RESTRICTED
GPA/M/57
22 December 2014
(14-7397)  Page: 1/12
Committee on Government Procurement  
 
MINUTES OF THE FORMAL MEETING OF 29 OCTOBER 2014 
CHAIRMAN: MR KRZYSZTOF TREPCZY ŃSKI (POLAND) 
The Chairman said that, in preparation for the meeting, delegations had received an Airgram 
(WTO/AIR/4370 of 14 October 2014) setting out the proposed agenda. The proposed agenda was 
as follows:  
1. Accession of Montenegro: Adoption of Committee Decision; 
2. Accession of New Zealand: Adoption of Committee Decision;  
3. Domestic Legislation – Recent Developments; and 
4. Other business, if any. 
With regard to other business, he said that, under this heading, the European Union would make a 
statement regarding the notification that it had ci rculated the previous day, for the information of 
delegations. No other items had been proposed under the heading of other business. 
The Committee adopted the agenda as proposed. 
1  ACCESSION OF MONTENEGRO AND NEW ZEALAND: ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE 
DECISIONS 
1.1.  Noting the faxes that delegations had received prior to the meeting and the information on 
Montenegro's accession contained therein1, the Chairman asked whether the Committee could 
agree to the accession of Montenegro on the basis of the draft decision that had been circulated.2 
1.2.  The Committee adopted the decision, inviting Montenegro to accede to the Agreement on the 
terms agreed.3 
1.3.  Similarly, recalling the background inform ation regarding the accession of New Zealand that 
had been circulated prior to the meeting4, the Chairman asked whether the Committee could agree 
to the accession of New Zealand on the basis of the draft decision that had been circulated.5 
                                               
1 Montenegro applied for accession to the GPA on 4 October 2013 (GPA/120, dated 4 October 2013). 
Subsequently, consultations had taken place on multiple  occasions, based on: (i) Montenegro's initial offer 
circulated to the Committee on 4 November 2013 (GPA/ACC/MNE/2); (ii) its first revised offer circulated on 27 November 2013 (GPA/ACC/MNE/3); and (iii) a further revised offer circulated on 18 June 2014 (GPA/ACC/MNE/8). Montenegro's final offer had been  circulated on 18 July 2014 (GPA/ACC/MNE/9). With 
regard to its relevant legislation, Montenegro had submitted its Replies to the Checklist of Issues, together with additional documentation on its legislative fra mework, on 4 October 2013 (GPA/ACC/MNE/1, dated 
7 October 2013). In the course of the first discussion of its accession at the Committee's meeting on 9 October 2013, Montenegro's Chief negotiator had made a detailed statement regarding the reforms that had been made to his country's procurement system. The deliberate alignment of relevant legislation with both the EU's relevant directives and the GPA had been stressed . Comments were invited on this and other occasions, 
but no comments had been circulated or concerns expre ssed. The draft decision for adoption of the terms of 
Montenegro's accession had been circulated on 16 October 2014 (GPA/ACC/MNE/11) and additional 
background had been provided in the Chairman's fax dated 20 October 2014. 
2 GPA/ACC/MNE/11, dated 16 October 2014. 
3 GPA/124, dated 3 November 2014. GPA/M/57 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.4.  The Committee adopted the decision, inviting New Zealand to accede to the Agreement on 
the terms agreed.6 
1.5.  The Chairman congratulated Montenegro an d New Zealand on the successful conclusion of 
their respective accession negotiations. He encouraged the two delegations to submit their 
instruments of accession to the Agreement as soon as reasonably possible. He said that the 
Secretariat was available to assist with the wordin g of the required instruments. He reminded both 
delegations, as well as all Parties, of the obligation for new Parties to have in place, at the time 
that the Agreement entered into force for them, GPA-compliant national legislation and 
procedures. He encouraged Montenegro and New Zealand to engage actively in the work of the Committee.  
1.6.  On behalf of the Director-General, Mr Roberto Azevêdo, and himself, the WTO 
Deputy-Director-General, Mr Xiaozhun Yi, said that it was an honour to attend this important 
meeting of the Committee. Warm congratulations were due to Montenegro and New Zealand, and 
to the Committee itself, for the historic decisions that had just been taken. The Secretariat had 
kept him carefully informed of the progress of the negotiations as they had unfolded. He was 
aware that there had been challenging moments fo r both delegations during the course of the 
negotiations, noting that tough discussions had had to be held and decisions made. In negotiating 
for something worthwhile, such tough challenges were bound to be encountered. Without doubt, 
the respective delegations had maintained their focu s and earned the esteem of all Parties for their 
hard work, integrity and determination.  
1.7.  Continuing, he said that membership in the Agreement could be pursued for a variety of 
reasons. For some WTO Members, accession was driven first and foremost - or possibly even 
exclusively - by market access considerations. Membership in the Agreement was, indeed, the key to gaining legally assured access to public procurement markets that had been valued at as much 
as $1.7 trillion annually, and whose value was certain to grow over time. 
1.8.  For other countries, however, accession to the GPA offered other benefits. These might 
include: assurance of the alignment of national legislation and institutions in the public 
procurement sector with best practices internationally; and international recognition of a WTO 
Member's commitment to high standards of transp arency and fair treatment for all participating 
suppliers in the conduct and award of public procurement. The latter could be a factor in encouraging inbound foreign direct investment (FDI). In addition, for all Parties, participation in 
the GPA brought with it the opportunity to contribute to the shaping of norms and standards for 
procurement policy that ultimately had an influence even beyond the formal membership of the Agreement. 
                                                                                                                                               
