RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/97 
22 June 2009 
 
 (09-3052) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
12 MAY 2009 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Elin Østebø Johansen (Norway)
 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3361 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/621.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
 
I.
 NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.............................................2  
II. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS .............................................................................................2  
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ............................2  
B. DRAFT DECISION ON PROCEDURES LEADING TO THE VERIFICATION AND 
CERTIFICATION OF HS96  CHANGES RELATING TO THE SCHEDULES OF 64 MEMBERS ..............2  
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO  SCHEDULES OF 
TARIFF CONCESSIONS – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER .......................................2  
III. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES.......................................................................................3  
IV. CAPE VERDE – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATED TO THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF DUTY RATE REDUCTION ......................................................6  
V. BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA AND KOREA – REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER FOR PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/304;  G/C/W/620) .........................................6
 
VI. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................. .8 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING .....................................................................................................8  
 G/C/M/97 
Page 2  
 
  I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1 The Chair
 recalled that, under the working proced ures agreed by the Committee on Regional 
Trade Agreements following adoption by the Genera l Council of the Transparency Mechanism, the 
Council for Trade in Goods was to be kept informed of Members' notifications of new regional trade 
agreements.  She informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements had been notified to 
the RTA Committee: 
A. Free Trade Agreement between  Costa Rica and Panama (WT/REG264/N/1)  
B. Free Trade Agreement between China and New Zealand (WT/REG266/N/1) 
 
1.2 The Council took note  of the information presented. 
 
II. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS 
2.1 The Chairman  noted that the Market Access Committee had forwarded four items for 
consideration to the Council for Trade in Goods.    A. C
OMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE  
2.2 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the peri odic report of the Committee on Market 
Access contained in document G/MA/236.  As the repo rt was factual in nature, and reflected the work 
undertaken in the Market Access Committee, she s uggested that the Council take note of it.   
 2.3 The Council so agreed
. 
 B. D
RAFT DECISION ON PROCEDURES LEADING TO THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF 
HS96  CHANGES RELATING TO THE SCHEDULES OF 64 MEMBERS  
2.4 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the draf t decision on Procedur es Leading to the 
Verification and Certification of HS 96 Changes Relating to the Schedules  of 64 Members.  This draft 
decision had been circulated in G/ C/W/619 and was approved by the Co mmittee on Market Access.  She 
proposed that the Council approve this draf t decision and forward it to the General  Council for adoption.  
 
2.5 The Council so agreed . 
 C. I
NTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO  SCHEDULES OF TARIFF 
CONCESSIONS – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER  
2.6 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the draft waiver decisions circulated in documents 
G/C/W/616 and G/C/W/617 by Argentina and Panama respectively, which had been made in connection 
with the introduction of HS1996 changes into WTO sche dules of tariff concessions.  The current waiver 
decisions were contained in documents WT/L /733 and WT/L/734 respectively and expired on 
30 April 2009.  The one year extensions of the waiver decisions were the subject of consultations in the Market Access Committee wh ere they were considered at the form al meeting that took place on 28 April 
2009.  They had been forwarded by that Committee to the CTG for action.  She proposed that the 
Council approve the draft waiver decisions contained in G/C/W/61 6 and G/C/W/617 and forward them 
to the General Council for adoption.  2.7 The Council so agreed
. 
  G/C/M/97 
 Page 3 
 
