RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/176  
 
15 April 2019  
(19-2501) Page: 1/121 
General Council  
28 February 2019    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM R APPARD ON 28 FEBRUAR Y 2019  
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Junichi Ihara (Japan)  
The Chairman and the Director -General bade farewell to Ambassador Deepak Dhital (Nepal), 
Ambassador Susiri Kumararatne (Sri Lanka) and Ambassador James Alex Mskela (Tanzania), and 
expressed appreciation for their valuable contribution during their time as Permanent 
Representatives. They also bade farewell to Mr . Chris Wilson, Deputy Permanent Representative of 
the United States  and thanked him for his contribution and positive engagement in the work of 
the WTO.  
 
Subjects discussed1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CH AIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITT EE AND    
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUT COMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
3   WORK PROGRAMME O N SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF          
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AND DEVELOP MENT  ...............  5 
4   INFORMAL PROCESS  ON APPELLATE BODY M ATTERS – STATEMENT B Y THE   
CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
5   FOSTERING A DISC USSION ON THE FUNCTI ONING OF THE APPELLA TE BODY – 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM HONDURAS  ................................ ................................ ...........  18 
6   PROCEDURES TO ST RENGTHEN THE NEGOTIA TING FUNCTION OF THE  WTO – 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES  ................................ .............................  21 
7   THE CONTINUED RE LEVANCE OF SPECIAL A ND DIFFERENTIAL TREA TMENT IN  
FAVOUR OF DEVELOPING  MEMBERS TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT AND ENSU RE 
INCLUSIVENESS – COMM UNICATION  FROM CHINA, INDIA, SOUTH AFRICA, THE 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, LAO PE OPLE'S DEMOCRATIC RE PUBLIC, THE 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA, KENYA AN D CUBA  ................................ ................  43 
8   REVIEW OF THE EX EMPTION PROVIDED UND ER PARAGRAPH 3 OF TH E                   
GATT 1994  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  58 
9   APPOINTMENT OF  OFFICERS TO WTO BOD IES ................................ ..........................  60 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 62 
10.1   WTO Open Da y – Statement by the Director -General  ................................ .................... 62 
10.2   Statement by the Chairman in connection with Administrative Measures for Members in 
Arrears ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 62 
11   ELECTION OF CHA IRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ...................  63 
                                                
1 The proposed agenda was ci rculated in document WT/GC/W/766 . WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 2 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 – THE REPORT S BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAIRS  OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC A ND INFORMAL HODS MEE TINGS       
HELD ON 27 FEBRUARY 2019 ................................ ................................ .........................  65 
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENTS  BY MEMBERS AT THE I NFORMAL TNC AND INFO RMAL HODS 
MEETINGS HELD ON 27 FEBRUARY 2019  ................................ ................................ ........  70 
 
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENE RAL 
The Chairman  recalled that the Director -General had convened Informal TNC and Informal 
Heads of Delegation meetings on 27 February where he had provided a report on his recent activities 
and consultations. Chairs of Negotiating Bodies had also provided their reports on  the negotiating 
work where updates were available,  and fifty -one delegations had taken the floor.  
As had been announced at that meeting, the Director -General's report and the reports of the 
Chairs of Negotiating Bodies would be included in the minutes of the General Council meeting.2 
Statements delivered by delegations would also be included in the minutes under the current item 
unless indicated otherwise.3  
The representative of Barbados  said that t he threats facing multilateralism and by extension 
the mu ltilateral trading system were significant , and that the system was  in a state of severe crisis. 
The rising protectionist measures and increased tendency towards nationalism, the inability of the 
WTO to appoint members to the Appellate Body and the struggl e for global geopolitical balance 
present ed systemic challenges to multilateralism and the rules -based multilateral trading system. 
Barbados  concur red with the Director -General that multilateralism w ould not survive if it bec ame 
synonymous to  paralysis.  
As an island -State that was significantly impacted by the challenges of smallness and 
vulnerability, Barbados continued to be a firm believer in multilateralism. Notwithstanding its 
imperfection, multilateralism  remained  the best course for small, vulnerable countries  like Barbados . 
Despite the many threats they faced, Barbados, like the Director -General, was heartened to hear so 
many Members reaffirm ed their commitment to multilateralism  – which was a positive signal  as 
those threats , though significant, were not insurmountable.  
Upon internalis ing Members' statements and their reports on WTO reform, Barbados  was 
reminded that reform within the context of the WTO was not a novel concept. It ha d been a topic of 
discussion since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the establishment of the WTO. Developing  
Members  had traditionally signalled the need for a level  playing field given the outcomes of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements, and after some persuasion, hope d to bring abou t that balance  
encapsulated in the Doha Development Agenda.  
The impasse surrounding the reaffirmation of the Doha Development Agenda and the 
negotiating areas of interest to developing Members  had however  meant that for many developing 
Members , balancing o r levelling the playing field remain ed purely theoretical. Barbados  had not lost 
hope that small, vulnerable economies w ould one day be able to compete and participate in 
international trade on a level playing field. Members should ensure the examination o f the areas 
                                                
2 The Director -General's report (also circulated in JOB/TNC/ 73) and the reports of the Chairs of Negotiating 
Bodies at the 27 February Informal  TNC and Informal HODs Meetings  are incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and are  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  
3 The statements at the 27 February  Informal TNC and Informal HODs Meeting s by the following 
delegations are incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in Annex 2 of this document:  Benin 
(African Group); Switzerland; Haiti (CARICOM); Canada; Malawi (ACP);  Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on 
E-Commerce); Central African Republic (LDCs); Indonesia; European Union; Colombia ( Structured Discussions 
on Investment Facilitation for Development ); Norway; China; Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs); 
Thailand; Mexico; United States; Singapore; Brazil; New Zealand; Republic of Korea; India; Vanuatu (Pacific 
Group); Russian Federation; Nepal; Turkey; Chinese Taipei; Japan; Ukraine; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Egypt; 
Kenya; Malaysia; Jamaica; Cambodia; Argentina;  Panama (Article XII Members); Ghana; Uganda; Chile; Trinidad 
and Tobago; Costa Rica; Montenegro; Mali (C -4); St. Lucia; Nigeria; Paraguay; Hong Kong, China; Zimbabwe; 
Pakistan and Plurinational State of Bolivia . WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 3 - 
 
  where reform was most needed if they were to f ully integrate all Members  into the multilateral 
trading system given the level playing field require d to assist in their development.  
Barbados continue d to be concern ed about the situation in the Appellate Body  and urged 
Members to employ the requisite political will to find a solution to unblock the impasse and to launch 
the Selection Process to fill Appellate Body vacancies. Such a solution  should  however ensure that 
the rights and obligations of Members were not altered, maintain the independence and impartiality 
of the Appellate Body and its Members, ensure that the rules-based nature of dispute settlement 
system was maintained and guarantee that the smaller and the m ost vulnerable ha d equal 
opportunity to effectively utilise the rules -based dispute settlement system. Barbados remained  
ready and willing to continue discussions on th at matter in a solution -finding mode.  
The General Council took note of the report of the  Chairman of the TNC and of the Director -
General's report on 27 February and of the statement that day as well as those delivered at the 
27 February Informal T NC and Informal HODs meetings.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR MAN  
The Chairman4 said that the item remained on the agenda so that the General Council could 
continue to follow up on the decisions adopted in Bali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires – and to do so in a 
horizontal and transparent manner.  
On 25 February, in preparation for th e General Council meeting, he had  held a meeting with 
the Chairs of Regular Bodies and took that opportunity to warmly thank them for their cooperation 
and engagement during his tenure as Chair of the General Council. They had had a useful discussion, 
and, as always, their updates on the implementation of the Ministerial mandates were the basis of 
his statement.  
A number of WTO bodies ha d not yet met th at year and since the last General Council meeting, 
and therefore his statement w ould only focus on matters where there ha d been developments since 
his last report in December.  
Concerning the  Work Programme on Electronic Commerce , he recall ed that the General Council  
had conducted its mandated review of progress at its meeting  in December 2018. On that occasion, 
he had  provided a brief overview of the work that had taken place in each of the four bodies and 
had also reported on an informal open -ended meeting held on 27 November to discuss the e -
commerce moratorium. His report had subsequently  been circulated in document WT/GC/W/756.  
Since then, based on the discussions in the informal open -ended meeting, he had been 
consulting with the Secretariat on how to provide further analysis to better inform the discussion on 
the moratori um and its broad implications. In response, the Secretariat was planning to organi ze a 
one-day workshop in late April bringing together Members, academics, business, national statistical 
offices and international organizations.  
The workshop w ould hopefully  provide the basis for developing the terms of reference for a 
future study on the moratorium which the Secretariat would undertake in cooperation with other 
organizations.  
Further details about the workshop w ould be provided in due course.  
Regarding some  of the Ministerial outcomes on Agriculture, at its meeting earlier in the  week, 
the Committee on Agriculture had continued its deliberations on the review of the Bali Decision on 
TRQ administration. As per the agreed process and timelines, the Committee was expected to finali se 
the report and draft recommendations of the review by June 2019. In line with the Decision, the 
General Council was expected to take a decision on the recommendations arising from the review 
normally no later than 31 December 2019.   
                                                
4 The Chairman's statem ent was circulated i n JOB/GC/214 . WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 4 - 
 
  
With respect to the implementation of the Nairobi Decision by Members with scheduled export 
subsidies reduction commitments, Australia, Colombia, Israel, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, 
the United States and Uruguay ha d their revised schedule certifie d. Canada and the European Union 
had circulated draft revised schedules in 2017, but th ose were not yet certified, and Mexico's draft 
revised schedule had been  circulated in January. Iceland had submitted to the Secretariat its draft 
revised schedule which  would soon be circulated . The other remaining Members with scheduled 
export subsidies commitments had had an opportunity to update the Committee earlier th at week 
on the steps taken to implement the Decision.  
As regards the  LDC Services Waiver, the Counci l for Trade in Services  had agreed to hold a 
dedicated meeting to exchange information as part of the mandate in the Nairobi Decision that the 
Council "initiate a process to review the operation of notified preferences, on the basis of information 
provided  by Members". Although the Services Council ha d not met since his last report, the CTS 
Chairman ha d started consulting with delegations on the format, date and organizational aspects of 
the dedicated meeting. The Services Council w ould again take up th e issue at its next meeting on 
21 March.  
The situation regarding the Monitoring Mechanism on Special and Differential Treatment 
remain ed the same. No written submissions ha d been made and the Mechanism was yet to be tested 
or operationali sed. Divergent views p ersist ed on how to proceed with the review of the Mechanism, 
which was already long overdue. The CTD Chairman ha d recently facilitated a number of small -group 
informal discussions at the request of some Members regarding ideas on possible ways to trigger 
the operationalization of the Monitoring Mechanism, although th ose consultations would not replace 
discussions in the formal meetings. The next meeting of the Monitoring Mechanism w ould be held in 
June.  
The Bali Decision on Duty -Free Quota -Free market acce ss for LDCs had instructed the CTD to 
annually review the steps taken to provide DFQF market access to LDCs, and th at review had to be 
based, inter alia, on a background paper to be prepared by the Secretariat. For the last two years, 
it had not been possi ble for the Secretariat to prepare th at paper because of divergent views 
expressed by some Members on its scope and coverage. The CTD Chairman intend ed to continue 
interacting with Members on issues relating to DFQF and the Secretariat report and some 
consultations ha d already been held.  
On Aid  for Trade, two workshops had been  held earlier th at month – one on digital connectivity 
and skills, and another on green growth. At the CTD Aid for Trade meeting held on 6 February, an 
update had been  provided on preparations for th e 2019  Global Review of Aid for Trade, which w ould 
be held from 3 to 5 July  and whose theme was "Supporting economic diversification and 
empowerment". An outline agenda for th at event w ould be circulated the following  week, together 
with a reminder for Members to submit their requests for side event s before 31 March.  
And lastly, a brief update on the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, where 
Members currently stood at 141 ratifications, corresponding to 86% of the Membership . 
The representative of the Central African Republic , on behalf of the LDCs , commend ed the 
efforts taken in the implementation of LDC Decisions – including the Services Waiver, Preferential 
Rules of Origin and DFQF Market Access  – which remained integral to the  LDCs' economic 
development particularly in ensuring their continuous growth.  The imple mentation of the LDC 
Decisions also contribute d to the fulfilment of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.  
The LDCs  thank ed all Members who ha d implemented the preferences  that they had notified  
in line with the relevant Ministerial Decisions and encourage d those  who ha d not yet done so to 
operationalise them. The LDCs  also call ed on the Members and the Secretariat to provide the 
necessary technical assistance to enable them to fully utilise and benefit from th ose preferences.  
The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement and of the other statement.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPO RT BY THE CHAIRMAN O F THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TR ADE AND DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that in line with the agreement in the General Council in 2002, the Work 
Programme on Small Economies wa s a standing item on the agenda and the Committee on Trade 
and Development reported regularly to the Council on the progress of work in its De dicated Sessions. 
In Buenos Aires, 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.  
Ambassador Diego Aulestia (Ecuador) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD , recalled  
that he had presented a detailed report on the CTD's 37th Dedicated Session on Small Economies 
at the previous  General Council  meeting.  That had been  the second of two sessions  held in 2018 to 
complete the discussion of the background document prepared by the Secretariat in document 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/34 regarding the challenges and opportunities experienced by small economies in 
their efforts to reduce trade costs particularly in the  area of trade facilitation as  had been  mandated 
at the Eleventh  Ministerial Conference.  
The first meeting had been  dedicated to the difficulties faced by SVEs while the second had 
focused on best practices and policy approaches for addressing them. The di scussion had been  
informed by presentations from representatives of the WTO Secretariat, the EIF, UNCTAD and 
representatives from the governments of Panama, Sri Lanka, Mongolia and Mauritius. The delegates 
of several SVEs had also shared their countries' experiences on the matter.  
Members had found the work on th at subject very useful and the SVE Group was working on 
an outcome document to be discussed in the meeting of the Dedicated Session to be convened at 
the end of March. The Dedicated Session's agenda w ould include the participation of special guest s 
invited to do presentations including on the following themes: vulnerability of small economies to 
natural disasters and its impact on trade , and the common fund for commodities. There w ould be a 
more detailed report on that meeting at the next  regular session of the  General Council.  
The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , recalled the  successful meetings and 
substantive discussions Members had on the challenges and opportunities  faced  by small economies 
in their efforts to reduce trade costs particularly in the area of trade facilitation.   
The SVE Group was currently working on an outcome document that w ould highlight the main 
findings of the discussions that they had and w ould place some of the proposed solutions for 
discussion. The document would be ready by the next meeting and an in -depth discussion could  
take place on th ose issues.  
In the next dedicated session,  there would be a discussion on the  vulnerability of small 
econo mies to natural disasters and its impact on trade and a presentation of the common fund for 
commodities.  
The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  associate d with the statement made by the SVEs  
and looked forward to future work on the outcome document presenting the main findings of the 
discussions. Trinidad and Tobago fully support ed the continuation of work to address the challenges 
that small economies experience d. 
The representative of Sri Lanka  thanked the Director -General and the CTD for providing a 
forum for small economies to share their experiences with each other. Sri Lanka found that exercise 
useful , particularly  for their representatives that  had participated from the capital to learn how small 
economies explore d their possibilit ies to integrate into the multilateral trading system.  
The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the statements.  
4  INFORMAL PROCESS ON APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS – STATEMENT BY TH E CHAIRMAN  
The Chairman  recall ed that , at the December meeting of the General Council,  Members had 
discussed three proposals on matters related to the functioning of the Appellate Body which had 
been presented by a number of delegations under Items 7 and 8 of the agen da. Following that WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 6 - 
 
  discussion, he had  noted that there was a general view among delegations that th e matter needed 
to be addressed very urgently and that focused discussion were necessary . He had  subsequently 
announced that he would conduct consultations with Members on a way forward immediately after 
that General Council meeting.  
He had  then conducted consultations between 17 and 20 December. 25 delegations had come 
forward to share their views and, based on those views, he had convened an Open -ended Informal 
meeting on 17 January where he had kicked off an Informal Process and he had  appointed 
Ambassador David Walker (New Zealand) as the Facilitator of th e Process to assist him in taking it 
forward in a solution -oriented spir it. 
At the meeting on 17 January, a substantive discussion had also t aken place on the relevant 
issues based on the proposals submitted to the General Council and on additional ideas or 
suggestions. At that meeting, a general understanding had also emerged  that a first stock -taking of 
the situation  would take place  at the current  General Council meeting.   
Since his appointment, Ambassador Walker ha d conducted a range of consultations in a variety 
of formats. Another informal open -ended meeting had also t aken place on 18 February where a 
progress report had been  provided and where delegations had  had an opportunity to make 
comments or express their views.  
Ambassador David Walker, Facilitator of the Informal Process on Appellate Body Matters , 
reported5 that m eetings ha d been convened in a range of formats , keeping in mind the solution -
oriented spirit of th e exercise. The idea had been  to enable an informal, active and constructive 
exchange among delegations  which included two open -ended meetings – on 17 Januar y and 
18 February – that the Chair ha d described.  
He had  also convened two small -group sessions – on 6 Februar y and 14 February respectively. 
The group had comprised delegations and group coordinators that had: (i) tabled written proposals; 
(ii) raised concerns about the proper functioning of, and the adherence to WTO rules by, the 
Appellate Body; (iii) made alternative proposals, including at the first open -ended Informal Meeting 
on 17 January; and/or (iv) raised follow -up questions or concerns on the proposals or issues at hand.  
The objective of the informal  sessions had been  two-fold: to actively and constructively review 
and discuss the various proposals and concerns issue -by-issue and  to provide an opportunity to hear 
new or counter proposals, concerns and other ideas.  The issues in focus during the discussion had 
been derived from Members' proposals and had been  discussed one by one always mindful that 
some of the issues were interlinked and multifaceted. In addition, five new proposals had been  
introduced at the informal sessions.  
On the solution -focused discussion, d iscussions had taken  place on the basis of proposals and 
contributions from Members cont ained in documents WT/GC/W/752/Rev.2; WT/GC/W/753/Rev.1; 
WT/GC/W/754/Rev.2; WT/GC/W/758; WT/GC/W/759; and WT/GC/W/760; and WT/GC/W/761. 
Document WT/GC/W/763 had been  introduced but had not yet been discussed.  
Concerning Rule 15 , there appear ed to be widesp read support for the proposition that DSB 
Members should determine whether a person who was no longer an Appellate Body member 
pursuant to DSU Article 17.2 c ould continue to serve on an appeal.  
Ideas that ha d been advanced include d limiting service on an appeal to cases where the oral 
hearing ha d taken place or at least started and aligning the assignment of members to appeals with 
the duration of an appeal as stipulated in DSU Article 17.5 ( i.e. that no member should be assigned 
to a new appeal within 60 days of the expiry of their term).   
Suggested options for exercising such  instruction include d amendment of the DSU or a formal 
decision by the DSB  or the General Council.  
Separately , there appear ed to be convergence that it would be useful to assist DSB Members 
in meeting their obligation in DSU Article 17.2 to "appoint persons to serve on the Appellate Body" 
                                                
5 The Facilitator's report was circulated in JOB/GC/215 . WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 7 - 
 
  and to fill vacancies "as they arise" to automatically launch the selection process to repl ace outgoing 
Appellate Body members six months before the expiry of their term in office. Discussions could  
continue on how such selection process could best be conducted.  
Regarding 90 Days , there was no disagreement among Members as to the clear text of 
Article 17.5 of the DSU that "  […] in no case shall the proceedings [of an appeal] exceed 90 days."  
There had been  some discussion as to what Members would intend th at to mean going 
forward. For example , should "proceedings " be taken to mean the issuance of  the Appellate Body 
report in English language version only or d id it require the issuance of the report in all three WTO 
working languages.  
There had also been discussion about whether the parties to an appeal should be able to 
agree that their appeal cou ld last for longer than 90 days if they  had wished to do so. In th at context , 
some Members had suggested that any such facility for parties to agree an extension should not be 
open-ended.  
Suggested options for addressing th e matter include d amendment of th e DSU or a formal 
Decision by the DSB  or the General Council.  
There had also been some discussion about behaviours by Members and by the Appellate 
Body which could have contributed to the growing number of appeals that ha d in practice exceeded 
90 days and the average length of such excess.  
With regard to m unicipal law, there appear ed to be no disagreement among Members that 
the meaning of municipal law should be treated as an issue of fact and therefore not subject to 
appeal pursuant to Article 17.6 of the DSU. Concerns had also been raised about Appellate Body 
review of a panel's fact finding more generally.  
Discussion of th e issue remain ed ongoing including whether Members could  provide any 
additional clarity to the Appellate Body either through amendment to the DSU or some other form 
of collective guidance.  
In relation to advisory o pinions , concerns ha d been expressed that the Appellate Body ha d a 
tendency to make findings on is sues beyond those necessary to resolve a dispute.  
Again, discussion remain ed ongoing including whether Members could  provide any additional 
clarity to the Appellate Body in particular with respect to Article 17.12 of the DSU either through 
amendment of the  DSU or some other form of collective guidance.  
On precedent , there appear ed to be agreement among Members that there was no "binding 
precedent " in the WTO absent specific agreement by Members ( i.e. negotiated Agreements, WTO 
Article IX.2 Authoritative Int erpretations, or other forms of Decisions by Members).  
At the same time, consistent with DSU Article 3.2, there also appear ed to be broad agreement 
that consistency and predictability in interpretation of the rights and obligations of Members under 
the cov ered agreements was of significant value to Members and that panels and the Appellate Body 
should follow findings of previous panel  or Appellate Body reports if and to the extent they f ound 
them to be persuasive in the dispute they ha d before them.  
Discuss ion remain ed ongoing including whether Members could  provide any additional clarity 
to the Appellate Body and panels including in relation to the 'cogent reasons' approach developed 
by the Appellate Body.  
Members ha d also discussed the idea of holding an a nnual meeting between the Appellate 
Body and WTO Members in the DSB where Members could express their views on issues in a manner 
unrelated to the adoption of particular reports. Such meetings could be of relevance to the question 
of precedent and also pot entially to concerns about 'overreach' as below.  
Suggested options to create such a mechanism include d amendment of the DSU or a formal 
Decision by the DSB  or the General Council.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 8 - 
 
  
As regards additional a mendments , in addition to the idea of automatic launc h of Appellate 
Body selection processes covered earlier, delegations had also discussed additional proposed 
amendments of the DSU contained in document WT/GC/W/753/Rev.1 relating to a supplementary 
transition rule for outgoing Appellate Body members, indep endence of Appellate Body members, 
and efficiency and capacity of the Appellate Body to deliver.  
On each of th ose proposed amendments , a number of questions had been  raised and some 
reservations  had been  expressed. It remain ed to be seen how the proponents  would intend to 
respond to th ose reactions from other delegations.  
On another issue, Members had had an initial discussion of the question of "overreach " based 
on contributions in WT/GC/W/754/Rev.2 and relevant aspects of WT/GC/W/760.  
Discussion of "overreach " as part of th e informal process had been  welcomed with widespread 
willingness among delegations to engage on the issue.  
At the same time, it had bee n recogni zed that "overreach " was potentially the most complex 
aspect of th e process and that identifying solutions in the area could take some time depending on 
the scope of issues delegations identif ied and the type of solutions proposed.  
Additional guid ance on interpretative approaches Members had wished the Appellate Body to 
take had been  suggested as one potentially productive area for further discussion. As  had been  
noted above, it had been  recogni zed that the idea of an annual meeting between the App ellate Body 
and WTO Members could also be relevant to addressing the question of "overreach ". 
Going forward, there had been  a common desire expressed to focus the discussion – that 
delegations be specific as to the issues they fel t needed to  be addressed a nd pragmatic in identifying 
options for solutions.  
He thank ed all delegations who ha d contributed with ideas and suggestions and who had 
participated proactively in th e process. He hoped that he could continue to count on their guidance 
and support.  
In spite of – or rather because of – the complexities and challenges face d, it was their shared 
responsibility to find common ground with regard to the Appellate Body's effective functioning and 
future.  
Members  also ha d to be mindf ul that time was of the essence. So, unless otherwise advised 
by the Chair, it was his intention to continue the informal process of solution -focused discussion in 
a range of different formats next month . 
The representative of Brazil  said that the informal process on Appellate Body matters  had 
been useful in clarifying issues which confronted the organization as it continued to face the impasse 
over appointments to fill vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
Even though the organi zation was facing a crisis which threatened t he functioning of the WTO 
dispute settlement mechanism, Members continued to have recourse to the system with greater 
intensity. Panel requests appeared on the agenda of every DSB meeting  with 39 disputes initiated 
in 2018 alone and panels established in 2 6 of them.  
Members d id not initiate disputes lightly. In fact, the DSU provide d that, "[b]efore bringing a 
case, a Member shall exercise its judgement as to whether action under these procedures would be 
fruitful". If Members continued to resort to the pro cedures of the DSU to resolve disputes, th at would 
have been because they had trusted that the system was able to achieve the aim they had enshrined 
in the treaty  – to secure positive solutions to Members' disputes.  
Brazil  also reaffirmed a fundamental tenet of the DSU: that the dispute settlement system of 
the WTO had been a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral 
trading system. Whatever rules Members would agree to at the WTO, old or new, would be of lesser 
value without the means to enforce them.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
The informal process on Appellate Body matters had clarified a fundamental point . No Member 
wished  to transform the WTO dispute settlement mechanism in a way that changed the structure of 
the system, or the procedures whereby recommendations and rulings were adopted by the 
membership. For example, no one disputed that Members could preserve  the possibility to have 
appealed panel reports, and that such appeals should be heard by a standing Appe llate Body.  
Brazil understood the informal process to have clarified that a solution to the  current  impasse 
could require no more than the reaffirmation and enforcement of key provisions that Members 
agreed under the DSU.  
This was not to say that such a so lution would be easy to achieve. The contours of a solution 
however appear ed to be clearly delineated . They entail ed the preservation, in all its aspects, of the 
dispute settlement system that WTO Members had created under  the Uruguay Round.  
For those reas ons, the approach suggested by Chinese Taipei (WT/GC/W/763) could be a 
good way forward : the adoption of guidelines that would assist adjudicators by clarifying how 
adherence to the text of the DSU should be observed. Such guidelines  would not in any way a dd to 
or diminish current rights and obligations and could  be adopted through a decision by the General 
Council or the DSB.  
Members could expect Brazil to contribute specific ideas to the debate on guidelines.  
The representative of the European Union  said that t he best way forward was the one 
contained in the proposals they had submitted with other Members to the General Council, i n 
WT/GC/W/ 752 and WT/GC/W/ 753. In previous Room E meetings, there  had been a good run through 
the various issues and proposals that had been made. Specific comments or alternative ideas on 
some of the specific points were heard, and the EU was open to discussing those in a constructive 
manner. But overall , those discussions had revealed that there could in principle be a greement on 
the substance of all problems raised by the U nited States . The EU urged Members to move beyond 
general, sterile exchanges.  
The EU had heard in previous meetings a  quasi -universal acknowledgment by the membership 
that the crisis was urgent and s hould be addressed as a matter of priority. The ingredients for 
solutions were on the table and the time therefore was ripe for the membership to act, so that the 
selection process could be  finally  activated.  
The representative of Benin , on behalf of the A frican Group , underscore d the importance of 
the Appellate Body as one of the main pillars for the surveillance of the multilateral trading system. 
He said that  the Group  would be working in a more rapid pace to seek to launch the selection process 
of Appellate Body  members to ensure that  situations which had emerged before the A ppellate Body  
would be  dealt with in a satisfactory way for all Members.  
Proposals that we re on the table were being carefully examined by the African Group  and the 
Group would soon provide its comments. Being a large group, it could  take the African Group some  
time, but they would  make their proposals as it had done for all the various questions being 
discussed . 
The African Group  suggested having a chart with a matrix of the proposals  and the matters  
that were being discussed to help Members make informed decisions and take strides  forward  in the 
process while remaining well within the time -limit that ha d been put before them. 
The representative of Canada  supported the cont inuation of the process and looked forward 
to meaningful engagement from the United States and  from the rest of the WTO membership. 
Canada  welcomed the contributions that had been made to discussions on dispute settlement reform, 
including the papers circu lated by Honduras. Canada would continue to strive to safeguard the rules -
based multilateral trading system.  
The representative of Barbados  thanked Ambassador Walker for leading the informal process.  
Barbados had impressed upon the Chairman and the Members hip the importance of the deliberations 
to Barbados as well as other Caribbean and Pacific small island developing States as the outcomes 
had the potential to re -shape the WTO dispute settlement system. Barbados thanked the Chairman  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 10 - 
 
  for his report and Amba ssador Walker for his commitment to the process which provided Members  
the opportunity to have the space to put their views on record.  
Barbados remained convinced that the most pressing issue before the WTO was unblocking 
the impasse on the selection of Appellate Body members and the launching of the selection process 
to fill Appellate Body vacancies. Barbados  urged all  Members to employ the necessary political will 
to urgently rectify the situation.  
Being cognizant that time was of the essence, Members should  bear in mind that it would 
require time to launch, consider and conclude the selection process before an ominous December 
2019 dat e. The organization could therefore have significantly less time than originally 
contemplated. Barbados  was pleased to hear that the Facilitator would continue his consultations in 
various formats and looked forward to participating in the discussions.  
As Members  thought about the next steps for the ir work, it could be worthwhile to set 
timelines for continued engagement  noting that there were some areas in the discussions which 
would require more time than others. In that regard, Members would also have t o undergo a critical 
analysis to determine what was doable in the time that was available.  
Members needed to be pragmatic while considering that , given the nature of the issues and 
the systemic implications on the system and on individual Members, Members  could not afford to 
err because core principles would be sacrificed for time.  
A number of submissions had been made to the General Council on the Appellate Body since 
the commencement of discussions in the informal process. Those covered specific areas o f focus 
which had been underscored in the overall discussions  – many of which offered interesting 
perspectives . Barbados  was examining them both in terms of the opportunities and challenges they 
presented for small Members lik e it as well as to see how or in what form it could also present its 
interest in terms of the dispute settlement system.  
Barbados'  main aim was to bring the situation in the Appellate Body to some normalcy. It was 
however not clear whether amendments to the text would address some of the concerns which had 
been elaborated. Members needed to  also consider whether some of the issues could be resolved in 
part by resource allocation to the Appellate Body Secretariat which could enhance the efficiency and 
the effectiveness of the work under taken by the Appellate Body.  
Though Barbados  recogni zed that it had not been one of the  main proponents of the concerns 
raised before M embers, Barbados, through its regional mechanism, unders tood what it meant to be 
small in the WTO dispute settlement system. Barbados  therefore sought to reflect and to learn from 
that. 
The representative of Ghana  thanked all Members who had submitted proposals for the 
resolution of the impasse in the appointment of Appellate Body m embers, including the four 
proposals from Honduras.  Ghana  acknowledged the work of Ambassador Walker  as Facilitator and 
thanked him for the report on the informal process which was marked by the active participation of 
Members.  
Ghana con tinued to review the proposals with respect to the following issues raised: 
transitional rules for outgoing A ppellate Body  members, the 90 -day rule in Article 17.5, the meaning 
of municipal law and precedent, among others.  
The continued hostage -taking of t he dispute settlement system and its eventual crippling due 
to the blockage of appointments of A ppellate Body  members  was of particular concern and 
unacceptable as a "new normal ". 
Ghana  reiterated the call by African Ministers of Trade when they  had met in  Cairo in 
December 2018 that all Members should commit to working together to finding mutually agreeable 
solutions to the impasse.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 11 - 
 
  
The vacancies in the Appellate Body could be filled as soon as practicable while the important 
issues that had been raised were discussed in detail  as Members raced against time . Ghana  looked 
forward to Members setting timelines to that effect.  
The representative of India said that in the last two months, Members had had two open -
ended and two small group meetings under the informal process on Appellate Body matters with an 
issue-by-issue discussion of all the proposals on the table. While a process for focused discussions 
on the A ppellate Body  impasse had been set in motion, Members should bear in mind that it would 
be of value only if the Member blocking the appointments began to engage substantively with the 
proposals on the table with a view to finding a solution , and not merely reiterating the problem.  
General critiques of the Appellate Body 's past behaviour would lead the organi zation nowhere. 
The focus should remain on reaching swift agreement on a solution that accommodated the interests 
of the entire membership and preserved the essential fe atures of the system, namely an 
independent, two -tier dispute settlement system, automaticity in the launch of proceedings and the 
principle of negative consensus.  
As time was of the essence, the most constructive way forward was to base discussions on 
concrete and precise textual proposals on the table such as their proposal in document 
WT/GC/W /752 that addressed the procedural concerns articulated by the United States.  
While India was willing to engage in discussions on the issue of "overreach ", it was in  the 
interest of all Members to de -link a resolution of the issue from the process of unblocking the 
appointments to the Appellate Body. Given Members ' divergent views on what constituted 'over-
reach ' and the complexity of the underlying issues involved, i t was extremely unlikely that any 
convergence on the issue would be achieved before December 2019.  
India stated that if the institutional mechanism for enforcing the rights and obligations of 
Members was rendered dysfunctional, there would be no appetite t o make new rules or engage in 
talks of reform. Making the resolution of the A ppellate Body  impasse contingent on concessions in 
other areas of the WTO 's functioning would lead to a complete breakdown of trust.  
India called on all Members to adhere to their  treaty obligations under Articles 17.1 and 17.2 
of the DSU which clearly provide d that "a standing Appellate Body shall be maintained by the DSB " 
and that "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". It would be disingenuous on the Members' part to 
use the pretext of the Appellate Body 's alleged digression from the clear mandate of the DSU to 
justify the wilful non -compliance with the same.  
The representative of China  agreed with the summary of previous consultations  and would 
continue to support the Chairman and the Facilitator, working closely with Members, and would 
pragmatically participat e in the following discussions with flexibilities with the view to break the 
selection deadlock as soon as possible.  
China  encouraged the United Stat es to meet Members halfway by constructively engaging in 
consultations . That should  include making specific comments on the elements of the proposals  and 
tabling its revision suggestions or counterproposals.  
Members should focus on existing proposals, furt her defining the scope of issues, and 
intensifying relevant discussions in order to reach the final solution at the earliest date. To enhance  
discussion efficiency, Members could consider establishing a discussion framework sooner than later 
so that Member s could be better prepared for the consultations. Th at could include setting up a clear 
roadmap or a timetable.  
The representative of Uganda  commended Ambassador Walker in his attempt in the Informal 
Process towards  finding a solution to the impasse of the  Appellate Body. Uganda attached utmost 
importance to t he proper functioning of the dispute settlement system of the organization because 
of the support it lent to the stability of the multilateral trading system – the preservation and the 
proper functioni ng of which was critical for countries like Uganda.  
The unprecedented state of affairs regarding the Appellate Body was of great concern to 
Uganda. Whil e commending the informal process that had been initiated, the manner of engagement WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 12 - 
 
  from the Member con cerned was not reassuring. Members should  admit that many issues raised by 
the Member concerned, whether or not they were valid, were extremely complex to address and as 
such finding a suitable solution to the satisfaction of all Members could not be possi ble in the shortest 
possible time.  
Members should  be realistic as  they visualise d the solutions they hoped to find . Uganda 
commended the Members that had made proposals for attempt ing to address some of the issues 
raised by the Member  concerned and for th eir constructive spirit . It was however deeply puzzling  
that the efforts of those Members had not been met with positive consideration by the Member  
concerned .  
As it was only the Member concerned that had the clearest picture of the changes that it 
would like to see, i t was high time that the Member concerned put on the table its views on how to 
address the concerns it had raised with the dispute settlement system.  The Membership would 
greatly benefit from th at Member's insight on how to attain the c hange it sought to see in the dispute 
settlement system and how the satisfactory resolution would be found.  
In continuing their work, Members should not engage by simply being negative to whatever 
was proposed. They should ensure that t he selection process  to fill the vacancies in the Appellate 
Body would be launched without delay.  
The representative of Australia  thanked the Chair man for initiating the informal process and 
the Facilitator , Ambassador Walker , for his detailed report and adept leadership.  The informal 
process had facilitated deeper engagement between Members on the issues facing the dispute 
settlement system.  
As it had  indicated during those discussions, Australia shared concerns that the Appellate 
Body was not operating in strict compliance with the rules set out in the DSU. The failure of the 
Appellate Body to meet the 90 -day deadline for the completion of appeals was one such example.  
The informal process had been valuable in enabling Members to exchange views on the issues 
in detail and in  beginning to consider targeted ways to address concerns. Australia  welcomed the 
additional papers put forward by Honduras and Chinese Taipei  in that regard . Australia's  priority was 
and would remain  resolving the impasse over the appointment of new member s to the Appellate 
Body as a matter of urgency.  
The informal process usefully assisted that effort and provided a forum for Members in 
working together to narrow down issues and options to resolve them. The Facilitator could play an 
important role in brin ging forward options and exploring solutions.  Accordingly, Australia  was 
strongly in favour of continuing the process after the General Council meetin g as Members had much 
yet to discuss and time was of the essence.  
The representative of Uruguay  thanked Ambassador Walker for the efforts he had undertaken 
towards finding an acceptable solution to improve the functioning of the Appellate Body  and 
encouraged him to continue with his work in that regard. Uruguay also than ked the  Members for 
their various proposals.  
Whether it would be in the implementation or the application of the rules, without prejudice 
to reaffirming the absolute need to ensure the independence of the criteria of the Appellate Body, 
Members should firs t seek a solution to the various problems raised . In their discussions, Members 
should  immediately take up the selection process of Appellate  Body members and launch it  without 
further delay.  
The representative of Switzerland  said that  the meetings previou sly held had identified the 
relevant issues and had led to substantive discussions of the proposals that had been presented.  
Switzerland had co -sponsored two documents and welcomed the new proposals that ha d been 
submitted which enriched the debate. Presen tations to date had covered a wide range of topics and 
options, both in substance and form. Th at broad effort demonstrated that Members took seriously 
the concerns that had been expressed about the functioning of the Appellate Body.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 13 - 
 
  
Those initiatives also demonstrated the ability of many Members to develop realistic, if not 
creative, solutions. Howev er, if Members wished to make real progress, all  of them should 
constructively engage in the process.  
Switzerland had no fixed views as to the form a solution c ould take, whether it was to amend 
the Dispute Settlement Understanding, to adopt an authoritative interpretation or to use other 
instruments such as a Dispute Settlement Body ruling, or guidelines endorsed by Members.  Given 
the variety of issues which had  been raised, Members would hav e to resort to a combination of 
approaches and instruments.  
Switzerland  stood ready to continue and deepen the discussions within the framework of the 
process conducted under the auspices of the General Council with the aim o f finding practical and 
viable solutions without delay.  
The representative of Japan  thanked Ambassador Walker for his progress report and his 
continued effort to facilitate Members' discussion in the informal process  and noted that participating 
Members had engaged in serious conversations  in previous weeks.  
As summari sed by the data ex changed in those discussions, certain common understandings 
had emerged as to the basic principles that would guide Members in their further solution -focused 
discussions.  
Members had confirmed their recognition that the requirement under DSU Article 17.5 was 
categorical. It was up to the DSB to regulate the Appellate Body in transition. Appellate Review was 
limited to the issue of law and legal interpretations and the meaning of principal law was the issue 
of facts.  The role of WTO adjudicator s was to make  findings only to the extent necessary to resolve 
a dispute before them. Prior adopted reports did not constitute a binding precedent but should be 
considered to the extent they were persuasive.  
A number of interesting options had been suggested during th e discussions in addition to the 
proposals tabled before the initiation of the process. Japan also thanked Honduras for its contribution 
contained in the communication to the General Council in that respec t, which  provided a good basis 
for further discussi ons. 
As noted in WT/GC/W/754, the issues underlined the concerns expressed on a multi -faceted 
nature.  A horizontal consideration across issues could be warranted because each of the m were 
closely connected to each other . Japan fully supported the ongoing d iscussions among Members and 
remained  committed to the informal process led by Ambassador Walker . 
Time was essential in Members'  common endeavour . Japan urged all Members to redouble 
their efforts to have a concrete outcome as early as possible. On its par t, Japan would actively 
engage in and contribute to the solution -focused discussion in the informal process.  
The representative of Ecuador  fully supported the process being undertaken by Ambassador 
Walker as Facilitator with the aim of finding a solution that was acceptable to the membership . It 
was imperative to commence the selection process to appoint Appellate Body members without delay  
in accordance with a basic principle  of the multilateral trading syste m – comply ing with the rules 
that governed the work of the organization. There had been non -compliance with Article 17.2 of the 
DSU because the vacancies had not been filled as they had arisen. Th at was a non -compliance which 
had persisted  and was becoming worse in the passage of time put ting the entire dispute settlement 
system at risk.  
Ecuador had been very clear in showing its support for the reforms suggested by the European 
Union which had also been co -sponsored by other Members . Ecuador  had participat ed constructively 
in the discussions by making  its opinions and comments  known  with the aim of finding a solution to 
allow the selection process of Appellate Body members  to be launched without delay . Similarly, there 
were interesting and important element s within the documents as submitted by Honduras which 
were worthy of discussion by Members.  
At the previous informal meeting of the General Council, Ecuador had considered that it was 
necessary to have a basic compilation document for future discussions given the  number of different WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 14 - 
 
  proposals. The compilation would  provide greater clarity  and efficacy and would facilitate the whole 
process. Ecuador therefore suggested  that all proposals should be compiled in one single document , 
to avoid repetition of similar ideas .  
As the  proposal was likewise supported by  several other  Members , Ecuador asked  Ambassador 
Walker to inform Members who w ould be  preparing th e document  with the support of the Secretariat 
and to ensure that the compilation would  be submitted  to Members for transparency and 
inclusive ness – allowing each of them  to provide the Membership  with its opinions  on the matter . 
The representative of Mexico  thanked Ambassador Walker for his report and recogni zed his 
efforts in facilitating discussions  among Members in the search of a solution  that would unblock the 
impasse in the Appellate Body selection process in the short -term. Mexico also thanked  the sponsors  
of all proposals which clearly reflect ed the interest to resolve the current situation . 
Mexico recalled that it had been reiterating the importance of having a functioning Appellate 
Body for almost two years . Mexico had warned of the risk that all Members , whether or not they 
used the system, wo uld face as of December 2019 if the organization failed to find a solution . 
Time was running out . If Members truly valued the d ispute settlement system and wanted 
to preserve it, they should set aside the ir criticism s of the system particularly by those wh o had 
already pointed out their concerns and should instead  deepen their discussion  by focusing on the 
viability of the proposals presented as potential solutions to the crisis that the organization faced.  
Mexico reiterated its  support for the work of the Facilitator and its willingness to continue to 
work constructively in the succeeding meetings that he would convene.  
The representative of Singapore  thanked  Ambassador Walker for his sterling work in 
facilitating  the discussions on Appellate Body matters , which  was no t an easy task given the complex 
nature of the issues involved. Ambassador Walker had Singapore 's full support in the continued 
efforts to find a timely solution in the informal process.  
The issue should be urgently addressed. It was regrettab le that at the 25 February DSB 
meeting, there was again no consensus for the launch of the Appellate Body selection process. The 
clock continued to tick towards 10 December when the Appellate Body would be reduced to one 
member if vacancies remained unfill ed. Members should  redouble their efforts to find a solution.  
Even if the selection process was unblocked, a period of time would still be required for the 
Selection Committee to consider the candidates until the appointments were formally made. It could 
be useful for the Facilitator to propose timelines for the work on the issue going forward.  
Singapore  urged all Members to engage constructively and adopt a solution -oriented 
mindset. Singapore's position had always been that the Appellate Body selection process should be 
allowed to proceed unconditionally while specific concerns about the functioning of the Appellate 
Body could be discussed separately and in parallel.  
Members should avoid taking the Appellate Body hostage. There were various helpful 
propo sals on the table including those by the E uropean Union , Chinese Taipei, Australia and 
Honduras – and they should be considered seriously. The Facilitator should also be given the 
flexibility to propose alternative solutions for Members' consideration.  
The representative of Norway  joined others in thanking the Facilitator for his efforts and for 
the comprehensive and precise report on the informal process. The informal process provided 
Members with an a venue  where they could work together to find sustainabl e solutions. 
Unfortunately, such solutions were not yet reached so the process would have to continue.  
Norway had a strong interest in safeguarding the fundamental elements of the dispute 
settlement system. Norway  experienced first -hand the flaws of the di spute settlement system under 
the GATT. The current system was an improvement and one that had benefitted the entire 
Membership of the WTO.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 15 - 
 
  
There could be instances where the system could be improved . But it was important that 
any changes did not undermine  the achievements that had been  made when the system had been  
established in 1994/1995.  
While  listening  attentively to the concerns raised , Norway  had taken note of the many ideas 
and proposals that had been put forward and had co-sponsored some of them.  Norway  had witnessed 
constructive discussions in the informal process and  was encouraged by the active and solution -
oriented engagement from many M embers.  The question however remained as to what was needed 
in order to move the process forward.  
Norway  had heard the argument that the organization  should  first agree to why Members 
had permitted the Appellate Body to stray away from what had been origin ally agreed before 
Members could discuss possible solutions.  The proposed sequencing added another potentially 
divisive element to the discussions. Norway  had not heard a compelling argument for why th at was 
crucial. Rather than adding difficult steps to a n already arduous journey, it would be better to focus 
directly on exploring possible solutions based on actual proposals.  
Members had also responded to the concerns raised by actively and constructively 
presenting concrete proposals. On a number of occasi ons, those proposals had been met by 
statements from one Member indicating that they were not effectively addressing its concerns. If 
that was the case, Norway would certainly welcome concrete proposals from that Member that could  
move the discussions forw ard towards a solution.  
Concerning  the blockage of the process of appointing members of the Appellate Body,  
Members had already responded constructively and in good faith to the concerns raised in that 
regard . It would therefore be timely for a similar res ponse and signal of good faith to be made by 
agreeing to launch  the selection process . 
The representative of Egypt  thanked Ambassador Walker for his report and for his efforts in 
facilitating the complex informal process  and encouraged him to pursue his consultations. Egypt 
associate d with the statement made by the African Group. The absence of the Appellate Body woul d 
risk preserving the rights and obligations of  Members and would not support the negotiating function 
of the WTO in either the Doha remaining issues or new issues.  
Egypt welcomed the initiatives and proposals related to the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. As Egypt had  stated before, Members  urgently need ed to set up a deadline to finalise that 
discussion before entering an era of questioning compliance and how to deal with the increasing 
number of trade disputes.  
Egypt supported the proposal s in WT/GC /W/752 and WT/GC/W/ 753 since they  contain ed 
positive elements that could be the basis for discussions. Members should also consider the 
suggestion made by Ecuador to prepare a document compiling all the proposals  as that would  be 
useful in  their discussion s. 
The representative of Pakistan  reiterated his delegation's  longstanding support for the 
appointment of Appellate Body members  and thanked Ambassador Walker for his progress report 
and for facilitating  the informal process.  
Pakistan  had participated in the informal process  to find meaningful solutions to the Appellate 
Body impasse  and thanked all proponents for their work . Interesting options had been presented 
which could become the basis for further discussions.  
Members'  focus should remain in restorin g the due and rightful functions of the dispute 
settlement system and in upholding the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body.  
Pakistan was willing to engage with Members in restoring the effective functioning of the dispute 
settlement system.  Considering the urgency of the matter, Members  should develop a concrete 
roadmap for the ir work with specific timelines to ensure th e prompt conclusion of the process . 
The representative of Turkey  thanked Ambassador Walker for his efforts and patience as the 
Facilitator of the discussions on Appellate Body  matters . The discussions revealed that in certain WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 16 - 
 
  areas, the rules were not implemented in a unified manner. Members needed more clarity on thei r 
understanding of the DSU and how it was to be implemented.  
The Appellate Body should have a clear and well -defined guideline based on multilaterally 
agreed rules and laws, including the DSU. To ensure that, several proposals, including the proposal 
by Honduras, had put forward various elements.  
Turkey appreciated all proposals for their detailed and comprehensive content which included 
several options on procedural and other issues  and believed  that those proposals formed a solid 
basis to create an expl icit guideline for the Appellate Body on undefined areas.  
Members had to be realistic given the  limited time  and should produce practical and simple 
solutions as soon as possible  such as by preparing, t hrough the General Council or the DSB, a new 
guidelin e for the Appellate Body in perform ing its tasks. Members should prioriti se only the most 
urgent deficiencies of the system . If necessary, they should leave the other elements of the 
discussions or broader debates to further negotiations.  
Like other Membe rs, Turkey's  main concern was to ensure the effective operation and 
enforcement of the DSU rules. Among those, Article 17.2 of the DSU required Members to take 
action to fill Appellate Body vacancies as they ar ose.  
The representative of the Republic of Moldova  said that it was a big responsibility  to be part 
of the WTO , particularly in a period which had proven to be complex and challenging for the 
organization and for the global economic and trade environment. There was  strong willingness across 
the membership to address those challenges and to start reform  processes in which Permanent 
Representatives based in Geneva could play a key role due to the ir first-hand knowledge, expertise 
and understanding of the main issues at stake.  
Moldova was honoured  to be part of the process and reaffirmed its commitment to contribute 
to the strengthening of the rules -based multilateral trading system . Moldova  expressed its  
determination to join hands in working for inclusive and sustainable development.  Members should 
aim to find inclusive and mutually agreeable solutions with due consideration  to the differences 
across the membership and to the ir current challenges . 
Moldova  appreciated Ambassador Walker's contributions in his capacity as Facilitator  and 
thanked  the dele gations that had tabled concrete proposals regarding the ongoing impasse in the 
functioning of the Appellate Body . Moldova encouraged all Members to adopt a solution -oriented 
approach that would benefit all.  Many delegations had already affirmed that chang e was inevitable  
and would only translate to progress when Members provided  direction  to their work . Moldova  
therefore urged Members to determine their  direction and to move together towards it . 
The representative of Thailand  appreciate d the efforts by the Chairman and  by Ambassador 
Walker as Facilitator in leading the informal process . Thailand also recogni zed the efforts by Members 
in coming up with proposals to address issues of concern to expeditiously find an agreeable solution. 
Thailand support ed the continuation of the informal process and w ould actively participate in the 
discussion. Thailand  also urge d all Members to proactively and constructively engage in the process.  
The representative of Morocco  associated with the statement made by the African Group and 
thanked the Chairman, the DSB Chair and the Chairs of the other WTO Bodies for everything that 
they had done in putting in place an environment that helped Members deal with the current issues 
they were faced with during the di fficult times in the multilateral trading system.  
The difficulty that the Appellate Body was going through brought a high systemic risk that 
could undermine the importance of multilateralism  and could have an impact on the world economy 
and peace. Facing t hat difficult situation, Members should therefore ensure  that reason and 
pragmatism would carry the day.  
It was not the proposals or the paths that could be followed that were lacking  – but the will  
and the attachment to the basic underlying principles upon which the multilateral trading system 
was based. Th ose should  reign supreme in the spirit of favouring and defending  the interests of all.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 17 - 
 
