RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/169  
 
17 November 2017  
(17-6311) Page: 1/73 
General Council  
26 October 2017    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 26 OCTOBER  2017 
Chairpersons: H.E.  Mr Xavier Carim (South Africa)  
At the outset , the Chairman and the Director -General welcomed Deputy Director -General Alan 
Wolff and the newly arrived Permanent Representatives to the WTO. Amb. Mohammad Qurban 
Haqjo (Afghanistan) made a statement1. They also bade farewell to Amb. Amr Ramadan (Egypt) 
who was leaving his  post at the WTO, and expressed appreciation for his  valuable contribution 
during his  time as a Permanen t Representative . 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND 
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
2   IMPL EMENTATION OF THE BA LI AND NAIROBI OUTCO MES – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT  ...............  5 
4   ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE  ................................ ............  6 
5   COMMITTEE ON BALANCE -OF-PAYMENTS RESTRICTION S – CONSULTAT IONS 
WITH ECUADOR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
6   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION - REPORT ON 
MEETING OF JULY 2017  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 
7   WORKSHOP ON MSME S – STATEMENT BY CHILE  ................................ .......................  10 
8   WTO YOUNG PROFESSION ALS PROGRAM – STATEMENT BY THE DIR ECTOR -
GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  10 
9   2018 EXERCISE FOR TH E APPOINTMENT OF OFFICE RS TO WTO BODIES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ ................................ .....................  11 
10   CHAIRMANSHIP OF ACCE SSION WORKING PARTIE S – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  11 
11   STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE 
MEASURES FOR MEMBERS  IN ARREARS  ................................ ................................ .........  11 
ANNEX 1 – STATEMENT BY AMBASSA DOR MOHAMMAD QURBAN HAQJO OF 
AFGHANISTAN TO THE WTO GENERAL COUN CIL ON 26 OCTOBER 20 17 .........................  13 
ANNEX 2 – THE REPORTS BY THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAI RS OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC A ND INFORMAL HODS 
MEETINGS HELD ON 24 OCTOBER 2017  ................................ ................................ .........  14 
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL 
HODS MEETINGS HELD O N 24 OCTOBER 2017  ................................ ................................  27 
                                                
1 The full statement of Ambassador Haqjo  can be found in Annex 1 of this document.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NE GOTIATIONS COMMITTEE  AND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, on 24 October , the Director -General had convened  Informal TNC 
and Heads of Delegation meeting where he had provided a briefing of his recent activities and 
consultation s. Members had also received reports from the Negotiating Group Chairs on  work in 
their respective areas. M ore than forty delegations had taken the floor.  
1.2.  He understood that the Director -General's  report and the reports by the Chair s of the 
Negotiating Groups would  be circulated to delegations and as  had been announced on 24 October, 
they would also be reflected in the minutes of the  General Council meeting under the current  
agenda item2. Statements3 delivered by delegations would  also be included in the minute s under 
the current  item, unless the respective delegations indicated otherwise.  
1.3.   The representative of Dominica , on behalf of the OECS , said that three  of OECS'  member 
States we re grappling with the aftermath of the passage and devastation of two Catego ry 5 
Hurricanes – Irma and Maria  – that had swept through the region within the space of two weeks in 
September. The near total destruction to property, infrastructure and the loss of lives recorded 
particularly in the islands of Barbu da and Dominica had  highlighted the catastrophic impact that 
severe storms and hurricanes could  wreak on Small Island Developing States.  
1.4.  Many WTO Members had  meaningfully committed relief to many in the OECS family 
particularly Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica. The OECS was gra teful to all of them as it would 
be a long road back to pre -hurricane normalcy. With the collective support and good will of all, 
their countries would  rise yet again.  
1.5.  He said that OECS  countries would  need to fully engage the flexibilities in the m ultilat eral 
trading system as they undertook  the task of economic reconstruction. The economic impac t of the 
hurricane in Dominica wa s measured at over 200% of GDP. But the true challenge would  be felt 
for many years as they tried to rebuild their agriculture, NA MA and services sectors.  
1.6.  Even as they  contemplate d the monumental task ahead of them  in the OECS Economic 
Union, the knock -on effects of the devastation o n other OECS countries which could  not have been 
directly impacted had also been substantial. None of  their economic union members had  been left 
unscathed as disruptions to trade in vital goods and services had  impacted all member States.  
1.7.  The OECS was  gratef ul for the report of the Director -General and for the further reports of 
the respective Chairs of t he negotiating groups con cerning the state of play of the  discussions and 
of the negotiations in general which aim ed to advance negotiations on t he remaining Doha issues. 
Members were reminded that they had  all agreed that developmen t would lie at the cent re of 
those negotiations and that development would also be an integral component of the various 
provisions for special and differential treatment.  
1.8.  Based on the reports, it was fair to state that Members had  not made sufficient and 
meaningful progress to a dvance negotiations on most issues i ncluding those for which there were 
time-bound mandates. The OECS fully understood  that such diminutive progress would  have an 
impact on the expected substantive outcomes in Buenos A ires – an issue that t he OECS Economic  
Union members were presently examining especially in light of recent developments in the region.  
                                                
2 The Director -General's report and those of the Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups  at the 24 October  
Informal  TNC and HODs Meetings  (also circulated in JOB/GC/145) are  incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and are  reproduced in Annex 2  of this document.  
3 The statements at the 24 October  Informal TNC and HODs Meeting s by the following delegations  are 
incorp orated in the minutes of this mee ting and can be found in Annex 3  of this document:  Chile (Friends of 
MSMEs); Zambia; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Japan; Argentina; Zimbabwe; United States; Paraguay; 
Switzerland; Peru; Brazil; Iceland; India; Rwanda ( African Group); South Africa; Russian Federation; Turkey; 
European Union; Australia; Barbados (CARICOM); Republic of Korea; Mali (C -4); Pakistan; Uganda; 
Plurinational State of Bolivia; Swaziland; Guyana (ACP); Uruguay; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Cuba; Chin ese 
Taipei; Indonesia (G -33); Cambodia (LDCs); Ecuador; China; Costa Rica; Tanzania; Canada; Colombia; 
Cameroon; Thailand; Mexico and Norway.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.9.  The OECS would not repeat what it had outlined a t the previous  HODs meeting concerning its 
interest and concerns related to the more active Doha Issu es repor ted on 24 October . Those 
remain ed relevant. The multilateral trading system should play a crucial role,  the WTO  in 
particular , in contributing to enabling the required reconstruction and rebuilding within the context 
of the rights and obligations and the r ules and disciplines contained in the WTO Agreements.  
1.10.   Special attention  and appropriate treatment should  be given to those countries faced with 
those circ umstances especially when they we re the smallest, weakest and most vulnerable which 
needed to rebuild  their economic infrastructure and to resume sustainable economic growth and 
development following catastrophic n atural  disasters.  
1.11.   One specific suggestion which had been  discussed at the ACP Ministerial Trade C ommittee 
Meeting in Brussels had been the pos sibility of a peace clause for an interim period to shield those 
Members from challenges regarding  lack of prompt implementation or compl iance with the 
obligations – helping to facilitate the reconstruction of the ir economies. That wa s an importan t 
issue f or the OECS. Further details would be provided on that in discussions leading up to MC11.  
1.12.   The OECS  associate d itself with  the statements by the ACP, CARICOM and G -33 at the 
Informal TNC and HODs meetings  on 24 October . 
1.13.   The representative of Cameroon  suppor ted the statement by Dominica. For those Members 
who had been at the  Marrakesh  Meeting and  in Brussels at the ACP Ministerial Meeting , they  would 
have heard  that his  Minister had spoke n about that situation – an issue that had also been 
discussed by Minist ers. Cameroon would be working very hard in that direction and would  invite 
other Members to pay considerable  attention to that matter . 
1.14.   The General Council took note  of the Director -General's and the Negotiating Group Chairs' 
Reports, of the statements as delivered at the Informal TNC a nd Informal HODs meetings on 
24 October  and of the other statements.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND NAIROBI O UTCOMES – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
2.1.  The Chairman4 recalled that the item remained on the agenda to allow Members  to continue 
to follow up on the decisions adopted in Bali and Nairobi – and to do so in an inclusive and 
transparent manner.  
2.2.  On 18 October, he had  held a meeting with the Ch airs of Regular Bodies, where they had  
updated each othe r on the work taking place in their respective bodies, including – but not only – 
with respect to the implementation of the Bali and Nairobi mandates, as well as the preparations 
for the Ministerial Conference. As in the past, the discussion s and inputs from that meeting were 
the basis  of his statement . 
2.3.  They would  deal with the Work Programmes on Small Economies u nder the next Agenda 
item; and he would provide an update on his  consultations regarding the preparations towards a 
possible draft recommendation to Ministers at MC11 on E -Comm erce under Agenda Item 4.  
2.4.  Concerning the  TRIPS non -violation and situati ons complaints, the TRIPS Council had 
discussed the  matter at each of its regular meetings since MC10 and the Chair had  consulted with 
delegations in various for mats. At its meeting on  19-20 October , the TRIPS Cou ncil had continued 
its discussion on  the matter. Since it had  not yet  been ready to agree on its recommendation, the 
Council  had agreed to keep that agenda item open, and to reconvene at sh ort notice once further 
work had sufficiently mature d with a view to agreeing on a recommendation to MC11.  
2.5.  On Agriculture, w ith respect to the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, Members with 
scheduled export subsidy reduction commitments continue d to pro vide updates on the steps they 
were taking to implement the Decision. In particular, the EU had informed the Committee on 
Agriculture in October that it had submitted, as part of the draft goods schedule for its 28  member 
States, a change of commitments incorporating the implementation of t he Nairobi Decision to 
                                                
4 The Chairman's statement was circulated in JOB/GC/146 . WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 4 - 
 
  eliminate farm export subsidies – making it the second WTO Member with export subsidy reduction 
commitments to do so.  
2.6.  The Nairobi Export Co mpetition Decision also included  provisions specifying that the 
Committee on Agriculture shou ld conduct a review process of the Decisions' disciplines every three 
years. T he Committee on Agriculture would conduct that  review during the annual dedica ted 
discussion in June 2018 . The Co A would  also review the Decision' s provisions on international fo od 
aid during the monitoring of the implementation of the Marrakesh Decision on Net Food Importing 
Developin g Countries (NFIDCs) – and that would  take place in the first meeting in 2018.  
2.7.  With respect to  TRQ Administra tion, the Bali Decision required  that a  review of the operation 
of that Decision should begin no later than the en d of 2017. The objective of that review wa s to 
promote a continuing process of improvement in the utilization of TRQs. The Committee on 
Agriculture had initiated that  review  at its October meeting and would  hold an informal meeting in 
February 2018 to continue the discussions.  
2.8.  Regarding the implementation of the Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes, no Member had  sought to use the interim solution, and therefore  the Committee on 
Agriculture had  not been called upon to take action and no  information had  been provided by 
Members in the context of the monitoring foreseen.  
2.9.  Concerning Development and LDC matters, on the Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin for 
LDCs, the Committee on Rules of Origin had met earlier in October  and had conducted an annual 
review of recent developments related to preferential rules of origin for LDCs. A report 
summa rizing the main developments had been adopted, and wa s before the Gener al Council in 
G/RO/85.  
2.10.   All elements in the Ministerial Decision which had required follow -up action by the 
Committee had  been implemented: the Committee  had adopted a new template for the notification 
of preferential rules of origin; it  had adopted a meth odology for the calculation of utilization rates; 
and it had heard a first report on utilization rates prepared by the Secretariat.  
2.11.   The remaining areas of work related to the Decision concern ed its substanti ve provisions. 
The Committee had  therefore intens ified its technical work to examine Members' existing practices 
with respect to preferential origin requirements for LDCs, i n order to better understand tho se 
requirements, to analyse their possible impact on the ability of LDCs to fully utilize preference s, 
and to encourage the adoption of best practices.  
2.12.   It wa s encouraging that some preference -granting Members had  already informed the 
Committee about positive modifications to their preferential rules of origin as a result of 
discussions related to the Mi nisterial Decision.  
2.13.   With respect to the LDCs Services Waiver, at the meeting of the Council for Trade in 
Services held on 6 October, the LDC Group had shared its appraisal of the preferential measures 
notified by two Members, thereby concluding its review  of the preferences not ified under the 
Waiver so far. One Member had reverted to its notification, to provide detailed answers to the 
questions that had been posed by LDCs at the Council meeting in June.  
2.14.   In welcoming the Waiver services preferences, the LD C Group had called on Members to 
help LDC suppliers avail t hemselves of those preferences. Members had been  urged to develop 
projects in LDCs that built supply capacity on the ground and to raise awareness of the Waiver 
among their respective domestic cons tituencies. Recalling paragraph 1.6 of the Nairobi Waiver 
Decision, LDCs had also advocated that Members explore d what recommendations the Council 
could  make "on steps that could be taken towards enhancing the operationalisation of the Waiver". 
The tally o f notifications of preferences in favour of LDC servic es and service suppliers remained at 
24 on the part of 51  Members . 
2.15.   DFQF market access for LDCs remained  a standing item on the CTD's agenda. At the 
November meetin g of the CTD, the Committee would  under take its annual DFQF review on the 
basis of a Secretariat report, as provided for in the Bali Decision.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.16.   On the Monitoring Mechanism, the  CTD's Dedicated Session on that matter had  met several 
times since the Bali Ministerial Confere nce. No written submissi ons had  thus far been received. At 
the last CTD meeting in June, Members had shared their thoughts on why the Monitoring 
Mechanism had not yet been tested and whether or not there should be a  review of the Mechanism 
at that  stage. The discussion had shown  that Members had different perspectives on how the 
review should proceed in the absence of any experience about the functionin g of the mechanism. 
He understood that the CTD Chair intended  to convene an inf ormal meeting in early 
November  2017 in order to al low Members to share their views on the way forward on the issue. 
That would  take place prior to the formal CTD meetings of mid -November.  
2.17.   Concerning  Trade F acilitation, s ince July, one additional Member had  deposited its 
instrument of acceptance of the Tra de Facilitation Agreement – which had entered int o force on 
22 February 2017  – bringing the overall number to 122.  
2.18.   Regarding Paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Declaration, which instr ucted  the Committee on 
Regional T rade Agreements " to discuss the systemic impl ications of RTAs for the multilateral 
trading system and their relationship with WTO rules"  he understoo d from the CRTA Chairman that 
he had conducted consultations on that  matte r and that some discussions had also taken place in 
the CRTA. He would  continue to provide updates on that issue as more information would become 
available.  
2.19.   The representative of the Philippines  said he wished to draw  attention to an omis sion in the 
report under that  agenda item. Under the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on the Special  Safeguard 
Mechanism, the General Council should  review progress in the negotiations on SSM.  
2.20.   However, in that and past GC meetings held in 2017, there had been no such review. While 
the Philippines  recognize d that the state -of-play on SSM had been  taken u p in the informal HODs 
and had been adopted as part of the TNC Chair' s report, the Nairobi Ministe rial Decision wa s quite 
specif ic in requiring such review. That point was  further supported by the fact that Members had  
just heard a read -out of a report on the implementation of the Bali &  Nairobi outcomes, that 
included  some but not all of the outcomes .  
2.21.   The Philippines recognized  the hard work  and effort put into the report and  would simply 
like to correct the said  omission.  
2.22.   The representative of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDCs , said that the LDCs had  already  
made a statement regarding that  item on 24 October. The LDCs simply added a  statement on the 
TRIPS I mplementation. The Group invited  Members to provide the necessary technical assistance 
and to promote the exchange of experiences in accordance with Article 66.2 to support th e use of 
intellectual property  as an instrument for the promotion of sustainable development and 
inclusiveness. The periodic evaluation of the TRIPS Agreement and the Protocol Amendi ng 
Article  31 of the TRIPS Agreement should be ensured to enable the LDCs to benefit effectively . 
2.23.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's repo rt and of the  statement s. 
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSI ON OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOP MENT  
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 Comm ittee on Trade and Development reported regularly to the Council 
on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions. At Nairobi, Ministers had adopted a Decision 
reaffirming their commitment to the Work Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work  
in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibility of the General Council. He invited 
Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD, 
to rep ort on developments in the area.  
3.2.  Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimba bwe), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, recalled that  in his previous report on the  Work Programm e on Small Economies, he  had 
recalled that Members had finished reviewing the challenges and opportunities which small WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 6 - 
 
  economies face d in integrati ng into global value chains in sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, 
textiles and clothing and services trade.  
3.3.  After that review, the SVEs had produce d an outcome document which had drawn  out 
conclusions from the discussion held in 2015 and 2016 on the c hallenges in the area of global 
value chains and  had made specific recommendations for action.  
3.4.  The paper had been  circul ated as WT/COMTD/SE/W/35 and had been  discussed at the last 
meeting of the Dedicated Session of the CTD on Small Economies held in May.  
3.5.  At that meeting , Members  had also discussed a Secretariat paper (WT/COMTD/SE/W/34) on 
"Challenges and Opportunities experienced by small economies in their efforts to reduce trade 
costs, particularly in the area of trad e facilitation". Some SVE s had share d their national 
experiences and effor ts to reduce costs. There had  also been a presentation by the STDF on the 
balance between trade facilitation  and SPS  standards. Members had agreed  to continue discussions 
on that topic in future meetings to identify ch allenges and to provide pos sible solutions that could  
help Small Economies in their efforts to reduce trade costs.   
3.6.  The SVEs had informed him that they we re currently working on a draft Ministerial Decision 
on the Work Program me on Small Economies that wa s expected to be discussed during the next 
meeting of the Dedicated Session.  
3.7.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , said that as had been reported, the 
Secretariat  had prepared the background document on the issue of the challenges small 
economies experience d in their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in  trade facilitation. The 
dedicated session had held its first meeting on the topic in May where many SVEs had participated 
and had shared their national experiences and their initi al thoughts on  the study completed by the 
Secretariat. Unf ortunately, there had  not been enough time to conclude the topic. There we re still 
two meetings pending on the subject – identify ing the challenges faced by small economies in their 
efforts to reduc e trade c ost and providing  some solutions and recommendations on how to 
overcome such challenges. Those pending meetings we re scheduled to take place in 2018.  
3.8.  As the Chair had rightly mentione d in his report, the SVEs  Group  was working on a draft 
Ministeri al Decision on the Work Programme on Smal l Economies where Ministers would  instruct 
the WTO Secretariat to continue working on the topic of the challenges small economies 
experience d in their effort to reduce trade co sts, particularly in trade facilitation . As had  been done 
at every Ministerial Conference since the establishment of the Work Programme, the draft 
Ministerial Decision on the Work P rogramme on Small Economies would  be discussed and hopefully 
agreed at the CTD De dicated Session. The SVEs would  distribute the draft shortly to all Members 
and the CTD Dedicated Session would  consider it at its 7 November session.  
3.9.  The representative of Fiji supported the statement by the SVEs. Not enough time had been  
given to the issues concerning the challenges sma ll economies experience d in their efforts to 
reduce trade cost in trade facilitation. Fiji understood that it would be taken up again  in the 
upcoming meetings in 2018 . 
3.10.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the 
statem ents. 
4  ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE  
4.1.  The Chairman  update d the General Cou ncil on the consultations that he had  held concerning 
the attendance of IGOs as Obs ervers at MC11,  provide d a report on  the consultative process that 
he had conducted on e-commerce and  indicate d how he  intend ed to proceed on the consideration 
of the format of the Mi nisterial Conference and  its possible outcome document.   
4.2.  On th e issue of observership of IGOs, for the past three sessions of the Ministerial 
Conference, Me mbers had not been able to agree about  IGOs to attend as observers due to the 
lack of consensus on a re quest that one particular IGO be invited.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.3.  At the July meeting, he had  reported on the consultations that he had had on the matter , and 
had indicated tha t the situation had remained unchanged. He had also stated that he had been 
ready to continue consulting and he had indeed engaged with several delegations after the 
summer break , to see if there had been  any new devel opments. However, h e reported that the re 
was still no consensus regarding the attendance of Observer IGOs and that his sense was that the  
situation wa s unlikely to change before MC11.  
4.4.  On e-commerce, he recalled that in mid -September he had begu n a process of consultations 
to prepare a recomme ndation for a Ministe rial Decision on e -commerce. Tho se consultations  had 
included a series of bilateral discussions with around 39 delegations requesting meetings, followed 
by a first Open -Ended meeting on 5 Octob er. At that open -ended meeting he had  reported in detail 
about what he had heard in the consultations, in particular with respect to: (i) the extension of the 
moratorium; (ii) the work programme; (iii) the possibility to establish a forum for more horizontal 
discussions on  e-commerce; and (iv) delegations' views on a possible negotia ting mandate for e -
commerce. His report had been  circulated in JOB/GC/136.  
4.5.  At the meeting, he had  noted that a key to advancing the pro cess would be written proposals 
and that he had been  aware that several delegations had been working on draft texts. He had  
encou raged them to continue with that  work but to also tak e careful note of his  report and to take 
into account the views of other delegations.  
4.6.  Subsequently four text -based proposals on e -commerce had been  submitted:  (i) by the 
Russian Federation; (ii) a joint proposal by Japan, Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong, China; (iii) by 
Costa Rica; and (iv) a joint proposal by the EU, Australia, Canada, Chile, the Republic of  Korea, 
Norway and Paraguay. Tho se submissions each prop osed specific Ministerial language.  
4.7.  He had  therefore convened an additional Open -Ended meeting on 16 October  where the four 
proposals had been presented which had been  followed by an extensive exchange of views.  
4.8.  At the end of that meeting, he had noted t hat Members appear ed to be making some 
tentative steps towards a text -based d iscussion and that there appeared  to be convergence on a 
temporary extension of the moratorium, although some del egations had indicated they were still 
considering the matter. He  had also observed the concerns expressed regarding moving beyond 
the current w ork programme. He had  therefore urged Members to  listen carefully to each other  
and had encouraged the proponents to reach out to those with different views.   
4.9.  Shortly after that  meeting, China had  submitted a paper entitled "E -commerce elements for 
MC11" and that the African Group had submitted its statement as a General Council JOB 
document.  
4.10.   Concerning the organization of MC11  and on the question of a pos sible outcome document 
for MC11, he recalled that at the informal  HODs meeting convened by the Director -General at the 
end of September, he had  noted the variety of formats that had constituted the work at pre vious 
Ministerial Conferences. He had  pointed out the common elem ent in  all Conferences – the formal 
track which involved  the Opening session,  a Plenary Session that provided  Ministers the 
opportunity to make prepared statements according to a list of speakers; and a closing  session, in 
which Ministers could  take any action t hey deem ed appropriate. He had  also noted that at some 
Conferences, Members had agreed to convene, in parallel, working sessions for Ministers on topics 
of common interest.  
4.11.   With regard to the potent ial outcome document for MC11, he had  recalled at that mee ting 
the various types of outcome documents at p revious Ministerial Conferences , ranging from 
Chairman' s texts to fully elaborated Declarations.  
4.12.   Members would very soon need  to consider what would be most appropriate for MC11. He 
had therefore intend ed to initiate consultations with delegations both on the organization of the 
Conference and on a potential out come document shortly after the  General Council meeting. A 
communication in that regard would  soon be sent to all delegations.  
4.13.   He also inform ed delega tions of a new development concerning one of  the MC11 Vice -
Chairs. He  recall ed that, following a process of consultations, at its July 2017 meeting the General WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Council had agreed that H.E. Mr Todd McClay of New Zealand would be one of the three Vice -
Chairs  for MC11. Following a recent change of Government in New Zeal and, Honourable David 
Parker had  been appointed as the new Minister of Trad e in the incoming Government. He had  been 
advised that Hono urable Parker wa s willing to fulfil the role of Vice -Chair f or MC11 that had b een 
allocated to New Zealand. He trusted that that was acceptable to delegations and he would  soon 
send out a communication with the full list of the Officers for MC11 including the new Vice -Chair 
for New Zealand.  
4.14.   The representative of New Zealand  express ed his  appreciation to Members for the ir 
understanding of New Zealand's circumstances in that time of change in its government. He was 
encouraged by Minister Parker's interest in assuming the Vice -Chair role  as an early indication of 
the new Government 's support for the WTO  and thanked the Chair for his statement . 
4.15.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement and of the other statement . 
5  COMMITTEE ON BALANCE -OF-PAYMENTS RESTRICTION S – CONSULTATIONS WITH 
ECUADOR (WT/BOP/R/11 4) 
5.1.  The Chairman  invited Ambassador Tudor Ulianovschi (Republic of Moldova), Chairman of the 
BOP Comm ittee, to report on the progress of work in the area.  
5.2.  Ambassador Tudor Ulianovschi (Republic of Moldova), Chairman of the BOP Committee , 
introduce d the report in WT/BOP/R/114 on the consultations re cently concluded with Ecuador . In 
April 2015, Ecuador  had notified to the WTO the introduction of a BOP mea sure pursuant to 
Article  XVIII (b) of GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the BOP Provisions of the GATT 1994. 
The measure had consisted of a tariff surcharge at ad valorem rates of 5%, 15%, 25% and 45%, 
calculated on the c.i.f. value of imports, and had been  applied to 38% of Ecuador's tariff lines.  
5.3.  Consultations with Ecuador had been  held between June 2015 and  July 2017. Different views 
had been  expressed by Members and no co nsensus had been  reached with respect to the 
consistency of the measure with WTO rules.  
5.4.  In October 2015, Ecuador had provided a time -schedule for the gradual dismantlem ent of the 
surcharges, whi ch had been  modified in May 2016 following the earthquake that hit the country in 
April of that year, leading to the elimination of the measure on 1 June 2017, as  had been  notified 
by Ecuador to the WTO in WT/BOP/N/84 .  
5.5.  A report of the consultations had su bsequently been prepared and approved by the 
Committee.  The conclusions of the report in WT/BOP/R/114  reflect ed the differing views of 
Members with regard to the compatibility of the measure with WTO rules.   
5.6.  The Chairman  commend ed the Chairman of the BOP Committee, Ecuador and all other 
delegations who had participated in the process for bringing the consultations to their conclusion.  
5.7.  The representative of Ecuador  said that Ecuador had notified through the Committee on 
Balance of Payments Restrictions in WT/BOP/N/79  that from March 2015, given the highly 
unfavourable economic climate that faced the country – as had been reflected in the  notification – 
a temporary tariff surchar ge for a period of 15 months had been introduced to regulate the gener al 
level of  imports and to remedy the critical problems in the Bala nce of Payments of Ecuador. That 
was in conformity with paragraph 9 on the Understanding on the Balance of Paym ents Restrictions 
in GATT 1994.  
5.8.  In addition to that  process, in WT/BOP/G/23 ( October 201 5), Ecuador had  set out a time -
frame for dismantling the mea sure which had  to be executed from January 2016 reducing the 
maximum rate of the application of the tariff measure from 45% to 40%.  
5.9.  In May 2016, Ecuador had  notified the suppression of that  highe r rate and the extension to 
2017 of the application of the next phases of dismantlement of the measure according to the time -
frame due to the earthquake that  had occurred in April 2016.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5.10.   In the following months, Ecuador had  complied in a timely manner with  the time -frame set 
out up to the f ull elimination in June 2017. Ecuador  highlight ed the relevance and legitimacy of the 
measure applied in accordance with Article XVIII (b) of GATT 1994 as well as the transparency 
with which the country had acted throu gh the process  as had been reflected in its compliance with 
the dismantlement timetable for the safeguard  measure. Those we re set out in the report in 
WT/BOP/R/114.  
5.11.   Ecuador  thanked the Chairs of the Committee for their support and the IMF which had 
recognize d the difficulties in the Balance of Payment faced by Ecuador given  the external effects in 
its economy, and recognize d Members'  understanding on the difficult situation that it had  faced.  
5.12.   The General Council took note  of the statement of the Chairman of t he BOP Committee and 
of the other statement, and adopted  the report on the consultations with Ecuador in document 
WT/BOP/R/114.  
6  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION - REPORT ON MEETING OF  
JULY 2017 (WT/BFA/16 5) 
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the  report  of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administrati on (CBFA) in document WT/BFA/165  and invited Ambassador  Peter Brňo (Slovak 
Republic) , Chairman of the Committee, to introduce the reports.  
6.2.  Ambassador  Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic) , Chairman  of the CBFA , reported that the CBFA had 
met three times since the last General Council meeting and deliberations on the se veral topics 
were still ongoing.   
6.3.  The Working Group considering the subject of an After S ervice Health Insurance Fund had  
progressed in its work and deliberations. The  Chair of the Working Group would  present a  draft 
report to the CBFA on 6  November.  
6.4.  The Committee had reviewed the annual report on the overall grade structure and 
promotions within the Secretariat. The average grade was trending down wards as the Secret ariat 
was carefully monitoring the grade structure by recruiting at lower grades for vacanc ies previously 
held by high grade members of staff.  
6.5.  The Committee had reviewed the report of the Office of Internal Oversight for activities 
conducted from March 2016 to June 2017. The Head of the OIO had highlighted that management 
at the WTO had demonst rated strong willingness to improve the governance and internal  control 
procedures within the o rganization. He had then declared that only 3%  of the OIO 
recommendations had been  considered opened.  
6.6.  The Committee had been  updated on the E -Registration appli cation which, since its  launch on 
4 September 2017, had  enhanced the accreditation and registration for delegations, especially for 
MC11 registration.  
6.7.  The Committee had been  updated on the status of implementation of External A udit findings. 
The Committee  had then been informed that the External Audit would  assess the status of 
implementation in October 2017.  
6.8.  He inform ed Members that the CBFA was currently dis cussing the 2018 -2019 WTO Budget 
Proposal which had been submitted to the Committee in September. The Committee was making 
good progress and was  expect ed to approve the issue in November.  
6.9.  Based on several substantial discussions within the past CBFA meetings and a request from 
the Committee, the Secretariat had  prepared a document on a new proposed Me thodology for the 
determination of WTO Dependency Allowances. The Co mmittee would review the matter at its next 
meeting  on 6 November.  
6.10.   The General Council took note  of the statement of the Chairman of the CBFA and adopted  
the report in WT/BFA/165 . WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 10 - 
 
