RESTRICTED  
  
G/C/M/118  
6 June 2014  
(14-3320)  Page: 1/31  
Council for Trade in Goods   
 
  MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
9 APRIL 2014 
CHAIRPERSON: H.E. AMBASSADOR DACIO CASTILLO (HONDURAS) 
1  NOTIFICATION OF REGI ONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ..................................................... 2  
2  STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS 
IN ANNEX IA OF TH E WTO AGREEMENT ........................................................................... 2  
3  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES  OF THE COUNCIL 
FOR TRADE IN GOODS ...................................................................................................... 3  
4  GABON – SCHEDULE XLVII: RENEGO TIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:4 AND 
XXIV:6 OF THE GATT 1994 (G/SECRET/36/ADD.1) .......................................................... 4  
5  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994 ..................................................................................... 5  
5.1  Enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 2007 .................................................... 5  
5.2  Enlargement of the Europe an Union on 1 July 2013  ......................................................... 5  
6  PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIV ER RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT 
FOR RICE OF THE PHILIPPI NES (G/C/W/665/ REV.4) ..................................................... 5  
7  BRAZIL – INDIRECT TAXATION: COND ITIONS TO OBTAIN TAX BENEFITS IN 
VARIOUS SECTORS – STATEMENT BY JAPAN .................................................................... 7  
8  EUROPEAN UNION – THE EU RENEWABLE ENERGY DIRECTIVE (EU RED) - 
REQUEST FROM INDONESIA ............................................................................................. 8  
9  EUROPEAN UNION – RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPORTATION OF BIODIESEL 
FROM THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: MINI STERIAL ORDER OF THE KINGDOM OF 
SPAIN No. IET/822/2012 OF 20 APRIL 2012 AND RESOLUTION No. 1173 OF 
24 JANUARY 2014 OF THE SECRETARIAT FOR ENERGY OF THE MINISTRY OF 
INDUSTRY, ENERGY AND TOURISM OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN – STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA .............................................................................................................. 11
 
10  INDONESIA'S IMPORT AND EXPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES – REQUEST FROM THE EUROPE AN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED 
STATES ........................................................................................................................ .. 12
 
11  JAPAN – WOOD USE POINTS PROGRAMME – REQUEST FROM CANADA AND 
THE EUROPEAN UNION .................................................................................................. 16  
12  NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM 
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES .......................................................... 19  
13  UKRAINE – TRADE POLICY AND ME ASURES – STATEMENT BY JAPAN....................... 20  
14  RUSSIAN FEDERATION –TRADE RESTRICTING MEASURES – STATEMENTS BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES ............................................. 21  
15  UNITED STATES – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA) – 
NOTICE ON DATA AVAILABILITY CONC ERNING RENEWABLE FUELS PRODUCED 
FROM PALM OIL UNDER THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD (RFS) PROGRAM – REQUEST FROM INDONESIA ........................................................................................... 26
 G/C/M/118 
- 2 - 
  16  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES ON DATA, HS TRANSPOSITION WORK, 
AND OUTSTANDING NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................. 27  
17  BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE IN 
GOODS –STATEMENT BY PANAMA .................................................................................. 28  
18  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC  COMMERCE: MINISTERIAL DECISION 
OF 7 DECEMBER 2013 (WT/MIN( 13)/32 AND WT /L/907) ............................................. 29  
19  OTHER BU SINESS ..................................................................................................... 30  
19.1  Russian Federation ................................................................................................... 30 
19.1.1  Certain measures declared by th e European Union in favour of Ukraine ......................... 30 
19.1.2  Restrictive trade measures declared by cert ain WTO Members ..................................... 30 
19.2  Date of next meeting ............................................................................................... 31 
20  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS .............. 31  
 
When adopting the Agenda, the delegate of the Russian Federation requested to include, under 
"Other Business", two items relating to "The EU autonomous measures in respect of Ukraine" and 
"Trade Restrictive Measures declared by certain Members".  
The Council so agreed. 
 
1  NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, under the working procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), following adopti on by the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the CTG was to be kept informed of  Members' notifications of new regional trade 
agreements.1 He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements had been notified 
to the CRTA: 
 Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (WT/REG348/N/1); 
 Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Central America – Costa Rica, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (WT/REG349/N/1/Rev.1). 
1.2.  The Council took note of the information and of the statements made. 
2  STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS IN 
ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
2.1.  The Chairman drew Members' attention to documents G/L/223/Rev.21 and 
G/L/223/Rev.21/Corr.1, containing the status of notifications under the provisions of the 
Agreements in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement. He also indicated that, as a result of actions 
taken by the delegations of Australia and Japan together with the Market Access and Agriculture Divisions, the information included in the above-mentioned documents concerning notifications 
made under the Agreement on Agriculture had been extracted from 
document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.16. Consequently, and in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Budget and Finance endorsed by the General Council in November 2011 to reduce the length of documents, the English version of the document before the Council had been reduced 
from 94 to 54 pages. 
2.2.  The delegate of Japan thanked the Secretariat for the efforts it had made to reduce the 
length of the document while preserving its qua litative effectiveness through an improved format. 
2.3.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei thanked Australia and Japan for their efforts in consultation 
with the Secretariat to reduce the length and format of the document. Her delegation shared the 
overall objective of improving the transparency of  Members' trade policies in the context of an 
                                               
1 See documents WT/REG16, WT/L/671, and G/C/M/88. G/C/M/118 
- 3 - 
  effective surveillance mechanism as established by the Working Group on Notification Obligations 
and Procedures. A simplified, standardized, and consolidated list of notification obligations would benefit all Members and improve compliance. 
2.4.  The representative of the European Union stated that the EU had complied with all the 
notifications required, except in a few areas concerning Agriculture. Nevertheless, the EU had 
submitted various notifications to be reviewed by the Committee on Agriculture2; consequently, it 
was mostly up to date in this regard.3 
2.5.  The delegates of Australia and of the United St ates also thanked the Secretariat for the new 
and shorter document. The US also indicated that this issue was directly linked to Agenda item "P" 
on data, HS transposition, and outstanding notifications. 
2.6.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made, and of 
documents G/L/223/Rev.21 and G/L/223/Rev.21/Corr.1.4 
2.7.  The Council so agreed. 
3  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBSIDIA RY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN GOODS 
3.1.  The Chairperson recalled delegations that the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to the 
WTO (WT/L/510) adopted by the General Council on 11 December 2002, provided that the 
Chairperson of the CTG would conduct consultations on the appointment of the Chairpersons of the 
subsidiary bodies of this Council, including consul tations with the group coordinators in line with 
the practical steps to be taken to improve the process of appointment of officers contained in JOB/GC/022 dated 27 July 2012. 
3.2.  He informed the Council that he had carried ou t consultations over two weeks on this matter. 
These consultations were carried out in a highly transparent and open manner and all Members were informed that he would be accepting proposals for candidates for these positions. He formed 
a draft slate of names based on the proposals and suggestions from Members which came forth in 
response to his call,. This draft then served as the basis for further bilateral consultations among interested Members. Overall, this had not been an easy task. Finally, he held an open-ended 
informal consultation on a proposed slate of name s. At this informal meeting, his proposed slate 
was agreed by Members. He therefore believed himself to be in a position to propose to this Council an agreed slate of names for the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies. This slate reflected the open, transparent manner in which the consultations were carried out, as well as the wide 
diversity of the WTO membership. 
3.3.  The names of Chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies were as follows: 
Chairpersons of CTG Subsidiary Bodies 
Market Access Mrs Alana HUDSON (New Zealand) 
Agriculture Mrs Miriam Beatriz CHAVES (Argentina) 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es Mrs Lillian BWALYA (Zambia) 
Technical Barriers to Trade Mr Filipe RAMALHEIRA (Portugal) 
TRIMs Mr Víctor ECHEVARRÍA UGARTE (Spain) 
Anti-Dumping Practices Mr Andrew STAINES (UK) 
Subsidies and Countervailin g Measures Mr Eduardo MINORU CHIKUSA (Brazil) 
Safeguards Ms Kim KAMPEL (South Africa) 
                                               
2 The annual DS:1 notifications covering the marketing year 2010/2011; the ES:1; ES:2 notifications 
covering the EU marketing year 2011/2012; the NF:1 notifications covering the calendar years 2010, and the MA:2 notification covering the marketing year 2011/2012 and the calendar year 2012. 
3 The MA:5 notifications for 2011-2012; the notifications for 2011-2012 on domestic support; the 
notification for 2012-2013 on export subsidies; and the notification concerning net-food importing developing 
countries, were all under preparation. 
4 Document G/L/223/Rev.21/Corr.1, in English only. G/C/M/118 
- 4 - 
  Import Licensing Mr Tsot etsi 'MAKONG (Lesotho) 
Rules of Origin Mr Ken Chang-keng CHEN (Chinese Taipei) 
Customs Valuation Ms Joanna K. Y. CHEUNG (Hong Kong, China) 
State Trading Enterprises Mr Mohamed AL-SAADI (Oman) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products (ITA Committee) Mr Frédéric PAYOT (Switzerland) 
 
3.4.  He proposed that the Council agree with the nominations read out. 
3.5.  The Council so agreed. 
3.6.  The Chairperson recalled that, while all the other subsidiary bodies of the Council had 
provisions in their respective Agreement or rules of procedure requiring them to elect 
Chairpersons, Working Parties did not. As a result, he proposed that the Council appoint the nominated Chairperson for the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises,. For all other 
subsidiary bodies, he proposed that th e Council take note of his proposals. 
3.7.  The Council so agreed. 
3.8.  The Chairperson added that, on the question of Vice-Chairpersons, his understanding was 
that it would be for the subsidiary bodies to deci de if they needed a Vice-Chair, in cases where the 
option existed under the Agreement or rules of procedure, and that it was for the respective Chair to hold the necessary consultations. He asked if the Council could proceed on this basis. 
3.9.  The Council so agreed. 
3.10.  The Chairperson thanked the outgoing Chairpersons  of the subsidiary bodies of this Council 
for their hard work and dedication in 2013 an d congratulated the Chairs for 2014 for their 
nomination. 
4  GABON – SCHEDULE XLVII: RENEGOTIAT IONS UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:4 AND XXIV:6 
OF THE GATT 1994 (G/SECRET/36/ADD.1) 
4.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document /SECRET/36/Add.1, dated 
23 March 2014, in which Gabon had requested the Council's authorization to further extend for a 
maximum period of 60 days, or from 17 April to 17 June 2014, the period agreed to renegotiate its Schedule of Concessions. 
4.2.  The representative of Gabon thanked the Council for having authorized Gabon to renegotiate 
its Schedule of Concessions over a period of 180 days, or from 18 October 2013 until 
16 April 2014. Gabon had initiated negotiations with those Members which had expressed interest in the renegotiation and had already concluded agreements with several of these Members; the 
agreements reached would be notified when appropriate. However, considering the expiry date of 
the initial renegotiating period granted to Gabon, as well as the number of remaining delegations interested in meeting with his delegation, Gabon had submitted in document G/SECRET/36/Add.1 
a request for an extension of the renegotiations to a maximum of 60 additional days, or until 
17 June 2014. Gabon hoped to receive from Memb ers a positive response to this request. 
4.3.  The delegate of the Unites States stated that her delegation had met Gabon the day before 
the Council's meeting and supported the request to extend the renegotiation period so as to allow 
Gabon to continue its bilateral discussions with the US and other interested delegations. 
4.4.  The delegate of Cameroon supported Gabon's request and indicated that all of the 
CEMAC countries hoped that the WTO membership would support this extension. 
4.5.  The representative of the European Union welcomed Gabon's actions to comply with its 
WTO obligations and supported the request for an additional extension. 
4.6.  The delegate of Japan also supported Gabon' s request and indicated that her delegation 
would continue working with Gabon on this issue. G/C/M/118 
- 5 - 
  4.7.  The delegate of Brazil stated that a bilatera l meeting with Gabon on this issue would take 
place soon; Brazil would follow closely the rene gotiations as these had systemic implications. 
4.8.  The delegate of Nigeria echoed the previous speakers in supporting Gabon's request for an 
extension. 
4.9.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for thei r statements and proposed that the Council 
agree to further extend the renegotiation period for Gabon for an additional period of 60 days, or 
until 17 June 2014. 
4.10.  The Council so agreed. 
5  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF 
GATT 1994 
5.1.  The Chairperson informed Members that, under this agenda item, the Council was to consider 
a request for an extension of the time period for the withdrawal of concessions for the 
enlargement of the European Union to 28 member States. 
5.1  Enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 2007 
5.2.  The representative of the European Union in formed the Council that GATT Article XXVIII.3 
procedures concerning the EU enlargement of 2007 had been completed; all the agreements had 
been published and the only pending issue was the date of entry into force of the agreement with 
China, which was imminent. His delegation had transmitted to the WTO Secretariat, in 
March 2014, the final report of the negotiations, including all the agreements concluded. Since the period in which Members' rights were preserved expired on 1
 July 2014, the EU considered that 
this period did not need to be extended. 
5.2  Enlargement of the European Union on 1 July 2013 
5.3.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/L/1051/Add.1 concerning the 
accession to the European Union on 1 July 2013 of the Republic of Croatia. In this document, the 
EU indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to 
Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded from withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because such wi thdrawal occurred later than six months after 
the EU's withdrawal of concessions, provided th at the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions 
no later than 18 months after the EU's modification  of concessions. He recalled that the CTG had 
extended the deadlines on one occasion at its meetings of 27 November 2013. 
