countries' economies were led by MSMEs. 
The additional information provided by the Philippines would allow Members to continue to have an exchange of views on that very important issue.  Having the opportunity to consider MSMEs would 
allow them to understand the constraints they faced and to see how to enhance their participation 
in regional and world markets. The LDCs hope d to see MSMEs' improved competitiveness and 
participation and welcomed the initiative to be included in Members' work. 
6.18.  The representative of Mexico said that Me xico was one of the many delegations to support 
the idea put forward by the Philippines on foster ing the participation of MSMEs in regional and 
global markets. The suggestion by the MSME prop onents seemed to be most appropriate. Mexico 
thus welcomed the proposed work programme which was practical and realistic and had taken a 
constructive approach. Mexico would be happy to participate in working on that important issue. 
6.19.  The representative of the European Union had listened with great interest to the practical 
ideas and proposals developed by the Philippines. The EU would attend the events that had been 
announced. Small companies around the world had similar needs to participate in global trade 
because they had less resources and means than large companies to overcome business challenges. All companies particularly MSMEs favoured a single set of transparent international 
trade rules which could easily be complied with and any initiative to that end should be welcomed. 
6.20.  The representative of Nigeria joined others in welcoming the initiative by the Philippines and 
co-sponsors on fostering the participation of MSME s in regional and global markets. Nigeria had 
substantial interest on the issue and was disposed to further engage constructively in exploratory 
discussions on the road map which had just been presented. 
6.21.  The representative of Canada thanked the Philippines for maintaining Members' momentum 
on MSMEs. Canada had supported having that kind of dialogue and information sharing and 
exploration of ideas through a body or a task force - if it was easier to do it informally, led by 
proponents, Canada would be happy to see that happen. To anticipate what Members would learn as had been suggested by the introduction, it would be helpful to look at existing issues in various 
Committees and Councils through the prism of micro and small enterprises and to ask whether 
their framework was as promoting as it could be for MSMEs to participate in the globalized economy. Canada was happy not only to participate but to lend its experience and insight in 
promoting small business into the export and international trade sector in Canada, and looked 
forward to close collaboration with others in that regard. 
6.22.  The representative of Paraguay welcomed the proposal put forward by the Philippines and 
the co-sponsors. Paraguay was ready to take part  in the events that had been described in the 
work plan and to discuss and exchange views on that and other matters. 
6.23.  The representative of Brazil said that the Brazilian Government saw merit in the initiative by 
the Philippines and other co-sponsors and like ma ny Members was concerned with the challenges 
faced by MSMEs in trying to participate in the be nefits and opportunities provided by the global 
market place. Although it was open-minded to possibly initiating a discussion on the issue, Brazil sought more clarity on the sponsors and other supporting Members of the proposal on their vision 
on the way forward. Some Members had mentioned MSMEs as a possible new subject in the WTO 
negotiating agenda while the actions proposed in th e Philippine draft had been to be part of the 
regular WTO activities. It would therefore be useful  to know more clearly what was in the minds of 
the proponent Members. There were still some doubts surrounding what the scope and the limits 
of the subject were. If the dialogue that was be ing proposed was to be informal and proponent-
led, there seemed to be no need for a formal endorsement by the General Council. Brazil hoped WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 26 - 
 
  that the exercise, which Brazil thought was proposed in a constructive spirit, would help shed the 
needed light on the more productive way to deal with the issue at the WTO. 
6.24.  The representative of Colombia noted that  MSMEs was an important issue for his delegation. 
Colombia welcomed the MSME proposal which was pragmatic and realistic. His delegation was 
ready to contribute and work on the activities that had been suggested and stressed the 
importance for Members to put forward issues which were significant and relevant in the organization such as MSMEs. 
6.25.  The representative of Tanzania said that the MSME proposal looked like an interesting one 
depending on which kind of spectacles one was us ing. For example, MSMEs in Tanzania had never 
opened and traded into the international market mostly due to TBTs that impinged and prohibited them from benefitting from that market. If such issue would be brought to the WTO, Tanzania did 
not know who Members would be trying to support to take such advantage. An informal discussion 
should take place on an exploratory basis to see opportunities for LDCs and developing countries which were not even able to penetrate the intern ational market because of the different regime 
they had at the WTO that inhibited them to be part of mainstream international trade. There was 
nothing wrong to discuss the MSMEs issue but it shou ld not be part of a decision in the WTO for 
the moment. It had to be exploratory so that they could learn from it. Tanzania was open but it 
could not put it to be something which would become  binding for the time being until it knew what 
was it that they were trying to bind. 
6.26.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela thanked the Philippines and took 
note of the statement. Venezuela stressed the im portance of the contribution of MSMEs to its 
economies which participated locally and created jobs, and recognized that MSMEs required a 
favourable trading environment. The concerns Venezuela had raised at the previous General Council still remained. It was not yet the appropriate time to formally launch in the organization an 
initiative the impact and scope of which had not yet been known and which could go in any 
direction. On the road map presented by the Philippines, there were activities which would be led by the proponents and as such would not need the endorsement of the General Council, such as 
the seminar or whatever activity they would want to carry out within the framework of the public 
forum. However, the relationship between the MSME initiative and those formal activities of the organization such as the publication of the Worl d Trade Report 2016 or the work on Aid for Trade 
were elements which would require a little more discussion with the proponents before they moved 
forward. 
6.27.  The representative of the Philippines, on behalf of the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Lao 
PDR, Malaysia and Singapore, thanked the delega tions who had expressed support and continuing 
interest in the proposal and to those delegations who had likewise reiterated the concerns that had 
already been previously made. The proponents had taken note of those concerns, invited everyone 
in the seminar and hoped to see them there. No thing could prevent a Member from organizing 
events and they were clear about it – with the phrase "would informally look into this" emphasized 
in their introductory statement. They would see to it that there would be no formal structures in the WTO that they would engage in. It was a volu ntary endeavour on the part of the proponents 
with its doors open for all Members to participate. 
6.28.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
7  APPOINTMENT OF OFFI CERS TO WTO BODIES 
7.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in accordance wi th the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to 
WTO Bodies approved by the General Council in  2002 (WT/L/510) and the related practical steps 
to improve their implementation adopted in 201 2 (JOB/GC/22), he, together with the serving 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, Ambassador Harald Neple (Norway), and Ambassador 
Jonathan Fried (Canada), former Chairman of the General Council, had conducted consultations on 
a slate of names for the appointment of Chairpersons to WTO regular bodies listed in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the Annex to the Guidelines. In addition , they had also consulted on the appointment of 
a new Chairperson for the Dispute Settlement Body in  Special Session following the end of term of 
its Chair.   WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 27 - 
 
  7.2.  At the outset, he sincerely thanked Ambassador Neple and Ambassador Fried for their 
assistance which had been very valuable. He also noted that, in accordance with the Guidelines, Ambassador Fried had not been present during the consultations on the Chairmanship for the DSB 
SS given that he had been a candidate for that particular negotiating body. 
7.3.  In line with the practical steps mentioned earlier, they had met first with the coordinators of 
the four broad regional groupings. He recalled th at, as had been indicated in JOB/GC/22, those 
four broad groupings were: developed countries, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Africa.  
7.4.   A time-period had also been provided in which they would be available to meet with all 
interested delegations.  
7.5.  Consultations had taken place over some five weeks in order to provide a greater opportunity 
for all interested delegations to meet with them. They had consulted all delegations that had come 
forward and had requested a meeting and had regula rly met with the four Group coordinators and 
had informed them of developments. The process had included an informal open-ended Heads-of-
Delegation meeting which had been held on 23 February and in which he had given a detailed 
overview of the process. As he had mentioned at the informal meeting and in order to avoid 
repetitions, he asked that his remarks at the HODs meeting be reflected in the minutes of the General Council meeting.
5 
7.6.  On the basis of our consultations, it was th eir understanding that the following slate of names 
could be acceptable to the Membership: 
General Council 
 H.E. Mr. Harald Neple (Norway) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
 H.E. Mr. Xavier Carim (South Africa) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
  Ms Irene B.K. Young (Hong Kong, China) 
Council for Trade in Goods 
 H.E. Mr. Hamish McCormick (Australia) 
Council for Trade in Services 
 H.E. Mr. Gustavo Miguel Vanerio Balbela (Uruguay) 
 
Council for TRIPS 
 H.E. Mr. Modest Jonathan Mero (Tanzania) 
Committee on Trade and 
  Development 
 H.E. Mr. Christopher Onyanga Aparr (Uganda) 
Committee on Balance-of- 
  Payments Restrictions 
 H.E. Mr. M. Shameem Ahsan (Bangladesh) 
Committee on Budget, Finance  
  and  Administration 
 H.E. Mrs. Inga Ernstsone (Latvia) 
Committee on Trade and  
  Environment 
 H.E. Mr. Héctor Casanueva (Chile) 
Committee on Regional Trade  
  Agreements  H.E. Mr. Daniel Blockert (Sweden) 
                                               
