RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/162  
 
21 July 2016  
(16-3911)  Page: 1/41  
General Council 
12 May 2016    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 12 MAY 2016 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr Harald Neple (Norway) 
Upon adoption of the agenda for the meeting, th e General Council agreed not to take up Item 5 
(WTO Pension Plan Management Board – Election of a Member and an Alternate) and to revert to it 
at its next meeting.  During the course of the meeting, the Chairman , the Director-General and several delegations 
bade farewell to Ambassador Alberto D'Alotto (Argentina) and Ambassador Nkopane Raseeng 
Monyane (Lesotho) who were leaving their post at  the WTO, and expressed appreciation for their 
valuable contribution during their time as Permanent Representatives. 
 
Subjects discussed
1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE .................... 2  
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND NAIROBI OUTCOMES – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 15  
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMI TTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ............. 21  
4   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION – REPORT ON 
MEETINGS OF MARCH AND APRIL 2016  ........................................................................ 22  
5   APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS IN TH E SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE GOODS 
COUNCIL – STATEMENT BY THE CHAI RMAN OF THE G OODS COUN CIL ........................... 23  
6   WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN – 
RE-ACTIVATION OF THE WORKING PARTY PROCESS – STATEMENT BY OMAN ............... 24  
7   WORKSHOP ON E-COMMERC E – STATEMENT BY KOREA ............................................ 27  
8   DATE AND VENUE OF THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN ............................................................. 28  
9   ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMBERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY 
THE CHAIRMAN .............................................................................................................. 28  
ANNEX 1 - STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS AT THE INFORMAL TNC MEETING AT THE 
LEVEL OF HEADS OF DELEGATION HELD ON 9 MAY 2016 ............................................... 30  
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENT BY OMAN AT THE MEETING OF THE GOODS COUNCIL 
HELD ON 11 MAY 2016 ................................................................................................... 40  
 
                                               
1 The proposed agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/716. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTI ATIONS COMMITTEE 
1.1.  The Chairman recalled that a meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation had been held on 
9 May.2 
1.2.  The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC,  said that Members had had a good exchange at 
the Heads of Delegation meeting on 9 May. He had made a full report covering his recent 
consultations and his thoughts on the potential step s that they needed to take if they were to 
move forward. They had had a useful discussion as many of them had taken the floor. He asked 
that his statement from that meeting be added to the record of the General Council meeting.3 
Reports of some Negotiating Group Chairs had also been circulated as followed: Committee on Agriculture in Special Session in document JOB/AG/71, Negotiating Group on Market Access in document TN/MA/30, Council for Trade in Services in Special Session in document JOB/SERV/230 
and the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session in document JOB/DEV/33. The 
Chairs would continue their work. Some would be holding open-ended meetings and further consultations in the coming days and weeks. He encouraged them to remain engaged in those 
activities and to keep talking to each other. He urged them to step up their interactions across the 
full range of formats and looked forward to thos e conversations evolving in the coming weeks. 
1.3.  All delegations that spoke thanked the Director-General as well as the Chairs of the 
Negotiating Groups for their reports, their hard work and for sharing their assessment on the way 
forward. 
1.4.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab Group, said that 
Members had been actively engaging in discussing  the way forward on both agriculture and NAMA. 
Concrete progress however continued to be elusive and the contours of the way forward remained 
unclear. 
1.5.  Success in the last two Ministerial Conferen ces increased stakeholders' expectations that the 
WTO was capable of delivering amid complex challenges the world economy faced. Members 
should capitalise on the current momentum. Working in a cooperative manner for the interest of all Members and the multilateral trading system would be the best way to move forward efficiently 
and to ensure that the upcoming Ministerial Conference would be another success. Members' 
future work should thus be guided by the Declaration and Decisions adopted in previous Ministerial Conferences. They should work in a positive spirit , show strong political will and provide necessary 
flexibilities to deliver a successful outcome at MC11. 
1.6.  He said that time was running out. It had almost been five months since MC10 but things 
were still not progressing. Members should redoub le their efforts and use the current momentum 
to succeed and to have meaningful outcomes on the various issues on their agenda. They needed 
to continue to work on Doha outstanding issues and maintain development and S&D provisions at 
the heart of future negotiations. The Arab Group reiterated its commitment to the multilateral trading system and remained ready to engage constructively in the work ahead. 
1.7.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said it was important to have a 
multilateral trading system which was fair, balanced and which would generate benefits for all – 
particularly for developing country Members. The organization should therefore bear in mind the 
sensitivities of all Members, including the smallest.  
1.8.  In relation to paragraph 30 of the Nairobi Declaration, Bolivia was one of those Members 
committed to the DDA – the only framework that it could work with multilaterally and which remained valid. It also subscribed to the development principles geared towards helping 
developing country Members. 
                                               
2 At their request, the statements delivered at the 9 May Informal Meeting at the level of Heads of 
Delegation by the following delegations are incorporated  in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in 
Annex 1 of this document: Brazil; Canada; China; Eu ropean Union; India; Indonesia; Japan; Mexico; 
Paraguay; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; and, Uruguay. 
3 The Director-General's statement at the 9 May Info rmal Meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation 
was subsequently circulated in document JOB/GC/92 and is incorporated by referenc e in the records of this 
meeting. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.9.  Bolivia did not agree with the process in Nairobi. It however resulted in a Declaration which 
reflected the way things worked in the organizati on. As provided in paragraph 34 of the Nairobi 
Declaration, there was no agreement about including new issues on the agenda. Bolivia was of the same view as those Members who believed that new issues should not be on the agenda until 
pending issues had been concluded.  
1.10.  The WTO's multilateral nature should be  reinforced. Even if the process was slow and 
complex, as could be gleaned from the TFA, the legitimacy of the multilateral nature of the 
negotiations should remain non-negotiable. Plurilateralism should not prevail at the WTO.  
1.11.  Bolivia was concerned about some initiative s in the organization which were increasing the 
participation of the private sector, such as the event on 30 May. Private sector interests were well-represented at the WTO through certain Members making such initiatives one-sided. Decisions 
taken in the organization should however not just affect the private sector. In the interest of 
transparency and democracy, initiatives should also  be taken to listen to civil society, farmers' 
organizations and representatives of indigenous po pulations from all Members particularly from the 
developing ones. Those would enable them to have a broader and more informed view on 
decisions taken in the WTO affecting them – part icularly the poorest and the most vulnerable. 
1.12.  The representative of Benin, on behalf of  the LDCs, associated with the statements to be 
made by the ACP, the African Group and the G-33. Th e LDCs believed that priority should be given 
to reforms on the Agreement on Agriculture through the substantial reduction, with a view to the elimination, of domestic support that had distorting effects on the international market for agricultural products. More than 90% of LDCs depe nded on agriculture - making it crucial for their 
economy and trade. Ensuring the effective implemen tation of the Nairobi decisions on agriculture 
and tackling the remaining issues, particularly on domestic support, would serve as a catalyst for promoting the rural economy – a driver of sustaina ble development. The LDCs therefore called on 
Members to urgently and substantively deal with the matter in a manner satisfactory to all. They 
supported the approach adopted by the Chair of  the CoA-SS and asked all Members for their 
constructive engagement. 
1.13.  On cotton, Members' reluctance to provide transparency on levels of domestic support for 
cotton delayed the negotiating process. The LDCs, 36 of which produced cotton, recommended for Members to seek further results following paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Decision on Cotton. Since Ministers had given Members a clear mandate to address the cotton issue "ambitiously, 
expeditiously and specifically", they should ther efore make progress on the cotton issue by MC11. 
1.14.  The LDCs also considered of substantial interest DFQF market access for LDCs granted in 
2008 in accordance with Decision 36 of Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. The 
decision should provide equitable benefits towards integrating the LDCs into the multilateral 
trading system. They therefore asked for a clinical  review of the DFQF market access regime for 
LDCs. The review's terms of reference were being prepared and would soon be submitted to the 
regular session of the CTD for review and validation to enable the Secretariat to carry out the 
study. They counted on the constructive engagement of Members in seeking a definitive, fair and mutually satisfactory solution. 
1.15.  Concerning special and differential treatment, paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration mandated the continuation of the negotiations on special and differential treatment in 
the CTD-SS – not in the framework of the Monitoring Mechanism set up in Bali. The LDCs were consulting with the different parties involved an d urged Members to show greater flexibility in the 
forthcoming negotiations – another matter of major importance. 
1.16.  As regards fisheries subsidies, the LDCs ca lled for a rapid resumption of the negotiations to 
bridge the gaps and to come up with satisfactory results that would not involve added disciplines 
for the LDCs while taking into account the situation of traditional fishermen. 
1.17.  On new issues, the LDCs reaffirmed the position they had stated at the February General 
Council meeting and stressed the need to organi ze exploratory and informative discussions while 
maintaining the necessary balance in their work. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.18.  The representative of Cameroon noted that  Members were trying to take advantage of the 
period of reflection to come up with solutions that could put the negotiations back on track to 
successfully conclude the Doha Round. During th at period, several delegations had looked at 
different ways for them to reach conclusion. One Member had rightly pointed out that Members' 
positions had not changed. It was probably at that level that they should remain open, rather than 
opening the actual negotiating framework which wa s already governed by precise and established 
rules. Many issues had also been submitted to  Members for consideration in the different WTO 
bodies. 
1.19.  Rules mattered at the WTO, particularly in settling disputes. But would Members value WTO 
rules in the same way when it came to negotiations? Would they be willing to recall the rules governing the conclusion of the Doha Round consid ering what had happened at the conclusion of 
the Uruguay Round? In searching for alternatives, would development remain at the heart of their 
work, bearing in mind the Sustainable Development Goals to which all of them had subscribed? 
1.20.  The multilateral trading system should be preserved and be given credibility by prioritizing 
the multilateral approach. Positive outcomes at MC10 remained insufficient and unsatisfactory. 
Members should therefore, instead of waging the "w ar of approaches", build – on the basis of an 
argumentative compromise – a methodological compromise aimed at achieving a consensus that 
would guarantee "mutually advantageous" solutions.  
1.21.  Over or under estimating certain subjects should be avoided by providing every negotiating 
area the status and value it deserved. Several developing country delegations that had previously taken the floor had addressed Cameroon's concerns, for instance on trade-distorting subsidies. 
1.22.  While special and differential treatment was an essential component of the development 
package, development went well beyond it. Benin had earlier mentioned a number of important parameters relating to the negotiations on that issue. Although all developing countries belonged 
to the same category, they did not possess the same capacities. A number of positive signals had 
emerged when certain delegations had stated that they had not intended to demand the same treatment accorded to other developing countries such as the SVEs and the LDCs. It was a step in 
the right direction which should be factored into the equation. Cameroon encouraged all Members 
to give positive signals that would help them deliver win-win outcomes. 
1.23.  The representative of Uganda associated  with the statement of the LDCs. All decisions 
adopted in Nairobi, especially the LDC-specific ones, should be implemented. Implementation of 
the decisions on Cotton, Preferential Rules of Origin for Least-Developed Countries and the 
Implementation of Preferential Treatment in favo ur of Services and Service Suppliers of Least-
Developed Countries and Increasing LDC Participation in Services Trade would go a long way in 
helping LDCs better integrate into the multilateral trading system, reduce poverty, increase 
employment and meet the Sustainable Development Goals. However, Members should be careful not to create a two-tier system of jurisdiction among Ministerial Decisions or parts of Ministerial 
Decisions such as those that would require amendment of schedules and those which would not. It 
could thus be necessary for the Secretariat to prepare a paper on the best legal course of action to take with respect to the implementation of the decision on Export Competition. 
1.24.  It had been mentioned that times had changed and that Members should adjust accordingly. 
Between 2002 and 2008, Africa's GDP growth had been between 5% and 6%. It had however 
currently slumped to about 3%. There was a co mbined increase in population growth and 
unemployment. UNCTAD reported a marked degree of de-industrialization. Their people, 80% of 
whom depended on agriculture for subsistence an d livelihood purposes, were met with suppressed 
world prices and lost revenues due to the domestic support of rich countries. Major powers legislated trade distorting measures while simu ltaneously preaching the gospel of free market 
economics. Major players professed the need for all their people to benefit from the increased 
opportunities that the multilateral trading system  generated yet stifled and attempted to forge a 
collective chorus away from the very avenues th at would guarantee that much needed relief. 
Times had indeed changed, but a lot remained more of the same. 
1.25.  Since Doha and every two years preceding MC10, Ministers had made commitments on 
what course of action to take by providing mandates that characterized the Doha architecture. Members should not allow those mandates to be reduced to loud sounding nothings. They would WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 5 - 
 
  otherwise risk setting themselves up for future disaster because no amount of paper or ink would 
be respected. They ought to tread carefully. Eith er a Ministerial Conference with its outcome was 
worth its name or it would be reduced to beauty  pageantry. Going forward, it was important for 
Members to pay attention to what kind of legacy they would leave for the organization. It could 
seem light and fleeting but the ramifications were dire. As it had been said in 416 BCE, the strong 
do what they could. But if they would not ch ange course, rule-making at the WTO would be 
rendered redundant. Uganda therefore reaffirmed and upheld all the mandates and the flexibilities 
embedded therein for developing countries and LDCs  with the view to concluding the remaining 
elements of the Doha Round. 
1.26.  On new issues or other approaches, Uganda had no problem discussing any element that 
Members so wished provided it would meet two criteria: it should explicitly be mandated by 
Ministers and it should have been agreed by consensus. Members could not however simply create 
new facts on the ground through inter alia  forging a collective movement of mob justice against 
paragraph 1(g) of the July Framework to wish away  an already codified and standing instruction.  
1.27.  On S&D treatment, Uganda thanked the CTD- SS Chair for her report and her tireless effort 
to forge an outcome in Nairobi. After suffering a major attack of "courage deficit" from their partners, Uganda appreciated the indications from some delegations of their willingness to address 
the particular concerns of the most vulnerable and weakest Members of the multilateral trading 
system. As an African and an LDC, one of its fundamental challenges was the need for structural transformation and industrialization of Africa which the African Union would address with its plan. Since the world was moving away from handouts th rough aid, Africa and the LDCs could use trade 
for industrialization and development. If Members engaged in good faith on S&D treatment, they 
could provide the requisite policy instruments that could boost trade and development. 
1.28.  The Africa of today could not compare with the Africa of 1995. According to UNCTAD, 
Africa's exports of value added manufactured prod ucts had been valued at 28.4bn USD in 1995 as 
compared to Vietnam's 2.4bn USD. Vietnam had however surpassed Africa in 2014. It had exported $107.8 billion in 2014 compared to Africa's  $105.5 billion. In responding to the call of the 
CTD-SS Chair, Members should thus reject the temptation to slide back into the circuitous, non-
helpful questioning approach that had been used to stifle progress. Uganda had bitter memories of the 2015 Special Session with delegations being represented on the table while the G-90 had no negotiating partners on areas of importance. It wa s therefore important in the post-Nairobi period 
for Members to ask themselves to be true to the spirit of paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration 
and to deliver meaningful development outcomes. Th ey should resist the temptation to be caught 
up in the trappings of intellectual and conceptual gymnastics that had scarcely left the special 
session. They all wanted the same things: inclusive prosperity and welfare for all Members which 
responded to the specific development needs of developing country Members – in particular the 
least-developed country Members. 
1.29.  The representative of Nigeria associated wi th the statement to be delivered by the ACP and 
the one made by the LDCs. While reflecting on th e Nairobi Ministerial decisions was necessary, the 
period of reflection should not be too long. Members should sustain the momentum gained in Bali and Nairobi. They should also avoid the mistakes of the past in preparing for MC11 by not waiting 
for the eleventh hour to conclude the negotiations.  
1.30.  In moving forward, Members' engagement should be guided by the Nairobi Decisions, and 
by implementing the decisions and prioritizing wo rk where results had not yet been achieved as 
reflected in paragraphs 31 and 34 of the Nairobi Declaration. Members should implement both Bali 
and Nairobi decisions without any further delay particularly the decisions on Export Competition, Public Stockholding, Special Safeguard Mechanism, LDC issues, Cotton and the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. They should also demonstrate their strong commitment to advance negotiations on 
the remaining Doha issues consistent with paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration and quickly build on the areas where convergence had already emerged.  
1.31.  Development should be prioritised in th e negotiations. Members needed to deliver a pro-
development outcome in the negotiations by MC11.  They should consider the crucial roles of 
agriculture in the context of development, especially as it related to food security, rural livelihood and environmental concerns. Agriculture remained the most trade-distorted sector and reforming 
its rules to level the playing field would be a critical development outcome in the DDA. The level of 
ambition in Agriculture should thus determine the level of ambition in the other areas including WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 6 - 
 