  
Morocco had had the honour of being the cradle of the foundin g law of the organization – 
the Marrakesh Agreement. Members should  focus on the role of the developing and LDC Members 
and their rights throughout Africa. Stability and prosperity of the world population could not be 
conceivable outside of the multilatera l trading system .  
Such system should remain  equitable  and inclusive , spur development and preserv e the 
environment. Those conditions would pave the way for the predictability of the international market . 
Unilateralism or plurilateralism could never be an alternative to multilateralism and consensus where 
all the sensitivities and interests of all Members were represented.  
Morocco supported the efforts by Ambassador Walker and called upon all Members to bring 
more commitment and political will to see to it that the current impasse could be solved in the 
interest of all.  Proposals and solutions  were not lacking but  will and determination  were required . 
Morocco hoped that Members  could further strengthen the multilateral trading system which they 
all establish ed together and which they c ould collectively reform.  
Morocco suggested having a consolidated document o n the various proposals that had been 
put forward  concerning the r eform of the Appellate Body to provide Members more clarity on the 
issues discussed.  
The representative of Argentina  thanked Ambassador Walker  for conven ing meetings in 
different configurations and for ensuring  that the discussions would be brought forward. The dispute 
settlement system was facing major challenges. Argentina  hoped that Members could continue 
debating in a n open and honest way to arrive at specific solutions. As a frequent user of the system, 
Argentina underscored the need for the A ppellate Bod y to keep  its core characteristics – 
independence, efficiency and professional competence – all that in compliance with the covered 
Agreements.  
Argentina saw the discussions under the informal process in a positive light as they would 
help Members to becom e more pragmatic. Members should  be careful in dealing with the 
considerations by looking at the various proposals  that the y had and by arriving at areas of 
convergence.  
The exercise should adopt the adequate methodology which was  precise and inclusive  and 
should  reach  concrete results . As part of an honest approach and a clear recognition of the current 
situation and the need for the Appellate Body to continue to function, Members should ensure that 
a solution could be found on the matter before December . 
The representative of Colombia  said that the  presentations of the various proposals had been  
useful in working out concrete solutions to the issues the organization was facing. Colombia had 
kept a close watch on the various proposals made. In tensifying  the process w ould motivate the 
various Members to participate in the dialogue  in favour of the Appellate Body and the strengthen ing 
of the WTO.  
Colombia underscored the importance of remaining open and flexible  in correct ing and 
improv ing the way in which the dispute settlement system functioned and to ensure  that Members 
got beyond the gridlock they had. Colombia reiterated that it  did not see any reason that could 
justify the non -compliance o f the DSU provisions regarding the panels and the A ppellate Body . 
Colombia thanked Honduras for the proposals which  it would transmit  to its capital  and 
hoped that those could positive ly contribute in  strengthening discussions. Colombia supported the 
continuation  of the discussion s and would  remain ac tively and constructively engaged.  
The representative of Guyana  thanked Ambassador Walker for his immense efforts on the 
issue and recogni zed th at many  delegations  had submitted proposals to assist in resolving the 
matter.  Guyana supported almost all the s uggestions that had been made and many of the proposals 
for resolution  – whether they were a clear agenda, a fixed timeline or a roadmap. The sense of 
urgency was clear  – with a bit of frustration creeping  into the discussions.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 18 - 
 
  
Members agreed to continu e the discussions . But by going through each issue that c ould be 
agreed on  separately , Members were separating and confining considerations to an issue that could 
not be separated from others.  
One of the important words used in th e organization was "linkages ". Guyana suggested that 
while Members deepened discussions on th at particular issue, they should also urgently widen  their 
discussions on other matters that could be contributing to the impasse currently faced .  
Members should do all of those  with a sense of urgency as discussion s deepened and 
widened. B y addressing the matter at hand  in a broader frame, Members  would make progress on 
the Appellate Body issue . Guyana  rested those considerations and thoughts with the membership.  
The Chairman  said that from Ambassador Walker's report and from the discussion t hat day, 
it was clear that more work need ed to be done and that delegations should  continue to talk to each 
other in a solution -oriented spirit.  
Members  also need ed to be mindful that in about ten months the terms of two of the three 
remaining Appellate Body members w ould expire  – leaving the Appellate Body unable to establish a 
divisio n to hear and decide an appeal. The clock was ticking . As Ambassador Walker ha d stressed in 
his report, time was of the essence.  
In light of th ose considerations and of the discussions t hat day and unless any delegation 
wished to comment, he propose d that the Informal Process  led by Ambassador Walker as Facilitator 
in a solution -oriented spirit would continue under the auspices of the General Council and that 
another stocktaking of the situation would take  place at the next General Council meeting in May.  
The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement, of the Facilitator's report and of 
the other statements.  
5  FOSTERING A DISCUSSI ON ON THE FUNCTIONIN G OF THE APPELLATE B ODY – 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM HONDURAS (WT/GC/W/75 8, WT/GC/W/759, WT/G C/W/760 
AND WT/ GC/W/761)  
The Chairman  said that t he delegation of Honduras had requested that th e item be included in 
that day's agenda together with the four submissions circulated in documents WT/GC/W/758, 
WT/GC/W/759, WT/GC/W/760 and WT/GC/W/761.   
The representative of Honduras  attached great importance to the Appellate Body as a small 
developing Member  and an active Member in the dispute settlement system.  
In light of the informal process launched by the General Council Chair, Honduras had taken  the 
initiative to present four papers for Members' consideration regarding the issues of 90 days, Rule 15 
of the Appellate Body Working Procedure s for Appellate Review, judicia l activism by the Appellate 
Body and precedent. Fostering a discussion among  Members on some of the current concerns 
surrounding the functioning of the Appellate Body was the papers' main objective.  
In document WT/GC/W/758 as regards  the 90 days issue, Honduras  consider ed of fundamental 
importance that Members decide d what time -period they want ed to allocate to an appeal after the 
conclusion of the panel process. Members could  also explore how to streamline the Appellate Body 
process. The right of appeal e xtend ed the period of the dispute settlement process and hence need ed 
to be limited and subject ed to certain conditions.   
Better cooperation among disputing parties and the Appellate Body and incorporating more 
stringent adherence to condition s of appeal could reduce unnecessary delay. Members could also  
decide on the nature of the time-period allocated to an appeal – whether such deadline was 
mandatory and the consequence of its non -compliance. All the above -mentioned issues clearly 
needed to be considered  in their discussion to reach a solution.  
In document WT/GC/W/759, Honduras  address ed the issue of Rule 15 taking into account that 
Members  should focus their discussion on two core issues : when an Appellate Body member c ould WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 19 - 
 
  continue to serve beyond the four -year term and who would decide if an Appellate Body member  
should serve after his  or her four -year term.  
In document WT/GC/W/760, Honduras  address ed the alleged judicial activism of the Appellate 
Body and had identified s ix areas where the Appellate Body ha d been said to have engaged in judicial 
activism. Based on that , Honduras  had proposed four options for discussion: mandatory judicial 
economy, obiter dictum, explicit standard of review and a possible external review.  
In document WT/GC/W/761, Honduras  address ed the issue of precedent  and suggest ed 
Members to consider three main topics  in that regard : maintaining the status quo with respect to 
reliance upon prior Appellate Body reports, prohibiting panels and the Appellat e Body from relying 
explicitly on prior report as precedent and introducing a hybrid mechanism for reliance on prior 
dispute settlement process under incorporation in broader WTO law.  
While Honduras  did not endorse any specific approach , it recogni zed that some options 
presented might reflect extreme positions  and did not believe that elucidating all possible options 
was necessary for the fruitful and comprehensive discussion.  
Honduras  welcome d the process initiated and hope d that all Members  would  engage in 
resolving th e situation. Members should start a constructive discussio n taking up all their concerns 
and respect the principle of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".  
Honduras  had made its best efforts to reflect what it consider ed to be the various aspects of 
concerns raised on the Appellate Body and ha d presented  different options for discussion. Although 
those papers were not comprehensive enough to address all issues, such initiative  was a positive 
start.  Honduras also noted that t he implementation of any possible approach w ould require separate 
discussion . Honduras  remain ed available to Members for questions and comments.  
The representative of the Republic of Korea , speaking on agenda i tems 4 and 5 , thanked 
Ambassador Walker for facilitating the informal process on Members'  search for solutions to 
overcome the Appellate Body impasse.  The informal process was useful as a means of exchanging 
views on the issues in detail and of encouraging  new proposals. In that regard, Korea thanked  
Honduras and Chinese Taipei for  their proposals which  provid ed valuable and constructive 
suggestions and questions to be answered.   
As for the 90 -day timeframe for the Appellate Body, Honduras'  paper (WT/GC/W/758 ) had 
made some useful suggestions for modifying the calculation of the 90 -day timeframe. The idea of 
excluding the time for the trans ition of the Appellate Body concur red with Korea' s early  suggestion 
for making the circulation date of the English version of the Appellate Body reports as the end date 
of the appeal process. Korea ha d also suggested calculating the starting date from the date of appeal 
submission instead of the date of appeal notification.   
Such technical modification could  not however  completely solve the issue of chronic extension 
of the Appellate Body process. In th at light, Honduras'  paper on judicial activism (WT/GC/W/760) , 
which elaborate d various concerns and views on t he issue , could serve as a good starting point for 
discussing the so -called "overreach " problem.  Korea ha d emphasi sed the need for prompt 
discussions on the issue – the successful handling of which  would be essential for winning the support 
of the Members as a whole for the Appellate Body  which w ould in turn enable the A ppellate Body  to 
perform its functions in a stable manner.  
As Members put forward more suggestions and questions, Korea  wished  to see th e process 
continue so that Members  could  narrow down a nd merge different perspectives into practical 
solutions that c ould uplift the current impasse.  Whether Members would resort to  a revision of the 
DSU or the Rule or adopt a Guideline as Chinese Taipei ha d suggested or a new Standard of Review 
for the Appellate Body  as Honduras had proposed, it w ould all depend on the feasibility, practicability  
and the time constraint that they faced for addressing th at imminent concern before the end of th e 
year. Korea looked forward to  the constructive engagement by all Members.  
The representative of Panama , speaking on agenda  items 4 and 5 , the Chairman and the 
Facilitator for their efforts in t he ongoing discussions under th e Informal Process.  He said that t he WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 20 - 
 
  dispute settlement system  safeguarded  the fundamental rights and principles of the WTO  and was 
a main reason for Members to undertake commitments under the Agreements.  
Bearing in mind tha t the dispute settlement system could  soon be inoperative, many 
delegations ha d noted that it was  necessary for all Members to be fully aware of the urgency of th e 
matter . They should also look at solutions in various  ways to address the concerns without r educing 
the vitality of the WTO neither in the short nor the long term.  
Those solutions could  be pragmatic , immediate , the outcome of greater reflection , temporary 
or long -term in nature.  Although no ne of th em should necessar ily be the same nor mutually 
exclusive , all of them  require d decisions or amendments to Agreements.  In that regard,  Panama 
thanked those delegations  that had  submitted proposals which s ought  to address the various 
concerns  such as through  formal decisions or changes to the DS U.  
Panama suggested that the process  led by Ambassador Walker should be done in a Room W -
type format  to allow all Members to participate  and share opinions. Panama also support ed the 
request by some Members of  a compilation of the proposals  and underst ood that a 
recommendations -type document was also being envisaged with regard to the proposals and 
consultations carried out by Ambassador Walker. But b efore contemplating on producing any of 
those documents, there should first be an open -ended  discussion  with all Members where their 
opinions c ould be taken into account to assess the support on each  proposal.  
The comments made by some delegations about the various elements which ha d been raised 
by Ambassador Walker in his report were interesting and educational. But without disregarding the 
importance that Panama accord ed to other topics, it specifically comment ed on one element that 
Korea had  mentioned with regard to the timelines – the language of the decision.  
Panama noted that there had been  a pro-anglophone aspect  in Ambassador Walker's report 
and recall ed that the WTO had  three official languages which were of equal importance . Although 
reports could have often been made in English, n ot all the procedures had been undertaken nor had 
all cases been heard in that language . Panama would not like to see a repetition of the discussion 
on languages that had already been undertaken and concluded more than twenty years ago 
particularly on the future deliberations of the Appellate Body.  
The representative  of the Philippines  thanked  the Chairman and Ambassador Walker for 
facilitating discussions among Members under the Informal Process on Appellate Body matters  and 
support ed the continu ation of such  discussions in a deliberative and solutions -oriented spiri t.  
The Philippines extended its gratitude to  the proponents who ha d contributed to the 
submissions in WT/GC/W/ 752, WT/GC/W/ 753 and WT/GC/W/ 754 led by the E uropean Union , China 
and India and supported further deliberations on Chinese Taipei's paper on Guidelines 
(WT/GC/W/ 763) which Brazil  deemed as a potential viable approach. The Philippines also thank ed 
Honduras for the four papers it ha d formally presented t hat day which  serve d as a good basis for 
future dialogue on the issues that ha d been raised re garding the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
Without going through the details of each proposal on the table, the Philippines note d that all 
the proposals presented by various Members were complementary to each other and strive d to 
address both complex and straightforward topics that needed serious discussions.  The Philippines 
continue d to carefully examine th ose proposals with the view to addressing the concerns already 
raised a nd using it as an opportunity to improve and strengthen the multilateral dis pute settlement 
system. To th at end, a meaningful and careful consideration on the concerns raised would be integral 
to resolving other matters before the WTO dispute settlement system including the impasse of the 
Appellate Body Selection Process.  
As a pru dent user of the dispute settlement mechanism, the Philippines would  continue to 
engage in constructive discussions with interested Members to address all areas of concer n and fully 
support ed the suggestions presented by the Republic of Korea on using the English language decision 
as the reckoning for the 90 days.  
The Philippines  caution ed against trying to attempt to come up with a  universal document to 
capture all proposals given the many interventions from the Chair man and from the Members , the WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 21 - 
 
  solution -oriented nature of the process and their limited timeline.  The Facilitator and the Members 
should  rather focus on discussing actual concrete results that could lead to a solution and address  
all the concerns raised.  
The representative of El Salvador  thank ed Honduras for  its submissions  and recogni zed the 
enormous effort that it had made in prepar ing its proposals . Coming from a small delegation, El 
Salvador  value d such proposals which were being carefully analysed in capital.  Those initiative s, 
together with the other proposals presented, include d elements that c ould address the concerns 
expressed by some Members.  El Salvador  hoped to achieve a result that would allow the membership 
to solve the impasse that the dispute settlement system curre ntly face d. 
The representative of Indonesia  remained  concern ed about  the current impasse on the 
selection process of Appellate Body members  – which should be taken up in parallel with the 
discussion on strengthening the functioning  of the Appellate Body.  Indonesia  thank ed Honduras for 
actively fostering discussion s in that regard  which  provide d a platform to address concerns raised.  
The papers  from Honduras,  together w ith the other concrete proposals tabled by Members , 
were sufficient  enough  to open a constructive dialogue among the Membership  in enhancing the role 
of the Appellate Body and in unblock ing the impasse of the selection process. Members had the 
responsibili ty to address  those matter s. Their renew ed political will and good faith  would therefore 
be essential to advance on th ose issues, to deliver concrete outcome s and to unblock the impasse 
that persisted in the dispute settlement arm of the WTO . 
The representative of Hong Kong, China  thank ed Honduras for the four comprehensive  
proposals to address the concerns raised by some Members. On the issue of 90 days, if the Appellate 
Body ha d difficulties in meeting th e deadline, instead of "requiring the AB to comply with the rule " 
or adjusting the calculation of 90 days, Members should look into the causes of the issue and, if 
necessary, review the 90 -day rule and propose a new and concrete deadline in light of the caseload 
and complexity of the disputes in recent years. Th at would also provide more predictability to the 
system than requiring the appeals to be processed "as quickly as possible ".  
On the other hand, Hong Kong, China  had reservations about the proposed handling of report s 
circulated after 90  days as had been mentioned in paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of WT/GC/W/758 . 
Subjecting such reports to positive consensus and requiring the justification for delay to be 
considered by a higher authority could  undermine the independence and impartiality of the A ppellate 
Body and would add uncertainties to the appeal process.   
On the issue of precedent in WT/GC/W/761, such matter should  be considered on a case -by-
case basis. Hong Kong, China did not  see any problem for the A ppellate Body  to refer to or rely on 
prior reports as th at would contribute to the predictability of the multilateral trading system as had 
been stipulated in Article 3.2 of the DSU. For the same reason, it  was not  desirable to separate the 
adoption of the report outcome from that of legal inter pretation as had been suggested in 
paragraph  2.3(a).  The adoption of legal interpretation was by itself essential to providing 
predictability in the system.  Hong Kong, China  looked forward to having constructive discussions 
with Members to come up with pragmatic solutions to facilitate the launch of the A ppellate Body  
Selection Process as soon as possible.  
The representative of Guatemala  thank ed the Chairman and the Facilitator for their efforts in 
facilitating the Informal Process  and hope d that Members could already  solve th e issue th ey currently 
faced . Guatemala also thanked  Honduras for its proposals which were being  carefully  analysed . 
Those papers constituted good basis to brin g forward  their discussions. On its part, Guatemala  would  
continue to constructively participate in th at process . 
The General Council took note  of the statements.  
6  PROCEDURES TO STRENG THEN THE NEGOTIATING  FUNCTION OF THE WTO  – 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES (WT/GC /W/757/REV.1 AND 
WT/GC/W/764)  
The Chairman  said that the  item ha d been included in the agenda of the  meeting at the request 
of the United States made to the Secretariat on 15 February together with two communications WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 22 - 
 
  circulated in docum ents WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1 and WT/GC/W/764  and invited the United States to 
introduce the item . 
The representative of the United States  recalled that, in January, his delegation  had submitted  
a detailed paper on differentiation in the WTO. On that factual and analytic basis, the United States 
had then submitted to the General Council  in February  a proposal to resolve the differentiation 
problem thereby reforming the WTO so that it w ould remain a relevant and viable negotiating forum.  
The United States  describ ed the key pillars of its approach to differentiation and its view that 
reform was necessary.  
The United States recogni zed the great strides made by several WTO Members since the 
establishment of the WTO in raising standards of living, increasing real income  and expanding 
production and trade – goals set out in the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  
The United States  also recogni zed that not all Members ha d enjoyed significant rates of 
economic growth and development since the establishment of the WTO and that special and 
differential treatment for those Members with the greatest difficulty integrating into the multilateral 
trading system was justified.  
Howe ver, b y applying special and differential treatment to advanced economies, Members 
diminish ed and dilute d the effectiveness of special and different treatment for less developed 
Members and  undermine d their ability to reach new agreements . The United State s had effectively 
made th at case in document  WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1.  
Concerning paper on Differentiation , the United States  argue d that the practice of Members 
self-declaring development status at the WTO ha d severely damaged the organization 's negotiating 
arm by inhibiting the ability to differentiate among self -declared developing Members.  That practice 
also allow ed extremely advanced economies to claim rights to flexibilities that were not 
commensurate with the strides th ose economies ha d made in terms of dev elopment.  
Further, the practice of self -declaration ha d not varied since the creation of the WTO. Whether 
the practice had been  sensible in 1995, it ma de no sense  at present  in light of vast changes in 
development and increasing heterogeneity among Member s. 
The United States examined th ose sweeping changes in Section 1 of its report  and, in the 
process, looked at a wide array of development -related indicators  which include d: UNDP 's Human 
Development Index  – a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income;  a 
range of macroeconomic indicators including economic production, per capita income, agricultural 
value -added and employment and urbanization;  trade indicators including shares of gl obal exports 
of goods and services, export value and volume indices, exports of high - and medium -technology 
products and IP royalties; foreign direct investment; corporate size  measured by revenue and 
technological, space and defen ce power.  
The United Stat es' review of economic, social, trade and other data reveal ed a stark picture 
of economies that ha d substantially advanced in development since 1995 and those whose gains 
were more modest. That was a positive story  – exemplifying great strides in developme nt that  
Members  could not continue to  ignore.  
The share of the population in East Asia and the Pacific living in extreme poverty had fallen  
from 54 per  cent in 1993 to 2 per  cent in 2015. In Sub -Saharan Africa, the decline had been  more 
modest : from 59 per  cent in 1993 to 41 per  cent in 2015. Notably, the number of extremely poor 
people in Sub -Saharan Africa had risen  by 26 per  cent during th e period.  
The trade indicators t old the same basic story – from 1995 to 2016, there had been  
significantly increased differentiation among self -declared developing Members. Everyone was 
familiar with China' s story – explosive growth in exports to become the largest global exporter of 
goods since 2008. Other self -declared Members, including India, Viet  Nam, the Republic o f Korea, 
Mexico and Turkey also had impressive growth, while the gains for LDCs and Sub -Saharan Africa 
had been  much more modest.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 23 - 
 
  
There had been  numerous other positive examples of advances in economic growth and 
development contained in the report that the United States  urged Members  to review.   
Despite th e increased differentiation among self -declared developing Members, such 
differences were not reflected at the WTO.  That stood in stark contrast to other international 
institutions such as the IMF, the UNDP and the World Bank, who ha d sought to adapt to changing 
realities and increasing complexity regarding development by reforming how they clas sified 
countries by development level. Other institutions ha d shown they c ould adapt  while t he WTO ha d 
not. 
The inability to differentiate among Members ha d hampered negotiating efforts at the WTO, 
with some advanced self -declared developing Members insist ing that only some obligations should 
apply to them while all obligations should apply to a small handful of Members. Th at was not 
consistent with the desire that Members had expressed in the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade  Organization, to enter into "reciprocal and mutually advantageous 
arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the 
elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations ". More fundamen tally, it h ad 
severely damaged the multilateral trading system.  Ultimately, those who b ore the greatest cost were 
LDCs and other relatively poor Members.  
Trade agreements that could open new opportunities for less developed Members and deepen 
their integra tion into the global trading system d id not materiali se because a good portion of the 
most advanced economies in the world refuse d to be bound by future WTO rules.  Even if new 
agreements were possible, the benefits of special and differential treatment for  LDCs and other less 
developed Members would tend to be diluted by more advanced Members receiving the same 
treatment.  After all, there was nothing special or differential when a Member that ha d landed a rover 
on the dark side of the moon and le d the world with the largest number of the most powerful 
supercomputers insist ed on the same treatment as one of the poorest Members.   
The US stressed that its concerns were  not about just one Member. There was a large number 
of very advanced economies see king to maintain the flexibility that c ame with self -declared 
development status in current and future negotiations  – which required a  broad -based solution . 
The United States then  introduce d the draft General Council Decision  in its proposal,  to 
promote di fferentiation in the WTO in a manner that reflect ed the world Members currently  lived in. 
The draft decision establishe d four categories of Members who, based on their level of development, 
would not avail themselves of special and differential treatment i n current and future WTO 
negotiations.  
The four categories included:  a WTO Member that was a member of the OECD, or a WTO 
Member that ha d begun the accession process to the OECD; a WTO Member that was a member of 
the Group of 20 (G20); a WTO Member that was designated as a "high income " country by the World 
Bank; or a WTO Member that account ed for no less than 0.5 percent of global merchandise trade.  
The proposal applie d to current and future WTO negotiations  – not to existing WTO 
Agreements and their S&D T provisions. It did not require any Member to change its declaration of 
its development status. The goal was to make sure that special and differential treatment was only 
utilised by those having difficulty integrating into the global trading system.  
Those criteria provide d an objective basis for determining which Members c ould avail 
themselves of S&D T, while recogni sing that no single criteria c ould capture the complexity of 
development. The Members who  met any of the four criteria were significant trade rs and/or were 
wealthier, relatively advanced Members.   
Those criteria also reflect ed lessons learned from the past. For example, the United States  
had heard suggestions that Members should self -declare but only avail themselves of S&D T in certain 
sectors where they determine d it was necessary.  That approach had been  tried during the DDA and 
had failed.  Members had many opportunities to voluntarily contribute commensurate with their  
status but they had not  done so . WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 24 - 
 
  
The S&D T model in the Trade Facilitation A greement was not a readily or generally applicable 
model moving forward. Under the TFA, a Member could  be less competitive if other Members 
implement ed the Agreement and it did not. Most trade agreements operate d differently in that a 
Member was likely to believe it w ould be better off if other Members implement ed the obligations 
but it d id not. 
The draft decision d id not preclude Members reaching agreement that , in sector -specific 
negotiations , other Members could also be ineligible for special and differential treatment. The United 
States  recogni zed the possibility that other Members could  be significant players in specific sectors, 
and it probably would be impossible to create obligations for that sector that wo uld not apply to such 
Members.  
The United States  looked forward to hearing Members ' views and welcome d further discussion 
on the reform proposal in the future.  
The representative of the Central African Republic , on behalf of the LDCs , said that the LDCs 
had taken note of the various communications put forward by the United States and by China, India, 
South Africa, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and other co -sponsors, focusing on th e question 
of differentiation between WTO Members and the role of S &DT in the negotiation s and in the 
implementation of trad e rules. The LDCs ha d not yet formally provided a joint response to  those 
communications since they still  had to bring t ogether  the positions of their respective  capitals.  
In any case, t he LDCs w ished to actively participate in world trade , and development remained 
essential in th at regard.  To promote the well -being of their people, f ocusing on addressing the 
challenges faced by LDCs i n world trade was imperative  in moving forward . The LDC Group was 
happy to see that S &DT was currently being discussed at the General Council  and in doing so,  the 
particular characteristics of  each LDC  and their aspirations should be taken into account.  
On behalf of the Central African Republic , his delegation  support ed the communication put 
forward by China, India, South Africa, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Lao PDR,  the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia, Kenya and Cuba in document WT /GC/W/7 65/Rev.1.  That 
communication also echoe d its concerns on the capacity of using flexibilities to further the dynamism 
of their economies. On that basis,  the Central African Republic had  decided to endorse that 
communication  and to join the list of co -sponsor s. 
The representative of Brazil  said that t he discussions on S &DT ha d to take into account its 
origins, its  role for the promotion of development and the full range of flexibilities that had been  
accorded when the current WTO rules had been  negotiated.  
It was essential to distinguish the S &DT discussion and the larger development debate  – 
although they were closely interlinked concepts. Development was one of the main objectives of the 
multilateral trading system. The current divergences on S &DT should not affect the necessary 
consensus on the importance of bringing the benefits of the system to all Members  and to all the 
social groups  within each of them . 
S&DT result ed from real differences in the levels of development. It was a rightful and 
legitimate instrument for promoting development and should not be considered a problem for the 
multilateral system. It had been  agreed to address specific and relevant domestic concerns of a large 
portion of the membership.  S&DT was part of a broader balance of obligations  which , one should  
not forget or disregard , include d flexibilities that benefit ed developed Members , particularly in 
agriculture.  
S&DT was not a static concept  as it had already evolved in the GATT/WTO system. New forms 
of S&DT could  come forwar d as part of an update of the general balance of obligations and flexibilities 
within the WTO, including in agriculture. The new balance c ould not be limited to a new S &DT nor 
should an isolated consideration of S &DT be a prerequisite for engagement in a b roader negotiation.  
As part of the discussion, Members should  distinguish S &DT in existing agreements, which 
should remain unchanged, and S &DT as it w ould be expressed in the new balances to be achieved 
in the future obligations of developed and developing  Members . WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 25 - 
 
  
The representative of Mexico , speaking on  agenda items 6 and 7 , support ed the joint 
statement to be made  by Chile on  behalf of a group of Latin American countries . In engaging in a 
debate on development and S&DT , one should  recogni ze that  circumstances had changed  since the 
creation of the WTO , both in the manner of trading and in the main trading players.  One should 
likewise recogni ze that , under specific circumstances, various developing Members could  require 
certain flexibilities t o allow them to fulfil the commitments they assume d. Since  not all developing 
Members  had the same needs , the adoption of a single approach  would not be functional nor would 
adequately address developing Members' particular needs . 
In the WTO context , there  was a difference between development  and the S&DT provisions . 
Development initiatives  were necessary to allow Members  to implement their policies in an 
appropriate manner and in accordance with the rules  such as  through capacity  building and technical 
assistance  while S&DT refer red to the provisions, including longer timeframes, which would allow 
developing Members  to comply with the commitments they assume d. 
Initiating a discussion on differentiat ing developing Members would only result in further 
polari sing the membership.  Members should  not reinvent the wheel. The WTO's recent history had 
shown that they had been able to overcome a discussion of who was and who was not a developing 
Member  and had instead focused thei r efforts on identifying wh ich Member  needed flexibility, 
capacity building and  similar  provision s.  
In that regard, t he Trade Facilitation Agreement ha d been a milestone  - not only for being 
the first multilateral agreement after the creation of the WTO but also for being able to adapt to the 
new realities and way s to reach agreements including on S&DT.  
Members should focus their efforts on taking th at type of negotiating a pproach as a source of 
inspiration and  on making the necessary considerations for future work according to the particular 
circumstances of the area under discussion . In making commitments in the negotiations, they should 
move away from  searching through various indicators to categorise , in a general and strict manner, 
those who would  need flexibility . 
The representative of Oman , on behalf of the GCC , acknowledge d the importance of 
revitali sing the WTO's negotiatin g function  as it ensure d the WTO's ability t o keep up with the 
changing times. In that regard, S&DT perform ed an important function , particularly as it afford ed a 
degree of comfort to developing Members in taking up new commitments. The balance of rights and 
obligations of Members was the broad objective of negotiations making S& DT an essential element 
of the multilateral trading system. WTO reform should reflect  the realities and specificities of 
Members including those  of narrowly -based economies that heavily depend ed on the export of few 
commodities. Ignoring th ose realities  could  deprive developing Members of their right to develop.  
Like many developing Membe rs, the GCC  had made significant economic progress over the 
past decade . A gap however remained  between them and the developed Members as had been  
indicated in some reports  including  the "Bertelsmann 2018 Globalization Report – Who Benefits Most 
from Globa lization?" The GCC would  continue to follow developments in th at area and reserve d its 
right to come back with further comments.  
The representative of China  said that d evelopment was an important agenda for the WTO  as 
it concern ed the interests of the broa d membership a nd the organization's future . China noted that 
the United States' analytical paper (WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1) neglect ed the gaps between developing 
and developed Members in terms of per capita income, science and technology, economic structure, 
regional balance, social administration, quality of development a nd differences in their stages of 
development. The paper selectiv ely pick ed indicators which exaggerate d the level of development 
of some developing Members  and use d them to challenge the practice of self -declared development 
status at the WTO.  
There remain ed significant gaps between developing and developed Members in terms of 
economic and social development, and developing Members still face d tremendous capacity 
constraints in participating in the multilateral trading system. The fundamentals for the application 
of S&DT  in favo ur of developing Members remain ed unchange d. China could therefore not  agree 
with the views expressed in the U S communication.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 26 - 
 
  
The other US communication (WT/GC/W/764) which propose d to deprive many developing 
Members of their right to S&DT  was premised on  the US analytical paper. If the analytica l paper was 
in itself flawed, the proposed actions in the form of a draft decision of the General Council lack ed 
legitimacy  and c ould only be considered as a groundless "hanging garden" floating in the air.  
As Members were aware, China, India, South Africa , the Bolivarian Republic Venezuela, Lao  
PDR, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Kenya, Cuba, the Central African Republic and Pakistan had 
submitted a joint  paper in WT/GC/W/765/Rev.1 entitled "The Continued Relevance of Special and 
Differential Treatmen t in Favo ur of Developing Members to Promote Development and Ensure 
Inclusiveness " which w ould be discussed under the next agenda item.  
The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , on behalf of the Arab Group , said that 
trade, growth and development fit together into a coherent whole. Trade was always the key piece 
of the puzzle  since it  provid ed Members with major opportunities and challenges  as they  continued 
to translate  into concrete actions and meaningful resul ts the promise enshrined in the Marrakesh 
Agreement of higher living standards, full employment and sustainable development.  
The WTO play ed an important role in delivering the Sustainable Development Goals. Through 
the principle of S &DT for developing Members, WTO rules s ought  to achieve SDG 10  which aim ed to 
reduce the impact of existing inequalities between countries.  The G20 Leaders ' Summit in Buenos 
Aires in December  had been  about building consensus for fair and sustainable development through 
an agen da that was people -centred, inclusive and forward -looking.   
The current flexibilities and S&DT  provisions in WTO agreements considerably helped 
developing and LDC  Members  enhance their participation in the global economy.  Any attempt to 
ignore the divide between developed and developing Members, to reject the right of developing 
Members to develop or to disregard their needs and capacity constrain ts would serious ly damage  
the architecture carefully created  and maintained by the WTO  which ha d significantly contributed to 
international trade and economic growth.  
Joining the WTO h eld the promise of development and economic growth and se nt a clear 
signal to investors about a country's commitment to an open economy. Ignoring the extensive 
commitments of the Article XII Members in future negotiations and their right to benefit from 
devel opment flexibilities would reduce the attractiveness and the credibility of the WTO . 
Maintaining S&DT  was critical for the WTO.  Since m ajority of Members were developing , one 
of the main focuses  of the WTO was to ensure  that th ose Members were able to secu re a share in 
the growth of international trade and in the global value chains commensurate with the needs of 
their economic development.  
Developing Members should not be deprived of their right to benefit from S&DT  or any 
flexibilities that would help the m to continue to face their structural constrain ts and to build their 
capacity.  Those Members need ed to achieve their development objectives through import 
diversification, domestic institutional and legal reforms, technological upgrading and know -how 
sharing and strengthening their productive capacity.  Keeping the development dimension at the 
heart of the multilateral trading system  would enhance and strengthe n the WTO functions.  
The representative of Turkey , speaking on agenda items 6 and 7 , support ed the idea of 
strengthening the negotiating function of the WTO.  WTO negotiations  had always been based on 
mutual concessions. S&D T was an indispensable principle in the WTO's  rulebook and an integral part 
of the WTO Agreemen ts and negotiations sinc e the beginning . The current WTO Agreements ha d 
been agreed bas ed on the single undertaking principle and S&D T had been part of it.  
The WTO Agreements ha d been adopted by developing Members on the condition that there 
would be S&D T for them  and on the understanding that a Member's development status would be 
self-designated.  Putting the status of developing Members and S&D T into question would open the 
very essence of the WTO Agreements up for discussion.  
Furthermore, S&D T was not l imited to developing Members. Almost all Members benefit ted 
from different S&D T provisions in WTO Agreements one way or another. The matter  that Members 
would review u nder agenda item 8 on the exemption provided under Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 27 - 
 
  was a good example of S&D T benefit ing a particular developed Member. AMS entitlements for 
agriculture support which allowed the benefitting Members to provide agriculture support without 
product -specific capping were also extended to several  developed Members.  
At the WTO, the absence of a clear definition of " developing Member status " was not a 
deficiency of the system but a flexibility that ha d been provided to Members so that they could 
assume  commitments  under the WTO Agreements .  
The US proposal brought an ex clusive approach without a consistent analytical basis. Turkey  
therefore question ed the merit of th e proposal in terms of finding possible ways to strengthen the 
negotiating function of the WTO.   
The rigidly categorical proposal cite d membership to the G20 and the OECD as criteria  but 
those two were by  no means "clubs of the rich ". On the contrary, the aim of establishing the G20 
had been  to get developing countries more involved in the global economic governance apart from 
the G7. Similarly, the OECD was a policy organizatio n aimed at identifying policies and good practices 
for ensuring sustainable economic growth, cooperation and development  and had  members from 
different levels  of development. The basis for using th e G20 and the OECD as criteria  to determine 
the level of development at the WTO  was difficult to grasp . 
The initial US paper use d a method of determining the level of development by merely 
interpreting some selective social and macro -economic data. Most of the data from those indices  
could  however be manipulat ed to ma ke the opposite argument.   
For instance, the increase in Human Development Index was used in the US paper as an  
indicator  for development. In compar ing the indicators for developed Members in 1990 against 
developing Members in 2017, Turkey found that t he average HDI for the G20 developed Members 
for 1990 was above 0.81  while the same index for G20 developing Members in 2017 was around 
0.73. Th at comparison show ed that G20 developing Members  at present  were still not at  and were 
even far below the level that developed Members had been  27 years ago.  
Another example was the average value of the GDP per capita based on purchasing power 
parity. GDP per capita for developed Members of  the G20 had been  more than 32 ,500 in 1995 when 
the WTO had been established  while the mean value of GDP per capita for G20 developing Members 
was below 21 ,000 in 2017. Within 24 years, developing Members could not even come close to the  
developed countries ' level in 1995.  
Furthermore, existing gaps betwee n developed and developing Members had persist ed for 
nearly all indicators used by the U nited States  in its paper. Similar conclusions c ould easily be made 
for the OECD countries. Even th ose selective data sets showed  that there wa s still a huge gap 
betwee n developed and developing Members  that need ed to be bridged.   
While developing Members had  registered significant progress for improving human life, 
accessing new trade markets and growing their production capacities , developed Members  had also 
enjoyed in creased welfare in their economies. Progress achieved by developing Members was not a 
cause to any decline in economic indicators of developed Members.   
Turkey feared that such  discussion could  lead to yet another deadlock in the WTO on top of 
the crisis in the Appellate Body.  Turkey understood that  the United States  was not happy with certain 
ways of doing things at the WTO  and remain ed open-minded to talk about them with a view to 
finding solu tions to update the rule book where necessary or to introduce new rules where needed.  
The priority should however be in resolving the Appellate Body  crisis.  
Members  should not further complicate matters. It would be more fruitful if they went back 
to the essence of the negotiating topics and focused on what  could be done in the m in a realistic 
manner taking into account the capacity of each Member to undertake the new commitments .  
Turkey invite d Members to refrain from making proposals that would marginal ise other s. They 
should  rather include options that c ould be discussed and that could  evolve into something 
acceptable and beneficial for all.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 28 - 
 
  
The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , recall ed that S&DT  was a right 
enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement. S&DT had  been a constant  – the enj oyment of which would 
provide the necessary flexibility to developing Members  particularly the SVEs  and the LDCs to 
address their development needs  and meet their development  requirements . The various modalities 
linked to the enjoyment of S &DT should therefore be of high priority.  
The conclusion of the various negotiated agreements and decisions in  the WTO  had been  
made possible through the  recognition and inclusion of S&DT  and various flexibilities  – provid ing 
equality and justice for developing and LDC  Members . S&DT should  remain an integral part of all  
WTO Agreements in the current and future negotiations . S&DT should be included in the various list 
of concessions and commi tments and in the framework of the rules and disciplines so that they c ould 
be effective at the operational level.  
The data at hand show ed that there ha d been a sharp drop in the contribution of the role of  
African Group  members  in world trade including in their exports. There was a low level of 
industriali zation in the economies of the African Group  members – necessitating structural reforms . 
It was therefore important to provide the African Group members  with the means and resou rces to 
make it possible for them to have a fairer and more effective participation in world trade.  
In Agenda 2063, African countries ha d pointed out what they need ed to turn th e trend around 
through structural and industrial reforms making it possible to  reach an appreciable level of 
development. Setting up of a continental free trade area was part of th at agenda. But the various 
concerns and expectations of the Group still focus ed on completing the Doha Development Agenda 
through the  correction of differ ent disparities and distortions especially in agriculture.  
The African Group  reaffirm ed its commitment to take active part in the various discussions in 
a constructive way to promote inclusive, fair and equitable development . Such would make it 
possible f or developing and LDC  Members  to reach their legitimate developmental aspirations and a 
stronger input in world trade and t o establish the Continental Free Trade Area  in Africa .  
The African Group  reiterated its  reserv ation regarding any measure in the area of S &DT the 
application of which would further accentuate the marginalization of its presence in world trade and  
further the divide between developing and developed Members . Members should ensure  sustainable 
development . Otherwise, the African Group would again stress its reservation.  
If there would be modalities for differentiation, Members'  sovereignty and capacity  should be 
taken into account . The examination of the rights of the  developing and  LDC Members  should be 
accompa nied by  a remodulation or change in the rights and obligations on the part of  the developed 
Members . Otherwise, there was a strong probability that  a wider  disparity or divide between 
developed and developing Members could ari se.  
The African Group reaffirmed its  strong commitment to the rules -based multilateral trading 
system. Th ose rules should  be inclusive, fair and development -oriented without excluding anyone. 
The Group  reiterate d its commitment to the ongoing search for c onsensus in finding solutions to the 
ongoing problems Members currently faced .  
The African Group called upon all Members  to work in the same mindset in order to promote 
the development agenda based on flexibilit ies and S&DT  without excluding anyone  while recognising 
that Members c ould abstain in any appropriate way if they so wished. In th at regard, the Group 
urged Members  to constructively engage in  the negotiations to ensure the completion of the  Doha 
Development Agenda.  
Speaking o n behalf of Benin , he noted that the  national authorities in his country  were looking 
at the various proposals in the documents that were put forward in items 6 and 7  and would share 
its formal position later on with regard to th ose communications.  
The representative of Tanzani a associated  his delegation  with the statements made by the 
African and the ACP Groups and thanked the United States for tabling  a draft decision and a paper 
entitled "Undifferentiated WTO: Self -Declared Development Status Risks Institutional Irrelevance ". 
While all the communications were still under scrutiny in the capital, Tanzania express ed its serious 
concerns and views on the matter.   WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 29 - 
 
  
The circulated paper highlight ed the progress achieved by some developing Members in the 
past few years  which was  comm endable and in line with the spirit and objectives of the WTO.  Some 
of the indicators used in the paper to elaborate the progress achieved by select developing Members  
were however disputable as they went beyond the scope of WTO work. Areas such as  military power 
and space technology capacity c ould not constitute as good indices to measure  the level of  
development in the WTO context .  
Concerning  the tabled draft decision , Tanzania did not subscribe to the narrative that  the lack 
of differentiation was the sole cause of the stalemate in  WTO negotiations. In 2013 and in 2015, the 
WTO had been able to achieve commendable results in Bali and Nairobi given  the same 
undifferentia ted status  – demonstrating that me aningful outcomes could be achieved with Members' 
commitment and willingness to negotiate and to compromise . 
Similarly, the criteria mentioned in the draft decision to categorise developing Members, 
particularly those which should not benefit from S&DT,  were subjective , would lead to disagreements  
and more divergence and  would  further the stalemate  – affecting even areas where work was 
ongoing such as fisheries.  
S&DT, as enshrined in various WTO Agreements, was a result of negotiations that led to the ir 
establishment. The S&D T provisions in those agreements had been  reached as part of the process 
of striking the exist ing balance between the rights and obligations of Members. To dismantle the 
current  architecture would be  unfair and counterproductive to the system . Such an act w ould 
negatively affect the WTO moving  forward.  The matter at hand would therefore no t enjoy consensus 
in the meeting and perhaps also in the future.  
The representative of India was disappointed by the slant of the recent communications tabled 
by the United States in documents WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1 and WT/GC/W/764 on the sensitive issue 
of development. The one -sided and arbitrary approach to development and S&DT provisions  
articulated in th ose communicat ions c ould cause lasting damage to the multilateral trading system. 
That had prompted India and eight other Members to present a counter -narrative on the continuing 
relevance and importance of S &DT for all developing Members in the WTO.  
S&DT  for developing  and LDC  Member s, as provided for in Part IV of the GATT , was an 
unconditional right. The rationale behind S &DT was simple and obvious. It recogni zed the enormous 
difference in the levels of development between different Members . It also allowed developing  
Members the space to formulate their domestic trade policy in a way that help ed them to reduce 
poverty, generate employment and integrate meaningfully into the global trading system. Over the 
past five decades, th at had formed the basis for the concept of S &DT and less than full reciprocity 
under the GATT and  the WTO. Members should  firmly keep th at in mind.  
The United States ha d focused on certain indicators to argue that there ha d been a significant 
reordering among co untries and increasing economic differentiation among them. While developing 
Members ha d achieved progress on some economic indicators since the inception of the WTO, the 
old gaps in the levels of development were far from being bridged and ha d even widene d in some 
areas . New divides , especially in the digital and technological spheres , were becoming more 
pronounced. Against th at backdrop, attempts to cherry -pick and employ selective economic 
indicators to deny the persistence of the divide between developi ng and developed Members were 
profoundly insidious.  
If Members were at all to use economic indicators to gauge the development level of a country, 
those should  be per capita indicators because the essence of development was the human being. It 
was for th at reason that indicators used in the WTO covered agreements to assess the level of 
economic development of a Member were based on per capita calculation such as "income per 
capita ", "GDP per capita " and "household income per capita " in Article 8.2(b)(iii) o f the SCM 
Agreement.  
The US proposal was extremely divisive.  The proxy parameters that the United States  had 
chosen for development were arbitrary and the language in its proposal  was broad enough to allow 
for new conditions to be brought in to phase -out S &DT on a sector -specific basis, even for Members 
who f ell outside the ambit of the four criteria  it mentioned. Th at clearly appear ed to be a strategy 
to ultimately terminate S&DT at  the WTO.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 30 - 
 