4 New Zealand applied for accession to the GPA on 28 September 2012 (GPA/115, dated 
1 October 2012). Subsequently, consultations had taken plac e on multiple occasions, based on: (i) its initial 
offer circulated to the Committee on 1 October 2012 (GPA/ACC/NZL/1); (ii) its first revised offer circulated on 24 September 2013 (GPA/ACC/NZL/7); and (iii) a further revised offer circulated on 13 November 2013 (GPA/ACC/NZL/9). New Zealand's final offer had been  circulated on 21 July 2014 (GPA/ACC/NZL/10). With 
regard to New Zealand's relevant legislation, its Replies to the Checklist of Issues had been circulated to the 
Committee on 4 October 2012 (GPA/ACC/NZL/2). Subsequently, New Zealand had made a statement confirming that a key element of recent/ongoing re forms had been to bring New Zealand's government 
procurement rules into line with relevant international norms – and, specifically, with the revised GPA.  
The draft decision for adoption of the terms of New Zealand's accession to the Agreement had been 
circulated on 16 October 2014 (GPA/ACC/NZL/12) and additional background had been provided in the 
Chairman's fax dated 20 October 2014. At the meeting held on 31 July, the majority of delegations had confirmed their readiness to conclude New Zealand's access ion on the basis of its Final Offer as circulated on 
21 July 2014 (GPA/ACC/NZL/10). The EU had indicated that addi tional time would be needed both to clarify, in 
discussions with New Zealand,  related terms to be applied by the EU and to carry out its relevant internal 
procedures. Switzerland had also signalled a need for time for further reflection . Chairman Christie had 
requested that all outstanding issues be resolved and the EU's internal procedures completed as quickly as possible. Subsequent to the informal meeting of  31 July 2014, the EU had reached agreement with 
New Zealand on its own final terms vis-à-vis the latter's accession and completed the relevant internal procedures. Switzerland had indicated its agreement to  New Zealand's accession on the basis of the terms 
proposed in its Final Offer, wi thout related reservatio ns. All related terms had been circulated. 
5 GPA/ACC/NZL/12, dated 16 October 2014. 
6 GPA/125, dated 3 November 2014. GPA/M/57 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.9.  For all these reasons, he congratulate d the two new Parties and the Committee for the 
important milestone that had been reached at the present meeting. He thanked the Chairman, 
Mr Trepczynski of Poland and his predecessor, Mr  Bruce Christie of Canada, for their work in 
facilitating this result. He said that the two accession decisions that had just been taken 
highlighted both the growing interest in the GPA on the part of a diverse set of WTO Members, and 
the increasing importance of the Agreement as an  underpinning of global trade and development. 
1.10.  Responding, the Chairman referred to the courage, persistence and skill that Montenegro 
and New Zealand had shown throughout the process. He thanked the Parties to the Agreement, for 
their consistent engagement. Further, he expre ssed his deep appreciation to his predecessor, 
Mr Bruce Christie of Canada, for the work that he had done to lay the groundwork for the day's historic decisions. Like his predecessor, he believed that other accessions to the Agreement would 
follow, and that the GPA was going increasingly to be at the centre of efforts to promote trade, 
value for money and fair competition in markets for the procurement of goods and services worldwide. 
1.11.  The representative of Montenegro said that this was a great day for her country. 
Montenegro was very pleased with the decision that had just been taken, and proud to be joining 
the ranks of the Parties to the Agreement. Mo ntenegro's accession to the GPA fulfilled a key 
commitment that the country had made when it joined the WTO in April 2012. She hoped and 
believed that Montenegro's accession to the Agreement would be taken as a sign of the importance that her country attached to good governance in the public procurement sector, and of the alignment of the country's institutions with best practices internationally. This was a very 
important consideration for Montenegro. 
1.12.  On behalf of the Chief Negotiator of Montenegro for its GPA accession, Mr Mujovi ć, who 
could not be at the present meeting, and on he r own behalf, she expressed the gratitude of her 
delegation to the Chairman, Mr Trepczynski, for bringing Montenegro's accession to a successful 
conclusion; and to his predecessor, Mr Bruce Christie, for facilitating this process during his term of office. Both Chairmen had been consistently  helpful, supportive and encouraging to the 
Montenegrin team. Montenegro also wished to express its sincere thanks to all Parties for their 
engagement and support. This had greatly facilitated her country's accession process. Further, she expressed her deep appreciation to the GPA Secret ariat team for the help and encouragement that 
they had provided. Montenegro also wished to ac knowledge the valuable assistance that it had 
received from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which had been very 
important to its success. She pledged to seek time ly submission of Montenegro's instrument of 
accession to the GPA to the Director-General of the WTO. 
1.13.  Finally, she extended her congratulations to  the negotiating team from New Zealand for the 
result that they had also achieved for their country.  
1.14.  The representative of New Zealand expre ssed the appreciation of her government to the 