  NAMA and Services. Nigeria therefore sought a fa ir and equitable outcome across the three pillars 
of Agriculture which would satisfactorily address the longstanding asymmetries in the Agreement on Agriculture and looked forward to an e ffective and long-term solution on Cotton. 
1.32.  On the lack of negotiating traction in the Services pillar, Nigeria underscored the importance 
of services to its economy with the sector account ing for about 51% of its total GDP. Progress in 
Services would therefore be critical to successf ully conclude the Doha Round and to achieve 
balanced outcomes. In negotiating Services, the GATS flexibilities for developing countries and 
LDCs contained in Articles XIX.2 and IV.3 should be adhered to and the process of liberalization 
should take due cognisance of national policy objectives, level of development and the size of economies of individual Members.   
1.33.  New issues could only be advanced on th e basis of consensus while the discussions should 
not distract Members' goal of concluding the Doha Round.   
1.34.  He noted that Members remained committed to advancing negotiations on the remaining 
Doha negotiating issues but divided on the approach  of tackling the core issues. They should keep 
on working towards building convergence to deliv er meaningful, balanced and pro-development 
outcomes at MC11 and for the WTO to retain its relevance and credibility. Transparency, inclusiveness and a bottom-up approach should be upheld in all processes to avoid surprises. 
Without mutual trust, shift in positions and strong political will from all Members particularly the 
major players, achieving tangible outcomes worthy of celebration at MC11 would not be possible. They should likewise consider the interests of the weak and vulnerable Members in advancing the negotiations on the remaining issues. Despite the challenges it faced as a result of the dwindling 
global crude oil prices and the sharp decline in  foreign exchange earnings, Nigeria remained 
committed to a holistic approach towards advancing work on the DDA negotiations. 
1.35.  The representative of Rwanda, on behalf  of the ACP, said that the Group expected a 
development-oriented outcome at MC11 consistent with recent global commitments particularly 
the SDGs. This would enable Members to secure gains for their economies and their people in line with the Marrakesh Agreement which recognized the "need for positive efforts designed to ensure 
that developing countries, and especially the LDCs  among them, secure a share in the growth in 
international trade commensurate with the need s of their economic development". Development 
should therefore remain central to any outcome at MC11. 
1.36.  Paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration prov ided the basis of further advancing negotiations 
highlighting the "strong commitment of all Members to advance negotiations on the remaining 
Doha issues", including "advancing work in all three pillars of Agriculture, namely domestic support, market access and export competition, as well as Non-Agriculture Market Access, 
Services, Development, TRIPS and Rules". 
1.37.  Agriculture negotiations should be coherent with the SDGs. Goal 2 of the SDGs called for 
preventing trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets. To achieve the 
longstanding agriculture reform and to create a level playing field in agriculture trade, Members 
needed to substantially reduce their agriculture domestic distorting subsidies. A substantial outcome in Agriculture, particularly on domestic support, would constitute the most significant developmental outcome in the DDA – one that wo uld generate developmental gains to many ACP 
countries. Agriculture was therefore an area wh ere an ambitious outcome would lead to the 
realization of the SDGs and the ACP urged Members to constructively engage.  
1.38.  In Nairobi, Ministers had instructed negotiators to engage constructively towards the 
adoption of a permanent solution on Public St ockholding for Food Security Purposes in an 
accelerated time-frame. The ACP urged Members to respect the Ministerial mandate.  
1.39.  The Ministerial Decision on SSM stated that developing country Members would have the 
right to have recourse to a Special Safeguard Mechanism as already envisaged. The ACP called on 
Members to engage constructively to find a solution that would enable them to easily address import surges and price decline that were likely to cause serious injury to domestic industries.  
1.40.  The issue of fisheries subsidies should be addressed urgently and in a manner that would 
ensure sustainable fishing for food security an d livelihood security – another developmental WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 7 - 
 
  deliverable for MC11. S&D treatment for developing countries should remain an integral part of 
any negotiation and any outcome. On NAMA, ACP's policy space for the industrialization of their 
economies should be preserved. As in other negotiations, development needed to remain central to any outcome on services as inscribed in GATS Articles XIX:2 and IV:3 and subsequent 
Ministerial Declarations since the WTO's establis hment. On the implementation of the Nairobi 
Declaration and Decisions, it was imperative for Members to find a proper way of making the MC10 
outcomes enforceable.   
1.41.  The link between trade and development was the "raison d’être" of the ACP's engagement in 
WTO negotiations. Any negotiating issue should therefore be assessed against its developmental dimension. The ACP called upon all Members to re-commit to the pre-eminence of the WTO as the global forum for trade rules setting and governance and to adopt measures and outcomes that 
sought to address structural challenges developing countries faced to fully integrate into the 
multilateral trading system.  
1.42.  Five months after the Nairobi Ministerial m eeting, Members needed to "move from reflection 
to action" as the Director-General had said. Issues that would form part of the MC11 deliverables 
should be urgently clarified – in particular those that would result in developmental outcomes for global prosperity. The ACP assured all Members of its readiness to constructively engage in the 
negotiations and encouraged others to do the same. 
1.43.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that in Nairobi, a 
considerable number of Members had endorsed the view that the Doha architecture and mandate, 
reinforced by subsequent Ministerial and General Council Decisions, continued to serve as 
Members' road map. Attempting to conclude the remaining Doha Round issues or some of them 
under a different architecture would not lead them to a destination of common interest. 
1.44.  Venezuela was concerned with some delegations' desire to use issues such as development 
and SVEs as vehicles to initiate a broader, more complex and delicate discussion that could affect 
the developing countries as a whole and that ultimately sought to reduce the treatment that Members should receive. At the WTO, development went beyond the treatment of developing 
countries under multilateral commitments. 
1.45.  Venezuela was also concerned by the efforts by some Members to introduce new issues and 
new approaches to the WTO that required further examination and on which there was no consensus. Efforts were made to create a new agenda in selective and non-transparent formats 
and configurations. A small group of Members had spoken in vague terms about myriad issues and 
areas of interest that it would like to include in the organization's work. Those involved an agenda that consolidated the interests of a limited few an d that could have consequences in defending the 
interests of the majority of developing countries, while limiting not only Members' policy space but 
S&D treatment and the ability to exercise their sovereignty. Attempts could then be made to 
impose that agenda on the WTO as a fait accompli . It would be difficult to assess whether it would 
be appropriate to make way for a new WTO agenda when Members were not yet even clear on 
where the existing work programme was heading. Members should therefore not lose sight of the 
provisions of paragraph 1(g) of the July 2004 Framework which remained in effect. 
1.46.  The multilateral trading system which had taken much effort to build was being threatened 
by a number of approaches that sought to create a multi-speed system. Venezuela was not in 
favour of such initiatives that would undermine the multilateral nature of the WTO. 
1.47.  Venezuela supported the G-33's position in prioritising the Nairobi Decisions on SSM and 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes placing both issues high on the agenda in the 
agriculture negotiations. In NAMA, Agriculture and Services, there had been much talk of "cutting 
water". For certain Members, including Venezuela, the narrow gap between bound rates and 
applied rates contained the little policy space it had. Cutting water was not as simple as it seemed. 
In NAMA, in particular, Venezuela was therefore in no position to make tariff-related contributions. 
1.48.  On initiatives in the organization to increase interaction with the private sector, a dialogue 
such as that proposed on 30 May or any future action should not be restricted to global players 
from large economies while excluding the vast majo rity that were also affected by international 
trade rules. Any type of relationship sought  with other players should respect the inter-WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 8 - 
 
  g o v e r n m e n t a l  n a t u r e  o f  t h e  W T O .  N o  o n e  w a s  better placed to defend and to represent the 
interests of their populations and economic pl ayers in the organization than the Members 
themselves. The Public Forum continued to be the most appropriate place to bring the WTO closer 
to different players including the private sector. Efforts should instead be channelled towards 
making that forum more inclusive and participatory. 
1.49.  The representative of Ecuador stressed that  any future actions and steps should be agreed 
b y  t h e  e n t i r e  m e m b e r s h i p  a n d  f o r m  p a r t  o f  a  c r e d i b l e  w o r k  p r o g r a m m e  t h a t  s h o u l d  d e f i n e  t h e  
negotiating issues in respect of which it was possible to achieve concrete outcomes for MC11. Such 
a programme should also define how the negotiations would be addressed and the procedure that would be followed. The work programme should focus on the remaining Doha negotiations and place development at the centre of Members' work – reaffirming that S&D treatment provisions 
remained integral. Those should form the basis in moving the negotiations forward. 
1.50.  Being essential to Ecuador, the negotiations on agricultural market access should contain all 
the elements required to effect genuine agricult ural trade reform. Such reform should recognize 
the differences between economies mainly in terms of tariff levels which had become a major 
access barrier for Ecuadorian exports – a situation aggravated by the tariff preferences from RTAs which undermined the benefits obtained by Member s at the multilateral level. Any commitments 
undertaken should be balanced and provide opportunities for developing countries without harming 
their production structures, thus allowing for the reduction of existing asymmetries. 
1.51.  Ecuador supported the negotiating priorities of the G-33 in relation to the Nairobi Decisions 
on SSM and Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. Those issues had specific negotiating 
mandates, which was why they could not be linked to the development of the negotiations and 
other agricultural pillars. Any link would prevent those mandates from being fulfilled and would paralyze the treatment of those issues. Both issues could be included in the positive outcomes that 
Ecuador, like other Members, hoped would be achieved at MC11. 
1.52.  He highlighted his delegation's concern about the ideas expressed by various delegations on 
adapting the negotiations to new approaches that would sideline multilateralism. Ecuador 
considered the WTO's strength to be its pursuit of a balance between the interests of its Members. 
Such a balance enabled Members to secure a shar e in the growth of world trade commensurate 
with their own development needs, as enshrined in the Doha Declaration. 
1.53.  While Ecuador was not against considering new issues for information purposes, it would be 
difficult to support the creation of a new WTO agenda covering those issues when no provision had 
been made for concluding outstanding issues that would ensure order and consistency with the Nairobi mandate. Members should therefore prioritise the conclusion of the remaining Doha issues 
following the Nairobi Declaration and any decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on new 
issues should be taken by consensus. 
1.54.  The representative of Kenya noted that, al though Members had been engaging intensively, 
they still had not managed to define a clear path for the post-Nairobi agenda. Five months had 
passed since MC10 prompting the need to transiti on from reflection into a substance-driven 
process. Ministers had given a strong commitment in Nairobi to advance negotiations particularly on the remaining Doha issues. Members should immediately identify their priorities for MC11 and 
inject momentum into the negotiations, including by maintaining close contacts with their capitals 
for political instruction. 
1.55.  Kenya appreciated the explanations during consultations on certain Members' new ideas, 
new approaches and concepts. Members should move to a new phase of tabling proposals and 
providing greater specificity on those new ideas, approaches and concepts facilitating the consultations with their capitals on the proposals submitted and the search for political guidance. 
1.56.  Kenya strongly favoured the multilateral approach on WTO issues. Multilateral approaches 
embraced development principles favouring weaker  Members than plurilateral approaches. Kenya's 
priority issues such as domestic support in agriculture, fisheries subsidies and S&D treatment were better dealt with multilaterally. Kenya looked forward to a balanced post-Nairobi agenda that 
would take into account different interests of different Members. Development and key principles, 
such as S&D treatment and less than full reciprocity, should remain central in WTO's future work.  WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.57.  Full implementation of Ministerial outcomes remained important for Kenya, including the 
implementation of the Decision on Export Competit ion. There were also separate decisions agreed 
by Ministers in Nairobi on SSM and Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes which provided clear political guidance on the way forward. Ke nya expected that negotiations on those two 
important issues would be concluded by MC11. Kenya reiterated its full support to the Director-
General in his consultations on his post-Nairobi ag enda and pledged to work constructively with all 
Members to find ways to achieve progress in their work. 
1.58.  The representative of Cuba associated with  the statement made by the ACP. Cuba's position 
on the various issues under discussion was well- known and had not changed. The same attitude 
prevailed throughout the rest of the membership. Positions on both general and specific issues had remained unchanged since before Nairobi, with the same divergences of opinion. It was 
regrettable that after five months no decision had yet been made on how to proceed with the Doha 
mandates and architecture, even though the vast  majority of Members strongly supported the 
conclusion of the Round. Despite those difficulties, all Members agreed on one particular cross-
cutting issue as reflected in paragraph 32 of the Nairobi Declaration: all future work should 
maintain development at its centre and provisions for S&D treatment should remain integral. 
1.59.  Cuba was however concerned about new approaches. Even if they would reshape the 
negotiating function of the WTO, they appeared to be moving away from, instead of respecting, 
the notion of development endorsed in Nairobi. The so-called hybrid approach, for instance, was 
unclear. The idea of working in two negotiating lanes, each with its own pace, would lead to the exclusion of those who did not share the same political or conceptual positions on certain issues. 
Cuba would not be surprised if the smallest and weakest developing countries in the WTO would 
consequently be marginalized. This initiative would also injure multilateralism, which had taken decades to be consolidated in the organization. 
1.60.  Cuba was also concerned about the incremental approach. Members were not clear on how 
such would ensure that development would remain at the centre. Cuba invited those who advocated that approach to consider as an immediate outcome for MC11 the two requests made 
by the G-33 on SSM and public stockh olding for food security purposes. 
1.61.  New initiatives presented real challenges that were difficult to address. Cuba did not want to 
see any regression on the principle of S&D treatm ent and the multilateral nature of the WTO. Cuba 
was likewise concerned about new issues. There was no consensus on moving forward in that 
respect. Given the current uncertainty regarding the Doha mandates, Cuba had no intention of 
considering a new agenda to replace Doha. The only constructive way of moving forward in the coming months would be to push for the completion of the Doha Round, putting the development 
dimension at the centre of WTO's work. Cuba stood ready to work in a constructive manner 
consistent with the interests of the large majority of Members. 
1.62.  The representative of Mali, on behalf of the C-4, associated itself with the statements made 
by the African Group, the LDCs and the ACP. The C-4 appreciated the WTO's central role as the 
sole and proper forum for trade negotiations, ca pable of successfully concluding the negotiating 
rounds it had undertaken for the benefit of all Members. The C-4 reaffirmed its commitment to the multilateral trading system and its faith in the WTO's ability to contribute to the integration of its 
economies in regional and global value chains. The WTO could help ensure that trade was a 
springboard for development, a tool in the fight against poverty and a guarantee of peace and stability in the world. 
1.63.  If Members placed the needs and interests of the developing countries – which represented 
the majority of Members – at the heart of the discussions, the pending DDA issues remained highly relevant. 
1.64.  From the launch of the cotton initiative in 2003 until MC10, the cotton issue had regularly 
been at the centre of the negotiations. At MC10, the C-4 had submitted for adoption a realistic draft decision aimed at facilitating access for African cotton to developed and developing country markets, eliminating export subsidies on cotton and eliminating domestic support policies that 
distorted the international cotton market. Nairobi had achieved some progress in that respect. The 
decision on Cotton was encouraging and represented an important step towards a concrete and binding result on the issue of domestic support. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.65.  Over the past 15 years, all Members had committed themselves to find a fair solution for 
cotton, as set out in decisions and statements. The decision taken in 2005 inter alia  to address the 
cotton issue "ambitiously, expeditiously and specifically" should not remain an empty slogan. It should rather provide genuine motivation to take concrete action aimed at significantly amending 
international trade rules.  
1.66.  MC9 and MC10 had both been important steppi ng stones in the development of international 
trade. The proper implementation and follow up of  the provisions of the Nairobi Decision was thus 
one of the C-4's priorities.  
1.67.  Members should also effectively address the issue of the elimination of subsidies that had 
distorting effects on world cotton prices. The issue of domestic support should be at the centre of the forthcoming negotiations on agriculture in general and on cotton in particular. Although 
domestic support significantly distorted world co tton prices, the issue had only been raised to 
recall the policy reform efforts made by certain Members to reduce their domestic subsidies for cotton and to stress the need to strengthen transp arency through regular notification to the WTO 
Secretariat of measures taken in that area. The C-4 had therefore set an ambitious objective of 
reaching a balanced and fair agreement acceptable to all parties involved before MC11.  
1.68.  The C-4 would favour any strategy to keep  the issue of cotton at the centre of the post 
Nairobi negotiations. Members should ensure the effective participation of all parties in 
constructive and progressive dialogue to achieve the ultimate objective of eliminating all forms of export subsidies and domestic support for the production and marketing of cotton. Bilateral 
consultations had already begun with the Members involved with or affected by the cotton issue. 
Those consultations would take place in quad and "quad plus" formats as soon as possible. 
1.69.  36 African countries produced cotton, in a ddition to several developing and least-developed 
countries in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. In those countries, cotton represented about 
8% to 12% of GDP, 40% of total export income an d 70% of total farm receipts. 80% of the active 
population was employed in the cotton production, processing and marketing chain. The C-4 remained open to any initiatives that could contribute to the ultimate objective of safeguarding 
and promoting the cotton sector in the LDCs and the African cotton producing and exporting 
countries and called on all Members to constructively engage. 
1.70.  The representative of Qatar said that th e reports of the different negotiating groups had 
shown that looking for a foothold in the post-Nairo bi process had been a difficult task. The absence 
of a full reaffirmation by the Membership in Nairobi had left the organization in a predicament on 
finding a way to proceed. Members' work should be focused on the negotiating areas with higher degrees of convergence, but should not be done in  a stand-alone process. Work should continue to 
provide balance among and across issues. The basi s of work going forward should build on the 
linkages at place between the various negotiating issues which had been the basis of Members' work since the launch of the Doha Development Round. S&D treatment and less than full 
reciprocity should be integral to any outcome, an d not negotiated on a separate basis. Qatar was 
concerned about the fact that the concept of "trade and development" had been brought into question. It therefore called upon Members to sh ow more flexibility and compromise to advance 
negotiations on the Doha Round and to preserve the results achieved so far. 
1.71.  The representative of Nepal associated with the statement made by the LDCs. Almost five 
months had been spent reflecting on the Nairobi outcomes and possible ways forward. It was 
about time to take action by preparing to deliver meaningful outcomes at MC11.  Efforts should be 
redoubled to find issues of convergence in the interest of all Members, particularly the LDCs. As an 
LDC, Nepal wanted to ensure that the decisions of the Ministerial Conference, including those in 
Bali and in Nairobi, would be put into systemic implementation. More efforts should be directed to 
develop packages commensurate with Members' developmental needs. 
1.72.  The nexus between trade and development an d the enabling impact of international trade, 
particularly the growth in export trade, on  the development efforts of Members remained 
important. Nepal still suffered from structural an d supply-side constraints, weaker capacities and 
marginalization in the multilateral trading system. Eradicating poverty, managing risks and 
vulnerabilities and creating opportunities for econ omic growth and employment for its people were 
among Nepal's priorities. With the collective commitment of inclusive, transformative and WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 11 - 
 