  
The narrative that the  United States was  seeking to build was also incorrect and unsupported 
by evidence. As assessed by the UNCTAD, most S &DT provisions in the WTO covered agreements 
were imprecise, unenforceable and in the form of "best endeavour clauses ". The assertion that 
onerous S &DT obligations were making the WT O irrelevant was untenable. It was also important to 
note that though Members c ould declare themselves as developing, their specific rights and 
obligations were still subject to negotiations.  
The US paper  made some general and sweeping statements. For inst ance, it sa id in 
paragraph  1.7 that "all rules apply to a few (the developed countries) ". Nothing could be farther 
from the facts as eviden ced by  agenda item 8 where the extension of an exemption was being sought 
for the U nited States . Further, there exist ed several "reverse S &DT provisions " in the covered 
agreements that g ave explicit carve -outs to developed Members and benefit ed them at the expense 
of developing Members.  
The joint  communication by China, India, South Africa and others g ave several illustrations 
of such reverse S &DT provisions in favour of the developed Members. India recalled that the  United 
States had sought and benefited from the waiver from some of the key obligations under the GATT 
for almost 40 years especially in  agriculture and textiles  – sectors of export interest for LDCs  and 
developing Members . 
It was factually incorrect to blame the self -declaration of development status as the reason 
for the lack of progress in negotiations. A "self-declared paralysis " had rather  occurred in the WTO 
due to the inability of the developed Members to abide by the agreed negotiating mandates of the 
Doha Round and the progress made thereunder. Th at was in spite of the fact that the Doha Round 
had been  launched with the primary objectiv e of bridging the trust deficit between developing and 
developed Members and increasing the opportunities for developing Members to integrate 
meaningfully into the global trading system.  
Referring to the likely contribution of the Doha Round, Robert Zoell ick, then USTR, had stated 
that the Doha Round, with development as its core, would be "the starting point for greater 
development, growth, opportunity and openness throughout the world. " Sadly, th at was a promise  
that ha d remained unfulfilled.  
In view of the above, India could not agree to the premise of the US statement in 
WT/GC/W /757/Rev.1 nor agree with their suggestions made in WT/GC/ W/764.  
The representative of Uganda  associated his delegation with the statement made by the 
African  Group . Article XVIII of t he Marrakesh Agreement related to the  objectives of th e organization 
and recogni zed that Members at different levels of economic development ha d varying needs and 
concerns , hence the  unconditional right to S&DT  for all developing Members . That fundamental and 
unconditional right was clearly elaborated in Part IV of the GATT Articles XXXVI to XXXVIII and GATS 
Article 4 and all the S&DT provisions across the WTO Agreements.  
Uganda continue d to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda and as suc h the Declarations 
and Decisions adopted at the Doha and subsequent Ministerial Conferences . S&DT was an integral 
part of the ongoing negotiations to rebalance the WTO system to better respond to developing 
Members' special situation and needs in the area of trade.  
Paragraph 44 of the Doha mandate remain ed clear. Members had committed to work in the 
CTD SS to review all S &DT provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more 
precise, effective and operational in addition to all other mandates affirming S &DT and its importance 
to developing Members . At MC11, Ministers had moreover recogni zed that appropriate and effective 
S&DT for developing and LDC Members should be an integral part of the fisheries negotiations.  
It sound ed unrealistic that a Member currently utilising the provisions of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture through provisions of unlimited subsidies c ould even suggest that S &DT 
should be conditioned and allowed to some and not to all developing Members . Any attempts to veer 
away from th at fundamental and unconditional right to S &DT should therefore  be rendered futile.  
Such attempts were likely to be the stu mbling block to reaching any negotiated outcomes at such a 
time when the organization should be delivering in response to the needs of the majority of its WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Members who were developing. Uganda  called upon all Members to focus on fulfilling Paragraph 44 
of the Doha mandate.  
The representative of Norway , speaking  on agenda  items 6 and 7 , acknowledge d that the 
submissions raise d issues that were important to address. S&DT wa s an integral part of the toolbox 
which support ed the integration of developing Members i nto the multilateral trading system.  Widely 
diverging views on th ose issues however made it extremely difficult to reach multilateral negotiated 
outcomes. Members therefore needed to find a more constructive way to have a conversation about 
trade and devel opment.  
Norway recogni zed that LDCs in particular face d constraints which it was  committed to help 
addressing. A more pragmatic approach would be helpful. Members should therefore focus  on the 
contributions in terms of binding commitments that each  of them  was able to make within each area 
of current and future negotiations. It was the result that matter ed. Norway remained  committed to 
engaging actively and constructively in the discussi on with a view to bridging the differences within 
the Membership.  
The representative of Kazakhstan  referred to  two points regarding Kazakhstan that ha d been 
indicated in the US communication on Self-Declared Development Status.  With respect to the point 
that Kazakhstan had never made a claim for developing Member status , Kazakhstan noted that it 
had repeatedly flagged its request for developing Member  status in the WTO during its accession 
negotiations. Th at request was recorded in at least twelve  accession -related documents starting 
from 1999 including seven  series of questions and answers, a factual presentation and its revision 
and three  draft Working Party reports.  
Concerning the point on  TFA implementation , Kazakhstan clarified that it becam e a WTO 
Member i n December 2015 and had not participate d in the negotiations over the commitment text 
of the TFA. Th at Agreement had been  ratified by Kazakhstan in the same law as its Accession 
Protocol.  In July 2018, after careful e xamination of its national capacity and its country 's 
preparedness to implement its TFA commitments , Kazakhstan had  submitted a notification o f its 
categories B and C commitments . According to its national authorities, Kazakhstan currently 
complie d with 65 % of the TFA commitments, with the remaining one due to be implemented within 
1-5 years. Kazakhstan w ould continue to implement measures to fully comply with the TFA.  
The representative of New Zealand  echoed the sentiments expressed by Norway and noted 
the clarity of differences among Members . The States in the Pacific region, case in point, faced 
different challenges in integrating in the international trading system to other types of Members.  
There were also differences across the issues that  were being  negotiate d. Looking at fish eries 
subsidies consistent with SDG 14.6 was, for example, different to negotiating subsidies on widgets.  
New Zealand  therefore support ed Norway's  suggestion to engage constructively and to see how each  
Member would b e able to contribute to commitments in future negotiations.  
The representative of Jamaica , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7  said that  S&DT wa s a 
critical limb of the WTO especially for small developing Members  like Jamaica and a s such, her 
delegation  took keen interest on the issue  in any context. In th at regard, Jamaica thanked  the 
proponents for their recent proposals  and said that  it was important to have the views of all Members 
aired.  
S&DT  had become a difficult issue in the WTO. It therefore stood to reason that Members 
could  have varying perspectives on how to deal with some of the more difficult issues. Jamaica was 
however one of the Members that th ought  a mutually satisfactory outcome was possible for th at file 
and st ood ready to engage accordingly.  
There was the concern across the board  that the proposals on WTO reform  and 
modernization taken cumulatively could lead to a conclusion of intended negative impact on 
developing Members ' rights in the WTO , whether through grea ter overreach or greater use of 
counternotifications as a means of improving notification compliance or through abandoning 
multilateralism for plurilateral approaches.  
S&DT in existing WTO rules was applicable to all developing and LDC Members  and wa s a 
basic, fundamental right to which all WTO developing Members were entitled. Consequent on almost WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 32 - 
 
  a decade of negotiations, th at was Members ' understanding to which they had  all agreed in 1994 
when they had  signed the Marrakesh Agreement.  Jamaica acknowledge d that less than desired 
progress was being made in Members'  discussion on S&DT  in the WTO. However, Jamaica urged  
caution in th ose difficult situations to avoid adoption of decisions with unintended consequences for 
the operation of the global trading syst em. The establishment of the five possible benchmarks for 
determining which developing Members  did not benefit from S&DT would result in a diminution of 
rights and an increase in obligations  – which  would apply to some of the small economies in 
CARICOM . 
The proposals also point ed to an approach which would result in eliminating S&D T as an 
unconditional right for all other developing Members not covered in the categories proposed. It 
stated: "nothing in this decision precludes reaching an agreement that in s ector specific negotiations 
other Members are also ineligible for special and differential treatment ". It suggested  that for current 
and future negotiations, S&DT could  be provided to some developing  Members , but th at would have 
to be negotiated based on criteria that w ould be devised during the negotiations. No Member was 
therefore guaranteed S&DT.  
Jamaica encourage d a discussion around whether Members  should use  indicators as a basis 
for access to S&DT  in the WTO. They should , however , be cogni sant of the fact that indicators were 
developed by the respective international organizations to help them to aggregately track levels of 
progress in their work in certain contexts.  Those indices and indicators were most times arbitrarily 
constructed , implying the absence of  the input of or consultations with governments. They had not 
been intended to be used for decision -making in organizations and for contexts such as a unique 
Member -driven WTO. Indices and non -binding guideli nes and opinions developed elsewhere should 
not be binding rules in the WTO.  Experience ha d shown that the use of th ose indicators could present 
unintended consequences for developing Members  especially small , vulnerable economies.  
Drastic changes in S&DT  in the WTO could  also affect the eligibility of countries  in any 
realignment or establishment of conditionalities in other areas such as ODA, development financing, 
climate financing and lending. Jamaica was already affected by th at reality through its de signation 
as "middle income ". That was specifically difficult for Jamaica as its  susceptibility to climate change 
and natural disasters ha d resulted in a loss of 2 -3% of GDP per annum for the last twenty  years.  
Many of the points raised in W T/GC/W /765 were valid and should form part of Members'  
discussions.  At the same time, Members  should also include in their discussion the premise that 
opting out of current or future S&DT provisions in WTO rules should be a sovereign decision for any 
developing or LDC Member that would choose  to do so. Members could find  precedent in the TFA 
where some developing Members had  chose n not to avail themselves of certain Categories B and C 
flexibilities.  
Jamaica recall ed the challenges experienced in developing a work  programme on SVEs. It 
had been  argued at th at time that it had been  an attempt at differentiation and creating another 
category of Members , despite the recognition that the SVE s had required greater flexibilities as a 
means of responding to the specific c hallenges they faced . The work programme had eventually  
been agreed on the basis that it would not create a separate category of Members in the 
organization. The real question was whether implementation ha d resulted in the expected impact , 
including the in tegration of developing Members  into the world economy.  
Any discussion on changes to the application of S&DT in the WTO should be first exhausted 
within the context of the CTD  SS before escalat ing it  to the General Council. Only one group of 
Members ha d submitted proposals in the CTD  SS which st ood to reason that there was room for 
further work in that forum  before the matter was brought to the General Council.  While Jamaica 
welcome d all opinions and views on th at file, any change to the current rules on S&DT within the 
WTO should be based on consensus and a decision of the Ministerial Conference or the General 
Council.  The WTO should  not undermine each Member's  right to development in an era of the 
promotion and implementation of the SDGs.  
The representat ive of Trinidad and Tobago  said that S&DT for developing Members  was an 
integral part of the multilateral system and allow ed developing Members  to pursue their 
developmental agendas with limited capacity.  The current proposal  which aim ed to reclassify WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Members according to groupings w ould however result in some developing Members  no longer being 
entitled to S &DT and would therefore exclude them upfront from claiming flexibility.  
Trinidad and Tobago support ed the WTO's  inclusive structure . As a small island d eveloping 
State undergoing economic challenges, S &DT remain ed of significant interest to Trinidad and Tobago 
as it strive d to achieve structural transformation and foster economic growth.  Any changes to the 
structure which could result in the exclusion of small, vulnerable Members from S&DT was therefore 
of concern.  As a developing Member , Trinidad and Tobago needed the trade support of developed 
Members  to help  it to fully  integrate into the multilateral trading system. Trinidad and Tobago reli ed 
on support measures offered not only by developed Members  but by the WTO Secretariat to help 
foster growth and the ability of developing Members  to undertake appropriate rules and obligations.  
If the US proposal was approved, Trinidad and Tobago,  as a developing Member , would fall 
under the criterion of high income and w ould be unable to access S &DT under the WTO. Therefore, 
Trinidad and Tobago d id not share the view expressed in th e US communication and st ood with other 
developing Members  which express ed similar sentiments on th e issue.  Trinidad and Tobago ha d also 
taken note of the paper under consideration on agenda item 7 and len t its support to the sentiments 
expressed  therein . 
The representative of Canada  welcome d the attention that the issue of development writ 
large ha d garnered in recent weeks , both through WTO submissions on differentiation a nd in other 
analytical papers recently published. Th e issue of development and the r ole of S&DT  was of key 
importance to th e organization . Members should have a frank and open discussion on the role of 
trade in development and the role of development considerations in formulating trade rules. Th ey 
needed to reflect on how they incorporate d the development dimension of trade rules in their work 
going forward.   
Just as Canada  had come to the conclusion that the way Members  negotiate d new trade 
rules ha d not been working, Members  also ha d to conclude that h ow they thought  about the 
development dimension and how they address ed it in their discussions and negotiations ha d also 
not worked. Trade c ould and should support development . But trade alone c ould not solve all 
development issues. Members should keep in mind that sound governance and domestic regulatory 
frameworks that were fit for the needs of their citizens were also required to ensure that the benefits 
of trade were more equitably distributed , and that their development needs were addressed.  
Members  should examine whether they were exploring the right question. It was not a 
matter of whether a Member was developed or developing , but rather what obligations a Member 
should and c ould take on in current and future negotiation s. The level of obligations should be 
commensurate with the Member 's ability to make commitments in a particular area with the goal of 
all Members eventually reaching the same level of commitments. Members had seen  an example of 
that in the TFA. While th at particular methodology could  not work in all cases, it was an example of 
an innovative idea that c ould help them move forward. In the end, it was the result that matter ed. 
Canada recogni zed that the situation of LDCs was different and that th ose Members deserve d 
special consideration.  Canada further  encourage d all Members to engage in a constructive manner 
on th at issue, to feed a renewed discussion on th at issue and to allow th e organization to conduct 
its work in the most fruitful way. The WTO should  evolve and how Members  approach ed issues such 
as the development dimension of trade rules should  also evolve so that the organization remain ed 
relevant in t he current  fast changing world.  
The representative of Switzerland , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , supported the 
proposals made by Norway which seemed to be the most promising way to develop solutions.  
Switzerland was sensitive to development issues  and had long supported the integration of 
developing Members , particularly the LDCs , into the multilatera l trading system.  At the same time, 
Switzerland  emphasi zed the importance of WTO rules , based on the principles of predictability and 
stability which ha d played a key role in improving trade and development prospects. Favourable 
international framework con ditions were not sufficient in themselves to ensure economic 
development. Th ose framework conditions  should  also be accompanied by appropriate economic 
policies at the national level.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 34 - 
 
  
Concerning S&DT , any general and undifferentiated derogation and flexibi lity would not 
permit consensus among Members in the context of current and future negotiations.  Rather than 
seeking abstract solutions a priori, it would be more useful to assess the level of obligations a 
Member could or could not  assume in negotiations on a specific subject.  The level of obligations 
should be adapted to the Member 's ability to make commitments in a particular area  – with the aim 
of all Members reaching the same level of commitment upon completion of the integration process.  
The TFA built on th at approach. Although the particular methodology of the TFA could not 
be replicated identically in all cases as it would require adjustments according to circumstances, t he 
TFA was an innovative example that c ould help Members  find solutions. Switzer land also noted that 
the situation of the LDCs was unique and require d special consideration.  
The representative of Egypt  associate d his delegation with the statements made by the 
African and the Arab Groups . Speaking on  agenda items 6 and 7 , he said that m any developing and 
LDC Members  had demonstrated declines in manufacturing due to insufficient or lack of growth in a 
manner that ha d devastated their p otential for sustained industrialization, structural transformation 
of their economies and diversification.  The end of commodity price cycle ha d negatively impacted 
the current accounts and the financial markets , which could  have deep impacts on future 
competitiveness enhancing investments.  Since the decline in commodity prices in 2014, the 
revenues ha d not managed to keep up with expenditures. It ha d not been easy to adjust to a 
diminishing inflow of capital. Over the past two years, the aggregate macroeco nomic environment 
of Africa ha d worsened due to higher debt, higher public deficit and lower savings.  
The status quo of S &DT-related negotiations was link ed with both laudable and troubling 
developments in t he current  international economic order. S&DT  was one of the main defining 
features of the multilateral trading system , not because the developing Members  needed it, but 
simply because it was essential to integrate differently -situated players into the system for the 
political and economic benefit of all . 
Despite the fact that some developing Member s had achieved significant development in 
some of their economic and social indicators, there was still a significant development gap between 
developing and developed Member s. Each Member  in the developing worl d was still facing a different 
mix of a long list of challenges , whether related to poverty, capacity constraints, industrialization, 
structural transformation and diversification of the economy – to achiev e sustainable development.  
Any new negotiated outcomes should therefore provide the adequate policy space for soci al and 
development needs and deepen the integration of developing and LDC Members  into the multilateral 
trading system.  
The Doha Declaration had given Members  a clear mandate. In order to reach th at end, 
Members should  focus on pragmatic solutions to resum e their collective work constructively and in 
good faith at the CTD SS. Members should consider the  developing Members'  specific needs and 
challenges and focus on workable outcomes.  
The representative of  the Republic of Korea , speaking  on agenda  items 6 an d 7, said that  
the topic currently discussed was  sensitive and c ould have far -reaching influence across many issues 
within the WTO. Bearing th at in mind, the topic should be discussed in a prudent, productive and 
balanced manner  – the ultimate goal of whic h should be to strengthen the WTO . 
S&DT  in the WTO ha d assisted the developing and LDC Members  to integrate into the 
multilateral trading system  and ha d contributed to the WTO's central role as the bastion and 
foundation of global governance on world trade.  In the past 25 years, both developing and developed  
Members  had also  practiced voluntary expansion of commitment that befit ed each Member 's level 
of economic development  – which should be taken into account in relevant discussions.  Korea hope d 
that the discussion on th e matter w ould evolve into an opportunity not only to strengthen the 
organization but also to contribute to its stability.  
The representative of Cuba recalled that the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization stated that  there was a  "need for positive efforts designed 
to ensure that developing countries, and especially the least -developed among them, secure a share 
in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic deve lopment." WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 35 - 
 
  The opportunity to have fairer trade should therefore  be available to all Members and done on the 
basis of a fairer distribution.  
The reality at present was  a far cry from that which had been  desired. The divide in the area 
of development had wi dened i n recent decades. Developing Members  were still facing huge 
challenges that heighten ed the need for S &DT provisions in WTO Agreements. S &DT was an integral 
part of WTO rules giving developed Members  an opportunity to balance the situation so as to better 
respond to the specific developmental needs of developing and LDC Members in trade.  
The US proposal ran counter  to the provisions of WTO  Agreements  and the various mandates 
including the DDA. The pro posal pursue d a clear objective – eliminating S &DT for all sooner or later 
contradict ing Part IV of the GATT, Article 4 of  the GATS and all S &DT provisions in WTO Agreements. 
It also  contradict ed the Doha principles  and the various mandates in favour of S &DT and disregarded 
its importance for developing Members . 
Cuba had reiterated its statement  at the 5 March 2018 CTD meeting , where Members  had 
had a frank exchange  on the matter. At that meeting, Cuba had stated that Members  should not 
undermine the S&DT principle and should avoid anything that would run counter  to the ir mandate s. 
Many developing Members  should be granted  flexibilit ies in the organization  in order to take on new 
rules and commitments – even more so than those of the developed Members  that had always  been 
in better condition  than them . Based on its experience , Cuba knew that the flexibilit ies currently 
provided should  continue to be coherent with the needs of and the realities faced by the developing 
and LDC Members and their levels of development and not  deepen the current asymmetr ies and 
imbalance s. 
Cuba was  not ready to accept the US proposal since that had not been  constructive and 
could not resolve the problems that Members  currently face d. Cuba share d the concerns raised by 
other delegations on the attempt to  selectively put forward a different economic reality to increase 
the divide between developed and developi ng Members . The proposal's only goal was to seek to 
take away the right to development. S &DT remain ed important for developing Members  in order to 
promote development and guarantee inclusion.  At a time when  unilateral measures had been  applied 
more rampant ly, Members  should  preserve the system where they could have the most amount of 
dialogue, cooperation and multilateralism as possible focused on fulfilling the  various mandate s 
collectively.  
The representative of Colombia , speaking on agenda  items 6 and 7 , consider ed that the 
papers  provide d Members  with a lot of relevant elements that formed part of the dialogue required 
to strengthen and improve the rules-based multilateral trading system with development at its 
centre.  In line with the joint statement  to be made by Chile on behalf of a group of Latin American 
countries, the current discussion provided an  opportunity to bring forward a  constructive debate on 
development and to  analys e different positions in a far -reaching and integral fashio n by looking at 
economic indicators and the human element of economic development . The various elements that 
were being looked at show ed how statistical analysis, even though it c ould be useful, was not 
conclusive in determining the level of development of  a given Member .  
Beyond the debate on the various elements that ha d to be looked at to categorise different 
Members in various groups, the multilateral trading system should  strike a balance between rights 
and obligations. Instead of designing different m echanisms of exclusion, t hat vital  debate could focus 
on the way in which the rules of future Agreements could empower Members to enable  them to fully 
compl y with their multilateral obligations.  That could be arrived at through different mechanisms 
such as the strengthening of institutional capacity, technical assistance and different transition 
elements that met the needs of each Member, among others . Colombia  would keep a close watch 
on the unfolding of th at discussion and would constructive ly participate  in the debates on th at 
matter.  
The representative of Australia , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , said that i t had been 
clear for some time that a discussion on S&DT  was necessary , given that the current global economy 
was different  in many ways to when th e organi zation had been  founded.   
Fostering and supporting all Members ' participation in global trade as a tool for economic 
development remain ed a fundamental part of WTO work – not only in shaping rules which provide d WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 36 - 
 
  stability  and predictability and support ed development objectives , but also through targeted 
capacity -building and technical assistance.  Australia recogni zed that the LDCs  faced particular 
constraints which it was committed to help address.   
While  the S&DT principle support ed the integration of developing Members  into the 
multilateral trading system , some approaches to S&DT  had not helped Members  to achieve 
negotiated outcomes and, in some cases, ha d not adequately reflect ed developments in the glo bal 
economy. A one -size-fits-all approach to S&DT  was unlikely to be workable nor appropriate.  S&DT  
should  instead  be tailored to particular contexts on a "needs  basis", enabling Members to make 
commitments commensurate with their capacit y. 
Australia encou raged all Members to adopt a solution -oriented approach to the discussions 
on th at important issue , especially in the context of current negotiations where positive outcomes 
were necessary to demonstrate the continued relevance of th e organi zation.  
The representative of El Salvador , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , recogni zed the efforts 
that ha d been made in bringing forward the current discussion.  Those initiatives ha d been 
transmitted back to capital and were being looked at carefully , due to  their possible  implications  and 
the large volume of information. Since the authorities in El Salvador would be taking on their new 
functions i n the incoming months, El Salvador  reserve d its right to voice comments  on th e matter  
at a later time in th e General  Council or in any other WTO body.  
S&DT was one of the fundamental pillars of the multilateral trading system. As Members 
were not equal, the current and future disciplines  regulat ing world trade should not have a 
horizontal, cross -cutting application.  There were various objective differences that c ould not simply 
be set aside. WTO rules ha d different variations in terms of  scope and application , so that they c ould 
be appropriate to each  Member  or to their respective  regional groupings.  El Salvador remained  open 
to discuss th e matter in a constructive way  to ensure  that the system would  be strengthened and in 
no way undermined.  
The representative of Pakistan  noted that  S&DT was not only  a bedrock of the multilateral  
trading  system, but  also an available and unconditional right of every  developing and least-
developed Member. Th at right had been  established as a result of detailed negotiations , deliberations 
and concessions made by developing  Members . Taking away the  right to S&DT f rom developing 
Members would remove the reason they had joined th e organization. Decades after the promise of 
development to developing Members, t he dream remain ed elusive for many.  
Despite having development as its central and unquestionable objective, t he Doha 
Development Round had not yet been concluded.  That failure o f the WTO's  negotiating arm c ould 
only be attributed to Members'  failure to recogni ze the legitimate concerns and demands of 
developing Members . While developing Members  were still finding  ways to balance their obligations 
with their development objectives, Members  should not try to redefine the concept of S&D T. That 
would be counterproductive and w ould not help in addressing the general development concerns . 
The representative of Israel , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , said that his delegation  
reserve d its right to come back to that matter later if necessary. Development was importan t for the 
future work of the WTO  and wa s not new , as it had been addressed in various settings and 
configurations in the past. In grappling with the development issue, Members should  acknowledge 
that the world ha d changed enormously in recent decades  – changes that c ould be felt across the 
world in different secto rs of life and in different ways. Such changes  had had their consequences in 
international trade including in global markets, new realities and the need for new rules. That implied 
that Members should look at some topics such as development under a new lig ht and avoid trying 
to address them in a traditional manner.  
However, b y focusing only on some specific economic indicators , they had misse d to 
illustrate the full picture. The more constructive approach  could  be to focus on the balance of rights 
and obli gations and on how all Members c ould comply with the rules set forth. An example could  be 
the approach taken under the TFA which focuse d on compliance rather than on exceptions. Israel 
was open to further discuss th e issue and look ed forward to engaging wi th Members in any 
configuration in order to move th e dialogue forward.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 37 - 
 
  
The representative of  the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that the communication by China,  
India, South Africa, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Lao PDR, Kenya and Cuba in WT/GC/ W/765 
had stated that S&DT  was one of the central pillars of the multilateral trading system  – the main 
objective of which was  to put in place just and equitable  conditions for  Members as s et forth in the 
communication in  WT/GC/ W/442. Trade liberalization was not an end in itself but a way of making 
trade more just and equitable particularly for  the vulnerable Members.  
It could be dangerous to get involved in a battle of figures because stat istics c ould be used 
in various ways and could give rise to divergent conclusions. The General Council was not the place 
for a war on statistics . Members had the right to define themselves as developing and to have access 
to S&DT. The WTO d id not  have any mandate to discuss which  Members  would be con sidered as 
developing or not . By categorising Members, they would open Pandora's Box which would give rise 
to greater paralysis in th e organization. Before starting new discussions, Members should first 
address  the WTO's most  urgent problems : solving the Appellate Body crisis and implemen ting 
Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
The representative of Indonesia , speaking on agenda  items  6 and 7 , associated  his 
delegation  with the statement to be made by A SEAN. T he effort to improve the WTO functions , 
including its negotiatin g pillar, was essential. The link made between S&DT and enhancing the 
negotiating function was not however black and white. S&DT was the product of negotiation s to 
ensure the integratio n of developing and LDC Members in  international trade and to widen their 
participation in  the multilateral trading system for the benefit of all . Indonesia was therefore  
concerned about the proposal to  terminate S&DT for developing Members  based on  dubiou s criteria.  
The continuation of S&DT was imperative for pursuing development through economic and 
trade policies that address ed poverty , underdevelopment and various other socioeconomic 
challenges. With the proposed WTO reforms and the strengthening of the oversight rules of the 
Secretariat, Indonesia felt that t he proposal  on the table would further tilt the balance against 
developing Members. It was  difficult to comprehend how eliminating  S&DT would create a better 
negotiatin g functio n. Such initiative would simply drive M embers to block the negotiation s if they 
could not have policy space to address their structural economic problems and development al 
challenges.  
The representative of Sri Lanka,  speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , noted that t he 
submissions were currently being  reviewed in capital. T he global trading environment ha d undergone 
significant changes in the recent past  which sho uld be adequately reflect ed in the rule s-based 
multilateral trading system , without diluting the fundamental principles that Members had negotiated 
and had agreed to preserve. As  S&DT was  a principle embedded in the Marrakesh Agreement , 
Members should ensure that the multilateral rules that they would  agree to in the organization  would 
continue to maintain its fundamental focus on trade –led development.  
The US proposal related to the funda mental principle of S&DT for developing Members , which 
all of them had agreed to . That had also  been highlighted in the  ongoing fisheries negotiations . The 
recently concluded TFA had also recogni zed such needs of developing Members . Members  should 
therefor e carefully assess whether there was a need to re -open th ose agreed  provisions , as it could 
lead to another deadlock in WTO negotiations. Sri Lanka called on Members to work collectively and 
constructively on the issues  already on the table  and encouraged them to fulfil their commitments 
and contribute to the  effective functioning of the multilateral trading system.  
The representative of Barbados  said that S&DT  and development ha d often been placed in 
the basket of contentious issues in Members' deliberations in the WTO regular bodies and negotiating 
groups . Developing Members , especially small and vulnerable economies , LDCs and other developing 
Members  with capacity constraints , should continue to have access to S&DT . S&DT had long been 
regarded as an indispensable principle enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement  and in Part IV of the 
GATT 1947 . It had also been a major enabler for developing Members  to join consensus on 
negotiated o utcomes t hat requir ed them to take on new WTO rules.  
The world ha d changed since the establishment of the WTO . Some Members during that 
period had experienced rapid growth  in their economies.  However, t hat growth ha d not been 
equitably distributed across all Members. F ar too many small and vulnerable economies, small island 
developing States and LDCs remain ed on the fringes of integration into the global economy.    WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 38 - 
 
  
S&DT  was an integral WTO principle and an essential part of any proposed discipline which 
require d multilateral consensus.  The WTO 's ability to reach consensus was contingent upon the 
inclusion of Barbados'  ability to avail itself of S&DT  to assist with the implementation of the 
disciplines and be provided with lasting technica l assistance and capacity  building . S&DT was not a 
carte blanche which allow ed for blanket exemption from the rules , but an enabler  for differentiated 
treatment in implementing  rules, based on the differing level s of development.  
Barbados ha d been steadfas t in reminding international Geneva about the shortcomings of 
per capita income alone , particularly as it categorise d small island developing economies , like 
Barbados and those in the Caribbean and in the Pacific , as high or middle income thereby excluding  
them from necessary concessionary financing.  Barbados ha d therefore been a champion for urging 
the international community of the need for due regard to be given to economic and environmental 
vulnerability defining access to development finance, concessio nal finance and technical assistance 
and capacity building.  
In the World Bank 's 2018 -2019 country classification based on gross national income per 
capita, some small island developing States like Barbados ha d been classified as high -income 
countries.  Despite such classification, Barbados continue d to be challenged by small production 
capacities, susceptibility to economic shocks, susceptibility to climate change and other natural 
hazards, remoteness from main markets, limited natural resources, burgeoning  debt levels and 
significant capacity and infrastructural constraints  – all of which limit ed its efforts at advancing to 
developed Member  status.   
The peculiarities of being small  had often  resulted in small island developing States like 
Barbados to be explicitly or implicitly excluded from access to essential development and technical 
assistance and capacity building without  the requisite consideration for the challenges associated 
with sma llness and vulnerability being featured as significant factors contributing to its 
circumstances.  Any discussions on S&DT should therefore  consider Barbados'  economic and 
environmental vulnerabilities. Vulnerability indices  should  feature prominently  in that regard.  
In closing, Barbados invited Members to revisit a historical date.  In the latter half of the 
1960s, Barbados had become the 71st Contracting Party to the GATT 1947. At that time of post -
independence , the Director -General of the GATT had said tha t on "30 November 1966 , Barbados 
acquired full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations " thereby paving the way 
for Barbados'  admission to the GATT as a full Contracting Party in its own right  – as a sovereign 
State. 
The representative of Cameroon , speaking  on agenda  items 6 and 7 , associated  his 
delegations  with the statements made by the African and the ACP Groups.  The lowest common 
denominator that justifie d Members'  presence in th e organization  was development.  For those with 
a significant socioeconomic level, so -called developed Members , the Marrakesh Agreement and other 
WTO instruments offer ed the necessary framework to strengthen their partnerships and new 
horizons for economic actors , enabling them to consolidate their  economies to a significant level , 
and to offer their citizens the continuous enjoyment of an appreciable quality of life which was 
sometimes used as a reference in many fields.  
For those  with fragile economies such as Cameroon, th e organization offer ed the means to 
better integrate into international trade through trading their agricultural products, among others. 
Diversification and industrialization of their economies also contribute d to the legitimate expectations 
of developing and LDC Members  to meet t he many needs of their populations. The Marrakesh 
Agreement ha d therefore  built an architecture that g ave the so -called developed and developing 
Members  rights and obligations to meet their respective aspirations.  
For Cameroon, a developing Member , S&DT w as part of th at global architecture that g ave it 
the flexibility to participate in international trade on a more or less equitable basis. Without 
incorporating  S&DT in the Agreements and current and future negotiations and its effective 
enjoyment by all de veloping and LDC  Members , international law  developed in the WTO  would 
produce  the greatest injustices following  the legal maxim "summum jus, summa injuria".  
Insisting on any adjustments that should be made to the enjoyment of S&DT  without 
considering how th ose measures met the real needs of developing Members would not address the WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 39 - 
 
  substantive issue  due to the failure of  associat ing the response with the objecti ve pursued. Members 
should instead try to find a way to make the enjoyment of S &DT actually effective for the developing  
Members.  Such would  allow developing Members  a significant level of integration into the world 
economy and provide them with the necess ary resources to transform their economic and social 
fabric  through access to drinking water and electricity, access to health care, construction of road 
infrastructures, improvement of educational policies, access to technolog y and  access to housing , 
amon g others.  
The WTO was not a panacea for all the economic and trade issues  of its Members.  To do so 
would be to place unreas onable  expectations on th e beautiful yet imperfect architecture of 
international trade law that it generate d. However, c alls for the modification of th at architecture 
under the guise  of WTO reform should  ensure that any new development would function in a manner 
that would consider  the expectations of developing Members . 
Although some Members  were interested in adopting rules on differe ntiation, it was doubtful 
on whether such was the most pressing  issue at the moment . Members should instead  priorit ise the 
completion of the outstanding issues on the WTO's  agenda for which the developing Members had 
constantly drawn the attention to for nearly two decade s. That  included  agriculture – the culmination 
of which  hinged  on reduc ing or eliminat ing domestic support measures.  
The Doha Ministerial Conference, the G -90 and the African Group ha d indicated concrete 
ways to uphold the pillars of  inclusive development that were lacking in the organization.  As a WTO 
objective, the quest for inclusive development  implie d that developed and developing Members  
found  within th e organ ization rules, procedures and practices that allow ed them to consolidate and 
build themselves respectively. Development and the emergence of one should  not necessarily  be 
perceived as the decline of others , but rather as a sign of  better distribution of ro les and resources  
since the growth of developing Members  generate d substantial profits for the many companies in  
developed Members . 
Such analysis did  not proceed from an ideal perception of the WTO  which constitute d the 
interests of Members  but from the Preamble to the Marrake sh Agreement  which recogni zed "that 
their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to 
raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of 
real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, 
while allowing for the optimal use of the world 's resources in accordance with the objective of 
sustainable development, seeking both to protect an d preserve the environment and to enhance the 
means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respective needs and concerns at different 
levels of economic development".  
Cameroon reaffirm ed its commitment to the principle of inclusive development ment ioned 
in the Preamble  and its commitment to multilateralism  based on the collective ability of states to 
find consensual responses to issues of common interest based on  just and freely agreed texts. It 
was the common realization of nations and peoples with out any discrimination. Multilateralism was 
thus the opposite of a zero -sum game and against favouring the one who ha d the mightiest sword. 
Cameroon was confident in the ability of the General Council  to work in good faith to provide 
appropriate and sustai nable solutions to development issues. To achieve th at, Members  should look  
at the  relevant  proposals of the African Members  and the G -90. In the absence of effective and 
concrete responses to the expectations of developing Members , the organization w ould be irrelevant 
to them. Cameroon therefore called on Members to fully implement the existing rules and to conclude  
the Doha Round , and stood ready to work constructively with all  of them  to advance the issues  under 
discussion.  
The representative of Banglade sh, speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , associated his 
delegation with the statement made by the LDC Group. In the pursuit of a rules -based multilateral 
trading system, S&DT remained  a critical building block for further integrating the developing and 
LDC Members  into the system. It ha d often been argued with evidence that S&DT provisions ha d 
not been able to reach their objectives and potential due to a number of interrelated factors  – as 
had been exemplified by the persistent divergence in the CTD SS  to review the existing S&D T 
provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and 
operational.  There ha d been a number of constructive proposals submit ted over the years to help 
address the divergence , yet nothing of substance ha d emerged  in the process.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 40 - 
 
  
Question ing the fundamental premise of S&D T provisions  would  be counterproductive. 
Efforts should  rather  carry on to further review the legal and pract ical implications of existing S&D T 
provisions to enable Members to  make informed decisions in the current  and future negotiations. As 
a graduating LDC dependent  on a narrow yet competitive export basket, Bangladesh was concerned 
with the sector -specific approach to S&D T provisions  as it could  create additional complexities within 
S&DT provisions  and widen the divergence among Members  in a similar  situation in relation to 
specific sectors. It would  also und ermine the predictability in the rules-based multilateral trading 
system that Bangladesh would like to  preserve in the course of its graduation.  Bangladesh 
underscore d the importance of a comprehensive assessment of all relevant dimensions of 
development  of individual Members  in lieu of taking recourse to a select set of benchmarks , and 
looked forward to further engaging on th e issue in future deliberations.  
The representative of Chile, on behalf of Argentina , Brazil , Chile, Colombia , Mexico , Panama , 
Paragu ay, Peru, and Uruguay , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , emphasi zed the general 
importance of the subject of development and S&DT  in the framework of the rules and practices of 
the multilateral trading system represented by the WTO.   
The Group of Latin American Countries was convinced of the existence of links between trade 
and development  which formed part of the role of free trade  as a force for the welfare and prosperity 
of all. In that regard, t he Group  shared  a common vision on development that include d trade as one 
of the means of implementing the objectives of sustainable development.  Development was a 
multidimensional phenome non which required to be treated as a process of continuous and integral 
advancement . There was no single metric to measure it , nor one that capture d the diversity of 
situations encountered by  developing Members.  
The Group support ed a rule s-based multilateral trading system with the WTO at its centre. 
In addressing the issue that br ought  Members  together within the WTO framework , reflecting on the 
concepts dealt with particularly on development and its specific link  to S&DT was critical.  S&DT  
sought to meet specific development conditions with a view to facilitating the distribution  of the 
benefits of trade and the fulfilment of the commitments made.  It was important to exchange views 
and participat e in an inclusive, open , pragmatic and forward -looking discussion  on the matter . As 
issues related to development and S&DT  were a reality , the Group remained  open to finding solutions  
so that the benefits of the commercial liberalization of goods and services c ould reach all Members.  
The representative of Malawi , on behalf of the ACP , speaking on agenda items 6 and 7 , said 
that f rom its  technical discussions on the issues  raised, the ACP would not allow an academic 
discussion on development parameters to distract Members  from issues that were real to the ir 
development trajectory. A serious pushback on development in the WTO ha d emerged and the 
development concerns of developing Members  had been ignored . 
There were ceaseless attempts to kick away the ladder by those who were already developed 
even though s ome of the m still benefit ed from negotiated exceptions and flexibilities for many areas  
including agriculture. Those Members had been travel ing on the path that developing and LDC 
Members were also currently in and should continue to follow . They had used the same tools and 
methods that developing and LDC Members  also s ought  to benefit from  in the organi zation to 
maintain the policy space needed to  implement  their domestic policy reforms and transformation 
agenda  and to ensure that negotiated outcomes accom modate d their levels of development. The 
ACP w ould not lose focus  on the G -90 proposals on S&DT which remain ed the important point of 
departure for Members'  negotiations on development.  
The Marrakesh Agreement recogni zed the need for positive effort s designed to ensure that 
developing  Members  especially the LDCs secure d a share in the growth in international trade 
commensurate with the needs of their economic development.  Fair trading opportunities should  
consequently  be avai lable to all Members on a more equitable basis. The benefits of increased trade 
had not however  been shared equitably with a number of developing Members.  
The Doha Declaration had reaffirmed the  role play ed by the WTO  in promoti ng economic 
development amon g developing Members, which constituted majority of the Membership,  by placing 
their needs at the heart of the Doha Work Programme. The needs of developing Members should be  
catered for in various ways , including enhanced market access, balanced rules and well targeted, 
sustainably financed technical assistance and capacity  building programmes.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 41 - 
 
  
Members had undert aken commitments according to their level of development . In fact,  the 
commitments undertaken by developing Members and the S&DT provisions applica ble to WTO rules 
proved that WTO rules were applied by all Members. T he negotiated S&DT provisions , which 
constituted an integral part of WTO Agreements , was expected to  help cushion and provide relief 
from th ose stringent obligations undertaken by develop ing Members  with capacity constraints.  Those 
negotiated S&DT provisions were also meant to allow developing Members  to implement 
development policies that enabled structural transformation, industriali zation and economic growth.  
The objective of any WTO Agreement should support or at least not undermine the current 
economic and/or developmental objectives of developing Members. S&DT was an integral part of all 
WTO Agreements and future multilateral outcomes to allow developing Mem bers to pursue their 
development agenda. However, S&DT provisions ha d been reduced to mostly best endeavour clauses  
which were  non-obligatory and rendered ineffective. The review of S&DT provisions with the aim of 
strengthening them and making them more pr ecise, effective and operational in accordance with  
Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration had become crucial to developing Members .  
The ACP continue d to strongly support the agreed S&DT principle as enshrined in the 
Marrakesh Agreement and which formed an integral part of WTO Agreements , together with the 
principle of self -declar ed development status by developing Members . Following th at principle, 
Members also had the prerogative to self -declare if they d id not require such flexibility in 
imple menting WTO Agreements.  
Members  should  understand that the stalemate in WTO negotiations was neither  a result of 
lack of ambition by developing Members  nor of self -designated development status.  The lack of 
leadership from developed Members in the  Doha man dated areas of interest to developing Members,  
which  would have  the most effect  on developing Members'  economic and trade growth , was evident . 
In each round of WTO negotiations, issues that benefit ed developed Member s the most we re pursued 
while the G -90 proposal and other issues in favour of development ha d been ignored or rejected.  
Any proposed discussion on development should have the objective of making the WTO more 
equitable, balanced, development -orientated, inclusive and transparent in decision -making, and 
should seek to further the mandate in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
The representative of Peru, speaking on agenda items 6 and 7 , noted that t he 
communications were  useful and relevant , but not sufficient to illustrate  how trade actually 
contribute d to development.  Those contributions in a way showed  the changes that the world and 
the M embers ha d undergone in the past few years  which had an economic dimension that had not 
been the same for all . Development and S&DT  should therefore be examin ed from various aspects 
in a precise and documented manner , before tak ing any decision. Peru associated with the joint 
statement made by Chile on behalf of a group of Latin American Countries  and reiterated its  
openness and readiness for a dialogue without abandoning the S&DT principle. The objective sought 
by S&DT  should be to facilitate compliance with commitments made and to ensur e that the 
advantages of free trade reach ed everyone.  
Peru had undertaken major  economic reforms over a number of years to integrate its 
economy into international trade. Through  years of great effort and sacrifice, Peru's  experience ha d 
demonstrated  that economic openness and trade libera lization had contributed to its economic 
prosperity.  Peru nevertheless  remained  far from  achiev ing full development , as it continued to 
confront major social and economic challenge s – widening  the gap with developed Members in areas 
such as  technology, knowledge, infrastructure, production, access to  finance  and creation of wealth.  
Members should  follow  what had been  agreed by their Heads of State and Governme nts 
under the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development  and should  consider  the WTO's areas of 
competence  in its discussions on fulfilling the SDGs . Members should approach th e matter in a  
pragmatic , innovative and flexible manner with the aim of agreeing on commitments and obligations 
that took into account the capacity of Members – without disregarding previous  discussions in the 
WTO and  the TFA negotiations . Peru stood ready  to continue to participate in th e debate in a 
constructive and pragmatic manner.  
The representative of  the European Union , speaking on agenda  items 6 and 7 , said that  
development was a cent ral pillar of th e organi zation.  Its concrete articulation ha d however  led to 
tensions and at times blockage in negotiations and ha d deprived those Members who actually need ed WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 42 - 
 
  flexibilities the most from getting them. The EU thus share d several of the argum ents advanced in 
the US paper.  
The EU d id not contest the right of  Members to self -designate themselves as  developed or 
developing, but was concerned with the WTO -specific consequence of th at right which ha d tended 
to be interpreted as a full and automatic right to flexibilities. As the developing Member  group ha d 
over the years become much more heterogeneous, th at interpretation was no longer tenable.  
The TFA had implicitly recogni zed that as it had  managed  to differentiate among developing  
Members based on their capacity to implement. While the TFA model was by no means perfect, it 
showed that differentiation among developing Members  was possible and acceptable according to 
Members ' individual needs and req uirements.  
If the WTO was to adopt new rules , such as  in fisheries subsidies, future differentiation 
should  become much more granular in function of an individual Member's demonstrated needs and 
capacities. Negotiations predicated on a crude distinction be tween developed, developing and least -
developed were bound to fail. A better approach would be  to design S &DT in terms of specific 
individual Member  needs at the sectoral or activity level rather than calling for the block exemptions 
of a large category of  Members.  
S&DT should focus on providing more time to implement commitments to those who need ed 
it and on providing assistance. The emphasis of WTO negotiations should be on trade facilitation and 
liberalization instead of carve -outs. Although  flexibilitie s would remain  available , they should 
respond to a specific Member's needs. The notable exception should be the LDCs who deserve d 
particular treatment and who in any case ha d a graduation mechanism.  
The EU remained open to discuss and help other Members with the difficulties they face d as 
it continued to p rovide considerable development assistance to help developing Members  particularly 
the LDCs to achieve their development objectives.  
The representative of Mali support ed the communication of  China, India, South Africa, the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and other co -sponsors  and associated with the statements made 
by the African, the ACP and the LDC Groups . The DDA , under the a uspices  of the CTD and the CTD 
SS, should  be the basis of negotiation s at the WTO . The maintenance of S&DT  in its current form as 
defined by the various Ministerial mandates was the only way for developing and LDC Members to 
fully integrate into the  fair, inclusive and rules -based multilateral trading system.  
The represent ative of Uruguay , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , supported the joint 
statement made by Chile on behalf of a group of Latin American Countries which underscored the 
multidimensional  and multifaceted nature of development especially in the area of S &DT. Uruguay  
called upon all Members to avoid polari sing their discussion and to continue exchang ing viewpoints 
and advanc ing their discussions in that area . Members should ensure that the benefits of trade would 
be distributed in a fair manner.  
The representative of Zimbabwe , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , associated  his 
delegation  with the statements made by the African and the ACP Groups. The S&DT principle was 
an integral part of the Marrakesh Agreement, the DDA, the GATS and the GATT and wa s an 
unconditional right for developing Members . S&DT was meant to assist developing Members  to be 
integrated into the multilateral trading system and  enable them to industrialise and meet their 
development objectives.  
However, s ome Members were proposing to make fundamental changes to the rule book by 
eliminating or limiting the scope of application of S &DT through a differentiated approach at a time 
when industrialisation in Africa was on the decline and poverty levels were rising.  Zimbabwe did not 
support  any proposal that g ave no guarantee to the pre servation of S &DT especially for LDCs who 
had always been granted greater flexibilities than developing Members .  
Developing Members  should not be deprived of S &DT. The objective of the Marrakesh 
Agreement on development and the mandate under  Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaratio n to 
strengthen S &DT provisions to make them more precise, effective and operational should not be 
reversed.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 43 - 
 
  
Advanced countries  had for a long time enjoyed some flexibilities under WTO Agreements 
such as the Agreement on Agriculture. They had had adequate policy space to climb up the 
development ladder at a time when there had been  no restrictive trade rules. Some Members were 
however proposing to diminish the policy space required for developing Members  to climb up the 
development lad der. 
Any further work on proposals to diminish the scope of S &DT or eliminate it w ould not serve 
much purpose , as that would not garner any consensus  and would instead erode the credibility of 
the organi zation as well as delay work on development negotiati ons. S &DT should remain integral 
in all existing and future Agreements and for all developing Members . There was no mandate to limit 
the scope of application of S &DT or to eliminate it. On the contrary, a mandate exist ed to strengthen 
those provisions. Zimbabwe therefore called upon all Members to commit themselves to advancing 
work on strengthening S &DT based on the G -90 proposal.  
The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  THE CONTINUED RELEVA NCE OF SPECIAL AND D IFFERENTIAL TREATMEN T IN FAVOUR 
OF DEVELOPING MEMBER S TO PROMOTE DEVELOP MENT AND ENSURE INCL USIVENESS – 
COMMUNICATION FROM C HINA, INDIA, SOUTH A FRICA, THE BOLIVARIA N REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA, LAO PEOPL E'S DEMOCRATIC REPUB LIC, THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA, KENYA AND C UBA (W T/GC/W/765/REV.1)  
The Chairman  said that t he delegations of China, India, South Africa and the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela had requested the Secretariat on 15 February to include th at item on the agenda of 
the meeting, together with a communication ci rculated in document WT/GC/W/765. A Revision to 
the communication had been  subsequently circulated to add Lao PDR, the Plurinational State of 
Bolivia, Kenya and Cuba as co -sponsors and a further revision adding Pakistan and  the Central 
African Republic was forthcoming .6 
The representative of China  noted that their communication was composed of an 11-page text 
with illustration s and 28  pages of graphs and tables , mainly covering six sections: executive 
summary, development divide, capacity constraint, new Members' contributions, special and 
differential treatment and self -declaration, and the conclusion . 
Similar to the US submission, their paper also ma de reference to some development indicator s 
and figures borrowed from other international organizations. Th ose indicators and figures were 
useful for understanding and analy sing the current state of development and growth trajectories of 
different Members.  
The WTO was a forum for negotiating mult ilateral trade rules rather than an institution for 
human and social development. Within the context of the WTO rules,  Members should explore how  
they, including developed Members and developing ones – whose level of development was relatively 
lower than t he former  – could use trade to better promote domestic economic growth, increase 
employment opportunities and reduce poverty. Classifying Members into apples and pears was not 
the right way to achieve th ose objectives. The current dichotomy reflect ed the inherent logic of the 
multilateral trading system, including the logic behind its political, economic, legal and historic 
evolution. S &DT was a key policy tool for addressing development divides and capacity constraints  
making it  indispensable for the multi lateral trading system.  
Developing Members ha d made impressive progress in trade, economic and social development 
in the past decades. Denying th at fact would be  denying themselves and overwriting the progress 
made. The divide between developing and developed Members however remain ed huge.  In 2017, 
while per capita GDP of the U nited States  was USD 59,531, the figure of China, India, Brazil, South 
Africa and many other developi ng Members was still less than USD 10,000. Furthermore, since 1995, 
the year in which the WTO had been  established, the absolute increment data show ed that the per 
capita GDP gap between developing and developed Members ha d actually been widening.  In 2016,  
only 40.9% of the population in developing countries  had access to mobile broadband  – less than 
half of the 90.3% figure for developed ones. In 2016, 85% of the world 's total population was in the 
developing Members but they only account ed for less than 3 0% of the global services export. The 
                                                