  7  WORKSHOP  ON MSMES – STATEMENT BY CHILE  
7.1.  The representative of Chile, speaking under "Other Business" , inform ed delegations  that the 
workshop  on "How to Support MSMEs: Sharing of National, Regional and  Multilateral Experiences", 
would  be held on 31 October  to 1 Nove mber at the WTO . The objective of the workshop was to 
exchange experiences and it was expected that attendees would be comprised of delegates and 
decision makers of MSMEs from their capitals. All Members we re invited to attend.  
7.2.  The General Council took not e of the statement.  
8  WTO YOUNG PROFESSION ALS PROGRAM – STATEMENT BY THE DIR ECTOR -GENERAL  
8.1.  The Director -General , speaking under "Other Business" , said that Members were aware that 
the programme had been  launched in 2017, following a merit -based recruitment pr ocess that had 
resulted in the selection of the first cohort of five YPs that had joined the  Secretariat in early 
January. Those YPs were currently working and we re supervised by various divisions, wi th the 
support of ITTC and HRD. He had met with them and  he had been informed that they had  been 
performing the specific tasks and duties assigned to them very well. In addition to their 
contribution to the work of the organization, the WTO had  certainly built their capacity and had 
realized the object ives of t he programme. They had  raised the bar high for future recruits.  
8.2.  He recalled that t he objective of the programme wa s to enhance the knowledge of young 
professionals from eligible partici pating Members on WTO issues. The Programme put  a particul ar 
focus on those Members that we re not currently represented at the professional level in the 
Secretariat. Concerns had  been raised by Members in the past that the  make -up of the Secretariat 
did not fully reflect th e diversity of its Membership. The Programme could h elp address the issue  
by widening the pool of qualified applicants for future r ecruitment exercises at the WTO  and 
elsewhere.   
8.3.  For the 20 18 recruitment, the response had  been very p ositive. The Vacancy Notice  issued in 
April 2017 attracted 1 ,502 applicati ons (740 females and 762 males) fr om all categories of 
Members. That  clearly illustrated the importance and interest that young women and men 
attach ed to the work of the Organization and its relevance. It was also clear that his message, 
when he  had first introduced the Programme  to Members to encourag e candidates to come 
forward had  started to bear fruit.   
8.4.  A rigorous screening process had been conducted  based on the fundamental WTO 
recruitment principles of merit and diversity . All applications received h ad been  reviewed in light of 
the requireme nts specified in the Vacancy Notice.  As a res ult, 40 potential candidates had been  
retained to comp ete for the 15 available posts. As had been  the case in t he previous year, 
preference had been given to Members who  had no professional represent ation in the Secretariat 
at that  stage and those who had  not benefited from the Programme.  
8.5.  Selection panels had been  established and close to 30 senior staff members, including 
Directors, had partici pated in the interview pro cess. He inform ed Members that the process was 
complete and 15 Young Professio nals, all from Members that had  no professional represe ntation in 
the Secretariat, would join the WTO in earl y January 2018.  That was triple the intake of 2017 . Out 
of the 15 can didates, 10 we re Female and 5 were Male  – 4 Africans, 3 Asians, 3 from Latin 
America, 3 from Central Eastern Europe,  Central Asia and the Caucasus (CEE CAC) and 2 from the 
Caribbean. They would  be hosted by 13 substantive divisions sele cted on the basis of candidates' 
background and profile.  He  wished to congratulate them all and wish ed them every success.  
8.6.  In the com ing months, the Secretariat would  communicate the names of the successful 
candidates. The Programme  had been launched  with clear objectives in  mind. He believed it had  
been a constructiv e and fruitful inaugural year. One of the five young prof essions from the 2017 
cohort had  been successful in competing for a short -term contract.  The Secretariat would  continue 
to monitor and re port on the achie vements of the  Programme.  
8.7.  The General Council took note  of the statement.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 11 - 
 
  9  2018 EXERCISE FOR TH E APPOINTMENT OF OFF ICERS TO WTO BODIES – STATEMENT 
BY THE CHAIRMAN  
9.1.  The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business" , remind ed all delegations that, at next the 
General Council meeting, and in line with the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers t o WTO 
bodies in WT/L/510, he would  make a formal announcement to begin the process of consultations 
for the appointment of o fficers to WTO bodies for 2018.  Also in line w ith th e Guidelines, he would 
be assisted in the  process by the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, Ambassador Ihara, 
and the former Chairman of the General Council, Ambassador Neple.  
9.2.  While they would  begin the consulta tions early in January 2018, it w as not too early for 
delegations – and in particular for the four gr oup coordinators: (i) Africa, (ii) Asia and the Pacific,  
(iii) Latin America and the Caribbean , and (iv) developed countries - to start thinking about that 
matter. In the previous year, hi s predecessor had conducted extensive consultations on the 
Guidelines, and one of the points that had emerged prominently had been  the importance of 
starting the process early, to allow sufficient time for group coordinators to conduct consultations 
with t heir respective constituencies.  
9.3.  He encourage d group coordinators to promptly start their consultative process and to aim to 
be in a position to present candidates as early as possible in January.  
9.4.  The General Council took note  of the statement.  
10  CHAIRMANSHIP  OF ACCESSION WORKING PA RTIES  – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
10.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business" , provide d information about the 
Chairmanships of four Accession Working Parties: Ethiopia and Timor -Leste, for which Chairs had  
been recently appointed on one hand; and Algeria and Bosnia and Herzegovin a, for which the 
chairmanships we re vacant.  
10.2.   On the  Working Parties on the Accession s of Ethiop ia and Timor -Leste, he  recall ed that, 
following a process of consultations undertaken by the former Deputy Direc tor-Genera l David 
Shark, on 19 September he had  sent a communi cation announcing that there had been  broad 
consensus on the a ppointment of Ambassador Staur of Denmark  to serve as Chairman of the 
Working Party on the Accession of Ethiopia and Ambassador B ártolo of Portugal  to serve as 
Chairman of the Working Party o n the Accession of Timor -Leste.  On behalf of the General Council, 
he wished them all the best in their work.  
10.3.   Regarding the Working Parties on the Accession s of Algeria and of Bosnia  and Herze govina , 
following the resignation of the respective Chairs, and as had been indicated in a comm unication 
sent to all Members on 11 October, he had  asked Deputy Director -General Alan Wolf f to conduct 
consultations on his  behalf with regard to those two Chairmansh ips. They had  already received an 
offer to assist from one delegation.  
10.4.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
11  STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES 
FOR MEMBERS IN ARREA RS 
11.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business" , recalled that t he revised Administrative 
Measures for Members in arrears, c ontained in WT/BFA/132 Annex I  had entered  into force on 
1 January 2013. Tho se measures include d a requirement that  at the end of each  meeting of the 
General Council the Chairpers on of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should 
provide information with regard to which Members and Observers we re under Administrative 
Measures. He invite d the Chair of the Budget Committee, Ambassador  Peter B rňo (Slovak 
Republic), to provide the Council with that  information.  
11.2.   Ambassador  Peter Brňo (Slovak Republic) , Chairman  of the CBFA , reported that as of 
25 October 2017, there had been 15 Members and 2 Observers under Administrative Measures. 
There were cu rrently 8 Members but no Observer  in Category I: Antigua and Barbuda; Cameroon; WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Democratic Republic of the Congo; Dominica; Guinea; Mozambique; Rwanda and Uganda. There 
were no Members and no Observers in Category II. There were 7 Members and 2 Observers i n 
Category III: Burundi; Central African Republic; Djibouti; Mauritania; Niger; Sierra Leone; 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Libya (Observer) and Sao Tomé and Principe (Observer) . 
11.3.   The Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration w ould review the situ ation on arrears 
from Members and Observers, including those following a payment plan at its  next meeting, 
scheduled for 6 November and would  provide a full report to the General Council.  
11.4.   The Chairman  said that 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 
payme nt of arrears could be expected.  
11.5.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 13 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR  MOHAMMAD QURBAN HAQJO  OF AFGHANISTAN  TO THE 
WTO GENERAL COUNCIL ON 26 OCTOBER 2017  
On behalf of H .E. President Ghani and the G overnment of I slamic Republic  of Afghanistan, I take 
the privilege of offering my sincere gratitude a nd appreciation for Afghanista n's membership to the 
WTO.  
 
We understand the important role of our close cooperation with the WTO to catalyse 
implementation of the planned economic reforms in Afghanistan. Thus, to act on this realization, 
we have establish ed our dedicated P ermanent Mis sion to the WTO in G eneva to optimally utilize 
our membership to the organization and accelerate the economic growth process in Afghanistan.  
 
The Government of the Islamic Republic  of Afghanist an has shifted from an internal -centric to a 
region-focused eco nomic policy  – redefining Afghanistan' s significant role as a trade and transit 
hub, bridging the emerging economies of the Central Asia to South Asia and East Asia to Middle 
East and  Europe. And, to achieve region -wide socio -economic development, it is im perative to 
create a robust and conducive environment for the private sector growth so that we  create more 
jobs, boost region -wide innovation, alleviate poverty, and thereby assure peace and stabil ity. 
Hence, the government of the Islamic Republic  of Afgha nistan is committed to reform the business 
climate and transform Afghanistan from an import dependent country to an exporting source. And, 
such visions could not be achieved without the technical and legal support of the WTO.  
 
Let me assure you that Afghan istan is committed to handling all the post accession activities by a 
dedicated and  dynamic team in our capital and  as well as here in Geneva. We will contribute to the 
mandate of the various technical Committees, Councils, and multilateral trade negotiati ons. In 
addition, we plan to play an active role in the LDCs Group.  
 
At the end, I would like to extend our gratitude to all M ember s of our working party in particular to 
the Chairperson of our initial working party as well as then the  Netherland' s Ambassa dor Van 
Schreven, who worked tirelessly to launch our initial round of discussions in 2011. We are grateful 
to the subsequent Chairs and Committees for supporting us, that resulted in Afghanis tan joining 
the WTO on 29 July  2016. We have benefited from thei r invaluable expert advice, just as we have 
from the technical support of our multilateral and bilateral development partners, especially the 
extensive help and support provided by the United States Government throughout the process.  
  
In this regard,  I also offer special words of t hanks and appreciation to the WTO' s Secretariat in 
particular to its Accession Division.  
 
Now is the time for the people of Afghanistan to r eap the rewards of global trade  through our 
count ry's m embership to the WTO.  
 
I wish everyone all the success at  MC11 this coming December in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 14 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
THE REPORTS BY  THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAI RS OF THE NEGOTIATIN G 
GROUPS AT THE INFORMAL TNC AND  INFORMAL HODS  MEETINGS HELD ON 24 OCTOBER  
20171 
Report of the Director -General  
 
 
Good morning and welcome to this informal TNC and informal HODs meeting. I believe that 
holding these meetings together helps expedite our proceedings.  
 
There has been a lot of activity taking place amongst Members in recen t weeks. It is therefore 
useful to take the opportunity today, in the lead up to Thursday's General Council meeting, to 
update each other, review progress and consider the way forward to MC11.  
 
It is now about 30 working days until Buenos Aires. That is no t a lot of time and we still have a lot 
of work to do.  
 
To set the scene for this, I want to provide a short briefing of my recent activities and 
consultations and I will then ask Negotiating Group Chairs to report on the work in their respective 
areas. I  will then open the floor to delegations to report on their own activities.  
 
As has been the practice, everything said today will be reflected in the record of the General 
Council, under Item 1 – "Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee a nd Report 
by the Director -General".  
 
Also, as has been past practice, delegations are free to indicate to the Secretariat if they do not 
wish their statement to be included in the General Council's minutes.  
 
I will now turn to my report.  
 
Since we last me t on 21 September, I have continued talking to Members, both in Geneva and in 
Capitals to discuss preparations for MC11.  
 
On 4 October, I met with the African Group here in Geneva, as well as with the group of 
Francophone Ambassadors.  
 
On 9 -10 October, I a ttended an informal Ministerial Meeting in Marrakesh, convened and co -
chaired by the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Government of Argentina, 
dedicated to discussing the road to MC11.  
 
I understand that the concluding remarks of the co -chair of the Marrakesh meeting, Minister 
Moulay Hafid Elalamy, were circulated to delegations in document JOB/GC/143, and that Minister 
Susana Malcorra briefed Members about the discussions at a meeting organized by the Mission of 
Argentina last Thursday.  
 
Last week, I was in Washington for the IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings. I seized that 
opportunity to meet with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and a broad range of 
stakeholders.  
 
And on 18 October, I participated in the ACP Ministerial Trade Commi ttee in Brussels.  
 
I have found all of these interactions to be extremely helpful in raising Ministers awareness of the 
discussions taking place in Geneva. I have also welcomed the strong reaffirmations of support for 
a successful MC11 meeting that I have  received during these various discussions.  
 
Clearly, however, I detected different issues and priorities and interests amongst Members during 
all these discussions, but at the same time there are certain issues that have been coming up 
more regularly.  
                                                
1 These reports were also circulated  in JOB/GC/145.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 15 - 
 
   
On some of these I get the sense that discussions are moving in a positive direction aimed at 
narrowing differences.  
 
But unfortunately on some of them I am not hearing anything new and the differences remain 
quite far apart.  
 
In Marrakesh, for example, ma ny talked about:  
 
 agriculture - especially domestic support, cotton, public stockholding for food security and 
 SSM;  
 fisheries subsidies;  
 domestic regulation in services;  
 special and differential treatment;  
 electronic commerce;  
 MSMES and;  
 investment facil itation.  
 
I will not go into detail here, as in a moment the Chairs will provide their reports on the state -of-
play in their areas.  
 
A number of other issues also figured in the discussions.  
 
Women's economic empowerment was raised by many Ministers in M arrakesh. Some Ministers also 
suggested that we could structure a conversation on the future of the WTO.  
 
On these issues I said to Ministers that it would be great to see what ideas Members had to 
advance these conversations.  
 
Dispute settlement was ano ther issue raised by a number of Ministers. As you are aware, the 
current situation is very concerning.  
 
We all know the importance of the dispute settlement system to the functioning of the WTO. I urge 
Members to engage constructively on this matter. I ce rtainly will be continuing to talk to Members 
to find a way forward – but ultimately, like all we do in this house, it is you the Members who will 
need to agree on a way forward.  
 
Overall, I think that theses exchanges with Ministers have been very useful.  The discussions were 
constructive and timely. They helped Ministers get more familiar with their WTO files, and, in some 
cases, also to get to know one another. I was encouraged by the positive atmosphere and the high 
level of engagement.  
 
However, I did  not hear anything encouraging in terms of convergence. Positions remain wide 
apart on many issues.  
 
While there are some signs of potential convergence in some areas, in many areas this is not the 
case. We need to be very mindful of this.  
 
At the same ti me, both in Marrakesh and at the ACP meeting in Brussels, I heard a great deal of 
support for a successful MC11 at the political level. This is encouraging.  
 
I heard wide support for the approach we discussed at our last meeting to make MC11 more 
manageab le for Ministers. That is, reducing as much as possible the number of issues that will 
have to be discussed and negotiated in Buenos Aires and advancing as much as possible here in 
Geneva.  
 
That will take a lot of work and effort from all of us. So how do we go about that?  
 
Like I said at the outset, I think that we need to maximise the time we have left – and that means 
prioritizing our work.  
 
In the very near future, I think that Members will have to decide which issues can be brought WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 16 - 
 
  forward for Minister s' consideration at the Conference - and which issues are not advancing fast 
enough to be resolved by that time.  
 
I think that this honest assessment will allow us to focus our minds to advance what may be 
doable at that point in time - and allow us to dis cuss how to take forward the issues that are 
proving to be more contentious after Buenos Aires.  
 
First of all, it may well be that that the moment of that assessment may differ from issue to issue.  
 
Second, do not expect me or anybody else to make that ca ll for you. This is a Member -driven 
organization, so it's you who have to make this decision.  
 
I will be urging proponents and delegations to consider seriously how they want to deal with their 
priority issues on the way to Buenos Aires. The risk is that if nothing happens here and we take it 
to Buenos Aires and it's not mature enough for a conclusion, you may leave Buenos Aires empty -
handed. This is the calculation that should be in the back of your minds.  
 
I have to remind you that this is not a simple t ask. Agreeing work programmes in these areas will 
require as much effort as Members devote to those which might produce outcomes at MC11.  
 
We therefore need to intensify our work in the coming period. I intend to talk with proponents and 
those that have su bmitted proposals on various issues. The idea would be to exchange views on 
this prioritising effort.  
 
Flexibility and pragmatism will be essential. I think that we need to approach things in a way that 
we are all prepared to make some kind of contribution . We can’t be in position where we insist on 
a particular outcome and expect everyone else to accept that, and only that.  
 
As I have said before, we should seek to deliver everything we can by Buenos Aires. But, we must 
also bear in mind that Buenos Aires  will not be the end of the road.  
 
I hope that we can leave Buenos Aires with Members committed to strengthening the trading 
system and with a clear path forward for our future work on as many issues as possible.  
 
We have a busy period ahead of us. I look  forward to working with you to make sure that MC11 is 
the success that we all want it to be.  
 
[The TNC Chair gave the floor to the Chairs of the Bodies established by the TNC – Statements are 
reflected below .] 
 
Let me thank the Chairs for their leadership  – and for their reports to us today.  
 
What I have heard from these reports is that Members still have a very long way to go - and time 
is short.  
 
Based on this assessment, I think Members will need to move quickly to:  
 
 prioritise the issues which have t he potential to produce outcomes by December,  
 start working to shape what those outcomes could look like, and  
 maintain the same level of engagement and pragmatism to set the game plan for our work 
after Buenos Aires for those issues that need more time to mature.  
 
I stress again that the Chairs and I remain at your disposal to facilitate your work.   
 
I will continue talking to the Chairs and to you  – in groups and individually. Special focus will be on 
the proponents, given that they are the main engine of  our bottom -up, member -driven work. But 
let's also keep in mind that, although proponents have the key responsibility of advancing their 
issues, each and every delegation has a role to play. We must all continue working and reaching 
out to each other.   
 
 
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Reports of the Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups  
 
 
1. Negotiating Group on Rules  
 
Since I last reported to this room at the end of July, we have had significant activity in three 
distinct pillars of the Rules Negotiations, fisheries subsidies, trade remedie s and horizontal 
subsidies.  
 
In the area of fisheries subsidies, the activities of the Negotiating Group on Rules have increased 
and intensified. I foresee further intensification in the time remaining before Buenos Aires, 
beginning with a four -day meeting  cluster next week. This ratcheting up of our fisheries subsidies 
activities is in direct response to, and reflects, the strong determination of all proponents, joined 
by many other Members, to achieve outcomes on this issue at Buenos Aires.  
 
While it is still too early to predict with any degree of certainty the precise nature and scope of any 
such outcomes at the Ministerial, or even whether there will be outcomes, I believe that we have 
the necessary conditions for this to be possible if that is the col lective will of Members. In 
particular, and most fundamentally, I must commend all Members for their continued very 
constructive engagement on the range of fisheries subsidies issues on the table. All aspects of this 
negotiation raise political and technic al challenges, and Members have not shrunk from exploring 
them. Nor has any Member conditioned its participation in these discussions on sequencing, 
linkages or other factors. This has been key to our progress to date as it has allowed the various 
proposal s, and our discussions, to proceed on their own merits.  
 
Concerning the current stage of our process, I wish particularly to commend and thank the 
proponents for the many hours and days that they all spent working together to compile their 
seven individual  textual proposals, into a single, "vertical" text, including consolidating language 
where they could. This text, which has been welcomed by the Negotiating Group, was introduced 
and discussed in a first reading during our meeting of 12 -13 October. It will  be subject to a 
further, detailed reading at next week's meeting cluster.  
 
While of course this text, as a compilation of proposals, is heavily bracketed, it should assist the 
Negotiating Group to engage in a concrete, focused discussion during this fina l, and critical, phase 
of the work that we have now entered. With just six weeks before the Conference, there is no time 
to be lost if we are to achieve any outcome in this area, at whatever level of ambition Members 
can agree. I thus have been strongly ur ging the participants in the negotiations to come to next 
week's meeting cluster with precise, detailed instructions, based among other things on deepened 
domestic consultations, in particular with both national fisheries authorities and trade authorities.   
 
More specifically, what we will need to hear next week, if we are to progress towards convergence 
on a number of areas, are Members' preferences as among different proposed options on any 
given issue, and specific proposed drafting amendments to the com pilation text; especially, 
proposed text aimed at bridging gaps. Indeed, one delegation has already proposed text for 
addition to this compilation text. This is the only way that I see for Members to find common 
ground on as many elements and issues as pos sible.  
 
In this regard, as I have emphasized throughout my Chairmanship of the Group, I have heard loud 
and clear that the negotiating process is and must remain bottom up. Members drive our agenda, 
and generate any solutions and outcomes. I can establish  and guide a process, but cannot supply 
the substance. Success on fisheries subsidies therefore will depend on Members making effective 
use of the short time that we now have to dig even deeper to develop the necessary inputs, and to 
find the creativity, p ragmatism, and flexibility, to bridge gaps and find consensus.  
 
By next Friday when the meeting cluster comes to an end, I expect to have a much clearer view of 
our overall progress on fisheries subsidies, and of our prospects for achieving outcomes at MC 11. 
My assessment at that point will guide proposals for next steps. In particular, in addition to open -
ended meeting clusters in mid - and late -November, I anticipate convening consultations in various 
configurations, on such specific topics as have emerge d as being most relevant. As always, I will 
maintain full transparency about these additional elements in the process.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 18 - 
 
  While the Group has been most active in the area of fisheries subsidies, we have also been 
working on trade remedies and horizontal sub sidies. In both of these areas, we have received 
proposals, and we have been meeting in open -ended sessions to discuss them, including as 
recently as last week.  
 
I welcome these proposals, and the constructive spirit in which they have been offered and 
discussed. As I committed to do at the outset, I have given every proposal received the fullest 
opportunity to progress, on its own merits, in our negotiations, and I will continue to do so. As 
with fisheries subsidies, however, our work in these areas is and  must remain bottom -up and 
Member -driven. Decisions in this Organization require consensus, and it is up to the proponents 
and Members to engage with each other to seek the convergence necessary if proposals are to 
advance.  
 
In short, we have seen great ef forts, and have made progress, in our work in the Rules 
negotiations. The issue of fisheries subsidies in particular is a promising one for possible outcomes 
at MC11. There is however no room for complacency. Much remains to be done if the enormous 
collect ive efforts of Members over the past months are to be matched by the convergence 
necessary to achieve outcomes at MC11.  
 
2. Council for Trade in Services – Special Session  
 
My report on the state of play on services negotiations is informed by an informal mee ting of the 
Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services which was held yesterday.  
 
With respect to services trade facilitation, online services transactions, and market access, 
yesterday's meeting confirmed that we should not be expecting a negot iating outcome in these 
areas in Buenos Aires.  
 
First, on services trade facilitation, the Membership last discussed India's proposal for a trade 
facilitation agreement on services last May. Views expressed by Members differed in various areas. 
Since then , India circulated prior to the summer break a revised proposal, which is yet to be 
discussed.  
 
Second, regarding services elements of e -commerce, the Special Session discussed in June a 
proposal from the European Union on rules aiming to facilitate online  service transactions. 
Different views were then exchanged on technical as well as substantive aspects.  
 
Since the summer break, proponents in these two areas have not sought further meetings of the 
Special Session to discuss their proposals. In view of t he tight timelines to MC11, I do not see that 
we can expect an outcome in Buenos Aires in the form of an agreed text in these areas, and the 
proponents agree with this assessment.  
 
Third, on market access, no specific proposals have been put forward so fa r to help advance 
mandated negotiations.  
 
In terms of post -MC11 work in these three areas, there is interest in pursuing discussions. India 
and the European Union have communicated their intention to re -engage on services trade 
facilitation and online tra nsactions, respectively, after the Ministerial, and various Members 
conveyed their willingness to pursue discussions on these two topics. A number of Members also 
expressed interest in advancing market access negotiations pursuant to the built -in mandate 
under Article XIX of the GATS, on the basis of proposals from delegations.  
 
Let me now turn to Domestic Regulation. To summarize the situation, I would say that important 
divergences remain. A group of Members consider that notable progress has been achieve d 
recently and that a negotiating outcome is within reach at MC11, while another group of Members 
rule out the possibility of an outcome in Buenos Aires.  
 
Since the last informal meeting of the TNC/HoDs, a group of proponents presented a text proposal 
on Disciplines on Domestic Regulation at the meeting of the Working Party from 2 to 4 October. 
Ahead of the October meeting, the delegation of India submitted written drafting suggestions, and 
other delegations did so at the meeting itself.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Proponents indica ted that they are currently working with other delegations to see how much 
convergence can be achieved on the basis of the various proposals and concerns expressed. They 
aim to present a revised text to the Working Party shortly.  
  
Other delegations have detailed their concerns with the proposal currently on the table. Some of 
the concerns relate to drafting and technical aspects, while others relate to the best way to 
capture respect for the right to regulate, and the need for adequate development provisi ons.  
 
Other delegations have expressed concerns of a more fundamental nature, pointing to conceptual 
differences. They question the need for the proposed disciplines and the benefits they may bring to 
developing countries and LDCs. This group of Members b elieve that the proposed text would be 
incompatible with their development aspirations and limit their policy space.  
 
The coming weeks will be crucial to see if some convergence can be achieved, or not.  
 
3. Committee on Trade and Development – Special Sessio n 
 
My last report to the HODs was in July 2017.  I had reported then that the CTDSS had a general 
exchange of views following the introduction by the G90 of its 10 revised agreement specific 
proposals on special and differential treatment (S&D) in the Speci al Session, and that after we 
return from the summer break it was my plan to complete a first reading of the proposals by the 
middle of October.  The Special Session has held four meetings in September and October.  
 
At our meetings on 14 and 21 September  the Special Session completed the first substantive 
reading of the proposals. Having responded to feedback, the proponents had further significantly 
reduced the number of proposals tabled to the current ten. The current proposals were focused on 
areas deeme d to be of critical importance. The proponents, in their various interventions, 
introduced and explained in detail the rationale of these proposals. The flexibilities they seek from 
the relevant WTO agreements, would accord the policy space needed for thei r economies to 
industrialize, diversify and achieve structural transformation, in order to alleviate poverty and to 
provide for jobs and sustainable development.  
 
Some  Members  voiced support for the G90 proposals.   
 
Some other  Members , however, expressed concern that the proposals seemed to be prem ised on 
the belief that the WTO' s rules -based system was bad for development, and therefore sought 
exemptions or open -ended flexibilities from fundamental WTO rules and principles.  They disagreed 
with this view.  The continued lack of meaningful differentiation among the diverse group of 
developing  Members  for whom the flexibilities were being sought was also highlighted.  These  
Members  reiterated their call for the G90 to adopt other approaches as repeating an appr oach 
which had been tried in good faith and had failed would not advance discussions.  They nonetheless 
were prepared to engage constructively in the work of the CTDSS.  Accordingly, some of these  
Members  sought clarifications and posed questions to the prop onents on the 10 proposals.   
 
The first reading of the proposals on 14 and 21 September therefore saw substantive engagement, 
even though positions remained deeply divergent across the  Members hip. However, after having 
completed the first reading of the pr oposals there was still little clarity on how the work in the 
CTDSS should proceed.   
 
In my efforts to develop a clear work map in the lead up to MC11, and pending the G90' s replies 
to the clarifications and questions which had been posed by some  Members , I reached out to 
delegations and had a series of informal consultations with a view to solicit ideas on the way 
forward.  My primary objective was to seek  Members ' guidance on three points.  First, how the 
delegations saw the work in CTDSS proceed in the rem aining time to MC11 and whether they had 
any suggestions that could help harvest tangible outcomes?  Second , what alternative approaches 
could be explored to ensure m eaningful progress in the CTDSS'  work?  Third, do the delegations 
sense or identify any area s of convergence? And, whether they have flexibility for any one or more 
proposals? If yes, which proposal(s)?  Accordingly, I had a series of informal consultations in 
variable geometry covering  Members hip from all geographical regions from  26 September t o 
5 October.  Starting with the proponents, I also met with a number of developed  Members  as well 
as some non -G90 developing  Members . 
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 20 - 
 
  These consultations were constructive, honest and frank, and I am grateful to the delegations that 
responded to my requests  for consultations. Having said that, most of the views expressed in 
these consultations were a repeat of what had already been voiced earlier in the meetings of the 
CTD SS.  The proponents insisted that these proposals were essential for their economic gro wth 
and industrialization efforts.  On the other side, the developed  Members  as well as some developing  
Members  reiterated that they saw no chances of convergence on the proposals.  Some even hinted 
towards thinking about a work plan in the post MC11 context . 
 
