WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/GC/M/133 
7 December 2011 
 (11-6335) 
General Council 
26 October 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 26 October 2011 
 
Chairman:  Mr Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
 
 
At the outset of the meeting, and on behalf of all Members and Observer delegations, the 
Chairman, referring to the massive earthquake which had struck Turkey  on 23 October, extended their 
sympathy and condolences to Ambassador Aran a nd through him to the Government and people of 
Turkey.  Many delegations also added their voi ce to the Chairman's words and expressed their 
solidarity with Thailand, El Salvador and other Central American countries which had also recently 
been hit by natural disasters.  The representativ es of Turkey and El Salvador expressed their 
delegation's appreciation for the stat ements of solidarity and support. 
 
The Chairman also welcomed H.E. Mr Ham Lini Vanuaroroa, Deputy Prime Minister and 
Minister of Trade, Commerce, Industry and Touris m of the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, 
to the meeting.  
 
Subjects discussed:
1 Page 
 
1.  Accession of Vanuatu – Report of the Working Party .......................................................... 2  
2.  Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee .......................................... 9  
3.  Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committ ee on Trade and Development ...................................... 13  
4.  Eighth Session of the Ministerial Conference ....................................................................... 15  
(a)  Statement by th e Chairman ..................................................................................................... .. 15 
(b)  Attendance of Observers from Government s and International Inter-governmental 
Organizations ................................................................................................................. ........... 19  
(c)  Attendance of Non-Governme ntal Organizations ..................................................................... 20  
5.  Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies – Negotiating Group on Rules, Special 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture,  and Special Session of the Committee 
on Trade and Environment – Statement by the Chairman................................................. 21  
6.  WTO Pension Plan .............................................................................................................. .... 21 
(a)  Report of the Management Board for 2010 .............................................................................. 21  
(b)  Election of a member and an alternate to the Management Board – Proposal by the 
Chairman of the General Council ............................................................................................. 2 2 
                                                      
1 The Proposed Agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/642. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 2  
 
  (c)  Amendment of Article 30 of the Regula tions of the WTO Pension Plan ................................. 23  
7.  Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Report on meeting of 
October 2011 .................................................................................................................. ......... 23 
8.  Administrative Measures for Members in arrears – Statement by the Chairman ........... 24  
ANNEX I –  Statements by delegations at the informal meeting  of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee  on 21 Octo ber 20 11 ........................................................................................................... 25 
ANNEX II –  Chairman's Remarks at the informal meeting  of the General Council at 
the level of Heads of Delegat ion on 21 October 2001 ........................................................................ 39  
ANNEX III –  Statements by delegations at the informal meeting  of the General Council 
on 21 October 2011 ............................................................................................................ .................. 43  
 
 
1. Accession of Vanuatu – Report of the Working Party (WT/ACC/VUT/17, 
WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.1, WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.2 and WT/ACC/VUT/18) 
1. The Chairman recalled that in July 1995, the General Council had established a Working 
Party to examine Vanuatu's request for accession to  the WTO.  In October 2001, the draft accession 
package had been adopted by the Working Party.  Ho wever, at that time, the Government of Vanuatu 
had requested more time to consid er the package.  In 2008, in a le tter to the Director-General, the 
Government of Vanuatu had signalled its wish to resume and conclude its accession process and had 
requested the update of its 2001 draft accession package.  The Secretariat had duly embarked on the technical update of the package.  At the re quest of the previous General Council Chair, 
Deputy Director-General Jara had acted on the latte r's behalf in this process, and had chaired the 
meetings of the re-convened Work ing Party on 4 April and 2 May 2011, which had been open to all 
Members.  The Report of the re-convened Workin g Party was now before the General Council for 
consideration and adoption in documents WT/ACC/VUT/17 and WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.1 and 
WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.2.  He wished to draw the General Council's attention to the letter from the 
Deputy Prime Minister of Vanuatu, dated 18 Ju ly 2011 and circulated in WT/ACC/VUT/18, 
requesting that the time limit of 15 July 2011 for accep tance in paragraph 7 of the Draft Protocol of 
Accession be modified to 31 December 2011.  W ith these words, he invited Deputy Director-
General Jara to briefly report on the process and the results of the re-convened Working Party on the 
Accession of Vanuatu. 
2. Deputy Director-General Jara said he was pl eased to report on the Working Party process, 
which he had chaired in its final stage on behalf of the Chairman of the General Council, and on the 
accession package of the Government of Vanuatu which was before the General Council at the 
present meeting.  The process had been transparent and open to all Members.  The history of Vanuatu's accession had already been recalled by the Chairman of the General Council.  He had also 
recalled this history in his report to the General Council at its meeting in May 2011, the day after the 
re-convened Working Party had completed its work ad referendum  on Vanuatu's accession package.  
As this accession had re-gained momentum in rece nt years, the technical update had taken into 
account new developments, including legislative reform s, and reflected technical modifications to the 
draft Goods and Services Schedules.  Members ha d been regularly consulted and advised as the 
process had evolved.  At the formal meeting of  the re-convened Working Party on 2 May 2011, 
Members had adopted the draft accession package of Vanuatu ad referendum .  It had been agreed that 
the package would be circulated to all Members, wh o had been given one week to submit any further 
comments.  Following the addition of one paragraph to the report of the Working Party, the final 
accession package had been circulated in doc uments WT/ACC/VUT/17 and WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.1 
and WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.2.  He was therefore pleased  to report that the re-convened Working Party 
on the Accession of Vanuatu had accomplished its task successfully.  Substantively, the report was 
meaningful, balanced and of high  quality.  It addressed the concerns and issues raised by the  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Government of Vanuatu as an acceding country.  Members had taken account of the 2002 Guidelines 
on LDC Accession. 
3. He wished to pay tribute to the delegation head ed by H.E. Mr Lini Vanuaroroa, Deputy Prime 
Minister and Minister of Trade, Commerce, I ndustry and Tourism of Va nuatu.  The Deputy Prime 
Minister and his colleagues had worked tirelessl y to bring Vanuatu's WTO accession to fruition and 
had persevered in the updating exercise and in putt ing into place WTO-consistent legislation.  The 
commitment of the Government of Vanuatu had br ought this accession to this historic moment.  Not 
least, he wished to thank Mrs S.B.A Syahruddin (Indonesia), who had chaired the Working Party in 
its early years, for her contribution towards the co mpletion of the 2001 draft accession package.  He 
also wished to thank again the entire member ship for their engagement, goodwill, and spirit of 
compromise, which had enabled the trading system  to bring this accession process to a successful 
completion.  This was a tribute to both the mu ltilateral trading system and the Government of 
Vanuatu. 
4. The Chairman thanked DDG Jara for chairing the meetings of the re-convened Working 
Party.  He said that in the light of the report pr esented by DDG Jara, he wished to take up the package 
of Vanuatu's accession documents one by one.  In k eeping with usual practice, he would begin with 
the draft Protocol of Accession of Vanuatu, which was contained in the Appendix to the report of the 
Working Party.  He invited the General Council to approve the Draft Protocol on the Accession of 
Vanuatu, with a modification to paragraph 7 which would read as follows:  "This Protocol shall be 
open for acceptance, by signature or otherw ise, by Vanuatu until 31 December 2011". 
5. The General Council then approved the text of th e draft Protocol of Accession of Vanuatu as 
contained in the report of the Working Party with the modification proposed by the Chairman and, in 
accordance with the Decision-Making Procedures unde r Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement 
agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93), adopted the dr aft decision on the Accession of Vanuatu as also 
contained in the report of the Working Party.2  The General Council next adopted the report of the 
Working Party as a whole, in documents WT/ACC/VUT/17 and WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.1 and 
WT/ACC/VUT/17/Add.2. 
6. The Chairman said it gave him great pleasure to welcome the Decision just taken on the 
Accession of Vanuatu to the WTO.  He wished to take this opportunity to congratulate the Deputy 
Prime Minister and his delegation, and the peopl e and Government of Vanuatu, on the successful 
completion of the WTO process.  Vanuatu's forthc oming entry as a Member would take Members 
another step towards greater universality in WTO me mbership and add to the depth and diversity of 
the organization.  In terms of the next steps, a cer emony would be held at 1 p.m. that afternoon in the 
Green Room for the signature of the Protocol of Accession by the Director-General and the Deputy 
Prime Minister of Vanuatu, which all interested Memb ers were invited to attend.  The Government of 
Vanuatu would then submit the Protocol for ratifica tion by its legislative assembly, and in keeping 
with WTO provisions, Vanuatu would become a Member of the WTO 30 days following the date of 
its ratification of the Protocol.  
7. The Director-General said the conclusion of the WTO accession process and the approval of 
Vanuatu's terms of membership at the present m eeting by the General Council were commendable 
achievements and of historic significance for the Go vernment and people of Vanuatu.  He asked that 
the Deputy Prime Minister convey the tributes of the General Council and his own personal 
appreciation to Prime Minister Sato Kilman for his engagement, commitment and leadership at home, 
in Port Vila, to successfully completing the process of WTO accession.  The Prime Minister had 
championed Vanuatu's objective of WTO membersh ip with the Government, with Members of 
Parliament and with the Vanuatu public.  Thanks we re also due to the Deputy Prime Minister for his 
                                                      
2 The Decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/823. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 4  
 
  dedication and leadership as Trade Minister.  By becoming a Member of the WTO family, Vanuatu 
was sending a strong signal to the rest of the world about its pledge to the principles of openness, stability and predictability of the multilateral tr ading system.  WTO membership would provide 
Vanuatu with a stable and predictable status in th e global economy.  One of the lessons of recent years 
was that WTO membership provided a solid insuran ce policy against protectionism.  This insurance 
was indispensable in an uncertain and rapidly ch anging political and economic global environment.  
For the WTO, Vanuatu's entry would represent anot her step towards making the WTO more universal 
in scope and coverage.  In addition, this accessi on was particularly timely, as it was a concrete 
deliverable regarding LDCs, particularly as the organization prepared for its Eighth Ministerial 
Conference (MC8).  It was also a sign of confid ence in the organization and the multilateral trading 
system.  This was why he, as Director-General, had seized this opportunity to express his appreciation 
to the entire membership for its ability to respond  and deliver at moments when it mattered most.  
After their long journey, he welcomed the G overnment and people of Vanuatu, literally and 
metaphorically, to the WTO. 
8. H.E. Mr Ham Lini Vanuaroroa, Deputy Prime Mi nister of Vanuatu, speaking as an observer, 
recalled that on 4 April 2011, he had attended an informal meeting of the reconvened Working Party 
on the Accession of Vanuatu, which had been chaired by DDG Jara.  At that meeting, he had made an appeal to Members:  "Vanuatu is in the hands of  the WTO, please open the doors of membership".  
He was pleased to return to the WTO with his delegation and to walk through the doors of WTO membership.  This was a happy moment of histor ical significance for the Government and people of 
the Republic of Vanuatu.  On behalf of H.E. the Right Honourable Sato Kilman, Prime Minister of 
Vanuatu, he asked Members to accept the appreciati on of his Government and the people of Vanuatu 
on their positive consideration and approval of Vanuatu's terms of acces sion, as just approved by the 
General Council.  Prime Minister Kilman had very mu ch wanted to be present at this meeting, but had 
had to change his plans after the change in date for this meeting, and was currently in Perth, Australia, 
attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government M eeting.  The Chairman had already narrated the 
background to Vanuatu's accession, which he woul d not repeat.  Vanuatu's accession story had been 
told far and wide, and in many ways represented th e necessary and, also in many ways, unavoidable 
challenges of the WTO accession process.  The Worki ng Party on the Accession of Vanuatu had been 
established in 1995 and had concluded its work in October 2001.  Vanuatu was a democracy with an 
active civil society.  Every stratum of that societ y mattered to the Governme nt, and all positions were 
considered and taken into account, to the extent po ssible.  Vanuatu had needed time to evaluate the 
package and to build ownership and a bipartisan consensus, which were n ecessary and indispensable 
to enact the necessary reforms thr ough its Parliamentary process.  This had taken some time, but thus 
it was in democracies.  Vanuatu was proud of its sy stem of government.  In November 2008, in a 
letter addressed to the Director-General, the Govern ment of Vanuatu had requested him to resume the 
process, and had sought the assistance of the Secret ariat to undertake a technical update of its 2001 
accession package.  In 2008, he had been Prime Mini ster, and later the same year had become Deputy 
Prime Minister and Minister for Justice and Social We lfare.  He knew fully the road that Vanuatu had 
travelled towards membership with the Members an d the Secretariat.  His message to other acceding 
governments was simple – although the process was challenging, more so in democracies, the 
conclusion of WTO accession negotiations and the honest implementation of all the commitments 
undertaken carried significant gains and benefits fo r the acceding government.  Vanuatu knew this to 
be so. 
9. His Government had taken tough decisions and ha d enacted legislation in several areas:  state 
ownership, privatization, and state trading entiti es; sanitary and phytosanita ry measures; the trade-
related intellectual property regime; services; tradi ng rights, where Vanuatu had amended the laws to 
ensure that import licences could be granted to fore ign "importers of record" and to remove business 
licence fees that violated any commitment to non- discrimination and national treatment; and import 
licensing, where it had eliminated the discretionary authority of the Minister to restrict imports, with WTO-consistent amendments to the Import of Goods  (Control) Act and the Customs Act.  The Goods  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 5 
 
 
  offer and Services offer Vanuatu had made to Memb ers were substantial.  Vanuatu had taken these 
decisions and reforms because it believed they were  good for Vanuatu and good for the WTO.  It was 
a win-win situation.  As a government and people,  Vanuatu knew it had made a rational choice.  It 
preferred to live in an environment of rules, rath er than un-transparent and chaotic regime.  Since 
2001, Vanuatu had actually implemented most of its WTO commitments.  Implementation of these 
commitments, even before membership, was one of the factors that had accounted for Vanuatu's 
increased prosperity and substantial growth rates.  Va nuatu was justifiably proud of this situation.  His 
Government wished to express its sincere appreci ation to Australia, New Zealand, the European 
Union and the United States for their concrete techni cal assistance to ensure that Vanuatu succeeded 
in its accession and to assist it as it crossed the fini shing line.  The Government of Vanuatu conveyed 
its special appreciation to the Director-General for his strong support for Vanuatu and other acceding 
LDCs, and specifically for his vision for a rules-based multilateral trading system that took account of the development dimension and the priorities and con cerns of LDCs like Vanuatu.  It also recognized 
the members of the Pacific Ocean family who had consiste ntly stayed with it on this journey.  He paid 
tribute to the Director of the Accessions Division wh o had travelled to Port Vila in May 2011 to make 
the case on the merits of Vanuatu's WTO membership to those who still had questions.  He also paid 
tribute to the Working Party Secretary and Co-Sec retary.  At the present juncture, he hoped that 
Members would also provide support to Vanuatu's neighbouring country in its final Working Party 
meeting in two days' time.  He also thanked th e entire Vanuatu negotiating team over the years, 
including Vanuatu's former Prime Ministers, Ministers and Senior Officials, and the whole community in Vanuatu who had supported the G overnment in this process, specifically, 
Amb. Roy Mickey Joy, chief negotiator of the Gove rnment of Vanuatu in its accession negotiations.  
He asked that his statement be circulated to all Members.
3 
10. The Chairman said that before offering the floor  to delegations, he wished to encourage and 
invite coordinators of regional and other WTO gr oupings who wished to speak to do so first, and 
urged all delegations represented in su ch groupings to show restraint in taking the floor subsequently.  
As had been done at earlier meetings , all delegations who wished to be placed formally in the record 
of the present meeting as having expressed their welc ome and support to Vanuatu could so indicate to 
the Secretariat. 
11. All representatives who spoke, as well as Arge ntina, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 
Brazil, El Salvador, Hong Kong, China, Kingdom  of Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Mexico for 
GRULAC, Peru, Philippines, Tonga and Trinidad  and Tobago congratulated Vanuatu on the 
successful completion of its accession process and welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister and his 
delegation to the meeting.  Representatives also paid tribute to the Chair of the Working Party and his 
predecessors for their work in contributing to the successful completion of this process, and said they 
looked forward to working with Vanuatu in the WTO. 
12. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group, said it had been encouraging 
to learn that the re-convened Working Party on Vanuatu's accession had completed its work in 
May 2011. The Group welcomed the adoption at th e present meeting of Vanuatu's accession package 
and the report of the Working Party.  Vanuatu had started its accession process in 1995 and had 
passed through a long, protracted period of negotiations  in order to reach this final stage of accession.  
Although the LDCs rejoiced in the long-awaited outcome  of this process, they remained sensitized to 
the often formidable challenges faced by an LDC like Vanuatu in its WTO accession.  Onerous 
burdens were often imposed on acceding LDCs in terms of the concessions and commitments they 
were required to undertake in the name of reform . This ran counter to the principle of facilitating 
LDCs' accession in a transparent, reasonable a nd restrained manner, as called for in the 2002 
Guidelines on LDC Accession.  In order to add fu rther specificity and predictability to these 
Guidelines, the LDC Group had elaborated a pr oposal for consideration by the forthcoming 
                                                      