5 The Chairman's statement at the said informal meet ing is incorporated in the minutes of this meeting 
and can be found in Annex 2 of this document. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Working Group on Trade, Debt and  
  Finance  H.E. Mr. Atanas Atanassov Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
Working Group on Trade and  
  Transfer of Technology H.E. Mr. Luis Enrique Chávez Basagoitia (Peru) 
Preparatory Committee on  
Trade Facilitation 
 H.E. Mr. Esteban Conejos (Philippines) 
7.7.  Appointments for those bodies would be for one year as usual and they would be made 
formally by the WTO bodies concerned at their subsequent meetings in 2016.   
7.8.  Regarding the DSB in Special Session, as had earlier been mentioned and following the end 
of term of its Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborio, consultations had been conducted on a new Chair. During those consultations, there had been wide support for a representative from Africa to 
chair that body, especially in light of the fact that there was currently no African representative 
chairing a negotiating body.   
7.9.  It was their understanding that there was therefore consensus on H.E. Mr. Mame Baba CISSE 
(Senegal) to chair the DSB in Special Session. That  appointment would also be made formally by 
the body concerned at its next meeting. 
7.10.  He thanked Ambassador Saborio for his outsta nding contribution as Chairman of the DSB in 
Special Session over many years. His engagement in the negotiations and his wise guidance had 
inspired and had steered the discussions in the DSB SS. His patience, dedication and skilful 
leadership had been enormously appreciated by all delegations and the organization was in his 
debt. It had been for him a real privilege to have worked with him. 
7.11.  He also noted Ambassador Neple, as the future General Council Chairman, had discussed 
with Ambassador Alfredo Suescum so that he continued as Friend of the General Council Chair for 
the work programme on electronic commerce. 
7.12.  The General Council took note of the Chairman's statement and of the consensus on the 
slate of names for the appointment of officers in the WTO bodies that he had mentioned. 7.13.  The representative of Chinese Taipei apprec iated the hard work and efforts that the General 
Council Chairman, the DSB Chair and the Regi onal Group Coordinators had put into the 
consultation process for the appointment of officers to the WTO's principal bodies. He 
congratulated the incoming Chairpersons for 2016  and assured them of the strong support and 
cooperation that they could count on from Chinese Taipei. 
7.14.  Having said that, he was afraid he had to remind Members of the key point made by the 
Chair at the same juncture in the proceedings on  February 2015.  He had stressed that, "in line 
with the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies", as had been clearly set out in document WT/L/510 and in JOB/GC/22 of 2012, and which should be respected, "representatives 
from each and every WTO Member had the right to Chair any WTO body, at any level." 
7.15.  Once again, in 2016, there was one Member who, despite having played an active and 
constructive role throughout its 14 years as a "full and equal" Member and despite the fact that it 
was among the 20 largest trading economies in the world, had never been offered the 
Chairpersonship of a principal body of the WTO and had never received a justifiable explanation for such a decision. He was sure Members could therefore imagine that Member's growing sense of marginalization and unfairness and its feeling of disappointment in the WTO as an organization.  
7.16.  He wished to make it clear that no criticism whatsoever of the Selection Committee was 
intended or implied by those comments. The major concern of Chinese Taipei was that that kind of unfair treatment of a Member or Members could on ly serve to undermine confidence and trust in 
the organization and would ultimately weaken its ability to achieve its aim of sharing the benefits 
across the whole Membership. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 29 - 
 
  7.17.  It was simply for those reasons that he had wanted to share those concerns with everyone 
that day. He trusted they would be duly noted and acted upon at the very least in the interest of the future integrity and effectiveness of the organization. 
7.18.  The representative of Costa Rica thanked Ambassador Ronald Saborio for the years he had 
devoted to the multilateral trading system ex ercising different chairmanships within the 
organization. Ambassador Saborio was closing a cycle of chairmanships that he had been carrying out since 1990 and to that day. He had chaired the Council for Trade in Goods, the Committee on 
the ITA, the Working Group on Transparency in Government Procurement, the Committee on RTAs 
and the Negotiating Group on the DSU. He had furthermore chaired several panels in the dispute settlement proceedings. Over those years, Costa Rica had made its Heads of delegation available as a country that believed that it could make the organization stronger. The fact that its Heads of 
delegation devoted a lot of time to the multilateral trading system was a testament to Costa Rica's 
commitment to the WTO and its firm belief that trade was an engine for development. On a personal note, he wished to say goodbye to Ambassador Ronald Saborio who that day was 
completing 26 years of service for the Costa Rican State and who had been his teacher during his 
youth and was also a very loyal friend. Ambassador Saborio was the personification of the successful story of foreign trade for Costa Rica and was a very worthy citizen. He wished that 
Ambassador Saborio would continue to be a pioneer, to be prosperous and to pursue his ideals. 
7.19.  The representative of Tanzania commended  the Chairman and his team for the transparent 
consultative processes they had undertaken to arrive into the appointment of the Chairs of various 
WTO Bodies. On the basis of the success they had achieved, he took the opportunity to thank WTO 
Members for the trust and faith they had entrusted him for the TRIPS Council. He had taken note 
of the support demonstrated by the entire Memb ership on his appointmen t and therefore through 
their support, he would like to pledge his commi tment to advance the good work done by his 
predecessors while rolling the work on TRIPS forward with great enthusiasm. 
7.20.  The representative of Benin, on behalf of the LDCs, thanked the Chairman and 
congratulated him and the other Chairpersons of WTO Bodies for the very important contribution 
they had brought to their work over the past year  – a very critical and sensitive period in the 
negotiating process of the Doha Round. The LDC Group also congratulated the incoming Chairman of the General Council and the other Chairpersons to the other bodies of the WTO and wished them full success in their endeavours. 
7.21.  The representative of Lesotho requested that the statement he had made at the 
23 February informal meeting on behalf of the African Group in respect to that particular item be 
taken on record.6 He wished all the representatives that had been selected to chair those bodies 
and committees good speed in their endeavours. Af rica would continue to be supportive in all 
processes. 
7.22.  The representative of Sri Lanka appreciate d the dedicated services that the Chairman and 
outgoing Chairpersons had extended during their terms in 2015. He congratulated Ambassador 
Neple as the new Chairman of the General Council and was confident that his experience and able 
guidance would be beneficial to the proceeding of  the august Council. As the coordinator of the 
Asian Group of Developing Members, he congratulated the newly-elected Members from the group. 
He was confident that the respective committees would benefit from their experience. He also 
appreciated the support extended by Members du ring the process of his coordination for the 
selection of Members from the group and congratulated all the other Chairpersons elected for the 
committees for 2016. He further informed Members at the meeting that the Group of Pacific 
Islands namely: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu had joined the Asian Group of Developing Members and he wished to welcome all of those Members to the 
Group. 2016 would be an important year for all Members in addressing their trade concerns for the 
benefit of the trade development needs of many of their countries. He was confident that the 
Members who had been selected as Chairpersons for many committees of the WTO would be able to exert their effort in addressing those concerns. He wished them all a productive term. 
7.23.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
                                               
6 At its request, the statement of Le sotho, on behalf of the African Gr oup, at the said informal meeting 
is incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in Annex 3 of this document. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 30 - 
 
  7.24.  The Chairman recalled that the outgoing Chairpersons of the Council for Trade in Goods and 
the Council for Trade in Services were to conduct consultations to select Chairs for the bodies 
established under their respective Councils. The Guidelines provided that those Chairpersons should announce the start of their respective consultation processes at the General Council 
meeting. He therefore invited Ambassador Héctor Casanueva (Chile), Chairman of the Goods 
Council, to make his announcement. 
7.25.  Ambassador Héctor Casanueva (Chile), Chairperson of the Goods Council, noted that under 
that agenda item he would like to inform Members that in accordance with the Guidelines for the 
Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies approved by the General Council in December 2002 contained in document WT/L/510, he would be starting consultations for the appointment of chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods. He would start the process 
with group coordinators as suggested in document JOB/GC/22 followed by interested Members. He 
intended to make sufficient time available to meet with all interested Members and to hear their views and suggestions. He would therefore be sending a fax to all Heads of Delegations that day 
indicating his availability to start consultations on 29 February and indicating that he would 
conduct further consultations as necessary with group coordinators and interested Members. In order to ensure the efficiency of the process and the balance mentioned in the Guidelines, he 
would work in coordination with the Chairperson of the Services Council. He would also like to 
inform delegations that it was his intention to carry out the process with a view to proposing and agreeing on a balanced slate of names at the next meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods. In that regard, he would like to inform delegations that the next meeting of the CTG had been 
rescheduled to 15 April. He hoped that that date would be convenient for all Members and that it 
would allow them sufficient time to present an appropriate and balanced slate of names for the election of Chairs to CTG subsidiary bodies. 
7.26.  The Chairman read out the statement of Ambassador Martin Eyjólfsson (Iceland), 
Chairperson of the Services Council, on his behalf: 
7.27.  "In accordance with the Guidelines for th e Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies, adopted 
by the General Council in December 2002 (WT/L/510), I will be starting my consultations for the 
appointment of chairpersons to the subsidiary bodies  of the Council for Trade in Services.  I will be 
consulting with a view to arriving at a proposed slate of names of Chairpersons for 2016 that enjoys the wide support of the Membership.  In order to ensure the balance of the slate, as 
mentioned in the Guidelines, I will be consulting with the Chairman of the Goods Council, and will 
make sufficient time available to meet with any interested Members." 
7.28.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
8  PROHIBITION OF TRANSPORTATION OF TRANSIT GOODS ON RUSSIAN ROAD 
TRANSPORT BY UKRAINE – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
8.1.  The representative of the Russian Federation , speaking under "Other Business", said he felt 
compelled to take the floor in connection to an unexpected and unjustified prohibition of 
transportation of transit goods by Russian trucks on the territory of Ukraine. With clear reference 
to the issue raised by the delegation of Ukraine under agenda item 5, the Ukrainian prohibition had 
initially been de facto  introduced by natural persons representing Ukraine's extremist nationalistic 
groups – effectively blocking the passage of Russian trucks bearing Russian licence plates. Several 
days later, the Government of Ukraine had offici ally endorsed their actions and implemented its 
prohibition. Russia had no doubt that that constituted a clear violation of the WTO rules in 
particular the provisions of GATT Article V on Free dom of Transit. The disregard by Ukraine of its 
commitments in the area of international trade had reached its apogee both in the WTO and in those areas. The issue of Freedom of Transit wa s however a cornerstone for securing trade flows 
in the European continent. The actions by Ukrain e had clearly gone beyond its outbreak on the 
Russian Federation only. They impeded the deliver y of goods from other WTO Members to Russia. 
Russia urged Ukraine to immediately remove those measures and to bring its trade regime in conformity with the WTO rules. The Russian Federation hoped that the agreement reached 
between the Transportation Ministries of the two countries early that morning would boost the 
Ukrainian Government into compliance with its obligations to the organization. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 31 - 
 