Having said this, let me share with you some of my take -aways from these consultations;  
 
(1) The issues that have been raised in the proposals are highly complex and there is some 
concern that these could have far reaching effects for the system;  
 
(2) The proponents wish to have meaningful outcome on S&D at MC11.  All the proposals were 
equal in terms of importance and in addressing the challenges that their constituencies 
faced.  However, i t was my sense that the proponents attached greater priority towa rds 
focusing our work on the industrialization cluster, that is, the proposals relating to the 
Agreement on TRIMS, GATT Article XVIII Sections A. and C. and the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures.  They were also cognizant of the reality tha t differentiation was 
one of the sticking issues in the CTDSS negotiations.  They had made an honest attempt to 
address this issue in their proposals.  The proponents believed that the level of engagement 
and the nature of reactions that they would receive f rom other  Members  when they provide 
responses to the questions would help shape their assessment of how work in the CTDSS 
could proceed;   
 
(3) The developed  Members  continued to express serious concerns with the scope of the 
proposals both in terms of cove rage as well as the nature of flexibilities and lack of 
meaningful differentiation.  They reiterated that the approach had not evolved from 2015 and 
that the proposed flexibilities could negatively impact on the integration of  Members  in the 
MTS;  
 
(4) Some  other developing  Members  shared somewhat similar views as developed  Members  on 
the proposals, except on the issue of differentiation;   
 
(5) Most Members  expressed willingness to give favourable consideration to proposals that 
addressed the specific needs of LDCs.  However, these  Members  also stressed that such 
proposals must be based on specific, real and demonstrable needs;   
 
(6) The proponents' responses to the questions posed would be important in deciding how work 
in the CTDSS would progress.  The respon ses need to be substantiated by factual examples 
on how the current S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements were inadequate.  The need for 
specific case studies demonstrating the challenges confronted by the proponents was also 
repeatedly mentioned;  
 
(7) On po ssible alternative approaches, some pointed towards exploring the avenue of waivers, 
based on real need and fact -based individual cases that could possibly be considered by the  
Members hip subject to procedures and certain conditions;  
 
(8) There were repeat ed calls for pragmatism and realism, especially in the context of short 
time that is available to us in the lead up to MC11.  In this context some thought that work 
should be focused on LDC -specific issues.  One delegation, however, said that no outcome 
was conceivable even if the proposals were to be limited to LDCs;   
 
(9) Some thought that the divergences in positions were very wide, the bridging of which was 
inconceivable in the little time left from now on to MC11.  Therefore,  Members  should start 
working on the post -MC11 work plan;  
 
(10) It was also evident that even within the developing  Members  perceptions on  the G90 
proposals were divided;  
 
(11) Fundamental horizontal differences continue to persist on the proposals across the  
Members hip.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 21 - 
 
   
At the recon vened meeting of the CTDSS on 12 October , in the interest of transparency, I reported 
on my informal consultations.  The G90 also replied to 8 of the 10 proposals that had been received 
from other  Members  on S&D proposals contained on document JOB/TNC/60 – JOB/DEV/48.  
Appreciation was expressed for the detailed replies by the proponents, which would be given due 
consideration.  The answers to the remaining two proposals wer e provided at the meeting on 
19 October.  
 
At the meeting on 19 October , after having he ard from the proponents on their responses to the 
questions posed to the remaining two proposals, the formal session was suspended and, 
immediately thereafter the meeting was reconvened in informal mode.  The idea was to encourage 
frank discussion on the in dustrialization cluster comprising three proposals relating to the 
Agreement on TRIMS, GATT Article XVIII A and C, and the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  Earlier,  Members  had also been informed that discussion on proposals 
relating to SPS and TBT, followed by the remaining proposals would take place at subsequent 
meetings of the CTD SS.  
 
At our last meeting on 19 October, despite repeated requests and nudging by the Chair,  Members  
did not engage in further substantive discussion on the proposals pertaining to industrialisation.  
This contrasted with the earlier meetings when there were constructive engagement across the 
room, with the exception of one Member who had repeatedly said that it would not engage on the 
basis of the proposals on  the table.  This dwindling appetite to engage is a worrisome sign and does 
not bode well for any potential outcome for MC11.  The CTDSS will meet again on 9 November.   
 
In conclusion, the Chair of the Special Session urges all  Members  to keep on being engag ed even 
though positions on the issues may be longstanding and widely divergent.  The issues before us are 
important and deserve our collective wisdom and engagement to chart the path ahead.  Time is 
extremely short to MC11.  My objective continues to be to w ork towards a constructive 
engagement that leads to tangible deliverables at MC11.  
 
4. Negotiating Group on Market Access  
 
Since my last oral report to the TNC meeting of 25 July 2017, which was circulated in document 
JOB/TN/MA/4, I would note that the Negot iating Group on Market Access has not met.  
 
You may recall that the Negotiating Group had convened on 21 July in formal session in order to 
consider a proposal entitled "Ministerial Decision on Facilitating SME Trade: Transparency of 
Regulatory Measures fo r Trade in Goods" (TN/MA/W/144 and Rev.1 and 2). Sponsors of the 
proposal are Australia, EU, Hong Kong, China; Singapore and Chinese Taipei.  
 
I reported to the TNC that I had concluded the discussion on this topic in the Negotiating Group by 
indicating tha t the proposal had received both support and opposition. I had further indicated that 
many questions, concerns and issues had been raised during the debate which needed to be 
addressed. I had also made the assessment that substantive work was needed on the  part of the 
proponents to clarify a number of those issues, address concerns and to build momentum around 
the proposal. Finally, I had advised that should further developments occur, I stood ready to hold 
consultations.  
 
In this regard, I understand that  the proponents in the last six weeks or so have been doing an 
intensive amount of outreach. They have recently circulated a document JOB/TN/MA/5 in which 
they have provided responses to several questions which were raised on their proposal. In this 
connec tion and at their request I plan to convene an inf ormal meeting next Wednesday, 
1 November at 15.00 to give the proponents an opportunity to introduce their Q&A document and 
to provide any additional clarifications. A fax should go out to this effect tomor row. 
 
5. Council for TRIPS – Special Session  
 
Since my last report to this meeting on 25 July, I have kept in contact with delegations to see 
whether there would be any appetite to re -engage in the negotiations for a multilateral register for 
wine and spirit GIs in the TRIPS Special Session, and what role these negotiations should play in 
the preparations for MC11.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Following the Director General's call in September for a "moment of truth", in which Members 
should decide what can – and what cannot – be achiev ed at Buenos Aires, I scheduled a formal 
meeting of the TRIPS Special Session on 18 October. The purpose of that formal meeting was to 
provide an opportunity for delegations to put their views on record ahead of the Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
At that formal  meeting, as I had foreshadowed in informal group consultations a week before, I 
encouraged delegations to respond to two questions:  
 
a. What role do delegation see for the work of the TRIPS Special Session in the preparations 
for the Buenos Aires Ministerial  Conference; and  
b. How do delegations see the GI Register negotiations continuing after MC11.  
 
In response, delegations largely reiterated known positions and showed little appetite to raise the 
profile of the GI negotiations at MC11. The supporters of the m odalities proposal in TN/C/W/52 
emphasized the importance they attached to parallel progress on all three TRIPS issues, including 
the GI Register negotiations. They also referred to the popularity of a Workshop on GIs and other 
TRIPS issues, which they had  held on the previous day, as evidence of an "emerging global 
consensus" on the importance of GIs in and outside the WTO. In this regard I noted that the LDC 
Group indicated it was in internal deliberations on whether to join the W/52 coalition.  
 
At the s ame time, these delegations saw the current negotiating environment as not conducive to 
progress, and felt that in the absence of a general negotiating momentum there was no urgency, 
and thus no need to raise the profile of GI negotiations at Buenos Aires.  Beyond MC11, these 
delegations reiterated their demand for parallel progress on all three TRIPS issues, and some 
indicated that they would take the necessary initiatives to keep these issues on the table in the 
WTO.  
 
The delegations supporting the Joint Proposal reiterated their view that the long -standing 
divergence of views in this area, and the demandeur's disregard for the mandate, made it unlikely 
that further work could yield results by MC11. Most delegations were nevertheless open to 
continued work  in the Special Session after MC11, as long as it respected the limited mandate set 
out in Article 23.4. Others in this group were less positive, opposing any intensification of work, 
and discounting any likelihood of consensual outcomes in the TRIPS Speci al Session.  
 
After this meeting, it is my assessment that the demandeurs have rallied around to confirm their 
commitment to keep the TRIPS issues alive and on the table after MC11, but showed no ambition 
at this meeting to raise these issues in substance a t the Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference.  
 
In light of the divergent views on the utility of further work before Buenos Aires I am not at this 
moment scheduling further meetings of the TRIPS Special Session. However, I remain in contact 
with interested de legations – and any Members that have constructive suggestions on how to 
reflect the TRIPS negotiations in any Ministerial outcome – and I will consider calling consultations 
or other meetings in the coming weeks if they are likely to advance the negotiati ons mandated in 
the TRIPS Special Session ahead of Buenos Aires.  
 
6. Committee on Trade and Environment – Special Session  
 
Following -up on my consultations in May, on 3 October an informal, factual information session 
was held regarding past work under the th ree-pronged mandate of the CTESS. I believe the 
information session was appreciated by most delegations who took the floor and was seen as a 
good opportunity to refresh their collective memory about the considerable amount of work done 
by the CTESS over th e years. Several delegations reiterated the importance of environmental 
issues and of discussing trade and environment issues in the WTO. At this stage, while no new 
proposals appear to be forthcoming, several delegations have reiterated that environment s hould 
not be forgotten in any Ministerial Declaration that might emerge from Buenos Aires.  
 
7. Dispute Settlement Body – Special Session  
 
The DSB -SS held an informal open -ended meeting on 10 October 2017. The meeting was a follow 
up to the stock -taking meetin g on 19 September during which Members generally agreed that the 
group was not in a position to prepare possible outcomes for MC11 based on the work WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 23 - 
 
  accomplished to date. Nevertheless, Members that spoke recognized the value of the work 
undertaken in the D SB SS since 2016.  
 
The meeting on 10 October provided an opportunity to discuss focused work to be pursued in 2018 
following the Ministerial, specifically the order in which the remaining issues could be discussed 
and how the substantive work in 2018 could  be organized and structured. Members indicated that 
they preferred to continue with the past approach of discussing a single issue per meeting cycle 
and also expressed interest in having an opportunity for horizontal negotiation across all issues 
after co mpletion of focused work on each issue. Several Members considered that it might be 
useful to allow the proposals concerning the issues under negotiation to be updated or 
supplemented to ensure that the issues remained as relevant as possible.  
 
A final sto ck-taking meeting before the Ministerial may be held in late November.  
 
8. Committee on Agriculture – Special Session  
 
Introduction  
 
Since my last report to the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on 25 July, I 
circulated my state of play doc ument JOB/AG/109 on 4 September and convened subsequently an 
informal open -ended meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session on 
13 September, followed by a dedicated session each on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes (PSH) and th e Special Safeguard Mechanism for Developing Countries (SSM) on 
15 September.  
I then held room -E type meetings on PSH, Domestic Support, and Export Restrictions  on 
21 September,  22 September and 4 October 2017, respectively. I also held a Quad Plus meeting  
on Cotton on 13  October.  
I have also had bilateral consultations with  Members  and held meetings in various configurations, 
including one meeting with Group Coordinators on 6  October before attending the Marrakech Mini -
Ministerial meeting on 9 and 10 Octob er. 
Finally, I held last week an informal open -ended meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session on 19 October, followed by a dedicated sessio n each on PSH and the SSM on 
20 October.  
I will now briefly summarize my assessment of the situatio n in each of the areas under 
consideration and conclude my report with some comments on the way forward.  
Substance  
 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
 
Public stockholding is a priority issue for most  Members . This was confirmed by Ministers at  the 
Marrakesh Mini -Ministerial, and also in almost all the meetings I have held in different 
configurations.  
We have two proposals on the table, one by the G33 and the other by Brazil, the European Union, 
Colombia, Peru and Uruguay. One Member informed t he Members hip that it was working on an 
additional submission and should table it soon.  
The two proposals on the table are identical on the approach to be adopted to achieve the 
permanent solution, i.e . exemption of the support provided for public stockhol ding programmes 
from the AMS, although the attached conditions differ. Opinions also differ on which of the two 
proposals should be the basis of our work going forward, with the G33 advocating that it should be 
their proposal. Several  Members , however, bel ieve that the proposal by Brazil, the European Union 
and their co -proponents has better chances of attracting convergence among the  Members . This 
brings us again to the issue of linkage between the PSH issue and the Domestic Support 
negotiations generally,  which is rejected by one side and considered necessary by the other.   WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 24 - 
 
  In addition to the two proposals on the table, several  Members  have indicated that they would 
prefer a solution based on the Bali Decision on different grounds. Some  Members  are concern ed 
about increasing the policy space to provide market price support, while others see the 
divergences in  Members ' positions as still too far apart to be resolved in the remaining time 
available. Against this background, they consider that it would be easi er to build consensus around 
a Bali -type solution.  
In addition, several individual elements have been at the centre of my consultations. These are: 
product and country coverage; transparency; safeguards and anti -circumvention; and the 
appropriate vehicle t o achieve a permanent solution.  
My consultations show that  Members  have divergent positions on all these issues. The focus of our 
work now is on how to bridge the gaps in the few remaining weeks we have available. On a 
positive note, the will to find an o utcome for MC11 is palpable, and many  Members  have urged the 
conduct of text -based negotiations as soon as possible if the Ministerial mandate is to be fulfilled.  
Domestic Support  
 
Domestic Support remains the priority for the vast majority of  Members . It is the pillar that has 
received a lot of attention in all agriculture meetings thus far. It was also one of the main issues 
discussed at the Marrakesh Mini -Ministerial meeting. This engagement is reflected by the 
increasing number of submissions, with the two latest submissions introduced on 19 October, 
namely the one by the ACP Group in document JOB/AG/112 and the one by New  Zealand, 
Australia, Canada, Chile and Paraguay in document JOB/AG/114.  
Nevertheless, important gaps still remain in the positions of  Members  on the negotiating issues, 
which are well known to you all.  Members  remain broadly divided between:  
- those that favour an overall limit on trade -distorti ng support, whether based on  a 
percentage of the value of production or on a monetary ceiling ; and  
- those that consider that the AMS should be eliminate d first - notably because it allows 
for product -specific subsidy concentration – and that at least some steps should be 
taken in that direction.  
In addition, several  Members  consider that efforts  should be proportional and the burden should 
not be put on a few  Members . They consider that new disciplines based on the current elements – 
AMS and de minimis  – would be more appropriate and cautioned against a one -size-fits-all type of 
solution.  
Levelli ng the playing field is considered crucial by almost all  Members . However, there is 
disagreement among  Members  as to whether the starting point for achieving this objective should 
be through eliminating the AMS of developed  Members  or the setting of a new overall limit for  
Members .  
Other points of difference – both in terms of the proposals and in the discussions in general – 
concern:  
a. what should a new overall limit apply to, and  
b. disciplines (or rather lack of disciplines) for product -specific support, Blu e Box, and 
Green  Box. 
 
Some  Members  reiterated their sensitivities regarding Article 6.2 and  de minimis  entitlements, and 
made clear their opposition to any attempts to curtail these entitlements.  
Some  Members  stressed the need for all  Members  to make a co ntribution to make an outcome 
possible at MC11. In that regard, a number of  Members  called for the initiation of text -based 
negotiations as soon as possible.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Cotton  
 
The C4 proposal for a Ministerial Decision on Cotton (TN/AG/GEN/46) was discussed at the C oA 
Special Session meeting of 19 October. While most  Members  who intervened welcomed the 
proposal, some regretted its high level of ambition, while others requested the C4 to clarify some 
of its elements, including the proposed treatment of developing coun try Members . 
I reminded the  Members hip of other suggestions aimed at making progress on Cotton Domestic 
Support including, in particular, the proposal by Brazil, the European Union, Colombia, Peru and 
Uruguay (JOB/AG/99).  
It was also noted that the issue o f Cotton includes other components, including the development 
assistance dimension which merits our continued focus.  
Market Access  
 
I have not heard any Member questioning the importance of market access reforms. 
Simultaneously, there is acknowledgement am ong the  Members , including the proponents, that a 
substantive outcome in Market Access may not be feasible at MC11 and that the best possible 
outcome that may be expected at MC11 would be a detailed post -MC11 work programme. The 
challenge for  Members  is to draft such a work programme that is acceptable to all to guide the 
post-MC11 Market Access negotiations. The issue of elimination of SSG has also been raised 
specifically by some  Members ; the Russian Federation presented to  Members  last week the latest 
submission on this topic contained in document JOB/AG/116.  
Special Safeguard Mechanism  
 
The proponents have underlined the need for a substantive outcome on the SSM, albeit , a partial 
one at MC11. One Member, among the proponents, maintains that without a su bstantive outcome 
on SSM, it would be difficult to have a successful MC11. By contrast, a number of  Members  have 
made it absolutely clear that a substantive outcome on SSM is unrealistic at MC11 in the absence 
of a broader Market Access outcome. Despite th e deadlock, I have reminded  Members  about the 
mandate from Ministers at Nairobi to pursue negotiations on SSM in a dedicated setting, and that  
the issue is likely to remain on the agenda for MC11 and needs to be addressed.  
Export Restrictions  
 
The discussi ons thus far have confirmed that many  Members  support a limited outcome, mainly 
focused on enhancing transparency in Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, but that such an 
outcome should be envisaged in the context of a more comprehensive outcome in the ag ricultural 
negotiations overall.  
Many  Members  welcomed the latest proposal by Singapore in document JOB/AG/101 and 
considered that it was now time to engage in text -based negotiations on this issue. It was noted 
that the proposal by Singapore might require  some re -drafting for greater clarity.  
Some  Members  highlighted the usefulness of Export Restriction measures, particularly seasonal 
measures, for developing country  Members . Several  Members  cautioned against making the 
notification requirements too burden some for developing country  Members . 
A submission by Israel, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  containing complementary clarification elements which the proponents 
would like to be considered i n the discussions was circulated in document JOB/AG/115.  
Export Competition  
 
On Export Competition, I have nothing new to report. As mentioned earlier, some  Members  have 
expressed the view that Export Competition was still an unfinished business and that t his point 
should be recognized in a post -MC11 work programme.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures  
 
The issue of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures is not considered by the proponents as a 
candidate for a substantive outcome at MC11.  
Way forward  
 
To prepare the ground for success at MC11, it should be our objective to submit to Ministers a 
limited number of issues for their consideration.  
Therefore we are now intensifying our work here in Geneva to close as many gaps as possible in 
the negotiating po sitions of  Members  on the issues. Experience has taught us that the agenda for 
Ministers must be manageable if results are to be obtained.  
Depending on the issue, the envisaged outcome could be a substantive one, a post MC11 work 
programme or a combination  of the two.  
Where a substantive outcome does not seem to be within reach for MC11, we should engage 
without any further delay in defining what could be a possible post -MC11 work programme. This 
discussion will also require time and will understandably be difficult.  
In that regard, I have called on proponents to make suggestions on what could constitute 
elements of a possible work programme and engage with other  Members  to build consensus 
around their ideas.  
My intention is to reconvene, immediately after t he General  Council scheduled on 26 and 
27 October, a series of consultations on all the issues under negotiation with the intention of 
closing some of them and packaging them in readiness for Buenos Aires.  
I will hold these consultations in parallel and in  various configurations, depending on the issue, 
taking due account of the specificity of each of them, including the specific mandate for a 
permanent solution to be found for the PSH issue at MC11.  
My objective is to have intensive discussions on the subs tance of a potential outcome at MC11 
under each of the issues and move into text -based negotiations as soon as practicable.  
To this end, I have urged  Members  to come up with compromise texts that could possibly enable 
us to bridge the gaps in the negotiati ons. 
I also heard loud and clear the request by some  Members  during the CoA -SS that I should remain 
ready to also provide texts if need be.  
In this regard, I will carefully reflect in the next few days on what would be the best way forward, 
based on what I  have heard from  Members  and taking into account the little time available before 
MC11.  
My process will of course be without prejudice to  Members' positions  on the overall Buenos 
Aires outcome. Progress achieved on the different issues may ultimately have to be assessed by 
the Members hip in the context of the overall state of play of the negotiations in agriculture and 
other areas.  
Finally, transparency and inclusiveness will continue to guide my process as Chair and I will 
continue to regularly hold transp arency meetings to inform  Members  about developments in the 
negotiations.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 27 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TNC AND INFORMAL HOD S MEETINGS 
HELD ON 24 OCTOBER  2017  
Following the Director -General 's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Chile (Friends of MSMEs) ; Zambia; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Japan; Argentina; 
Zimbabwe; United States; Paraguay; Switzerland; Peru; Brazil; Iceland; India; Rwanda (African 
Group); South Africa; Russian Federat ion; Turkey; European Union; Australia; Barbados 
(CARICOM); Republic of Korea; Mali (C -4); Pakistan; Uganda; Plurinational State of Bolivia; 
Swaziland; Guyana (ACP); Uruguay; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Cuba; Chinese Taipei; Indonesia 
(G-33); Cambodia (LDCs) ; Ecuador; China; Costa Rica; Tanzania; Canada; Colombia; Camero on; 
Thailand; Mexico and Norway  are included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council 
meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
1. Chile (Friends of MSMEs)  
 
In the General Council on 18 May, the "Informal Group of Friends of MSMEs " expressed their 
willingness to work together to make trade more inclusive by supporting MSMEs' greater 
integration in global trade.  
 
Our group, consisting of 25 Members at this moment, from developing and developed econom ies, 
has organized different open -ended meetings, including some events at the recent Public Forum, 
with the aim of discussing and fostering the participation of MSMEs in regional and global markets, 
and identifying possible ways forward on how to strength en MSMEs in the WTO context.  
 
We strongly believe that facilitating integration of MSMEs into global trade needs to be addressed 
in a better manner at this Organization. At the Sixth Global Review of Aid for Trade, which took 
place this July, one of the pr iorities that came through most strongly was the need to support 
MSMEs' participation in international trade.  
 
MSMEs perform a significant role in the national economies of WTO Members, as sources of 
economic growth, job creation, innovation and entreprene urship. It is also a fact that MSMEs face 
specific challenges to fully participate in international trade, particularly those from developing and 
least-developed countries which face additional obstacles.  
 
Therefore, our efforts at the multilateral level t o increase MSMEs' participation in international 
trade are more important than ever.  
 
I would like to take this opportunity to inform once again about the Workshop "How to Support 
MSMEs: Sharing of National, Regional and Multilateral Experiences" to be hel d at the WTO on 
Tuesday 31 October and Wednesday 1 November. All WTO members are invited to participate.  
 
This workshop will focus on strategic approaches for the development of MSMEs, MSMEs' access to 
information, and how to strengthen MSMEs' export capab ilities through capacity -building among 
other relevant topics.  
  
Panellists for the workshop include experts and officials from capitals, the WTO Secretariat and 
from other international organizations and from the private sector.  
  
I encourage Members to a ctively participate in this workshop.  
 
In addition, I would like to inform that our Group will submit soon a proposed text on a ministerial 
decision establishing a Work Programme for MSMEs in the WTO.  
 
An Informal Open -ended Meeting will be called to prese nt this document to all interested WTO 
Members.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 28 - 
 
  I would like to emphasize that our proposal seeks to establish a MSMEs Work Programme, with a 
view to address challenges faced by MSMEs in participating in international trade. We aim to 
discuss measures whi ch would be horizontal and non -discriminatory, taking into account the 
specific needs of developing countries and LDCs. And I would like to be clear, this work 
programme does not aim at negotiation or rule -making.  
  
The Work Programme is future -oriented an d, therefore we can continue to discuss the issue of 
MSMEs post -MC11.  
 
We hope to achieve a multilateral consensus on the MSMEs Work Programme and obtain a 
meaningful outcome at MC11.  
 
2. Zambia  
 
Zambia associates itself with the interventions delivered by In donesia on behalf of the Group of 
33, Rwanda on behalf of the African Group and Cambodia on behalf of the LDC Group.  
 
Priorities for Zambia at MC11 have been adequately addressed in the interventions by Group 
coordinators as well as in interventions by ind ividual Members whose positions and expectations 
for MC11 are closely aligned with our own.  
 
I would therefore just wish to touch briefly on three issues.  
 
Firstly, on Agriculture particularly the domestic support pillar, this pillar still remains an are a of 
significant interest to Zambia as we have placed Agriculture as one of the main drivers of our 
diversification agenda. In this connection, we cannot over -emphasise the importance of having a 
substantial reduction of OTDS, elimination of AMS, as well a s more clear disciplines on product 
specific support to avoid subsidy concentration on some products. We therefore strongly support 
the call to see an outcome that effectively addresses the issues on the domestic support, public 
stockholding for food secur ity purposes, special safeguard mechanism and on cotton at MC11.  
 
Secondly, on Special and Differential Treatment, Zambia supports the proposal currently under 
discussion in the CTD -SS as introduced by the G90. Our appeal to other Members is that in the 
remaining few weeks, we can have progressive discussions on this issue in a manner that does not 
sacrifice substance so as to ensure that we have a positive outcome on SDT at MC11.  
  
Thirdly, on E -Commerce, in as much as we appreciate the effort by the propo nents in putting 
something forward, we do not agree with the substance of the proposals. My delegation cannot 
support the formulation of a working group when there are still significant issues that haven’t been 
addressed under the 1998 Work Programme on E -Commerce. My delegation is of the opinion that 
the proposed formation of a working group will not address the existing divergences but will serve 
only as a forum for the formulation of rules on E -Commerce that we have previously expressed our 
disagreement to. 
 
To conclude, we would like to reaffirm our support to the on -going efforts of the Membership 
through the various configurations as we seek to define the outcome document for MC11. It is our 
sincere expectation that paramount among the key outcomes wil l be decisions that effectively 
address historical imbalances in key areas of agriculture and on development, particularly for 
Least -Developed Countries.  
 
3. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
With less than two months left before the meeting in Buenos Aires, it is our responsibility to decide 
on the best way to use the time remaining, to ensure the success of the Ministerial Conference.  
 
I would like to acknowledge the significant efforts that have been made in this multilateral forum. 
Multiple proposals with a varied technical content have been placed on the table. The objectives 
that we have set ourselves are highly complex, like the structure of our Organization, which 
comprises Members with different levels and visions of development.  
 
I would now like to r ecall the words of the distinguished Director General at the Heads of 
Delegation meeting held in September, when he called for us to be realistic and to focus on issues WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 29 - 
 
  on which an outcome could be achieved at the next Ministerial Conference. I also wish t o recall the 
words of the Chair of the Ministerial Conference and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine 
Republic, Ms Susana Malcorra, who reminded us last week that "there is life after Buenos Aires", 
and who referred to the importance of the WTO fo r the multilateral trading system.  
 
We consider that any outcome in Buenos Aires must be based on the recognition of the importance 
of multilateralism, and in this regard, on the value of the WTO as the sole multilateral forum 
regulating international trad e. 
 
It must be based on the recognition of the WTO as a space in which different visions of 
development can be shared, and in which the necessary agreements can be reached to bridge the 
gaps that divide us.  
 
It must also be based on the recognition of deve lopment as a central part of our work. The WTO's 
main responsibility must be and must continue to be to create the conditions for trade to be an 
instrument that fosters development, and not an end in itself. It should be recalled that in the first 
paragrap h of the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, the overriding 
objective is sustainable development. What is more, the second paragraph mentions the need for 
efforts to ensure that developing countries, especially LDCs, secure a share in  growth in 
international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development.  
 
Regarding possible deliverables, in accordance with your call for a realistic outlook, we believe that 
the best deliverable that we can give the world is a healthy O rganization. In this regard, we 
consider that it is more sound to proceed with caution, but also with firm steps as far as possible, 
assessing in full the benefits that could be obtained by all Members, in particular developing and 
least developed countrie s, rather than try to hasten results in matters that have not been 
sufficiently analysed, or on which there is no consensus.  
 
We are firmly convinced that there is a link between the importance of the WTO for the multilateral 
trading system and development  in all of its forms. This link is undoubtedly the Doha Declaration 
of 2001, as recognized by our Ministers in paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration adopted at the 
last Ministerial Conference.  
 
The Organization needs to translate the commitments already undertaken in Doha into concrete 
facts. The issue of agriculture is recognized by all Members as a fundamental pillar of this Round. 
The Nairobi Declaration was clear in giving priority to negotiations on public stockholding for food 
security purposes and the special safeguard mechanism for developing country Members.  
 
We consider that it is a priority for Ministers to make some kind of decision on the proposals for 
special and differential treatment put forward by the G 90, given their substantive content and the 
political weight that they hold for developing countries.  
 