Parties for their actions in bringing New Zealand's accession negotiations to a successful 
conclusion. New Zealand was very pleased to be in Geneva once again on this important and 
historic occasion, following an intensive period of final negotiations since the meetings in June and July.  
1.15.  New Zealand wished to acknowledge the encouragement, guidance and support that it had 
received from the Chairman and the Secretariat throughout the preceding two years as an important contributory factor to the milestone th at had been reached at the present meeting. She 
also expressed her appreciation to the Parties fo r the constructive and professional engagement 
that her delegation had enjoyed throughout its accession process. While there had been challenges - including some difficult moments - there had also always been a willingness to continue to work 
constructively and creatively towards a solution, the results of which were evident at the present 
momentous occasion.  
1.16.  For her personally, New Zealand's accession process had been a great learning experience. 
She looked forward to her delegation's active part icipation in the work of the Committee. In this 
regard, she assured the Committee of her delegation's goal to expedite the domestic ratification 
process to the extent possible. She took the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts and contributions of New Zealand's entire team in reaching the present result. GPA/M/57 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.17.  The Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the WTO, Ambassador John Adank, 
welcomed the Committee's decision approving the terms of New Zealand's accession to the 
Agreement. This was indeed a very positive outc ome, notably in light of what was an otherwise 
difficult negotiating environment in Geneva. 
1.18.  He said that New Zealand's government had been working towards the present decision for 
some time. As had been previously noted by his colleague, Ms Karen English, the process had not 
always been easy. New Zealand had worked hard to gether and constructively with all the Parties 
to ensure that the context of New Zealand's offer – which took account of the high proportion of 
New Zealand's procurement that occurred at the central government level – was understood, and that it would meet the interests of other Parties. He thanked the Chairman, as well as his predecessor Mr Bruce Christie of Canada, other delegations, and the Secretariat, for their generous 
assistance, and ongoing cooperation and collaboration in this regard. 
1.19.  From the perspective of his delegation, the decision that had just been taken by the 
Committee was an endorsement of the high qual ity of New Zealand's offer. This offer: 
• included procurement conducted by entities included in the offer valued at NZ$20 billion 
per year; 
• included entities at all three levels of government - namely, at the central, sub-central 
and "other" government levels; and 
• covered areas of interest to Parties that in several other countries were carried out at 
the level of local government entities, namely social housing and the construction and operations of public facilities. 
1.20.  New Zealand would now begin its domestic procedures that would lead in due course to the 
deposit of its instrument of accession to the Agreement, and looked forward to the benefits of membership and to participating along with other GPA Parties as a full participant in further GPA 
discussions. 
1.21.  He extended his warmest congratulations to Montenegro on the decision approving the 
terms of its accession.  
1.22.  The representatives of the United States; Switzerland; the European Union; Canada; 
Chinese Taipei; Japan; Hong Kong, China; Norway; Israel; Korea, Republic of; Singapore and 
Liechtenstein; warmly congratulated Montenegro and New Zealand on the decisions that had been 
taken. They looked forward to the deposit by Montenegro and New Zealand of their respective 
instruments of accession in due course, and to working with the two Parties in the future. 
1.23.  The representative of the United States said that what had been achieved at the present 
meeting was a great accomplishment for an institution that was in need of such accomplishments. 
In that regard, he thanked the two new Parties for providing an occasion to celebrate such an 
important and hopeful accomplishment. This celebration was also a good indicator of the relevance of the revised GPA. It was notable that, within a very short period of time since the entry into 
force of the revised Agreement, two WTO Memb ers were joining the Agreement. This was a 
significant development and a good sign that the Committee could continue to build momentum to expand participation in the Agreement.  
1.24.  The United States also wished to add its thanks to those that had already been expressed 
by the new Parties for the very considerable and constructive efforts by the Chairman, by his 
predecessor, Mr Bruce Christie of Canada, and by  the Secretariat to the decisions that had been 
taken, and for the willingness of Parties to work constructively with each other and the acceding 
members in seeing these processes through to their conclusion. Montenegro and New Zealand 
were to be commended for the hard work that th ey had demonstrated throughout this process, 
and notably for the quality of the respective market access offers that they had brought to the 
negotiations.  
1.25.  In the case of Montenegro, GPA accession offered an opportunity to lock in its already open 
procurement system. It provided an inspiration for what a small and new WTO Member could GPA/M/57 
 
