RESTRICTED  
  
WT/BFA/174  
 
14 August  2018 
(18-5155) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration    
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 25 JULY  2018  
The Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration ( also referred to as "the CBFA" or "the 
Committee" ) met on 25 July 2018 under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Juan Esteban Aguirre 
Martínez (Paraguay ). The Terms of Reference and composition of the Committee are set out in 
document WT/L/44/REV.1. The Agenda is contained in the document WTO/AIR/BFA/ 27.  
 
In his opening rem arks, the Chairman stated that the agenda item being tabled related to an item 
that was taken off the agenda of the previous Committee meeting. He said that at the last 
meeting, the document WT/BFA/W/446/Rev.1 was suspended in order to allow time for the 
Secretariat to respond to some questions that were posed by a Member.  He further stated that in 
the process of addressing the questions, the Secretariat had assessed Financial Regulation 19. As 
a result, the Secretariat had prepared a new paper, entitled " Financial Regulations on Extra 
Budgetary Contributions" with reference WT/BFA/W/456.  
 
1  WTO FINANCIAL REGULA TIONS ON EXTRA BUDGE TARY CONTRIBUTIONS – 
WT/BFA/W/ 456 
1.1.  DDG Karl Brauner introduced the paper, highlighting that it related to ho w the Secretariat 
has to handle extra -budgetary contributions from Me mbers. He noted that non -Members may also 
provide contributions . In this regard, he cited that a contribution had been accepted from the 
"Loterie Romande " for the Ceiling of Delegate Room. 
1.2.  He informed the Committee that the history of voluntary contributions made  by Members can 
be divided into  three phases.  
1.3.  An Official from the Secretariat  stated that t he Secretariat had, in preparing the paper for the 
meeting, gone back to the archives to learn about the h istory and the evolution of h ow voluntary 
contributions and Trust F unds have been handle d at the WTO.  He noted that th e recent scrutiny of 
Trust F unds is much hi gher than what the norm was before.  He cited three distinct periods:  
 From the early  days of th e WTO to the establishment of the DDGATF : this period was 
characterized by Trust Funds based on contributions by individual Members. The p urposes of 
the Trust Funds range d from funding seminars to individual activities. When a Member gave a 
contribution, t he Secretariat would accept it and implement the kind of act ivities that had 
been suggested. After several years , and an expansion of the number of Trust Funds, having 
individual Trust Funds became  administratively difficult and inefficient.  
 
 The DDGATF:  The idea was to consolidate Trust Fund s that existed at the time in order to 
make their administration easier  and more efficient . So many small single purpose funds 
made implementation less responsive to evolving needs.  From 2001 to 2009, most voluntary 
contributions were made through the DDAGTF.  
 
 Period after the  financial cris is: Contributions were not coming in consistently , raising 
concerns about adequate funds for the DDGATF. The Secretariat actively reached out to 
Members to ask for contributions. Othe r areas attracted specific funds from Members, such as  
the creation of the Standards and Trade Development Facility  (STDF)  and the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement Facility . Due to a desire have more visibility , some Members asked that 
individual and targeted Trust Funds  be set up, often for aspects not specifically in the 
DDGATF .  
 WT/BFA/174  
 
- 2 - 
 
  It is only in recent instances that the Secretariat brought newly -created Trust Funds, funded by 
Members, to the attention of the CBFA, in some instances asking  for consent.  
 
1.4.  DDG Brauner informed the Committee that the contribution from China was positive a nd that  
the paper initially submitted to the CBFA asked for consent, where this was later realized to have 
not been a requirement. He stated that the resultant seeming miscommunication had been 
inadvertent. He st ated that, nonetheless, the Secretariat could have done things differently by 
communicating the establishment of the Trust Fund to the CBFA much earlier. He said that there 
had been a disconnect internally as  the initial suppos ition was  that the donation would be an 
extension of already existing Trust Funds financed by the People's Republic of China and 
incorporated in  the Biennial Technical Assistance Plan.  
1.5.  The Secretariat apologize d to the Committee for having created what appeared as a lack of 
transparency  and for having not lived up to its high standard s for communication  with Members .  
1.6.  An Official of the Secretariat informed the Committee that the principal paper for the meeting 
focused on an assessment of Financial Regulation  19 according to the l etter of this r egulation. She 
indicated that the first paragraph is the most relevant one and that this  contains two aspects.  
The first aspect is that t he Director General  can accept voluntary contributions f rom WTO  Members 
provided that the purposes for which the contributions are made are consistent with the policies, 
aims and activities of the WTO . Once the Director General has made  this determination  based on 
the executive powers awarded to him by the M embers , he can then assess whether additional 
financial liabilities are created by the acceptance of such funds.  The CBFA would only be consulted 
in the event that additional financial liabilities  would be created by the acceptance of such 
voluntary contributions . The technical explanation  of financial liability  is that  the acceptance of the 
voluntary contribution would create a future obligation to make payments out of the r egular 
budget.  
 
