RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/108 
26 June 2007 
 (07-2686) 
General Council 
9 May 2007  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 9 May 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr Muhamad Noor (Malaysia) 
 
 Prior to the close of the meeting, the Chairm an bid farewell on behalf of all to the outgoing 
Administrative Assistant in the Council & TNC Divi sion, Ms Margaret Kennedy, thanking her for her 
years of conscientious and dedicated service. 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Report by the Chairman of th e Trade Negotiati ons Committee ..........................................2  
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committ ee on Trade and Development ........................................8  
3. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment .................................................11  
(a) Report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development.................................................................................................................... ....11  
(b) Reports by Chairpersons of other WTO bodies to whom special and differential 
treatment proposals ha ve been referred ...............................................................................11  
4. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 
1994 – Communications from Honduras and Guatemala...................................................15  
5. Committee on Budget, Finan ce and Administration ...........................................................19  
(a) Report of the Committee on its meetings  of November and December 2006 .....................19  
(b) Report of the Committee on its meeting of March 2007 .....................................................20  
6. Statement by Paraguay on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing 
Countries...................................................................................................................... ............21  
7. Administrative Measures fo r Members in arrears ..............................................................22  
ANNEX:   Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee on 20 April 2007 .............................................................................................23  
 WT/GC/M/108 
Page 2  
 
  1. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
1. The Chairman
 invited the Director-General, as Chairman of the TNC, to report on the TNC's 
activities since his last report to the Council. 
2. The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC , said that since his report to the General Council 
in February, the TNC had held one informal meetin g, on 20 April.  In his opening remarks at that 
meeting, circulated in document JOB(07)/51, he had highlighted the increased level of activity taking 
place in and around the negotiations since Members retu rned to full negotiating mode in February.  In 
the days preceding the informal meeting, a number of major players had affirmed their commitment to 
a successful outcome of the negotiations around the end of 2007, and had also committed themselves 
to intensifying their efforts to finding common ground as a contribution to the conclusion of the 
Round.  This commitment had been welcomed a nd supported by participants at the meeting.  
However, there were no illusions about the challe nges it represented.  All were well aware of the 
sequence of steps that would be necessary to conc lude the Round and the severe time pressure that 
sequence now imposed on Members.  The first step  in that sequence was, of course, to establish 
modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, which would th en be reflected in the schedules participants 
would elaborate in the next step.  It would also be necessary to bring the wo rk in the other areas of 
negotiation to a commensurate level of maturity if Members were to have the whole package agreed 
by the end of 2007.  At the informal meeting, he had not proposed a specific timeline for these steps, 
since he believed it was obvious to all that there w as no time to waste.  To be able to meet this 
challenge, there was an urgent need for serious substantive engagement by all partners in the 
multilateral process in Geneva, under the guidance of  the Negotiating Group Chairs.  The multilateral 
negotiations could no longer be made to wait for contributions from other processes in or outside 
Geneva.  While all acknowledged that such processes were potentially useful, and important, they had 
to feed into the multilateral one, which was the co re of Members' business and which now had to 
move on rapidly.  He was pleased to report that th e informal meeting had signalled wide convergence 
on the shape of the multilateral process needed in the coming weeks, as he had outlined it in his 
opening remarks.   
3. Through their different processes, the Chairs  of the Negotiating Groups were now working 
towards revised texts which could become a basis fo r agreement.  The Agriculture Chair had already 
issued the first instalment of what he had termed  a "challenges" paper, identifying centres of gravity 
on the different pillars and aimed at provoking par ticipants into showing movement away from 
current positions and towards consensus.  Participan ts had had the opportunity to react to this first 
paper at an informal meeting on 7 May and, as coul d have been expected, a wi de range of views on its 
content had been expressed by a large number of de legations.  The level of engagement at that 
meeting had been encouraging.  It showed that  Members did indeed have an active multilateral 
process and that participants appeared to be serious  about negotiating within it. He wished to thank 
the Chair of the Agriculture Special Session Chair for his hard work, determination and cleverness in 
making all Members reasonably unhappy.  Once the latter had issued the second instalment of his 
paper the following week, he would start an intensiv e series of consultations aimed at moving towards 
a revised agriculture modalities text.  To take th e process forward, partic ipants now needed to 
negotiate with each other, not with the Chairs.  In NAMA, the Negotiating Group Chair was holding a 
continuous process of consultations, starting that week.  As the latter had rightly pointed out to 
participants, they had asked him to draft a new ne gotiating text, so it was now up to the Members to 
use the multilateral process to tell him what to wr ite.  In the other areas of negotiation, similar 
processes would also be used by the Chairs to deve lop texts.  To facilitate this work, it was essential 
that all participants showed an equal level of s upport to the Chairs through constructive inputs and a 
real willingness to negotiate.  Before concluding, he  wished to say a word on Aid for Trade which, 
although not part of the single undertaking, was an  important point on Members' agenda.  He was 
pleased to report that preparations for the three re gional Aid-for-Trade reviews were advancing well.  
The first review was scheduled to take place in Lima, Peru on 5-7 September for the Latin  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 3 
 
 
  America/Caribbean region, the second in Manila , Philippines on 19-20 September for the Asian 
region, and the third in Tanzania on 27-28 September for the Africa region.  In all these three regional 
reviews, the respective regional development banks  were taking the lead in coordinating the 
preparations.  All this would lead to the monito ring and evaluation event which would be hosted in 
Geneva on 20-21 November.  Regard ing the Round, in his recent contacts with Members, both in 
Geneva and at meetings he had a ttended outside Geneva, he had underlined his belief that a successful 
outcome to the Round was possible, even in the small amount of time remaining until the end of the 
year.  He had warned governments that if they did not compromise soon, they would be forced to confront the unpleasant reality of failure.  This would mean foregoing the very significant package of trade opening and rule making that the Round re presented, and breaching the commitment undertaken 
to work for a more development-friendly world trad ing system.  The challenge before Members was, 
of course,  partially technical, but mostly political.  It was about leadership, about compromise, about 
countries recognizing their common interest in succe ss and the collective costs of failure.  He urged 
all to put all their energy and commitment now into concluding the Round. 
4. Representatives who spoke thanked the Director-G eneral for his report and for ensuring that 
the negotiations had been brought back to the multilateral process. 
5. The representative of Singapore
 said his delegation fully endorsed the Director-General's 
statement regarding the need to conclude th e Round with urgency and with engagement, and 
requested that the statement by his delegation at the informal meeting of the TNC on 20 April be 
included in the records of the present meeting.1 
6. The representative of Australia , on behalf of the CAIRNS Group , said the Group had nothing 
more to add at the present time to its statement at the informal meeting of the TNC on 20 April, and 
requested that that statement be include d in the records of the present meeting.2 
7. The representative of Paraguay , on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries , 
said the Group continued to follow closely all aspects of  the negotiations and, at its last meeting, had 
discussed the recently circulated "Challenges" paper by the Chairman of the Special Session of the 
Committee on Agriculture.  The Group welcomed this  effort by the Chairman to stimulate the 
discussions in the field of agriculture.  The paper wa s a useful instrument to move the discussion back 
to the multilateral level, which enhanced the transp arency and inclusiveness of the negotiations.  The 
Group also welcomed the Director-General's enc ouragement to Chairpersons of other negotiating 
bodies to come up with their own negotiating texts, and looked forward to receiving them.  The Group 
hoped that in coming up with negotiating texts, the various Chairs would dul y consider developing 
country concerns, including in the second part of the agriculture paper.  It was important not to lose 
sight that the primary objective of this Round was to give developing countries the tools they needed to make trade a driving force in their development.   On the issue of transp arency and inclusiveness, 
the Group remained vigilant to en sure that these very important principles were respected to the 
fullest extent.  It appreciated the assurances given by Chairs of the various negotiating bodies on their 
intention to conduct a transparent and fully incl usive process, and hoped that these assurances would 
become the reality.  A strict adherence to the pr inciples of transparency and inclusiveness would 
ensure the legitimacy of any accords that might be  reached in the negotiations and would enhance 
ownership of the commitments undertaken by Members.  The Group remained committed to obtaining a positive outcome in these negotiations and would spare no effort to make this so. 
8. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 thanked the Director-General and Chairs of the 
negotiating groups for their tireless efforts in trying  to revitalize the multilateral process and move the 
negotiations forward.  He wished to make several  points.  First, his delegation commended the Chair 
                                                      
1 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. 
2 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/108 
Page 4  
 
  of the Agriculture Special Session on his enormous  efforts in producing his "Challenges" paper, 
which contained thought-pr ovoking ideas about possible landing zones for the key issues of the three 
pillars of agriculture.  This paper made an impor tant contribution and went a long way in helping 
Members bring the process back to Geneva.  From the number of Members taking the floor and the amount of heated debate at the recent informal meeting of the Agriculture Special Session, it was 
obvious that all Members were keen to restart th e long-awaited multilateral process.  Chinese Taipei 
looked forward to actively engaging in intensive debate on this pape r in the coming weeks.  Second, 
on NAMA, the dialogue that had resumed the previous  day on formula-related issues – the coefficient 
range of the formula, flexibilities, and unbound duty – also marked a new start for the long-suspended 
multilateral discussion on these key issues.  The deba te at the NAMA meeting on how to strike a 
proper balance between generating real market access and accommodating the concept of less-than-
full reciprocity had been quite constructive.  His delegation hoped this dial ogue could be maintained 
and would lead to finding a landing zone in the co ming weeks.  Third, in order that a successful 
conclusion to the Round could be reached within a satisfactory timeframe, his delegation urged all to 
make their best efforts when they engaged in th e expected intensive negotiations in the following 
weeks.  Furthermore, he was certain that all wanted the results of the negotiations to be truly balanced 
and acceptable to all.  It was therefore essential that  the principles of transparency and inclusiveness 
were adhered to throughout the negotiating process.  Chinese Taip ei firmly believed that only a 
genuine multilateral process, which took into acc ount the needs and concerns already expressed by 
Members – such as the difficulties faced by recen tly-acceded Members in implementing the reduction 
commitments of the DDA, and other issues – could generate the consensus needed for a successful 
conclusion of the Round.  At this critical juncture , Members had to intensify their discussions across 
the board and fully engage in the process, led by th e respective Chairs in Geneva, in a true spirit of 
compromise, if they were to find a balanced DDA pack age that could be agreed by all by the end of 
2007.  He wished to assure the Chairman of his delegation's full commitment to collaborate with all 
Members in aiming for a timely and successful conclusion of the Round.  Chinese Taipei looked 
forward to constructive debate on the papers  to be circulated in the coming weeks. 
9. The representative of Nicaragua
 welcomed the resumption of multilateral discussions, which 
was the framework within which it would be possible to reach a consensus agreement consistent with 
the conditions and capacities of all Members, particul arly the smallest and most vulnerable countries.  
At the same time, Nicaragua was concerned that  the discussions on agriculture and NAMA had not 
yet given rise to substantial progress.  In view of the most recent statements in the framework of the 
agriculture negotiations, with special emphasis on redu ctions in domestic support, and given the tariff 
reductions currently proposed for the upper band of developed countries and the proposed number and 
treatment of sensitive products, her delegation felt th at the level of ambition was inadequate.  She 
noted that 40 per cent of Nicaragua's agricultural exports currently consiste d of products which had 
the highest tariffs in developed countries and which would presumably be treated as sensitive 
products;  the remainder consisted of raw materials that already enjoyed free access to the markets of 
its trading partners.  Under these circumstances, th e real and effective market access that Nicaragua 
hoped to achieve in these negotiations would be very li mited or non-existent.  Moreover, given that in 
terms of quota use, Nicaragua would have to compete with highly subsidized products, access for its products would be further obstruc ted.  Bearing all this in mi nd, the mandate of less-than-full 
reciprocity for developing countries, and Nicaragua's  status as a small and vulnerable economy, it did 
not feel that its contribution to the Round could be very significant. 
10. The representative of Uganda
, on behalf of the African Group , supported the Director-
General's statement that Members had now to nego tiate among themselves and not with Chairs of the 
different negotiating bodies, and also that political l eaders had to authorize their negotiators to engage 
effectively in the substantive issues in the Round  in order to bring it to a speedy and successful  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 5 
 