5.4.  The representative of the European Union stated  that the EU had received 12 claims within 
the 90-day period following its notification to the WTO, circulated on 15 April 2013, and two other 
claims thereafter. It had held meetings with the former in October 2013 and in February 2014, 
where the issues of consolidation of agricultural TRQs and possible ad-hoc compensations beyond 
that consolidation were addressed. Agreements with Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Ecuador, 
New Zealand, and Uruguay were all expected to co nclude soon; however, talks were still ongoing 
and, consequently, the period in which Members'  rights were preserved should be extended. 
5.5.  The delegate of Australia thanked the EU fo r the approach it had taken regarding this 
enlargement; Australia hoped that this enlargem ent, as all enlargements, would not raise trade 
barriers to other Members. 
5.6.  The Council took note of the statements made regarding the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/1051/Add.1 and, agreed on the extension of the deadline as set out in the 
EU document G/L/1051/Add.1, or until 1 January 2015. 
6  PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR 
RICE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G/C/W/665/REV.4) 
6.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/C/W/665/Rev.4, dated 
27 March 2014, containing a revised waiver request and a revised draft waiver decision concerning G/C/M/118 
- 6 - 
  the special treatment for rice of the Philippines.  He recalled that, at the last meeting of this 
Council, in November 2013, under agenda item "Other Business", he had reported that the delegation of the Philippines had informed him that the negotiation process with interested Members on this issue was still ongoing and that the Council had agreed to revert to this issue at 
this meeting. 
6.2.  The delegate of the Philippines stated that th e revision 4 of the waiver request and draft 
decision was the result not only of Members' understanding, constructive engagement, balanced 
interests and expectations, and more than two ye ars of deliberation under the aegis of the Goods 
Council, but was a product also of extensive bilateral discussion that had taken place outside the WTO, in Manila, Geneva, and the capitals of the nine interested parties in this issue. The Philippines expected a positive consideration for its revised request and the CTG's endorsement of 
the draft waiver decision for its approval by the General Council. 
6.3.  The delegate of Indonesia thanked the Philippi nes for its report on the development of the 
negotiations on this issue. The special treatm ent for rice of the Philippines had expired in 
June 2012; his delegation believed that it was of the utmost importance for the Philippines to 
achieve its food security objectives for millions of people. The waiver request and draft waiver decision stipulated the exceptional circumstances of the Philippines as well as its conditionality; 
therefore, Indonesia supported this waiver request. 
6.4.  The delegate of Thailand thanked the Philippines for having pursued this matter in this 
Council since the expiration of the special treatment for its rice in June 2012, and for its continued 
engagement with Thailand in bilateral consultations. At the bilateral meeting of December 2013, 
both delegations had come near to a mutually sa tisfactory agreement. However, there remained 
unresolved issues of importance for Thailand, and which referred to the principle and to the quota 
administration of rice imports under the country-specific quota of the Philippines. Consequently, 
his delegation was not in a position to agree to forward the draft waiver decision to the General 
Council, but hoped that by end-April or early May Manila and Bangkok could meet again in an effort to reach a satisfactory and prompt conclusion to this issue. 
6.5.  The delegate of India supported the Philippines in its efforts to obtain a waiver from its 
obligations under Section B of Annex 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture and extend the special 
treatment for its rice. Rice was a commodity directly linked to food security, livelihood security, and the rural developmental needs of millions of inhabitants in developing countries. India 
recognized that, despite the sensitivities associated with a need to reinvigorate rice agriculture and 
institute resilience programmes, the Philippines had been very constructive. He therefore asked other Members to engage constructively on this issue with a view to reaching a satisfactory 
package. India fully endorsed this waiver request. 
6.6.  The delegate of Viet Nam stated that his country heavily relied on agriculture production and 
exportation; therefore, Viet Nam supported a stre ngthened rules-based multilateral trading system 
and the liberalization of global trade in agricultural products, including rice. It also believed that a 
stable, predictable, and less distorted trade in rice was not only a pre-condition for sustainable rice agriculture but also a key for food security in many countries. 
6.7.  Viet Nam and the Philippines were among the countries most vulnerable to impacts of climate 
change and natural disasters. Therefore, Viet Nam supported the request by the Philippines and 
had engaged in constructive bilateral consultations as a result of which a mutual satisfactory agreement had been reached. He urged other interested Members likewise to support the 
Philippines. 
6.8.  The delegate of Canada thanked the Philippines for the update and for the constructive 
dialogue it had had with Canada on this issue; however, the short delay between the circulation of 
the latest proposal and this meeting had not allowed Canada to reach a definitive position on the 
revised version of this request. Canada would shortly revert back directly to the Philippines on this issue. 
6.9.  The delegate of Australia thanked the Philippines for the ongoing bilateral discussions on this 
issue; although Australia was not yet in a position to agree to the waiver request it hoped to soon 
reach a conclusion. G/C/M/118 
- 7 - 
  6.10.  The delegate of the United States thanked the Philippines for the updated version of its 
request and indicated that her authorities had made significant progress with regard to the 
negotiations relating to the terms of waiver and other related issues. The US was not yet in a position to join a consensus on this matter but would continue discussions with the Philippines with 
a view to reaching a prompt conclusion. She urged other Members to do the same, not least 
because this Council had been discussing this issu e since the expiration of the last extension for 
special treatment in June 2012. 
6.11.  The delegate of China indicated that, in March 2013, his country had agreed on an MOU with 
the Philippines on this matter and, given that th e issue had been considered by the CTG for almost 
two years, urged Members to work towards a WTO-consistent and mutually acceptable solution. 
6.12.  The delegate of the Philippines thanked delega tions for their comments in support of their 
request and reiterated the continued commitment of  the Philippines to engage with the remaining 
parties on the outstanding concerns so as to reach an agreement and consensus in this Council. 
6.13.  The Chairperson invited the Council to take note of the statements made and to revert to 
this issue at the next meeting. 
6.14.  The Council so agreed. 
7  BRAZIL – INDIRECT TAXATION: CONDITIONS  TO OBTAIN TAX BENEFITS IN VARIOUS 
SECTORS – STATEMENT BY JAPAN 
7.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 27 March 2014, Japan 
had requested that the agenda of this meeting include the following issue: "Brazil – Indirect 
Taxation: Conditions to obtain tax benefits in various sectors". 
7.2.  The delegate of Japan reiterated Japan's concerns over Brazil's assistance programme for the 
automotive sector called INOVAR-AUTO. The measures under INOVAR were envisaged to protect 
domestic industry and to provide certain advantages pertaining to internal taxes on products of 
specific countries and, as such, could constitute a violation of GATT Article III or Article II of the 
TRIMS Agreement given that such measures might constitute a de facto  discrimination against 
certain foreign products. Japan was also concerned about the proliferation of indirect taxes to 
various sectors as a means to protect and promote domestic manufacturing, particularly through 
the use of domestic content conditions extended to sectors like communication network equipment. This would negatively impact the business environment in Brazil. Japan invited Brazil to reconsider such measures and to bring th em into conformity with the WTO Agreement. 
7.3.  The representative of the European Union reca lled that his delegation had already expressed 
concern about Brazil's tax programmes in this Council and in other WTO committees. He also 
informed the Council that, on 19 December 2013, the EU had requested consultations with Brazil 
under the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) on a number of problematic tax measures. The 
EU hoped that Brazil would provide a prompt  and positive solution to this matter. 
7.4.  The delegate of Canada shared the systemic and commercial concerns of Japan and the EU 
on this issue. Brazil had indicated that these measures were temporary, but given that the 
INOVAR-AUTO scheme was not due to expire until December 2017 it would already have caused, by such time, an irreversible and negative impact on trade. Concerns also existed about the extension of these measures into other sectors. Canada supported the commitments of the G-20 
leaders to resist trade protectionism and encouraged Brazil also to do so. 
7.5.  The delegate of the United States stated that her delegation would welcome further 
information from Brazil addressing the numerous concerns expressed by Japan and other 
Members. 
7.6.  The delegate of Australia recalled that Austra lia, as other Members, had raised concerns 
during the past two and a half years about Brazil's measures in this Council as well as in the 
Market Access and the TRIMS committees. Brazil's measures, which were announced as 
temporary, had now evolved into a permanent use of  indirect taxes to benefit a broadening range G/C/M/118 
- 8 - 
  of goods and sectors through domestic content re quirements. Nevertheless, Australia's particular 
interest remained the automotive sector. 
7.7.  At the October 2013 meeting of this Council Brazil had indicated that, in its view, 
INOVAR-AUTO's programme had benefitted compan ies from different countries. Nevertheless, 
after a close examination of the programme, Australia had noted that it benefitted only those 
companies which had established a motor vehicle manufacturing presence in Brazil and that it discriminated against automotive component producers who were not part of Brazil's value chain 
and who were attempting to compete to supply to such a discriminatory and closed import regime. 
7.8.  Australia was disappointed by Brazil's choice of mechanisms, which entrenched distortions in 
its domestic market and which were discriminatory against imported goods; therefore, Australia would continue to monitor developments closely. 
7.9.  The delegate of Korea shared the concerns rais ed by previous delegations on this issue, 
particularly those related to government measures extended to other areas and sectors that 
appeared to provide assistance to Brazil's domestic industries in ways that might not be 
WTO-consistent. Korea asked Brazil to consider the concerns raised and to address this issue 
promptly. 
7.10.  The delegate of Brazil thanked delegations fo r their interventions and indicated that his 
country had always given special attention to this issue. Brazil would provide the pertinent 
clarification regarding the technical aspects of the measures and continue to be engaged in consultations with the EU regarding this matter. He recalled that, as already stated on previous occasions in the CTG and other fora, these measures were part of an effort by the Brazilian 
government to implement a modern industrial policy within the boundaries granted by the 
multilateral trading rules. 
7.11.  These measures were designed to improve Br azil's economic development while promoting 
technological innovation, protecting the environm ent, and fostering opportunities to create a 
well-qualified workforce; thus, the measures were aimed at integrating Brazilian industry into global value chains, and not to relegate it to a mere assembling of goods. Moreover, Brazil wanted 
to improve the business environment for domestic and foreign investors alike; therefore, its 
intention was gradually to rationalize and simplify its complex fiscal system. 
7.12.  In this vein, Brazil wanted to mitigate the unintentional over-taxation of investments and 
exports, as well as the difficulty experienced in recovering tax credits accumulated in a 
non-cumulative tax regime. Many of the measures that had been mentioned were aimed at 
achieving this goal and constituted an effort to align the Brazilian tax system to the practice of most other countries, in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The 
INOVAR-AUTO programme, which had been benefitting companies from different countries, 
including from Japan and other countries, illustrated the above-mentioned intention. 
7.13.  With regard to measures in the telecommunications and network equipment sectors, he 
indicated that these responded to the same objectives  and, in some instances, were related also to 
the construction of an infrastructure network vital to Brazil's security interests. 
7.14.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
8  EUROPEAN UNION – THE EU RENEWABLE ENERGY DIRECTIVE (EU RED) - REQUEST 
FROM INDONESIA 
8.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, at the request of Indonesia in a communication 
dated 27 March 2014, the item entitled: "European  Union – The EU renewable Energy Directive 
(EU RED)", had been included on the agenda of this meeting. 
8.2.  The representative of Indonesia recalled that his delegation had raised the issue of the 
EU Directive on Renewable Energy No. 2009/28/EC and its amendment, on the promotion of the 
use of energy from renewable sources, at the last Council meeting in October 2013; however, the 
concerns raised at that meeting about the impa ct of these directives on the market access 
conditions for biodiesel from Indonesia had not been addressed. G/C/M/118 
- 9 - 
  8.3.  The EU directives had set sustainability criteria for biofuel and "bioliquids" in order that they 
be counted towards the share of renewable energy in overall energy consumption. Article 17 of the 
amended Directive defined two sets of sustainabilit y criteria for biofuel which might be fulfilled 
cumulatively: greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings and land-use requirements. Indonesia was 
of the view that the GHG emissions savings thresholds, as stipulated in the Directives, were set 
arbitrarily and discriminated against Indonesian biofuels through the inclusion of the transport emission in the calculation of emission savings, through the setting of default values for the 
GHG emissions savings, and through the methodologies used for the establishment of the savings 
thresholds. 
8.4.  At the last meeting, the EU had suggested that biofuel producers could use private 
certification schemes recognized by the EU Commission; however, this scheme posed a number of 
difficult challenges and represented an additi onal cost to Indonesian biofuel producers. 
8.5.  Concern also existed over the anti-dumping duties imposed by the EU on imports of 
biodiesels from Indonesia, as the EU had implemen ted an additional duty of on average of 18.9% 
for Indonesia. This measure punished the Indonesian biodiesel sector for being more competitive 
and reduced exports of biodiesels from Indonesia by almost 66%. 
8.6.  Indonesia was also concerned about certain negative campaigns conducted by public 
institutions, the private sector, and NGOs, and promoted in the EU member States, which 
discriminated against Indonesian palm oil; these campaigns had been conducted in several forms, such as the food labels in Belgian supermarkets, and retailers referring to products with "No Palm Oil" or "0% Palm Oil", and as "Palm Oil Free". Additionally, there were other products which 
equated palm oil with dyes and additives. These campaigns were misleading for EU consumers of 
palm oil. 