The Official said that t he Secretariat had previously been trying to error on the side of 
transparency  and had extended its application of Financial R egulation  19 to encompass other 
aspects which were, by definition, not additional financial liability. The questions posed by a 
Member as to why the Sec retariat had accepted funding  from a Member in 2017, without having 
first sought the consent of the CBFA led the Secretariat to assess Financial R egulation 19  in depth . 
During this process, it came to light that the extended application that was used before was in fac t 
not required by the Financial R egulation. The Secretariat came to the realization that by seeking 
the consent of the CBFA for two prior Trust Funds and the most recent Trust Fund financed by the 
People's Republic of China, it had exceeded the requirements the Financia l Regulations  and created 
understandable confusion among Members . 
 
1.7.  The Official of the Secretariat informed the Committee that the Secretariat had not been 
consistent in its approach because in some cases consent was sought beforehand whereas in other 
cases the CBFA was simply informed of new Trust Fu nds.  An example given was that of the Trust 
Funds for financing the participation of LDCs in Ministerial Conf erences as consent was not 
requested from the Committee. Rather, the Committee was informed of the establishment of this 
and other Trust Funds.   
1.8.  The Official of the Secretariat stated that the Secretariat was of the firm view, that there is 
no additional financial liability that would be created by the Trust Fund based on the Agreement on 
Economic and Tech nical Cooperation between the Government of the People's Republic of China 
and the World Trade Organization.  
The Official of the Secretariat stated that in view of the above, the document entitled "Agreement 
on Economic and Technical Cooperation between th e Government of the People's Republic of China 
and the World Trade Organization" had been  revised to correct the error that the Secretariat had 
made in previous versions which sought consent from the CBFA. The correction was effected by 
removing  the paragr aph that referred  to consent. As such, the revised paper WT/BFA/W4 46/Rev. 2 
was aligned with the Financial R egulations.  
1.9.  DDG Brauner summed up by expressing his hope that that the Committee was  convinced 
that the Secretariat was indeed following Financial Regulation  19. He noted that t his Financial 
Regulation serves as a protection for the Organization 's regular budget so that no  liabilities arising WT/BFA/174  
 