 
  conclusion.  He requested that the statement by the Group at the informal meeting of the TNC on 
20 April be included in the records of the present meeting.3 
11. The representative of the Solomon Islands  said that as a non-resident delegation, he wished to 
thank the Secretariat for enabling his delegation's participation in the 14th Geneva Week event and the 
present Council meeting.  It was seldom that one he ard interventions from his country in the Council, 
and he wished to make use of this opportunity, now that the negotiations had fully resumed.  The 
Solomon Islands wished to thank the Director-Gen eral for his untiring search for the appropriate 
conditions for the full resumption of the negotiations, and the Chairs  of the various negotiating groups 
for their efforts to find common ground on some of the difficult issues confronting Members.  While the Solomon Islands had mainly defensive inter ests on these issues, one clearly stood out above the 
rest for very obvious reasons.  This was the fish a nd fisheries subsidies disciplines that were currently 
being negotiated in the Negotiating Group on Rules.  Fish was one resource that his country, and all 
Pacific Island countries, could claim to have in relative abundance.  For some, it was the only 
resource they had.  Fisheries was therefore the sector  with the greatest potential to provide the express 
lane that would lift these countries' peoples out of p overty and contribute to their integration into the 
global economy.  However, this po tential could only be realized if  all transactions relating to access 
fees, assistance to small-scale fisheries, and fisc al incentives to facilitate the development of 
capabilities of small, vulnerable coastal states we re fully exempted from any new disciplines on 
fisheries subsidies.  The new disciplines shoul d be designed so as to encourage much-needed 
investment in securing and sustaining the benefits of small-scale fisheries, rather than suppress such 
efforts.  Aside from fish, there was very little else for export in the case of some very small Pacific 
Island countries.  For the relatively larger ones, lo ng-standing preferences had played a crucial part in 
ensuring that their exports were competitive.  Howe ver, with the erosion of these preferences, market-
access negotiations in Agriculture and NAMA had to provide some flexibility to undertake 
liberalization at a pace and in a sequence that was consistent with these countries' trade, development 
and financial situations, and their special vulnerabilities.  The peculiarity of a small and vulnerable 
economy like that of the Solomon Islands was, in ma ny cases, the lack of viab le alternative sources of 
revenue to replace what would be permanent cuts .  In his opening remarks to the Geneva Week 
participants, the Director-General had encouraged non-resident Members to actively participate in the 
present meeting, and he had done so.  He wished to make a plea that in Members' haste to conclude 
the Round by the end of 2007, they allow adequa te time to properly address the non-resident 
Members' concerns. 
12. The representative of Zambia
, on behalf of the LDCs , said these countries strongly believed 
that the multilateral process was the best modus operandi to move the negotiations forward in a 
transparent and inclusive manner.  They thanked the Chairs of the various negotiating groups for their 
respective overviews of where Members stood in the different areas of the DDA process.  The 
unceasing efforts of all to bring the negotiations back on track had not gone unnoticed.  He wished to 
briefly recall some of the key interests of the LD Cs, as Members were ente ring detailed negotiations, 
especially in Agriculture and NAMA.  The Minist erial Decision on Duty-Free Quota-Free Market 
Access to LDCs was a relevant part of Members' mandate, even in the context of agriculture, and was a key area in the development dimension of the outcome of the Round.  The importance of DFQF 
market access for agricult ural products from LDCs could not, ther efore, be over-emphasized, and the 
LDCs insisted that this provision be included in any package on agriculture.  Regarding the Special 
Safeguard Mechanism, the LDCs wished to emphasize that the application of the SSM should not be 
linked to any of the market access provisions, but rather should be one of the development issues 
under special and differential treatment provisions fo r all developing countries, including the LDCs.  
On food aid, it was important to design effectiv e and comprehensive disciplines on which the supply 
of food aid would be based, by guaranteeing a "safet y box" of food aid for emergency situations, and 
by preventing commercial displacement.  With regard to cotton, the LDCs wished  to reiterate the need 
                                                     
 
3 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/108 
Page 6  
 
  for Members to deal with this important issue in te rms of both its trade and development aspects.  The 
LDCs underlined the importance of setting up a me chanism for addressing revenue losses that African 
cotton producers had been facing from year to year. 
13. The Group also wished to stress that it had in terests in the multilateral discussions that had 
recommenced on some of the core issues in NAMA – namely, the formula, the coefficient and the 
principle of less-than-full reciprocity – and that th e LDCs should be included in any negotiations on 
these issues to ensure that their concerns were take n on board.  On the issue of DFQF market access, 
Members needed to remind themselves of the Hong Kong Declaration, where Ministers clearly asked 
developed-country Members, and developing-coun try Members in a position to do so, to provide 
LDCs DFQF market access by 2008, or no later than  the start of the implementation period.  The 
LDCs urged Members to honour the commitment they  had made in 2005, and to ensure that DFQF 
market access to LDCs was granted without any further delay.  The LDCs thanked those trading 
partners who had made efforts to initiate the implem entation of this Ministerial mandate, and urged all 
other developed and developing countries to come forward with their proposals on how they intended 
to implement the LDC market-access package.  While  the Group appreciated the steps taken thus far, 
they wished to draw Members' attention to the complementary issues of flexibilities and transparent 
rules of origin.  To date, Members had not done anything to fulfil their Hong Kong commitment to make rules of origin for LDCs transparent and si mple.  For the LDC market -access package to result 
in commercially meaningful and practical market  access, Members should address both sides of the 
coin, namely, comprehensive product coverage by tariff line and preferential/simplified rules of 
origin. 
14. In services, while most LDCs had undertaken s ubstantial liberalization, they had not been 
able to reap the full benefits of this liberali zation process due to various regulatory and capacity 
constraints.  In this regard, LDCs found it necessar y to have specific language on technical assistance 
and capacity building. They should also be exempt ed from application of the disciplines agreed in 
Hong Kong.  The LDCs were similarly concerned ov er the lack of progress in the implementation of 
the Hong Kong Declaration on the development of a mechanism for granting special priority to the 
LDCs in line with the modalities for special treat ment for LDCs adopted in 2003.  Despite the 
initiative taken by the LDC Group to submit a proposal  for discussion in the form of a mechanism for 
granting special priority, Members did not seem to  be engaging in constructive and substantive 
discussion on this issue.  The LDCs were open to  suggestions to ensure that the process moved 
forward in this area.  The Group also attached gr eat importance to trade facilitation, which would be 
instrumental in reducing transaction costs and in promoting trade competitiveness.  The LDCs wished 
to reiterate that the principle of special and diffe rential treatment should extend beyond the granting of 
traditional transition periods for implementing commitm ents.  The extent and timing of entering into 
commitments should be related to the provision of the necessary technical assistance and capacity 
building essential for enhancing the implementation ca pacities of these countries.  The LDCs  further 
wished to stress that the provision of necessary capacity building and technical assistance should 
cover the negotiations, implementation and post- implementation phases.  While the LDCs had 
interests and concerns in other areas of the nego tiations, he had wished to remind Members of the 
areas to which he had just alluded.  For the nego tiations to reach their logical conclusion, it was 
imperative to create linkages between the commitmen ts and the provision of capacity building and 
technical assistance to LDCs, with  a view to preserving the development nature of the Round.  The 
Group noted with concern that some Members we re making attempts to divert discussions by 
wedging in Aid for Trade to form part of the DDA negotiations.  Ministers at Hong Kong had made a deliberate decision and had mandated that Aid for Trade be negotiated parallel to the DDA process.  
The LDCs urged Members to keep the two processes de-linked.  With regard to the Integrated 
Framework, the LDCs wished to thank those countri es that continued to support the initiative, both at 
bilateral and multilateral le vels.  The Group welcomed the efforts made by the IF partners and the 
work of the clusters in defining the implementati on details of the Enhanced Integrated Framework, 
and urged their development part ners to honour the pledges made so as to ensure a speedy  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 7 
 
 
  implementation of the programme, in order to eff ect the envisaged improvements in LDCs necessary 
to enable them to be properly integrated into th e global trading system on a sustainable basis.  In 
concluding, he endorsed the statement by Uganda for the African Group. 
15. The representative of Nigeria  said his country was committed to the early conclusion of the 
DDA negotiations based on the mandates agreed in th e Doha Declaration, the July 2004 General 
Council Decision and the Hong Kong Declaration.  In that regard, it welcomed the recent paper by the 
Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session as the first draft paper in the series, which had succeeded 
in provoking further discussion and had set the tone for possible agreement as Members proceeded to the next stage of draft modalities.  While his dele gation supported the efforts of the Chairs of the 
negotiating groups, the latter should be mindful of wh ere to situate the centre of gravity in order to 
ensure an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced outcome.  In this regard, Nigeria called on the 
major players to remain engaged and to demonstr ate the necessary flexibilit y to achieve the much-
needed breakthrough in a timely manner.  While Nigeria strongly supported the ongoing efforts aimed 
at reviving the negotiations, it believed that on ag riculture the major agricultural subsidisers would 
have to show flexibility in their positions.  Although the question of market access remained vital in 
both agriculture and NAMA, there had to be balan ce in the level of ambition and commitment among 
the three pillars of agriculture.  While Nigeri a acknowledged that market access was of critical 
importance, the negotiations had to take into acc ount the overall objective of the DDA, which was to 
bring development to the centre of the work.  This  implied that flexibility and privileges that were 
duly applicable to developing countries, such as S&D and the principle of less-than-full reciprocity in 
reduction commitments, both in agriculture and NA MA, should not be undermined.  His delegation 
urged the Chairs of the negotiating bodies to en sure that the process was based on a bottom-up 
approach and coordinated efforts to take care of interests of small de legations, so that their right to 
fully participate in the negotiations was not eroded.   His delegation fully supported the statement by 
Uganda for the African Group, and requested that the statement by his delegation at the informal 
meeting of the TNC on 20 April be included  in the records of the present meeting.
4 
16. The representative of Cuba  thanked the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session for the latter's paper aimed at involving Members in a multilateral process that all had requested and supported, and whic h Cuba hoped would go beyond mere rhetoric to become really 
effective with plenary meetings of the Special Sess ion that allowed all Members to present their views 
in full on all topics.  Cuba encouraged the Chairs of  the negotiating groups to avoid, as far as possible, 
reduced format meetings which, by definition, were  not inclusive and to not set artificial deadlines 
which all had deemed inappropriate.  His delegation wished to draw attention to the possibility that 
future papers by Chairs might tend to be guided  by what purported to be realism, which was 
insensitive to the difficulties and needs of developi ng countries – which most Members were – when 
the mandate of the Doha Round was not realism, but development.  Cuba was concerned at the 
tendency in several areas of the negotiations to gi ve pride of place to market access – not access to 
developed markets for developing countries, but th e contrary.  This was not consistent with the 
mandates set by Ministers at Doha and Hong Kong, or the July 2004 General Council Decision.  One 
cause of great concern in agriculture was the obviou s imbalance between the low level of ambition for 
the reduction of the multimillion-dollar trade-distorti ng domestic subsidies to agriculture provided by 
developed countries, and the high level of ambiti on for market opening in developing countries.  
Domestic support, which constituted unfinished busin ess from previous negotiating rounds, had to be 
put on a par with the quantitative restrictions and ma ndatory disciplines that existed in other areas and 
agreements, such as trade in goods, if the inequa lities between developed a nd developing countries 
inherited from the Uruguay Round were to be remedied.  The truth was that the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture had failed not only to reduce the developed countries' subsidies, but also to 
limit them – there had been even more subsidies pr ovided since the middle of the 1990s – and this 
needed to be corrected.  Accordingly, there ha d to be effective reducti ons in domestic support, 
                                                     