- 5 - 
 
  achieve - not just in the GPA Committee but across a range of Committees in the WTO - when it 
set its mind to it. Montenegro was in the WTO for all the right reasons and was a model citizen of the organization. 
1.26.  New Zealand had shown a tremendous amount of creativity in recent years and months to 
address concerns in areas like sub-central coverage. The milestone that had been reached further 
highlighted and reinforced New Zealand's longstanding role as a part of the structural backbone of the WTO as an institution. Over many decades, New Zealand had contributed a great deal to the 
vitality of the WTO with its commitment and its creativity, and most importantly through the 
accomplished officials its government sent to work with other WTO Members in Geneva.  
1.27.  The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation had been impressed by the 
persuasiveness, motivation and commitment that Montenegro and New Zealand had demonstrated 
in seeking to join the GPA. During the accession process, New Zealand had consistently proceeded 
in a transparent and open manner, providing substantial information on the special characteristics of its procurement regime. It had responded positively to a considerable number of the requests 
that Switzerland, together with Canada; Japan; Korea; Israel; Norway; Hong Kong, China; and 
Singapore had submitted. As a result, New Zealand's agreed commitments offered economically meaningful coverage, in particular given the uni que circumstances of New Zealand, where 90% of 
procurement was carried out at central government level. 
1.28.  Switzerland had consistently underlined that the procurement of goods, services and 
construction services undertaken by regional or local procuring entities, as well as public enterprises, should be covered by the GPA to th e largest extent possible. Such commitments were 
essential for any accession to the GPA and should continue to play an important role in 
negotiations with potential new Parties or possible revisions of the GPA in the future. In this light, Switzerland wished to thank New Zealand for the systemic contribution that it had made in the 
context of GPA coverage by offering to cover procurement of transport infrastructure projects at 
local level through flow down allocations of funds from the central level. 
1.29.  Switzerland looked forward to cooperating with Montenegro and with New Zealand in a 
positive and open manner in the future work of the GPA Committee. In this regard, it was the view 
and expectation of his delegation that the new pe rspectives and experiences brought to the table 
by Montenegro and New Zealand would bring considerable benefits to the Committee.  
1.30.  The representative of the European Union warmly congratulated Montenegro and 
New Zealand for the expeditious manner in which they had completed their respective accession 
processes following the submission of their initial offers in November 2013 and September 2012, respectively. This was an important accomplishment not only for the GPA but also for these two 
WTO Members. The European Union hoped very much that their accessions would significantly 
enhance the attractiveness of the Agreement to other WTO Members and encourage more Members to consider joining the Agreement.  
1.31.  With regard to Montenegro, the European Union was particularly pleased to see a country 
which was a candidate for European Union membersh ip acceding to the Agreement. Recalling the 
ongoing negotiations between the European Union and Montenegro, he welcomed in particular the 
fact that Montenegro's final offer had been prepared in the light of its possible accession to the 
European Union. The European Union congratulate d Montenegro for its endeavor to achieve an 
open public procurement market by applying the GPA principles while taking into account its ambition to join the European Union. The accession  negotiations had been conducted in very close 
co-operation with the delegation from the Montenegrin Public Procurement Authority - namely, 
Mr Mujovic and his team. The European Union hope d very much that Montenegro would play an 
active role in the future work of the Committee and looked forward to continuing its fruitful co-
operation with Montenegro's capital-based delegation in the future. 
1.32.  Concerning New Zealand, the European Union appreciated the commercially credible and 
valuable final offer that it had provided, which widely opened its procurement market to all GPA Parties. He also congratulated New Zealand for its non-discriminatory legislation.  
1.33.  New Zealand's offer was comprehensive in terms of covered entities, goods, services and 
construction services and the European Union appreciated the efforts that New Zealand had made GPA/M/57 
 