We also consider that an outcome on fishery subsidies is viable. We particularly support the idea of 
disciplines focusing primarily on subsidies provided to large scale commercial or indust rial fishing 
and subsidies to fishing activities outside of Members' maritime jurisdictions, with protection and 
special and differential treatment mechanisms for small scale fishing. The fisheries sector is of 
fundamental importance for the economy of the  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is a source of 
revenue and employment, and has an impact on food sovereignty and security.  
 
Regarding e -commerce, we are aware of the magnitude of the fourth industrial revolution that we 
are experiencing, the conseque nces of which are still unquantifiable for the majority of countries. E 
commerce is just one part of a much more complex revolution for which we are not all prepared, 
nor on an equal footing. We consider that the 1998 Work Programme has not yet been exhaus ted 
and therefore must be reaffirmed at the Eleventh Ministerial Conference, from a development 
standpoint. We do not consider it feasible to go beyond this and address subjects on which it is not 
yet possible to achieve consensus.  
 
Regarding domestic regu lation, we have unfortunately observed a significant amount of divergence 
among Members. Our delegation believes that any proposal for change in this area would affect 
the national policies implemented in our country, especially those concerning developmen t, and 
therefore our policy space. Consequently, we consider that this is a subject to be addressed after 
Buenos Aires, and that it is necessary to include, in any future proposal, effective and efficient WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 30 - 
 
  special and differential treatment, with safeguard elements that allow for the protection of the 
country. Such aspects are severely lacking from the proposals put forward.  
 
In all negotiations, it is fundamental to have trust in the process, and transparency is key to 
creating such trust. Consultations mus t be open to everyone equally. Moreover, we consider that, 
in the spirit of strengthening the multilateral role of the WTO, it is unwise to address issues at the 
Ministerial Conference that have not been agreed upon in Geneva.  
 
4. Japan  
 
Despite the positive engagement of Ministers in Marrakesh and the ongoing active discussions here 
in Geneva, as DG and other chairs have just reported, there remain gaps between the positions of 
the Members. We don’t see sufficient convergence in many areas and time is running  out. 
 
The WTO is now facing unprecedented challenges, both internally and externally. From the inside, 
the core values of the WTO system are being questioned, putting the integrity of the WTO itself at 
risk. From the outside, international trade under the  current system is criticized for not being 
inclusive enough. We have to have a sense of crisis. We need to defend the integrity of the system 
and, at the same time, make sure that international trade is more inclusive.  
 
At this critical juncture, I cannot  emphasize enough how important an opportunity MC11 is for us. 
We will have to send a clear message to the world and deliver concrete outcomes to address these 
challenges.  
 
By concrete outcomes, I mean that we need to have both specific deliverables at MC1 1 and also a 
clearly defined future work programme to allow us to continue our work intensively right after the 
Ministerial Conference. We will need to decide in the coming weeks what is deliverable at MC 11 
and what should be left for the post MC11 agenda.   
 
I would like to once again point out the need for the whole Membership to "be realistic and take an 
incremental approach ". 
 
Indeed, this is exactly what we are trying to do for e -commerce. Our intention is not to make a 
difficult decision on whether or not to initiate a negotiation now. Rather, we are proposing to take 
time for "evaluation ", and for this purpose to set up a horizontal locus in accordance with the 1998 
Work Programme. We are now working with other proponents to incorporate development asp ects 
into our proposal. We would like to reach out to the Members with different views on this issue to 
find common ground.  
 
On domestic support in agriculture, although we do see active discussions going on, unfortunately 
we don’t see sufficient convergen ce to achieve concrete outcomes at MC11. I would reiterate that 
any new discipline should be fair and equitable, duly taking into account the current level of 
commitments and the Members ' efforts to reform up to now.  
 
As for public stockholding for food se curity purposes, Japan hopes that a realistic solution can be 
found in order to achieve tangible outcomes at MC11.  
 
Also, as the world’s second largest net food importing country, Japan considers export restriction 
to be a critical issue for food security.  Japan, together with Switzerland and other Members, has 
made a new submission on this issue to facilitate our discussions on more substantial elements. 
We hope to achieve a positive outcome at MC11 and look forward to continuing to work with all 
Members o n these important issues thereafter.  
 
With regard to fisheries subsidies, the purpose of rule -making is, as stated in Goal 14 of the SDGs, 
to promote the sustainable use of fishery resources. We think that cooperation with fishery experts 
and other intern ational organizations is indispensable for the implementation of any discipline in 
this area.  
 
On domestic regulation in services, Japan and other Members are now revising the consolidated 
text proposal. We hope that further discussions based on the revise d text will lead to concrete 
outcomes.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Furthermore, Japan supports the ongoing engagement of the Membership in other issues which 
will contribute to facilitating trade. Japan wil l become a co -sponsor of the EU' s proposal on 
transparency of regulatory meas ures, and we highly appreciate Chile’s initiative in establishing a 
work programme for MSMEs. We will also actively engage in the discussions on investment 
facilitation. These initiatives will all help to make trade more inclusive.  
 
Last but not least, wit h respect to the S&DT, we understand the importance of this issue and, 
although ther e is still a gap in the Members'  views, we note the proponents ' active engagement at 
the CTD -SS. Japan is ready to listen to the real needs of the proponents, and is willin g to work 
constructively to find realistic and incremental solutions.  
 
In closing, I would like to call for all of the Membership to cooperate and spare no effort to make 
MC11 a successful Ministerial. We will do our utmost to ensure that the WTO and the M ultilateral 
Trading System remain relevant to the current needs of the international community. Japan will do 
its best to work in cooperation with other Members and the host country Argentina for this 
common goal.  
 
5. Argentina  
 
When Members launched the Info rmal Dialogue on Investment Facilitation for Development, the 
aim was to create a transparent and inclusive process that would invite – and indeed encourage – 
the pa rticipation of all WTO Members.  Today, I want to give Members a second brief update on our 
discussions so far – following the one I made at the HoDs meeting on 25 July – with the intention 
of regularly reporting to all Members as our work progresses.  
 
The Informal Dialogue has held 5 meetings:  the first, inaugural, meeting was on 24 May; follow ed 
by meetings on 26 June, 18 July, 25 September and the fifth,  most recently, on 23 October. 
Meetings have been well attended with broad and substantive engagement. In addition, the two 
most recent meetings have been live -streamed on a restric ted webpage to our capitals . 
 
The most recent meeting of the Informal Dialogue, on 23 October, had 2 objectives: 1) addressing 
the last theme on our proposed Work Agenda, namely "other investment facilitation -related 
issues" such as government -investor cooperation, sy stems to resolve investors' grievances, and 
corporate social responsibility; and, 2) taking -stock of our deliberations to date and beginning 
exchanging view on po ssible next steps towards MC11.  The discussions on "possible next steps" 
focused on 3 question s, which I also circulated to all Members at the end of the meeting, namely:  
 
i. Can we identify common objectives for investment facilitation in the time ahead?  
ii. What kind of ministerial guidance should we be seeking at MC11?  
iii. What process do we envisage to ad vance our objectives – and should this include 
developing text for Buenos Aires?  
Discussions on these issues will continue at our next meeting on 10 November . 
 
I wish to remind you of the High -Level Policy and Private Sector Forum on Facilitating Trade and  
Investment for Development to be held in Abu ja, Nigeria on 2 -3 November . The Forum will be co -
hosted by Nigeria and ECOWAS, in partnership with the FIFD Members.  
 
6. Zimbabwe  
 
We associate ourselves with the statements to be delivered by Rwanda on behalf of the African 
Group, Guyana on behalf of the ACP, Indonesia on behalf of G33 and Mali on behalf of C4.  
 
Like others, we note with concern that there are still divergences in all elements of the 
negotiations and yet we do no t have much time before the Elevent h Ministerial Conference.  
 
In this regard , I would like to encourage all of us to step up efforts towards narrowing differences 
in order to ensure that we complete our technical work here in Geneva and avoid overburdening 
Ministers with too much work in Bu enos Aires.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Allow me to highlight our views on the current negotiations.  
 
Regarding process issues , we now need to face the reality and focus only on those elements of the 
negotiations with potential to be deliverables for MC11.  
 
Work on those elements of  the negotiations which still have large divergences should be deferred 
to the post MC11 period and to this effect, we should work towards a work programme to guide 
us. 
 
Regarding substance, it is in our interest that any MC11 outcome promotes our national  objectives 
as well as continental priorities in line with Africa’s Agenda 2063, Structural Transf ormation and 
Industrialisation.  Development should remain central in all outcomes of the negotiations.  
 
I would like to reiterate that our priority remains th at of having outcomes on a permanent solution 
on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, substantial reduction of trade distorting 
domestic subsidies including that for cotton, Special Safeguard Mechanism and Development.  
 
The permanent solution on  PSH should be based on the G33 proposal and not the current peace 
clause which is difficult to invoke. Furthermore, there should be no linkage between Domestic 
Support and PSH as the latter has a separate mandate.  
 
The outcome on domestic support should a ddress the current asymmetries in the Agreement on 
Agriculture as well as preserve the flexibilities for developing countries in line with the revised 
version 4 modalities text of 2008. In this regard, we fully support the proposal by China and India, 
C4 and the ACP on eliminating AMS entitlements as the first stage to address the imbalances.  
 
Regarding the Services element of Domestic Regulation, we note that there are still very large 
divergences that cannot be narrowed within the remaining period before MC11. The proponents for 
Domestic Regulation proposals have not been forthcoming in adequately responding to our 
concerns and questions. Work on Domestic Regulation cannot therefore be harvested at MC11 and 
should continue post MC11.  
 
Regarding the Develop ment element of the negotiations, we would like to underscore that there is 
a clear mandate under paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration and justification has been provided 
by the G90 members, however some members are frustrating our efforts to have a meanin gful 
outcome that will promote our industrialisation strategies by failing to engage construc tively. We 
therefore call upon M embers to constructively engage.  
 
Regarding SSM , we note with concern that some M embers have continuously raised concerns 
without o ffering any construct ive solution and of late these M embers have disengaged from 
meaningful discussions. We also reiterate that there is no link between Market Access and SSM.  
 
Regarding the three new issues of Investment Facilitat ion, MSMEs  and E -Commerce  negotiations, 
our views remain that we do not have mandates to negotiate this and to do so we would need 
consensus in line with paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration. Investment Facilitation is a 
Singapore issue that should not be discussed before the c onclusion of the DDA, in line with 
paragraph 1g of the 2004 July Framework.  
 
Furthermore, we are not in support of launching e -commerce negotiations or changing the current 
e-commerce work programme mandate and its structure. The e -commerce work programme is 
comprehensive enough and should continue under its current exploratory mandate and structure 
and to this effect, we do not support the creation of any new horizontal process or a working party 
or group that will initiate e -commerce negotiations. Rules o n e-commerce are premature because 
of the digital divide.  
 
Lastly, I would like to underscore the fact that the DDA should be given priority, in line with 
paragraphs 31 and 34 of the Nairobi Declaration.  
 
7. United States  
 
We will not today belabour  our well -known expectation that we will not have substantive 
negotiated outcomes for our minist ers to approve in Buenos Aires.  That expectation has not WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 33 - 
 
  changed, and the discussion we have heard so far today certainly reinforces it, as did the 
discussion among a num ber of ministers and other officials in Marrakech earlier this month.  
 
As stated on several occasions by our minister, Ambassador Lighthizer, the United States wants to 
see a successful Minister ial Conference in Buenos Aires.  The time has come to seriously  consider 
what success might look like, and also importantl y what it would not look like. Today , we offer a 
few of our perspectives on this question.  
 
It seems to be the universal view of Members that success will not be achieved by expecting 
ministers to take up extensive negotiations on issues on which considerable divergences are 
clearly in evidence just a few weeks out from MC11.  In our view, nearly all of what’s currently on 
the table falls into that category.  It would be a grave error to pretend that the divergences are not 
significant, or that our ministers can easily, in the space of a few days in December, make them 
disappear.  
 
Success will likewise not be possible if we purposefully carry into Buenos Aires a range of topics 
that are fully known to be controversial and therefore not subject to resolution in the short term, 
either among us here in Geneva or am ong our ministers in Argentina.  This is particularly important 
as we consider the nature of an outcome document for MC11.  
 
The cause of success  for the WTO, more generally, is not advanced when we continue to pretend 
that our Ministerial Conferences provide the only moments or opportunities when we can move 
forward.  
 
So what might a successful MC11 look like?  
 
A conference in which our ministers come prepared to articulate to each other their respective 
visions of the institution and its future would, in our  view, be a meaningful success.  This needs to 
be more than a repetition  of issue -specific wish lists. Perhaps we’ve been so focused on the det ails 
of each of our favourite  issues in the past two years that we’ve missed an opportunity to speak 
more broadly about the kind of WTO t hat we envision for the future.  And we didn’t really have the 
opportunity in Nairobi for that sort of broad discussion.  Such a discussion, at a ministerial level, 
could provide us with the direction needed on a more effective way of working.  
 
Members have heard the United States -- here in Geneva, in public comments in our capital, and 
in Marrakech – speak about our intere st in revitalizing the WTO, making it work better, and 
correcting what we regard as certain institutional shortcomings.  To be clear, we know that these 
are difficult issues, and we have no particular expectation of finding common ground on issues of 
institutional reform in the context of a single Ministerial  Conference like Buenos Aires. But why 
couldn’t MC11 be a good opportunity to begin an exchange – not yet a negotiation -- among our 
ministers on that set of issues?  
 
We are also open to MC11 being an o pportunity to confirm areas where we have a shared i ntention 
of continuing to work.  Even if we are far from negotiated outcomes, good work has been done by 
Members on a range of issues, and we should ensure that we can continue working in positive 
directions on issues of importance.  At the same time, we ought to be prudent in avoiding any 
overly ambitious negotiation of future work plans – this could, in our view, lead us directly back to 
many of the substantive divergences that we are currently having grea t difficulty overcoming.  
 
In concl usion, the United States urges M embers to approach the coming weeks pragmatically, and 
with an awareness of the “long game” being as valuable, or more valuable, than an 
understandable but perhaps unrealistic focus on short -term outcomes.  
 
8. Paraguay  
 
Paraguay notes what was mentioned by Minister Malcorra in her recent visit to Geneva. She urged 
us to maintain our exploratory efforts active to achieve possible deliverables for MC11 and 
especially having a forward -looking persp ective post Buenos Aires in strengthening the 
organization in its three pillars: negotiations, dispute settlement and trade monitoring.  
  
The negotiations in agriculture remain active. Our delegation has been contributing to define 
possible deliverables an d to promote more active negotiations post Buenos Aires. We have made WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 34 - 
 
  contributions, jointly with several delegations, in the pillars of domestic support and market 
access, and we also make every effort to find a permanent solution on public stockholding f or food 
security purposes.  
  
Agriculture remains at the top of our list of priorities, and we hope that a positive atmosphere 
would keep the negotiations alive with a view to promoting reforms which will in turn stimulate 
more dynamic discussions in the fu ture. 
  
While Paraguay advocates the successful completion of the core issues of this house, we are also 
active in discussions that address current trade trends, such as Electronic Commerce, Investment 
Facilitation, and MSMEs . In this regard, we have recen tly co -sponsored several documents and 
concept notes that aim to consolidate the treatment of these issues in the WTO, and if possible, 
achieve results at the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
  
Among them, I would lik e to highlight the document JOB/ GC/140, which proposes the creation of a 
working group to start negotiations on electronic commerce. We believe that the time has come to 
give the appropriate institutional for um to be able to initiate negotiations on multilateral disciplines 
on this very important issue in world trade today, especially for developing countries. Lik ewise, the 
proposal allows all M embers to be able to outline the agenda to be discussed, propose ideas, 
courses of actio n, and – as intended by Paraguay – to take into account th e development 
dimension , as a cornerstone of the future agenda.  
  
On the other hand, I would also like to endorse the words of the  Ambassador of Chile, in his 
capacity as Coordinator of the  Group of Friends of MSMEs , and confirm the high interest of my 
delegation in being able to agree  in Buenos Aires a work program that will help us to establish a 
multilateral platform that will help us strengthen t he participation of MSMEs  in international trade.  
  
We also hope that the  fisheries  subsidies  issue will have  a positive outcome in Buenos Aires and 
my delegation is committed to work in this regard . 
 
9. Switzerland  
 
The Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference is rapidly approaching.  
 
Despite the significant efforts made since last year, preparations have not reached th e level of 
maturity desired at this late hour. Major differences remain between Members on many issues.  
 
We cannot make progress unless we focus our work on the most promising issues . This means 
that Members should refrain from insisting on proposals that have not gathered enough 
momentum to come to fruition in the coming weeks.  
 
There is life after Buenos Aires and the initiatives that have not produced concrete results at the 
Ministerial can be pursued as part of the future work of the WTO.  
 
Nevertheless,  encouraging progress has been recorded, particularly in the area of fishery 
subsidies. There is no doubt that this issue has the most potential to achieve an operational and 
concrete outcome in Buenos Aires.  
 
In agriculture, a number of proposals have bee n put forward in recent weeks. New ideas have 
been presented and discussed intensively. Agriculture remains a sensitive issue for Switzerland, 
and we are willing to participate constructively in the work on domestic support, provided that:  
 
i. the principle o f proportionality of the contributions made by each Member is respected;  
ii. the reforms that have already been implemented are taken into account;  
iii. there remains room for manoeuvre to pursue current agricultural policies; and that  
iv. progress is made in other are as of interest for our economy.  
Switzerland is particularly interested in making progress on e -commerce, including the extension 
of the moratorium, and on domestic regulation in services, micro, small and medium -sized WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 35 - 
 
  enterprises and investment facilitatio n. A number of Members have pointed out their interest in 
these issues and we sincerely hope that tangible progress can be made.  
 
Lastly – and most important ly of all  in the current circumstances – the Buenos Aires Ministerial 
Conference must send a positi ve message, and must show that the international community 
continues to rely on the WTO to regulate trade relations on a global scale, and that the effective 
operation and development of the WTO are still of central interest.  
 
Switzerland intends to work a ctively in this regard over the next few weeks.  
 
10. Peru  
 
As this is my first statement at the WTO since I took up my duties in Geneva only a few days ago, 
I would like to extend my warmest greetings to you, the Chair of the General Council and all of the 
permanent representatives and delegates, and reiterate Peru's firm support for the strengthening 
of our Organization, and of course, for the efforts underway, which, I am convinced, will lead to a 
successful Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
 
Many th anks, Mr Director -General, for your observations and comments on the activities carried 
out and consultations held, which were part of a truly commendable effort. Thanks also to the 
Chairs of the negotiating groups for their reports on the status of the negot iations and for the 
timely suggestions that they have just put forward in order to speed up the negotiating process, 
which would allow us to bridge the gaps and enter into agreements on various issues.  
 
I would now like to make several comments on the topi c that brings us together today.  
 
The reports confirm, to a large extent, the status of the negotiations, which was discussed at the 
Informal Ministerial Meeting in Morocco on 9 10 October 2017, as well as the information that was 
kindly given to us only a  few days ago by the Chair of the Buenos A ires Ministerial Conference, 
Ms Susana Malcorra.  
 
Although there are still concerns about progress in certain areas and the future work of our 
Organization, the reports take into account important initiatives and c oncrete negotiating 
proposals that are on the table, which represent Members' various interests, many of which are 
the same.  
 
Like many other Members, Peru has provided concrete proposals, which are partly outlined in the 
basic negotiating documents. Some of these contributions to which I would like to draw attention 
include the proposal to establish disciplines on fishery subsidies, and the proposal to limit domestic 
support that distorts agricultural trade. We have also developed approaches to move toward s a 
solution to the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes and better market access in 
agriculture, and to ensure progress in the area of domestic regulation of services.  
 
We are only six weeks away from the Ministerial Conference in Bueno s Aires, and we need to step 
up our efforts to move forward in the negotiations in a creative and pragmatic manner.  
 
In this regard, we support your work approach, Mr Director G eneral, the vision shared by 
Ms Malcorra last week, and the proposals presented  by the Chairs of the negotiating groups. We 
are convinced that it will be particularly useful to identify the possible outcomes of MC11 on the 
basis of the merits of each issue without making outcomes subject to convergence in other areas.  
 
Peru will atte nd the crucial meeting in Buenos Aires with enthusiasm and optimism. We trust that 
the participating delegations will be capable of reaching a consensus that will enable us to make 
tangible progress in different areas of these complex negotiations. We will  adjust our expectations 
and ambitions in a realistic manner, but we will not give up our efforts to achieve concrete 
progress. As you have reminded us, MC11 is not the end of the road, and therefore we believe that 
it is very important to agree on a post Buenos Aires road map or work plan. More importantly still, 
we hope that the Ministerial Conference will propel our Organization towards a new phase in which 
it can consolidate its role as the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 36 - 
 
  11. Brazil  
 
Our st atement will focus only on core messages. We will not repeat in detail positions that are 
known.  
 
Let me start with agriculture, the indispensable component for any package of results in Buenos 
Aires.  
 
We recognize the mandate regarding a PSH permanent sol ution. But the Bali mandate does not 
mean that the proponents’ perspectives must be the basis for negotiations.  
 
The Membership has been asked to propose text -based safeguards to address concerns regarding 
the G -33 paper. However, the challenge before us i s that the green -box approach of the G -33 
proposal cannot be accepted as the basis for negotiations.  
 
Brazil wants to contribute to a consensus. Together with Colombia, the EU, Peru and Uruguay, we 
suggested an approach which is rather generous – among ot her aspects, in its window for new 
programs.  
 
Brazil is ready to engage in real negotiations, something that has not happened so far. We must 
go beyond statements that just reaffirm  positions. We recognize the efforts in that direction by the 
CoA-SS Chair.  
 
In parallel to the PSH issue, we cannot forget the AoA Article 20 mandate regarding domestic 
support. There is no stronger mandate in this Organization than this one. We cannot forget either 
the innumerable mandates for cotton.  
 
We need to engage in inte nsive consultations to bridge the gaps between the many domestic 
support proposals on the table, including cotton. Brazil is ready to consider improvements and 
adjustments to our own proposals in JOB/AG/99. Just one example: the suggestion in JOB/AG/114 
on a more generous de minimis  for developing countries with smaller agricultural production 
deserves consideration.  
 
Just like in PSH, though, and – again – despite the efforts by the CoA -SS Chair, we still need to 
see real engagement in negotiations on dome stic support and cotton.  
 
Having emphasized the three core issues in agriculture – PSH, domestic support and cotton --, we 
also wish to underscore our priority for the negotiations on fisheries subsidies.  
 
Brazil’s perspective regarding the remaining issue s can be summarized as follows: essentially, we 
can go along with the level of ambition that might be acceptable for the Membership. In any event, 
development perspectives must be central.  
 
I highlight two topics: MSMEs and investment facilitation – and I underscore again, if need be, the 
word "facilitation "; not protection, not market access; not "investment" as a Singapore issue; 
"facilitation " only. We fail to understand the resistance regarding possible decisions to launch 
structured post -MC11 discussio ns on how, or whether, the WTO could make a contribution in these 
two topics. Here, we w elcome the statements by the Permanent Representatives  of Argentina and 
Chile, coordinators of the informal dialogues on these two topics.  
 
A word on the possible outco me document: a ministerial declaration continues to be our 
unequivocal preference.  
 
And to conc lude: we trust in your ability as well as the ability o f Ambassador Carim and 
Minister  Malcorra, to support Members’ efforts towards Buenos Aires. However, as y ou said, it will 
be up to Members to achieve consensus on possible outcomes.  
 
Brazil wishes to work with you and with all Members, until the very last minute, as long as there is 
engagement, to ensure a successful outcome at MC11.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 37 - 
 
  12. Iceland  
 
Iceland reaffir ms its commitment for achieving a meaningful outcome at MC11.  
 
We believe that it is possible to achieve good results in the field of fisheries subsidies.  
 
Immense work has been undertaken in recent weeks and months under  the firm leadership of 
Ambassador  Wayne McCook. And we thank him for that.  
 
We believe we are at an important juncture in the negotiations on fisheries subsidies and that 
significant developments have taken place in the las t few weeks that will help the M embers to 
achieve progress. Propon ents have worked very hard on combining their proposals into one 
document which makes it much easier to take the discussion forward.  
 
We welcome that M embers will now build on this progress and we believe that the time has come 
to start narrowing down the  differences and agree on how ambitious results on fisheries subsidies 
could look. We must use the next round to bridge differences and build consensus on a meaningful 
outcome on eliminating harmful fisheries subsidies, in line with UN Sustainable Developm ent Goal, 
target 14.6.  
 
When it comes to other areas, we should make sure that the meeting in Buenos Aires will be an 
important milestone in our on -going work. Let us make sure that we do not close any door.  
 
13. India  
 
At the outset, my delegation associates itself with the statement of the G -33 to be delivered by 
Indonesia.  
 
We are very close to MC11 and there is an urgent need to work towards convergence on various 
issues, particularly the ones on which we have prior Ministerial mandates. India, along with a  large 
part of the membership, continues to believe that implementation of Ministerial Decisions with 
development at the centre is the only way forward.  
 
In this context, I would like to enumerate India' s priorities, particularly in the area of agricultur e 
where the imbalances are particularly pronounced.  
 
Public Stockholding  
 
There is a clear mandate for a permanent solution on Public Stockholding (PSH) for food security 
purposes by December 2017. It is a Ministerial mandate that we must fulfil, without a ny linkage to 
agricultural domestic support.  
 
This is an issue of great importance to a  large number of developing countries. An out come on PSH 
will signal the WTO' s commitment to UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 to end hunger and 
achieve food security.  
 
We are concerned, however, that the focus on issues such  as transparency and safeguards  is 
diverting us from the fundamental goal of food security. The provisions on transparency and 
safeguards in the proposals on the table are disproportionately stringen t and would make it almost 
impossible to use the permanent solution. The membership must recognize that the permanent 
solution needs to be a visible improvement on the perpetual peace clause.  
 
We are also conce rned at the insistence by some M embers that a PSH outcome is linked to 
agricultural domestic s upport. Let me emphasize that the mandate on this is absolutely clear, 
there is no linkage and the two issues have to be kept on separate tracks. Any efforts to foster 
such a linkage will, we believe, have se rious consequen ces including jeopardising MC11  outcomes. 
As far as the substance of the permanent solution is concerned, the G -33 remains open, flexible 
and willing to engage on all elements.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Domestic Support  
 
The Agreement on Agriculture is skewe d in fa vour of a few developed M embers and provides 
considerable space and flexibility for them to provide subsidies and further, to concentrat e 
subsidies on a few products. This is an important issue and must be addressed. However, we are 
too far from convergenc e for an outcome on this at MC11. Some of the proposals may in fact 
further widen and perpetuate the imbalance between developed and developing countries. A post -
MC11 work programme appears to be the best way forward. The boundaries o f this discussion 
must be clear.  Any meaningful reform in agriculture must first seek to reduce the 
disproportionately large subsidies of the developed countries and further, there must be no dilution 
of the special and differential treatment provisions.  
 
We must begin by firs t eliminating the most trade -distorting forms of agricultural subsidies, 
namely, AMS. Our joint submission with China (JOB/AG/102) and the ACP proposal (JOB/AG/112) 
both address this aspect. Proposals that not only expect developing countries to share the burden 
but also reduce the S&D element, are not acceptable to us.  
 
SSM 
 
The G -33 has been engaging constructively through its successive submissions on the SSM. We 
must address this issue with utmost seriousness.  
 
Cotton  
 
We also support the elimination o f AMS on cotton, while retaining the existing de minimis  limits of 
developing countries.  
 
Development  
 
Special and differential treatment for developing countries is a very important part of the WTO’s 
mandate and must be preserved. We are willing to engag e on proposals that recognize this right 
for all developin g countries without exception. We will resist any effort now or in the future to alter 
this principle which is part of the basic structure of the WTO.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
With regard to disciplin es on fisheries subsidies, India is willing to work constructively towards a 
successful outcome. However, for a developing country like India where a large number of small, 
largely resource poor fish workers depend on traditional fishing activity as a sour ce of livelihood, 
suitable special and differential treatment provisions would need to be built in while framing 
disciplines. Developing countries have limited capacity and resources and must be able to  retain 
policy space for these.  Needless to say that d isciplines on fisheries subsidies can be part of a 
package along with other mandated issues.  
 
Services Trade  
 
We have constructively engaged with proponents on the development of DR disciplines in 
accordance with the letter and spirit of the GATS, during t he recently concluded WPDR meeting. In 
addition to the wide divergence of views on DR among the membership, addressing DR issues in 
isolation will have little or no impact on trade in services, unless there is an effort to address 
facilitation right from t he point of entry of a service supplier. Our initiative on Trade Facilitation in 
Services (TFS) was intended as a means for comprehensively addressing "at" and "within -the-
border " barriers to services trade, and we propose this could be con sidered for a de tailed and well -
structured work programme post MC 11.  
 
New Issues  
 
We would like to reiterate our concerns on issues such as E -commerce and Investment Facilitation.  
 