  sustainable progress and prosperity, the 2030 Glob al Agenda and the SDGs had given Nepal new 
hope amid the ongoing slowdown in global economic growth and trade. 
1.73.  International trade, particularly the rules-based, free, fair and equitable trade regime, had a 
definite role to play in achieving sustainable de velopment and the SDGs. Interests and priorities of 
the LDCs had to be taken on board to get them  meaningfully integrated into the multilateral 
trading system and to help them graduate from the LDC status as early as possible – a concrete step to support the principle of the 2030 Develo pment Agenda of leaving nobody behind. The 
mandate given by paragraph 24 of the Nairobi Declaration gave Members ample space to move 
the trade agenda towards the LDCs' developmental interest. Apart from implementing the Ministerial decisions, there remained a strong need for strengthening S&D treatment provisions for the intended results and outcomes. Nepal would engage constructively in the negotiations. If 
Members would sincerely exert effort, Members would reach their common goals. 
1.74.  The representative of Turkey said that the implementation of the decisions taken in Bali and 
Nairobi remained important, but new issues that had become the commercial reality of the 
21st century should not be ignored. Plurilateral efforts such as the EGA were important to support 
the credibility of the organization, particularly in its negotiating arm and its capacity to deliver. Members should however bear in mind that it continued to be essential for the WTO to reach 
outcomes at the multilateral level.  
1.75.  On Agriculture, Members had only delivered in Nairobi concrete results in Export 
Competition and to a certain extent in Cotton. The bulk of the reform process envisaged in 
Article XX of the Agreement on Agriculture continued to be on the table. Nairobi Decisions provided 
Members some guidance on coordinating their work. The reaffirmation of the developing Members' 
right for an SSM and the commitment to find a perm anent solution on public stockholding for food 
security purposes were essential. Those issues sh ould be addressed in the dedicate sessions of the 
CoA-SS, and with the sense of urgency to deliver them by MC11. 
1.76.  Paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration reflected Members' commitment to advance 
negotiations on the remaining Doha issues, including NAMA. Each Member had different priorities 
and sensitivities among the remaining issues. NAMA continued to be one of Turkey's priorities at 
the WTO. An outcome on NAMA, especially on ta riff reductions, would be a balancing element vis-
à-vis commitments to be taken in other areas. Any package at MC11 should thus have a NAMA 
content providing meaningful market access. Work on this area should immediately commence.  
1.77.  A strong Services component should also be part of the post-Nairobi agenda. The world was 
changing. Many FTAs had been concluded since 2008 with levels of ambition beyond the 2008 package. E-trade had not been as relevant in 2008 as it was at present. Global value chains had 
revolutionized the way goods were produced and distributed. Whatever Members would do should 
add value to the services industry and the global  economy overall. Any initiative needed to be 
cross-cutting and comprehensive.  
1.78.  Areas that should be prioritised as a starting point for discussion in Services included a 
strong trade facilitation component for services, building up on the success of TFA covering the elimination of administrative barriers to the provision of services. E-commerce had evolved into a key enabler for a number of services sectors. A series of additional rules or disciplines to a 
permanent moratorium could be included, covering topics such as consumer protection and 
e-signature, among others. The initiative would also be relevant beyond the services sphere. Services were also strong enablers of trade in goods, contributing to the integration of the global 
economy by supporting the global value chains, such as services necessary for the technical and 
economic viability of export of goods and services  necessary for the delivery of goods, such as 
transport and logistics. Members and the services industry as a whole could benefit from the 
outcome as it would cover the interest of both developing and developed Members.  
1.79.  Turkey remained committed to the multilate ral trading system and was ready to negotiate 
in order to deliver fair and balanced outcome in all areas. 
1.80.  The representative of Pakistan said th at with two successful Ministerial Conferences, 
momentum remained on Members'  side. While positions fundamentally remained the same after 
MC10, the atmosphere was positive – something th at should be preserved. Every possible effort WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 12 - 
 
  should be exerted to stop dysfunctionality from re surfacing. The period of  reflection after MC10 
had been useful, as evidenced by the CoA-SS me etings in May where Members had tabled some 
analytical and thought-provoking ideas. But they should begin to shift gears from reflection to 
action while making haste carefully.  
1.81.  Like many other Members, agriculture remained Pakistan's core interest, particularly on 
domestic support and market access. Pakistan was, however, prepared to engage positively in all 
aspects of the negotiations but would like to add more emphasis on cotton especially in the 
context of domestic support disciplines. Pakistan urged Members to keep an eye on the rear-view 
mirror and to exert more energy and to devote time to implement the MC9 and MC10 decisions. 
1.82.  The representative of Tunisia recalled that the Nairobi Declaration mandated Members to 
work to find ways to advance the negotiations, and requested the Director-General to report 
regularly to the General Council on those efforts. It would be vital to achieve a fair and equitable 
outcome that would preserve the developing coun tries' achievements and would prioritise the 
development dimension of their work. 
1.83.  The success of trade negotiations should be measured through the existence of real 
opportunities for developing countries to benefit from the possibilities and gains generated by the multilateral trading system. What mattered most for a developing country like Tunisia in any effort 
to relaunch the trade negotiations in the post-Nairobi period, was to translate the final outcome 
into positive decisions for their economies and trade balance, through improved production and supply capacity and increased employment and income for their people. 
1.84.  Tunisia was concerned that some of the most critical issues for many developing countries 
would be marginalized or left pending as the negotiations were re-launched. The issue of S&D 
treatment should be resolved at the same time as other key issues such as agriculture and NAMA. Members currently gave that and other issues low priority status. They were giving less attention 
to issues of great concern to many developing countries such as commodities and the specific 
situation of NFIDCs. 
1.85.  Concerning the re-launching of the Agriculture negotiations, everything achieved in the WTO 
negotiations since the start of the Doha Round was of considerable importance. Those 
achievements had resulted in a number of pro-development provisions in the three pillars. Those provisions should be preserved and enhanced on various levels. The issue of NFIDCs, for example, 
had not received enough attention. Tunisia highligh ted that issue for it to be addressed during the 
preparation of the post-Nairobi work programme. 
1.86.  On NAMA, developing countries' concerns on maintaining adequate flexibilities, less than full 
reciprocity and tariff preference erosion should be dealt with properly in any future work and 
consultations. Nothing should affect the policy space that every developing country had when 
formulating and implementing their econ omic and social development policies. 
1.87.  As regards preference erosion relevant to both Agriculture and NAMA, a satisfactory and fair 
trade solution should be found to offset, at least in part, the loss of long standing preferences for 
all products of interest to the developing countries without distinction or exclusion. 
1.88.  Tunisia favoured progressive liberalization in services, in accordance with the relevant 
provisions of the GATS and the granting of appropriate flexibilities to developing countries, taking 
into account their sectors of export interest. Members should remain focused on their main 
objective of helping developing country Members benefit from the globalized economy, enabling them to use trade as leverage for sustaina ble development. Without creating unrealistic 
expectations, MC11 could give them the opportunity to show that they could continue moving the 
multilateral trade negotiations forward, restoring confidence in the organization and in the WTO's ability to overcome difficulties. 
1.89.  The representative of Chile noted that the next Ministerial Conference was fast approaching. 
Time available for Members to work was limited, making it essential to concentrate on two things. 
The credibility they had gained and the optimism  they had achieved at MC10 were significant. 
They should thus focus on implementing the Nairobi Decisions and negotiating the unresolved 
issues that would benefit them all. Market acce ss and domestic support in Agriculture, NAMA and WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Services would therefore be essential to achieve balanced results. Although a solution had not 
been achieved in Nairobi, Chile was enthusiastic of the fact that issues such as fisheries subsidies and domestic regulation in services had garnered support from many Members. Chile also regarded as positive signs initiatives to discuss e-commerce and environment, among others. 
1.90.  Chile did not understand nor shared the exclusionary dichotomy between new and pending 
issues. The WTO had sufficient technical ability and global vision to deal with both dimensions – the systemic and comprehensive nature of the chal lenges Members faced. Plurilateral approaches 
within the WTO framework likewise strengthened the WTO's role and should be understood as a 
way of responding to Members' various interests and addressing their diversity within the multilateral framework. 
1.91.  Working with NGOs and the private sector  would be useful and would not undermine WTO's 
role – allowing the organization to help different actors. The current global environment was 
leading the WTO to new spheres and stakeholders. The SDGs and the UNCCC reflected explicitly to 
the WTO and its role to help achieve those objectives. To address those challenges, Members 
needed to look at things in perspective and ensure  that they could face the future. Working solely 
on current problems would hinder them from achieving the larger objective. 
1.92.  Members should continue to champion de velopment. But S&D treatment and flexibilities 
that developing countries needed and should be maintained did not exclusively constitute 
development. The preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement mentioned many other developmental objectives, including achieving greater standards of living, full employment, a higher level of real income and demand, to use world resources in accordance with sustainable development and 
increasing production of goods and services. Those were what Members should strive for. They 
were therefore called to shape a WTO that genuinely followed its developmental objectives. 
1.93.  The representative of Morocco, on behalf the African Group, said that 2016 was an 
important year for the WTO for supposedly openin g and providing new avenues of thought for the 
post-Nairobi period, and for consolidating the achi evements of the Nairobi Package. The outcomes 
achieved in Nairobi particularly in the areas of S&D treatment, the LDC package - with a set of 
decisions on the specific issues of preferential ru les of origin and preferential treatment for service 
suppliers - export competition, and the Information Technology Agreement should be fully and immediately implemented.  
1.94.  To take stock of results of MC10 and to establish a common position on the post-Nairobi 
work programme, the African Group had held a re treat on 25 and 26 April. The Group thanked the 
Ambassadors who had participated in the retreat. The WTO should continue to be the leading forum for setting trade and governance rules and for negotiating among its Members. The 
multilateral framework provided by the WTO was where the African economies would most likely 
see support for their interests and where the development process would be consolidated – which was what the WTO was all about. 
1.95.  The Doha Development Agenda remained the reference for future work. In the upcoming 
negotiations, Members should focus on concluding the outstanding DDA issues before tackling new ones. The African Group did not favour addressing non-trade issues or adding new issues to the DDA before the development issues such as agriculture, LDC matters, S&D treatment and other 
implementation-related African Group concerns ha d been satisfactorily addressed and before the 
DDA had been fully exhausted and successfully concluded. Since cotton negotiations had not 
resulted in any binding decision on domestic support, the African Group considered cotton a 
priority in the run-up to MC11. 
1.96.  The commitment of the entire membership  was necessary to move forward. The African 
Group called upon all Members to engage in good faith in the negotiations on the basis of the 
principles of transparency and inclusiveness, and to maintain their efforts in enabling those 
principles to continue to guide the multilateral negotiations. The Group was firmly committed to ensure post-Nairobi success by offering a pragmatic approach and reiterating the need to move ahead with a focus on the development dimension. The African Group highly valued the 
preservation and promotion in all negotiating areas of the principles and flexibilities favouring the 
development of LDCs and developing countries. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.97.  The representative of Australia, also on be half of New Zealand, said that, instead of dwelling 
on the well-known areas of Australian interest su ch as Agriculture, NAMA, Services and Fisheries 
Subsidies, he wished to highlight two of the conclusions made by the Director-General in his report. It was time to step up interactions in different fora and at different levels and to begin 
moving from reflection to action. Members should not underestimate how important it would be for 
the WTO's future to demonstrate on a regular basis before, at, and beyond MC11 that they could deliver meaningful negotiated outcomes in the post -Nairobi period. It would be an important part 
of defining a successful future for the WTO as a whole. 
1.98.  The representative of Sierra Leone associated with the statements made by the LDCs and 
the African Group. Positions remained the same as  they were before MC10. It was worrisome that 
Members could be in the same position even after MC11. It seemed incomprehensible that the 
SDGs could only be mentioned in passing. There we re some resistance on making reference to the 
SDGs at MC10 which was hard to understand because it was something that the world had agreed to. As a rule-based organization, the WTO should find ways to work to help achieve the SDGs.  
1.99.  The current WTO rules remained unfavoura ble to the achievement of the SDGs. It was 
therefore incumbent upon Members to move from negotiating in the abstract to looking at the specific implications of those rules in terms of meeting their development goals. As a country at 
the bottom of the ladder, Sierra Leone believed th at being concrete and looking at how the rules 
affected development would bolster the need of having S&D treatment. Members should use all the instruments at their disposal to do that, and to elaborate the rules more clearly to enable them to help trade contribute towards the achievement of the SDGs. It was important to discuss the 
concept of development. To achieve the level which the SDGs and the 2030 Development Agenda 
were promoting, Members should look at all the developmental challenges that each of them faced.  
1.100.  Sierra Leone was grateful to Members for agreeing on the decisions on LDC issues. Even if 
Sierra Leone had wished more, some of those decisi ons were already moving in the right direction. 
For the LDCs to fully benefit from those decisions, the EIF and Aid Trade should continue to 
provide them with the necessary assistance.  
1.101.  The debate on old versus new issues should not be considered in the abstract. Members 
needed to be proactive to examine what issues  would be important to achieve the SDGs, which 
could vary depending on the situation of each Member. If addressing new issues could help 
achieve the SDGs, then they could be discussed. Th eir main focus should always be in achieving 
the SDGs. 
1.102.  The representative of Lesotho associated with the statement made by the African Group, 
the ACP and the LDCs. The movement from MDGs  to SDGs had reflected that the world had 
changed. Even though it had been agreed by their leaders at the highest level, it was surprising that there was some apprehension on working towards achieving those goals. Members should 
never lose sight of the SDGs. They should focus their discussions on how they could contribute 
towards achieving those developmental objectives and perhaps use the SDGs to help them move forward. 
1.103.  The representative of Tanzania associated  with the statements made by the LDCs, the ACP 
and the African Group. The Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Conferences had delivered important 
decisions linked to the DDA, including on Trade Facilitation, Elimination of Export Subsidies, Implementation of Services Waiver for LDCs, Pref erential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Cotton. 
Those decisions had not exhausted all negotiating areas that should be addressed to conclude the 
DDA. Tanzania had so far been appreciative of the steps taken by the Negotiating Group Chairs 
who had begun to carry out intensive consultati ons after MC10. The time to reflect had been 
adequate, but they should already begin to engage in any format to seek solutions and common 
approaches, particularly on issues that should be resolved before MC11. Tanzania stressed that the MC9 and MC10 decisions could only be meaningful if effectively implemented, and if given the 
necessary attention in equal weight. The Genera l Council should therefore provide appropriate 
clarity and guidance to facilitate the implementation of those decisions.  
1.104.  The General Council took note of the Director-General's report and of the statements. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 15 - 
 
  2  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND NAIROBI OUTCOMES – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
2.1.  The Chairman4 recalled that when he had taken over the chairmanship of the General Council 
in February he had believed it had been essential to continue to follow up the decisions made in 
Bali and Nairobi – and to do that in an inclusiv e and transparent manner. To effectively fulfil the 
mandates, he suggested keeping the item on the agenda and continuing to provide a report on 
implementation matters at the General Council meetings where updates were available. 
2.2.  He had met with the Chairpersons of Regu lar Bodies on 28 April to discuss implementation 
issues and to review their collective agenda in  2016. He thanked them for their cooperation and 
the work they were taking forward in their respective bodies – their updates from that meeting formed the basis of his statement. 
2.3.  On TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints further to the MC10 Decision the Council for 
TRIPS had discussed the matter at its meeting on 1 March, when Members had mostly reiterated their well-known positions based on earlier submissions. As had been agreed at that meeting, the 
Chair would consult with delegations on the matter before the Council's next meeting in June. 
2.4.  On the work programme on electronic commerce, Ambassador Suescum, Friend of the Chair, 
had scheduled consultations with Members on 17 May. He urged Members to start engaging more 
actively on e-commerce in the relevant Councils and Committees and to come forward with 
concrete ideas and proposals on the topic. In line with the Nairobi Decision, the General Council would undertake a review of progress in the work programme at the July meeting.   
2.5.  Regarding Aid for Trade, as a first action in support of the Aid-for-Trade mandate elaborated 
in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, a new Work Programme for 2016-2017 had been developed 
with the overarching theme of "Promoting Connectivity" which the General Council had taken note of at its last meeting. A formal CTD to cons ider and discuss implementation of the new work 
programme would be held on 25 May followed by a joint WTO/World Bank Group Trade and 
Poverty Forum entitled "Connecting to Trade: Policies and Programmes for Maximizing Poverty Reduction Impact" on 26 May. 
2.6.  On Agriculture, in the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, Members had agreed that, in 
line with the Bali Ministerial Declaration on the su bject, they would continue to provide information 
on export subsidies, export credit, export credit guarantees or insurance programs, international food aid and agricultural exporting state tradin g enterprises, within the context of an annual 
examination process based on the structure contained in the Annex to the Decision. The 2016 
annual examination process would take place in the CoA on 7 June and as had been the practice would be based on Members' notifications and responses provided by Members to the export 
competition questionnaire contained in the Decision's annex.  
2.7.  Members had also agreed in the Nairobi Expo rt Competition Decision to review the provisions 
on international food aid in the context of the annual monitoring exercise held in March by the CoA 
on the implementation of the NFIDC Decision.  
2.8.  With respect to the Nairobi Ministerial Deci sions on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes and the Special Safeguard Mechanism for Developing Country Members, dedicated discussions had been held on 10 and 11 May. Wh ile Members had had constructive exchanges, 
persistent gaps remained between Members' f undamental positions on both issues. The CoA-SS 
Chair had urged delegations to increase effort s to actively engage with each other.  
2.9.  The other implementation issue undertak en by the CoA was the follow-up on the Bali 
Decision on TRQ administration. The underfill mechanism included in the Annex to the Decision 
had not been invoked. CoA's review of the operation of the Decision should begin in 2018 with a view to informing recommendations from the General Council to the 12th Ministerial Conference. 
2.10.  Concerning LDC issues, on the Operationali zation of the LDC Services Waiver, at its March 
meeting, the Council for Trade in Services had a ddressed the notifications of preferences for LDC 
                                               