3 The statement was circulat ed in document WT/GC/141. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 6  
 
  Ministerial Conference.  This initiative to furthe r strengthen, streamline and operationalize the 2002 
Guidelines would help avoid the difficult and cumbersome situation that many acceding LDCs had found themselves in during their accession process.  In  this context, the LDCs wished to urge the 
Secretariat and other relevant agencies to consider  further strengthening their technical assistance and 
capacity building support for LDCs during the post- accession period.  This would be particularly 
relevant for acceding LDCs like Vanuatu that faced  greater challenges due to their non-residency 
status in Geneva.  The LDC Group looked forward to  working together with Vanuatu in the days 
ahead to uphold and promote issues of their shar ed interest in the multilateral trading system. 
13. The representative of Australia said her count ry had long been a supporter of Vanuatu's 
accession to the WTO and firmly believed that Vanua tu stood to gain much from WTO membership.  
Aside from the benefits to its long- term economic welfare, Vanuatu w ould, for the first time, have a 
seat at the table of the multilateral trading system .  Rather than observing international decision-
making from the outside, Vanuatu would have a ro le with the other 153 Members of the WTO to 
strengthen the multilateral rules-based trading system.  Her delegation acknowledged that the 
accession process was a notoriously long and arduous road.  There had not been an accession to the 
WTO since 2008, and in the case of LDCs, since 2004.  Australia therefore recognised the 
significance of Vanuatu's progress, its political co mmitment to the approval of its accession process 
over a long period of time, and the tireless efforts of  Vanuatu's negotiators and officials, both in the 
present meeting room and in Port Vila, as well as the delegations of other Members and the 
Secretariat, in reaching this point.  Australia looke d forward to the conclusion of Vanuatu's accession 
process and to welcoming it as a WTO Member in the near future.  
14. The representative of the Dominican Repub lic, on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries, said the Group welcomed the report of the Working Party on the Accession of 
Vanuatu, as it would like to see more developing countries, especially LDCs, join the WTO.  
However, the principles that should guide these nego tiations, and that were not always followed, had 
to be respected.  In particular, accession processes s hould strictly observe the principle of less-than-
full reciprocity.  Accordingly, acceding countries shou ld only be asked to undertake commitments that 
were consistent with their present and future developm ent, financial and trade needs.  This would also 
help to accelerate the accession of many developi ng countries and LDCs that were knocking at the 
WTO door with the hope that their fuller integrati on into the multilateral trading system would expand 
their development horizons.  Developing-country Members were also united in sharing a deep 
concern that the accession of some developing coun tries was being unduly delayed due to political 
and non-commercial considerations.  In a rules- based system, such as the WTO, it was the 
commercial, technical and juridical considerations  that should be the deciding factors in every 
accession process. 
15. Speaking on behalf of the Dominican Republic, he said that an accession process such as 
Vanuatu's, which had taken 16 year s to complete, was frustrating for a small economy with only 
225,000 inhabitants.  His delegation thus supported that at the upcoming Ministerial Conference, there 
be a strengthening of the rules so as to facilitate  the accession process for LDCs and small economies. 
16. The representative of the United States said that  while Vanuatu was not the first LDC to 
accede to the WTO since 1995, it had done so on excellent terms that demonstrated its dedication to 
economic and trade reform as well as to WTO provis ions.  The trade regime established, based on 
rules and principles that encouraged trade and inv estment, would benefit Vanua tu and its citizens and 
took into account Vanuatu's level of developmen t.  The United States commended the Vanuatu 
delegation for the hard and patient work that had been necessary to resume its negotiations, and the 
skill and flexibility with which it had crafted this final accession package. 
17. The representative of Barbados, on behalf of th e SVEs, congratulated the Working Party and 
its Chairman, DDG Jara, for their role in bringing th is matter to a successful conclusion.  While the  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 7 
 
 
  SVEs welcomed Vanuatu to the negotiating table af ter more than 16 years, Members needed to 
change the way in which developing countries we nt through the accession process.  While technical 
assistance to acceding countries was important, there was a need to make the conditions of accession 
easier.  The SVEs were concerned about the one rous length of time and the demands made on 
developing countries, and wished to see the accessi on process made simpler and less burdensome for 
developing countries.  They looked forward to  supporting the proposal by the LDCs on easier 
accession to the WTO for LDCs.  Acceding LDCs s hould not be made to commit to areas beyond 
their ability to deliver.  Easier accession was of in terest not only to LDCs but to other developing 
countries as well.  The SVEs supported efforts to f acilitate the entrance of LDCs to the WTO at the 
upcoming Ministerial. 
18. The representative of New Zealand said that this  accession had been a long journey – 16 years 
– and the road had not always been smooth. It had required careful consideration on the part of 
Vanuatu's leaders, officials, and people, and caref ul weighing up of the bene fits and obligations of 
WTO membership.  New Zealand understood completely that Vanuatu had wanted to take its time to 
ensure that it undertook this important process properl y and with due consideration and consultation.  
It respected Vanuatu's decision in 2001 to ta ke time out from the accession process and further 
consider its terms of accession, a nd had welcomed its decision in 2008 to formally resume the process 
on the basis of the package concluded in 2001.  His delegation wished again to commend the 
Secretariat and Vanuatu for their diligent work on the technical updating of the 2001 package to 
reflect developments in Vanuatu's legislative, re gulatory and trading environment, and the Members 
of the Working Party under the gui dance of DDG Jara, for their careful reconsideration and approval 
of this package ad referendum  in the first quarter of 2011.  As had been noted in meetings of the 
reconvened Working Party, the accession package re presented a significant achievement, especially 
considering Vanuatu's LDC status.  New Zealand was pleased to support it in its bid for membership 
and looked forward to its completion of the releva nt domestic processes and to finally and formally 
welcoming Vanuatu into the WTO family. 
19. The representative of the European Union expressed  his delegation's satisfaction at seeing this 
accession become reality.  Vanuatu had gone through an eventful journey since 1995.  Its situation 
was quite telling.  In 2001, when Vanuatu's accessi on negotiations had been concluded, the country 
had stepped back, followed by a period of questioning as to its possible WTO membership.  Interestingly, this period had coincided with that of the adoption of the 2002 Guidelines on LDC 
Accession.  This had sent a clear and welcome sign al about the willingness of the organisation to be 
and to remain inclusive, and to take due considera tion of the particular situation encountered by some 
countries, especially the poorest.  Vanuatu had again reached a decisive stage at a time when there 
were thorough reflections about ho w to better take into account the specific needs of LDCs in the 
various strands of activities of this organisation, wh ether before or after accession.  It was hoped that 
the good news of Vanuatu's accession bode well fo r Members' overall thinking.  His delegation 
congratulated the Deputy Prime Minister of Vanuatu. It was well aware that taking the WTO 
accession route was demanding, especially for a country facing resource constraints. The bulk of reforms had now been implemented, and Vanuatu w as now in a position to be formally rewarded for 
all its efforts, which the EU duly acknowledged a nd appreciated.  The EU had been actively involved 
throughout this accession process. Like other Memb ers, it had been forthcoming since talks had 
resumed in 2008 and had shown flexibility, even beyond what might be expected from the 2002 
Guidelines.  The EU therefore hoped that Vanuatu would promptly ratify its accession Protocol.  As it 
had done before Vanuatu's accession,  his delegation would co ntinue to engage so  that Vanuatu could 
reap the benefits of its accession, which lay not only in market opening, but mostly in the solid set of 
rules provided by the WTO framework. 
20. The representative of Pakistan said the Working Pa rty, the Secretariat and the Government of 
Vanuatu all deserved special commendation for havi ng completed this accession process. This was a 
happy end to a long journey and the beginning of a new endeavour. His delegation wished to work WT/GC/M/133 
Page 8  
 
  together with Vanuatu during the early days of its joining the WTO.  Pakistan believed that accession 
to the WTO would result in substantial benefit to  Vanuatu. It also noted that a working party on 
another LDC accession, for Samoa, would meet shortly, and hoped that that accession process would be completed on a fast track for this small country  as well.  Pakistan was also eagerly awaiting the 
proposal mentioned by Bangladesh to put the acces sion process for LDCs on a fast track, and hoped 
to see that included in MC8. 
21. The representative of China said his delegation was delighted to see that, with tremendous 
efforts made by the Vanuatu Government as well as all Members and the Secretariat, the General 
Council had finally confirmed Vanuatu's accession.  This was an historic day for both Vanuatu and 
the WTO.  He reiterated China's consistent support for LDCs' accession, as we ll as its commitment to 
the faithful implementation of the 2002 Guidelines.  These Guidelines set out basic principles on this 
issue, but the fact that only four LDCs had ac ceded since 2002 indicated that further improvement 
needed to be made on their implementation.   It was important and necessary for Ministers to provide 
guidance on this issue at MC8. 
22. The representative of Japan said his delegation woul d continue to work w ith Vanuatu in order 
to promote its integration in the Pacific Ocean re gion as well as into the world economy.  Japan also 
hoped that Samoa's accession process would be completed within the next few days. 
23. The representative of Chinese Taipei, on behalf  of the RAMs, said these countries looked 
forward to working closely with Vanuatu within the RAMs Group. 
24. The representative of Canada said his delegati on fully recognized the extensive efforts 
Vanuatu had made over the past year to move its accession process forward, and acknowledged the 
high level of ambition demonstrated by  Vanuatu in its accession commitments. 
25. The representative of Nepal said that Vanuatu had come a long way through protracted 
negotiations.  His delegation suppor ted the statement by Bangladesh for the LDCs.  The accession of 
LDCs to the WTO was important for their integration into the multilateral trading system and the universality of the WTO.  The Istanbul Programme  of Action adopted by the UN LDC IV Conference 
in May 2011 called on the international community to facilitate and accelerate negotiations with 
acceding LDCs, based on the 2002 Guidelines.  Ne pal called for the operationalization of those 
Guidelines, improvement in the process, and its tr ansparency and simplification.  His delegation 
underlined the need to strengthen technical assist ance and capacity-building support for LDCs during 
the post-accession period, as capacity to produce a nd to compete was an ab solute necessity for 
accession to be meaningful. The focus should be  directed towards enhancing LDCs' productive 
capacities, competitiveness and diversifica tion of their production and export bases. 
26. The representative of India said his country hoped that joining the WTO would prove 
beneficial not only for the WTO, but also for Vanuatu and international trade.  India shared the 
sentiments expressed by previous speakers about the long and arduous process which even LDCs 
were made to undergo in their accession process.  This acted, in many cases, as a deterrent to other 
countries, especially LDCs, to even try for accession.  This called for introspection and reflection on 
how the 2002 Guidelines could be implemented.  These needed to be fleshed out, and Members needed to look at the problems that LDCs, espec ially, faced in terms of technical assistance and 
capacity building, and to address those problems in a realistic and pragmatic manner.  Members could 
not afford to look the other way and let things co ntinue as usual.  India welcomed the statement by 
Bangladesh for the LDCs and looked forward to c onsidering the proposal they would make on LDC 
accession. 
27. The representative of Tunisia said the accession of an LDC was an encouraging sign at a time 
when Members were preparing for the Eighth Mi nisterial Conference with a hesitating outlook.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 9 
 
 
  28. The representative of Turkey said the long and arduous journey of accession had finally 
ended for Vanuatu.  Turkey congratulated Vanuatu on being the most recent LDC to accede to the 
WTO, and called upon all Members to help LDCs to  follow Vanuatu's example in the near future.  
This accession would certainly benefit the peopl e of Vanuatu.  The proposal mentioned by 
Bangladesh for the LDCs deserved Members' focused attention. 
29. The representative of Cuba said her delegation supported the statements by the Dominican 
Republic for the Informal Group of Developing Countries and by Barbados for the SVEs on 
Vanuatu's accession to the WTO.  She also expressed  Cuba's strong support for swift accession to the 
WTO of other LDCs, as well as the Russian Federation. 
30. The General Council took note of the statemen ts and of the expressions of welcome and 
support. 
2. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
31. 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. 
32. The Director-General said4 the TNC had met in informal mode on 21 October to exchange 
views on the next steps in the DDA negotiations, includ ing what sort of path forward Ministers should 
map out when they met in December.  On that occasi on, he had reported to Members on the themes he 
had heard so far in his consultations on the current st atus and next steps in the DDA, in preparation of 
the Eighth Ministerial Conference in December.  He would not repeat his full remarks to the TNC since they had been circulated in document JOB/ TNC/15.  Although a number of delegations had said 
that the elements he had outlined were not yet ambitious enough or specific enough, he had sensed 
broad support for these elements, which Members had acknowledged reflected the prevailing reality 
of the negotiations.  He had also sensed convergen ce on the centrality of the development dimension 
in the phase ahead, including delivering for LDCs as a priority under any Paragraph 47 exercise.  
Although in principle, several delegations had sa id that they were open to exploring different 
approaches in the work ahead, a number of them had also emphasized that such  approaches needed to 
remain consistent with the Doha mandate and not  undermine the principles and practices which had 
served Members – transparency, incl usiveness and the centrality of the multilateral process.  Finally, 
views had also been exchanged on the role the WTO could play in responding to emerging global challenges, including its role in keeping protectionism at bay in this current worrying global macroeconomic situation.  What Members needed now  were concrete steps to generate trust in the 
ability of the WTO family to keep moving its agenda forward.  To meet this credibility test, Members 
had to keep working across the entire WTO agenda by looking at and beyond MC8.  They were 
obviously not there yet, and would need to keep working hard with the General Council Chair over 
the coming weeks. 
33. While he had the floor, he wished to briefly address an issue of importance for trade – which 
was not part of the negotiating agenda but which on the ground had a lot of bearing on trade, 
especially for developing countries – which was trade fi nance.  In a joint letter that the President of 
the World Bank and he had sent to G20 Leaders in Se oul in 2010, they had raised the issue of the 
potential unintended consequences of the Basel frame works of prudential regulation for the finance 
industry on the availability of trade finance, in pa rticular for low-income countries.  While trade 
finance received preferential regulatory treatment under the Basel I framework, in recognition of its 
safe, mostly short-term character, the implementa tion of Basel II had prov ed difficult for trade, 
notably because of the rules governing risk weighti ng, and in particular the confusion between a 
country's risks and the risks associated with single op erations.  Following this letter to the G20, the 
                                                      
4 The statement was subsequently ci rculated in document JOB/GC/13. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 10  
 
  WTO, together with the World Bank, had been asked to enter into a dialogue with the Basel 
Committee, with the help of the International Chamber of Commerce.  They had focused their 
discussions with the Basel regulators on demonstrating that trade finance was one of the safest, if not the safest, form of finance in the world; and that it promoted a form of finance that contributed to 
development through trade.  The Basel Committee ha d announced the previous day that it had agreed 
to take a number of these comments on board.  It  had announced a number of flexibilities which had 
not been there in Basel II, in order to avoid harmi ng trade finance with poor countries.  This was good 
news for trade, not only North-South, but also Sout h-South, and more had to be done in this field.  
This was an important devel opment and also a successful example of co-operation between 
international organizations and of how they co uld use their convening capacity, expertise and the 
Working Group on Trade Debt and Finance.  The WTO would continue its dialogue with the Basel 
regulators to address what could be done, and th ere would probably be un intended consequences on 
trade at the Basel III stage of regulation.  Thus, there would be more to come in future, but so far the WTO had scored on two issues of importance for developi ng countries, and he wished to bring this to 
Members' attention. 
34. The Chairman invited any delegation that wished  its statement at the informal TNC meeting 
on 21 October to be included in the Minutes of the present meeting to communicate this directly to the 
Secretariat.5 
35. All delegations who spoke  thanked the Director-General for his report. 
36. The representative of Argentina said his delega tion wished to take up the three key points 
made by the Director-General at the present meeting.   First, on the difficult world economic situation 
Members were experiencing and the relevance of th is situation in terms of their work, it would 
perhaps be superfluous to discuss the importance of a number of decisions that were required at the 
international level by a large number of countries a nd the role these countries played.  The Director-
General had been quite clear at the present meeti ng and, particularly, at the informal TNC on 
21 October, that in the context of the existing rea lities, there were some very fragile understandings.  
The membership should avoid jeopardizing these very  fragile understandings with further demands 
that, given the short time available and the existing macro realities, could not be a basis for consensus 
in December.  His delegation urged those who were working on these fragile understandings to 
consolidate them, but also to keep them within th e realities that Members currently faced.  The second 
point the Director-General had touched on was that of  the centrality of development in the context of 
the negotiations.  Although developing countries mi ght have different views as to the outcomes they 
wished to achieve in this Round, particularly in  terms of their specific objectives in the field of 
development, the centrality of development wa s comprised of three main elements: (i) the 
commitment to issues of interest to LDCs; (ii) st rengthening S&D treatment in the organization;  and 
(iii) achieving concrete and s ubstantial results in areas of interest to developing countries.  It was quite 
obvious that at the present stage, it would not be possible to achieve some of these, but if Members 
wanted to focus on the centrality of development, it w ould be useful to establish a pillar of results that 
would provide a basis on which to move forward w ith more ambitious decisions when the various 
conditions required were met.  The third point he wi shed to raise was with regard to new issues.  
There was nothing wrong with exploring new paths in  an international organization, or revitalizing 
and adapting the organization to new realities, but Members should avoid transforming a creative 
exercise into something it should not be.  Members had a set of negotiations which they needed to 
uphold, they had undertaken commitments with respect  to these negotiations, and they needed to be 
able to deliver the results the membership expected.  Thus, Memb ers needed to consolidate the 
decisions they had taken.  This would allow them to see how they could grapple with new issues and 
how to begin work on areas of interest to the membership as a whole. 
                                                      
5 Such statements are reproduced in  Annex I to the present records.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 11 
 
