RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  GPA/M/27 
30 August 2005 
 (05-3780) 
Committee on Government Procurement  
  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 JULY 2005 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Tae-yul Cho (Korea)
 
 
 
 1. The Committee adopted
 the following agenda, as outlined in Airgram WTO/AIR/2621/Rev.1 
of 11 July 2005: 
A. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7 
 
B. Modifications to the Appendices to the Agreement 
 
C. Accessions 
 
D. Review of national implementing legislation 
 
E. Israel's reques t regarding offsets 
 
F. Other business. 
 
A. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  XXIV :7 
2. The Chairman  noted that since the last formal mee ting at which this item had been discussed, 
held on 17 November 2004, specific issues relating to the negotiations had been raised at two formal 
meetings.  At the meeting of 16 December 2004, the Committee had discussed the status of GPA observers in the context of  bilateral coverage negotiations
1 and the circulation of requests in 
bilateral coverage negotiations.2  At the meeting of 14 March 2005, the Committee had discussed 
issues relating to future work with regard to negot iations pursuant to Article XXIV:7(b) and (c) of the 
Agreement.3  At its meetings on 17 November4 and 16 December 20045, the Committee had agreed to 
hold four meetings in 2005 in order to continue  negotiations pursuant to Article XXIV:7 of the 
Agreement:  in the weeks of 14 March, 30 May, 18 July and 10 October 2005, respectively.  The 
Chairman's statement on stocktaking and future work made at the end of the informal meeting held in 
the week of 30 May 2005 had been circulated on 3 June 20056, and was included in the set of 
materials for the meeting.  The results of drafting work at that meeting had been reproduced in the 
updated "clean"7 and "side-by-side"8 versions of the draft revised text  of the Agreement.  In addition, 
                                                      
1 GPA/M/25, paras. 13-17. 
2 GPA/M/25, para. 18. 
3 GPA/M/26, paras. 8-18. 
4 GPA/M/24, paras. 99-100 and 104. 
5 GPA/M/25, para. 12. 
6 Job No. 3794. 
7 Job No. 4035 of 10 June 2005. 
8 Job No. 4297 of 20 June 2005. GPA/M/27 
Page 2  
 
based on comments by delegations on two earlier drafts, the final version of the summary of 
negotiations on so-called "horizont al" coverage issues had been circulated on 15 July 2005.
9 
(i) Stocktaking and future work 
3. The Chairman  said that, based on his suggestions in the fax of 12 July 2005 and on proposals 
by delegations, the current formal meeting had b een preceded by informal negotiations held over 
several days on outstanding non-market-access-related provisions in the draft revised text of the 
Agreement, and on coverage ma tters pursuant to the Decision on the Modalities for the Negotiations 
on Extension of Coverage and Elimination of Discriminatory Measures and Practices.10  As discussed 
at the informal closing session of the week's nego tiations which had taken place before the meeting, 
he suggested that his statement on stocktaking of the week's negotiations and suggestions for future 
work made during that session be included in the minutes of the meeting. 
4. It was so agreed .  Accordingly, the Chairman's st atement is attached to these minutes.11 
(ii) State of play of coverage negotiatio ns and revised timetable for the negotiations 
5. The Chairman  recalled that, according to the Decision on the Modalities for the Negotiations 
on Extension of Coverage a nd Elimination of Discriminatory Measures and Practices12, initial offers 
had been originally scheduled to be submitted by  1 March 2005 but not later than 1 May 2005.  
However, no offers had been tabled thus far.  Give n this, and as had been discussed informally during 
the week, the Committee could now adopt, if deemed  appropriate, the draft decision on the deadlines 
for the submission of offers and conclusion of th e negotiations pursuant to Article XXIV:7 of the 
Agreement that delegations had seen and commented on earlier in the week.  The draft decision would 
extend the deadlines both for submission of initial offers and for the overall completion of the 
negotiations. 
6. The Committee adopted  the Decision.13 
B. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPE NDICES TO THE AGREEMENT  
(i) Modifications certified since the meeting in November 2004 
7. The Chairman  noted that, since the last meeting of the Committee discussing this item, 
on 17 November 2004, various modifi cations had become effective a nd had been certified.  Detailed 
information on these modifications was available in  paragraph 4 of the annotated agenda for the 
meeting.14 
(ii) Outstanding modifications 
8. The Chairman  said that the following proposed modifications remained outstanding: 
(a) a notification by Hong Kong, China  concerning proposed modifications to its 
Appendix III15; 
                                                      