 
4 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/108 
Page 8  
 
  together with monitoring and surveillance mech anisms and disciplines that limited product 
concentration and transfers between boxes, including the Green Box, so that the limits and disciplines 
agreed on for the most trade-distorting support were not mere fiction and were not flouted.  In this 
connection, his delegation wished to recall the ma ndate set out in paragra ph 16 of Annex A to the 
July 2004 General Council Decision, which addressed the Green Box.  As to the trade-off between a 
reduction in domestic support for agri culture and its disciplines or re gulations, Cuba could not share 
this idea, because the developed countries alone w ould benefit.  He wondere d what the purpose would 
be of having flexibilities in domestic support of devel oped countries, if the tariff cuts in the market 
access pillar that would affect the developing count ries were reflected in schedules of commitments 
that were fixed and allowed no elasticity.  The de veloped countries would have to contribute more if 
the name of the Doha Development Round was to  be honoured.  The developing countries were not 
going to pay twice with concessions in exchange fo r the limited or almost non-existent agricultural 
reforms of the developed countries and their limited o ffers in other areas of the negotiations.  For this 
process to achieve results, developed countries had to desist from the double standard whereby the 
developing countries accommodated the developed c ountries' sensitivities while the latter asked for 
more market opening on the part of the developing countries. 
17. The General Council took note
 of the Director-General's report and of the statements.5 
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
18. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting in Febr uary and March 2002, the General Council 
had taken note of a framework and procedures fo r the conduct of the Work Programme on Small 
Economies, under which this Work Programme w ould be a standing item on the General Council's 
agenda.  The framework and procedures also pr ovided that the Committee on Trade and Development 
shall report regularly to the General Council on the pr ogress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this 
subject.  Furthermore, Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed the CTD, under the overall responsibility of the General Council,  to continue the work in the Dedicated Session and to monitor 
progress of the small economies' proposals in the negotiating and other bodies, with the aim of 
providing responses to the trade-related issues of  small economies as soon as possible, but not later 
than 31 December 2006.  In December 2006, on the basis of a report by the Chair of the CTD in 
Dedicated Session, the General Council had taken note that Members in that body would be pursuing 
the substantive work under the Small Economies Work Programme in 2007.   
19. Mr Servansing (Mauritius), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade 
and Development , said that he had not been able to hold a meeting of the CTD in Dedicated Session 
yet, but hoped to meet with Members informally, most likely towards the end of May.  He understood that the proponents of the Work Programme had been  using the past few months to concentrate their 
efforts on revising past proposals and preparing new s ubmissions, and that they had been particularly 
active in the Committee on Subsidies and Countervaili ng Measures and in the Special Session of the 
Agriculture Committee.  Other work, which was continuing, had taken place on NAMA, services – in 
particular on domestic regulation – trade facilitation and in the Rules Negotiating Group, especially in 
regard to fisheries subsidies.  These new submi ssions, as well all the main points raised in past 
proposals, were now being compiled by the Secretariat into a single document, as requested by Members at a previous meeting of the Dedicated  Session.  This document would provide Members 
with a compilation of all the proposals submitted thus far in the negotiating groups and other WTO 
                                                     
 
5 In addition to the delegations which spoke, the representatives of Barbados for the Small and 
Vulnerable Economies, Benin for the co-sponsors of the Cotton Initiative, Brazil, China, India, Jamaica for the 
ACP Group, Mexico, Rwanda, and Switzerland for the G1 0 asked that their delegations' statements at the 
informal meeting of the TNC on 20 April be included in the records of the present meeting.  These statements 
are reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 9 
 
 
  bodies.  He understood that the document w ould soon be made available to Members6, and he 
intended to take it up in informal discussion with Members in the coming weeks.  He would also use 
that meeting to see what else the Dedicated Session might be able to do to help move the Work 
Programme forward. 
20. All delegations who spoke thanke d the Chair of the CTD in Dedicated Session for his report. 
21. The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the sma ll and vulnerable economies , said that 
although the Dedicated Session had not met for some  time, it was clear from the Chairman's report 
that the SVEs continued to be active in several area s of the negotiations and that their engagement on 
market access issues and in the rules discussions had intensified.  The SVEs had presented two 
additional position papers since the February meet ing of the Council – one in the context of the 
Special Session on Agriculture and another in the context of the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, which had been circulated  as "JOB(07)/--" documents.  The SVEs would 
shortly be updating their position in NAMA, as they continued to give expression to their stated 
determination not to be excluded from the modalities which they hoped would emerge very soon.  In 
his report, the Chair of the Dedicated Session had made a reference to the important monitoring 
function of the CTD, and the SVEs were pleased th at the monitoring document they had requested of 
the Secretariat would be available for discussion soon.  It was anticipated that this monitoring process 
would serve the interest of enhanced transparen cy on the work on small economies and would also 
allow discussion on the progress achieved and the ch allenges that still remained.  The cross-cutting 
nature of SVEs' concerns had meant that these countries were engaged in  a number of different 
negotiating bodies, but the Dedicated Session contin ued to serve as an important forum where these 
interests and efforts could be studied in their entir ety and a more holistic pers pective could be gained 
on how the various Ministerial mandates on small economies were being impl emented.  The SVEs 
looked forward to continued discussion on these matters at the next meeting of the Dedicated Session. 
22. The representative of Fiji  said that as a non-resident Member, his delegation wished first to 
express its appreciation for being able to participat e in the present meeting while in Geneva for the 
Geneva Week event.  He associated his delegation w ith the statement by Barbados for the SVEs.  As a 
non-resident, Fiji appreciated the constant efforts by resident SVEs to ensure that their cross-cutting 
concerns were articulated and presented in the relevant WTO fora.  Aside from the continuing discussions on the SVEs' proposals in the NAMA and Rules Negotiating Groups, and the recent documents submitted to the Special Session on Ag riculture and the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, Fiji looked forward to engaging in the
 more holistic discussion of the Work 
Programme in the Dedicated Session under its Chair's able leadership. 
23. The representative of the Solomon Islands  endorsed the statement by Barbados for the SVEs.  
As noted by both Barbados and the Chair of the Dedicated Session, althoug h the latter body had not 
met for quite some time the SVEs had continued to  engage actively on market-access issues and in the 
rules discussions.  The discussions in the Rules Ne gotiating Group, as his delegation had indicated in 
its statement under the previous agenda item, were pa rticularly important for his country and region.  
His delegation wished to express its appreciation to  Japan, New Zealand and the United States for the 
recent bilateral consultations which had aimed at finding some common ground and a way forward on 
some of the issues that continued to confront SVEs .  The Solomon Islands hoped to consolidate this 
process and looked forward to having further consu ltations with these three countries and the wider 
membership.  For a very small delegation, the monitoring function of the Dedicated Session was 
indeed welcome.  His delegation saw in that pro cess more transparency in the progress of the SVEs' 
proposals that were being negotiated in the various negotiating and other bodies.  It therefore keenly 
awaited the monitoring document to which the Chair of the Dedicated Session had referred in his 
report, and to discussing it informally when the De dicated Session next met.  The Solomon Islands 
                                                      
6 Circulated subsequently on 8 June as WT/COMTD/SE/W/22. WT/GC/M/108 
Page 10  
 
  wished to express its deep gratitude to Barbados as coordinator of the SVEs and to that delegation's 
hard-working staff for their leadership in advancing the cause of the SVEs at the WTO. 
24. The representative of Nicaragua
 endorsed the statement by Barbados for the SVEs.  For the 
sake of brevity, Nicaragua merely wished to emphasize the importance of setting up a process to 
monitor the work carried out in regard to th e small and vulnerable economies, as this would 
strengthen transparency and promote further discussion on the issues and challenges facing these 
economies and on the steps to be taken in the s hort term.  Nicaragua reite rated its commitment to 
work constructively towards the achievement of these objectives. 
25. The representative of Zambia , drawing attention to a particul ar problem of small delegations, 
noted that as he was speaking at this Council mee ting, a meeting on NAMA was also being held in 
which his delegation was very interested but wh ich it was unable to attend because it was a small 
delegation.  He suggested that, in future, no othe r meetings be convened wh en the General Council 
was in session, because some delegations would othe rwise of necessity be excluded from participating 
in certain important meetings. 
26. The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines  associated his delegation with the 
statement by Barbados for the SVEs.  St Vincent and the Grenadines, a small country of CARICOM 
and a member of the Organization of Eastern Ca ribbean States, a smaller sub-group of CARICOM, 
was in the process of its trade policy review.  Th e report on that review would show – as did most 
World Bank and IMF reports – that as his country  engaged in the international process and the 
multilateral system, and as it sought to comply with commitments in this context, its market share 
relative to its initial commitment wa s decreasing.  This would be found to be true within the wider 
OECS as well.  It would also be found that as hi s country engaged in the multilateral process – and as 
it looked at the issue of bananas and the demise of the banana protocol in terms of the preferential 
arrangement.  Agriculture within the OECS and in pa rticular in his country was now relegated simply 
to a subsistence farming level.  His country's in terest and goal was to show that the multilateral 
system worked, because St. Vincent a nd the Grenadines saw it as the best  system currently available.  
However, his country also recognized that as it engage d in and complied with that system, its level of 
trade seemed to be diminishing.  On those gr ounds, St. Vincent and the Grenadines wished to seek 
from the General Council, which was the collective c onscience of this international body, that as 
Members engaged in the Work Programme on Small Economies and considered issues such as rules, 
special and differential treatment, NAMA and agri culture, special attention would be given to the 
unique needs of small and vulnerable economies like St. Vincent and the Grenadines.  His country 
had a population of some 110,000 and some of its islands had populations as small as 30,000.  Many 
of the SVEs were not able to cons tructively engage in all of the va rious negotiating bodies in Geneva.  
As part of his country's participati on in the Geneva Week event, it wish ed to raise its voice to ask that 
the Council understand the uniqueness of its situation, even as it sought to comply with the various 
multilateral obligations it had accepted.  His count ry wished to commend highly Barbados, Jamaica 
and others who had led the way in addressing and tabling issues that we re relevant to SVEs and their 
unique concerns, particularly as many of these c ountries could not be actively present in Geneva. 
27. The General Council took note  of the report by the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statements.  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 11 
 
