JOB/GC/118  
 
1 March 2017 
(17-1239) Page: 1/5 
General Council    
 
 AGENDA ITEM 2 – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE  
TRADE NEGOTIATIONS C OMMITTEE  
MONDAY, 27  FEBRUARY 2017  
Director -General's Report at the Informal Heads of Delegation Meeting on 23 February 2017  
1.1.  There has been a lot of activity over the last few weeks, so I th ought it would be useful to 
meet today to report on those discussions ahead of the General Council meeting next week. 2017 
is an important year as we prepare for our Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires in December. It 
is therefore encouraging that the y ear has gotten off to a very good start for the WTO.  
1.2.  On 23 January 2017, after a wait of just over 11 years, the Protocol Amending the TRIPS 
Agreement finally entered into force, bringing with it additional legal certainty on access to 
medicines. This is a significant achievement.  
1.3.  There  is a saying that: 'you wait ages for a bus to come, then two come along at once.' So 
I'm pleased to confirm that yesterday we marked another breakthrough with the entry into force 
of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. And o f course we have not been waiting idle. We have all 
been working to get to this point and I want to thank Member s – and Geneva Ambassadors – for 
your efforts to push your ratification processes forward. This is a big moment for global trade and 
for the WTO  – and I look forward to making a formal report on the Trade Facilitation Agreement at 
the General Council on Monday.  
1.4.  In addition, Member s are taking steps to implement the Nairobi decision on export 
competition. Last Friday Australia became the first of t he 16  developed and developing Member s 
with scheduled export subsidy entitlements to submit its draft Schedule modification to eliminate 
those entitlements. I hope others will be in a position to do so in the very near future. And I hope 
that this positive  news will provide us with the momentum to make further progress this year.  
1.5.  So let me report now on the consultations that I have had so far in 2017. I will warn you now 
that it is going to be quite detailed and therefo re quite long – but I think it is  important for the 
sake of transparency and inclusivity that I report on my conversations in full.  
1.6.  On 20 January I attended the Swiss -hosted informal ministerial gathering in Davos. It was a 
very productive meeting. I understand that Switzerland will provide  a summary of the meeting in a 
few moments, so I won't preempt that statement.  In recent weeks I have also made bilateral visits 
to France, Senegal and India, and in each case I think the conversations were very constructive. 
And there has been a lot of ac tivity here in Geneva.  
1.7.  In December I reported to you that I was hearing divergent views in many areas – and in 
other areas I was hearing convergent views, albeit with different approaches. I therefore promised 
to facilitate exchanges amongst delegations i n various configurations and on various issues. The 
idea was to get a better sense of Member s' views – particularly from proponents.  
1.8.  There was no fixed format to these exchanges. It was simply a way of resuming our 
engagement complementing the activity th at I know is going on amongst Member s on many of 
these issues. I am aware that all of you have an interest in how all these issues are carried 
forward. As you know, my door is always open to any delegation that wishes to express its views 
on any specific i ssue. JOB/GC/118  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.9.  Related to this, let me re -emphasize two points:  
1.10.   First, as you know, my  work as Director -General and Chair of the TNC runs in parallel and 
complements the work of the Chairs. Their work is the main engine, and it remains absolutely 
crucial to our ch ances of success. It is through the Chairs' processes that negotiations take place – 
and of course they keep me briefed.  
1.11.   Second, progress has to be driven by Member s. The Chairs and I can facilitate your work. I 
think there is a particular onus on propone nts to get traction and convergence behind their issues. 
In the end this is what will determine what we can deliver in Buenos Aires and beyond.  
1.12.   So, let me now report on my consultations.  In each case, for the sake of transparency, I will 
recap the delegat ions in attendance at each of the meetings. In general terms the attendees were 
mostly proponents and, sometimes, group coordinators. In all of these consultations Ambassador 
Neple was present, as the Chair of the General Council, as well as Ambassador Cim a, as the host 
of MC11. In addition, the relevant Chairs attended the meetings – except  for Agriculture, where we 
do not  have a new Chair in place as yet.   
1.13.   So let me start now by reporting on my meeting on Services Domestic Regulation and 
Services Trade Fa cilitation.  I held these consultations on 2 February.  This was a meeting with 
proponents – that is, those delegations that had submitted or co -sponsored papers or non -papers 
in these areas since Nairobi.  Those invited to the consultations were: Australia, Chile, Colombia, 
EU, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei and India.  Also attending were the 
Chair of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation, the GC Chair, and Argentina – both as  MC11 
host and Chair of the CTS SS.  
1.14.   There are two stream s of work here.  The first is domestic regulation and the other, services 
facilitation.  In my view, there are significant overlaps in the two tracks.  But, they also differ in 
terms of depth and breadth, as well as in the level of maturity.  In fact, domestic  regulation can be 
seen in some respects as a subset of services facilitation in terms of what Member s are trying to 
achieve.  I heard positive views about the work under both tracks. But, it was also clear that 
further substantive work was required in both  tracks in order to better appreciate where Member s 
are going.  For example, on domestic regulation other elements need to be tabled soon in order to 
better appreciate the entire potential package.  More specificity was also required on services 
facilitation . I understand that India has just submitted a new contribution on this topic. This is 
welcome and it will be circulated to delegations very soon . 