  8.2.  The representative of Ukraine said that the Russian Federation's statement was inaccurate 
and misleading. She said that the Russian Federation was silent about the prohibition of movement 
of Ukrainian trucks via the Russian territory, which applied starting from 5 pm on 14 February and was introduced by the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation. The prohibition was applied 
to Ukrainian trucks performing transit and bilateral transportation. The prohibition applied for the 
movement of all Ukrainian trucks that before 5 pm  on 14 February had entered the territory of the 
Russian Federation moving from and to Ukraine en tering the territory of the Russian Federation 
after the said time. The relevant notice had been  published on the website of the Ministry of 
Transportation of the Russian Federation and was still available on the website. Only in response to the said Russian Federation's prohibition had Ukraine temporarily recalled transit permits issued according to the bilateral intergovernmental agreement on international road transportation as had 
been provided by its Protocol of Accession. Ukra ine had temporarily recalled the transit permits but 
had not banned them. Ukraine welcomed the initia tive of the Russian Federation transportation 
authorities to remove their prohibition starting from midnight of 25 February. Ukraine would 
reciprocally renew the recalled transit permits.   
8.3.  The representative of the Republic of Mold ova congratulated the Chairman for his outstanding 
mandate and to welcome the new Chairman, Ambassador Harald Neple (Norway). The Republic of 
Moldova also congratulated the former and new committee Chairpersons and wished them further 
achievements and a successful mandate. With refe rence to G/C/W/720 and to the intervention of 
the Russian Federation, the Republic of Moldova aligned itself with the European Union's statement and acknowledged the current issues at the Ukrain ian-Russian border, since such actions were not 
done in the good spirit of the free trade agreement in the CIS region and of the norms and 
principles of Article V of the GATT. The trade and economic issue should be resolved by means of 
bilateral and multilateral consultations and in the framework of WTO Committees, respecting the 
international trade system and following the commitments assumed by both States upon their 
accession to the WTO. The Republic of Moldova took  efforts to resolve the current trade issue with 
partners from the CIA region while making steps in the course of bilateral and multilateral 
consultations for the Russian Federation to cancel the trade restriction imposed to them. 
8.4.  The Chairman said that it was through a dialogue involving the parties concerned that an 
agreement could be reached in a matter as important as Freedom of Transit. 8.5.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
9  ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMB ERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
9.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Busine ss" recalled that at its meeting in October 2012 
the General Council had approved a recommendation from the Budget Committee regarding 
revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears which had entered into force on 1 January 2013. Among those Measures there was a requirement that, at the end of each meeting 
of the General Council, the Chairperson of the Bu dget Committee should provide information with 
regard to which Members and Observers were under Administrative Measures. He therefore invited Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden) to provide the Council with that information. 
9.2.  Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden), Chairperson of the Committee on Budget, Finance 
and Administration, noted that there were currently 25 Members and 5 Observers under 
Administrative Measures. He recalled that Members and Observers had received their assessment 
letters for the 2016 contributions to the WTO budge t at the end of November 2015. As at the start 
of every year, a number of Members and Observer s became subject to Administrative Measures 
and some changed categories. In addition, the Di rector-General had notified those Members by 
letter on 12 February 2016. There were currently 11 Members and 1 Observer in Category I: 
Plurinational State of Bolivia; Cabo Verde; Cameroon; Congo; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; 
Ghana; Maldives; Paraguay; Yemen; Zambia and Afghanistan (Observer). There were 6 Members 
and 3 Observers in Category II: Dominica; Grenada; Malawi; Suriname; Vanuatu; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Equatorial Guinea (Obs erver); Libya (Observer) and Sudan (Observer). 
There were 8 Members and 1 Observer in Category  III: Central African Republic; Chad; Djibouti; 
The Gambia; Guinea-Bissau; Mauritania; Niger; Sierra Leone and Sao Tomé and Principe (Observer). The Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration would review the situation on 
arrears from Members and Observers including those following a payment plan at its next meeting 
scheduled on 3 March and would provide a full report to the General Council. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 32 - 
 
  9.3.  The Chairman said that under the new revised Administrative Measures, he was also required 
at each Council meeting to request Members and Observers in Categories II and III of the 
Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment of arrears could be expected.   
9.4.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
10  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 10.1.  The Chairman thanked all delegations for the cooperation and friendship that they had 
extended to him during his term. It had been a real honour to serve as General Council Chairman 
and he was grateful for the confidence that they had placed in him.  
10.2.  The past year had been a turning point for the organization. In preparing for the Ministerial 
Conference in Nairobi, Members had been challenged repeatedly; some stark differences in positions had become evident and some of those differences had remained insurmountable. 
Members had not however given up and had gotten back to work even more intensively. He 
thanked the Director-General for spurring them on until the very end. His leadership and his 
commitment to the organization had been invaluable, especially in the most difficult situations. 
10.3.  The good news was that despite those difficulties Members had delivered another successful 
Ministerial Conference in 2015. It had been a fitti ng way of closing the year of their twentieth 
anniversary. They had demonstrated that the Ba li outcome had not been a coincidence and that 
given the right circumstances and political will the WTO could deliver.  
10.4.  He paid tribute to the MC10 Chairperson, Cabinet Secretary Amina Mohamed, whose tireless 
efforts had offered a vital contribution to the success of the Nairobi Ministerial Conference. He also thanked the Facilitators who had assisted them both in Geneva and in Nairobi; their efforts and 
engagement had been key to the result they had achieved at MC10. 
10.5.  The other side of the coin, however, was th at some of the difficulties Members had faced in 
2015 had not been solved. The Ministerial Declaratio n itself recognized that important differences 
remained in Members' positions and instructed them to find ways to advance the negotiations. The 
question was how would they move forward? What would be the next steps?  
10.6.  To answer those questions Members needed to  start from the positive lessons that they had 
learned from the recent successes. They needed to take note of the fact that Members had been 
able to deliver negotiated results at two consecutive Ministerial Conferences – something they had not seen for a long time at the WTO. They could no t deny that those results were far from being as 
comprehensive as they had expected when they  had launched the Doha Round in 2001. However, 
they had allowed them to make perhaps small but certainly incremental progress in trade 
liberalization and to restore credibility to the rule-making function of the WTO.  
10.7.  The faithful implementation of the results achieved was Members' first task. It was essential 
for all Members to show that not only could they  reach negotiated outcomes, but they could also 
implement them – that was where the real be nefits appeared. The increasing number of 
ratifications of the Trade Facilitation Agreemen t was encouraging and he could not overemphasize 
the importance of the Agreement to enter into force as soon as possible. 
10.8.  Members needed to allow the momentum that had been generated by the results they had 
achieved – and the lessons they had learned – to guide their next steps. 
10.9.  Throughout the history of the multilateral trading system, trade negotiators – whether 
under the GATT or WTO – had always experimented with different approaches when older ones no 
longer served their purpose: from the bilateral, it em-by-item negotiations of earlier rounds, to the 
linear-cut approach developed in the Kennedy Round; from the Tokyo Round Codes, up until the 
Single Undertaking which had been adopted in the Uruguay Round.  
10.10.  Members' most recent history showed that the approach that they had used for the past 
two Ministerials had worked in the present day's reality: the adoption of smaller packages of 
decisions that had the potential of delivering significant economic gains and could carry positive 
systemic implications for the multilateral trading system. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 33 - 
 
  10.11.  Therefore, he stressed that there was not one single negotiating approach that worked 
every time. In order to make progress, Members needed to adapt to the circumstances of their 
times and be open to explore approaches that could bring about results.  
10.12.   It was undeniable that the uncertainty about how to move forward could make their task 
seem daunting. That year marked a new phase of their engagement. Members found themselves 
in the limbo – whether they would descend into the nine circles of Dante's hell or ascend into heaven would depend on the attitude they would adopt. 
10.13.  On his part, he believed that aside from their differences Members needed to build on their 
shared belief in the importance of the multilateral trading system and their common resolve to strengthening it and making it more responsive to their needs and aspirations. They should not be discouraged by the size of the efforts required but should embrace it as a great opportunity to 
reflect on the multilateral trading system – not on ly in its negotiating function but as a whole. 
10.14.  As outgoing General Council Chair, he reminded Members that the work ahead required 
them to look at the regular work of the Organization as well – the work that would not normally 
grab the headlines; it happened almost as a matter of routine but it was vital in ensuring the 
effective functioning of the organization. The re gular bodies of the WTO amongst other things: 
ensured the effective implementation of the WTO Agreements and Decisions; allowed Members the 
possibility of raising trade-related concerns and addressing trade issues of specific interest to 
them; were responsible for the conduct of reviews of trade policies; settled disputes; and were accountable for the review of budgetary issues an d appointment of Officers. Work in WTO regular 
bodies also focused on specific matters of central importance – development, to name one, or 
regional trade agreements. And of course, one co uld not forget the fundamental work carried out 
by Accession Working Parties in steering th e accession process of future Members.  
10.15.  Some of those tasks were sometimes di smissed as "housekeeping matters" but Members 
should not forget that the organization's viability depended on its ability to carry out those tasks.  
10.16.  The Ministerial Declaration that Members had adopted at MC10 recognized that point and 
celebrated the achievements under each function. However, it also pointed to the challenges that 
they faced and reminded them that they could no t be complacent in any area of their work.  
10.17.  The trade policy review mechanism had served Members well by allowing for greater 
transparency of trade policies and practices. Buildi ng on the experience of over twenty years, they 
needed to make sure that it was consistently improved upon. 
10.18.  The dispute settlement mechanism, which was widely considered to be the jewel in the 
crown of the WTO, also needed to be boosted to address the increasing number and the growing 
complexity of disputes.  
10.19.  Addressing those challenges would be the best expression of their collective resolve to 
create a truly functional multilateral trading system.  
10.20.  In that regard, he added one more point about the process of appointment of officers. The 
2016 exercise had proven particularly difficult and unnecessarily complicated. Ambassador Neple 
as DSB Chairman, Ambassador Fried as former GC Chair and himself had done their best to ensure 
a positive outcome for the year's selection. He had to confess however that if they were in a limbo with regard to the way ahead during the selection process his colleagues and he had often felt as 
though they had already been in the fourth circle of Dante's hell.  
10.21.  He reminded delegations that the ultimate  responsibility for the successful outcome of the 
selection process rested with delegations themselves. Group coordinators should assume the 
responsibility to ensure that there was converge nce within their own constituencies. They could 
not shift that responsibility on to the selection committee whose role was simply to facilitate the process and not to solve disagreements within the regional groups themselves. 
10.22.  He hoped that Members could all learn from  the difficulties that they had encountered that 
year and improve upon the conduct of the process which needed to be streamlined to ensure that WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 34 - 
 
