RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/115 
10 October 2008 
 (08-4811) 
General Council 
31 July 2008  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 31 July 2008  
 
Chairman:  Mr Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Report by the Chairman of th e Trade Negotiati ons Committee ..........................................2  
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committ ee on Trade and Development ........................................8  
3. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment – Report by the 
Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development................9  
4. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 
1994 – Communications from Honduras and Guatemala – Statement by the 
Chairman....................................................................................................................... ..........10  
5. Transparency for Preferential Trade Arrangements – Statement by the 
Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development ...................................................17  
6. Committee on Budget, Finan ce and Administration ...........................................................18  
(a) Report of the Committee on its meeting of May 2008 .............................................................18  
(b) Report of the Committee on its meeting of July 2008 ..............................................................20  
7. Waivers under Article IX of  the WTO Agreement..............................................................20  
(a) Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff 
concessions – Requests for ex tensions of waivers....................................................................20  
(i) Argentina ...................................................................................................................... ............20  
(ii) Panama ......................................................................................................................... ............20  
(b) Senegal – Customs Valuation Agreement – Request for extension of waiver..........................21  
(c) Review of waivers pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement ......................................21  
(i) Preferential tariff treatment for least-d eveloped countries, granted on 15 June 1999 
until 30 June 2009............................................................................................................. ........21  
(ii) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Ag reement with respect to pharmaceutical 
products, granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 ...........................................................21  
(iii) Albania - Implementation of specific concessions, granted on 26 May 2005 until 1 January 2009 ................................................................................................................. ........21
 WT/GC/M/115 
Page 2  
 
(iv)
 European Communities - Preferences for Albani a, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, 
Serbia and Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, granted on 28 July 2006 until 31 December 2011 .................................................................................21
 
(v) United States - Former Territory of the Pacific  Islands, granted on 27 July 2007 until 
31 December 2016 ............................................................................................................... .....21  
(vi) Mongolia - Export duties on raw cashmere, granted on 27 July 2007 until 29 January 
2012 ........................................................................................................................... ...............21  
8. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory 
Group on its Forty-first Session.............................................................................................22  
9. Statement by Sri Lanka on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing 
Countries...................................................................................................................... ............23  
10. Chairmanships of the TRIPS Council, th e Negotiating Group on NAMA and the 
Special Session of the TRIPS Council ...................................................................................23  
11. Administrative Measures fo r Members in arrears ..............................................................24  
 
 
 Prior to adoption of the Agenda, the Chairman  welcomed, on behalf of all Members, Cape 
Verde, which had formally become th e 153rd Member of the WTO on 23 July. 
  The representative of Cape Verde
 expressed his pleasure at taking the floor on behalf of his 
Government for the first time as a Member.  While the road had been difficu lt, the will to overcome 
had been stronger.  One of his Government's strategi es to deal with the cha llenge of development was 
to support and encourage Cape Verde's trade opening without losing sight of its economy's 
vulnerability and lack of competitiveness.  WTO ac cession was not just an ideal but a strategy to 
enhance economic competitiveness, diversify exte rnal investment opportunities and thus reduce 
poverty.  The economic and social conditions of recen t years which had led to Cape Verde's official 
removal from the list of LDCs remained largely depe ndent on external factors, particularly official 
development assistance and transfers from the dias pora living abroad.  It was therefore crucial for 
Cape Verde to adopt a proactive attitude, un dertake far-reaching reforms and seek innovative 
solutions to ensure sustainable development.  WTO accession and integration into the world economy 
could do much to help Cape Verde achieve these goals.  Cape Verde was on track to achieve the 
Millennium Development Goals, and its accession could enable it to travel the rest of the way with 
less difficulty.  His Government was aware of its commitments and was working flat out to comply 
with the transition period granted in the negotia ting process and to conform to WTO principles.  
However, it needed collaboration and assistance from a ll concerned if it was to meet these objectives 
more easily.  Cape Verde deemed it essential that it should immediately become more active in the 
negotiating process and contribute to enhancing th e debate within the African Group and the ACP 
countries at all levels.  To that end, steps would be  taken to ensure that these contributions were more 
effective and in line with Cape Verde's responsibilities as a Member .  His Government had followed 
the negotiations of the past few days attentively an d had learned with great apprehension that not all 
the proposed objectives had been ach ieved.  It considered that it  was now necessary to work even 
harder, and that Members should demonstrate moderati on so that an agreement could be found in the 
near future. 
 
 
1. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
1. The Chairman  invited the Director-General, as Chairman of the TNC, to report on the TNC's 
activities since his last report to the Council.  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC , said that as he had foreshadowed in his last 
report to the Council in May, the pace of work in the negotiations had intens ified dramatically over 
the past weeks.  The circulation of revised draf t modality texts by the Chairs of Agriculture and 
NAMA on 10 July had been the starting points for the process aimed at the finalisation of modalities in these two key areas, which he had set out in his last  report.  As all were aware, this process, which 
had enjoyed the presence in Geneva of a good number of Ministers, Vice-Ministers and Senior 
Officials, had failed to reach its goal, despite mo re than a week of very intensive negotiations.  
Members had been unable to bridge their differences in the area of the Special Safeguard Mechanism, 
and had not even come to discussing Cotton.  This f act had been recorded at a formal meeting of the 
TNC the previous day.  His statement at that meet ing had been circulated in document JOB(08)/94.  
Despite this setback to Members' collective goal of  concluding the Doha R ound successfully in 2008, 
much had been achieved during this very intensive phase of work.  Members had been very close to 
finalizing modalities in Agriculture and NAMA.  A large number of issues which had remained 
intractable for years had been unlocked.  Negotiato rs had been prepared to reach out beyond their 
entrenched positions and seek compromise, and he th anked them for their constructive spirit and hard 
work.  This proved it could be done.  Over the period  leading up to this intensive phase, the Chairs of 
the Negotiating Groups had circulated reports on the state of play in their respective areas, including 
reflections on the way forward.  The Agriculture a nd NAMA Chairs would also shortly be circulating 
reports capturing the work of the past few days.  He had also issued his report on the Services 
Signalling Conference held on 26 July.  Overall, these  reports underlined the breadth and depth of the 
progress Members had made right across the Single Undertaking.  The reports also showed the wide 
and deep range of benefits this  Round could provide.  All Members recognized the progress they had 
made and the value of what was already on the table, in particular with regard to developing and least-
developed countries. 
3. What he had heard the previous day from dele gations' statements was loud and clear – no one 
wanted to see all of this go to waste.  Also, ther e had not been the blame game that usually followed 
intensive and tough bargaining when it did not work.  He thanked all for that expression of collective 
responsibility, restraint and wisdom.  Instead, there had been multiple strong calls for preserving the 
package that had been so painfully negotiated, in order to conclude the Round successfully.  This left 
him with no doubt that, considering what was on the table now, Members believed that the Doha 
Round was still worth fighting for.  No one was throwi ng in the towel.  Ensuring the continuance of a 
strong and effective multilateral trading system was in the interest of all.  However, one had to be 
lucid – given where the negotiation had broken down,  building on the progress made so far would not 
be easy, and Members should be under no illusion as to what this recent failure meant for the 
credibility of their collective endeavour.  He had also  suggested that all Memb ers needed to seriously 
reflect about how they saw  the next step.  He would be consu lting and listening as usual, but in his 
view, where there had been deadlock, new ideas a nd new solutions had to be found and tested. 
4. The Chairman
 said he wished at the outset to thank, on behalf of all Members, the two 
outgoing negotiating group Chairs, Mr Ahmad (Pakista n) and Mr Stephenson (Canada), who had both 
done outstanding work in guiding important areas of the negotiations.  Theirs had not been easy tasks, 
but they had carried them out with great commitment, professionalism and good humour under 
pressure.  All owed them a great deal for their ser vice to the organization and the interests of all 
Members.  He wished them the best in their futu re endeavours, and looked forward to seeing both of 
them in Geneva again. 
5. Mr Stephenson (Canada), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on NAMA , said that he would 
very soon issue a report that would try to capture the progress Members had made in recent days and, 
at a minimum, record the state-of-play on the va rious issues.  As NAMA Chair he was of course 
disappointed with the result, but that was not what he would remember most.  After he had forgotten 
about coefficients and sliding scales, he would re member the friendships and the confidence Members 
had placed in him, for which he was deeply grateful .  He would remember also the Director-General, WT/GC/M/115 
Page 4  
 
whom Members had hired for the depth of his inte lligence and understanding of the issues, but whose 
remarkable depth of caring they had discovered in the past 10 days.  He also wished to pay tribute to the Agriculture Chair, the General Council Chair and the Secretariat, particul arly the Market Access 
Division who had given him extraordinary help.  Memb ers had an extraordinary tool in the Secretariat 
– whose staff were expert, creative and objective – and should let them help a little more.  He also 
wished to bid farewell to those of his colleagues wh o were also leaving Geneva.  To those who were 
staying, he wished to give three pieces of advice – rest, reflect and reboot – and get the process started 
again as quickly as possible. 
6. The representative of Cameroon
, speaking on behalf of the ACP banana-producing countries , 
endorsed the statements at the 30 July TNC mee ting by Mauritius for the ACP Group, Kenya for the 
African Group, as well as the views of the C-4 on cotton.  Statements had been made by certain 
Members concerning the signing of the so-called Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between 
the European Community and the Latin American count ries.  However, the banana issue had not been 
adequately addressed, and this was unsatisfactory.   While this agreement's objective might be 
welcomed, one could not overlook the serious concerns raised in the ACP countries by the provisions 
of this text.  The ACP banana-producing countri es were not prejudging the legal value of this 
agreement.  Regarding the results of the simulation activities carried out, the collateral damage to their 
countries' banana industries was so severe that they could not, for the time being at least, consider the 
content of this agreement as a possible integral part of any future modalities in Agriculture.  
Moreover, they wished to reiterate at this time thei r desire to work in a spirit of openness, and with the 
entire Membership, to ensure that  the ACP bana na issue was addressed in an appropriate manner 
from now on, and was no longer classed as a mi nor detail when Members resumed work on 
concluding the Round following a period of rest a nd reflection.  Their countries were awaiting the 
conclusion of the Round, as they wanted development.  They thanked the Director-General, his team and all his colleagues for their good work in organizing  the mini-Ministerial meeting of the past days. 
7. The representative of Bolivia
 said that as her delegation's view s were reflected in a general 
manner in her statement at the TNC meeting the pr evious day, she would address only a few points.  
Regarding the report Members had just heard, ther e was a doubt she wished to clear up.  Note had 
been taken at the TNC meeting – very rapidly and without discussion of all the issues – of a series of 
elements.  Bolivia wished an account to be given of  all the items that had b een noted, since there had 
been no discussion or reading of all the items c oncerned.  She expressed this concern because her 
delegation was not sure what points had been noted  and, depending on this, would take the floor 
again, as the position of a number of countries, particularly her own, was not properly reflected in 
some of the possible elements from the previous day.   She wished to have these clarifications before 
continuing her statement. 
8. The Chairman  said that at the TNC meeting, Members had taken note of the reports of the 
Chair of the TNC and of the Negotiating Group Ch airs.  At the present meeting, Members were 
dealing with the report of the Director-General and w ould be seeking to take note of that report.  Any 
delegation was of course free to comment on any of these issues or reports. 
9. The representative of Bolivia  said that prior to the TNC meeting the previous day, a document 
had been made available to Members outside the meeting room entitled "Reports by Chairpersons", 
which comprised a set of reports, but which incl uded neither intellectual property nor Services.  
Moreover, she understood that the Services Signalling Conference report had recently been circulated, 
and that there were still elements of Agriculture  and NAMA to come in the future.  It was her 
delegation's understanding that note had been taken only of the reports made available to Members 
just prior to the meeting.  As it had not been po ssible, for whatever reason, for the Chairpersons to 
introduce their respective reports, and there had be en no specific discussion of those reports, all the 
other reports did not, as far as Bolivia was concerne d, represent the basis for future work and did not 
imply any legal responsibility on the part of any Me mber, since they did not reflect, or only poorly 
reflected, the views of her Government.   WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 5 
 
