RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/98 
8 July 2009 
 
 (09-3354) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
29 JUNE 2009 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Elin Østebø Johansen (Norway)
 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3392 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/623.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
 
I.
 CAPE VERDE – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATED TO THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF DUTY RATE REDUCTION ......................................................1  
II. ISSUES RELATED TO TRADE IN TEXTILES ..................................................................2  
III. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ENLARG EMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994.....................................................................................6  
A. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 MAY 2004.........................................6  
B. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 JANUARY 2007 .................................7  
IV. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................. .8 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ....................................................................................................8  
 
 
 
I. CAPE VERDE – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATED TO THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF DUTY RATE REDUCTION  
1.1 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to Cape Verd e's request for a waiver related to the 
implementation of its commitments in its schedule of concessions.  This request was circulated in 
document G/C/W/618.  It had been the subject of an  informal meeting of the Council at which Cape 
Verde introduced his Government's request and outli ned the reasons for which it sought this waiver.  
Several Members had voiced support for this request.  At the last formal meeting, it had been agreed 
to revert to this item pending the circulation of a draft decision for the Council's consideration.  This 
draft decision had been circulated in document G/ C/W/622.  She proposed that the Council approve 
the draft decision contained in document G/C/W/ 622 and recommend that it be forwarded to the 
General Council for adoption.    
 
1.2 The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation was happy to join 
the consensus on the draft decision.  He asked what was the current status of the law on trading rights 
for which Cape Verde had been granted a transitional period of four years upon its accession.   G/C/M/98 
Page 2  
 
  1.3 The representative of Cape Verde
 said that he would relay this question to his capital for a 
detailed response.  Since its accession, his Governme nt had been working on this issue and a great 
deal of change had taken place with regard to exte rnal trade.  However, there was still work to be 
done and his delegation would notify all of the cha nges which had been and would be made in terms 
of foreign trading rights in Cape Verde, and also  the connections to customs reforms which were 
being undertaken with the adoption of new cust oms quotas being examined by Parliament.  His 
Government was committed to the ongoing improvement s to its legislation and to ensure conformity 
with its accession commitments.  He thanked Me mbers for this positive consideration of his 
delegation's request for a waiver from its scheduled commitments.  
1.4 The Council took note of the statements made  and approved the draft decision contained in 
document G/C/W/622 and recommended that it be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.  
II. ISSUES RELATED TO TRADE IN TEXTILES  
2.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at the Council's last meet ing on 12 May, the delegation of Turkey 
submitted a revision of its new proposal which was ci rculated in document G/C/W/614/Rev.1.  It had 
been agreed, following the request by the delegation of Turkey, to revert to this item at today's 
meeting so that experts from the Turkish capital c ould be present to respond to Members' questions 
and comments.  It had also been agreed that , if the discussion at today's meeting was again 
inconclusive, the Council would suspend further disc ussion of this item until such time as Members 
could agree on a course of action or agree to drop this item from the agenda.   
 
2.2 The representative of Turkey  recalled that almost five years had passed since the introduction 
of this item to the agenda of the CTG.  The deve lopments in the post-ATC era had been critical for 
many players.  Turkey had proposed a work progra mme which was then followed by a proposal for an 
outline of compiled international studies to better re flect the situation of the industry.  Although the 
initial idea was for the WTO to conduct this task, consensus on this idea unfortunately could not be 
achieved.  Nonetheless, developments in the sector were so crucial for many, that not only business 
and governmental actors, but also international organi sations sought to analyze the situation in detail.  
Business considered mainly the d eclining sales, while national authorities looked at the increasing 
unemployment and social problems and internationa l organisations studied topics including, but not 
limited to, labour, economy, liberalisation, and even fashion.   
 
2.3 For Turkey, this differentiation in foci w as enough to indicate the necessity to analyze the 
ramifications of the expiry of the ATC in a manner covering all dimensions of the sectoral restructuring.  With this in mind, and albeit th e hesitations of some delegations, Turkey took an 
additional step by producing a compilation paper in its  own capacity.  The paper was far from partial;   
various studies of relevant interna tional organisations were taken into  consideration in order to avoid 
one-sided conclusions.  His de legation believed that the compilation paper served its cause by 
generating a debate in the CTG.  His delegation was particularly pleased to see that some delegations, 
which were opposed to the idea of proceeding with a compilation by the WTO Secretariat, were now 
keen to discuss issues such as the une ven distribution of benefits of trade liberalisation by questioning 
the so-called "remedy effect" of now obsolete tariff quotas;  the unprecedented nature of the 
dwindling global market shares by liberal competitio n;  and the unemployment of masses as a result 
of closure or contraction of fi rms with "bilateral aids" implemented as a kind of "panacea" to the 
problems encountered.    2.4 Textiles and clothing had long been the only sector governed by a specific WTO Agreement.  
His delegation believed that proceeding with th e workshop to openly discuss sectoral challenges 
experienced as well as prospects for the better integration of countries' concerns into shaping the 
sector's trading environment would be an ideal necessary next step.  Using the compilation study as a stepping stone, the organisation of such a workshop under the WTO would bear the long-expected  G/C/M/98 
 Page 3 
 