We strongly feel that the gains from E -commerce should not be confused with the likely be nefits of 
rulemaking in E -commerce.  The proposals on the table would not lead to growth of E -commerce 
but would, instead, p revent companies in developing M embers from growing to compete with WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 39 - 
 
  global giants by freezing the existing non -level playing field p ermanent ly against the ir interests. 
We therefore  see merit in continuing with the existing work programme and the bottom up 
approach. We remain open to any exploratory discussion in the relevant WTO bodies as per the 
existing mandate. We do not support set ting up a new horizontal Working Group which could 
result in a top down approach. As regards the need f or a locus to discuss all cross -cutting issues, 
the G C is already mandated to do so.  
 
On the moratorium on electronic transmission, we can agree to its e xtension for another two years 
subject to a similar renewal of moratorium on TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints.  
 
Since investment policies of many member countries are still evolving, at this stage, it would be 
premature to frame multilateral di sciplines on Investment Facilitation. As you are all aware, India 
is of the view that investment issues are outside the WTO mandate.  
 
DSB 
 
Like other M embers , we are also concerned about the inordinate delay in initiating the selection 
process for appoint ment of appellate members. The continued impasse could have major 
consequences for the credibility of the system. In this regard, India believes that an y systemic 
issue raised by any M ember could be dealt with separately and there should be no linkage with  the 
selection process of the appellate body members which can affect the effectiveness, autonomy and 
impartiality of the dispute settlement mechanism, a key pillar of the WTO.  
 
Conclusion  
 
To conclude, I would like to reemphasize that India cannot envisag e an outcome at Buenos Aires 
which does not include a  satisfactory solution on PSH. We wish to highlight that given the 
constraints of time , we must engage constructively with a sense of urgency to fulfil the Ministerial 
mandate.  
 
Any attempts to introduce  new issues at the cost of development would only deepen the divide in 
the membership and undermine  the credibility of this organiz ation.  
 
We would also like to reiterate that the process in Geneva over these last few weeks and at MC11 
must be transparent  and inclusive. Only issues which have matured for conclusion should be taken 
forward to the Ministerial Conference.  
 
Let me also assure you that India stands committed to strengthening multilateralism and 
constructively engage in discussions o n all areas of work in the WTO.  
 
14. Rwanda (African Group)  
 
According to your invitation note, we are expected to discuss the way for ward in the negotiating 
groups.  This statement will address this among others.  
 
Let me start by emphasizing the importance the African Gro up attaches to the fair and equitable 
rules-based Multilateral Trading System that supports our development objectives. Since the 
launch of the Doha Round, this Group has made contributions consistently aiming at eliminating 
systemic inequities inherited f rom many of the Uruguay Round Agreements. It is in this regard 
that the African Group supported the 2008 Rev.4 in Agriculture and submitted a number of Special 
and Differential Treatment proposals to review GATT/WTO Agreements in line with paragraph 44 of 
the Doha Declaration, among others.  
  
As we prepare for the MC11, we expect a meaningful outcome on the Doha Development Issues, 
in particular those with direct connection with our continental integration; structural 
transformation and industrialization in  line with agenda 2063: The Africa we want.  
 
Let me now discuss issue by issue.  
 
First, on Agriculture, this  plays a key role in Africa’s economy for employment, GDP generation, 
rural development, food security and livelihoods. In addition, engaging in a gro-processing 
industries is critical for the development of our national and regional value chains in the context of WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 40 - 
 
  our inclusive continental Free Trade Area. For all these reasons, we cannot be satisfied with a low 
ambition outcome in addressing trade d istorting subsidies. Our farmers continue to face grossly 
unfair competition from heavily subsidized agriculture imports. For many decades, the negative 
impact of subsidies provided by rich countries has had devastating effects on our economies. 
Numerous c ase studies have shown that a significant number of our farmers across the continent 
are consigned to poverty, have gone out of business, rural jobs have been lost and farmers have 
had to migrate out of rural areas.  
 
Our economies are unable to provide ad justment support to these workers, and there are few 
alternate employment opportunities due to the constraints to growth of our manufacturing sector 
often also due to other unfair and stringent multilateral rules. The overall impact is that our 
domestic pr oduction has severely suffered particularly since the 1980s.  
  
To begin to address this, we therefore aim for substantial reforms in Agriculture towards a fair and 
market -oriented agriculture trading system in line with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agric ulture 
and in accordance with paragraph 13 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. That is why the African 
Group supports the elimination of all historical imbalances, notably the elimination of AMS by 
MC11 as well as establishing disciplines on product -specific support to avoid subsidy concentration 
while preserving all the necessary policy space for purposes of fairness and equity. Other 
approaches we have seen – such as the EU/Brazil approach based on the value of production - do 
not address these systemic inequities and may in fact perpetuate them and, therefore these 
approaches are not conducive to any tangible outcome and cannot be supported as a basis for 
future work.  
 
Other important issues in Agriculture are (i) a Permanent Solution on the Public Stoc kholding for 
food security purposes; (ii) a Special Safeguard Mechanism as well as an ambitious outcome on 
Cotton by MC11. The African Group supports an ambitious outcome on Cotton in line with the C -4 
proposal. On PSH, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision man dated for a constructive engagement 
towards a permanent solution on this issue; to be conducted in a dedicated process and 
accelerated time -frame, distinct from the agriculture negotiation s. We therefore cannot support 
any linkage to the Domestic Support n egotiations.  
 
On Fisheries, there is a wide recognition for a possibility of delivering a multilateral outcome at 
MC11. The African Group supports the ACP proposal for a substantial outcome; while preserving 
the policy space for our countries to develop t he fisheries sector.  
 
Another important issue relates to Special and Differential treatment and the urgent need to make 
flexible the GATT/WTO stringent rules in order to create a conducive environment for 
industrialization, diversification and structural t ransformation. We view the current stiff resistance, 
and rejection as a testament to the fact that this may not be an Organization that promotes 
development, contrary to the objectives of the Doha Development Agenda. These rules were 
negotiated during the Uruguay Round without the participation of our countries. Industrialized 
countries crafted these rules in accordance with the needs of their industries. But before the GATT 
came into being, industrialized Members benefited from the absence of rules, throug h the 
utilization of policy space and used numerous industrial policies. They then closed this space - for 
late comers - through GATT Agreements notably by prohibiting the use of local content 
requirements; industrial subsidies, infant industry protection,  among others.  
  
The G -90 is simply seeking to make these rules commensurate with the economic n eeds of our 
industries in fulfi lment of the mandate found in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
The argument that operationalizing the special an d differential treatment with respect to these 
rules might be difficult simply does not hold. We therefore call upon Members to deliver on this 
important and mandated development outcome.  
 
On Domestic Regulation in Services, proposals submitted in the pos t-MC10 process contain 
problematic issues that would create a set of rules and framework that would lay the basis to 
significantly constrain African countries’ ability to regulate by restricting the policy -making 
processes of governments. The African Group  has observed the wide divergences on domestic 
regulation disciplines, even amongst proponents themselves. In line with the AU Trade Ministers 
Declaration, we have rejected any outcome on the proposed intrusive rules in order to safeguard 
the sovereignty o f Africa and its legitimate freedom in policy interventions, particularly in the 
pursuit of industrial development. We wish to remind Members that the African Group’s submission WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 41 - 
 
  in JOB/SERV/269 contains a number of clarificator y questions to the proponents . The African 
Group expresses its profound concern at attempts to manufacture consensus where there is none 
on domestic regulation disciplines. There are systemic divergences and conceptual differences in 
understanding about the scope of application, regul atory capture, preservation of policy space, 
regulatory models, regulatory autonomy, intrusive GATS -plus transparency obligations, and the 
sovereign right to regulate, to name a few. Simply ignoring these serious concerns is neither 
pragmatic nor realistic , and it will not bring us any closer towards convergence.  
 
Finally, on new issues without a mandate, paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration 
prevails, including paragraph 1(g) of the 2004 July Framework. It is impossible to envisage or 
expect  any outcome whatsoever on issues without reaching consensus on the negotiating 
mandate.  
 
More specifically on e -commerce, with some effort, it may be possible to agree to the continuation 
of the current Work Programme, although some Members are deeply co ncerned that this is 
intended to lay the basis for premature and not sufficiently informed rule -making in future. The 
current submissions that propose a new institutional framework appear to be designed for 
negotiations on rules in future, simply heightens  those concerns.  
 
There are still many unresolved and poorly understood issues that require focused and deep 
discussion. These include the diverg ent positions on the so -called " technological neutrality " of the 
GATS; the characterization of products delive red electronically whether they are services or goods 
or both; the classification of ‘new services” which were not foreseen during the GATT time when 
the Agreement on services was drafted; the development dimension of e -commerce, etc. For this 
reason, it m ay be worth continuing discussions within the current structure so that each relevant 
body, within its competence, can conduct a deeper discussion on specific issues as mandated by 
the current work program and report to the General Council. Proposals that go beyond this will not 
be acceptable.  
 
As for the extension of the Moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, it is time to 
engage in a serious discussion on the implications of the moratorium in view of the rapidly 
evolving digitization tr end. We are increasingly concerned about the economic rationale for 
providing duty -free and quota free treatment to the most compe titive companies in the world.  
 
Moreover, in view of the increasing digitization of goods and services, what is likely to be t he 
implications on revenue losses in a few years ahead? In view of these unanswered questions, the 
extension of the Moratorium should not be seen as automatic. In this regard, we draw Members 
attention to the African Group submission in JOB/GC/144 for an e laborated position on the way 
forward on the Work Progr amme on Electronic Commerce.  
 
Last but not least, on the process, the African Group calls upon WTO Members, in the interests of 
pursuing a transparent, inclusive, and bottom -up negotiating process both  before and during the 
MC11, to agree that only issues that have obtained multilateral consensus within a reasonable 
time before MC11 are presented to Ministers for decision at MC11. Issues that cannot achieve 
consensus must be dropped, and considered in a  discussion for possible future work in a post -
MC11 work programme.  
 
Based on the aforementioned, and bearing in mind the huge differences among Members on 
certain issues, we must critic ally and collectively face the " moment of truth " in making these 
difficult decisions.  
 
We call on you to ensure that all technical work is completed in Geneva in order to avoid turning 
MC11 into a technical negotiating session and thereby raising the risk of failure.  
 
15. South Africa  
 
We endorse the statement made by Rwanda o n behalf of the African Group.  
 
At the July informal TNC meeting, we observed that despite intense engagements on the many 
new submissions by proponents, the longstanding divergences between Members on almost all 
negotiating issues have not narrowed in any  significant manner. The exchanges by Ministers at the 
recent informal Mini -Ministerial Meeting in Marrakesh confirm our earlier assessment. Although it WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 42 - 
 
  was an informal meeting of Minister s, without agreed outcomes, your statement at the start of the 
secon d day, carefully crafted and nuanced, tells the same story. Aside from no more than three or 
four issues that have some prospect for an outcome at MC11, the remaining DDA issues, which 
Members continue to prioritize, will need to be taken up after Buenos A ires.  
 
Clearly, there is wide support to continue to work for outcomes at MC11 on fishery subsidies and 
public stockholding. While the complex technical questions will not easily be resolved on either, the 
most serious risk to an outcome on public stockho lding is the linkage being made to the one 
proposal on domestic support. We need to be frank here: That proposal, based on a value of 
production cap, and being presented as an incremental step, will not achieve consensus because it 
does not establish a fai r or equitable basis for future work. The linkage thus risks derailing possible 
progress on public stockholding, with possible knock on consequences.  
 
On e-commerce, it may be possible to agree to continue exploratory discussions under the current 
work pr ogram and to obtain a two -year extension of the moratorium – in tandem with an 
extension of the TRIPS moratorium – but even these cannot be taken for granted. As cross -border 
e-commerce grows, both the value and costs of the e -commerce moratorium increases , and some 
Members are reassessing their positions. Further, many Members may have some interest in a 
dialogue on policies that address the digital divide and that build national capabilities in e -
commerce, but proposals that signal – or create a basis for  – multilateral rule -making will not be 
agreed.  
 
We have to register our concern at the disengagement on and even rejection to the G -90 
proposals on S&DT. Cotton also remains an issue of top priority to African countries.  
 
While there are other issues of interest to Members on the remaining Doha issues, it should be 
clear that simply insisting on an outcome on those at MC11, particularly at this late stage, is more 
likely than ever to be futile. There is no convergence – nor will there be agreement – to de liver 
outcomes at MC11 on current proposals for domestic regulation in services, trade remedies, or 
others that " cherry pick " transparency and/or regulatory related demands in agriculture, NAMA or 
elsewhere. Proponents need to recognize this reality, and a djust accordingly. By no later than the 
middle of November, we need to be clear which issues will be moved to a post MC11 work 
program – and how.  
 
It is abundantly clear now that any proposal for decision at MC11 on non -Doha, non -mandated 
issues, such as investment facilitation and MSMEs, will not be agreed. Proponents of these will 
need to reach that conclusion soon.  
 
We all agree that the process leading to MC11 should be fully transparent and inclusive, and that 
we avoid a repeat of the process at MC10.  We should therefore be fully focused on completing all 
technical work before departing Geneva, leaving very few, manageable political issues for 
Ministerial decision. We should ensure that when our Ministers meet at MC11 they do not confront 
deeply contes ted issues that put the Conference itself at risk, as a breakdown at MC11 would deal 
the most serious blow to the multilateral trading system. We must do all we can now  to avoid that 
scenario.  
 
16. Russian Federation  
 
Two weeks ago , our Ministers met in Marrak esh. Different views were expressed during the 
meeting on how we should approach MC11 and where we should seek a common ground. 
However, I do believe that personal involvement of the Ministers helped to set the direction for our 
future work. We believe tha t a strong political message should be sent worldwide from Buenos 
Aires to encourage business and signal citizens on the stability and the predictability of the world 
trade negotiations framework.  
  
Here in Geneva we need to confirm our ability to deliver.  We should remind our people of the 
value of the multilateral trading system for their well -being.  
 
In course of preparations for MC11, I suggest that we concentrate our efforts on discussing doable 
outcomes of the Ministerial. In our view, the documents for MC11 might be incremental and 
compact. The key point is to pave the way for our future work here. Decisions on the upcoming 
agenda would be a good result for the conference.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 43 - 
 
   
A balanced outcome would mean including some long -standing and some other ve ry important 
issues like investment facilitation, e -commerce and MSME s. That will prove that the WTO is ready 
to respond to modern challenges.  
 
Russia is ready to engage in a constructive way in discussing any initiative aimed at achieving 
compromise and e nsuring that MC11 in Buenos Aires is a success.   
 
17. Turkey  
 
Turkey has always been a solid proponent of a strong, multilateral trading system. The current 
international dynamics present certain challenges to the WTO. As many of us underline, it is 
against t his backdrop that we are headed to  MC11. We believe that with the right approaches and 
constructive engagement, we should get concrete outcomes from MC11 and reinforce our rules 
based system.  
  
WTO has significant relevance to deliver results for free and  fair trade. Entry into force of TRIPS 
and TFA has shown that to the world once again. It is with this kind of thinking that Turkey will be 
represented at the MC11.  
  
In terms of what outcomes we will get, we should be realistic and concentrate our effort s on issues  
that are most tangible. Having said that, let me summarize briefly what we think to be tangible 
while stressing where our priorities lie.  
  
On Agriculture, we support having a development -oriented and fair outcome package in Buenos 
Aires, for addressing the imbalances of the Agreement on Agriculture and level the playing field in 
agriculture trade.  
 
Delivering an outcome on the SSM, adopting a permanent solution on the PSH and agreeing on a 
clear perspective to move forward with the ref orm proc ess in domestic support  constitute Turkey’s 
priorities for the MC11.  
 
Agreeing on a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security purposes is definitely a 
pressing issue for MC11. We have a very strong mandate and a clear deadline on this is sue. 
Solving this issue for developing M embers is now a matter of credibility and relevance of the WTO.  
 
In the remaining few weeks, negotiations should be conducted without any further delay on the 
basis of a consolidated text, so that a single negotiate d document to the Ministers is presented.  
  
On Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM), let me make the following point. Everyone would agree 
that the global agriculture trade is not based on a level playing field due to the distortive trade 
practices. Small -scale farmers  from the importing developing M embers are at a disadvantage. 
They should be provided with certain predictability. Therefore, a satisfactory outcome on the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) is needed to address the imbalances stemming from the 
Agreement on Agriculture. We need to achieve ground on this issue at MC11.  
  
On domestic support, we need to  fix the asymmetry between the M embers who have AMS 
Commitments and those who are bound with only de minimis . Turkey considers product -specific 
limits  or disciplines as one necessary element to limit tr ade-distorting domestic support . 
  
We are ready to discuss the OTDS approach as well together with product -specific caps on AMS 
limits. However, I would like to reiterate our position that the OTDS limits  should be set on the 
basis of the value of production to be economically meaningful in coming decades and  easily 
comparable between the M embers. I would also like to underline that  an outcome in domestic 
support  should not create an u nbalanced burden on d eveloping M embers.  
  
Fisheries is one of the areas that we believe we can have an outcome in Buenos Aires.  
  
On the other hand, we should focus on what is doable, implementable and meaningful in the 
period ahead of us. We also believe th at the needs of th e developing M embers should be taken 
into account in the form of necessary special and differential treatment tools to alleviate these 
concerns.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 44 - 
 
    
We will continue to be constructive in the negotiations.  
  
On the question of what can be achieved in trade i n services, we do believe an outcome is 
possible.  
  
Let us underline the fact that market access negotiations have stalled. But, there is room to 
develop disciplines to better exploit the existing commitments. There have been concrete 
proposals and we hav e been involved in the discussions to streamline these documents. We can 
constructively work with the proposed texts on disc iplines on domestic regulation.  There is a 
consolidated text to which Turkey has become a co -sponsor.  
  
On e-commerce, we do apprec iate the GC Chair' s efforts to find a common ground on this issue. 
We have expressed on a number of occasions that the WTO should not fall behind developments 
parallel to technological advances and applications.  
  
SMEs can support trade growth and job cre ation. E -commerce dynamics can be instrumental to 
support the SME -driven growth especially in developing countries.  
 
We are open to find a common language on the continuation of the moratorium, advancing the 
work program, to have horizontal structure to m anage e -commerce issue s. Having a solid 
statement with certain merits, including a strong reference to the needs of the developing 
members, is preferable.  
  
We maintain our strong view that LDCs should also continue to be at the forefront of our agenda.  
  
Finally, Turkey will positively engage in all discussions to get solid results from MC11 both in terms 
of decisions and processes that will help shape our discussions after MC11.  
 
18. European Union  
 
The time has come to admit that progress at technical level  will not be sufficient to deliver 
concrete outcomes. Without a real political will, there is not much hope of converging towards a 
balanced package that would be satisfactory to all.  
 
There are now concrete, realistic and doable proposals on the table on  all main issues. The EU has 
contributed to a great share of them, and we recently submitted new or revised proposals, notably 
on e-commerce and on transparency, showing our commitment to find compromises. For the EU, 
an outcome in Buenos Aires is attainab le. While we recognise the interest of Members to finalise 
negotiations on public stockholdings and fisheries subsidies, this in our view is not enough for a 
balanced package. An outcome in Buenos Aires ne eds to cover also other issues a nd we need to 
have a strong forward looking element setting the stage for post -Buenos Aires work in an agreed 
Ministerial Document.  
 
With regard to these individual issues, allow me to recall a few important points.  
 
Starting with agriculture, the EU together with Brazil an d others has submitted a proposal seeking  
to find a common denominator for the whole membership that would bring a modest but genuine, 
next step towards tackling trade -distorting domestic support. New proposals asking unrealistic and 
unbalanced concessions  will not take us further. As regards public stockholdings, we are ready to 
engage and we have actually proposed approach together with domestic support that is in EU's 
views the only way to achieve a comprehensive permanent solution. We should be clear: a  real 
permanent solution covering pre -Bali and post -Bali programmes is only attainable in the context of 
a broader outcome on domestic support.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we welcome the considerable engagement of Members and of the Chair of 
the Rules Negoti ating Group. Still, a lot of work remains to be done definitely, if we are to reach 
agreement on a comprehensive text mirroring the ambition of SDG 14.6.  
 
Domestic regulation in services is an old issue on which we have been working collectively  for 
20 years. We have duly listened and reflected the comments received during the discussions and 
worked on a revised consolidated and comprehensive proposal which is already garnering a full WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 45 - 
 
  wing support.  
 
While the EU regrets that a proper discussion on e -commer ce could not take place during the 
preparations of MC11, this is something that we should fix in Buenos Aires. We should take a step 
at MC11 and establish a working group on e -commerce that would prepare the ground for 
negotiations on all relevant issues. This is a matter of credibility and relevance of the WTO; we 
need an Organisation that is able to respond to developments in global trade.  
 
The EU shares the interest of members to address investment facilitation in the WTO. Likewise the 
EU initiated work  on horizontal subsidies that should be reflected in the outcome of MC11 as an 
issue of common interest. Finally we will present next week a revised proposal on enhancing 
transparency and good regulatory practice that would bring great benefit for our busi nesses, in 
particular of a small and medium size. All these results should be reflected in a Ministerial 
declaration that would not only endorse the decisions that we will hopefully agree on in Buenos 
Aires but that would also firmly set up the agenda of w ork for the WTO in the coming years.  
 
Political will, pragmatism and realism should guide us in these next days when we are entering the 
last phase of the negotiations before MC11. A strong sense of urgency should inspire us all.   
 
19. Australia  
 
At the rece nt Informal Ministerial Gathering in Marrakesh, you observed that there was some 
promising issu es on the table – that something more is going to have to happen in the coming 
days and weeks for a successful outcome at MC11.  
 
It is true that we have a lot o f hard work to do to progress our discussions as we look forward to 
Buenos Aires. We see MC11 as an opportunity for Members to define a way forward for the WTO 
which builds confidence in the future relevance of the organization for its stakeholders and whi ch 
demonstrates that the WTO is responsive to the needs of all its Members.  
 
To embrace this opportunity, we need to be realistic and pragmatic about our level of ambition and 
set aside our differences on how to move forward. We need to use MC11 to chart the course for 
negotiations in Geneva and to harvest outcomes where there is widespread interest across the 
Membership and where convergence seems achievable in our time before MC11.  
 
With this in mind, Australia has been reflecting on our discussions in Marrakesh and in particular 
those areas you identified in your closing remarks as possible areas of convergence where we 
might most productively focus our energy. Those included agriculture, services, e -commerce and 
fisheries subsidies.  
 
Australia's highes t priority for MC11 is the tightening of rules on domestic support for agriculture 
and it is clear there is widespread support for this goal. Our prime concern is to reduce the trade -
distorting impact of domestic support policies including on cotton. We ha ve heard the reservations 
of some Members about taking major steps this year and are prepared to be pragmatic but see 
this crucial to address in a concrete way the unfairness of current rules. Australia with co -sponsors 
Canada, Chile, New Zealand and Parag uay has submitted a proposal for setting limits on overall 
domestic support entitlements. We believe setting overall limits is a realistic next step in 
negotiations on domestic support. This is a view we share with many other Members as evidenced 
by the re cent Ministerial Statement from the EU and Cairns Group Members released in Marrakesh. 
And we are constructively engaged in making more concerted efforts to agree and adopt a 
permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes . In agriculture, 
we also see an outcome providing new disciplines on export restrictions as a n achievable at MC11 
though this would not be our top priority for the negotiations.  
 
On services, Australia is focused on an MC11 outcome on domestic regulation  that will result in 
real world benefits for all service suppliers. We heard comments from many Ministers in Marrakesh 
that underscored broad support for services domestic regulation as a prospective deliverable for 
MC11 and we took note of your request th at we intensify our work across the Membership to 
address outstanding concerns. We have immediately put this into action. Domestic regulation co -
sponsors circulated written responses to all the questions from Members on domestic regulation on 
12 October. A nd we are continuously expanding our list of co -sponsors bringing us now up to fifty 
Members. Most importantly, we have been working with Members to revise a consolidated text to WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 46 - 
 
  respond to comments and incorporate new text proposals. We welcome the specif ic input we have 
received from a wide range of Members particularly on the development provisions as well as on 
how to address the right to regulate. Australia will continue to work closely across the Membership 
to build understanding and support for a multilateral outcome at MC11 that would deliver on 
nearly twenty years on services domestic regulation.  
 
On e-commerce, we have co -sponsored a proposal for a Ministerial Decision that would create a 
new horizontal working party to address any trade -related e -commerce issue in a holistic manner, 
tasking this working party with preparing for and then moving to negotiations on e -commerce and 
also extending the moratorium on customs duties until MC12. We are willing to be flexible and 
work with not only other prop onents but all Members to find a solution including on how best to 
address the development dimension of e -commerce. We are concerned that we are not just left 
with the status quo that some Members are insisting upon – a status quo which has not enabled us 
to progress or to address this modern trade issue. If we are not able to move ahead multilaterally, 
then we may need to consider other options. We encourage all Members to take an open mind and 
a flexible approach in the lead up to MC11.  
 
On fisheries subs idies, we welcome the significant momentum towards a concrete outcome. We 
are committed to a strong, effective outcome on fisheries subsidies  disciplines that implement 
SDG 14.6. We will continue to work constructively towards this and are exploring option s to 
capture the current momentum.  
 
In the area of investment facilitation, as a premier forum for discussing world trade, we see the 
WTO as the natural forum to advance discussions on global investment. We were very pleased to 
see discussions launched th is year through the Informal Dialogue on Investment Facilitation for 
Development. We would like to see decisions taken in Buenos Aires to advance this work in 
Geneva and determine what can be achieved in the WTO in this area.  
 
We listened clearly to the c omments by MC11 Chair Susana Malcorra last week regarding the need 
for a strong narrative for MC11 and believe that making trade more inclusive is an important 
message that we could deliver. This narrative could build upon the important milestone we 
achiev ed this year through the entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement and on the 
efforts of many Members to promote discussion on facilitating MSMEs' participation in world trade 
and trade and gender.  
 
Finally, Australia believes a strong multilate ral trading system is essential for economic stability 
and global prosperity and we are strongly committed to ensuring that all countries can effectively 
participate. In this context, we remain committed to working as hard as we can to achieve what is 
possible at MC11.  
 
20. Barbados (CARICOM)  
 
These reports reveal that a great effort has to be applied to every single issue if progress is to be 
made in Buenos Aries on advancing the WTO agenda.  
 
There can be, however, no realistic expectation in this regard if we  all remain heavily mortgaged 
to our hi storical and maximum positions. History, current circumstances  and an uncertain and 
questioning future must be carefully weighed in our search for consensus solutions over the next 
few weeks and certainly beyond.  Hopefully, those objective factors will temper our national 
proclivities and persuade us that we have to abandon maximum po sitions for optimal positions. 
This is the only route to convergence.  
 
Should we strive for such?  
 
CARCIOM says we should.  The future of multilateralism, whose praises we all sing so melodiously 
and harmoniously, depends on it now more than ever.  
 
Can we do it?  
 
CARICOM believes we can.  But we will all have to be committed to the unavoidable business of 
moderating our ambitions and our exp ectations.  We will also have to be in the business, as never 
before, of attending to the vulnerabilities and the disadvantages, however arising, that encircle a WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 47 - 
 
  large component of our membership.  
   
The recent hurricanes that devastated island states in th e Caribbean provide uncomfortable but 
incontestable evidence for this proposition and should help to guide us as we configure our 
collective arrangements in the area of trade.  
  
We therefore hasten to endorse the statement which will come from the African , Caribbean and 
Pacific (ACP) Group of States, a statement that will bear the promise of moderation and reflect a 
sizeable movement towards the optimal.  
 
We take this opportunity to inform you that the CARICOM region is planning to convene a donor 
conferen ce in November as part of its reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of the now infamous 
destructive climatic occ urrences that were experienced.  The support of the WTO family will be 
greatly appreciated.  
 
We will keep you informed with regard to this conf erence and any other related initiatives.   
 
21. Republic of Korea  
 
Minister Sus ana Malcorra, Chairperson of MC 11, sa id last week in this room that " There is life after 
Buenos Aires ". We have to grasp the true meaning of this statement, which in no w ay lessens  the 
importance of MC 11. The WTO's " life after Buenos Aires " will very much depe nd on what we can 
achieve at MC 11 both in terms of substantive results and future process.  
 
It is a sobering reality that there are not as many promising candidates for deliver ables as we 
would have liked to see.  Even in those areas where there are greater expectations for substantive 
outcomes, such as AG domestic support, Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH) and 
Fisheries Subsidies, the task of bridging the gaps  that still exist, both political and technical, 
remains daunting.  
 
Nonetheless, the current situ ation should not discourage us.  Keeping an open mind, Members 
should make the most of the remaining time to seek convergence that leads to concr ete results in 
some areas at MC 11. In areas where such results turn out to be unattainable, precise parameters 
need to be set to make the "life after Buenos Aires " a productive one.  
 
On Agriculture, we observe that a string of proposals, including some novel ideas, conti nue to be 
made in an attempt to break away from the long -standing impasse.  Korea is willing to engage in 
further discussions to identify a balanced and workable way forward that can facilitate a long -term 
process of agricultural reform among Members.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, we have a so -called vertical text, although it is almost c ompletely filled 
with brackets.  As the Chairman of the Rules Negotiating Group (RNG) emphasized, next week’s 
RNG meetings will be crucial in ascertaining what can be realisticall y achieved in Buenos Aires.   
 