 
  3. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment 
(a) Report by the Chairman of the Special Sessi on of the Committee on Trade and Development 
(b) Reports by Chairpersons of other WTO bodies to whom special and differential treatment 
proposals have been referred 
28. The Chairman  proposed that the Council take up the tw o sub-items together.  He recalled that 
Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed the Comm ittee on Trade and Development in Special Session 
to expeditiously complete the review of all th e outstanding Agreement-specific proposals and to 
report to the General Council – with clear recomme ndations for a decision – by December 2006.  
Regarding the Category II proposals that had b een referred to other WTO bodies and negotiating 
groups, Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed th at these bodies also expeditiously complete the 
consideration of these proposals and report periodica lly to the General Council, with the objective of 
ensuring that clear recommendations for a decisi on were made no later than December 2006.  
Ministers had further instructed the Special Session to  coordinate its efforts with these bodies, so as to 
ensure that this work was completed on time.  Fi nally, Ministers had also instructed the Special 
Session, within the parameters of the Doha mandate , to resume work on all other outstanding issues – 
including on the cross-cutting issues, the monito ring mechanism, and the incorporation of S&D 
treatment into the architecture of WTO rules – and to  report on a regular basis to the General Council.  
The Chairpersons of the Special Session of the CTD and of the other WTO bodies had last updated the General Council on the status of work in this area in December 2006, on the basis of which the 
Council had taken note that Members would be pur suing their consideration of the outstanding 
Agreement-specific proposals both in the Special Session of the CTD as well as in the other WTO 
bodies to which such proposals had been referred.   
29. Mr Gafoor (Singapore), Chairman of the CTD in Special Session
, drawing attention to a 
written report to the General Council he had circulated in document TN/CTD/19, said that in the past 
few months he had convened tw o formal meetings of the Special Session and several rounds of 
informal consultations and small- group meetings.  He wished to highlight five key points from his 
written report.  First, the Special Session had con tinued with text-based discu ssions on the outstanding 
Agreement-specific proposals.  In particular, it had focused on seven of the 16 proposals.  In his view, 
on balance the text-based discussions had produced so me results.  At present, the Special Session had 
revised texts on six proposals, which were containe d in Annex II of his report.   On the seventh 
proposal, which related to Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement, there was no revised language at the 
present stage, but he was continuing his informal co nsultations on this proposal and also on the six 
proposals on which there were revised texts.  Sec ond, there were wide divergences in position on the 
nine remaining Agreement-specific proposals, which were mainly Category III proposals.  His view 
was that it was difficult to reach convergence on these proposals because the divergences were not 
over semantics, but represented fundamental differe nces in approach.  Unless new ideas or alternative 
language were put forward, either by proponents or  by other stakeholders, any discussion would only 
lead to a repetition of known positions.  His assessm ent regarding these nine proposals was that there 
was little value in continuing discussions, as there had been no new proposals, either from the proponents or other stakeholders.  It was therefore his intention to set aside these nine proposals and 
to take no further action on them for the time bei ng.  Third, on the outstanding issues, some progress 
had been made in identifying possible elements of a Monitoring Mechanism, on the basis of the 
Chairman's non-paper he had circulated in the Sp ecial Session.  These elements, which were reflected 
in Annex III of his report, represented a basis fo r continued work on the Monitoring Mechanism, and 
he had scheduled open-ended consultations on 16 May.  Fourth, with respect to the Category II 
proposals, the different Chairpersons would give th eir reports under the present agenda item, and he 
did not wish to pre-empt or prejudge their reports .  He had communicated with them to underline the 
need to conclude work on the Category II proposal s in accordance with th e Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration.  He would continue to coordinate hi s efforts with the Chairpersons of other bodies, as WT/GC/M/108 
Page 12  
 
  required by the mandate, and wished to thank them for their efforts in this regard.  Fifth, Members had 
continued to raise the Duty-Free Quota-Free market -access Decision for LDCs in the Special Session, 
and the LDCs had tabled two submissions, one on ru les of origin and the other on market access.  
There had been some discussion on these two submi ssions, but no real engagement.  However, it was 
encouraging that all Members had indicated they re mained committed to effectively implementing the 
DFQF Decision adopted by Ministers in Hong Kong.  He would continue to encourage and facilitate 
dialogue between the stakeholders in order to en sure a quick and effective implementation of the 
Decision, and urged the key stakeholders to reach out  to each other and hold b ilateral consultations on 
this matter.  Regarding the road ahead for the Sp ecial Session, the Doha Round was entering the end 
game, and the Special Session had to be prepared to  conclude its work.  He had highlighted in the 
Special Session the need for Members to be ready, as and when the time came, to table a package on 
S&D treatment.  The Special Session had begun iden tifying the possible elements of a package on 
S&D treatment, which could include:  (i) the Ag reement-specific proposals on which Members had 
reached agreement in the Special Session;  (ii)  the 28 Agreement-specific proposals that had been 
agreed to in principle before the Cancún Ministeria l Conference, which were reflected in Annex I of 
his report;  and (iii) a possible framework for the Mon itoring Mechanism.  Of course, he did not rule 
out the inclusion of other elements on which Member s might reach convergence.  He wished to thank 
Members for their cooperation, and would continue his work with them in the weeks ahead to build an 
S&D package that was a necessary component of an y final agreement to c onclude the Doha Round. 
30. The Chairman
 said that before inviting the Chairs of the other WTO bodies to update 
Members on the work carried out in their respective areas, he wished to recall the statement by the 
TRIPS Council Chair at the May 2006 meeting of  the General Council, in which the latter had 
indicated that the TRIPS Council had authorized him to  report (i) that the situation in regard to the 
Category II proposals referred to that Council remain ed as reported in July 2005 in document IP/C/36;  
(ii) that the TRIPS Council reiterated its earlier recommendation as reproduced in that document;  and 
(iii) that no further action was otherwise needed on th e proposals referred to that Council.  In the light 
of this report, he would not be inviting the TRIPS Council Chair to report further at the present 
meeting. 
31. Mr Falconer (New Zealand), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture , said he had decided not to update the writte n record on the Category II issues referred to 
the Special Session, in documents TN/AG/22 and Corr.1, because the official positions of Members had not changed enough to warrant a revision.  Those positions had been set out in the Draft Possible 
Modalities in TN/AG/W/3 and reflected in his most r ecent report, which he inte nded to revise shortly.  
In the meantime, he wished simply to note that  several proposals had been made on S&D treatment 
that had a bearing on these matters.  These included proposals from:  the G-33 with a revised list of 
indicators for guiding the selection of Special Products (Job(07)/35);  Pakistan on Special Products (Job(07)/46);  the SVEs on modalities that addressed th eir particular situations  (Job(07)/47);  and the 
Cairns Group and the Tropical Products Group on tr opical products and products of particular 
importance to the diversification of production from illicit narcotic crops (Job( 07)/31 and Add.1).  In 
addition to these proposals, issues related to th e Category II proposals had been raised during the 
consultations and informal Special Sessions he ha d been holding over the past few months.  He 
wished to remind Members that some of the Ca tegory II proposals had already been addressed 
concretely – for example, the exemption in Article 6.2 for some investment, diversification and input 
subsidies in developing countries would continue ;  Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
which expired at the end of the Uruguay Round impl ementation period, would continue for five years 
after the end-date for elimination of all forms of export subsidies;  and de minimus limits would not be 
reduced for developing-country Members with no AMS reduction commitments or that allocated 
almost all de minimus support for subsistence and resource-poor fa rmers.  He wished  to underline that 
agreement on these points remained unchanged.    WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 13 
 
 
  32. Mr de Mateo (Mexico), Chairman of the Special  Session of the Council for Trade in Services , 
said that since his report to the General Council in  December 2006, the Special Session had addressed 
the issue of S&D treatment at both formal and informal meetings.  Members had reiterated the 
importance of this issue and had called for further progress in this regard.  Substantive discussion had 
taken place at the informal meeting of the Special Session on 19 March, based on a revised document 
relating to Category II proposals 79(A) and (C), wh ich had been submitted by the African Group – the 
main proponent – in July 2006.  This revised doc ument attempted to narrow the wide differences 
between Members on the original proposals.  It proposed a review process be fore the conclusion of 
the Round as a way to contribute to the implementation of GATS Article IV.  While the revised version from the African Group had generally been  welcomed as going in the right direction, 
divergent views had been expressed on the detail of th e text.  At the formal meeting of the Special 
Session on 27 April, the African Group had expressed its  wish to intensify discussions on the issue of 
S&D treatment in services, based on its recent proposal s.  He would hold informal consultations in 
this regard in the coming weeks. 
33. Mrs Csukasi (Uruguay), Chairpers on of the Committee on Agriculture
, said the Category II 
proposal tabled by the African Group – particularly  the matter of the establishment of a revolving 
fund as a possible means to address the short-term financing difficulties that might be experienced by LDCs and net food-importing developing countries (N FIDCs) – had been under consideration in the 
Committee for four years.  Members had had ampl e opportunity to pursue discussion of this proposal, 
not only as part of the follow-up to the NFIDC Decision, but also within the context of the Doha 
Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Related Issu es and Concerns.  Despite the opportunities to 
take this matter up within the Committee, she regr etted to report that since May 2006, neither the 
proponents nor any other Member had taken the floor  or exchanged views in either of the above 
contexts.  At present, there was still some divergence of view as to the viability of the proposal as it 
currently stood.  The donor countries maintained th at the proposal dealt with questions that were 
either currently under negotiation or outside the WT O's terms of reference, while the proponents – the 
African Group – had hinted that they did not intend to revise the original proposal.  To date, no counterproposal had been submitted which might have  facilitated an exchange of views.  Given the 
current deadlock, the status of th e proposal remained exactly as d escribed by her predecessor in his 
report to the General Council in May 2006 (G/AG/22). 
34. Mrs McKeagg (New Zealand), Chairperson of the Committee on Safeguards,
 said that as her 
predecessors as Chairs of the Committee on Safegua rds had reported to the General Council on many 
occasions, notwithstanding numerous efforts, the situation had not devel oped at all since the 
Committee had reported in detail to the General Counc il in July 2003.  All of her predecessors since 
2004 had personally contacted the proponents, informi ng them that the S&D proposal referred to the 
Safeguards Committee would continue  to be dormant unless the proponents raised it again with a 
certain level of support from other Members.  Since taking up her pos t as Chair two weeks earlier, she 
had also contacted the proponents.  However, the Committee had not heard anything, either from the 
proponents or from any other Member.  Under these circumstances, she had to repeat that the proposals referred to the Safeguards Committee had e ffectively been set aside and there was no need 
to revert to them in that forum until th e proponents decided to revive the matter. 
35. Mr Bogaert (Belgium), Chairman of the Committee on TRIMs
, said that pursuant to the 
General Council Decision of 1 A ugust 2004 and paragraph 37 of th e Hong Kong Declaration, the 
Committee on TRIMs had considered two S&D propo sals submitted by the African Group relating to 
Article 4 and Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement.   Since the report of the TRIMs Committee Chair 
to the General Council in December 2006, he ha d pursued informal contacts with the proponents 
concerning a revised version of the two S&D proposal s, in order to explore possible ways to move 
further on this issue.  In the recent informal discu ssions he had had on this matter, some new ideas had 
been put forward and the proponents had shown thei r readiness to consider alternative language 
formulations in order to meet the concerns of ot her Members, and to discuss this with other parties WT/GC/M/108 
Page 14  
 