9 Job No. 4321/Rev.2 (5082). 
10 GPA/79 of 19 July 2004. 
11 This statement has also been circulated as Job No. 5340 of 22 July 2005. 
12 GPA/79 of 19 July 2004. 
13 Subsequently circulated in document GPA/79/Add.1 of 22 July 2005. 
14 Job No. 5051 of 14 July 2005. 
15 GPA/MOD/HKG/3 of 15 July 2005.  GPA/M/27 
 Page 3 
 
 
(b) notifications by Japan  concerning proposed modifications relating to: 
- NTT16; 
- East Japan Railway Company, Central Japan Railway Company and West Japan 
Railway Company17; 
- Railway Construction Public Corpor ation and Corporation for Advanced 
Transport and Technology18; 
- Japan Consumer Information Center, Water Resources Development Public 
Corporation, Japan Green Resources Corporation, the Japan Science and 
Technology Corporation, RIKEN (The In stitute of Physical and Chemical 
Research), National Stadium and School H ealth Center of Japan, the Association 
for Welfare of the Mentally and Ph ysically Handicapped, and National 
Agriculture Research Organization19; 
- National Aerospace Laboratory20; 
- Annex 3 of Japan's Appendix I21;  and 
(c) a notification by the United States  concerning proposed modifications to reflect 
changes in the administrative structure of  the Federal Government, as regards the 
Uranium Enrichment Corporation.22 
9. Continuing, he said that the details of no tifications with regard to these outstanding 
modifications, as well as the developments, if any, since the meeting of the Committee in 
November 2004, were contained in paragraph 5 of the annotated agenda for the meeting.23 
10. The representative of Japan  said that her delegation had submitted a number of notifications 
to the Committee.  Regarding some of those notif ications, questions had been received from certain 
Parties.  Her delegation needed some time to answ er to those questions, and was in the process of 
preparing its answers.  As regards long outstandi ng issues, one of which concerned the three Japan 
Railway companies, her delegation had received a fourth set of questions from the European 
Communities, and her delegation had submitted its answers to those questions.  She requested 
clarification by the European Communities of the st atus of its response to her delegation's answers, 
given that quite some time had passed since her delegation had sent its answ ers.  She reiterated her 
delegation's request for the expeditious withdrawal  of the European Communities' objection to this 
proposed modification.  As regards the proposed  modification concerning NTT, her delegation had 
submitted its answers to the European Communities'  questions.  She had the impression that the 
European Communities had reacted in a quite favourab le manner to those answers.  In the meantime, 
her delegation had submitted additi onal documents requested by the European Communities, and she 
wished to know where the Europ ean Communities stood on that issue.   She asked for the expeditious 
withdrawal of the European Communities' objection to  that proposed modification too.  She noted that 
her delegation had submitted to the Committe e a paper on its long-standing non-resolved 
                                                      
16 GPA/W/91 of 6 September 1999. 
17 GPA/W/144, 145 and 146 of 29 August 2001, and GPA/W/152 & Corr.1 of 20 September and 
10 October 2001. 
18 GPA/W/272 and Rev.1 of 23 September and 8 October 2003, respectively. 
19 GPA/W/274 of 23 September 2003. 
20 GPA/W/275 of 23 September 2003. 
21 GPA/MOD/JPN/7 of 26 July 2004. 
22 GPA/W/153 of 25 September 2001. 
23 Job No. 5051 of 14 July 2005. GPA/M/27 
Page 4  
 