8.7.  In conclusion, he indicated that Indonesian palm oil was clean and a renewable energy source 
for the future; palm oil plantations were efficient in their land usage and more productive on its oil 
yields per hectare, outperforming other vegetable oils such as sunflower and rapeseed. Based on Oil World Data, palm oil accounted for 4.8% of global land use but produced 43.7% of global oils 
and fats output. In Indonesia, around 40% of palm oil was produced by small farmers and 
provided critical support to the livelihoods of millions of farmers in rural areas. Consequently, Indonesia asked the EU not to pose trade barriers on biofuel products that originated from Members outside the EU. 
8.8.  The delegate of Argentina thanked Indonesia for having again brought this issue to the 
Council's attention. Like Indonesia, Argentina, as well as other extra-communitarian palm oil 
producers and exporters, had been affected by the implementation of the EU RED directive. 
Argentina had also raised its concerns in the TBT Committee and under the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding (DSU), where it had requested consultations with the EU and several of its member States regarding EU Directives 2009/28 and 2009/ 30 in relation to the enhancement and use of 
renewable energies (DS459). 
8.9.  The measures at issue contained established sustainability criteria which might be fulfilled by 
biofuels in order to be considered to be in co mpliance with the EU member States' objectives 
concerning renewable energies and, therefore, benefit from the incentives for their use. Argentina 
did not object to the use of such criteria, nor a methodology to calculate the GHG savings. Indeed, 
the biodiesel sector of Argentina was remarkable for its environmental and social sustainability. Argentina's claim referred to what it considered  to be an arbitrary threshold of 35% for the 
reduction of GHG emissions in order to consider bi ofuels as sustainable. Like Indonesia, Argentina 
believed that this threshold was not scientifically justified nor based on a recognized international standard. 
8.10.  Furthermore, the EU Directive at issue had fixed for soya biodiesel a default value of 31%, 
which was below the 35% general threshold. Therefore, soya biodiesel could not comply with the reduction emissions criterion to be considered as sustainable. Consequently, a certification process was required, entailing additional administrative costs for the Argentine producers of soya 
biodiesel. Article 19 of EU Directive 2009/28 required an adequate reflection of the most recent 
technical and scientific progress in the values of gas emissions. Since the value for soya biodiesel did not correspond to reality and had not taken into account the production system in the country, G/C/M/118 
- 10 - 
  Argentina had requested the correction of this valu e through the updating of the different annexes 
of the aforementioned EU directives. Studies ha d been presented by Argentina in this regard. 
8.11.  Argentina maintained that the current EU regulation, the proposals for their modification, as 
well as the different investigations for supposed dumping and alleged subsidies, put forward by the 
European industry against the extra-communitarian  biodiesel, including the implementation of 
anti-dumping measures, were aimed at protecting an over-sized industry, incapable of competing 
efficiently with other global biodiesel producers such as Argentina and Indonesia. The European 
industry, which lacked the vertical integration that would enable it to be more effective, had 
influenced the adoption of such measures although they did not relate to the EU's WTO commitments. Argentina called upon the EU not to impose trade barriers to extra-communitarian biodiesel. 
8.12.  The delegate of Malaysia supported the previous  statements as his delegation had systemic 
concerns on this issue. 
8.13.  The representative of the European Union stated  that the EU had made all efforts to address 
the Indonesian concerns, including a bilateral meeting that took place in Brussels on 
20 March 2014. Concerning the comments made by other delegations, he indicated that these were alleged trade barriers which did not correspond to reality; the EU would not enter into a 
discussion or analysis of the EU industry and co nsidered that the anti-dumping measures it had 
adopted were in conformity with WTO rules. 
8.14.  With regard to the threshold of 35% for GHG emissions, the directives reflected the 
objectives and levels of environmental protection being pursued by the EU, as well as the level at 
which biofuels deserved to be considered for public support, account taken of all relevant 
elements. Biofuels that did not meet the emissions savings thresholds were simply considered as biofuels and could be marketed freely in the EU. 
8.15.  The sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids were not mandatory for imports, trade, 
and use of biofuels in the EU; they had been set for those biofuels used to meet the EU's binding 
target of 10% renewable energy in the transport sector by 2020 and receiving public support in 
order to ensure that they would be produced in a sustainable manner in terms of GHG emission 
savings and biodiversity. These criteria applied to all biofuels that received public support, regardless of their origin. 
8.16.  The Directive provided a clear regulatory framew ork for biofuel sustainability to be applied 
in all the EU member States and included "default values" which economic operators could use to 
show compliance with the sustainability criterion on GHG savings. Their aim was to reduce the administrative burden for economic operators, as companies were able to use these predetermined 
values instead of calculating an actual value. The "default values" had been set at a conservative 
level to make it unlikely for economic operators to be claiming values that were higher than their actual values, and could also be updated based on scientific progress. 
8.17.  According to RED Article 19.1, there were three possibilities to show compliance with the 
saving requirements: by using default values; by using actual values – where the actual GHG savings were higher than the default values ; or by using a sum of these aggregated and 
actual values for the elements of the GHG calculation. 
8.18.  Additionally, the Commission was requested by law to review Annex 5 of the Directive, 
including both methodological aspects and, in light of scientific progress, an update of the emission 
values and savings for biofuels. As mentioned at the last CTG meeting, this update was ongoing 
and the adoption of updated default values was expected for 2014. The work of the EU Joint 
Research Centre on the update of the default values had been carried out in consultation with the stakeholders, including experts from palm-oil production countries in Asia. 
8.19.   The Council took note of the statements made. G/C/M/118 
- 11 - 
  9  EUROPEAN UNION – RESTRICTIONS ON TH E IMPORTATION OF BIODIESEL FROM THE 
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: MINISTERIAL ORDER OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN 
No. IET/822/2012 OF 20 APRIL 2012 AND RESOLUTION No. 1173 OF 24 JANUARY 2014 OF THE SECRETARIAT FOR ENERGY OF THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, ENERGY AND 
TOURISM OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN – STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2014, 
Argentina had requested the inclusion of this  item in the agenda of this meeting. 
9.2.  The delegate of Argentina stated that the biodiesel sector in his country was remarkable for 
its environmental and social sustainability. This, combined with the technology, scale, and level of 
integration of the soybean production chain as a whole, had made it one of the most efficient 
biodiesel sectors in the world. Before the impositi on by the EU of import restrictions, Argentina 
was the main supplier of biodiesels to Spain and the EU. Indeed, Spanish Ministerial Order 
No. IET/822/2012 had instituted a de jure discrimination against biodiesels not produced in the 
EU; this had led Argentina to raise this matter before this Council in June 2012 and at the meeting 
of the TBT Committee on 13 June 2013. After Argentina's request for the establishment of a panel 
on 17 December 2012, Spain had abolished the aforementioned de jure discrimination through 
Ministerial Order No. IET/2736/2012, published on 22 December 2012. However, Argentina had 
indicated that it would continue to monitor the effective implementation of this Ministerial Order so 
that its application would not lead to renewed discrimination. 
9.3.  The selection process of firms to which quotas of biofuel would be allocated for computing 
compliance with the mandatory biofuel targets, as established in Ministerial Order 
No. IET/822/2012, was carried out in Spain in 2013. Believing that the de jure discrimination had 
been abolished, nine top Argentine businesses, some of them world leaders in the export of soy-based products, had participated in the allocation process. Resolution No. 1173 
of 24 January 2014 contained Spain's finalized administrative procedure for the allocation of 
biodiesel volumes to be supplied in 2014 and 2015; however, all the Argentine firms that had applied for allocation of these quotas were excluded. Indeed, Resolution 1173 had prevented 
non-EU biodiesel from entering the Spanish market, including Argentina, its main supplier. 
9.4.  Argentina believed that, when doing so, Spain had breached Ministerial Order 
No. IET/822/2012, as it had maintained the object ive prior to the amendment. The exclusion of 
Argentine biodiesel and of non-EU biodiesel was, in Argentina's view, aimed at protecting a bloated 
industry, lacking vertical integration and incapable of competing with other efficient biodiesel 
producers and exporters, such as Argentina. Thus, Spain, an EU member State, had resorted to a 
de facto  discrimination in order to protect its industry, by applying measures which Argentina 
considered inconsistent with the EU's WTO commitments. This ran counter to Members' efforts to 
refrain from protectionism as the economic impact was over US$1.1 billion per year in Argentine exports to Spain. 
9.5.  There were other EU measures adopted against Argentina's exports of biodiesels, which had 
been challenged under the DSU, including an anti-dumping measure that was currently being 
appealed before the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and an investigation on alleged subsidies which had to be terminated due to lack of evidence. These measures had had serious 
repercussions on production and employment in  Argentina, and announcements had been made 
about the closure of several production plants and a subsequent loss of jobs. In Argentina's view, this was an example of how the EU's protection ism undermined development. She therefore urged 
the EU to re-establish free access of imports to its biodiesel market, regardless of the origin of the 
biofuels, and to bring its members' domestic legislation into conformity with the WTO rules. 
9.6.  She finally requested the Secretariat to take note of the aforementioned measures and to 
include these in the next reports on the mo nitoring of trade measures, issued by the 
WTO Director-General for the G-20 and the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism. 
9.7.  The delegate of Malaysia registered the system ic concerns of his delegation and supported 
the previous statement. 
9.8.  The representative of Indonesia shared the systemic concerns raised by Argentina over 
Resolution 117/14 which had prevented the participation of non-European biodiesel in the G/C/M/118 
- 12 - 
  EU's market of biodiesels, and which had the aim of protecting an oversized industry, unable to 
compete in an efficient manner with similar industries from developing countries such as Indonesia and Argentina. He requested Spain to abandon the de facto  discrimination against biodiesels of 
non-European origin. 
9.9.  The representative of the European Union acknowledged Argentina's interest in the 
development of the promotion of biofuels and th e implementation measures in the EU. However, 
this issue did not correspond to protectionism as described by Argentina; therefore, he would not 
refer to anti-dumping in this Council as there were more appropriate fora to do so. As to the point 
made by Argentina that Resolution 1173 excluded non-EU producers from the Spanish market, the 
issue was more complex than such a presentation implied. Indeed, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the Fuel Quality Directive (F QD) had enhanced the demand for biofuels and 
agricultural feedstock used for the producti on of biofuels and had created new market 
opportunities under strict sustainability criteria applied to both EU and foreign suppliers. 
9.10.  The Spanish Ministerial Order 822/12 laid down rules concerning biodiesel production and 
the fulfilment of national targets of use of rene wable energy in the transport sector; it provided 
support for biodiesel of better environmental prof ile and which contributed to the security of 
supply of energy and energy products. The proced ure therein was open to any biodiesel producer, 
irrespective of its origin; several Argentinean producers had submitted applications. As in the case 
of applications from several EU producers, the Argentine producers 'applications were also subject to an assessment procedure where some applications were fully or partially accepted, while others were not. Resolution 1173 had not yet been applied and, as it did not establish quantitative 
restrictions on imports of biodiesel to the EU, it would not prevent imports from Argentina or any 
other EU trading partners. 
9.11.  Neither the Ministerial Order 822, nor Resolu tion 1173 had laid down any import rules or 
marketing requirements on biodiesel; rather, they determined which biodiesel might enjoy public 
support measures on the basis of an assessment focused on environmental features and security of supply considerations. Individual companies had the possibility to address domestic courts if 
adversely affected by any decision in this respect; however, there was no record of any legal 
recourse by Argentine applicants. The EU had taken note of the concerns about these Directives and was open to engage with Argentina in receiving further clarification of its concerns. 
9.12.   The Council took note of the statements made. 
10  INDONESIA'S IMPORT AND EXPORT REST RICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES – 
REQUEST FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED STATES 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2014, the 
delegations of the EU, Japan, and the US, had requ ested the Secretariat to include in the agenda 
an item entitled "Indonesia's Import and Export Restricting Policies and Practices". 
10.2.  The representative of the European Union reiterated the concerns over Indonesia's 
increasing use of protectionist measures to strengthen its domestic production at the expense of 
foreign supply, including import entry restrictions, non-automatic licensing, export restrictions, discriminatory taxation, local content requirements, and non-transparent legislation. Indonesia had increased its international responsibility in various spheres and should therefore fully address the 
concerns expressed in this Council over its trade policy trends. 
10.3.  The EU's particular concerns related to: (i) the recently adopted industry and trade laws 
which discouraged trade flows and business in Indonesia and contradicted the G-20 commitments 
to keep markets open and to roll back protection ism. Indeed, the industry law promoted the use of 
domestically produced goods; empowered the im position of export bans on biological and 
non-biological raw materials; encouraged local production and the application of national standards 
for products and services; and provided procedures to initiate trade measures if specific industry's 
interests were threatened. In turn, the trade law set out restrictions on import and exports for goods of national interest, prohibitions and/or restrictions on goods and services outside the national interests, and accentuated the use of do mestic goods; (ii) the extensive use of various 
layers of import restrictions, including in the form of burdensome non-automatic import licensing 
and pre-shipment controls –insistently addressed without success in various WTO committees and G/C/M/118 
- 13 - 
  at Indonesia's recent TPR, as already recorded at the October 2013 meeting of this Council. These 
import restrictions had become more disturbing , particularly after the adoption of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement (TFA); (iii) the WTO-inconsistent trend of imposing local content requirements in many legislations, like the Tr ade Ministry Regulation No. 72000-13 that imposed 
the obligation on shopping-centres to sell 80% domestic products in their outlets. Indonesia should 
clarify the scope of this regulation if it had alread y entered into force; (iv) the export restrictions 
recently introduced on raw materials which included, in particular, a local processing requirement 
of mineral, metal ores, and stones, which resulted in a de facto  export ban of unprocessed and 
unrefined minerals; prioritized use of the secondary products and residuals of the processed metals for domestic industries, in particular chemicals and fertilizers; a progressive export tax scheme on 65 mining commodities -from 20 to 25% in 2014 to 60% in 2016; and, specific export 
restrictions on tin. Additionally, concerns existed over recent regulations restricting exports of 
unprocessed or unrefined metals or minerals that might not be in line with WTO rules. Indonesia should clarify which governmental entities were in charge of their implementation, which ones 
determined the specified quantities of metals allowed for export, as well as the criteria and 
rationale that had been considered under ME/MR re gulation 1-2014, in particular export duties on 
metals that were said to be allowed for export until 2017; (v) the lack of clarity, as already raised 
at the TRIMs Committee, regarding the consistency of the provisions related to local content 
requirements in the 2009 law with the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures. 