 
  III. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES  
3.1 The Chair  recalled that at the Council's last mee ting on 24 March, the delegation of Turkey 
submitted a new proposal which was circulated in document G/C/W/614.  While several delegations 
spoke in favour of the new proposal, some others remained unconvinced of the need for the WTO to 
single out the textile sector for special study nor for the WTO to engage in what they viewed as policy 
advice.  A few other Members said that they needed more time to review the new submission.  Like 
previous discussions, this one remained inconclusive .  Recently, Turkey circulated a revised version 
of this submission.  This had been circulated in document G/C/W/614/Rev.1.   
3.2 The representative of Turkey  informed the Council that the delegation from the capital who 
had prepared the compilation study was expected at the meeting to react to Members' questions and 
comments but could not participate due to unexpect ed events. Therefore, his delegation requested 
discussion of this item at the next Council meeting.  He also informed the Council that his delegation 
had submitted a revision to the original document in G/C/W/614/Rev.1 with a few modifications and editorial changes in order to better reflect the studi es and make some references more clear.  These 
changes did not affect the substance of the study. 
3.3 The representative of China
 recalled that at the 24 March meeting of the Council, his 
delegation together with some othe r delegations made preliminary comments on the Turkish proposal.   
He had remarked that this new submission was misl eading and non-workable.   Firstly, it seemed that 
the real intention behind this agenda item was to  reverse trade liberalisation in this sector which 
Members had spent years to achieve.  In paragrap hs 2 and 3 of the submission, Turkey requested 
Members to also consider its previous submissi ons with the new one and quoted the submission in 
G/C/W/522. China was particularly concerned w ith the phrase "to develop appropriate remedies 
within the multilateral trade system."  For China, this meant reinstatement of the quota system.  In 
paragraphs 5 and 6, the proponent  further explained how much it appreciated the quota system.  China 
considered quota systems against the spirit of free trade in this Organization.  Many Members had clearly pointed out that any attempt to reverse th e process of trade liberalization was not acceptable.  
Secondly, what was the reason that some Members could not adapt to the post-ATC environment?  
Paragraph 4 of Turkey's submission answered this question where it explained that the Agreement on 
Textiles and Clothing had provided for a four stage process in eliminating the quota system but some Members back loaded this process and integrated 80% of the trade in the final stage.  It was largely 
this delayed liberalization that put  some developing Members in difficulties in an environment of fair 
competition. 
 
3.4 Thirdly, why did some Members succeed in  the post ATC era and others lose?  The key 
points were competitiveness and productivity.  The wo rld textile trade had never enjoyed a fairer and 
liberalized environment before the expiration of the ATC.  In an era with no quantitative restrictions, 
the productivity of enterprises would determine the market performance.  Those who gained 
advantages from quotas would naturally lose their mark et.  China's success was due to its open trade 
policy, its friendly investment environment, and its  hard-working textile workers.  Footnote 23 of 
Turkey's submission referred to some WTO docum ents which claimed that "certain government 
supports in contradiction with international trade ag reements, have played quite a substantial part in 
this success." (paragraph 11 of Turkey's submission) .  He questioned how the proponent could use an 
unsettled dispute settlement case to support its argume nts.  The proponent also implied that Members 
like China, India, Pakistan and Viet Nam were in creasing their market share at the expense of other 
developing Members and LDCs.  He did not believe this was true.  Some developing countries, even 
LDCs like Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Bangladesh, had done well in the post ATC era.  Therefore the 
proponent's argument did not hold water.  
3.5 Fourthly, his delegation did not find the concluding ideas reaso nable.  While the proponent 
requested the WTO to deal with development issues , as India had pointed out, the WTO, particularly G/C/M/97 
Page 4  
 
  the CTG, was not a forum for development issues.   The proponent requested international coherence 
on economic policies.  China reminded the proponent  that the CTG was an implementation body of 
existing trade rules and policies and any proposal a ttempting to establish new rules or policies should 
be submitted to the negotiating bodies.  As to the proponent's request for monitoring the development 
of trade in textile, he added that maybe it was necessa ry to monitor protectionism in this global crisis.  
If the ideas in this communication were followed, new trade protectionism would be created rather 
than monitoring protectionism.  He felt compelled to make such an in-depth statement to correct the 
misleading information contained in Turkey's co mmunication.  He concluded by repeating his 
delegation's position that the proposed programm e could not enjoy consensus in the CTG and 
maintaining it on the agenda was wasting the Council's time.   
 