  concerned.  He remained available for informal contacts and open-ended cons ultations on this matter 
if and when Members so wished, with a view to  finding an acceptable solution for both proposals in 
the TRIMs Committee.  He would keep the Chairm an of the Special Session of the CTD fully 
informed of any progress made. 
36. Mr Huige (Netherlands), Chairm an of the Committee on SPS Measures
, noted that he had 
circulated a report to the General Council on his own responsibility in document G/SPS/44.  
Highlighting the main points from that report, he sai d that since the adoption by the Committee of its 
substantive report on S&D treatment in June 2005 (G/SPS/35), the Committee had followed a two-
pronged approach to addressing the issue of S&D tr eatment:  (i) at every regular meeting, the 
Committee had considered the proposals referred to it by the General Council, and (ii) it had 
considered possible actions identified in the Commi ttee to address some of the concerns underlying 
these proposals.  There had been little substantive di scussion of the proposals as currently drafted, as 
there had been no change in positions.  At th e same time, the Committee had continued to progress 
with its consideration of possible actions to addr ess some of the concerns underlying the proposals – 
for example, a special meeting on transparency would be organized in October 2007.  During an 
informal meeting on S&D treatment in February and March 2007, Egypt had announced that it was 
undertaking an analysis of the procedure adopted by the SPS Committee in document G/SPS/33.  Under this procedure, Members could identify their need for S&D treatment with respect to specific 
measures taken by trading partners.  The analys is would examine why developing-country Members 
were not making use of this procedure, and Egypt  would propose a decision in this regard.  Other 
possible actions identified by the Committee had focu sed on technical assistance and its effectiveness 
and responsiveness to the needs of beneficiaries.  At present, it appeared that little progress was 
possible in the SPS Committee on the proposals as cu rrently drafted, as the views of Members on 
these texts had not changed.  Some progress might however be possible on revised versions of the proposals.  This was not to say that the SPS Co mmittee was failing to consider S&D treatment and 
other ways to address the problems of developing-c ountry Members.  On the contrary, S&D treatment 
was a standing item on the Committee's agenda, and us ually the subject of informal meetings in the 
margins of the regular meetings.  More important ly, the Committee continued its consideration of 
pragmatic and concrete actions to address the probl ems identified in the proposals, such as those 
relating to the identification of potential trade barriers, the effectiveness and appropriateness of 
technical assistance, and the actual provision of S&D treatment in specific situations. 
37. Mr Valles Galmés (Uruguay), Chairman  of the Negotiating Group on Rules
, said he had 
nothing further to report since his report to the Gene ral Council in December 2006.  In spite of all the 
opportunities offered to take up the issue within the Negotiating Group, neither the proponents, the 
co-sponsors, nor any other Members had proposed  a new discussion of this matter.  This, 
unfortunately, was all he could report at this stage. 
38. The Chairman  informed delegations that, in the absen ce of the Chair of the Special Session of 
the DSB, the latter's report to the General Council had been circulated in document TN/DS/19.  He 
then expressed his gratitude to all the Chairs for their reports. 
39. The representative of Cuba  said his delegation recognized and appreciated the efforts and 
dedication of the Chairman of the Special Session of  the CTD and of certain other Chairpersons in 
moving this issue forward.  Cuba hoped that all Ch airpersons would submit in advance of the Council 
meetings at which this item was considered a writt en report on the status of S&D proposals in their 
respective bodies, as some had done, so that dele gations could prepare themselves beforehand and 
comment on such reports during the discussion.  Cuba  regretted that the progress thus far had been 
insufficient and that the majority of  the proposals remained in a stat e of deadlock owing to the rigid 
positions maintained by developed countries and the lack of political will on their part to achieve a 
result that would not only meet the interests of de veloping countries, but would ultimately fulfil one 
of the mandates and essential components of the Doha Round's development objectives.  The essence  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 15 
 
 
  of the problem was that developed countries were  pushing developing countries to accept new and 
greater trade liberalization and obligations thro ugh new agreements in the WTO, while they 
themselves were not willing to assume similar oblig ations in areas such as technical and financial 
cooperation and the transfer of technology, or to accept the flexibilities the developing countries were 
entitled to, both morally and by mandate.  This being so, he asked how and when the growing 
development divide between the countries of the North and South – which developed countries had, 
on paper, undertaken to reduce in various internatio nal fora – would be bri dged, and how developing 
countries could assume new obligations in the Round which most of them would be unable to fulfil 
without flexibilities, technical assistance and the necessary international cooperation. 
40. The same state of deadlock al so extended to the Category II proposals that had been referred 
to other WTO bodies.  Members needed to reflect on this situation and on how difficult it was for 
proponents to participate in the large number of meetings at which S&D proposals were addressed.  
Given the lack of progress in the discussions on spec ific proposals within the bodies to which they 
had been referred – and should the state of deadlock in  respect of such proposals continue within these 
bodies – it would be better for discussions on all S&D proposals to take place within one body, the 
Special Session of the CTD.  His delegation wished  to reiterate that this matter was of vital 
importance not only to Cuba but to the majority of developing countries, and Cuba could not accept 
that the S&D provisions of various WTO Agreements  remained ineffective and inoperative.  Unless 
this matter was resolved, no agreement would be possible in this Round.  Regarding the 
implementation of the Decision on DFQF market access for LDCs, Cuba urged the developed countries that had not yet implemented this Deci sion to adopt the measures necessary for its full 
implementation as soon as possible, and to ensure that  this access was real a nd not reduced or blocked 
by non-tariff barriers or by the designation of sensitive products for commercial reasons. 
41. The representative of Kenya
 thanked the Chair of the CTD in Special Session and the Chairs 
of the various other bodies for their reports.  Wh ile Kenya appreciated the marginal progress on the 
issue under discussion, it was concerned about the over all lack of progress on this issue and wished to 
seek constructive engagement from more Members,  given the collective responsibility Members had 
to deliver on the mandate on S&D treatment.  This w as of critical importance, especially at the present 
phase of the negotiations, where all had expressed th eir commitment to concluding the Round at the 
end of 2007.  Kenya expected S&D treatment to be part of such a package. 
42. The General Council took note  of the reports by the Chairpersons and of the statements. 
4. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala (WT/GC/85, WT/GC/90 and Corr.1, 
WT/GC/100, WT/MIN(05)/9) 
43. The Chairman  recalled that this matter had first b een raised by Honduras and Guatemala at 
the Council meeting in December 2004.  It had subse quently been considered by the General Council 
at each of its regular meetings since then, without resolution.  In the light of the views expressed at 
these meetings, and the requests for consultations ma de by Honduras and Guatemala, his predecessors 
as Chair had held regular consultations to see if th ey could facilitate a satis factory resolution to the 
concerns that had been expressed regarding this matter.  At the February General Council, his 
predecessor had reported to delegations on his most  recent consultations, indicating that these had 
resulted in a clear understanding that the parties dire ctly concerned would be engaging – in the weeks 
following that Council – in direct and substan tive dialogue and in good faith on the issues and 
concerns raised by Honduras and Guatemala.  The Ch air had stated that while it remained to be seen 
what result would emerge from these contacts, he believed they were nevertheless a necessary step and a sign of progress.  In view of the statements made at the February Council, Members had agreed 
to revert to this matter at the present meeting. WT/GC/M/108 
Page 16  
 
  44. He recalled that the matter referred to the Ge neral Council concerned the non-recognition of 
substantial supplier rights in the very specific contex t of the EC's modification of its concessions as a 
result of enlargement from 15 to 25 members, and th e modification of its concession on bananas in its 
move to a new tariff-only regime as from 1 Janua ry 2006.  This matter had been brought to the 
General Council in keeping with Paragraph 4 of the 1980 Procedures for Negotiations under 
Article XXVIII, under which, when a Member rene gotiating its Schedule did not recognize a claim of 
principal or substantial supplying interest, the Me mber making the claim "may refer the matter to the 
Council".  While the 1980 Procedures remained silent on the exact role to be played by the General 
Council in such situations, any action by the Coun cil on this matter would have to be taken by 
Members collectively, in keeping with the practice of decision-making by consensus.  Obviously, the 
Council would not be in a position to  take action if the parties di rectly concerned were still in 
disagreement.  Like his predecessors, he was willing to facilitate a resolution in every way possible, 
and to offer his good offices in this  process to the parties directly concerned and explore with them 
further the possibilities of a resolution in the near fu ture.  With these words, he invited delegations to 
take the floor on this item, and sai d he would particularly like to hear from the delegations directly 
concerned on the contacts they had had since the most recent Council meeting. 
45. The representative of Guatemala
 said that as this was the first time the incoming Chair was 
presiding over this issue, he wished to describe the most  relevant issues pertaining to this agenda item.  
The first aspect dealt with the systemic or cross-cutti ng interest arising under this item.  The systemic 
interest which arose, generally speaking and in an  under-pinning fashion, was the lack of recognition 
of rights that Members suffered following the enla rgement process of the European Communities.  
Although there were clear rules on the renegotia ting process pursuant to Article XXVIII of GATT, 
and despite the existence of other relevant issues,  the renegotiating procedures had been characterized 
as uncertain and full of discrimination, as could be seen in the records of the meetings of the General 
Council.  The main parties affected had been developing countries – the Council had heard expressions of solidarity and concern shared by 17 such countries.  The problems which had been 
more specifically identified by Members were:  th e lack of recognition of negotiating rights resulting 
from unilateral interpretations by the European Co mmunities;  the lack of recognition of rights to 
compensation despite negotiating rights having been recognized:  even when compensation rights had been recognized, the EC had decided that the amount of this compensation was insignificant or did not deserve to be made effective.  In order to tr y to solve this problem, Guatemala was working on a 
proposal which aimed at restoring the balance in  the process of renegotiation and thereby guarantee 
the interests of the small- and medium-sized e xporters.  Guatemala welcomed that the EC had 
indicated that it would look into the proposals constructively – proposals which aimed at taking on board the systemic interests which had been express ed in the Council.  Guatemala trusted that the 
EC's intention would become reality in a timely f ashion.  Another aspect his delegation wished to 
highlight was the specific trading interest it had me ntioned repeatedly in the Council.  The specific 
interest of Guatemala resulted from the lack of recognition of rights pursuant to Articles XXIV:6 and 
XXVIII of GATT 1994, and this for various products of export.  The EC had not recognized the 
negotiating rights that Guatemala enjoyed as a result of the EC's enlargement from 15 to 25 members, 
and at a later stage, the accession to the EC of Bulgaria and Romania.  It was of particular importance to Guatemala to make clear that its claim w as based on WTO rules relating to such negotiating 
procedures.  According to the legal standards in Article XXVIII and in ot her relevant provisions, 
Guatemala did enjoy negotiating rights as a Member w ith a substantial interest for the products it had 
cited.  This claim was serious, responsible and we ll-founded.  Guatemala was not asking for help for 
products other than those it had managed to launch on  the European market through a lot of effort.  
Guatemala also had an interest in sugar and bana nas – the products for which it had identified an 
interest.  For sugar, Guatemala's exports for the refe rence period used by the EC were of such a level 
that they did, without a shadow of doubt, put Guatemala in a group of Members with a substantial 
interest in these negotiations.  His delegation truste d that the EC would give positive consideration to 
the arguments and legal merits put forward by Guatem ala in defending its interests.  In the case of 
bananas, Guatemala trusted that the recognition of its rights and the compensation deserved by  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 17 
 