 
  10. The Chairman  clarified that other than the further pr ogress reports to come from the Chairs of 
the Agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups, all reports had been circulated.  A compilation document issued at the beginning of the Ministerial process contained a number of these reports.  Furthermore, on 28 July the Chair of the Services Special Session had issued his report in document 
TN/S/34, and earlier on 9 June a report had been i ssued by the Director-General on TRIPS-related 
issues in document WT/GC/W/591–TN/C/W/50.  The compilation document to which he had just 
referred contained reports from the Chairs of th e Special Sessions of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (TN/CTD/22), TRIPS Council (TN/IP/18), Committee on Trade and Environment (TN/TE/18) and the DSB (TN/DS/22), as well as the negotiating groups on Trade Facilitation 
(TN/TF/6) and Rules (TN/RL/22).  These reports had all been circulated.  Members were awaiting 
only the reports from the Chairs of the Agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups.  Any Member was 
free to comment on any of those reports or on the report of the TNC Chair at the present time. 
11. The representative of Bolivia
 said she agreed that what was available to Members was the set 
of reports the Chair had read out from the compilati on document.  Bolivia had no difficulty with this, 
because that was what had been made available to  Members prior to the TNC meeting.  Regarding 
other reports, including the TRIPS repor t of 9 June and the Services re port in TN/S/34, Bolivia had no 
comments, since its views on these topics were well known.  However, it was her delegation's 
understanding that none of the other outstanding reports, namely those on Agriculture, NAMA and 
the Services Signalling Conference, had been noted .  On that basis, she saw no difficulty in 
continuing. 
12. The representative of Cuba  said his delegation wished to congratulate those who were leaving 
their posts in Geneva and extend condolences to those recently arrived.  Members were embarking on 
a road to hell, and it was good for the new arrivals to know this so they would be prepared.  One did not yet know how these negotiations would proceed, and he therefore urged caution and asked that 
heed be paid to the Members, since this was a Member-driven organization.  Accordingly, as the 
Director-General had said, it was necessary to cons ult and, above all, necessary to listen and to see 
how best to move forward, without of course ruli ng out the possibility of returning to the negotiating 
groups.  In regard to the concern expressed by Bolivi a, which Cuba also shared to some extent, his 
delegation had noted the reports that had been me ntioned.  He believed it would be helpful and 
sensible to clarify or specify what reports were be ing referred to when Members took note of them.  
He also wished to clarify and emphasize Cuba's in terpretation that the various Chairs' reports were 
issued under their own responsibility and did not – as had been pointed out by Bolivia – necessarily 
incorporate the views of Members in a definitive manner.  Given that nobody knew when the 
negotiations would be resumed, the reports necessar ily had to provide an adequate and objective 
reflection of what had happened in the negotiations thus  far.  He wished make a heartfelt appeal to the 
Chairs to revise their reports in order to take account  of the views of all Members.  In so doing, his 
delegation endorsed the statements by several dele gations at the TNC meeting the previous day, 
which had pointed out that acc ount should be taken of the specific situation of each and every 
Member, because despite its membership status, if  its position was not reflected, any Member could 
block the consensus of many others.  In view of a ll the work that had been done, Cuba called for note 
to be taken of all the views expressed.  He asked that his delegation's statement at the 30 July TNC 
meeting be included in the records of the present meeting.
1 
13. The representative of Pakistan , also on behalf of Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Hong 
Kong China, Israel, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Singapore and Thailand , said that while Members had 
had a setback, the imperative was to get the Doha Round back on track.  Members needed to start the 
process of re-engagement when they returned in Sept ember.  To this end, these countries proposed the 
following:  First, that Members consolidate and preserve the progress made, which was a result of 
                                                      
1 The statement by Cuba at the meeting of the TNC on 30  July, which is reflected in the records of that 
meeting in document TN/C/M/28, is incorporated by reference into the present records.  WT/GC/M/115 
Page 6  
 
their collective efforts.  In this regard, they st rongly supported that the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs 
produce reports that captured the progress made in a suitable manner that would facilitate Members' 
further negotiations.  Second, that Members re-enga ge in September with a view to formulating a 
substantive work plan as soon as possible for the fe w remaining issues in Agriculture and NAMA, and 
accelerate the work in other areas under the Single U ndertaking.  Members should continue to keep 
their sights trained on the strategic economic benefi ts that would ensue from a successful conclusion 
of the DDA and work together to  attain their common objective. 
14. Speaking on behalf of Pakistan
, he wished to thank the General Council Chair for his 
leadership throughout the year, and to wish all the outgoing Ambassadors well.  In particular, he 
wished to thank the Ambassador of Brazil for his l eadership of the G-20, the former Council Chair, 
Mr. Glenne (Norway), for his foresight and overall contribution and his leadership of the Council two 
years earlier, and the NAMA Chair for having led Me mbers in the NAMA negotiations and kept all in 
good humour. 
15. The representative of Bangladesh  said his delegation had not taken the floor at the TNC 
meeting because it was reflecting and trying to take  a dispassionate look at the whole outcome.  His 
delegation could now say that it fully agreed with the assessment given by the Director-General.  The 
only point of emphasis would be that, while one of ten heard both within and outside the Green Room 
that this whole outcome would weaken the multilateral process, Bangladesh thought the organization had once again proved its tenacity, and that Members had also proved the ability to handle differences 
and, more importantly, shown the courage to identify the fault lines and get back to work again.  If 
there was one organization in global economic governan ce that could be singled out in terms of its 
ability to handle complex problems, it was the WTO.  Therefore, he was leaving with the thought that 
it had been worth the try, worth taking the political risk, and that the result was not something to be 
thrown away, but had made the system stronger, not weaker.  This was the point of emphasis he 
wished to make.  The second point was the progr ess Members had made.  Each Member knew the 
progress it had made in its respective areas of inte rest.  Bangladesh, along with the LDCs, had made 
significant progress in terms of having an improved DF QF text.  They had also made progress up to a 
point on the preference-erosion issue, including its second- and third-order problems.  Also, in the din 
and bustle of the hectic negotiati ons on modalities, the success of th e Services Signalling Conference 
had not been fully recognized and appreciated.  This  had been one of the ma jor successes of the past 
two weeks.  It had been an innovative and genui ne approach, and progress had been made.  In 
addition, notwithstanding the fact that it had been a plurilateral effort, the issue of LDC mechanisms 
for giving priority to LDC interests in Services ha d also been mentioned in the process, and the LDCs 
greatly appreciated that. 
16. Bangladesh joined those who called for lock ing in the progress that had been made, 
consolidating that progress, and building incremen tally on it.  Members needed to find a suitable 
mechanism to do that.  They should not let the po litical momentum dissipate, and had to capitalize on 
it as long as it was available.  If this meant action be fore September, he urged the Director-General to 
consider and explore any innovative, fresh and creativ e approaches, both targeted and comprehensive.  
Small and open economies like Banglad esh had no other option but to put their trust, rightfully, in an 
open and rule-based multilateral system that was evolving.  It wished to contribute to that and felt this 
was its best option.  It was ev ident that trade was a handmaiden to improved devel opment, and was 
best served under the WTO mechanism.  With all Me mbers' differences, this remained a fundamental 
truth.  One often heard the word "leadership" u sed in referring to the Director-General, but 
"statesmanship" seemed to apply better.  Also, the S ecretariat, with its proactive but very fair and 
objective role, had elevated itself.  The Ambass adors and delegates with whom all had worked, 
though they had been tough, had been fair and patriotic to their own national causes as they had 
deemed fit.  If it had been a journey to hell, as some had said, he was ready to take the journey again, 
and very soon.  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 7 
 