 
  fruits of this initiative, i.e. an in -depth analysis of the sectoral rest ructuring.  Given that the initial 
objections to the compilation turned into a fruitful debate on sectoral restructuring, his delegation 
believed that the current objections  would generate an even better dissemination of information on the 
ways and means to stay afloat in this new envir onment.  This would be a valuable asset for countries 
in coping with the challenges of the post-ATC er a.  His delegation also believed that some 
delegations' hesitation towards taking a step forw ard emanated from their inaccurate perception of 
Turkey's initiative.  This perception led to a concer n of politicisation of the liberalisation process that 
had been taking place for years.  While taking note of  this attitude, his delega tion did not believe that 
it should divert Members from organising an objective,  international workshop.  In conclusion, he 
reminded Members' that his delegation was not ch allenging competitive advantage nor the quota-free 
system.  It only sought to challenge the ignoran ce towards the idea of reso lving the difficulties faced 
by developing countries, the resistance to discu ss post-ATC developments and the avoidance to 
proceed with these long-sought efforts under the WTO.   Ignorance, resistance and avoidance would – 
as it did with the compilation paper- all be tran sformed into a keen and dedicated discussion on 
sectoral restructuring in the workshop.  
2.5 The representative of Jordan  said that his delegation did not agree with dropping this item 
from the CTG's agenda.  This was the last sector to  be integrated into the rules of the multilateral 
trading system, so a deep analysis of the social, tr ade and economic impacts of the trade in this sector 
was necessary.  His delegation fully supported Turkey's  statement.  The idea of holding a workshop to 
create a real debate on trade trends in this sector  important to many developing countries was an 
excellent idea and should be carried out  under the umbrella of this Council. 
 
2.6 The representative of El Salvador  recalled that this sector was important to many developing 
countries because of its impact in generating jobs an d investments, and its contribution to maintaining 
the economic stability of countries, bearing in mind its  importance in industrial exports.  This was the 
case for El Salvador, and for that reason her dele gation was in favour of including this item on the 
Council's agenda.  In this context, Turkey's compilation document of recent studies brought value-
added to the discussion which should continue on th is basis, bearing in mind that at present the 
commercial and trade scenarios were not so different from that in the past.  Like other Members, her 
delegation considered that any Member was entitle d to put on the agenda of the Council whatever 
questions it considered relevant to trade in goods .  It was useful to use the Council as a forum to 
discuss issues related to the evolution of this sector, just as other sectors were important for other 
Members.  Nevertheless, unfortunately, fruitful di alogue had not been possible as some delegations 
considered the issue important for discussion and others saw no merit in this and argued that 
proponents were  trying to reverse liberalisation of this sector and bring back quotas.  She reaffirmed 
that El Salvador's intention in promoting discussion did not have any hidden agenda, nor did it seek to 
go back on the steps taken towards liberalisation of this sector.  Nevertheless, it had to be recognised 
that the end of the quotas system changed the commercial context.  What was requested was a 
constructive dialogue among Members on the basi s of studies done by various international 
organisations so that new trends in the market could be analyzed and means to give assistance to 
developing countries which saw exports  dwindling could be identified .  Her delegation supported the 
proposal for a workshop and also reserved the right to  come back to this item once new ideas were on 
the table which would help move the discussion forw ard.   For this, good will and open mindedness of 
all delegations was necessary. 
 2.7 The representative of the Dominican Republic
 reiterated the importance her Government 
attached to this issue since trad e of textiles was of vital importanc e for her country.  After reviewing 
Turkey's proposal, the Dominican Republic had deci ded to support it because it considered that the 
compilation of recent studies on the main trends following the progressive elimination of quantitive 
restrictions showed concrete data on the situa tion being experienced by a group of developing 
countries and LDCs which had an important part to pl ay in this trade following the elimination of the G/C/M/98 
Page 4  
 
  Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  Although the Do minican Republic was not one of the countries 
covered by the compilation, according to the statisti cal data produced by the international office for 
textiles and apparel, exports towards the United St ates, the main market for the Dominican Republic 
in the last 3 years, had considerably declined.  For example, for the period 2006-2007, these exports 
declined by 31.6 per cent and from 2007-2008 by 19.8 per cent.  This meant a reduction of more than 
a quarter of its exports in this sector.  Neverthel ess, in spite of the free trade agreement with the 
United States, this reduction had had a great impact  on the Dominican Republic and consequently had 
increased unemployment.  As a result of these deve lopments, her delegation was requesting a search 
for proper solutions within the framework of th e WTO.  In this connection, a frank and open 
discussion in a multilateral framework for the purpose of monitoring the trends in this area would help 
those developing countries and LDCs in less favourab le competitive conditions to improve their trade 
in this sphere.  Likewise, her delegation supported Turkey's proposal to hold a workshop within the 
WTO so as to seek new solutions in this sector and reiterate d its interest in continuing this discussion.     
 2.8 The representative of Morocco
 reiterated her delegation' s support for the compilation 
document and the establishment of a workshop in the te xtile sector.  It also requested that this item 
remain on the agenda of the Council.  2.9 The representative of Mauritius
 supported the statement made by  Turkey and asked that this 
item remain on the Council's agenda.  
2.10 The representative of Egypt
 fully associated his delegation w ith the intervention made by the 
previous speakers supporting the idea of conducting a wo rkshop that focused on issues related to trade 
and textiles.  2.11 The representative of Guatemala
 supported the compilation document and the establishment 
of a workshop.  Her delegation requested that this subject remain on the Council's agenda. 
 2.12 The representative of Honduras
 said that her delegation suppor ted the initiative to continue 
discussing the issue of textiles in this Council, and the proposal to establish a workshop.  2.13 The representative of China
 recalled that the Turkish delegation had proposed the idea of 
compiling some international studies but Members ha d never agreed on this.  The Turkish delegation 
prepared a compilation by themselves and submitted it in document G/C/W/614/Rev.1.  His delegation had pointed out the misleading points in th is unilaterally compiled document.  It would not 
repeat its position which was already made clear.  Members could revisit the minutes of past meeting for reference.  He noted that some delegations, in  favour of this agenda, repeatedly took the floor 
during the past 5 years of discussion to say that this item should remain on the agenda because they 
would come back with detailed comments.  Howe ver, the Council never received any substantial 
comments from these delegations.  He recalled the Council's decision on this issue at its meeting on 
12 May 2009.  In paragraphs 3.16 and 3.17 of document G/C/M/97, the document stated "if at the next meeting the discussion was again inconclusive , [the Chair] would propose that the Council 
suspend discussion of this item until such time as members could agree on the course of action or 
agree to drop this item from the agenda.  Beari ng this in mind, and seeing little possibility to reach 
agreement on this issue, for the dignity and the authority of both the Chair and the Council, his 
delegation requested that the Council drop this item from the agenda or otherwise suspend its 
discussion.  
2.14 The representative of India
 said that his delegation was willing to wait for this meeting to hear 
something new or different which would address the concerns his delegation had raised many times 
earlier.  Unfortunately, there was nothing new forthc oming other than a request to keep this item on 
the agenda for a purpose that his delegation c ould not discern.  The Council had discussed the 
workshop, it had discussed what could be the objec tives of the workshop, it had explained why those  G/C/M/98 
 Page 5 
 
 
  objectives could not be met, it had tried to be as in clusive and as engaging as possible in this debate, 
which had been long.  He considered that if a conc lusion could not be reached in five years, there was 
no purpose in keeping the matter on the agenda for anothe r five years.  He believed that the decision 
agreed by the Council at its last meeting was a move in the right direction.  The matter could be 
suspended until the proponents of this issue found  something new or found some material which 
addressed the views expressed by all Members.  The Council could revert to this issue, but 
maintaining an item ad infinitum on the agenda did not serve any purpose.   
 2.15 The representative of Pakistan
 said that his delegation's position was well known to all the 
delegations.  Besides consid ering this issue with an open mind and in order to really judge any change 
of circumstances warranting a revision of position,  his delegation was not yet convinced that the 
textile and clothing sector required any special trea tment.  This sector has already completed four 
years in the normal course of international trade.   Also, he recalled the Council's decision at its 
previous meeting to suspend this matter in the ab sence of a conclusive discussion.  His delegation 
looked forward to proceeding in this vein. 
 