 
  37. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela expressed his delegation's 
solidarity with the statement by Indonesia for the G-33 at the informal TNC on 21 October and with 
the statement which the Dominican Republic would ma ke later at the present meeting for the Informal 
Group of Developing Countries.  At the informal meeting of the TNC on 21 October, Members had seen that convergence with respect to the process mentioned by the Director-General was still quite 
far away.  Venezuela agreed with those delegations  who had mentioned the need to seek a realistic 
focus based on what was currently happening.  Th e selective use of Paragraph 47 of the Doha 
Declaration, which had been mentioned by one de legation at that meeting, was nothing new.  In 
July 2011 some Members had tried to work on the basi s of this paragraph, and all were aware of the 
results.  This was why his delegation could not understand what was meant when delegations said 
they were ruling out "business as usual".  Vene zuela was also concerned about some Members' 
interpretation of Paragraph 47, which seemed to be  becoming a Christmas tree.  Another concern was 
the way in which this paragraph would be implemen ted, particularly the phrase in Paragraph 47 that 
read "agreements reached at an early stage", when  for many years Venezuela had been hearing that 
Members were at the final stage of the negotiations .  His delegation did not know whether others had 
explored such issues further in other meetings, but  did not wish to go into details at the present 
meeting.  Regardless of how Members clarified the aforementioned, any early harvest exercise they 
wished to achieve should include only issues genuinely  linked to development, particularly issues of 
interest to the poorest countries, as had been highli ghted by Argentina and others at the informal TNC 
meeting on 21 October. 
38. Another point of concern was the interest of some delegations in trying to agree upon other 
areas that were not directly linked to development,  in particular, those for which developing countries 
had not been the traditional proponents and, for many reasons, would not be the beneficiaries, 
especially if Members continued with subsidies, ta riff peaks and many other technical barriers that 
caused distortions to trade.  These issues should follow their own dynamics within the respective 
negotiating groups, as had been said at the meeti ng on 21 October.  Another issue that created 
confusion related to the "new topics".  His delega tion was confused, because it did not know whether 
this would be an extension of the mandate, or wh ether these were issues that were not linked to the 
Round.  He was mentioning this, because some delegati ons had raised this issue.  Whether these were 
new topics or a new attempt, Venezuela did agree wi th what had been said by one delegation at the 
informal TNC on 21 October that the clearly established procedures had to be upheld in any inclusion of new topics, and Members should not try work on these subjects without first reviewing them.  His 
delegation was also quite confused and concerned,  because this new attempt to create a new agenda 
without resolving the previously discussed issues, might create further instability and jeopardize the 
credibility of the organization. 
39. The representative of Peru expressed his Government's appreciation to the General Council 
Chair, the Director-General and the Secretariat for their tremendous work on organizing the Eighth 
Ministerial Conference and on the Doha Round negotiati ng process.  As had been seen at the present 
meeting, it was Members' feeling that MC8 had to constitute a turning point that would perhaps, in 
spite of the delicate and complex context of the curre nt international economic and financial crisis, be 
remembered for revitalizing the WTO and defending the multilateral trading system against the risks 
posed by the beginnings of a protectionist scramble.   Such a move towards protectionism was wholly 
at odds with the overall developmental needs of Members, would affect free trade in goods and 
services, and could only result in the end in an ev en wider gap between countries in terms of poverty 
and social unrest.  For this reason, Peru supporte d the aim of strengthening and promoting the WTO 
as a fundamental institution of the multilateral tradi ng system, and supported its  regular work which, 
he wished to stress, went beyond any Round of tr ade negotiations, however long they might take.  
Peru also supported the need at the next Minister ial Conference for Ministers to renew their political 
commitment to fight against protectionism and uphold trade as a basic tool for a country's 
development, demonstrated by trade flows to bri ng about global economic r ecovery, and to provide WT/GC/M/133 
Page 12  
 
  the necessary policy guidelines to bring the Doha Round to a successful conclusion, as well as to 
strengthen the multilateral trading system. 
40. His delegation wished to stress the importance of the implementation of S&D treatment and 
technical cooperation for all developing countries as a key tool in their efforts to build supply-side 
capacity and infrastructure, as well as commitments by  some Members to grant LDCs access to their 
markets.  His country would participate in this Conference at the highest level and would do so, as 
always, in a pragmatic and constructive spirit, re newing its commitment to the GATT principles, open 
markets and the WTO rules.  Throughout these nego tiations, initiated ten years earlier, Peru had 
promoted an ambitious Round in all areas of the nego tiations, including the three agricultural pillars.  
It undertook to continue working towards the objec tive of achieving the Doha development mandate, 
in order to boost and energize international tr ade by generating new market-access opportunities and 
fair trade rules for all.  Peru supported the propo sal to advance this process gradually, recording and 
consolidating progress in line with Paragraph 47 of the Doha Declaration, giving priority to those 
areas that had seen the greatest convergence and al so taking into account the development dimension, 
which was Doha's reason for being.  Certain areas had to be addressed in this process, such as 
improving the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, en hancing the transparency mechanism for RTAs, 
and obtaining a stronger commitment on the part of the developed countries, and the developing 
countries in a position to do so, to allow the LDCs  duty-free, quota-free access to their markets. 
41. The representative of the Dominican Repub lic, on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries, said the Group recognized that in light of the serious economic and financial 
situation that affected advanced and developing ec onomies alike, it had been difficult to conclude the 
Doha Work Programme. The Group underscored the DDA's  importance, the vital role it could play in 
addressing the present global economic challenges, and the development benefits  it could bring to the 
developing countries.  The Group therefore committed itself to concluding these negotiations.  Developing countries welcomed the report of the Di rector General where he outlined the possible way 
forward on the DDA.  While they understood that this was the reality they had to face, it was not the 
best scenario for developing countries.  In this r espect, while they recognized  that something needed 
to be done to shake up the current state of affair s, they cautioned against taking certain paths that 
would not be conducive to resolving the current im passe. The search for new ideas to move this 
process forward had to take into account the following  issues: First, Members should agree to explore 
the use of paragraph 47 of the Doha  Declaration to reap an early harvest in areas where consensus was 
achieved, but with the understa nding that any early agreements would deliver on the most pressing 
developing issues that had been on the table for some  time.  These included the three key demands by 
the LDCs:  full implementation of DFQF, a Services  waiver and reduction of domestic support in the 
developed countries for cotton.  Second, agreeing on issues on a plurilateral basis had to be approached with caution, and in every case the prin ciple of consensus should be fully respected.  
Members' first priority had to be to direct thei r efforts at strengthening multilateralism.  Third, the 
progress made so far had to be the foundation of all future work in the DDA.  Moreover, Members 
had to stay true to the Doha mandate , which had development at its core. 
42. The development aspect of the R ound was even more relevant in the current context, taking 
into account that Members were facing a serious econom ic crisis that was now putting at risk social 
and even political stability. In this sense, ther e could be strong pressures on governments to erect 
protectionist barriers that would put the multilate ral trading system under considerable strain.  
Additionally, trade finance, which had improved after its breakdown at the onset of the crisis, risked 
deteriorating again due to liquidity  problems and international banki ng regulations that put burdens on 
lending to developing countries.  In this regard, the IGDC welcomed the information given by the 
Director-General on the flexibility agreed on Basel II  for developing countries.  Finding a way out of 
the current impasse in the DDA would not be easy, but Members had to find creative ways to do it 
and give the signal that the WTO continued to be at the forefront in the struggle to advance a fairer  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 13 
 
 
  and more equitable trading system, governed by rules that responded to the issues affecting the 
developing countries and the poorer and most vulnerable among them.   
43. The representative of Cuba said that while he r delegation had voiced its main positions and 
concerns in its statement at the informal meeting of the TNC on 21 October, it wished to emphasize a 
few points.  First was the importance of keeping development as the focus of the Doha Round, whose 
components remained fully relevant.  Cuba was not  in favour of giving up the only pro-development 
mandate adopted in the history of the multilateral tr ading system, in order to venture into new areas 
that were not in the interest of developing countries.   All of the WTO's collective efforts, attention and 
intelligence had to be brought to bear on resolvi ng pending issues and imbalances, both at present and 
after the Eighth Ministerial Conference.  The only way to bolster the credibility of this organization 
would be by bringing the Doha Round negotiations to a successful conclusion and fulfilling the Doha 
mandate.  Her delegation did not s ubscribe to attempts to establish plurilateral alternatives, which 
would only serve to show the shortcomings and breakdowns of the multilateral system.  It stood 
squarely behind multilateralism.  C uba supported all steps forward a nd none backwards, nor did it see 
the need to address new issues without having comple ted the Doha Agenda. Cuba therefore continued 
to support the Single Undertaking principle.  Any u se of the possibility afforded by Paragraph 47 of 
the Doha Declaration should benefit and address matters of interest to the developing countries.  Cuba 
had its doubts as to a possible early harvest, which, as  all knew, was rather over due.  It reiterated that 
the proposals regarding priority issues for the LDCs ha d to be dealt with urgently.  Cuba wished to 
thank all Members involved for the interna tional community's overwhelming support of 
Resolution 65/6 entitled "Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo 
Imposed by the United States of America Against Cuba ", which had been adopted the previous day in 
the 66th Session of the UN General Assembly by 186 votes in favour, two against and three abstentions. 
44. The representative of El Salvador said that wh ile his delegation had not intervened in the 
informal meeting of the TNC on 21 October, it suppo rted the statement at that meeting by Indonesia 
for the G-33. 
45. The General Council took note of the Directo r-General's report and of the statements. 
3. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
46. The Chairman said that in line with the frame work and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda and the Committee on Trade and De velopment reported regularly to the Council on 
the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this subject.  In the absence of Mr Maruping 
(Lesotho), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of th e CTD, he invited Mr Erwidodo (Indonesia), the 
previous Chairman of the CTD, to read his report on developments in this area. 
47. Mr Erwidodo (Lesotho), former Chair of the CTD, read out the report of the Chair of the CTD 
in Dedicated Session as follows: 
"Since my last report to the General Council in July, I am pleased to inform Members that the 
CTD held its 22nd Dedicated Session on 10 and 13 October to discuss the Work Programme 
on Small Economies and to adopt  its Report to the General Council on its activities since 
2009.  At the 22nd Dedicated Session, Members took note of a further revision of a WTO Secretariat paper which compiles all the pr oposals made by the proponents of small and 
vulnerable economies in the negotiating groups an d other WTO bodies since the launch of the 
DDA in 2001. This compilation paper has been circulated as document WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.6 and includes refere nces to recent proposals made to the WT/GC/M/133 
Page 14  
 
  negotiating groups as well as other WTO bodies. In regard to the latter, I would like to 
mention that there is one proposal which h as not been included in the compilation paper 
because it has only recently been received. It concerns a proposal by the SVE proponents for 
international financial institu tions to extend special and differential treatment to small 
economies in regard to their requests for fundi ng for Aid-for-Trade initiatives.  It is my 
understanding that this proposal will soon be ci rculated and that it will be included in a 
further revision of the compilation paper. 
"In regard to the Dedicated Session's report to the General Council, Members agreed on 
13 October that the General Council should recommend to the Eighth Ministerial Conference that Ministers reaffirm their commitment to  the Work Programme on Small Economies and 
take note of all the work conducted to date. The report also urged Ministers to recommend 
that the CTD continue its work in Dedicated  Sessions under the overall responsibility of the 
General Council. Ministers are also to recommend that the CTD consider in further detail the proposals contained in the various submissions that have been received to date, examine any additional proposals that Members might wish to  submit and, where possible, and within its 
mandate, make recommendations to the Gene ral Council, on any of these proposals.  
Additional actions for future work are furthe r set out in the report which was agreed two 
weeks ago by consensus in the CTD's Dedicated  Session. The report has been circulated as 
WT/COMTD/SE/7 and is being forwarded to the General Council separately.  In addition, I 
would like to add that the report makes cer tain proposals for the General Council to 
recommend to Ministers at the Eighth Ministerial Conference. In keeping with the procedures 
outlined by you for the Eighth Ministerial Conference, I would like to inform you that the 
proponents of small economies propose that th e same language which was agreed in the 
report WT/COMTD/SE/7 concerning the recommendations for continuing the work programme, be turned into a future decision by Ministers at MC8." 
48. The representative of Barbados, on behalf of th e SVEs, welcomed the report and thanked the 
Secretariat for its consistent efforts to update th e factual compilation document, which by now should 
reflect all of the proposals tabled by the SVEs to date.  As reflected in the Chairman's report, the 
SVEs continued to engage activel y on all fronts in the DDA negotiations, despite what appeared to be 
clear setbacks to the conclusion of the Doha Round. The SVEs nonetheless looked forward to the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference, where they still h oped that some progress would be made towards 
advancing the negotiations.  With regard to adva ncing the Work Programme on Small Economies, the 
SVEs wished to highlight, as reflected in the Chai r's report, their proposal that the same language 
agreed in the report in WT/COMTD/SE/7 – whic h proposed recommendations for continuing the 
Work Programme on Small Economies – be turned into a future decision by Ministers at MC8.  They 
viewed this as a crucial step towards recognizing the particular needs of the SVEs and Members' 
collective responsibility to address the concerns of the most vulnerable in a committed and sustained 
manner.  As the SVEs continued their work in all areas under the DDA, they expected that the CTD 
Dedicated Session would continue to fulfil its mandate and create an opportunity for a fact-based discussion on how SVEs could confront the challeng es ahead.  They continued to view the Dedicated 
Session as crucial to the advancement of the Wo rk Programme on SVEs and as a critical conduit to 
assist these countries in advancing their mandate a nd negotiating priorities.  The SVEs were also 
working on a request to have a WTO advocate for SVEs pertaining to special and differential access 
to Aid-for-Trade funding through international financial institutions. This initiative was also 
consistent with the goal of policy coherence betw een the WTO and the major financial institutions.  
The SVEs were hopeful of a succe ssful outcome in this regard. 
49. The representative of El Salvador supported the st atement by Barbados for the SVEs.  It was 
pleased to see the work that had been accomplished under the Chairman of the Dedicated Session and 
wished to thank the Secretariat for the lat est version of the compilation document in 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.6.  This document reflected progress to date regarding the Work  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Programme on Small Economies.  His delegation paid tribute to the work done by Members at the 
most recent meeting of the Dedicated Session, whic h had agreed on the report to the General Council 
in WT/COMTD/SE/7 on work done.  As Members knew, there were suggestions in this report that the 
Council recommend to Ministers at MC8 points that would reiterate the commitment to this Work Programme.  The previous day, the Secretariat had circulated a communication with proposed drafting 
for a Ministerial Decision that his delegation was certa in would be welcomed by Members, as this text 
had been drawn up using the same language as that  which had been agreed in the CTD Dedicated 
Session report just referred to. 
50. The General Council took note of the report of the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statements. 
4. Eighth Session of the Ministerial Conference  
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
51. The Chairman said that, as Members would r ecall, he had been c onducting consultations 
concerning the Eighth Ministerial Conference since May, taking up both substantive as well as 
organizational matters.  He first wi shed to note that seven weeks re mained before the start of the 
Ministerial Conference, and he thought it would be  opportune to recall the overall objective for it.  
This remained as Members had defined it at the outset – to produce a successful Ministerial Conference.  Of course, definitions of what this  would mean in practice might differ.  However, 
Members wanted a Conference whic h, despite the current problems in the Round, would help to 
reinforce the value of the WTO system for all of th em.  Since the summer break, he had intensified his 
consultative process.  He had conve ned an informal meeting of the General Council at the level of 
Heads of Delegation on 21 October at which he had reported on the areas in which convergence had 
emerged from his consultations.  Following the meeting,  his report had been circulated to delegations 
in document JOB/GC/12, and copies were available at the present meeting.  In the interests of 
efficiency, he did not intend to repeat his report, and suggested that it should be read into the minutes 
of the present meeting on the basis of the document to which he had just referred.
6  At the informal 
meeting, delegations had had a pr oductive discussion, which he believe d showed that all delegations 
shared the approach he had suggested in his st atement.  He had taken note of the comments and 
questions raised at that meeting, and proposed that  any delegation wishing its statement made on that 
occasion to be read into the Minutes of the pr esent meeting should contact the Secretariat.7  In his 
consultations thus far, all dele gations had approached the preparations for the Ministerial in a 
constructive and realistic manner, and he thanked them for their c ooperation in this respect.  He 
would, of course, be further intensifying his consultations in the coming days and, as ever, his door 
remained open for any delegation wishing to meet him. 
52. The representative of the Dominican Repub lic, on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries, said that the previous day, the Group had held a productive meeting at which it 
had carefully assessed the current process of achi eving consensus on the various proposals currently 
on the negotiating table.  Many views had been  expressed with respect to the usefulness and 
suitability of further extending, to a few more days , the deadline of 2 Novemb er for finding consensus 
on proposals for decision by Ministers, given that two delegations were work ing on drafting and had 
now begun the process of seeking consensus with th e various groups.  The IGDC was thus making 
this request to the Chairman in order to have flexibility in te rms of the deadline. 
53. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group, thanked the Chairman for his 
comprehensive and informative statement.  The Gr oup wished to reiterate its appreciation for the 
                                                      