 
  various Latin American countries, and the complianc e with rules and resolutions of the WTO, would 
finally cause the EC to negotiate a final solution to the banana issue. 
46. Regarding the current status of discussions under th is agenda item, he re called that this issue 
had been on the Council's agenda for more than two years.  Previous Council Chairs had carried out 
untiring efforts to try to find a so lution.  This was why various rounds  of consultations had taken place 
to try to bring the positions of the EC, Honduras and Guatemala closer together.  Now that an area of 
dialogue had been opened up with the EC and frank and open discussions had taken place, Guatemala 
trusted that the EC would do its best to settle this matter.  The good faith Guatemala had put into this 
negotiating process deserved a response in the same f ashion from the EC.  Although Guatemala was a 
small country, it was a Member of this organization and a signatory to the multilateral trading system, 
and was therefore entitled to rights.  The multilatera l system, relying on rules and regulations, would 
be jeopardized seriously if its main Members ignored  or refuted the interests of small- or medium-
sized suppliers.  If the rights and interests of deve loping countries were not respected, there would be 
cracks and breaks which could not be justified in a system based on rules.  These cracks, even if 
seemingly insignificant, were the main reasons deve loping countries did not fully trust the multilateral 
trading system.  This was a situation of concern to all Members and one th at should be avoided, 
especially at a time when Members were trying to  move forward in a development Round.  Guatemala 
trusted that the Chairman's leadership and hi s intervention would help Members come to an 
appropriate solution regarding this matter. 
47. The representative of Honduras  thanked the Members who had lent their support on this issue 
which, from a systemic point of view, was of concern to all.  After almost two years, Honduras had 
had a meeting with the EC in which there had been a frank discussion of the situation and an 
exploration of possible solutions.  However, this  meeting had been purely exploratory, and although 
Honduras maintained its good faith in this process, it wished to reserve its rights and state its legal 
arguments, as set out at previous Council meetings, so that its interest as a substantial supplier of 
bananas in the EC market was r ecognized.  For Article XXVIII to have any meaning at all for the 
smaller and poorer Members, the ruling on this i ssue had to be in favour of Honduras.  Honduras's 
claim was based on Article XXVIII of the GATT and the Understanding on the interpretation of the 
provisions thereof, on the EC's own statistics corres ponding to a very distorted reference period, and 
on the rulings of two dispute settlement panels.  In  response to Honduras's request, to date the EC had 
disregarded Honduras's proven record as a substantial supplier, as well as all the obligations at issue 
in this dispute which it was bound to fulfil.  Th e EC had refused for more than two years to 
acknowledge Honduras's legitimate claim of interest , and in its defense ha d merely cited import 
statistics corresponding to the reference years in whic h its discrimination had been in place.  The EC 
had violated its bound tariff level and had imposed  a more-than-double tariff rate, in breach of many 
WTO dispute settlement rulings, while assuming the right to establish at its discretion any 
discriminatory arrangement which in its opinion en sured maintenance of MFN access.  The EC had 
conferred on itself the right not to bind its banana  tariff, whereas every Member knew well that all 
agricultural-product tariffs had to be bound.  More over, although the tariff burden it was imposing on 
Honduras had more than doubled, the EC insisted th at it owed no compensation to any of the main 
MFN suppliers, including Honduras.  In spite of the f act that the EC wished now to close the chapter 
on this issue, the violations were so serious as to  give rise to systemic concerns.  Several Members 
had rightly stated that the fairness of the WTO sy stem would be called into  question if a developed-
country Member was permitted to more-than-double its tariff incidence on products of special 
significance to small economies, to disregard legitimat e claims of interest by the small nations which 
were affected, and to unilaterally grant itself the right not to pay compensation.  The time had come 
for the EC to recognize Honduras's legitimate rights under Article XXVIII, to fulfil its obligation to 
make the adjustments provided for in that Article, and to find a meaningful and immediate solution to 
the question of access, in order to settle this disput e.  Honduras requested the Chairman to resume his 
consultations with the interested parties, ther eby enabling him to keep Members informed of 
developments in respect of this important issue.  His delegation also wished to reiterate its good faith WT/GC/M/108 
Page 18  
 
  and willingness to seek a solution to its claim of s ubstantial supplying interest , and hoped to have a 
positive outcome to report at the Council's next meeting. 
48. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that like others who had taken the floor earlier, her 
delegation reiterated its systemic in terest in this issue.  Nicaragua hoped that the parties concerned 
would reach a balanced and satisfact ory solution in the near future. 
49. The representative of Jamaica  said her delegation wished to re iterate the crucial importance of 
the banana industry to Jamaica's economy as well as to a number of ACP countries, including some in 
Jamaica's region.  This importan ce related to employment, exports and the fight against poverty and 
social dislocation.  Jamaica therefore wished to see predictability, stability and equity in this industry.  
It was with this in mind that Jamaica continued to support constructive dialogue and consultations 
leading to a solution that took fully into account the interests of all parties, including the ACP and 
CARICOM countries. 
50. The representative of Ecuador  said that as on previous occasions when this item had been 
considered, Ecuador supported the claims of Guatem ala and Honduras, and reiterated its request to the 
EC that the latter find a mutually acceptable solution to this  issue.  Ecuador encouraged the Chairman 
to use his good offices with the parti es so that a solution could finally be  found to this issue which, as 
Guatemala had said, had been on the Council's agenda for more than two years. 
51. The representative of El Salvador  thanked the Chairman for his report on the current status of 
the discussions on this issue.  El Salvador wished to  repeat again the importance of the issue raised by 
Guatemala and Honduras because of the systemic imp lications it had for various  Members.  For this 
reason, El Salvador hoped a solution would be found soon to an issue that was of importance to all. 
52. The representative of Mexico  reiterated his country's support for the statements by Honduras 
and Guatemala and echoed El Salvador's statement. 
53. The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines  associated his delegation with the 
statement by Jamaica.  Equity for all was critical to addressing the issue of bananas. 
54. The representative of Paraguay  said that as on previous occasions , his delegation reiterated its 
support for the expectations and interests expr essed by Honduras and Guatemala.  Paraguay 
welcomed the direct contacts that were taking place with the EC, and again wished to reiterate that 
discrimination was the basis of many difficulties in the WTO, and that all Members had an obligation 
to fight against this.  Paraguay hoped the contacts would continue and encouraged all to make their 
best efforts so that the interests of these sma ll and vulnerable economies could be taken on board. 
55. The representative of Cameroon  reiterated his country's position on this matter and 
highlighted Cameroon's interest in trade in bananas,  because of what this represented for its economy 
and for the livelihood of its producers and worker s.  Cameroon hoped that a constructive discussion 
would take place that would ensure that the inter ests of all ACP and African countries were taken on 
board, as well as the interests of other countries. 
56. The representative of the European Communities  thanked the previous speakers for their 
statements.  As the EC had already stated at prev ious Council meetings, it continued to believe it had 
based itself firmly on WTO law and well-established practice when recognizing or rejecting claims under the auspices of Articles XXVIII and XXIV:6 of  the GATT.  In that respect, it had in fact 
recognized the negotiating rights of several Members,  including with respect to bananas, following 
the 2004 EC enlargement, and it intended to follow th e same approach it had followed in the past in 
terms of recognition of rights in the forthcoming ne gotiations pursuant to en largement of the EC to 
27 members.  When it had examined the claims made by Honduras and Guatemala pursuant to the  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 19 
 
 
  previous enlargement, the information at the time had not allowed it to conclude that those Members 
had a substantial supplying interest that could merit compensation.  Similarly, thus far in the more 
recent enlargement exercise, the EC had followed th e rules.  It had recognized the negotiating rights 
of some Members, including in respect to bana nas, but in this instance neither Honduras nor 
Guatemala had sought compensation in this sector. 
57. On the more systemic issue raised by Guatemala in particular, the EC continued to be open to 
finding a globally satisfactory solu tion to the systemic concern of sm all- and medium-sized suppliers 
who did not otherwise qualify for negotiating rights under Article XXVIII.  The EC did not feel it could give an ad hoc treatment to one Member in a particular case where the WTO rules did not foresee that.  This would amount to a form of discrimination.  Honduras and Guatemala had both 
noted that good faith efforts were being made on all sides to try to address seriously this long-standing 
issue.  While the EC might disagree with Honduras and Guatemala on the substance of some of their 
points, it would certainly agree with them on the desire  to dispense with this issue once and for all in a 
mutually satisfactory manner.  The EC had indeed held consultations a few days earlier with Honduras and Guatemala on this subject, and tho se consultations had been frank, useful and 
constructive.  They had, as Honduras had stated, been  exploratory only.  Each side had given itself 
some homework to do.  There was the question of fi nding a systemic solution to the rights of small 
suppliers, and on that his delegation noted with interest Guatemala's intention to circulate a proposal.  
The latter might be a suitable subject for consultations  the Chairman might wish to hold.  The EC was 
exploring whether there was a possibility of a sui generis  solution to the specific concerns and claims 
of the two countries concerned, and was also evaluating whether the interests of Honduras and 
Guatemala and other small suppliers could be addr essed within the context of a more comprehensive 
settlement on bananas which, as the EC had said on  previous occasions, it was determined to achieve 
in the weeks ahead.  Time would tell whether that was possible.  To the extent that the parties were in 
a process of negotiation and not litigation, the EC  was quite hopeful that a broadly acceptable 
settlement on bananas could be found that would satisfy the divergent interests involved. 
58. The General Council took note
 of the statements, and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting, and that the Chairman would consider holding consultations in the meantime as far as he 
judged to be useful.   
5. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration  
(a) Report of the Committee on its meetings of  November and December 2006 (WT/BFA/94) 
59. The Chairman  drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee on its meetings 
of November and December 2006  in document WT/BFA/94.   
60. Mr Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said the report in WT/BFA/94 should be  read in conjunction with documents 
WT/BFA/93 and WT/BFA/93/Add.1,  containing the Committee's recommendations presented to and 
approved by the General Council in December 2006.  The matters taken up by the Committee at these 
meetings, listed in documents  WTO/AIR/2927, WTO/AIR/2935 and WTO/AIR/2940, included (i) 
various administrative updates and progress reports; (ii) the Director General's Budgetary and 
Financial Report for 2005 and the Report of the Ex ternal Auditor thereon; (iii) the ITC Mid-term 
Review for the Biennium 2006/2007; (iv) the Mi d-term Review for the Biennium 2006/2007 of the 
Secretariat; (v) a Report by the Director-General on th e Future Building Needs of the WTO; and (vi) a 
Report by the Secretariat with respect to the current  procedure in place for emergencies.  He recalled 
that in December 2006 the General Council had approved recommendations dealing with:  the 
approval of the audited accounts for 2005;  the re vised estimated expenditure for the WTO for 2007 
and the ways and means to meet such expenditure;  the setting of the target level of resources for WT/GC/M/108 
Page 20  
 