- 3 - 
 
  from the establishment of Trust Funds could be funded from the regular budget, without the 
knowledge of the C BFA. He assured Members that the Secretariat had learnt some lessons and 
would address these to avoid similar situations in future.  
1.10.   A Member thanked the Secretariat for the explanations it had given and noted that the 
purpose of the Trust Fund was much cle arer than had been the case in the first version of the 
paper. The Member said the concern that  the Donor would control or propose the selection of 
projects to be funded had been addressed. He welcomed the donation and expressed gratitude to 
the Donor. The  Member stated that in his delegation's view, the Financial R egulation cited permits 
the Director General to accept voluntary contributions under certain conditions. He said that from 
his delegation's perspective, those conditions had been met. He stated t hat Members have 
appointed the Director General to run the Organization and given him certain responsibilities and 
conditions to carry out his work. He underlined that it would be inappropriate for Members to 
micromanage the Director General.  
The Member c ontinued to say that Financial R egulations are open to interpretation and that his 
delegation was displeased by the Secretariat's handling of this matter. He noted that the 
programme started in late 2017, when some funds were received, yet Members were onl y 
informed in April 2018. He said that the CBFA should be informed in a timely manner regardless of 
whether or not consent is required.  He mentioned that  such information should be provided before 
any projects are undertaken.   
He expressed discontentment with the quality of the first paper that been presented to the CBFA  in 
April and the significant changes in the approach  as per the latest documentation . He stated that 
he hoped the Secretariat and Committee will draw lessons fr om this experience and that future 
submissions to the CBFA will strive for accuracy.  
He suggested that those Members who questioned the S ecretariat's interpretation of Financial 
Regulation 19 should resolve this through dialogue with the Secretariat.   
1.11.   Several other Members expressed concerns around the manner in which this subject had 
evolved and the notable change from the Committee's consent being required to the Committee 
only being required to take note of the submitted documents. At the same time, som e Members 
expressed appreciation for the clarity of the latest submissions.  
1.12.   A number of Members acknowledged the contribution from the People's Republic of China 
and cautioned that the  debate around Financial R egulation 19 should not detract from this.  
1.13.   A Member stated that his delegation expected that all contributions received by the CBFA 
should comply with the Financial R egulations. He asserted that the Financial R egulations are a 
legal document that is subject to the Marrakesh Agreement insofar as the bu dget and 
administration are concerned. He stated that footnote 2 of the document p ertaining to the 
contribution f rom the People's Republic of China spoke to direct and indirect costs yet the 
conclusion was that consent of the CBFA was not a requirement. He  pointed out  that the 
Secretariat was making a drastic change from the approach it had followed for the past two 
decades.  
The same Member expressed concern that the Secretariat's opinion that the aims, policies and 
activities of the WTO include trade related activities has major systemic implications. He 
underlined  that the Marrakesh Agreement had a linkage to th e Financial R egulations and asserted 
that the Secre tariat's interpretation of  Financial Regulation 19 is not be in keeping with the 
Marrakesh Agreement. He stated that Financial R egulation 22 provide s that the Director General 
may enter into future commitments provided that such commitments are for normal ongoing 
activities  or authorized by specific decisions of the General Council.  He asserted that neither of 
these two requirements had been  met in this particular case. He said that investment facilitation  is 
not in line with the WTO's existing aims, polici es and activities because there is no consensus from 
Members on this issue. On this, he referred to Articles 2 and 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement. He 
also cast doubt that individual Members can define a broad purpose for which its contribution can 
be used. H e stated that his delegation encourages the Secretariat to revise its view and engage 
further with the Members with respect to the issues that had been raised.  WT/BFA/174  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.14.   A Member called for the postpone ment of Agenda Item 9 on the agenda of the General 
Council meet ing scheduled for the 26th and 27th of July to a future meeting of the General Council 
so as to allow for further discussion on the issues raised.  
1.15.   Another  Member stated that the main agenda item for the Committee's meeting was the 
interpretation of Finan cial Regulation 19, as per the Financial R egulations adopted by Members 
and, as submitted by the Secretariat. He said the focus ought to be on this and the USD  8 million 
contribution offered by the People's Republic of China, for the period running up to t he end of 
2026. He questioned why other elements were being brought to the table . He said on the point 
raised by some Members as to whether or not  the contribution complies  with the aims, policies and 
activities of the WTO, his delegation would need more t ime to ponder on this. He pointed out that 
the Committee was not being asked to take any decision in the meeting. He noted  that the 
discussions of the  scope of Financial R egulation 19 on aspects of what complies with the aims, 
policies and objectives of th e WTO can be held in a relevant forum and that the CBFA was not the 
place. He cautioned that the Member that was offering the funds could opt to withdraw its 
donation and mentioned that the amount of USD  8 million is a small fraction of the overall fund, 
which sits at USD  500 million. He stated that his delegation agrees with the Secretariat's 
interpretation o f Financial Regulation 19.  
1.16.   A Member noted that the donation from the People's Republic of China is intended to 
strengthen the Organization, in general , and development cooperation in the WTO, in particular. 
He said that his delegation supports an y contribution designed to advance the better integration of 
developing countries and LDCs into the multilateral trading system. He said that the  Secretariat 
had respected the Financial R egulations as they exist, in accepting the contribution.  
Turning to the general debate concerning the rules and regulations governing extra budgetary 
contributions, the Member said it would be better to discuss this separately fr om the contribution 
at hand. He added that  his delegation expects the Secretariat to ensure that extra budgetary 
contributions are utilized in strict accordance with the policies, aims and activities of the WTO. He 
noted that contributions are not a mere b ilateral matter and thus he requested that Members be 
provided with the text of  the bilateral agreement between the Secretariat and the D onor.  
 
He closed off by saying that explanations and assurances had been given by the Secretariat 
regarding what had t ranspired and that continuing the debate on this aspect was not productive. 
He said that it may be necessary to improve upon existing procedures and regulations.  
 