 
  17. The representative of Jamaica  said her delegation had not s poken at the TNC meeting as its 
positions had been captured in the statements by Guyana for CARICOM, Mauritius for the ACP, 
Indonesia for the G-33 and Barbados for the SVEs, a nd also in the statement by Cameroon earlier at 
the present meeting.  Jamaica felt a sense of regret that Members had not been able to conclude modalities, even though the emergi ng agreements in some respects would have caused great difficulty 
for it domestically.  Nevertheless, her country had been in the middle of discussions aimed at seeking 
ways to mitigate those adverse effects when th e breakdown had occurred.  Jamaica hoped Members 
would find ways to build on the progress made in order to complete the Round as soon as possible, while never losing sight of the development dimensi on which had brought Members to the table in the 
first place.  Jamaica remained a firm supporter of  the multilateral trading system and was convinced 
that, on balance, it could deliver benefits to a ll.  Jamaica would continue to play its part. 
18. The representative of the Bolivar ian Republic of Venezuela
 thanked the Director-General for 
the information he had given Members.  He was ma king his debut at what could be called a critical 
time for the organization, but this obstacle was su rmountable.  Everything was surmountable.  In his 
statement, the Director-General had implied th at there was a consensus on what was known as the 
package.  No doubt there were many statements  by large groups of countries which expressed the 
wish to endorse the package, but the group of count ries of which Venezuela was part – which had as 
much standing as the others – had expressed its oppos ition.  The package had not been discussed, it 
was the product of a less-than-transparent approach , it did not include proposals by the majority of 
developing countries, and hence the documents should be re-evaluated and revised.  However, while 
his delegation did not agree with that part of the Director-General's statement, he was a militant of 
hope.  As a citizen of a third world country with dreams, he had been encouraged by two phrases in 
the DG's statement.  One was th at "we shall hold consultations", as his delegation hoped that those 
who had continuously been left out of the consu ltations would now be consulted.  The other phrase 
was that "new ideas will flourish".  Members shoul d arm themselves with new ideas, and above all 
with new procedures, in order to make this process more transparent, more democratic, more inclusive 
and, in particular, to give priority to the inter ests of developing countries.  As a militant of hope, he 
expected that those consultations and those new id eas would be the new markers of this process which 
the Director-General had said would be initiated forthwith. 
19. The representative of Argentina  said his delegation was grateful for the Director-General's 
report.  He would not address the substance of this  issue, as his Minister had done this at the TNC 
meeting the previous day.  He simply wished to re fer to a procedural matter, since there appeared to 
have been some confusion about what Members were  considering at the present meeting.  Argentina 
wished to place on record that the alleged area s of progress in Agriculture and NAMA had neither 
been discussed, analysed nor agr eed in any formal negotiating fo rum.  Consequently, any text 
produced by the respective Chairs wa s under the sole responsibility of those Chairs.  They formed part 
of neither the TNC report nor the report of the Direct or-General to the General Council, and they were 
not even to be taken note of under this Item of the present meeting's agenda.  Any document 
circulated on the subject would certainly be consid ered by delegations and would have to follow its 
course into the formal negotiating groups, as requi red by the rules governing this exercise.  He 
requested that his delegation's statement at the 30 Ju ly TNC meeting be included in the records of the 
present meeting.2 
20. The representative of Costa Rica  requested that his delegation's statement at the 30 July TNC 
meeting be included in the records of the present meeting.3  He wished to add a word of thanks to 
Pakistan for its statement in the name of the "middl e ground" countries of which Costa Rica was part.  
                                                      
2 The statement by Argentina at the m eeting of the TNC on 30 July, whic h is reflected in the records of 
that meeting in document TN/C/M/28, is incorp orated by reference into the present records.  
3 The statement by Costa Rica at the meeting of the TNC on 30 July, which is reflected in the records 
of that meeting in document TN/C/M/28, is inco rporated by reference in to the present records.  WT/GC/M/115 
Page 8  
 
He also wished to welcome the new ambassadors a nd tell them that things were not as bad as they 
looked, that the organization continued to be a funda mental pillar of the international community, that 
the WTO continued to exist, that trade rules at pre sent – in every customs office and at every border – 
continued to be governed by the WTO Agreements, a nd that Members had an enormous task ahead if 
the work and progress achieved were not to be rend ered null and void.  That was a huge challenge, 
and his delegation was confident that it would insp ire delegations and that they would all work 
together to ensure that this was not a descent into hell, as Cuba had said, but an inspiration to achieve 
better results, since the WTO was always capable of  improvement.  He also wished to thank those 
who were leaving Geneva for their long and unt iring efforts during the negotiations to seek 
convergences and overcome differences. 
21. The representatives of Argentina
, Ecuador , El Salvador , India , Lesotho for the LDCs , 
Mauritius , Oman , Philippines , Thailand , Turkey  and Uruguay  requested that their delegations' 
statements at the 30 July TNC meeting be in cluded in the records of the present meeting.4 
22. The General Council took note  of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
23. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting in Febr uary and March 2002, the General Council 
had taken note of a framework and procedures fo r the conduct of the Work Programme on Small 
Economies, under which this Work Programme w ould be a standing item on the General Council's 
agenda.  The framework and procedures also pr ovided that the Committee on Trade and Development 
shall report regularly to the General Council on the pr ogress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this 
subject.  Furthermore, Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed the CTD, under the overall 
responsibility of the General Council,  to continue the work in the Dedicated Session and to monitor 
progress of the small economies' proposals in the ne gotiating and other bodies.  In December 2006, on 
the basis of a report by the Chair of the CTD in Dedicated Session, the General Council had taken note that Members in that body would be pursui ng the substantive work under the Small Economies 
Work Programme. 
24. Mr Servansing (Mauritius), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD
, said that since his 
last report to the Council in May, the proponents of  the Work Programme had been actively pursuing 
their issues of interest in the Doha Round.  They had participated fully the previous week in the 
intense negotiations on modalities and other issues, with several of thei r Ministers present at the talks.  
At its most recent meeting on 15 July, the CTD in Dedicated Session had addressed the possible next 
steps in this Work Programme, and it had been s uggested that the Dedicated Session might meet in 
late September or early October to discuss the late st developments in the negotiations affecting SVE 
interests.  In the meantime, in order to prepare fo r that meeting, the Secretariat had been asked to 
circulate a revised and updated version of the exis ting compilation paper which monitored the various 
proposals made by the SVEs in the Doha negotiati ng groups and other WTO bodies.  It was therefore 
very likely that a meeting of the Dedicated Session  would be called in the coming months to take 
stock of this Work Programme overall and to decide on any necessary next steps. 
25. The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the SVEs , thanked the Chair of the CTD in 
Dedicated Session for his report which the SVEs fu lly endorsed.  SVE issues and interests had been 
appropriately ventilated in many different fora over the preceding weeks, and the Dedicated Session 
continued to act as a repository to record the pr ogress made and the progress still needed in a number 
of areas under the Single Undertaking.  The proponent s had requested that consideration be given to 
                                                      
4 The statements by Argentina, Ecuador, El Salv ador, India, Lesotho for the LDCs, Mauritius, Oman, 
Philippines, Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay  at the meeting of the TNC on 30 July, which are reflected in the 
records of that meeting in document  TN/C/M/28, are incorp orated by reference into the present records .  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 9 
 
 
  holding a formal Dedicated Session sometime in the l ast quarter of the year to allow them to take 
stock of the Work Programme within the Co mmittee, and that the accompanying monitoring 
document be updated to reflect their more recent pr oposals and the references to  SVEs in the different 
revisions of the NAMA and Agriculture modalities text s.  At the recently concluded mini-Ministerial 
meeting, at least 12 SVE proponents had been represented at Ministerial or Senior Official level.  This 
alone gave an indication of the political importance of continuing to craft appropriate solutions to 
their concerns, and the importance the SVEs ascrib ed to the WTO and to the completion of the 
Development Round. 
26. The General Council took note  of the report by the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statement. 
3. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment – Report by the Chairman of 
the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
27. The Chairman  recalled that Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed the Committee on Trade 
and Development in Special Session to expeditiously complete the review of all the outstanding 
Agreement-specific proposals and to report to the General Council – with clear recommendations for 
a decision – by December 2006.  As regards the Cate gory II proposals that had been referred to other 
WTO bodies and negotiating groups, Ministers had al so instructed that these bodies expeditiously 
complete the consideration of these proposals and repo rt periodically to the General Council, with the 
objective of ensuring that clear recommendations for a decision were made no later than December 2006.  Ministers had further instructed th e Special Session to coordinate its efforts with 
these bodies, so as to ensure that this work was completed on time.  Furthermore, the Special Session 
was mandated to resume work on all other outsta nding issues – including on the cross-cutting issues, 
the monitoring mechanism, and the incorporation of S&D treatment into the architecture of WTO 
rules – and to report on a regular basis to the Gene ral Council.  In December 2006, it was agreed that 
Members would continue their consideration of th e outstanding Agreement-specific proposals in the 
Special Session of the CTD as well as in the other WTO bodies to which the Category II proposals 
had been referred.   
28. Mr Sophastienphong (Thailand), Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD
, recalled that he 
had submitted a detailed report to the previous da y's TNC meeting in document TN/CTD/22, and 
wished therefore to briefly highlight the key points of that report.  Work in the Special Session had 
been focusing on two main areas:   the Agreement-specific proposals and elements of a Monitoring 
Mechanism.  On both issues, while there had been some progress, it was clear that more work would 
need to be carried out before Members could reach  agreement.  On the Agreement-specific proposals, 
Members had continued to engage in text-based di scussions on seven of the 16 remaining Agreement-
specific proposals.  The language currently being considered on six of these proposals was contained 
in Annex II of his report, and he believed this language would provide a good basis for continued 
work in the post-summer period.  On the seventh proposal, which related to Article XVIII of GATT, 
discussions had been put on hold at the request of the proponents, who had indicated they were 
considering submitting revised langua ge on the proposal.  He would not take up the nine remaining 
Agreement-specific proposals until such time that ne w language or ideas were put forward on them. 
29. As regards the Category II Agreement-specific pr oposals, namely those that had been referred 
to other WTO bodies and negotiating groups, the Chairs of those bodies had been providing regular updates to the Special Session on progress made in  their respective areas.  According to recent 
updates, some of the issues raised in a few of the proposals were being addressed as part of the 
ongoing negotiations.  In addition, some of the Chairs  had provided more specific information.  He 
had been informed that as part of the ongoing wo rk of the Special Session of the DSB, a number of 
developing countries, as well as the African Group,  had presented revised proposals that had taken 
into account their respective Category II proposals.  These proposals were being addressed as part of WT/GC/M/115 
Page 10  
 