  2007;  and the establishment of a Restructuring Operating Fund.  The narrative report in WT/BFA/94 
was therefore submitted for information only. 
61. The General Council took note
 of the statement and adopted  the Budget Committee's report in 
document WT/BFA/94. 
(b) Report of the Committee on its meeting of March 2007 (WT/BFA/95) 
62. The Chairman  drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee on its meeting of March 
2007 in  document WT/BFA/95.   
63. Mr Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said he wished to highlight the following elem ents in the report:  First, with respect to 
human resources, Members had been informed that th e Director-General had made adjustments to the 
net salary scale as of 1 January 2007 of 0.5 per cent for grades 1 to 6 and 1.35 per cent for grades 7 
and above.  Second, with respect to trust funds, Memb ers had been informed that, in view of the lack 
of funds under the DDA Global Trust Fund at that ti me, the initiation of new activities had had to be 
put on hold pending the receipt of payments.  Member s had been urged to approach their authorities 
to facilitate the transfer of pledges made and to identify additional pledges as soon as possible.  Third, 
the Director General had addressed the Committee with  respect to the future building needs of the 
WTO and had explained that three alternatives to meet the immediate housin g needs were currently 
under examination:  (i) the former Serono building,  (ii) the IUHEI library space and (iii) the Avenue 
de France project.  The Director-General had also po inted out that there would still remain a shortage 
of office space even after handover of the University  library, and that he counted on the support and 
goodwill of the Swiss authorities to find a suitable solutio n to that issue.  In particular, he had noted 
that it was the expectation of the Secretariat that the additional premises w ould be provided under the 
same conditions as the Rue Rothschild Annexe.  He  had also indicated that the Secretariat was 
continuing its intensive discussions with the Swiss authorities with regard to identifying a long-term 
solution to the housing needs of the WTO.  Four th, Members had been informed about the past 
practice regarding the appointment of the External  Auditor, which could be implemented once again 
in the current exercise.  Fifth, the Director-G eneral had presented the reform programme, called 
Secretariat Version 3, which had recently been launc hed with a view to increasing the efficiency of 
the Secretariat as well as improving transparency and facilitating management.  Some of the areas 
tackled were increasing internal mobility, creating a more flexible grading structure, improving 
internal procedures for recruitment and appointme nt, as well as the introduction of activity-based 
budgeting. 
64. He drew attention to the recommendations in paragraphs 23, 25, 33 and 35 of the report, 
which required approval by the General Council.  Th ese related to:  inactive members (paragraph 23);  
the draft revision of the financial rules and regul ations (paragraph 25);  the accession of Viet Nam 
(paragraph 33);  and the 2007 adjustment of the WTO dependency allowances (paragraph 35).  With 
regard to the Committee's most recent meeting on 3 May, and without prejudice to the submission of a 
formal report to the General Council, he wished to indicate that the Committee had discussed three 
issues.  Regarding the DDA Global Trust Fund, th e Committee had noted that, while the financial 
situation had eased somewhat, there was still some way to go before reaching the target amount of 
CHF 24 million by 30 June.  The Committee had also discussed the future buil ding needs of the WTO 
and had indicated that they hoped that full informat ion on the various options would be available in 
the near future.  Finally, the Secretariat had pr esented further information on progress with regard to 
some aspects of the reform programme which th e Director-General had introduced at the March 
meeting of the Committee.   
65. The Director-General  said he wished to briefly draw attention to the present financial 
situation in the DDA Global Trust Fund which – without wishing to sound alarmist – he said  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 21 
 
 
  remained critical.  Before presenting some facts a nd figures, as well as some ways forward, he wished 
to say that the Budget Committee Chair needed be  commended for his efforts to address this issue 
which had been before the Committee for some time.  He also wished to express his sincere thanks to 
all the donors who had made the delivery of Trad e-Related Technical Assistance possible through 
their contributions.  Without these, the delivery of  TA would simply not be possible.  However, 
generous as these donors had been, the total amount pr ovided was not enough, and the rules that had 
been adopted by Members required that he draw the a ttention of the General Counc il to this situation.  
The facts were straightforward:  since the beginning of 2007, some CHF 8.4 million in "fresh" money had been received, in addition to a carry-over of CHF 7.5 million from 2006, bringing total funds 
available to CHF 16 million.  On top of this mone y in the bank, there was a bit more than CHF 5 
million in outstanding pledges, including a pledge wh ich had been announced the previous day.  The 
decisions taken by the Members at the time of  the establishment of the DDA Global Trust Fund 
required that 25 percent of the cost of the TA Pl an as adopted by the Members had to be in the 
accounts before the beginning of the year, 75 per cent  by 31 March, and 100 per cent by 30 June of 
each year.  In order to match the TA Plan Memb ers had adopted for 2007, costing CHF 24 million, 
between now and 30 June the WTO needed some CHF 8 million – 5.2 million of which was in the 
form of pledges not yet honoured, and 2.8 million in the form of fresh money.   This was the simple 
reality.  He urged all Members who had indicated possi ble contributions to re-double their efforts, and 
encouraged non-traditional donors to consider making contributions.  Otherwise, the means would not 
be available to implement the 2007 TA Plan.  The Secretariat had already started to slow some 
operations, but more would have to be done in this direction, given the financial rules in place.  He 
wished to indicate that, in line with the Hong Kong Declaration, the Secretariat was exploring options 
to enhance both stability and predictability in fi nancing WTO TRTA, on which it would shortly start 
consulting with Members in order to try to find a more stable framework, rather than the rather 
exhausting monthly tally of whether or not the me ans were available to conduct the next month's 
TRTA. 
66. The representative of the United States
 said that he wished to inform Members that the 
previous day the US Trade Representative had a nnounced the intention of the United States to 
contribute US$940,000, or about CHF 1.1 million, to the DDA Global Trust Fund.  This had been 
referred to indirectly by the Director-General in the numbers he had cited. 
67. The General Council took note  of the statements, approved  the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendations in paragraphs 23, 25, 33 and 35 of its report in WT/BFA/95, and adopted  the report. 
6. Statement by Paraguay on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries 
68. The representative of Paraguay , on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries , 
speaking under "Other Business", sai d that this Group was one of the few fora within the WTO in 
which developing countries that were not yet Memb ers could interact with Members on an equal 
footing.  Perhaps this was why acceding countries were  always very active in the Group's discussions.  
He wished to inform Members th at the Informal Group considered that the WTO accession process 
should be governed by principles of justice and equi ty.  It was also very important that developing 
countries in the process of accession be asked only to  undertake commitments that were consistent 
with their present and future development, financia l and trade needs.  The Group was also concerned 
about bringing into the accession discussions politi cal considerations that caused unnecessary delays 
in the accession of certain developing countries.  It was the commercial and technical considerations 
that should be the determining factors in the adop tion of decisions in the context of WTO accession, 
while political considerations should be left aside .  The Group was committed to continuing its work 
to strengthen and expand the multilateral trading system and the WTO. 
69. The General Council took note  of the statement. WT/GC/M/108 
Page 22  
 
  7. Administrative Measures for Members in arrears 
70. The Chairman
, speaking under "Other Business", recalled that at its meeting in May 2006, the 
General Council had approved a recommendati on from the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration regarding revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears (WT/BFA/86).  
Among these Administrative Measures was a requirement that, at each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chairman of the Committee on Budg et, Finance and Administration should provide 
information with regard to which Members were  under Administrative Meas ures in Categories II 
through IV.   
71. Mr Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said that as the Chairman had just reca lled, the Budget Committee had formulated a 
recommendation regarding Members in arrears whic h had been approved by the General Council in 
May 2006.  The background to th is recommendation was the Committee' s assessment that Members' 
obligation to contribute promptly to the WTO thei r share in the expenses of the organization, in 
accordance with the Marrakesh Agreement Establ ishing the WTO, should be reinforced.  The 
Administrative Measures had been reinforced thr ough the recommendation which had been approved. 
72. The General Council had also authorized the Budget Committee to waive the application of 
the measures for Members in Category IV who agr eed to, and abided by, a schedule of instalment 
payments aimed at liquidating all arrears.  In th is context, he invited the Members concerned to 
contact the Secretariat to discuss modalities for estab lishing such an instalment plan.  Finally, in 
pursuance of the revised Administra tive Measures, he wished to info rm the Council that the Members 
under Categories II through IV of the Administrative Measures, as at 8 May, were as follows:  
Burkina Faso and Senegal in Category II;  Camer oon in Category III;  and the following Members in 
Category IV:  Burundi, Central A frican Republic, Chad, Cote d'I voire, Democratic Republic of 
Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Guin ea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, 
Paraguay, Republic of Congo,  Sierra Leona and Togo. 
73. The Chairman  then recalled that under the revised Administrative Measures he was also 
required at each Council meeting to request Member s in Categories III and IV of the Measures to 
inform him, before the next meeting of the Gene ral Council, as to when their payment of arrears 
might be expected.  In keeping with the Admi nistrative Measures, he would report on Members' 
replies to the next meeting of the General Council.   Since the February General Council meeting, he 
had not received any replies from the Members concerned. 
74. The representative of Paraguay  said he wished to inform the Council that his Government was 
making every effort to pay its arrears to the WTO budget, and that it had r ecently made an important 
payment which, due to a shortfall of a few Swiss francs, had not enabled Paraguay to leave Category 
IV.  However, his delegation had received the au thorization to consult with the WTO Finance 
Division on a payment plan to cancel the entire de bt, including liquidating its arrears.  A draft 
proposal was in the process of being submitted from his Government. 
75. The General Council took note  of the statements.    WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 23 
 
 
  ANNE X 
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of  
the Trade Negotiations Committee on 20 April  2007  
 
1. Australia for the CAIRNS Group  
 Now is not the time for speeches but for talking in a straightforward and direct way.  Let me 
first talk about the Cairns Group meeting in Lahor e, Pakistan last week. The communiqué will be 
available at the back of the room.  Ministers not ed that action is needed now to avoid putting the 
Round at grave risk of failure and they agreed that a successful conclusion is within our reach.  There 
was determination to conclude th e Doha Round this year.  There was commitment to the multilateral 
process. If a successful conclusion is within reach it  is because of the very substantial investment 
already made in that process and because that process is available to take us forward.  Ministers in 
Lahore committed to engage intens ively, constructively and collec tively in the multilateral process. 
And our intention is to get to texts as soon as possibl e.  The Group will engage fully and flexibly in 
the multilateral process. 
 
2. Australia 
 
 Australia participated at the meeting in Ne w Delhi of the G6.  The communiqué from this 
meeting is also available at the back of the room .  We will participate in further meetings in our 
efforts to engage wherever would be helpful to th e negotiations.  I can assure you that for Australia, 
and I'm sure all others, the multilateral process is indispensable and must be engaged continuously 
and intensively.  Lastly, Australia returns from recent meetings with renewed optimism and 
determination to do all that is possi ble to conclude the Round this year. 
 