- 6 - 
 
  to provide expanded coverage at the sub-central and other entities levels in response to repeated 
re q ue s ts  b y the  EU to ha ve  ful l c ove r ag e  at these levels. The European Union had consistently 
highlighted the importance of such broad cove rage for economic, commercial and systemic 
reasons. In this regard, the European Union apprec iated very much the open dialogue that it had 
been able to maintain with New Zealand's delegation in the course of meetings in Geneva and in 
between such meetings.  
1.34.  The final offer that had been circulated on 21 July 2014, while being a substantial one, 
nonetheless contained relatively limited coverage in certain respects compared to the coverage of 
the European Union. Accordingly, in line with the EU's existing schedule, and consistent with the current practices of some GPA Parties to include limitations to coverage in relation to other GPA Parties, the European Union had introduced terms for New Zealand's accession that specified the 
coverage offered by the EU to New Zealand. Th ese terms had been communicated previously to 
New Zealand. The European Union wished to expre ss its satisfaction that New Zealand had been in 
a position to accept the EU's terms of its accession.  
1.35.  With regard to the entry into force of the Agreement for New Zealand, while appreciating 
that New Zealand would need some time before be ing in a position to deposit its instrument of 
accession, it was the hope of the European Union that this could be done well within the 
nine-month period provided for in the Committee decision. 
1.36.  In conclusion, the European Union expressed its deep appreciation to the delegation of New 
Zealand for its efforts to conclude its accession process expeditiously and looked forward to the active participation of New Zealand in the future work of the Committee. 
1.37.  The representative of Canada joined other Parties in congratulating Montenegro and 
New Zealand for their accomplishment. Canada also extended its appreciation to the Secretariat 
and to the Chair for their hard work in facilita ting the present outcomes. Canada expressed its 
particular appreciation to Montenegro and New Zealand for the flexibility, patience, and 
perseverance that they had demonstrated throughout their respective accession processes in pursuit of their common objective of joining the Agreement. Canada was grateful for the 
determination and openness that both acceding Members had exhibited, and in particular with 
regard to the requests for improvement that Part ies had presented, and for their flexibility in 
meeting these requests. In the end, both accession  candidates had been able to find outcomes 
that successfully addressed the requests of Pa rties while accommodating their own internal 
constraints.  
1.38.  Canada in particular wished to echo Switzerland in thanking New Zealand for its innovative 
solutions in terms of providing partial coverage of  its Annex 2 procurement by municipalities, e.g. 
as funded by New Zealand Transport Agency. This  was a very unique and useful precedent for the 
Agreement.  
1.39.  Similarly to the European Union, Canada looked forward to both Members depositing their 
respective instruments of accession in due course. While taking note of the impending summer 
and winter breaks in New Zealand, Canada nonetheless remained confident that New Zealand would be efficient and expeditious in its domestic ratification process, and looked forward to the 
deposit by New Zealand of its instrument of accession in the not too distant future. In conclusion, 
Canada looked forward to working with both Montenegro and New Zealand in future accessions, 
the Work Programmes of the Committee, and other aspects of the Committee's work. 
1.40.  The representative of Chinese Taipei joined other delegations in congratulating Montenegro 
and New Zealand for the successful conclusion of their respective accession negotiations, and 
welcomed them to the Agreement. Her delegation expressed its appreciation to the delegations of 
Montenegro and New Zealand for their determinat ion, responsiveness and flexibility during the 
accession negotiations. The two accessions woul d provide new and improved market access 
opportunities for businesses in Montenegro, New Zealand and in all other GPA Parties. Her delegation looked forward to a fruitful and mu tually beneficial working relationship with 
Montenegro and New Zealand. The two accessions represented good examples in a number of 
ways, for instance with respect to efficiency an d timeliness of process, and responsiveness to the 
market access requests of the Parties. Chinese Taipei looked forward to other accessions in the future leading to a further expansion of the membership of the Agreement over time. GPA/M/57 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.41.  The representative of Japan expressed his warmest congratulations to Montenegro and 
New Zealand for their accession to the GPA. He drew the Committee's attention to a newspaper 
story which highlighted the substantial market access opportunities that would be opened up to New Zealand as a result of its accession.
7 Japan considered New Zealand and Montenegro's 
accession processes as a good example for future WTO Members acceding to the GPA. A particular 
aspect of both processes was the excellent cooperation that both Members had established with the existing Parties, and their ability to find crea tive and mutually satisfactory solutions to issues 
and challenges that had emerged. This concerned, for instance, coverage of sub-central entities in 
the case of New Zealand and, with regard to Montenegro, the alignment of its coverage offer with that of the European Union in light of the unique circumstance regarding its likely accession to the 
EU. Japan looked forward to working with New Zealand and Montenegro in the future. 
1.42.  The representative of Hong Kong, China al so welcomed Montenegro and New Zealand to the 
GPA. These two accessions represented a very positive step for the Committee as it marked the 
first expansion of the membership of the GPA under the modernized text of the revised 
Agreement. As one of the first Parties to ratify the revised Agreement, Hong Kong, China strongly 
supported new accessions to the Agreement. This was an important means to broaden the coverage of the Agreement, extend a level pl aying field for suppliers, create more business 
opportunities and promote more transparent an d non-discriminatory procurement procedures 
among the Parties. She thanked the Chairman, the Secretariat and fellow GPA Parties for their respective roles in bringing the accession negotiations to a successful conclusion. Hong Kong, China noted with particular appreciation the absence of Party-specific derogations in 
New Zealand's coverage commitments, which was in line with the spirit of Article XXII:6 of the 
revised GPA. It was the hope of Hong Kong, China that the accessions of Montenegro and New Zealand would encourage other WTO members to consider joining the GPA. Hong Kong, China 
looked forward to working closely with the new Parties in the Committee. 
1.43.  The representative of Norway congratulated Montenegro and New Zealand. She said that at 
the GPA Ministerial Meeting held in Bali in December 2013 on the margins of the WTO Ministerial 
Conference, Norway had stressed the importance of  growth in the membership of the GPA as a 
means of strengthening the rule of law in international trade. An effective multilateral framework for government procurement was integral to the efficient management of public resources and contributed to the avoidance of discriminatio n among foreign suppliers, goods and services. 
Norway was, therefore, particularly pleased to welcome Montenegro's and New Zealand's 
respective accessions to the Agreement, and commended them for their relentless efforts to achieve a mutually satisfactory result. Norway sh ared the hope that these accessions would serve 
as a positive inspiration for other GPA accession candidates. 
1.44.  The representative of Israel welcomed Ne w Zealand and Montenegro to the GPA. He said 
that the accession of these two new participants  enhanced the GPA as a whole and brought new 
economic opportunities to all the GPA Parties. Is rael had been involved in the process of both 
accessions and was happy to see that all the work ha d paid off. From the perspective of Israel, the 
GPA represented a bright spot in the WTO; in that regard, it was the hope of Israel that the day's good news would bode well for overall progress in  the WTO. Lastly, Israel looked forward to more 
future accessions - including beyond those currently in the pipeline.  
1.45.  The representative of the Republic of Ko rea conveyed his congratulations to New Zealand 
and Montenegro for the successful accession to the revised GPA. Korea appreciated the effort 
shown by the two delegations during their respective accession negotiations. The historic 
achievement today was significant for the GPA community not only because of the successful accessions of two new WTO Members and the extension of the scope of the revised Agreement 
that it represented, but also because of the potent ial it illustrated to further extend the scope of 
the GPA as a tool for forging a more global government procurement market, and providing more legally secure access in this respect.  
1.46.  The representative of Singapore congratulated Montenegro and New Zealand for the 
successful conclusion of their respective accession negotiations. Singapore had been constructively 
engaged throughout the process and was pleased to  be part of the present momentous occasion. 
The expeditious manner in which both accession processes had proceeded had been very 
                                               
7 Story cited: "New Zealand eyes a $2 trillion prize – GPA agreement will give Kiwi businesses a global 
edge", in New Zealand Herald Tribune dated 28 October 2014. GPA/M/57 
 