the ongoing work of the DSB Special Session and would continue to be addressed in future meetings.  
The Chairman of the SPS Committee had informed him that Members had been considering the agreed procedure for the provision and notification of S&D treatment which had been adopted by the 
SPS Committee in October 2004 to address, in part, the Category II proposals relating to Article 10.1 
of the SPS Agreement.  The Committee had been  considering a proposed revision of the S&D 
procedure and would continue to do so at its upcoming meeting in Oct ober.  According to the reports 
received from the other bodies, progress seemed to have been somewhat elusive.  It would therefore be important for the Special Session to continue to  coordinate its efforts with the Chairs of the 
relevant bodies to ensure that progress w as expedited on the outstanding proposals. 
30. On the DFQF market access issue, the LDCs  had been pursuing issues related to the 
implementation of the Decision in the Committee on Agriculture and the NAMA Negotiating Group.  
A number of Members had already taken steps to pr ovide DFQF market access  to goods originating 
from the LDCs, and he urged those yet to do so to work towards effectively and expeditiously 
implementing the Decision.  On the Monitoring Mech anism, he was pleased to report that progress 
had been made on its possible elements.  Discussions had been taking place on the basis of a non-
paper, a copy of which was attached  to his report to the TNC.  In terms of future work, he intended to 
resume the work of the Special Session as soon as possible after the summer, in line with the Hong Kong mandate.  On the Agreement-specific propo sals, Members would work towards bridging the 
remaining differences in the hope of coming up with recommendations for decision.  This would entail completing work on the proposals Members had been considering over the past few months on 
the basis of the language contained in Annex II of his report to the TNC, and on any of the remaining 
proposals if new language were to  be submitted on them.  On the Category II proposals, especially 
those which had not been addressed as part of the ongoing negotiations, he would continue to 
coordinate his efforts with those of the Chairs of the bodies addressing these proposals in the hope of coming up with recommendations to the General Council for decision at the earliest.  Work on the Monitoring Mechanism would continue with the ob jective of reaching an agreement on its scope and 
structure.  This work would continue on the basi s of the non-paper contained in Annex III of his 
report to the TNC, as well as submissions by Members. 
31. The General Council took note
 of the report by the Chairman of the CTD in Special Session. 
4. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala (WT/GC/85, WT/GC/90 and Corr.1, 
WT/GC/100, WT/MIN(05)/9) – Statement by the Chairman 
32. The Chairman  recalled that this matter had first been  raised by the delegations of Honduras 
and Guatemala at the Council meeting in December 2004 .  It had subsequently been considered by the 
General Council at each of its regular meetings sin ce then, without resolution.  In the light of the 
views expressed at these meetings, and the re quests for consultations made by Honduras and 
Guatemala and other delegations, his predecessors and he had held consultations in order to assist in 
finding a way forward.  The matter referred to the General Council concerned the non-recognition of 
claims of substantial interest in the specific cont ext of the EC's modification of its concessions as a 
result of enlargement from 15 to 25 members, and th e modification of its concession on bananas in its 
move to a tariff-only regime as from 1 January 2006.  This matter had been brought to the General 
Council in keeping with Paragraph 4 of the 1980 Procedures for Negotiations under Article XXVIII, 
under which, when a Member renegotiating its Sche dule does not recognize a claim of principal or 
substantial supplying interest, the Member making the claim "may refer the matter to the Council."  
He informed delegations that earlier that morni ng he had held further consultations to allow 
delegations to be updated on the contacts that ha d taken place among the parties directly concerned 
since May with regard to the broader issues involve d, and on developments th at would take Members 
further towards the negotiated settlement on this issue that the parties had been pursuing over the past 
year.  He had invited to the consultations all the delegations who ha d spoken on this issue at previous 
meetings of the Council, and had made clear that the consultations were without prejudice to any  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Member's rights under the WTO.  While there had b een developments in the further consultations 
among the parties directly concerned since the May Council meeting, there was clearly much frustration and disappointment that these had not as ye t led to a resolution of the matter before the 
Council.  The status quo clearly continued to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of the two 
delegations that had brought this matter to the Council' s attention.  In view of this, he had encouraged 
the parties to continue their consu ltations and to work harder toward s an early resolution.  He stood 
ready to offer his good offices in this process. 
33. All delegations who spoke tha nked the Chairman for his report and for the efforts and 
consultations he had undertaken to he lp find a solution to this matter. 
34. The representative of Honduras
 said he wished to clarify that on 27 July his delegation had 
been called on to sign the text of an agreement on bananas which it had not negotiated, and that for 
this reason it had said that it would send the text to its capital for the neces sary analysis.  In the 
interests of consensus, and since all the MFN countries and the European Communities were in 
agreement on the text, his country's President had su bsequently agreed that it should be signed.  On 
29 July, the Ambassador of the European Communiti es had called to ask him how the consultations in 
his capital were going.  At that time, he had not yet received instructions.  It was in the course of that 
night that instructions had been sent to him, and his delegation had accordingly gone on record at the 
TNC on 30 July.  He also wished to point out that it had been men tioned that this matter had been 
intended to be taken to the Green Room for discussion there.  To be fair to the Director-General, the 
latter had said from the outset that he did not want  this matter to be taken up for discussion in the 
Green Room, but he had nevertheless made all his st aff available to the parties in the search for a 
solution.  This remained the case for the ongoing work on the subject. 
35. The representative of Guatemala  said that, as his delegation had st ated repeatedly at previous 
Council meetings, it had both a commercial as well as a systemic interest in the matter under 
discussion.  His delegation had also repeatedly stat ed that its commercial interest was not limited 
exclusively to bananas.  However, it was clear th at an overall solution to the banana issue would 
greatly facilitate a solution to the matter on the Council's agenda.  He recalled that at 3 a.m. on 
27 July, the MFN banana exporting countries and th e European Communities had finally reached an 
agreement on the banana issue.  Signature of the agreement had been propo sed by the EC, which had 
stated that it needed to make certa in internal adjustments that were not required of the other parties.  
This agreement had the following characteristics.  Fi rst, it was a stand-alone agreement, i.e., one that 
was not linked to the results of the negotiations on modalities.  Indeed, the agreement itself included a 
clause which so stipulated.  Second, inasmuch as it represented a significant improvement over the 
proposal made by the Director-General within  his good offices process, the agreement included a 
peace clause on outstanding issues relating to bananas,  logically dependent on the inclusion of the 
agreement in the EC's schedule of commitments, wh ich included staged tariff cuts over a lengthy 
period.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, as soon as  it was known that the week's discussions had 
collapsed, the EC had indicated that the conditions  had changed and had unilaterally announced that 
the agreement was not a stand-alone agreement and that, therefore, as no modalities had been agreed, it was not in a position to sign the agreement on bananas. 
36. Guatemala considered the EC's position as not only contradictory but as touching a delicate 
matter which compromised the reliability of the EC 's word and commitment.  This affected its 
international image and the confidence it could gene rate in future negotiating processes.  Among the 
many elements outlined by the EC in support of its position, it had indicated that it had signed the 
proposal submitted by the Director-General within the good offices process, and that it was the MFN countries which had taken a risk by pursuing this matter at the last moment of the discussions.  Guatemala did not understand these arguments, particularly since both the Director-General's proposal and the agreement reached had always been interp reted and accepted by all the parties as stand-alone 
agreements.  Moreover, the differences between the Director-General's proposal and the proposal of WT/GC/M/115 
Page 12  
 
27 July were the following:  a reduction of two eu ros in the down payment, a reduction of two euros 
in the landing zone, a one-year addition to the im plementation period and an improvement benefiting 
the EC in the legal section, particularly regard ing the peace clause.  Guatemala therefore wondered 
why the EC had signed the Director-General's propos al and could not now sign an agreement reached 
subsequently with the MFN countries on 27 July.  Gu atemala urged the EC to honour its word and its 
commitment to this agreement.  This would be an  important factor in facilitating the resolution of a 
subject that had been on the General Counc il's agenda for more than three years. 
37. The representative of Mexico
 thanked the Chairman for his strenuous efforts to achieve a 
positive result on this item.  As all knew, Mexico had supported, and continue d to support, the points 
made by Honduras and Guatemala.  It was vitally im portant to be able to reach an agreement in the 
near future on this matter, the longest-standing disp ute in the modern trading system.  No other issue 
had taken this long to be resolved, and Mexico urge d the EC to make a greater effort to achieve an 
agreement on the subject. 
38. The representative of Panama  thanked the Chairman for his efforts to bring the parties closer 
on this issue.  As his delegation had said in th e Chair's consultations, Pa nama had negotiated and 
concluded an agreement with the EC which was by now public knowledge.  This negotiation had been 
a very long process involving the Director-General's good offices, which had entailed a very complex intensive process of many months of discussion.  Howe ver, what Panama had considered to have been 
agreed on 27 July had essentially unravelled on 28 Ju ly.  From what his delegation had heard, the 
essential reasoning behind this was the collapse of th e Agriculture and NAMA modalities.  This was a 
dangerous precedent, because this issue involved a se ries of rights and obligations of Members.  It 
seemed now that the reasoning behind the s ituation involved making Article XXVIII and 
Article XXIV:6 rights, several dispute settlement  cases, two arbitrations, and claims under the 
Director-General's good offices contingent on the achievement of modalities in Agriculture and 
NAMA.  Thus, compliance with WTO law and dispute settlement would now depend on the 
achievement of modalities for the Doha Round.  It was obvious that this created a very important 
systemic problem.  Panama called on the EC, as ot hers had done, to reflect during the summer break 
on the position it had taken and allow the system, di spute settlement, and WTO rights and obligations 
to prevail by perfecting what had in fact been an  agreement that was very delicate and had involved 
many hours of work and many efforts on all sides. 
39. The representative of the European Communities
 thanked the Director-General for his tireless 
efforts in providing good offices, which someone  had calculated to have involved 38 meetings  since 
November 2007.  Those involved had made great progr ess and had almost succeeded.  On 19 July the 
Director-General had asked if delegations could ag ree with his final compromise proposal.  Only the 
EC and one Latin American country had been r eady to initial that proposal as a stand-alone 
agreement.  The Director-General had concluded that, as a result of other delegations not accepting 
his proposal, there was no alternative but to take the banana issue to the Green Room in order to 
conclude it there.  The EC had accepted this conse quence, but had reiterated its position that if some 
Members insisted that the banana issue be negotiate d in the Green Room within the framework of the 
DDA modalities negotiations, there could then be an outcome on bananas only if modalities were 
agreed.  Some Latin American countries had clearly  wanted to use the leverage of the modalities 
negotiations to improve the package.  The Latin Am erican countries had succeeded with this strategy, 
and on 27 July the EC had agreed on a package which was ripe for initialling if – but only if – an 
agreement in the Green Room on modalities more broa dly was achieved.  This had not been the case.  
The conditions were now different from what had been  discussed earlier.  Many agreements had been 
achieved in the Round, and 95 per cent of these deals ha d been ripe for concluding, but there had been 
some outstanding issues.  His delegation had negotiat ed the deal in question with the objective that 
bananas would not stand in the way of a final agreement on modalities, but as there was no final 
agreement on modalities, the EC could not agree to the outcome.  The rest was history.  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 13 
 