10.4.  The delegate of the United States recalled that  in previous meetings of this Council her 
delegation had already raised concerns over the increasing number of new trade and investment 
restrictions affecting a broad range of sectors in Indonesia, including agriculture, energy, 
information and communications technology, and consumer goods, such as toys, in the form of measures such as import licensing requirements, trading rights limitations, pre-shipment 
inspection requirements, standards requiremen ts, local content and domestic manufacturing 
requirements, and export restrictions, including ta xes and prohibitions. The US had also provided 
detailed information about specific policies relating to Indonesia's system-wide licensing 
requirements; domestic content requirements in the telecommunications, mining, oil and gas and 
franchising sectors; standards and testing procedures for ICT and toys; pre-shipment inspection requirements; and requirements for local data cent res. Other general concerns had referred also to 
Indonesia's lack of transparency. 
10.5.  None of the above-mentioned concerns had been addressed in spite of US efforts to work 
together with Indonesia bilaterally and in the WT O. Moreover, Indonesia continued to restrict its 
market access conditions and, as highlighted by her authorities in January 2014, it had enforced a 
ban on exports of, and domestic processing requir ements for, raw mineral ores, a policy on which 
the US had long expressed concern. 
10.6.  The recently adopted laws on trade and industry had also provided the legal framework for 
further trade-restrictive measures. Despite the two-year deadline to implement these regulations, 
concerns existed that these bills codified on a br oad basis many of the sectorial policies on which 
the US had already expressed concern, including domestic product and production preferences, unique testing requirements, and trading rights an d licensing. Indonesia should ensure that their 
implementation as well as the implementation of the food law adheres to its WTO obligations. 
10.7.  None of the issues raised at this meeting appeared consistent with the potential of 
Indonesia's economy, nor with the increased leadership role Indonesia had asserted in 
international fora, such as hosting APEC and the WTO 9
th Ministerial Conference last year, or 
Indonesia's work within the G-20. Indonesia should re-evaluate its laws and regulations with a view to ensuring that they abide by its WTO commitments, including those relating to market 
access, non-discrimination, and transparency. 
10.8.  The delegate of Japan shared all the concerns  previously expressed regarding Indonesia's 
trade policy trend; these had also been raised in previous meetings of this Council and in other 
WTO Committees. Of particular concern to Japan were the implementation measures under the 
mining law, which prohibited exports of raw materials like nickel ore. Japan could understand 
Indonesia's policy of trying to advance its industries through making the domestic production high value-added; however, such efforts might be pursued in a WTO-consistent manner as, in its view, 
the export restricting measures on raw materials that Indonesia had implemented violated 
GATT Article XI on the general elimination of quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. G/C/M/118 
- 14 - 
  10.9.  Following the mining law's implementation measures, Japan and its industry representatives 
had approached Indonesia's authorities, including at a high level, for their review; however, they had not obtained any satisfactory response to th eir request for reconsideration. Japan had been 
seeking a WTO-consistent solution through bilateral dialogue with Indonesia but was ready to 
consider further steps under the DSU in the near future if the current situation remained 
unchanged. 
10.10.  Similar concerns existed with the trade and industry laws, as these could further 
deteriorate Indonesia's business climate by introducing a legal framework for additional 
trade-restrictive measures. Japan would carefully consider the further developments and urged Indonesia to bring its measures into consistency with the WTO agreements. 
10.11.  The delegate of New Zealand echoed the previous speakers regarding Indonesia's 
restrictive requirements for imports, in particular the measures relating to animal and horticultural 
products which had impacted New Zealand's trade as, since their introduction, exports to Indonesia of beef and a range of horticultural prod ucts from New Zealand had fallen by up to 80% 
with a total value of lost trade that could be estimated at $US125 million annually. 
10.12.  He welcomed Indonesia's removal of quantitative restrictions imposed on New Zealand's 
exports, particularly beef. However, concerns remained about changes to the import licensing 
scheme for agricultural products which appeared opaque, burdensome, more trade restrictive than 
necessary, and with uncertainties for importers regarding their implementation. He encouraged Indonesia to undertake further reforms. 
10.13.  New Zealand had also experienced difficulti es with Indonesia's administration of 
pre-shipment inspection (PSI) requirements. There was insufficient accreditation of resourced 
entities to exclusively undertake PSI activities in  New Zealand; this had caused further delays and 
difficulties for New Zealand's exporters to Indonesia. 
10.14.  With regard to the new trade law and the import and export restrictions therein, Indonesia 
should further explain how it could be implemented in a consistent manner with its WTO commitments. New Zealand looked forward to Indonesia's responses to the questions 
addressed to it. 
10.15.  The delegate of Australia shared the previous concerns on various Indonesian trade 
restrictive import policies and practices which were of significant interest to Australian exporters. 
The new trade law also raised concerns in terms of consistency with WTO commitments. Australia 
looked forward to work with Indonesia on resolving these potentially trade restrictive measures. 
10.16.  The delegate of Canada echoed the concerns already expressed over Indonesia's practices 
that had a trade restricting effect. Canada considered that any trade measures should not 
unnecessarily impede or inhibit trade but, in Canada's view, Indonesia's trade policies generated 
concerns of a commercial and systemic nature. As an exporter of high quality agriculture, agro-food, and seafood products, Canada was concerned that the Indonesian measures would 
affect trade in horticultural products, animals, and animal products. They also held concerns with 
reference to the application of new licensing procedures to an increased range of products in a manner not WTO-consistent. 
10.17.  Canada expected Indonesia to provide a list of the HS Codes that were subject to import 
measures in order to determine to what extent Canadian exports to Indonesia were being affected 
by import licensing requirements; Indonesia should respect its WTO obligations, in particular those relating to import licensing and the commitments it had made in the G-20 to refrain from 
introducing new trade restrictive policies. 
10.18.  The delegate of Thailand reiterated its continued concern over Indonesia's import 
restricting measures, which adversely affected exports of Thai fruits, vegetables, and horticultural 
products to Indonesia. Although the Ministry of Agriculture had set out new regulations for 
horticultural products, concerns remained since, according to these, the Indonesian government could set reference prices to regulate the import of horticultural products, including shallots and red chillies, and imports of such products was permissible only if the domestic prices were higher 
than the referenced ones. Furthermore, the permi tted import of shallots to Indonesia was limited G/C/M/118 
- 15 - 
  to a certain amount that did not reflect the demand for export and import of such products. In 
addition, Indonesia's new trade law had enabled the Government to restrict imports and exports to protect local industries. All this created uncertainty in business, especially for Thai exporters. Indonesia's implementation of all of these regula tions should be WTO compliant, transparent, and 
avoiding trade distortions. Thailand would follow up and work closely with Indonesia to minimize 
its trade concern in due course. 
10.19.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei stated that her delegation had similar concerns over 
Indonesia's trade policies, particularly with resp ect to agricultural products. Indonesia's complex 
import licensing regime required importers to obtain multiple documents, complete multiple steps, and contact multiple local agencies prior to importation into Indonesia. Indeed, according to Regulation No. 86 of the Ministry of Agriculture,  as of 30 August 2013, any importer of fresh 
vegetables and fruit might obtain various certific ates from the exporting Member, submit these to 
an Indonesian agency to obtain a recommendatio n letter, then submit that recommendation letter 
to a different Indonesian agency to obtain an import permit. This import licensing procedure was 
opaque, burdensome, time-consuming, and negative ly affected market access to Indonesia of 
Chinese Taipei's agricultural products, such as fresh vegetables and fruit. Her delegation would continue to monitor this issue closely and to encourage Indonesia to improve its import licensing 
procedure and to ensure conformity with the relevant WTO agreement. 
10.20.  The delegate of Korea shared some of the concerns expressed by previous speakers on 
Indonesia's recent trade and industry law, partic ularly with regard to the adoption of import 
restricting measures with a view to expediting the gross establishment and protection of certain 
domestic industries in a way that might not be in line with the spirit of the relevant WTO rules and 
regulations. In turn, the new industry law included  a requirement to increase the use of domestic 
products for public procurement purposes; this might be inconsistent with the national treatment 
principle. Korea hoped that Indonesia would carefully review Members' concerns and would bring 
its measures into conformity with the relevant WTO rules. 
10.21.  The delegate of Indonesia indicated that, as a developing country with a population of 
almost 247 million, of which around 37% were still living below the poverty line, Indonesia's 
biggest challenge was the developmental aspect and poverty alleviation, two issues that had always influenced any governmental policy, including trade. However, Indonesia was a strong supporter of the multilateral trading system and tr ade reforms as reflected in its WTO tariff binding 
coverage of 96.6% with a 47% average of bound duties in agriculture and 35.6% for 
Non-agricultural products, with an applied average rate of 7%. Additionally, in 2015 the 
ASEAN Economic Community would come into force and in that context Indonesia had bound most 
of its tariffs to zero. Imports were capital to Indonesia's trade and had continued to increase, for 
instance imports coming mainly from China, Japan, the EU, the US, Australia, Korea, and ASEAN member countries, were around US$171,2 billion during the period January to November 2013, 
representing trade deficits for the last three ye ars of approximately US$2 billion. The average rate 
of import growth in 2013 was 7.54% compared to pr evious years; of that, imports of food stuff 
and live animals represented an increase of around 16.57%, tobacco and beverages around 
6,25%, vegetable and animal oils around 43. 6%, chemicals around 9%, manufactured goods 
around 5.5%, and an increase in other commodi ties of around 19.7%. Therefore, one could 
conclude that the Indonesian trade regime was open to imported products. 
10.22.  On the specific concerns raised at this meeting he indicated that: (i) with regard to 
law 4/2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining, Jakarta and Japan had been addressing the issue; 
Indonesia hoped to reach a solution with all stakeholders; (ii) on horticultural products, animal and animal products, several exchanges had taken place; however, import regulations on these 
products did not impose quantitative restrictions. Specific commodities, particularly onion and chili, 
used a reference price system whereas a periodization system (per semester) was in place for other fresh horticultural products. For animal pr oducts, there were reference prices which were 
determined mainly by the average of the national retail price. Indonesia's import policy was not 
intended to limit or restrict imports as these were necessary to fulfil its domestic agricultural 
needs. The agricultural market access policy in th e country had also been designed considering the 
development of its domestic agricultural sector, market access interests of other WTO Members, 
and Indonesia's commitments in the WTO, (iii) the law on trade was intended to synchronize entire 
regulations in the trade area, including overall trad e policies so as to address the current situation 
of trade globalization. This law was comprehensive and the authorities were still developing its 
implementing regulations. G/C/M/118 
- 16 - 
  10.23.  Indonesia had taken note of the concerns and continued to be committed to work with 
other Members to address their concerns while taking into account its need to address its own development challenges. 
10.24.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
11  JAPAN – WOOD USE POINTS PROGRAMME – REQUEST FROM CANADA AND THE 
EUROPEAN UNION 
11.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 27 March 2014 the 
delegations of Canada and the European Union ha d requested the Secretariat to include on the 
agenda of this meeting the following item: "Japan – Wood Use Points Programme". He recalled that at the meetings of 11 July and 18 October 2013, this item was also considered by the Council; at those meetings, Canada had submitted some additional questions to Japan, which were then 
circulated in document G/C/W/690. In turn, the delegation of Japan, on 7 April 2014, had 
circulated in document G/C/W/693 its replies to the additional questions put by Canada. 
11.2.  The delegate of Canada thanked Japan for the responses
5 to the questions posed to it by his 
delegation on 18 October 2013; however, Canada continued closely to monitor the implementation 
of Japan's Wood Use Points Programme (WUPP), which had been prolonged beyond the one-year time-frame initially noted by Japan. In its view, the WUPP could discriminate against non-Japanese 
products; therefore, Canada put a set of seven additional questions relating, among other matters, 
to: (i) the extension of the WUPP and its notificati on to the WTO, the timeline for its completion, 
and the full amount allocated to the programme; (ii) the number of foreign applications received and accepted by Japan as well as the same ratio for the Japanese applications; (iii) the timeliness 
associated with the application process and particularly the time elapsed between the application 
and its approval and, once accepted, the deadline to be added to the list of eligible products; 
(iv) confirmation as to whether or not the Committee on Fund Management was the sole entity 
responsible for approving species of eligible wood, with explanation of the criteria used by the 
Experts Committee to approve or reject the materials from the designated species; (v) confirmation as to whether or not, once a species had been accepted by the National Fund 
Management Committee, the material thereof had to be submitted to and accepted by the Experts 
Committee at the national level, and then by the prefectural level, so as to be fully eligible; (vi) confirmation as to whether or not, once a species had been recognized under the WUPP, this 
approval was permanent, or if a re-application wa s required after a certain period of time; and, 
(vii) if the Japanese industry was required to demonstrate that it met the WUPP requirements at 
both the national and prefectural levels, before being eligible under the WUPP.