3.6 The representative of Jordan
 supported Turkey's proposal to maintain the item on the agenda 
for the next meeting to discuss the submissi on with Turkey's experts from its capital. 
 3.7 The representative of Pakistan
 said that his delegation agreed with the Chinese comments.  
Turkey's submission contained discrepancies and problems which remained unanswered during the 
content of the document under review.  He asked that Members not forget the current times of 
financial and economic crisis and challenges being faced by the world community.  He asked 
Members not to challenge the credibility of the WTO as the guardian of multilateral free trading 
agreement systems nor to undo the gains of free trad e that had already been achieved and would be 
achieved in the future.  Going backwards w ould create unnecessary unease, not only amongst  
delegates, but also the rest of the world.  He drew Members' attention to the table of textile exports as 
a share in total merchandise exports on page 6 of the document.  This table did not really show that 
export volumes had increased over the last 7 years;  it was simply a comparison drawn on two specific 
periods.  This was just one example of misleading information.  A decision should be taken as quickly 
as possible not to linger on this issue in the Council. 
 
3.8 The representative of India  agreed to consider the proposal at the next meeting.  However, 
considering Turkey's statement that there was not hing new in the document made him wonder it there 
was any point in the Council lingering on this issue.  Members should recall that Turkey began by requesting a study; now it presented a study includi ng some data it selected.  While not wanting to 
discuss the data, he sufficed by saying that Member s had different interpretations based on their own 
analysis.  While Turkey had provided conclusions , his delegation had explained clearly why those 
conclusions were untenable.  It was not a part of the WTO mandate to look into any of these 
concluding proposals.  Turkey had made its point  through its series of submissions.  Under the 
circumstances, there would never be a consensus on  Turkey's  proposals and the matter should be laid 
to rest.  
 
3.9 The representative of El Salvador
 supported the idea to discuss the submission at the next 
meeting.  Her delegation was in favour of discussi ng this issue in the Council and with the spirit 
behind Turkey's submission.  3.10 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 agreed with India that there would never be a 
consensus on this issue so the Council should drop th is issue.  In the paper, it was not clear that 
actually Hong Kong, China was among those countries experiencing a decline in textiles and clothing 
exports.   Even so, it believed that its position was du e to a change in market share which was part of 
the adjustment process in the post AT C era.  There should be no excu se for any attempted restrictions 
or trade measures to undermine the joint liberali sation efforts achieved.  His delegation remained 
concerned about singling out the textiles and clothing sector for consideration of special treatment.   
 3.11 The representative of the Dominican Republic
 said that his delegation was in favour of  
debating this topic at the next meeting of the C ouncil.  Further, while his delegation understood that 
there were some Members which did not wish to di scuss this issue, there were a number of Members  G/C/M/97 
 Page 5 
 
