TN/RL/W/255  
 
25 March 2014  
(14-1874) Page: 1/2 
Negotiat ing Group on Rules    
 
REPORT BY  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE  
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON  RULES1 
FRIDAY, 14 MARCH 201 4 
 
 
1.1.   Following the Chair's request at the 6 February meeting of the TNC, I invited interested 
Members to seek consultations. Numerous Members responded, filling all of the times lots that 
I had available. In addition to consulting with individual delegations, I met with two groups, and 
with one coordinator on behalf of a group.  
1.2.   In the consultations, the question that I posed was how if at all the delegations see Rules 
issues fitt ing into the overall post -Bali context, with focus on the work programme to be 
considered for the completion of the DDA. I invited delegations to consider whether the Rules 
issues might be considered as issues to be given priority in a work programme in th eir own right, 
or whether consideration of a work programme in Rules should in their view depend on 
developments in the shaping of work programmes in Agriculture as well as NAMA and Services, 
which some describe as the "core issues".  
1.3.   Importantly, all del egations noted the need to be realistic, to focus on what is doable, and to 
think creatively. Very few advocated simply picking up where we left off in spring 2011 when the 
Negotiating Group last met to discuss substance. Instead, most delegations consider ed that 
whatever the exact sequencing of the discussion, there needs to be serious horizontal reflection as 
to the overall scope and level of ambition of post -Bali activity, and that this should be the basis for 
a threshold determination of whether any or all of the Rules issues will be included in the next 
phase of our work, and if so, how.  
1.4.   On this threshold issue, delegations’ views fell along a broad spectrum. The middle position, 
expressed by a substantial number of delegations, was of openness to, ra ther than either 
insistence on  or opposition to , including Rules in the work programme. They expressed willingness 
to work constructively on any or all issues in the Rules mandate if Members collectively decide that 
Rules should form part of the work progr amme. Many of these delegations considered that 
whether, and how, to include Rules in the work programme logically could only be addressed once 
a certain clarity has been achieved on the scope and level of ambition of work on agriculture, 
NAMA and services .  
1.5.  A few delegations considered that Rules itself constitutes a core issue, alongside the other 
three. In their view, for different reasons, outcomes on at least certain of the Rules issues will be 
essential, either as an integral factor in addressing cert ain market access elements, or due to the 
unique nature, and urgency, of the problem being addressed. For these delegations, Rules (or at 
least some Rules issues) should be considered simultaneously or in parallel with the consideration 
of agriculture, NAM A and services in the horizontal discussions to set the scope and ambition level 
of the work programme. As explained below, these delegations often had differing views on which 
Rules issues should be included in, and which should be exclude d from, the work  programme.  
                                                
1 The content of this document is identical to that of JOB/GC/65 which was circulated following the 
14 March 201 4 meeting of the General Council.  TN/RL/W/255  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.6.  A few delegations considered that it would be unproductive or counterproductive to begin to 
consider Rules, at this stage or at least before the approach to the three so -called "core issues" 
has been determined and/or work begun in those areas . Some delegations stressed the criterion of 
doability, considering that in general the prospects for progress on Rules are limited. Others 
emphasized the importance of taking cognizance of changes that have occurred since the Rules 
negotiations were suspe nded in 2011. These include outcomes in dispute settlement that may 
affect certain issues under negotiation, and evolution in prior positions due to internal and 
international developments relating to particular negotiating areas and issues.  
1.7.  A final eleme nt is that Members generally did not insist on treating all of the Rules issues – 
anti-dumping and countervail, horizontal subsidies disciplines, fisheries subsidies, and RTAs – as a 
single, indivisible set of issues, versus focusing on only some of them. Some identified certain 
Rules issues (although views differed considerably as to which ones), as priorities for a future work 
programme, while either not demanding, or actively opposing, inclusion of other Rules issues. 
Other delegations, however, explicit ly objected to any "cherry picking" among the Rules issues, to 
maintain the overall balance among them. Still others considered that a more general approach 
should be taken in seeking to determine whether and how "Rules" might be included in the work 
progr amme. For these delegations it would be premature to focus on any particular area of the 
Rules mandate before that general decision is taken.  
1.8.  I have informed Members that I plan to make myself available for additional consultations 
around the time of the Rules Committee meetings, in late April. A few delegations indicated that 
they hope to have further clarified their views by then.  
__________