  it ran smoothly. He left it to delegations to consider, together with the new General Council 
Chairman, how to move forward on the matter.  
10.23.  As Members looked at the everyday activiti es of the organization, they could not forget the 
work of those that quietly ensured that the organi zation ran smoothly: the Secretariat. He had had 
the pleasure to work closely with them over many  years – as GC Chairman in 2015, but also in his 
previous tenures as DSB Chairman and Chair of the Services Special Session. His experience had 
proven that their work, dedication and expertise we re a precious resource for the organization and 
for the Members. He wished to take the opportuni ty to thank the members of the Council and TNC 
Division, and also the interpreters for their great work.  
10.24.  If he had to summarize his chairmanship during the past year, he would compare it to a 
roller coaster ride: exhilarating, interesting, intense, fun and, above all, it's over! 
10.25.  He said that 2016 promised to be another intense year. The General Council would have in 
Ambassador Neple a committed Chairman that unde rstood those points, cherished the system and 
had the good of the organization at heart. He wished Ambassador Neple all the best in his new 
role. Based on his track record, he had full confidence that he would show the leadership and 
diplomacy necessary to make 2016 a productive year for the WTO. He could assure him that he would be able to count on his support, as former Chairman, as well as the support of the whole 
Membership and of the Secretariat. 
10.26.  With those words, he would like to propose that the General Council would move to the 
election of the new Chairperson. On the basis of  the understandings that had been reached on the 
appointment of officers to WTO bodies, he proposed that the General Council elect by acclamation 
Ambassador Harald Neple (Norway) as the next Chairperson of the body. 
10.27.  The General Council so agreed. 
10.28.  The Director-General said that Ambassador de Mateo had done an excellent job in 
overseeing the work and responsibilities of the General Council in a very challenging year and 
particularly during the preparations for MC10. With his sheer determination and wealth of knowledge and experience, he had steered the General Council to function smoothly in 2015 
including the process of intense consultations leading to Nairobi. His commitment had been 
decisive in achieving successful outcomes at MC 10. In times when Members had not been seeing 
huge progress in their discussions, he had illuminated the room with the brightness of his wisdom and – sometimes – the brightness of his shirts. On both fronts, he had set a strong precedent for 
Ambassador Neple to follow. He thanked Ambassador de Mateo for his collaboration, long-standing 
friendship and support, and for the many years of tireless commitment to the organization and its principles. The Members would miss him as Chair but he was certain that he would continue to 
support the organization as he returned to his Ambassador's role and to his delegation which 
would be happy to have him back. 
10.29.  Following the tradition, the Director-General presented Ambassador De Mateo with an 
engraved gavel as a memento of his time as Chairman of the General Council.  
10.30.  The Director-General then congratulated Ambassador Neple on his election. His 
appointment was the recognition of the extensive work that he had carried out for the WTO. In particular, he thanked him for his efficient stewardship of the DSB, his tireless efforts in the run-up 
to Nairobi in his role as a Facilitator and for the dedication that he and his Minister had 
demonstrated at MC10. 2016 promised to be interesting and intense – and potentially pivotal for the future of the organization. The role of the General Council Chairman was particularly important 
in steering the conversation regarding future work . He thus wished Ambassador Neple all the best. 
He could count on his support and that of the whole Secretariat as he took up his new role. 
10.31.  The newly-elected Chairman thanked Ambassador de Mateo and said he would continue to 
trust his advice as he moved throughout the year. He thanked all the delegations for the 
confidence they had shown in him by appointing him to that important function. It would be a great honour for him to serve the organization and its Membership and he looked forward to 
working with all of them in that important year as the Director-General had just mentioned 
following the successful Ministerial Conference in Nairobi.  WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 35 - 
 
  10.32.  As others had been saying, it was then essential to follow up the decisions made in Nairobi 
and to do that in an inclusive and transparent manner. As the Director-General had done that day, there would be in accordance with Paragraph 33 of the Ministerial Declaration regular reports on the officials' work to find ways to advance the ne gotiations. At that juncture, he urged all Members 
to work together to advance the organization.  
10.33.  He underlined how crucial the work of the regular bodies of the WTO was. Members had 
heard the wise words of Ambassador de Mateo on the importance of regular work and how that 
contributed to the smooth functioning of the whole organization. The importance of the dispute 
settlement system for the smooth functioning of the organization and the credibility of the WTO was equally essential. 
10.34.  The representative of Tanzania said that Ambassador de Mateo had done a remarkable job 
in turning down animosity amongst Members, particularly in times when tensions escalated. His 
charm was amazing and the medicine for addressing the tense environment in the room. He had succeeded to lead Members towards reaching outc omes at MC10 when all hope had faded away. 
Tanzania congratulated him and wished him all the best. For Ambassador Neple, Members all knew 
that he was very experienced as they had already been working with him. Tanzania liked him. His 
delegation hoped that he would be able to make the best in advancing the agenda of the WTO and 
promised its commitment and support during his leadership towards MC11. 
10.35.  The representative of Lesotho congratulate d Ambassador de Mateo for his successes as the 
General Council Chairman. He had always been approachable, knowledgeable in the work that he 
had carried out and transparent in the processes, which Lesotho had greatly appreciated. In 
dealing with difficult issues, Ambassador de Mateo had the sense of humour that had always 
enabled them to carry themselves through the difficult processes without much ado. Lesotho 
wished him well and wished to continue to bank on his expertise and acumen in assisting the WTO 
to proceed. To the incoming Chairman, Ambassado r Neple – Lesotho was confident that in his new 
role, he would carry the WTO through the preparatory phase of MC11. 2016 was a year where Members would prepare for MC11 in a new topograp hy. Chartering new waters would be difficult 
but it was a role that Members expected Ambassador Neple to be always up to. Lesotho wished 
him well and looked forward to working closely with him in that particular regard. 
10.36.  The representative of Kenya could not let the moment pass as Members entered the new 
post-Nairobi era. He thanked the outgoing Chairman of the General Council, Ambassador de Mateo 
and said he had done a fantastic job. He knew  Members had posed headac hes to him. Sometimes 
they forgot he was also one of them – a fellow ambassador. But he had taken them in stride. His delegation thanked Ambassador de Mateo for his wonderful service and for listening to Members 
all the time. He was available to him as they ha d navigated through the whole of 2015 in the lead 
up to Nairobi. He would never forget all the work that he had done. He also recalled that he had walked together with Ambassador Neple through the journey of being Facilitators. Members all 
knew what that had meant. He thanked him for the support during the process and for all that he 
had done. He welcomed him to the job and wished him the best. Kenya assured him of its support. Kenya extended its heartfelt thanks to the many delegations that had expressed a word 
congratulations to the way MC10 had been conduc ted. On behalf of the Government and the 
people of Kenya, he thanked delegations and said that his country appreciated that gesture. His 
delegation also apologized if it had done something that had not gone 100% right in the process of its hosting. Kenya wished the new post-Nairobi era all the best in Ambassador Neple's hands. 
10.37.  The newly-elected Chairman thanked the delegations who had spoken for the kind words 
that they had expressed to him. He looked forwar d to working with all Members and with the team 
in the Secretariat, from whom he would lean  heavily as they moved throughout the year. 
10.38.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
 
_______________ 
 
 WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 36 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS AT THE INFORMAL TNC MEETING AT THE LEVEL OF HEADS OF 
DELEGATION HELD ON 10 FEBRUARY 2016 
At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned 
meeting are included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. Argentina 
 
Thank you very much, Director General. We welcome your report on the consultations and 
meetings that you have held so far this year.  
We appreciate your mention of paragraphs 33 and 31 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and 
share your views on the Nairobi Conference and on the way forward. In paragraph 33 of the Ministerial Declaration, Ministers instruct delegations to work "to find ways to advance 
negotiations" on the remaining Doha issues, there being a "strong commitment" of all Members to 
continue these negotiations, as reflected in paragraph 31 of the Declaration.  We would also like to highlight three elements  on which there was agreement at the MC10, and 
which should be taken into account in future negotiations, namely that work shall maintain 
development at its centre, that special and differential treatment provisions shall form an integral part of the agreements reached (both concepts are mentioned in paragraph 32 of the Declaration), 
and that priority shall be given to "work where results have not yet been achieved" 
(paragraph 34). Certain areas of this aforem entioned work, for instance domestic support, 
agricultural market access and fisheries subsidies, are of particular interest to Argentina and many 
other WTO Members. Our heads of State and Governme nt have given us very specific guidance on 
some of these issues in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  W i t h  t h i s  M i n i s t e r i a l  m a n d a t e ,  w e  n o w  h a v e  t o  g e t  d o w n  t o  w o r k ,  w h i c h  w i l l  b e  n o  e a s y  t a s k .  
Despite there being no divergence on what we have to negotiate, there are differences of opinion 
on how to do it, whether under Doha or using new approaches. We therefore need to be very pragmatic and creative if we want to make any progress in this respect. 
 
Our country is open to hearing ideas and exploring options that take into account the aforementioned three elements or parameters agreed on in Nairobi. We also stand ready to 
contribute actively with our own ideas, in the hope that this pragmatic and constructive spirit will 
be the one that prevails in this exercise.  We agree with you that Nairobi was a success. Agricultural export subsidies were finally 
eliminated, and we believe that we should make the most of the momentum generated by this 
agreement and work towards meeting other objectives so as to continue levelling out the playing field in favour of developing and least developed countries. 
 
2. Bangladesh (on behalf of the LDCs) 
 
Happy new year to you all. 
 This meeting was much needed for exchanging the views on how we want to see our future work 
after carrying out the challenging task towards conclusion of Nairobi Ministerial Conference. We 
had some important decisions in agriculture and on two of LDC specific issues. We consider the 
outcome at Nairobi a step forward for this system.  
The biggest challenge before us is to determine the way ahead. We had little contribution on the 
text of MC10 Declaration, especially on the way forward. Nevertheless, we like to join our hands with others to determine the principles and the pr ocess that will guide our negotiations this year. 
We like the continuation of DDA as was envisaged in 2001. Some outstanding Doha issues like 
agriculture, non-agriculture market access, servic es, development, TRIPS and rules remain on the 
table. However, we do not know how these issues will be advanced in this post-Nairobi phase of WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 37 - 
 
  negotiations. Also we have no clarity on what other non-DDA issues Members would like to put on 
the table. Regardless of any future agreement on the process and architecture to be followed in our future work we from LDCs like to see that all the decisions taken and flexibilities agreed upon in favour of LDCs in all areas of negotiations over the last 14 years are preserved. 
 
We need to continue to work on the Nairobi decisions to make them meaningful for LDCs. We also need to build on the other core issues of interest  to LDCs, which are in the table for long time. We 
hope that members will be willing to constructively engage themselves in the discussions on those 
issues with positive attitude. In this regard, para 24 of the MC10 Declaration would be the guiding principle.  
In conclusion, we from LDCs group want to assure you that we will be available for effectively and 
constructively engaging ourselves in upcoming discussions.  
3. Plurinational State of Bolivia 
 First of all, we would like to thank Kenya for organizing the Tenth Ministerial Conference. 
 
We would also like to thank the Director General for the report presented today and for the words of self-criticism.  
The Plurinational State of Bolivia would like to shar e with the Membership some of its thoughts on 
how to move forward.  
This being our first meeting since the end of the Tenth Ministerial Conference, Bolivia considers it 
important to bear in mind that the way to move forward is to think not only about "what comes next", but about the pressing need to be self-critical. 
 