6 Canada looked 
forward to the responses to these additional questions. 
11.3.  The representative of the European Union associ ated his delegation with Canada's additional 
questions posed to Japan on this issue, and recalled that his delegation had already expressed 
concerns on the WUPP at the CTG meetings of 11 July and 18 October 2013, where the EU had 
stated that it had no concerns with the general objectives of the programme and that it welcomed 
initiatives aimed at promoting the use of sustainably produced wood products. However, concerns remained about the discriminatory nature of the WUPP, particularly in the following four areas: (i) the WUPP specifically referred to local wood pr oducts, which created the misleading impression 
that the scheme was only targeting domestic wood products; (ii) domestic wood was eligible for 
points under the programme by default, whereas no n-Japanese wood could be included only after 
application. Additionally, the approval procedur e was excessively burdensome and required as a 
first step the general approval of the species in question, and then a designation of construction, 
which depended on a supporting recommendation to be given by all local prefectures' committees where the products were to be used in constructions -potentially all 47 local prefecture 
committees. This led to a discriminatory application of the WUPP against foreign producers; 
(iii) the Japanese authorities required scientifi c proof of the sustainable development of the 
concerned species in the applicants' country. The fact that forests in Europe were being managed according to the sustainable forest management criteria by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 
and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), and that wood was audited 
and labelled under those certification schemes was, according to Japan, not sufficient. Thus, Japan should specify why FSC and PEFC certification was an insufficient proof of sustainability and should 
                                               
5 Circulated in document G/C/W/693. 
6 See the complete additional questions in document G/C/W/696. G/C/M/118 
- 17 - 
  also provide guidance on how the sustainable development criterion for imported wood species 
could be fulfilled instead. For Japanese pre-approv ed species, this evidence was already available 
in the forestry agency; local producers therefore had a clear advantage. Japan should accept FSC 
and PEFC certification as a proof of sustainabili ty; and (iv) the WUPP required that the wood 
species should have clear and synergetic effects on the local economy; this criterion had been 
proven difficult to satisfy by foreign producers. Indeed, further to the rejection by the Fund Management Committee, on 9 October 2013, of eight applications made by Finnish, Swedish, and 
Austrian wood industries, a second Finnish application had been rejected at the National Fund 
Committee meeting, on 6 March 2014, for an alleged lack of substantiation on both key criteria, i.e. sustainability proof and benefits to the loca l economy. This further increased the EU concerns 
about the discriminatory nature of the WUPP given that the rejection of these applications had had 
a significant impact on the Japanese wood market and would in any case result in a further loss of 
market share of EU wood products in Japan. 
11.4.  These concerns had already been expressed in several meetings between the EU delegation 
in Japan and the Wood Use Division of the Forestry Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 
and Fisheries. Nonetheless, the information Ja pan had provided up until now had not addressed 
them, and nor had the guidelines issued by the forestry agency, on 17 October 2013, which did 
not solve the difficulties for the EU economic op erators nor provide sufficient evidence regarding 
the two key criteria needing to be fulfilled, i.e. th e sustainability proof and the benefits to the local 
economy. The EU would also appreciate Japan's notification of its subsidy scheme. 
11.5.  The delegate of Indonesia stated that his count ry, an exporter of wood products, shared the 
same systemic concern regarding the structure and operation of the WUPP and its potential impact 
on the wood products from outside Japan. Indonesia welcomed Japan's initiative aimed at promoting the use of sustainably produced goods and the general objectives of the WUPP, but was 
concerned by its possibly discriminatory application against products from other Members. 
Indonesia found that the requirement of scient ific proof of sustainable development of the 
concerned species in the country of origin, as stipulated by the Japanese authorities, was not 
transparent and constituted a trade barrier to foreign suppliers. Japan should reconsider this 
measure. 
11.6.  The delegate of the United States recalled that her delegation had already raised concerns 
about the WUPP and the difficulties faced by foreig n wood producers seeking to qualify on an equal 
basis with domestic Japanese producers. In the case of the US, Japan had approved the 
US Douglas fir wood products as qualifying for the WUPP benefits; however, this had occurred more than nine months after the application pr ocess began. Moreover, the US Douglas fir wood 
products remained ineligible under the WUPP in ten out of the 47 Japanese prefectures, and with 
less than six months before the scheduled end of the WUPP, the value of the benefits for US Douglas fir wood products might not offset the sizeable cost of qualifying for benefits, a cost 
which in turn was not imposed on most domestic Japanese producers. Japan should clarify whether 
the WUPP would be terminated before US Douglas fir exporters could substantially benefit from inclusion in it. She also noted that all other US species exported to Japan were likewise still not benefitting from the WUPP. 
11.7.  Concerns also existed regarding the extensive application procedure for imported products, 
including individual applications specifically tailored for each of the 47 prefectures; this was not a requisite for domestic products, most of which were automatically qualified under the terms of the 
law establishing the WUPP. Thus it was difficult for foreign products to compete on a level playing 
field with domestic products. 
11.8.  The US favoured the increased use of wood pr oducts in residential construction. However, 
the Japanese housing industry would have been better served by allowing competitive access to all 
wood products from all sources, both domestic an d foreign. Japan was an important export market 
for US wood products and these should be allowed to compete with Japanese products under similar conditions. 
11.9.  The delegate of New Zealand recalled the interest of his delegation in any measures that 
would discriminate against imported wood, whether by design or operation, and encouraged Japan 
to address Members' concerns and to respond to the questions posed to it. G/C/M/118 
- 18 - 
  11.10.  The delegate of Japan thanked the previous  speakers for their comments and questions 
and recalled that his delegation had not only considered Members' interests and concerns, 
expressed at the CTG meetings in July and October 2013, but had also responded to Canada's questionnaire about its WUPP, and to the follow-up questions also put by Canada.
7 In its 
responses, Japan had explained that the WUPP required eligible goods to be certified as 
sustainable goods which additionally might be of a tree species whose resources were increasing in 
volume on a country basis. 
11.11.  These conditions aimed at achieving the objectives of the WUPP so as to contribute to a 
proper management and conservation of forests, the prevention of global warming, and the promotion of a recycling-oriented society through promoting the use of tree species whose resources were increasing in volume. WUPP also required the use of tree species to have certain 
positive effects on the economy of rural areas in Japan in order to achieve another of the 
programme's objectives , namely to contribute to rural development in Japan through promoting wood use, as demonstrated by the fact that the supply share of foreign wood in Japan was about 
72%. 
11.12.  Foreign wood contributed to Japan's economy through its procurement, processing, and 
use; according to the guidelines published in Octo ber 2013, applicants only needed to demonstrate 
objectively that the use of wood of a specific species would contribute to increase employment in 
rural areas and sales in relevant industries through transportation, lumber sawing, processing, or house building. These criteria were not de facto  discrimination against foreign wood. In fact, tree 
species of the United States and Austria had been found as eligible in December 2013 and 
March 2014. 
11.13.  The Committee on Fund Management and Administration (CFMA), composed of 
independent experts, had been created in order to make fair and technical judgments in the 
designation process of tree species of eligible wood, whether imported or domestic. All applications 
were to be examined according to the eligibility criteria provided in a document entitled "On Implementation of the Wood Use Points Programme", published in March 2013, and in "The 
Guidelines for Application Procedures for Tree Species of Eligible Wood and Eligible Construction 
Methods for the Wood Use Points Programme" (the Guidelines), published in October 2013. Following the approval of a supplementary budget , the period of the WUPP had been extended; 
thus, the points could be provided for work to be started before the end of September 2014. 
11.14.  In response to the concerns about the WUPP ex pressed at this meeting, he indicated that, 
as provided in the written answers, one of the criteria of tree species was to have certain positive effects on the economy of rural areas in Japan; information in this regard was also contained in 
the Guidelines. Accordingly, foreign tree species could fulfil such criteria by submitting objective 
data; in December 2013 and March 2014, the CFMA had found that foreign tree species fulfilled the criteria. He indicated that Japan would notify the WUPP as appropriate. 
11.15.  With regard to the further questions put by Canada, he added that the WUPP would be 
implemented in accordance with the designated ti meline; that ten applications had been submitted 
to date, of which two, on non-Japanese specie s, had fulfilled the requirements, and two, on 
Japanese species, had not. No application had been rejected, but in some cases additional 
information had been requested. Further, the CFMA met approximately every three months to 
analyse the applications; if these fulfilled all requirements, a decision was issued designating the applied species as eligible; however, if there were missing elements, the CFMA required the 
submission of additional information before thes e applications could be considered further. The 
species indicated in the CFMA's decision were then added to the list of tree species of eligible goods. 
11.16.  Wood house-builders had the opportunity to get wood points by using eligible wood; boats 
made of eligible solid wood could also be used without further procedures. The former should fulfil certain requirements, including a recommendation by a prefectural council indicating the use of a specific species designated as eligible wood, for eligible construction methods, and would 
contribute to the revitalization of the economy of  rural areas within each prefecture. 47 prefectural 
councils had been designated to consider the applications within one and a half months from the time of designation of the tree species as eligible. The prefectural recommendation was then 
                                               
7 See documents G/C/W/686 and G/C/W/693 G/C/M/118 
- 19 - 
  submitted to the CFMA for final approval and published on the website. This eligibility would be 
valid for as long as the WUPP remained effective. 
11.17.  There were certain Japanese tree species and construction methods which had already 
been proven to meet the same criteria for eligibility; based on the same criteria, other tree species 
and construction methods could also be designated as eligible regardless of their foreign or 
domestic origin. 
11.18.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
12  NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
12.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2013, the 
delegations of the United States and the European Union had requested the Secretariat to include 
on the agenda of this meeting the following item , "Nigeria – Local Content Measures in Oil and 
Gas". 
12.2.  The delegate of the United States recalled th at, for almost two years, the US, the EU, and 
other WTO Members had been attempting to en gage with Nigeria in the WTO TRIMs Committee 
regarding their concerns about certain measures which appeared to require the use of local content in Nigeria's oil and gas industry. In September 2011, in document G/TRIMS/W/89, the 
US had posed written questions to Nigeria, and in the October 2011 meeting of the Committee, it 
had also described its understanding of the Nigeri an measures. However, the delegation of Nigeria 
had indicated that it had not received any instructions from its capital nor answers to the questions posed to it. The US had raised this issue again at the Committee meetings in May and 
October 2012 and in April and October 2013 but had still received no substantive response from 
Nigeria. The WTO Committee system provided a forum in which to gain a basic understanding of the trade policies of other Members and in which to  raise trade concerns outside of the context of 
the dispute settlement mechanism. Energizing this system was a key objective of Members; to this 
end, capitals had to provide their Geneva-bas ed delegations with the necessary support and 
information required so as to enable them fully to participate in the WTO Committee system, 
including granting them the authority to answer basic factual questions about national trade policy 
regimes and measures. The US could understand that it might take time to compile replies to formal questions, particularly for smaller delega tions. However, after two years of repeating the 
same questions and requests, Nigeria should now participate more fully, as a Member of this 
Council and of the TRIMs Committee, and clarify any misunderstandings other Members might 
have about the measures in question. 
12.3.  The law required mandatory use of locally-manufactured welded and fabricated products, 
and directed the Minister of Petroleum Reso urces to develop "a fiscal framework and tax 
incentives" for companies with established facilities or operations in Nigeria "for purposes of carrying out production, manufacturing or for prov iding any services and goods otherwise imported 
into Nigeria." Clarification of the process under the measure, its participants, standards to 
determine the findings, application methods, and expected time-frames and implementation, was urgent. 
12.4.  She asked Nigeria to update Members on any developments with respect to the operation of 
this measure, and to inform them as to whether or not there were any plans to expand it, either 
by applying its requirements to additional good s and services, or by increasing local content 
requirements on goods and services already covered, as well as to clarify if the authority to grant 
waivers to the Act had been extended, and under which conditions such waivers would be granted. 
12.5.  The representative of the European Union recalled that his delegation had already raised 
similar concerns at the CTG and at the TRIMs Committee on several occasions, but was still 
waiting for Nigeria's responses, particularly as to the law's compatibility with the 
TRIMs Agreement, the GATT 94, and the GATS; one specific concern was the review of Schedule A, which was meant to comprise the list of detailed local content requirements per good or service, and which was originally foreseen to be applicable  as from spring 2012. Since such a review had 
not yet taken place, Nigeria should specify the da te of the review and clarify the manner in which 
it was to be carried out. G/C/M/118 
- 20 - 
  12.6.  Given that an amendment to the bill was pending before the National Assembly, the 
EU asked Nigeria to use this opportunity to look at whether the legislative scheme, particularly the 
local content requirement, was the appropriate t ool to achieve the goal of enhancing domestic 
capacity in the oil and gas industry. Other issues related to the productive capacity and supply 
possibilities of the relevant Nigerian sectors could be addressed within this context, as well as 
some apparent distortions introduced by the la w, notably the fact that the requirements in 
Schedule A favoured pure agency intermediation over genuine local investment. The EU looked 
forward to the review and was confident that al l the concerns expressed would be addressed by 
the Nigerian authorities in order to ensure full compliance with its commitments under the WTO Agreements. 
12.7.  The delegate of Japan shared the concerns already expressed and encouraged Nigeria to 
clarify to Members the long-standing questions posed to it in previous meetings of this Council and 
the TRIMs Committee. 