 
  40. As the Director-General had said, Members now had to let the dust settle and see how they 
could make the best use of this ne w situation.  It went without say ing that the EC remained committed 
to finding an agreement that would be equally sa tisfactory for all parties involved.  As regards 
Panama's statement that the EC had negotiated an agreement and had concluded it, he wished to say 
that there had been no conclusion of this agreemen t.  He personally regretted this very much, but 
some had gambled and had lost.  Panama had also mentioned that there was a dangerous precedent in 
linking the settlement of disputes to the outcome of the Round.  He wished to recall that it had been 
Panama who had insisted on having the final cuts re sulting from the Round be part of the agreement.  
The parties concerned had struggled for months over this question, and had already been at an early 
stage in what had been called "Option 1" in the Di rector-General's package, to bind and to make a 
considerable down payment for the settlement of th e disputes, and to make the remaining cuts once 
the modalities were agreed.  This offer had not b een accepted and the negotiations had continued.  
The EC had always warned that the parties shoul d try to sort this matter out before going into 
negotiations on modalities, because the risk would be too great.  He regretted that this outcome had 
now been realized. 
41. The representative of Costa Rica  said that the Community's statement did not reflect reality, 
and regretted that the EC still wished to apply the law of the jungle in this organization.  There had 
indeed been negotiations with the EC for months  on the banana issue – the EC representative had 
spoken of 38 meetings – because the latter had ta ken a holiday of 12 years on this matter.  He 
remembered having negotiated with the EC on this  issue as far back as 1992 and 1993.  The EC had 
never complied with the results of the first dis pute settlement panel on bananas under the GATT.  The 
EC had blocked that decision, and had subsequent ly not complied with a second banana panel report 
under the GATT because it had blocked that as well, whic h at the time it had had the possibility to do.  
Subsequently, the WTO had introduced a reinforced  dispute settlement mechanism, and the EC had 
lost a further banana dispute in 1997, with whic h it had also not yet complied.  Two compliance 
panels in 2008 had confirmed that the EC had not complied with its obligations.  As a result, one 
Member had requested the good offices of the Director-General under the Decision of 1996, a 
mechanism established in the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  This ma tter had always involved 
the question of the EC's compliance with its obligati ons in this longstanding dispute.  It had been 
linked to the Doha Round because the EC had said that  it wished to have what was agreed be, in 
addition, its contribution to the Round.  The EC ha d not wished to pay twice –  and Costa Rica had 
agreed to this.  In this connection, he noted that  paragraph 4 of the agreement on bananas reached on 
the night of 27 July stated the following: "This agreement shall cons titute the EC's final market access 
commitments for bananas for inclusion in the fina l results of the next multilateral market access 
negotiation for agriculture products successfully conc luded in the WTO (including the Doha Round)."  
He emphasized that "the next multilateral ma rket access negotiation for agriculture products 
successfully concluded in the WTO (including the D oha Round)" meant simply that when this text 
had been agreed, the EC had considered it possible th at the whole Doha Round might fail, and not just 
the modalities negotiations.  The EC had wanted to make sure that in the event modalities were not 
achieved and the Round was not concluded, what it had agreed in the bananas agreement would apply 
in a future round whenever it started, however it wa s launched and whatever it was named.  This was 
why the text of this paragraph stated clearly that this agreement would constitute the EC's final market 
access commitments for bananas for inclusion in th e final results of the next multilateral market 
access negotiation for agricultural products successful ly concluded in the WTO, including the Doha 
Round.  It was for Members to judge, on this basi s, whether the agreement on bananas of 27 July had 
been linked to achieving modalities.  It was linked to modalities only in the Machiavellian calculation 
of the EC.  The EC had reached an agreement with the other parties and had confirmed that agreement 
on 27 July.  It was true that some ACP countries had not wanted their preferences on bananas to be 
diminished, but they had to recognize that for year s Latin American producers had been facing that 
discrimination, which had been condemned by disp ute settlement panels.  The agreement of 27 July 
had not been signed by all the parties, but the EC representative, before the Vice-Minister of Ecuador 
had left Geneva, had sent the text to the latter with a note saying that he should sign it before he left.  WT/GC/M/115 
Page 14  
 
On 27 July, the agreement had been signed by the Vi ce-Minister of Ecuador.  Now, according to the 
EC representative, there had never been an agreemen t.  Other countries had also been invited to sign 
the agreement.  Only one Latin American country , Honduras, had said that it could not sign until it 
received instructions from capital, and Honduras had now  agreed that it would sign.  All knew that 
when an agreement was reached, signature did not  necessarily take place at the same moment.  
Sometimes there was a need for legal verification,  which in some cases could take three to four 
months, but the agreement was nevertheless still valid .  In the case at hand, the legal verification had 
been completed on the morning of 27 July by all parties.   
42. He recalled that on the night Members had fa iled to achieve modalities, there had been a 
sense of optimism in the corridors of the WTO, and an  EC representative had asked him to work with 
ACP countries, the United States and the tropical products group representatives to complete the 
drafting of the relevant modalities paragraphs for tr opical products and preference erosion in order for 
the text to be submitted to the Director-General a nd the Chair of the Agriculture negotiations, so that 
they in turn could present a revised, final modalities text on Agriculture.  This group had discussed the relevant paragraphs and had come to an agreemen t.  The EC representative had then requested the 
introduction of a footnote indicating that a stand-al one agreement on bananas had been achieved.  In 
the presence of the representatives of the United St ates and the ACP Group, Costa Rica had asked the 
EC representative to confirm that an agreement ha d been achieved.  The EC representative had then 
left the room to talk with the EC Ambassador, and had returned to say that the agreement had been 
achieved and that neither a comma nor a number w ould be changed.  The other parties had then 
understood that there was agreement on tropical prod ucts and on preference erosion because a stand-
alone agreement on bananas had been agreed.  They had therefore accepted the inclusion of a footnote 
to this effect for bananas in the paragraph on tr opical products.  However, the optimism of the EC – 
and that of Costa Rica –  had not materialized.  His delegation felt as frustrated as the EC, because it 
had come together with other Members to launc h a Round in 2001, had fought for that Round during 
seven years and was very disappointed.  He coul d understand the disappointment of the EC Trade 
Commissioner regarding the many issues that were part of the Single Undertaking that Members now 
would not have.  These included the elimination of  export subsidies, the substantial reduction of 
domestic support, and duty-free and quota-free market acc ess for LDCs.  All of this had been part of 
the Single Undertaking.  However, the agreement on bananas of 27 July was a stand-alone agreement 
and the EC had no right to include the banana agr eement in the list of the Single Undertaking issues, 
because it had never been understood in that way.  He could also understand the frustration of some 
developing countries, in particular the banana pr oducers in the ACP Group.  No country wanted its 
privileges to be diminished, but it had to be recogni zed that there had been an agreement between the 
EC and the MFN suppliers who paid the tariff.  Co sta Rica was extremely di sappointed over the EC's 
lack of respect for commitments it had undertaken.  His delegation could unde rstand the EC's reaction 
because of the latter's frustration at the collapse of the talks, but hoped that the text of the bananas 
agreement, and good faith and common sense, would prevail at the end of the day. 
43. The representative of Ecuador
 said that, as his delegation had stated at the TNC meeting the 
previous day, it had negotiated an agreement with  the EC in good faith and now noted with much 
disappointment that everything was gone because of a unilateral decision by the EC.  He recalled a 
meeting that his country's Vice-Minister had had with the Director-General just prior to the start of the 
process of negotiations, and that the Director-General had said to his Vice Minister that he should 
accept this stand-alone agreement.  There had been many witnesses to this and to the understanding of 
this agreement by the parties to it.  Paragraph 4 of the text of the 27 July agreement, as quoted by Costa Rica, was clear for all to read.  In addition,  the text was a model of compliance in terms of 
paragraph 5, which provided that complainants ag ainst the EC would renounce all pending panels on 
bananas and all claims filed to date under the procedures of Articles XXIV and XXVIII.  Therefore, 
the agreement had been signed only by those who had legal claims and had requested compensation 
under Articles XXIV and XXVIII.  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 15 
 
 
  44. The representative of Honduras  said he was aware of the fatigue felt by delegations due to the 
work of the past few days.  For this reason, he would refer only briefly to the issue that had been 
included on the agenda of the present meeting at Ho nduras' request, and refrain from addressing other 
issues that were also of great importance to his count ry.  It was not the first time he had had to speak 
in the Council about the EC's refusal to recogni ze Honduras's interests as a substantial supplier of 
bananas.  Honduras's rights were very clear and, a nd he wished to run through them briefly.  Under 
Article XXVIII, substantial interest  was to be calculated on the basis of trade levels that would have 
existed in a market free from discriminatory quan titative restrictions.  Unfortunately, the EC still 
failed to understand that an illegal time-frame, such as the one it was trying to apply, could never 
form the basis of a calculation consistent with Ar ticle XXVIII, and that the use of an illegal time-
frame was a way of perpetuating the effects of illegality.  In accordance with Article XXVIII 
guidelines, Honduras had used the years 1989-1991 as the representative period for calculating its 
share of the EC market, thus ensuring consistency also with the findings of two trade disputes dealt 
with under the GATT between 1989 and 1991, in wh ich it had been determined that Honduras had 
established itself as a major banana supplier.  At the same time, and according to various dispute 
settlement panels' interpretation of the provision s of the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XXVIII, the intention was to ensure that rights deriving from market share were determined in 
a flexible manner in the case of small and medium-siz ed developing countries that had been adversely 
affected by the withdrawal of a tariff concession.  If  the EC's flawed approach were to prevail and it 
were allowed to impose unfair barriers while fai ling to demonstrate the appropriate flexibility, 
compensation would always be in favour of deve loped-country Members, to the detriment of 
developing-country Members.  Moreover, if this or ganization failed to settle a developing country's 
claims which, while legitimately put forward, had been improperly ignored, it could validly be asked 
what moral standing the organization would have  to defend any country, be it developing or 
developed, and there was a risk that legitimate cl aims for compensation could be ignored as a matter 
of routine. 
45. The WTO, not to mention the whole world, was facing difficult times, and the EC had openly 
expressed willingness to contribute to the task of adjusting the WTO rules to the needs of the 
developing countries.  In order to ensure ade quate levels of optimism and confidence in the 
multilateral trading system at the present stage of the Doha Development Round, the present would be 
a good time for the EC to accommodate his Government's request and recognize its interest as a substantial supplier.  As he had said the previous  day at the TNC meeting, his country had shown a 
high degree of flexibility and, with a view to resolv ing this matter, his authorities had instructed him 
to sign the text negotiated by the EC on 27 July.  That said, if – in addition to its record of non-compliance in all the cases it had lost at the GATT a nd the WTO – the EC refused to fulfil its banana 
commitment of 27 July, Honduras would be obliged to  reflect upon the steps that would need to be 
taken to protect its rights, in which case this item would remain on the General Council's agenda. 
46. The representative of Colombia
 recalled that the matter under discussion in the Council 
concerned an attempt to resolve a request – subm itted by Honduras and Guatemala to the European 
Communities in December 2004 – for negotiations with  the EC regarding its tariffs on bananas on the 
basis of changes brought about by the expansion of the EC from 15 to 25 members.  Somehow, and for the reasons given by some of the parties invol ved, it had emerged that the negotiated banana 
agreement of 27 July had been understood by some to have been concluded, and by others not to have 
been so.  For Colombia, as well as for all the La tin American countries which had already taken the 
floor, the agreement signed on 27 July was a fully negotiated and completed agreement.  Colombia 
therefore considered that if this agreement came in to force, this item, which had been on the Council's 
agenda since December 2004, could be removed.  Co lombia invited the EC to give careful thought to 
the fragility of the deadlines, particularly si nce the panel ruling of a few months earlier – 
implementation of which had been suspended by  agreement between Ecuador and the European 
Communities – had set 29 August as the final deadlin e for an appeal.  Bearing in mind that August WT/GC/M/115 
Page 16  
 