 
  who were interested in discussing it at a greater leng th, either on the basis of the Turkish proposal or 
on another basis.  These delegation sought a more br oad and lengthy debate on this topic.  Therefore, 
his delegation agreed to postpone discussion to the next  meeting, but also requested that the matter be 
retained on the agenda of the Council.  
3.12 The representative of Korea
 believed that any trade related issue could be discussed in the 
WTO.  The issue of trade in textiles was not an exception and deserved Members' attention and 
serious discussion in the CTG.  However, his delegation did not understand what Turkey envisaged in its conclusions as an objective for discussion in the CTG, even though it was sympathetic with the situations some developing country  Members had gone through after the expiry of the ATC.  It was 
obvious that the WTO could not go backwards in term s of trade liberalisation, nor could it reintroduce 
a quota system only in the textiles and clothing sector.  In this light, if the proponent wanted a meaningful discussion in the CTG, the first task, would be to define the goal clearly taking into 
account the constraints Members were facing.  Then pe rtinent solutions or sugg estions with both short 
term and long term perspectives could be di scussed.  Korea hoped to see more constructive 
discussions on this issue. 
 3.13 The representative of Mauritius
 requested, like Jordan and other colleagues, that this item 
remain on the agenda.  Mauritius had on previous  occasions also supported this item due to the 
importance of textiles to its economy.  
3.14 The representative of Morocco
 also supported the proposal to discuss this matter at the next 
meeting.  3.15 The representative of Turkey
 commented on some of the concerns raised.  First, regarding the 
basis of the study, Turkey previously explained th at the main goal of compiling international studies 
was to understand better the impact of the phase- out on developing and least developed economies, 
not to challenge the existing liberalisation process.  This study would help in providing a forward- 
looking approach for the liberalisation process with out belittling the adverse and sudden effects of the 
phase-out.  Therefore, it had combined studies of di verse and varied international organisations.   
There was no doubt that his delegation's compilation study may further develop in scope, especially in 
light of the long range discussion in this area.  Yet the selection of studies was made by taking 
original studies which sought to answer questions about the effects of restructuring in the sector.  
Regarding the importance of the sector,  it was safe to  argue that it was crucial for many developing 
countries and that its role was important to allevi ate post ATC era difficulties relating to market share 
and unemployment.  This argument was reasonable, given that textiles and clothing made up some 5.5 
billion dollars of total merchandise trade, and that  developing country economies handled more than 
50% of the textiles and clothing trade which, for some  countries, made up more than three quarters of 
its merchandise trade.  On the question of singling out this sector, it had already been singled out as a 
separate WTO agreement.  Therefore it was an impor tant issue which should be discussed in the CTG 
as a trade related matter.  His delegation would ta ke the other comments and technical questions  
related to the reference studies back to the capital and revert with its comments and replies at the next 
CTG meeting.   
3.16 The Chair  concluded that, from today’s interven tions, it seemed clear that there was no 
agreement amongst Members on the Tu rkish proposal.  Several Members wanted to keep this item on 
the agenda, while some others did not see the need to  do so and would prefer that the item be taken off 
the agenda.  She did not believe that it served the Co uncil to maintain an item on the agenda simply for 
the sake of continuing inconclusive discussions.  Howe ver, she was also aware of the importance certain 
Members attached to main taining this item on the agenda.  Ther efore, she proposed that the Council 
maintain this item on the agenda for the next meeting.   If, at the next meeting, the discussion was again 
inconclusive, she would propose at that time that th e Council suspends discussion of this item until such 
time as Members could agree on a course of action or agree to drop this item from the agenda.  Given G/C/M/97 
Page 6  
 
  the wide divergence of views, the interested Members must work together to find a common ground to 
bring to the Council so that the Council could progress  constructively on this item.  Obviously, finding 
this common group would entail bilate ral and plurilateral consultati ons among the interested Members 
and as always, she was available to help on this if  necessary.  She proposed that the Council takes note 
of the statements made and reverts to this item at its next meeting with the understanding outlined 
above.  She encouraged Members to use the time between meetings to  meet so as to get a better 
appreciation of each other’s positions.  
3.17 The Council so agreed
. 
IV. CAPE VERDE – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATED TO THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF DUTY RATE REDUCTION  
4.1 The Chair  drew Members' attention to Cape Verd e's request for a waiver related to the 
implementation of its duty rate reduction commitments circulated in document G/C/W/618.  She 
recalled that she held an informal meeting of the Council on this matter the previous week.  At that 
informal meeting, the delegate of Cape Verde in troduced his Government's request and outlined the 
reasons for which it was seeking this waiver.  In  the ensuing discussion, several Members took the 
floor to voice support for this waiver request.  Be cause of conflicting commitments, the delegate of 
Cape Verde was not present at this meeting.  Because of his absence and because Cape Verde had not yet circulated a draft decision for this waiver request , she proposed that the Council takes note of this 
request, of her report on the informal meeting, and ag ree to revert to this item at its next formal 
meeting at which time Cape Verde would submit a draft decision for the Council's consideration. 
 