modifications.
24  As discussed in that paper, her dele gation's position was that those long-standing 
non-resolved notifications should not be carried over to a new agreement but should be resolved 
expeditiously. 
11. The representative of the European Communities  thanked Japan for its replies and the 
additional information on NTT.  He asked Jap an for its understanding that processing this new 
information, which was not older than a month, need ed some more time.  Accordingly, his delegation 
was not in a position to give a definitive response at  that stage, although he said that his delegation 
believed that the new information submitted by Japan was going into the right direction.  He said that 
the modification concerning the three Japan Railw ay companies was a long-standing issue.  His 
delegation was ready to continue discussing it with Japan.  He pointed out that his delegation had 
waived a number of objections against proposed modifications by Japan, and Japan had submitted a 
large number of modifications, which were not always easy to process.  His delegation had tried to accommodate, and respond to, Japan's need to have  the relevant objections waived as soon as 
possible.  He said that, as regards several notif ications by Japan, his delegation was still awaiting 
Japan's answers to questions some of which had been posed more than a year ago.  In particular, the 
European Communities had not received any answer s to its questions on Japan's notification 
concerning the National Aerospace Laboratory.  He also  drew Japan's attention to the new, additional 
question posed by his delegation concerning Japan's Urban Renaissance Agency
25, which his 
delegation believed was a particularly sensitive notifi cation, given that there had been a transfer of 
activities from that entity, which could have an ef fect on the agreed balance of coverage.  His 
delegation understood that this ne w entity did not provide any railway services and, thus, should not 
be subject to the derogation on operational safety c ontained in Appendix I of Japan.  Having said that, 
his delegation was ready to work  with Japan to resolve outsta nding issues as fast as possible. 
12. The representative of Japan  said that her delegation had no additional information at that 
stage, but was making every effort to provide in formation and answers to the European Communities 
as soon as possible.  She said that her delegation had received the new questions by the European 
Communities a month or two earlier, and needed some more time to respond to those. 
C. ACCESSIONS  
(i) Developments since the meeting in November 2004 
13. The Chairman  noted that since the last meeting that comprehensively addressed this item, on 
17 November 2004, the following developments have occurred. 
Georgia 
14. The Chairman  said that, at the Committee's meeting on 17 November 2004, it had been 
agreed that, with the assistance of the Secretariat,  he would contact the de legation of Georgia to see 
when it might be able to respond to the questions received, and that on that basis he would further 
consult with Parties as to the idea of holding plurilateral consultations with Georgia.26  Since no 
responses had been submitted by Georgia, no plurilat eral consultations had been held.  He recalled 
that Georgia had sought accession in October 200227, had replied to the GPA/35 checklist in 
April 200228, and submitted its entity offer in December 2003.29 
                                                      
24 GPA/MOD/JPN/17 of 15 November 2004. 
25 GPA/MOD/JPN/18 of 3 June 2005. 
26 GPA/M/24, para. 49. 
27 GPA/71. 
28 GPA/W/187. 
29 GPA/SPEC/34.  GPA/M/27 
 Page 5 
 
 
Jordan 
15. The Chairman  said that, at the meeting of the Committee on 17 November 2004, Jordan had 
informed Parties that its new comprehensive legi slation was expected to be finalized by the end 
of 2004 and would hopefully pass the legislative pr ocess by summer 2005.  It had been agreed that 
Parties should submit their comments on Jordan's revised offer by 15 December 2004 through the 
Secretariat.  In turn, Jordan had agreed to pr epare a further revised offer by 15 February 2005.30  
He had noted that Parties might wish to see the developments before ta king a decision on holding 
another round of plurilateral cons ultations, and he had indicated that, through the Secretariat, he 
would consult with Parties on the relevant arra ngements.  Based on that agreed approach, the 
European Communities had submitted questions a nd requests regarding Jordan's revised market 
access offer31, and the United States had submitted request s for improvements in Jordan's revised 
entity offer.32  Jordan had responded to those submissions on 13 June 2005.33  At the meeting of the 
Committee on 14 March 2005, Jordan had made a st atement reporting on developments in its 
accession process to the Agreement on Government Procurement.34  It had noted that, in light of those 
developments, it had turned out to be impossible to  finalize and submit its second revised offer within 
the agreed time-frame.  Jordan had indicated that it was looking forward to submitting its second 
revised offer to the Committee once domestic pro cedures, including the official approval of the 
Government, had taken place.  As to the review of Jordan's legislation, the draft unified procurement 
law had been completed by the relevant committee, and had been submitted to the Government prior 
to undergoing the relevant constitutional procedures.   The Chairman recalled that Jordan had sought 
accession in July 200035, had replied to the GPA/35 checklist in December 200036, had submitted its 
entity offer in February 200337 and its revised entity offer in September 2004.38 
16. The representative of Jordan  said that work was taking place on the second revised offer that 
his delegation had promised to submit.  He expresse d the hope that, sometime in the course of 2005, if 
the relevant internal procedures had sufficiently pr ogressed, his delegation would be able to submit its 
second revised offer. 
(ii) Other accession processes 
17. The Chairman  noted that, in addition to the above two WTO Members, accession negotiations 
were under way with Albania, Bulgaria, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Oman, Panama and 
Chinese Taipei.  However, in th e case of these WTO Members, no new developments had taken place 
recently.  Basic information on earlier developments relating to their accession processes had been included in Annex 1 of the annotated agenda for the meeting.
39  The following additional 
WTO Members had provisions in their respective Protocols of Accession to the WTO regarding 
accession to the GPA:  Armenia, China, Croatia , the Former Yugoslav Re public of Macedonia and 
Mongolia.  Information concerning the commitments  of those WTO Members had been included in 
Annex 2 of the annotated agenda for the meeting.40 
                                                      