4 The Chairman's statement was subsequently circulated in JOB/GC/93. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 16 - 
 
  services and service suppliers received since its October meeting. As required by the Waiver 
Decision, the notified preferential measures going beyond GATS Article XVI needed to be approved 
by the Services Council. The Nairobi Decision also instructed the Council to expeditiously consider approval of such preferential measures. At it s meeting in March, the Services Council had 
approved such preferences which had been contained in five of the notifications on the agenda for 
that meeting. Some Members had provided updates with regard to the implementation of preferences they had previously notified. The tally of notifications of preferences for LDC services 
and service suppliers received by the Services Council stood currently at 23. The Council would 
take up that issue which was a standing item on its agenda at its next meeting in June. 
2.11.  On Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs , the Committee on Rules of Origin had held its 
formal meeting on 22 April. The Committee would focus on monitoring the implementation of the 
Decision and on conducting follow-up work as mandated by the Decision. In particular, the 
Committee would discuss ways to enhance transparency of preferential rules of origin including a template for notifications. It would also discuss the availability of trade data for the calculation of 
utilization rates and it would monitor the steps being taken by preference-granting Members to 
implement their commitments under the Decision. 
2.12.  On DFQF, at the CTD's meeting in March, Benin – the LDC Coordinator – had indicated that 
the LDC Group would be submitting a proposal concerning the parameters of a Secretariat study 
on DFQF implementation. The possibility of such a Secretariat study had also been discussed in the CTD in the run-up to MC10. Once the proposal by the LDC Group had been completed, the CTD 
Chairman intended to work with Members and explore ways to move forward on the matter. 
2.13.  On the Monitoring Mechanism on S&D Treatm ent, four meetings of the Dedicated Session of 
the CTD had been held since Bali but no written submissions from Members had yet been received. Previous CTD Chairs had called on Members to make written submissions to make the Mechanism 
operational. The next meeting of the Monitoring Mechanism would be held in July. 
2.14.  Work on Trade Facilitation had continued to progress. Members had presented a series of 
category A notifications bringing their current to tal to 83. They had also started to hand in 
category B and C notifications although the resp ective numbers were still lagging behind. Very 
positive developments could be reported from the ratification front. 79 instruments had been deposited and more were close to being submitted.  With over 70% of the required ratifications 
already having been registered, they had reached an important step on the path to seeing the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement enter into force. To further advance the process, he urged Members 
to hand in the outstanding notifications especially with respect to categories B and C and to accelerate the completion of the ratification process where that had not already been achieved. 
2.15.  He drew attention to the mandates contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Nairobi 
Declaration. Paragraph 28 instructed the CRTA "to discuss the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system and their relationship with WTO rules." Preliminary discussions had 
taken place at the last meeting of the Committee. The CRTA Chair was also consulting on the 
second part of the mandate which provided that work should be conducted on transforming the current provisional Transparency Mechanism into a permanent mechanism. 
2.16.  In paragraph 29, Ministers had agreed to reinvigorate the work of regular bodies and 
directed the General Council "to consider the need for adjustments in the structure of their 
subsidiary bodies in light of their relevance to  the implementation and operation of the Covered 
Agreements." He had started to consult with the proponents and he would further discuss with all 
interested delegations to see how they could take the issue forward. 
2.17.  All delegations that spoke thanked th e General Council Chairman for his report. 
2.18.  The representative of the Republic of Mo ldova reiterated his country's full commitment to 
implement the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Declarations. The Government of the Republic of 
Moldova had approved on 11 May the TFA and in a couple of weeks the Moldovan Parliament 
would vote in favour of it. The Moldovan Government was in the process of establishing the National Committee on Trade Facilitation, which would be composed of representatives of the 
Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Agriculture,  National Agency for Food Safety, the business 
community and the civil society. Moldova had de cided to involve economic stakeholders and WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 17 - 
 
  representatives of civil society to secure suppo rt from the private sector and public private 
partnerships which would contribute to trade facilitation and the UN 2030 Agenda.  
2.19.  Moldova welcomed the decision of the Director-General to organize a WTO forum with the 
participation of business leaders on 30 May and looked forward to participate in that important 
debate. Only with the engagement of national, re gional and international economic agents would 
TFA implementation be a success – reinforcing the importance of the multilateral trading system.  
2.20.  Moldova had co-sponsored the proposal of the European Union and Brazil on export 
competition in all three pillars and would follow th e implementation of paragraph 31 of the Nairobi 
Declaration. The elimination of all types of agriculture subsidies was essential in mitigating their distorting effects in the agricultural sector and in advancing domestic reforms. Moldova had eliminated agriculture subsidies during its previous commitments undertaken under Art XII and 
looked forward to continuing negotiations on public stockholding and SSM by respecting the 
principles initiated by the CoA-SS Chair: non-presumption, parallelism and transparency.  
2.21.  Moldova had a pragmatic, holistic and mult ilateral approach in the liberalization of the 
multilateral trading system. It had undertaken extensive commitments during the 15 years of its 
membership at the WTO and had reduced agricultural domestic support. It had also been periodically presenting all the necessary notifications with respect to the WTO principles and 
norms. Moldova strongly recommended to stre ngthen the sectorial approach and to find 
convergence between developed and developing Members on the negotiations on NAMA and market access to deliver a strong and constructive message for MC11.  
2.22.  Reviewing the status of the implementati on of the Nairobi outcomes, Moldova informed 
Members that it had initiated the first necessary steps to join the ITA Expansion under paragraph 9 
of the Nairobi Declaration following the Procedural Decision taken by the ITA Committee on 15 January, and calling for technical assistance from  Members in setting up the list of the 201 IT 
products and schedule of its implementation. Moldova further encouraged other Members 
(developed and developing, industrialized and non- industrialized countries) to liberalize IT trade 
and to join the Expansion Agreement to empower th e formation of efficient global ICT industry and 
e-commerce which were essential in the new digital era of human development. 
2.23.  The representative of Brazil said that as the WTO had celebrated its 20th anniversary and 
had wrapped up work in Geneva towards MC10, Brazil and other Members had thought it was an 
appropriate time to propose that the important wo rk performed by the regular bodies of the WTO 
be bolstered as part of the post-Nairobi agenda.  
2.24.  The resulting consensus was reflected in paragraph 29 of the Declaration, where Ministers 
had agreed to reinvigorate the regular work of the Committees and direct the General Council to 
consider the need for adjustment in the structur e of their subsidiary bodies in light of their 
relevance to the implementation and operation of the covered agreements. To implement that 
mandate, Brazil was engaging with numerous colleagues to encourage a more substantive debate 
within the committees in streamlining their structure and tackling some systemic issues that made 
the organization less efficient than it could and should be.  
2.25.  The initial focus of those talks had been to  explore with other Members the idea of creating 
Working Groups on the implementation of the Su bsidy and Countervailing Measures and Safeguard 
Agreements, which would be based on the positive  and fruitful experience of the Committee on 
Antidumping Practices. Another body in which there was room for improvement was the Council for Trade in Services, where Brazil shared the vi ew with other Members that the discussions held 
in the existing Working Groups could easily be absorbed by the broader Council's agenda. 
2.26.  Brazil was also concerned about the difficulty to reach conclusions on some technical 
committee documents and had continued to favour a more flexible attitude to avoid paralysis of 
Committee work. It was ready to engage with other Members and the Secretariat to find a positive 
outcome for that issue. 
2.27.  Regarding the work on the CRTA and in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Nairobi 
Declaration, Brazil had proposed a focused discussi on on transparency and systemic issues which WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 18 - 
 
  would serve as a solid basis for the fulfilment of th e task mandated by the Ministers. Colleagues in 
Brasilia were working on more specific guidance for Brazil's engagement on the issue. 
2.28.  Brazil was determined to explore possible paths to implement the mandates given in 
Nairobi. It was ready and willing to work with colleagues in an open-minded fashion to explore 
other possible measures to make the WTO more efficient and responsive to Members' needs. 
2.29.  The representative of Montenegro noted that her country had joined those Members who 
had already ratified the TFA by presenting its inst rument of acceptance to the Director-General on 
10 May. That important step was in line with Montenegro's strong commitment to the multilateral 
trading system and its effort to implement rules stipulated in the agreement into the wider regional and international cooperation. The fact that both Montenegro and Albania had joined the new TFA on the same day sent a strong signal that the Western Balkan region continued to be 
inspired by the WTO principles. 
2.30.  Montenegro thanked the TFA Facility and it s partners, particularly ITC and the World Bank 
Group, for their valuable assistance in that process in 2015. WTO's continued support would be 
important for the full implementation of the TFA particularly in the area of technical assistance for 
implementing customs compliance issues and more  effective cooperation between private sector 
and customs authorities. 
2.31.  Montenegro was fully committed to further implement the Nairobi Decisions and the ITA 
Expanded Plurilateral Agreement. It was workin g closely with the Secretariat and the European 
Union in Geneva on the legal and procedural steps for their timely implementation. 
2.32.  The representative of Paraguay supporte d the initiative put forward by Brazil on the 
implementation of paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Nairobi Declaration in strengthening the regular 
work of the Committees and mandating the General Council to consider the need for adjustments to the structure of their subsidiary bodies to implement and follow up on the agreements under 
their responsibility. Prompt implementation of th e decisions adopted at Ministerial Conferences was 
essential to enable Members to capitalize on and give full scope to the progress made and 
endorsed by the Ministers. As Brazil had rightly pointed out, Members already had the opportunity 
to hold preliminary discussions on one proposal before the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and on another before the CRTA. Both proposals required further work in 
the respective committees to determine the adjustments and restructuring required, as well as consideration from a systemic perspective in accordance with other existing mandates. 
2.33.  The representative of the United States said that the United States had already eliminated 
its export subsidies consistent with the Nairobi Decision on export competition. Current US 
practices were also consistent with the disciplines on export financing support, agricultural state 
trading enterprises and international food aid. The United States congratulated Members that had 
similarly implemented those commitments and looked  forward to others doing so in due course. 
Together, they had made significant progress in eliminating some of the most trade distorting 
forms of agricultural support. They should be proud of that accomplishment for the sake of their 
stakeholders, as well as for the ability to achieve multilateral success within the WTO.  
2.34.  A key part of the Nairobi Decision on export competition was the annex with transparency 
commitments based on the Bali Declaration on Export Competition. The United States had 
submitted the US responses to the 2016 Export Co mpetition Questionnaire and looked forward to 
seeing the responses from other developed countries. The United States continued to encourage developing countries in a position to do so to implement the transparency commitments in that 
annex as soon as possible – and if possible, prior to implementation deadline. More broadly, with 
regard to transparency, the United States reiterated its strongly held view that meaningful agricultural negotiations were impossible without all Members living up to their transparency 
obligations.  
2.35.  Two Nairobi Decisions that had been the subject of attention were those on public 
stockholding for food security and a special safeguard mechanism for developing countries. The United States was committed to work on both, but noted that they were different in their 
mandates. Engagement on the issue of public stockholding was envisioned on an accelerated time-
frame but engagement on SSM was in the context of addressing outstanding agricultural issues – WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 19 - 
 
  specifically, agricultural market access. The United States would certainly be evaluating progress 
in that context. 
2.36.  With regard to export subsidies, the Unit ed States was open to scheduling export subsidy 
commitments. Obviously, it would expect that all Members with export subsidy entitlements would 
schedule. The United States looked forward to  hearing from all such Members about their 
intentions. The most obvious way forward would be for Members to schedule in concert. 
2.37.  The representative of Benin, on behalf of  the LDCs, associated with the statements by the 
ACP, the African Group and the G-33. In Nairobi,  WTO Members had achieved results on certain 
DDA issues. The Group welcomed the efforts put in to achieving those results, and urged Members 
to ensure the effective implementation and follow- up of the decisions adopted. The LDCs stressed 
the importance of ensuring effective implementati on within the set timeframes of the decisions 
taken, whether in respect of the elimination of all export subsidies and measures having equivalent 
effect in agriculture or the vital issue of cotton. The LDCs appreciated the contribution of the CoA-SS Chair to the action taken as soon as work resumed, in order to ensure the effective 
implementation and follow-up of the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. 
2.38.  On the LDC specific decisions, the LDCs had engaged in bilateral consultations with its 
partners in the Committee on Rules of Origin and the Services Council. They had submitted a 
paper aimed at stimulating discussions on the implementation of the Nairobi Decision on 
Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs. The paper had raised issues relating to notification of measures taken by preference granting Member s to implement the Decision, notification of 
Preferential Rules of Origin, submission to the Secretariat of data on utilization rates, modalities 
for calculation of the utilization rate to be developed by the Committee on Rules of Origin and 
development of a template for the notifica tion of preferential rules of origin. 
2.39.  The LDCs remained concerned that preference granting Members were not regularly 
notifying the statistical data needed to calculate the utilization rates. They urged the Members 
concerned to take steps to comply with their commitments, and called upon the Secretariat to speed up the development of the template for ca lculating the preference utilization rate in 
accordance with what the Committee on Rules of Origin had decided on 22 April 2016. 
2.40.  On the services waiver, the LDCs were work ing actively in the Services Council to ensure 
effective and consistent implementation of the Decision aimed at lifting the regulatory constraints facing LDC Members that had introduced requests  under sections B and C for which Members could 
grant preferences. While they were grateful to th e Members that had notified preferences granted, 
the LDCs urged Members in a position to grant preferences to introduce the domestic reforms 
necessary to remove the administrative and financial constraints encountered by the LDC service 
suppliers, and to accede to the requests of the LDCs with respect to sections B and C. 
2.41.  The LDCs welcomed the holding of the 77
th Session of the Sub Committee on LDCs at the 
WTO on 13 April. They recognized the importance of the Sub Committee on LDCs as the 
appropriate forum for following up the declarations and decisions adopted in favour of the LDCs. 
However, they drew attention to the circumstance that the factual report on the follow-up to the declarations and decisions adopted in favour of LDCs would only help advance the interests and concerns of the LDCs if it enabled Members to observe the progress made, the constraints 
encountered and what remained to be done in order to be able to consider and put forward 
appropriate solutions. The LDCs recommended that  the WTO Secretariat submit the factual report 
on the follow-up to the declarations and decision s in the LDCs' favour in the format described 
above to the 78
th Session of the Sub Committee on LDCs and that a synergy be established 
between the activities of the Trade Facilitation  Fund and of the Aid for Trade Work Programme 
2016-2017 so that the two instruments could be  complementary in promoting connectivity. 
2.42.  The representative of New Zealand, also on behalf of Australia, supported Brazil's statement 
and its thinking in general. New Zealand would wa nt to work with Brazil and other Members on 
specific aspects of the reinvigoration that Braz il had noted and which Ministers had envisaged in 
paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Declaration. A good st ep up in that reinvigoration would be for all 
Members to urgently update their notifications.  As had been heard earlier and to take a not 
entirely random example, the membership was collectively a long way behind in their notifications on domestic support. Notifications were vital for transparency and for the ongoing negotiations. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 20 - 
 