1.17.   A Member expressed concern that the CBFA could be a bystander and requested that 
matters of d onations should be brought to the Committee for deliberations, even if consent is not 
required. She thanked the Secretariat for its transparency.  
1.18.   A Member asked for clarification on the relationship between indirect costs and financial 
liabilities.  
1.19.   A Membe r stated that paragraph 4.9 on page 38 of the 2017 WTO Financial Performance 
Report contains reference to a China Development Cooperation Trust Fund s, which seems to 
resemble the Fund being discussed by the Committee. She wanted to know whether CBFA consen t 
had been requested. She called on the Secretariat to be more transparent in its information to 
Members.  
She asked the Secretariat to provide more information on the past practices pertaining t o extra 
budgetary contributions, including whether the CBFA w as informed or asked to give consent at the 
establishment of the currently existing extra budgetary funds.  She noted that this will allow the 
Members to make informed decisions. She also asked for written information on the aspects of 
indirect costs, direc t costs and financial liability relating to Trust Funds.  
 
1.20.   A Member opined that the powers vested in Article VII of the Marrakesh Agreement were 
being abrogated and that the CBFA is a creation of this specific article. He underlined  that the 
interpretation of the F inancial R egulations resides with the General Council and not with the 
Secretariat.  WT/BFA/174  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.21.   The Chairman observed that no delegation had expressed the view that the contribution 
from the People's Republic of China should be declined. He said that discussions centred on how to 
move forward on this matter , and, in that regard the Secretariat was being asked to provide more 
information on Trust Funds that exist.  
1.22.   An Official of the Secretariat clarifi ed some aspects which had been stated inaccurately b y 
some Members. One such issue was the assertion that consent had been sought from the CBFA, 
over the past 20 years, prior to the establishment of each Trust Fund. The Official stated  that in 
the opening statements, the Secretariat had informed the Committ ee that there was no consistent 
approach that had been followed and that notification to the CBFA had at times been through 
financial reports; at times consent had been sought; and at other times the Committee was only 
informed.  
1.23.   On the question as to whet her the Secretariat had accepted funds before seeking consent 
from the Committee, the response was that the Secretariat had not required consent and that in 
earlier comments, Officials of the Secretariat had acknowledge d that the process on this subject 
could have been handled better and that relevant lessons had been drawn  and assurances given .  
1.24.   The Official stated that there were 12 funds included in the 2017 Financial Performance 
Report and that quarterly reports are made to the CBFA on Trust Funds. The Official said that the 
information requested, relating to the history of the establishment of each Trust Fund, will be 
provided. She explained that most direct costs are charged to the actual Trust Fund s and that such 
costs would include the remuneration o f staff members working on activities related to the Trust 
Funds. Such staff members are on what is termed as "L -Posts". She then said that there is a small 
number of staff members on L-Posts who do work for Trust Funds in general. The salary and other 
benefits of these staff members are paid out of the Programme Support Fund. This is a Trust Fund 
into which the 13% programme support costs levied on annual expenditures from each Trust Fund 
are collected.   
The Official stated that the Programme Support Fun ds is also included in the 2017 WTO Financial 
Performance Report, at paragraph 4.67 and Table 33.  She noted that as at 31st December 2017 
the Programme Support Fund had a balance of approximately CHF  1 million and expenses had 
been around CHF  2.4 million. Sh e indicated that a portion of the programme support costs 
collected was transferred to the regular budget and reflected under miscellaneous income. This 
amount was use to cover overheads such as electricity, supplies etc. related to the Trust Funds. 
The Of ficial stated that more information on this aspect would be provided in writing, to enable 
ease of comprehension. On this basis, the Official stated that no additional liability was created for 
the regular budget  of the Organization . 
 
1.25.   An Official of the Se cretariat provided more information and stated that none of the T rust 
Funds that were set up prior to the DDAGTF had been subject to consent. The first time CBFA 
consent was sought was in  the context of Annex C of the Financial R egulations with regards to a 
donation of a heritage ceil ing to the Secretariat, as the D onor was not  a Member of the WTO.  
1.26.   Pursuant to a comment by one Member, another Member pointed out that the Committee 
was not being asked to accept any proposal but rather that the documents subm itted were for 
information.  
1.27.   A Member stated that he agreed with the notion that the DG should not be micro -managed  
and that he understood the cause of the debate was the link to "investment facilitation". He stated 
that this issue had polarized the General Council. He said that his delegation had no objection to 
the contribution. He continued for future reference that  the Secretariat ought to reassure Members 
through certain measures of transparency that this scenario will not be replayed on issues that we 
know certain M embers may most likely object to.  
1.28.   The Chairman stated that the comments made by the most recent inte rvener were positive 
and seeking a way forward. H e said th at paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the paper on the Agreement 
between the People's Republic of China and the WTO gave clear assurances.  
1.29.   DDG Braune r suggested the way forward as a separation of the issues. He reminded the 
CBFA of the recommendation it had made to the General Council to approve the transfer of funds WT/BFA/174  
 