4.2 The Council so agreed
. 
 
V. BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA AND KOREA – REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION OF 
THE WAIVER FOR PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (W T/L/304;  G/C/W/620) 
5.1 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to the joint request by the delegations of Brazil, 
China, India and Korea for an extension of the waiver for preferential tariff treatment for least 
developed countries.  This request had been circul ated in document G/C/W/620.  The Annex to this 
document contained a draft decision for this requested  waiver.  As background, she explained that the 
waiver on Preferential Tariff Treatment for LDCs, c ontained in document WT/L/304, was adopted by 
the General Council on 15 June 1999.  It was due to expire on 30 June 2009.  This waiver had 
provided a legal framework for developing countri es to provide non-reciprocal preferential market 
access in favour of the LDCs.    5.2 She had held an informal meeting of the Counc il the previous week on this matter.  At that 
informal meeting, the Ambassador of India pr esented the joint request.  This presentation was 
endorsed by the other proponents of the request, Brazil, China, and Korea.  The ensuing discussion 
was positive and all Members who spoke voiced their s upport for the extension of the waiver.  In light 
of this positive reception, she would seek to m ove forward with requesting approval for the draft 
decision.   
5.3 The representative of Pakistan
 said that his delegation supported the proposal for the 
extension of the waiver for preferential treatment for least developed countries. 
 
5.4 The representative of India  thanked the Chair for holding the informal meeting which showed 
that Members were in favour of the proposal his de legation had made on behalf  of Brazil, China and 
Korea.  He asked that his Ambassador's statement at the informal meeting be included in the minutes 
of this meeting.    G/C/M/97 
 Page 7 
 
 
  5.5 At the informal meeting, the Ambassador of India  said that he was happy to introduce, on 
behalf of his delegation a nd on behalf of the delegations of Brazil, China and Korea, a proposal that 
sought to extend the Ministerial Decision granting a waiver under Article IX of the WTO Agreement 
to developing countries that provided preferentia l tariff access to LDCs. This document had been 
circulated to Members in Document GC/W/620 dated 4 May 2009.  Addressing the developmental 
concerns of LDCs through the grant of targeted preferential market access had been an underlying 
principle of this Organisation.  The GATT and th e Enabling Clause had always encouraged greater 
concessions to the least developed amongst the developing  countries.  In this re gard the focus on this 
issue over the past few years and the increasing ef forts of the WTO Membership was noteworthy.  
The Declaration on the Duty Free Quota Free Access for all LDCs was one such momentous decision 
adopted by the WTO Members at Hong Kong. 
 5.6 Over the last few years developing countries had been increasingly finding means within their 
own developmental imperatives to meet the require ments of the LDCs and grant them meaningful 
concessions.  Given the natural resource constraints the developing countries faced, this effort was 
certainly a positive development. Needless to sa y, given the right environment and enabling 
provisions, the developing countries could be encourag ed to enhance their efforts.  It was in this 
regard that the proposed waiver extension became important.  While a few developing countries did 
notify their Schemes during the original duration of the Decision, given that several were now putting into final shape their schemes, w ith some already having implemente d them, the continued legal cover 
that this waiver decision provided became crucial. India had announced a Duty Free Tariff Preference 
Scheme for all LDCs in April 2008.  He was confid ent that through this Decision, Members would be 
creating a stable and predictable legal basis for de veloping countries to continue implementing their 
schemes that offered LDCs preferential tariffs on a “generalized, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory basis”.   
5.7 The representative of Japan
 welcomed the proponents' initiative regarding this waiver request.  
Japan attached importance to measures to include market access for the LDC countries.  With this 
waiver, as well as Hong Kong Declaration, Japan i nvited developing countries Members to make 
efforts for further opening of markets for the LDC countries.  5.8 The representative of Tanzania
 spoke on behalf of his Ambass ador and requested that his 
statement from the informal meeting be included in the minutes of this meeting.   
 5.9 At the informal meeting, the Ambassador of Tanzania,
 speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, 
said that the main desire of LDC countries was to  achieve growth for the transformation of their 
economies, and for their meaningful integration into  the multilateral trading system.  For this reason, 
the LDCs Group was thankful to the positive decisions  and actions that had been taken by some WTO 
Members towards addressing and realising the de velopment needs of LDCs.  This included the 
provision of greater market access, and availing a dditional assistance and other concrete measures that 
complemented national efforts to enhance the produc tion, supply and trading opportunities of LDCs.  
However, this work was not yet completed as LDCs  still remained severely marginalised in global 
trade.  The LDCs Group was also grateful to the rest of the WTO Members who had declared their 
commitment to support LDCs, and hoped that th is would go beyond rhetorical support and be 
concretised, under a legally acceptable structure.    5.10 Ten years ago, WTO Members granted a Waiver on Preferential Tariff Treatment to LDCs.  This waiver had been a useful legal framework und er which developing countries, in particular, had 
been able to continue to initiate concrete po licy measures for enabling LDCs to become more 
competitive and to benefit from greater market acc ess and other advantages through the promotion of 
south-south trade, and improving thei r participation in the global trade.  No one could dispute that the 
Waiver had been a pillar and source of productive encouragement, certainty and confidence in the 
enhancement of market opportunities for LDCs.  The Waiver was to expire on 30 June 2009.  This G/C/M/97 
Page 8  
 