  That matter needed urgent attention because it would help Members implement the reinvigoration 
that the Ministers had envisaged in paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Declaration. 
2.43.  The representative of Canada thanked the General Council Chairman for keeping that item 
prominently on the agenda. In his tenure following Bali, he had said that implementation had to be 
a priority. He was delighted to note that all of his successors had maintained that commitment. 
The Chairman's report provided an important check that Members were living up to their promises as so many had said from various regions of the world.  
2.44.  Canada was pleased to hear the Chairman highlighting paragraph 29. It would be an 
important means to ensure effective implementation  of the ongoing work of the WTO. As Brazil 
had highlighted, Members should consider the kind s of subsidiary bodies and working procedures, 
working parties or act of groups that could provid e more hospitable vehicles for more meaningful 
dialogue than set pieces. As encompassed by pa ragraph 29, they should also think about the 
committee structure itself and not just bodies subsidiary to each committee. That was a horizontal question and should come under the Chairman's c oordination in taking views of the Membership. 
The subsidiary bodies within each committee had some freedom to decide on working procedures 
and ad hoc bodies that they could pursue. As New Zealand had highlighted, all the architecture in 
the world would not get Members ahead unless they  themselves fulfilled their responsibilities 
through active engagement in the Committees, Councils and Working Groups. Most importantly 
was notifying and responding to questions that other Members could have and Canada endorsed New Zealand's observation in that regard. 
2.45.  The representative of Argentina supported Brazil's statement concerning the implementation 
of paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Nairobi Declaratio n and on the importance of making regular work 
of the subsidiary bodies efficient. Those were necessary to achieve the objectives Members had set themselves. They needed to commit to that task with great seriousness to ensure the 
implementation of the Nairobi Decisions which was one of the main objectives for Argentina. 
2.46.  On a personal note, he thanked his colleagues for their warm words. He had a great deal of 
respect personally and professionally for all of them . It had been very pleasant to work with all of 
them. He thanked the Director-General for their fr iendship ever since they had been ambassadors 
in Geneva and he wished him and his wife every success in the future. He had tried to defend the interest of Argentina to make sure that its agenda especially in agriculture had been able to progress. Although Members were still far from that, at least they had achieved some progress in 
that work. He certainly believed in cooperation between States and multilateralism. Free trade was 
essential in the prosperity of nations but for it to be free distortions that made it unfair and which prejudiced the interest of the weakest should  be eliminated. High tariffs, tariff peaks and 
protectionism continued to prevail. The task that the WTO had in front of it was therefore 
enormous but he hoped that it would continue to make progress as aided by the successes of the recent Ministerial Conferences. 
2.47.  The representative of Japan echoed Brazil on the importance of regular work in committees. 
To move WTO work forward on any issue, Member s should understand where they stood and what 
the actual situation was. Increased transparency through Members' timely notifications and reviews of the implementation of existing rules we re critical. They should thus further encourage 
such activities in the relevant regular committees. Further examination could be needed on the 
specific issues Brazil raised but Japan remained ready to engage in the relevant discussions. 
2.48.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the implementation of the outcomes of 
Nairobi was a top priority for the European Union. The EU had made its readiness to abide by their 
commitments and to implement the export competition decision clear on several occasions. It was necessary to proceed with the appropriate lega l follow-up. The EU called on all other WTO 
Members to do what was necessary in order to proceed. The EU concurred with New Zealand and 
the US on the issue of notification. Notifications were lagging far behind – a serious concern that undermined the credibility of the system. 
2.49.  The General Council took note of the Chairman's statement and of the other statements. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 21 - 
 
  3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that in line with the framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda and the Committee on Trade and Development reported regularly to the Council 
on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions. At Nairobi, Ministers had adopted a Decision reaffirming their commitment to the Work Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work 
in Dedicated Sessions under the overall responsibility of the General Council.  
3.2.  The Chairman read out the report on work in that area on behalf of Ambassador Christopher 
Onyanga Aparr (Uganda), Chairperson of the Dedica ted Session of the CTD, as followed: "I am 
pleased to report that the CTD's Dedicated Session on Small Economies met on 9 March to 
continue its review of the paper prepared by the Secretariat (W/COMTD/SE/W/31) on the 
challenges and opportunities small economies face when accessing global value chains in trade in goods and services. The discussion in that meetin g, while based on the Secretariat paper, also 
included presentations, case stories and general discussion of how small economies were accessing 
global value chains in the textiles and clothing sector. I am happy to report that this was the second session organised under the aegis of the CTD, following from the one held last October, 
which focused on the involvement of small econom ies in the agri-food and fisheries sectors. The 
next Dedicated Session is tentatively planned for 12 July and will focus on how small economies are accessing value chains in services, such as tourism, information technology services or those dealing with business process outsourcing. it will be recalled that the work in the Dedicated 
Session follows the mandate given by the Ministers in Bali in 2013 and reiterated more recently in 
Nairobi in Decision (WT/L/975). In their latest Decision, Ministers instructed the Secretariat to continue the work on global value chains and begin to examine the challenges which small 
economies face in their efforts to reduce trade cost s, particularly in the area of trade facilitation. 
While work is well under way on global value chains and is set to continue for the remainder of the year, the Dedicated Session plans to begin work on reducing trade costs at its next meeting in 
July. It is hoped that Members will participate actively to see which aspects of this topic they would 
like to discuss in further detail at future meetings." 
3.3.  The representative of Guatemala, on beha lf of the SVEs, said that Members had continued 
reviewing the 2015 paper prepared by the Secretariat on the challenges and opportunities that 
small economies faced when accessing global value chains in trade in goods and services. During 
the last two meetings, they had the opportunity to  focus their discussion on the challenges that 
SVE's specific sectors such as textiles and apparel faced when integrating into global value chains. 
SVEs considered that both the paper prepared by  the Secretariat and sector-specific discussions 
were of utmost importance to help them gain a deeper understanding of particular hurdles that prevented their economies from fully integrating into  global value chains and identify concrete and 
creative solutions to foster their integration into the multilateral trading system. 
3.4.  In the next dedicated session scheduled for July, Members would focus their discussions on 
how SVEs could better integrate into global value chains in services such as tourism, information, technology services and business process outsourc ing. They were working on the agenda of the 
meeting and would start consultations with interested delegations shortly. The SVEs were looking 
forward with great interest to the discussion since services were a driving force in all their economies and significantly contributed to GDP growth and employment in their countries. The 
SVEs greatly valued the opportunity to discuss that issue in further depth with a view to identifying 
new ways for their countries to better incorporate into global value chains in that arena.  
3.5.  The SVEs reiterated their appreciation fo r the support and contributions from Members in 
those discussions. They looked forward to continui ng that productive dialogue on the challenges 
and opportunities they faced in those and other se ctors to fully benefit fr om global value chains. 
3.6.  The representative of the United States a ppreciated the presentations on global value chains 
in the textile sector made at the last dedicated session and the discussions that had followed. The 
United States looked forward to continuing cons tructive engagement in the dedicated session and 
to working with others to enrich the discussion on development challenges facing the smaller economies among them including successes in overcoming those challenges and how trade and 
other reforms had contributed to those successes. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 22 - 
 
  3.7.  The General Council took note of the report  of the Chairperson of the Dedicated Session of 
the Committee on Trade and Development and of the other statements. 
4  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, FINANCE AND AD MINISTRATION – REPORT ON MEETINGS 
OF MARCH AND APRIL 2016 (WT/BFA/153 AND WT/BFA/154) 
4.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee in document 
WT/BFA/153 and 154 and invited Ambassador Inga Ernstsone (Latvia), Chairperson of the 
Committee, to introduce the report. 
4.2.  Ambassador Inga Ernstsone (Latvia), Chairperson of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said that the Committee reviewed 11 items in its meeting in March and 9 items in 
its meeting in April. In its meeting in March, th e CBFA had reviewed Members' overall situation on 
Outstanding Contributions. The Committee had noted that the number of Members subject to 
Administrative Measures had been higher than of the same time in prior years as several Members 
had not yet settled their 2015 contributions. She would read at the end of the meeting the updated list of Members and Observers currently under Administrative Measures. The Committee 
recommended to the General Council to urge Members and Observers under Administrative 
Measures to liquidate their arrears.  
4.3.  A member of the Secretariat had presen ted the provisional financial situation of the 
4
th quarter 2015. The Committee had also been updated on the financial situation of the first 
quarter 2016. The final expenditure situation for 2015 would be presented in the audited 2015 financial performance report which would be released in June. With respect to the first quarter of 2016, the Secretariat had indicated that the budget had been on track with an overall expenditure 
rate of 28% or CHF 55 million. On the Extra-Budge tary Fund side, as of the first quarter of 2016 
CHF 4.9 million had been recorded in terms of ex penditures and commitments. The activity level 
remained in line with what had been anticipated in the Technical Assistance Plan.  
4.4.  The Secretariat had updated the Committee on the project regarding the restoration of a 
historic ceiling within the Centre William Rappard that would be installed in meeting Rooms V and N. The Canton of Geneva and the "Loterie Romand e" had offered to fully finance the costs of the 
reinstallation. Members had welcomed that initiative.  
4.5.  Based on IPSAS requirements and the reco mmendation of the WTO's External Auditors, the 
Secretariat had suggested the write-off of the ou tstanding contributions from Former Yugoslavia 
considering that evidently uncollectible debts should be written off. 
4.6.  The Committee had been updated on the prog ress made on the Organizational Review of the 
WTO. The Senior Management had declared th at two Administrative Memoranda had been 
circulated to the staff. One had covered vacancy notices and the other had pertained to 
performance based promotions. The Director-General had wished to reinstate promotions for staff 
members who permanently worked at a higher grade and performed those tasks exceptionally 
well. But he had been conscious of addressing the inverted pyramid within the WTO Secretariat 
and would thus take that issue into account when determining the number of promotions. 
4.7.  In its April meeting, the Committee had reviewed the 2015 annual report on Diversity. 
Members had welcomed the report and thanked the Secretariat for the efforts deployed to enlarge 
and maintain the diversity within the Secretariat and had also welcomed the diversity progress 
made in the Internship Programmes. The Committee had encouraged the Secretariat to continue 
its efforts in that direction. 
4.8.  The Committee had reviewed the document on the WTO salary scale for 2016. The outcome 
of the survey conducted in 2016 had led to the introduction of a new frozen salary scale 1.5% 
lower than the current scale for staff who had joined the WTO in 2016.  
4.9.  The Committee had reviewed the report on the Office of Internal Oversight. The Committee 
had welcomed that report and had encouraged the Secretariat to urgently fill the position of Head 
of Internal Oversight. The Secretariat had declar ed that the process had been under way and that 
Senior Management would submit recommendations to  the relevant body to select a candidate.  WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.10.  The Committee had reviewed the report on the key elements of the risk management 
system implemented by the WTO Secretariat. The Secretariat had cited the following risks: the 
financial risk related to the funding of the actuarial deficit of the After Service Health Insurance and the technical risk of a cyber-attack. Mitigation measures taken and being explored for those 
risks had been stated. 
4.11.  The Committee had been updated on the IT policies that were put in place within the 
organization. The Committee had been informed of  the establishment of a steering Committee on 
I T  c omp os ed of Se n ior M anag e me nt whic h me t o n a q uarte rly b as is  to re vie w I T  ne e d s  and  to 
make sure that the IT security was seriously taken into consideration. The Committee had invited the Steering Committee members to share their view on the actions taken by the Steering Committee with Members to find common solutions.  
4.12.  The Committee had then reviewed the repo rt of the Monitoring Group on After Service 
Health Insurance Strategy Development. The Secretariat had provided to the Monitoring Group the first report that demonstrated the progress made by the Secretariat on work made on 
recommendations of the initial Working Group. The Monitoring Group had welcomed the report and 
the considerable efforts undertaken by the Secretariat. The Secretariat had informed the Monitoring Group that a strategy development team had been established within the Secretariat 
and had already met four times. The team had included staff from relevant Divisions and 
representatives of retirees and the Staff Association. 
4.13.  The Committee had been updated on the progress made within the Working Group 
concerning an Audit Committee. The Working Group had met in March and April and also very 
recently. The Secretariat had assisted the Work ing Group and had invited some International 
Organizations to the Working Group's meeting to share their experiences such as INTERPOL, World 
Intellectual Property Organization and Internationa l Atomic Energy Agency. The views of the World 
Trade Organization External Auditor had also been solicited. 
4.14.  The General Council took note of the statement of the Chairperson of the Committee on 
Budget, Finance and Administration, approved the Budget Committee's specific recommendation in 
paragraph 1.6 of the report in WT/BFA/153 and adopted both reports in WT/BFA/153 and 
WT/BFA/154. 
5  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS IN THE SUBS IDIARY BODIES OF THE GOODS COUNCIL – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GOODS COUNCIL 
5.1.  Ambassador Hamish McCormick (Australia), Chairperson of the Goods Council, recalled that 
as had been agreed by the Council for Trade in Goods at its meeting on 11 May, he was making a 
report to the General Council about the concerns raised in the context of consultations on the 
appointment of officers to the subsidiary bodies of the Goods Council. Recent years had seen both 
an increase in interest in the appointment of officers to subsidiary bodies of the CTG and a more challenging environment for garnering consensu s on a slate of names to officiate the CTG 
subsidiary bodies. The 2016 process had raised so me particular difficulties and there had been a 
significant delay in the appointment of the slate of Chairs for CTG subsidiary bodies. He was however pleased to report that the Goods Council on 11 May had been able to approve that slate of names. At the same meeting the former Chair of the CTG had delivered a statement 
subsequently circulated in document JOB/CTG/1. In that statement, he had referred to a number 
of difficulties faced in the consultation process and to the concerns raised by some delegations with regard to what they viewed as a lack of clarity in certain aspects of the Guidelines for 
Appointment of Officers to CTG subsidiary bodies in particular in respect of the application of the 
principle of rotation. The details of the concerns raised and the response by different Members would be reflected in the minutes of the CTG meeting. There had also been a request that he 
reported on those concerns to the General Council as he had just done. He understood that 
Members would be pursuing their concerns about the Guidelines in the General Council. 
5.2.  The Chairman noted that if there was no objection it was his intention to consult with 
interested Members on whether clarifications were necessary and to do so well in advance of the 
next exercise for the appointment of officers. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 24 - 
 
  5.3.  The representative of Oman thanked the CTG Chairperson for his report and for bringing to 
the attention of the General Council that important matter. Oman also thanked the former CTG 
Chairperson Ambassador Casanueva for his tireless efforts in the appointment process and expressed its appreciation to the General Council Chairman for being in contact with Oman on that 
matter. In the interest of brevity, Oman would not repeat its position but requested that the 
statement it had delivered at the 11 May CTG meeting be reflected on the record of the meeting.
5 
Oman looked forward to the Chairman initiating the consultations with Members as he had 
previously mentioned. 
5.4.  The representative of Chinese Taipei register ed its appreciation of the hard work and efforts 
that the former CTG Chair, the new CTG Chair, th e Coordinator of the Asian Group of Developing 
Members and all the distinguished representatives had put into the recent consultation process on 
the appointment of officers to the CTG subsidiary bodies. Chinese Taipei congratulated the 
incoming Chairpersons for 2016 and assured them of its strong support and cooperation. 
5.5.  In 2016, there had been a significant rise in the number of candidates for the Chairs of the 
subsidiary bodies of the CTG compared to previous years. Unfortunately, that greater interest had 
led to a great difficulty to go through the selectio n process. Since the delay of presenting the slate 
of names for 2016, it had become increasingly ob vious that there was an urgent need for further 
clarification and revision of the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to the WTO (WT/L/510 
and JOB/GC/22) and how they should be implemen ted. Chinese Taipei thanked Oman for bringing 
that concern to light which it had expressed in the General Council meetings in 2014 and 2015 
respectively recorded in WT/GC/M/150 and WT/GC/M/156. At the February 2015 General Council 
meeting the General Council Chairman had stated that "representatives from each and every WTO 
Member had the right to Chair any WTO body, at any level." 
5.6.  For the benefit of the organization as a whole, it was essential to avoid as far as possible any 
further differences in interpretation in the future that could disrupt the regular and smooth flow of 
WTO operations. Chinese Taipei therefore welc omed the report of the CTG Chair and the 
interventions of Members to explore ways of furt her clarifying that part of the Guidelines to 
improve the functioning of the whole system and mo st importantly to ensure fairness for each and 
every WTO Member. 
5.7.  The representative of the Republic of Korea congratulated the newly appointed Chairpersons 
of the subsidiary bodies to the CTG and thanked Ambassador Casanueva for his efforts to build 
consensus. In the appointment of officers, Member s had accepted the principle of rotation as a 
general rule and that the overall balance of repres entation should be achieved. Korea noted with a 
sense of concern that the Asian Group of Developing Countries had not taken the Chairpersonship 
of the Committee on Agriculture for the last 15 years and it had been denied the same in 2016. 
Korea had nonetheless joined the consensus on the slate of Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies 
of the CTG including the Agriculture Committee because it believed in the importance of 
maintaining trust in the consultation process. Bu t it emphasized that Members should make best 
efforts to uphold the principle of rotation among regional groups and interest groups. Korea would 
like to constructively engage in discussions on whether they needed to review and further elaborate the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies. 
5.8.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
6  WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN – 
RE-ACTIVATION OF THE WORKING PARTY PROCESS – STATEMENT BY OMAN 
6.1.  The representative of Oman, on behalf of Arme nia, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, 
China, Cuba, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Oman, Russian Federation, South 
Africa, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uruguay, Bolivarian Re public of Venezuela and Zimbabwe, said that in 
2015, Members had marked 20 years of the existenc e of the WTO. In the 2015 Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration, Members had inter alia  celebrated WTO's enlargement through accessions in 
accordance with Article XII of the Marrakesh Agr eement. Members had agreed to work jointly on 
the expeditious completion of the current accessi ons. The Working Party on the Accession of the 
Islamic Republic of Iran had been established by the WTO General Council on 26 May 2005 
                                               