6 See Annex II. 
7 Such statements are reproduced in Annex III to the present records. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 16  
 
  transparency and inclusiveness the Chairman had ma intained in his consultations with Members on 
the preparations for MC8.  As it had stated  during the informal General Council meeting on 
21 October, the Group was working on the basis of the Chairman's suggested template for possible 
outcomes at MC8.  It would, however, like to reserve its views on the final outcome of MC8 in view of the evolving negotiations on the MC8 agenda.  The LDC Group was in the process of finalizing 
some proposals for consideration by MC8.  It had made an effort not to go for a Christmas-tree 
approach and had kept its proposals to a minimum, focusing only on certain key areas of interest.  For 
obvious reasons, it took a considerable amount of time  within a Group mechanism to develop, chisel 
out and give final shape to any proposal.  At the moment, the Group had two proposals which were 
almost ready to be shared with the wider membersh ip.  The first related to further strengthening, 
streamlining and operationalizing the 2002 Guidelines on LDC Accession, to which he had referred in 
an earlier statement.  The second concerned a politi cal pronouncement by Ministers in favour of the 
extension of the waiver for LDCs under Article 66. 1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  The current waiver 
was due to expire on 30 June 2013, well ahead of  the likely schedule for MC9.  The Group also 
remained seized with the three LDC priority issu es for possible deliverables under the DDA at MC8, 
and was working on elements that could be shaped in to specific decisions at MC 8.  It also recognized 
the need to update some of the systemic elements  in the LDC Work Programme adopted in 2002.  The 
Group urged all delegations to cont ribute to this process so that the revised Work Programme could 
be considered for adoption at MC8.  This exerci se had been long overdue.  The Group had to admit, 
however, that it was still at an early stage of its outreach efforts to build support among Members in 
favour of its proposals.  It had been mindful of the deadline of 2 November and had been gearing its 
efforts to meet that deadline.  However, it was evident that the Group would not be able to do justice 
to its efforts within this time, without circumven ting some essential procedural requirements.  The 
Group therefore sought the Chairman's indulgence, and supported other delega tions in requesting an 
extension of the deadline to allow time for suffi cient interaction with other delegations on its 
proposals. 
54. The representative of Honduras thanked the Chai rman his report in document JOB/GC/12.  
His delegation had some questions in this connectio n and wished to highlight a few points raised at 
the General Council meeting in July 2011.  Regardin g the report on the consultations relating to MC8 
he asked the Chairman to specify which themes we re to be discussed by Ministers on the second and 
third days of the Ministerial Conference.  The Chairman had also mentioned that there was a lack of clarity on the wording of the titles of the worki ng sessions, meaning that it would be necessary to 
come back to that aspect later.  He asked if the Chairman could indicate whether he intended to pursue 
his consultations beyond 2 November on the themes  and titles of the meetings to be held on the 
second and third days.  If so, he asked if this would mean that the date of 2 November applied only to 
proposals on which consensus was being sought.  An other element in the Chairman's report concerned 
the participation of NGOs.  In this respect, Honduras wished to reaffirm that there was a consensus on 
following the same practice as that followed at the Seventh Ministerial Conference.  However, the 
measures established in 1996 could clearly restrict the participation of new NGOs, and to avoid this 
type of situation, Honduras agreed with several other delegations that these measures needed to be 
reviewed and that requests for participation shoul d be submitted to the General Council, as it was 
customary for all international organizations, obser vers and NGOs to apply to the respective Council 
for approval to participate, in this case in the Mi nisterial Conference.  Honduras considered that an 
unfair and unnecessary political burden was being placed  on the Secretariat, and that this procedure 
would also make it possible to avoid political pr oblems for a Member of this organization when 
participation had been denied to an NGO or othe r observer.  Honduras reiterated the reservation it had 
expressed at the July 2011 meeting of the General Council regarding the "gentleman's agreement".  
His delegation again thanked the Chairman for his report and said it would be grateful for a reply to 
its questions. 
55. The Chairman said he wished to respond to a few of the points just made.  For the issues to be 
discussed on the first and second day of MC8, as he had made clear in his statement, Members now  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 17 
 
 
  had the structure of two working sessions.  He would continue with his consultations to determine the 
issues and the themes or titles that Members would give to those sessions.  This would be premature 
at the present stage, and in any case was an orga nizational matter, once Members agreed that the 
Ministerial would have two working sessions to enable Ministers to participate fully, in line with the 
FIT principle.  This matter had no linkage with the proposals for decision by Ministers, on which 
Members were building convergence by themselves.  Regarding the participation of NGOs, there was 
a saying that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  The existing procedure had worked for the past seven Ministerial Conferences, and if delegations wished to  revise these procedures, that was an exercise the 
organization could take on after MC 8. He did not think there was time now to start a process of 
revising these procedures when most of the NGO par ticipants should already be determined by the 
first or second week of November.  He hoped Memb ers would understand, and if any Member felt 
strongly about this it could initiate , for the next Ministerial, a process to review past practices. 
56. The representative of Colombia thanked the Chairman for informing Members about the 
outcome of his consultations and providing them with that forum for sharing ideas concerning the 
focus for the Ministerial Conference.  First, Co lombia found the format the Chairman had presented 
useful, in that it allowed all Memb ers' initiatives and interests to be grouped together in a simple and 
practical way.  At the present time, the overarchi ng message from Ministers should be a determined 
statement of collective engagement to strengthen th e multilateral trading system and the WTO.  This 
implied the following: making the operation of the regular bodies more effective and using them to 
best advantage; improving the monitoring and on -going evaluation of trade policies and practices, 
within the Trade Policy Review Body as well as th e other regular bodies; increasing transparency 
through prompt and full notifications and better u se of the information they contained by discussing 
them in the relevant bodies; sending a strong messag e against protectionism, which included pursuing 
the exercise of reviewing protectionist measures and adopting the necessary changes to improve it; 
and emphasizing the relevance of the WTO dispute settlement system and the need to promptly 
conclude the negotiations on the Dispute Settlement  Understanding.  Last but not least, Colombia 
wished to insist on the importance of development as the focus of the WTO's work.  This included 
topics of interest to the LDCs and, in Colomb ia's case, broader and undistorted market access. 
57. The representative of the European Union thanke d the Chairman for the constructive work he 
was performing in this important phase for the orga nization.  All were well aware of the difficulties 
they faced in building consensus on what the substa nce of this Ministerial Conference should be.  His 
delegation had presented, at the recent informal m eeting of the General Council on 21 October, the 
EU's views on what a "successful" MC8 would need to deliver.  At the present meeting he wished to 
make some short comments on a few points of importance.   First, he wished to reiterate that Ministers 
would have to send a strong signal on the WTO's ability to perform its role of guardian of the 
multilateral trading system.  A soft outcome, which w ould be limited to recording Members' failure to 
make progress on the DDA, but without providing suffic ient guidance for the way forward, would not 
"reinforce the values of the WTO system for all its Members".  This was why the EU wished to see a 
substantive outcome emerging from the Ministerial.  This meant a realistic road map to lead the WTO 
in the next two years.  Second, on the DDA, the EU had made it already clear in its latest TNC statement that it had its own priorities, and thought  that Members should support effectively the so-
called "base camp" and define further how its genera l principles and orientations would be followed 
up concretely post-MC8.  The EU hoped that others would do the same  and share this view.  Finally, 
with regard to emerging global challenges that  the current multilateral rulebook and negotiating 
mandate covered only partially, or not at all, MC 8 should agree to examine these through incremental 
work programmes, in order to in crease Members' collective understanding of them.  He wished to be 
perfectly clear that the EU was not advocating th at such work programmes should supersede in any 
way the Doha mandate, nor would it accept that they distract Members from swiftly implementing the 
most urgent commitments to the benefit of the LDCs. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 18  
 
  58. The representative of India said his delegation ha d listened with great care to the Chair's and 
delegations' statements.  The scenario at the mo ment was not very encouraging, because not many 
proposals had succeeded in getting a consensus behind them, and there were delegations and groups 
of countries which were trying to meet the deadline of  2 November.  India woul d of course participate 
in all the meetings and discussions to try to br ing about convergence on as many issues as possible, so 
that the Ministerial had substance and was not ju st about form.  However, having said that, when 
groups of countries were going to put forward proposals on things like LDC issues, and presumably on other issues such as those relating to SVEs, it st ood to reason that the same procedures had to be 
followed for any other issue that Members sought to  bring to MC8 for decision, whether it was new 
issues, emerging issues, old issues, or 21st century issues.  The same  procedures, which were clearly 
laid down, had to be followed.  It could not be le ft to the last moment, and there had to be a fully 
participative and multilateral consensus by which thi ngs should be allowed to go forward to Ministers 
for decision.  Having said that, India fully supporte d the EU's stand, to the extent that the WTO 
should discuss new issues, but how they were to be discussed, whether there was to be a study 
programme or work programme or whatever name one close, had to be in line with the well 
established procedures of the WTO in bringing in a new subject for discussion, or even an old issue 
for further discussion.  These procedures had to be a dhered to.  If delegations did not adhere to them, 
he was afraid there would be chaos in the organizati on.  Of course, if delegations wished to revise the 
procedures, they were free to seek consensus on that as well, but they had to abide by certain laws and 
disciplines which Members collectively ha d taken the responsibility to follow. 
59. The representative of Honduras thanked the Chairman  for his initial reactions to some of the 
questions his delegation had raised.  He wished to  make two points.  With respect to NGOs, it was 
quite clear that in its statement, his delegation had said that the Chairman had consensus for the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference, and Honduras had actua lly been talking about the Ninth Ministerial 
Conference.  Second, Honduras would be grateful  for a reply to its questions regarding the 
interpretation of the dates for greater clarity.  His delegation thanked the Chairman once again and 
had taken note of the latter's answers. 
60. The representative of Brazil said the overarching objective of MC8 should be the preservation 
of the credibility long enjoyed by the organisation.   The degree of guidance that might be obtained 
from Ministers would, of course, depend on the degree of commonality of their views by December.  On the DDA, he wished to limit his comments only to  the type of work post-December.  Brazil would 
prefer a more intensive exercise and reflection on the causes of the fundamental stalemates.  Brazil 
was not particularly optimistic about the notion of a selective continuation of work, having Paragraph 
47 as background.  In any event, Members should never forget that the very first delivery of any initial set of outcomes would have to be in areas of interest to the LDCs and have a strong 
development content.  For the moment at least, Braz il was not of the view that Members would be in a 
position, by MC8, to announce a work programme  for the post-December work. Members still 
disagreed and had very different preferences in terms of approaches for the future.  Also, as usual, the 
gaps were significant.  As far as the non-DDA elemen ts were concerned, Brazil agreed that, besides 
the DDA, the MC8 outcome document had to also address at least two other important pillars.  The first would cover actions on trade and development.  Different de veloping-country groupings were 
working on proposals that fit under this pillar.  Hi s delegation was looking forward to receiving that 
input so as to advance the preparatory work in a constructive way.  The other pillar would address the 
regular work.  The reports and work under the re gular WTO bodies were of critical importance that 
could not be minimised.  There remained, of course,  room for improvement in the functioning of the 
organization, and his delegation woul d fully engage in talks that could explore ways to achieve this.  
Whatever Members decided for future work, DDA or non-DDA-related, Brazil would never be 
flexible on two basic principles: no results or appr oaches could compromise the multilateral nature of 
the organization, and any line of action had to be development-friendly.  Brazil was ready to continue 
to work with the Chairman in the preparatory work for MC8.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 19 
 
 
  61. The representative of Turkey said that after liste ning carefully to the statements at the present 
meeting, he felt compelled once again to clearly st ate his delegation's position.  At a time when there 
were only a few days left until the closing of the agenda for MC8, and only one and a half months 
until that meeting, it was worrisome  to see the existence of ambiguities.  There were not 200 different 
ways to come up with the outcome of the Minister ial Conference.  There was only one, and that was 
consensus.  Many colleagues had cautioned against a Christmas-tree syndrome, and his delegation did 
not want its Christmas surprise package under such a tree.  There should be no surprises at MC8.  
Preparations should be carried out with respect for the principles of transparency and inclusiveness.  
WTO rules and procedures had to be respected, a nd all ambiguity had to be dispersed through the 
established mechanisms.  With this caveat, Turkey  was ready to evaluate and discuss whatever 
proposals Members wished to put forward. 
62. The General Council took note of the Chairman 's statement and of the other statements. 
(b) Attendance of Observers from Government s and International Inter-governmental 
Organizations 
63. The Chairman suggested that the attendance of observers from Governments and IGOs be 
taken up separately.  First, with regard to a ttendance of observers from Governments, he had 
suggested in his consultations that the General C ouncil repeat its past practice.  This meant that 
Governments with observer status at the Seventh Ministerial Conference would be invited to the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference.  The list of the Observer Governments invited to the Seventh Ministerial Conference could be found in document WT/MIN(09)/INF/6/Rev.1 under Category II.  In 
the light of the convergence around his suggestion, wh ich had been apparent in  his consultations, he 
proposed that the General Council take note of his st atement and agree to follow the procedure he had 
outlined. 
64. The General Council so agreed. 
65. The Chairman said that, with regard to Intern ational Intergovernmental Organization (IGOs), 
he had also suggested in his consultations that th e General Council repeat its  past practice.  Thus, 
IGOs with Observer status at the Seventh Minist erial Conference would be invited to the Eighth 
Ministerial Conference.  In line with the Guidelin es for Observer Status for IGOs in Annex 3 of the 
General Council's Rules of Procedure, the only ex ception to this would be any IGO which had not 
attended the Seventh Ministerial Conference.  An y new requests would be considered on a case-by-
case basis in the usual way, also in  line with the Guidelines.  The list  of the Observer IGOs invited to 
the Seventh Ministerial Conference could be f ound in document WT/MIN(09)/INF/6/Rev.1 under 
Category III.  In the light of the convergence around his suggestion in the cons ultations which he had 
just mentioned, he proposed that the General C ouncil take note of his statement and agree to follow 
the procedure he had outlined. 
66. The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Ar abia, on behalf of the Arab Group, said he 
wished to draw attention to a letter the Gr oup had addressed to the Chairman on 24 October 2011 
which expressed the decision of the Arab Group H eads of Delegation.  He wished to read the 
following part of that letter:  
"However, given that the final consideration of  the LAS request would be subject to your 
consultations with Members, for which a decision would be taken by the 15th of 
November 2011, the Arab Group's clear and une quivocal position on repeating past practices 
with respect to the participation of IGOs in  the WTO's Ministerial Conferences, including 
MC8, would be contingent on th e favourable consideration of the LAS request to dismiss any 
manifestation that discrimination is tolerated in the rules based multilateral trading system. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 20  
 
  Therefore we would not be in a position, before  November 16th 2011, to agree to repeat past 
practices until it becomes clear that the request of LAS has been accepted. 
"Furthermore, we believe that all Intergovern mental Organizations should be treated on an 
equal footing, and that the process of consider ing their participation in MC8 should remain a 
technical, transparent and objective one and that the screening process be undertaken on the 
basis of Annex III of the rules of procedure of the Ministerial Conference.  
"Finally, we would like to recall that the LA S had in fact maintained permanent observer 
status under GATT 1947 and plays a mandatory role  in coordinating Arab positions on trade 
and trade related matters and assumes an impor tant role in harmonizing both economic and 
trade policy amongst its Members.  We therefore believe, that the LAS satisfies the condition 
that it has the competence and oversight over trade policy formulation as prescribed by the 
WTO's relevant rules and guidelines." 
67. The Arab Group requested that the above-menti oned letter be included in the Minutes of the 
present meeting.
8 
68. The Chairman said he wished to reaffirm and stress that in his consultations, including at the 
Informal Heads of Delegation meeting the previous Friday, his suggestion to repeat past practice had 
met clear acceptance from the membership.  Therefor e, he would encourage all Members to allow the 
process relating to attendance of IGOs, in particular with regard to new requests, to follow its course 
without attempting to do anything which w ould pre-empt the outcome of this process. 
69. The General Council took note of the Chairman's statement, of the statement by the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia and that the General Council w ould revert to this matter at a later point. 
70. The Chairman said that, in light of the procedure he had just set out, he wished to inform 
Members that a request for observer status at the Eighth Ministerial Conference had been received 
from the League of Arab States, which currently di d not have observer status in any WTO body.  He 
proposed that the General Council proceed in exactly th e same way that it had in the past with regard 
to requests from IGOs for observer status at Minist erial Conferences.  Accordingly, he proposed that, 
unless any objection was received by the Secretariat from any Member by 15 November 2011, the 
League of Arab States be granted observer status to the Eighth Ministerial Conference.  As in the past, 
he would inform the General Council at its next meeting of the status of this request.  For 
transparency purposes, delegations would have an oppor tunity at that meeting to discuss this request.  
He trusted that this was acceptable to delegations.  In  addition, he also wished to inform Members that 
a request for observer status at the Eighth Mini sterial Conference had been received from Palestine 
and circulated in document WT/L/822.  He was cu rrently undertaking consultations on this request 
and intended to revert to it at the next General Council meeting. 
71. The General Council took note of the Chairman's statement. 
(c) Attendance of Non-Governmental Organizations 
72. The Chairman recalled that for all previous Ministerial Conferences, attendance of Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) had been govern ed by a procedure which had been agreed by 
the General Council in July 1996.  This procedure was as follows:  (i) a limited number of accredited 
NGO representatives were allowed to attend only the Plenary Sessions of the Conference, without the 
right to speak; (ii) applications from NGOs to be re gistered were accepted on the basis of Article V, 
                                                      
8 At the request of the delegation of the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia, its statement and the letter to which 
it referred were subsequently circ ulated in document WT/GC/134.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 21 
 
 
  paragraph 2 of the WTO Agreement, i.e. NGOs "c oncerned with matters related to those of the 
WTO"; and (iii) a deadline was established for the registration of NGOs that wished to attend the 
Conference.  He proposed that the General Council con tinue to follow the procedure he had just read 
out, with a deadline for registration fixed at 11  November.  Once the registration procedure was 
finalized, the Secretariat would circulate the list of registered NGOs to all Members.  He trusted this 
was acceptable to delegations.  He proposed that the General Council take note of his statement and 
agree to follow the procedure he had outlined. 
73. The General Council so agreed. 
5.  Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies – Ne gotiating Group on Rules, Special Session 
of the Committee on Agriculture, and Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Environment – Statement by the Chairman 
74. The Chairman said that as he had informed dele gations by fax on 9 June and 23 September, 
he had been holding consultations on the chairm anships of the negotiating bodies in the areas of 
Agriculture, Trade and Environment, and Rules.  These consultations, which he had conducted with 
the assistance of Mrs Johansen (Norway), Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, and Messrs Matus 
(Chile) and Gero (Canada), former Chairmen of  the General Council, had shown a consensus among 
Members on the appointment of the following Ch airs:  Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture – Mr John Adank (New Zealand); Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Environment – Mrs Hiswani Harun (Malaysia); and Negotiating Group on Rules – Mr Wayne McCook (Jamaica).  These individuals woul d be elected as Chairs at the next formal 
meeting of each of the respective bodies.  
75. The representative of Mexico, expressed concern that the selection process had been flawed 
by a number of vetoes, often for frivolous reas ons.  As consensus was a basic foundation for the 
smooth functioning of the organization, Members c ould not oppose the exerci se of a veto.  As the 
Director-General had said at the informal Gene ral Council meeting on 21 October, consensus should 
be used to reach agreement, not to block it.  Wh ile there could be valid reasons to oppose a candidate 
based on doubts about his impartiality or knowle dge, or for other exceptional reasons, unjustified 
reasons were not to be considered valid.  Otherwi se, the veto would become illegitimate, an exercise 
with no relation to multilateralism and the spirit of co-operation that underlined the creation of the 
WTO.  Members should sit down and talk about rules regarding the exercise of a veto.   
76. The representative of Colombia expressed disa pproval of how some Members had managed 
the selection process.  He noted that unfounded vetoes were being increasingly exercised to disqualify 
nominees under the aegis of the confidentiality of cons ultations.  His delegation rejected this practice, 
which undermined the credibility of the organization, and called for the establishment of clear rules to 
conduct impartial and transparent procedures in the future.   
77. The General Council took note of the statements. 
6. WTO Pension Plan 
(a) Report of the Management Board for 2010 
78. The Chairman drew attention to the annual report of the Management Board for 2010 in 
document WT/L/820, which had been submitted to the General Council in accordance with 
Article 5(d) of the Regulations of the WTO Pe nsion Plan, and invited Mr Niggli (Switzerland), 
Chairman of the Management Board, to introduce the report. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 22  
 