6 The revision to this communication was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/W/765/Rev.2.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 44 - 
 
  gap was even larger in intellectual property trade . In 2017, the U S gain from IP trade was 27 times 
that of China, 183 times that of India and 213 times that of Brazil.  
Comparing the two communications, it was obvious that the United States was  seeing more 
water than before in its glass, while China saw the gla ss as half empty. Th at reflect ed not only a 
difference in perspective but also a difference in their historical missions. China's  mission was to fill 
the glass un til it was full – and th at would be a long march.  The rapidly  changing world co -existed 
with a certain level of relative stability. As Members needed to be sensitive to th ose changes , they 
too should  respect stability.  
China thanked the United States for stating China' s achievements in  its paper. While the 
Chinese were  proud of their hard -won achievements , they likewise had a clear understanding o f 
China' s basic reality and the country 's development status in the course of its history . China was  
and w ould for a long period of time remain in the primary stage of socialism as it remained  the 
largest developing country in the world.  
China  acknowledge d that there were differences among the developing Members. Some g rew 
faster  while others a bit slower. Denying th at fact was denying common sense. Nevertheless, the 
commonalities among the developing Members , particular ly the failure to achieve full and balanced 
development , significantly outweigh ed their differences. They were either short on both full and 
balanced development or ha d particular challenges in achieving either of the two.  
The LDCs, commonly recogni zed as the poorest countries, account ed for 38.2% of the 
impoverished population in the world while those belonging to  the 61.8% were in the non -LDC 
developing Members such as China and India. In 2017, for manufacturing companies listed on the 
"Fortune Global 500 ", the average profitability of Chinese and Brazilian companies was only 17% 
and 29% of those of the US ones. I n 2018, among the world 's top 100 universities, only 4 were in 
developing countrie s. Even for some developing Members with relatively high per capita income 
thanks to their natural endowment, they still ha d a lot of catch ing up to do  with the developed 
Members in the areas of social administration  and governance capacities, among others . 
S&DT wa s an exception from the general trade rules. Denying th at fact was denying history. 
S&DT was  not however  a charity granted by developed Members . On the contrary, it was the result 
of painful negotiations in which developing Members ha d paid a high price in exchange  for making 
it an integral and indispensable part of the multilateral trade rules.  The rationale for granting S&DT 
to developing Members  was not difficult t o understand . Anyone with a knowledge of the history of 
international trade would know  that developing Members ha d been treated unfairly for a long period 
of time in the early days of the multilateral trading system.  
Taking agriculture as an example, the per capita agricultural subsidies of the United States 
was 70 times that of China , 176 times that of Brazil  and 267 times that of India. As had been pointed 
out by an UNCTAD expert, a simple reciprocal market opening a mong the countries with different 
levels of economic power was in itself a discrimination.  
To correct historic discrimination, from the Enabling Clause to  the Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing, developing Members had fought hard to get S&DT  in the negotia tions and it had been  an 
arduous journey. In the Uruguay Round, developing Members  had made significant concessions in 
trade in services and intellectual property right s just to keep textile trade within the multilateral 
rules and reduce distortions in agr icultural trade.  Decades  had passed , but little progress had been  
made by the developed Members to implement the development -oriented commitments. The "best 
endeavo ur" provisions remain ed best endeavo urs on a piece of mouldy  paper. Hundreds of billion s 
of US dollars of distortive subsidies still plague d the global agricultural trade affecting  lives of farmers 
in the developing world.  
Developed Members ha d a higher overall level of market openness than developing ones. 
Denying th at was deny ing a fact. Since the establishment of the WTO in 1995, it was however 
developing Members, not developed ones, who ha d made great contributions to the global trade 
liberalization particular ly the newly -acceded developing Members or the so-called Article XII 
Members.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 45 - 
 
  
While developed Members ha d maintained their tariff peaks, tariff escalations, high amount 
of agricultural domestic support and distortive export subsidies, developing Members in the process 
of accession to the WTO ha d made much broader and extensive commi tments in market opening 
and ha d faithfully implemented those commitments. The Article XII Members ha d committed to full 
tariffication  and their average bound rate for agricultural products was only one fourth of those of 
the founding Members. On average, they ha d liberali zed 107 services sub -sectors while the founding 
Members ha d only liberali sed 42.  
In its accession negotiations, China ha d committed to zero Aggregate Measurement of 
Support and  had reduced the average tariff for agricultural products to 15.7%. China had also 
implemented the TRIP S Agreement since the day of its accession. After becoming a Member of the 
WTO, China ha d actively participated in the ITA expansion negotiation and ha d done much more 
than other ITA members . For example , it cost ed China USD 7.5 billion of foregone tariff revenue per 
year to implement the Agreement.  China had  made its contributions and it had  done so with full 
willingness. China also knew its limits and d id the best it could within its capacities. China ha d done 
so in the past and w ould continue to do so in the future.  
He said that w hen he travel led on missions, he always b ought  some gifts for his wife. But 
there  was one thing he would never buy for her  – shoes . Only she kn ew if the shoes  would fit or 
not. Abandoning self -declared development status was like  handing out their right to pick the right 
shoes for themselves. He did not  think it would fit Members and the system as a wh ole. 
Mr. Friedrich Hayek, a prominent economist, had expressed the view in one of his books  that 
the fact itself d id not tell  one what the right thing to do was but the misreading of the facts w ould 
probably lead to the wrong conclusion and even inappropri ate action. The US analytical paper 
provide d parts of facts and figures . Its fallacy was however obvious and fatal , because the approach 
of taking a part of the whole could mislead people to draw biased conclusions.  
To have a full picture, one should  read the US paper side by side with theirs . Only after  
conduct ing a systematic analysis of all facts c ould Members attempt to have a meaningful discussion 
on such an important topic and try to find some grounds  for convergen ce. In expl oring such 
discussions, developed Members should faithfully fulfil their obligations and take concrete actions to 
implement S&DT  that they ha d promised to the developing Members.  
The representative of India said that t he joint communication in d ocument WT/GC/W/765 
highlight ed the persistence of an enormous development divide between WTO Members by 
presenting data from a wide range of indicators such as GDP per capita, poverty levels, levels of 
under -nourishment, size of agricultural landholdings and the number of farmers dependent on them, 
financial infrastructure, R&D capacity  and receipts from IPR, among others.  
While India cherishe d its economic achievements over the past few decades, it was  nowhere 
near catching  up with developed Members . India was home to 35.6% of the world 's poor compared 
to 38% in all LDCs put together  and to 195.9 million or 24% of the world 's under -nourished people. 
Between 2010 and 2017, on the average , India' s per capita GDP had been  2.9% that of the United 
States . Appr oximately 61.5% of India' s population depende d on agriculture for their livelihood and 
yet data from 2016 show ed that domestic support per farmer in the United States was 267 times 
that of India. Furthermore, India ha d 81 times the number of farmers per hectare as compared to 
the United States.  In view of the gaping divide between the levels of development as compared to 
those of developed Members, it would be grossly unfair and iniquitous if India had been  required to 
take the same obligations as developed countries. The United States  and India c ould not be in the 
same category – even in a boxing match . 
Other developing Members face d similar challenges. Access to broadband was the most vital 
indicator for measuring digi tal development . In the developing world, most broadband access was 
on mobile phones. As far as mobile broadband penetration was concerned, from 2007 to 2016, it 
had increased from 19 % to 90 % in developed countries as compared to an increase from 1% to 
41% in developing countries. The growth ha d been 71 % in developed countries while it ha d only 
been 40 % in developing countries. Further, the difference between developing and developed 
countries had been  18% in 2007 which ha d grown to 49 % in 2016. In the crit ical digital area, not 
only was there a large divide  but such had also grown considerably in the last ten years.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 46 - 
 
  
Self-declaration of development status ha d been a long -standing practice since the early days 
of the GATT  making it  a part of the 'customary practices to be followed by the WTO ' within the 
meaning of Article XVI:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement. Depriving developing Members of the policy 
space that was a right and that had been  enjoyed by each developed Member in their process of 
structural transformation and economic growth would be a gross violation of the basic tenets of 
equity and justice and would strike at the legitimacy of the rules -based system . 
Despite the impressive economic progress made by many developing Members over the past 
two to three  decades, the gap in the standards of living with the developed Members persist ed and 
had actually widened in respect of many parameters.  Moreover, d evelop ing Members continue d to 
confront many formidable challenges which provide d a strong argument for the continued relevance 
of S&DT  in their favour. If the multilateral trading system was unable to respond to their needs, 
some of the developing Members would  not retain a high stake in the system.  
A regime based on complete reciprocity w ould mainly benefit those Members who were better 
endowed with capital and technology. Developing Members who face d significant challenges and 
constraints w ould not be able to benefit from such a regime.  S&DT provisions should be viewed as 
an instrument to enable developing Members to decide what obligations to undertake and over what 
timeframe. Unless Members  address ed the formidable challenges faced by developing Members, 
they would  never be able to encourage them to fully participate in and make contributions to future 
negotiations.  
In the past, the GATT/WTO Membership had exhibited realism and a strong sense of fairness 
in agreeing to S &DT provisions as an unconditional right  for developing Members. In his plenary 
statement at the Doha Ministerial Conference, Pascal Lamy, then EU Trade Commissioner had 
emphasi sed that development belong ed "right at the heart of the multilateral trading system ". If 
future negotiations would  not adopt a similar approach,  then it would be a certain recipe for an 
intractable deadlock. Obviously, it was in the combined interest of the entire WTO membership to 
avoid th at eventuality.  
The representative of Kenya,  speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7, reiterated the importance 
Kenya attached  to development  as evidenced by its co-sponsor ship of the joint paper  circulated in  
WT/GC/W/765/Rev.1 and a ssociated with the statement made by  the African Group . Substantial 
economic progre ss and growth ha d undeniably  been attained by some developing Members and the 
statistics presented in the US analytical paper sp oke for themselves. The presentation of data and 
information had however skewed to paint a rosy picture in some developing econo mies, denying the 
fact that other indicators and statistics given in the joint paper  by China and co -sponsors present ed 
a situation which t old a vastly different story – one that demonstrate d that a lot of challenges and 
shortcomings persist ed in the same developing economies.  
The paper on the Relevance of S&DT  was replete with concrete examples and statistics of the 
development divide between the developing Members and their developed counterparts. The gap in 
GDP per capita and the value  added per worker f or agriculture, forestry and fishing between several 
developed Members and China, India, Indonesia and Sub -Saharan Africa was hugely divergent. The 
high number of subsidies to the farmers in developed Members ha d led to unfair competitive 
advantage for their agricultural products in the international market.  
Developing Members moreover had  a comparatively low level of commercial banks and large 
unbanked populations  consequently  impeding their means to save money,  access to loans and 
transfer of money. Th at was a key measure of how savings affect ed investment which adversely 
affect ed entrepreneurship, income generation and growth of agriculture, industry and the services 
sector in an economy.  Economies of developin g Members should  be looked at more holistically than 
through the means used in the US analytical paper.  
Kenya was concerned that the  selective use of data  had preceded and had primarily informed 
the draft decision in WT/GC/W/764  that was before the General  Council . The draft  propose d to take 
away the right to S&DT from many developing Members by negating the practice of self -declar ation 
of development status at the WTO.  Kenya reiterated its concern s on the process as it did not  accept 
that any decision shou ld be made on the parameters that would allow Members to avail themselves 
of S&DT based on an individual Member 's criterion reached through a non -participatory process.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 47 - 
 
  
The draft decision would  emasculate an important principle that had been  painstakingly 
negotiated in successive WTO processes , including the Uruguay Round and the Doha Development 
Round , to provide a key policy tool for addressing the development divide between the developing 
and the developed Members. Unfortunately, th e divide had continued to persist and had even grow n 
wider despite the availability of S&DT.  Kenya found it disturbing that deficiencies including the dearth 
of requisite human resources, negotiating capacity, well -functioning intragovernmental coordination 
mecha nisms, and the effective participation of social partners in trade negotiating processes, as well 
as other capacity constraints, c ould be used to deny developing Members  the indispensable tool of 
S&DT  which  enable d them to  meet the objectives set out in th e Marrakesh Agreement.  
Kenya was  also apprehensive about the last paragraph  of the draft decision which state d that 
the decision preclude d reaching agreement that in sector specific negotiations, other Members (not 
defined by the preceding parameters) were also ineligible for S&DT. It implied that  if any Member 
normally eligible for S&DT excel ed in a particular field of exports, they could  face punitive action for 
that through the denial of S&DT regardless of their level of economic development.  The proposa l 
posed a potential risk for Kenya that could have grave consequences. Although Kenya had a limited 
export product range mostly depend ent on agriculture, it was  the third biggest exporter of tea and 
fourth biggest exporter of cut flowers globally. Th at situation was not unique to Kenya alone  but wa s 
replicated in many other developing Members. With the principles and the precedent that the draft 
decision propose d to set, many developing Members would be  subject to its parameters and 
consequences.  
Kenya stro ngly support ed the continued relevance of S&DT in favour of developing Members 
as well as  the maintenance of the principle of self -declaration  of development status . That would 
continue to provide the opportunity for developing Members to avail themselves of the necessary 
flexibilities particularly in multilateral trade negotiations to enable them to more effectively integrate 
into the multilateral trading system and benefit from the o pportunities it provided . 
The representative of Pakistan  said that d evelopment and prosperity for its people were 
undoubtedly the real aims of every Member . Every Member  also had the right to make policies for 
its own development  – a right which could not be questioned.  For decades, th e organization ha d 
been highlighting t he need for inclusive prosperity  and equitable shares in the gains from trade and 
economic development for its developing Members. Yet , while trade and technology ha d developed 
globally at great speed, majority of th ose advancements had taken place in the developed world. 
The gap between the developed and developing world ha d continued to widen and had been 
perpetuated in new ways such as th rough the  technological and digital divide.  
The concept of S &DT remain ed most relevant and most central for developing  Members  
seeking to pursue policies for developme nt. The right to S &DT was unconditional. It was also a right  
exercised by every Member  itself in its own choosing . It could not be made into a special admittance 
to be negotiated on a case -by-case basis , through a sectoral approach or by any other criteria.  
The representative of South Africa  joined the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Central African 
Republic, China, Cuba, Kenya, India, Lao  PDR, Pakistan and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as 
co-sponsor on the continued relevance of S&DT. Their paper was a collective response to the paper 
by the United States.  South Africa  associate d with th e statements made  by its fellow co -sponsors.  
While statistics c ould be used selectively and manipulated for almost any purpose, proper 
analysis and application of reason, not just argument or position, c ould better approximate reality. 
Unfortunately, the indicators presented in the US paper, partial and selective as th ey were, paint ed 
a highly distorted picture that d id not reflect the real state of the development divide  – a divide that 
existed and on many critical indicators continue d to grow. The reasons for th at state of affairs were 
manifold , but certainly include d the fact that the policy options that had once been available to the 
developed Members  for their economic growth and prosperity over time ha d been systematically 
narrowed , even denied , to developing , least-developed and acceding Members.   
Narrowing indust rial policy options ha d contributed to a collapse of many infant industries  and 
premature deindustrialisation , making it more difficult for governments to tackle growing poverty in 
many of their countries. The few developing Members  that had escaped th e poverty trap  had 
deployed state-led industrial policy to support their industries and they  had opened up to globa l 
trade strategically, selectively and over time.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 48 - 
 
  
The S&DT principle had been  conceived to allow developing Members  a degree of flexibility to 
deploy such policy measures to support their growth and industrial development but within the 
framework of globa l trade rules. In practice, S &DT ha d however  proven to be inadequate. 
Overwhelmingly, the same rules appl ied to all. Many S &DT flexibilities under the Uruguay Round had 
been time-bound and ha d already lapsed. In other areas, S &DT provisions were imprecise,  
unenforceable and inadequate. It was more than an irony that the most significant flexibility in WTO 
rules were those that allow ed developed Members  to continue to provide enormous support to their 
agricultural producers to the extreme detriment of develo ping Members .  
The Doha Round had been  launched in large measure to redress the imbalances in WTO 
Agreements , including strengthening S &DT. Notwithstanding the difficulties in making progress, 
strengthening S &DT remain ed a matter of critical importance to many developing Members .  
The draft decision being discussed would therefore  not obtain consensus. That discussion was 
an exercise in futility as S &DT was an inalienable right enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement that 
developing Members  would not give up. Some ha d even said that the draft decision was an attempt 
to drive wedges among developing and least -developed Members . It was clear that it wa s a first 
step towards the elimination of all S&DT  for all developing Member s over time. The proposal currently 
target ed 34 developing Members  explicitly but open ed the possibility to deny S &DT to all developing 
and LDC  Members  when it state d, "Nothing in this Decision precludes reaching agreement that in 
sector -specific negotiations other Members are also ineligible for special and differential treatment ".  
South Africa  therefore reject ed the claim by the United States that in sector -specific 
negotiations,  the right to S &DT w ould only apply to big players. Even small or least -developed 
countr y Members  that could  become competitive in a specific sector w ould be directly impacted by 
the proposed language. It implied that  irrespective of the size of a  Member , they would no longer 
be eligible for S&DT in a specific sector if such would be deemed competitive.   
South Africa w ould not waive its right of self -declaration of its development status and to 
S&DT. It had first-hand and bitter experience of the implicatio ns of being denied S &DT flexibility  
during the Uruguay Round and under the apartheid regime . South Africa had undert aken developed 
Member  commitments that  had presaged the de -industrialisation it had  experienced after 1995.  
While South Africa  support ed granting LDCs maximum flexibility in negotiations, all other 
developing Members  also had the right to claim S &DT flexibilities. If some Members want ed to opt 
out, that was their prerogative . In any case, t he principle and rule would not change.  The unintended 
consequence of arguing for eliminating the right to S&DT w ould make it more difficult to arrive at 
agreed outcomes in the WTO particularly where ambitions were too high and commitments too 
onerous. Denying S &DT to developing Members  posed a greater risk to the WTO 's relevance.  
Members should  focus their efforts on building a more inclusive and developmental agenda of work 
at the WTO.  In that context,  S&DT should remain integral to provide developing Members the 
flexibility to pursue policies  that support ed their growth and development.  
The representative of Thailand , on behalf of ASEAN , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , 
support ed ongoing efforts to improve the functioning of the WTO in all areas including its negotiating 
function. ASEAN also  recogni zed the promotion of the development dimension as a core principle of 
the WTO with the view to ensuring that developing Members includ ing LDCs c ould successfully 
integrate into and benefit from global trade commensurate with the needs of their economic 
development.  
Developing Members , including LDCs , faced particular difficulties in implementing their WTO 
commitments and require d additio nal capacities to benefit from trade liberalization. At the same 
time, WTO Agreements contain ed S&DT  provisions which enable d developing Members to overcome 
structural and capacity constraints thus allowing them to carry out trade integration in a way that  
support ed sustainable and inclusive economic growth.  
ASEAN therefore s aw S&DT as an indispensable element of the WTO's toolbox for pursuing 
inclusive economic growth. Members  needed to have further discussions on the nexus between trade 
and development in stead of having a binary discussion on development status. ASEAN encourage d 
all Members to take a constructive and pragmatic approach to tackle the issue of S &DT and to WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 49 - 
 
  strengthen the multilateral trading system through negotiations leading to concessions and 
liberalization commensurate with their respective levels of development.  
Further, to reinvigorate the negotiating function of the WTO, the primary focus for Members, 
both developed and developing, should be placed on finding shared objectives of their negotiations 
with fair and proportionate contributions as a main theme as well as to display flexibilities and 
compromise. ASEAN looked forward to working with other Members to address the remaining issues 
under the Doha Agenda.  
On behalf of Thailand , she noted that the papers in both agenda items  were complimentary 
to each other and, when taken  together,  provide d a more complete picture of S &DT that currently 
existed for all  Members – both developed and developing. S &DT, as embodied in WTO Agreements , 
existed through the recognition of economic and developmental deficiencies of developing Members 
which restrain ed them from capitalising on the benefits of trade liberalization. It was due to th ose 
contrasting capabilities , when compared to developed Members , that flexibilities were provided for 
developing Members to the implementation of WTO obligations at a pace and level suitable to the 
economic structures, capacities and overall levels of development.  
Development was mult i-dimensional and extremely difficult to measure with few indicators. 
It was therefore an issue that require d empathy and deep understanding of the  situation and specific 
circumstances  of each Member. Revitali sing the negotiati ng function of the WTO need ed to be looked 
at holistically rather than targeting S &DT in isolation. The struggles in the ongoing negotiations c ame 
from Members'  collective reluctance to move from entrenched positions – relinquishing privileges 
born from the Uruguay Round.  
Trade was not a zero -sum game . It require d negotiating in good faith and willingness to give 
and take from all sides. The flexibility in the past ha d given Members  the multilateral trading system 
that ha d been immensely beneficially to all of them. Contrary to the gro wing belief that it ha d already 
taken them as far as it could, small sacrifices that create d wide benefits c ould still take them further.  
The representative of Japan , speaking on agenda items 6 and 7 , agreed on the concern raised 
by the United States and welcomed the analytical work done by some Members. Members  had seen 
structural changes in the world economy such as the rise of emerging markets  making it essential  
for them to engage  in a discussion based on the new economic environment.  They should p articularly  
discuss development issues by taking into consideration Member s' individual situation and needs , 
including  their market size and the various development challenges they face d. 
S&DT should be granted to the Members who genuinely need ed such trea tment to the extent 
necessary. A pragmatic approach where Members discuss ed individual and specific issues on a 
negotiation -by-negotiation basis could be an effective way forward to tackle th e issue.  Japan 
expect ed Members to further  deepen their discussion on development and remained  ready to engage 
in that discussion in a constructive manner.  
The representative of Ghana  expressed its appreciation to the co -sponsors of the 
communication in d ocument WT/GC/W/765 on the continued relevance of S &DT for putting the paper 
forward as a respon se to the analytical paper on self -declared development status.  Contrary to the 
conclusions made in  document WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1, there was an abundance of statistics  pointing  
out that poverty across the developing worl d had been increasing , with large populations still 
remaining rudimentary. Ghana  was therefore concerned on proposals that s ought  to impose a 
particular way of viewing development and that had failed to take into account the economic 
difficulties and reali ties faced by developing and LDC  Members .  
It was a truism that all rule s did not  apply to only a few Members. Developed Members still 
enjoy ed vast flexibilities and exemptions in agriculture subsidies beyond de minimis , while leaving 
S&DT provisions unava ilable to developing Members . The b arriers to exports of developed Members 
against  developing Members  remain ed high with the list of restrictive measures getting longer. Those 
measures and trade restrictions ha d costed developing and least -developed Members  three times 
more than what had  been provided in total development assistance. Th at trend should not continue.  
S&DT had been  enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement to provide the necessary flexibility for 
developing and  least-developed Members to integrate into the global economy. To date , S&DT ha d WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 50 - 
 
  failed to create a level playing field for developing and LDC  Members . Ghana reaffirm ed the 
development principles of the Doha Development Agenda for the pursuit of stronger, more precise, 
effective and operational S&DT  provisions for developing Members. A ny discussion  in that regard 
should be based on the G -90 proposals within the mandate of the CTD SS and in line with Paragraph  
44 of the Doha Declaration  rather than on propos als that w ould alter the development architecture 
of the organization.  
Ghana reiterated  its resolve to support negotiated outcomes that support ed its 
industrialization, structural transformation and economic development agenda . Following its 
President's vi sion of a "Ghana Beyond Aid", such efforts  were aimed  at shifting the development 
focus from aid to trade and investment  to generate the much -needed  income and jobs for its people  
– in keeping with the African Union 's "Agenda 2063 : The Africa We Want" and the Africa Continental 
Free Trade Area. To achieve its objectives , Ghana  would continue in its efforts to obtain and retain 
the flexibilities available in the WTO with the support of all Members  – both developed and 
developing.  
The representative of Myanmar  associated with the statement made by  ASEAN and supported  
the paper of China, India and other co -sponsors  on "The Continued Relevance of Special and 
Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing Members to Promote Development and Ensure 
Inclusivene ss". Myanmar reiterated its  strong support to improving and strengthening the WTO's 
multilateral trading system. The rule s-based nature of the system , where decisions were taken by 
consensus , provided every Member the opportunity to deal and engage with tr ade rules at the global 
level in a fair manner  for the benefit of all . In th at regard, Myanmar was confiden t that the WTO ha d 
played and w ould continue to play a crucial role in promoting economic growth  and poverty 
alleviation and in supporting its development goals.  The WTO was under many challenges. The 
current resurgence of protectionism and the emphasis on self -interest had been threatening  the 
fundamental principles of th e system. Th ose threats endangered  the recovery of the global economy  
and fuelled the  growing concerns on the WTO's negotiati ng function.  
Concerning agenda item 7 , Myanmar recalled the Director -General's speech at the Minis terial 
gathering in Davos in 2018 where he had stated that, "Development, and particularly the prospects 
of the LDCs, must remain at the heart of our work".  S&DT, which took various forms, was necessary 
for Members. T he multilateral trading system ha d recognized the differences in levels of economic 
development of Members and had ensured that S&D T would be one of its cornerstone principles.  To 
ensure that negotiated outcomes would accommodate the differences in all levels of economic 
development and the ca pacity constraints faced by developing and LDC Members, Member s should 
safeguard the S&D T principle in any negotiation. Given the huge development gap among Members, 
the S&DT principle should be an integral part of all negotiations . Myanmar urge d Members t o 
maintain the core value of S&D T for developing and LDC  Members and encourage d all of them  to 
work together to strengthen and improve the multilateral trading system.  
The representative of Singapore , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , associated with the  
statement made by ASEAN and said that  it was imperative for Members to  recogni ze that 
development was a multidimensional and complex issue. It came with no surprise that there were 
differing views among Members on the area of developme nt.  
He recalled that t he report of the panel on defining the future of trade convened by Mr. Pas cal 
Lamy,  former WTO D irector -General,  had clearly articulated that point . In the panel's report entitled 
"The future of trade: the challenges of convergence" , it had been  emphasi sed that "there is no single 
tipping point that appropriately defines a country's development status as one conditioned on 
another." Adopting a binary approach on the issue of development status  was simplistic and unlikely 
to lead to a productive outcome. Members could not ignore  their differing circumstances. Small 
States like Singapore w ould always be vulnerable and highly exposed to the global economy.  
A binary classification overlook ed the inherent special vulnerabilities faced by small States 
leaving them worse off when faced by sudden shocks like natural disasters or global economic crisis. 
Members' commitments, obligations and contributions at the WTO were more important – not their 
development status.  Taking fresh and creative approaches to S &DT was a productive and 
constructive way forward. The p olitical way and negotiating in good faith were key to th at end. The 
Trade Facilitation Agreement g ave a prime example of taking a creative  and pragmatic approach to 
addressing differences in capacity and readiness of  Members while still enabling the convergence 
and full implementation of all obligations by all of them.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 51 - 
 
  
There was room for cautious optimism. The WTO was replete with examples o f how Members 
had demonstrated sufficient political will , especially among the majors , to conclude views and to find 
mutually agreeable compromises that addresse d genuine redlines.  Members should be clear about 
the objective of the conversation. They needed to redefine the discussion to focus on the 
fundamental role of trade policy in serving developmental objectives and the enabling role that the 
WTO ha d been playing and should continue to play. S &DT was not a conversation on developed 
versus developing.  It should rather be a conversation on concrete steps that w ould enable all  
Members to more fully reali se the intended benefits of the WTO and th ose Agreements. In th at 
context, S &DT was an essential element of the WTO's toolbox.  
Such should be  assessed vis-à-vis Members' commitments and contributions at the WTO. For 
example, the paper entitled "Balancing Rights and Obligations in the WTO: A Shared Responsibility" 
which had recently been published by three highly -respected former Directors of the WTO Secr etariat 
highlight ed that S &DT was availed to by a wide spectrum of Members – developed, developing and 
LDCs. Singapore was open to constructive conversations on th e issue.  
The representative of Hong Kong, China , speaking on agenda  items 6 and 7 , said that  the 
issue of development status was fundamental to the rights and obligations of the entire membership. 
Self-determination of development status by each Member upon its accession had been a long -
standing practice under the GATT and the WTO , with the except ion of the designation as least 
developed country Members  for which the WTO follow ed the practice of the United Nations.     
Hong Kong, China  was open to discuss whether there should be alternative criteria for 
Members to claim S&DT  in negotiations and, if so, what other alternative approach es could  better 
enable Members at different stages of development to make further commitments.  
The wide spe ctrum of indicators cited in the papers circulated in documents 
WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1 and WT/GC/W/765/Rev.1 provided a few facts . There were various criteria for 
differentiating developed and developing Members  for different purposes. For Members to have a 
meaningful discussion of what indicators  the WTO should use as reference points, they should  stay 
focused on their relevancy to their objective of ensuring the widest possible integration of Members 
into negotiations for progressive trade liberali zation. Members having similar GDP could, for 
example,  have varying capacity constraints in different sectors of economic activities . They could 
not simply  assume that they would necessarily have comparable capability to sign up to the same 
disciplines in any Agreement at the same time.  
In relation to  adopting alternative approaches to address the development divide for ensuring 
maximal integration of Members, the TFA model was the most recent ly agreed attempt at building 
on Members' development status to accord flexibility. Studying the pros and cons of the TFA model 
could  be a starting point for their exploration of alternatives. Hong Kong, China  would not 
underestimate the complexity of further discussions on th at important issue  and stood  ready to 
engage constructively in further discussions if Members were prepared to pursue th e issue 
collectively.  
The representative of  the Philippines , speaking  on agenda items 6 and 7 , associated with the 
statement made by ASEAN. The Philippines found the papers under both items as highly substantive 
contributions to the discussion on S&D T. Those papers c ould enrich the discourse on a subject matter 
that was of t ranscendental importance for all Members and a highly sensitive one for the non -
developed ones. If and when Members  would start a discussion on S&D T, they should  approach it 
with the utmost seriousness and respect it deserve d. That would be an arduous process  with no 
simple or elegant solution on a highly complex issue that went to the core of their participation in 
the multilateral trading system.  
The economic a rgument in support of S&DT had been  that it c ould play a crucial role in 
enabling developing Members  to engage effectively in a liberali sed trading environment and to reap 
the benefits of economic globalization.  That had been reflected in the 1965 GATT Con tracting Parties ' 
decision to add a Part IV on Trade and Development particularly covered by GATT Articles XXXVI to 
XXXVIII. S &DT had later found its way in the 1979 Tokyo Round Decision on the Enabling Clause. 
In 1994, the Preamble of the WTO Treaty had called for a proactive WTO on th e issue which stated 
that, "there is a need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 52 - 
 
  the least -developed among them, secure a share in the growth in international trade commensurate 
with the needs of their economic development. " 
The Philippines attache d great importance to S&D T at the WTO. S&D T mean t many things to 
many Members over the course of nearly 25 years of th e organization 's existence. Under present 
global economic realities an d the current state of the multilateral trading system, Members ' views 
on S&D T would have to be further informed by general notions of fairness and equality in the global 
economy, and that trade c ould and should be a tool for greater economic integration f or all Members.  
S&DT could take many forms including  exemptions, carve -outs, special sensitivities, 
proportionality of contributions based on their levels of development, or increased TRTA or capacity 
building as embodied in the Trade Facilitation Agreement. There was and should be consensus on 
the shared p rinciples and objectives of the organization . Those included achieving poverty 
eradication for all Members  – both developed and developing, greater global economic integration, 
greater progressive liberalization efforts and attaining sustainable and inclus ive development as well 
as rising incomes and full employment . As stated in the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement,  
those objectives would be achieved through Members reaching reciprocal and mutually 
advantageous arrangements.  More opportunities for frank  and open dialogue were needed so that 
Members, both developed and developing, c ould better understand each other 's long -held views on 
S&DT and for them to come up with creative approaches to reinvigorate the WTO negotiations which 
was currently in  a morib und state.  
The representative of Cambodia  associate d with the statement made by ASEAN. Cambodia 
supported  S&DT which  should be provided to Members , especially t he LDCs, depending on their level 
of development. It was important to preserve and respect Parag raph 44 of the Doha Declaration in 
that regard which state d that S &DT was an integral part of the WTO Agreements. Cambodia  urged 
Members to discuss and negotiate matters involving applying rules and self -declaration within  the 
comprehensive rule s-based system through a round of multilateral negotiations  that took into 
account the fundamental rule s in the WTO and that respected the provisions on WTO Agreements 
including  the GATT 1947 and the Marrakesh Agreement.  
As had been mentioned by some Members and by the Chairman, there ha d been no progress 
made in the negotiations on S &DT. Cambodia therefore  urged Members to constructively engage to 
speed up the process of negotiations without delay including on  deadlocked issues.  
The representative of Nigeria  associate d with the statement s made by the African and the 
ACP Groups and reiterated that the importance and continued relevance of S&DT could not be over -
emphasised , due to its benefits to developing Members such as Nigeria.   
S&DT was a negotiat ed right of developing Members  as enshrined in the Marrake sh 
Agreement.  It should therefore continue to be an integral part of all WTO Agreements so that the 
benefits of th at right would provide developing Members  with the required flexibilit ies. S&DT 
associated rational policy space and flexibility were required to enable Members including developing 
ones at various levels of development achieve their respective development objectives.  
The representative of Afghan istan intervened on agenda items 6 and 7.  The WTO was  going 
through a difficult and complex time . There were so many unfinished business and issues  that were 
hindering its effective functionality requir ing Members  to act accordingly. Afghanistan  therefore 
called upon all Members to join their hands, hearts and minds to prioritise their work and efforts to 
build trust in order to address the issues based on their urgency and importance.  
At the current  stage, even though each Member was entitled to declare t heir development 
status , their rights and obligations remained  subject to negotiation . In that regard, t hey should 
assume their commitments  according to their actual capabilities and capacity.  As an LDC and as the 
latest Member of the WTO, Afghanistan looked at  the organization  as a tool to facilitate and 
accelerate its economic development and to bring  its country's economic status to a higher level. It 
was equally aware of the fact that that would be  a long journey , which would require a lot of effort  
and struggle at the national, regional and multilateral level.  
It was  likewise  obvious that  Afghanistan  as an acceding Member who ha d undertaken serious 
commitments and concessions to the WTO w ould not be achieving its ambitious goal unless the WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 53 - 
 
  playing f ield would be levelled at the international trading stage with the WTO at its centre and right 
institutional, human and physical capacities and infrastructures would be put  in place.  S&DT was 
needed and remained  a key pillar of  WTO Agreement s. Focus should  be given to its proper 
implementation for Members  who needed it especially the LDCs. The level of S&DT and the 
mechanism of its utilisation  were matter s of concern for some Members. Afghanistan therefore urged 
them to find solutions for th ose concerns by addressing them creatively and in  good faith based on 
clear and impartial assessment of facts. Using the TFA model could be a good start  in that regard .  
Afghanistan was eager to continue to work closely with all Members in a constructive, inclusive 
and tr ansparent manner to help th e organization  to overcome its challenges and move forward.  
While Members  were cherishing all the great work that th e organization ha d done so far since its 
establishment , Afghanistan  called upon all of them  to continue the ir good work and effort in order 
to further advance th e organization particularly in  dealing with th ose challenges and to find the right 
solutions and tools to facilitate an inclusive, balanced, sustainable economic development through 
open and fair exchange of goods and services among its Members based on the rules -based 
multilateral trading system and the genuine objective of leaving no one behind.  
The representative of  the United States  thank ed China, India, South Africa, and the Bolivari an 
Republic of Venezuela for their communication  and appreciate d the opportunity to share its views 
on it.  The United States noted that the  paper beg an with a quote, "There is nothing more unequal 
than the equal treatment of unequal people ". The co -sponsor s attribute d that quote to Thomas 
Jefferson, the Third President  of the United States of America  and the drafter of the Declaration of 
Independence.  However, Mr. Jefferson had never however uttered those words.  That was a made -
up quote.  According to the Monticello Trust which track ed spurious Jefferson quotes, th at one date d 
to a tax reform pamphlet in Colorado in 1902.  
Other errors were more central to the paper. The United States  had provided an indicative 
selection of th ose errors in a handout avai lable at the Council Room . The United States  found several 
indicators cited in the paper to be unpersuasive. Some d id not have a clear link to development. 
Others d id not appear linked to trade policy.  For example, the United States was  not sure what 
"Energy Use Per Capita " and the  corresponding  outdated data cited by the co -sponsors  was intended 
to indicate.  To the extent the co -sponsors believe d that higher energy use per capita was indicative 
of development, the United States  noted that seven  of the top ten countries in 2014 had been  self-
declared developing Members.  Between 2000 and 2014, China' s per capita usage had nearly tripled 
while the figures for the LDCs and Sub -Saharan Africa had barely changed . Such was  another 
example of differentiation. Over the same time period, the US  per capita usage had declined by 
more than 15 %. 
The co -sponsors appear ed to argue that the number of banking branches per 100,000 adults  
was an indicator of the availability of banking facilities and therefore an indicator of the availability 
of finance and credit.  They depict ed China as having a relatively low number of bank branches. The 
United States was  unsure about the relevance of th at indicator for some self -declared developing 
Members in light of th e fact that since 2008, China account ed for 60 % of all new credit created 
globally.  If the number of bank branches in China was not meeting the needs of the market, China 
should consider opening its market to foreign banks, who were undoubtedly  ready to address th ose 
needs. That competition could  also encourage China' s state -owned banks to respond to market 
demands.  
In the paragraph on the digital divide, the co -sponsors vaguely compare d average figures of 
developing and developed Member s as compiled by the International Telecommunications Union  but 
did not acknowledge wide differentiation among the ITU 's set of developing countries.  For example, 
only 12 % of people in Haiti and Sierra Leone were Internet users while 55 % of people in China  use 
the Internet. In Kuwait, Brunei Darussalam , and the U nited Arab Emirates , that number was over 
90%. Such gap ha d been closing across the board. In aggregate terms, the ITU 's developing 
countries ha d been adding 250 million new net Internet users per year for the past five years which 
currently  include d 2.9 billion of the world 's 3.9 billion people with Internet access. They also h eld 
6.5 billion of the 8.2 billion mobile phone subscriptions.   
In Ind ia, Internet access ha d risen from 12.6 % of the population in 2012 to 34.5 % in 2017, 
representing growth of 65 million people per year for the past five years. Over th e same period, the 
number of mobile phone subscriptions per 100 people in India had risen  from 68 to almost 90. The 
gap with the United States and other countries was closing visibly and rapidly.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 54 - 
 
  
The co -sponsors d id not acknowledge other data showing how gaps ha d closed such as in 
mobile and fixed broadband downloading speeds and 4G coverage . As of January 2019, the global 
average for fixed broadband download speeds had been  55.52 Mbps. China' s figure had been  87.83  
which was ahead of the speeds of New Zealand, Germany and the U nited Kingdom  and just below 
those of Denmark, Japan and the Nether lands. Self -declared developing Members Singapore;  Hong 
Kong, China and  the Republic of  Korea had  registered speeds between 129 and 197 Mbps.  Overall 
Internet access rates remain ed higher in rich countries than in middle -income countries than in poor 
count ries. But the co -sponsors d id not make any serious case that th at was related to trade policy. 
To the extent that the pace of growth in access was too slow, the United States  wonder ed why the 
co-sponsors d id not recommend  liberalization in telecom services.  
Another indicator was company efficiency. The co -sponsors look ed at a single year of average 
profits for companies on the Fortune Global 500. The United States was  not persuaded that any 
conclusions c ould be drawn from th at data with respect to d ifferentiation or development.  
The United States was  not however  surprised by the low average profit of Chinese firms on 
the Fortune Global 500, most of which were state -owned, relative to the average profit of firms in 
market economies such as the United States and Germany. It was well understood that China' s 
embrace of a State-led, mercantilist approach to the economy and trade support ed its domestic 
industries but destroy ed value in other Members ' economies. The data in th e paper went a step 
further and suggest ed that the model was not efficient at creating value in China.  
The co -sponsors discuss ed capacity constraints at  length , but again fail ed to acknowledge the 
wide differentiation among self -declared developing Members.  The United States  recogni zed that 
LDCs and other poor Members often lack ed negotiating and institutional capacity  – but upon reading 
that section of the paper, the United Stat es asked whether one would think of  China;  India;  South 
Africa;  Singapore;  Hong Kong, China;  Brazil or dozens of other Members  in that regard.  
According to the WTO directory, the average delegation size in the LDC Group was five. The 
average delegation size in the African Group was six. Developed Members average d eleven . China 
had thirty . 
The co -sponsors also offer ed a few agricultural indicators . As the United States  had repeatedly 
stated in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, it welcome d a robust, factual  and 
comprehensive technical discussion of the agricultural trade landscape as it  currently stood. The 
United States  hoped that th e paper indicate d that the co -sponsors were willing to provide meaningful 
new factual co ntributions to those discussions.  Several of the co -sponsors were among the largest  
or were the largest  producers and/or exporters of numerous agricultural commodities, producing 
sizeable market surpluses that vastly exceed ed the subsistence needs of the p roducers.  Some of the 
major agricultural policies implemented by th ose co-sponsors were production - and trade -distorting 
measures such as price supports designed to incentivi se increased production of staple commodities 
rather than measures that would impr ove quality and infrastructure and thereby help producers add 
value.  
In the paper, the co -sponsors had provided statistics regarding domestic support per farmer 
based  on Members ' own notifications.  That was flawed on several accounts . First, Members ' WTO 
notifications were not comparable due to the lack of transparency and accuracy by certain Members. 
India' s domestic support notification , for example, had reported trade -distorting support for rice 
totalling US D 2 billion in MY 2013/14, while the US counter notification  had estimated the value 
closer to US D 30 billion.  Similar magnitudes of difference ha d been shown for other commodities, 
as ha d been counter  notified by other Members.  That highlight ed how some Members could  have 
used their notificati ons to vastly under -report actual support levels.  
Second, the co -sponsors ' use of per -farmer statistics was selective and d id not represent the 
full picture. The United States note d that if notified trade  distorting support was calculated in terms 
of other  factors such as land or the value of agricultural production or exports, India and China' s 
support was much higher than that of the United States. Further, measuring farm support on a per -
farm or a per -hectare basis d id not tell anything useful or help id entify ways to address the 
challenges facing all farmers in the global market.  Third, it appear ed that the co -sponsors were 
looking at all domestic support, including green box measures. Green box measures, by and large, WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 55 - 
 
  did not directly benefit producers,  but rather went towards purposes such as funding research at 
academic institutions or cash benefits to consumers to purchase food.  
The United States had  shared a number of flaws that it saw in the paper. I t had  done so in 
the spirit of an actual observati on by President Jefferson , "Truth is the proper and sufficient 
antagonist to error , and has nothing to fear from the conflict […] errors ceasing to be dangerous 
when it is permitted freely to contradict them. " 
Yet, as important as th ose errors were, they were not the biggest shortcoming of the paper.  
The co -sponsors simply had not respond ed to the central argument of the US  paper . If the WTO was 
to remain relevant and negotiate new agreements, Members should  reform so that common sense 
differentiation among Members was possible. Instead, the co -sponsors wish ed to compel Members 
to treat self -declared developing Member s as a monolithic group despite overwhelming evidence of 
widening differentiation among them across a range of development -related indicators.  
In the co -sponsors' view, China should have the same right to avail itself of S&D T as Chad; 
South Africa should have the same right as Senegal; India should have the same right as Benin; the 
Bolivarian Repu blic of Venezuela should have the same right as Vanuatu.  That made no sense.  It 
hurt all Members  especially the poorest among them. Members therefore  faced a stark choice: 
reform or irrelevance.  
The representative of China  appreciated the clarification mad e by the United States  
concerning the quote of Thomas Jefferson. The United States  was right because it knew Thomas 
Jefferson better than China  just as China  knew Confucius better than the United States . They should 
have avoided selling water on the river.  The co -sponsors  could modify its paper to use another quote 
of Thomas Jefferson that the United States had  just mentioned, "Truth is the proper and sufficient 
antagonist to error ". China  liked that very much and  thought  that could be the consensus they 
achieve d that day. 
On the Human Development Index which was used in the US paper and the  United States'  
main argument, China share d the comment in an article published on the UNDP website on the 
limitations of the HDI . First, i ts calculation was solely based on country -specific statistics which 
neglect ed the wide development divergence within countries such as urban -rural gaps as well as 
regional gaps. It should be highlighted that the severely unbalanced development divergence among 
regions was one of the key features for developing Members.  
Second, its basic indices  were overly one -sided. HDI measures the development level by only 
examining life expectancy, education and income while factors such as environment, social welfare,  
population scale and natural disaster risk that could  obstruct development were not taken into 
consideration.  Third, education and the GNI index were strongly related. Including the two highly 
correlated indicators could  cause the multiplier effect which would undermine the accuracy of the 
final outcome.  The author of th at article, Mr.  Selim Jahan, was the Director of  the Human 
Development Report office  and he was the one who  wrote the Human Development Report.  
On the data of the joint paper, China was not challenging the validity of the figures used in  
the United States'  communications. However, s olely focusing on the economic aggregate d id not 
accurately reflect the whole picture of  the current situation experienced by  developing Membe rs. 
The joint paper therefore aimed to provide a comprehensive reading of developing Members by 
presenting a different set of data.  China did not  think it could  reach an agreement on which data, 
whether it would be the total amount or per capita, was more important. As India had earlier 
mentioned , the only indicator employed in the WTO Agreements to measure the level of development 
was the concept of "per capita " which could be found in  Article 8.2(b) and Annex 7  of the SCM 
Agreement . 
The U nited States  challenge d the relevance of some figures used in the joint paper with 
trade policy  such as the internet access rate. The internet access rate was however  relevant in the 
time of information and digital development. China  had a question in its mind on whether  the United 
States  was using double standard on the selection of the use of data. The U nited States  brought  up 
the examples and figures of space and defen ce power which China thought were  irrelevant to trade.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 56 - 
 
  
On the LDCs, those Members constituted  a group of countries recogni zed by the United 
Nations with clearly defined criteria. As the most vulnerable economies among all developing 
Members, the LDCs deserve d more attention and tailor -made flexibilities  – and remained M embers 
of the big family of the developing world.  While safeguarding the interests of LDCs, Members  could 
not deprive other developing Members of their rights in return. In dealing with the LDCs, Members 
should instead  "go beyond " the S&DT  enjoyed  by all developing Members by giving the  LDCs extra 
care rather than "subtracting " the existing treatment for other developing Members.  For LDCs , S&DT 
was only one aspect of what they need ed. Members should continue and improve their technical 
assistance a nd capacity building for them and faithfully fulfil their commitments in the past including 
the DFQF  arrangements.  
On China' s technolog ical progress, he stressed that China did not deny that it  had made 
rapid progress in some areas. China was  proud to have the capability to land the rover on the dark 
side of the moon. It was however natural for developing Members, including China, to achieve high 
growth in one or a few specific areas , due to factors like resource endowment and comparative 
advantage. A count ry's development level should be evaluated in a comprehensive way instead of 
being judged only from data in a limited set of areas.  Although China  only had a little bit of good 
things, some people still want ed to kill the m in the cradle for example with the 5G technology.  
On the failure of the WTO negotiating mechanism, China echoed what India had earlier said 
that the current malfunction of the WTO negotiat ing mechanism was not caused by S&DT nor self-
declaration , but by the capacity constraint s of developing Members and the unreasonable power 
structure of the multilateral trading system.  
On the TFA approach, China thought that the TFA model was creative and  practical. Without 
that model , Members  could  not have  had the early DDA harvest. The TFA approach did not however 
constitute differentiation among developing Members  since t he different tiers of obligations were still 
subject  to the  decision of each  of them. 
On the case-by-case approach, developing Members ha d the right to decide by themselves 
on whether to fully use S&DT  or to assume more obligations in different negotiations based on their 
own situation. The case-by-case approach should not be put as a precondition since it could  allow 
other Members to make decisions for developing Members on whether and how to use S&DT.  
On China' s agriculture domestic support, at the 27 February CoA meeting,  Chinese delegates 
from the capital had provided a lot of introduction  and clarification on China' s agriculture policy , 
including on the so -called "box exploded " issue, and had indicated that China w ould address the 
issue in a way that was consistent with WTO rules and China' s commitment s. 
On China's limited ceiling  constraint – the WTO rules and China' s commitment in its accession 
negotiation s – and the rising floor – the rising  domestic price s, everyone would have experienced 
that if the clothes were too tight, the buttons w ould break. That was the exact reason why the 
developing Members including China need ed policy space through S&DT . 
On the correlation between development and liberalization, the liberalization process could 
also be important to promote development. Th at was the reason why China  had been pushing its 
liberalization through different ways  – unilaterally, bilaterally, regi onally and multilaterally. Members 
however needed to establish an appropriate mechanism to conduct the negotiation for liberalization 
and to achieve balanced outcome s. They should also  address the specific concerns of developing 
Members including their legitimate public policy objectives.  
China ha d and w ould continue to liberali se its financial sector. As of the end of 2017, the 
number of business entities established by foreign banks in China had reached 1 ,013, which was  
five times th e number  in 2002 , a year after China had joined the WTO. Furthermore, the total capital 
of foreign banks in China had reached USD 480 billion which was nine  times th e amount  in 2002.  
China thanked  the M embers who had made comments on the joint paper.  Members had had 
a meaningfu l discussion t hat day. The analytical discussion was better than philosophical or 
ideological debates. Nevertheless, all figures, graphs and indicators eventually ha d to lead to a 
certain conclusion.  The fundamental question raised by the U nited States  was whether the WTO 
should limit S&DT  for developing Members or more precisely for a certain group of developing WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 57 - 
 