30 GPA/M/24, para. 51. 
31 GPA/ACC/JOR/5 of 20 December 2004. 
32 GPA/ACC/JOR/6 of 20 December 2004. 
33 GPA/ACC/JOR/8 and GPA/ACC/JOR/7, respectively. 
34 GPA/M/26, paras. 19-21. 
35 GPA/38. 
36 GPA/W/124. 
37 GPA/SPEC/29. 
38 GPA/ACC/JOR/4. 
39 Job No. 5051 of 14 July 2005. 
40 Job No. 5051 of 14 July 2005. GPA/M/27 
Page 6  
 
D. 
REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION  
18. The Chairman  noted that at the Committee's meeting of April 2004, the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands with respect to Aruba had said that th e Government of Aruba had originally intended to 
introduce new implementing legislation and to subse quently answer the questions in GPA/1/Add.1 on 
the basis of such legislation.  Since that would be a lengthy process, the Government of Aruba had 
decided to answer the questionnaire on the basis of  the current legislation.  The responses to the 
questionnaire in GPA/1/Add.1 had been submitted on 23 November 200441;  however, Aruba had not 
submitted the text of its legislation, either current or new, as yet.  Further, as indicated by Aruba at the 
meeting of 17 November 2004, the answers were based on the present legislation, which was being 
amended. 
19. The Chairman said that, in those circumstances, Pa rties might wish to consider whether to go 
ahead with the review of Aruba, based on the pr ocedures agreed upon at the Committee meeting of 
February 199842, or to postpone the review until Aruba had submitted all the documents required in 
GPA/1/Add.1. 
20. The Committee agreed  to postpone the review of the nati onal implementing legislation of the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to Ar uba until the required documents had been made 
available to Parties. 
21. The Chairman  recalled that, pursuant to Article XXIV: 5(b) of the Agreement, Parties should 
inform the Committee of any changes in their releva nt laws and regulations and in the administration 
of such laws and regulations.  In line with that provision, Japan had submitted a notification.43  He 
reminded Parties that had amended their laws impl ementing the Agreement to notify such laws in 
accordance with Article XXIV:5(b). 
E. ISRAEL 'S REQUEST REGARDING OFFSETS  
22. The Chairman  noted that, on 11 July 2005, Israel had submitted a request to include on the 
agenda of this meeting an item entitled "Israel's requ est regarding offsets".  Accordingly, the revised 
Airgram for the meeting44 had been circulated adding the prop osed agenda item on this issue.  
On 15 July 2005, Israel had made a submi ssion regarding its level of offset rights45, which had been 
circulated on 18 July 2005.  As to earlier developmen ts on Israel's offset commitments, at its meeting 
of 16 December 200446, he recalled that the Committee had adopted a Decision pursuant to 
Article XXIV:6(a) of the Agreem ent on Government Procurement.47  The Decision had modified 
Israel's Note to Appendix I to the Agreement:  it had extended by one year the original deadline of 
1 January 2005 for Israel's commitment to reduce th e value of offsets from a maximum of 30 per cent 
to a maximum of 20 per cent of procurement cont racts.  At the meeting of the Committee on 
14 March 2005, Israel had made a statement on th e modification of its Appendix I and on related 
issues.48  The Chairman noted that, in addition to its formal submission to the Committee, Israel had 
provided a room document which it had asked to have circulated to delegations participating in the 
meeting. 
                                                      