12.8.  The delegate of Australia supported the concer ns previously raised and sought explanation 
from Nigeria about the WTO consistency of the preferential treatment accorded to local goods and 
services, particularly in relation to: (i) Section 11.1 of the Act, which established minimum percentages of Nigerian content in goods, serv ices, and investments, for any project in the 
Nigerian oil and gas industry; and (ii) Section 7 of the Act, requiring operators to submit a 
Nigerian content plan demonstrating compliance wi th the Nigerian content requirements. Like the 
US, Australia believed that delegations in Geneva should be able to respond to issues raised in the WTO bodies, otherwise the effectiveness of those bodies would be restricted. 
12.9.  In response, the delegate of Nigeria assured the Council that her authorities were 
committed to the country's obligations under the WTO Agreements; evidence of this were the 
notifications Nigeria had submitted, which enhanced transparency. The Local Content Act 
encompassed activities connected with exploration, development, exploitation, and sale of Nigerian 
oil and gas operations; the implementation of the Act undertook by the Nigerian Petroleum 
Exchange Electronic Procedures, was competitive, transparent, and utilized international standards 
that ensured that all investors, whether local or foreign, would have equal opportunities. 
Consequently, all foreign oil companies operating in Nigeria fully benefitted from the provisions of the Act. She also indicated that at the last Nigeria–US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) meeting, the matter had been  discussed and some clarifications had been 
provided on the Act. Therefore, Nigeria called the concerned delegations on this issue to continue 
exploring bilateral solutions to this matter. 
12.10.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
13  UKRAINE – TRADE POLICY AND MEASURES – STATEMENT BY JAPAN 
13.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2014, the 
Japanese delegation had requested the Secretariat to include on the agenda of this meeting the 
following item, "Ukraine – Trade Policy and Measures". 
13.2.  The delegate of Japan stated that the transition to a new government in Ukraine offered an 
opportunity to put in place market-oriented reforms with a view to creating stability and prosperity 
in the country. Japan praised Ukraine's reform agenda and supported its efforts to restore 
economic health; in line with this, on 24 March 2014 Japan's Government had announced 
assistance to Ukraine of 150 billion Japanese ye n-equivalent to approximately US$1.5 billion, 
which included an ordinary loan. Reforms in Ukraine would also enhance this opportunity to benefit 
from the multilateral trading system by increasing Ukraine's efforts to comply with the 
WTO Agreements, by ensuring transparency and predictability, and by reviewing its previous measures, which affected the business environment. 
13.3.  A Ukrainian "step in the right direction" had been the decision adopted on 28 March 2014 to 
liberalize safeguard measures in respect of impo rts of passenger cars; however, Ukraine should 
reconsider its notification under GATT Article XXVI II in light of Members' concerns expressed in 
this Council and in other WTO fora. G/C/M/118 
- 21 - 
  13.4.  The delegate of the United States stated that the US, together with its partners, would 
continue supporting Ukraine's new government and its plans towards greater transparency and 
economic reform. A significant package of assistance to help stabilize the Ukrainian economy and meet the needs of the Ukrainian people had been put in place. The US also welcomed the new 
government's assurances that it would pursue the difficult market reforms aimed at making the 
Ukrainian economy more sustainable and resilient; however, part of this relied upon the responsible role played by Ukraine in multilateral bodies, including the WTO. 
13.5.  Nevertheless, the US continued to consider Ukraine's Article XXVIII notification problematic, 
and urged its new government to address the unprecedented calls by a number of WTO Members to abandon this proposal. 
13.6.  The representative of the European Union, echoing previous speakers, indicated that the 
EU recognized Ukraine's need to embark prompt ly on an ambitious programme of structural 
reforms of trade policy orientations, an effort to be made by the new government which would receive the EU's support. The EU was confident that  Ukraine would be able to materialize tangible 
results from this new direction and was convinced that Ukraine would consolidate its role in the 
multilateral trade arena. 
13.7.  The delegate of Australia also welcomed Ukraine's ambitious trade reform agenda, especially 
those reforms which would impact upon its trade policies. Like other WTO Members, Australia had 
also expressed its concern, on a number of previo us occasions, over Ukraine's notification under 
GATT Article XXVII; it hoped that Ukraine would also reconsider its notification in the context of its 
reforms. 
13.8.  The delegate of Ukraine thanked the previous speakers for their statements and support and 
confirmed that it had already adopted a deci sion towards the successive liberalization of 
safeguards measures, particularly with regard to motor cars with an engine capacity of between 
1 to 1.5 litres, which would be reduced, first to 4.31% in 12 months from the day of application of 
the measure, and then to 2.15% in 24 months from  the day of applying the measure. With regard 
to motor cars with an engine capacity ranging from 1.5 to 2.2 litres, a reduction to 8.63% would 
operate in 12 months from the day of applying the measure, and 4.32% in 24 months from the 
day of applying the measure. This Decision had already been officially published and came into force from 28 March 2014. 
13.9.  Additionally, on 8 March 2014, the Parliament had approved a bill lifting recycling fees 
which, once signed by the Executive, and following some other procedures, would also come into 
force; Members would be informed in due course. With regard to the Article XXVII notification, he 
stated that this was a necessary and adequate step which was not meant to undermine the 
multilateral trading system; however, Members could be assured that all of their concerns would 
be taken into consideration. 
13.10.  He closed by thanking delegations for their openness and cooperative spirit, as 
demonstrated throughout the bilateral relations, and for their support of Ukraine's endeavour to 
strengthen a democratic society and to safeguard its territorial integrity and economic development. 
13.11.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
14  RUSSIAN FEDERATION –TRADE RESTRICTING MEASURES – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES 
14.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2014, the 
United States, Japan, and the European Union, had requested the Secretariat to include in the 
agenda the following item, "Russian Federation - Trade Restricting Measures". 
14.2.  The delegate of the United States indicated th at his delegation, when looking back on the 
Russian Federation's first 18 mont hs of WTO membership, noted with disappointment the Russian 
Federation's record; the US had supported this a ccession, believing that making Russia an integral 
part of the rules-based global trading system wo uld benefit all. Moreover, the US was convinced 
that WTO membership was a critical means of ensuring predictability and accountability to the G/C/M/118 
- 22 - 
  rules-based trading system on the part of the Russian Federation and all Members. However, 
today many concerns existed with what appeared to be a lack of seriousness on the part of the Russian Federation in implementing some of its WTO accession commitments, as well as with recent trade actions aimed at Members particularly reliant on trade with Russia. 
14.3.  Records showed that, in the four CTG meetings following Russia's accession to the WTO, 
specific and accession-related concerns had been raised, particularly with regard to a lack of transparency in Russia's trading system as it had not yet given its responses to the annual 
questionnaire required under Article 7.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; it had 
not responded to questions raised in the TRIPs Committee; it had not notified numerous technical regulations and some of its safeguard meas ures; and, despite seeking an outcome on 
RTA transparency during its G-20 host year, the Russian Federation had not provided the full set of 
information on its Customs Union and FTAs, as required under the WTO's RTA Transparency 
Mechanism. 
14.4.  Specifically related to this Council, Russia had yet to respond to the still open questions 
posed to it in November 2012 on its recycling programme. Particular concerns also existed about 
how the Russian Federation was implementing some of its sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) obligations, such as harmonization with the relevant international standards and the 
adoption of inspection guidelines in accordance with the Codex Alimentarius , while ensuring that 
SPS measures that were more restrictive than international standards were based on scientific evidence and duly accompanied by a risk analysis, and the approval of establishments to export to 
the Russian Federation and the Customs Union territory. Some discussion had also taken place in 
this regard, but with limited progress; nevertheless, the US hoped that Russia would bring its 
regime into compliance with its WTO commitments. In addition to those SPS measures that directly affected the US, his authorities were concerned about the recent bans on imports of food 
and beverages from neighbouring countries without evidence of valid SPS concerns, including dairy 
products from Lithuania and Ukraine, chocolates from Ukraine, wine and other agricultural products from Moldova, and prepared meats from  Poland, Lithuania, and Moldova. The Russian 
Federation should provide the pertinent and outstanding information in response to Members' 
requests. 
14.5.  The delegate of Japan echoed the previous co ncerns and indicated that there had been a 
reduction of applied tariff rates in Russia in September and October 2013; however, there were 
still some tariff lines where applied rates were higher than their bound rates. Russia used mixed 
tariff duties for certain products, and when applying the ad valorem  equivalent to some of these, 
and in particular to refrigerators, the effective applied specific duties exceeded the corresponding 
bound rates scheduled in an ad valorem  basis. As a result of this, the Japanese industries were 
being forced to pay duties above the Russia's Tariff Schedule of Concessions. The Russian 
Federation should bring this situation into conformity with its WTO commitment to respect its 
bound rates. Furthermore, as from April 2013, the applied rates for TV sets ran counter to the 
standstill commitment of the G-20 and APEC leaders. Russia should also respect its political commitments and withdraw the decision. 
14.6.  The representative of the European Union regr etted being obliged to refer again to Russia's 
restrictive measures and recalled that that EU had strongly supported this accession to the WTO 
and, like other Members, had worked intensively to ensure a high quality and accelerated accession. The EU remained convinced that Russia's membership would contribute to a further 
integration of its economy into the world market, and thereby contribute to its objectives of 
modernization and diversification. The EU  also had high expectations that its bilateral trade would be enhanced by the Russian Federation's membership. 
14.7.  However, 18 months after this accession, the ov erall experience was disappointing, in that 
the Russian Federation had still not put its trade measures into line with its basic WTO obligations, and had also continued to raise a number of WTO-inconsistent trade obstacles. Moreover, despite various bilateral consultations, the EU was obliged to launch its first WTO case against Russia less 
than one year after its WTO accession, and a second case had likewise to be launched on 
8 April 2014. 
14.8.  He cited five areas of specific concern to the EU, namely: (i) the import ban on pork from all 
member States of the EU introduced on 27 January 2014 following two isolated cases of African 
Swine Fever, and whose details had been recorded at the recent TPRB meeting. However, after G/C/M/118 
- 23 - 
  several bilateral meetings both at high and expert  levels between, the Russian Federation not only 
continued to impose its embargo on the EU but had also extended it to processed products from Lithuania and Poland containing pig meat. This was an unacceptable denial of the regionalization principle in the SPS Agreement. In 2012, based on SPS grounds, a ban on various EU food 
products like potatoes, meat, live animals, and dairy products had also been introduced. The same 
had occurred with dairy products, a concern which was recorded in the CTG minutes but not included in the WTO Secretariat annual report on the trading environment, discussed on 
17 February 2014. The EU considered all these meas ures disproportionate, discriminatory, not in 
compliance with international standards, nor scientifi cally justified; (ii) the lack of implementation 
of bound rates with respect to 150 tariff lines, including paper, car bodies, palm oil, machinery, and crane lorries; (iii) trade defence measures like anti-dumping tariffs upon light commercial 
vehicles from Germany, Italy, and Turkey, introduced in June 2013, and the safeguard measure on 
harvesters applied in 2013 by the Eurasian Economic Commission. These trade defence instruments questioned the compliance of the Customs Union with WTO rules; (iv) lack of 
compliance of the Customs Union with WTO rules (SPS measures, tariffs commitments, and trade 
defence) given that the competence for their impl ementation had been transferred to the Customs 
Union, while the WP Protocol of the Russian Federation's accession contained assurances that this 
would not be the case; and (v) problems in the application of certain SPS/customs measures, 
including the recent ban on cold storages from Lithuania, the discriminatory treatment in the energy sector, and the 100% cargo scanning measure against imports from Lithuania, maintained since October 2013. 
14.9.  The EU expected the Russian Federation to redr ess its policies and hoped it would adopt the 
necessary steps to comply with its obligations. 
14.10.  The delegate of Ukraine echoed the previous speakers with respect to Russia's trade 
restricting measures; these constituted a backsliding with regard to observation of the 
WTO obligations and affected Ukrainian producers and exporters with outright bans and border measures, causing tangible losses and disrupting trade. The rule had turned into an unexpected 
and non-transparent adoption of measures perman ently adopted by the Russian Federation, like 
the unjustifiable and discriminatory ban on imports of Ukrainian confectionary products introduced 
in July 2013. The responses to the questions put by Ukraine last summer on this issue had only been provided in April 2014; however these were va gue, contradictory, and lacked both a systemic 
approach and substance. 
14.11.  Ukraine also doubted if the Russian Fe deration had implemented properly the 
TBT Agreement to its national legislation; examples of this were the Consumer Protection and the 
technical regulation laws established, respectively, in 1992 and 2011. Ukraine had repeatedly 
raised its concerns over these inconsistencies with the TBT and the SPS Agreements in both 
committees. Moreover, the day before this meetin g, Russia had banned imports of dairy products 
from five Ukrainian companies alleging that, after an inspection, cheese produced by these 
enterprises allegedly did not comply with the Russian technical regulations on milk and dairy products. However, no other less trade re strictive measures had been explored. 
14.12.  Last summer, various customs border measures had seriously disrupted Ukraine's trade 
flows for which the Russian Federation had to date failed to provide explanations. These 
restrictions continued to delay shipments from Ukraine or obliged them simply to return back. His authorities had also received information from its businesses that transit of Ukrainian goods to 
Middle Asia had likewise experienced problems. In order to solve the above-mentioned difficulties, 
Ukraine had called on the Russian Federation to observe the recommendations of the World Customs Organization (WCO) concerning verification, inspection, and use of the appropriate risk 
management system, and to improve customs operat ions guided by the best practices on these 
matters. 