5 At Oman's request, the statement it delivered at the 11 May CTG Meeting is incorporated in the 
minutes of this meeting and can be found in Annex 2 of this document. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 25 - 
 
  following the application by the Islamic Republic of Iran in July 1996. The first meeting of the 
Working Party had been pending an appointment of a Chairperson for the last ten years. The Islamic Republic of Iran was currently the largest economy outside the WTO. Iran's integration into the rules-based global economy through WTO membership would contribute to global economic 
recovery and growth and would increase business and consumer confidence. The re-activation of 
the longstanding process of Iran's accession woul d be to the benefit of the rules-based global 
trading system. The sponsors of the statement appr eciated the recent efforts made by the Islamic 
Republic of Iran to prepare and update its negotiating inputs and welcomed its initiative to start 
bilateral negotiations in the context of its accession. In the meantime, they urged all Members to consider the issue through further consultations and invited them to take the first step of re-activating the longstanding process of Iran's accession by designating a Chairperson for the 
Working Party on the Accession of Iran.   
6.2.  The representative of Japan thanked Oman and other sponsors of the statement for raising 
the issue of the Accession of the Islamic Republic  of Iran. Iran was the largest economy that was 
not yet a WTO Member. Japan believed that Iran's participation in the multilateral trading system 
would contribute to the further development of the rules-based trading system and looked forward to actively contributing to the Working Party once it resumed its activities in the near future. 
6.3.  The representative of the European Unio n said that the European Union considered WTO 
accessions as a strategic priority and as one of the success stories of the organization. The EU 
concurred with Oman and its co-sponsors on the importance of aiming at universal membership of the WTO. Iran was the largest economy still outside the WTO and it would be in everybody's 
interest that Iran, following the necessary reforms, was further integrated in the rules-based 
multilateral trading system. The EU welcomed Iran 's interest in reactivating its WTO accession 
process which had been dormant for several years and fully supported its endeavour. The EU stood 
ready to work together with Iran and with WTO partners to move the process forward. 
6.4.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia believed that it was premature to have a 
serious discussion on the matter. Without getting into much detail, the complexity of that issue 
and its ramifications and implications required very careful consideration by capitals in light of the 
Iranian policies and behaviour regionally an d internationally before taking any action. 
6.5.  The representative of Switzerland attach ed high importance to a strong, inclusive and 
universal multilateral trading system. Switzerland welcomed the efforts undertaken and progress 
made since the landmark joint comprehensive plan  of action agreed in July 2015. Switzerland 
supported an effective resumption of Iran's A ccession process and looked forward to building 
consensus among WTO Members in that regard. Such process would have a positive impact on 
Iran's reform efforts and would eventually benefit Iran, the multilateral trading system and the 
world economy as a whole. 
6.6.  The representative of Mexico had always supported the objective of the WTO to be a 
universal organization and to help carry out world trade in a non-discriminatory and transparent 
manner. WTO accession provided an opportunity for countries to integrate into world trade and implement economic and trade reforms. It helped in convincing the domestic public about the need to implement those reforms and to ensure that their country met its obligations. Mexico had thus 
consistently favoured the facilitation of speedy accession negotiations to the WTO and would 
favour the reactivation of the accession process of Iran – the last major economy that remained outside the multilateral trading system. 
6.7.  The representative of Qatar thanked Members fo r their initiative and interest in bringing that 
issue to light. It however shared the opinions of others including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that 
the discussion on that issue was premature and wo uld require further reflection. Qatar therefore 
did not find it appropriate to unduly discuss the appointment of a Chairperson at that time. 
6.8.  The representative of Nigeria expressed its sy stemic interest in that important issue raised by 
Oman. Nigeria shared the view of the sponsors of  the joint statement that the reactivation of 
Iran's accession would ultimately be in the interest of the multilateral trading system – Iran being 
the largest economy outside of the organizati on. Nigeria therefore looked forward to the 
designation of the Chairperson for the Working Party on the accession of Iran as soon as possible given the lengthy period the accession process had taken. Accession was central to achieving the WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 26 - 
 
  universality of the multilateral trading system. It was therefore Members' collective responsibility 
to ensure that the accession process of Iran commenced without further delay. 
6.9.  The representative of China joined Oman an d others in supporting the reactivation of Iran's 
accession. Iran was the largest economy outside the WTO. Its integration into the multilateral 
trading system would not only benefit its own ec onomic growth but would also strengthen the 
multilateral trading system as a whole. China appreciated the persistent determination and efforts of Iran in its WTO accession during the last two decades. China expected Members to consider the 
issue and designate the Chair of the Working Party on Iran's Accession as early as possible. China 
also expected Iran to take WTO accession as an opportunity to facilitate its domestic economic reform and liberalization thus contributing to its sound and economic growth in the long term. 
6.10.  The representative of Bahrain raised similar concerns to those mentioned by the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and many others. Bahrain was not in a position to support the reactivation of 
the accession process of Iran nor consider an a ppointment of the Chairperson of the Working Party 
at that moment. 
6.11.  The representative of Yemen welcomed accession to the WTO by all countries outside the 
house as a matter of principle. Yemen's clear interest in such important process continued after 
the completion of its own accession in June 2014 as manifested in its monthly participation in the 
informal group on accession that promoted among other things the accession of non-WTO 
Members as soon as possible in addition to participating in several accession-related activities. Having said that and practically speaking, Yemen had only learned that item on 11 May and during that meeting. It was therefore quite obvious to take time out first for reflection as an initial normal 
course to follow during such occasion as well as for further consultation. Yemen consequently 
sought time for that purpose before commenting on  the issue. Further examination was needed as 
indicated by some Members including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 
6.12.  The representative of Sri Lanka joined other Members in supporting the reactivation of the 
process of the accession of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the WTO and was confident that Iran 
would benefit from the rules-based multilateral trading system through its accession to the WTO. 
6.13.  The representative of Montenegro associ ated with the statement made by the European 
Union. As a country that had recently acceded to the WTO, Montenegro supported WTO's open 
door policy which had consistently proven to be positive for the comprehensive economic reforms in the countries that underwent the accession process. The process of expansion of the WTO was 
in line with the strengthening of the multilateral trading system and supported the centrality of the 
organization. Montenegro would continue to closel y follow the issue together with other Members. 
6.14.  The representative of New Zealand was strongly committed to the WTO's rules-based 
multilateral trading system based on the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and 
certainty. The system was a global public good which created significant benefits for all countries. Supporting the continued existence, credibility and expansion of the system remained a key trade 
priority for New Zealand. It was a system that wa s strengthened by the participation by as many 
countries as possible. Bringing a significant economy such as Iran into the multilateral trading system would be good for Iran, the multilateral trading system and all Members. Following the conclusion of the joint comprehensive plan of action, Iran had the opportunity to reset its relations 
in the region and beyond. Acceding to the WTO would assist Iran in those ambitions. New Zealand 
stood ready to support Iran's accession and looked forward to the commencement of the negotiations and to actively participate in the working group's deliberations. 
6.15.  The representative of Norway supported the reactivation of the process of Iran's accession 
to the WTO. Norway hoped that the Chair could s oon be designated for the Working Party on the 
Accession of Iran to the WTO. 
6.16.  The representative of the Republic of Korea thanked Oman and the co-sponsors for their 
joint statement on Iran's accession to the WTO. Iran's accession was meaningful for the WTO and 
its Members because it would contribute to strengthening of the multilateral trading system. Korea therefore supported Iran's efforts for its accession to the WTO. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 27 - 
 
  6.17.  The representative of the United Arab Emir ates associated with the statement made by the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 
6.18.  The representative of Colombia believed in  the principle of universality which was at the 
very foundation of the organization. The multilateral trading system was important not just to 
create peace, stability and prosperity. The acce ssion of new Members helped improve the rules 
under which all players participated. Colombia th erefore welcomed the process of reactivating 
Iran's accession. Iran was an important player in world trade and could contribute to the 
strengthening of the multilateral trading system. 
6.19.  The representative of the State of Kuwait said that taking into consideration the statement 
made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the desi re to achieve solidarity among Members of the 
WTO, Kuwait emphasized the importance of mainta ining the proper legal procedure that regulated 
the Membership request by any State. 
6.20.  The representative of Lesotho associated  with the statement made by Oman and the co-
sponsors in relation to resuscitating the process of the accession of the Islamic Republic of Iran to 
the WTO. As an LDC, Lesotho fought for the ac cession of very small economies in the system. 
Lesotho's motivation was not so much because Iran was a large economy. It was inclusiveness and making sure everyone was part of the multilateral trading system. That motivated Lesotho's 
support for the resuscitation of the process of getting Iran to be a Member of the WTO.  
6.21.  On a personal note, he appreciated the comments that Members had made about him. They 
were nice compliments made in respect to whatever was perceived as his contribution to the system. He thanked delegations for the education, the welcome that he had received, the 
friendship that had developed over the brief year s and the support that he had received both as 
Lesotho's Permanent Representative and as the C oordinator of the African Group culminating in 
the first Ministerial Conference in Africa. It would be remiss of him not to appreciate the role of the 
Director-General in his official and personal capacity during his tenure. He also thanked the 
General Council Chairman for his e fforts. He thanked them all. Desp ite having a few arguments, he 
knew that it was part of the process in Geneva  to engage, agree and disagree, and he was very 
much appreciative of that. He wished all his good colleagues and ambassadors a continuation of 
their splendid effort to try and make the world a much better place in the realm of trade with development at the heart of that particular process. 
6.22.  The representative of Jordan had lear ned of the issue only on 11 May and therefore 
associated with the statements made by the Ki ngdom of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait 
and Qatar. Jordan believed that it was still premat ure to have discussions on the issue and that it 
required further consideration. 
6.23.  The representative of Benin said that the objective of accession was something that should 
be shared by all Members of the WTO. The multilateral trading system should ensure that rules 
would be accepted by the greatest number if not all. Any effort to achieve a universal WTO should 
be supported and encouraged for WTO rules to be well defended and promoted by all. Benin 
therefore supported Oman and the co-sponsors of  the joint statement and recommended that the 
process for accession by Iran be resumed by electing a Chair who would direct that work to enable Iran to accede to the WTO in the short or medium term. 
6.24.  The representative of Uganda associated  with the statement made by Oman and the co-
sponsors with respect to the accession of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Uganda called upon all 
Members to support the integration of Iran into the multilateral trading system. 
6.25.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
7  WORKSHOP ON E-COMMERCE – STATEMENT BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
7.1.  The representative of the Republic of Korea,  on behalf of Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey 
and Australia (MIKTA), announced that MIKTA would host a one-day workshop on electronic 
commerce in the first week of July. MIKTA was an innovative partnership that brought together 
those five countries in a consultative forum based on shared values and interests. It was a flexible and informal platform aimed at advancing the common interests of the international community. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 28 - 
 
  7.2.  E-commerce had an increasing role in international trade and had an ever greater bearing on 
development. It was therefore important for Members to continue discussions on that issue in a systemic and in-depth manner. The MIKTA countries  were ready to engage and contribute to the 
ongoing efforts on that matter.  
7.3.  In the workshop, experts from MIKTA countries and relevant international organizations and 
institutions would participate and share their views on various issues related to e-commerce including regulatory issues and developmental aspects of e-commerce. It would also have a 
general discussion on the way forward in those ar eas. The workshop aimed to increase Members' 
awareness on e-commerce and thus served as an  exploratory event which did not presume any 
particular conclusion or national position.  
7.4.  MIKTA was a group of countries with variou s regional backgrounds and levels of development 
as well as different positions in negotiating areas. Korea hoped that diversity would help make 
some valuable contributions in advancing the discussion on e-commerce. An invitation with a detailed program would be circulated in due course. MIKTA countries would be available to answer 
any questions or hear any opinions regarding the workshop. 
7.5.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
8  DATE AND VENUE OF THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN 
8.1.  The Chairman noted that Article IV of the Marrakesh Agreement provided that "There shall be 
a Ministerial Conference of representatives of al l Members, which shall meet at least once every 
two years." He recalled that at Nairobi under item 3 of the Agenda Ministers had instructed the 
General Council to hold consultations regarding the date and venue of the Eleventh Session of the 
Ministerial Conference – MC11. He intended to start those consultations shortly with a view to taking a decision on the date and venue of the next Ministerial Conference at the July General 
Council meeting if possible. Since MC10 had been held at 2015 the next Ministerial Conference 
should normally be held at 2017.  With a little more than one year to go, it was certainly not too early to start some forward planning taking into consideration the amount of work which would go 
into organizing an event of that size both for the Secretariat and for any possible host country. 
8.2.  He invited any Member which was considerin g hosting the Eleventh Ministerial Conference to 
come forward with their proposal urgently so that he could consult accordingly. Should there be no offer from Members forthcoming in the next few weeks, they would need to think about a possible 
venue and a decision should be made so that the organizing machine could be set in motion. As 
Members began to talk about the organization of  MC11, he would like to ask them to begin 
thinking about contributions to the Trust Fund that they traditionally used to support LDC 
participation. He raised that a bit earlier than usual because experience had shown that the earlier 
in their respective budget preparation cycles Memb ers started to consider contributions, the better 
the chance of a good result. Members had traditio nally contributed generously and he trusted that 
they could continue that proud tradition. 
8.3.  The General Council took note of the Chairman's statement. 
9  ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR MEMB ERS IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
9.1.  The Chairman recalled that at its meeting in October 2012 the General Council had approved 
a recommendation from the Budget Committee regarding revised Administrative Measures for 
Members in arrears which had entered into force on 1 January 2013. Among those Measures there 
was a requirement that at the end of each meetin g of the General Council the Chairperson of the 
Budget Committee should provide information with  regard to which Members and Observers were 
under Administrative Measures. He invited Ambassador Inga Ernstsone (Latvia), Chairperson of 
the Committee, to provide the Council with the information. 
9.2.  Ambassador Inga Ernstsone (Latvia), Chairperson of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said that the General Council had approved the new rules for Members and 
Observers subject to Administrative Measures. Those rules had been implemented effectively on WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 29 - 
 
  1 March 2013 and as required by the decision of  the General Council she should list Members and 
Observers under all categories of Administrative Measures as at 11 May. There were 6 Members in Category 1: (no Observer) Cabo Verde; Came roon; Congo; Dominican Republic; Yemen and 
Zambia. There were 6 Members and 3 Observers in Category 2: Dominica; Grenada; Malawi; 
Suriname; Vanuatu; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of; Equatorial Guinea (Observer); Libya 
(Observer) and Sudan (Observer). There were 7 Members and 1 Observer in Category 3: Central African Republic; Chad; Djibouti; Guinea-Bissau; Mauritania; Niger; Sierra Leone and Sao Tomé 
and Principe (Observer). 
9.3.  The Chairman said that under the new revise d Administrative Measures he was also required 
at each Council meeting to request Members and Observers in Categories II and III of the 
Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment of arrears could be expected. 
9.4.  The General Council took note of the statements. 
 
_______________ 
 WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 30 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS AT THE INFORMAL TNC MEETING AT THE LEVEL OF HEADS OF 
DELEGATION HELD ON 9 MAY 2016 
At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned 
meeting are included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
_______________ 
 
1. Brazil 
 
I came here in listening mode, so I didn't prepare a text to read, but given interventions by fellow 
colleagues I feel stimulated to intervene. I would say that this reflection period we are going 
through is normal, healthy and it was to be expected that it should take at least some time given the outcome of Nairobi and the questions that were left open after Nairobi. But I also, on the other 
hand, agree with those that said that we should make an effort to conclude this reflection period 
by summer and be ready to fully engage as we come back to Geneva in September. That said, reflection hasn't meant paralysis. I think that for many of us or most or all of us, we are talking 
with fellow Members and we are talking with our Capital. In our specific case our capital is working 
and reflecting on proposals that Brazil could come up with, even as we speak. 
   While we discuss what we are discussing here, in th e world out there, as we all know, there is an 
increasingly heated political debate between those who want "more trade" and those who want 
"less trade". This has become a central piece of the public debate and public agenda in many societies around the world. And there is nothin g illegitimate about that.  Regarding my country, 
where we are going through a period of diffic ulties, as you know, negative growth in 2015, 
repetition of negative growth this year, there is a consensus in Brazilian society – you have only to read the papers – that we want to leave our current situation, our current crisis, now that we 
believe we will begin to rebound this year , with "more trade" and not "less trade". 
 That said, Brazil is, among the G20 countries, the country with the smallest relation between trade 
and GDP. That is not the result of an ideological option, it is rather the result of size, larger 
economies are normally like that. It is also the result of the way in which industrialization reached 
Brazil, of the way Brazil was placed in global value chains by transnational companies. Such 
companies were after our domestic market, not after Brazil as a platform for exports. Still, we 
have a scenario in which negotiating trade liberalization is running against the wind – but that is 
precisely what we have to do.  
One observation – when I said that we want to restart our development with more trade, I feel, 
from interventions I heard around the room, an attempt by some to equate the discussion of development in this organization with a questioning of S&D. I think that is not the path to deal with development here. S&D is not the only central problem of tackling development within the 
WTO. There are other issues related to development. Dealing with development issues here means 
finally giving priority to agriculture, priority to  domestic support, priority to unacceptable tariff 
peaks and specifically priority to tariff escalati ons, for example, which clearly go against the 
interests of the majority of developing Members. Regarding the concerns about S&D, I will remind 
ourselves of the TFA, which is constantly mentioned as an example of a path we could follow in the future; we can remind ourselves that, in this ve ry room, there were concerns regarding how much 
S&D some of us larger developing countries woul d require after the TFA agreement was concluded. 
As we all know, there was no unreasonable reques t for S&D by any large developing Member of 
the organization as far as the TFA is concerned. So I think that we should trust that developing members will not abuse their S&D flexibilities – and that S&D will naturally fall in line with 
capacity. 
 But I certainly believe that if we try to engage in discussing development as a so called "gateway 
issue", meaning renegotiating contributions and renegotiating S&D, then I don't think we are going 
very far. I think there are better ways to deal with development in this Organization.   
That said, Brazil is engaging here with an open perspective. We will naturally continue to defend 
our priorities, we will continue to be active regarding agriculture domestic support and market access, but we are ready to discuss NAMA and give Remigi some work if we are to discuss market WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 31 - 
 
  access in agriculture. We are ready to discuss fish eries if there is a consensus to do so among 
Members.  We strongly prefer the multilateral pa th, but we do not exclude alternative paths should 
we hit the wall as far as multilateral progress is concerned.  Although, as I said, we believe in the possibility of making progress multilaterally, and I believe we will do so if we put the necessary 
political will in trying to get there.  Beca use if we don't we won't, that's obvious. 
 