  was bad news for the LDC Group, particularly in the current turbulent situation of global financial and 
economic crisis, in which the weak economies were hardest hit for lack of resources.  The LDC Group 
was therefore unanimous that the need for the Waiver  was still necessary, and had in fact increased.  It 
should, therefore, be extended.  In this regard , the LDC Group thanked India for articulating the case 
for and justification of the request to extend the waiver, and Brazil, China and the Republic of Korea 
for co-sponsoring this issue.  Finally, he recogni sed some useful proposals from several delegations 
on the need to elaborate an even better and more  comprehensive support package for LDCs.  While 
appreciative of such ideas, the LDC Group wished to  stress that these should not derail or interfere 
with the urgency of the request for this waiver extens ion.  It was therefore his appeal and hope that the 
request for the waiver extension be considered promptly and favourably.   
 
5.11 The representative of Korea
 also requested that his delega tion's statement from the informal 
meeting be included in the minutes of this meeting.    5.12 At the informal meting, the representative of Korea said that his delegation echoed the 
statement by India.  His delegation fully underst ood the special circumstances LDC countries were 
facing in the world economy, and the necessity for the extension of this waiver.  Preferential treatment 
for LDC countries could provide improved market access opportunities, thereby making LDCs fully 
participate in the multilateral trading system.  In th is light, the extension of the Waiver decision was 
essential for LDC countries to obtain sufficient benefit from the multilateral trading system.  His delegation called on WTO Members to positively consid er the waiver extension request so that the 
final decision could be adopted at the ne xt meeting of the General Council.   
 5.13 The representative of Haiti
 said that his delegation wished to thank the proponents of the 
extension request.  He recalled that all internati onal organisations recognised the LDCs as a category 
of particularly disadvantaged states and, in that regard, these states much merited the attention of the 
international community in the application of such measures.  He thanked the proponents for 
committing themselves to putting an end to the margin alisation and vulnerable condition of the LDCs.  
His delegation hoped that this request would be approved by the Council and submitted to the next 
General Council meeting for adoption.  5.14 The representative of India
 also wished to recall one othe r issue that was discussed in the 
informal meeting.  Taking into consideration ot her initiatives which had been taken for LDCs in the 
WTO, his Ambassador had announced that India would be separately examining, in a different setting and body, making certain changes and putting into place a related om nibus instrument.  This, of 
course, would be looked at in full co nsultation with all the Members.    
 
5.15 The Council
 took note of the statements made, approved the draft decision contained in 
G/C/W/620, and agreed to forward it to the General Council for adoption.  
VI. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. D
ATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
6.1 The Chairman  informed Members that the next meeting of the CTG was scheduled to take 
place on Monday, 29 June 2009.  The agenda would close on Friday, 19 June 2009. 
 6.2 The meeting was adjourned.  
__________