In this light, we would first like to draw attention to a number of process related aspects that need correcting in this Organization's day to day work and its work in the future.  
Bolivia made a considerable effort to ensure the presence of its competent authorities at the 
meeting in Nairobi; however, once there we found that the Ministers' participation in the Conference's main issues was very limited. The concepts of transparency, inclusiveness and 
participation were called into question, and were practically absent in discussions on the issues of 
most importance to the work of this Organization.  
In a letter addressed to the WTO in 2008, my country 's President, Evo Morales, harshly criticized 
the way work was conducted in the Organization, with 20 or 25 countries meeting in the so called "Green Room" to take decisions on behalf of the rest of the Membership.  
In Nairobi, we observed how a grou p of five countries met to take de cisions on behalf of the rest of 
the Membership, thus sidestepping the multilateral process. It was regrettable to see that issues of key interest were never discussed by  the large majority of Members. 
 
In our view, this practice undermines the legitimacy of decisions taken within the Organization.  
Another matter that should be looked at more closely is where Ministerial Conferences are held. 
Holding a Ministerial Conference outside Geneva puts delegations under unnecessary pressure to adopt results "at any price" or on a "take it or leave it" basis. It also makes it extremely difficult for many developing countries to participate, given the expense of transporting officials from many 
of our capitals, as well as delegates from Geneva, and Members are deprived of the support of 
many of their experts.  
In Bolivia's opinion, issues under negotiation shou ld not be presented at Ministerial Conferences in 
such an incomplete state; they should be discussed and be very close to completion in Geneva, before being presented to the Ministers for a final decision. 
 
In terms of substance, the decisions adopted in Na irobi are still being examined in Bolivia; we do 
not yet understand the implications of having adopted the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, which would not be appealable to the Dispute Settlement Body. We are wondering WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 38 - 
 
  why the steps taken to incorporate the Trade Facilitation Agreement into Annex 1A of the WTO 
Agreements, were not also taken in this case.  Bolivia, like many other Members, does not believe we can simply throw away 14 years of 
multilateral effort. The Doha architecture and framework should be preserved and form the basis 
for the WTO's work, thus ensuring balanced results that respond to the development needs of Members. 
 
The new issues and new architecture applauded by certain Members cannot be accepted until outstanding Doha Round issues are resolved. We cannot accept the introduction of WTO plus standards or the establishment of new rules that limit not only our policy space, but special and 
differential treatment and the ability of our States to exercise their sovereignty in fighting poverty 
and promoting our development needs, particularly in a critical international context such as the one at present. 
 
In conclusion, the Plurinational State of Bolivia is willing to contribute to the search for a fairer and more balanced multilateral trading system. It is therefore of the utmost importance to take into 
account the aspects questioned today, so as to avoid creating situations that undermine the 
credibility and legitimacy of the Organization and, ultimately, of multilateralism.  I would be grateful if this statement were included in the General Council minutes. 
 
4. Brazil 
 
Thank you Roberto for your report, and for your observations. We also thank the Kenyan 
government for very successfully hosting the Ministerial Conference in Nairobi. For the purpose of transparency and coherence, my remarks will clos ely follow – and at many times even replicate – 
those made by our delegation in Davos. 
 The multilateral trading system and the WTO´s negotiating pillar are of paramount importance to Brazil. As you know, this has always been a core priority of our economic diplomacy. 
 
We do not deny that initiatives outside the WTO may well bring about, once fully implemented, trade liberalization and more investment. That said, they cannot replace the much broader reach 
and effectiveness of multilaterally agreed trade rule s, especially in such key areas for developing 
countries as agriculture.  
We definitely need to ensure that the ultimate resu lt of all types of negotiations we engage in is 
that of trade creation, not trade diversion. International trade can benefit from multiple tracks – bilateral, plurilateral , multilateral –, all reinforcing each other and contributing to the central role 
of the WTO as the key institution for trade governance. It is imperative, however, that, 
preferential trade agreements be coherent with th e multilateral trading system. That is why Brazil 
insists it is high time that we have a structured discussion about that here in the WTO.  
OPEN plurilateral agreements negotiated within WT O, such as the ITA or the EGA negotiations do 
not fundamentally differ from the traditional func tioning of the multilateral trading system. After 
all, the system has always functioned on the basis of negotiations by the main trading partners of 
a certain product, followed by the multilateralization of commitments thereby achieved. As long as 
the MFN clause remains the key pillar of the system, that modality of negotiation is also welcome.   The WTO´s negotiating pillar produced meaningful results in Bali and Nairobi. It was less than we 
wanted, much less than we continue determined to achieve, but still relevant, both for the 
substance and for the confidence that such outcomes   help to restore regarding future negotiating 
perspectives in this Organization. Brazil is therefore committed to engage constructively and 
intensely, in order that we make the best of the momentum that emerged from two productive 
Ministerial Conferences in a row. In that regard, we believe that:  
 The Nairobi Ministerial Declaration expressed different views on how to address the WTO 
negotiations, in particular the future of the Doha Round. The main point, however, has been the strong commitment to advance negotiations on the remaining Doha issues.  WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 39 - 
 
   Brazil believes that negotiations should be substance-driven within a bottom-up 
approach. If the process of working on delive rables is to follow the recent pattern of 
outcomes every two years, we should then be ready to start the discussion on what issues should be the focus of MC-11 in 2017. 
 
 Beyond the remaining Doha issues, Brazil is ready to examine any new issue to be raised 
for discussion in the WTO and to engage in collectively considering whether they are 
mature for negotiation of multilateral commi tments. In no way, however, may any such 
discussions take place to the detriment of the “unfinished business” of agriculture in the 
multilateral trading system. After all, we still need to achieve a truly leveled playing field on that front, so crucial for development. 
 
 Domestic support and market access are essential components of agriculture reform. 
Other forms of trade-distorting measures and po licies, such as those in the area of SPS, 
TBT, and other elements affecting agricult ure trade, should also be dealt with 
multilaterally.  
Those are the parameters Brazil considers should guide our work over the coming months. Let us 
continue talking to each other in all possible conversation formats so that we can get down to more specific discussions as soon as possible.  
As I said before, in the last two Ministerial Conferences meaningful results were achieved. Brazil 
will continue to seek more concrete progress; progress that may be materially relevant to our economies and societies. That is what our governments and the tax-payers who keep us here 
expect from us. 
 5. Cuba 
 
We thank Kenya for organizing the Tenth Ministerial Conference and for the hospitality with which we were received.  
Our thanks also go to the Director General for his comments on the outcomes of MC10 regarding 
future work, the contacts he made and the meetings in which he recently took part, after the Ministerial Conference. 
 
We endorse the statements made by Guatemala on behalf of the SVEs and by Indonesia on behalf 
of the G-33. 
 
Cuba's views on the outcomes of MC10 were outlin ed by our Head of Delegation at the end of the 
Conference, on behalf of the ALBA countries. This statement, delivered on 19 December at the closing session, remains fully valid today. 
 
In terms of procedures, changes will have to be  made to the current practice under which there 
are five countries that actually participate in the coordination of positions on the texts resulting 
from ministerial conferences and on major issues that affect us all. This undermines the essential 
principles of inclusiveness and transparency in this Organization.  
Turning to substantive issues, we as indeed other Members are currently at the stage of reflecting 
on the work to follow up on the outcomes of MC10. Nonetheless, we can say that, for Cuba, the 
Tenth Ministerial Conference produced an unbalanced outcome in terms of the developing countries' interests   a situation that arose in Bali as well. Regrettably, we have not reaped all the 
expected benefits from the Doha Ro und, and the task remains pending. 
 We are among the many Members that reaffirm Doha and undertake to continue working on the 
basis of the Doha mandates until the Round has been fully completed. 
 Development will be kept at the centre of al l future work, and the S&D provisions must be 
preserved. 
 We are committed to working, but without jeopardizing the current Doha structure, carefully constructed over more than a decade. We are open  to any analysis but will be extremely careful 
and cautious regarding initiatives that in any way affect the developing countries or place them at WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 40 - 
 
  a disadvantage. We want to preserve the issues under the Doha architecture that are of 
importance to our countries, such as S&D and the Single Undertaking, to quote two examples.  We are prepared to share in ideas or proposals that  contribute to enhancing the authenticity of the 
WTO, but are not in favour of initiatives or approaches that involve undermining the 
multilateralism that must take precedence in this Organization.  
As regards the new issues, we have always held the position that the priority is to conclude the 
Doha Round. We hope that caution will be exercised in addressing any new issue, because we do not want a substitute agenda that aims to intr oduce high standards agreed under other scenarios 
with which many Members disagree on account of their implications for their peoples. Nor are we 
prepared to establish rules which, instead of raising developing country participation in world 
trade, prove even more favourable to the developed countries and their multinationals. 
 
Cuba will continue to work towards completion of the Doha Round. As a developing country, it will 
preserve the acquis that has carefully been built up in the various negotiations; we will not lose the policy space gained so far and will continue advocating in favour of ensuring that our interests 
and priorities are guaranteed in the negotiations. 
 Lastly, we would be grateful if this statement could be reflected in the minutes of the General Council meeting of 24 February next, under the relevant agenda item. 
 
6. Guatemala (on behalf of the SVEs) 
 
Thank you Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the SVES I would like to take this opportunity to share the 
group’s views on the way forward.   
Although the group is still analyzing the results and implications of the Ministerial Declaration, we 
reaffirm our commitment on working in a constructive manner in future discussions on the aspects indicated in the Ministerial Declaration adopted in Nairobi.  
In particular, we recall the strong commitment expressed in the Ministerial Declaration by all 
Members to advance negotiations on remaining Doha issues. SVEs look forward in actively participating in the negotiations on the three pillars of agriculture, as well as NAMA, services, 
development, Special and Differential Treatment, TRIPS and rules. For this purpose, the existing 
negotiation committees should re-start their work on the pending Doha issues promptly.  
SVEs believe negotiations should continue to fo llow the essential principles of transparency, 
inclusiveness, and should be a consensus-based an d Member driven process.  As stated on the 
Ministerial Declaration, development must continue to be in the center of any negotiation process, and the provisions for special and differential treatment shall remain integral. 
  
The group acknowledges the Members’ reaffirmation to continue to address SVEs needs in every area of WTO work. 
 