2. Canada 
 
Director-General, thank you for your report, for your exhaustive efforts and travels during the first part of the year, and for your commitment to work closely with us in the coming season. I didn't prepare remarks either, because I can usually read over the shoulder of my Brazilian colleague to 
my side and borrow some thoughts but I am deprived of that option today. My Chinese colleague 
to my other side made so many adjustments to his talk I can't borrow from him, so I'm really stuck here.   
 
I've listened to the discussion thus far. I don't want to repeat anything in a comprehensive way that has been covered. I need not say much about Canada. We have been a trading nation far 
above any of the standards of GDP, population an d so on, among the top ten traders of the World 
since well back in the last century, but I am prov oked and stimulated in this exciting reflection 
period to offer a few a dditional observations.  
 
Ultimately, I'd like to believe, and Canadians would want to believe, that we share a commitment 
here at the WTO as well as in other multilateral institutions, namely, a commitment to figure out in our respective fields how to contribute to the bette rment of our citizens’ lives, of their prosperity 
and of their quality of life. That should mean, it seems, that we build on a basic consensus that 
trade is at least is a contributor and a multiplier and an enhancer of means to contribute to peoples’ lives. But it's not a solution in its own right unless accompanied by other policies.   
 
So my first additional observation, on which no one has spent much time, is the importance of being honest with ourselves in connecting what we do here with what else is needed in the name of a sustainable development path.  That means, as reflected in the Trade Facilitation Agreement, 
sequencing our liberalization efforts and our enhanc ed trade efforts in a calibrated way that goes 
along with the necessary capacity. That doesn't just refer to aid-for-trade or aid from abroad, it means the capacity to govern well. It means the capacity to structure your domestic economy and 
laws and regulations in a manner that is enabling for your indigenous business as well as 
international business, to carry on, to take risks, and to make the decision to invest and create jobs. That in turn means working with our treasuries and finance ministries to ensure that we have 
a macroeconomic environment and follow monetary policies that enhance that stability as well. 
Very often in our various Councils and chambers here we are totally insulated – we choose to insulate ourselves from the connections that have to be made between what we do at the border and what we do at home. Trade Facilitation at least in a respect shows the value of maybe 
connecting ourselves to other policy makers both domestically and internationally. 
 Similarly my second observation, and I only have two, is the fact that in some ways the debate 
about old and new issues is turning quite artificial when we listen to the needs of farmers and of 
business. All the literature shows that use of satellite technology enhances agriculture production mutlifold. If they have access to GPS data, to weather data and so on, agricultural productivity is 
enhanced, so e-commerce is directly relevant to ad dressing a key outstanding issue. If we can do 
more to give incentive to investment in agriculture, we would also help production in developing countries, but according to some, we cannot talk  about investment here because we are only 
supposed to talk about agriculture. Yet, every body, from the FAO to the World Bank to the 
Regional Development Banks, tell us about the importance of investment in agriculture.   
 We hear and read about the terribly damaging effects on developing country agricultural 
productivity from climate change, from invasive species, from droughts, from climate related 
matters and yet many of us oppose having an honest discussion in the Committee on trade and environment about the connections between trade and environment because somehow that is a 
new issue. 
 We are supposed to focus on agriculture. But frankl y, we are blinding ourselves to the connections 
between the outstanding, long-standing "Doha Issues" and the extent to which integrating WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 32 - 
 
  discussion of some of the new issues can actually help us solve and address what has been 
outstanding for some time.   What conclusions do I draw from these two observations? First of all, maybe we should do a little 
brainstorming during this last period of reflection about our negotiating structure. Our special 
sessions have been defined for the better part of 20 years. We tend to only allow ourselves to talk 
in boxes about what is allowed in that box rather than drawing connections.  Some outsiders have 
suggested the most obvious is the servicificatio n of trade and the connection between trade and 
goods and trade in services – the embedded services in the trade of every good. Maybe we need to look at better connections. That is not just horizontal water for water negotiating posture, that's a substantive discussion about measuring costs and benefits to our economy, our job creators in 
seeing what opening can do.  
 It suggests secondly doing a better job of consultations with our stakeholders. I very much 
welcome the initiative of the Director-General in promoting more business dialogue, in advance of 
the Public Forum in the fall, to make better connections between our work here and the broad business community, including small, medium, and large enterprises from developed and 
developing countries alike. 
 Thirdly, just to come back to the connections between trade and domestic policy, we should use 
some of the structures we do have, such as th e Committee on Trade, Debt and Finance and other 
fora to enhance the coherence and understanding that we owe it to ourselves to have about 
related policy fields in support of sustainable development. That's the main message I think that has come out of our development community colleagues. It's the main thrust of most ODA, official 
development assistance, and it is based, as my Br azilian colleague said, on the record of proven 
success of those countries who have grown to a higher level of development because they have looked not just at one aspect of policy but have looked government-wide at the connections 
between trade, investment and domestic regulation, at governance, the rule of law, physical and 
human infrastructure.  3. China 
 
Thank you very much, Director-General for your updates as well as the reports delivered by the Chairs of respective negotiating groups. 
 
Reflection is enlightening and exciting over the previous months. Members have been reflecting on how to advance the Post-Nairobi work and dialogues are ongoing in different configurations. In 
spite of that, reflection has not changed anyone’s position. This is the reality we have to live with.  
Some members are advocating new approaches or new pathways to resolve the remaining Doha issues. We must be frank with each other, those approaches and pathways have already been tried last year such as swapping waters, including the idea that put forward by the major 
subsidizing member last year and failed to gather consensus. We should refrain from repeating 
those unworkable approaches, as it is neither feasible nor reasonable for some members to force others to change their positions without changing their own positions. New approaches like this 
may only run the risk of instantly paralyzing th e discussions. Therefore, reflections should be 
based on Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and decisions as well.  
In light of the special and differential treatment, here I would like to reiterate China’s position, i.e., 
China does not seek the same status and treatment of LDCs and SVEs. However, if someone chooses to debate on who are entitled to the specia l and differential treatment, it will only serve to 
paralyze the discussions. 
 
Our mandate is to implement the Ministerial Decisions and advance negotiations on all the remaining Doha issues. If someone tries to single out one or two issues, it will not be line with the 
above mandate and thus making it impossible to reach any consensus amongst Members. Without 
balance of interests among Members and across the board, there could be no consensus on any single-outs. We should work together on all the remaining Doha issues in order to achieve the 
balance of interests of membership. 
 We are open to exploring the non-DDA issues according to the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and ready to participate in any seminars, as long as they are inclusive and transparent as defined by 
you, Director-General. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 33 - 
 
   
With regard to the Environment Goods Agreement (EGA) negotiations, it is neither a multilateral exercise nor a G20 business. Therefore, it should not be brought here or to the G20.  
Mr. Chairman, time is not on our side. We have less than three months left before the summer 
break. We must start to formulate a work programme as soon as possible in order to develop a sense of urgency to advance the Post-Nairobi work and structure our discussions in a balanced, 
expeditious, orderly and predictable manner. China remains committed to working with you and 
other Members towards a successful multilateral conclusion of the Doha negotiations with development dimension at its centre. 
 
4. European Union 
 Thank you to the DG for your report and let me echo some of the points you made a moment ago, 
while also making some additional ones.   
 We collectively achieved a major success in Nairobi which confirmed the interest of Members to 
seek solutions and outcomes that strengthen the multilateral trading system. With the mid-year 
point approaching, we need to however seriously start preparing the future.  Over the last few months, we have all engaged in internal reflections regarding our expectations 
and priorities for post-Nairobi discussions. This wa s a useful and necessary exercise if we are to 
advance in our discussions. But the time for internal reflection is now up. We need to move from thinking to action, if we are 
to save this organisation from renewed drift and if we want to prepare good outcomes for the next 
Ministerial Conference.  
This may sound like a distant event at this point in time, but let there be no mistake, it is not.  
 By the autumn of this year, we ne ed to collectively have a clear idea of what we want to achieve in 
MC11 and what type of package to be preserved.  Otherwise, we will once again be struggling with 
the timetable. This picture does not have to be very detailed, but it does have to answer the 
fundamental question of whether we make an effo rt to strive for an ambitious outcome covering 
one or more core negotiating areas or if we aim for something much smaller. 
 
The European Union is clearly a supporter of the first option and we are ready to engage in the coming weeks and months to start working out how to advance on some of the most important 
areas of negotiations that remain outstanding. This is in particular the case for agricultural 
domestic support, which the vast majority of Members see as long overdue for an outcome and which is closely linked and will have to take account of another issue of interest to some Members: public stockholdings for food security purposes. 
 
There are, however also other prospective areas that need to be considered from among the outstanding issues. We have already seen some interest in domestic regulation in services, in 
transparency and good regulatory practices, and in horizontal subsidies and fisheries subsidies. 
These discussions need to continue.  
At the same time, the Nairobi Ministerial Declarat ion clearly recognises that there are other areas 
o f  w o r k  t h a t  a r e  o f  i n t e r e s t  t o  W T O  M e m b e r s .  T h e  E u r o p e a n  U n i o n  i s  h a p p y  t o  s e e  t h a t  s o m e  bottom-up efforts are already starting to explore what these issues are, where are the gaps in the existing rulebook, what is their development dimension and how best they can be advanced. 
 
These exploratory discussions need to accelerate as part of our preparations for MC11.  
How we collectively organise our discussions over the coming months will determine our chances 
of success. Bottom-up initiatives across all areas of discussions are highly called for.  
At the same time, we believe you, Director General, are the only one who can bring all of these 
efforts together into a coordinated attempt to prepare the outlines of our ambitions for the next Ministerial Conference and we therefore call on you to redouble your efforts to help Members advance the post Nairobi process. 
 WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 34 - 
 
  5. India 
 My delegation would like to thank the Director General and the Chairs of various negotiating groups for their reports and assessment. In recent  weeks, Members have engaged actively in all 
possible configurations to seek the best way fo rward for advancing the negotiating work. While 
several members continue to reflect and identify their priorities in the negotiations, the ongoing consultations have nonetheless allowed Members to appreciate each other's perspective.   
 
Mr. Chairman, it is only through this kind of engagement and dialogue among Members that we 
will be able to achieve clarity on how to advance the negotiations forward in different areas. India has participated actively in the ongoing process of consultations, and will continue to play its part 
as we get down to a more deeper discussion in the coming weeks to advance our work under the 
framework of the DDA.  
One important take-away from the consultation process so far is that our efforts to find a way 
forward need to be driven by the collective me mbership of the WTO - a member-driven process. 
Another crucial common understanding is that the process of engagement would immensely 
benefit from concrete ideas and proposals from Members in writing to advance the negotiating 
work, a point made by you as well Mr. Director General.   Mr. Chairman, India believes that the Bali and Nairobi Ministerials have produced positive 
outcomes insofar as the negotiating pillar of the WTO is concerned. These results may not be 
optimal or what we had hoped for. Be that as it may, going forward, we need to timely implement all the decisions emerging from the Bali and Nairobi Ministerials in the area of agriculture, 
development, trade facilitation and LDC related issues. India, along with other G-33 members, 
continues to participate constructively in the dedicated sessions of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session convened to discuss the issue of pub lic stockholding for food security purposes as 
well as special safeguard mechanism for developing country members. Outcomes in these areas 
are crucial for India and several other developing members, and we look forward to positive engagement on both these issues in the coming w eeks in accordance with the directions given by 
the Ministers at Nairobi.  Mr. Director General, you mentioned about the small group informal 
consultations facilitated by you with regard to amendments to export schedules of relevant 
members in the light of Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition. The translation of Ministerial decisions into legal schedule of commitments is a cross-cutting and systemic issue. 
While my delegation will revert to this issue in the appropriate body, namely COA, I would like to 
invite Members to assess its systemic and legal implications carefully.  
Mr. Chairman, services trade is rapidly emerging as a critical vehicle for realising developmental 
gains for several developing countries and as the new frontiers for enhancing the participation of developing countries and LDCs in international trade. As we continue with our internal assessments and the consultation process in Geneva, we believe that Members would need to find 
ways to achieve progress in services negotiations in each of its pillars and to facilitate trade in 
services in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries.    
Advancing negotiations on the DDA issues, in our view, should remain a matter of priority for the 
membership. Moving the debate to "new issues" without ensuring adequate progress on the remaining DDA issues, would not be in line with the Ministerial mandate. As we continue to assess 
individually as well as collectively, it would be imperative that we do not lose sight of the centrality 
of the development dimension. For India, progress on  the multilateral track on the trade agenda is 
of crucial importance.  
6. Indonesia 
 First of all, my delegation wishes to express great thanks to the Director-General for your update 
on the state of play of the Doha negotiations, particularly to follow-up the outcomes of Nairobi 
Ministerial Conference. My delegation would like al so to thank Chairs of various negotiating groups 
for their comprehensive reports.  
 
As we stated in the Informal HOD and General Co uncil meetings in February 2016, our window of 
opportunity in 2016 would not be wide if we are to deliver outcomes in the 11th Ministerial Conference in 2017. In this regard, we have to start our works immediately with a strong political 
will and a clear vision on what to achieve in the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 35 - 
 
   
We fully recognize the formidable challenges that Members have to confront in the Post – Nairobi 
negotiations, particularly on how we will manage our works to continue our negotiations. While recognizing other Member’s views on how we should continue our work, my delegation remains to 
believe that all mandates and decisions made during the Doha Round must be respected and taken 
into account, as they reflect the dynamics of the negotiations and compromises reached by Members.  
 
In particular, Indonesia remains firm in putting agriculture as a strategic sector in the development since it is still the major source of livelihoods for many Indonesian people. The substantial reforms on agriculture should remain the core of future successful negotiations. Members should prioritize 
follow-up works for issues agreed in Bali and Nairobi as well as works where results have not yet 
been achieved, particularly on the agriculture issues negotiations, such as public stockholding for food security purposes and SSM.  In this respec t, we commend the hard works of the Chair of 
COASS in trying to continue the discussions on these issues. We hope that this week agricultural 
discussions will be able to lay a soild ground for Members to deepen their conversation.    
On the way forward, my delegation would like to reiterate that addressing long-standing 
development challenges faced by governments in the developing world remains a priority for Indonesia. Ensuring a level playing field is a must and the development dimension should always be considered. 
 
Finally DG, please rest assured of Indonesia’s commitment to constructively engage in any discussions to follow-up the outcomes of Nairobi Mi nisterial Conference, as well as remaining DDA 
issues, and ensure the success of the MC11. 
 7. Japan 
 
I often hear that we are now undergoing a period of reflection since the last ministerial conference. Coming to Geneva after Nairobi and experiencing only “reflection”, I am impatient for some serious talks to take place here. When we look around, whether we like it or not, cutting-edge 
trade liberalization and new rule-making is happen ing elsewhere. While we entrench ourselves in 
defending our national positions, the world has been changing so much: the digital economy and 
the global value chains go beyond national borders and existing rules. We have to face the reality 
and address the challenges, so that the multil ateral trading system can remain the basic 
infrastructure for the economic growth of the world. I would like to make a few points in this regard. 
 
First of all, although it is important to have in mind possible outcomes for the MC11, we should not necessarily be bound by the two-year cycle to achi eve results. For some issues, we may be able to 
conclude this year. For others, it may take more time, beyond the timeframe of the MC11, to 
reach an agreement. We must, in any case, set our si ghts high in order to find the future direction 
of the multilateral trading system, without seekin g outcomes for the sake of outcomes in a short-
sighted manner. 
  
Secondly, on the question of whether to adopt a plurilateral approach; the WTO is definitely a multilateral institution and our ultimate goal will always be a multilateral solution. However, if the 
multilateral approach does not work for any reason, an MFN-based open plurilateral would be a 
second best option. This approach, like the ITA, which is open to all members and provides benefit on an MFN basis, forms a part of the multilateral disciplines. We should not shy away from this kind of plurilateral agreement including the ongoing EGA negotiation.  
  