was a month of recess, Colombia was deeply concerned that the completed negotiations might be compromised by Ecuador having to request implementation of the panel ruling. 
47. The representative of Peru
 said it would have been preferable to his delegation if previous 
speakers had followed the Chairman's suggestion and concentrated on a redoubling of efforts in the 
negotiating process on this issue.  As that had not  happened, and precisely because of the things the 
entire membership had heard at previous Council mee tings, his delegation could not but take the floor 
to express deep concern at the position in which it w as placed by the current status of the agreement 
concluded between the EC and the MFN banana-exporting countries on 27 July, which was now 
being claimed never to have been a recognized agre ement.  This was a direct attack, at what was 
possibly the worst time for the WTO, on the underlying principles of this organization.  Good faith, 
keeping one's word and respect fo r the statements of others ha d always constituted – and should 
continue to constitute – the b asis on which Members expressed their national interests and reached 
common agreements.  At present, these principles we re facing extinction.  Members could not allow 
this to happen.  Apart from the details which had been given at the present meeting and which were 
more familiar to the delegations that  had taken a direct part in the ne gotiations than to his own, he did 
not wish to refer to the banana issue and the 27 July agreement.  The latter agreement – not only 
because of its history and the many years of dis pute, not only because of its  actual content and the 
words written in the agreement, and not only becau se of the last-minute negotiations, but also more 
generally because of the framework and the dynami c in which it had been reached – should also be 
subject to the principles of commitment to one's word  and respect for the positions of other Members.  
Not to recognize this now was to jeopardize the entire negotiating process that lay ahead, and Peru 
was highly concerned that the latter might not ha ve a satisfactory outcome.  Having said this, his 
delegation wished to appeal to the main players, pa rticularly the EC, to show leadership and courage 
and to ensure that this agreement put an end, once and for all, to the so-called banana war. 
48. The representative of European Communities  said he feared it would not be possible to clarify 
all that had occurred regarding this matter.  Howeve r, he wished to remind delegations that the EC 
had been prepared to accept an agreement on banan as unrelated to the Round, which was the one real 
stand-alone agreement the Director-General ha d submitted on 19 July.  The MFN countries, except 
one, had rejected it, insisting instead on an agreemen t locked into modalities.  They had wished to use 
the leverage of the negotiations on modalities, and had succeeded in adjusting the landing zone by 
two euros, from €116 to €114, and the down payment had also been increased by two euros.  The 
counterpart to this had been that the legal part ha d been made much more straightforward and clear.  
However, in making that linkage, the MFN count ries had accepted the consequence that if the 
modalities crashed, the conditions for approving the ag reement would change.  He wished to make 
one comment about paragraph 4 of the 27 July te xt, which some had interpreted as meaning the 
agreement was a stand-alone one.  The EC had accep ted that a deal would enter into force on 
1 January 2009, clearly ahead of any other cuts from the DDA negotiations.  The EC had been ready 
to do so because it also wanted to settle this matter,  but this would have meant that all the cuts down 
to €114 in 2016 would have been agreed upon.  Th e EC had been ready to run the risk of accepting 
this agreement at the time of modalities, knowing very well that modalities did not constitute an 
agreement on the Round.  The EC would have run the risk that there might be no Single Undertaking and would have accepted the deal.  It wanted to be reassured that if there were no Single Undertaking, 
in spite of a breakthrough on modalities, it would no t have to pay twice.  This was the reason for 
paragraph 4, which could not be interpreted in a nother way.  He reiterate d his delegation's willingness 
to let the dust settle in order to look into this ma tter.  As he had said many times, the problem had not 
gone away, but the conditions for making this deal  stick had changed, and the parties should look 
calmly into this following the summer break. 
49. The representative of Colombia
 said it was no secret to anyone that the reason for his 
presence in Geneva was Colombia's wish to resolve th e banana dispute.  He would return to Colombia 
the day the agreement was concluded.  He appeal ed for good sense, and requested the Director- WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 17 
 
 
  General to meet with the interested parties on ce more.  He apologized for this, as he knew the 
Director-General was tired from the negotiating activit y of the previous days, but his help was needed. 
50. The General Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
5. Transparency for Preferential Trade Arrangem ents – Statement by the Chairman of the 
Committee on Trade and Development 
51. The Chairman  recalled that in December 2006, the Council had adopted a Decision with 
regard to Transparency for Preferential Trad e Arrangements, under which the Committee on Trade 
and Development had been asked to consider transparency for preferential arrangements under 
paragraph 2 of the Enabling Clause – other than RT As – and to report back within six months for 
appropriate action by the General Council.  The De cision had been adopted without prejudice to the 
results of the deliberations the CTD would be calle d upon to undertake.  Subsequently, in July and 
December 2007, on the basis of reports from the Chai r of the CTD, the General Council had agreed to 
extend the deadline for the CTD to co nsider this matter and to report back for appropriate action by 
successive six-month periods, i.e. until July 2008.   
52. Mr Servansing (Mauritius), Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development , recalled 
that when he had reported on this matter in D ecember 2007, he had informed the Council that the 
proponents, Brazil and India, had prepared a " non-paper" (document JOB( 07)/142) which had been 
formally considered by the CTD at its meeting on 8 October 2007.  He had also informed the Council 
that Brazil and India had subsequently prepared a more  complete draft text.  He had indicated that he 
would continue to work with Members on the basis of this draft, which laid out a proposal for a 
transparency mechanism for prefer ential trade arrangements.  Since his last report to the General 
Council, the number of proponents of this proposal had increased.  On 4 March, the United States had 
announced its intention to join Brazil and India as a co-sponsor of the proposal, and on 5 May China 
had announced the same intention, bringing to four the number of co -sponsors.  He ha d held a number 
of small-group informal consultations to consider in detail the proponents' draft text.  Participants in 
the most recent consultations had been the four  proponents plus Canada, the EC, El Salvador and 
Japan.  These informal consultations had proved ex tremely useful in moving the process forward, and 
he wished to highlight the constructive engagement of Members on this issue.  On the basis of the 
views expressed in the consultations, the proponent s had been able to revise their draft proposal on 
more than one occasion, and the latest revision of th e text had been submitted to him earlier in July.  
Important progress had been made on this matter, but it was clear that more time and more work – in 
both formal and informal settings – would be require d before the CTD could come to a decision.  As 
he had informed the CTD at its meeting on 15 July, he intended to continue working with Members on this matter, with the intention of having the prop onents' draft text considered in an informal, open-
ended format as soon as possible.  This matter would also be taken up again by the CTD at its next 
formal meeting.  On this basis, the CTD had agreed  that a request for more time to deal with this 
matter should be made to the General Council.  He therefore requested that the General Council allow 
the CTD until December 2008 to consider this matter and report back for appropriate action. 
53. The Council took note
 of the report by the Chairman of the CTD, and agreed  that the deadline 
for the CTD to consider this matter and to re port back for appropriate action be extended to 
December 2008. WT/GC/M/115 
Page 18  
 
6. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration 
(a) Report of the Committee on its meeting of May 2008 (WT/BFA/103) 
54. The Chairman
 drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee on its meeting of 
May 2008 (WT/BFA/103). 
55. Mr Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said the report in WT/BFA/103 contained a set of recommendations in relation to the 
restructuring plan under the item on Secretariat Version 3 (paragraph 25), the pro rata  contribution of 
Ukraine to the 2008 budget following its WTO acce ssion (paragraph 27), and the draft Memorandum 
of Understanding between the WTO and the Swiss authorities on the long-term housing needs of the 
WTO (paragraph 18).  With regard to the MOU, ther e was a lengthy history to this question, which 
related to the long-term building needs of the orga nisation.  He recalled that not long ago, the 
Director-General had been tasked to investigate the options of various sites around Geneva.  At the 
December 2007 General Council meeting, Members ha d approved a mandate for the Director-General 
to negotiate an arrangement w ith the Swiss authorities focused on the option of extending and 
renovating the present site.  Members had had an ex cellent example over the past few weeks as to 
how well this site could work, even under considerable pressure.  Since December 2007, there had 
been a very serious effort to negotiate an unders tanding between the Secretar iat, negotiating on behalf 
of the WTO, and the Swiss authorities.  The results  were now before the Ge neral Council for decision, 
following careful and thorough cons ideration in the Budget Committee, with the recommendation that 
the Director-General be authorized to sign the Ag reement.  This MOU was the result of many hours 
of hard work, creative and innovative thinking, and shared commitment on the part of all concerned.  
The agreement spelled out in certain detail a rrangements for renovation of the Centre William 
Rappard, the intra-mural extension,  the construction of a new wing on the current south car park site, 
parking, densification of this conference room a nd other areas, and transitional measures such as the 
rental of office space in Chemin des Mines. 
56. The project had been outlined in further detail for the benefit of both Members and Secretariat 
staff at two sessions earlier that month.  The Agreement reflected a win-win-win outcome, and a very 
significant achievement in the history of the organi zation.  It represented a real commitment on the 
part of the WTO to the present site in Geneva, while  in turn reflecting a commitment on the part of the 
Swiss authorities, as hosts, to ensuring that the WT O had premises that would carry all through into 
the next generation of negotiations, ne gotiators and Secretariat staff.  In getting to this point, credit 
should go to the Director-General – including fo r his work in concert with the Swiss Federal 
Councillor for Foreign Affairs – and to his staff, in particular his Deputy Head  of Cabinet who had led 
the Secretariat negotiating team, and others in the Administration and General Services Division, to 
the Swiss authorities for a shared commitment and vi sion for this organisation’s future, and to all 
Members, recalling that members of the Budge t Committee had been very closely involved 
throughout the evolution and progress of this nego tiation.  What had struck him throughout this 
process was the personal and professional commitment to the organization on the part of all involved 
– that there was a real sense of pride in what one had now and here, as well as a determination to ensure that one kept pace with, and anticipated , the needs of the WTO in order to have an 
environment that encouraged and supported the c onduct of the WTO's work.  Therefore, this was a 
very exciting and significant step.  There was still qu ite some distance to go, but there was a basis for 
translating the vision of the future building needs of  the WTO into a reality, and he looked forward to 
seeing the final outcome in 2013.  The Swiss aut horities were working through a parallel process in 
respect of their own domestic procedures. 
57. The Director-General
 said he wished to thank all Members for their support on the issue of 
the long-term housing needs of the organization  This MOU would allow the organization to go 
forward, with the support of the Swiss hosts, with a project that responded to the needs of the WTO.  
The WTO was now an institution that went beyond momentary – albeit sometimes traumatizing –   WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 19 
 