In the negotiations area, we recall that special flexibilities have been recognized for SVEs in the areas of Agriculture and NAMA, and these should be preserved. On the other hand, we welcome 
Member’s commitment to favorably consider the adoption of further measures that would facilitate 
SVEs fuller integration into the multilateral trading system.  In the regular work area, we welcome the Ministerial Decision on the Work Program on Small 
Economies, and we are already working on implem enting such decision by holding the first CTD 
Dedicated Session in March on the topic of Global Value Chains in Textiles and Apparel for SVEs a n d  w e  a l s o  l o o k  f o r w a r d  o n  t h e  w o r k  t o  b e  u n dertaken on the topic of challenges small and 
vulnerable economies experience in their efforts to reduce trade costs. We will follow with great 
attention the regular reports to the General Council by the CTD Chairman on the implementation of this Ministerial Decision. 
 
7. India 
 My delegation would like to thank the Director General for his report on his recent engagements as 
well as providing an opportunity for delegations to express views on the way forward post Nairobi. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 41 - 
 
  Many delegations have spoken before me on the outcomes at Nairobi. I do not wish to repeat the 
same. Suffice it to say that Nairobi was an important milestone where the negotiating arm delivered to some extent on some longstanding issues like Export subsidies.  
With regard to public stockholding, it is important to highlight that the Ministers in Nairobi 
reaffirmed the General Council Decision of 27 November 2014 and decided that members shall engage constructively to negotiate and make all concerted efforts to agree and adopt a permanent 
solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes in dedicated sessions and an 
accelerated time-frame in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. Similarly, Ministers decided to pursue negotiations on an SSM for developing country Members in dedicated sessions 
of the CoA-SS. We look forward to active constructive, engagement on both these mandates in 
2016. 
 Many Members have spoken on the way forward post  Nairobi. From our perspective, the intent and 
purport of many of the paragraphs in the Minister ial Declaration are not entirely clear. This would 
require more intensive reflection, thought and discussion by all Members. An overwhelming 
majority of Members have reaffirmed their commitment to the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). 
As we move forward, we must resolve to successfully conclude the negotiations under the 
framework of the DDA.   Moving to new issues without resolving satisfactorily outstanding mandates will not be acceptable. 
Being constructive and flexible does not imply that we rush into narratives that are not entirely 
clear to many of us nor are their implications for our economies and people, while issues that have been on the agenda for years, remain unresolved. Para 33 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration 
mandates that “officials” should work to find ways to advance negotiations. In our view, these 
efforts have to be essentially driven by the collective membership of the WTO in a bottom-up approach. In other words, it has to be Member-driven. Members need to bring forth proposals to 
advance negotiations. In addition, we agree with the views expressed by a number of Members 
who spoke before me that we need to introspect and reflect on the process both leading up to a Ministerial as well as during the Ministerial as well. This would be in the interest of preserving the credibility of the negotiating arm of the Organisation. 
 
To conclude, while we must immediately engage on the mandate that the Ministers in Nairobi have given us in terms of the specific deliverables, we must also seriously reflect, introspect and discuss 
the way forward in a manner that is of benefit to the larger membership as a whole keeping 
development at the core. It is clear that not only the DDA but para 32 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration also reiterates that our future agenda shall maintain development at its centre. This 
period of reflection must address how the WTO can be more responsive to the needs and 
aspirations of developing countries, particularly the LDCs.  India looks forward to this engagement. 
 
8. Indonesia 
 
First of all, I would like to express our great thanks to the Director-General for your account of 
where we are in the context of the Doha negoti ations, particularly in the Post-Nairobi MC10. 
 
The year 2016 is a window of opportunity for Members, to re-engage in the process of negotiation 
in a constructive manner. In this regard, Indonesia remains committed to continue its engagement in the Post-Nairobi negotiations. Members should start the works immediately with a strong political will and a clear vision on what to ac hieve in the 11th Ministerial Conference in 2017. 
 
While noting that some members sees the need to address new issues in future negotiations, all mandates and decisions made during the Doha Round must continue to be respected as they 
reflect the dynamics of the negotiations and compromises reached by Members. 
 In particular, Indonesia remains firm in putting agriculture as a strategic sector in the development 
since it is still the major source of livelihoods for many Indonesian people. The substantial reforms 
on agriculture should remain the core of future successful negotiations. Members should prioritize follow-up works for issues agreed in Bali and Nairobi as well as works where results have not yet been achieved, particularly on the agriculture issues negotiations, such as public stockholding for 
food security purposes and SSM.   WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 42 - 
 
   
Having said that, as agreed by our Ministers in Nairobi, Indonesia is open to explore new issues to maintain the relevance of the WTO. And in order to fulfill that mandate, I would like to suggest that the exploration of new issues should utilize existing structure in the WTO. With the intention 
of avoiding unnecessary and prolonged debates, such discussions should NOT take place under the 
Trade Negotiating Committee, as to start any negotiations on a new issue would require a 
consensus from the membership. As such, discussions would be much more effective and less 
contentious if they are conducted under the auspic es of the General Council, bearing in mind that 
the principles non-discrimination, transparency, and inclusiveness should also be upheld.   With regard to the issues to be explored, no member may prevent another member from bringing 
up new issues that it may wish to raise. In this regard, I simply wish to highlight that addressing 
long-standing development challenges faced by governments in the developing world remains a priority for Indonesia. Ensuring a level playing field is a must and the development dimension 
should always be considered. 
 9. Japan 
 
I understand that after Nairobi, we are in a new stage of multilateral trade negotiation. Japan is open to any discussion on any issue, old and new.  We should be pragmatic, realistic, flexible, 
creative and inclusive. We should not rush into any action. “Make haste slowly.” That is what my 
vice minister said in Davos. Also we should be very careful not to repeat the same old discussions 
that lead us nowhere. We must learn not only from our failures, but also from our successes.  
 
I look forward to working closely with you all so that we can prove that the multilateral trading 
system continues to be relevant and functioning.  
10. Kenya 
 Let me thank you for your report arising from your recent contacts regarding the way forward particularly on the outstanding work related to the negotiation function of the organization. 
 
This being the first Heads of Delegation since the successful conclusion of the MC10 in Nairobi, let 
me take this opportunity to convey to you, gratitude from my Government for your commitment to 
work of this organization and in particular the important role you played in conducting intensive 
consultations among the Members which led to the adoption of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
I also take this opportunity to thank the entire Memberships for their constructive engagement and 
for exercising flexibilities during the conference which made it possible to achieve substantive deliverables.  
Indeed, the outcome of the MC10 was historic taking into account that the Conference was taking 
place at the time we were also celebrating the 20th anniversary of the WTO. We believe that effective implementation of the MC10 outcome will  no doubt make an important contribution to 
post-2015 development framework. This will ensure  that the WTO and multilateral trading system 
remain relevant in the new post 2015 development era.  
Regarding the way forward, it is important that we get back to the negotiating table on the 
outstanding issues as soon as possible and when ideas are still fresh in our minds. We should not prolong the period of reflection until we lose the momentum we had during the preparatory process for the Nairobi Conference.  
 
As a country, we are open to ideas and proposals that will lead us to serious engagement on the outstanding issues. We are ready and committed to work with you, Mr. Chairman and the rest of 
Members to in order to achieve tangible progress on outstanding issues. 
 11. Mexico 
 
The delegation of Mexico would like to take this opportunity to thank Kenya once again for the efficient organization of the Tenth Ministerial Conference.  WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 43 - 
 
  While the level of ambition reached in Nairobi was nowhere close to our expectations one year 
prior to the Tenth Ministerial Conference, it far exceeded the expectations that we had a few days and even a few hours before the gavel sounded the adoption of the Ministerial Declaration. 
 
In Nairobi, not only did we score significant achievements in export competition and measures in 
favour of the least developed countries; we also recognized that in spite of our differences regarding the architecture of the negotiations, we are still committed to moving forward on the 
outstanding issues. 
 Given our irreconcilable differences of opinion, a debate on whether the Doha Round is dead or alive would not help us to make any headway in the negotiations. We would do better to agree on 
the best way of moving forward with the negotiation of each one of the outstanding Doha issues in 
a pragmatic, transparent and flexible manner.  
It also seems to us that we need to have a frank discussion of whether the single undertaking is 
still important, or indeed applicable. The results of the last two ministerial conferences clearly show that the principle has been left by the wayside. Consensus has been achieved mainly through 
a process of give and take on each one of the different issues. This was the case for the 
Agreement on Trade Facilitation and for the results on Export Competition, as well as for the LDC package.  
Regarding the possible discussion of new issues, Mexico is willing to consider the initiation of a 
dialogue. After 20 years, the WTO needs to be brought into line with the current circumstances of international trade. We also need to recognize that the world economic reality has changed 
considerably since we launched the Doha Agenda. 
 The question facing us now is: how do we continue identifying issues that lend themselves to 
consensus on substantive results and on a process that will enable us to move forward with the 
negotiations? In our view, these discussions need to be held in meetings like this one, but also in negotiating groups and other formats. In short, Mr Chairman, we are grateful to you for having convened this meeting and we welcome the proposal you have presented us today. 
 
Nairobi clearly showed us that the future of the WTO lies in the political will of its Members to preserve the Organization as the key instrument for global integration through multilateral trade 
negotiations. 
 Mexico is firmly committed to the strengthening of an efficient, inclusive, predictable and fair 
multilateral trading system. 
 12. Pakistan 
 
Congratulations to all fellow Members for success and positive outcome in Nairobi, and for proving 
skeptics wrong, who had predicted “No Meaningful outcome at Nairobi”.  
Nairobi Ministerial is an example of the success and importance of multilateralism; this positive 
momentum has to be maintained, the constructive spirit demonstrated at Nairobi must continue and should become our default mode of operation. 
 
Differences on issues are natural and valued, but this should not result in dys-functionality.  In our view the good thing about Nairobi is that there were no winners or losers, rather it is success of all members and the multilateral trading system. 
 