- 8 - 
 
  impressive. Singapore extended its appreciation to Montenegro and New Zealand for initiating their 
respective accession processes with good, strong offers, and for their sincere efforts to meet the 
requests of Parties in the revisions to their offers that they had submitted.  
1.47.  As had been noted by other delegations, challenges and difficulties had been encountered 
along the way, some reflecting the unique circum stances of the two acceding Parties. Singapore 
was pleased that the persistence, goodwill and pr actical approach shown by both Montenegro and 
New Zealand, and, in the case of New Zealand, a good dose of creativity, had allowed these to be 
overcome, leading to the successful conclusion of their respective accession negotiations. 
Singapore also expressed its deep appreciation to the Chairman and his predecessor, Mr Bruce Christie of Canada, in addition to the Secretariat, for the smooth and consistent manner in which they had facilitated the process. 
1.48.  The representative of Liechtenstein congratulated Montenegro and New Zealand for their 
relentless efforts with regard to their respective accession processes. Liechtenstein was pleased to 
welcome these two additional WTO Members into the fold of the GPA as new Parties. The accession 
of these two Members would contribute to the dive rsity of GPA membership and, in turn, reflect 
the increasing relevance of the GPA to internationa l trade. Liechtenstein looked forward to working 
closely together with them in the framework of the Committee. 
1.49.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  DOMESTIC LEGISLATION – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 
2.1.  The Chairman said that this agenda item ha d been requested by Canada. It followed an initial 
discussion on the same topic that had taken place in the course of the Committee's formal meeting 
in June 2014, also at the request of Canada.  
2.2.  The representative of Canada said that at the June 2014 GPA Committee meeting, Canada 
had raised concerns with a number of legislatives initiatives in the United States that introduced 
new discriminatory measures in relation to government procurement conducted or funded by 
federal, state and municipal-level entities. In its intervention, Canada had sought clarification from the United States concerning these legislative initiatives. As a general point, Canada had asked the 
United States to explain how each initiative was consistent with obligations under Article XXII:6 of 
the revised GPA which provided that "[e]ach Party shall seek to avoid introducing or continuing discriminatory measures that distort open proc urement". Canada was looking forward to the 
United States' explanation in this regard. 
2.3.  Since June's GPA Committee meeting, Canada had, unfortunately, noted new legislative 
initiatives which, if adopted, would introduce discriminatory measures that would further distort open procurement in the United States. He highlighted a sample of such legislative proposals that 
had been tabled in the United States Congress since the beginning of June 2014. 
2.4.  First, the Made in the U.S.A Act  would prohibit heads of United States federal agencies from 
spending funds or providing financial assistance for projects for the construction, alteration, 
maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless substantially all of the iron, steel, 
wood products, cement, and manufactured goods used in the project were produced in the United States. 
2.5.  Moreover, and mirroring the GROW America Act  which Canada had raised in its intervention 
in June 2014, the Made in the U.S.A Act  would increase the domestic content requirement for 
rolling stock from 60% to 100% by 2019. 
2.6.  Second, the Invest in American Jobs Act  contained a number of provisions which would 
tighten the application of Buy America restrictions on federally-funded projects. Like the GROW 
America Act , the Invest in American Jobs Act  would require that in public procurement, the 
proportion of rolling stock components and subcomponents produced in the United States would 
increase from 60% to 100% by Fiscal Year 2017, which was even quicker than in the GROW 
America Act  and the Made in the U.S.A Act . In addition, this bill also sought to apply Buy America 
requirements to non-Department of Transportation programs, including the Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, Economic Development Administration-GPA/M/57 
 
- 9 - 
 
  funded projects, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation grants, and bridges 
over navigable waters funded under the Truman-Hobbs Act. 
2.7.  As in June 2014, Canada wished to register its concern with these proposals. Canada viewed 
these measures as "localization barriers to trade" – notably, attempts to encourage foreign 
suppliers to relocate to the U.S. in order to access government procurement opportunities in its 
territory. 
2.8.  Therefore, in light of Arti cle XXII:6 of the GPA, which provided that "[e]ach Party shall seek 
to avoid introducing or continuing discriminatory measures that distort open procurement", 
Canada asked the United States what specific steps it had taken to fulfil this commitment in relation to the proposed new fo rced localization requirements. 
2.9.  Continuing, he said that even if the pros pect that these proposals would eventually become 
law was uncertain, Canada remained concerned that the United States Administration was 
expressly supporting an increase in domestic cont ent requirements for the transit sector, thereby 
giving these legislative proposals added credibility. This, in turn, sent a negative signal to foreign 
suppliers that might influence future investment, distribution and supplier relationships. Moreover, 
the Administration's efforts to expand discriminatory restrictions in relation to the transit sector were also inconsistent with the G20 Trade Ministers reaffirmation in July 2014 of the commitment 
not to introduce new protectionist measures. 
2.10.  Canada recognized that the United States had made combatting localization barriers to 
trade a priority. Canada also agreed that breaking down localization barriers to trade with respect to government procurement was important. In this context, it stood ready to work collaboratively 
with the United States to further this objective and the objectives of the GPA, namely, achieving 
greater liberalization and expansion of international trade. However, in order to be effective, there needed to be consistency between domestic and international actions in this regard. 
2.11.  In Canada's view, GPA Parties had recognized in Article XXII:6 that new discriminatory 
measures that distort open procurement should be avoided. Such measures increased the complexity and costs associated with procurement processes; they restricted competition, limited 
choice and hindered the development of efficient gl obal value chains. Moreover, the introduction of 
discriminatory measures in one country could result in other trading partners imposing similarly detrimental measures. As the Committee moved forward with accession negotiations for prospective new Parties to the Agreement, it was crucial that Parties continued to maintain a high 
standard in terms of their commitments and adherence to its principles. 
2.12.  The representative of Japan, recalling the intervention that Japan had made at the June 
2014 meeting of the Committee, reiterated the concerns that its stakeholders had raised in regard 
to the growing trend towards strengthening or introducing Buy America provisions, notably in 
some specific fields. Like Canada, Japan had also, at the June 2014 meeting, raised concerns about the Grow America Act , which the United States Department of Transportation itself had 
taken the initiative to bring into effect.  
2.13.  Subsequent to that meeting, a Senator from Ohio had introduced another national level Buy 
American law on 31 July 2014 - the Invest in American Jobs Act . Japan understood that this would 
also include a number of mechanisms that would strengthen Buy American requirements, raising 
local content requirements from the current 60% to 100% not only in the programme of the 
Department of Transportation, in which Japanese stakeholders had a strong interest, but many other programmes including the drinking water programme. For many Japanese stakeholders 
invested in the US, the envisaged 100% domestic content requirement in a number of the current 
proposals would cause significant damage to their interests in the US government procurement market, and might lead to significant divestment by Japanese firms in the US market with an 
adverse impact on jobs in certain sectors.  
2.14.  In this connection, Japan asked the United States to explain the prospects for the 
aforementioned bills or proposals becoming law, and also to explain how the US government sought to maintain the non-discriminatory and open procurement regime that the GPA framework 
required of Parties. Japan also requested the United States to respect the spirit of Article XXII:6 of GPA/M/57 
 