 
  negotiating sessions.  The WTO's dispute-settlement, monitoring and technical-assistance functions 
were well trusted and valued by Members.  These f unctions would continue to be performed in the 
future in an efficient, professional and transparent way and, in his view, were bound to be reinforced 
in the future.  The Centre William Rappard, which w as much older than the institution itself, was in 
recognizable need of renovation.  Members needed  additional meeting room space.  The WTO staff, 
which had been split in different locations sin ce 2001, needed to be under a single roof, for both 
administrative and cost efficiency reasons.  Th e project now launched together with the Swiss 
Government would allow the organization to respond to  the future needs of th e WTO.  He wished to 
thank the Swiss authorities for their commitment and goodwill in supporting the organization and this 
project, in particular the Swiss Federal Councillor fo r Foreign Affairs and her staff, and the Head of 
the Political Division of the Department of Foreign A ffairs who had travelled from Bern to be at this 
meeting and had been supportive of the project sin ce the beginning.  He also wished to thank the 
Chair of the Budget Committee – who had shown full e ngagement, total investment and a sense of the 
big picture as well as detail – and the Secretariat team led by DDG Mr Yerxa and the Deputy Head of Cabinet in the DG's office. 
58. The representative of  Switzerland
 said he wished to offer his wa rmest thanks for the approval  
of the agreement between Switzerland and the WT O concerning the organization's single site.  His 
Government had approved the agreem ent on 30 May and, at the same time, had sent the first of three 
messages concerning the financing of the project to  the Federal Chambers.  The message would be 
examined by both Chambers in extraordinary pr oceedings during the autumn 2008 parliamentary 
session, so that the renovation work could begi n as soon as possible.  The Foreign Affairs 
Commission of the National Council had already ex amined and approved the message.  The Foreign 
Affairs Commission of the Council of States should follow suit on 18 August.  Switzerland considered it highly important that this project be car ried out in a timely fashion and in a manner that 
was satisfactory to all the parties concerned.  To this end, the federal authorities were working very 
closely with the cantonal and communal authoriti es.  Steering groups and construction committees 
involving the federal, cantonal and communal aut horities, the WTO and the Building Foundation for 
International Organizations (FIPOI), had also been set up and were working on this matter.  Cantonal 
and communal procedures had begun.  All were co nvinced that the single site project provided for 
under this agreement was the best solution in terms of cost, timetable, and environmental impact.  It 
was more cost-effective than the other options envisaged, the renovation and densification work 
would not affect the foundations of the CWR, and the new building would be built on what was 
currently the WTO car park.  Furthermore, access to  the lake would not be affected.  It would be 
important to bear these points in mind during th e public debate that would undoubtedly accompany 
the implementation of this project.  On behalf of his Government, he wished to thank the Director-
General, the Secretariat, and especially the DG' s Deputy Head of Cabinet, as well as the Budget 
Committee Chair and the Members involved in the ne gotiations for their constructive cooperation in 
preparing this building project, which had enabled a common vision to be developed for the future 
WTO headquarters.  Despite the fact that the WTO sometimes encountered  difficulties in trade 
negotiation rounds, to Switzerland's mind the or ganization remained an institution of prime 
importance for the good governance of world affairs.  In this spirit, and looking towards the long 
term, Switzerland was happy to be embarking on this WTO single site project. 
59. The General Council took note
 of the statements, approved  the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendations in paragraphs 18,  25 and 27 of its report in document WT/BFA/103, including that 
the Director-General be authorized to sign the Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the 
WTO on the long-term housing needs of the WTO as contained in document WT/BFA/W/170, and adopted
 the Committee's report in WT/BFA/103.   WT/GC/M/115 
Page 20  
 
(b) Report of the Committee on its meeting of July 2008 (WT/BFA/104) 
60. The Chairman
 drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee on its meeting of 
July 2008. 
61. Mr Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said the report in WT/BFA/104 contained a recommendation concerning the pro rata  
contribution to the 2008 budget of Cape Verde following its accession to the WTO (paragraph 28). 
62. The General Council took note  of the statement, approved  the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendation in paragraph 28 of its re port in document WT/BFA/104, and adopted  the report. 
7. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement 
63. The Chairman  noted that the draft waiver decisions fo r the matters listed in sub-items 7(a) and 
(b) below had been taken up for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods at its meeting on 
22 May, and were matters on which the Chair of the Goods Council had to report to the General 
Council.  He would therefore invite the Goods C ouncil Chair to report on that  Council's consideration 
of these matters in a single intervention, and the General Council would then take up each draft 
decision for action separately. 
64. Ms Tan (Singapore), Chair of the Council for Trade in Goods , said that with respect to sub-
item 7(a) the Goods Council had approved the draft waiver decisions for Argentina and Panama in 
connection with their introduction of HS1996 chang es into their WTO schedules of tariff concessions 
(G/C/W/595 and 596), and had recommended that these draft decisions be forwarded to the General 
Council for adoption.  With respect to sub-item 7( b), the Goods Council had also approved the draft 
decision for an extension of Senegal’s waiver gr anted for the use of minimum customs values for 
certain select products (G/C/W/594), and had recomme nded that that draft decision also be forwarded 
to the General Council for adoption. 
65. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
(a) Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions – 
Requests for extensions of waivers 
(i) Argentina (G/C/W/595) 
(ii) Panama (G/C/W/596) 
66. The Chairman  drew attention to the draft decisi ons in documents G/C/W/595 and 596 which 
provided for a waiver from the provisions of Article II of GATT 1994 until 30 April 2009 for 
Argentina and Panama, respectively, to enable th em to implement the HS 1996 changes into their 
Schedules of Concessions, subject to certain conditions.  He proposed that, in the light of the report 
made above by the Chair of the Goods Council,  and in accordance with the Decision-Making 
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93), 
the General Council adopt the draft decisions in G/C/W/595 and 596. 
67. The General Council so agreed .5 
                                                      
5 The Decisions were subsequently circul ated as WT/L/733 an d 734 respectively.  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (b) Senegal – Customs Valuation Agreement – Requ est for extension of waiver (G/C/W/581, 
G/C/W/582 and Add.1, G/C/W/594) 
68. The Chairman  drew attention to the draft decision in document G/C/W/594 which provided 
for a waiver for Senegal from the provisions on minimum values of the Customs Valuation 
Agreement until 30 June 2009.  He proposed that, in the light of the report made above by the Chair 
of the Goods Council, and in accordance with the Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and 
XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November  1995 (WT/L/93), the General Council adopt the 
draft decision in G/C/W/594. 
69. The General Council so agreed .6 
(c) Review of waivers pursuant to Ar ticle IX:4 of the WTO Agreement 
(i) Preferential tariff treatment for least-devel oped countries, granted on 15 June 1999 until 
30 June 2009 (WT/L/304) 
(ii) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to pharmaceutical products, 
granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 (WT/L/478) 
(iii) Albania - Implementation of specific concessions, granted on 26 May 2005 until 
1 January 2009 (WT/L/610) 
(iv) European Communities - Preferences for Albania,  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia 
and Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic  of Macedonia, granted on 28 July 2006 
until 31 December 2011 (WT/L/654, WT/L/731/Rev.1) 
(v) United States - Former Territory of the Pa cific Islands, grante d on 27 July 2007 until 
31 December 2016 (WT/L/694, WT/L/730) 
(vi) Mongolia - Export duties on raw cashmere, gr anted on 27 July 2007 until 29 January 2012 
(WT/L/695) 
70. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with para graph 4 of Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement, "any waiver granted for a period of mo re than one year shall be reviewed by the 
Ministerial Conference not later than one year af ter it is granted, and thereafter annually until the 
waiver terminates."  There were si x waivers before the General Council for review. With regard to the 
waiver in sub-item (ii) for LDCs under the TRIPS Ag reement, he wished to note that in connection 
with the approval of the draft waiver at the mee ting of the TRIPS Council in June 2002, the Chairman 
of that Council had noted that it had been understood,  in regard to the review foreseen in paragraph 2 
of that waiver, that the exceptional circumstances ju stifying the waiver would continue to exist for 
least-developed country Members until its expiry date of 2016.  As for the waivers listed in sub-items 
(iv) and (v), they provided that  an annual report should be subm itted by the European Communities 
and the United States on the operation or implementati on of their respective waivers with a view to 
facilitating their annual review by the General C ouncil under Article IX:4.  The reports from the EC 
and the US had been circulated in documents WT/L/731/Rev.1 and 730 respectively. 
71. The representative of Lesotho , on behalf of the LDCs , expressed gratitude to the membership 
for the granting of the two waivers to LDCs in s ub-items (i) and (ii).  The waiver for Preferential 
Tariff Treatment for LDCs provided an enabling e nvironment for developing countries to provide 
preferential tariff treatment to LDC products.  With  this facility in place, LDCs were able to 
                                                      