- 6 - 
 
  between some budget lines and the approval of the Audited Financial Statements for 2017. He said 
that Members could express their concerns with t he substance through  express statement s on the 
project on investment facilitation as included in the financial performance report  without blocking a 
factually accurate report of what had happened in 2017 . He then intimated that discussions on the 
inclusion  of investment facilitation could be discussed at another level since it was not within the 
purview of the CBFA.  
1.30.   A member said that the aspect of the Trust Fund, as captured in the Financial Performance 
Report, talks about an activity on investment facilitation. He said that adopting the report would 
imply agreeing to this element.  
1.31.   An Official of the Secretariat explained  that Financial R egulation 22 follows on from Financial  
Regulations 20 and 21, which relate to the use of regular budget funds and have n o relevance to 
Trust Funds and Financial R egulation 19.  She emphasized that Financial R egulation 20 talks about 
the use of revenue from Member contributions and miscellaneous income funding the regular 
budget. She said that Financial R egulation 22 talks about procurement of services costing more 
than CHF  2 million and the reporting requirements on this. She gave an example of a multiannual 
contract exceeding CHF  2 million as being the contract with the ser vice provider for physical 
security and guards for the WTO.  
1.32.   An Official of the Secretariat asked what the expected next step would be if the Audited 
Financial Statements are not approved for the reason that a Fund was included therein that is not 
agreed to  by Members. She said that the Financial Performance Report reflects w hat has already  
happened and that this cannot be changed.  She asked if the Audited Financial S tatements could 
remain unapproved in perpetuity. She wondered whether the suggestion would b e that the 
External Auditors be asked to give their perspective on the concerned paragraph.  The Official 
asked what the desired next steps by the concerned Member , that can be actionable by the 
Secretariat , are. 
1.33.   A Member asked for an express statement from  the Secretariat that it would not continue to 
implement the project on investment facilitation. The Member also asked the Secretariat if it could 
share the original proposal for the project that was approved in 2017. The Member also asked if 
Members were expressly required to approve the 2017 Audited Financial Statements  and if so why . 
1.34.   An Official from the Secr etariat stated that there is a Financial R egulation that stipulates 
that Audited Financial Statements have to be approved by the General Council . 
1.35.   DDG Brauner said that the question of whether or not the project on investment facilitation 
would be continued with should be discussed outside the CBFA as it is not a matter for the 
Committee. He said that this aspect would be discussed with the Director Ge neral and thus a 
response could not be given at the point at which the question was asked. He stated that an 
earlier suggestion to take agenda item 9 off the agenda of the General Council will impact on an 
unrelated yet important decision that needs to be taken regarding Annex 2 of the Staff 
Regulations. He said that it was important to disaggregate the different recommendations being 
made by the CBFA to the General Council.  
1.36.   A few Members echoed the importance of separat ing the various recommendations in t he 
documentation for agenda item 9 so that approvals sought for areas that have no direct 
relationship to the issue at ha nd are not unduly blocked or delayed.  
1.37.   In his closing remarks, the Chairman stated t hat an updated document on the F inancial 
Regulations on extra -budgetary funds should be prepared and discussed at the next CBFA 
meeting.  
1.38.   DDG Brauner stated that the Secretariat had noted all comments made and thanked the 
Members for the engagement on this subject. He appealed to the Members to no t stand in the way 
of Agenda Item 9 in the General Council.  
1.39.   The Chairman thanked all the Members for their lively and active participation and 
adjourned the meeting.   
_______________  WT/BFA/174  
 
- 7 - 
 
  ANNEX  
 
STATEMENT DELIVERED BY INDIA AT THE MEET ING OF  
THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION  
ON JULY 25, 2018  
 India welcomes proposals b y Members for extra budgetary contributions to augment 
resources of the WTO Secretariat for further research on topics of importance and priority 
for doing work under the multil ateral track on mandated issues.   
 
 However, regarding the proposed Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation 
between China and WTO for which the CBFA meeting has been called today we have 
serious concerns both regarding the procedures adopted for ap proval by the Secretariat as 
well as substantive issues regarding the currently ongoing projects and activities on 
Investment Facilitation being driven by the Secretariat.  As requested by the Secretariat 
we have earlier shared our concerns regarding the p rocedures, issue of mandate etc. in 
writing.  However, we have not received any response.  Let me enumerate these concerns.  
 
 Firstly, regarding the procedure followed for discussion in the CBFA on the proposal.   
 