  79. Mr Niggli (Switzerland), Chairman of the Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan, said 
that 2010 had been a year of transition for the Pensio n Plan in several respects.  In the course of the 
year, the Management Board had decided to select a new investment adviser, replacing the previous 
adviser, Towers Watson, by a Geneva-based company, MBS Capital Advice, a company with an impressive track record and a list of multinational and international clients in the local area.  He noted 
that this decision would lead to a further reduction in the running costs of the Plan.  Following the 
recommendations of its new investment adviser, th e Management Board had decided to modify its 
investment strategy.  The main feature of the ne w, more conservative strategy was a significantly 
reduced exposure to equities in favour of an increased  exposure to fixed income  and real estate.  The 
new strategy had been implemented in a very cost -effective way at the end of 2010.  The Management 
Board continued to monitor the performance of the strategy on the basis of quarterly reports by the 
investment adviser.  A formal actuarial valuation of the Plan had been carried out by the consulting actuary at 31 December 2010.  The valuation had s howed that the long-term cost of the Plan had 
increased to 25.6 per cent, to be compared with a cash contribution rate of 23.7 per cent.  The 
Management Board had noted that the consulting actuary had not recommended any adjustment at the 
present time, but it would continue to monitor the evol ution of the long-term cost on an annual basis.  
With a view to making further economies in the runn ing of the Plan and at the same time introducing 
more robust procedures for the determination of par tial and total disability under the Plan Regulations, 
the Management Board had decided that the funding of in-service death and disability risks should be 
covered by an insurance policy rather than by the Pl an itself.  This change was expected to generate 
cost savings and an actuarial surplus for the Pl an in the longer term.  Last but not least, the 
Management Board had pursued its efforts to recover withholding tax from those countries where 
significant amounts were still outstanding and where th e deadline for the recovery of certain amounts 
had already passed. 
80. The General Council took note of the statement and of the Annual Report of the Management 
Board for 2010 in document WT/L/820. 
(b) Election of a member and an alternate to the Management Board – Proposal by the Chairman 
of the General Council  
81. The Chairman recalled that Article 4(a) of  the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan 
provides, inter alia, for the election by the Gene ral Council of a Chairman, four members and four 
alternates to the Management Board of the Pens ion Plan.  In a communication circulated to 
delegations in document WT/GC/W/640, he had indicat ed that a member, Ms Stylianou (Australia), 
and an alternate, Mr Neufeld (Canada), previously  elected to the Management Board by the General 
Council, were no longer available to serve on the Bo ard, and that it was therefore necessary for the 
Council to decide on their replacement.  Accordi ngly, in his communication he had proposed the 
names of two representatives who had kindly agreed to have their names put forward for election as 
member and alternate.  He had also invited dele gations to submit any comments they might have 
regarding the proposed nominations by close-of- business on 17 October.  He had not received any 
comments regarding the proposed nominations, and accordingly proposed that the General Council 
elect Ms Trudy Witbreuk (Australia) to ser ve as member on the Management Board and 
Ms Annie Ouellet (Canada) to serve as alternate on the Management Board for the remainder of the 
Board's term, i.e. until May 2014. 
82. The General Council so agreed.9 
                                                      
9 The Decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/824.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 23 
 
 
  (c) Amendment of Article 30 of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan  
83. The Chairman recalled that the Amendment of  Article 30 of the Regulations of the WTO 
Pension Plan had been circulated in documen t WT/GC/W/637, in which the Management Board 
recommended the incorporation of a provision for the non-concurrence of allowances for child's 
benefit in the WTO Pension Plan Regulations.  He invited Mr Niggli (Switzerland), Chairman of the 
Management Board, to introduce this report. 
84. Mr Niggli (Switzerland), Chairman of the Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan, said 
that in document WT/GC/W/637, the Manageme nt Board was recommending an amendment to 
Article 30 of the Plan Regulations.  This article c oncerned the payment of a benefit in respect of the 
child of a beneficiary or former beneficiary.  The amount payable was aligned with that payable under 
the Staff Rules in respect of the dependent child of a serving staff member.  The Management Board 
had noted that, whereas the Staff Rules provided for the non-concurrence of allowances and stipulated 
that the amount of any allowance received fro m an outside source be deducted from the amount 
payable under the Staff Rules, no such provision existed under the Plan Regulations.  The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Plan Regulations was thus to provide for such non-concurrence.  The 
Management Board recommended that the General Council approve the amendment set out in the 
attachment to document WT/GC/W/637. 
85. The General Council took note of the statement and approved the amendment to the WTO 
Pension Plan Regulations as set out in document WT/GC/W/637. 
7. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Report on meeting of 
October 2011 (WT/BFA/126) 
86. The Chairman drew attention to the re port of the Budget Committee in document 
WT/BFA/126 and invited Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of the Committee, to introduce the 
report. 
87. Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said that at the Committee's meeting in October, the President of the French Court of 
Audit, the external auditor of the WTO, had pr esented his 2010 report. He had highlighted that the 
financial statements had received a clean audit opinion and that the Secretariat had rapidly 
implemented a number of recommendations. The repor t also contained the findings of a performance 
review of the Secretariat's IT organization.  Th e Director-General had welcomed the report and had 
reminded the Committee of the actions engaged in  the last few years to enhance the governance 
system of the Secretariat.  The Director-Gener al had then given some preliminary indications 
regarding the budget proposal for the biennium 2012-2013. The economic climate had provided an 
opportunity to review critically the internal and external services provided by the Secretariat.  Despite a slight increase in the overall expected level of activities, the Secretariat had identified a number of 
actions that could be taken to st reamline the operations and could gene rate sufficient savings in order 
to achieve a zero nominal budget growth in 2012 an d meet additional needs in dispute settlement and 
monitoring.  The Committee had now received the b udget proposal and would review and discuss it in 
the coming weeks, with the objective of making a recommendation to the General Council at its next 
meeting.  The Committee had also reviewed the budgetary and financial situation of the WTO for 
2011.  It had been noted that the funding situation on the DDA Global Trust Fund remained of concern and that not all trade-related technical assist ance activities had been able to be implemented.  
The Committee had also reviewed the situation of Me mbers with contributions in arrears, including 
Members that had entered into payment plans. It  had been noted that Administrative Measures had 
been fully enforced since 1 September 2011. WT/GC/M/133 
Page 24  
 
  88. The representative of Guatemala thanked the Chairman of the Budget Committee for his 
report and expressed her delegation's interest in the proposed WTO budget fo r 2012-2013.  Regarding 
the services provided by the Secretariat and how these might be rationalized and lead to savings for the next biennium, Guatemala congratulated the Committee for these proposals and wished to take 
part in the discussion in order to ensure that th ere was no adverse effect on the services received by 
Members.  Her delegation hoped to be a constructive participant in  the next meeting dealing with 
these topics. 
89. The representative of El Salvador said her dele gation welcomed the consultations that would 
be held on the draft budget for 2012-2013.  El Salva dor had some questions and concerns regarding 
the measures to be adopted in order to rationalize the functioning of the organization, and would raise 
these at the next meeting of the Committee.  It hoped to contribute in a positive fashion to the 
discussion on this subject. 
90. The Director-General, in response to Guatemala regarding the participa tion of delegations in 
the work of the Budget Committee and the elaborati on of the biennial budget, said that all Members 
were welcome to participate in the work of th e Budget Committee, which was an open Committee.  
The tradition was that it was mostly important c ontributors to the budget who participated in this 
Committee's deliberations, but he wished to recall, so that it was very clear, that each and every 
delegation was welcome to these meetings, be they formal or informal. 
91. The General Council took note of the statem ents and adopted the report in document 
WT/BFA/126. 
8. Administrative Measures for Members in  arrears – Statement by the Chairman 
92. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting in  May 2006, the General Council had approved a 
recommendation from the Committee on Budget, Fina nce and Administration regarding revised 
Administrative Measures for Members in arrears.   Among these Administrative Measures was a 
requirement that, at each meeting of the General Council, the Chairman of the Committee on Budget, 
Finance and Administration should provide informat ion with regard to which Members were under 
Administrative Measures in Categories II through IV.  He invited the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), to prov ide the Council with this information.  
93. Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said that as required by the deci sion of the General Council, he would list the 
Members under Categories II through IV of the Admi nistrative Measures as at 26 October 2011.  
There were two Members in Category I:  Nicaragua and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  There 
was one Member in Category III:  Uganda.  There we re six Members in Category IV:  Chad, Djibouti, 
Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Sierra Le one.  He said it should be noted that Guinea, 
previously in Category IV, had se ttled all its arrears and was no longer subject to Administrative 
Measures, and Mauritania had also just confirmed its  intention to follow a payment plan in view of 
settling its arrears. 
94. The Chairman said that under the revised Admi nistrative Measures, he was also required at 
each Council meeting to request those Members in Ca tegories III and IV of the Measures to inform 
him, before the next meeting of the General Counc il, as to when their payment of arrears might be 
expected. 
95. The General Council took note of the statements.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 25 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting 
of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
on 21 October 2011 
 
 
 At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned meeting are included below as part of th e Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
  1. Bangladesh (for the LDC Group)  
 
Thank you for your succinct brief on the current status of DDA and the possible way forward.  
We appreciate your tenacity to hope which is inde ed contagious.  This, I believe, stems from our 
collective faith in the value and credibility of the mu ltilateral trading system.  Doha represents the best 
embodiment of that faith.  As you said, we do not want  Doha to fail, nor can we afford to do so.  We 
must be able to read the writing on the wall.  If we decide to remain oblivious of it, we do so at our 
own peril.  The lingering effects of the global fina ncial and economic crisis may lead to a deeper and 
prolonged recession.  We must seriously consider tr ade and development as a vehicle to ride out this 
crisis.  It is also time to be pragmatic, without  losing sight of our overarching objectives.  We all 
admit that we are at an impasse with the DDA.  It seems impossible to break this evil spell on the 
DDA.  Those of us who have frequented these rooms over the years can vouch that we have tried hard 
to avoid going back to square one again and agai n.  But the odds are staked against us somewhere 
else.  There are broader issues at play which seem to thrive on continued divergences and stalemate in 
the DDA.  It is unfortunate that we have all fallen captive to those larger machinations. LDCs, as ever, 
remain the worst victims in this endless game of chess.  But, do we really care?  The Secretariat's 
latest report shows that, despite all efforts, the LDCs ' share of exports in international trade continues 
to hover around 1 per cent over the years.  There was a significant dent in this miniscule figure in the 
immediate aftermath of the global financial and economic crisis.  Th e ground lost was recovered to 
some extent in 2010, but more in terms of volume th an value.  The share of fuels and minerals at 
60 per cent of LDCs' exports tends to overwhelm those for agricultural products and manufactured 
goods, which are on the slide.  The total value of LDCs' exports, therefore, remains highly susceptible 
to price fluctuations in the international comm odities market.  On the other hand, the growing 
concentration on commodities in LDCs' export bask et contributes very little in terms of wealth 
creation and income generation. 
 Again, the situation of LDCs' share of exports  in commercial services remains at a dismal 
0.51 per cent over the past decade, underlining sev ere supply-side constraints.  The instruments 
developed to address such constraints have shown to  deliver some results, but , they also leave some 
question marks as to their actual impact on the ground  due to lack of robust tools for monitoring and 
evaluation.  There are, however, some occasional silver linings.  A number of developed-country 
Members have offered almost 100 per cent duty free and quota free market access to LDCs and continue to remain engaged in efforts to provide  further meaningfully enhanced market access to 
LDCs.  We are further encouraged by some rece nt efforts to add transparency and clarity in 
notifications about the preferential market-access sche mes granted to LDCs.  In this context, we put 
on record our appreciation for the notifications made  by India and China on their preferential market-
access opportunities for LDCs, based on tariff lines.  We  hope that such trends would encourage the 
remaining developed-country Me mbers and other developing-country Members in a comparable 
situation to follow suit.  This would be a critical tool in assessing the scope and impact of the 
preferential market-access opportunities offered to LD Cs.  It is important to note that all these 
constructive measures in favor of LDCs have been taken irrespective of any outcome in the DDA.  
However, we all recognize that in order to create meaningful and ambitious market-access WT/GC/M/133 
Page 26  
 
  opportunities on a lasting basis, there is no altern ative to delivering on the Doha commitments for 
LDCs in the framework of the multila teral trading system.  It is in this spirit that LDCs have been 
putting forward their long-outstanding demand for deliv ering on three LDC-specific priority issues in 
an "early harvest" package.  We believe that MC8 can be yet another opportunity to deliver on these pressing issues.  We appreciate the broad-based s upport that we have witnessed among Members in 
favor of the possibility for such an outcome.  To borrow the expression used by the EU delegation, it 
is high time that LDCs deserve such an outcome "w ithout asking for any payment against it".  This is 
indeed a perfect recipe for advancing along a viable route for the DDA as offered by paragraph 47.  In 
our outline, Director-General, you have hinged your  hope on the paragraph 47 "early harvest" clause 
for generating a forward momentum in the DDA.  We would argue that the LDC-specific deliverables 
at MC8 should be seen as the litmus test for the true efficacy of paragraph 47.  This must be seen as a 
confidence-building measure as we commit ourselv es to proceed along the line of paragraph 47 
without undercutting the Single U ndertaking principle of Doha. 
 We must not overlook the irony of building a future roadmap for Doha based on a foundation 
that has so far failed to deliver anything at all fo r those to whom it would have mattered the most.  We 
must take it as a challenge to prove otherwise.  We agree with you that Ministers should pronounce 
themselves on the entire gamut of DDA issues and ch art a clear way forward for Doha during the 
lead-up to MC9. As far as LDCs are concerned, th e development of any future negotiating mandate or 
architecture must be firmly embedded in devel opment, and nothing but development.  The LDCs 
would like to see their issues of interest being main streamed into every stage of this process.  We 
would like to remain closely involved with develo ping any future work programme that is to be 
endorsed by Ministers.  We would like to hear more about the process you are envisaging in this 
regard at an opportune time soon.  The LDC Gr oup remains committed to moving forward.  We 
would like to have an opportunity to say somethi ng new that corresponds to our shared vision for the 
future.  We hope that MC8 would finally bring us  to the threshold of that critical next step. 
 
2. Brazil 
 
Let me start by thanking you for your report on the consultations you have been holding since 
our last informal meeting and for your views on where we are in terms of the preparation for MC8.  Alongside the consultations that you and the Chairm an of the General Council have been holding, 
Members have been meeting in different format s to discuss the various elements concerning the 
Ministerial.  At this point in time, we are still unsure about several parts of the preparatory process, but we seem to be making progress.  As far as I can tell, the elements that you read out concerning the status of and outlook for the DDA are in line wi th what Members have somewhat acknowledged in 
these different informal meetings amongst themselves.   I must admit that they do not fully reflect 
Brazil's favorite choices or even preferred path for the future, but this is where we are.  For the 
moment at least, Brazil is ready to work on the b asis of those parameters.  Nonetheless, I would like 
to make a few comments from the perspective of my delegation.  Let me start with what we believe 
should be the overarching objective of MC8.  For Brazil, MC8 should be about preserving the 
credibility long enjoyed by this organization.  In or der to achieve this, we should do two things:  (i) 
tell the truth to the outside world; and (ii) set realistic goals for the future.  These should be our 
guiding principles.  
 
Regarding the format of the outcome, a Ministerial Declaration would clearly be the preferred 
choice.  This could only be attained, however, if we show the disposition to find common ground in 
the short time we have before us.  Of course a Minist erial Declaration would, almost by definition, be 
shorter and less specific than we would like as individual delegations, but it would send a much 
stronger collective message than any other documents of a non-Ministerial nature.  Having said this, Brazil is flexible in this regard, and we believe that a decision on this  should be taken later, when we 
are in a better position to assess the degree of conver gence finally attained.  On the elements you 
outlined about the DDA, Brazil abso lutely agrees that we must publicly acknowledge that we are not  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 27 
 
 
  in a position to conclude all elements of the DDA Single Undertaking in the near future.  It is 
disappointing, but it is the truth.  The world must hear it and we must face it head-on.  We also agree with the assertion that this does not mean the end of  the Round, and the message that we will continue 
working on it.  On the type of work post-Decembe r, Brazil would prefer a more intense exercise and 
reflection on the causes of the fundamental stalemates.  Brazil is not particularly optimistic with the 
notion of a selective continuation of work, having paragraph 47 as background.  Nonetheless, again 
for the moment, we are ready to work on the basi s of the formulation you suggested, as long as it is 
well understood that each and every Member will have a chance to test their priorities in the relevant 
negotiating groups.  If we have mu ltilateral consensus there, then  we move forward with the 
collectively agreed priorities.  Here, let me stress that any set of early agreements under paragraph 47 
would have to deliver outcomes of interest to th e poorest Members of the organization and, as far as 
Brazil is concerned, also in Agriculture.  I w ould strongly discourage, however, any attempts to 
previously negotiate lists of priorities, work plan s, specific roadmaps or areas of potential progress – 
whatever you want to call this specific type of  guidance – between now and December.  First, it 
would be a futile waste of valuable time if we try to  draw up an exhaustive list.  Second, if we go for a 
merely illustrative list, the only possible outcome woul d be a very extensive compilation of the issues 
under the Single Undertaking – several of them at th e very root of the current impasse.  Many were 
actually mentioned by the previous speaker.  To some, that could seem to be an easy way of appeasing constituencies that want to see their pet subjects on the declaration but, ultimately, it would 
be a further blow to the credibility of the WTO.  If we are to pursue this road, and we'll try to 
ascertain this as soon as possible, Brazil will rethink its support for the approach under paragraph 47.  
Let me stress, once again, that the key words for MC8 must be "truth" and "realism".  Finally, Brazil 
also supports the notion that any future negotiations have to be based on the progress made so far, and 
that they must have development as the central objective.  
With respect to the non-DDA elements, while we  seem to have the basis for a Ministerial 
message as far as the DDA is concerned, the cons ultations conducted by Ambassador Agah suggest 
that the MC8 outcome must also address at least two other important pillars.  The first one would 
cover actions on trade and developm ent.  A lot has to be done here , and different developing-country 
groupings are working on proposals that fit under this pillar.  We are looking forward to receiving that input so as to advance our preparatory work.  Th e other pillar would address our regular work.  The 
reports and work under our regular WTO bodies are of  critical importance and cannot be minimized.  
There remains, of course, room for improvement in the functioning of the organization.  At a 
minimum, we should further strengthen and improve  our activities of monitoring and surveillance.  
We must also ensure that the WTO remains a rele vant forum for a discussion of the most challenging 
trade-related issues of our times.  Whatever we d ecide for our future work, DDA or non-DDA related, 
Brazil will never be flexible on two basic principles.   First, no results or approaches may compromise 
the multilateral nature of this organization;  a nd second, any line of action has to be development 
friendly.  We live in times of global challenges a nd uncertainties, with international markets being 
subject to recurring and quite considerable turbulence.  At MC8, Ministers must send a clear message that the WTO will continue to play an important ro le in keeping at bay protectionist pressures that 
work against our ultimate objective of achieving sust ainable social and economic growth, particularly 
in the developing economies. 
 