41 GPA/81. 
42 GPA/M/8, para. 23. 
43 GPA/37/Add.2 of 21 March 2005. 
44 WTO/AIR/2621/Rev.1 of 11 July 2004. 
45 GPA/W/294. 
46 GPA/M/25, para. 3. 
47 GPA/83 of 17 December 2004. 
48 GPA/M/26, paras. 3-6.  GPA/M/27 
 Page 7 
 
 
23. The representative of Israel  said that, as Parties might recall, in November 2004 Israel had 
submitted a formal request to the Committee requ esting to modify the timetable for a gradual 
reduction of its level of offset rights.  Subsequent ly, due to the urgent nature of the matter and the 
need for more time to study Israel's request, it had been decided to grant Israel an extension of one 
year for its rights to require offsets at the level of 30 per cent.  It had been understood that Israel as 
well as the rest of the Parties would use this period to further explore and negotiate this issue.  The 
Government of Israel had conducted a study of the implications of Israel's participation in the GPA on 
the Israeli economy and industry.  The assignment ha d been given to a leading market research and 
consulting firm in Israel.  The objectives and findin gs of the study were detailed in his delegation's 
two recent submissions:  (i) the formal submission circulated on 18 July 200549;  and (ii) the informal 
submission handed over to delegations  in the room yesterday, including more details about the study 
and its findings.  He asked delegations to keep this latter document confidential, since it contained 
commercial data. 
24. Continuing, he indicated that the four main findings of the study were as follows: 
(a) Israel's participation in the GPA had led Israeli companies neither to greater 
participation, nor to win public c ontracts in other Parties' markets; 
(b) the Israeli public procurement market ha d been further opened to competition from 
abroad since Israel had acceded  to the GPA.  In fact, Israel's market had been open 
even before accession to the GPA;  however,  in the light of the need to apply the 
non-discrimination principles, the market had been further opened; 
(c) the offset provisions in place had neither hindered nor discouraged foreign suppliers 
from competing and winning public tenders in Israel; 
(d) business opportunities resulting from offset rights constituted the main, if not the 
only, benefit for the Israeli industry from Is rael's participation in the GPA.  These 
benefits were reflected in direct business contracts, transfer of technology, know-how, creation of long-term business re lations as well as in other forms of 
benefits. 
25. In the light of these findings, which were elaborated in detail in his delegation's submission, 
the Government of Israel had decided to renew its re quest to make modifications in Israel's Note in 
Appendix I.  His delegation intended to enter into ne gotiations with Parties on this matter.  It wished 
to maintain its right to require offsets at the leve l of 30 per cent for an additional period of time, and 
then to gradually reduce it to a specific, agreed upon level.  His delegation understood that this could 
disrupt the balance of rights and obligations.  Beari ng this in mind and respecting the need to maintain 
an appropriate balance, his delegation stood read y to explore the possibility of making additional 
commitments in the framework of the market ac cess negotiations of the GPA on issues such as 
coverage of entities, goods and servic es, thresholds, and on other elemen ts subject to negotiation.  He 
hoped that this mechanism would allow Parties to reach a new balance of rights and obligations for 
Israel.  He noted that his delegation had already star ted to conduct bilateral m eetings with a number of 
Parties.  His delegation intended to complete the firs t round of bilateral meetings with the rest of the 
Parties within the next few weeks. 
26. In conclusion, he stressed that maintaining offset  rights was crucial for Israel so as to make 
the GPA a balanced and economically viable instru ment for the Israeli industry and economy.  His 
delegation hoped that this fact would be taken into account and accommodated in the framework of 
relevant discussions and negotiati ons.  He was looking forward to wo rking with other Parties on this 
matter in a constructive way. 
                                                     