6 The Decision was subsequen tly circulated as WT/L/735. WT/GC/M/115 
Page 22  
 
participate meaningfully in international trade.  This important decision was highly acknowledged and 
appreciated, and enhanced market access for th e beneficiary countries.  Market access provided 
incentives for the LDCs to go into increased produc tion, induced and boosted investment, and thus 
contributed to addressing the unemployment and dive rsification challenges faced by LDCs.  Many 
fora, including the WTO, had noted a need to promote trade among developing countries.  This waiver 
facility was viewed by the LDCs as one of the possi bilities for enabling Sout h-South trade, and some 
developing countries were already providing preferential market access u nder this provision.  Their noble 
gesture in this regard was noticeable and highly appreciated.  The Group wi shed to encourage other 
developing countries in a position to provide similar access to LDC prod ucts to utilize this important 
facility.  Furthermore, the Group wished to encourage improvement of preferential rules of origin, which 
could result in commercially mean ingful market access and thus contri bute towards improved integration 
of LDCs into the multilateral trading system.  The r easons that had led to the request, consideration and 
approval of the waivers remained va lid.  The LDCs required an enab ling international environment in 
order to expand trade and reap its benefits.  With regard to TRIPs, some LDCs were already taking 
advantage of the provisions of the waiver, which was an important flexibility for LDCs.  This was a 
reflection of what LDCs could do when given the opportunity.  The Group wished again to thank the 
General Council for having taken these decisions which had proven very beneficial to them. 
72. The General Council took note
 of the statements and of the reports in documents WT/L/730 
and 731/Rev.1, and agreed  to revert to the review of multi-year waivers under Article IX:4 of the 
WTO Agreement at its meeting in December. 
8. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory Group on 
its Forty-first Session (ITC/AG/(XLI)/216) 
73. The Chairman  recalled that the Joint Advisory Group of the International Trade Centre 
UNCTAD/WTO had held its Forty-first Session on 4-5 December 2007.  The report of the Joint Advisory Group had been distributed in document ITC/AG/(XLI)/216.  In keeping with customary practice, this report had been considered initially by the Committee on Trade and Development, at its 
meeting on 15 July, where it had been presented by  Ms Murray, the ITC's Director of Programme 
Support, on behalf of the Chairman of the Forty- first Session of the Joint Advisory Group, Mr  
Bamanga Abbas (Chad).   
74. Mr Servansing (Mauritius), Chairman of  the Committee on Trade and Development
, said that, 
in presenting the JAG report to the CTD, Ms Murra y had informed Members that the JAG had been 
convened to discuss the ITC's Consolidated Progr amme Document for 2008 and 2009, and options for 
a new ITC governance structure.  The meeting had also provided the opportunity for government 
representatives to announce trust fund contributions  to the ITC for 2008 and 2009.  Ms Murray had 
reported that the Executive Director of the ITC ha d informed the JAG that the results of a client 
survey had shown that the ITC was considered effi cient in serving its clients but needed to engage 
more with them to be able to provide tailored solutions.  This required the organization to build 
common values among staff at all levels, strengthe n key management functi ons and have a more 
results-based approach to its work .  The JAG had also been informed that the ITC's new vision was 
defined as "Export Impact for Good".  The organizati on's focus would continue to be on LDCs and 
Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly land-locked countri es, small island states and post-conflict countries.  
On change management the JAG had been inform ed that ITC was developing a competency-based 
performance appraisal system for staff.  A new organi zational structure was to be put into place, and a 
four-year strategic plan would be developed.  R esults-based management would become an integral 
part of strategic planning and project management  processes.  The JAG had generally complimented 
the ITC on the quality of the Consolidated Progra mme Document, although it had also agreed that 
further refinement was required.  The JAG had stres sed the demand-driven nature of the ITC, and had 
called upon the organization to focus on its compar ative advantage while at the same time seeking 
greater coherence with partners.  The ITC was also seen as an important vehicle for Aid for Trade.  
On governance issues, the JAG had agreed that its  annual meeting should take place in December  WT/GC/M/115 
 Page 23 
 
 
  each year with shorter sessions.  The ITC's financia l reporting year would be aligned to the regular 
budget cycle – from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009.  A new ITC Trust Fund would be established as of 1 January 2008, and discussions amongst interested parties would be convened in 
early 2008 on a possible new Consultative Board.  The CTD had taken note of the ITC JAG report 
and had forwarded it to the General Council for adoption. 
75. The representative of Uruguay
 said it was with great satisfaction that Uruguay acknowledged 
receipt of this report.  Paragraph 53 of the re port gave as an example of ITC activities, the 
development of a trade information platform in hi s country.  His delegation wished to emphasize the 
outstanding work done by the ITC in Uruguay up to the present, which it was hoped would produce positive results in the near future.  He wished to place on record once again Uruguay's support for ITC 
activities as a commercial intelligence tool for developing countries. 
76. The General Council took note
 of the statements and adopted  the report of the Joint Advisory 
Group in document ITC/AG(XLI)/216.  
9. Statement by Sri Lanka on behalf of th e Informal Group of Developing Countries 
77. The representative of Sri Lanka , on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries , 
speaking under "Other Business ", said these countries wished to again convey their concerns 
regarding the accession processes of developing coun tries.  Developing countries were committed to 
achieving universal Membership in the organizati on, and it was their shared view that accession 
processes should strictly observe the principle of less -than-full reciprocity.  Accordingly, countries in 
accession should only be asked to undertake commitments  that were consistent with their present and 
future development, financial and trade needs.  Th is would also help to accelerate the accession of 
many developing countries and LDCs that were knoc king at the door of this organization with the 
hope that their fuller integration into the multilate ral trading system would expand their development 
horizons.  Developing-country Members were also un ited in sharing a deep concern that the accession 
of some developing countries was being undul y delayed due to political and non-commercial 
considerations.  In a rules-based system such as the WTO, commercial, technical and juridical 
considerations should be the deciding factors in every accession process.  The Group therefore urged 
Members to take serious note of these concerns an d to respond positively to any future efforts to 
unblock the accession processes of those countries en countering obstacles that were not based on 
commercial or technical considerations. 
78. The General Council took note  of the statement. 
10. Chairmanships of the TRIPS Council, the Negotiating Group on NAMA and the Special 
Session of the TRIPS Council 
79. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", said that as delegations might be aware, 
Ms Mathurin (Jamaica), Chair of the TRIPS Council, would shortly be leaving her post as head of her 
delegation in Geneva.  In a fax dated 27 June, he had informed de legations that he was starting 
consultations – with the assistance of the DSB Ch air and former Chairs of the General Council – 
regarding the appointment of a successor to Ms Math urin.  He was pleased to be able to announce, on 
the basis of these consultations, that there was cons ensus on the appointment of Mr Francis (Trinidad 
and Tobago) to the Chairmanship of the TRIPS Council.  As Members might also be aware, 
Mr Stephenson (Canada), Chairman of the Negotia ting Group on NAMA, and Mr Ahmad (Pakistan), 
Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TR IPS, would also shortly be leaving their posts 
as heads of their delegations in Geneva.  In keepi ng with the agreement reached by the TNC at its first 
meeting in January and February 2002 regarding th e appointment of Chairs of the TNC and of the 
bodies established by it – namely, that the Chairman  of the General Council should consult on the 
chairmanships of the individual negotiating bodies un der the TNC – he wished to inform delegations WT/GC/M/115 
Page 24  
 
that he would be starting consulta tions regarding the appointment of successors to Messrs Stephenson 
and Ahmad.  A note on the arrangements for this process would be circulated shortly. 
80. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago
 expressed his delegation's appreciation to the 
outgoing Chair of the TRIPS Council, whose dedicati on and incisiveness he said had brought great 
dynamism to the process in this house.  He wish ed also to thank his co lleagues in GRULAC for 
endorsing his own candidacy for this post, as also the ACP Group who had also lent considerable 
support and encouragement in his taking on this important assignment.  He came to this assignment 
with a great sense of responsibility,  because the extent to which intellectual property rights were a 
critical aspect of the international commercial relati ons dynamic was fully appreciated in the WTO.  
He looked forward to working with all Members and w ith the support of the Secretariat, so that steady 
progress could be made on these very difficult issues.   He once again thanked the membership for 
endorsing his candidature, and hoped that the spir it of flexibility shown over the past two weeks 
would inform and infuse all forthcoming discussion. 
81. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
11. Administrative Measures for Members in arrears 
82. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that at its meeting in May 2006, the 
General Council had approved a recommendati on from the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration regarding revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears (WT/BFA/86).  
Among these Administrative Measures was a requirement that at each meeting of the General C ouncil, 
the Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Fina nce and Administration s hould provide information 
with regard to which Members were under Administ rative Measures in Ca tegories II through IV. 
83. Mr Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said that while the Council Chair had set out the background to the Budget 
Committee's decision, he wished to add that  the General Council had also authorized the Budget 
Committee to waive the application of the Measures for Members in Category IV who agreed to, and 
abided by, a schedule of instalment payments aimed at liquidating all arrears.  In this context, he 
invited the Members concerned with this question to contact the Secretariat to discuss the modalities 
for establishing such an instalment pl an.  He wished to note that sin ce his last report to the Council in 
May, he had written, in his capacity as Budget Co mmittee Chair, to all t hose Members concerned, 
reminding them of the arrears owing and indicating th at the Budget Committee, in a task set several 
years earlier, would be reviewing the effectiveness of the Administrative Measures, including with a 
view to identifying options for extending or intensifying them.  In pursuance of the revised 
Administrative Measures, he wish ed to inform the Council that as at 23 July, the Members under 
Categories II through IV of the Administrative Meas ures were as follows:  Mali, Nicaragua and Peru 
in Category II;  Paraguay and Senegal in  Category III;  and the following Members in Category IV:  
Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Commonwea lth of Dominica, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Guin ea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, 
Republic of Congo, Sie rra Leone and Togo. 
84. The Chairman  then recalled that under the revised Administrative Measures he was also 
required at each Council meeting to request those Members in Categories III and IV of the Measures 
to inform him, before the next meeting of the Ge neral Council, as to when their payment of arrears 
might be expected.  In keeping with the Admini strative Measures, he would report on Members' 
replies to the next meeting of the General Council.   Since the May General Council meeting, he had 
not received any replies from the Members concerned. 
85. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
__________