 The Secretariat earlier informed that the proposal was approved on a fast track basis by 
DG and has also not been procedurally put up to the CBFA as laid down in the 
regulations for reporting and review, though it was approved in November 2017 and the 
expenditure on the project was incurred last year.  This in our view raises issues related 
to transparency as also questions of financial propriety as the China Development 
Cooperation Research Fund figures on page 38 in the Financial Performance Reports of 
WTO of 2017 which is on the Agenda of the General Council meeting.   
 
 We have received information only in bits and pieces on the project.  An aspect we wish 
to highlight is the series of revisions of the proposal by the Secretariat with substantive 
change i n interpretation of financial regulations which have material bearing on the role 
of CBFA and approval for such projects.  The current proposal has been revised 3 times 
while the earlier 2 versions including para 11 of Rev. 1 of the proposal clearly mentio ns 
that the proposed voluntary contributions imply an indirect cost, therefore, CBFA’s 
consent is required, the current version takes a diagonally opposite view and suggests 
that no approval of the membership is required since, the Secretariat had been 
erroneously interpreting financial regulations earlier.  
 
 We understand that the Secretariat has in the past always brought proposals on extra 
budgetary fun ding for consent to the CBFA. There cannot be any ambiguity about the 
fact that any activity or work of the WTO requires the resources of the Secretariat 
incurring tangible, indirect and other costs, whatsoever the source of funding may be.  
The argument that there is no direct or indirect cost does not therefore hold merit in 
our view, as the resources of t he Secretariat will be deployed for the project and it is 
logical to conclude that CBFA’s consent is required.  
 
 Article VII of the Marrakesh Agreement clearly lays down that the CBFA will review the 
annual budget, financial statements as also frame the fi nancial regulations.  We also 
wish to remind the membership that WTO is a member driven multilateral organisation 
dealing with multilateral goods and objectives and not an organisation for generating 
resources or setting its own policies, aims and activiti es especially, for taking on areas 
of work for which there is expressly no mandate and consensus.  Therefore, we feel the 
Secretariat’s interpretation that CBFA has no material role or member’s consent is not 
required for projects and proposals undertaken by the WTO is not correct.  
 
 The following are our concerns on the substance:  
 
 Article III of the Marrakesh Agreement mentions that the WTO shall provide the forum 
for negotiations amongst members concerning their multilateral trade relations.  
Further, Ar ticle VI of the Marrakesh Agreement lays down “the Secretariat shall not 
seek or accept instructions from any government or any authority external to the WTO.  
They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international WT/BFA/174  
 
- 8 - 
 
  officials”.  It is thus important that the Secretariat discharges its role in a manner which 
is not only neutral but also perceived to be so and does not prejudice the position of 
any member or group in the WTO.  Is it not correct that when invites for a worksho p or 
an event are sent by the WTO it is logical for anyone to believe that this has been 
endorsed by the entire membership?  Consequently, India cannot agree with the view 
that any member or group of members, in the absence of consensus can make 
contributi ons with the ability to define purposes outside mandated areas.   
 
 The document on financial regulations circulated by the Secretariat mentions that the 
contributions have to be consistent with the policies, aims and activities of the WTO.  
There is no ambiguity in our mind, currently Investment Facilitation is certainly not an 
area consistent with the policies, aims and activities of WTO.  Therefore, we cannot 
agree to the interpretation that on an issue like Investment Facilitation on which many 
members have expressed serious reservations even for discussions in the WTO,  the 
Secretariat can drive and steer initiatives, organize workshops and engage in activities 
whatsoever, the sources of funding may be.   
 
 To conclude, these proposals go much beyond justifying approval for projects already 
undertaken without reporting to  the membership.  They raise serious systemic issues, 
questions regarding the role of the Secretariat, by engaging in activities in non -mandated 
areas without review or reporting, the consensus principle, allowing any member or group 
to set policies and ob jectives for the WTO with contributions even on non -mandated areas 
and even calling into question Article VII of the Marrakesh Agreement.   
 
 In view of these systemic issues and concerns we would request the Secretariat to further 
discuss the implications of this proposal and these revised regulations as these have 
material bearing on the role of this Committee and functioning of this organisation.  
 
 Since this proposal is also embedded in the WTO 2017 Financial Performance Report we 
would also request the d iscussion on this report under Agenda Item 9 of the GC meeting 
may be deferred to a later date.   
 
 Finally i t is requested our statement may be minuted and taken on record by the 
Secretariat.  We have no objection if this statement is shared among Members.  
 
 
__________