14.13.  Respecting WTO principles was not an option but rather an obligation for WTO Members; 
therefore, Ukraine's general call to Russia was to provide adequate explanation of its TBT and 
SPS measures against Ukrainian goods, to take immediate action to remove unjustifiable trade 
restrictions and bans, to ensure transparency and cooperation at the border, and to implement its bound rates on 150 tariff items in line with its accession commitments. He welcomed Russia's 
accession to the ITA Agreement and encouraged it to continue implementing its accession 
commitments and to maintain a constructive dialogue with other Members so as to resolve those Members' concerns. G/C/M/118 
- 24 - 
  14.14.  When closing his intervention, he stated that Ukraine had acceded to the WTO as a country 
with integrity of its borders, duly recognized and respected, but that part of Ukraine, the Crimea, 
had now been occupied and annexed by the Russian  Federation. This had consequences for trade, 
and indeed, Ukraine had been facing obstacles with  regard to SPS, veterinary, customs, and other 
controls. In addition, Ukrainian natural resources in Crimea and its economic potential were being 
illegally used by the Russian Federation as a re sult of the occupation. Ukrainian enterprises in 
Crimea had incurred losses given that their economic and trade ties had been ruined. Ukraine 
warned Members that Russia's exports from Crimea were piracy, and he called upon the 
WTO membership to be vigilant and to introduce those measures appropriate to counteract such piracy. Ukraine also reserved its right to use ev ery avenue within the WTO system to ensure its 
rights and legitimate interests. 
14.15.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei echoed the co mments of previous speakers and encouraged 
the Russian Federation not only to continue its efforts to implement its WTO accession 
commitments, like the accession to the ITA in Sept ember 2013, but also to maintain a constructive 
dialogue with interested Members with a view to resolve their concerns in the near future. 
14.16.  The delegate of Australia echoed the concerns raised by other speakers and reiterated the 
call to Russia to adhere to its WTO accession commitments and to avoid the use of 
trade-restrictive measures, particularly those which negatively affected Australia's trade. Australia 
would continue to engage with the Russian Federati on with a view to addressing these matters of 
concern. 
14.17.  The delegate of New Zealand indicated that his authorities had established a positive and 
constructive engagement with Russia on veterinary issues, including a treaty-level agreement, to 
which New Zealand attached great value. New Zeal and respected its agreements with the Russian 
Federation and its animal products exported ther ein complied with the respective requirements. 
Wellington was ready to work with the Customs Union on new certification requirements, but was 
also mindful of the challenges of this process. New Zealand had signalled to Russia and its Customs Union partners that it wanted to secure a pragmatic and WTO-consistent outcome to 
these concerns. 
14.18.  The delegate of Switzerland said that his authorities believed, and were convinced, that a 
strong multilateral trading system was essentia l for all WTO Members, that the WTO system had 
become as strong as it had because it was based on a far-reaching framework of rules to which 
the whole membership had adhered to, and respect and compliance with WTO rules and 
commitments was therefore crucial, including tran sparency and notification requirements to be 
fulfilled by all WTO Members and not only by re cently acceded Members. Switzerland therefore 
called the whole WTO membership to be permanently mindful of this obligation and to respect all 
the commitments. 
14.19.  The delegate of Korea stated that his delegati on shared some of the concerns raised about 
Russia's implementation of its accession commit ments. For example, Korean industries had 
signalled an application of higher tariff rates on imported refrigerators than those bound by Russia in its Schedule of Concessions. As already ment ioned by Japan, such inconsistencies took the 
following form: (i) continued application of the tari ff rate in 2013 rather than a reduced tariff rate 
in 2014, in accordance with Russia's tariff schedule; (ii) application of higher rates between ad 
valorem  and specific rates in the case of the items subject to the mixed tariff scheme where the 
Russian Federation had committed to apply the lo wer rates between those two forms of duties; 
and (iii) application of specific tariffs on items that had not been indicated as items subject to the 
alternative tariff scheme. Consequently, the affected industries were suffering from additional tariff 
burdens which exceeded those levels set out in Russia's schedule; additionally, these industries 
were concerned about the possible loss of market  share within the Russian market due to the 
deterioration of price competitiveness. Korea asked the Russian Federation to review these practices and promptly to address these concerns. 
14.20.  The delegate of the Russian Federation proc eeded to respond to some of the concerns 
raised by Members. His country was fully supportive of transparency in the WTO, and would 
implement its notification commitments as others had done. To date, the Russian Federation had circulated more than 100 notifications; this was an administrative burden not only for his country 
but also to the Customs Union; however, there were almost five notifications pending with regard 
to its notification schedule that would soon be submitted. G/C/M/118 
- 25 - 
  14.21.  With regard to the implementation of the tariffs schedule, he noted that the EU and the 
Russian Federation's statistics did not coincide; according to his records, there were differences between his country and other Members on only six tariff lines. The Russian Federation was ready 
to discuss this in the hope of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution, particularly as it was not a 
question of ad valorem  rates but an issue implying different specific components of the bound 
duty, which sometimes required the joint work of experts in order to identify what level of specific duty corresponded to the ad valorem  component of the respective commitment. His authorities 
had never received an indication from Korea that its industry had been affected by the 
implementation of its tariff commitments. The Russian Federation was ready to meet all interested Members to discuss these concerns, either in Moscow, or through the mission here in Geneva. 
14.22.  The concerns expressed over SPS measures should be understood in the right context; for 
instance, the limitations on importation of pork products from the EU due to the African swine 
fever were introduced in respect of only two EU  countries. However, two years ago the EU itself 
had committed not to supply pork from its territory if any territory or any part of the EU territory 
was subject to African swine fever. Therefore, it was an issue concerning the EU, to whom the 
Russian Federation had proposed a change in the commitment to which the EU Commission did not agree. There was now a dispute in the DSB on this  issue; the Russian Federation would of course 
implement any recommendation but noted that the so lution had always been on the table and in 
the EU's hands. 
14.23.  During a certain period there were limitations in place on Lithuanian milk products; 
however, after a consultation process between the respective SPS authorities, the issue was solved 
and a substantial part of Lithuanian milk prod ucers had again begun to export to the Russian 
Federation. Similarly, Ukraine had referred to a prohibition of imports of chocolate and other chocolate products. This issue had been discussed at the TBT Committee, where his delegation had 
provided explanations; there was no connection between this issue and the SPS Agreement, and 
the rationale of the measure was explained in that Committee. Since this discussion had not convinced Ukraine, the Russian Federation was ready to continue a dialogue on this and other 
issues relating to the importation and trade in foodstuffs. 
14.24.  As to those trade defence measures mentioned by the EU, their process had been 
transparent and WTO-consistent. In at least one of those measures, the exporters to the Russian Federation had decided to use the recourses of the Customs Union court to decide on whether or 
not the imposition of such measures was correct. Therefore, there were different options available 
to exporters to protect their interests within the Customs Union, including court procedures, with regard to an issue that did not violate the respective WTO Agreements and requirements. 
14.25.  When closing his intervention he indicated that, as mentioned by Ukraine, bilateral trade 
between the two countries was extremely important but that from time to time there were problems, as with foodstuffs. However, there were mechanisms established by the bilateral 
treaties to deal with these, and the Russian Fede ration was ready to solve them. With regard to 
Crimea, his authorities believed that its decision to join the Russian Federation was not only in line with international law but had also followed an internal referendum in which more than 95% of the population had supported this accession. However, the WTO was not the appropriate forum to 
discuss this when there were other international fora available in which to hold this discussion. 
14.26.  The representative of the European Union said that there were some points it needed to 
raise on the statement made by the Russian Federation: (i) the willingness to comply with its 
transparency obligations; (ii) the implementation of the WTO bound rates for import duties, an 
area where there was an important gap between the figures mentioned, as the Russian Federation had referred to only six lines, while the EU had counted about 150 tariff lines; this important gap 
needed to be explained; and (iii) on the SPS measures, there were only two EU member States, 
Lithuania and Poland, where two wild boars had appeared with African swine fever, and then imports had also been banned from Portugal; this had been the reason to launch a dispute with the Russian Federation on this issue. On the other issues, the EU had taken note of the invitation 
to hold further discussions; however, on record there were already numerous meetings that had 
taken place on issues such as imports from Lithuania, the trade defence measures, and other issues raised at this meeting. 
14.27.  The Council took note of the statements made. G/C/M/118 
- 26 - 
  15  UNITED STATES – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA) – NOTICE ON 
DATA AVAILABILITY CONCER NING RENEWABLE FUELS PRODUCED FROM PALM OIL 
UNDER THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD (RFS) PROGRAM – REQUEST FROM INDONESIA 
15.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2014, the 
delegation of Indonesia had requested the Secretaria t to include in today's agenda an item entitled 
"United States – Environmental Protection Agency  – Notice of data availability concerning 
renewable fuels produced from palm oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)Program". 
15.2.  The representative of Indonesia voiced the concerns of his delegation with regard to the 
US Congress Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)-a mand atory minimum volume of biofuel, to be used 
in the national transportation fuel supply with  the enactment of the Energy Independent and 
Security Act 2007 (EISA). EISA had expanded the biof uel blending mandate to 36 billion gallons by 
2022, including four new biofuel categories, each with a specific volume mandate and lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction threshold.  Accordingly, the total renewable fuel might 
diminish the lifecycle GHG emission reduction by at least 20% before qualifying as a renewable 
fuel. 
15.3.  EISA had also directed the Environmental Pr otection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the 
aggregate quantity of GHG emission related to the full lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and 
feed stock production, distribution, and use by the ultimate consumers. According to the EPA calculations, the lifecycle GHG emission reduction of palm oil from Indonesia was at 17%, a threshold that, according to the RFS, did not allow it to be qualified as a renewable fuel feedstock. 
15.4.  Although there were as yet no international standards for biofuels, elements of national 
standards might nevertheless refer to international standards. In the absence of such international standards, certain domestic regulations, like the EPA calculation methodology, could create 
unnecessary obstacles to trade and impede Indonesian palm oil access to the US market as a 
biofuel feedstock. 
15.5.  Indonesia had been discussing this issue b ilaterally with the US and had provided the 
necessary information and documentation to prove that Indonesian palm oil had indeed reached 
and even exceeded the minimum 20% level of lifecycle GHG emission reduction. 
15.6.  EPA had also undertaken a fact-finding mission to Indonesia and was conducting a peer 
review to gather information about GHG emissions from palm oil fields on tropical peat swamps; 
three Indonesian experts had been nominated to wo rk with the EPA on this issue. However, to 
date there was no information from the US either on the results of this fact-finding mission to Indonesia, or on the peer review. Indonesia asked when it would be informed of these results and 
the adjustments to the calculation of the GHG emission reduction established by the EPA. 
Indonesia hoped that this review would be issu ed soon and that it would also recognize the 
compliance of Indonesian palm oil with the US national standard to be eligible as biofuel feedstock. 
15.7.  The delegate of the United States stated that  his authorities recognized the importance of 
the issue to Indonesia and had been highly engage d in seeking a solution to it, as previously 
raised by Indonesia in the TBT Committee. 
15.8.  Since the publication of the Notice of Data Availability on 27 January 2012, the EPA had 
gathered new information and data through the public comment process, had held extensive 
meetings with a diverse range of stakeholders, and had also undertaken a fact-finding trip to Indonesia and Malaysia led by the EPA Assistant Administrator. The EPA was also conducting a 
science-based review of the information gathered on peat soils and other issues, such as methane 
capture of palm oil mills. As part of its review , the EPA was supporting a peer review to gather 
additional scientific information about the GHG emissions from palm oil expansion on tropical peat 
swamps. This review was not yet finalized and woul d take several months but, once completed, its 
results would be made public. The US appreciated the candidate nominations provided by Indonesia and other stakeholders. 
15.9.  However, the EPA's evaluation did not affect palm oil exports to the US of food, or for other 
purposes, and would not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the US. It would G/C/M/118 
- 27 - 
  only help to determine whether such fuels were eligible under US law to be used to comply with 
the renewable fuel mandates of the RFS programme. The EPA would continue an exchange of views with government, industry, civil society, and scientific experts, to understand all of the 
technical issues. The EPA would only make a final determination once it had found the data and 
analysis to be scientifically robust. 
15.10.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
16  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES ON DATA, HS TRANSPOSITION WORK, AND 
OUTSTANDING NOTIFICATIONS 
16.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2017, the 
delegation of the United States had requested th e Secretariat to include in the agenda an item 
entitled, "Statement by the United States on  Data, HS Transposition Work, and Outstanding 
Notifications". 
16.2.  The delegate of the United States welcomed the opportunity to emphasize in this Council the 
importance of data, the Harmonized System (HS) transposition work, and outstanding 
notifications, three essential elements if the WTO membership would attempt to come to an 
agreement on a post-Bali work plan. 
16.3.  The US had underscored that, in order to move forward and to assess what might be 
possible in various areas, including agriculture an d NAMA, it was necessary to have updated data 
so as to allow Members to understand current trade trends as opposed to those of over a decade ago, when the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations were launched. The US believed 
that using updated data in the near future would contribute to stirring interesting and lively 
discussion. 
16.4.  In order to undertake a negotiation on tariffs, it was critical that each Member had a bound 
schedule in the most up-to-date HS nomenclature possible. Therefore, Members should redouble 
their efforts on HS transposition work, even if it could be time-consuming. Capital-based officials 
should also be aware of the importance of this exercise, as it would not be possible to negotiate 
tariffs without a common baseline among Members of bound HS schedules. 