2.16 The representative of Thailand  said that his delegation supported the points made by India 
and China's reminder of the decision taken at the Council's last meeting.  This discussion was inconclusive and it would make better use of the Council's time to suspen d this agenda item until 
there were new avenues to pursue on this matter.    
2.17 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 said that his delegation continued to not see any 
particular reason to single out the textiles and clothi ng sector for separate discussion.  It was apparent 
from interventions by previous speak ers that there would be no consen sus reached within the Council.  
As India had stated, prolonging this discussion was a waste of time.  Unless Turkey had produced new 
materials that could address Members' concerns, his delegation supported the Chair's suggestion at the 
last CTG meeting to suspend this item.   
 2.18 The representative of Jordan
 wished to make certain points very clear.  Since the beginning, 
the proponents did not link this issue with the nego tiations.  So there was nothing underhanded in the 
proposal.  Second, the Council had started talking about a dialogue and the first proposal was to 
conduct a work programme.  Elements were introduced  into this work programme but it was refused 
and rejected.  Then, the Council discussed a compila tion of studies by international organisations, 
including the WTO, which was again rejected.  Finally, the proponents were now proposing a workshop.  If this idea was not accepted, what ki nd of dialogue could the Council establish?  He 
insisted that the Council needed to have th e item on the agenda of its next meeting. 
 
2.19 The representative of Turkey
 said that, at this juncture, his delegation's intention was to 
prepare and submit a draft plan for the works hop which was supported by a number of Council 
Members.  His delegation was looking forward to holding this workshop under the WTO umbrella or 
on the sidelines of this Organisation.  For this pur pose, his delegation would like to stay in contact 
with delegations for consultations  on this draft plan for their views on the contents and possible 
participants in such an event.  On the other hand , his delegation would also like to work with the 
WTO Secretariat on technical aspects of its organi sation.  His delegation hoped to elaborate a draft 
which would be acceptable to all de legations.  As far in advance as possible before the next meeting 
of the Council it hoped to share the draft with othe r delegations.  His delega tion believed that a less 
formal environment for discussions on this topic would generate considerable capacity for policy 
making, especially for developing and least developed Members by addressing the difficulties of 
trading in this sector as well as the best practices.  
 2.20 The Chairman
 said that, from the interventions, it seemed clear that there was still no 
agreement among Members on how to proceed with this item in the Goods Council.  There were 
several Members that wanted to keep this item on the agenda while others did not see the need to do G/C/M/98 
Page 6  
 
  so and would prefer that the item be taken off th e agenda.  She believed that it did not serve the 
Council to maintain an item on the agenda simply for the sake of continuing inconclusive discussions, 
and a real constructive dialogue still seemed to be l acking after five years of discussion.  However, 
she was also aware of the importance that certain Members attached to maintaining this item on the 
agenda.  Therefore, she had proposed at the last  Council meeting to suspend this discussion for the 
time being.  In response to Jordan's concern, this did not mean that the item would disappear;  it could 
be raised at any time if a Member wished, for example through the presentation of new approaches 
that might be agreed on how to address the issue.  Given the wide divergence of views, she believed 
that interested Members must work together to fi nd a common ground to bring to the Council so that 
the Council could progress constructively on the item.   
 
2.21 Turkey had proposed that an informal work shop on textiles and clothing be arranged.  In 
order to bring this idea to fruition, plurilateral  or multilateral consultati ons among Members would be 
necessary.  She stressed that the Secretariat and herself would assist in that process if necessary.  
However, after listening to the discussion today, this  process might take considerable time.  In this 
light, she proposed that the Council maintain the decision that it had taken at its last meeting, namely 
that the item be suspended from the Goods Council's age nda for the time being.  She repeated that she 
and the Secretariat would be available in order to assist in the consultation process and organization of 
an informal workshop, as proposed by Turkey.   2.22  The Council so agreed
. 
 
III. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ENLARGEMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994  
3.1 The Chairman  informed Members that, under this agenda  item, the Council was to consider a 
request for extension of the time period for th e withdrawal of concessions for the two recent 
enlargements of the European Communities. 
 A. E
NLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 MAY 2004   
3.2 She drew Members' attention to document G/L/695/Add.9 which concerned the accession to 
the European Union on 1 May 2004 of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slova k Republic and Slovenia.  In this  communication, the EC indicated 
that it would not assert that Members who had su bmitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of 
GATT 1994 were precluded from withdrawing s ubstantially equivalent concessions under 
Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because this withdr awal occurred later than six months after the 
EC's withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions no 
later than 69 months after the EC's modification of concessions.   
 