1.15.   So, in the services area, there seems to be a good dynamic.  But, we need sustained active 
engagement from all  Member s to move the discussions forward.  
1.16.   Moving on, I held a meeti ng on development issues on 3 February. Although new or revised 
proposals have not been submitted on S&D or on LDC issues  since Nairobi, development 
continues  to be central to our work. I h ad called a meeting of the  proponents  in these areas to 
listen to  their views about potential outcomes in these two areas,  and how the Chair and I could 
help in advancing those issues. Those invited to these consultations were: Rwanda as ACP 
coordinator; C ameroon as S&D Focal Point for the ACP Group; Morocco as African Group 
Coordinator; Uganda as S&D focal Point for the Africa group; Benin as the LDC Coordinator; Nepal 
and Bangladesh at the request of the LDC coordinator; and Fiji, who were due to assume t he 
coordinator role of the ACP – though I understand that this may no longer be the case. Also in 
attendance were the GC Chair, the CTD SS Chair and Argentina.  
1.17.   In the discussion, the proponents emphasized the importance of delivering on development 
in what ever outcomes there will be at MC11.  On S&D, my understanding was that work was on -
going to revise and recalibrate previous proposals. In this regard, the CTD SS Chair urged the 
proponents to table their revised proposals soon, so as to allow sufficient ti me for substantive 
discussions ahead of MC11.  JOB/GC/118  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.   On LDC issues, an important area of engagement was the implementation of the decisions 
taken in Bali and Nairobi. Further outcomes could be considered in these areas. The LDC Group 
emphasized the importance of a clinical examination of DFQF market access to improve 
understanding of their needs and priorities. They indicated that they were continuing consultations 
and would soon update Member s.  
1.19.   At the same time, I thought that it would be important to consider i ntroducing elements of 
technical assistance in any outcome, where it was appropriate. On this subject, a concern was 
raised about the contributions to the EIF. I met with the EIF Board Chair, Ambassador Stevens, a 
few weeks ago and assured her that I will do everything I can to reach out to donors and ensure 
that the proper levels of support are provided.  
1.20.   This is a topic that we will be returning to again and again. I would ask all Member s to keep 
development and LDC issues at the forefront of their minds over the coming months.  
1.21.   Let me turn now to Fisheries Subsidies, where I held a meeting on the afternoon of 
3 February. This meeting was with those delegations that had submitted papers or co -sponsored 
proposals, or that were representatives of groups with  proposals. Those invited to these 
consultations were: the EU; Rwanda as the ACP Group Coordinator; Dominica as the ACP focal 
point on these issues; Colombia; Costa Rica; Panama; Peru; Uruguay; Uganda; Senegal; Iceland; 
New Zealand; Pakistan; and Canada – plus the GC Chair; the Rules Chair; and Argentina.  
1.22.   In this area, there are a number of pr oposals on the table which do not  wholly align at 
present. There are also different processes – the Negotiating Group process and a plurilateral one.  
It is also worth noting that the Rules Chair has also sent out to all Member s a set of questions on 
which he would like to hear responses in his bilateral meetings.  The proponents stated that an 
outcome on fisheries subsidies at MC11 was a priority for them – with some ref erring to SDG 14.6.  
Many hoped that progress could be made without unnecessary linkages – and said that this issue 
should be addressed on its own merits. The Rules Chair pointed out that one of the questions that 
he had circulated was a broad "process" que stion. His expectation therefore was that delegations 
would provide him with their sense on the approach ahead.  
1.23.   Regarding the two processes – all proponents expressed preference for a multilateral 
approach.  However, the point was made that plurilaterals co uld help in showing the possible ways 
ahead. In this regard, the facilitator of the plurilateral provided assurance that there was no 
competition or conflict between the two approaches.  My sense was that the question here would 
be how to convince those tha t were not yet attracted to this issue to engage. In my view, if 
Member s were aiming for a multilateral outcome, then strong political engagement at the highest 
level would be required.  
1.24.   Everyone was in favour of special and differential treatment in this area. However, the issue 
was what kind of S&D. It was clear that blanket carve outs from commitments would be difficult.  
There was also recognition that LDCs were more vulnerable. Elements of technical assistance were 
also discussed.  
1.25.   Let me now move to e -commerce. I held con sultations on this issue on 6 February in 
response to the level of activity in this area. As you all know, 11 submissions have been received. 
Like the previous consultations, this was a conversation with proponents – that is, those that  have 
submitted or co -sponsored papers or non -papers on this issue since MC10.  Those invited to these 
consultations were: Argentina, as a proponent this time; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; Cote d'Ivoire; EU; Hong Kong , China; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Korea; 
Malaysia; Mexico; Montenegro; Nigeria; Pakistan; Paraguay; Qatar; Russian Federation; 
Seychelles; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Turkey and the US.  Also present were the GC Chair; and 
Panama, both as a proponent and as the F riend of the GC Chair on E -Commerce.  