We need to focus on core disciplines such as prohibition of subsidies to IUU fishing and subsidies 
contributing to overfishing and overcapacity.  Greater clarity on core disciplines will facilitate more 
informed discussions o n other related, but no less important, issues i ncluding S&DT and 
transparency.  Any future disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies should be balanced and clear enough to 
become an implementable WTO legal instrument.  
 
On other negotiating areas including Service s domestic regulation and transparency in regulatory 
measures for trade in goods, we support continued efforts to advance negotiations towards 
concrete outcomes where possible.  
 
Regarding non -DDA issues, there seems to be a greater focus on establishing  work programs. 
There are various proposals or works -in-progress in areas such as E -commerce, MSMEs (Micro, 
Small - and Medium -Sized Enterprise s) and Investment Facilitation.  Members should identify ways 
for the WTO to best address these issues to ensure that trade works for the benefit of all in this 
time of digital revoluti on. It is very important that MC 11 provide clear guidance to our post -Buenos 
Aires work, including by establishing a dedicated forum to d iscuss each issue respectively.  To this 
end, we call  for the General Council to play a greater role in facilitating discussions in these areas 
in the run -up to MC 11. WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 48 - 
 
   
We hope we will be able to constr uct a meaningful package for MC 11 consisting of some concrete 
results and solid work programs. This process inevitably requires give and take and hence may 
involve linka ges. We should use linkages only as a positive tool to build a balanced package, not as 
a negative weapon to prevent some other areas from advancing.  
 
Last but not least, it is high time that we start consider ing ministerial documents of MC11.  Our 
goal should be producing a consensual Ministerial Declaration that can convey a positive 
"narrative " as Minister Malcorra has put it.  To do so, it would be wise for us to focus on the 
substance of trade issues, rather than engage in polarized and ideological d ebate.  In this vein, it 
would be better to aim for a short and concise, if dry, Ministerial Declaration that can present a 
sense of direction for the WTO to successfully navigate the cur rent global e conomic realities.  We 
look forward to hearing the Gener al Council  Chairman’s plan in Thursday’s GC meeting. We stand 
ready to offer our full support for his efforts.  
 
22. Mali (C -4) 
 
This statement is in keeping with the statement made by the Group on 13  Septe mber 2017 at the 
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture.  
On behalf of the C -4 Group (the four country co -sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour of 
Cotton) and all African countries that produce and export cotton and cotton -related products,  
I would like to thank you for your tireless efforts and for your report, which provides helpful 
information on the status of our negotiations, particularly those on African cotton.  
The C -4 supports the statements made by the various groups to which it bel ongs, namely the 
statements made by Cambodia on behalf of the LDC Group, by Rwanda on behalf of the 
African  Group and by Guyana on behalf of the ACP Group.  
The C -4 is grateful to all its partners for their readiness to work towards a fair and balanced 
solution to this important issue, which is vital for our countries, our economies and our people, and 
for their contributions to this end.  
The C -4 reaffirms its commitment to the promotion of the cotton sector, which, given its economic 
and social importance, is and must remain a strategic sector for its members.  
In this regard, the C -4 reiterates its position, which is consistent with the mandate of the 
Cotonou  Declaration of 21  April 2017 and can be summarized as follows:  
 closely monitor the implementation of  all WTO Ministerial Decisions taken on cotton;  
 arrive at a negotiated and equitable solution that will substantially reduce and eventually 
eliminate all forms of support that create distortions with respect to cotton or that have 
equivalent effects.  
The D raft Ministerial Decision prepared by the C -4 and circulated on 11  October  2017 is also 
consistent with this mandate and sets forth concrete, sound, realistic proposals for moving towards 
a fair and balanced solution to the issue of domestic support with m arket-distorting effects. This 
draft addresses AMS, de minimis , Blue Box and Green Box support, and disciplines for ensuring 
monitoring and transparency through regular notifications by Members.  
This approach is part of the broader search for concrete meas ures and disciplines that will allow us 
to reach a fair and appropriate solution in accordance with the cotton mandate laid out in Geneva 
in July  2004 and in Hong Kong in 2005.  
The C -4 calls for renewed, constructive participation from all Parties in favou r of cotton, 
particularly in African countries and LDCs that produce and export cotton and cotton -related 
products, in order to reach a negotiated, fair and balanced solution before the MC11 in 
Buenos  Aires in December  2017. 
The C -4 is convinced that the M C11 will mark a significant milestone in the resolution of the issue 
of African cotton at the WTO.  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 49 - 
 
  23. Pakistan  
 
We are standing at a critical juncture today, which will define the future role of WTO and thereby, 
give some direction to the global economy in th e years ahead. We must take advantage of this 
rules based multilateral system that we have built together over the past two and half decades to 
compensate for the imperfections in global trade.  
 
In this vein, we feel that transparency, inclusiveness and d evelopment are at the heart of the 
legitimacy of the WTO a nd must remain so. W e need to value this.  
 
We have taken keen note of the developments in various negotiating groups and I will share our 
views on some of the issues – with reference to MC11.  
 
Agriculture constitutes 20% of Pakistan' s GDP. We are prepared to engage positively in all aspects 
of Agriculture negotiations. We have understood from our engagement that the reform agenda in 
the domestic support pillar may not be able to achieve everything w e set out for, but our minimum 
expectation is to at least set the right direction. In our view , major contributors with the greatest 
impact on agriculture market distortions should agree on an overall trade distorting support cap, 
keeping in view the devel opment needs of LDCs and other groups including NFIDCs. We also feel 
that MC11 is an important opportunity to have concrete disciplines on cotton specific domestic 
support.  
 
Pakistan understa nds the need for food security. Majority of our agriculture is b ased on 
subsistence farming. However, it will be difficult for us to accept any permanent solution on this 
issue without adequate and effective safeguards against its unintended consequences for 
developing countries.  
 
Pakistan has been a supporter of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 14 in the 
case of fisheries, and we keenly look forward to an effective discipline against large fisheries 
subsidies in MC 11. We are also cognizant of the requirements of small artisanal fish -farmers and 
fully support their needs and interests.  
 
On emerging issues, Pakistan is a co -sponsor and fully supports the proposal by the Friends of 
MSMEs  led by Chile. It is a very high priority area for us, as 90% of our exporters are SMEs. We 
will actively engage on di scussions to explore and address all issues related to MSMEs such as 
access to global platforms, understanding global standards, export financing, and non -tariff, 
technical and regulatory barriers.  
 
On the issue of E -commerce, our position is well -known. We are deeply conscious of the potential 
this subject has for developing countries and how it has defined business in the 21st Century. 
However, we are fully seized with the understanding of the serious challenges hindering the 
progress of e -commerce in ma ny developing countries. Even today, 4 billion people in developing 
countries remain offline. In LDCs alone, 850 million out of one billion people are offline. We believe 
that the best solution to this stark contrast is through further engagement with the Digital 
Economy. We have therefore been calling  for a shared and common digital future for all.  
 
In this regard, we feel that the 1998 Work Programme on e -commerce needs  a strong impetus 
towards a more robust and meaningful discussion in the form of a cle ar and concise agenda. To 
make this agenda meaningful, we have supported the establ ishment of one horizontal forum  in the 
form of a Working Group dir ectly under the General Council  which should undertake all cross -
cutting issues related to e -commerce.  
 
This Work Programme must be aimed at addressing the needs, challenges, opportunities and 
potential of developing countries becoming part  of the shared digital future that we envisage will 
lift billions out of poverty.  
 
Recognizing the dynamic links between in vestment, trade and development in today’s global 
economy, we share the view that advancing the discussions on investment facilitation in the WTO 
is critical for this organization to remain relevant. We have had a very comprehensive dial ogue on 
investment facilitation  coordinated by Argentina. The message is clear  that in today's tr ade and 
investment value chains  investment is essential if developing and least -developed countries are to 
overcome their infrastructure constraints, industrialize, and expand an d diversify their exports. WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 50 - 
 
  There may be different needs and approaches – but it is fair to say that all countries want to 
explore ways of facilitating investment – and notably foreign investment – as a means of 
promoting economic growth and  development. We  are therefore looking forward to the High -level 
forum being organized by Nigeria and ECOWAS in partnership with FIFD on 2 -3 November and we 
are very optimistic that this will elicit more interest among developing countries in Investment 
Facilitation.  
 
Last but not least, the Dispute Settlement Mechanism. We greatly value this essential aspect of 
the WTO  and regard it as a crown j ewel of the WTO. We would suggest that linking systemic 
concerns about the working of the Appellate Body with it s appointments is  not advisable  and 
strongly urge that the vacancies occurring on the Appellate Body be filled urgently.  
 
The world is looking towards us and posing questions on the WTO, its efficacy and  relevance. It is 
looking at MC 11 as a litmus test of our abilities t o deliver something meaningful in terms of trade, 
development and the future.  
 
WTO of the 21st century has to help  small  economies and the poor of the w orld. 
 
24. Uganda  
 
At the outset, we support the statement delivered by Rwanda, on behalf of the African Gr oup and 
the one to be delivered by Cambodia on behalf of the LDCs group.  
  
According to the 2017 WTO Secretariat Report on Market Access for Least Developed Countries  
Ref: WT/COMTD/LDC/W/65; in 2016, LDC exports of goods and services decreased by 3.9% to 
US$187 billion. The share of LDCs in world exports of goods and commercial services stood at 
0.91% in 2016, compared to 0.93% in 2015. The share of LDCs in world merchandise exports 
stood at 0.94% in 2016, dropping further from 0.97% in the previous years, with a trade deficit, of 
US$92.9 billion in 2016. This deficit represented a nine -fold increase compared to the one of 2005.  
 
In Nairobi, Ministers pledged to strengthen the multilateral trading system so that it provides a 
strong impetus to inclusive prosperity and welfare for all M embers and respond to the specific 
development needs of developing country Members, in particular the least -developed country 
Members. This pledge was consistent with the objective of the Marrakesh Agreement to undertake 
positi ve efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially the least developed 
among them, secure a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of 
their economic development. It is upon this background that we wish t o comment on the various 
issues in play.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Over 80% of our population heavily depends on Agriculture for subsistence and livelihood 
purposes. It is a major contributor to national income and the largest employer. The success of 
this sector is vital not just to our economic growth and development, but also for food security and 
the alleviation of poverty, particularly in rural areas. It follows, that the trade in agricultural 
products, both domestically and internationally affects the performanc e of the sector and the 
profitability and viability of farming. It is therefore important that we move to undertake the 
requisite reform envisaged in Para 13 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration with the view to the 
substantial reductions of domestic suppor ts. The outcome should be aimed at addressing the 
systemic and historical imbalances in the Agreement on Agriculture in line with Rev 4, including on 
the elimination of AMS. We also look forward to an outcome on cotton in line with the C4 proposal 
and Hong  Kong Ministerial Declaration, which is arrived at ambitiously, expeditiously and 
specifically. Further, and consistent with the Nairobi Ministerial decisions, we shall be looking for 
the conclusion of a Permanent Solution on Public Stock Holding for Food Security Purposes, which 
would include future programs for LDCs; and the Establishment of an Effective and Easy to Use 
Special Safe Guard Mechanism.  
 
Development (Special and Differential T reatment)  
 
According to the 2016 UNIDO Report to the G20 Working Gr oup on Industrialization in Africa   and 
Least Developed Countries, Africa’s Manufactured Value Added (MVA) accounted for just 1.6% of 
the global total in 2014 and its growth has lagged far behind that of other regions since 1990.  In WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 51 - 
 
  2016, exports of primary commodities accounted for almost  80% in comparison to about 20% for 
manufactured goods.  While 10 to 12 million youth enter the workforce each year, only 3.1 million 
jobs are created. However UNECA has suggested for instance that by transforming Africa’s mineral 
export volume by just 5 pe r cent before export, it can create 5 million jobs a year . It is upon this 
background that the African Ministers of Trade in their November 2016 Declaration, instructed us 
to focus on the Structural Transformation and Industrialization of Africa in line wi th Agenda 2063: 
The Africa We Want.  
 
For more than 16 years, Members have largely rejected the instruc tion of Ministers found in 
Para. 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, to review "all special and differential treatment 
provisions with a view to stre ngthening them and making them more precise, effective and 
operational ". But yet they continue to seek new rules to further constrain the policy space of 
developing countries, especially LDCs. Many of the rules as they are currently crafted are not 
working  for us for purposes of structural transformation and industriali zation. We cannot become 
post-industrial societies without having industriali zed in the first place. The WTO should be 
cautious not to be viewed as a global rules -based system that promotes a nti-development rules. 
The launch of the DDA sought to address this. Yet, we have already heard cries from elsewhere on 
anti-globalisation, including specific attacks on this very institution because of its inability to b e 
responsive to Members' needs.  
 
It is also important to recall that specific S&DT provisions were already included as part of the 
settlements negotiated and arrived at with the clear understanding that the balance they had 
aimed to achieve was necessary and constituted the benefits for dev eloping countries and LDCs 
within the meaning of the WTO Agreement. This entitled developing countries and LDCs to 
legitimate expectations that these obligations relating to S&DT would be faithfully implemented 
and complied with. Please note that unlike th e approach taken by Members in other negotiating 
fora, we, as the G90, have responded to all the questions including in writing. We are therefore 
surprised by the rejectionist, and unjustified posture being adopted by some developed countries, 
which is a c lear case of kicking away the ladder.  
 
It seems to have become fashionable to pour scorn on the entire body of work of the CTDss. We 
can take count since 2013 in Bali; 2015 in Nairobi and now in 2017 going to Buenos Aires; will 
Members still turn a deaf e ar to the Group of Ninety Members of this Organization that need this 
relief? Governments have a duty to intervene in specific and targeted sectors of the economy to 
trigger growth and development, provide employment, and the dignity that comes with it; im prove 
household incomes, and alleviate poverty. What message do we intend to send about 
development? Do we want the world to believe that this Organization does not promote 
development? That it only promotes the interests of the rich and powerful? That it cannot come to 
the rescue of its own, in time of need? It is not enough to ask Members to be supportive of the 
system, if the system does not respond to the specific needs and interests of the majority of its 
Members. If this is the course of multilaterali sm, then what message do we intend to send about 
the vision for the future of multilateral rule -making if it does not fit into the Vision for the Africa 
We Want? Why create new rules when the current rules are not working? What message do we 
intend to send  about Justice, fairness and inclusiveness? We should all reflect very deeply on these 
issues.  
 
Domestic Regulation in S ervices  
 
This then brings me to domestic regulation in services. Most of our countries are still developing 
their institutions and have  not yet regulated all their services sectors. The current proposed rules 
would deny national authorities their full and sovereign right to regulate. While we have paid 
attention to what is being proposed, we need to take time to understand the full extent  and scope 
of application of some of the concepts that are being introduced with the view to avoiding 
regulatory capture and control. The right to regulate; preservation of policy space; the linkage 
between regulation and broader economic objectives are cr itical for developing countries.  
  
A lot requires clarification. We sought a proper definition of concepts; clarity on scope of 
application; proponents should demonstrate how the GATS has not been sufficient and where it 
has fallen short. They also need to  demonstrate to the LDCs, the economy of which can only 
support low standards of living and is in the early stages of development - what is in it for them in 
exchange for undertaking these stringent and onerous multilateral rules that would erode our 
policy space and make us liable to regulatory capture. We have therefore requested proponents to WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 52 - 
 
  respond to our concerns. They have not. Instead we are being presented with a fait accompli  
situation. For anyone sitting in a WPDR meeting will learn very quickly that there continues to 
remain broad, even systemic divergences and perspectives, and yet the proponents are not 
helping the situation. They have either tried to project consensus when there is none, including the 
numbers game of the co -sponsors. Our view is that the proponents should be building bridges, 
otherwise the numbers game is risky. The G90 has over 100 members that support the proposals 
for outcomes at MC11. Should we therefore request the Chair of the CTD -SS to gavel the Decision 
at our next meet ing? They have ignored our pleas for clarification, and they have not responded in 
any meaningful way to the concerns of the non -proponents. In our view, this does not sound like a 
good faith negotiation coming together in time for MC11 to deliver on Domes tic Regulation, but 
rather an area that is polarizing Members given the substance that is on the table, and approach 
taken by proponents.  
 
Our Ministers have pronounced themselves on this issue and stated that : "any outcome on GATS 
Article VI.4 disciplines  shall not involve the implementation of new and/or onerous administrative 
requirements or requirements that intrude into the domestic policy -making processes "; and that 
"the work we undertake in multilateral trade and any further rule -making support Afric a’s 
continental integration agenda and, at a minimum, not undermine it ". 
 
On new issues  
 
We have systemic concerns about proposals being introduced without any mandate. We strongly 
believe that respecting the mandates and rules at the WTO should not be tak en lightly. I t is 
important that we uphold, promote and protect, the object and purpose of paragraph 1(g) of the 
July Framework. It is our view that any issue, which is without a mandate, should not waste 
Members’ time.  
 
On e-commerce  
 
This then brings us  to e-commerce. We ought to draw a distinction between e -commerce 
activities; ICT Applications and tools vis -a-vis multilateral rule -making or multilateral disciplines in 
e-commerce. Cross border e -commerce is highly concentrated. Only 6 countries control 85% of 
the market share which is worth 1.6 trillion USD. As LDCs, we still have basic challenges that we 
need to deal with such as access to electricity, basic infrastructure, skills, and even putting in 
place the requisite regulatory and policy frameworks . In Africa for instance 75% of the entire 
population is not on the Internet and only 15% of the LDC population uses it. 600 million people in 
Sub-Saharan Africa have no access to basic electricity. Which when it is available, is either 
intermittent or exp ensive; all of which is important to build e -commerce readiness.  
 
The digital and knowledge divide is therefore huge between developed, developing and least 
developed countries. Multilateral rules will entrench these imbalances. Many of the rules that are 
being proposed such as free flow of data; no forced technology transfer; no disclosure of source 
code; no localisation requirements, would not necessarily promote development, but would 
perpetuate the income, technological and digital divide creating a per petual class of the digital 
haves and have nots permanently legislated to produce what they do not consume and consume 
what they do not produce.  
 
It is for this reason that we believe that it is still very premature to even start thinking about rules. 
We need to be developing our own digital industrial policies just as the other countries have done.  
We also do not share the view of creating a working group to be super imposed on the regular 
bodies with the intent of usurping the function and mandate of th ese bodies including the GC. We 
see neither value addition, nor need. It is rather a duplication of function.  However, we could be 
open to supporting the continuation of the 1998 Work Programme on E -commerce to continue 
further exploring these very import ant issues.  
 
On process  
 
As I close, the process should be transparent, predictable, bottom -up, Member -driven and 
consensus based. We need to agree on specific timelines, which then get triggered when some 
developments do, or do not, take place. This proc ess will have to be led by the TNC and GC Chairs 
in line with their respective mandates. Towards that end therefore, we would suggest that three 
streams of work ought to be commenced immediately after the General Council meeting; similar to WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 53 - 
 
  what was set in  motion before Nairobi with the view to:  
 
(i) Continue with negotiations under the DDA in terms of potential outcomes;  
(ii) To deal with the outcome document: Whether it will be a Declaration or Chairman’s 
statement; the nature and form of all of this is what we can debate going forward; and  
(iii) To consider elements that would fall under the post -MC11 Work Program. We should 
not underestimate the difficulty of arriving at a Work Program. The post -Bali Work 
Program should serve as a reference point. We had 12 months a nd could not agree to 
one.  
 
Time is of the essence.  All the Members of this Organization should participate in writing what sort 
of outcome and/o r future we want in this Organiz ation.   
 
25. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
For Bolivia, any result in the M inisterial C onference should have the de velopment component in its 
centre. Talking about the Doha round might seem outdated for some but this is not the case for  
Bolivia. For us , development  is the WTO's debt to the world  so development must always be at the 
centre  of the work of this organization to maintain its relevance.  
 
This should translate into results that are of intere st to most developing countries. F or this reason , 
we expect a substantive and meaningful  result in agriculture. The priority is, in that  sense, 
agriculture, which once again must set the tone fo r the level of ambition in the Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
For Bolivia, the developed countries that e njoy AMS  and that have been distorting agricultural  
markets for more than 20 years  must make substa ntive contributions in terms of reduction 
commi tments  in order to be coherent with the developments over  the last 16 years. On the other 
hand, asking developing M embers who do not enjoy AMS rights to make reduction commitments is 
not fair or balanced. Any results in domestic support should exclude small and vulnerable 
economies, net food -importing dev eloping countries and the least -developed countries. It is not 
reasonable in this scenario to want to make cuts to the current 10% " de minimis ", as well as cut s 
to Article 6.2 since our co untries do not have AMS rights.  
 
Another substantive issue on development that our countries expect as a result of the 
11th Ministerial Conference is that related to the permanent and useful solution to t he constitution 
of publ ic stockholding  for food security purposes, in accordance with the Ministerial Decisions of 
Bali and  Nairobi, including the  General Council Decision of 27 November 2015. We also support the 
G-33 proposal for developing countries to have a special safeguard s measure.  
 
In services, particula rly in terms of work in domestic  regulation, we greatly doubt that the current 
document called "compiled" is the basis of our work. We have been debating for months about a 
text brought from outside the organization and fo r almost two years has not changed. The 
scenario in the Working Group is more like an exercise of trying to convince M embers of the 
benefits of a text with many problems, than an effort to seek consensus.  
 
With regard to issues such as electronic commerce,  and new top ics such as SMEs and investment , 
we believe that this is where the approach must be pragmatic and realistic . We must  avoid 
situations that hinder the achievement of agreements. There are many issues that lack mandate. 
There is in fact a General  Counci l Decision that says investment  should not be dealt with in the 
WTO. We do not think it prudent to br ing draft Ministerial Decisions – as was mentio ned this 
morning on MSMEs – since in the current context, this will lea d to deepening divergences. W e 
therefore echo those M embers who have indicated that it is nece ssary to avoid bringing to the 
Ministers non -consensual texts and continuing  their negotiation s in Buenos Aires.  
 
In terms of electronic commerce, we consider that the 1998 Work Program me is the basis for the 
work in the organization. T he debate in tha t regard has not been exhausted. T here are no reports 
of conclusions nor has it identified which issues fall within the scope of the WTO, taking as 
reference Article III of the Marrakesh Agreement . 
 
From a systemic perspective , we support a positive result in fisheries subsidies, with adequate  
special and differential treatment for developing countries. We also consider that a real solution to WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 54 - 
 
  the problem on subsidies to c otton is another area wher e results would be more than welcome.  
 
In terms of process, we reiterate the importance of transparency a nd inclusiveness in the process. 
This implies that we must avoid arriving in Buenos Aires with proposals that hinder the 
achievement of agreements. Tha t is why the issues must be worked on and debated in d epth in 
Geneva so to allow  a real evaluation of how fa r we can go in that issue at MC11 in terms of 
achieving  results that are digestible for all.  
 
Finally, we share the statements made by man y delegati ons, in the sense that  we are running out 
of time. Working with a s ense of urgency is therefore important. We must also have a realistic and 
pragmatic approach.  But that is not enough. T he process and the results must also be fair and 
balanced if we want t o have a successful Ministerial Conference.  
 
26. Swaziland  
 
At the outset, we would like to associate ourselves with the statements delivered by Rwanda on 
behalf of the African Group, Guyana on behalf of ACP as well as those by like -minded delegations 
who spok e before me. It is without a doubt that our negotiations are at a climax and the next 
prudent step to take would be to sieve the issues discussed in the order of maturity and, of 
course, in the order  of importance.  
 
May I recall your statement made in the  last Informal HODs and repeated today whereupon you 
encouraged M embers to be pragmatic and realistic about issues of probable outcome at MC11 and 
those that could still be dealt with post MC11. My delegation concurs with that spirit and believes 
that t he rest of the M embership feels the same.  
 
Looking at the range of issues so far discussed it is without reasonable doubt that the new is sues 
that we have seen cropping up since MC10 have somewhat derailed the level of convergence on 
old issues. The old is sues which are well -known to the M embership have not been given the 
priority that they deserve despite the fact that th ey are more development -driven.  The mul tilateral 
fabric of this organiz ation is one which encompasses both the needs of developed and develo ping 
countries. However, until recent ly, we have seen the fabric being  torn apart by overlooking the 
development aspects as enshrined in the Doha Mandate. Instead, the balance scale of issues 
discussed has been tilting in favour of our developed friends th us undermining the Doha Agenda.  
 
As a way forward in breaking the impasse that we are facing, that is the lack of convergence in 
most issues, my delegation believes that we need to consolidate and channel our energy towards 
those issues with possibilities of outcome and shift the rest to post MC11. As said in a number of 
times in previous meetings, we should by all means avoid turning the Ministerial into a negot iating 
ground because that ends up undermining the quality of its outcomes.  
 
You have succinctl y stated that yours was to merely li sten and take heed of what the M embership 
directs you to do, however, we in turn look upon you to give guidance and advice where you deem 
necessary while maintaining your neutrality. This is further extended to the GC Ch air. 
 
27. Guyana (ACP)  
 
It is based on the ACP MC11 Declaration and some outcomes agreed at an ACP Ministers of Trade 
meeting recently held in Brussels on 18-20 October  2017 that among other deliberations, 
addressed preparations for MC11.  
 
The ACP Group is ver y hopeful that we can achieve a meaningful outcome at MC11.  
 
It is considered imperative that we do so in the interest of the multilateral rules -based trading 
system that works for all of us in a fair and balanced way.  
 
At the recent meeting of ACP Minis ters of Trade the Ministers adopted an ACP Group MC11 
Declaration, which underlines the Group’s commitment to multilateralism and the need for policy 
space and technical assistance while outlining the ACP’s expectations on the specific issues under 
negotia tion.  The ACP Declaration will be circulated to Members today.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Having considered the current state of play of the negotiations here in Geneva, and the need to 
distinguish between what is desirable or aspirational in the current negotiations and what is 
specifically attainable or doable at MC 11, ACP Trade Ministers:  
 
- reaffirmed the ACP’s commitment to continue constructive engagement with WTO members 
in pursuit of a meaningful developmental outcome at MC11. In this regard, the ACP Ministers 
have called on WTO Members to take all decisions, including on a Ministerial Declaration, 
through a transparent, inclusive, and consensus -based Member -driven process with 
development concerns central to all discussions and any outcomes realised.  
 
- Whilst reaffirming also the importance of the multilateral trading system, ACP Trade 
Ministers expressed caution on proposals for WTO reform because, even though the ACP 
Group could identify WTO aspects needing reform to make it a fairer institution; the reform 
proposals sho uld not in any way be used to weaken the WTO structures and multilateralism.  
 
As you are well aware, many of our members – small vulnerable states -  have been decimated by 
the 2017 hurricanes which visited the island states of the Eastern Caribbean recent ly. These 
countries, which it appears are perpetually vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters, 
have lost years of critical infrastructure and capacities at all levels. The multilateral system, 
including the multilateral trading system at the WTO , need to respond.  
 
Accordingly, the ACP Ministers invite the WTO to give special attention to the situation of members 
that face vulnerabilities, and in the context of the current MC11 negotiations to consider 
allowances to enable reco nstruction of their economies. This would require a meaningful 
application of the principle of sustainable development.  
  
In terms of specific focus the outcomes of the ACP Ministerial for MC11 emphasized:  
 
On Fisheries  
 
The ACP Group supports a decision on fisheries subsidi es disciplines based on the ACP proposal 
which contains necessary policy space for ACP states including relevant carve outs for ACP states 
heavily dependent on fisheries support.  
 
On Public Stockh olding and Food Security  
 
The ACP supports an outcome on Pub lic stockholding. An outcome on Public stockholding should 
not be linked to an outcome on Domestic Support. It should include safeguards and should cover 
future programmes.  
 
On Cotton  
 
The ACP supports a meaningful outcome on Cotton at MC11 on the basis of  the proposal tabled by 
the C -4. This outcome is long overdue.  
 
On SDT  
 
The ACP emphasizes that structural transformation, industrialization and diversification remain key 
to ACP States and in that regard SDT remains crucial to enable the ACP states to imp lement WTO 
rules in line with the G90 Submission (JOB/DEV/47).  
 
The ACP Group will have an Ambassadors Retreat and an Ambassadors meeting in the coming 
days where it is planned to focus on all areas, many of which have not been referred to in this 
statemen t, with the intention of identifying and advancing an  approach and a more specific agenda 
between now and MC11.  
 
As we said earlier, we feel it is imperative that a meaningful outcome be achieved in Buenos Aires 
and we look forward to engaging in a proact ive manner to achieve this goal.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 56 - 
 
  28. Uruguay  
 
We are fully in favour of the process that you are proposing.  
 
In September  2017, you invited us to adopt a pragmatic attitude, prioritize areas of work and thus 
use wisely the small window of time remaining befor e the next WTO Ministerial Conference.  
 
Over the past few weeks, therefore, we have been participating in different negotiating spheres 
and conversations with a realistic, pragmatic and constructive approach.  
 
Our level of ambition is high . 
 
We know that a fter Buenos Aires, there will be a period in which we will need to work hard on a 
number of pending issues that confirm the central role of this Organization.  
 
The WTO is the only instrument we have that enables us to take into consideration the legitimate  
interests of multilateral trade. Yet we should not forget that, for it to continue as such, we must 
demonstrate that we are capable of producing results.  
 