16.5.  The US also considered it critical that Member s push themselves to update their notification 
obligations and data submissions. Negotiations to expand trade-liberalizing commitments could not be seriously resumed without first establishing co mpliance with this commitment. For instance, in 
order to have a serious discussion on domestic support and/or export competition, Members' 
programmes should had been notified previously to the Committee on Agriculture and, if tariff 
duties were to be reduced, all Members should ensure that their tariffs and trade data were the ones included in the IDB. 
16.6.  The delegate of Japan reaffirmed the importance  of updating data submission, the required 
notifications, and enhancing progress on the HS transposition work, in order firmly to observe 
Members' WTO obligations, which allowed Members to capture and reflect the trade reality for 
their future work, and to strengthen the WTO's monitoring function against protectionist measures, 
like those that had been raised at this meeting. 
16.7.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei said that policy-making and the negotiation process 
depended on reliable statistics in order appropriately to address current economic challenges. 
Producing data that was both precise and up-to-date was important and required cooperation 
between Members and the Secretariat. Chinese Taipei hoped that all Members would collectively fulfil and comply with their notification obligations and submit the required data in due course. 
16.8.  The delegate of Canada echoed the previous statements. Canada believed that accelerating 
efforts to update Members' schedules to HS2002 and HS2007, improving the quality and the 
timeliness of notifications, and updating tariff and trade data from all Members, were important to 
support and advance the post-Bali work progra mme, including the NAMA-related discussions. 
Canada called Members to intensify their efforts in completing and updating this technical work as a matter of priority. G/C/M/118 
- 28 - 
  16.9.  The representative of the European Union recalled that his delegation had already 
underlined, under agenda item 2, the importance of notifications and the availability of information 
for the negotiations. The EU considered it useful to start work on updating data sets, and to accelerate the updating of schedules into HS2007. 
16.10.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
17  BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS –
STATEMENT BY PANAMA 
17.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 March 2014, the 
delegation of Panama had requested the Secretaria t to include in the agenda an item entitled, 
"Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – Measures Affecting Trade in Goods". 
17.2.  The delegate of Panama voiced the concerns of her authorities regarding the 
implementation by the Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela of restrictive and discriminatory measures 
which were contrary to the GATT 1994 and the GATS. In Decree 600, dated 21 November 2013, Venezuela had promulgated its law on fair prices aimed at controlling costs and reasonable 
maximum profit margins to establish "fair prices" in transactions in goods and services, as well as 
favouring national production and consumption of goods and services. Some emerging or existing local industries could thus be exempted from th e maximum prices also established by law. All 
physical and moral persons, regardless of their origin, carrying out economic and trading activities 
in Venezuela were subject to this law and were obliged  to register on the "single register of entities 
carrying out economic activities". A labelling requirement for products to indicate the "fair price" determined for the product had also been established under this law. Additionally, the law had 
made the ability to obtain foreign currency subject to the presentation of certificates of compliance 
with those fair prices. The latter had not only affected payments on imports and further restricted the availability of foreign currency, but had also limited imports to Venezuela. 
17.3.  Failure to comply with the "fair price" requirem ents included the confiscation of goods, the 
temporary closing of commercial premises, the temporary suspension of licences, and an immediate price adjustment for those products affected. Sanctions could also include 
imprisonment lasting eight to ten years if goods and services were sold beyond the restrictions set 
down by the law or in case of refusing to tr ade and offer products on the Venezuelan market. 
17.4.  In line with Decree 601, dated 21 November 2013, Venezuela promulgated a law 
establishing the "Centro Nacional de Comerc io Exterior" (CENCOEX) and the "Corporación 
Venezolana de Comercio Exterior"(Corporación) aimed at controlling and reducing imports with a 
view to encouraging the national industry. One of  the competencies of the CENCOEX was designing 
a strategy to encourage exports and develop import substitution programmes. The norm defined 
the "Corporación" as a state trading enterprise responsible to organize and guarantee imports with 
regard to quality and prices, and also to centralize and facilitate non-oil exports. However, to date Venezuela had not notified the Corporación as required by Article XVII of the GATT 1994. 
17.5.  The Venezuelan authorities had also suspended authorization to acquire currency for the 
purposes of travel and money transfers to Pana ma. Panama doubted that this suspension had a 
legal basis but its clear effect was to restrict payments and other operations in Panama, which Venezuelans might wish to carry out to buy goods with credit cards. Moreover, Panama was also 
aware that the Venezuelan authorities had sent a number of communications to the importers 
informing them that Venezuela was suspending the availability of currency for imports of 
Panamanian goods. 
17.6.  Panama believed that these actions went against WTO principles and, in particular, 
contravened Articles XI:1; III:4; I.1 and XVII of  the GATT 1994. Venezuela was asked to provide 
more information about these measures, particularly concerning their implementation and legal 
basis. 
17.7.  The delegate of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that, in addition to what his 
delegation had already stated in the General Council, as well as in the DSB, this alleged trade 
concern was part of actions undertaken by the Government of Panama in a number of fora against 
democratic stability in his country. On 25 March 2014, his authorities had suspended diplomatic G/C/M/118 
- 29 - 
  trade and consular relations with Panama until such time as there is a change in the actions it had 
undertaken to influence Venezuelan internal affairs, actions that his government had considered unfriendly. Venezuela expected that Panama would cease any hostile action against the Venezuelan government; however, his delegation had taken note of the statement made and 
would require further details, particularly on the GATT provisions that Panama considered to have 
been affected. 
17.8.  The delegate of Cuba supported the statement made by Venezuela and invited both parties, 
based on good faith, to engage in bilateral exchanges with a view to solving the concerns 
described by Panama. 
17.9.  The delegate of the Plurinational State of Boli via echoed the statement made by Venezuela; 
the concerns raised by Panama were of a political character and required a solution in the relevant 
bodies, not just in the WTO. Bolivia also called on both parties to solve the issue bilaterally. 
17.10.  The delegate of Ecuador echoed the systemic co ncerns raised by the previous delegations, 
and highlighted the need to solve the conc erns on the basis of facts and evidence. 
17.11.  The delegate of Nicaragua echoed the stat ement made by Venezuela and urged both 
parties to find a satisfactory solution to this situation, avoiding recourse to the DSU. 
17.12.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
18  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: MINISTERIAL DECISION OF 
7 DECEMBER 2013 (WT/MIN(13)/32 AND WT/L/907) 
18.1.  The Chairperson reminded delegations that, in December 2013, the Ministers in Bali, 
Indonesia, with respect to the Work Programme on E-Commerce8 had agreed, as stated in 
document WT/L/907: (i) to continue with the positive work under the Work Programme on 
E-Commerce based on its existing mandate and guid elines and on the basis of proposals submitted 
by Members in the respective WTO bodies; (ii) to instruct the General Council and its relevant 
bodies, including this Council, to continue to reinvigorate this work, especially under the initiatives 
taken in relation to commercial issues, development and evolving technology; and (iii) that any relevant body of the Work Programme might explore appropriate mechanisms to address the 
relationship between electronic commerce and development in a focused and comprehensive 
manner. 
18.2.  Therefore, in the Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 (WT/L/907), it was also decided 
"to instruct the General Council to hold periodic reviews in its sessions of July and December 2014, 
and July 2015, based on the reports submi tted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the 
implementation of the Work Programme, to assess its progress and consider any recommendations on possible measures related to electronic commerce and in the next session of the Ministerial 
Conference" and that Members would maintain the current practice of not imposing customs duties 
on electronic transmissions until the next session  of the Ministerial Conference, which had been 
decided to be held in 2015. 
18.3.  Pursuant to this mandate, he invited delegations to express their opinions and to make 
suggestions as to how to work on the preparation of the periodic reviews to be held in the General Council at its sessions of July and December of 2014, and in July of 2015. These reviews would be 
based on the reports submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the implementation of the Work 
Programme. 
18.4.  The delegate of Cuba reiterated that her authorities were ready to contribute to the 
invigoration of the Work Programme through differe nt proposals, and as Cuba had already done in 
the past. In April 2013, Cuba, together with Ecuador, had contributed to the organization of a 
workshop on "E-commerce, development, and SMEs" whose objectives were to facilitate access of 
SMEs to e-commerce, exchange of information on e-commerce, and development; the workshop 
had contributed to identifying the main obstacles faced by developing countries in accessing the 
free flow of technology and, in general, to e-trade. Cuba believed that the new Bali Decision 
                                               
8 Adopted at the Seventh Session of the Ministerial Conference (WT/L/274). G/C/M/118 
- 30 - 
  offered a long path along which to travel, and more challenges for developing countries and SMEs 
to overpass the obstacles they faced in accessing new technologies under e-commerce. 
18.5.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
19  OTHER BUSINESS 
19.1  Russian Federation 
19.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, at the outset of this meeting, the delegation of the Russian 
Federation had indicated that it would like to raise two issues under this agenda item 
19.1.1  Certain measures declared by the Eu ropean Union in favour of Ukraine 
19.2.  The delegate of the Russian Federation said th at his delegation had no intention to provoke 
any substantial discussion under this agenda item; however, the Russian Federation was 
concerned that the EU Trade Commissioner, on 11 March 2014, had referred to plans temporarily 
to remove customs duties on Ukrainian exports to the EU, and to grant autonomous trade 
preferences to Ukraine. As there had been no furt her qualifications or information concerning the 
scope and conditions of such measures, his delegation would appreciate receiving assurances from 
the EU that any unilateral trade liberalization would be exercised and implemented in full 
compliance with WTO provisions and without prejudice to the interests of other Members not benefitting from this treatment. 
19.3.  The delegate of Ukraine said that his country highly appreciated the EU initiative to grant 
Ukraine autonomous trade preferences. It supported  the motives behind it and thanked the EU for 
its understanding of the current problems bein g faced by Ukraine. These problems had been 
artificially created by the Russian Federation over a considerable period of time, and the FTAs 
concluded between Russia and other countries had always had a political content which Ukraine 
did not share. Therefore, the assistance by the EU  to his country was opportune, especially in an 
atmosphere, not instigated by Ukraine, of  growing tension and regional pressure. 
19.4.  Ukraine and neighbouring countries had been experiencing trade problems caused by an 
unpredictable and disappointing neglect of the Russian Federation's multilateral and bilateral 
commitments. The current tension had negatively affected trade in the whole region, while the 
EU trade preferences, for their part, served successf ully to stimulate trade. Ukraine hoped that the 
EU measures would benefit Ukrainian exporters and provide an opportunity to make necessary adjustments prior to the coming into force of th e comprehensive FTA signed with the EU. It would 
certainly contribute to economic growth and the creation of new and sustainable business 
partnerships with the EU. 
19.5.  The representative of the European Union indicated that the EU had negotiated an FTA with 
Ukraine and that, in accordance with the prov isions of the transparency mechanism, on 
18 February 2008 the EU had made an early announcement to the WTO Secretariat. The EU now 
planned to apply the content of this FTA as soon as  possible. The signature and ratification of this 
free trade agreement, which was fully compatible with Article XIV of the GATT and Article V of the 
GATS, would take place soon. 
19.6.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
19.1.2  Restrictive trade measures decl ared by certain WTO Members 
19.7.  The delegate of the Russian Federation voiced the systemic concerns of his delegation over 
the attempts made by certain Members to use trade restrictions in order to solve political 
problems, including against the Russian Federation. In particular, the Executive Orders of 6, 17 and 20 March 2014, adopted by the Presiden t of the United States, had entitled the 
US Treasury to list individuals from the Russian Federation whose assets, owned or controlled, 
directly or indirectly, within US territory, had been blocked and might not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. A proh ibition to export by certain persons had thus 
been established. G/C/M/118 
- 31 - 
  19.8.  These Executive Orders had not yet been im plemented in a manner that would directly 
violate the US commitments under the GATT, but the implementing measures would violate other US commitments under other WTO Agreements not directly under the aegis of this Council. The Russian Federation would therefore closely monitor the practical effects of these Executive Orders 
and/or other US legislative initiatives, in the interests of the Russian Federation's operators. The 
Russian Federation would in due course also consider any potential violation of the WTO Agreements. 
19.9.  He called upon other Members who had made political statements and who had referred to 
the possibility of introducing trade restrictive meas ures against it, to keep their trade policies in 
line with their WTO obligations and to refrain from being driven by political motivations on trade topics. 
19.10.  The delegate of the United States said that the US Government had undertaken their 
careful review before applying the measures to  which the Russian Federation had referred, and 
was confident that they were in conformity with  WTO rules. The points made by Russia would be 
conveyed to capital. 
19.11.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
19.2  Date of next meeting 
19.12.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled 
to take place on Thursday, 19 June 2014, and that the agenda would close on Thursday, 5 June. 
Additional meetings would be convened if necessary. 
20  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
20.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the Chair of the General Council carried out consultations on a 
slate of names for Chairpersons to the different WTO standing bodies, in accordance with the 
established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers . These proposed nominations were approved by 
the General Council at its meeting of 14 March 2014. In line with these nominations, the 
Chairperson proposed that the Council for Trade in Goods elect H.E. Joakim REITER of Sweden as Chairperson of this body by acclamation. 
20.2.  The Council so agreed. 
20.3.  The outgoing Chairperson congratulated Ambassa dor Reiter on his appointment and wished 
him all success in fulfilling his mandate as Chair of this Council. As Ambassador Reiter was away 
from Geneva he likewise thanked the Council on his behalf. 
20.4.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________