  Members. In the eyes of the United States, S&DT  seem ed to be a loophole in the multilateral trading 
system. But for China , it was rather a narrow path that developing Members ha d to take to keep up 
with the structurally biased system.  
China said it used four "L's" to explain the concept of special and differential treatment: 
"less" in terms of the scope of concessions, "lower " in terms of the  amount of concessions, "longer " 
in terms of timeframe for concessions and "later" in terms of the start date of concessions.  The core 
issue of development was not whether the developing Members were willing to make greater 
contributions in future negotiat ions. It was rather on whether they could  have equal rights in the 
negotiations. For some, the only thing they s aw was the difference s in the level of commitments 
among Members. What they ha d failed to see was the structural imbalance in the multilateral t rade 
negotiations.  In that regard, Members should ask themselves w ho set the negotiati ng agenda , who 
led the negotiati ng process  and who ha d more say in shaping the negotiat ed outcome . Upon digging 
deeper into those questions, they would see that some deve loped Members ha d certain de  facto 
privileges in the negotiations and they ha d made good use of the m. If such structural imbalance 
continue d, the only way for developing Members to partially remedy the imbalance would be  through 
S&DT . Instead of pushing for differentiation or graduation, which was both politically and technically 
impossible, Members  should make concrete efforts to improve the capacities of developing Members 
to enable them to  better engage in the negotiations and impleme nt their commitments. This could 
encourage them to make contributions that were commensurate with their capacities.  
In the ongoing fisher ies subsidies negotiation , everyone wanted to  protect the marine 
resources that they commonly own ed and to achieve sus tainable development of the world 's fisheries 
industries. But if Members  failed  to address the real capacity constraints of the developing Members, 
if they simply  assume d that developing Members we re as capable as developed Members in terms 
of regulatory s ystem and monitoring capacities and that it was easy for them to assess the species 
and provide notifications, Members would  end up spending much time discussing the deviations for 
developing Members who w ould find the new rules impossible to implement.  If the WTO c ould not 
address the fundamental issue of negotiating power structure and take real reform measures, any 
attempt to deprive developing Members of their right to special and differential treatment would be  
unjust and impossible.  
The representative of India thank ed the U nited States  for its comments on the joint  paper. 
While India did not agree with the U nited States  on most issues, it support ed the right to hold a 
different view. Since the U nited States  had raised some specific points related to India, wished  to 
correct the impression .  
The per capita domestic support provided by India to its farmers was USD 227 per capita 
per year compared to more than USD 60,000 provided by the U nited States . The United St ates and 
India were obviously not in the same category.  India's agriculture subsidies were as per its 
notifications . The situation on the ground could not be changed j ust by filing counter notifications 
based on incomplete data, erroneous analysis and faul ty conclusions.  
India had already referred to the digital divide which was an important factor while assessing 
the level of development. There was a huge difference in t he broadband penetration which 
determine d the proportion of the population that c ould access the benefits of digital society , including 
e-commerce platforms, social media and all the rest . Such  difference was normally large  and had 
even increased . In India,  only a third of all households ha d access to Internet.  
S&DT was not the cause of deadlock in the negotiations at the WTO. Th at was the problem 
of identification which some Members could  have. India therefore  encourage d those Members  to 
revisit their assumptions.  
The representative of Brazil  noted that t here had been a reference to the concept of truth. 
It was a provocation to which Brazil could not resist. Truth was defined as opposite from error and 
as the cure from error. In much to its surprise and enlightenment, truth had been  seen as an area 
of consensus  – which wa s wonderful  and sounded promising. Should Members  base consensus on 
truth, they would  overcome the track of irrelevance.  
Brazil associated with the joint statement made by Chile on behalf of a group of Latin 
American Countries a nd reiterate d what had been  enforced there. O therwise, if Members left the WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 58 - 
 
  room with the feeling that there were two extreme positions that define d the conceptual feud within 
which th at was to be discussed, it w ould be an unfortunate event. Instead of being onlookers of a 
debate between two large tra ding partners, Members  should focus on the issue itself. Th at was what 
pragmatism would suggest.  
Brazil  recogni zed valid points and points which it did not necessarily agree  with in both 
papers . However, Brazil  did not think th at that  was the major challenge that they currently faced. 
The major issue related to  how Members could concretely  deal with S&DT if they wanted to move 
ahead in the negotiations . That was exactly what the paper read by Chile ha d offered as a concrete 
pathway toward s success in the negotiations.  
From the perspective of Brazil, what matters was development. S &DT was a dimension of 
development  – not the same as development. Development was a political dimension that c ould not 
be follow ed. If Members  wanted the organiza tion to be successful, it need ed political legitimacy and 
one of the means to achieve that was to make sure that it enforce d development and prosperity 
based on a sense of perceived fairness to all. S &DT was a part of that  and not the whole.  S&DT was 
a tool in the toolbox. Members  needed to consider S&DT  as a tool towards concrete negotiations. 
One of the instances in which th at would  be tested would be in  agriculture. If Members  wanted a 
successful MC12, they needed to have a credible package in agriculture . S&DT ha d to be part of th at 
package. Although it was too early to tell how Members would deal with S&DT in the agriculture 
negotiations, it had to be there and should  be addressed on a case -by-case basis.  
Focusing  on abstract concepts and on inte resting philosophical discussions about how broad 
the concept of justice was, how to deal with the inequalities and how to treat differences equally or 
not – those went  back to the Greeks  - would not move Members closer to a trade deal.  Members 
should ther efore walk concretely towards finding solutions that would bring them together instead 
of choosing sides between extremes as it would not achieve consensus except on valu ing the fact 
that the truth was relevant.  
The representative of Argentina  associated with the joint statement made by Chile on behalf 
of a group of Latin American Countries and reiterated that development should be a continuous 
process. It was important to have an exchange of views that was inclusive and open. Members 
should the refore move from a binary discussion to a multi -party discussion  and supported Brazil's 
statement in that regard.   The different facets of development c ould be seen through different 
prisms. Development c ould also be considered as differenti al growth or by  accumulation. Differential 
growth implie d harmonious development. Development through accumulation could be done akin to  
the accumulation of cells in the human body that could lead to cancer for instance. The debate 
should  therefore  be broad , inclusive an d pragmati c with the broad participation of all Members.  
The General Council took note  of the statements.  
8  REVIEW OF THE EXEMPT ION PROVIDED UNDER P ARAGRAPH 3 OF THE GA TT 1994 
(WT/L/1055)  
The Chairman  recalled that Paragraph 3(a) of  the GATT 1994 provided an  exemption from 
Part II of the GATT 1994 for measures under specific mandatory legislation – enacted by a Member 
before it became a Contracting Party to the GATT 1947 – which prohibited the use, sale or lease of 
foreign -built or foreign -reconstructed vesse ls in commercial applications between points in national 
waters or waters of an exclusive economic zone.  
On 20 December 1994, the U nited States  had invoked the provisions of Paragraph 3(a) with 
respect to specific legislation that had met the requirements of that paragraph.  Paragraph 3(b) of 
GATT 1994 called for a review of the exemption five years after the date of entry into force of the 
WTO Agreement – and thereafter every two years for as long as the exemption was in force – in 
order to exa mine whether the conditions which had created the need for the exemption still 
prevailed. The General Council had last considered the ma tter at its last meeting in 2017 . 
For the purposes of t he conduct of the review in 2019 , Members would proceed in a mann er 
similar to the previous reviews, which had been based on a procedure agreed by the General Council 
in 2002.  Therefore, all interested delegations could speak at that day's meeting with regard to the 
current review. Interested delegations could submit co mments and questions to the United States WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 59 - 
 
  regarding the operation of the legislation under the exemption, to which the United States would be 
invited to respond. Those statements, questions and responses, together with the annual statistical 
report provide d by the United States under Paragraph 3(c) of the GATT 1994 would form the basis 
for that year's review.  The matter would be on the agenda of subsequent General Council meetings 
in 2019 as the Chair deemed appropriate or at the request of any Member. The Council would 
consider the matter again at its last meeting of the year where it would take note of the discussions 
and would take any other action it could agree on. It would also take note that the subsequent 
review would  normally be held in 2021 . Finally, as provided in Paragraph 3(e) of  the GATT 1994, 
the exemption was without prejudice to solutions concerning specific aspects of the legislation 
covered by the exemption negotiated in sectoral agreements or in other fora.  
He drew attention to the annual report circulated by the Unit ed States in document WT/L/1055  
and invited the United States to introduce it.  
The representative of the United States  welcomed the opportunity to participate in the review 
of the exemption under Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994.  The exemption had been agreed to by all 
Members to deal with non -conforming provisions of domestic legislation of a non -discretionary 
character in a specific area addressed by the exemption and it was an integral part of the GATT 
1994.  
In Paragraph 3(a), M embers had agreed that , as long as the legislation that the United States 
had notified prior to the date of entry of force of the WTO Agreement had remained in force and had 
not been modified to reduce its conformity with Part II of the GATT 1994, Part II would not apply to 
that legislation. Paragraph 3(b) specified that Members should review the exemption every two years 
to "examine whether the conditions which created the need for the exemption still prevail".  
The United States confirmed that the conditi ons that had created the need for the exemption 
continued to exist, including the US Navy's reliance on commercial shipyards for day -to-day 
maintenance of naval and surge -fleet vessels. It also remained critical for US ship -builders to build 
commercial shi ps for trade in order to ensure the maintenance of a viable industrial base to meet 
future US naval requirements. In short, the United States had the same need as it had in 1994: to 
maintain its shipyards' readiness to build and maintain naval vessels.  
The United States had also continued to provide WTO Members with annual statistical reports 
under Paragraph 3(c) of the GATT 1994, including the most recent report submitted in December 
2018. Those reports provided detailed annual reporting of vessel orders a nd deliveries from US 
shipyards. The United States would organi ze an informal consultation on th e matter with interested 
Members prior to the conclusion of the review at the final General Council meeting of 2019. The US  
thanked Members for their interest i n the issue and stood ready to answer Members' questions as 
needed.  
The representative of the European Union  said that a s it had done in 2017 and in many reviews 
before, the EU  underline d its strong concerns with th at unjustified special exemption which date d 
back to 1994. The EU continue d to view the Jones Act as a piece of legislation that restrict ed fair 
competition in the shipbuilding and shipping markets, and no longer serve d a legitimate purpose in 
the current  global economy. The prevailing situation ha d negative economic consequences for the 
EU's and other countries ' shipbuilding industry and also for the US maritime industry which was 
faced with higher costs due to the closure of the US market for foreign built ships.  The EU hoped 
that the 2019 review w ould be consequent. It should not become simply a recurring point in the 
agenda but rather the starting point to look into a situation that was neither justified nor satisfactory.  
The representative of Norway  thank ed the United States for the statistical documentation 
circulated in WT/L/1055.  That wa s an important item on the agenda since the waiver in essence 
made it impossible to sell ships to the United States. The review should focus on the salient point of 
Paragraph 3 (b) of the G ATT 1994 on examining  whether the conditions which  had created the need 
for the exemption still prevail ed. There was a need to  move  from discussing only statistical 
information submitted under Paragraph 3 (c) of GATT 1994  to address ing the conditions for the 
exemption and whether there remained  a need for th at exemption.  On the next practical steps in 
that process, Norway  was prepared to g o along with the procedure suggested by the Chairman. WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 60 - 
 
  
The representative of Canada  thank ed the United States for the information provided to date  
and hoped that th e review w ould be fruitful and have some consequences. As in the past, Canada  
encourage d the United States to find less trade -distorting methods to pursue its security interests  – 
particularly with respect to the b uild aspect of the Jones Act. Canada  would welcome an update from 
the U nited States  on whether they ha d explored such alternative metho ds. 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  thank ed the United States for its notification on 
statistics  and expressed its systemic and commercial concerns regarding the United States' 
exemption under Paragraph 3(a) of the GATT 1994. The exemption was a deviation from the 
fundamental principle of the WTO  – restricting fair competition on shipbuilding and shipping markets.  
A review of th at long-standing exemption in accordance with Para graph  3(b) of the GATT 1994 
should focus on examining whether the conditions which had created the need for such exemption 
still prevail ed. Korea ask ed the U nited States  to provide reasonable and updated expl anation on the 
necessity to continue th at exemption  and remained  willing to participate in any further discussion 
on the issue.  
The representative of Panama  thank ed the United States for its report . Panama regarded it 
as an important topic and understood t hat there would be a second and more complete presentation 
on the matter  later in the year. Panama hoped to participate in the process including in the 
corresponding consultation s throughout the year . 
The representative of Hong Kong, China  value d the opportunity to conduct a further periodic 
review on the exemption under Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994. Hong Kong, China's  concerns 
remain ed since that exemption , which ha d existed since the establishment of the organization , was 
a major derogation from  a fundamental WTO principle  (i.e. the National Treatment principle) and 
was inconsistent with WTO 's open trade policies.  As a proponent for the liberali zation of maritime 
transport – a major mode of transport for trade and a crucial part of the logistics supply chain  – 
Hong Kong, China  was also concerned that the exemption represent ed a major impediment to the 
relevant Member in making further market access commitments in the maritime transport services.  
Hong Kong, China  urged the United States to critical ly review whether the conditions for the 
exemption still prevail ed in the current  environment.  
The representative of Japan  attache d great importance to th e review process. As had been  
pointed out in previous reviews, Japan ha d not been convinced by the nec essity of th at exemption.  
Japan hope d that substantial discussions w ould be conducted on whether there continue d to be the 
conditions for the exemption under Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994  – a grave exception which involve d 
the fundamental principles of the WTO.  
The representative of Australia  thank ed the United States for its statistical report provided in 
WT/L/1055  and looked forward to participating in the 2019 two -yearly review of the US exemption 
under Paragraph 3 (a) o f the GATT given its long-standing interest in th e topic.  
The General Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to that item at its last 
meeting in 2019.  
9  APPOINTMENT OF OFFIC ERS TO WTO BODIES  
The Chairman  said that i n accordance with the Gui delines for Appointment of Officers to WTO 
Bodies approved by the General Council in 2002 (WT/L/510), and the related practical steps to 
improve their implementation (JOB/GC/22) , he, together with the Chairperson of the Dispute 
Settlement Body, Ambassador Sunanta K angvalkulkij  (Thailand), ha d conducted consultations on a 
slate of names for the appointment of Chairpersons to WTO regular bodies listed in Groups 1, 2, 4 
and 5 in the Annex to the Guidelines.  
In addition, and as had been announced at the Decemb er General Council meeting, they had  
also consulted on the appointment of new Chairpersons for the CTD SS and CTE SS. Furthermore, 
anticipating the near future departure of the Chair of the DSB SS and upon his indication, the 
consultations had also include d the selection of a new Chairperson for the DSB SS.  
In line with the practical steps mentioned earlier, they had  consulted regularly with the 
coordinators of the four broad regional groups, namely: (i) developed countries, (ii) Africa, (iii) Latin WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 61 - 
 
  America  and the Caribbean and (iv) Asia and the Pacific. They had  also provided a time -period in 
which they would be available to meet with all interested delegations.  
Consultations had taken  place over some six weeks. They had  consulted all delegations that  
had requested a meeting and  had regularly kept in contact with the four Group coordinators. He 
thanked the group coordinators  for the excellent cooperation that they had  received from the m 
throughout the  process. Their own p rocess of consultation and their collaborative spirit ha d greatly 
contributed to the smooth running of th e exercise. He also thank ed all the delegations they had  
consulted for their constructive attitude in th at exercise.  
The process  had included an inform al open -ended He ads of Delegation  meeting which had been  
held on  26 February  where he had  provided an account of the process and where he had  shared 
with delegations  the slate of names where there appeared to be consensus.  
On the WTO regular bodies, he in formed deleg ations that, on the basis of tho se consultations, 
there had been  consensus on the following slate of names on WTO regular bodies in Groups 1, 2, 4 
and 5:  
General Council  H.E. Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand)  
 
Dispute Settlement Body  
 H.E. Dr. David Walker (New Zealand)  
Trade Policy Review Body  
 H.E. Mr. Manuel Teehankee (Philippines)  
 
Council for Trade in Goods  
 H.E. Mr. José Luis Cancela (Uruguay)  
 
Council for Trade in Services  
 H.E. Mr. Geert Muylle (Belgium)  
 
Council for TRIPS  
 H.E. Mr. Lundeg Purevsuren (Mongolia)  
 
Committee on Trade and Development  
 H.E. Mr. Chad Blackman (Barbados)  
 
Committee on Balance -of-Payments 
Restrictions  H.E. Ms. Cheryl K. Spencer (Jamaica)  
 
Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration  H.E. Mr. Dagfinn Sørli (Norway)  
 
Committee on Trade and Environment  
 Mr. Jean -Marie Paugam (France)  
 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
 H.E. Mr. Carlos Mario Foradori (Argentina)  
 
Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance  
 H.E. Mr. Refiloe Litjobo (Lesotho)  
 
Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology  
 H.E. Dr. Rashidi Said (Malaysia)  
Appointments for th ose bodies w ould be for one year, and they w ould be made formally by the 
WTO bodies concerned at their subsequent meetings th at year.   
Moving to the negotiating bodies, consultations show ed that there was consensus on the 
following appointments:  
Committee on Trade and Development in 
Special Session  H.E. Mr. François Xavier Ngarambe (Rwanda)  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 62 - 
 
  Committee on Trade and Environment in 
Special Session  H.E. Mr. Leopold Samba (Central African 
Republic)  
 
Additionally, upon departure of the current Chair, Ambassador Coly Seck (Senegal), there was 
consensus that the Chairmanship of the Dispute Settlement Body in Special Session (DSB SS) w ould 
be taken over by H.E. Mr . Kokou Yackoley Johnson (Togo).  
Those appointments w ould also be made formally by the bodies concerned at their next 
meeting.  
With th ose words, he invite d the General Council to take note of his statement and of the 
consensus on the slate of names for the appointment of officers in the WTO bodies that he had 
mentioned.  
The General Council so agreed . 
The Chairman  congratulate d all the colleagues on their selection and wish ed them well in the 
year ahead. He also recalled that  a subsequent process of consultat ions w ould be conducted by the 
outgoing Chairpersons of the Council for Trade in Goods and the Council for Trade in Services to 
select Chairs for the bodies established under their respective Councils.   
On behalf of Ambassador Stephen De Boer (Canada), Cha ir of the Goods Council , and of 
Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama), Chair of the Services Council, he inform ed Members  that 
they w ould soon begin consultations, with a view to arriving at a proposed slate of names of 
Chairpersons for 2019 that enjoy ed the support of the Membership. Relevant communications 
concerning th ose consultations w ould be sent out shortly.  
The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1  WTO Open Day  – Statement by the Director -General  
The Director -General , speaking under "Other Business" , announced that the WTO would open 
its doors to the general public during the  WTO Open Day on 16 June. Th at day was an opportunity 
for the WTO  to explain what the  organization wa s all about, to let visitors  explore its beautiful 
building and to say "merci" to the Geneva community who continue d to be the most gracious hosts 
for th e organization.  
It was also an opportunity for Members  to come together in a more informal setting and to 
display and offer a tast e of their national cultures. Therefore, as with previous events, Members 
were invited and encouraged to participate in the day 's activities.  
The Information and External Relations Division w ould be organi sing an information session 
in due course to provi de Members with further details. He was  particularly counting on the Swiss 
delegation to ensure good weather conditions  and encouraged everyone to  get involved.  
The General Council took note  of the Director -General's statement.  
10.2  Statement by the Chairman in  connection with Administrative Measures for 
Members in Arrears  
The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business" , noted that the revised Administrative 
Measures for Members in arrears in WT/BFA/132 required that, at the end of each meeting of the 
General Council, the Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should 
provide information with regard to which Members and Observers were under Administrative 
Measures. As the outgoing Chair of the Budget Committee, Ambassador Juan Ag uirre (Paraguay), 
had already left  his post , he invited Deputy Director -General Karl Brauner to provide the Council 
with that information.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 63 - 
 
  
Deputy Director -General Karl Brauner, on behalf of the CBFA , reported that as of 28 February 
2019, there were 13 Memb ers in Category I: Burkina Faso; the Democratic Republic of Congo; 
Egypt; El Salvador; Gabon; Liberia; Mozambique; Papua New Guinea; Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines; Senegal; Uganda; Yemen and Zimbabwe. There were 2 Members in Category II: Belize 
and Cong o. There were 11 Members in Category III: Antigua and Barbuda; Burundi; Cameroon; 
Chad; Djibouti; the Gambia; Guinea; Guinea -Bissau; Niger; Sierra Leone and the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela. There were 3 Observers in Category I: Comoros; South Sudan an d Uzbekistan. 
Somalia was the only Observer in Category II. There were 2 Observers in Category III: Libya and 
Sao Tomé and Principe.  
The Chairman  said that he was 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. Likewise, the General Council urged Members and Observers under 
Administrative Measu res to liquidate their arrears.  
The General Council took note  of the statements.  
11  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
The Chairman  said that it ha d been a privilege and an honour to serve as the Chairman of the  
General Council . He thank ed all Members for their support and cooperation  and the Director -General 
for his friendship  – he had  enjoyed working with him on a number of issues over the last year.  
Throughout his work as the Chairman, he had learned about and better understood how th e 
organization function ed. He recogni zed once again that the WTO was really a Member -driven 
organization. To start anything new or to get things to move forward, Members' initiative was  always 
needed. Nothing happen ed in the organization without an action from the Members. Initiatives were 
not limited to submitting proposa ls. Asking questions to other Members, raising issues for discussion 
or requesting support from the Secretariat – any of th ose actions provide d an opportunity to start 
something meaningful to make progress on certain issues.  
The Chair ha d an important role  to play in th e process. Once it appear ed that an initiative was 
gaining sufficient interest from Members, the Chair c ould start holding consultations with the 
Members. In fact,  consultations were the most useful tool made available to a Chair to steward t he 
work. They not only allow ed the Chair to get a sense of Members' view points on the issue in question 
but also to test his or her own ideas for a possible way forward.  Consultations were a must to arrive 
at any form of consensus. After successful consul tations, the Chair c ould come back to the whole 
Membership to report about the result of his or her efforts. And if everything went well, although 
that did not happen so often, Members  could manage to agree on something or take a step forward 
on some issue s. 
One more important thing that every Chair recogni zed was that the good stewardship of the 
Chair was only made possible by professional support from the Secretariat. The Chairs of the Regular 
Bodies change d every year and many of them were new to the rol e as he himself had been  when he 
had taken up the Chairmanship of the DSB. The Secretariat facilitate d the role of each new Chair by 
providing all the necessary information and pointing out the established procedures to follow.  In his 
case as General Counc il Chair, he owed so much to Victor do Prado, Stefania Bernabe and the full 
team of the Council and TNC Division. Through  their pertinent advice and efficient support, he could 
complete his mission  and he thanked them for that.  
He then proposed to move to the election of the new Chairperson.  On the basis of the 
understandings that had been reached on the appointment of officers to WTO bodies, he proposed 
that the General Council elected by acclamati on H.E. Ambassador Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand) 
as the next Chairperson of the General Council.  
The General Council so agreed . 
The Director -General  recalled that upon assuming his role as G eneral Council  Chair, 
Ambassador Ihara  had noted the importanc e of consensus and had pledged to make himself 
available to hear the views of Members with the aim of making the General Council as transparent 
and as inclusive as possible. He had  stayed true to that promise and had delivered a hundredfold.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 64 - 
 
  
The last twelve months ha d been a critical period for the organi zation. He had  kept the General 
Council working well and had enhanced its role in tackling some of the toughest challenges. In 
dealing with the regular work of the General Council, the work programme on e -commerce, the 
informal process on Appellate Body matters and other issues, he had taken  time to consult with 
Members and had ensured that their voices had been  heard every step of the way. For all this, he 
sincerely thank ed him.  
As Members  headed towards MC12  and beyond, he had no doubt that they could continue to 
count on Ambassador Ihara's  unwavering support as a staunch advocate of the multilateral trading 
system.  
Following the tradition, he then presented Ambassador Junichi Ihara with the engraved gavel 
as a memento of his time as Chairman of the General Council.  
He the n congratulated Ambassador Kangvalkulkij, the incoming Chairperson, on her  election.  
The year ahe ad looked like it could be even more eventful and demanding than the last. And the 
role of the General Council Chair would continue to be central. Members knew that they could count 
on her to deliver for the organization. And he assured her that she could also count on his own 
support and that of the whole Secretariat in meeting the challenges ahead.  
The newly -elected Chairperson  said that it was a great honour to be appointed as the 25th 
Chairperson of the General Council. She was  grateful for Members'  trust and  confidence in  her and 
assured them that she would  perform her duties to the best of her capability.  With that said, she 
felt fortunate to build on the work of the outgoing Chair, Ambassador  Ihara. With his calming 
presence and steadfast leadership, he had  kept the General Council on course throughout his term. 
He had  chaired th e body with integrity, impartiality and  brilliance and she would  certainly continue 
to seek his wise counsel.  
She thanked the  Director -General for his warm words of welcome  and looked forward  to 
working closely with him in the year ahead.  She did not need to tell  everyone  that 2019 w ould be a 
challenging year.  In fact, it already ha d been. W ork and discussions on several different matters 
were under way in many areas as they had seen that day.   
In particular, they had the Informal Process of focused discus sions on Appellate Body 
matters  which w ould continue under the auspices of the General Council. At the end of th e year, 
they had three deadlines set by their Ministers in Buenos  Aires – on fisheries subsidies negotiations 
and on the moratoria on customs duties on electronic transmissions and on TRIPS non -violation and 
situation complaints. They also ha d to intensify their preparations for MC12 as June 2020 dr ew 
closer.   
As the General Council Chairperson , she was up for the challenge. But for Members  to find 
mutually agreeable solutions and results, she needed their constructive participation and full 
cooperation. Together, they could turn th at challenging year into one full of s eized opportunities for 
the benefit of all.  
The General Council took note  of the statements.  
 
_______________  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 65 - 
 
 ANNEX 1  
THE REPORTS BY THE D IRECTO R-GENERAL AND THE CH AIRS OF THE NEGOTIATING 
GROUPS AT THE INFORM AL TNC AND INFORMAL HODS MEETIN GS 
HELD ON 27 FEBRUARY 2019  
Report by the Director -General1 
 
I have had a number of very useful exchanges with Members so far this year. Last month, I was 
invited to participate in a series of discussions with a range of stakeholders du ring the World 
Economic Forum Annual meeting in Davos. This included the traditional informal ministerial 
gathering on WTO issues hosted by Switzerland.  
 
Along with various WEF sessions in Davos, I was also invited to participate in a Canadian -organi zed 
ministerial meeting on WTO reform and a meeting where a group of WTO Members issued a joint 
ministerial declaration setting out their intention to launch negotiations on electronic commerce. I 
understand that the outcomes of both of these meetings have been  circulated to delegations in 
documents WT/L/1057 and WT/L/1056 respectively.  
 
Since we last met in this format, I have also conducted bilateral visits to Brazil, Mozambique and 
Romania. I also took part in an FAO / WHO / African Union conference on food safety in Addis Ababa. 
And while I was there I took the opportunity to conduct bilateral discussions with the Ethiopian 
government on their WTO accession. Last week I participated in the informal meeting of EU Trade 
Ministers in Bucharest. I have also rece ived a number of Ministers here in Geneva including this 
week. And I have continued my regular interactions with many of you. So, let me address some of 
the points which were consistently raised in these discussions.  
 
Regarding our negotiating work, I wan t to start by putting on record my thanks to the Chairs for 
their reports – as well as their efforts to advance work in their specific areas. As always, the impetus 
has to come from you.  
 
I note the particul arly high levels of energy and commitment in the work on fisheries subsidies by 
the Negotiating Group on Rules under the leadership of Ambassador Zapata. I also take note of the 
high level of engagement by Members in the Agriculture negotiations both in the CoA -SS and the 
Member -led working groups under the leadership of Ambassador Ford. This is very good to see. My 
thanks also go to those of you that have agreed to serve as facilitators and coordinators of specific 
aspects of these negotiations. This is a vitally important role.  
 
On fisheries subsidies,  I am heartened to hear that all involved Members are working intensively, in 
what appears to be a genuine, solution -oriented negotiating mode. Encouraging though this is, there 
is no room for complacency. We all know that this is a technically and politic ally very difficult 
negotiation. Only 10 months remain before the end -of-year deadline that was agreed by Ministers 
in Buenos Aires and reaffirmed in the General Council last July. The world is counting on us to deliver. 
It is essential for the health of o ur oceans, for delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals, and 
for the credibility of the WTO itself. So, let me just underscore what Ambassador Zapata has said 
on the process.  
 
To meet the deadline, all delegations need to remain fully engaged and s olution -oriented, ready to 
find compromise language that can attract consensus. To get there, in my experience, your 
facilitators will have a critical role to play. I encourage everyone to make as much use of them as 
you can, starting now, and to provide t hem with room to manoeuvre as the negotiations intensify. 
Heads of Delegation should be ready to engage on the substance when the Chair calls on you. Your 
input will be critical to the success of these negotiations. I will be working to assist you in any w ay 
that we can.  
 
Time is moving quickly. In addition to the deadline on fisheries I would remind you that members 
also have to decide what action to take on the moratoria on e -commerce and TRIPS non -violation, 
both of which expire this year. We also have areas where the deadline has already past – such as 
food security. And we need to start preparing the ground for MC12 in Astana in June next year.  
                                                
1 Also issued as JOB/TNC/73 . WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 66 - 
 
  We must keep making progress on each of these fronts. But, at the same time, we also have to 
tackle the broa der challenges that face us.  
 
Last week we published the latest readings of our World Trade Outlook Indicator. It showed trade 
growth slowing in the first quarter. In fact , the indicator registered the weakest reading since 2010. 
We are seeing a downturn in a wide range of trade -related indicators, including: exports orders, air 
freight, automobile production and sales, and more. It gives a sense of the very real risks posed by 
the current trade tensions  and puts us all on guard for a sharper slowdown if they remain unresolved.  
And I think this situation also brings the systemic challenges before us into sharp focus.  
 
We must do more to make the WTO faster and more responsive to members' needs. We have 
achieved a lot in recent years. Since 2013 we have delivered new agreements in a variety of shapes 
and sizes. And now there is a desire among many to improve the functioning of the organisation. 
Members do not hold a uniform view on this. The debate is unde r way in capitals and in Geneva, in 
a variety of formats. We have seen a number of initiatives and papers put forward in Geneva over 
recent months. They touch on a range of issues including transparency and notifications, and the 
dispute settlement system.   
 
There is also a desire among some to explore rules in areas where we are behind the curve. For 
example, this could include issues reflected in the Joint Initiatives which are being pursued by groups 
of members. Some are also looking more closely at how the WTO regular bodies can be more 
responsive. And we have the discussions in the G20. The G20 leaders sent a strong message with 
their Buenos Aires declaration in December – both about the WTO’s essential role in supporting 
growth, job creation and develo pment, and about the need for what they described as "necessary 
reforms".  
 
In addition, there is a desire among some to reach an understanding about how we do business. 
While fully multilateral outcomes are always preferable, some feel that we have to allow members 
to pursue initiatives as they wish. Under this perspective, if we  don’t allow different initiatives to 
exist alongside each other, the system would grind to a halt, with the risk of inflicting irreparable 
damage. However, while it is understandable that some want to be free to pursue their priorities, 
no one should be c ompelled to join any initiative that they do not want to join. All doors should be 
open – but no one should be compelled to go through them.  
 
We must find a way to evolve if the system is to have a chance. Multilateralism will not survive if it 
becomes a synonym of paralysis. These are very difficult issues, but they must be addressed.  
 
I will turn now to the impasse in the Appellate Body. This situation is clearly of utmost concern and 
urgency. Dialogue is improving. Several proposals have been tabled. N ew Zealand Ambassador 
David Walker has commenced his work as the General Council Chair's facilitator  and has been holding 
consultations with members. I am continuing my own consultations on this issue as well.  
 
I believe we must start thinking about all p ossible options at this point.  
 
People are looking at December as the deadline. But the reality is that situation in December is 
already affecting decisions today. Members that are bringing cases today are not sure what the 
situation will be at the end of  the panel stage. Cases consume the resources of governments and 
private sector – yet they are proceeding without clarity on whether we will still have a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system at the end of this year. Members need to come up with 
answers. You need to start working on all possible options now, not in December. So, let me be clear 
– we do not have 10 months to play with. We need action now.  
 
Looking across all of these issues, I cannot think of a moment when the systemic threats have be en 
greater. But, I also believe that we have a political window to act.  
 
It could be said that one positive aspect of the current trade tensions is that it has encouraged 
Members to speak up in support of the multilateral trading system – and for multilat eralism more 
broadly.  And I am very grateful for this support.  It is our duty to remind the world at every 
opportunity, how much multilateral cooperation matters – and importantly, how much our 
organization matters.  
 
This concludes my report.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 67 - 
 
  Reports by the Negotiating Group Chairs  
1. Committee on Agriculture – Special Session  
Thank you, Director -General. I will make a brief update on the agriculture negotiations.  
 
As you will recall, I announced in my last report on 10 December that an additional track to c ontribute 
inputs to the agricultural negotiations would be opened through phasing in a Members -led open -
ended Working Group process.  
 
On 14 February, the first meeting of the year of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session 
and first dedicated discu ssion on Public Stockholding for food security purposes were held. These 
meetings were preceded by the first meetings of the Working Groups on Domestic Support and 
Public Stockholding for food security purposes on 5 February.  
 
The discussions on 14 Februa ry were based on the oral reports made by the respective coordinators 
as well as the questions raised in my invitation message. The meeting also benefitted from a 
presentation of an analytical tool on Domestic Support by Canada.  A Cotton technical quad pl us 
meeting was held on 15 February.  
 
The Working Groups on Market Access and Special Safeguard Mechanism will now commence work, 
while the Domestic Support and PSH Working Groups will continue with their work. These four 
Working Groups are expected to report to the next CoA  SS meeting on 14 -15 March. The Working 
Groups on Export Competition and Export Restrictions will start after the March CoA  SS meeting and 
all the Working Groups will report to the 30 April – 1 May CoA  SS meeting. The discussions on c otton 
will continue in parallel.  
 
My introductory statement at the CoA Special Session was circulated in document JOB/AG/153.  
 
Let me take this opportunity to again warmly thank the Members for their willingness to serve as 
coordinators and to help us wit h the Working Groups process. I consider this work critically important 
to advancing our agricultural negotiations.  
 
Let me repeat, the work of the Working Groups and of the CoA  SS are mutually supportive and 
synchroni sed. 
 
The Working Groups are expected for each topic under negotiation, to i) identify the elements that 
could be developed to be part of an agricultural outcome, ii) deepen the discussions on specific 
aspects where necessary, iii) facilitate better understanding of the concerns and the differ ences in 
each area, and iv) investigate how these differences can be reduced and ultimately removed. To this 
end, members will explore various options, old and new ones, to seek paths that facilitate greater 
convergence.  
 
The reports from the first meeting s of the Working Groups and the subsequent discussions on 14 
February met my expectations, not least because they demonstrated a readiness of most delegations 
to engage in an open, interactive and focused discussion. Delegations identified in a detailed ma nner 
the elements to be addressed, including in some cases renewed suggestions, and expressed their 
views on how to prioriti se these elements and move forward in the discussions. Useful presentations 
were made by the Secretariat on Domestic Support and PSH  to set the scene in these areas.  
 
While the deliberations were promising, they also showed that a lot of work remains to be done and 
we should start immediately to bridge the gaps in Members' positions on the various issues.  
 
To reach a meaningful agricul tural outcome, we will need concrete progress here in Geneva in the 
course of this year.  
 
The working groups process is a launching pad aimed at allowing us to identify as soon as possible, 
and here I mean, around the summer break, the elements and related  options which could form the 
basis for an incremental package on which we can start negotiating, in earnest, in the second half 
of this year.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 68 - 
 
  I will on my side continue to provide all necessary support to the coordinators and to all Members 
towards achie ving a meaningful and useful outcome.  
 
This ends my report.  
 
2. Negotiating Group on Rules  
Thank you Chair for the opportunity to provide an update on the work of the Negotiating Group on 
Rules since my last report in December.  
 
At that time, the Negotiating Group had just finished a week -long cluster of meetings which 
concluded with agreement on a work programme for the first seven months of this year. The 
Negotiating Group also had managed to finish the streamlining process of t he Working Document 
that represented the numerous proposals, issues, approaches, and views of the Group that had been 
tabled by that time. The streamlined document can be found in document TN/RL/W/274/Rev.6. In 
parallel, the Group had held an intensive and  detailed text -based examination of certain parts of 
that document, and the suggestions made during those discussions were circulated in a room 
document, RD/TN/RL/72.  
 
The cluster of meetings last December also saw the completion of the work by the four I ncubator 
Groups which had been brainstorming ideas and approaches to try to find ways to narrow or work 
around some of the many persistent differences in Members' positions. These Groups were small but 
representative of the Membership and were helped by vi sits from other delegations as they discussed 
various topics. A compilation of the Incubator Groups' reports to the plenary meetings of the 
Negotiating Group during September to December, along with an abstract of the reports, was 
prepared by the Secretari at and distributed to the Negotiating Group on 21 December.  
 
So far this year, pursuant to the agreed work programme for the first seven months of this year, in 
January we held a first week -long cluster of meetings right before Davos. Our second cluster of  
meetings is taking place this week. The other clusters are scheduled for the weeks beginning: 
25 March; 6 May; 10 June; and 8 July.  
 
In addition to these scheduled meeting clusters, an important and new element is the work 
conducted by the four facilitato rs that I appointed in December, one per issue area: subsidies to 
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; subsidies for fishing of overfished stocks; subsidies that 
contribute to overfishing or overcapacity; and cross -cutting issues such as notificati ons, disputes, 
and institutional matters. I have always made clear that based on the mandate from MC11, issues 
related to special and differential treatment are integral to each area of the negotiations and are to 
be taken up under each heading, and as a c ross-cutting issue.  
 
The meeting clusters have two main types of activities: significant time for delegations to organi ze 
their own meetings to discuss and negotiate with each other, and open -ended consultation sessions 
to discuss each of the four issue a reas and to give delegations the opportunity in the larger Group 
to put forward new ideas and discuss options that they have been working on.  
 
In January, delegations reported that they had appreciated and taken advantage of the time for 
their own activiti es, to exchange ideas, get the views of others on suggested ways to move forward 
and refine positions with a view to making new, bridging proposals. I find this very encouraging as 
it demonstrates a real deepening of Members' engagement.  
 
I also was please d to detect, in the open -ended sessions in January, a shift in tone, with delegations 
signalling that they had begun working to look for new, pragmatic and workable solutions to 
overcome differences. Based on what I have been hearing since the January meet ing cluster, it is 
clear that this has continued, and that Members have now shifted to a full negotiating mode. Indeed, 
I am aware that many delegations have been meeting intensively over the past weeks, in a variety 
of configurations, in preparation for t his week's cluster. Already one new paper has been submitted 
for discussion, and this will be taken up in our first open -ended session this afternoon. I understand 
that additional papers are being prepared and tested outside the room, for submission at a l ater 
point. So , Members seem to be conducting their activities in a proactive and pragmatic way and 
making progress in seeking solutions.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 69 - 
 
  I also see as positive that delegations are making increasing use of the four facilitators. These 
individuals have m ade themselves available for consultations and many delegations have taken up 
those opportunities, with one group of delegations calling its own open -ended session where it 
requested a facilitator to lead the discussion. I believe that this sort of activit y can be useful, and  
I also can see that the facilitators will become increasingly active and involved in different ways in 
the Negotiating Group's work. I think they will be an increasingly important element in our ability to 
make the amount of substanti ve progress that we need on the many complex and sensitive issues 
that remain to be resolved, in time for our December deadline. So, I can only urge Members to 
continue to make good use of the facilitators' assistance, and express appreciation to the facil itators 
for their time and efforts on our collective behalf.  
 
Concerning the open -ended consultations, we have moved into a much more Member -driven mode 
of work than was the case last year. In particular, the idea is that these discussions be based on 
inputs put forward by Members – new papers or textual suggestions, specific provisions in the 
Group's working documents where a Member or Members have suggestions to overcome differences, 
or ideas from any other source that may be helpful in driving the discus sion on any given issue 
toward convergence.  
 
While the process has become very dynamic, which is extremely positive, finding substantive 
convergence nevertheless remains a tall order. At first glance, the language of the mandate from 
Ministers is straight forward – by the end of this year to reach an agreement on eliminating subsidies 
to IUU fishing and prohibiting certain subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, with 
special and differential treatment integral to the negotiations. Neverth eless, putting this into treaty 
text that can be accepted by all Members has proven to be elusive over the long course of these 
negotiations. There is a host of very complex legal and technical issues behind each of the concepts 
in the mandate, and the dif ferences of views on these are longstanding and strongly held. Thus, 
while I am genuinely encouraged by the new pragmatic and solution -oriented work going on, the 
outlines of an outcome have not yet started to emerge, and the time pressure is intense and 
increasing.  
 
This time pressure is all the greater because I am counting on Ambassadors to become substantively 
engaged as soon as practicable, and yet our technical work has not sufficiently advanced for this 
sort of engagement to be productive. I view th e political perspective of Ambassadors as an 
indispensable complement to the technical work taking place in the Negotiating Group, which will be 
necessary to shape a final package that can obtain the approval of Ministers. So , it is crucial that we 
advance  the technical work as rapidly as possible. So for this, I again urge my Ambassador 
colleagues to make sure that your staff are empowered to engage in a full negotiating mode with 
their counterparts.  
 
This concludes my report. I look forward to continuing  to brief the Heads of Delegation and the Trade 
Negotiations Committee at future meetings of this sort.  
 
3. Dispute Settlement Body – Special Session  
The DSB in Special Session held informal open -ended meetings on 8 and 10 January 2019 and Chair 
consultations on 5 February 2019. During these meetings, we conducted focused work on three of 
the four remaining issues, i.e. Panel composition, Effective compliance, and Developing country 
interests. An informal open -ended meeting, which was intended to open focused work on the fourth 
issue, Flexibility and member control, was postponed at the request of proponents.  
 
I intend to hold closing meetings on Panel composition, Effective compliance, and Developing country 
interests in late March or early April.  I may also hold bilateral consultations with proponents or other 
Members before the closing meetings.  
 
On Flexibility and member control, I am consulting with proponents on how to proceed.  
 
_______________  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 70 - 
 
 ANNEX 2  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS 
HELD ON 27 FEBRUARY 2019  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Benin (African Group); Switzerland; Haiti (CARICOM); Canada; Malawi (ACP); Australia (Joint 
Statement Initiative on E -Commerce); Central African Republic (LDCs); Indonesia; European Union; 
Colombia (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development); Norway; China; 
Uruguay (Informa l Working Group on MSMEs); Thailand; Mexico; United States; Singapore; Brazil; 
New Zealand; Republic of Korea; India; Vanuatu (Pacific Group); Russian Federation; Nepal; Turkey; 
Chinese Taipei; Japan; Ukraine; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Egypt; Kenya; Malaysi a; Jamaica; 
Cambodia; Argentina; Panama (Article XII Members); Ghana; Uganda; Chile; Trinidad and Tobago; 
Costa Rica; Montenegro; Mali (C -4); St. Lucia; Nigeria; Paraguay; Hong Kong, China; Zimbabwe; 
Pakistan and Plurinational State of Bolivia  are included  below as part of the Minutes of the General 
Council meeting . 
 
_______________  
 
1. Benin (African Group)  
 
I am making this statement on behalf of the African Group.  
 
The Group thanks the Director -General and the Chairs of the negotiating bodies for the reports that 
they presented this morning on the status of the negotiations.  
 
We support the statements made by the LDC, ACP, G -33 and C -4 Groups.  
 
We wish to take this opportunity to reiterate our commitment to multilateralism, which is and must 
remain the  way to guarantee open, inclusive, equitable and rules -based international trade.  
 
We would also like to underline the need for tangible results to be achieved in the multilateral trade 
negotiations, as this would genuinely reflect Members' commitment to i mproving the rules, principles 
and mechanisms governing international trade.  
 
In this regard, the Group would like to remind other WTO Members and groups of Members of its 
priorities and the proposals which it has made in the following areas:  
 
Agriculture  
 
As the dominant sector of economic and social activity in most countries, agriculture is in need of 
appropriate reforms under the domestic support pillar, where there are still unresolved issues.  
 
The reforms to be made should entail substantial reduction  with a view to the eventual elimination 
of domestic support measures that distort international trade in agricultural products, including 
cotton.  
 
The commitments to be undertaken should cover:  
 
• AMS;  
• de minimis;  
• Blue Box;  
• product specific capping;  
• limits on Green Box support.  
 
Cotton  
 
As a real instrument of poverty reduction, cotton provides an illustration in many respects of the 
distortions caused by domestic support for production and marketing on the international market. 
Hence an urgent approp riate response is awaited on this vital issue by the African Group, which 
includes 36 cotton producing countries.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 71 - 
 
  Public stockholding for food security purposes  
 
The African Group reiterates the relevance of achieving a lasting solution for the administra tion of 
public stockholding for food security purposes.  
 
This is a reasonable request, and we must work on producing a legitimate response without further 
delay.  
 
I would now like to address the following issues, which are being discussed by the Members of  our 
organization.  
 
Fisheries subsidies  
 
The African Group remains committed, in line with the Doha and Hong Kong Ministerial mandates 
and SDG 14.6 of the 2030 Agenda, to achieving a substantial and balanced outcome in the 
negotiations on fisheries subsidi es, within the time limits established by the Buenos Aires Ministerial 
Decision.  
 
Disciplines on fisheries subsidies must take account of development and modernization needs in 
fisheries in the African countries, and also of this sector's contribution to f ood security, nutrition and 
social development in general. In this regard, appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment must be an integral part of any future agreement.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
The African Group wishes to emphasise that WTO reform mus t have the fundamental goal of 
improving the rules, principles and mechanisms governing international trade, ensuring 
transparency, inclusiveness, fairness, predictability, consensual decision -making and the necessary 
flexibility to take account of the nee ds, constraints and difficulties of the developing Member s, in 
particular the least -developed countries.  
 
The African Group also underlines the urgency of restarting and completing the selection process for 
Appellate Body members, to enable this central pillar of the WTO dispute settlement system to 
continue playing its key role.  
 
Special and differential treatment  
 
As regards special and differential treatment, the African Group urges WTO Members to intensify 
their efforts to speed up the work on  this fundamental issue on our negotiating agenda, with the 
goal of making the special and differential treatment provisions in the WTO Agreements more 
precise, effective and operational, in line with Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  
 
The African Group takes note of the recent proposals on development and special and differential 
treatment. It reaffirms that special and differential treatment must be an integral part of all WTO 
agreements and future multilateral outcomes, so as to enable de veloping Member s, in particular 
LDCs, to effectively address their development needs in line with Africa's industrial development 
priorities, as encapsulated in the African Union's Agenda 2063 relating to structural change and 
industrialization.  
 
The Afric an Group would like to remind WTO Members that its proposals on special and differential 
treatment were submitted jointly with the LDC Group and the ACP Group.  
 
We are willing to continue discussions within the Committee on Trade and Development and the CT D 
in Special Session concerning the best options for making Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration 
operational.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
The African Group notes the joint statement made by a group of Members in Davos.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 72 - 
 
  We support the ongoing work under the work  programme on e -commerce, especially relating to the 
development needs of the developing and LDC  Member s, digital industrial policy, digital rights, and 
the moratorium on electronic transmissions.  
 
Lastly, the African Group reiterates its commitment to wor k towards achieving tangible and 
measurable results on the issues under negotiation.  
 
2. Switzerland  
 
In my statement, I would like to give a summary of the Informal Ministerial Gathering on WTO issues 
hosted by the Swiss government on 25 January in Davos. Th e aim of the informal meeting was to 
discuss challenges facing the WTO and ways of enhancing trade cooperation, including ideas for 
reforming the organization.  
 
The Informal WTO Ministerial Gathering was attended by Ministers and high officials from 
32 Members representing a broad spectrum of the WTO Membership, including the coordinators of 
the WTO LDC Group, the WTO African Group, and the WTO African, Caribbean and Pacific Group.  
 
For the information of the wider Membership of the WTO, I will read out the  Personal Concluding 
Remarks by the Chair, Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin. He summarised his impressions from the 
discussions as follows:  
 
"Ministers recogni zed that 2019 would be a crucial year for the multilateral trading system. 
They agreed that current trade tensions and challenges should be solved by using increased 
cooperation and dialogue.  
 
Many expressed their resolve to work out satisfactory solutions for preserving the credibility 
of the WTO and enhancing its relevance.  
 
Ministers reiterate d the importance of concluding the negotiations on fisheries subsidies by 
the end of 2019 consistent with the decision made at MC11.  
 
Ministers welcomed the process recently initiated to address concerns related to the WTO's 
dispute settlement system. In t his regard, they underlined the urgency of restoring a fully -
functioning Appellate Body.  
 
Several statements highlighted the question of how to take into account diverse and evolving 
levels of development in order to drive forward multilateral negotiations . 
 
Many participants advocated for tangible progress in negotiations on longstanding issues 
relevant to a range of Members, including developing ones. 
 
Furthermore, Ministers heard the report on the Canadian Reform and Modernization Initiative 
backed by a group of like -minded WTO Members.  
 
The need to reform the WTO and to improve its functioning – also expressed in the latest 
G20 summit declaration – was widely acknowledged. At the same time, a variety of views on 
the content and modalities of such reform have been expressed.  
 
Numerous interventions stressed the necessity to preserve and step up the transparency and 
deliberative functions of the WTO and to adapt its rules to address present -day trade issues 
and challenges.  
 
While multilateralism remains par amount, some thought it will be important to be open to 
new ways of making progress that allow Members to pursue initiatives of interest to them.  
 
In this context, many Ministers confirmed their intention to start negotiations on e -commerce 
with the broade st possible participation. Some considered that they needed to better 
understand the issues at stake before taking further steps.  
 
The importance of moving ahead in an open and inclusive manner with the other Buenos 
Aires Joint Initiatives was frequently m entioned. These initiatives cover modern economic WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 73 - 
 
  issues such as Services Domestic Regulation; Investment Facilitation; Micro, Small and 
Medium -Sized Enterprises; and Women and Trade.  
 
Ministers stated their willingness to stay involved and to advance key issues for strengthening 
the multilateral trading system and the WTO in the future."  
 
These personal concluding remarks – under Switzerland's own responsibility – have been published 
on the website of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) as well as on the WTO's 
website, along with a list of attendees.  
 
With this, I conclude my report on the Informal WTO Ministerial Gathering in Davos on 25 January 
2019.  
 
3. Haiti (CARICOM)  
 
I am delivering this statement on behalf of the CARICOM Group.  
 
I would like to thank the Director -General for his status report and for the report on the consultations 
and the meetings organi zed with the different actors involved in the ongoing discussions at the WTO.  
 