I will now outline our priorities for the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires:  
 
Without prejudice  to the legitimate positions of the different Members, we consider that it is 
possible to achieve concrete outcomes on domestic support and cotton, and to establish a 
permanent mechanism for public stockholding. The proposal put forward by Brazil, the Euro pean 
Union, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay in JOB/AG/99 attempts to lay the foundations for these three 
important outcomes.  
 
We are also confident that a significant and concrete outcome will be achieved on fishery 
subsidies. We must recognize the momentum tha t negotiations in this sector have gained, as well 
as the transcendent value of an outcome that would contribute to the achievement of SDG 14.6 of 
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  
 
We also believe that we can achieve concrete and tangible resul ts in the following areas:  
 
­ export restrictions;  
­ the elimination of the special agricultural safeguard established in Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture;  
­ services, particularly domestic regulation; and  
­ investment facilitation  
 
(Programme of Work/D ecisions to guide work)  
 
Regarding the market access pillar of agricultural negotiations, we support the definition of a 
programme of work that would allow us to resume work at the beginning of 2018. As everyone 
knows, improving market access conditions is v ery important for Uruguay. The 2017 publication 
"World Tariff Profiles" shows that agricultural products rank the highest in terms of tariff protection 
if we look at both consolidated and applied tariffs and compare effective protection rates. The 
report a lso underlines the importance of diversifying markets and export baskets in order to 
prepare for periods of economic uncertainty and volatility. We must therefore continue improving 
and increasing international integration opportunities for Members of this  Organization.  
 
Uruguay also supports the definition of a programme of work on dispute settlement and we are 
open to consideration of any other issues that are of importance for other Members.  
 
As other Members have stated today and on other occasions, we are willing to consider issues that 
reflect the dynamics of the global economy and world trade over the past few years. In our view, 
this Organization cannot remain closed to the natural development of issues in its negotiating 
portfolio: it must keep up w ith new trends and with the new interests of Members. This is why we 
support the definition of work programmes for MSMEs and a decision that guides the work on 
e-commerce.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 57 - 
 
  29. Hong Kong, China  
 
I agree with you that very soon, we must have clarity as to what we can realistically harvest at the 
Ministerial Conference and what sho uld best be pursued afterwards.  I also think you have made a 
fair assessment of where we stand in overall terms.  
 
The IMM in Marrakech has contributed to this prioritisation process by giving Ministers the 
opportunity to exchange views in a frank and open manner, and HKC thanks Morocco and 
Argen tina for co -hosting the event. Notwithstanding the significant gaps to be bridged, HKC comes 
back to Geneva believing that we have good reasons t o remain hopeful.  
 
This is because we can see that Members are adop ting a more pragmatic approach.  Where 
practicable, the Proponents  are working hard to converge. This has brought about the vertical 
compilation in Fisheries, the consolidated text in Domest ic Regulations (DR), and the attempt to 
merge recent proposals on E -commerce.   
 
At the same time, some non -demand eurs are responding positively.  In DR, for instance, we are 
pleased to see more Members signing up as proponents, while others a re offering co nstructive 
input.  We certainly need more engagement and stronger persuasion to get everyone on board.  
We are not there yet, but we are moving closer to, not further from, that goal.  
  
In negotiations, the biggest obstacles are often th e ones we set up for  ourselves.  If we can be 
more open about which issues may come onto the agenda; if we can be more inclusive, not only in 
terms of process but also in terms of results, at MC11 we can aim at a more balanced outcome, 
comprising, for instance, agreements on k ey Agriculture elements, Fisheries and DR, as well as 
decisions to advance the discussion on e -commerce and investment facilitation, allowing the WTO 
to turn a new page.  
 
At this point, HKC believes that none of these  are totally beyond reach.  Depending on  how mature 
they are in the next few weeks, we may have more substantial or more modest deliverables, but 
in the meantime, HKC is prepared to redouble our efforts to push them across the finish line.  
 
30. Israel  
 
The substantive discussions informed by numerou s ideas put forward by diverse configurations of 
proponents in the last weeks are clear evidence of the good engagement – giving us hope that 
outcomes could be achieved.  
 
Israel welcomes contributions in all areas as we enter the phase in the lead up to Bu enos Aires. 
Listening to the recent assessments by Minister Malcorra and the Director -General, we are fully 
conscious of where we are and of the considerable efforts that need to be collectively made in the 
few weeks we have left before MC11.  
 
We are all a lso very much aware of the parameters we have to follow and apply if we want MC11 
to be a success. In this context, Israel considers it is the Member's duty to take every opportunity 
to send a strong message about the importance and significance of trade l iberalization in the rules -
based multilateral trading system.  
 
On agriculture, Israel welcomes the recent efforts in the painstaking process of finding potential 
landing zones. We have witnessed serious engagement and promising signals of flexibility by 
many. As a Member of the G -10, our redlines in domestic support are well -known. We also pay 
attention to Ambassador Karau's parameters and advice to take a focused approach to what we 
will present to our Ministers in Buenos Aires.  
 
We are also encouraged by  the direction the conversation on export restrictions and prohibitions 
he is taking. We have registered our concerns over these types of measures and our interest in 
strengthening its transparency. We consider that we have a good basis to continue working  on this 
potential deliverable.  
 
As Members are able to see, the proposal JOB/AG/115 builds on widely supported elements that 
were put forward previously in 2015 and it also includes special and differential treatment 
provisions. The proponents have taken  a complimentary approach that has considered elements WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 58 - 
 
  from other proposals on the table and is working towards incorporating the feedbacks provided by 
some Members.  
 
Israel is of course aware of the mandate that Ministers have given us and encourages Mem bers to 
continue exploring possible landing zones in the difficult task of finding a solution for the 
permanent mechanism on public stockholding.  
 
In relation to fishery subsidies, we are encouraged by the hard work of the proponents in 
delivering the cons olidated text. This was a necessary task in order to focus and facilitate our work 
leading to MC11. Diverging views require further discussion and agreement between the 
proponents and wider Membership and the time is short. For Israel's part, we are commit ted to 
delivering a meaningful outcome by MC11 and we will continue to work towards this goal.  
 
In relation to the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement function and the Appellate Body are one 
of the pillars of this organization and by delaying the launch  of the selection process for the two 
existing vacancies as well as an upcoming third, we risk hindering one of the most important and 
unique elements of the functioning of the WTO. This could have serious consequences 
reverberating across the rest of the organization and the whole international trade community. We 
agree that there are some aspects where  dispute settlement could be improved and we are 
committed to working towards it. However, we do not see  that the whole issue should come in the 
way of laun ching the selection process for the Appellate Body vacancies. We have to reach an 
agreement in relation to the selection process as soon as possible.  
 
On services, we are strongly encouraged by the revival of the Working Party on Domestic 
Regulation. We ha ve had extremely useful discussions based on JOB/SERV/268 which Israel co -
sponsored and now already in its third revision which reflects the considerable amount of work put 
in by a significant number of WTO Members. The Group of co -sponsors has taken serio usly the 
feedback and positions recorded in the discussions so far. We also have to remind that the 
domestic regulation disciplines do not restrict policy space nor impose burdensome obligations on 
developing countries and much less on LDCs. The WPDR shoul d continue to meet regularly and 
advance work with a sense of urgency as Israel considers an outcome in domestic regulation is 
desirable and feasible.  
 
For e -commerce, we repeat Israel's keen interest in an outcome at MC11 as we cannot afford 
ignoring rele vant developments in this area. As Members have not started discussions on a 
permanent solution on the moratorium on customs duties, Israel would agree to uphold the status 
quo. We also support proposals calling for the establishment of a horizontal workin g party that 
would deal with all aspects of e -commerce and trade.  
 
Lastly, please be reassured that Israel wants MC11 to be a success.  
 
31. Cuba  
 
Cuba is fully committed to continue working in a constructive manner to achieve successful results 
in Buenos Aires  aimed at fulfilling the remaining Doha mandates with development at the centre.  
 
On this basis, we bear in mind that there is very little time left to know how we are going to arrive 
in Buenos Aires. It is up to us now to make major efforts to ensure tha t we have an ambitious but 
realistic perspective.  
 
For Cuba, balance between ambition and realism is closely linked to two elements.  
 
First, there is a practical element based on the limited capacity of small delegations particularly in 
relation to atten ding meetings being held in parallel. To guarantee inclusivity and transparency 
through this process, we have to ensure that we do not overlap meetings for which the content 
could in one way or another have a direct impact on the Ministerial Conference or on future work.  
 
The second element is more of a substantive nature and refers to the issues which could yield 
concrete results in Buenos Aires. For Cuba, a realistic focus is based on giving priority to the 
mandates which have already been agreed upon by  our Ministers and which are drawn up in Doha. 
That is why we have to step up the work on our remaining Doha issues.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 59 - 
 
  Most Members recognize that these issues have technical and political potential for an outcome at 
MC11. We understand that agriculture, f isheries subsidies and development are three elements 
which could lead to this appropriate balance.   
 
Development is and must continue to be cross -cutting in nature – before, during and after Buenos 
Aires. Every area that would lead to an outcome in Bueno s Aires will have to contain strong S&D 
treatment on the basis of the level of ambition achieved and in line with economic and social 
realities of the developing countries, small and vulnerable economies and LDCs.  
 
All drafting of future work programmes m ust take on board development. We note with concern 
that some Members within the CTD -SS have shown some relu ctance in recognizing a certain 
number of disciplines in favour of developing countries and LDCs.  
 
It is important to stress that the provisions th at the G-90 is putting forward will not hamper the 
high levels of trade of developed countries. However, they do represent a small contribution on the 
long road to industrialization and a greater integration in global trade of developing countries. The 
proposals of the G -90 must be part of the Buenos Aires outcome. It is a very old debt that 
Members have to cancel now. There is no political reason now that would justify their exclusion.  
 
Another development element of serious concern to  us is the current d iscussions i n the 
negotiations on domestic support in agriculture. We recognize the interest of many Members in 
reaching a result in the domestic support pillar. We are not opposed to that. However, any result 
in this pillar, if it is to be acceptable for Cuba, will have to contain strong special and differential 
treatment. In particular, our delegation would like to refer to the 10% de minimis  that has to be 
fully preserved for developing countries that do not have AMS commitments such as small and 
vulnera ble economies.  
 
Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture must be maintained with no limits for  developing 
countries. We agreed  that possible results in domestic support could be the following: LDCs, SVEs, 
developing countries and NFIDCs do not have to t ake on reduction commitments. That is why we 
ratify the high value of the contribution put forward by the ACP which has put this matter on the 
negotiating table, among other relevant issues.  
 
The fundamental element in Buenos Aires will be to reach a perma nent solution on public 
stockholding for food security purposes. We therefore support the proposal put forward by G -33 to 
change the Agreement on Agriculture with the view to including new and existing programmes for 
relevant and necessary products for foo d security of all developing countries. We consider that this 
type of programme should not be taken as part of the calculations of the AMS and the overall limit 
of domestic support. Our delegation supports the link to be imposed here with domestic support.  
 
We consider that fishery subsidies is an area that deserves particular attention. For Cuba, in any 
discipline, S&D should be reflected as it is a condition which is provided for within the Doha 
mandate and in SDG 14.6. According to international law, dev eloping countries must be 
guaranteed the possibility of preserving their sovereignty in their territorial waters and in the 
exclusive economic zones. In this regard, it is important to highlight the request of the ACP.  
 
On domestic regulation in services,  Cuba would like to reassert what we have already repeated 
many times in the WGDR and in the CTS. There were still great divergences in these discussions 
on technical issues. There were also problems on conceptual and political issues which will not be 
solved in this short period of time because of the lack of balanced proposals put forward by the 
proponents. We consider that a result in this area can only be conceived after the Ministerial 
Conference. Cuba will not be opposed to include this issue in a wor k programme after Buenos 
Aires in line with the mandate of Article 6.2 of the GATS.  
 
Given the challenge s that we still have before us and if we are t o conclude the issues within the 
current mandate that have been pending for  more than ten years, we do not  support  the launch of 
negotiations  on new issues in Buenos Aires because they are currently the object of very diverging 
debates.  
 
On e-commerce, during the informal meetings it is evident that the 1998 Work Programme on 
Electronic C ommerce is not outdat ed. It remains  essential. We have to look into the complexities 
in this area today and reassert this work programme which contains all the necessary dimensions WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 60 - 
 
  including the development dimension. We have to continue with working on its exploratory 
mandate  in the four bodies established in line with the General Council's crosscutting work. Ou r 
challenge could be to reactivate  the dedicated session on the basis of issues which have been 
identified in the current work programme. Going beyond this, prejudging a negotiating mandate 
would be very pre -mature and we could not support it.  
 
Other issues which are of interest to some Members such as investment facilitation and MSMEs 
have been done outside the regular bodies because they do not have a mandate. There i s no 
formal analysis and they are not yet mature enough to be included in a post Buenos Aires work 
programme. They are contentious issues. Many Members have expressed many reservations on 
these issues and on the relevance of these issues at the WTO.  
 
On pr ocess, we would like to highlight the need to ensure the effective maintenance of the 
principles of inclusiveness and transparency in all consultations and negotiating processes. Any 
process before, during and after Buenos Aires must contemplate the divers ity of positions including 
of the formal groups and of the alliances so as to guarantee that decisions fully tally with the 
interest of the majority of Members and not to the interest of a mere few. It would be important to 
preserve these practices during the Ministerial Conference as well.  
 
We would also like to stress that we  do not want to receive documents on contentious issues just a 
few days before the Ministerial Conference. We also do not want to receive such documents during 
the Ministerial Confere nce. This will stop them from being analysed in an op en and transparent 
manner . 
 
We are always committed to work in a constructive way in the very little time we have left up until 
MC11.  
 
We would associate ourselves with the statements made by Guyana (ACP ) and Indonesia (G -33). 
 
32. Chinese Taipei  
 
We remain hopeful of having a meaningful and successful Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires 
under your leadership , and through the collective efforts of all the Members. We are pleased to see 
the high level of engagement  by Members in various areas  trying to move forward on the path to 
reaching  convergence . However, we are very much concerned about the limited time left before 
the MC11 , therefore we must intensify our work in Geneva.  
 
The following are the issues of interest or concern to my delegation  and on which  we would like to 
share our views : 
 
On Agriculture , firstly, on the subject of PSH, my delegation believe s this  is an important policy 
tool for those Members who cannot solely depend on trade to sustain t heir food  security purpose s. 
In the meantime, we also share the concerns about  certain transparency and safeguard provisions 
could be ne cessary . My delegation believe s that a pragmatic permanent solution on PSH is still 
reachable within the remaining time -frame before MC11  and we are willing to work this out with 
other M ember s. 
 
Secondly, to discipline e xport prohibition and restriction is also a priority for my delegation. We 
welcome the transparency proposal by Sing apore  and we have agreed to co -sponsor t he newly - 
submitted paper  by some G10 Members for an effective discipline on this issue.  We intend to work 
closely with Members  and to make it an important part for an Agriculture outcome at MC11 . 
 
Like all the other Members of the Article XII Group, my delegation welcome s any attempts at 
further levelling the playing field on Domestic Support. Having said that, we are  also very cautious 
about whether a new limit on the Overall Trade -Distorting Domestic Support (OTDS), either 
floating or fixed, might furthe r reduce our relatively smaller AMS and de minimis  entitlements that 
resulted from our earlier concession. We hope such concerns can be properly addressed in any 
further  negotiation.  
 
On the Rules  negotiation , we cherish the Chair ’s report and we share the  same view that each 
individual issue should only move forward on its own merits. In terms of fisheries subsidies, we 
fully recognize the importance of sustainable management of fishery resources, therefore  we are WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 61 - 
 
  committed to eliminating subsidies for IUU. 
 
On Domestic Regulations for Trade in Services , we are one of the co -sponsors of the consolidated 
DR text. In our view, this is aimed to ensur e transparency for regulatory measures  while at the 
same time recognizing that every Member has its own policy s pace to regulate. We therefore  
encourage Members to work towards a multilateral outcome on this topic. 
 
On E-commerce , we see extensive engagement and great interest of many Members. We believe 
that t he current functions of the 1998 work programme should b e improved to allow more  focused 
discussions  in order to be able to identify the existing challenges for e-commerce  including the 
digital divide . In this vein, we echo Japan ’s statement to establish a Working Group to conduct a 
comprehensive review.  
 
I trust that Members agree with the view that MSMEs  play an important role in trade, economic 
growth and employment. The "Friends of MSMEs" Group has arranged  discussions of raising the 
profile of MSMEs  and fostering debate within the WTO. We look forwa rd to a positive outcome at 
MC11 that will add substance to the WTO's efforts to help MSMEs to participate to a greater degree 
in the global markets. We believe that a structured dialogue with a clear work programme would 
help to guide our future work. We therefor e encourage Members to engage further in thinking 
about what to do beyond MC11.  
 
By the same token, we support EU ’s Transparency Proposal  to enhanc e regulatory transparency for 
SMEs . We hope there is life after Buenos Aires on this issue . 
 
Last but not le ast, w e would like to expres s our concerns over the delay in  the initiation of the 
selection processes for the three Appellate Body positions. Given the importance of t he dispute 
settlement mechanism  to the functioning of the WTO, p rolonging vacancies in t he Appellate Body 
may seriously dysfunction  the multilateral trading system.  We look forward to working closely with 
other Members to achieve a solution.  
 
In conclusion, my delegation stands ready  to engage fully with you and fellow -Members in order to 
make MC11 both deliverable  and successful.  
 
33. Indonesia (G -33) 
 
As the G -33 Coordinator, Indonesia wishes to reiterate that the establishment of a permanent 
solution on PSH for all developing M embers and accessible, simple and effective SS M remain 
priority for the Group  and shall be part of any Buenos Aires outcomes.   
 
In this respect, the G -33 urges Members to engage constructively and in good faith to make use of 
the remaining time to deliver these priorities. And in doing so, it would not be possible for the  
Group to accept any efforts that link PSH and SSM with other issues. The G -33 stands ready to be 
constructively engaged in any process of discussion that you may deem necessary to deliver 
concrete and credible outcomes in Buenos Aires.  
 
34. Indonesia  
 
My dele gation fully shares your views that Buenos Aires is now fast approaching and deliverables 
are yet to be pursued by Members. Realism and pragmatism shall therefore become our working 
guidance if we are really to deliver concrete and credible outcomes.  
    
Members need to focus its energy and resources on the issues that have clear mandates, and 
which will deliver development benefits to the whole Membership, and where progress is possible. 
Indonesia is of the view  that some issues related to Agriculture, esp ecially permanent so lution of 
PSH and effective SSM, Fisheries Subsidies Discipline, Domestic Regulation Discipline  and 
Developmen t may become strong candidates for being deliverables  in Buenos Aires .  
 
Guided by the centrality of development, Members shou ld intensify the ir work  and go an extra mile  
on those issues to seek compromise. To facilitate progress, text -based negotiation may be 
consider ed by the respective negotiating group. If however  some issues proved to be not doable in 
the context of MC11, th e negotiations may go beyond Buenos Aires.  
  WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 62 - 
 
  On issues that have been frequently raised by Members, such as e-commerce, investment 
facilitation, micro small and medium enterprises (MSMEs),  while recognizing the relevance of those 
issues in addressing new challenges arising from the ever -changing global trade patterns, 
Indonesia believes that exploratory nature of discussions on those issues should be continued with 
a view to deepen Member’s understanding, before taking further steps.  
 
Finally, Indonesia i s of the view that positive and constructive engagement by all Members, and 
political will to meet halfway are key for  every M ember’s interest and concern to be  taken on 
board. This is what we did toward Bali and Nairobi, and it should  also work toward Bue nos Aires.  
 
Indonesia stands ready to closely work with you and other Members in ensuring Buenos Aires a 
success.  
 
35. Cambodia (LDCs)  
 
In the run -up to MC11, LDCs need to obtain solid and concrete results to allow them to better 
integrate into the multilater al trading system so that the benefits of WTO participation translate to 
our people.  
 
The LDC Group therefore calls on Members to do their utmost to respond to LDC submissions, 
priorities and concerns in the negotiations. We have sub mitted our priorities f or MC11 and many of 
our priorities are well -known to the Members such as the implementation of p revious Ministerial 
Conference decisions. Their current implementation however remains weak and t here is no 
agreement yet in some negotiating areas of importanc e to LDC s.  
 
The LDC Group has actively participated by submitting papers and proposals on areas of priority:  
 
S&DT  
 
The LDC G roup is calling on Members to provide meaningful and maximum flexibilities to the S&DT 
proposal submitted by the ACP on behalf of the G-90. The LDC Group together with the G-90 
attempted to achieve results on the longstanding S&DT proposals at MC11. Since July 2017, the 
CTD Special Session held four rounds of disc ussions  where  the G-90 introduced the agreement 
specific proposals and provided written responses to the questions rai sed by M embers. The LDC 
Group expected that Members would constructively engage in finding amicable solution s on the 
proposal. Unfortunately, it did not happen. We from  the LDC Group urge M embers to 
constructi vely engage in the discussion s so that we can find solutions  which are acceptable to all 
and resolve this longstanding issue during this Ministerial.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
The LDC Group call s for an agreement at the Ministerial C onference in Buenos Aires that actually 
helps to achieve the objectives set by the international community as part of the 2030 Sustainable 
Development Agenda and in particular the objective referred to under target 14.6., in respect of 
the WTO mandate. In this regard, a non -paper h as been distributed in RD/TN/RL/29 and should 
serve as the negotiating document in future discussions. Here, some elements could be approved 
at the upcoming Ministerial Conference  while others could be adopted and finalized later at the 
Ministerial Confere nce in 2019.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture  has played a key role in most LDC economies for employment, GDP generation and 
rural development. It is therefore imperative to undertake a substantial reform in Agriculture in 
order to achieve a fair and market -oriented agriculture trading system in line with Article 20 o f the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  That is why the LDC Group supports the elimination of all historical 
imbalances, notably the elimination of AMS by MC11 as well as establishing disciplines on product -
specific support to avoid subsidy concentration.  At the same time, it is important to preserve all 
the necessary policy space for purposes of fairness and equity. We have seen some approaches 
being proposed, b ased on the value of production  and we do not co nsider such approaches as a 
basis for the elimination of systemic imbalances.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 63 - 
 
  Furthermore, the LDC Group support s the Permanent Solution on Public Stockholding for food 
security pur poses as mandated by  MC10 and should be conducted in an accelerated time -frame, 
distinct from the  agriculture negotiations. That is  why we oppose any linkage to the Domestic 
Support negotiations. On Cotton, the LDC Group supports an ambitious outcome in line with the 
C-4 proposal.  
  
Services Waiver  
 
We continue to urge Members to follow the Nairobi Decision by providing assistance to orient LDC 
services suppliers to benefit from the notifications made to the WTO so that preferential treatment 
extended to LDCs could be implemented. We also encourage Members to continue to notify 
preferences for LDCs that address the entirety of our Collective Request to remove administrative 
barriers to market access of our suppliers as well as to consider in opening up Mode 4 (movement 
of natural person) to LDCs.  
 
The Group takes this opportunity  to express our sincere thanks to M embers who have submitted 
their notifications so far.  
 
Rules of Origin  
 
The Nairobi decision on Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs is an important multilateral outcome 
that will enhance LDC exports to a great extent i f it is effectively implemented. It will contribute to 
the fulfilment of the multilateral obligation and aspiration of doubling the share of LDC exports by 
2020.  
  
We appreciate the notifications made by 14 Preference Granting Mem bers using the agreed 
template. On the same n ote, we would like to urge the Preference Granting M embers who have 
not yet fulf illed this obligation to do so.  The LDC Group will assess the received notific ations and 
provide feedback to M embers.  
 
Regarding notifications of import dat a under  the PTA transparency mechanism to be used in 
calculating the utilization rate, we would like to extend  our gratitude and appreciation to 
Preference G ranting Members who have fulfilled this obl igation. We urge the remaining M embers 
to notify as soon  as possible. The utilization trends and patterns for certain products will definitely 
signal areas that need specific attent ion and intervention from both P refere nce Granting M embers 
and beneficiaries.  
 
The LDC G roup will continue its engagement  in the w ork of the Committee on  Rules of Origin in 
both regular and dedicated sessions.   
 
DFQF  
 
We ask Members to re -double their efforts so that the positive outcomes  for LDCs in Hong Kong, 
Bali and Nairobi are fully implemented. We strongly urge Members not to backtrack on the 2005 
Hong Kong Decision and 2013 Bali Decision. In addition, the LDC Group wishes Members to 
reconsider and agree on the elements we introduced in our submission for a clinical examination 
on DFQF.  In particular, we urge that an outcome at  MC11 include that Members providing DFQF 
treatment for LDCs to comply  with their commitment in Hong Kong and in Bali to provide DFQF for 
at least 97% of the products originating from LDCs.  
 
Trade Facilitation  
 
As the implementation of category C measures envisages a substantial investment, it calls for 
effective leveraging of international partnership and support. In this respect, we request Donor 
Members to notify the technical assistance plan according to Article 22 of the Agreement.  Most 
LDCs have to pl ace their national priorities on reducing poverty and hunger and achieving 
structural transformation of their economies. So, it is difficult for them to execute the TF 
Agreement if external resources are not properly provided in a timely manner. We emphasi ze that 
global partnership be geared especially in addressing behind the border obstacles such as building 
trade -related infrastructures and enhancing productive capacity.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 64 - 
 
  Last but not least, the accession of LDC Members is aiming to integrate LDCs into t he multilateral 
trading system and to enable them to get benefits from international trade, adeq uate technical 
assistance and capacity -building support. In this re gard, we urge M embers to facilitate the 
accession of LDCs as soon as possible.  
 
36. Ecuador  
 
Regarding what we can manage to do between now and the Ministerial Conference, we think 
issues such as transparency, inclusiveness and balance should be seen in all those elements that 
we negotiate. It is indispensable that all of us and the Secretariat need t o continue to examine 
these and put them into practice in order to ensure that there can be credibility in the multilateral 
trading system.  
 
Ecuador believes that the mandate in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration 
provide the main s ources of guidance for our immediate work in the future.  
 
For Ecuador, the priority for MC11 is the culmination of the remaining Doha issues especially in 
agriculture due to its importance for many countries including our own. This needs to be concluded 
before we get into new issues which might reduce the aspect of public policy space which is where 
countries can ensure their development. We cannot support proposals that ask countries with no 
AMS to reduce or make cuts while those countries that have great er AMS per capita would keep 
their rights. We also need special and differential treatment for developing countries where there is 
not sufficient flexibility. This would in fact not affect present imbalances.  
 
With regard to public stockholding for food se curity, the MC11 outcome should be a measure that 
is accessible and in line with the needs of developing countries and the LDCs – open to future 
programmes which allows support for rural farmers with low income and guarantee the food 
security of the least privileged sections of our population. And there is only one proposal in line 
with this.  
 
Concerning SSM, MC11 must allow something that is accessible for all developing countries 
allowing them to protect small farmers from effects of unexpected increases in prices of imports 
and also sudden drops in prices.  
 
For SSM and PSH, there should be no link to the other outcomes.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we believe that this is one of the issues where work needs to be intensified 
giving greater time to this becaus e of the possibilities of ensuring results generally because of the 
greater level of commitment in this area. We need a matrix and analysis of the area. These would 
be useful tools for the outcome of the negotiation.  
 
One of the main rules of the organiza tion is to ensure that Members apply rules. We are convinced 
that the dispute settlement mechanism is essential to provide certainty and predictability to the 
multilateral trading system. It is therefore necessary at once to begin filling the vacancies in the 
Appellate Body.  
 
For us, areas such as e -commerce and investment facilitation are tools that are important and 
useful for the development of countries. New issues however that would open up goods and 
services in these areas through negotiations would not be acceptable when most of the developing 
countries and LDCs would not be on equal footing because of the significant digital divide between 
Members. For this reason, we do not share the view of some delegations that all of these issues 
need roadmaps s o that we can arrive at guidelines which would go beyond existing Doha 
mandates. The Work Programme on Electronic Commerce of 1998 has a very clear mandate with 
regard to its functions which is very specific and very well drawn up. It provides that there a re 
appropriate means to ensure the link between e -commerce and development on the basis of 
discussions in the competent bodies – CTG, CTS, TRIPS Council and CTD – without a negotiating 
mandate. We therefore maintain that any decision on e -commerce would ha ve to be in line with 
this.  
 
We are fully prepared to continue to work in an inclusive manner to seek results satisfactory to all.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 65 - 
 
  37. China  
 
I would reiterate that China firmly supports the multilateral trading system. The coming 6 weeks 
will be a testing t ime for the  entire Membership, as we need to intensify our work in a bid to 
achieve a successful MC11 with reasonable level of ambition. Only in such way can we 
demonstrate to the world that this Organization is still running operationally and responsively . 
  
The outcomes of MC11 should reflect the progress that we have made since the Nairobi Ministerial, 
and should also show the direction for our future work. As such, we all need to have our  
expectation  in an open, reali stic, flexible and professional mann er for the form of the final 
outcomes.  
 
Here I would like to share some of my observations.  
 