3. Chile  
 
First of all, we welcome the report on your effo rts and meetings with a view to reaching 
viable and credible results for the next Minister ial Conference.  Viability and credibility are seen as 
essential requirements for a successful Conference.  We fully agree with the elements which the MC8 
outcome document should contain regarding the stat e of play in the Doha Round:  (a) express 
recognition that Doha is not possible in the near fu ture on account of today's substantive differences;  
(b) that headway should be made on the basis of Pa ragraph 47, in those areas of greatest convergence 
where agreement is deemed possible;  and (c) that  where we find ourselves in a deadlock, creative WT/GC/M/133 
Page 28  
 
  alternatives should be sought.  There seems to be  general support for these elements.  If we compare 
this situation with the one we were  facing before the summer, things look better today.  In July, many 
of us thought we were heading for a precipice, w ith a failed Ministerial Conference and no agreement 
on Doha issues.  The question is whether this is e nough to turn 2012 into an active and efficient year.  
I fear not.  We need more, and to achieve more we have to develop a mo re precise understanding of 
what we are going to do.  I would suggest three possible courses of action.  The first is sequencing, 
and the need for us to focus on identifying those areas in which we all consider progress to be 
possible, and themes or subthemes which each of us believes could be accepted by the other as a 
possible topic.  This should be done in a pragmatic  and realistic way, which means putting ourselves 
in one another's shoes.  This is the key to any su ccessful negotiation.  We also need to introduce areas 
of renewal and topical interest.  The second course of action would be to recognize, also in a realistic 
manner, that we cannot ignore topics of the future that are already on our doorstep.  Pragmatism in this case involves refraining from expanding or rene gotiating the Doha mandate for this purpose.  
These topics should indeed be addressed, but in the ins titution's regular bodies.  The key in this case 
will be to prevent any gridlocks from arising at the ve ry outset.  If we fail to do this, these issues will 
be addressed in other fora which have neither th e trade expertise nor the impartiality of this 
organization.  If this happens, the fault will be ours.  We also need to tackle the current economic and 
trade environment.  Lastly, and given the economic realities of today's world, we consider it essential 
for the credibility of the system that  there be a declaration that none of us will increase current levels 
of trade protection, in the form of a freeze – in other words, a standstill, on measures which impede or distort the free flow of goods and services.  Without an understanding on these three elements, added 
to those you yourself mentioned at the beginning, we shall probably have a Ministerial without 
Ministers and will have betrayed the principles unde rpinning this organization as the driving force 
behind free trade and the guarantor of a rules-based multilateral trading system. 
 
4. Cuba  
 
In Cuba's view, the priority at this time is to determine how, in the midst of the maze in which 
we find ourselves and the prevailing uncertainty, we  will be able to preserve the development 
component of the Doha Round.  This means that there is a pressing need for clarity on the preparatory process for MC8 and to know what will happen after the Conference.  Cuba repeats that the Doha 
Development Agenda and all of its components remain entirely valid, and it is not in favor of giving 
up the one and only pro-developmen t mandate adopted in the history of the multilateral system, in 
order to venture into new areas that are not of inte rest to the developing world, and all the less so 
when there are so many problems and imbalances sti ll to be resolved.  We regrettably note a dilution 
of the preparatory work for the Ministerial acro ss many fronts, jeopardizing the possibility of 
delivering documents in a transparent manner.  In this connection, Cuba emphasizes once again that it 
will not accept MC8 outcomes that have not been prev iously agreed on.  We are convinced that the 
only way to strengthen the credibility of this or ganization would be to complete the Doha Round 
negotiations and fulfill a mandate the focus of whic h was on concerns of the developing world.  Ten 
years on, these concerns cannot be said to have be come obsolete, let alone gone out of fashion, or 
become outdated.  On the contrary, they have unf ortunately increased.  We also wish to stress the 
following.  We do not support the attempts to estab lish plurilateral alternatives, which would do no 
more than highlight the incapacity of and cracks in  the multilateral system.  Nor do we see any point 
in addressing new issues without having complete d the agenda established in Doha, and we will 
therefore continue to support the Single Undertaking pr inciple.  Any use that is made of the possibility 
afforded by Paragraph 47 will have  to benefit and address matters of interest to the developing 
countries.  We have many doubts regarding this po ssible early harvest, which we all know is already 
somewhat tardy.  What is it we are talking about?   Which are those areas or sectors in which we have 
not reached agreement over all this time and, with  the Ministerial only a few weeks away, which we 
are being told may be a possible way forward?  Las tly, we reiterate the pressing need to consider the 
proposals which address priority issues for the least-developed countries. 
  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 29 
 
 
  5. European Union  
 
Concerning the DDA, we share your assessment of the situation.  The current state of play 
puts into doubt the capability of this organization to bring about consensual solutions to important 
trade issues.  The WTO must be able to adapt its rulebook to a changing world and retain its centrality 
in multilateral trade rule-making.  On the way forward,  we need to preserve what  has been achieved in 
ten years of negotiations, but also avoid business as usua l. We need a way that allows us to build on 
common ground, balancing continuity and openness,  a way that is based on the progress already 
made, advancing negotiations where further progress can  be achieved and, finally, a way that allows 
us at the same time to be open to look at diffe rent negotiating approaches within the mandate.  The 
EU has participated actively in informal consulta tions with other Members over the past few weeks, 
and we welcome the general orientations that you also presented to us as regards the guidance that 
MC8 could provide for work at the WTO in the next  two years.  We value these orientations and the 
good work that allowed us to make such progress.  However, there is no doubt in our mind that if we 
wish MC8 to be successful, such general orienta tions are not enough.  Our Ministers can and should 
do more than agree to continue talking.  Time is running short and we must urgently start identifying 
specific issues on which Ministers are expected to provide guidance for our work.  The EU considers 
that for MC8 to be credible and to respond to th e expectations to identify a more productive path 
forward in the WTO negotiating agenda, it must ag ree on a specific roadmap for our work.  Such a 
roadmap should include issues that can be taken forw ard towards agreements on their own merits, on 
the basis of "early harvest", as paragraph 47 of the Doha mandate allows.  It should also provide 
indications of timelines, and set out orientations in terms of process. 
 The EU is convinced that several components from the Doha mandate can be advanced to 
agreement irrespective of the impasse in the overall  negotiations, and particularly in NAMA.  We 
have our own priorities and we are obviously open to consider those of others.  In particular, we are 
convinced that a Trade Facilitation agreement, coupled with S&D trea tment and appropriate 
supporting measures for developing countries, woul d represent a genuine win/win outcome for the 
membership and be of real value for our trader s.  Furthermore, removing non-tariff barriers and 
improving the functioning of the Dispute Sett lement Mechanism would reduce regulatory 
impediments to trade and reinforce the multilateral tr ading system.  I would also like to reiterate the 
EU's well-known and unambiguous pos ition as regards LDC issues.  We continue to believe that 
implementing the Hong Kong Decisions should be a prio rity, and that this should be without payment.  
We believe that with some political will, results in these areas are within reach.   They do not really 
require trade-offs on substance, and we urge Me mbers to refrain from building them tactically.  
Despite the fact that WTO Members have been unable to agree on broad-based tariff cuts or Services 
commitments, there continues to be strong interest for further trade-liberali zation efforts.  The EU 
therefore believes that we should examine whether results could be achieved through targeted sectoral 
initiatives, taking the Information Technology Agreemen t as a model, and considering the interests of 
both developed and developing countries.  A number of such proposals are already on the table in the Negotiating Groups on NAMA and Services as regards – for instance, health, forestry and gems and 
jewelry on the NAMA side.  In Services, Information and Communication Technology, 
environmental services and supply chain services are ar eas where work could be usefully pursued on a 
sectoral basis.  There have also been discussions concerning issues outside of the present negotiating 
mandate.  We assume that these will be discussed in de tail in the near future, but would like to say a 
few words already today. 
 The EU's position is that in addition to setting a way forward in the Doha Round, MC8 should 
also recognize that the current multilateral rulebook is  not adequately equipped to deal with emerging 
global challenges such as energy, food security, co mpetition and investment.  We have noted with 
interest a proposal for the WTO to examine the rela tionship between trade and exchange rates, and we 
are open to consider also other issues that Members might wish to raise for a similar kind of open 
consideration.  The EU has no illusions about the sen sitivities that will no doubt arise, but it is clear WT/GC/M/133 
Page 30  
 
  that the membership can no longer di smiss these challenges as  North/South issues or just pretend that 
they do not exist.  We therefore believe that MC8 should agree on a work program to examine the interaction of such issues with the present multilatera l rulebook.  However, I wish to be very clear in 
stating that the EU is open to the priorities of othe rs and is not suggesting that such work should in 
any way diminish the obvious priority of the mandate d issues.  In conclusion, the EU believes that a 
functioning multilateral trading system requires an active WTO negotiating agenda, and that MC8 
must therefore point to a productive path to advan ce the process of multilateral trade liberalization and 
rule-making.  For us, the guidance given by MC8 is crucial not only for the future of the Doha 
Development Agenda, but for the multilateral system as a whole.  Shying away from discussions that 
would require all of us to show some flexibility will only lead us to the lowest common denominator 
at MC8, which would probably be followed by  an open-ended vacuum.  The EU does not support 
such an outcome.  We believe that the organiza tion needs a reasonably ambitious and specific MC8 
outcome that guides us pragmatically towards concrete results on mandated topics, as well as a structured consideration of emerging global challe nges faced by the multilateral trading system.  Let 
us not kick the can down the road.  Let us have th is discussion, and decide on clear orientations now, 
in November.  It will not be any easier in January or March next year. 
 
6. Ecuador  
 
Ecuador has always held that the conclusion of  the Doha Round is vital.  We would once 
again like to reiterate that view.  We believe that all Members should step up their efforts to achieve a 
balanced and development-centered outcome, as we agr eed in 2001.  The results achieved so far, the 
negotiating texts, and the proposals submitted by Memb ers, including last April's reports, should serve 
as the basis for moving towards a new stage in this  negotiating process.  The needs and interests of 
developing nations, and of small developing countries in particular , deserve a concrete response in 
terms of policy space preservation, balanced rules,  differentiated and more  favourable commitments, 
and technical assistance programs.  More specifi cally, the strengthening and operationalization of 
S&D treatment provisions, together with the establis hment of a monitoring mechanism to evaluate the 
results of these provisions and their true effectiveness, are issues of particular relevance.  We feel that 
we should avoid generating or intro ducing elements which distract our attention or which require us to 
channel our resources into issues that do not contribute directly to achieving the objective of 
concluding the Doha Round.  Worse still, topics such as the so called "Singapore issues" can only 
work against the Round and indeed  against the organization itself.  We therefore believe it is 
necessary to maintain and perhaps deepen our collective focus, with  a view to concluding the Doha 
Round.  Full participation, inclusiveness and transpar ency are all vital to a truly multilateral process.  
We believe that these elements must find real and effective meaning and expression in any action taken.  The structuring of a road map to ensure  the conclusion of the Doha Round as a whole should 
be one of the priority outcomes of the Eighth Ministerial Conference. 
 
7. Egypt 
 
Thank you for your report on the current state of play of the DDA and for sharing the 
outcome of your tireless efforts and consultations held over the past m onths.  Since we last met before 
the summer break, Members embarked on a process of deep reflection and sought  viable alternatives 
to preserve the DDA mandate and [conclude the Single  Undertaking to the political impasse].  This 
political impasse, at the time, seemed to be confined  to what was perceived as a typical mercantile 
predicament over voluntary NAMA sectorals.  Nevert heless, we all showed a strong commitment to 
safeguard the integrity of the rules-based multilatera l trading system by dismissing three non-options 
and opted for a three-tier approach in pursuit of  a credible outcome to the Eighth Ministerial 
Conference.  Today, the situation seems to have ta ken an unguided turn into the unknown.  The use of 
the term "Single Undertaking" has become a faux-pas in our midst.  Aspirations for an early harvest, 
be it for LDCs or "development-plus", are being shattered.  Anticipati on of a full-fledged DDA 
package beyond MC8 seems to be dissolving.  Seriou s talk of a development deliverable within WTO  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 31 
 
 
  circles is proving more and more to be a scholarly pastime.  Fighting protectionism appears to have 
been a promise that was meant to be broken, with  more than 130 new restrictions now locked into 
international trade.  New 21st century issues have be en proposed, at a time when persisting and urgent 
20th century implementation issues have not been re solved – in Shakespearean language "let us bear 
those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of".  Long-awaited political signals did not 
percolate or even trickle down, in a manner that would live up to the long-stated commitments of the 
Round.  New pathways to the negotiating format ar e being suggested, discarding the very principles 
underlying multilateral consensus-building.  Yet de spite all the aforementioned, and as ironic or 
deluding as it may seem, some of us are confident that Doha's failure woul d have few consequences 
on the WTO.  As far as Egypt is concerned, th e development priority and mandate still remain 
supreme.  We do not intend to turn a blind eye, nor would we merely sweep ten years of work under 
the carpet.  We find it difficult to endure any fu rther changes to the nego tiating process and equally 
frustrating that the yardsticks are constantly being moved away from our multilaterally agreed objectives.  We stand at the cross-roads of history. 
 
Never before, since 1947, have we  allowed a Round to die, and we  surely would not want that 
to happen to a development Round.  This is a time wh en mere intentions will not suffice.  This is the 
time for those of us with outstanding responsibiliti es to rise to the occasion.  The DDA's terms and 
conditions remain of relevance for today, tomorrow and the day after, and if we were to enter into an 
undesirable period of hibernation, then this woul d only mean picking up the pace from where we have 
left off.  While we acknowledge that the wo rld around us has changed economically as well as 
politically, we also believe in tandem that today' s economic, financial, investment, food or even 
environment woes and challenges have not emanated  from the developing or least-developed world.  
Yes, global economic governance may be taking on a new shape, new global players may be 
emerging, and a post-Washington consensus era may be in the making.  However, one thing that 
evidently did not change is that all the aforemen tioned global predicaments have exacerbated the need 
for immediate action to safeguard development an d rectify the imbalances in the global trading 
system as was intended in 2001.  If the WTO is to truly keep abreast with a changing global 
landscape, then as a matter of priority we s hould consider how to deal with socio-economic 
considerations and see how the system  could respond to the realizati on of the fundamental demands of 
the people, i.e. the right to development.  The time  has come to place social justice on the agenda of 
the WTO.  Recent global events, from Tahrir Square to  Wall Street, sound loud alarms that need to be 
heeded.  They are a call for urgent action.  As le aders gather today for a special session of the World 
Economic Forum for the Middle East and as prep arations for the Cannes G20 Summit and the 
Honolulu APEC Summit are underway, we hope that today's TNC will send a clear and urgent message, a message that will accentuate that neither developing nor least-developed countries are 
willing to throw in the towel.  Fulfilling the DDA's mandate is not subject to convenience, but an 
urgent necessity, and in all honesty, no one should e xpect that after deploying extensive resources for 
more than ten years, seeking an ambitious devel opment outcome to the DDA, we, the developing and 
least-developed world, would casually agree to st art afresh.  Opting for a "Control-Alt-Delete" 
approach does not merely shut down Doha, but the entire system. 
 Whatever form the outcome document of the Ministerial Conference might take, Ministers 
should recognize the work that has been achieved thus far, as reflected in the April reports.  Ministers 
should provide political guidance and recognize the cr itical state of the Doha negotiations and that 
imminent action and decisive decisions need to be  taken with respect to the DDA and regular WTO 
work, in particular:  to preserve and strengthen th e development pillar of the WTO;  to safeguard the 
interests of NFIDC's; to facilitate the accession of  LDCs and developing countries into the WTO; to 
monitor the growing list and incremental effect s of protectionism; and to ensure equitable 
participation for inter-governmental organizations  in the multilateral trading system.  These are 
crucial issues that need to be a ddressed if we are to maintain the credibility of the multilateral trading 
system and ward off protectionism or worse, unilateralism.  By 15 December, clarity on the road map 
for work on the DDA should have emerged through c onsensus.  This is indispensable to regain WT/GC/M/133 
Page 32  
 
  confidence and secure the conclusion of the Rou nd post-MC8.  Any provisional deliverables, as 
prescribed by paragraph 47 of the Doha Declaration,  shall be of a development nature and should 
build on the progress achieved and based on the April reports.  If some are in the process of picking 
and choosing what to hang on the Christmas tree, or  even thinking of getting a new tree altogether, it 
is worth recalling that some Members do not have th e luxury to celebrate Christmas in the first place.  
The vulnerable among us and those who are facing severe food security challenges, including 
NFIDCs, should receive paramount consideration dur ing MC8.  Responding to food security issues is 
a must.  A key deliverable for MC8 in this regard  cannot be ignored.  Members should therefore spare 
no effort in enacting the necessary trade measur es and launching the required work program to 
mitigate the negative impact of agricultural pri ce volatilities on NFIDCs.  These are four concrete 
messages that we wanted to sh are with the membership, and we  hope that the political signals 
emanating from the forthcoming Summits will reflect a nd cater to the urgency of the situation at hand, 
in order to safeguard the success of MC8. 
 