 
49 GPA/W/294. GPA/M/27 
Page 8  
 
27. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation would review carefully the 
materials that Israel had provided and would consider Israel's requ est.  She said that her delegation 
regarded offsets as a transitional measure, not as a permanent fixture to a Party's market access 
commitments.  Her delegation would examine whatev er proposals Israel would put forward in that 
light. 
28. The representative of Canada  thanked Israel for having provi ded the background information 
during the week and for having come forward in considerable time before the agreed extension 
deadline established in December 2004.  She encourag ed Israel to come forward with its specific 
proposal as soon as possible so that Pa rties had sufficient time to cons ider it fully.  She reiterated her 
delegation's position expressed in December 2004 that offset provisions should be transitional in 
nature and that a proposal should come forward for their phase-out. 
29. On the Chairman's suggestion, the Committee agreed  to revert to this issue at its next meeting. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
(i) Statistics 
30. The Chairman  noted that, in line with the requirement s of Article XIX:5 of the Agreement, 
statistics for 2001 and 2002 had been submitted by Japan50, and that statistics for 2002 and 2003 had 
been submitted by Switzerland.51 
(ii) Thresholds 
31. The Chairman  noted that, in accordance with the Decision on Modalities for Notifying 
Threshold Figures in National Currencies52, the following Parties had provided information on their 
threshold figures expressed in national currencies for the current year:  Canada;  the European 
Communities;  Hong Kong, China;  Israel;  Japan;  the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to 
Aruba;  Norway;  Singapore;  and the United States.53 
(iii) Dates of meetings in 2006 
32. The Chairman  suggested that, with the help of the S ecretariat, he would start consulting with 
delegations on the dates for the Committee's meetings  in 2006, and would table a proposal on this at 
the meetings scheduled for the week of 10 October 2005. 
33. The representative of the European Communities  said that he was grateful for the Chairman's 
proposal but that his delegation would first like to  see how much progress could be achieved in the 
current year in order to determine at least the number of meetings in 2006. 
34. The representative of the United States  agreed with that point by the European Communities 
but said that, in order to be able to plan ahead, de legations would need to consider at least indicative 
dates at the meeting of October 2005. 
                                                      
50 GPA/70/Add.3 and GPA/76/Add.3 of 5 July 2005, respectively. 
51 GPA/76/Add.2 and GPA/80/Add.1 of 9 February 2005, respectively. 
52 GPA/1, Annex 3. 
53 GPA/W/285-series.  GPA/M/27 
 Page 9 
 
 
35. The Chairman , in concluding the meeting, said that, as had been agreed at the meetings of 
17 November 200454 and 16 December 200455, the Committee would hold its next meetings in the 
week of 10 October 2005.  At that time, the Comm ittee would have to adopt its annual report to the 
General Council, in which he hoped that it would be possible to record provisional agreement on the 
non-market-access-related portions of a revised text of  the Agreement.  He th anked all delegations for 
their contributions and for having sincerely engage d in the negations earlier during the week.  He 
hoped that delegations could come to the meeting in October 2005 with clearer and more flexible 
positions on the remaining outstanding issues so that substantial further progress could be made at that 
meeting. 
                                                      
54 GPA/M/24, paras. 99-100 and 104. 
55 GPA/M/25, para. 12. GPA/M/27 
Page 10  
 
ATTACHMENT 
 
Chairman's Statement on Stocktaking and Future Work
 
at the Informal Closing Session of 21 July 2005  
 
 
  At the opening session on Monday afternoon, we agreed to have an informal closing session at the conclusion of our work on negotiations this week, in order to take stock of progress and to 
consider next steps in the negotiations pursuant to Article XXIV:7. 
 