- 10 - 
 
  the revised GPA and to refrain from introducing new discriminatory measures or strengthening the 
existing ones while taking steps to eliminate existing measures of that kind. 
2.15.  The representative of the European Union reiterated the concerns previously expressed by 
his delegation at the Committee's meeting in June 2014 regarding the proliferation of Buy America 
provisions in new US policies and legislative proposals at various levels. The European Union 
regretted the recent introduction, in addition to initiatives such as the Grow America Act , of new 
policy and legislative proposals into the US Congress which also contained domestic restrictions 
that applied to government procurement benefiting from Federal funds. The European Union 
shared the concerns already expressed by Canada and Japan in this regard. As an example, with 
regard to recent initiatives such as the Made in the USA Act  introduced on 29 July 2014 in the 
Senate by Senator Mark Pryor, this would require Federal Agencies to use iron, steel, wood 
products, cement and manufactured goods produced in the United States in public buildings and in 
transportation and infrastructure projects carried out using Federal financial assistance work projects.  
2.16.  The Invest in American Jobs Act  introduced in the Senate by Senator Sherrod Brown on 
31 July 2014 required that transportation and infrastructure projects carried out using Federal financial assistance be constructed with steel, ir on and manufactured goods that were produced in 
the United States. This bill, among other things, revised similar Buy American requirements with 
respect to public transportation - notably, with regard to rolling stock. Based on information at its disposal, it was the understanding of the European  Union that the bill foresaw the percentage of 
rolling stock components and sub-components produced in the United States to increase from 60% 
to 100%. From the perspective of the European Unio n, the strong tendency in the United States 
Congress to introduce policy and legislative proposals with Buy America discriminatory content had a high potential to affect the rights of the European Union's suppliers to access government 
procurement opportunities in the United States, and to discourage investment from European 
Union companies in the United States. They could also raise issues of compatibility with the GPA.  
2.17.  Such legislative proposals sent the wrong sign al to trading partners at a time of crisis when 
open markets were an essential requirement fo r speedy recovery. The European Union urged the 
United States not to further restrict access to it s procurement market by erecting new barriers to 
foreign participation. The European Union looked to the United States Government to ensure that any change to the current procurement regime will remain fully consistent with the United States' 
international obligations, and looked forward to receiving clarification from the delegation of the 
United States on those policy and legislative measures. The European Union would continue to monitor the related developments very closely. 
2.18.  The representative of Israel said that his delegation had been following developments 
closely and with great interest, and would continue to do so. Israel's interest also derived from 
complaints that it had received from Israeli companies. While Israel understood that some of the 
measures enacted by the US legislative branch were  still under discussion, it also noted that they 
had increased since 2009. In this connection, Israel wished to see a clear signal from the United States Government to the legislative branch saying that these measures were causing harm to the United States' trading partners. 
2.19.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said th at her delegation shared the concerns raised by 
Canada and other delegations with regard to recent  legislation in the United States that reflected 
repeated attempts to impose domestic content requirements on United States government 
procurement. Chinese Taipei looked forward to re ceiving clarifications and an assurance from the 
United States that its Buy America provisions and measures complied with the United States' WTO obligations, and that they did not cause any trade distortion or discriminatory effects regarding the 
interests of GPA Members. 
2.20.  The representative of Switzerland said that , by reason of its geographical proximity to the 
United States, Canada was likely to be more directly impacted than other Parties by developments 
in the United States. Switzerland had repeatedly underlined its understanding that legislation 
embodying Buy American requirements contained appropriate clauses providing that relevant 
restrictions did not apply to GPA Parties, and that the access of GPA Parties to the United States covered procurement market was thus not jeopardised. In this context, Switzerland had, on 
several occasions during the discussions in 2009 and 2010, requested that this commitment be GPA/M/57 
 