3.3 She recalled that the General Council had on four earlier occasions, on the basis of similar 
communications from the EC, extended the deadline for withdrawal of concessions referred to in 
Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994, namely, at its meeti ngs in October 2004, a nd in March, June, and 
December 2005.  Similarly, the Council for Trade in Goods had extended the deadline on six 
occasions, namely at its meetings of 12 July 2006, 30 January 2007, 21 May 2007, 23 November 
2007, 22 May 2008 and 18 November 2008.   
3.4 The representative of the European Communities  said that the Chair had summarised the 
situation well.  Under this agenda item, his de legation was asking the Goods Council to approve its 
request to extend the periods within which Members would have the right to withdraw substantially 
equivalent concessions related to the modification of the EC schedules pursuan t to the 2004 and 2007 
enlargements.  First, in respect of the EC's  2004 enlargement, the compensation negotiations 
following this enlargement with all Members had been  finalised in all areas except for the setting of a  G/C/M/98 
 Page 7 
 
 
  new banana tariff for the EC25 schedule.  It was fo r this reason his delegati on was seeking to extend 
the period in which Members would be allowed to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions for 
a further six months.  The message in the documen t was identical to the one that the CTG endorsed 
when it extended the period almost six months ago.    
3.5 The second request, contained in document 821/A dd.4, related to the negotiations pursuant to 
the 2007 enlargement of the EC.  Negotiations fo llowing that enlargement were still ongoing.  Good 
progress had been made with its partners and his de legation was confident that it would be able to 
reach agreement with all partners soon.  Howeve r, it needed more time for completion of these 
negotiations.  He added that on issue of bananas,  a comprehensive solution would be sought which 
would factor into a new tariff both the 2004 and 20 07 enlargements together with it was hoped, the 
settlement of ongoing dispute settlement cases and th e treatment of bananas in the Doha round.  
Therefore, his delegation had again circulated a message aimed at extending the period in which 
Members would be allowed to w ithdraw substantially equivalent concessions.  This request was 
virtually identical to the one that was endorsed by this Council about six months ago.   
 
3.6 The representative of Colombia
 said that the European Communities had given a summary of 
the historical background to this item dating back to  2004 when the EC notified, for the first time, the 
withdrawal of the list of concessions for the ne w Members and Article XXVIII negotiations were 
begun.  Since then, Colombia had seemed to be recognised as a principal supplier of bananas but 
unfortunately had not yet enjoyed the compensator y adjustments for damage suffered in terms of 
access conditions for the new members of the EC.  In this regard, her delegation made reference to the 
agreement achieved on 27 July 2008 between Colo mbia and other parties to which the EC had 
unfortunately not adhered.  Colombia  hoped soon to be able to reach agreement with the EC to enable 
this issue to be resolved jointly with  other pending issues on the banana file. 
 
3.7 The representative of Ecuador  associated his delegation with the statement by Colombia. 
 
3.8 The Council took note of the statement made and of the EC communication contained in 
document G/L/695/Add.9, and agreed on the extensi on of the deadline as set out in the European 
Commission's document G/L/695/Add.9.   
B. E
NLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 JANUARY 2007   
3.9 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to docum ent G/L/821/Add.4 which concerned the 
accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 of Bulgaria and Romania.  In this 
communication, the EC indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precl uded from withdrawing subs tantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 becau se this withdrawal occurred later than six 
months after the EC's withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions no later than 36 months after the EC's mo dification of concessions.  She recalled that the 
Council for Trade in Goods had exte nded the deadline on three occasions, namely at its meetings of 
21 May 2007, 23 November 2007, 22 May 2008, and 18 November 2008.   
3.10 The Council took note of the statement made and of the EC communication contained in 
document G/L/821/Add.4, and agreed on the extensi on of the deadline as set out in the European 
Commission's document G/L/821/Add.4.   G/C/M/98 
Page 8  
 
  IV. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. D
ATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
4.1 The Chairman  informed Members that the next mee ting of the Council for Trade in Goods 
was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 24 Novemb er 2009.  The agenda would close on Friday, 
13 November 2009. 
 
4.2 The meeting was adjourned. 
__________