I also extend my thanks to the different Chairs  of the Negotiating Groups for their effort and 
leadership shown throughout the discussions for the next round of negotiations.  
 
The CARICOM Group continues to believe that a transparent, inclusive, rules -based multilateral 
trading system that takes into a ccount the notion of sustainable development will best serve the 
interests of all Members, particularly LDCs and SVEs.  
 
The CARICOM Group welcomes the appointment of Ambassador David Walker, Permanent 
Representative of New Zealand, as Facilitator to try to  bring the actors together and help them to 
find a solution to the problems raised. It is clear that the persisting situation within the Appellate 
Body can only block the mechanism of the dispute settlement system.  
 
The CARICOM Group takes note of ongoing discussions and initiatives concerning WTO Reform. We 
continue to express our concern over the way in which they unfold and invite delegations to 
demonstrate a greater degree of transparency, openness and inclusiveness to ensure that any 
approach to improv e the WTO takes into account the heterogeneity of its Members in the interest of 
all. 
 
The CARICOM Group encourages the work of the Committee on Agriculture, in particular, the 
organization of thematic sessions in the various areas to deepen the understand ing of the basic 
elements, so as to have more open and better -oriented debates during the discussions.  
 
The CARICOM Group noted that discussions on fisheries subsidies have resulted in the designation 
of facilitators for the four areas of interest to Membe rs, such as: overfishing, overcapacity, IUU 
fishing, overexploited stocks. The Group expressed its readiness to contribute to any such initiative 
aimed at a satisfactory outcome, in accordance with the MC11 mandate.  
 
Recognising the progress made in the ar ea of market access, the CARICOM Group believes once 
again that this progress must reaffirm the existing flexibilities on services for developing Member s, 
particularly LDCs and SVEs, in line with Articles IV and XIX of the GATS, the Negotiating Guideline s 
and Procedures and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, including Annex C.  
 
With regard to electronic commerce, the CARICOM Group continues to follow the discussions and 
review the various communications submitted by some Members. The Group however rem ains very 
committed to all Member States that are facing major infrastructure problems.  
 
The CARICOM Group reaffirms its support to the WTO Accessions Working Group for the commitment 
it made at its last meeting to speed up the process so that some States can accede to the 
organization by 2020, at the next Ministerial Conference.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 74 - 
 
  4. Canada  
 
I would like to briefly provide the Membership with an update on the work of the "Ottawa Group" 
WTO reform initiative. As Canada reported at our last Informal HODs meeting, the group issued a 
Joint Communiqué after its first Ministerial Meeting in October 2018 in which Ministers outlined three 
areas for urgent consideration. The Joint Communiqué can be found on the WTO website.  
 
The Ottawa group met again in January 2019 and issued a second Joint Communiqué, which can be 
found on the WTO website, in which Ministers reiterated concerns for the multilateral trading system 
and announcing that its members would soon begin efforts to strengthen the deliberative function 
of the WTO. In the coming weeks, we will welcome all interested WTO Members to join these informal 
discussions to develop ideas on a committee -by-committee basis.  
 
The initial focus will be on the work of four WTO bodies, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measu res 
Committee, the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, the Rules of Origin Committee, and the 
Council for Trade in Services. Our intent is that this process will eventually cover all WTO bodies.  
 
On SPS, Brazil is coordinating efforts to improve the wor k of the Committee, with emphasis on the 
Specific Trade Concerns procedure. Brazil will hold an initial open -ended meeting tomorrow, 1 March, 
followed by another one on 20 March, on the margins of the Committee's next session, in order to 
discuss initial i deas as well as to receive inputs from interested delegations.  
 
Singapore is working on a discussion paper to identify the good practices in the TBT Committee. The 
intent is to examine what is working well in this Committee, which is generally considered t o be a 
well-functioning Committee, and the reasons behind the practices. Members may then consider if 
the same practices and mechanisms will add value to the work of other WTO Bodies.  
 
Since February 2018, Switzerland has coordinated a small group process in the field of rules of 
origin. The discussions led to the elaboration of a proposal entitled Enhancing Transparency in Non -
Preferential Rules of Origin. The proposal was circulated last month and is co -sponsored by 12 
Members. It intends to fulfil the in formation gaps in the field of non -preferential rules of origin as a 
way to facilitate trade.  
 
Within the services space, Australia is currently focused on exploring ideas for strengthening the 
WTO's monitoring and transparency function for services trade measures.  
 
We expect this bottom -up engagement process will prove useful in building trust and confidence 
amongst WTO Members for change at the WTO.  
 
We are planning for a follow -up Ministerial Meeting in late May where Ministers will review the status 
of the work that I just outlined and to provide guidance on next steps.  
 
Allow me to now move to Canada's statement on recent developments since the last Informal HODs.  
 
While Canada will continue to reflect on the way forward on strengthening and modernisin g the 
WTO, we also want to stress that we remain committed to pursue the work to advance the WTO's 
negotiating agenda on all issues of interest to the Membership.  
 
With respect to trade and development, Canada welcomes the recent WTO submissions as well as  
other analytical papers recently published. We are pleased to see such attention given to this 
important matter, and we hope this will be a catalyst for a renewed discussion on this important 
issue.  
 
With respect to the agriculture negotiations, Canada's priority remains developing stronger 
disciplines on trade and production distorting domestic support that will reflect current trends and 
realities in international agriculture markets. We support the CoA SS Chair's establishment of seven 
technical working groups to enhance Members' collective understanding of positions with a view to 
bridging the differences in those positions. Canada recently circulated and presented a 
comprehensive database covering all WTO Members that have notified domestic support since 2001, 
which will allow Members to undertake technical analysis on key issues in domestic support in order 
to enhance the understanding of issues in agricultural domestic support.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 75 - 
 
  On the fisheries subsidies negotiations, Canada welcomes recent efforts to develop creative ideas to 
address areas of persisting disagreement on the text of the disciplines. We look forward to working 
constructively on these new ideas to identify meaningful and realistic o utcomes on which the 
Membership can achieve consensus. The matter is urgent for the WTO: not only due the limited time 
remaining before the end of the year, but also to demonstrate the continuing effectiveness of the 
WTO's negotiating function.  
 
Canada re mains encouraged that the joint statement initiatives launched at MC11 remain high on 
the agenda for many Members. Canada welcomes the recent Joint Ministerial Statement announcing 
the intention to commence WTO negotiations on related aspects of e -commerce . Canada is looking 
forward to participate actively in these discussions and we encourage all Members to participate.  
  
Canada is also encouraged to see discussions progressing on the other joint statement initiatives 
such as Investment Facilitation, MSMEs , and Services Domestic Regulation.  
 
Finally, Canada is a strong supporter of the WTO dispute settlement system as a key pillar of the 
rules-based multilateral trading order. We regret that the Appellate Body selection process remains 
blocked.  We note tha t there are a number of proposals currently on the table to address the concerns 
that have been raised by Members. The process that is being facilitated by Ambassador Walker is a 
very important one, and Canada looks forward to sustained and constructive wo rk on the reform of 
the dispute settlement system. This will require meaningful engagement from all Members, but 
particularly the United States which raised many of the concerns.  
 
5. Malawi (ACP)  
 
I take the floor on behalf of the ACP Group.  
 
Today we take no te of the proliferation of papers and proposals that appear to be under the rubric 
of reform.  
 
These papers are now squarely beyond the issue of the Appellate Body impasse and so -called reform. 
We see that following the promise made in Davos, some Members are tabling proposals on 
compliance with notification requirements now in the subsidiary bodies, in particular the Committee 
on Rules of Origin. In the General Council, we see a paper and a draft decision proposal to 
differentiate developing Member s withou t any common understanding derived from thorough debate 
and positive solutions among the Membership.  
 
Needless to say, some of these proposals are daunting for our members, creating further 
bewilderment about the direction of the WTO. Our membership in the  ACP Group is diverse, including 
a high percentage of LDCs, low income, SIDs, SVEs, middle and high income developing countries. 
Gross domestic product is less of an indicator of development challenges for our members with small 
island populations.  
 
It should be recalled for example a small island country like Dominica, lost over 200% of its GDP 
and the total destruction of its natural rainforest, after Hurricane Maria. We have Members in conflict 
and perpetual economic and political strife. Yet we have been able to work together as a group in 
the WTO to achieve milestones and identify and advance our common interests. We have been good 
citizens of the WTO.  
 
In 2013, the ACP Group was lauded by the Director -General as having broken the first iceberg that 
contributed to our ability to bring forward an agreement in Bali on Trade Facilitation. We acted in 
good faith with all Members of the WTO, especially the leading developed country proponents, to 
have a Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
 
Section 11 of the TFA  was significant in introducing a new variation in the application of special and 
different treatment mechanism, expressly stated in the agreement for the use of developing and 
LDC Members . We see that some of the largest developing Member s that some devel oped Member s 
feared would abuse the self -designation element have dutifully notified and voluntarily availed 
themselves of short transition periods and did not notify under Category C, which includes 
designation of transition periods requiring outside assi stance.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 76 - 
 
  In 2014, we were leading, working with the Director -General, to establish a TF Facility, to 
complement the outcome in Bali. In 2015, the ACP Group came forward as a proponent of the 
fisheries subsidies negotiations, but at the same time to preserve our rights to waters under our 
jurisdiction, without disturbing the laws and customary rules operating in fisheries regimes and 
fisheries management. In Buenos Aires, we were instrumental, alongside the LDC Group, as 
proponents for the single deci sion taken on fisheries subsidies disciplines, setting a deadline for the 
conclusion of the negotiations in 2019.  
 
The ACP Group has tabled position papers and text proposals in fisheries subsidies which include 
disciplines where we did not see the need fo r S&DT, and those where it is imperative for us. The 
WTO is not a fisheries management organization and should not, through the mandate to take up 
the subsidies that contribute to overfishing, become the enforcer of other fisheries rules or encroach 
on our  national, sovereign fisheries regimes.  
 
The ACP Group, with at least 60 Members of the WTO, stands ready to achieve conclusion of these 
negotiations by the end of this year as instructed by Ministers in Buenos Aires in 2017.  
 
We appreciate the efforts and  deliberations of the Chair of Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session, Ambassador Deep Ford, to ignite a working method to foster convergence. Our members 
require outcomes from these negotiations to add to the box of agreed rules that eliminate trade 
distorting supports in this sector, including on cotton. Without an output from this pillar, the WTO 
loses credibility. Our Members have taken part in other areas of WTO work including services and 
regular bodies.  
 
The ACP Group is a proponent with the G -90 on the special and differential treatment agreement -
specific proposals still remaining without any attention and agreement since 2001. These proposals 
reflect our concerns about constraints on us in the WTO, and ineffective functioning of the WTO 
Agreeme nts, and the need to reform the system to more effectively serve developing Member  
interests.  
 
We have layers of developing Member  status within our group including those who are LDCs and 
small, vulnerable economies. Our proposals included text that embra ced differentiated treatment 
reflected in the ability to take account of different capacity constraints where occurring or recurring, 
which should have attracted offers from developed Members.  
 
Proposals critical to our progressive adaptation to the multil ateral trading system and structural 
transformation of our economies, from our beginnings on the global trading scene and under the 
colonial period are still needed. We know that it is not easy for us to wrench ourselves from poverty 
and acute levels of ec onomic development challenges.  
 
We appreciate the assistance from our partners in this journey. At the same time, our partners must 
be accountable and allow the WTO to be governed with dignity and respect for the diversity that we 
are, which strengthens t he multilateral character of this institution and is inclusive of all levels of 
development.  
 
However, we believe that for the institution to support all of its Members, who indeed have both 
obligations and rights, but proposals and agendas advanced by us should be given priority.  
 
We support approaches that are positive, constructive, solution and convergence oriented.  
 
We come again to the impasse in the dispute settlement system. The ACP Group notes that the 
impasse continues. We repeat our intervention in January. We place high priority on unblocking the 
selection of Appellate Body members and launching the selection process to fill vacancies. Indeed, 
without a functioning adjudication system, the very rules that underpin the multilateral system will 
be compromised.  
 
The ACP Group supports any process that contributes to a resolution of the impasse. It is however 
fundamental that any solution offered should not disturb the balance of rights and obligations of 
members. To this end, procedural changes being  considered should seek to address the better and 
sustainable functioning of the Appellate Body without adding to or diminishing the rights of Members.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 77 - 
 
  Secondly, any solution to address concerns raised by some delegations regarding the functioning of 
the Appellate Body should preserve and protect the independence and impartiality of the dispute 
settlement system.  
 
The WTO dispute settlement system has been celebrated as a unique mechanism under international 
jurisprudence where countries large and small h ave equal standing under the rules – where the 
outcomes of adjudication are based on rules rather than power and might. The good functioning of 
the rules -based multilateral trading system demands that we preserve this core principle.  
 
Finally, the ACP Grou p stands ready to play a constructive role in any discussions that seek to make 
the WTO better serve the interests of all its Members. Any discussions moving forward should ensure 
that the basic principles on inclusivity, transparency, development and part icularly S&DT for 
developing and LDC  Member s are fully adhered to.  
 
6. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on E -Commerce)  
 
I will first report on progress in the Electronic Commerce Joint Statement initiative on behalf of the 
co-convenors – Australia, Japan and Singapore.  
 
In Davos on 25 January, 76 WTO Members, representing over 90% of global trade, released a Joint 
Statement on Electronic Commerce, circulated as document WT/L/1056. In this statement, Members 
confirm the intention to commenc e WTO negotiations on the trade -related aspects of e -commerce.  
 
In these negotiations, Members will seek to achieve a high standard outcome that builds on existing 
WTO agreements and frameworks with the participation of as many WTO Members as possible.  
 
Members recogni ze, and will take into account, the unique opportunities and challenges faced by 
Members, including developing and LDC  Members , as well as by MSMEs, in relation to electronic 
commerce.  
 
Negotiations will enhance the benefits of e -commerce for  businesses, consumers and the global 
economy.  
 
Together, as co -convenors, we have recently conducted open -ended consultations on the next steps 
for the initiative. An organizational meeting will be held on 6 March and at this meeting we will set 
out a pro posed timetable and next steps.  
 
We intend to capture the strong sense of enthusiasm and momentum built last year, and reinforced 
at Davos, as we commence WTO negotiations. We continue to encourage all WTO Members to 
participate in this open and inclusive process.  
 
7. Australia  
 
There have been numerous sobering reports in recent months about declining trade growth and 
growing instability in global markets. Against this backdrop, it is essential we accelerate our work 
on strengthening and modernising the WTO, which has supported economic growth and stability 
over many decades.  
  
In Davos, we heard a strong call from Ministers of the Ottawa Group on the need for "rapid and 
concerted action" to address the current challenges facing the system.   
 
To this end, we are encouraged that Members are actively engaging in discussions on the issues 
facing the dispute settlement system. We share concerns about the functioning of the Appellate 
Body and welcome the informal process led by Ambassador Walker.  
 
This process pro vides a valuable forum for Members to work together and focus on resolving 
concerns in order to and unblock the impasse on appointments. Australia is committed to finding 
pragmatic solutions and urge all Members to join in this effort.  
 
We also emphasise the strong need for timely and pragmatic action to ensure WTO rules are relevant 
and reflect modern trade realities.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 78 - 
 
  Australia is interested in updating subsidy rules to reflect contemporary challenges, including 
strengthening rules on industria l subsidies and state -owned enterprises, and improving 
transparency.  
 
To improve the functioning of the WTO and inform our negotiations, we need to encourage and 
support Members to improve compliance with their monitoring and transparency obligations. For this 
reason, we co -sponsored the proposal on "Procedures to Enhance Transparency and Strengthen 
Notification Requirements under WTO Agreements" and the proposal to enhance transparency in 
Non-preferential Rules of Origin.  
 
As the Chair noted this morning, with less than 10 months to the end -2019 deadline, we need to 
rapidly accelerate our work on fisheries subsidies.  
 
Now is the time for Members to move off established positions and pursue pragmatic solutions to 
bridge differences. In this spirit, Australia  circulated last week a draft text on overfished stocks. This 
text builds on existing approaches and seeks to find solutions to the concerns Members have raised.  
We hope this will be a useful contribution and strongly encourage others to consider potentia l 
solutions to other key issues.  
 
Beyond fisheries subsidies, we must start preparing the road to MC12, which is now just over a year 
away.  
 
Agricultural reform is a vital issue for Australia and for many Members. We thank the CoA SS Chair 
for his report and welcome the creation of a new working group process, which we hope will identify 
opportunities for outcomes. We continue to prioritise work to reduce the massive build -up of trade -
distorting domestic support operated by a handful of larger WTO Members.   
 
Australia is also committed to achieving an outcome on services domestic regulation in advance of 
MC12, as agreed by Ministers in the joint statement at MC11. Good progress was made in the open -
ended negotiations last year and we look to accelerate work  on outstanding issues. This process 
remains open to all Members and we encourage their participation.   
 
The release of the Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce by 76 Members was a significant 
moment, not only for our businesses and consumers, but also for the WTO. The willingness of such 
a large and diverse group of Members to come together to ensure WTO rules reflect modern trade 
realities is a cause for optimism and we encourage all WTO Members to join.  
 
We also actively support the work of the other Joint Statement Initiatives, including Investment 
Facilitation, MSMEs and Women's Economic Empowerment.  
 
Finally, it is also important we discuss development issues.  
 
We believe supporting all Members' participation in global trade – as a tool for economi c development 
– is a fundamental part of our work. We are pleased by Members' continued and collective 
commitment to support developing Member s, particularly LDCs, through aid -for-trade initiatives.   
 
However, in areas such as special and differential tre atment, there are widely differing views 
amongst the Membership and we welcome the recent efforts of Members to put pen to paper. These 
submissions are useful in stimulating a much -needed discussion.   
 
We encourage Members to engage constructively and pra gmatically. Indeed, only solution -oriented 
approaches will support our efforts to strengthen the system that we so value.  
 
8. Central African Republic (LDCs)  
 
In the first meeting of the TNC this year, we have been given the opportunity to verify and restate 
some important positions of the LDCs with regard to the multilateral trading system and the WTO 
with the view to enhancing LDC participation in world trade.  
 
In priority areas such as agriculture, we believe this is an area where Members have to ar rive at a 
solution that leads to a significant reduction in domestic support provided in countries which have 
distorting effects on trade. In cotton, the support provided in certain countries must also be stopped. WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 79 - 
 
  Cotton is a vital sector for many of our e conomies and is a genuine tool for poverty reduction. On 
public stockholding for food security purposes, we call for a permanent solution that takes into 
account the possibility for the economies of LDCs to set up public stockholding programmes which 
are not yet in place. In terms of the special safeguard mechanism, such a mechanism is necessary 
to preserve the vulnerable, small scale agriculture in our countries.  
 
In the area of services, we hope that the Ministerial Decision on the waiver for LDC Service s Providers 
will be fully implemented. We would like to thank Members who have already notified the preferences 
granted to LDCs and we call on those who have not yet done so to make such notifications. We have 
already published various communications sugge sting ways of improving the operationalization of 
this decision. We believe that this communication can help us to better integrate to world trade.  
 
Another area important in our development process is the area of technology transfer, particularly 
under Ar ticle 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. We recently made agreements in this area to ensure the 
better functioning of this Article and have effective technology transfer for LDCs. The workshop held 
in February on this topic was very productive and positive for u s given the fruitful exchange between 
the LDCs and developed Members. We hope that this would lead to greater assistance and useful 
technology transfer for our countries.  
 
In the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, the LDCs would like to restate the impor tance of arriving 
at a decision before the end of this year to resolve the problems of IUU fishing, taking into account 
the importance of developing artisanal and subsistence fishing in our countries and assuring 
sustainable use of our fisheries resources in the application of international law.  
 
On the general issue of special and differential treatment, the LDC Group would like to call on 
Members to take into account the constraints that our countries face in terms of infrastructure, 
human resources, fina ncial resources and technological resources as we define rules and apply these 
rules to international trade. We must make positive efforts to ensure that LDCs have a 
commensurate part in international trade.  
 
This is part and parcel of the WTO Agreement a nd was restated in Paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Declaration which calls on Members to examine existing S&DT provisions to make them more 
precise, more effective and operational. We have a proposal on the negotiating table on S&DT which 
includes the LDCs' posit ions and this has been developed with the G -90. It is important to pursue 
the discussions on S&DT. The LDC Group takes note of the recent communications circulated by 
Members on S&DT. These will be discussed in the General Council meeting tomorrow.  
 
This b rings us to an issue of particular interest to us – the WTO Reform. We have a number of 
proposals in this area on transparency, negotiations and reform of the Dispute Settlement Body. The 
LDCs would like to emphasise that any reform of the WTO must take in to account the development 
dimension and the need for S&DT for LDCs.  
 
We would like to defend the existence of this multilateral trading system and the rules -based WTO 
which ensures inclusiveness, equity and transparency.  
 
In conclusion, the LDC Group wou ld like to reassure the Director -General and the Membership of our 
readiness to work constructively to ensure a solid and strong WTO that serves our economies and 
would continue to do so in the future.  
 
9. Indonesia  
 
I wish to thank the Director -General for c onvening the meeting, updating Members on his recent 
activities and providing his assessment of the current situation.  
 
Indonesia reiterates its concern over the evolving developments and challenges that have hindered 
the multilateral trading system from w orking properly. Indonesia urges all WTO Members to 
contribute positively to address these challenges with the sense of urgency and renewed political 
will in order to safeguard an open, predictable and rules -based multilateral trading system in the 
WTO.  
 
Allow me to share the views of Indonesia on some important issues and how we can make progress.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 80 - 
 
  On agriculture, Indonesia reiterates the importance of making progress in the negotiations on SSM 
and on public stockholding for food security purposes for dev eloping Members.  
 
Any initiative for progress in our endeavour to discuss the matter including ongoing initiatives shall 
be directed to address imbalances and inequities inherited from the Uruguay Round and specific 
needs of developing and LDC Members. Th is initiative for progress needs to be responsive to the 
core problem instead of creating additional barriers to progress in the negotiations.  
 
Additional barriers to attacking the core problem would further postpone the majority of developing 
and LDC Members in attaining the necessary policy instruments to address persistent problems 
related to food security, livelihood security and rural development.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, special attention needs to be given to address appropriate and effective S&DT 
for developing and LDC Members. Different levels of development among WTO Members will have a 
significant effect towards the implementation and success of the future recipient. Thus, we believe 
S&DT would help the shortcoming of developing and LDC Members in  balancing its obligation to 
contribute to sustainable fisheries and its right to develop. For Indonesia, S&DT should be translated 
into concrete form for small -scale fishers.  
 
On development issues, Indonesia reaffirms its view that development elements h ave been an 
integral part of various WTO Agreements with the view to, among others, assisting developing and 
LDC Members to reap equitable benefits from the multilateral trading system. In this regard, 
Indonesia is of the view that Members need to intensif y interaction in an open and more pragmatic 
manner to find a mutually agreed solution.  
 
Indonesia continues to raise concern on the impasse on the Selection Process of Appellate Body 
members. We note a Member's concern on the work of the Appellate Body. Ho wever, we believe 
that ongoing discussion over the matter must be in view of resolving the issue in a more pragmatic 
way. In this regard, Indonesia takes note of some proposals that have been put forward to address 
the concern and urge Members to construct ively engage in a problem -solving type of discussion.  
 
With respect to some new initiatives, while considering their important roles in current economic 
realities, Indonesia continues to uphold its views that Members should be open -minded in continuing 
the exploratory nature of the conversation. In those efforts, however, Members shall continue to 
uphold open, inclusive and transparent principles to ensure no one will be left behind. In this 
undertaking, Indonesia remains to believe the centrality of develo pment and special and differential 
treatment principle.  
 
Indonesia would like to reiterate its readiness to be actively and constructively engaged in any 
necessary process particularly in finding acceptable solutions that will address everybody's interest s 
and concerns.  
 
10. European Union  
 
Let me first start by few words on the EU 's assessment of the current situation.  
 
While ongoing bilateral talks may prevent a further escalation of trade tensions, the EU remains 
concerned that bilateral arrangements will n ot provide a long -term and structural solution to key 
global trade challenges. We remain of the strong belief that the WTO provides the best framework 
to tackle systemic issues in a transparent and fair manner.  
 
However, trade tensions are also demonstrat ing that the WTO today does not have the appropriate 
tools to address the challenges of today 's trade. The world has changed and so has the WTO 
Membership. We must ensure that the WTO remains effective and relevant. Without tangible 
progress in the near fu ture, we may indeed face significant disruptions in the functioning of the 
organi zation and the possible unravelling of the rules -based system.  
 
For that reason, the EU is concerned about the lack of progress in discussions. Three months have 
now passed since we have, together with a broad coalition of Members, submitted concrete proposals 
to resolve the blockage of the appointment of Appellate Bod y members. We will discuss this matter 
in-depth tomorrow. We have addressed in the proposals all concerns expressed on the functioning 
of the Appellate Body. However, despite the mounting pressure of time, we regret to note that the WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 81 - 
 
  member who has expresse d these concerns in the first place is not yet actively engaged in the search 
for concrete solutions.  
 
Let me now turn to our efforts to improve how we conduct day -to-day business in the regular 
Committees:  
 
Together with the other co -sponsors of the prop osal on improving Members' notification compliance, 
the EU is making an intensive effort to improve the first draft. Co -sponsors plan to share the results 
of this work with Members in time ahead of the next CTG in April.  
 
As other Members, the EU is also deliberating how to strengthen other areas of regular WTO work 
that fall short of their potential. One task of numerous Councils and Committees is to resolve 
Members' trade concerns with each other.  
 
We believe that developing a set of horizontal procedur al rules or guidelines would help to deal with 
and resolve trade concerns and we are reflecting on proposals to that effect.  
 
Now, important as those subjects are, preserving the dispute settlement and improving the efficiency 
of regular work will not be e nough to keep the WTO afloat. We must also ensure that the WTO 
remains relevant in addressing global trade challenges. Otherwise , Members may gradually 
disengage from the WTO by increasingly resorting to bilateral and often non -WTO compatible 
solutions.  
 
We must therefore look for enduring solutions and work on updating and augmenting the WTO 
rulebook on the core issues of industrial subsidies and forced technology transfers. The 
developments in global trade over last decades have modified the trade landsc ape, with the rise of 
economic models that were not part of the WTO when the rules were agreed. Our aim is not to 
change Members ' economic models but to re -establish a level playing field for all operators.  
 
The EU has started working on these issues with the US and Japan and we should engage other key 
WTO Members on industrial subsidies after spring. We will therefore be ready to move forward with 
those willing to advance. Negotiations will no doubt be challenging but must not take ages.  
 
In the same vein , we welcome the commitment, on 25 January, by 76 Members to commence WTO 
negotiations on e -commerce. This is a significant step, demonstrating that flexibility in the approach 
to negotiations can unlock a longstanding stalemate.  
 
We will contribute to th e negotiations of an outcome that should be supported by as many WTO 
Members as possible and will thus look forward to a flexible negotiating approach that would allow 
reconciling both objectives of ambition and broad support.  
 
Of course, the fisheries su bsidies negotiations deserve now our utmost attention. The deadline for 
the completion of talks by the end of the year is advancing rapidly. A lot remains to be done because 
the streamlined texts before us do not seem to produce results.  
 
Let me conclude. Our situation is gloomy . Prospects are not promising. Complacency is therefore 
misplaced. WTO reform must be delivered on, definitely in the light of the conclusions of the G20 
last December. But this can only be done in a concerted effort. No Member, however big, can do 
this on its own.  
 
11. Colombia (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development)  
 
In keeping with the open, transparent and inclusive nature of the Joint Initiative on Investment 
Facilitation for Development, I am pleased to update Members on the latest progress made by the 
initiative – as well as on the next steps ahead in the first half of 2019.  
 
As I reported to the HODs last December, Members participating in the Joint Initiative agreed – at 
the 'stock -take and next steps' meeting held in December – that the Structured Discussions had 
been successful in 2018 in identifying the possible elements o f a multilateral framework on 
investment facilitation for development.   
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 82 - 
 
  As previously reported, these identified possible 'elements' have been reflected and organi zed in a 
"Checklist of Issues raised by Members" which was developed last year – its latest  version being 
circulated to all Members in November 2018.  
 
Since my last report to the HODs in December, a "Proposed Schedule of Meetings" for the first half 
of this year was circulated to all Members. This document, as well as the organization of our wor k 
in this next phase, were discussed and endorsed by participating Members at an organizational 
meeting on 30 January.  
 
At that meeting, participating Members re -iterated their full support for the next phase of the 
initiative to move towards the developme nt of the possible elements of the multilateral framework 
– in line with the objective established in the Joint Ministerial Statement. Based on participating 
Members' feedback, the discussions in the first half of 2019 will be based on concrete examples, 
including text -based examples or suggestions submitted by Members – using the Checklist as a 
reference point.   
 
As per the schedule of meetings, I would like to draw your attention – and invite you – to the 
forthcoming open -ended meeting of the Structured Discussions to be held next week, on Monday 4 
March and on Tuesday 5 March.  
 
The main purpose of this meeting is to engage in example -based discussions to address ways in 
which the possible elements of a multilateral framework could be developed  – starting  with those 
elements aimed at improving the transparency and predictability of investment measures.  
 
Discussions will be based on concrete examples, including text -based examples, submitted by 
Members. In addition, in my role as Coordinator, I have also p ut forward examples under my own 
responsibility, drawing from relevant WTO provisions, so as to complement Members' suggestions.  
 
In keeping with the open, inclusive and transparent nature of the initiative, I wish to invite – and 
encourage – all Members t o participate in the forthcoming meetings. Participation is entirely without 
prejudice to Members' position on the Joint Initiative. I would also like to remind you that all 
documents are posted on the Members' restricted section of the WTO website.  
 
Let m e conclude by reaffirming my commitment as Coordinator to keep the process open, 
transparent and inclusive. I wish to stress my full availability to receive any feedback or suggestions 
that you may have.  
 
12. Colombia  
 
First of all, I would like to thank the D irector -General  and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for 
their reports.  
 
I would also like to express gratitude for, and highlight and support, the efforts of the Chair of the 
General Council, together with the facilitator, Ambassador Walker, to deepen  the discussion and 
seek concrete solutions to the deadlock in the Appellate Body. Colombia considers that efforts must 
be intensified to bring positions closer together quickly, and to find points of convergence and 
ultimately solutions to prevent paralys is of the Appellate Body, which would have serious 
consequences for the stability and credibility of the system.  
 
As we have mentioned previously, we are aware of and share many of the concerns expressed as 
regards the functioning of the dispute settlement  system, which this discussion gives us an 
opportunity to strengthen and improve. Nevertheless, we do not think that these processes provide 
any justification for failing to meet obligations arising from the covered agreements, such as the 
prompt filling o f vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
 
In the area of negotiations, we would make particular mention of the reactivation of fisheries 
subsidies that is being observed. We commend the facilitators' work and their coordination with the 
Members in order to advance the process of refining the discussions. New proposals are welcome, 
especially if they are linked to the history of the negotiations and are a response to the almost three 
years of discussions among the Members.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 83 - 
 
  In agriculture, we would highlight the new process involving working groups as an additional forum 
for making progress in the discussions and we regard the exchanges that took place in the first few 
meetings as positive. We trust that, with the combined work of all Members, we will succeed in 
making progress with an eye to the next Ministerial Conference and future negotiating activity.  
 
On other matters, we note with optimism the progress of the plurilateral work initiated in the area 
of e-commerce and domestic regulation with a view to ach ieving concrete results in Astana.  
 
Lastly, Colombia is following with interest the proposals for strengthening the transparency pillar as 
part of the process to improve the system. We are convinced that we must now make an effort in 
this area to implement  the mechanisms that will make it possible to provide Members with the 
information required for administering the covered agreements in as short a time as possible, 
including by making use of the growing availability of technological tools.  
 
13. Norway  
 
Norway  remains deeply concerned about the current trade tensions and the potential damaging 
effects of protectionism and unilateral measures. On the other hand, we are encouraged by the 
engagement of many Members committed to safeguarding the rules -based trading  system, not the 
least by engaging actively in efforts to make this organization more effective and more relevant to 
the challenges of the 21st century.  
 
The most urgent challenge is related to the Appellate Body. The informal consultations under the 
auspices of the General Council must continue as we search for sustainable solutions. WTO Members 
have responded constructively and in good faith to the concerns raised regarding the Appellate Body. 
Now would be a good time for a similar response and signal of  good faith by agreeing to initiate the 
appointment process to fill the vacancies.  
 
Norway welcomes initiatives that aim to increase the efficiency of the WTO and strengthen Members ' 
compliance with agreed rules. We encourage proponents to reach out to th e Membership to exchange 
views on how proposals may be developed in a direction where consensus might be within reach.  
  
Updating rules through negotiations is an essential part of our agenda to moderni se and safeguard 
the WTO. The immediate task is to co nclude successfully the negotiations on fisheries subsidies. 
Norway thanks Members that c ome forward with new papers or are working on new ideas in an 
effort to bridge gaps. We all need to make an effort to move out of the trenches and look for solutions 
that implement SDG 14.6 in the WTO through adoption of comprehensive and effective disciplines.  
  
Norway welcomes the initiative to start negotiations to develop rules on e -commerce as an important 
part of the work to update the rulebook. I would like to th ank Australia, Japan and Singapore for 
their leadership in this process and encourage all Members to engage in the negotiations.  
 
Finally, I would like to underline the importance of including all Members in our efforts to moderni se 
the multilateral tradi ng system. The development dimension must be an integral part of our work. 
To succeed we need to find a more constructive way to have a conversation about trade and 
development. The current approach is not taking us forward and is preventing us from reachi ng 
multilateral solutions. Norway believes that a more pragmatic approach can help Members bridge 
differences and find a common way forward.  
 
14. China  
 
As we all know , the most urgent task for us now is to break the impasse of Appellate Body member 
selection process as soon as possible. It poses great risk of paralysis for the dispute settlement 
mechanism, which will seriously damage the credibility and effectiveness of the multilateral trading 
system.  
 
Therefore, EU, China and some other Members have submitt ed joint proposals to facilitate the crisis 
of the Appellate Body to be solved without any delay. We call on all WTO Members, particularly the 
United States , to actively and constructively engage in the discussions and consultations and strive 
to reach con sensus as soon as possible.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 84 - 
 
  On the positive agendas of the WTO, China is very encouraged to see the progress made so far, 
especially on MC11 joint initiatives including investment facilitation and e -commerce.  
 
On investment facilitation, the Structured Discussion will enter into a new stage this year, which is 
developing possible elements of the multilateral framework through concrete and specific example -
based discussions. China fully supports the timeline and methodology proposed by the coordinator, 
Ambassador Juan Carlos Gonzalez, on the next phase of discussions.  
 
We have already submitted China's examples and will engage constructively in the upcoming 
thematic meeting next week. Also, as FIFD coordinator, C hina encourages other interested Members 
to share their respective examples and make contributions to this process.  
 
On e-commerce, 78 Members including China issued a Joint Statement confirming their intention to 
commence negotiations last month in Davos.  China is ready to engage in the coming discussions in 
a constructive manner. We are now preparing our proposals and will submit them as early as 
possible.  
 
While attaching great importance to this issue, we do not underestimate the complexity of internet  
governance and the necessity of various legitimate public policy objectives. Therefore, the 
negotiations shall be open, transparent and inclusive, and we have to ensure that the limited capacity 
and specific needs of developing Members shall be given due consideration.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, China highly appreciates the efforts made by the Chair, Ambassador Roberto 
Zapata Barradas , and the Facilitators. This week, we have the second cluster of meetings. We hope 
that Members make best use of the bilateral  talks, small group discussions and plenary sessions to 
narrow differences among Members, so that we could fulfil our promises made at MC11.  
 
Finally, I believe Members have noticed that tomorrow 's General Council meeting will touch upon 
the development is sue. For China, we have no intention to discuss controversial issues such as 
classification among WTO Members because it completely falls out of  the WTO's mandate and 
functions. However, we have no choice but to respond in a professional and rational manner to US 
communications, trying to provide Members a whole picture of the development issue and defending 
the fundamental principles of the multilateral t rading system.  
 
Having said that, China firmly believes that rules cannot be challenged and the legitimate rights of 
developing Members are beyond doubt. Therefore, Members should not spend time on such issue, 
especially as we are facing so many urgent ta sks and challenges.  
 
15. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
This intervention is carried out in my capacity as General Coordinator of the Informal Working Group 
on MSMES. In this regard, I use this opportunity to announce that last 22 February we held the first 
plenary meeting of the year with an active participation of the Members focused on achieving 
concrete results.  
 
Firstly, thanks to the support of Members, we are making progress in the Global Trade Helpdesk 
(GTH) project, jointly led by the Inter national Trade Centre (ITC), the United Nations Conference on 
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the WTO, which aims to simplify market research for 
companies by integrating information related to trade into a single online portal. Providing clear, 
accurat e and accessible information to MSMEs is crucial to enable them to become active exporters 
and support inclusive growth.  
 
Moreover, we have also worked on the identification of issues of particular interest to MSMEs that 
could be addressed in WTO trade pol icy reports.  
 
At the request of the Group, the Secretariat has prepared a mapping of information related to MSMEs 
included in the TPR Reports. This analysis was distributed in document JOB/GC/213. In addition, five 
Members, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Urugu ay and the Russian Federation, presented a proposal to 
provide information on MSMEs on a voluntary basis in the Government Reports, which was 
distributed in document JOB/GC/212/Rev.2.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 85 - 
 
  In relation to access to information, we have discussed a proposal from a Member to develop an 
online platform that would include information on best practices, links to relevant websites, the work 
of the Group, among other topics. In this regard, we invited interested Members to work together 
to reflect on the p ossible content of that platform and to develop a complete proposal for our next 
meeting.  
 
On the other hand, at the request of the Group, the Secretariat has developed a questionnaire to 
facilitate the collection of information and the mapping on trade fi nance. Several delegations 
expressed a clear interest in continuing with the questionnaire on trade finance, so I would like to 
invite interested Members to complete it so that we can move forward in the discussions on that 
topic. It is essential that we c ooperate closely on this issue with the Working Group on Trade, Debt 
and Finance.  
 
Among other issues, we are preparing a document to identify the language related to MSMEs in the 
Regional Trade Agreements and we have discussed issues about limiting the re gulatory burden on 
companies.  
 
We appreciate the information provided by the Chairmen of the TRIPS Council and the Working 
Group on Trade, Debt and Finance, as well as the Enhanced Integrated Framework and the Standards 
and Trade Development Facility in li ne with the need to work in coordination with the formal bodies 
of the organization. I think it is important that we continue to invite the Chairs of other WTO bodies 
to inform us about their work and to participate in meetings of other WTO bodies in which  the MSMEs 
issues are discussed.  
 
Last but not least, I would like to inform that the Romania n delegation to the WTO is planning a 
workshop on MSMEs and entrepreneurship at the WTO on 16 May. I invite you to pencil this date in 
your agenda.  
 
Our next meeti ng will be on 27 and 28 June. On 27 June, we will have a ceremonial session to 
celebrate the day of MSME s and on June 28 we will resume our agenda.  
 
I would like to remind everyone present that inclusion and transparency are fundamental principles 
that go vern the functioning of our Informal Working Group on MSMEs. In addition, I reiterate that 
our group remains completely open to receiving new Members and proposals for work or 
observations, both from Members and non -Members.  
 
16. Uruguay  
 
We would like to rei terate the importance of carrying out the necessary adjustments to the 
functioning of the Appellate Body and immediately launch the Selection Process of Appellate Body 
members. I would also highlight that we do not have a December deadline. That time is no w. 
 
Continuing the negotiations  is absolutely essential but not sufficient. We need to  move forward in 
Agriculture negotiations particularly in negotiating the reduction of domestic support and tackling 
market access issues.  
 
We also have to intensify  the negotiations in fisheries subsidies providing particular emphasis on 
text-based negotiations. We should have negotiations based on text s that show the progress made 
and those texts which show ways forward. We should also use the opportunity of having the 
Facilitators to actually provide  moment um to these  discussion s. 
 
17. Thailand  
 
We thank the Director -General and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their reports.  
 
Thailand reiterates our concern on the urgent and critical issue regarding the appointment  of the 
Appellate Body members.  
 
In this regard, we fully support the transparent and inclusive process undertaken by the G eneral 
Council  Chair and the Facilitator with a view to find a suitable solution for all Members. We also 
appreciate the efforts by Members in coming up with concrete proposals. Engagement of all Members WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 86 - 
 
  will be vital for the unblocking of the Appellate Body impasse. Thailand will cont inue to play a 
constructive role in the discussions.  
 
Substantial progress on the negotiations this year will also be imperative for the WTO and the 
multilateral trading system as we prepare for MC12. Thailand remains committed to deliver 
negotiated outco mes, especially on fisheries subsidies and agriculture. Successful conclusions of the 
two moratori a will also send a positive signal that the WTO is still effective and relevant.  
 
Thailand also welcomes the significant progress in the discussion on the Electronic C ommerce Joint 
Statement Initiative. We view that the progress of e-commerce negotiations will reinvigorate the 
negotiating function and enhance the credibility of the WTO. We also believe that a successful 
negotiation could bring tangible benefits  for stakeholders of developing Members . We therefore look 
forward to constructively participating in the next steps.  
 
Lastly, w e would  like to express our support for the new approach employed today in limiting the 
time for intervention. This would give all Members sufficient opportunity to register their positions 
in an efficient manner.  
 
18. Mexico  
 
I would like to thank the Director -Gener al for his report and assessment of the current situation. I 
would also like to thank the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their work and respective reports.  
 
We agree with the Director -General  that the multilateral trading system must evolve in order to 
remain relevant, as was stated in Davos in January this year.  
 
In a situation where world trade growth forecasts are being revised downwards and protectionist 
measures are on the rise, it is fundamental for the WTO to: (1) preserve what has worked well;  (2) 
incorporate new areas; and (3) update its rules, in order for it to maintain its major role in the world 
economy and build trust and certainty with regard to trade flows.  
 
Firstly, we need to preserve a Dispute Settlement Body that is functional at al l levels. In this regard, 
we reiterate our support for the consultation process being led by Ambassador Walker, and we trust 
that, under his skilful leadership, and with the willingness of all Members, we will soon achieve a 
solution.  
 
Secondly, the multil ateral trading system must recogni ze the new realities and forms of trade by 
incorporating new rules that do not fall within or only partially fall within the scope of the covered 
agreements.  
 
Mexico is a strong advocate for discussions on areas such as e lectronic commerce, national 
regulations and investment facilitation. Other areas such as MSMEs are also relevant for bridging 
the gap between the work of this organization and ordinary citizens.  
 
Regarding updates, the WTO must carry out a self -analysis e xercise in which we identify areas of 
opportunity, for example, the functioning of our own Committees as a step before the dispute 
settlement mechanism, and ways to improve the effectiveness of how we submit and discuss 
notifications.  
 
These updates must a lso include concrete results on:  
 
• Fisheries subsidies : We currently have less than ten months to deliver on what our 
Ministers agreed in Buenos Aires. It is imperative that we set aside our traditional positions 
and start to work on alternative options in order to find solutions.  
 
• Services : As part of the initiative to carry out exploratory work on market access, Chile, 
Panama, New Zealand and Mexico have submitted a document to discuss the most recent 
developments in the tourism sector and touri sm-related services, their impact on economic 
development, and various issues relating to market access. We hope that this document 
gives rise to an exercise within the Council for Trade in Services in Special Session on 
service sectors of interest for Mem bers, involving the active participation of all Members.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 87 - 
 
  We are all part of the WTO, and therefore we must all accept our responsibility to ensure that our 
organization is able to respond adequately to current and future challenges, as requested by our 
populations. This is a responsibility that Mexico is wholly committed to fulfilling.  
 
19. United States  
 
Thanks to the D irector -General  and to the Chairpersons for their reports.  
 
I will not speak at length today but will reserve most of my comments for the imp ortant matters on 
the agenda of tomorrow's General Council meeting.  
 
As I approach the first anniversary of my arrival in Geneva, I thought I would share a few brief 
observations.  
 
First, I am impressed by the dedication of my WTO colleagues, Members and Secretariat alike, and 
their commitment to engaging with each other in good faith dialogue. I have greatly benefited from 
this aspect of the WTO culture in my first year and I hope to continue to contribute to it going 
forward.  
 
Second, despite this positi ve impression, I am perplexed by the difficulty of getting things done here 
in anything approaching reasonable timeframes. A case in point is the fisheries subsidies 
negotiations, a process that has extended for an unbelievable 18 years. I have heard the p hrase 
"Geneva time" often used jokingly to describe the slow -motion phenomenon but we simply cannot 
afford to continue moving at such a glacial pace on issues of fundamental importance.  
 
This is the year of WTO reform and some Members have recently called  for rapid action to improve 
the functioning of this organization. The United States shares this view and we will be doing our part 
to press down on the accelerator – whether it is improving transparency, strengthening the WTO's 
negotiating arm to a more s ensible approach to differentiation, responding to the unanticipated 
challenges of non -market economies through the development of new rules or insisting that the 
Appellate Body follow the clear text of the DSU. The United States will not be bashful about pointing 
the best way forward.  
 
That brings me to my final observation. I am intensely aware of the unique challenges that come 
with representing the Member that is perhaps most willing to express views, sometimes bluntly, 
about the serious shortcomings of  this organization. I want you to know that we are raising our 
concerns for the right reasons. We want a system that functions better and delivers concrete results 
that benefit us all.  
 
20. Singapore  
 
Unlike my American colleague, who has celebrated his first anniversary, I have been here for less 
than ten days. I would like to share my initial impressions.  
 
I have been impressed by the buzz in the WTO. We are only two months into 2019, but the pace 
and intensity of meetings and consultations have accelerated. This is a positive state of affairs as it 
reflects Members ' commitment in supporting the WTO 's mandates, and in strengthening the 
organi zation.  
 
However, we must not become so embroiled in all th e meetings, consultations and activities, that 
we lose sight of the importance of delivering concrete outcomes. In this context, allow me to share 
three key points.  
 
First, all WTO Members, regardless of size, must share a common responsibility to advance 
discussions in the WTO. We must work together to ensure that the WTO will maintain its relevance 
and do not allow the WTO to lurch towards paralysis, as the D irector -General  had highlighted in his 
comments earlier.  
 
Here, there are three bright spots :  
 
• One, in the consultations on Appellate Body matters, Members like Honduras, Chinese 
Taipei, Australia and the E uropean Union  have tabled useful proposals. The common thread WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 88 - 
 
  running through all the proposals is the desire to find solutions to the issues conc erning 
the Appellate Body.  
 
• Two, Singapore, together with Australia and Japan, as co -convenors of the Joint Statement 
on E-commerce initiative, is heartened by the engagement of both developed and 
developing Members from all regions in these discussions. 76 Members have confirmed 
their intention to commence WTO negotiations on trade -related aspects of e -commerce at 
Davos.  
 
• Three, as highlighted earlier by Canada, the Ottawa Group has been exchanging views and 
developing ideas on how to move forward the dis cussion on WTO reform.   
 
Second, the WTO Membership must be committed to come to the table in a spirit of finding solutions 
and common ground. We should avoid negotiating in bad faith and using tactics such as taking 
certain issues hostage in order to adv ance our narrowly defined national interests, which is usually 
at the expense of the WTO.  
 
When Members approach negotiations with a zero -sum mindset  and insist that they want what they 
want and do  not want what they do  not like, there is a real danger that we will undermine the WTO, 
and the international community will end up all the poorer for it.  
 
Third, Singapore is committed to playing a constructive role in this organi zation. We will continue to 
engage actively in discussions to address the Appellate Body impasse as well as on development, 
including at tomorrow 's General Council. For fisheries subsidies, it will be important to ensure that 
we reach a good conclusion to the negotiations by end -2019.  We welcome the various working 
groups on agr iculture that have been established under the Committee on Agriculture Special 
Session and will participate in them.  Singapore is also committed to making good progress in the e -
commerce negotiations.  
  
I hope that for 2019, we will not lose sight of our c ommon objective, which is to use the WTO to 
sort out trade problems, to promote trade and development to meet the needs of our people, and 
to ensure that the WTO does not lose its relevance by being able to address new challenges, including 
the digital tra nsformation.  
 
21. Brazil  
 
Allow me to make some general comments on the most pressing issues we have before us today.  
 
AB selection process  
 
On the A ppellate Body  Selection Process, Brazil welcomes the continuing work of Ambassador Walker 
as Facilitator to help address the concerns raised on the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
  
Our priority should be to trace a clear path to the filling of the vacancies. We have to underst and 
which solutions are possible. We would like to find a compromise that is acceptable to all and move 
forward with meaningful negotiations in order to address the concrete concerns raised.  
 
On the proposals discussed at the informal process under the Ge neral Council, amendments to the 
DSU are not the quickest or the most effective way to resolve this issue.  
 
The idea of developing a set of guidelines for the A ppellate Body  could be further explored, instead 
of attempting to change the covered agreements.  That would seem to provide a more promising 
path to ensure the proper application of the provisions agreed upon in 1995.  
 
Special and Differential Treatment  
 
On S&DT, it is essential to disentangle the S &DT discussion from the larger development debate. 
S&DT is a tool that, among other uses, can and should be used to promote development. It is not a 
goal or an end in itself. If properly used, S &DTs will allow us to reach our goal of negotiating 
balances.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 89 - 
 
  Agriculture  
 
Brazil is looking forward to contribut ing to all aspects of the WTO reform discussion. This effort will 
be incomplete, however, without agriculture, which is the most evident unfinished business of this 
organization.  
 