Proof of pudding lies in eating, “Real challenge is implementation”, we have pending agenda of 
B a l i ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  T F A ,  a n d  n o w  w e  h a v e  t o  e n sure speedy and immaculate implementation of 
Nairobi decisions. It is important for the credibility of the system and the Organization that we 
focus on implementation.  
About way forward, no matter which track of work  we follow, DDA issues, non DDA issues or new 
issues, these would fall in the same stream wh ere competitiveness, enabling environment and an 
effective check on protectionism will define the br oadness and continuity of the flow. While moving 
forward, Membership has a great responsibility to ensure centrality of WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 44 - 
 
  The development dimension of the WTO work will remain important for us as trade has proved to 
be an effective tool for poverty alleviation.  90% of Pakistan's exports are through the SME sector  therefore, role of MSMES is increasing as it 
is a vehicle for providing income opportunity and decent living to unemployed youth. We look 
forward to mainstreaming this important area in the work of WTO  
To move forward on our development agenda it would be useful to reflect on the current initiatives 
in the trade regime and create space for dialogue to promote inclusive approaches.  We need to move ahead with care, caution and concentration,   
 
13. Rwanda 
 
At the outset, I wish to congratulate you for the role you played in Nairobi and in particular I wish 
to congratulate the host country. As a Member of the East African Community feel proud of the manner in which the host country discharged the huge responsibility of ensuring a success in 
Nairobi. As a Ministerial outcome, the entire cred it for the Nairobi deliverables, goes – undoubtedly 
– to the entire Membership.   This first meeting gives us an opportunity to share views on what we achieved and in particular to 
exchange views on the possible way forward. In this  perspective your report on contacts you have 
already made and planed ones in Africa and elsewhere can be considered as a set of proactive initiatives aiming at supporting our future roadmap.  
 
In welcoming the Nairobi deliverables, we shouldn’t be entrenched in a kind of self-congratulatory declarations. A frank assessment is of essence if we are to build on this recent past towards a clear 
way forward.  By referring to a clear way forward,  I may sound naïve. But I can assure you that I 
am fully aware of challenges we shall face in coming months in trying to define the post-Nairobi work program. The Nairobi Declaration itself is clear or unclear on this point. But the most important is that Ministers agreed unanimously under paragraph 31 to continue negotiations on 
the remaining DDA issues.  Another important point I take from the Nairobi declaration is the 
strong common resolve to preserve and further strengthen the negotiating function of the WTO as reflected in paragraph 33. I have full confidence in negotiator’s talents in this undertaking and I 
also have confidence in your leadership.  
 Regarding the process for our future work toward s the MC11, I agree that we should strive to 
finalize all negotiations in Geneva before the Ministerial Conference so that principles that are dear 
to us, such as transparency and inclusiveness, can be adhered to.   With this in mind, I will refrain from getting into substance both on the Nairobi outcome and post 
Nairobi agenda given that our various groupings (A CP-Africa-LDC Group) are still engaged in their 
assessments of the results; but rather I will rest here and assure you of our full cooperation and readiness to constructively work with others in coming weeks and months. Towards this end, I 
encourage all Members to keep a positive attitude. This is what I learnt throughout my life that, 
“attitude is the little thing that makes the big difference”.    
14. South Africa 
 In light of the fact that we were unable to find convergence prior to MC10, South Africa is very pleased that the first Ministerial Meeting in Africa  delivered outcomes both in terms of an agreed 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and an agreement on new disciplines on export competition. This 
was testimony to the determination of Members to deliver an outcome in Nairobi.   
Nevertheless, while we agreed on these important matters we also need to recognise the 
persistent divergences amongst Members on many other important issues. We were not able to agree on an outcome on Special and Differential Treatment provisions, nor were we able to deliver 
an outcome on fisheries, both of which are important to a large number of developing country 
Members.   The other important divergences included varying views on the future of the DDA, on whether to 
consider new approaches to negotiations and whether to consider introducing new issues for WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 45 - 
 
  negotiations. All these issues are left open in the Ministerial Declaration and our challenge is 
whether we can find a way to move forward together multilaterally.   
 The Nairobi Ministerial Declaration does however have built-in sets of work.  
 
First, we need to implement the results of MC10; that is, the new export competition disciplines. 
This is important for the credibility of the multilateral trading system and the decisions we take. 
Second, the Declaration gives a particular profile to Public Stock Holding that should be addressed 
in an accelerated and stand-alone manner, and to pursuing work on the SSM. Third, the MD 
instructs us to give priority to remaining negoti ating issues including agriculture, NAMA, services, 
development, TRIPS and rules. 
 
Given well-known positions of Members on these matte rs, we need a period of careful reflection to 
build a shared view on how to advance. In our view , this period of careful reflection should depart 
from the following understandings: 
 
 That existing mandates are well-known, continue to receive support by the overwhelming 
majority of Members and cannot be ignored; 
 
 That the negotiations need to take up longstanding issues that can only be addressed 
multilaterally;  
 
 That we work efficiently reviewing, build ing on and possibly make adjustments to 
progress already achieved. 
 
While the single undertaking principle includes possibilities for early harvest, we cannot assume an issue-by-issue approach will work on other issu es. The Trade Facilitation Agreement and export 
competition had particular characteristics that may be difficult to replicate in other issues. 
 Some Members have called for new approaches to negotiations and others propose new issues. H o w e v e r ,  n o n e  o f  t h e s e  h a v e  b e e n  m a d e  c l e a r .  I n  o u r  v i e w ,  i t  w i l l  b e  t h e  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  o f  
proponents of new approaches to specify what they mean and make clear proposals for all 
Members to consider.  
On new issues, it is in our view too early to focus on these as unfinished Doha issues are given 
priority in the MD. Nevertheless, when these are raised, we expect that there will be a clear identification of issues, agreement among Member s to consider whether to explore the scope and 
content of such issues, even before there is  an attempt to obtain agreement to launch 
negotiations.  There is a great deal of work that lies in front of us, and South Africa is committed to working 
constructively with Members to find a way forward, particularly on issues that are central to the 
developmental mandate and objectives that launched these negotiations.  
15. Uganda 
 Thank you for giving us the floor and for your report. May I take this opportunity to wish you and 
all my colleagues a very happy and prosperous New Year.  Mr. Chairman, I have a few preliminary 
points to raise in response to your report. We thank Kenya for hosting us during the Tenth Ministerial Conference.  
On Process: We would like to register our profound disappointment with the manner in which the 
negotiations were conducted in Nairobi. We always pride ourselves in the fact that this is a member driven Organisation riding on the princi ples of transparency, inclusiveness and bottom up 
approach. In fact this is the process we had set up in Geneva, prior to Nairobi. However, what 
transpired in Nairobi left a lot to be desired. Nairobi did not portray our being a member driven 
Organisation.  What happened to Nairobi being a Ministerial Conference? 
 
For the avoidance of doubt, we would like to ackn owledge our satisfaction with the work done by 
the Facilitators on the Declaration. They conducted a transparent and inclusive process. However Section III, which was not under the facilitators’ responsibility was managed in a very isolationist  
manner. WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 46 - 
 
   
It ought to be recalled that this was the most cr itical part of the Declaration and yet, the vast 
majority of the membership did not participate in shaping its outcome. We were never consulted. Even when we prompted discussion on this issue in  the bilateral, we were greeted with silence.  
We do not even know who was consulted. This a ttitude should stop. It cannot become the norm 
that we all surrender our sovereign right either to  the Secretariat, or to a handful of handpicked 
delegations to decide on our behalf. Our Ministers were relegated to coffee cup bearers instead of 
negotiating their trading rights.  This Organisati on is made up of 164 Members and we all have a 
stake in this Organisation.  Mr. Chairman, it ought to be recalled that the Trea ty of Westaphalia of 1648 codified the principle 
of the sovereign equality of states. This principle has been carried forward in all conventions and 
treaties that form the bedrock of international re lations. We therefore reject any artificial and 
isolationist tendencies not grounded in public international law, engineered to deprive states of 
their inalienable rights of representation. Which is why Mr. Chairman, we call upon you, and all 
members to ensure that this cardinal principle is promoted, protected and respected at all times.   
On documentation: We would suggest that the idea of sending half-baked documents to a 
Ministerial Conference should not be allowed to happen again. The Ministerial Conference is the highest body of this Organization. Most of our Mini sters have competing priorities in capital and do 
not require to be subjected to th e intensive and often acrimonious negotiations that we go through 
here in Geneva. Like the practice is in other Organizations of similar standing, documents 
submitted to the Ministerial Conference should simply be for adoption.  Nairobi would never have happened in the past. In fact Bali was so much different. LDC issues were closed in Geneva; as for 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), we could id entify landing zones in the draft agreement, all 
that remained was a political decision. Nairobi on the other hand, was neither here nor there. It is therefore our firm belief that, any documentation fo r submission to a Ministerial Conference should 
be basically for adoption . In the unlikely event that this is not the case, then the exception should 
be for a simple question of yes or no. And all of us must procedurally agree, by consensus, whether to submit such unfinished documents or not.   
On substance: Our view is that we should start work immediately on the remaining issues of the 
DDA towards its conclusion with development at the centre. We should take lessons from the past. We have increasingly come to the conclusion that whenever members choose to be creative in 
interpretation of text, we end up losing time like we did in the Post Bali Phase. 
 In our reading of Paragraphs 30-31, the mere expr ession of divergent views on the DDA does not 
mean its death. By way of example; the mere ex pressions of marital discontent in public, by a 
spouse engaged in, inter alia: extra territorial activity, does not necessarily mean the dissolution of the marriage. It may lead to, but it is not, a divorce.  
We are therefore encouraged by the resolve of Ministers for us to advance negotiations. This does 
not mean re-writing history, whether contemporary or ancient in the context of the WTO. It simply means that we soldier on. Towards that end therefore, we would like to reaffirm the Doha 
Development Agenda and its entire architecture. We call for the preservation of all flexibilities for 
LDCs and developing countries as enshrined in Doha Ministerial Declaration (DMD) and all Ministerial Decisions and Declarations adopted thereafter. We commit to work with our colleagues 
the Members  to find ways to advance these negotiations in line with Para 33 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration (NMD). 
 On new issues: Para 1 (g) of the July framework is very clear. Which is why we must make haste 
and conclude the Doha Work Program so as to afford us ample opportunity to treat any new 
elements as members may want us to.  
To conclude Mr. Chairman, we urge  all members to engage in good faith. To uphold and implement 
what we have already agreed. We stand on the shoulders of two particular paragraphs, namely: para 24 and Para 5, especially Para 5,  where Ministers agreed to strengthen the multilateral 
trading system so that it provides a strong impetus to inclusive prosperity  and welfare for all 
Members  and respond to the specific development needs  of developing country Members, in 
particular the least developed country Members . 
 WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 47 - 
 
  16. United States 
 The United States expresses its gratitude to Kenya for hosting MC10; we appreciate the quality and skill of Kenya’s leadership. 
 