- 11 - 
 
  brought to the attention and full awareness of local entities, namely, that such restrictive and 
discriminatory measures did not apply to GPA Parties. 
2.21.  Switzerland had also had occasion to reflect upon the implementation of relevant provisions. 
From the perspective of Switzerland, it was of  the utmost importance to underline the very 
negative spillover effects that such measures could have with regard to covered procurement. 
While to some extent such measures concerned procurement that might not be covered by the GPA, the very existence of such discriminatory measures imparted a very negative influence on 
covered procurement and the rights of other Part ies in this respect. Accordingly, Switzerland 
sought clarification from the United States with regard to the question as to how to ensure that local entities were duly informed that the Buy America provisions were not applicable to GPA covered procurement, and that the market access rights of GPA Parties would not be impeded. 
2.22.  The representative of Singapore echoed the concerns that had been expressed by other 
Parties. Singapore urged the United States to take their GPA obligations into account when 
formulating related policies. 
2.23.  The representative of Norway said that he r delegation shared the concerns raised by other 
Parties at the June 2014 and the present meeting.  Norway was concerned about the possible legal 
and practical impact of such measures on GPA commitments. Furthermore, her delegation was of 
the view that it sent a negative signal also for non-covered procurement contrary to the objective 
of the GPA, and particularly Article XXII:6 on discriminatory measures. Norway joined other Parties in requesting the United States to provide an explanation and clarification on the matter. 
2.24.  The representative of Hong Kong, China recalled the statement that his delegation had 
made on the subject at the previous meeting in June 2014. Like other Parties, his delegation 
looked forward to hearing from the United Stat es on this issue in the foreseeable future. 
2.25.  The representative of the United States sa id that his delegation took note of the comments 
made by GPA Parties. The United States reiterat ed the statement that it had made at the June 
2014 meeting. The United States took its internat ional obligations seriously and insured that all 
covered procurement was conducted in a manner consistent with its obligations. It strongly 
supported efforts to combat localization. While the United States maintained certain Buy America 
requirements, these were applied consistently with its international obligations, and were designed and implemented transparently. The high degree of  transparency of the measures themselves was 
itself a contributory factor to the discussion that was taking place in the Committee on the issue.  
2.26.  He noted that all Parties to the Agreement excluded certain segments of their procurement 
from coverage under the Agreement. These exclus ions had long been understood to provide the 
required flexibility that Parties needed to si multaneously open up other sectors of their 
procurement. The United States saw no disconnect between combatting localisation broadly and 
allowing GPA countries to exclude certain procurements from coverage under the Agreement. 
3  OTHER BUSINESS 
3.1.  The representative of the European Union said that his delegation had notified
8 the 
withdrawal of the European Union's objection9 to Japan's withdrawal of the East Japan Railway 
company, Central Japan Railway company and West Japan Railway from Japan's Annex 3 to Appendix I to the GPA.
10 In August 2001, Japan had notified to the Committee its intention to 
delist those three Japan Railway companies from Annex 3 of its GPA coverage. The reason stated 
for the delisting had been the elimination of government control or influence, given that the companies had been privatized. The European Union, among other GPA Parties, had objected at 
the time to the delisting as doubt had existed as to whether there had been an effective 
elimination of control or influence by the Japanese government.  
3.2.  As a result of bilateral consultations with  the Government of Japan and without prejudice to 
the European Union's position with regard to a Committee Decision on Indicative Criteria pursuant 
Article XIX:8 (b) of the revised GPA, the European Union had decided to lift its objection to the 
                                               
8 GPA/MOD/JPN/74 of 28 October 2014. 
9 Notified in the communication GPA/W/156 dated 1 October 2001. 
10 Respectively GPA/W/144, GPA/W/145 and GPA/W/146, all dated 29 August 2001. GPA/M/57 
 
- 12 - 
 
  delisting of these entities. Therefore, the European agreed that Note 5 of Annex 3 of Japan's 
Appendix I Annexes to the revised GPA, which st ipulated that the three Japan Railway companies 
should be deemed to be included under Annex 3 until such time as the European Union withdrew 
its objection to the delisting of these companies,  should cease to apply. Accordingly, the three 
companies would no longer be part of Japan's GPA Annex 3 coverage. 
3.3.  The representative of Japan expressed his appreciation to the European Union for its efforts 
and its decision ultimately to withdraw its objections to Japan's proposal to delist the three 
Japanese Railways companies from Japan's schedule to the 1994 GPA. With the European Union's 
notification of withdrawal of objection, all obje ctions received with regard to Japan's proposed 
modification had been withdrawn. Accordingly, th e delisting of the three Japan Railway companies, 
namely the East Japan Railway company, Central Japan Railway company and West Japan Railway 
company, had come into effect on 28 October 2014 in the framework of the 1994 GPA.11  
3.4.  Continuing, he said that during the period  of the negotiation of the revised GPA, Japan and 
the European Union had been unable to agree on  the delisting of the three companies noted 
above. The two Parties had had different views as regards whether or not government control or 
influence had been effectively eliminated. Pursuant to this, Japan had declined to list the three entities in its Annex 3 coverage under the revised GPA; rather, it had included a note in Annex 3 
(Note 5) stipulating that the three companies were deemed to remain covered until the European 
Union withdrew its objections against the delisting of these companies. This Note had been accepted by all Parties as an integral part of Japan's final offer in the negotiations. Accordingly, Japan wished to reiterate to all Parties that the withdrawal by the European Union of its objections 
meant not only that the three Japan Railways companies had been delisted from 1994 GPA, but 
also that these companies had no more been within the scope of the revised GPA by its Note in Japan's schedule. 
3.5.  Noting that Japan's proposed modification regarding the three entities had taken thirteen 
years to become effective, he underscored the importance of the development of arbitration procedures under the revised GPA as was under discussion in the Committee.
12 If arbitration 
procedures had been available under the GPA at the time, this matter would have been resolved 
within in a much shorter period time with mutually satisfactory results. Japan accordingly expressed the hope that the arbitration procedures  would be adopted as early as possible and, in 
this regard, indicated its readiness to cooperate with other Parties for the early adoption of the 
expected Committee Decision on Arbitration Procedures. 
3.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
3.7.  The Chairman noted that the satisfactory re solution of this objection represented yet another 
significant success for the Committee in its present meeting. He commended the delegations for 
their courtesy, openness and engagement and hoped that the problem-solving spirit which they had exhibited would continue to be manifest ed in the future work of the Committee. 
 
__________  
                                               
11 WT/Let/1000 of 13 November 2014. 
12 Pursuant to Article XIX of the revised GPA.