Any outcome at MC12 must include agriculture, particularly in the domestic s upport pillar. After all, 
subsidies in this sector are no less trade distortive than in the industrial sector, and the current 
disciplines in the Agreement on Agriculture have had just limited effect in curbing them.  
 
We hope to contribute to such an outco me with concrete proposals, which will be presented in due 
course. We envisage a proposal on specific limits for domestic support programs, the general 
direction of which we are still discussing internally.  
 
Together with that proposal, we intend to circulate a proposal for launching plurilaterals on key 
sectors in agriculture, such as beef and animal protein in general. These would ideally encompass 
domestic support limits as well as tariff cuts and quota expansion. Even SPS aspects could be 
included  in those efforts.  
 
Finally, I would like to say that Brazil remains interested in discussing ways to improve the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement to strengthen rules on the scientific principles, regionalization, 
equivalence and transparency.  
 
We hope  that, in the coming months, we can generate a positive dynamic that will enable us to 
achieve meaningful results next year in Astana.  
 
E-commerce  
 
Concerning the first meeting of the Joint Initiative on E lectronic C ommerce, which will take place 
next 6 M arch, I would like to stress that Brazil will push for an ambitious outcome, aiming at a 
possible agreement that could be adopted at MC12. Brazil is ready to follow the proposed structure 
for the discussions in the first half of this year.  
 
Brazil would li ke to focus mainly on topics such as the freedom of internet, data flow, data privacy, 
consumer protection, and aspects related to Intellectual Property Rights and cyber security. From 
our perspective, a steadfast progress of the Joint Initiative could add  an important element to the 
broader discussions of the reform of the WTO and reinvigorate the negotiati ng pillar.  
 
We are aware of the challenges ahead. E lectronic Co mmerce is a complex subject that will require 
an intense process of consultations, but wi th constructive proposals and active engagement, we can 
reach a positive and balanced outcome.  
 
22. New Zealand  
 
I thank the Director -General for his report and the Negotiating Group Chairs for their updates.  
 
I will first comment on the negotiating agenda, wh ich must remain at the front of our minds despite 
the challenges this organi zation faces.  
 
It is critical that we make progress on fisheries subsidies negotiations. This means it is incumbent 
upon Members to fully engage and move beyond conceptual discussi ons. To this end, we are pleased 
that Australia has tabled a revised proposal on the critical area of overfished stocks, which seeks to 
bridge long -standing gaps in the negotiation.  
 
We need to see more of this, and New Zealand will be playing our part in working with others to 
bring concrete text ideas to the table. As of now, we have less than ten months before the deadline 
to conclude negotiations that was given by Leaders and Ministers. We must deliver. We cannot lose 
sight of SDG Goal 14.6 to eliminate  and prohibit harmful subsidies. Any outcome that fails to prohibit 
the most harmful subsidies will not achieve the mandate.  
 
On agriculture, we cannot ignore the fact that half of the world 's population involved in agriculture 
still does  not fully benefit  from the global rules that have helped industrial sectors thrive and grow. WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 90 - 
 
  The playing field on agriculture is extremely bumpy. We will not deliver a trading system that is 
inclusive or sustainable until we address that imbalance.  
 
Meeting the SDGs will r equire us to have a stronger rulebook on agriculture that will allow producers 
to compete on a more even basis and discourage environmentally harmful practices such as the 
overuse of inputs and overproduction. Without this , we as Members risk failing on de velopment, 
failing on inclusiveness, failing on food security, which ultimately means failing our peoples, both 
consumers and agricultural producers around the world. We must do better.  
 
Secondly, we continue to strongly support the Joint Initiatives as critical to demonstrating this 
organi zation's ability to respond to 21st century challenges. In particular, we see e-commerce and 
services domestic regulation disciplines as a key focus in 2019. We were pleased to be one of  the 
76 Members wh o confirmed an intention to launch, within this year, e-commerce negotiations.  
 
Thirdly, the Membership continues to face major systemic challenges  including the Appellate Body 
impasse.  WTO reform efforts are now starting to materialise and several initiatives are already in 
motion. These efforts , and I indicate here this issue of development where I would echo the 
comments of Norway today , continue to be crucial to the future of this organi zation. All Members 
now need to engage in these discussions constructively, if those efforts are to succeed. New Zealand 
will continue to play an active role in this.  
 
23. Republic of Korea  
 
There is a saying that a crisis consists of not only danger but also opportunity. There is nothing that 
describes the current sta te of affairs in the WTO more accurately than this.  
 
On one hand, danger lies in the prolonged vacancy in the Appellate Body. Its days before the official 
paralysis are being numbered, as two out of three remaining members are due to retire come 
December.  
 
To break this impasse, Members have been exchanging detailed views and discussing fresh new 
ideas through various channels. The informal process facilitated by Ambassador David Walker 
deserves to be highly appreciated in this regard  – not to mention the amount of effort that he 
imbued.  
 
Being cognizant of the short amount of time left on our clock with less than ten months before the 
paralysis of the Appellate Body, I would like to urge all Members to actively participate in this 
important discussion to agree on possible solution s and options.  
 
On the other hand, the opportunity for this organization reveals itself in the form of discussion on 
WTO Reform – not to mention ongoing negotiations on many pending issues.  
 
WTO Reform is on interested people's l ips in and outside of the WTO. We must make the best use 
of this interest to strengthen the multilateral trading system. Needless to say, it is up to Members 
to transform this opportunity into a substantial momentum in not just reforming or strengthening 
the organization but also in coming up with measures to restore the faith in it and to help regain its 
relevance in the 21st century.  
  
In this regard, Korea is taking an active and constructive part in such a discussion led by Canada. 
As Canada stated in i ts remarks, the group has initiated a process to strengthen the deliberative 
functions of the Committees on SPS, on TBT, and on Rules of Origin  as well as the Council on Trade 
in Services. I urge all Members to participate as well as contribute to such eff orts, as the deliberative 
function constitutes the backbone of WTO's work.  
 
There have been concerns about the lack of substantive results in negotiations under the WTO for a 
long time. Recently, however, Members have been working hard to make progress in negotiations 
in important areas such as fisheries subsidies and agriculture.  
 
The Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules has ratcheted up the intensity of fisheries subsidies 
negotiations. The meetings being held this week in line with the communications  from the Chair 
earlier this month will be an important step in reaching a positive result within the timeline as WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 91 - 
 
  mandated by the UN SDG. Korea will participate actively in this process and I look forward to working 
not only with the Chair but also with th e Facilitators to venture into what we can achieve.  
 
With regard  to the agriculture negotiations, the CoA  SS Chair has introduced new ways and formats 
to make the dialogue among the Members more interactive and forthcoming. Korea appreciates this 
effort b y the CoA  SS Chair and will continue to engage in an earnest manner.  
 
Just over a month ago in Davos, Ministers gathered to confirm their intention to commence WTO 
negotiations on trade -related aspects of electronic commerce. Without a doubt, e -commerce is an 
area where a concrete result must be garnered in order to provide a clear predictability in global 
business sector and to maintain its relevance.  
 
I appreciate the tremendous amount of effort put forth by the Ambassadors of Australia, Japan, and 
Singapore in this regard. Korea expects a high standard outcome in this imp ortant part of our 
portfolio and will actively engage with other Members.   
 
WTO has a lot of work at hand this year, and Korea will engage constructively with other Members, 
as it has always done, to continue the dialogue in a realistic, pragmatic and bal anced approach with 
an unwavering trust in the multilateral trading system.  
 
24. India  
 
We thank the Director -General for  convening this meeting and for his report and assessment as the 
Chair of the TNC. We also thank the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for t heir reports.  
 
State of Play  
 
As we convene for the first informal meeting of the TNC this year, we face the grim reality that the 
challenges this organization is saddled with have only increased. Growing trade tensions, a slowdown 
of global trade, rise in  protectionist measures, and widening trade disputes with a hostage Appellate 
Body have been further burdened with a potentially divisive debate on development.  
 
While we will speak on development at the G eneral Council , let me share with you our thoughts and 
ideas on some other important issues and the way forward.  
 
WTO Reforms  
 
WTO reforms today occupy the centre stage of our discussions. Many Members are putting forth 
proposals and new ideas on WTO reforms.  
 
However, there is a lack of balance in the ref orm agenda which is, for us, a matter of serious concern. 
We would like to reiterate that in order to strengthen the WTO, reform proposals must promote 
inclusiveness and non -discrimination, build on trust, address the inequities and glaring asymmetries 
in existing agreements which are against the interest of developing and LDC  Members , and most 
urgently, as a first step, break the impasse in filling the vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
 
Negotiating Agenda  
 
As we intensify work on the negotiating track, it i s of vital importance that we make tangible progress 
on unfinished business like adopting a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security 
for all developing and LDC  Member s. This is an item of critical importance to address the fundamental 
issues of poverty, hunger and malnutrition leading to the achievement of SDGs 1 & 2.  
 
We would also like to caution that this important matter can progress only by building on the work 
done in the past and cannot be buried under fresh and growing demands f or additional information, 
leading to an infructuous debate on this mandated issue.  
 
The world 's oceans face the threat of unsustainable fishing due to years of exploitation by a few 
countries that provide huge subsidies to industrial fishing. On the contrary, countries like India 
provide minimal subsidy of less than US D 1 per week to each of its 2 million fisherfolk. We believe 
that there can be nothing more unequal than giving equal treatment to such unequal situations.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 92 - 
 
  We have been actively partici pating in the fisher ies subsidies negotiations in the hope that an 
equitable and balanced outcome will emerge, based on real and effective special and differential 
treatment. Our small subsidy schemes, which support livelihoods and prevent destitution of 
fishermen and which do not lend themselves to promoting large scale fishing, need to be protected 
while at the same time providing space for expansion of our fishing capacity to reach meaningful 
per capita catch levels.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
We note that so me countries have recently announced that they will start plurilateral negotiations 
on trade related aspects of electronic commerce.  
 
We believe that negotiations on electronic commerce at the WTO is an idea whose time has not yet 
come. In our view, these negotiations strike at the roots of the multilateral system and its mandate, 
and therefore, we are not persuaded to join them.  
 
We already have a multilateral work programme agreed to by Ministers at MC 11 which we will 
pursue. The Government of India, in consultation with stake holders, is working on National E -
Commerce Policy, to be finali sed soon. This policy will inform our international engagements on this 
important subject.  
 
Conclusion  
 
To conclude, in our view, the topmost priority is to protect and preserve the system, fix the Appellate 
Body issue so that the independent dispute settlement mechanism, which has served us well and 
has been a strong pillar for enforcing trade rules, can function effectively. At the same time, we 
need to avoi d debating contentious issues like differentiation which could be divisive, further reduce 
trust within the organization and appear to be doomed to end in a deadlock.  
 
Let me assure the Director -General  that in the rather gloomy scenario at Geneva, India w ill not be 
found wanting, in doing its best, to address the challenges that the WTO faces.  
 
25. Vanuatu (Pacific Group)  
 
I am delivering this statement on behalf of the Pacific Group. Our Group also aligns itself with the 
statements made by the ACP and the LDC  Groups.  
 
The Pacific Group wishes to thank the Director -General  for his comprehensive report and commend 
his ongoing efforts to support Members in advancing our work. Our Group also thanks the Chairs of 
the Negotiating Groups for their reports.   
 
Since 2 015, fisher y has remained as a priority of the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders in the Framework 
of Pacific Regionalism. In 2017 Pacific Forum Leaders endorsed the Blue Pacific as the platform for 
regional action in recognition of the importance of oceans to our economies. In 2018 , our Leaders 
have called on distant water fishing nations to reduce their harmful fishing subsidies.   
 
This is an important year for the Pacific Group as WTO Members aim to deliver on the MC11 decision 
on fisheries subsidies  – a negotiation that is extremely important for the small island developing 
States like us.    
 
In this regard, the Pacific Group remains committed to delivering on the MC11 mandate to conclude 
an Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies in 2019 in order  to meet the deadline of the SDG 14.6. The 
Pacific Group commends the work undertaken so far and the work program me up to July to advance 
the work this year.  
 
While there remain wide divergences on many issues, much more needs to be done and with the 
little time left, we expect that the process going forward, including the Facilitators -led process, will 
remain transparent, inclusive and take account of the capacities of very small delegations.  The Pacific 
Group will continue to engage constructively with M embers in order to successfully conclude an 
agreement this year.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 93 - 
 
  As we stated at the HOD s in December 2018, for our Group, a successful agreement must fulfil the 
two aspects of SDG  14.6 and MC11 mandates, that is, to provide strong disciplines that targe t those 
that cause overfishing and at the same time provide appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment, including for small island states and LDCs.   
 
The latter, in our view includes preserving the sovereign right of coastal states over their national 
jurisdictions, ensuring that Members who currently have little or no capacity are not locked into that 
situation, and above all, must support the development of fisheries in small island developing States 
in line with SDG 14.7.  
 
On Agricultu re, our Group supports an outcome on domestic support that removes the existing 
imbalances in agricultural trade and that enables small Members like us to effectively access 
markets.  
 
The issue of development also remains a priority for our Group. As co -proponents with the ACP 
Group on the G -90 proposals, we stress the importance of finding practical solutions in supporting 
our efforts to diversify, industrialise and transform our economies.     
 
Finally, the Pacific Group reiterates its commitment to the m ultilateral rules -based system of the 
WTO, which provides predictability and certainty for all WTO Members. We note the proposals that 
have been submitted on different aspects of the WTO reforms. Discussions on WTO reforms should 
not leave Members, especia lly small Members, worse off and we call for genuine and inclusive 
dialogue.   
 
26. Russian Federation  
 
Despite all the challenges and controversy, the WTO remains and should remain the cornerstone of 
the global trading system. It is the most important univers al platform for dialogue and dispute 
settlement on matters that affect all the Membership.  
 
Russia believes that safeguarding the capability of the organization to regulate international trade 
effectively and independently is our main goal for the immediat e future. The need for the 
improvements in the WTO law and routine aimed at better adaptation to evolving trade and economic 
landscape is generally recogni zed. Several proposals have been put forward. However, the overall 
dialogue on the specific modalitie s of the reform remains constrained by the fundamental differences 
in Members ' positions.  
 
We are concerned by the challenges that result from the dangerous attempts of some WTO Members 
to dismantle the existing system of regulating international trade and  trade dispute settlement. We 
note that no alternative to the existing mechanism is offered. We believe that such actions are aimed 
at creating conditions for the unimpeded abuse of protectionist measures in order to suppress 
competition by non -market inst ruments or to extort additional concessions.  
 
I am convinced that we should base the WTO evolutionary reform process on preservation of the 
fundamental principles and core values of the organization with the overarching goal of further trade 
liberalization . It is important to collectively develop the substance of the reform and ensure that it 
reflects the interests of all WTO Members.  
 
One of the key priorities should be strengthening the WTO 's dispute settlement function. I avail 
myself of this opportunit y to stress that the current situation around the Appellate Body is 
unacceptable, and I urge to unblock the appointment of its members immediately.  
 
At the same time, we need to focus more on achieving the outcomes that the WTO is expected to 
deliver. I would like to touch upon the fisheries subsidies and the e -commerce.  
 
We are happy to note that many Members have shifted to a consensus -seeking mode in fisheries 
subsidies negotiations. Less -than-plenary working formats and assistance from Facilitators help a 
lot in the exploration of substantial issues. We anticipate much work ahead on the road to Astana, 
and therefore support intensification of the process with a high level of transparency to be 
maintained.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 94 - 
 
  Various unsettled legal issues exist on the e-commerce track. Russia is a co-sponsor of the Joint 
Statement on Electronic Commerce in Davos. We are ready to start negotiating on a set of open and 
predictable regulations.  
 
An agreement on new rules requires  a balance between lifting barriers to trade and sovereignty of 
states. To gain maximum benefits from e -commerce, we inspire all WTO Members to participate in 
designing rules so that  the multilateral framework could be based on the interests of countries w ith 
different economic and digital levels.  
 
27. Nepal  
 
My delegation wishes to extend sincere thanks to the Director -General  for his report on the state of 
play. We also thank  the Chairs of the various N egotiating Groups  for their updates.  
 
The multilateral tr ading system under the WTO is in need of revitalization and strengthening by 
fixing the problems to deliver on its mandates, particularly in trade negotiations, promoting 
transparency and accountability and settling disputes under the overall principles an d framework of 
the Marrake sh Agreement.  
 
Implementation of past decisions and any reform initiatives to bring timely adjustment in the WTO 
system should be Member -driven, consensus -based and inclusive and in the interest of all Members, 
specifically payin g attention to the weaker economies.  
  
Nepal is looking with interest on all proposals submitted by different Members on their perspective 
for reforms of the WTO including development and S&DT related communications. We are hopeful 
that there would be light after the tunnel.  
 
As an LDC, Nepal underscores the importance of equitable trade opportunities, enabling policy 
spaces and leve lling the playing field through meaningful special and differential treatment. Viewing 
the level of development, rampant pove rty and inequality, we emphasi se that S&DT should remain 
an integral part of any further decisions and agreements.  
 
Since the 2030 agenda for sustainable development has taken trade as one of the powerful tools for 
economic development and prosperity of a ny country, our shared global commitments enshrined in 
the SDGs and other internationally agreed development goals do bear meaning and create obligation 
for fulfilment.  
 
As a strong supporter of the rule s-based multilateral trading system, Nepal believes i n the centrality 
of the development dimension in all affairs of the WTO system including its reform initiatives, 
negotiating agenda and decisions.  
 
We are of the view that the plurilateral initiatives do not only undermine the thrust of the multilateral 
trading system  but also further marginali ses the weaker economies. The sharp dichotomy between 
Doha and non -Doha issues, which in our view should be looked upon as work in progression, and 
the emerging protectionist tendencies could further squeeze the poli cy space for the LDCs and 
exacerbate their marginalization.  
 
We see the importance of effective implementation of the LDC -related past decisions as they do not 
only support the trade and economic development of LDCs but also upholds the existence of the 
WTO. A mechanism must be in place to ensure that these decision s are implemented in a faithful 
and result -oriented manner.  
 
Similarly, the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement is important for us as it is 
concerned with lowering the time and increasing the efficiency of doing trade. However, most of the  
LDCs are not able to give priority to it as they have other priority areas such as targeted programmes 
on poverty reduction.  
 
Thus, the technical and financial support from the development partners should be leveraged to 
address the border and behind the border level hard and software infrastructure development issues 
in a balanced way.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 95 - 
 
  The LDCs are not in a position to take additional commitments under the new agenda when previous 
commitments have yet to yield desired results to them. In this respect, w e request all Members to 
be sensitive to the real challenges the LDCs are facing and show willingness and flexibility to address 
them.  
 
Finally, safeguarding the fundamental objectives and principles of the Marrakesh Agreement should 
be in the best intere st of all Members. As an LDC, we expect equitable trade opportunities, enabling 
policy spaces and level playing field through meaningful special and differential treatment that helps 
our industrial development, and diversification and structural transforma tion of the economy.  
 
28. Turkey  
 
Since the last TNC, there has  not been progress in our negotiating agenda. Problems that present 
serious risks for the WTO still remain.  
  
Unilateral policies and the potential paralysis of the dispute settlement mechanism also remain to 
be key factors in this situation. This is putting further pressure on the system.  
  
If this continues, we are seriously concerned that our negotiatin g agend a will be damaged beyond 
repair. Also , global trade growth will continue to slide . This will have further negative impact on 
employment and growth in our markets.  
  
In the current deadlock , there is now a discussion on improving the effectiveness of WTO a nd on 
updat ing its rulebook.   
  
Just like some other Members, Turkey recogni zes that the WTO and its agenda should be able to 
adapt to the changing realities.  
  
Turkey also believes that the reform discussions should evolve in a sensible manner by addres sing 
the imbalances in global trade.  
  
Some Members keep referring to the need of levelling the playing field in the context of the reform 
discussions. However, many Members have been at a disadvantage for years. From these Members ' 
point of view, this is especially true in the area of agriculture. We should recogni ze the specific 
circumstances of each Member, especially the developing Members on this front.  
  
Furthermore, putting the S&D treatment or development status into question – especially at this 
juncture  – would have the potential to threaten the integrity of the system, which represents a 
delicate balance. It could also damage the inclusive and multilateral character of the organization. 
Such a move would run the risk of further polarization in th is environment.  
  
Starting a discussion on reform does not mean that the current agenda items should be put aside. 
Those issues are still on the table as mandated and we are all responsible to advance on them.  
Focusing and registering progress on our current work will help  increase confidence in the 
multilateral trading system.  
  
As I just pointed out, agriculture is a key area where we need to address current imbalances in the 
Agreement on Agriculture. In this regard, we find the new process of informal discussions within  the 
working groups as a valuable opportunity for the Members to overcome the longstanding 
divergences. We should keep an open mind and avoid an exercise of repeating well -known positions. 
Turkey is ready to do its part in this process.  
  
On fisheries sub sidies, we keep our hope that a meaningful and credible outcome will be delivered 
by the end of this year. In this process, all Members – both the ones who are looking to have an 
ambitious agreement and those who are looking to keep their policy space in s ubsidies – will have 
to be more flexible and constructive in the ongoing negotiations.  
  
We commend the work carried out in new but important areas such as e -commerce and MSMEs.  
  
As a co -sponsor of the Joint Declaration on E -Commerce, Turkey believes th at future negotiations 
will represent a balance among consumer and business interests and the national regulatory 
requirements, including governments ' policy space. The existing asymmetries of the markets among WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 96 - 
 
  the Members as well as the digital divide sho uld be taken into account in moving forward. Keeping 
these negotiations open to all Members at all stages is critical.  
  
We are looking forward to working with all Members for a balanced, modern and comprehensive 
outcome.  
  
Turkey is open to any initiati ve to reinvigorate the work of the Council on Trade in Services. We have 
engaged in all initiatives so far. We also welcome the work that has been undertaken by like -minded 
Members in developing disciplines in domestic regulation.  
  
We hope that this work  continues and believe that the issue of movement of natural persons is as 
important as other areas that need new disciplines. To complement the work in other areas, the 
issue of the movement of natural persons should also be carried out in a  negotiati ng platform as 
soon as possible.  
  
The negotiating function of the WTO will only be alive if we ensure the well and effective functioning 
of the system including a predictable and clear -guided dispute settlement mechanism. Therefore, 
we first need to solve the  problem related to the selection process for the vacant positions in the 
Appellate Body.   
  
Turkey is thankful to Ambassador Ihara to take the initiative as General Council Chair to hold 
consultative meetings and Ambassador Walker for facilitating our di scussions. These meetings are 
proving to be helpful to discuss new ways and means. Turkey stands ready to engage constructively 
to help overcome the current impasse and call on all Members to engage in discussions in the same 
spirit.  
  
Let me finish my re marks by stating that a solution to the current impasse will have a determining 
impact for the future of the organization. I would like to stress that – on all other topics I just 
mentioned, from fisheries subsidies to new issues – whatever the progress an d success we may 
register will only have meaning if we have a functioning dispute settlement mechanism and an 
Appellate Body.  
 
29. Chinese Taipei  
 
We thank the Director -General for giving us  the opportunity to share our views on the way forward 
at the first TN C meeting .  
 
On WTO reform, as Members recogni ze the need to reform the WTO at different forums like G20 and 
the recent Davos meeting, there have been diverse views regarding what should be done. While we 
recogni ze that diverse views are critical to address Members ' interests, we must bear in mind that 
the WTO has been built to ensure fair trade. It is essential that the reform needed is to carry out its 
primary role of ensuring a level playing -field and fair trade for all its Members. Indeed, we beli eve 
it is in every Member 's interest to take action before it is too late.  
 
Like others, we remain to hold the view that the most pressing issue s will be the WTO 's continuing 
relevance to the world a nd the ongoing blockage at the Appellate Body.  
  
On the Appellate Body, we have submitted a communication  in document  WT/GC/W/763 on 
developing guidelines to clarify the existing DSU rules. In our view, this approach has the merit in 
not only guiding the future operation of the Appellate Body to address the concerns raised about its 
functioning, but also offering the Members with some c omplementary alternatives.  
 
With respect to e-commerce, we are happy to see 76 Members joined the statement in the informal 
Electronic C ommerce Ministerial Meeting in Davos this January. It is time that we shift to another 
mode by taking solid action. We l ook forward to delivering a doable, highly ambitious and balanced, 
and commercially meaningful outcome, leading to the establishment of free and fair e -commerce 
trade. Reciprocity and accessibility are the keys. Our view is that any facilitation needs to b e built 
on reciprocal accessibility to preserve the level playing -field. 
 
As for fisheries subsidies, we would like to actively engage in textual based negotiations with a view 
to concluding the negotiation by the end of this year.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 97 - 
 
  30. Japan  
 
Japan would firs t like to start by saying that we welcome the initiative by the D irector -General  for 
conducting the informal TNC/HoDs meetings more efficiently. We will keep our intervention concise 
and focused.  
 
With less than a year and a half to go until MC12, 2019 is no doubt a crucial year for all of us. To 
achieve meaningful outcomes at MC12, we need to shift up a gear in our discussions.  
 
The WTO reform and other issues facing international trade will surely be the core issues at the G20 
Summit in June in Japan. Ja pan is committed to working with Members to promote discussions in 
Geneva in order to get our political leaders to support our initiatives at the Summit, and to build 
momentum for our discussions during the second half of this year.  
 
To best materiali se WTO reform, Japan would like to highlight that it is indispensable to take a 
pragmatic approach, whereby Members can conduct consultations by issue and achieve results 
wherever possible.  
 
As a first step towards reform, Japan attaches great importance to th e proposal on enhancing 
transparency and notification in order to improve the WTO monitoring function. We are planning to 
circulate the revised proposal in early March, following which we will conduct outreach to as many 
Members as possible. We will then h old further discussions at the next CTG meeting.  
 
Strengthening the function of the regular committees also constitutes an important part of the WTO 
reform. Areas for improvement are being identified at each council and committee, taking into 
account best  practices, and Japan will actively participate in the discussions with Canada and the 
other Members.  
 
On the rule -making function of the WTO, Japan would like to reiterate that the existing WTO rules 
have failed to address today 's trade issues such as mar ket-distorting industrial subsidies and forced 
technology transfer. Together with the U nited States  and the E uropean Union , Japan is considering 
how to strengthen rules on industrial subsidies and hopes to discuss this issue with other Members 
in the not t oo distant future.  
 
On fisher ies subsidies, we should also accelerate our work towards concluding negotiations by the 
end of this year.  
 
Japan welcomes the new working group process under the Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session and intends to partake constructively in the process.  
 
The momentum boosted by the Joint Statement Initiative should be sustained. Towards positive 
outcomes at MC12, Japan very much expects to see further progress in the areas of e -commerce 
and domestic regulation of ser vices.  
 
On e-commerce, Japan welcomes the joint statement released last month to confirm our intention 
to commence WTO negotiations, with the participation of 76 Members. Japan will spare no effort to 
accelerate the initiative while seeking to achieve a h igh standard outcome with the participation of 
as many Members as possible.  
 
Japan is also highly dedicated to the developmental aspect of our work and Japan appreciates the 
analytical works undertaken by some Members on development matters. Japan believes  that S&D T 
should be granted to the Members who genuinely need such treatment to the extent necessary. 
Members should take a pragmatic approach on a negotiation -by-negotiation basis, while seeking 
commitments from fellow Members in accordance with their de velopmental level, market si ze, and 
level of competitiveness , among others.  
 
Finally, let me briefly touch on the Appellate Body matter. Japan fully supports the Informal Process 
which is underway under the auspices of the General Council. We started this process to engage in 
solution -focused discussions based on concrete proposals, and for several weeks now we have 
managed initial but intensive discussions, through which we have at least confirmed certain common 
understandings as to the proper functions of  the system under the DSU. The discussions are ongoing, WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 98 - 
 
  and the serious engagement of all Members is essential to restoring the proper functioning of the 
dispute settlement system in a timely manner.  
 
31. Ukraine  
 
At the outset I would like to the Director -General and the C hairs of the Negot iating Groups for the 
insightful reports. Special thanks for the statement length monitoring initiative.      
 
Ukraine is pleased to work with like -minded Members to increase the WTO efficiency and to ensure 
its ability to r espond to the current challenges that are being faced by the  multilateral trading 
system . 
 
Advancing WTO work on the modernization issues is one of the main trade priority areas for Ukraine. 
Being strongly committed to the rule s-based trading system, Ukrai ne highly appreciates 
communications put forward by Members on strengthening the WTO system.  
 
Recogni sing that the multilateral trading system is facing difficulties in crucial areas, Ukraine believes 
it would be positive to carry out a complex analysis of  existing concerns with a view to move from 
discussions to the negotiations of concrete outcomes. In this case , it will be useful to create an 
integrated, structured document on the WTO modernization issues, summari sing all existing 
proposals and facilitat ing elaboration of a common understanding on the issues at stake.  
 
Ukraine shares the idea of unblocking the Appellate Body election mechanism as a priority in the 
reforms package. Thus, we suggest dividing the matters concerning functioning of the dispute  
settlement system from other issues of the WTO moderni zation.  
 
With regard to the first, Ukraine deems it necessary to systemi se the proposals in order to see where 
the major obstacles are that prevent Members from finding a mutually acceptable solution and 
launching the selection processes. In this respect, it would  be reasonable  to clearly understand: 
what has the highest, paramount value – the qualifications of the Appellate Body members, that 
does not come an end with the expiry of their term in the office, or actually the number of years 
they serve.  
 
Indeed, we fully support the reforms aimed at increasing the efficiency of WTO Committee s and 
enhancing transparency and improving Members' compliance with notification requirements in 
particular.  
 
Ukraine also encourages Members to pay special attention to the search for effective solutions on 
improvement of trade rules and disciplines contributing to "leve lling the playing field" between the 
WTO founding Members and Members which have acceded under Article XII of the WTO Agreement, 
firstly in Agriculture taking into account dramatic unequal conditions of trade in this sector . 
 
To conclude, Ukraine expects the substantive discussions on finding agreed solutions on issues 
concerned and places its voice firmly behind strengthening the WTO system.  
 
32. South Africa  
 
We thank the Director -General  for his report and the Chairs of the N egotiating Groups for their 
updates.  
 
South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of the ACP Group and 
Benin on behalf of the African Group.  
 
Three -quarters of WTO Members are developing and least -developed countries. The Ministerial 
Declaration adopted at the start of the Doha Round in 2001 promised much on development. 
Eighteen years later, the WTO Membership has failed to deliver on this promise – for us this is more 
than just a promise: the Doha Development Agenda, comm itment and mandate must remain at the 
heart of the work program me, including on reform.  
 
In this regard, longstanding matters of importance to African countries such as trade -distorting 
domestic support on agriculture, cotton subsidies, public stockholdin g for food security purposes, 
issues of importance to net -food importing developing countries, fisheries subsidies, WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 99 - 
 
  implementation -related issues and concerns, and making special and differential treatment more 
effective are all areas that have been long l ocked into the WTO negotiating process and must be 
pursued.  
 
Modernisation is an oft en used word in this organization but will remain meaningless for us if the 
issues of longstanding concerns are to be set aside. We do not believe that any proposals can b e at 
the expense of longstanding principles of inclusivity, Member -driven participation, consensus, 
multilateral mandate and special and differential treatment.  
 
We cannot ignore the reality that the playing field in international trade is uneven and is l ikely to 
become more uneven with the intensification of unbalanced globalisation. In particular, we want to 
warn that proposals in the name of modernisation that will amount to requiring some of us, but 
likely all of us, to give up our right to S&DT as dev eloping and least -developed countries is divisive 
and futile – it will not obtain consensus.  
 
South Africa is a good example of a country that took on commitments beyond its level of 
development, thereby closing off developmental policy space, and rapidly  causing pre -mature de -
industrialisation and massive economic and socio -economic shocks.  
 
Resolving the impasse in the Appellate Body must count as the single most important matter 
confronting the Membership. Without a resolution here, the rest of our work  and all discussions on 
the future of this organization is redundant. It is more than ironic that the Member who played a 
decisive role in designing this system and its enforcement mechanism, and who has benefited from 
its functioning, only raises its conc erns repetitively but offers no possible solutions, and objects to 
solutions proposed by others.  
 
It is necessary that there should be a debate about making the dispute settlement system more 
effective and efficient but that cannot be confined only to try ing to find answers to the express 
concerns of one Member.  
 
Any debate on reform, including the issue of the Appellate Body, also needs to address concerns 
about accessibility, costs and efficiency from the point of view of the mass of the Membership that  
are hardly ever participating in the procedures of the dispute settlement mechanism. It would be a 
fatal mistake to consider that a return to a proper functioning dispute settlement  mechanism would 
be paid for with other unfair demands for WTO reform.  
 
On comments about the launch of negotiations on e -commerce, South Africa has argued that it is 
premature to consider negotiations on e -commerce. We support the continuation of work under the 
1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, in particular discussi ons on the revenue and 
developmental implications of the moratorium on customs duties on e -commerce.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we call for a return to a text -based discussion and welcome recent efforts by 
Members to submit further textual proposals.  
 
We share the perspective of many that multilateralism is in crisis however we do not believe that 
unilateralism in any fo rm is the way forward, neither can plurilateral approaches solve the problems 
we have. In fact, such approaches will exacerbate existing imbalances and lock -in the status quo.  
 
We look forward to continue to participate in discussions about inclusive and d evelopmental 
outcomes in a multilateral setting that support the efforts of developing and least -developed 
countries to structurally transform, diversify their economies and ultimately industrialise themselves.  
 
33. Sri Lanka  
 
At the outset, I join others to c onvey my delegation 's appreciation to the Director -General  and the 
Chairpersons of the respective Negotiating Groups on their state -of-play reports.  
 
We all are now witnessing the extreme challenges that the global economy and the world trading 
system are  going through today. As the Director -General  also pointed out this morning, the most 
recent reading of the World Trade Outlook Indicator reveals escalating trade tensions in the world 
economy. The World Trade Indicator has further declined to 96.3 at the end of 2018 from the last 
recorded value of 98.6. This signals a trade expansion below the trend, in the first quarter of 2019. WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 100 - 
 
  As a result, the forecasted world trade growth in 2019 has been revised downward, from the forecast 
made in 2018. The recent ind ex value, that is 96.3 is the weakest recorded value since March 2010.  
 
Small countries like us, are the most depressed and vulnerable parties of these global economic hits. 
We are going through adverse experiences  – result ing from high import bills, dome stic inflation, and 
local currency depreciation against major currencies.  
 
The Central Bank of Sri Lanka recently announced that the Economic Growth of the country in 2018 
has marked its lowest after 17 years. The external sector of the country has been a dversely affected 
by the recent developments in the global economic, financial and geo -political pillars. The trade 
deficit of the country has widened owing to the domestic currency depreciation, which was hit by 
these external volatilities.  
 
Sri Lanka is  a strong believer of the multilateral trading system. My delegation acknowledges that 
the global trading environment has undergone significant changes and these changes should 
adequately reflect in the rule s-based multilateral trading system. Therefore, i t is our collective 
responsibility to engage in the WTO reform discussions with a view to bringing this house to an 
effective setting in managing and safeguarding the multilateral trading system.  
 
This exercise should not dilute the fundamental principles  that we all negotiated and agreed to 
preserve at the formation of this august institution. The multilateral rules should continue to maintain 
its fundamental focus on trade –led development.  
 
With regard to ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies at the Negotiating Group on Rules , my 
delegation believes that the current Facilitator -led process will guide the Group towards achieving 
clear, simple and implementable disciplines. We heard many delegations  that spoke before me 
highlight ing the need of swit ching into negotiating mode based on the text already before us.  
 
We also see the value of switching to negotiating mode without leaving it to happen at the last 
moment of the set deadline. We must ensure a bottom -up, Member -driven approach when 
introduci ng new fisheries disciplines. Sri Lanka actively pursued these discussions from the 
beginning, taking into account the high level of sensitivity the fisheries industry has in several pillars 
of our economy.  
 
While recogni sing the work of four main Committ ees on the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce, my delegation noted that most of the discussions are focused on the benefits of e -
commerce. Sri Lanka is however concerned on whether every country is acquainted with the 
necessary infrastructure and other requirements to have a fair share of these benefits. In this regard, 
we have noted with interest the Ministerial statement made at Davos in January this year.  
 
This is the last TNC that I am addressing in this House. Time has come to say goodbye to all my 
fellow colleagues. Friendly interactions with you all make my journey comfortable throughout the 
last three and a half years in Geneva. I can leave this House w ith great satisfaction. I am happy to 
see some of the proposals that I made in this House have been positively taken and being converted 
into action.  
 
My capital is setting the ground for organi sing a Regional Workshop for Asia with the assistance of 
the Rules Division and the ITTC with a view to bridging knowledge gaps between fisheries authorities 
and trade experts in the developing countries in the region. Likewise, I have learnt that there will 
be six other regional workshops covering other regions as well. 
 
I am confident that together we can make this institution stronger and more relevant in the changing 
global trade setting in the near future.  
 
I sincerely wish you all great success in the deliberations lying ahead.  
 
34. Egypt  
 
We thank the Director -General and the  Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their reports, updates 
and endless efforts.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 101 - 
 
  At the outset Egypt would like to associate itself with the statement made by Benin on behalf of the 
African Group.  
 
Let me now put forward our views on five of  the important issues before us:  
 
For the reform of our organization, it is a question of how to respond. In my opinion, the future of 
the WTO depends not only on how  the WTO can adapt to the changes in the global economy but 
also how the WTO might contrib ute to our goals and needs. As we stated in Davos during the WTO 
mini Ministerial gathering last January,  let us have a frank discussion to agree, at least, on one goal 
and one need for effective MC12 outcome.  
 
The absence of the Appellate Body will risk p reserving the rights and obligations of the WTO 
Members, and will not support the negotiating function of the WTO in either Doha remaining issues 
where all Members have strong commitments, or new issues.  
 
Agriculture is contributing up to 14.5% of Egypt' s GDP, 23% of total exports and 28% of all jobs, 
employing almost 45% of all women in the workforce. In addition, Egypt is one of the largest net  
food importing developing countries, with a value of agricultural imports which is about three times 
that of agr icultural exports.  
 
Having said that, and given that agriculture is the unfinished business of the Uruguay Round, and 
that the Agreement on Agriculture is characteri sed by a number of systemic imbalances which hinder 
our ability to pursue legitimate goals of rural development and food security, Egypt believes that the 
first step towards a real reform within the WTO is to address the imbalances in the Agreement on 
Agriculture, and bring equality and fairness to the system.  
 
While we share the view of other Members that information exchange and technical discussions are 
vital to pave our way towards the outcome that would be beneficial to all Members, caution shall be 
made not to lose sight of our core objective which is a fairer, market -oriented system that improves 
the living conditions of our peoples.  
 
We hereby reiterate our position that domestic support, PSH and the special safeguard mechanism 
shall be the focus of our negotiations.  
 
On fisheries, Egypt believes that SDG 14.6 along with the MC11 Ministerial Decision on Fisheries 
Subsidies create new momentum at the multilateral level. But regulating fisheries subsidies cannot 
be seen as a stand -alone issue . FAO, UNCTAD and other related UN  agencies repeatedly stressed 
the increasingly important and complementary role of aquaculture and inland fisheries in fish 
production for human nutrition and poverty alleviation in many rural areas.  
 
Therefore, Egypt requests that the scope of the ongoin g negotiations to be clearly determined to 
ensure a meaningful and credible outcome.  
 
On special and differential treatment, which is a key paramount  principle  in the WTO , we recall that 
the Doha Declaration had given us a clear mandate . In order to reach this end, we need to focus on 
pragmatic solutions to resume constructively our collective work in a good faith at the CTD  SS. We 
all need to consider developing Members ' specific needs and challenges. We need to focus on 
workable outcomes.  
 
The Director -General recently said that "The trading system is like oxygen. While it is there, you do 
not notice, you take it for granted. But once you take it away, you will notice ". Therefore, we need 
to maintain the centrality of development to use our WTO negotiat ed outcomes as catalyst for reform 
and engine for growth.  
 
35. Kenya  
 
We thank the Director -General and the Chairs of the various Negotiating Groups for their report and 
updates.  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statements delivered by Malawi on behalf of the ACP and 
Benin on behalf of the African Group.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 102 - 
 
  I would additionally like to state Kenya' s position on a number of issues as follows:  
 
On the reform of the WTO, we take note of the ongoing discussions and the several proposals that 
have been made o n promoting transparency, improving efficiency, and enhancing decision -making 
in the WTO in order to maintain its relevance in the increasingly complex multilateral trading 
environment.  
 
While the merits, or otherwise of these proposals are still under di scussion, our position is that these 
consultations must maintain an all -inclusive, transparent process that is led by developmental 
concerns if we are to achieve balanced and equitable rules and principles to guide the multilateral 
trading system.  
 
Of part icular concern is the need to find ways to safeguard the dispute settlement function of the 
WTO and maintain it as a central pillar for an effectively functioning global trading regime. Key to 
this is the unblocking of the impasse in the Appellate Body.  
 
My delegation has stated previously, that we are prepared to support any proposal that will achieve 
this objective. We therefore appreciate the efforts that have been made so far, in terms of 
presentation of proposals to address the concerns raised regardi ng the Working Procedures and 
other aspects of the Appellate Body.  
 
The proposal for the Dispute Settlement Body to take a decision in regard to launching the selection 
process to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body is a further step in the right dir ection. However, 
this should not detract attention from making progress on the WTO reform process, but rather should 
complement and underpin the operationali zation and safeguarding of the reforms, once undertaken.  
 
With regard to some specific issues under negotiation, Agriculture is one of the key Doha 
Development Agenda issues for Kenya, as that remains the backbone of our economy, in terms of 
employment, food security and contribution to value addition through agr o-processing.  
 
We anticipate productive discussions on the issue of Public Stockholding for Food Security, leading 
to a conclusive agreement as soon as possible. We also continue to call for the elimination of trade 
distorting domestic support that brings  about gross imbalances especially on crops like cotton.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we acknowledge the progress made so far on text -based discussions, the 
efforts to develop suitable language on various aspects and the ongoing consultations to find 
converge nce on proposals made. Kenya remains committed to and looks forward to an outcome in 
line with the MC11 decision and the SDG 14.6 mandate.  
 
We attach great importance to the contribution that fisheries can make to the growth of the Blue 
Economy and urge t hat efforts are continued to ensure sustainable, productive and regulated levels 
of fishing.  
 
On development, this is an important area of interest to Kenya. We note the lack of progress in the 
S&DT  negotiations. Kenya maintains that S&DT is an important tool for development and the 
rationale for its creation, namely to deal with the unique situation of developing Members , so as to 
enable them to integrate into the multilateral trading system , still remains.  
 
S&DT must therefore continue to be accorded to all developing Members . Any change of 
nomenclature or categori zation of Members'  development status must also of necessity be a 
consensually negotiated process.  
 
Aside from the areas of negotiations , e-commerce is an area that requires more in -depth 
understanding, sharing of experiences and best practices in closing knowledge gaps, in order to 
address the legitimate concerns of some Members.  
 
It was with this in mind that the Africa eCommerce Week wa s held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 10 to 14 
December 2018, convened by UNCTAD and co -organi zed with the African Union and the European 
Union. More than 2,000 people from 60 countries took part.  
 
Participants observed that the digital economy, including electro nic commerce is growing quickly in 
Africa – creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs and businesses to expand their market access WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 103 - 
 
  and join value chains. This was creating employment opportunities and developing new business 
models. However, it was note d that the gains from e -commerce are not automatic, and the increased 
use of digital technologies can result in new divides and wider income inequalities.  
 
The forum therefore endeavoured to raise awareness of some of the key policy issues, examine ways 
of enhancing the readiness of African countries to trade online and digiti se their economies, consider 
the risks of the digital world and also ways of addressing them.  
 
The Africa eCommerce Week culminated with the issuing of the Nairobi Manifesto on the D igital 
Economy and Inclusive Development in Africa, which outlines the Continent 's next proposed steps 
on the path to engaging in and benefitting from e -commerce. This manifesto may help to further 
constructive engagement on the subject in this forum.  
 
Finally, Kenya remains engaged in all Groups on the various issues.  
 
36. Malaysia  
 
We thank the Director -General  for convening this meeting and for his reports and  the Chairs of the 
Negotiating Groups for their updates.  
 
The system as rightly pointed by many is currently facing a wide array of challenges including the 
increasing threat posed by the trade tension globally. The current trade tension has created 
uncertainty to the overall global trade outlook and should be of  major concern on us. Malaysia as a 
developing Member  that relies heavily on trade, would be among those that would potentially be 
affected by the current situation.  
 
The Informal WTO Ministerial Gathering in Davos saw the Ministers expressing the need to address 
the various challenges with a view to strengthening the multilateral trading system. In this regard, 
we welcome the various initiatives by Members in a bid to ensure that the multilateral trading system 
remains relevant.  
 
Malaysia would like to re -emphasi se that the effective functioning of the dispute settlement system 
is a fundamental aspect of this institution. The WTO is facing unprecedented challenges that may 
create a potential impact to the system that has always been underpinned  by the exis tence of the 
WTO. With only ten months away, there is a need for constructive engagements to address the 
impasse in the A ppellate Body  selection process.  
 
On this note, we welcome the discussions taking place at the Informal Open -Ended process under 
the au spices of the General Council facilitated by Ambassador David Walker of New Zealand. We 
also welcome the efforts by several Members in putting forward proposals and suggestions in finding 
ways to improve and strengthen the DSU. We urge Members to be flexib le and open -minded in 
finding solutions.  
 
On the call for the strengthening and the modernization of the system, let us not forget that most 
Members within the system are the developing and LDC  Member s. While we move towards improving 
the system through t he various takes of the reforms, development is a crucial component to ensure 
that all Members are able to reap the benefits.  
 
It is worth reminding that, while MC12 is scheduled for 2020, Members need to be mindful of the 
various deadlines and targets to be achieved pursuant to the decisions at the last MC11 in Buenos 
Aires. There is still much that needs to be done to keep the momentum in place.  
 
37. Jamaica  
 
We thank the Director -General for his report and wish to convey  our appreciation to the Chairs of 
the various Negotiating Groups for their comprehensive reports on their work.  
 
Jamaica would also like to express its support for the statements made by Haiti on behalf of CARICOM 
and Malawi on behalf of the ACP.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 104 - 
 
  Background  
 
Jamaica continues to monitor the worrying developments within the multilateral trading system. 
These developments pose systemic risks to the functioning of the WTO, and the development 
objectives of developing Member s, whose development policies are predi cated on the effectiveness 
of an open, transparent, inclusive and rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
We continue to advocate for this House to accelerate its work on the various issues on the Doha 
Development Agenda. As our positions on these issue s are well -known, I will use our statement to 
address the issues of agriculture and fisheries subsidies.  
 
I will reserve Jamaica' s intervention on S&DT for the meeting of the General Council tomorrow, but 
we wish to put on record that S&DT remains an esse ntial element of WTO rules for the successful 
integration of developing and LDC  Member s into the global economy.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
We take this opportunity to re -emphasi se the importance of arriving at an outcome on fisheries 
subsidies by December 2019, in accordance with the mandate issued by Ministers in Buenos Aires. 
We take note of the Chair 's report including the appointment of Facilitators for the four pillars of the  
negotiations. Jamaica has a strong interest in environmental and marine protection and we support 
the WTO 's mandate to implement SDG  14.6.  
 
Further, Jamaica' s participation in the negotiations is with a view to safeguarding the invaluable 
contribution of  fisheries to national food and nutrition security, job creation and livelihood. It is 
important that the discussions keep at its forefront the preservation of coastal states' sovereignty 
and sovereign rights within their maritime space, as enshrined in in ternational law; improved 
competitiveness and fishing practices; appropriate special and differential treatment for developing  
and LDC  Member s. 
 
Jamaica pledges its full support for the Chair 's process and will engage constructively to ensure that 
we arriv e at an outcome that balances the interests of all Members. In that regard, we await the call 
for the involvement of Heads of Delegations.  
 
Agriculture  
 
In the negotiations on Agriculture, we acknowledge the yeoman 's efforts of the Chair of CoA  SS. 
Jamaica  welcomes his initiative to appoint coordinators to assist him in building convergence on the 
various areas. Here, we also urge him to continue to maintain the principles of transparency, 
openness, inclusiveness and representativeness in his pursuit of an outcome. We also support the 
continuous evaluation of the process in order to ensure that the objectives are being met.  
 
Jamaica attaches particular importance to outcomes on PSH, SSM and domestic support, and urges 
more flexibility from all sides, as wel l as greater empathy with and understanding of the social and 
economic realities that confront the agricultural sector of developing and LDC  Member s. Agriculture 
continues to be an essential component of Jamaica' s food and nutrition security and has import ant 
linkages to other key sectors within our economy on which we depend for foreign exchange earnings, 
job creation, family welfare, rural development and transformation.  
 
WTO Reform  
 
On WTO Reform, my delegation does not object to a discussion in the WTO aimed at improving its 
operations and effectiveness. We are however concerned that the concept of WTO Reform continues 
to require clarification in order to build an inclusive and transparent dialogue on the issue, with the 
buy-in of the broader Membership.   
 