The Nairobi Ministerial Conference was significant both for the important substantive outcomes achieved, and for opening the major opportunity of engaging in a new and more constructive 
discussion about our work and negotiations in the WTO. 
 The United States stands ready to address both “old” and “new” issues – those outstanding from 
the Doha Development Agenda, as well as other subjects requiring our attention.  But we must do 
so in new ways. 
 Our current situation involves a certain lack of clarity about the way ahead; this is a normal part of 
the process, and it will take some time for clarity to develop.  In any case, the United States is 
prepared to work through a lack of clarity in the short-term in the interest of building a promising path for the future, rather than one that was destined to fail.  We are optimistic and will bring a 
positive attitude to this work. 
 17. Uruguay 
 
To begin with, Uruguay would like to thank you for convening today's meeting which, among other 
things, has provided the first opportunity this year for all WTO Members to comment on how they 
think we should continue to progress after Nairobi. 
 
The Nairobi Conference produced an outcome that  is extremely significant for the WTO and for 
Uruguay. Not only is the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition an achievement in itself, but it 
also recognizes the centrality of agriculture in this round of negotiations. 
 A t  t h e  s a m e  t i m e ,  w e  m u s t  k e e p  u p  w h a t  m a n y  h a v e  b e g u n  t o  d e s c r i b e  a s  t h e  " n e g o t i a t i n g  momentum", if only because so much remains to be done. For instance, the publication "World 
Tariff Profiles", a co-publication of the WTO, the ITC and UNCTAD, reveals that agricultural 
products top the most tariff-protected product lists both in terms of bound rates and applied rates, 
as well as effective rates of protection. The same report also warns of the importance of 
dismantling tariffs in a world trade context characterized by increasing fragmentation of global 
value chains.  
Uruguay cannot and does not wish to forego the prospect of obtaining an ambitious result in 
agriculture. It is not merely a matter of settling an outstanding and historical debt to the agricultural sector, but also of providing greater predictability in an international context of uncertainty. 
 
As other Members have stated today and on other occasions, we are willing to consider new issues that reflect the dynamics of the global economy and world trade over the past few years. The WTO 
cannot, as an organization, remain closed to the natural development of issues in its negotiating 
portfolio: it must keep up with new trends and with the new interests of Members. However, the 
inclusion of new issues must not in any way undermine the natural progress of the other 
two negotiating pillars in agriculture: market access and domestic support. 
 Let me conclude, Mr Chairman, with a general rema rk on the negotiating process. We believe that 
the time available until the next WTO Ministerial must be used wisely in order to avoid a repetition 
of the kind of frantic negotiations that took place in Nairobi. 
 
_______________ 
 WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 48 - 
 
  ANNEX 2 
STATEMENT BY THE GENERAL COUNCIL CHAIRMAN AT THE INFORMAL GENERAL 
COUNCIL MEETING AT THE LEVEL OF HEADS OF DELEGATION HELD ON 
23 FEBRUARY 2016 
At his request, the statement made by the Ge neral Council Chairman at the above-mentioned 
meeting is included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
_______________ 
  Good afternoon and welcome to this informal General Council meeting at the level of Heads of 
Delegation. Before we start the meeting, allow me to refer to the devastating cyclone which struck 
Fiji on Saturday and, on behalf of all Members, I would like to extend our deepest sympathy and condolences to Government and people  of Fiji, for this tragic event. 
 
I have convened this meeting in line with Paragraph 7.1(f) of the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies, contained in document WT/L/510. This meeting is therefore to report on 
the consultations I conducted for the appointment of Chairpersons to the WTO bodies outlined in 
Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Annex to the Guidelines.  During this process, and in light of the end of term of its current Chair, consultations were al so conducted on a new Chairperson for the Dispute 
Settlement Body in Special Session. 
 
I have been assisted in this process by the serving DSB Chairman, Ambassador Harald Neple (Norway) and by the former Chairman of the General Council, Ambassador Jonathan Fried. I would 
like to sincerely thank them both for their valuable assistance, which I am certain has been also 
appreciated by delegations.  I would also no te that, in accordance with the Guidelines, 
Ambassador Fried was not present during the consultations on the chairmanship for the DSB SS 
given that he was a candidate for this particular negotiating body.  
 In undertaking the process set out in these Guidelines, my colleagues and I have put into effect the practical steps to improve their implementation agreed by the General Council in July 2012, 
and contained in JOB/GC/22. On 15 January, I informed all delegations by Fax that, in line with 
the "practical steps" just mentioned, we would be meeting first with the coordinators of the four broad groupings for the purposes of the appointm ent of officers under paragraph 7.1(d) of the 
Guidelines.  Let me recall that, as mentioned in the "practical steps", these four broad groupings 
are: (i) developed countries, (ii) Latin America and the Caribbean, (iii) Asia and (iv) Africa. We also provided a time-period in which we would be available to meet with all interested delegations. A 
second round of consultations for all delegations was also called by a fax on 9 February. 
Consultations took place over some five weeks, in order to provide a greater opportunity for all interested delegations to meet with us.  We consulted all delegations that came forward and requested a meeting, and regularly met with the four Group coordinators and informed them of 
developments.  
 Let me also recall that the guidelines explicitly provide that "a balance which reflects the overall 
membership of the WTO should be achieved in the appointment of officers" and that the "practical 
steps" further provide that "the groups, mean ing developed countries, Latin America and the 
Caribbean, Asia and Africa, have a role in putting forward names of candidates for the slots 
available to them." As you know, there will be a subsequent exercise starting shortly after the 
General Council meeting to select Chairs for the bodies established under the Council for Trade in Goods and the Council for Trade in Services, resp ectively.  Consultations on these appointments 
will be conducted by the outgoing Chairs of the tw o Councils.  In line with the Guidelines, they will 
be announcing the start of their consultative processes at the General Council meeting tomorrow.   
 On the basis of the consultations, it is our understanding that the following slate of names can be 
acceptable to the membership: 
General Council H.E. Mr. Harald Neple (Norway) 
Dispute Settlement Body H.E. Mr. Xavier Carim (South Africa) 
Trade Policy Review Body Ms Irene B.K. Young (Hong Kong, China) WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 49 - 
 
  Council for Trade in Goods H.E. Mr. Hamish McCormick (Australia) 
Council for Trade in Services H.E. Mr. Gustavo Miguel Vanerio Balbela (Uruguay) 
Council for TRIPS H.E. Mr. Mode st Jonathan Mero (Tanzania) 
Committee on Trade and 
  Development H.E. Mr. Christopher Onyanga Aparr (Uganda) 
Committee on Balance-of- 
  Payments Restrictions H.E. Mr. M. Shameem Ahsan (Bangladesh) 
Committee on Budget, Finance  
  and  Administration H.E. Mrs. Inga Ernstsone (Latvia) 
Committee on Trade and  
  Environment H.E. Mr. Héctor Casanueva (Chile) 
Committee on Regional Trade  
  Agreements H.E. Mr. Daniel Blockert (Sweden) 
Working Group on Trade, Debt and  
  Finance H.E. Mr. Atanas Atanassov Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
Working Group on Trade and  
  Transfer of Technology H.E. Mr. Luis Enrique Chávez Basagoitia (Peru) 
Preparatory Committee on  
Trade Facilitation 
 H.E. Mr. Esteban Conejos (Philippines) 
Appointments for these bodies will be for one year as usual, in keeping with the general rule in the 
Guidelines. The appointments will, of course, be made formally by the WTO bodies concerned at 
their subsequent meetings this year.   
 Moving now to DSB in Special Session, and following the end of term of its Chairman Ambassador Ronald Saborio (Costa Rica), we also conducted consultations on a new Chair for the DSB SS.  
During these consultations, there was wide support for a representative from Africa to chair this 
body, especially in light of the fact that there is currently no African representative chairing a 
negotiating body. It is our understanding that ther e is therefore consensus for H.E. M. Mame Baba 
Cisse (Senegal) to chair the DSB in Special Session.  
 I trust that this set of names will meet with your general satisfaction and that it can be formally 
agreed by the General Council tomorrow. Let me al so note that Ambassador Neple, as the future 
General Council Chairman, has discussed with Amba ssador Alfredo Suescum so that he continues 
as Friend of the General Council Chair for the work programme on electronic commerce. 
 
Before we move on, I would like to stress at this  stage that my colleagues and I were extremely 
surprised to see that the process this year has proven to be particularly, and above all, unnecessarily difficult.  I wish to remind all delegations of the significance of this exercise for the 
effective functioning of this organization and that delegations should approach it with a 
constructive spirit.  The Guidelines clearly provide that the exercise "should be approached in a way conducive to the smooth conduct of ongoing business" and that Members should regard it as a 
"relatively routine annual housekeeping function".  
  Our role – the role of the GC Chairman, the DSB Chairman and former GC Chairpersons – is only 
to facilitate this process. The coordinators of the four broad groups I mentioned earlier should fully 
assume their responsibility in this process, as well as all delegations, who should  at all times 
respect the Guidelines and the practical steps to  improve their implementation. Difficulties or 
divergences within the groups cannot be solved by  the GC Chair and his/her colleagues, and need 
to be primarily discussed and settled within the regi onal groups. It is my strong hope that we can 
all learn from the difficulties encountered this year and ensure that future exercises run in a 
smoother fashion.  Delegations might wish to co nsider discussing any possible improvements that 
could be made to the process, and consult with the incoming Chairman of the General Council in 
this regard, with a view to streamlining it and making it more efficient. 
_______________ WT/GC/M/161 
 
- 50 - 
 
  ANNEX 3 
STATEMENT BY LESOTHO ON BEHALF OF THE AFRICAN GROUP AT THE INFORMAL 
GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING AT THE LEVEL OF HEADS OF DELEGATION HELD ON 
23 FEBRUARY 2016 
At its request, the statement made by Lesotho on behalf of the African Group at the above-
mentioned meeting is included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
_______________ 
  The African Group expresses its thoughts with the people of Fiji at the difficult period that has 
befallen them.  
 Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that, of course, yo u have indicated that it was a very difficult 
process. We hope that, as it was difficult, it was also a process that would have given us 
experience to help proceed in the future. Although we also recall that, as the African Group, we did express the difficulties that have come up in th e process and we take note of the improvements 
we have seen this year. Every hurdle gives a room  for improvement and hopefully this process will 
be much better in the future.  Lesotho, as the outgoing Coordinator of the African Group congratulates all Ambassadors who 
have been elected into the respective WTO Bo dies and Committees and wishes them success in 
these challenging assignments. We hope that they would continue to assist us in keeping the multilateral trading system on track especially following the mood that has come out of Nairobi 
including all the developments that accompanied it. We do appreciate the considerations that were 
given especially in respect to the DSB-SS. We hope that we can live up to the challenges in this 
regard.   
 
The African Group pledges its support to all the incoming Chairs and stands ready to join others in carrying the work of WTO forward.  
 
__________