A. Stocktaking 
 
 Let me now provide a brief overview of the work  completed this week.  We have dealt with 
two main items: 
 
 (i) In regard to coverage issues
, an informal meeting on Monday afternoon held a useful 
discussion on two subjects: 
   - the state of play of the bilateral coverage negotiations and the question of a 
 new time-frame for the submission of initial offers;  and 
 
  - so-called "horizontal" coverage matte rs, including the drafting of relevant 
 provisions in the text of the Agreement. 
   On the state of play of the bilateral c overage negotiations and the question of a new 
time-frame for the submission of initial offe rs, it was noted that the deadlines for 
submission of initial offers have passed without any offers being received.  
Furthermore, there was a recognition that the preparation of offers has proven to be a 
more complex and time-consuming process than some Parties had foreseen.  Recognizing this, the Secretariat was asked to prepare a draft decision amending the 
Committee's original decision on the modaliti es of coverage negotiations (GPA/79 of 
19 July 2004).  The draft decision would extend the deadlines both for submission of 
initial offers and for the overall completion of the negotiations.  A first draft was 
circulated on Tuesday and, on Wednesday afternoon, comments were provided by delegations.  On the basis of these comments,  a revised draft of the decision has been 
circulated and will be considered for adop tion in the formal meeting that will follow 
this informal closing session. 
   On horizontal coverage matte rs, delegations had before them a note by the Secretariat 
summarizing the discussion on horizontal issues held on 30 May 2005 (Job No. 4321/Rev.2(5082) of 15 July 2005).  The discussion first considered a submission by Japan (Job No. 5105 of 15 Ju ly 2005) and related issues concerning 
thresholds and other matters that were ra ised by delegations.  This was followed by 
drafting work on various market-access-rela ted provisions throughout the revised text 
of the Agreement, including, but not limited to, the structure and content of Appendix I as proposed by the United States and attached to Job No. 4035, as well as certain provisions in the text of the Agreemen t relating to its covera ge.  The results of 
this work will be reflected in a new "cl ean text" which will be circulated by the 
Secretariat to serve as a basis of our further work. 
  GPA/M/27 
 Page 11 
 
 
  The discussion on horizontal coverage matters was focused and showed a clear desire 
by delegations to make further progress in this area at our meeting in October.  To 
facilitate this, it was agreed that the Secretariat would prepare a brief informal note summarizing the points made by delegations during the discussion. 
 
 (ii) In regard to the second main area of focu s of our work this week, namely the review 
of the non-market-access-relate d provisions of the Agreement , we have had intensive 
discussions over the last three days.  The dr afting work was based on the latest draft 
revised text circulated by the Secretaria t (Job No. 4035 of 10 June 2005) as well as on 
a submission by the United States (Job No. 4948 of 11 July 2005) containing revised 
drafting proposals on two decisions to be a dopted by the Committe e pursuant to what 
is now Article XVI/XVII of the revised te xt of the Agreement (Modifications and 
Rectifications to Coverage).   In addition, several dele gations provided detailed and 
useful drafting proposals relating to various  provisions of the Agreement, including 
Article VII (Information on Intended Proc urements), Article XII (formerly XI bis on 
the Use of Electronic Means), and Article XVI/XVII (Modifications and 
Rectifications to Coverage).  A number of these permitted us to eliminate brackets on 
portions of the text and to simplify the remaining "NBs" in the text. 
   In regard to most provisions of the revi sed draft of the Agreement, the drafting work 
took a sequential approach.  On Wednesday afternoon, Articles XVI/XVII 
(Modification and Rectifications to Cove rage) and Articles XVIII/XIX (Consultation 
and Dispute Settlement) were discussed with  the benefit of participation by some 
Parties' legal experts. 
   The discussions on all these elements of the text led to the inclusion in the "clean 
text" of new written proposals in addition to comments and su ggested wording by 
delegations.  These developments  will be reflected in the updated version of the draft 
revised text of the Agreement to be prepared by the Secretariat. 
   Overall, I believe it is important to rec ognize that the text has been streamlined and 
simplified in a number of areas, even though it is also true that our discussions seem 
to show in some areas the need for the i nput of significant new flexibility for further 
progress to be made.  The preparatory discussions that took place between key delegations in advance of the mee ting were essential to our progress. 
   As I have mentioned, there appear to be a number of specific provisions regarding 
which further flexibility will be needed if Pa rties are to reach an eventual agreement 
on the revised text.  For example, and wit hout purporting to be exhaustive, some of 
the specific issues concerning procurement rules and procedures where additional flexibility is needed would include: 
   - the way in which compliance with  the Agreement or specific provisions 
 thereof should be spelt out in Article II:6/7, including the question of whether 
 the onus on Parties should or should not be explicitly limited to measures  deemed to be reasonably available in the circumstances; 
   - the application of the require ment to publish a summary notice in 
 circumstances where full information is  already provided in an official WTO 
 language (Article V:3); 
   - a number of points concerning the provisions on technical specifications 
 (Article VII); 
 GPA/M/27 
Page 12  
 