8. Hong Kong, China  
 
Since the last General Council meeting before  the summer break, my delegation has been 
working closely with you and other Members in id entifying and developing deliverables for MC8.  
We believe that the constructive engagement among delegations is a prerequisite for a credible 
Ministerial Conference to be convened in Geneva in  eight weeks' time.  Given the situation in the 
DDA, which is the subject of the TNC this afternoon, it is all the more important for us to reaffirm 
that the WTO is more than the Round itself.  To this  end, we believe that Ministers should be invited 
to reaffirm the functionality of the WTO's core business.  I recall that, at the last Ministerial, many Ministers – including mine – spoke in support of various ideas to strengthen the WTO system through its day-to-day business, including proactive opera tion of Committees.  I am inclined to ask my 
Minister to send the same strong signal at MC8 and would encourage others to do so.  My delegation 
also appreciates very much the work  of the TPRB Chair in steering the fourth appraisal of the TPRM.  
We have seen good progress being made in recen t meetings, not only in reviewing TPRM procedures 
but also in respect of the various initiatives re garding the continuation of the WTO's work in 
monitoring trade measures.  We certainly look forw ard to substantive outcomes to be reported to and 
acknowledged by Ministers.  In addition, we echo some preliminary ideas by others in asking our Ministers to reaffirm their resolve against protectionism.  We may leverage the outcomes of the 
upcoming high-level meetings in G20 and APEC to consider some kind of pledge against 
protectionism.  Some references can also be made to the financial crisis and the current economic 
situation, as well as to the Director-General's regul ar reports on trade-policy monitoring.  As a firm 
supporter of free trade, Hong Kong, China is open to  discuss with any others who would like to see 
such a deliverable.  My delegation is also interest ed in the idea of reaffirming at MC8 the importance 
of the judicial function of this organization.  Ministerial acknowledgement will certainly give a push 
to the ongoing negotiations in the DSB Special Session, and to guide us in finding ways to further strengthen the capacity of developing countries, and in particular the LDCs, to participate in the 
dispute settlement system as part of their ongoing in tegration into the multilateral trading system.  
Furthermore, we should consider recognizing the su ccessful Third Global Review of Aid for Trade in 
July, as it showed results and laid down some themes and directions for the future work programme.  
Ministers are well-placed to send positive signals in continuous support of this work programme, 
which they established at the Sixth Ministerial C onference in Hong Kong, and which bears a clear 
development objective.  We also look forward to  receiving the three proposals that Kenya has 
mentioned this morning at an early stage to allo w sufficient time for consideration and discussion.  
We note the ongoing negotiations regarding the draf t decision statements in relation to the e-
commerce work programme, as well as to the mora torium applying to custom duties on e-commerce 
and to non-violation and situati on complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.  We urge Members to 
exercise pragmatism in coming to consensus as soon as possible.  I have set out some potential areas 
in respect of which my delegation would like to see outcomes in the Ministerial.  We find your matrix helpful in guiding us in the process of contempl ating an outcome document for MC8.  We remain  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 33 
 
 
  committed to working with you and others to en sure that we are on track in delivering these 
outcomes. 
 
9. India 
 We would like to thank you for your efforts in consulting with a wide cross-section of the 
membership in seeking a path to a successful Eighth Mi nisterial Conference.  All of us agree that the 
current global economic scenario is fraught with uncertainty, and problems of job losses, unemployment and inflation are widespread across the globe.  It is therefore not going to be an easy 
task to steer the WTO ship through these troubled  waters, especially when the perceptions and 
aspirations of many countries are not only different, but sometimes directly opposed to each other.  
We cannot brush aside this truth, but have to acknow ledge it and work within its limitations.  We also 
do not have a lot of time to seek consensus before  MC8.  In such circumstances, we have to be 
pragmatic and realistic in setting the agenda for the Ministerial.  While my delegation is in general 
agreement with the work in progress outlined by you as a possible way forward, and is willing to 
strive to the utmost to make it possible, I must me ntion that the devil, as is often the case, lies in the 
detail.  I would, therefore, like to share some of our  concerns in this regard.  First, the paragraph 47 
approach cannot be a panacea for all evils confronting the Round.  An attempt for an early harvest of 
LDC issues was made not long ago, which unfort unately ended in resoun ding failure.  Thus, we 
should not pin all our hopes on the paragraph 47 ap proach alone.  Second, an early harvest under 
paragraph 47 can only be a part of the Single Undertak ing.  It cannot be an escape route for avoiding 
the Single Undertaking covertly.  There is also a clear distinction drawn in  paragraph 47 between 
early agreement and early implementation of any issu e.  Paragraph 47 allows for early implementation 
on a provisional or definitive basis, but obviously it would require multilateral consensus.  Also, as paragraph 47 states, early agreements  under it have to be assessed to see the overall balance in the 
negotiations.  The third point that I want to make  is that the three LDC issues mentioned in the 
Hong Kong Declaration and other deve lopment issues that relate to the aspirations of a large number 
of developing countries and mentioned in the mandate , have to obviously take overriding priority in 
any such exercise under paragraph 47, because there is wide consensus that development has to be the 
central theme of whatever we do in MC8, as reflect ed by the interventions of all the delegations 
before me, and thus the issues of the poorest develo ping countries have to take precedence.  In this 
context, we fully support the views expressed by Bangladesh and Kenya on behalf of the LDC Group 
and the African Group. 
 Fourth, for the other issues not directly relata ble to development, there cannot be any pre-
selection of the topics or short-circuiting of the pr ocess for early harvest under paragraph 47.  To our 
mind, all the negotiating groups are on the same foo ting with each other, a nd which negotiating group 
wants to go ahead in which area will have to be d ecided by multilateral consensus in a meeting of the 
relevant negotiating group.  This can take place before and after MC8.  As a pre-requisite for this, 
confidence will have to be built up among the larg er membership by the proponents of any proposal, 
and it would have to take its own c ourse.  If the attempt is to creativel y use the paucity of time before 
MC8 to push in a Ministerial directive to  advance certain items of choice to certain countries, such as 
Trade Facilitation, Non-tariff Barriers or certain pr oposals of DSU reforms on a fast track, I am very 
skeptical that it would succeed.  What it would undoubtedly succeed in, however, is bringing into 
sharp focus the differences of opinion on these topics.   I leave it to the proponents of such proposals 
to exercise their judgment and do what they think is best for MC8 and the system.  Fifth, we have heard from certain quarters the idea of using "new a pproaches" to conclude the Doha Round.  Though 
there is a lack of clarity on what these new appr oaches would constitute in c ontradistinction to what 
we have tried in the past ten years, including para graph 47 in June-July 2011, we are all in favor of 
trying new approaches to break the impasse.  The proponents of such new approaches have to spell 
out clearly the details of such approaches so that  we know what we are ag reeing to.  However, our 
delegation would like to strike a word of caution that  any new approach has to be fully consistent with 
the Doha mandate, and therefore has to be necess arily based on multilateral consensus.  Any attempt WT/GC/M/133 
Page 34  
 
  to couch a GPA-type plurilateral approach for th e early harvest of different Doha items as a new 
approach, is doomed to failure.  Such an attempt would not only shake the foundations of the multilateral trading system to the core, but would make the credibility of the WTO plummet, something that all Members collectively are trying to  avoid.  Before I conclude, I would seek your 
indulgence in mentioning an important point relati ng to non-Doha issues, just raised by another 
delegation before me.  There is a well-defined pr ocedure and rules about how a new issue can be 
brought into the WTO for discussion.  Any attempt to bypass that well-defined procedures and jump 
straight to the work programmes in areas such as climate change, energy security and food security, or 
rejuvenating the old work programmes on the rema ining two Singapore issues, namely, Competition 
and Investment, on which a General Council Decision of 1 August 2004 is also available, is most 
unlikely to go down well with the larger membersh ip.  In conclusion, our delegation would like to 
reaffirm our commitment to work positively and constructively with other Members in all possible 
configurations, to make the Eighth Ministerial Conference a success. 
 
10. Indonesia (for ASEAN) 
 
Let me begin by expressing our continued appr eciation for all the hard work you have done, 
including your process of consultations with Member s in an attempt to secure meaningful results for 
the upcoming Ministerial Conference in December.  As the Ministerial Conference is fast approaching, we fervently hope that the dynamics  of various consultations held by Members in 
various configurations will quickly bear meani ngful results.  ASEAN acknowledges that the DDA 
cannot be successfully completed using the busin ess-as-usual approach.  We therefore welcome the 
elements which you have outlined to us today.  We welcome the positive tone which this message 
sends, and think it provides a good basis for us to  move forward.  We believe that it is the 
responsibility of every Member to consider new a nd alternative ways to deliver a successful outcome, 
building upon the work already done, and preserving  the mandate.  ASEAN remains committed to the 
DDA and the strengthening of the WTO as a bulwark of the multilateral trading system.  ASEAN by 
itself is not in a position to significantly change th e complex problems we face, but we stand ready to 
be part of any emerging solution.  We call for coll ective leadership of all WTO Members in preparing 
for a successful Ministerial Conference and in the charting of our future work in Geneva.  ASEAN 
continues to support the strengthening of the WT O and its role in monitoring the global trading 
environment, maintaining trade flows, and guarding against protectionism.  This role is even more 
significant in light of the challengi ng global macro-economic conditions. 
 
11. Indonesia (for the G-33)  
 
The G-33 would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your report and assessment on 
the latest developments in the DDA negotiations.  We commend your tireless efforts in trying to 
salvage the Doha Round.  The G-33 is deeply con cerned with the current state of the DDA.  Despite 
Members' endorsement of conclusion of the Round this  year, and after so much time and energy has 
been spent, there is no prospect on the horizon that the negotiations will be co ncluded any time soon.  
The Eighth Ministerial Conference will be a very im portant moment for the WTO to prove that it 
continues to be a body that is able to put itself in or der.  In light of the latest development in the global 
macro-economic situation, the WTO is under greater pressure to prove itself a strong defender of the 
multilateral trading system able to maintain and in crease trade flows and keep protectionism in check.  
Towards the December gath ering, WTO Members should continue to work together and quickly agree 
on the way forward for future DDA negotiations.  Th e G-33 reiterates that any future work plan on 
these negotiations should continue to emphasize the centrality of operational S&D treatment for 
developing countries, especially the least-develope d among them, building on the progress that has 
been made so far.  The G-33 stands ready to work  with other Members in achieving the relevant WTO 
and DDA objectives.   WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 35 
 
 
  12. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
 
As a recently-acceded Member, Saudi Arabia is particularly keen to see the conclusion of the 
DDA, because it agreed to concessions, during its accession negotiations, with the prospect of 
benefiting from the greater liberalization that would result from the conclusion of the DDA.  Six years 
after joining the WTO, Saudi Arabia and a number of other RAMs still have not seen some of the 
benefits contemplated during thei r accession negotiations.  The conclusion of the DDA is important to 
restore a balance between the concessions and commitments agreed to by all Members. 
 
13. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (for the Arab Group) 
 
Allow me to thank you for consulting and engagi ng with all Members in a fair, inclusive and 
transparent manner in discussions with a view to mo ving the DDA forward.  We consider that in order 
to decide on the best way to move forward, we must first precisely assess where we stand.  We must 
objectively and rationally evaluate  the difficulties that we have faced in trying to move the 
negotiations forward and the progress that has been made in recent years.  This assessment should 
concern each of the negotiating issues and the negot iations more globally.  Understanding where we 
stand and the reasons that have led us into an im passe will certainly be of assistance when considering 
the different options for the period following MC8.  We should agree to a work program that will 
allow us to address the difficulties we have been conf ronted with and to conclude the negotiations in a 
Single Undertaking with development at its heart.  In order to facilitate the conclusion of the DDA, 
the Arab Group is not supportive of the addition of new issues, which prove to be contentious, to the 
negotiating table.  We consider that such an addition will not facilitate the conclusion of an 
agreement.  To the contrary, it will introduce more  complexity, require lengthy discussions and could 
separate Members further on substance.  Ten years after the initiation of the DDA, Members need to 
determine a way – or possibly, ways – to reach a global multilateral agreement.  Once again, the Arab 
group is fully conscious of the difficulties lying ahead  of us, but considers that a successful conclusion 
of the DDA should remain our main goal.  The Ar ab Group remains committed to working with you 
and all Members on a work program and constructive  solutions that will allow for the resumption of 
the negotiations on all issues and their conclusion. 
 
14. Norway  
 
Thank you for informing us about the elements  that emerged from your consultations around 
which agreement could be obtained.  They are not  very ambitious, not very concrete, but most 
probably the best possible just now.  Obviously, every Member has the right to fight for its national positions.  Like most other Members, Norway has inte rests that would be extremely difficult to give 
up, even in an end-game.  At the same time, we know that, in order to agree, no-one is going to get all 
they wish for.  Even if we might feel it is our genuine right, especially not at MC8.  There is not 
enough time, and there are no concrete proposals on the table that have consensus on any Doha issue.  
We all know painfully well that in the WTO, it is  negotiations and consensus-building that provide 
viable results, not speech-making.  But MC8 is not th e end, and the world will, hopefully, go on after 
17 December.  And I hope we can all agree on the poin ts you made at the outset – that we are stuck, 
that we will not throw the mandate over board, and that we cannot continue with business as usual.  
Ergo, we have to do something different.  The r eality is, however, that we don't know or don't agree 
on how and what, yet.  That's why we should not spend time before MC8 on establishing a work program or trying to develop an agreed list of issu es that should be finalized early next year.  The 
world economy is in disarray, in rapid change.  The courage to propose bold steps today whose costs 
tomorrow we don't know, is not there.  These days it is difficult to know what mix of trade 
liberalization would benefit or hurt just my own econom y in the future.  That is why it is so easy to 
say no – just in case.  That does not mean that we  should give up.  On the contrary, this is a time 
where strong commitment and leadership is crucial.  But maybe this is not the time to make hasty 
decisions.  It may simply be too late or too early.  So let's put the level of ambition on the appropriate WT/GC/M/133 
Page 36  
 
  level for MC8.  Let's appreciate there are things we  can't to right now, and let's not shut any doors to 
what we can do in the future.  Your elements are about right, I guess, so let's see if we can agree on 
something like that, turn the page and move on.  Finally, let me thank you for your cautioning and 
clarifications regarding the functioning of the regular bodies. 
 
15. Pakistan 
 
Thank you for convening this meeting to brief the Membership about the current state of play 
and the possible outcome of the forthcoming Ministeria l.  We agree to your analysis and the proposed 
way forward until the Ministerial and beyond.  From  the beginning of the year up to Easter, we 
witnessed unprecedented activities in the Chair-led  process, and for the first time we had a 
compilation of documents indicating the state of play at that time in all areas of the Doha mandate.  
Lack of convergence on market access issues had an  impact on all other initiatives of the mandate.  
We need to preserve this endeavour and begin our de liberations on that basis in future.  Challenges to 
the multilateral trading system are not confined only to the impasse in negotia tions of the Round.  The 
current economic situation in the developed world is also a cause of concern, which may generate 
protectionist sentiments – a course of least resistance.  As we have seen during the recent economic crisis when developed countries' experienced ec onomic reversal, a large majority of developing 
countries suffered the most, and some of them have yet to regain the growth trajectory of 2007-08.  
We need a political message during MC8 that the developed countries will keep markets open and the developing countries may use the policy space judiciously in consonance with their development 
needs.  Besides, the WTO may continue to monito r changes in the trade policies of the Members and 
present the report to the Membership for peer re view.  Deliberations are on-going to make such 
reviews more meaningful by, for instance, evalua ting the global trade flows, especially from the 
developing and Least-developed countries, due to changes in trade policies.  Presently, along with talks on the elements of the Doha Development Agenda, two views are being expressed.  There is a 
view that WTO must address new issues, which are more relevant in today's global economic 
realities.  The other view is that we can take up the new issues after the completion of the current 
Round.  Perhaps we can find a middle way.  Instead of amending the current mandate of the Round, or beginning to negotiate new issu es in parallel with the Round, we may identify the new issues to 
develop elements and clarity in the proposed initiativ es.  We may also find out whether the new issues 
have any nexus with development.  Simultaneously , we may keep the sanctity of the Doha mandate 
intact and keep it in focus after MC8.  As all are aware, the current Round is the first multilateral 
endeavour to address "development".  Although development is a holis tic concept, trade remains an 
integral part to move on the path of development.   These issues may be taken up for negotiations after 
MC8 for delivery under paragraph 47 of the Doha mandate, maybe on provisional basis.  Even taking 
small steps before the Ministerial would be impor tant.  The issues relating to LDCs, SVEs and ACP 
countries may also be discussed/negotiated in th e coming weeks.  We are eagerly awaiting the 
proposals being developed by the LDCs and Afri can Group.  My delegation would constructively 
engage to help in developing c onvergence on these proposals.  We also support the statements made 
on behalf of the G-20, Cairns Group and G-33, wh ich have highlighted the importance of moving 
forward on removing distortions in Agriculture trade.   I am optimistic that MC8 will be a success and 
will revitalize the WTO by enhancing its relevance and credibility. 
 