Jamaica is concerned that current approach to reform is unfolding in a piecemeal manner in the 
various WTO committees and bodies, which puts undue pressure on small delegations to effectively 
partake in these deliberations. This fuels the perception of a process which is not transparent. I think 
the opportunity is still open for Members to have a comprehensive dialogue on WTO Reform at the 
multilateral level.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 105 - 
 
  Impasse in Appellate Body Appointment  
 
The dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO represents the "badge of enforceability " while we 
undertake to implement current rules and negotiate new ones. As a result, Jamaica continues to 
urge Members to start and complete the Appellate Body appointment process.   
 
We continue to call for the adoption of a tw o-track process in our discussions, whereby we, first, 
place greater focus on appointments to the Appellate Body, in order to avert paralysis of one of the 
critical limbs of the Body, come December 2019, and, second, continue discussions on DSU reform 
in the Special Session of the DSB. In that context, we should bear in mind the cautious and surgical 
approach required to attend to an illness which is potentially terminal.  
 
With respect to discussions on DSU reform, we welcome the discussions which are taki ng place under 
the direction of Ambassador David Walker of New Zealand.  
 
Given that the apparent causes of the non -appointments have been identified and the various 
submissions on the table are deemed insufficient to address them, and taking into account the 
passage of time, we continue to call on the A ppellate Body  and/or the WTO Secretariat to urgently 
shed light on the precise sources of the problems with a view to arriving at the appropriate solutions, 
to what is a complex, political problem. P erhaps, Members may wish to consider commencing the 
dialogue between the DSB and the Appellate Body as proposed by the E U and other co -sponsors  in 
document WT/GC/ W/752. 
 
Further, bearing in mind how serious it is at this juncture, that Members are so deeply divided and 
following examination of the consequences of an incapacitated Appellate Body which now appears 
increasingly possible.  
 
The highest duty of the WTO is to pro tect its Members who rely on its rules. Small and vulnerable 
economies, such as Jamaica, are particularly dependent on a strong rules -based, fair, inclusive and 
transparent multilateral trading system.  
 
At the end of the day, the WTO has proven beneficial to the economies of small and large countries 
alike. It has proven to be the most effective, and perhaps the only multilateral mechanism that 
adequately serves the trade interest of all Members. Diminishing the importance of the organization 
will risk open ing a door that is difficult or impossible to close.  
 
38. Cambodia  
 
We thank the Director -General  for his comprehensive report and the C hairs of Negotiating Groups  
for their updates.  
 
My delegation would like to start by reiterating the important role of the W TO multilateral trading 
system that has played in promoting sustainable development, reducing poverty and boosting global 
trade growth.  
 
The issue of appointing the Appellate Body members and the issue of development and special and 
differential treatment  for developing and LDC  Member s are particularly becoming serious concern s 
for this system and all of us.  
 
To resolve the impasse and concerns, some Members have recently submitted proposals which 
Cambodia welcomes.  
 
As regards the appointment of Appellat e Body  members , Cambodia wishes to have a fully functioning 
Appellate B ody. We therefore urge Members to advance this WTO Appellate Body  issue without  delay 
as it has played its crucial role to resolve trade disputes under this organization.  
 
Concerning development and special and differential treatment, my delegation  underscores that  
special and differential treatment should be provided to Members depending on the ir capacity 
constraint s and their respective levels of development.  
 
My delegation emphasi ses the importance of preserving and respecting Paragraph 44 of the Doha 
mandate which provided that  "provisions for special and differential treatment are an integral part WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 106 - 
 
  of the WTO Agreements ". We encourage Members to pay more attention to the fact that de veloping 
Members, especially the LDCs, face capacity constraints and require additional legal flexibility as well 
as policy space to implement commitments and all the provisions contained in the WTO Agreements.  
 
We also would like to draw Members ' attention t o the fact that  we are struggling in securing our 
structural and industrial transformation and diversification to fully integrate into global economy as 
well as to meet the 2030 S ustainable Development Goals. 
 
The LDCs therefore need support from both developed and developing Members by pr oviding 
preferential treatment and assistance to enhance our capacity and development.  
  
My delegation would like to call on all Members and state that  while we are negotiating the said 
issues and new issues, Members sh ould fully implement all decisions in favour of LDCs especially 
those on DFQF, Preferential Rules of Origin and Services Waivers.  
 
Cambodia would like to thank Members for their efforts in  the WTO negotiations and for supporting 
LDCs by providing assistance and granting preferential treatment. We wish for these kinds of support 
to be maintained and continued in any future WTO agreements and reforms.  
 
39. Argentina  
 
Allow me to begin by thankin g the Director -General and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for 
their detailed reports on the current status of the work being carried out in this organization. We 
would also like to welcome the work undertaken by the coordinators of the Joint Initiati ves. 
 
Since our last meeting in December 2018, we have witnessed and even participated in various 
developments – a term that has recently become particularly relevant.  
 
Firstly, little over a month ago, we held a new informal Ministerial meeting in Davos. The closing 
remarks made by the Chair, Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin, can be summarised, in my opinion, by 
the following words:  
 
• Unwavering trust in the multilateral trading system and in the WTO as a natural and 
irreplaceable discussion forum; and,  
 
• recognition of the need for urgent changes and reforms to ensure that the organization 
maintains the prestige and pre -eminence that it has rightfully earned since its 
establishment.  
 
Secondly, we note with appreciation that a significant number of Members, bu ilding on the 
declaration made in Buenos Aires in 2017, reaffirmed, in Davos, their interest in initiating 
negotiations on electronic commerce. Admittedly, Argentina is not a leading country in this area, but 
we understand that the best way to address such  a rapidly growing global phenomenon is by working 
collectively.  
 
Thirdly, we welcome the fact that additional proposals have been put forward to address the unique 
situation faced by the Appellate Body. We remain hopeful that agreed solutions to this issu e will be 
found.  
 
Fourthly, it is not possible to avoid noting the communications relating to development and special 
and differential treatment submitted by several Members. One preliminary observation that these 
documents enable us to make is how differe nt reality can appear depending on the lens through 
which we look. We will continue to pay close attention to these matters.  
 
We can consider the four points above as a set of "given circumstances". As such, the attitude we 
adopt in their regard is the only thing that will make a difference. We can view them either with 
resignation and a sense that no progress has been made since our last meeting, or with healthy 
ambition and a sense that they constitute a necessary step towards reaching a common 
underst anding.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 107 - 
 
  I also wish to make the following three points:  
 
• We reiterate the repeated call by the Ministers in Davos for the conclusion of the 
negotiations on fisheries subsidies within the agreed time frame. This objective does not 
allow for delays.  
 
• We con tinue to work actively on amending the proposal on transparency that Argentina is 
cosponsoring together with other Members. We aim to reply to the comments that have 
been submitted, without losing sight of the aim of improving compliance with the 
notificat ion obligations that we have all assumed.  
 
• We hope that, at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference in Astana, we will reach an incremental 
agreement on the pillar of domestic support in agriculture and on other matters, which 
would enable all Members to contin ue moving forward with the agricultural reform process 
in line with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Lastly, we are pleased to note that the WTO has adopted the Twitter system to limit the statements 
made.  
 
40. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
We than k the Director -General for convening this meeting. I am speaking on behalf of the Group of 
Article XII Members.  
 
Given the frequency with which some delegations continue to refer to Article XII as the RAMs Group, 
I think we need to clarify our position, an d why we changed the name of the Group to Article XII 
Members.  
 
The Group was in fact originally called the RAMs, but the name was taken when we were all in fact 
recently acceded, and we thought the ongoing round of negotiations would be concluded very soon.  
Time passed without a conclusion to negotiations .  
 
Some Members unfortunately fixated on the "recently acceded" moniker and did not understand as 
it still seems to be the case that the point to the Group is to encourage the original Members  to 
adopt levels of commitments similar to those which they required of Article XII Members. These 
higher levels should be taken into account during request and offer negotiations.  
 
As we repeat often, the original Members required those of us that joined under Article XII, to 
undertake significantly higher levels of commitments than those of the original Members themselves. 
The argument was often that the greater commitments would do  us good. We believe the same 
goodness will come to the original Members, that the multilateral trading system will be strengthened 
as a result, and that all will benefit.  
 
So, once again, we do not advocate for special treatment because of the time that we have been 
Members . We advocate for a more level playing field, asking that the original Members of the WTO 
assume significantly higher levels of commitments such as they required of Article XII Members.  
 
In the Committee on Agriculture in Special Sessio n, our group has repeatedly pointed out that the 
average agriculture bound tariff of the original Members is four times higher than that of the 
Article  XII Members.  
 
Elsewhere, in non-agricultural market access , the average bound tariff of all original M embers is 
three times the average of Article XII Members. Article XII Members have 100% bound coverage . 
Original Members average only 74.5% and only 37 of the original Members have 100% coverage.  
 
In services, Article XII Members on average have commitmen ts in 107 sectors, whereas the average 
Original Member has commitments in only 42. Article XII Members have also undertaken more 
commitments in virtually every subsector.  
 
Article XII Members have made greater and more extensive commitments than the origin al 
Members. These difference s have grown and will surely widen as each successive acceding Member 
is asked to leap over an ever -higher bar.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 108 - 
 
   
We must continue our work to strengthen all sectors and pillars of our  multilateral trading system. 
Addressing the imbalances in the commitments of Members is an important part of our work.  
 
I take this opportunity to reiterate our Group's commitment to a successful outcome in the ongoing 
negotiations to ensure fair play conditions for different groups of WTO Members.  
 
41. Panama  
 
In agriculture, we are participating actively in thematic sessions through the groups to which we 
belong and which we coordinate. We consider it a priority to address the existing imbalances between 
the commitments of Members that acceded to the organization under Article XII and those of the 
original Members.  
 
In services, as we have indicated before, the liberalization of trade in services is a priority for 
Panama.  Services play an important role in economic transformation, enabling countries to diversify 
and moderni se their economies.  
 
Last week, Panama, together with other delegations, put forward a proposal for exploratory 
discussions on greater market access in the tourism and related services sector, this being one of 
the largest trade in se rvices sectors of Members. We call on Members to take an active part in the 
discussion of this matter in the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services.  
 
With regard to the negotiations to eliminate fisheries subsidies, we have carried out intensive work, 
together with five other Latin American countries, to promote and enhance, in the Negotiating Group 
on Rules, the discussions based on the negotiating text that reflects progress in the negotiations or 
other inputs that may be relevant. We call on Members that may have additional suggestions or 
ideas to submit them in written documents using the different formats available.  
 
Particular importance attaches to the work carried out under the Electronic Commerce Joint Initiative 
where we have be en able to underscore the role of e -commerce as a transaction modality and tool 
for facilitating trade in goods and services, rather than as a sector.  
 
It is imperative to make significant progress at the multilateral level in this area. We also highlight  
the work on other initiatives in which we are actively participating, such as MSMEs and Investment 
Facilitation for Development.  
 
Panama is committed to participating actively in and contributing to any dialogue or initiative – 
preferably multilateral, bu t without excluding other formats – that would help us to adapt our 
organization to current trends and new challenges.  
 
42. Ghana  
 
My delegation would like to express appreciation for the Director -General's  persistent and 
unwavering efforts to see to the advan cement of the objectives of the WTO in the face of daunting 
challenges.  
 
We also wish to thank the various Chairs of the Negotiating Groups  for their work and leadership in 
areas under their responsibility.  
 
As we are all aware, the world is witnessing tra de tensions unprecedented in the history of the World 
Trade Organization since its inception close to three decades ago. Trust in the rule s-based 
multilateral trading system is diminishing, and at its lowest ebb ever, as economic heavyweights 
increasingly apply trade measures and practices that undermine the principles and rules that 
underpin the World Trade Organization.  
 
In that regard, we ought to act promptly or collectively risk abandoning the rules -based system in 
favour of power -based trade systems,  where the weaker Members – developing and least -developed 
– will suffer even more.  
 
My delegation reiterates its position that an effectively functioning WTO should be hinged on the 
principles of equity, transparency, inclusiveness and fairness at all times.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 109 - 
 
  Reforms  
 
We have taken keen note, lately, of increased number and multiplicity o f papers and proposals tabled 
by Members under the guise of reforms. A careful review of these papers and proposals reveals they 
are broad, covering myriad of issues and matters that go beyond the Appellate body impasse and 
the so -called reforms, making so me of the proposals look like a mere detraction.  
 
Ghana believes that in order to make progress in these matters, there is the need to focus on the 
actual issues so that real solutions could be proffered.  
 
We believe the vacancies in the Appellate Body could be filled as soon as practicable while we 
consider the important issues that have been raised with regard to its reform.  
 
Agriculture  
 
We all acknowledge how critical agriculture issues are to developing  and LDC Members. My 
delegation would therefore like to commend the efforts of the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture 
in Special Session for igniting a working method to foster convergence on the pertinent topics. Any 
results that take into account the food security in our countries should be a priority.  
 
Countries that have not contributed to the distortions in world agricultural trade do not have to limit 
their current policy spaces, aimed at guaranteeing food security, rural development and poverty 
alleviation, all of which form part of our commitment to fulfil the 2030 Agenda's Sustainable 
Development Goals.  
 
Ghana further reiterates its support for an incremental approach that focuses on eliminating 
subsidies for the most trade distorting domestic s upport in order to correct the inherent imbalances 
in the Agreement on Agriculture. In this connection , it is urgent and absolutely essential that 
solutions be found to the difficult issues of agricultural subsidies that distort the international market.  
 
Development  
 
Ghana reiterates its resolve to support any negotiated outcomes that support its industrialization, 
structural transformation and economic development agenda to generate the much -needed incomes 
and jobs for its citizens in line with the Africa n Union 's Agenda 2063.  
 
Therefore, the negotiations on Special and Differential Treatment must be reactivated in accordance 
with the Doha mandate, based on the G -90 proposals, and must ensure that the principle of special 
and differential treatment – which  is an integral part of the multilateral agreements of this 
organization – is respected and is not subject to reinterpretation or redefinition.  
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
The Negotiating Group on Rules is practically one of the few WTO bodies that shows evidenc e of an 
interest to achieve outcomes for the Twelfth Ministerial Conference based on the mandate adopted 
in Buenos Aires. The work on fisheries must continue to be conducted in transparent and inclusive 
formats that enable all Members to present their inte rests.  
 
The importance of this mandate and the peremptory deadline by which it is governed must not result 
in an increase in the existing asymmetries. Special and differential treatment for developing 
Members  must be the subject of substantive and effecti ve provisions.  
 
In conclu sion, my delegation would like to associate itself with the statements delivered by the ACP 
and the African Groups.  
 
43. Uganda  
 
We commend the Director -General  for his report and also all the Chairs of Negotiating Groups  for 
their rep orts. 
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 110 - 
 
  At the outset, my delegation associates itself with the statements made by Benin on behalf of the 
African Group, the Central African Republic on behalf of the LDC Group and Malawi on behalf of the 
ACP Group.  
 
In our last session in December, my delegation emphasi sed the critical importance that we attach 
to the rules -based multilateral trading system. The reasons were clearly enumerated at that 
meeting. Today, I want again to stress some of those reasons by highlighting a few more.  
 
First, Paragraph 45 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration adopted on 14 November 2001 states in part 
that, "[…] When the results of the negotiations in all areas have been established, a Special Session 
of the Ministerial Conference will be held to take deci sions regarding the adoption and 
implementation of those results. " 
 
In the same vein, SDG 17.10 calls for the promotion of a universal, rules -based, open, non -
discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, 
including the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda.  
 
The point here is  that the Doha Development Round and all its mandates is very much alive and we 
expect this great organization to meet its obligation and deliver. As such, we have st riven to achieve 
SDG 14.6 on fisheries, progress on which my delegation strongly commends, but let us not forget 
SDG 17.10.  
 
Secondly, we do often conveniently forget that this organization is a very unique one in comparison 
to many others that may be thou ght to be like it. The WTO is a rule -making organization and 
sovereign nations, by virtue of their Membership have agreed to lend their sovereign rights to it with 
the expectation that the rewards for such sacrifice will be greater. This is not something t o be taken 
lightly. We must reap from where we have sown.  
 
We have had a long negotiating history on the subject of development in this organization. This 
cannot simply be done away with by a refusal by a handful of Members to engage on multilaterally 
agreed mandates in the organization, which mandates are geared towards putting into effect the 
objectives of this organization.  
 
We do not need to be reminded that the preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing this 
organization is crystal clear in this regard.  
 
Thirdly, to participate in the creation of a crisis and then to turn around and claim to provide solutions 
to end that very crisis is one of the worst expressions of dis -ingenuity that has now befallen this 
great organization.  
 
The crux of the cu rrent so -called crisis in which this organization finds itself is the wilful disregard of 
Ministerial mandates and attempts to wrongfully change the rules in the organization by such 
Members. Respect for the rules by all, including Article III:2 of the Mar rakesh Agreement is the only 
way to ensure the preservation of the integrity of this organization. Changes to existing rules should 
be sought through established mechanisms not creation of artificial wilful crises.  
 
On this note, it is in the best interest  of this organization and all its Members that a selection process 
to fill vacancies in the Appellate Body is launched without any further delay . 
 
Fourthly, therefore, any proposals for reform in this organization must be generated and driven by 
a genuine development perspective for the interests of all Members of this organization. Failing this, 
progress on any reform proposals in the near future may prove impossible to push through.  
 
In conclusion, my delegation remains committed to advancing work in line  with the agreed principles 
for the preservation of this organization. The organization has so far served many so well. We still 
believe we can attain benefits through our participation in the rules -based multilateral trading 
system.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 111 - 
 
  44. Chile  
 
This meeting is taking place at a critical time for our organization. We are facing major challenges 
ahead, most of which involve improving our capacity for understanding and, in particular, agreeing 
on tangible outcomes in areas of international trade.  
 
These challenges are related to, inter alia, negotiations on fisheries subsidies, restoring the Appellate 
Body to its full operation, and moving towards greater convergence on special and differential 
treatment and its link with the development dimension.  
 
The d elegation of Chile will never lose its spirit of cooperation or give up on its search for consensus. 
We are friends of the system and multilateralism, and we have demonstrated our belief in the WTO 
as a key institution for international trade since the est ablishment of the organization.  
 
We know that, if the process to appoint new members of the Appellate Body remains blocked, this 
major body will cease to operate next December, which will have an unknown impact on the 
functioning and reputation of the WTO,  and on Members too.  
 
On the whole, we support the various proposals put forward on improving the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding, particularly the functioning of the Appellate Body. We believe that they form a sound 
basis for seeking consensus. In this r egard, we support the consultations initiated by the Ambassador 
of New Zealand, David Walker, during the informal sessions of the General Council.  
 
We also support the efforts made to improve transparency and compliance with notification 
obligations at the  WTO.  
 
Furthermore, on 20 February, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand and Panama, in the context of our 
proposal to hold "exploratory discussions on market access" with regard to services (contained in 
JOB/SERV/282), circulated a communication on tourism and trav el-related services at the Special 
Session of the Council for Trade in Services (JOB/SERV/286).  
 
We invite everyone to participate actively in the discussion on this matter, which is of interest for a 
great many WTO Members, both developed and developing a like. We also encourage all delegations 
to circulate documents on their own areas of interest regarding market access in services.  
 
Similarly, we continue to wholeheartedly support the negotiations on electronic commerce, based 
on the joint statement issue d in Davos.  
 
Regarding agriculture, we wish to endorse the work carried out by the Chair of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session, Ambassador of Guyana, John Deep Ford, who has made a dedicated 
effort to move this process forward. We consider tha t the creation of small thematic groups may 
increase the momentum of the negotiations on domestic support, market access and export 
competition, with a view to achieving an outcome at the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
In light of the above, I would like t o take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the 
agriculture negotiations within the multilateral trading system, and the need for all Members to 
participate constructively in these negotiations.  
 
As regards fisheries subsidies, we would like to express our country's interest in achieving greater 
progress in these important negotiations. We observe that much work remains to be done to fulfil 
the mandate of our Ministers, which calls on us to agree on effective and comprehensive disciplines 
that pr ohibit subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, such as the elimination of 
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and thus, also to meet target 14.6 of the Sustainable 
Development Goals in December 2019.  
 
Lastly, concerning special and differential treatment, we deserve an open, inclusive, pragmatic and 
constructive dialogue, with no pressure, no extremes and no ideological positions. In this regard, 
we support the joint declaration that will be presented t o the General Council tomorrow by a group 
of Latin American Countries.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 112 - 
 
  45. Trinidad and Tobago  
 
We thank the Director -General  for convening this meeting, for the report on his activities , for the 
introduction of the time limits and for the reports presented b y the Chairpersons of the Negotiating 
Groups.  
 
My delegation endorses statements delivered on behalf of the Caribbean Community and the African, 
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.  
 
The crisis facing the Appellate Body must be urgently resolved. The dis pute settlement mechanism 
is an integral part of the multilateral trading system and any paralysis has the potential to exacerbate 
power -based dynamics and leave the smallest Members further disadvantaged. It is said that "When 
elephants fight, it is the g rass that suffers. " We urge Members to engage constructively towards 
finding a solution to this impasse in the shortest possible time. It would not be fair to see the system 
weakened to the detriment of the smallest and most vulnerable Members.  
 
We take n ote of the proposals submitted aimed at resolving this issue and look forward to deeper 
engagement. Trinidad and Tobago has noted the efforts of the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body  
in facilitating consultations among Members and the assistance provide d by the Facilitator , 
Ambassador David Walker , in the informal process. My delegation remains committed towards 
further work to resolving this matter.  
 
Trinidad and Tobago has developed an E -Commerce strategy which outlines the Government 's 
framework for t he development of E -Commerce in Trinidad and Tobago over the period 2017 to 
2021. The main goals of the National E -Commerce Strategy are:  
 
• a comprehensive and effective regulatory environment for E lectronic C ommerce;  
 
• the implementation of an Electronic Fu nds Transfer (EFT) Framework;  
  
• increased private sector participation in E lectronic C ommerce; and,  
 
• increased consumer awareness and confidence in E lectronic C ommerce.  
 
The Government of Trinidad and Tobago has pursued the E -Commerce agenda . However , E-
Commerce has not taken off as it should have. WTO Members should recogni ze that many developing 
Member s continue to grapple with E -Commerce issues at the national level.  
 
We continue to actively support work being done in treating with the issue of fisheries subsidies and 
the goal of achieving an agreement by the end of 2019. Appropriate and effective special and 
differential treatment for developing Members and least -developed country Members should be an 
integral part of the negotiations.  
 
In agricul ture, we remain in support of the efforts of the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session to bridge gaps among Members.   
 
We feel it is timely to remind the Membership of our stance on the development dimension of the 
work of our organizat ion. Our commitment to development issues adopted at Doha in 2001 must 
not be forgotten. The development dimension of work at the WTO remains of utmost importance to 
Trinidad and Tobago. As a small island developing State, special and differential treatmen t and 
development issues are crucial and remain of significant interest to my delegation.  
 
To conclude, we are encouraged by the saying "every challenge is an opportunity in disguise " and 
"the optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty ". 
 
We are committed to a rules -based multilateral trading system that is predictable, transparent, 
consensus -based and which supports inclusive growth and development.  
 
46. Costa Rica  
 
The WTO is currently at a critical juncture. This year will be key to ensuring that t he organization 
continues to play a fundamental role in the development and growth of our countries and remains WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 113 - 
 
  relevant in a world that has not ceased to change since its establishment. Never before has there 
been such a great need to restore confidence i n the WTO and maintain its relevance. To achieve 
this, it is important to recogni ze the shared responsibility of all Members in the reform process.  
 
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate what was said by the Costa Rican Minister of Foreign 
Trade in Davos concerning what our country considers to be the attributes required in the context 
of these discussions, namely: courage, empathy and intelligence. We need courage to seek what is 
right and to ensure that fear and overcautiousness do not preven t us from taking action. We need 
empathy to understand each other, and we need intelligence to avoid acting on impulse and to 
recogni ze that, while the outcome may not seem perfect, it will be better than standing idle.  
 
Costa Rica is prepared to particip ate in these efforts and we have therefore promoted and continue 
to seek the achievement of results in certain priority areas:  
 
• firstly, the successful conclusion of the negotiations on fisheries subsidies this year, and 
the continuation of agricultural re form;  
 
• secondly, a solution to the current crisis in the Appellate Body and the strengthening of the 
WTO dispute settlement mechanism. In this regard, we welcome the process initiated in 
the General Council, which is being led by Ambassador David Walker; a nd, 
 
• lastly, enhanced compliance with obligations, particularly those related to transparency 
and notifications, an area in which we are putting forward a joint proposal.  
 
In conclusion, I would also like to express Costa Rica's satisfaction with the start of the negotiations 
on electronic commerce involving 76 WTO Members. We hope that many more Members will join 
these discussions and we trust that other initiatives also seeking to update the WTO "rule book" will 
continue to move forward and will soon  reach maturity.  
 
47. Montenegro  
 
On behalf of the delegation of Montenegro, I would like to thank the Director -General  for his efforts 
and support to facilitate and intensify dialogue on the range of negotiations issues among the 
Members. In order to restore and reaffirmed the commitments of multilateralism, an open dialog ue 
is needed more than ever.  
 
Allow me at the outset to highlight that, in a climate of protectionist tendencies that are threatening 
to jeopardi se the foundation of the rule s-based multilat eral trading system, we believe the collective 
action is the only way forward.  We are all aware that the current system is facing with serious 
challenges, but my delegation is convinced that those challenges can be used as a chance to improve 
and moderni se the system. The delegation of Montenegro remains fully committed to actively engage 
and contribute to that reform process.  
 
We believe that first step of our common action should be to support the activities for the 
strengthening of dispute settlement sy stem – in a first line the issue of fulfilment of empty seats in 
Appellate Body. On a way how to proceed on that issue, Montenegro shares the vision of other 
Members that the unobstructed and functional dispute settlement system is crucial for keeping the 
multilateral trading system reliable.  
 
Regarding fisher ies negotiations, we appreciate efforts made by the C hairperson of the Rules 
Negotiat ing Group. Montenegro is aware of the current alarming situation with the state of resources 
and we strongly support  every activity related to  the preservation of world fish resources.  In line 
with that, Montenegro supports the provisions related to the prohibition of subsidies for fishing but 
at the same time, we are expecting that the specificity of the country will b e taken into account 
during the negotiations, with the special consideration for the level of development of the sector.  
 
As regards the Declaration from Buenos Aires on Women and Trade, we continue to support its 
implementation. Apart from the political will and the necessary legislative framework, it is important 
to raise awareness on the national level of the importance of women empowerment and therefore  
create a favourable environment for changes in practice both in the public and private sector. In th is 
regard, we welcome and support the efforts of the WTO Secretariat and ITC in creating the 
preconditions for a more successful implementation.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 114 - 
 
  E-commerce has created new opportunities in global trade, and we are very pleased with the 
progress of the E lectronic C ommerce Joint Statement Initiative which is co -sponsored by 
Montenegro.  
 
Finally, the delegation of Montenegro hopes that in a spirit of free and open discourse, we will be 
able to tackle most of the pending issues, and successfully finish some of the ongoing negotiations. 
Concrete outcomes for MC12 depend on all of us.  
 
48. Mali (C -4) 
 
I am mak ing this statement on behalf of the C -4 countries.  
 
The C -4 thanks the Director -General  for his report on the status of the multilateral trade negotiations 
and for the information he has shared with us on recent developments.  
 
We also thank the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for the impetus they have given to our work.  
 
We are grateful to Ambassad or Ford, Chair of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, 
for leading our work on agriculture, including cotton, and for establishing the structure for ongoing 
discussions on the various issues under negotiation in the area of agriculture, thr ough the thematic 
working groups.  
 
We applaud the commitment of the working group coordinators and the Members to provide useful 
updated information, and we note the summary of the work and the recommendations made at the 
end of the first series of discuss ions on agricultural topics, in particular domestic support, public 
stockholding for food security purposes, and cotton.  
 
As regards the discussions on cotton, under the "Quad Plus" format, we applaud the Members' 
commitment and availability for ensuring p rogress in the work which was noted at the first meeting 
of the Working Group on Cotton.  
 
We note that the work on cotton is gradually entering an active and dynamic phase which needs to 
be pursued more rigorously, enriching the work with trade information  and updated statistics on 
distorting domestic support granted to cotton producers and exporters.  
 
We thank the cotton producing and exporting Members that have provided statistics on their levels 
of domestic support.  
 
The C -4 urge Members that have not ye t done so to provide the requested trade information and 
statistics on cotton as soon as possible, using the table designed for this purpose, in order to make 
a useful contribution to the ongoing work, with the aim of achieving concrete and measurable 
outcomes on cotton, which is a vital issue for many WTO Members.  
 
We encourage the working groups on agricultural matters, especially on domestic support and 
cotton, and urge Members to be untiring in their efforts so as to reach a more advanced stage very 
soon at which quantified elements can be proposed for modalities, with precise implementation 
periods, to reduce and eventually eliminate domestic support that creates distortion with regard to 
cotton.  
 
We would like to recommend, with regard to each Member p roviding domestic support, that statistics 
on agriculture, including cotton, should provide better, targeted details of disaggregated levels of 
support, in respect of  AMS, de minimis , product specific capping , Blue Box  and Green Box.  
 
We support the statem ents made by the African Group, the LDC Group, the ACP Group and the 
G-33. 
 
49. St. Lucia  
 
St. Lucia associates with the statements made by Haiti on behalf of CARICOM and Malawi on behalf 
of the ACP.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 115 - 
 
  This morning's report shared by the Director -General in his capacity as Chair of the TNC offered a 
mixture of both optimism and concern : optimism  that Members both here and in capitals are seeking 
solutions that can help unstick the logjam in the negotiations as well as address some of the systemic 
if not existential threats confronting the multilateral trading system.  
 
While these positive steps are welcomed, we remain deeply concerned that these conversations 
under numerous proposals already shared have not yet bridged the gap between Members or 
established a concrete roadmap towards finding a solution.  
 
Allow me to share a few observations on t he negotiations as well as on the question of WTO Reform.  
 
In concrete terms, we are encouraged by the renewed engagement of delegations within the Special 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture and believe that the working groups already established 
will support progress through the pursuit of common understandings in critical work areas.  
 
While we concede that we have failed in our mandate to deliver on a permanent solution on Public 
Stockholding as well as securing meaningful progress on domestic suppo rt, for my delegation, 
preserving meaningful flexibilities for small, vulnerable economies as enshrined and settled in the 
2008 draft modalities remains a key and indispensable pillar needed for a balanced outcome in 
agriculture.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, w e welcome the progress being made and remain hopeful that the target to 
complete work on this file can be realised. Securing progress on Goal 14 of the SDGs should be a 
pressing and urgent priority for the entire Membership. With this in mind, the process laid out by 
the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules including the deployment of Facilitators will serve to 
assist us in making the progress required to achieve a meaningful outcome.  
 
While many of us have rightly found common cause on the need to prohi bit harmful subsidies, 
development flexibilities that allow for the provision of support measures particularly to artisanal 
and small -scale fishers must be preserved. This, for my delegation, is a sine qua non for a workable 
solution.  
 
Moving now to the i nitiatives aimed at reforming the WTO, we remain disappointed that engagement 
remains largely fragmented and exclusive with the full participation of the very Members who will 
likely be affected by any outcome of these conversations. We therefore remind co nvenors of these 
conversations that the legitimacy of any outcome can only be secured through an inclusive, bottom -
up process that takes into meaningful account the concerns and contributions of all.  
 
The multilateral trading system remains delicately per ched between resolving the challenges it now 
confronts and evolving into a virtual state of nature where rules no longer apply , or worse, apply 
only through the application of power and force. For small States, the WTO is the only game in town 
– the only f orum where Members, large and small, have equal or near equal standing under the 
rules. It is for this reason that the adjudicative function of the system must be preserved and , in 
particular , it must preserve its independent and impartial character. Any o ther conception or 
approach will fatally compromise the integrity of the entire system.  
 
Many small economies have  implemented reforms prescribed by multilateral rules and based on 
economic liberalism. These reforms seem strangely ironic now that the very  architects of the system 
have turned inward eschewing the very cardinal principles of open markets based on stable, 
transparent and enforceable rules.  
 
In closing, while the multilateral trading system is far from perfect and the rules and procedures 
may appear of the bygone era, it is beyond question that this very system has generated an 
environment that has led to the exponential expansion of the global economy and has helped to 
substantially reduce poverty. Moreover, the system has been a bulwark for g lobal peace and 
stability. Pushing this system to the edge of the precipice serves the interest of no one.  
 
In finding a solution to the systemic challenges we face, we must all be engaged. We must all do 
our part. But we should not make perfection the en emy of the good. The cost is simply too high.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 116 - 
 
  50. Nigeria  
 
Nigeria' s delegation wishes to thank the Director -General  and all Members who have spoken before 
Nigeria on this item. Nigeria associates with the broad group statements made by Benin on behalf 
of the WTO African Group and Malawi on behalf of the ACP Group.  
 
Nigeria reaffirms its previous commitments and readine ss for the ongoing preparedness for 
negotiations by various Committees especially, but not limited to, Agriculture, Dispute Settlement 
Body, Rules and, indeed, the pressing and overdue issue of WTO Reform.  
 
Nigeria has noted, carefully, the report by the C hairman of the Committee on Agriculture  in Special 
Session . Nigeria welcomes the strategy currently applied in the ongoing discussions being facilitated 
by the appointed Coordinators for different areas of agriculture negotiations, namely domestic 
support, PSH, market access, SSM, export competition, export prohibi tions or restrictions and 
cotton . On these issues, Nigeria reiterates the necessity for the process to be inclusive and 
transparent.   
 
On DSU, particularly the current impasse in the Appellate Body on the issue of filling the vacancies, 
Nigeria underscore s the vital importance of ensuring the effective functioning of the dispute 
settlement system . For the WTO to be credible, as a contract -based system, on the rule of law, with 
a balance of rights and obligations, an effective, predictable and accepted disp ute settlement system  
is a necessity.  
 
In this regard, it is pertinent for Members to cultivate a solution -based approach to this matter aimed 
at resolving the impasse. Speed is now of the essence as time has turned against the system for the 
resolution o f the impasse in the A ppellate Body . This is because  the WTO st ands the risk of facing 
an Appellate Body devoid of Members by the end of 2019 if the issue is not addressed and resolved.  
 
The global economy is undergoing profound changes at this time, drive n, inter alia, by rapid changes 
in technology. This is why , and for reasons of ensuring WTO relevance, Nigeria support s the reform 
of the WTO. As Chargé d’Affaires of Nigeria to the WTO, I need to be clear that WTO Reform is a 
matter under close supervisio n, guidance and instruction from the heart of Government in Nigeria.   
 
On behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria, I wish to assure the Membership that Nigeria shall 
continue to provide leadership, based on pragmatism, compromise and consultations on this key 
question of WTO Reform for the global economy.   
 
Building on earlier positions contributed by Nigeria on this subject, the envisaged reform should be 
approached with a view to strengthening the WTO, ensuring the relevance of the organization as t he 
primary forum on international cooperation for trade and deepening the authority and effectiveness 
of the WTO to build an open global economy with a shared future of prosperity for all.  
 
Nigeria considers that the reform of the WTO should maintain the practice of decision -making by 
consensus based on compromise, pragmatism by the Membership and realism. Extensive 
consultations based on mutual respect and dialogue shall be required. Patience shall be of necessity.  
There can be no quick fixes in the refo rm of the WTO. The reform should reinforce the fundamental 
rules of multilateral trading system.   
 
In addition, Nigeria wishes to reiterate its position in supporting WTO Reforms as long as they seek 
to address the imbalances in trade rules, respond to the  latest developments of the 21st century 
issues and provide clarity on the development dimension so that trade serves a development 
purpose.   
 
In conclusion, Nigeria has taken note of the various proposals on special and differential treatment 
by some Members but wishes to emphasi se that S&DT is a negotiating right of developing Member s 
as enshrined in the Marrakech Agreements. It is our wish to reaffirm that SD&T should continue to 
be as an integral part of all WTO Agreements so that the benefits of this right would provide 
developing Members  with the required flexibility to achieve their developmental objectives.   
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 117 - 
 
  51. Paraguay  
 
I should like to thank the Director -General and the Chairpersons of the different Negotiating Groups 
for the reports they have subm itted to us. Paraguay wishes to call on Members to redouble their 
efforts this year and envisage the tangible results that we must present in less than 18 months at 
the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
Highly complex and absolutely necessary discussions are on the agenda which we must address 
constructively in order to reach a safe harbour as we navigate this systemic crisis.  
 
Provided that the discussions on possible WTO reform, graduation and developm ent, as well as 
special and differential treatment, are inclusive and transparent, our delegation will support the 
dialogue geared to overcoming the current impasse and finding solutions that accommodate the 
interests of fairness and balance in relation to  commitments.  
 
I should like to recall the main priorities of Paraguay's delegation in the context of the ongoing 
negotiations . 
 
First, we thank Ambassador Ford for his efforts to advance the agriculture discussions. The working 
groups for the technical di scussions have facilitated a more dynamic exchange among Members. 
However, much work is still needed on bridging gaps and we are continuing a technical debate with 
few concrete proposals on how to move forward.  
 
At the same time, we believe that adjustmen ts can be made regarding the format and functioning 
of the groups, leading to a franker exchange of ideas and a genuine dialogue. Some suggestions 
along these lines were put forward by my delegation at the last meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Sp ecial Session.  
 
We encourage Ambassador Ford to continue these efforts and we hope to see reform proposals that 
cover both the pillars of domestic support and market access in time for the next Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
With regard to participation in the various joint initiatives, Paraguay reaffirms its commitment and 
welcomes the progress made by the working groups in respect of joint statements on electronic 
commerce, MSMEs and investment facilitation for development.  
 
As a landlocked country, we view w ith great enthusiasm the WTO's potential for contributing to the 
regulation of cross -cutting components of trade facilitation, which will make it possible to design a 
set of rules and instruments to facilitate the integration of our MSMEs, small producers,  women 
entrepreneurs and creative industries in international trade.  
 
Paraguay aligned itself with the recent Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce signed in Davos on 
25 January 2019. In that statement, 76 WTO Members confirmed their intention to commence  
negotiations on trade -related aspects of electronic commerce.  
 
I should like to recall that Paraguay has taken an active part in the exploratory talks conducted 
within the WTO in the context of this joint initiative since the last Ministerial Conference held in 
Buenos Aires in December 2017. In this connection, we hope to achieve results that take into account 
the existing digital divide, while helping us to overcome the challenges faced by Paraguay as a 
"digitally landlocked" developing countr y without a coastline.  
 
On systemic issues, we express once again our deep concern regarding the current situation of the 
Appellate Body and we appeal to Members to participate in the informal process led by Ambassador 
Walker to find a negotiated solution.   
 
The priority of the entire Membership must be to restore the Appellate Body to its full capacity and 
launch the process of selection of its members without further delay. An operational, effective and 
timely dispute settlement mechanism is the only guar antee for the organization to continue its work 
of designing clear rules that will facilitate fluid and transparent trade and which we as Members can 
implement to promote our growth and development.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 118 - 
 
  Paraguay is a resolute defender of the multilateral trad ing system and would like to believe that it 
is possible in the very near future to see a more functional and stronger WTO, one that is capable 
of offering better results and guaranteeing that international trade flows are made as smooth, 
predictable and o pen as possible.  
 
52. Hong Kong, China  
 
I would like to thank the Director -General and the various Negotiating Group Chairs for their reports.   
 
Hong Kong, China  welcomes the proposals by Members to continuously enhance the functions of the 
WTO and will engage constructively in the discussions.  
 
As regards the negotiatin g pillar, with M C12 on the horizon, we appeal for a renewed spirit of 
understanding and co -operation among all Members to deliver on Ministerial decisions.  
 
Hong Kong, China  also fully supports the joint initiatives on e -commence, MSMEs and investment 
facilitation, which would enable the multilateral trading system to catch up with the new realiti es of 
global trade, characterised by rapid development of global value chains and digital trade, and 
affording opportunities for the less resourceful entities to participate in and benefit from global trade.   
 
I would just like to elaborate further on two  issues:  the Appellate Body and e -commerce.  
 
First, on the Appellate Body , Hong Kong, China would like to echo the points made by many Members 
earlier that a properly functioning dispute settlement system , including the Appellate Body, is 
essential to safe guarding the rights and obligations of all WTO Members, whether they are frequent 
users of the dispute settlement system or not.  
 
So it is of vital importance that the impasse in filling the vacancies of the Appellate Body should be 
resolved as soon as po ssible so that we can appoint new members to the Appellate Body to ensure 
that it can continue to perform its important functions.  
 
Meanwhile, H ong Kong, China  welcomes the efforts of various Members to propose ways to try to 
address some of the problems i dentified in the current system so as to further enhance it. But, we 
believe that further discussions in this regard should be done in parallel to the selection process for 
filling the vacancies in the Appellate Body.  There is no credible reason to deliber ately create a 
paralysis of the system.  
 
Second, on e -commerce , Hong Kong, China  would like to thank the co -convenors – Australia, Japan 
and Singapore – for their leadership and efforts in successfully concluding the e -commerce joint 
statement, and paving the way for negotiations on the trade -related issues of e -commerce.   
 
There have been lots of expectation on the WTO to move forward with time . It is timely and 
important for the WTO to catch up with the rapid development of e -commerce  which is expanding 
and transforming global trade in an unprecedented way.  
 
The negotiations to follow should aim to build a predictable e -commerce environment conducive to 
enhancing global trade, and we expect the process will continue to be open, inclusive and transparent 
so as to enable broader participation and address the needs of different Members. H ong Kong, China  
will continue to work closely with other Members and participate constructively in the negotiation.  
 
Lastly, on a more practical level, noting the diverse ba ckgrounds of Members who would take part 
in the negotiations, we believe enough turnaround time between meetings should be allowed for 
delegates to engage the relevant authorities and agencies in their capitals.  
 
For Members who may not have a lot of previ ous experience in trade negotiations on the subject of 
e-commerce, they would perhaps need more time for internal consultation with the relevant 
authorities and industries back home.  
 
53. Zimbabwe  
 
At the outset I would like to thank the Director General and the Chair persons of the Negotiating 
Groups  for their reports.  WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 119 - 
 
  From the reports presented today, I note with concern that we have still not made any progress 
regarding work on the DDA issues of interest to our  delegation namely : the elimination of trade 
distorting agriculture domestic support including cotton, a permanent solution for public stockholding 
for food security purpose s, SSM and development.  
 
In spite of a clear mandate which prioritises work on PHS for food security purpo ses, and the fact 
that the deadline has passed, progress remains evasive and sadly so, at a time when food insecurity 
is on the rise due to climate change, especially in Africa.  
 
We call upon Members to take into consideration the impact of climate change  on economies such 
as our own and prioritise work on having an outcome which will have no limitations on product and 
country coverage and without onerous transparency obligations.  
 
Regarding elimination of trade distorting agricultural domestic subsidies,  I would like to reiterate our 
position that we need to have an outcome that corrects the imbalances of the last round of 
negotiations and at the same time preserve the flexibilities for developing Member s. 
 
Regarding special and differential treatment , we are utterly concerned that some Members have 
intensified the process to move towards differentiated, case -by-case and sector -by-sector approach. 
This approach is not in line with the mandate and will narrow the scope of application of S &DT for 
developing Members  or eliminate it, and thus erode the policy space that these Members  need for 
development.  
 
S&DT is an unconditional right for developing Members  and is integral in all WTO Agreements. This 
is meant to assist these Members  to be integrated into the  multilateral trading system as well as 
enable them to meet their development objectives.  
 
For this reason, S &DT should therefore be preserved and remain integral in existing and future WTO 
Agreements. Work on development negotiations should proceed in li ne with the Doha mandate of 
Paragraph 44 . The G-90 proposal which is in line with this mandate is still on the table.  
 
Regarding the agreement by a group of 76 Members to launch the e -commerce negotiations next 
month, my delegation 's position remains that such negotiations are non -mandated and also 
premature because of the current digital divide between Members . We however would like to 
continue our work under the work program me on e-commerce.  
 
I would like to appeal to Members to expeditiously find common ground that will resolve the current 
impasse in the selection of Appellate Body members and ensure it functions impartially, 
independently, predictably and in a way that will promote the interests of developing Members.  
Otherwise , the DSB, the negotiating arm of the WTO and the multilateral trading system itself will 
lose credibility and relevance.  
 
Regarding the other elements of the reforms , my delegation is not supportive of any additional 
transparency obligations that will increase the burden on our bud gets and administrative processes.  
  
In conclusion , my delegation remains committed to the strengthening of the multilateral trading 
system to ensure it is fair, predictable, balanced, inclusive and rules -based, and that it maintains 
the centrality of deve lopment for the benefit of small and weaker Members amongst us.  
 
I associate myself with the statements delivered by the ACP  Group,  the Africa Group, the C -4 and 
the G-33. 
 
54. Pakistan  
 
At the outset, we would like to thank the Director -General and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups  
for their reports.  
 
Pakistan wishes to attract immediate attention to the issue of the deadlock on the Appellate Body. 
We recogni ze the efforts of the Faci litator -led process to end the deadlock.  
 
For Pakistan, the objective of the discussion is to clearly find ways to resolve the impending paralysis 
in the dispute settlement system. However, proposals that seek to link or make dependent the WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 120 - 
 
  Appellate Body crisis upon a wider reform of the institution will open the entire dispute settlement 
system to a general and comprehensive review which neither will be welcomed or nor will be helpful.  
 
Moreover, any amendments aimed at resolving the crisis must maintain  the independence and 
integrity of the Appellate Body. The value of the system lies in the impartial and independent manner 
in which disputes have been handled in this organization and we hope will continue to be handled. 
Pakistan has indicated willingness  to work with proponents with a view to restoring to the Appellate 
Body its due, rightful and effective functioning.  
 
On the issue of general reforms of the WTO, Pakistan feels it is extremely important to view this 
from a developing country lens as well. Afterall, trade is only a means to the larger end of 
development and economic prosperity in our countries.  
 
In that sense, any proposed reform cannot be allowed to question or weaken the basic pillars of this 
institution which includes S&DT as a fundament al and unconditional right of developing Members  
and consensus -based decision -making.  
 
Similarly, proposed reforms must not make obligations more burdensome for developing countr y 
Members  to participate in global trade. Furthermore, before embarking on amb itious reform, we 
must also address the pending agenda vis -à-vis developing Members  which is one of the main 
reasons for the stalemate in global trade today.  
 
Finally, Pakistan has been actively participating in agriculture and fisheries subsidies negotia tions 
and will maintain its constructive engagement to ensure meaningful outcomes.  
 
55. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
We welcome the Director -General's report, and that of the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups.  We also 
thank the Secretariat for preparing the documents for the General Council.  
 
There are currently two major threats to the multilateral system which could give rise to the 
institutional irrelevance of the WTO, namely:  
 
• the failure to guarantee a sound rules -based dispute settlement mechanism;  and, 
 
• the lack of a full response to the needs of the developing Member s in this organization.  
 
As we have indicated on previous occasions, we consider that it is vital to find a solution to the 
problem faced by the Dispute Settlement Body. We c annot continue to head towards a tipping point 
without devising a solution.  
 
Multilateralism is an essential pillar of the foreign trade policy of  the Members  that believe in a rules -
based multilateral  trading system. Therefore, in all our statements, we w ill continue to insist on and 
call for the resolution of the problem affecting the Dispute Settlement Body.  
 
Furthermore, with regard to development, we believe that it is not possible to think of the WTO 
without thinking about how to guarantee and promote  better living conditions for the world 
population in order to eradicate poverty.  
 
This vision is set out in the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade 
Organization, and Sustainable Development Goal 1, as well as many other releva nt provisions, lays 
down clear guidelines on the direction to be taken for a fair multilateral trading system.  
 
These elements should be considered in order to move forward on the various negotiating fronts 
such as agriculture, fisheries and cotton, and to  determine the approach to be applied to joint 
statements to restore the multilateral arena.  
 
While it is relevant to talk about a reform of the WTO, such an initiative should focus on ensuring an 
effective functioning of the organization which is rules -based and which ensures the tangible 
implementation of  Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
 WT/GC/M/176  
 
- 121 - 
 
  Bolivia considers that this organization must be saved from the state of limbo towards which it is 
heading. We do not believe that, as indicated in document WT/GC/W /757, this situation is due to 
the fact that the categorization of Members  as developed or developing, which was established in 
1995, remains unchanged today.  
 
We consider that the breakdown in question is the result of a lack of political will to ensure t hat 
everyone benefits from a multilateral trading system. We are led to believe that there are many 
flexibilities and exceptions for many Members  and that very tight rules are applied to a small number 
of Members.  Perhaps we need to look at the poverty map s and reali se that even more flexibilities 
and greater solidarity are required.  
 
We do not believe that a statistical war can have a genuine impact on the living conditions of the 
population. We support document WT/GC/W/765 submitted by China, India, South  Africa and 
Venezuela, as we consider that it is important to recall two key points:  
 
• Special and differential treatment is a pillar of the trading system that we have today. The 
argument that "all the rules apply to a few" is not sustainable. We believe that special and 
differential treatment is a fundamental part of the multilateral trading system and 
acknowledges the fact that developing Members  are at different stages of economic, financial 
and technological developments, and consequently differ in the ir capacities as compared 
with developed  Members  in implementing multilateral commitments and obligations . 
 
• The right to development is a human right that is centred on the individual. Therefore, while 
there is an undeniable divide in the world, we believe that it is not sustainable to play down 
the developing  Member  status of any sovereign Member  that deems such a status 
appropriate . 
 
__________