Thirdly, on the subject of S&D; Japan is fully aw are of its importance for the developing members. 
But we should also be aware that some developing members have some of the world’s most 
competitive industries. Is it fair to provide th ose countries with the same S&D treatments? And 
more fundamentally, there is no country that has achieved a high level of development through being exempted from obligations. Rather, the rule  of law, with transparency and predictability, 
would make a far greater contribution to development. Japan hopes to have constructive and 
meaningful discussions on the S&D issues based on  the real needs of the developing members. 
  Fourthly, in order to move forward on any issue, we need to understand where we stand and what 
the actual situations are. We cannot discuss, for example, domestic supports for agriculture WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 36 - 
 
  without knowing exactly what kind of support measures are taken by the members. It is 
regrettable, from this point of view, that some members do not fulfill the obligation of timely notification. We also recognize the importance of reviewing the implementation of existing rules. 
We should therefore further encourage the activities in the relevant regular committees, including 
those related to the subsidies and trade remedies as well as RTAs.  
  Having mentioned these basic points, Japan expects to see more focused and specific discussions 
taking place by this summer.  During the past few months, we have hear d about some interesting 
ideas such as cross-sectoral water exchange. We are also aware that there have been some informal discussions on the digital economy and e-commerce, as well as on fishery subsidies, which, as you are aware, is a topic mentioned in the SDGs.  
 
Japan is happy to engage constructively in discussions on these issues. We look forward to seeing some consensus views emerging, through informal discussions, on the agenda and on appropriate 
approaches for future negotiations. 
 8. Mexico 
 
Given that we are in a period of reflection, we must reflect on the fact that last year, as you 
mentioned in a statement made to the press, world trade fell by 13% in dollars and increased in volume by barely 2.8%. We must also reflect on the fact that the elasticity of imports with respect 
to GDP has a value of less than 1, [whereas between 1950 and 2007 its average value was 3]. 
This means that trade is growing very slowly in relation to GDP. We must consider the fact that protectionism is on the rise; indeed, restrictive trade measures have gone from representing 1% 
of countries' imports to 5% in only 5 years. 
 We must reflect on the fact that, for the first time in the recent history of presidential 
campaigning, trade has become the primary negative  issue in various political campaigns, together 
with related issues such as the building of walls between friendly countries that complement each other economically.  
We are concerned by this low level demagogy. Not only due to its bilateral implications, but also 
because of the effect it could have on the negotiating arm of the WTO. More generally, we are concerned that the notion that trade is harmful is becoming more widespread, instead of it being 
seen for what it is: the principal engine of growth since the post war period. 
 Therefore, if we are in this period of reflection, let us reflect on where progress must be made in 
light of the political realities that we face. 
 Five months after the meeting in Nairobi, we stil l haven't defined what is to be negotiated. The 
willingness of all delegations to be flexible is good news. It reflects progress that we are all talking 
about what could feasibly be achieved and considering what we have decided in such a way that 
we may have positive results every two years.  
The delegation of Mexico is therefore in favour of reaching an agreement to negotiate not only 
domestic agricultural support, because we believe this to be essential, but market access in agriculture, NAMA and services. We believe this is something that must be addressed horizontally. 
We also consider it desirable and possible to achieve positive results with respect to rules and 
fishing subsidies.  We are willing to discuss new areas of interest to Members – several have been mentioned, I will 
not enter into details – and we are of course participating in meetings and seminars. The 
delegation of Korea, together with the other MIKTA countries, will soon hold a seminar on e-commerce. This may help to advance issues which currently form the basis of the global 
economy. 
 Finally, I would like to mention that the Senate of Mexico has now approved the Agreement on 
Trade Facilitation. We will register our ratification with the WTO soon, once the necessary 
administrative arrangements have been made.  I wish all the best to the superb Ambassador, our friend Alberto d'Alotto, in his new post. We will 
miss you very much. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 37 - 
 
   
9. Paraguay 
 Many thanks Director-General for convening this meeting. We consider it timely and essential in 
order for us to continue strengthening the WTO negotiating pillar. We are grateful for the reports 
of the chairs of the negotiating groups and we th ank them for their hard work over the last few 
months. 
 
We have learned over from the last Ministerials, that small steps, have helped and will continue to help us to continue to achieve important results. We are thus open to continue such approach. However, in this exploratory process, we believe that these steps must be taken in and throughout 
all the elements and we say this taking into account that any result has to be balanced and has to 
satisfy all the membership.  
Our special interest is in agriculture. Agriculture, together with services, lag behind in trade 
liberalization. There are many distortions present in  agriculture that keeps agriculture international 
trade far from its potential. The SDG highlights the importance of international trade as an engine 
for development, it calls on us to "correct and prev ent restrictions and distortions" in agriculture in 
order to achieve food security. It also calls for meaningful liberalization.  And here we would like to underscore the importance  of pursuing meaningful liberalization in this 
house, especially in agriculture and in all those sectors that matter for developing countries and 
LDCs. The creation of universally trade opportunities has to be pursued to promote development in all members and to continue raising interest in the work we do here, especially to validate the 
multilateral approach to trade liberalization. 
 Agriculture has two major sources of distortion and restriction. In market access there are plenty 
of protectionist tools in use. We have tariff peaks, tariff escalation, high bound tariffs, special 
safeguards that have become permanent tools, quantitative restrictions, among many others. Agricultural producers need to address these issues in order to correct them and prevent a new surge in protectionism. 
 
The other source is domestic support, which is a source of volatility, as it prevents producers of following price signals; domestic support has the potential to lead to overproduction, and the 
unintended consequences for neighbouring countries are huge. It is also an unfair mechanism 
because only a few countries are able to afford such measures. 
 
We mention the need to take steps in all elements. On market access for non-agriculture goods, 
we support the idea of organizing stock taking sessions, and also to explore new alternatives in order to solve this long deadlock in the negotiations. We consider that non-tariff barriers are just as restrictive as customs duties, and we should address both issues together. 
 
On services, it is encouraging to hear that Members are open and willing to negotiate. We would need for that, specific proposals so as to frame the discussions in the CTS-SS. The same is 
applicable in the rules negotiating pillar. 
 Finally, Director General, we believe it is time to quickly move away from the reflection mode and 
to inject a new dynamism to our negotiations to get meaningful outcomes to strengthen the WTO. 
In this sense, we will be engaging constructively and with an open mind in all areas and sub areas of negotiations looking for meaningful outcomes and meaningful proposals.  
10. South Africa 
 Thank you DG for your report on your recent consultations and our gratitude also goes to the 
Chairs for their reports and for all their efforts.  I found the last few points you made in your 
report on the way forward interesting an d deserving of further consideration. 
 
We have been in a much-needed period of reflec tion since the beginning of the year. While MC10 
was certainly a "step forward" in the DDA in so far as it delivered an outcome in export competition, we have needed time to consider how to implement that outcome, and how to move forward on the remaining Doha issues as instructed by our Ministers. As we meet today, we still WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 38 - 
 
  don't have an agreed path forward. The divergences amongst Members that were evident before 
MC10 and at Nairobi have not yet been bridged.   Over the past months, we have reflected on seve ral new ideas that have sought to advance the 
negotiations. There has been some discussion on the possibility of an incremental approach to 
delivering outcomes in future by focusing work on a smaller package of issues, and we have discussed the possibility for outcomes with a lower level of ambition by considering, for example, 
exchanges of "water" notably in agricultural domestic support and market access in services.  
 There may be specific and varying reasons as to why these and other ideas have not gained sufficient traction amongst Members, but the under lying cause is the same: We are grappling with 
ongoing differences amongst Members about the negotiating mandate. While Members have 
generally shied away from entering into polarizi ng discussions, this core divergence has been 
evident from time to time in some exchanges.  
 
We have seen that some Members continue to ch allenge the relevance of the DDA mandate and to 
propose approaches that narrow the scope and application of special and differential treatment. 
Most developing country Members continue to hold fast to the developmental mandate of the DDA 
and are not prepared to give it up for approaches that erode its principles and content and, at the 
same time, risk exposure to new, more onerous demands that could further prejudice their trade 
and development interests.   
 
The situation is not too different when the question of new issues arises. While it is still not clear which new issue – or issues – will be raised for consideration, in our view there will be little chance 
of agreement to even consider exploring those i ssues multilaterally, until there is some shared 
understanding on how we intend to address the re maining Doha issues which we know have been 
deemed "priority" by Ministers.  
 
In this light, we think there is a need to give ourselves more time to generate and reflect on proposals that could lead us to common ground an d unblock the process. To have any chance of 
multilateral success, any idea or any approach to negotiations – on any issue – should clearly 
articulate its developmental content and should specify how the principle of special and differential 
treatment will be applied in meaningful manner.  
11. Chinese Taipei 
 Thank you, DG for convening this meeting and than k the chairs of negotiation groups and the DG 
for their reports. The multilateral trading system and the WTO’s negotiating pillar are of 
paramount importance to the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  My delegation is pleased to see that in MC9 and MC10, the WTO Members have taken some big 
steps forward to reform trade rules to meet some of the needs of global trade. The outcomes of 
these two Ministerial Meetings, although not yet fu lfilling Members’ expectations, indicate that the 
WTO is still able to deliver. In particular, we welcome the Ministerial Decision on the elimination of 
export subsidy, of which my delegation and other Article Twelve Members have already 
undertaken such commitments at the time of our accessions.  
What’s next? Certainly, more work remains to be done. There is no doubt that we should follow 
the clear instructions from Ministers in Nairobi stated in paragraph 31 of the Ministerial Declaration which asks us to advance our work in agriculture, NAMA, services, development, TRIPS and rules. The areas of existing commitments that the Article Twelve Members have already made could also 
serve as good references. Moreover, the special si tuation of Article Twelve Members shall be taken 
into consideration in the negotiations, which is clearly stated in paragraph 27 of the Declaration.  
Time is not always on our side, therefore the negotiations will need to be conducted at a certain 
pace.  As we all know that "reflection" without any timeline or specific objectives can easily turn into "fruitless contemplation". Therefore, we agree with others that we should move forward as 
soon as possible and set out our possible work plan for the MC11. 
 My delegation notes that some Members have started to express their priorities and interests in specific issues. Moreover, we welcome those constructive engagements and are pleased to see the 
discussion papers that have been tabled recently. We encourage more Members to follow in tabling WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 39 - 
 
  new proposals, initiates or approaches soon in order to deliver good outcomes in MC11. My 
delegation will be engaging constructively.  12. Uruguay 
 
Mr Director-General, thank you for your comprehensive report. For Uruguay, agriculture is a vital component of the trade negations. However, we are open to discussion and prepared to seek 
results in all areas, including Services and NAMA as  well as others. We are also open to different 
approaches and alternatives that would help us to move forward. 
 It seems to Uruguay that the negotiating dynami cs have changed, and now we are destined to 
come up with a package of results every two years. Although this approach is not ideal, it does put 
us on the right path and ensures that the Organization remains relevant. We therefore support the idea of drawing up a meaningful work programme as quickly as possible wi th a view to the next 
ministerial conference. 
 Reverting to agriculture, it is essential that we achieve an outcome in the market access pillar, 
since we are relying on the multilateral sphere to create new market access opportunities for our 
private sector.  Uruguay would also like to reiterate its determination to achieve an outcome on fisheries subsidies. 
 
_______________ 
 WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 40 - 
 
  ANNEX 2 
STATEMENT BY OMAN AT THE MEETING OF THE GOODS COUNCIL HELD ON 11 MAY 2016 
At its request, the statement made by Oman at the above-mentioned meeting is included below as 
part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
We would like to thank you Mr. Chairman for your tireless efforts and hard work during the bilateral and small group consultations that you he ld over the last two weeks to reach agreement 
on the slate of names proposed this year. We also appreciate the Erstwhile Chair’s efforts in the 
consultations he has undertaken and thank him for his report on members’ views, his assessment 
of the issues and his recommendations going forward.  We agree with his statement. In this regard, 
Oman would like to make its position known in respect of certain aspects of the appointment 
process and to have its views reflected on the record. 
 We note that there is an increased interest by members to chair committees. This trend has called 
into question some aspects of the appointment proc ess; in particular the principle of rotation as 
contained in paragraph 1.1 of the guidelines, where it provides in relevant part: “Members should regard the appointments exercise as a relatively routine annual “housekeeping” function, with the principle of rotation as its norm”. 
 
This year the membership was confronted with a sui generis situation in relation to one committee appointment, specifically the Chairmanship of th e Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. Over 
the last five years, the appointment process for this committee has strictly adhered to rotation 
between regional groups. In other words, each regional group has had a turn in chairing the 
committee during this period. In the current year, a question arose about how the principle of 
rotation should be interpreted in the following situation: A regional group whose turn it was to 
chair the committee in question did not reach consensus on a single nomination, instead providing two candidates who were equally qualified. One of the two competing candidates represented a member who had chaired the same committee the last time it was allocated to the regional group. 
In Oman’s view, assuming all things are equal, th e principle of rotation should operate so as to 
give priority to the Member who has never had a chance in chairing the committee. Any other interpretation would frustrate the essence of this principle, as it could render the absurd outcome 
of the chairpersonship being granted to the same member every consecutive five-year cycle. 
Surely, the principle of rotation as it currently exists in the guidelines would preclude such an outcome? We were concerned that any other app lication of this rule, if left unchecked, would 
create a negative precedent. Moreover, we consider that the guidelines appeal to the common 
sense of experienced WTO delegates and should be observed in that light. It is important to reiterate that consensus is the general rule for decision-making in this Organization and members’ sensitivities must therefore be respected. This has been Oman’s position from the outset. 
 
On 19 and 20 April, informal consultations were he ld by the Erstwhile Chair where an exchange of 
views took place on this matter. These consultation s were attended by coordinators of the regional 
groups and a number of developed country members. They generated interesting results. Firstly, it 
was evident that members had divergent views on the interpretation of the principle of rotation as 
contained in the guidelines, particularly on the extent to which it includes country rotation, group 
rotation and level-of-development rotation. Seco ndly, members agreed that these divergent views 
signaled a need to review the guidelines to obtain clarity on this matter.  Mr. Chairman, concerns about the appointment process are not new. They have been consistently 
raised in this Council. To cite some examples: 
 
- At the CTG meeting held on 23 March 2010, I refer to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 
26 March 2010 contained in G/C/M/101. Under Agenda item 3 on the appointment of officers 
to CTG subsidiary bodies. A member expr essed disappointment with the appointment 
process, noting that it was requested to be flexible "…while other Members had occupied and 
continued to occupy various chairs, councils, committees and other negotiating groups". It 
further requested that the process "…clearly and transparently establish the criteria to be considered for chairmanships" and questioned the criteria that were used at the time. WT/GC/M/162 
 
- 41 - 
 
   
- At the CTG meeting held on 11 March 2008, I refer to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 
14 April 2008, contained in G/C/M/92. Under Agen da item 7 on the appointment of officers 
to chair CTG subsidiary bodies. A member highlighted the existence of cases where the 
same delegations retained the posts in subsequent terms and where a Member’s staff might 
be appointed to chair the body simultaneous ly. The member expressed the view that the 
responsibility of chairing bodies should be shared widely and fairly among members. 
 
I can go on and on.  Importantly, Mr. Chairman, concerns about the appointment process have also been raised at the 
General Council as recently as last year in respect of appointments to the major bodies. At the GC 
Meeting held on 20 February 2015 (Minutes of the Meeting contained in WT/GC/M/156). A member coordinator of a regional group expressed its de epest sense of displeasure with the outcome of 
consultations, primarily because its group’s interests have not been taken into account and also 
because of the feeling of being marginalized . The Member highlighted the fact that the 
chairpersonship of some committees almost followed a default setting of being exclusive to some 
few select regions and that this trend brought into  disrepute the principle of geographical rotation. 
Thereafter the Member went on to stress the need for review in order to avoid outcomes that resulted from arbitrary and discretionary determinations. At that meeting, the Chairman noted that during the process of consultations, a number of delegations had pointed out to him that the 
process was imperfect and that factors as rotation  and regional and group representation could be 
usefully reviewed. He further stated that it was always open to the membership, and to the initiative of interested members, to find the most appropriate ways  to further refine the process. 
 
Mr Chairman, despite the clear track record of discontent expressed over the years by various Members of this Organization with the appointment process, nothing has been done to address this 
important systemic concern. 
  Therefore Oman has taken the initiative as a resp onsible and active member of this Organisation 
to draw members’ attention once again to a demonstrably flawed process. Our aim was less about 
the TBT Chairmanship and more about restarting th e conversation on improving the guidelines for 
the benefit of the membership as a whole and the functioning of this organization.  
We are encouraged to note that the Erstwhile Chairman of this Council indicated that Members 
generally agreed that the guidelines lacked clarity, that he was of the view that more clarity will be 
useful for the implementation of the guidelines and importantly we thank him for his 
recommendation to have the guidelines reviewed at  the General Council before the next cycle of 
appointments. This is a positive step in the right direction and we look forward to this matter being introduced by you Mr Chairman at tomorrow’s General Council meeting with the aim of addressing the concerns expressed by this delegation and others before it. 
 
Finally, I would like to express our utmost thanks to the delegations of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates for their unwavering support and to Morocco on behalf of the African group for their 
support and positive contribution during consultations. I would also like to express our sincere 
thanks to Members who took the initiative to inform their position by reaching out to us to get a more accurate understanding of the issues at hand. Lastly, but not at all least, I would like to 
thank the Chairman of the General Council Ambassa dor Neple of Norway for being in close contact 
with us.  To conclude Mr Chairman, I would like to end with a quote from a song by the Rolling Stones, 
which has of late been the band of choice at the WTO: "You can’t always get what you want, but if 
you try, sometimes, well, you just might find you get what you need".  
 
__________