16. Thailand 
 
Thank you for your report on the result of your  consultations.  We certainly support the 
approach you have outlined. Let me also associ ate ourselves with the statement by Indonesia on 
behalf of the ASEAN Members and the statement by Au stralia on behalf of the Cairns Group.  This 
morning we heard many Members call for a Minister ial understanding against protectionism.  This is 
the principle we share, especially in the midst of the global economic crisis.  However, we believe the 
most effective and more permanent means is to upda te the multilateral tradin g disciplines in order to 
keep pace with changes in the global trading environment, and to prevent protectionists from  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 37 
 
 
  contorting the outdated disciplines in favor of their self interests.  If we are truly committed to the 
betterment of the multilateral trading system, then cl early a new course of direction is needed.  We 
believe MC8 would provide the opportunity for Ministers to set a new bearing and a clear guidance on how we can use the next two years productively.  Th e DDA indeed offers such potential to update our 
rules in many aspects, such as Trade Facilitation.  We believe these "regulatory agendas" should not 
be held back by the intractable impasse of ce rtain areas.  Therefore, we would support the 
continuation of work in these areas in 2012, wher e possible, by their respective negotiating groups, 
with the aim of resolving these issues on their ow n merits, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the 
Doha Declaration.  However, efforts in conti nuing the negotiations in th ese areas would be rendered 
meaningless if there is no shared desire among Me mbers to get into the actual negotiations where 
difficult decisions and hard compromises are necessar y.  This is another aspect where Ministers can 
provide clear guidance.  Second, in terms of areas  where there seem to be intractable fundamental 
differences, most notably in market access, we w ould need a decision to structure a frank discussion 
in 2012 on what would be needed to restore the ke y function of this institution as a negotiating forum. 
Each of us would have the responsibility to ask ourse lves what we are prepared to do.  In conclusion, 
let me end by assuring you that Thaila nd will continue to play our role in working constructively with 
Members, and we stand ready to intensify our effort s in the coming weeks so that MC8 will be a great 
success and a significant contribution to the future of the multilateral trading system. 
 
17. Turkey 
 We support the statement by Indonesia on behalf of the G-33.  We have listened to your 
report on the state of play with keen interest.  We appreciate and support your efforts to guide Members for MC8 and beyond.  I want to make a statement on two tracks.  Let me enumerate our expectations from Ministers at MC8 regarding the DDA.  We believe the first issue Ministers should 
tackle is to reaffirm their political commitment that  the DDA is valid and on the table today.  From 
our perspective, the DDA contains the right agen da.  The only way to bring further rules to the 
changing international trading environment is to ensure  that the DDA is completed.  I want to reiterate 
that the Single Undertaking, transparency and in clusiveness remain our sacred  principles.   The sec ond 
point about Ministers is that they could also conf irm that "business as usual" is no more working to 
move the Doha Round forward.  They may provi de political guidelines which can be followed in 
order to move the negotiations forward, based on th e progress achieved so far.  We need Ministers' 
political guidance to steer us in the early days of the post-MC8 period.  Third, among major 
stakeholders and some stakeholders there is an ongoing discussion on paragraph 47 of the Doha 
Declaration.  The Director-General has also made re ference to it. Paragraph 47 has been with us since 
2001.  It can play a role in the process only after we  achieve convergence or con sensus in some areas.  
Paragraph 47 should not be brought up as a blanket to induce consensus.  It is merely an element to 
facilitate implementation only after convergence emerg es.  After intense negotiations of ten years, I 
think the Membership has a clear sense of the issues  that are more mature a nd developed than others. 
Of course, the guidelines that Ministers will give c ould also be instrumental in this regard.  Among 
the areas that we can implement paragraph 47, I wa nt to mention LDC-related issues, which have a 
close connection with the developmental thrust of th e Round.  We believe that the need for concrete 
progress on LDC-related issues in MC8 is quite current and valid.  This is pa rticularly true for the 
issue of accessions.  If Ministers are going to agree on only one issue in MC8, development should 
definitely be it.  We should not forget that this is a Development Round.  Therefore, special priority 
and attention should be given to the proposals in this regard, emanating most probably from the 
coordinators of the African Group and LDC Group.  We are very keen to receive the proposals from 
Kenya on trade and development, accessions and Net Food Importing Developing Countries, and the 
proposals from Bangladesh on trade and developm ent, and accessions.  We urge our two esteemed 
colleagues to start consultations with other groups as soon as possible to forge consensus among 
Members.  The second track of my statement is more specific.  It is about the issues to be handled 
during MC8.  We know that there is an initiativ e on TPRB and the former General Council Chair, 
Mario Mathus, is effectively finalizing the prop osal.  The TPRB is one of the most important WT/GC/M/133 
Page 38  
 
  mechanisms of the WTO, which should be preser ved and strengthened.  It has become a key 
monitoring component against protectionism.  Pr otectionism is another outstanding issue which 
deserves further elaboration.  As the adverse effect s of recent economic and financial crisis are still in 
effect, we should remain vigilant against any pr otectionist trade measures which would hinder the 
global economic recovery.  Let's be  realistic and courageous, and f ace the need to build up mutual 
trust among ourselves before indulging in any further deliberations.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 39 
 
 
  ANNEX II 
Chairman's Remarks at the informal meeting  
of the General Council at the level of Heads of Delegation 
on 21 October 2001 
 
 
 Thank you all for coming to this informal meeting.  The purpose of today's meeting is transparency, in line with the FIT principle, which we agreed in February.  I attach the utmost 
importance to this principle, which is why I tho ught it necessary to inform you, the full Membership, 
on the progress in my consultations concerning the Eighth Ministerial Conference (MC8).  Given the 
very limited time available to us before MC8, th ere is a clear need to advance rapidly in our 
preparations.  This is a shared responsibility of us a ll.  I would also like to inform you this morning of 
a number of other items related to next week's  General Council meeting,  including organizational 
matters related to MC8 and the state of play in my consultations on the a ppointment of negotiating 
group Chairs. 
 
Report on consultations on MC8 
  Let us now turn to my report on MC8.  With less than eight weeks remaining before the start 
of MC8, I would like to recall the overall objective fo r the Conference.  This remains as we defined it 
at the outset – to produce a successful Ministerial C onference.  Of course, definitions of what this 
would mean in practice might differ.  However we all want a Conference which, despite the current 
problems in the Round, will help to reinforce the va lue of the WTO system for all its Members.   
  As you are aware, I have been holding extens ive consultations in preparation for MC8 since 
May.  During this process, I have met repeatedly with all the Group coordinators, with a large number 
of individual delegations and with delegations in various group formats.   I have also coordinated this 
work with the Chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies.  As ever, my door has also remained constantly open 
for any other delegation wishing to meet me.   I have just completed a fourth Round of cons ultations, which I started just after the summer 
break.  Building on the agreements we reached at the July General Council on some principles for our 
work and in particular the "gentleman's agreement", I have attempted to take us forward by focussing 
on four questions.   Two of these questions concerned organizational ma tters.  First, with respect to attendance of 
Observers and NGOs at MC8, we have convergence on repeating past practice.  For Observers, this 
means inviting to MC8 those who attended MC7, and for NGOs it means continuing the Secretariat-
based procedure we have used since the first MC  and which was agreed by the General Council in 
July 1996.  I will be seeking the Council's endorseme nt of my suggested approaches to these matters 
next week.   Second, I suggested that we operationalize the two themes we identified earlier in structuring 
the discussions at the Conference.  In this way we would have a Working Session on each theme, one 
on the 2nd day and one on the 3rd day of the MC.  In line with the FIT principle, this would allow all 
Ministers to have the opportunity to participate fully.   In my consultations, there was convergence on the principle of having two Working Sessions.  
However, there was also a lack of clarity on the wordi ng of their titles.  We will need to come back to 
this aspect later on in our work.  WT/GC/M/133 
Page 40  
 
   My next question was aimed at determining wh ether delegations were testing any concrete 
proposals on non-DDA issues, or regular work.  From  what I heard from both delegations and from 
the respective Chairs of Subsidiary Bodies, I thi nk we are advancing well along the track of work we 
have for these, which is based ar ound the existing committee processes. 
 
 My final question was on a possible MC8 output  document.  A number of those I consulted 
said we need a Ministerial Declaration, some mentioned a Ministerial Statement, while others 
believed a summary by the MC Chairman on his own responsibility may be all we can achieve.  
However there was a wide acceptance that we can only determine what form the document (or 
documents) may take once we know what it contains. 
 
 In order to take us forward on this question, I designed a template aimed at clarifying what we 
have to do (see Annex).  Let me now e xplain what this template aims to do. 
  I started by asking myself what Ministers are expected to do at a MC.  Based on the WTO 
agreement and past practice, I identified three things  which appear at the top of the template.  These 
are: 
 
 receive reports for noting; 
 take any necessary decisions; 
 provide political guidance.  
  On the left-hand side of the template I put th e issues.  In my consultations, I heard quite a 
wide range of views on the issues Ministers might ta ke up.  I was concerned that we could end up 
with an endless list of issues, which would be in direct contradiction to our wish to avoid the 
"Christmas tree" syndrome.  So I grouped them into three broad categories: 
 
 Importance of the Multilateral Trading System and the WTO; 
 Trade and Development; 
 DDA. 
  In my consultations, it was agreed that th ese categories are broad enough to accommodate any 
issue that Members agree should be taken up by Ministers. 
 
 At this stage, all the boxes in the template are blank, and the aim now is to see how these 
boxes can be filled in.   For the Reports for noting, we have processes in place so that the Subsidiary Bodies will as 
usual submit their reports to the GC.  Proposals for Decisions are now in the hands of the proponents, 
who have to find consensus on them by 2 November, in line with the "gentleman's agreement".  The 
contents of the boxes under these two headings w ill thus be determined through these processes. 
  In the light of this, there was wide agreement in  my consultations that the focus in my process 
should now turn to the political guidance Ministers will provide.  I intend to start by asking Members 
to identify the core elements an output document  would contain in terms of political guidance. 
  If we start to see convergence among Members on a number of such core elements, we will 
try to determine how to harness this convergence and develop it into drafting.  Depending on the 
progress we make in this regard, we could then look at how we could package what we have in a draft 
outcome document.  In this way, we would settle the question of the form of the outcome document. 
 
 As I said at the beginning of my statement, I am already starting my next round of consultations.  I will be soliciting delegations' thoughts on possible elements for Ministers' political  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 41 
 
 
  guidance under the first two boxes in my template.  In this process, I will be looking for incremental, 
but rapid, progress and I count on the support of a ll of you.  That concludes my report on my 
consultations.   MC8 organizational matters 
  In my further consultations, I will also take up the remaining organizational matters, including 
the Election of Officers for MC8.  In addition, I w ill inform the Council next week that I am holding 
consultations on the request for ob server status at MC8 submitted by Palestine, which was circulated 
in document WT/L/822. 
 
 I will also inform the Council that a request for observer status as an IGO at MC8 has been 
received from the League of Arab States, which cu rrently does not have observer status in any WTO 
body.  I will propose that we proceed in exactly the same way that we have in the past on any such 
requests from IGOs.  This entails that, unless any ob jection is received by the Secretariat from any 
Member by 15 November, the League of Arab St ates would be granted observer status to MC8. 
  As in the past, I will inform the General Counc il at its next meeting of the status of this 
request.  For transparency purposes, delegations will have an opportunity at that meeting to discuss 
this request.  
Chairmanships of negotiating bodies 
 
 As I informed delegations by fax on 9 J une and 23 September, I have been holding 
consultations on the chairmanships of the negotia ting bodies in the areas of Agriculture, Trade and 
Environment, and Rules. 
 
 These consultations, which I conducted with the assistance of Ambassador Johansen 
(Norway), Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body an d Ambassadors Matus (Chile) and Gero (Canada), 
former Chairmen of the General Council, ha ve shown a consensus among Members on the 
appointment of the following Chairs:  
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture: 
 Amb. John Adank (New Zealand) 
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment: 
 Amb. Hiswani Harun (Malaysia) 
Negotiating Group on Rules: 
 Amb. Wayne McCook (Jamaica) 
 
 Our colleagues will be elected as Chairs at th e next formal meeting of the respective bodies.  
I will make this announcement formally  at next week's Council meeting. 
  
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/133 
Page 42 
 
Annex 
     MC Practices  Issues   
Reports for Noting  
Decisions  
Political Guidance 
  
 
 Importance of MTS & WTO   
 
    
 
   Trade and Development 
 
      
 
   
DDA 
        WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 43 
 
 
  ANNEX III 
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting 
of the General Council on 21 October 2011  
 
 
 At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned 
meeting are included below as part of th e Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
1. Hong Kong, China 
 
Thank you, Chair, for convening the consultati ons this morning.  Since the last General 
Council meeting before the summer break, my dele gation has been working closely with you and 
other Members in identifying and developing deliverables for the MC8.  We believe that the constructive engagement among delega tions is a prerequisite for a credible ministerial conference to 
be convened in Geneva in eight weeks' time. 
 
 Given the situation in the DDA, which is the subj ect of the TNC this afternoon, it is all the 
more important for us to reaffirm that the WTO is mo re than the Round itself.  To this end, we believe 
that Ministers should be invited to reaffirm the functionality of the WTO's core business.  I recall that, at the last Ministerial, many Ministers – incl uding mine – spoke in supp ort of various ideas to 
strengthen the WTO system through its day-to-d ay business, including proactive operation of 
Committees.  I am inclined to ask my Minister to  send the same strong signal at the MC8, and would 
encourage others to do so.   My delegation also appreciates very much th e work of the TPRB Chair in steering the 4th 
appraisal of the TPRM.  We have seen good progr ess being made in recent meetings, not only in 
reviewing TPRM procedures but also in respect of the various initiatives regarding the continuation of 
the WTO's work in monitoring trade measures.  We certainly look forward to substantive outcomes to 
be reported to and acknowledged by Ministers.     In addition, we echo some preliminary ideas by others in asking our Ministers to reaffirm their resolve against protectionism.  We may le verage the outcomes of the upcoming high-level 
meetings in G20 and APEC to consider some kind of  pledge against protectionism.  Some references 
can also be made to the financial crisis and the current economic situation, as well as to the Director-
General's regular reports on trade policy monitoring.   As a firm supporter of free trade, Hong Kong, 
China is open to discuss with any others w ho would like to see such a deliverable.  
 
 My delegation is also interested in the idea of reaffirming the importance of the judicial 
function of this organisation at the MC8.  Minist erial acknowledgement will ce rtainly give a push to 
the on-going negotiations in the DSB SS, and to gui de us in finding ways to further strengthen the 
capacity of developing countries, and in particular the LDCs, to participate in the dispute settlement 
system as part of their on-going integration into the multilateral trading system.  
 Furthermore, we should consider recognising the successful third global review of Aid For 
Trade in July, as it showed results and laid down some themes and directions for the future work 
programme.  Ministers are well-placed to send positiv e signals in continuous support of this work 
programme, which they established in the sixth Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, and which 
bears a clear development objective.  We also look forward to receiving the three proposals that 
Kenya has mentioned this morning at an early stag e to allow sufficient time for consideration and 
discussion.  WT/GC/M/133 
Page 44  
 
   We note the on-going negotiations regarding the dr aft decision statements in relation to the e-
commerce work programme, as well as to the mora torium applying to custom duties on e-commerce 
and to non-violation and situati on complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.  We urge Members to 
exercise pragmatism in coming to  consensus as soon as possible. 
 
 I have set out some potential areas in resp ect of which my delegation would like to see 
outcomes in the Ministerial.  We find your matrix helpful in guiding us in the process of contemplating an outcome document for MC8.  We re main committed to working with you and others 
to ensure that we are on track in delivering these outcomes.  2. Thailand  
 
On behalf of the people of Thailand, I wish to thank you and the members of the WTO for the 
sympathy expressed on the current flooding in Thailand.   
 The flood is one of the worst natural disaster  in the history of Thailand with over 300 lives 
have been lost and over 2.7 million people have be en affected.  The government has fully mobilized 
all efforts to contain and resolve this situation.    Indeed, the toughest works remain to be done in terms of recovery and rebuilding but my 
delegation is confident that as a nation, we will emer ge from this crisis stronger, as we have done in 
the past, and as a member of a global community , we will continue to engaged and take our 
responsibility in various global challenges,  including those under this institution. 
  Let me also extend our support to the approach and template you have outlined.   
 We have only a week before the deadline of  our gentlemen's agreement on 2nd of November.  
Now it is time for us to be pragmatic and focus on the substantive issues which bear the potential for 
reaching consensus within this short timeframe.    Let me highlight some of the key aspects for MC8:  
 Firstly, as a staunch supporter of multilateral tr ading system and its ability to curtail the risk 
of protectionism during the start of this financ ial crisis in 2008, Thailand would support the 
reaffirmation of the principle to maintain open trad e and to resist protectionist measures.  However, 
rhetoric will only do so much unless there is an effective monitoring and su rveillance mechanism.  
Therefore, we would support any proposal that wo uld positively strengthen such mechanism in this 
respect.  
  Secondly, as one of the world top exporters of  food products, we have always underscored the 
need to address the challenges of food security from all dimensions, including both demand-side and 
supply-side considerations.  It certa inly will take us time to tackle th is problem.  So, at this juncture, 
we would support the EU in taking th is challenge in an incremental a pproach, starting with foods that 
are purchased under the World Food Program.     
  Thirdly, as we have learned first handed how  trade has significantly led to our economic and 
social development in the past 60 years, therefore we support the proposals that would address the aspirations of those poorest populations in the world.  It is imperative that MC8 deliver a path toward 
development for these members.  Development, Mr. Chairman, is a process.  It is about concerted 
efforts to improve the standard of living and the economic well-being of the people, on a sustainable 
basis.  Development is not about an abstract, arbitrar y claim.  Therefore, we would be more incline to 
support the proposals that take a pragmatic longer-vie w perspective on how to maximize the benefits 
from trade.  WT/GC/M/133 
 Page 45 
 
 
   
 Lastly, in recent years, a number of global challenges have created a bearing on the global trading system.  Some of these challenges are either outside the purview of the WTO or are being inadequately dealt with, such as currency, climate change and energy security.  The future of WTO 
would depend on our collective ability to gear this  institution into a more responsive global institution 
and we ought to start deliberating seriously in th e coming years on the global trade solutions to these 
growing challenges.   Let me end by urging Members to be pragma tic and focus on the substantive issues which 
bear the potential for reaching consensus within this  short timeframe.  My delegation is prepared to 
intensify our efforts in working with members on these issues in the coming days and weeks.  
 
__________