Agriculture  
 
China earnestly supports the agricultural reform. In our view, the AMS ma intained by the 
developed M embers is the most trade distorting factor in the international trade of agricultural 
products, which must be eliminated. This is the most urgent task and right direction for the 
agricultural reform. More importantly, this should also  be the pre -requisite for the current 
agriculture negotiations. If this issue is not properly addressed, the situation of rules deficit and 
development deficit derived from the Uruguay Round will be further worsened.  
 
Just cite an example, the develop ing M embers only have entitlements of 10% de minimis , China 
has only 8.5 %, while most of the developed M embers are entitled to provide  support, at any time, 
to any single product as high as hundreds to thousands percentage. Clearly, there is no way to 
find middle ground wi th such an unfair disparity in M embers' right.  
 
China would  associate itself with the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of the G -33 in terms 
of PSH and SSM.  
 
Rules 
  
China stresses that negotiations under this pillar must be pursued in a balanced way.  
 
We emphasize that boundary of negotiations on fisheries su bsidies for MC11 must be strictl y kept 
within the scope of IUU. As the reality of the current negotiations shows, there have been many 
technical problems difficult to resolve in terms of overfishing and overcapacity. Huge divergences 
do exist even among pr oponents themselves regarding numerous definitions that are hard to 
clarify currently in the framework of the WTO. It is impossible to reach any consensus within such 
a period as short as 6 weeks  before MC11.  
  
Focusing on IUU, there has  been a certain lev el of consensus, with Members'  expectation being 
relatively high. However, gaps and differences are still there. Members need to work hard and 
show adequate flexibilities in order to achieve outcomes. In addition, we should make sure that no 
politically se nsitive issues are touched upon in the final disciplines and possible disputes in the 
future.  In this regard, China is going to submit a proposal in the next few days.  
 
China believes  that IUU  is the only possible landing zone for fisheries subsidies negot iations  at 
MC11.  
 
China advocates to advance  trade remedies' negotiations in tandem  with a view to achi eving a 
balanced outcome. Some M embers may have different views in thi s regard  but the  fact is that 
there is a clear mandate and soli d foundation for tra de remedies'  negotiations. Clarifying and 
improving the existing rules is of great significance to the multilateral trading system.  It is also 
helpful to keep the overall balance of interests  under the pillar of  rules negotiation.  
 
We expect M embers to po sitively consider our proposal and engage in discussion in an earnest and 
professional manner  so that together we can achieve outcomes at MC11.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 66 - 
 
  Other issues  
 
China supports the discussion on investment facilitation, e -commerce and MSMEs.  
 
Regarding invest ment facilitation, the discussion will always be development -oriented and focus on 
enhancing the understanding, participat ion and benefits of developing M embers in this regard. 
Next month in  Nigeria, we will have the High Level Forum on Investment Facilita tion and African 
Development,  which is a good opportunity to listen to the voices of developing countries, 
particu larly the African and the least -developed countries. We welcome M embers to join us there  
and take constructive attitude  so that we can reach a  certain level of consensus in the areas of 
investment facilitation at MC11.  
 
Regarding e -commerce, China believes that the more practical approach is to lock in the progress 
that we have made since the Nairobi Ministerial, focus on those elemen ts that are  acceptable by 
most M embers in t he Ministerial Decision of MC11  and take this as the  direction for our future 
work.  Towards  this end, China recently submitted a communication  entitled E-commerce Elements 
for MC11 . We expect these elements can be duly refle cted in the final outcome on e -commerce at 
MC11.  
 
38. Costa Rica  
 
I wish to recall a fable that my father used to tell me while growing up: a herd of wild rabbits lived 
in the forest, when one day one of the rabbits yelled out to the rest: "The hounds are comi ng!" 
Almost immedia tely, another one yelled back: "N ot hounds, they are retrievers! " And the first one  
yelled even louder to repeat: "H ounds! " And the quarrel emerged: "Retrievers! " "Hounds! " 
"Retrievers! " Very soon, the dogs arrived and ate all the rabbit s.  
 
When I accepted this job I was convinced that the World Trade Organization could have a 
determinant role to play in transforming the world’s most pressing conflicts. After almost three 
years my conviction has only grown. But delivery is not a matter o f faith but a matter of effective 
action.  
 
A quick look at the SDGs contained in Agenda 2030 reveals that we are all developing countries. 
We are in this together and it is our mission to ensure that all of us reach those goals within the 
mandated timefra me. I also see gigantic opportunities in that Agenda to make inefficiencies 
efficient and to enlarge the pie for all of us to cut a larger slice to take back home. But first we 
must be effective at enlarging the pie. This will certainly require the WTO to do its part.  
 
Given the environmental constraints of the industry, fisheries subsidies are a crucial problem that 
requires effective solutions. To be effective, we will need to make technical efforts and collect 
political leadership from all WTO M embe rs. This is a multilateral goal  therefore it is a multilateral 
task that must be completed multilaterally within a fast approaching deadline. Do keep in mind 
that we are less than 800 days away from the year 2020.   
 
About e -commerce, I continue paying attenti on to my colleagues and I hear pertinent questions 
being asked: how to ensure e -commerce does not widen the digital divide? How to promote 
greater investment on infrastructure for connectivity? How to guarantee that the value proposition 
of the digital eco nomy is truly inclusive and sustainable? How to specifically stimulate e -commerce 
for LDCs? How do we develop skills and technical assistance for those who need them most to 
leapfrog forward?  
 
I wish to express that e -commerce is not an "us versus them " issue, but an "us versus our future " 
issue. Empathy, therefore, must be at the core of our efforts. Empathy among ourselves in this 
room and empathy between us and those who will come in the future, including the ones that have 
not yet been born that we also  care about. When I speak to colleagues whose nations have 
electricity coverage that reach less than 20% of their population, I can’t help but realize that we 
are consistently failing to see the bigger picture. In order to see the bigger picture we will re quire 
a conscious effort of creativity, of imagination, of design and strategic thinking. Both empathy and 
creativity belong into my preferred definition of peace, understood as the ability to transform 
conflicts empathically and creatively. Of course we c an. These traits are inherent to our human 
nature. The critical question is whether we want to do it or not. It does not convince me to hear 
arguments like "there is no convergence ", or "we must think about post -MC11 ", or the belief that a WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 67 - 
 
  work program fro m twenty years ago contains all necessary elements to reap the low hanging 
fruits that the digital economy is producing before our eyes. What I hear instead is "I don' t want to 
try" or "I don’t want to do it ".  
 
We are not looking for the easy way out. We are looking for the challenging way forward that will 
create the most value for the majority of citizens of the world represented in this House. Nothing 
extraordinary has ever come out of a comfort zone. So we either voluntarily step out of our 
comfort zon es in search of value, or we sit down and wait for the fast changing circumstances to 
involuntarily kick us out of these comfort zones. The decision is ours. Do keep in mind that at the 
pace of retail e -commerce acceleration, it has grown 35% globally sinc e the group of Friends of E -
commerce for Development was launched last year. In an ideal world, we would have all taken a 
slice of the pie one third larger than 18 months ago. Clearly, this has not been the case. Between 
now and MC12 e -commerce is expected  to grow an additional 50% and if we do nothing, we 
cannot expect different results than the present ones.  
 
At a similar pace, trade has been mutating as of late. We can no longer ignore the carbon footprint 
that global value chains and trade logistics ha ve on the world’s ecosystems. The goal of the World 
Trade Organization is to expand the benefits of trade and to facilitate those benefits to reach all 
communities worldwide. In this capacity we have a role to play by using rules, best endeavo urs, 
transpar ency, Trade Policy Reviews and other existing vehicles or those we consider worth creating 
anew, to transform the kind of trade that is directly linked to the environment and highly 
threatened by climate change, such as fisheries, forestry, agriculture, en ergy generation, the 
provision of services such as logistics and transportation, high technology manufacturing, and, in 
general, industrial manufacturing of all sorts.  
 
We also understand that the digital economy emerges at a juncture in which it is most needed. E -
commerce is perhaps the most efficient way ever created to allocate natural resources for billions 
of producers and consumers to meet in the marketplace, having a substantial reduction in carbon 
emissions. This is disruptive in many positive ways  but will transform many industries we 
recognize today, such as marketing, one -size-fits-all manufacturing, customs and tax collection, 
payment methods and banking in general, connectivity, consumption and waste management, 
among others.  
 
E-commerce is on ly a thin slice of what the digital economy entails. Three -dimensional printing will 
disrupt intellectual property, logistics services, customs and tax collection even further. Today we 
can print a pair of shoes, a metal component of an airplane turbine, a  house and even some kinds 
of high -protein food for animal and human consumption. The solar energy revolution is 
transforming us very quickly into prosumers, or producers of the energy we consume, allowing 
some of us to become micro -entrepreneurs in the en ergy business selling electricity back to the 
grid. Biotechnology is changing the way we conceive agricultural production and offers the promise 
for local, organic, and highly advanced production. Let me remind you all that these disruptions do 
not lie in the future; they are all happening today. What will the WTO do about it?  
 
That being said, trade and development must be seen today through the digital and environment 
lenses in order to constrain our innovation and guide our leadership. The biggest risk I  can think of 
for the WTO is that it loses contact with reality therefore rendering it unfit to seek global solutions 
for humankind.  
 
I believe the greatest value of human interaction comes from diversity and if we want to continue 
creating shared value f rom the WTO to the world we must enrich our thinking, our behavio ur and 
our attitudes through the ideas of others, within and without these walls.  
 
Even though I understand that the most unique function of the WTO is the creation of new trade 
rules and th e administration of existing ones, I cannot conclude but quoting Emile Durkheim, who 
reminds us that “when values are sufficient, norms are unnecessary; and when values are 
insufficient, norms are ineffective.”  
 
39. Tanzania  
 
Tanzania associates itself with th e statements made by the delegation of Rwanda on behalf of the 
African Group, the delegation of Cambodia on behalf the LDC group and the delegation of Guyana 
on behalf of ACP group. Our positions on various issues are well entrenched in those statements, WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 68 - 
 
  however, we would like to reitera te few points on specific areas.  
 
On the process leading to and in Buenos Aires during MC11, it is in our view that it should be 
transparent as much as possible. We should avoid repeating the previous mistakes in order to 
preserve the credibility of the system and WTO in general. For that matter, we should not be over 
ambitious to take all issues for MC11 but rather remain focused on few issues that are likely to 
yield outcome in MC11 . Therefore, only issues which will get co nsensus in Geneva are to be taken 
to the Ministers in Buenos Aires to avoid turning the Minist erial into a negotiating forum.  In the 
case of emerging discussions during MC11 in Buenos Aires, they should be held in an open -ended 
format to allow all Minister s to participate.  
 
Consequently , in order to avoid last -minute  rush, it is of critical importance to immediately begin 
negotiations based on draft texts. Moreover, we should start wo rking on the draft Ministerial 
Declaration under your guidance and leader ship as it was for the  past processes leading to the 
Ninth Ministerial in 2013 and the T enth Ministerial in 2015.  
 
On the substantive issues, we would like also to echo the following views:  
 
Agriculture  
 
We are looking forward to an outcome particularly on  PSH, especially in attaining a permanent 
solution that will be o pen to all LDCs and developing M embers, which will be implemented in a 
transparent and responsible manner without affecting other M embers ' food security. We also 
believe it possible to attain  an outcome  on domestic support and Cotton. W e have great interest 
on these areas cognizant of the importance of the agricultural sector in our economies.  
 
Fisheries subsidies  
 
We believe an outcome in this area is achievable. A special attention and focu s should be to attain  
the commitment of M embers to eliminate subsidies geared to IUU and to cap or reduce subsidies 
causing overcapacity. It is in our view that these two elements are essential for a credible outcome 
for MC11 on this area.  
 
S&DT provisions  
 
We fully support to continue the work based on the G -90 proposals for an outcome in MC11. The 
ungrounded rej ection being expressed by some M embers on the G -90 proposals, indeed it is 
unethical and is against the long -standing mandate on this area. We wou ld like therefore  to 
encourage M embers who are rejecting the G -90 proposals to exercise flexibility to  support the 
endeavour of weak M embers to attain their development aspirations.  The history indicates that 
most of the M embers opposing the proposed provi sions have at some point used the same 
instruments in their process of industrialization. There fore, LDCs and weak developing M embers 
should not be restricted from exercising this important right for their development.  
 
E-commerce  
 
We support the intention  to keep the current work program me in order to continue with 
exploratory discussions within the proposed structures. The proponents are encouraged to 
intensify engagements with other M embers in various bodi es considering that there haven' t been 
such exten sive discussions in the respective co mmittees as was supposed to be.  On the 
moratorium for electronically transmitted products, we are concerned with  the potential loss of 
revenues. A s an LDC , our Government is exploring the possibilities to expand its rev enue base to 
be able to supplement the diminishing Development Assistance (ODA). Moreover, we believe that 
the electronically transmitted products have no special exceptions from other products and 
therefore they should be subjected to duty charges like ot hers. However, any consideration for 
temporary extension of the moratorium will have to be equally excha nged with the moratorium on 
Non-Violation and Situation Complaint in the TRIPs Agreement.  
 
MSMEs  and Investment Facilitation  
 
Both issues  are not explic itly clear to us. F irst of all , they lack the necessary mandate for 
negotiations. The scope of engag ement is not yet defined either. T herefore, it will be difficult for us WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 69 - 
 
  to advise our Ministers to engage in discussions on those issues in Buenos Aires on these subjects. 
It is more difficult at this point to even think of those issues while there are lots of DDA issues 
remaining undealt. We therefore  encourage the proponents to continue engag ing other M embers 
with a view to seek consideration for discussion  in the future after all DDA issues have been 
concluded as formerly understood and agreed in the July framework.  
 
In conclusion, we would like to pledge our commitment to remain engaged for a successful MC11.  
 
40. Canada  
 
Canada is encouraged by the increased activity in some gro ups and with the engagement of 
Members. However, as the DG noted, there are few signs of emerging convergence on any of the 
major issues.  
 
That said, Canada still believes that substantive outcomes are possible for MC11 in some areas if  
members are pragmatic – but time is very short and we all need to show flexibility. Canada's 
priorities continue to be disciplines on agricultural domestic support, fisheries subsidy disciplines, 
services domestic regulation and further horizontal work in  the area of e -commerce – all with 
appropriate development aspects.  
 
In Canada's view, we need to work to ensure that the benefits of trade are better distributed and 
that stakeholders are aware of the benefits of participating in the multilateral trading system.  
   
Trade must support inclusive economic growth – we need to ensure that trade policies support 
women's economic empowerment and the inclusion of MSMEs in international trade.  We also need 
to address issues that are relevant to the economy of toda y such as e -commerce and examining 
how the WTO can contribu te to facilitating investment. At the same time, our longstanding issues 
cannot be forgotten – they are just as or even more important now than they were when we 
started.  We have been discussing s ome of these issues for many years, issues such as services, 
agriculture, dispute sett lement, rules and development. However, the methods that we have tried 
to use fo r years are not up to the job. We need to find different, more innovative ways to close th e 
gaps between our positions.  
 
It is also important that we begin discussions on what we need to do to make the WTO, as an 
institution, work better for all of us. There is a lot of work ahead of us and, as Minister Malcorra 
stated "there is life after Buen os Aires" – we need to concentrate on what is doable in the next few 
weeks but importantly we need to plan on how we will address issues post -MC11.  
 
Now I would like to provide a short update on the plurilateral fisheries subsidies negotiations that 
Canada  is chairing for a group of 15 members.  
 
As I have previously reported, we have had some very good, in -depth discussions in the FSA 
negotiations.  We have collectively gained a better understanding of the issues and our various 
perspectives on those is sues. Last week, the group met and decided to postpone the next round of 
negotiations until after MC11. The group came to the pragmatic conclusion that it would be more 
productive to concentrate our efforts and resources for fisheries subsidies negotiations fr om now 
until MC11 on the multilateral process in the RNG.  We are encouraged by the increased level of 
engagement in the multilateral negotiations and optimistic that an out come can be achieved for 
MC11. Under Ambassador McCook's chairmanship and with the active participation of all WTO 
members, FSA participants believe the RNG offers the best possibility for an outcome for MC11.  
 
We will reconvene early in 2018 to re -evaluate the situation once we know what has been 
achieved multilaterally at MC11.  
 
41. Colomb ia 
 
Colombia views the WTO as a global public good which must be preserved and strengthened. We 
believe that in Buenos Aires, we must reaffirm the importance of the multilateral trading system 
and its institutional structure as key elements for generating inclusive economic growth through by 
international trade. Colombia also considers it a priority for the WTO to preserve its relevance with 
concrete outcomes from the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. To this end, all Members must 
be committed to work ing diligently towards this goal in the weeks remaining before the WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 70 - 
 
  11th Ministerial Conference.  
 
We are also aware that it is necessary to define the scope of the Buenos Aires outcomes, and for 
Ministers to clearly establish guidelines for moving forward a fter Buenos Aires. We renew our 
support for the incremental approach taken by this Organization since Bali in 2013, not only 
looking at what it is possible to achieve in the short and medium term, but also defining objectives 
for the long term and a road m ap to ensure such objectives are met. Therefore, the Buenos Aires 
Conference must pave the way for outcomes at the 12th Ministerial Conference and beyond.  
 
The progress made in the WTO negotiating pillar in recent weeks, together with the conclusions of 
the mini ministerial informal meeting in Marrakech, enable us to be optimistic about various 
aspects regarding possible outcomes in Buenos Aires. First of all, it is clear that the chances of an 
outcome in the negotiations on disciplining fisheries subsidies  are the highest they have been since 
the Doha Round was launched in 2001. Following the mandate adopted by Heads of State in light 
of Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, Colombia, first as a part of the six Latin American Group 
Members and later in the gro up of proponents, has actively participated in these negotiations. Our 
message today is that it is feasible to reach an outcome in Buenos Aires. To do so, it is necessary 
to take into account some elements that we believe are fundamental and that require e veryone's 
commitment. For example, Members must make an effort to ensure they are equally informed 
about the disciplines under discussion. The implications of such negotiations must be clear to all 
and uncertainties must be resolved in order to continue to  build the confidence needed to achieve 
results.  
 
Furthermore, it is paramount that we all make an effort to achieve the greatest coherence possible 
between the political mandate resulting from Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, the proposals 
being negotia ted, and the use of international instruments already agreed for regulating these 
activities. One example of such instruments is the International Plan of Action to  Prevent, Deter 
and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA IUU), agreed  in Rome in 2001, 
which we think should underpin any outcome on this matter in Buenos Aires. It is also important to 
maintain a high level of ambition with respect to disciplines on overfishing and overcapacity, using 
the relevant road map, in order to ach ieve outcomes in the three areas before 2020.  
 
Concerning agriculture, we reiterate that Colombia gives priority to outcomes in this area at the 
WTO, and we cannot imagine an 11th Ministerial Conference without progress in this regard. With 
Buenos Aires on ly a few weeks away, we are concerned about the gap between negotiating 
positions. We believ e that the proposal which we co -sponsored along with the European Union, 
Brazil, Uruguay and Peru offers a comprehensive, balanced, incremental and realistic approa ch 
that would enable us to establish a framework to reduce distorting domestic support, find a 
permanent solution on public stockholding for food security purposes – as mandated since Bali – 
and achieve a priority outcome with respect to domestic support f or cotton, taking into account the 
implications that the latter has for Members of the group of least developed countries.  
 
Turning to services, Colombia is a developing country actively involved in this area and continues 
to work with a large number of Me mbers to reach an outcome in the working group on domestic 
regulation on the basis of a specific, balanced proposal that gains the support of all Members.  
 
In relation to electronic commerce, our delegat ion is part of the Friends of E -commerce for 
Developm ent group. Colombia will continue to work constructively with this group of Members in 
order to deepen understanding of how e commerce offers a concrete tool for promoting inclusive 
development and, in particular, boosts the capacity of SMEs to become an i ntegral part of the 
global economy, facilitating their growth. We have expressed our support for proposals that the 
Ministers in Buenos Aires provide clarity  on how the work programme on e -commerce should be 
oriented towards the future, generating an insti tutional framework for cross cutting analysis, and 
examining potential topics such as the scope of existing agreements and the gaps that could be 
addressed through the development of rules that generate predictability for firms. This should fall 
within a f ramework that gives priority to analysing how this can foster growth in developing and 
least developed countries.  
 
Colombia would also like to reiterate its support for the informal dialogue that has taken place in 
the Friends of Investment Facilitation fo r Development group. In our view, the discussion between 
Members on the existing link between investment, trade and development has been quite 
successful and has clarified this issue. We must now move forward in this dialogue. We require a WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 71 - 
 
  lead from the Mi nisters in Buenos Aires to achieve greater clarity on the investment facilitation 
actions needed in the Organization in order to strengthen its role in the creation of more trade, 
with a view to promoting the inclusive development of Members.  
 
We also supp ort the initiatives to create a forum for discussion and formal analysis within the WTO 
to identify how the Organization could facilitate and strengthen the participation of MSMEs in 
international trade, taking into account the development dimension and th e goal of achieving 
increasingly inclusive trade.  
 
Finally, I recalled at the beginning of this statement that it is of utmost importance to preserve the 
relevance and operation of the multilateral trading system and its institutional structure as a global  
public good. We cannot help but voice our serious concern, ahead of Buenos Aires, about the 
ongoing problem in the Dispute Settlement Body and the impossibility of initiating the process for 
filling the vacancies in the Appellate Body. We hope that all Me mbers assume the responsibility of 
initiating the process to elect the missing members of the Appellate Body, thereby avoiding 
negative consequences for all.  
 
42. Cameroon  
 
Cameroon would like to thank you for your initiative and for giving the Members an idea  of what 
will be on the table for the negotiations. We would like to also thank the Chairman of the 
Negotiating Groups. All of these will be extremely useful in my capital so that we can look at what 
has been said.  
 
My delegation would like to support what  was said by Rwanda (African Group), Guyana (ACP) and 
Mali (C -4). We would also like to support the statements made by India and South Africa on new 
issues and those that are outside the WTO mandate. All of them have made eloquent speeches 
and I would echo  what was said by them – in addition to what was said by Uganda especially with 
regard to special and differential treatment and the whole process to be followed from now to 
Buenos Aires.  
 
I just want to intervene on certain points just to clarify the posi tion of my delegation. All the other 
areas have been taken on board by the coordinators including the interests of my country.  
 
You have encouraged us to be realistic but as you have said, Members still concentrate on their 
own interests and on their own p roposals. Members' positions are still far apart on many issues 
and yet we hope for results in Buenos Aires.  
 
With regard to respect for the rules, WTO rules including the principles and modalities for 
negotiations are part of the solution to the problem that we are facing. The respect for the WTO 
mandate and for the competencies of the different bodies and structures are also part of the 
solution. When we are spending time on things that we have no mandate for, it means that we are 
not concentrating suffi ciently on pertinent issues.  
 
In Marrakesh as here and elsewhere, some Members continue to raise these issues – sometimes 
contradicting WTO rules themselves. We do not believe that this is the best way to get to a result 
in Buenos Aires. By setting aside from our discussions these issues, we will be giving ourselves 
more chance of success.  
 
Some Members would like the WTO to be more relevant in the 21st Century and be more inclusive. 
My delegation agrees. Pertinent and inclusive trade for developing count ries such as Cameroon is 
trade which foresees that all developing countries and LDCs are in a position to export industrial 
products with added value. It is not the production of products without added value.  
 
Industrialization, structural transformation and diversification are the basis of pertinent trade. 
Industrialization is not just a way but it is the way to development. Bolivia has stated, as 
supported by Cuba, that development is WTO's debt. We must therefore take charge and make 
efforts towards thi s end. Industrialization is the only other name for development. This is why the 
G-90 countries are making such an effort to get results in Buenos Aires. But this has not proven 
possible since Bali.  
 WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Members should not forget that during the development r ound, the Trade Facilitation Agreement is 
the request of developed countries and not the developing countries. Upon the developing 
countries' request, Buenos Aires must produce a tangible result in terms of development. We 
therefore continue to remain comm itted and request that developed countries see by the end of 
this development round that G -90 countries are facing many types of crisis. We would like to ask 
Members to favour their request. Hurricanes and other natural disasters should be taken into 
accou nt so we can solve our development issues.  
 
On process, it must be inclusive, Member -driven and transparent. We do not want ambiguous 
statements such as paragraphs 31 or 34 in Nairobi. These are types of paragraphs that can be 
misleading for Members. The i ssue of divergences does not create law. Only elements of 
consensus should therefore be included in the Ministerial Declaration.  
 
43. Thailand  
 
This is not the first WTO Ministerial Conference. In the past twenty years, we have been 
experiencing different view s, positions and difficult situations. This is the beauty of having a 
multilateral trading system – we allow Members to express their views and priorities. We listen to 
each other and we find a way to bridge the gap because we believe in the system.  
 
Thailand has listened carefully. While we heard the restatement of known positions, we also heard 
many Members called for more flexibility. We are all aware that it is of utmost importance to have 
this element at this juncture.  
 
Minister Malcorra pointed out and we concur that even a half -filled glass can produce meaningful 
outcomes if we so wished. Standing firm on one's position does not mean anything. It only 
becomes a contribution to the destruction of the multilateral trading system.  
 
Thailand is willing  to work harder with you and all Members in order to witness successful and 
meaningful outcomes in Buenos Aires.  
 
44. Mexico  
 
We agree with your evaluation, and with your concern regardi ng the time remaining – only 
30 working days – before our Ministers meet i n Buenos Aires.  
 
It should be reiterated that, during this very limited period of time, we must step up our work, 
mainly on the issues on which an outcome is most likely to be achieved.  
 
Fishery subsidies is an issue on which the achievement of an outcome is highly likely. It has a 
significant degree of maturity, and we are ready to begin work on the basis of the consolidated 
text. 
 
Domestic regulation of services is an issue that we have been discussing for over two decades. We 
consider that the text on th e table not only has demonstrated significant points of convergence, 
resulting in increased  support from Members, but also contains a wide and clear scope for 
consideration of the flexibilities needed for developing and least developed countries. A genuine  
collective effort is therefore worthwhile, so that we can move towards higher standards of 
transparency and good practices in the services sector.  
 
Concerning agriculture, particularly domestic support, although Members have different positions, 
we are co nfident that we can find an approach that addresses everyone's concerns and which 
allows all Members to contribute proportionately. Mexico is willing to maintain a constructive 
stance and hopes that all Members will do the same.  
 
As regards post -Buenos Air es issues, in particular electronic commerce, we must work to achieve, 
in Buenos Aires, a space in which it is possible to hold horizontal discussions and engage in 
dialogue on new disciplines.  
 
It is important to define  a programme of work that enables us  to discuss investment facilitation 
and MSMEs at the WTO. Closing the door on discussions about these issues will not make the 
issues disappear . Whether we like it or not , such issues play a decisive  role in current international WT/GC/M/169  
 
- 73 - 
 
  trade, and the best thing we can do is prepare this Organization  to address new challenges, 
particularly if these challenges represent tools for development.  
 
In summary, we have a great deal of work and very little time. We need to identify the issues on 
which we can achieve an ou tcome, and agree on a programme of work for those on which we 
cannot. We also consider that it is necessary to begin discussions already on each component of a 
Ministerial Declaration.  
 
45. Norway  
 
After having listened to the debate today, I must admit that I  had hoped for more realism and 
pragmatism given the time constraints that you DG outlined at the start of the meeting. Many 
have stated the need to be flexible, but we have so far seen little evidence of that. Unfortunately, 
many members are still present ing their wish lists instead of seeking common ground and 
convergence. Maybe I am too optimistic to expect more realism at this stage.  
 
Already at the informal ministerial gathering on the WTO that took place in Oslo in October last 
year, the Chair in his summary pointed out that members would be more likely to achieve 
incremental steps than major leaps forward in the short term. It was also clear that to keep 
expectations realistic would be a determinant for success at MC11.  
  
Frankly, some of the proposal s on the table today are way beyond this.  
 
To avoid a chaotic ministerial in Buenos Aires, all members have to accept what the situation really 
is within each area of the negotiations. If a specific outcome in Buenos Aires is clearly not doable, 
that issue  will have to be dealt with beyond MC11.  
 
I am pleased to note that both here today and at the recent meeting in Marrakech, the one issue 
mentioned, as having the highest possibilities for success in Buenos Aires, is fisheries subsidies. 
With creativity, p ragmatism and engagement, we believe it is possible to reach consensus at MC11 
on the implementation of SDG 14.6 in the WTO.  
 
In addition, members clearly need to work hard to find the mandated mutually acceptable solution 
on public stockholding for food security purposes. In the work ahead on this important issue, more 
realism and convergence are needed.  
 
Both fisheries subsidies and PSH would be important development results.  
 
Ideally, Norway would hope that we in the coming weeks will see engagement tha t is more 
constructive on some of the other issues on the table such as domestic regulations and electronic 
commerce. At the very least we need to agree on one locus for e -commerce to facilitate a more 
comprehensive and uninterrupted process.  
 
Going forwa rd our aim should be to reach consensus on a ministerial declaration. A M iniste rial 
Declaration responding to Minister Malcorra' s call for a more inclusive narrative. Let us all aim to 
insert more realism into our preparations for MC11 and new optimism int o the MTS. There is a 
future after MC11.  
 
__________