1.26.   The 11 submissions represent a broad range of ideas and approaches. Some go into detail 
on what they want to achieve, while others remain more general.  There is also a certain degree of 
overlap on some of the issues rai sed. The General Council Chair reported that from his 
consultations – as he had reported to the General Council last December – there was no clear path 
on how to move forward.   JOB/GC/118  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.27.   With regard to MC11, some said that they saw it as both a delivery and stocktak ing 
exercise.  In this regard, they said that the moratorium should be extended for two years or longer 
and, if agreeable, be made permanent. Others thought the Ministerial could be an occasion to 
reflect what had been discussed and build a forward looking agenda or some kind of work 
programme. Some were more cautious, arguing that a number of unresolved issues still needed 
time.  
1.28.   On process, a number of Member s agreed that the lack of locus was a reality. Therefore, 
every opportunity to have discussions in a bottom up inclusive process should be explored. The 
need to streamline the process was mentioned. There are many ideas and views out there – on 
both substance and process. Member s may want to reflect on them and decide what we need to 
do, or not do, in t his area.  
1.29.   Finally, let me turn to agriculture  – on which I  held consultations also on 6 February. 
Although we do not  yet have an Agriculture Chair, I thought it would be timely to hold this meeting 
given the importance of this area to so many Member s. In t his instance, I met with a group that I 
thought was broadly representative of the various interests in the negotiations.  I invited a total of 
40 delegations  to these consultations.  These were: Australia; Benin; Bolivia; Brazil; Cambodia; 
Canada; Chile; Chi na; Colombia; Costa Rica; Egypt; EU; Fiji; Guatemala; India; Indonesia; Japan; 
Kenya; Korea; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Morocco; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Paraguay; Peru; 
Philippines; Russia; Rwanda; Singapore; South Africa; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei;  Thailand; 
Turkey; Uruguay; US; and Vietnam.  Also present were the GC Chair and Argentina.  
1.30.   The key areas in agriculture as I saw and described them to this group were : 
1.31.   First, public stockholding . Here I noted that Member s agreed that there was a clear 
mand ate to find a permanent solution by MC11.  Many said that they were ready to work on a 
permanent solution here.  Having said that, since MC10, Member s have remained attached to their 
usual positions.   
1.32.   Second , domestic support in general, and cotton in partic ular. These have been identified as 
issues of priority for MC11 by a large number of WTO Member s and that was again reflected in my 
consultations.  Many papers have been submitted, the latest having been presented last month by 
the LDC Group.  
1.33.   Some delegatio ns also emphasized the importance of SSM, and others pointed out that a 
number of issues remained unresolved here. A few delegations mentioned market access as being 
important. Some specific topics here had been highlighted in new submissions last year.  Among 
other issues, a submission on transparency by Singapore related to Export Restrictions attracted 
interest from many Member s. 
1.34.   I heard from many delegations that agriculture was fundamental and had to be part of the 
outcomes for MC11.  But, at this point,  delegations were not in a position to say with precision 
what could be done.  On the process , many delegations pointed out the crucial role of the 
Agriculture Chair and hop ed that the selection of a new C hair would be completed soon.   
1.35.   So, this concludes my  report on the five areas that I have held conversations on so far.   
1.36.   Let me stress of course that these are not the only areas which Member s are focused on. 
The Chairs ' work continues across the full range of issues, and no doubt you are consulting each 
other on any issues which are of interest. Similarly, it is quite likely that I will be holding 
consultations on other issues as well. The issues I convened meetings on to date, were simply 
those where I perceived that there was the greatest level of activit y, or maybe even the greatest 
demand.  JOB/GC/118  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.37.   So, on the basis of all this, where do we stand today?  My honest assessment is that in all 
areas we still have a long way to go – and a huge amount of work ahead if we are to arrive at 
concrete outcomes. In practical terms we have just 8 months between now and MC11. Member s 
will have to quickly think about how they wish to advance, and on which areas. I think the 
proponents in particular must further intensify their engagement with other Member s in order to 
move forwar d. I welcome that many of you are doing this, but we need to be mindful that time is 
moving quickly. If proposals are to be forthcoming, I think Member s need to see them as soon as 
possible.  
1.38.   The time is fast approaching when we will have to transition fro m the current stage of 
conceptual and general discussions to much greater specificity. I hope we can achieve this by the 
summer break.  Of course MC11 is not the end of the road. I think the most productive approach if 
we want to deliver substantive outcome s, is to aim to achieve outcomes pragmatically and – if 
needed – incrementally. Those areas that are not ripe by  then - even on the same issue - could be 
delivered at a later stage. Of course as part of this we need to keep focused on the implementation 
of existing decisions, and development needs to be a key element as we look to advance any 
issue.  
1.39.   As ever Member s' willingness to be flexible, open -minded and pragmatic will be essential. 
Continued engagement from capitals will also be key. This should be ha ppening now. And, finally, I 
would urge you to try to build the needs of others into your proposals – particularly the needs of 
the least -developed Member s.  
1.40.   That concludes my statement.  
 
__________