  - deadlines and their reduction in various circumstances (Article VI);  and    - the question of how and where is sues concerning electronic procurement 
 should be addressed in the revised agreement. 
 
  In all of these areas, I think it is important to recognize that the differences in 
viewpoints expressed by delegations reflect legitimate differences in their perceptions of how the Agreement should work and, in many cases, also differences in national practices.  In some cases, delegations have already gone some distance to highlight the linkages between provisions in various pa rts of the text and to signal the ways in 
which changes in particular areas would make it possible to reach agreement in 
others. 
  Finally, as mentioned at the beginning of th e week, delegations have had an opportunity to 
continue their bilateral discussions on coverage i ssues pursuant to the Decision on Modalities in the 
margins of the week's work. 
B. Future work 
 As to the future, it will be important to con tinue to make further progress on all fronts of our 
negotiations if we are to conclude the negotiations in a timely fashion.   There seems to be a general will on the part of  delegations to reach provisional agreement on 
the non-market-access-related provisions
 of the revised text of the Agreement before the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference.  In this regard, I would remind delegations that only one meeting, the one 
scheduled for the week of 10 October,  remains to meet this objective.  To achieve the desired result at 
that meeting, it will be necessary for interested delegations to build on the progress made at this 
meeting and to undertake further in tensive consultations in advance of the meeting, both in capitals 
and between them.  Wherever possible, proposed solu tions should be reflected in written submissions. 
  As regards the bilate ral coverage negotiations
 and the submission of initial offers, at the 
formal meeting which will take place after this info rmal session, we will consider the revised version 
of the draft decision on relevant deadlines.  This draft decision would require that "each Party shall 
table its initial offer prior to the October meeting of the Committee (week of 10 October 2005) but not 
later than the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference (13-18 December 2005)".  Furthermore, it would 
stipulate that overall negotiations pursuant to Ar ticle XXIV:7 "aim to be concluded by the end 
of 2006".  Assuming that the decision is adopted, it will be of vital importance to the success of the negotiations that delegations respect the new deadline for the submission of initial offers. 
 
 As to the horizontal aspects of the coverage negotiations
, it will be important to build on the 
progress made so far in terms of both the market- access-related provisions in the text and other 
horizontal coverage matters listed in the Decision on Modalities.  Delegations are encouraged to come 
forward with new submissions on these matters.   As to the organization and structure of our next  meeting, which is scheduled for the week of 
10 October, I would suggest that the Committee conti nue in a way broadly similar to that we have 
used so far.  In particular, it would be importa nt to have a further discussion of the horizontal 
coverage matters.  In addition, s ubstantial further progress is needed in the review of the outstanding 
non-market-access-related provisions.  To achieve this, I propose that at least four full days of the 
week of 10 October be allocated to drafting wo rk on the non-market-access-related provisions.  
Delegations should also have an opportunity for bila teral consultations on coverage issues, at least on 
the margins of the meeting.   GPA/M/27 
 Page 13 
 
 
 With the help of the Secretariat, I will consult further with you on these matters as we get closer to the meeting and, following the usual pro cedure, will circulate more detailed suggestions in 
advance.  Let me also ask delegations to submit a ny new proposals sufficiently in advance of our next 
meeting so that other delega tions will have an adequate opportunity to reflect on them. 
 
 I of course stand ready to conduct consultations  and take initiatives as may be appropriate, to 
help ensure that the text is as far advan ced as possible ahead of the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference.  
__________