3. Barbados for the small and vulnerable economies  
 
 Those of us who are familiar with the game of  cricket will be aware that the West Indies team 
is not doing so well in the World Cup at this time and therefore I thought that I would have held my peace.  However, I do have a responsibility to my  colleagues in the small and vulnerable economies 
group and therefore I think that it is important that I make just a brief comment.  
 First of all, the SVEs share your assessment, Mr . Chairman, of the state-of-play and thank you 
for your continuing marathon efforts to try to bring th is process to some resolution.  We also thank the 
G-4 for their efforts and for their understanding an d acceptance that their work  must feed into the 
multilateral process.  Small economies continue to  express appreciation to the Chairs of the 
Agriculture, NAMA and Services negotiating groups for involving us in the vari ous configurations of 
their consultations.  My delegation, however, would ha ve liked to hear more of what the problem is 
and where specific progress is being made.  We read press reports of various me etings in various parts 
of the world.  The press reports are either positive or negative.  We read the Communiqués that are 
issued by the groups and these Communiqués are alwa ys general and encourag ing.  I understand that 
all issues, as was said here this morning, are not discussed by the G-4 nor the G-6.  So I assume quite safely that SVE's are not part of the problem.  Howe ver, we have said before and we continue to say 
that we would want to be part of the solution and we are continuing to work to revise our proposals so 
that our positions do not ever become part of th e problem.  However, I would have thought that in 
forums such as these delegations would be more specific in explaining the problems that they are encountering in these negotiations so that we can al l hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, as to 
who is having what problems and where and, more  specifically, where progress is being made.  Our 
anxiety for progress, and expectation of progress by certain dates, has to be informed by a better 
understanding of what the problem is and where the progress is being made.  I would hope that if not WT/GC/M/108 
Page 24  
 
  on this occasion, on the next occasion we can be a little  more specific so that the multilateralization of 
the process is better understood by the Members of this Organization. 
 
4. Benin for the co-sponsors of the Cotton Initiative 
  On behalf of the co-sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton, the delegation of 
Benin wishes to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the report you have just given on the status of the 
negotiations and for the insights you have provided.   The co-sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in 
Favour of Cotton endorse the statements made by the African Group and the LDC and ACP Groups.  
We understand and are aware, both individually and coll ectively, of the need to move ahead and stick 
to the deadlines, for the sake of the Round and the world economy.  We support the move to resume a 
truly multilateral negotiating process.  Now, more th an ever, the process must be speeded up.  This 
need is even more urgent with regard to the vital issue of cotton.  The four co-sponsors of the Sectoral 
Initiative in Favour of Cotton wish to recall that  in July 2004 WTO Members undertook to address 
this issue "ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifica lly", in terms of both its trade and development 
aspects.  We must also urgently identify and set up the mechanism that will enable us to manage the 
decline in cotton export revenues in African cott on-producing countries.  Otherwise, we may be 
witnessing the definitive disappearance of this pr oduct from these countries' economic landscapes.  
Such a mechanism would be transitional, and not pe rmanent.  It would be effective in helping to 
ensure the desired coherence between trade and development aspects of cotton.  We call upon the 
various parties involved to find ur gent, appropriate and long-lasting solutions to this issue.  This 
would enable cotton to be a real and effective tool for combating poverty in the cotton-producing 
countries, rather than a poverty aggravation factor.     
5. Brazil  
  Let me say that I think that the meeting in De lhi, as indicated by the representative of India, 
marked a new phase in the work of the G-4.  I think that the renewed commitment to conclude the 
Round by the end of this year was taken on the basis of an assessment of the situation that acknowledges the vast amount of progress that we have  made already at the multilateral level in this, 
in focussing on the central issues of our discussion.  So there is a concrete basis for our assessment, 
and is not simply a question of wishful thinking.  I think it also reflects the fact that there has been 
some progress at the level of discussions at the level of the G-4.   The second point that I would like to 
highlight is that the meeting also  acknowledged that progress has been insufficient.  There still remain 
major gaps between the positions.  And that led to th e conclusion, in the context of the meeting, of a 
need to intensify the engagement at the level of the G4 and to try to contribute to the multilateral 
process in a more substantive way.  So, as indicated by previous speaker s, there is a series of meetings 
projected both at the level of Senior Officials and th e level of Ministers that would hopefully lead to 
greater convergence at the level of the G4 which in  turn would hopefully lead to greater convergence 
at the multilateral level.  The final point that I would like to make is the question of the engagement in 
the multilateral process.  I think there is no doubt that  this is a multilateral negotiation, that what we 
are trying to achieve is full modalities in agricultu re and NAMA and equal or similar results in the 
other areas of the negotiations.  And this can onl y be achieved through the multilateral process in 
Geneva.  This can only be achieved by the Chairs, and the involvement of the Chairs and preparation 
of papers by the Chairs and I do support very much what the Minister of Uruguay said in terms of the 
need for the Membership to s upport the work of the Chairs. 
  Let me say that that is our position in the context of the G4 – total engagement in the 
multilateral process.  There is no idea of trying to create difficulties or creating impairments for the 
multilateral process here in Geneva – to the contrary  the idea is to feed into the multilateral process 
any convergence that could possibly be achieved with  a view to facilitating progress here in Geneva.  
And that is also, let me say, the view of the G 20.  So as soon as the Chairman of the Agriculture 
Special Session presents a paper on agriculture with hi s questions, the G20 is prepared to engage fully  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 25 
 
 
  in the context of the discussion of this paper and is prepared to give a reaction and to try to help move 
things.  
6. China  
  We share your assessment, Mr. Chairman, of  the current situation in the Doha Round 
negotiations and the common sense in this room ab out the obvious grave consequences if we fail to 
act swiftly to make concrete progress within the next few months.  At this critical juncture, we 
welcome the recent communiqués of the G4 in New Delhi and of the Cairns Group in Lahore. We 
earnestly urge major developed partners to translat e their statements into tangible and concrete action 
by committing themselves to an early removal of tr ade distortions. This is clearly a common message 
delivered by all developing Members in various forms, including the Joint Statement by Chinese Minister of Commerce Mr. Bo Xilai and Indian Mi nister of Commerce and Industry Mr. Kamal Nath 
in Beijing last Monday.  It must be pointed out clear ly that the major issue holding back and impeding 
progress in the Round is the lack of movement by developed countries in terms of early removal of 
the distortions caused by huge subsidies and signi ficant market access barriers in their countries. 
Unless the outcome of the negotiations upholds the proposals of developing countries resulting in real and effective reduction of trade distorting domestic support coupled with meaningful disciplines, 
substantial improvement in market access in devel oped countries and eliminations of all forms of 
export subsidies, the aspirations of the developing countries, as contained in the Doha mandate, will 
not be fulfilled.  As this is a Development Round, and as the Minist er of Uruguay has rightly pointed 
out, an expeditious conclusion of the Doha Roun d must be based on the full realization of the 
development goals as mandated in the Doha Declar ation, the Framework Agreement of July 2004 and 
the Hong Kong Declaration. To address the developm ent concerns of developing countries is vital to 
delivering the development imperatives in these negotiations, and special products (SPs) and the 
special safeguard mechanism (SSM) play a v ital role in addressing the food security, rural 
development and livelihood concerns  of developing countries.  The outcome of the Doha negotiations 
for these flexibilities can be sustainable only if it enables the developing countries to meet their 
development objectives.  Today, we are all faced with a time constraint to bring the Round to a 
successful conclusion. However, once again, the tim e constraint should not be an excuse to sacrifice 
transparency and inclusiveness. On the contrary, it makes it all the more necessary that a transparent 
and inclusive Geneva process must act as the centr al process for the negotiations on the various 
subjects including agriculture. This is the only way to ensure that the final results will take into 
consideration the interests of all Members in a balanced way and be accepted by all of them. 
  We recognize the continued efforts made by  the G4 countries for a possible breakthrough in 
the negotiations. However, we encourage their c ontribution as much as possible on substance to the 
multilateral process and their provision of concrete input into the multilateral process. We support the 
decisions by the Chairs of the Agriculture and NAMA groups, as well as by the Chairs of the other 
negotiating bodies to put forward papers in the fo llowing weeks, which will accelerate the multilateral 
process.  I hope that the Chairs' papers will stick to the letter and spirit of Doha mandate, the July 
2004 Package and the Hong Kong Declaration. The pape rs should be fair and balanced. They should 
meet the need of development. Also, the legitim ate concerns of cotton producers in Africa, LDCs, 
Small and Vulnerable Economies and the Newly A cceded Members must be effectively addressed.  
To conclude, China will, as always, work with ot her Members and with Chairs of all negotiating 
bodies in a constructive and earnest manner on all subj ects in order to bring this Round to a successful 
conclusion.  7. India 
 
 The negotiations have now en tered a crucial phase and I w ould like to thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for convening this meeting to assess wher e we are and to discuss where we should be, in 
the next few weeks and months.  Th e meetings of the G4/G6 in New Delhi last week have provided a WT/GC/M/108 
Page 26  
 
  renewed commitment to the conclusion of the Round by  the end of the year.    This commitment has 
helped to provided clarity, intensity and structure to  the engagement at Senior Official and Ministerial 
level over the next two months.  Perhaps the most important message to emerge from these meetings is the centrality of the multilateral process in Gene va, and how the G4/G6 can contribute to this to 
ensure that we move towards multilateral converg ence on the entire range of issues on the negotiating 
agenda, through a process that gives equal importance to the needs of all Members, large and small.  
The role of the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups acquires an even more important role in this endeavour.  We look forward to working with the Chai rs over the next few months in their efforts to 
build convergence.  Intensive engagement and struct ured processes are important if we are to find the 
elusive light at the end of the tunnel.  But such pr ocesses will continue to flounder if we disregard the 
guiding principles of our mandate.  We are in  a very difficult and challenging phase of the 
negotiations.   Many of us share the view that we have  entered the "now or never" phase.   It is all the 
more essential that we collectively renew our commi tment to the mandate and resist all efforts to 
introduce extraneous elements into the negotiations.     
 Given the very limited time at our disposal as  well as the complexity of the issues waiting to 
be resolved, speed is obviously of the essence.  Howe ver, the need to make haste cannot dictate the 
content of the outcome.  At the end of the day, a sustainable outcome has to provide comfort to all Members.  That can only happen if the mandate is comprehensively addressed and inconvenient issues are not brushed under the carpet.  India stands  ready to engage and contribute to the multilateral 
process which we hope will be kick-started when the Chair of the Agriculture Special Session 
presents his paper next week.   At the same time, we expect that the other Chairs will also resume 
their processes to ensure that th ere is a balanced consideration of all issues across the negotiating 
agenda.  Mr. Chairman, you have rightly emphasi zed  that concluding the Round means concluding 
on all aspects of the mandate.   All areas of the nego tiations have to receive our equal attention.  
 8. Jamaica for the ACP Group  
 Like other members, the ACP Group welcomes the renewed commitment at the political and 
technical levels which we hope will lead to a successful conclusion of the Doha Agenda.  We 
therefore welcome your initiative, Mr. Chairman, to re-start the full negotiating process.  We want to 
emphasize the importance of transparency and inclusiveness and the necessity to respect the 
multilateral process.  We also want to signal that the process must allow suffi cient time for solutions 
to be found to all the issues of major concern to  the ACP Group – the development component in all 
its dimensions.  The way in which these concerns  and sensitivities are addressed will constitute the 
basis for a successful conclusion to the DDA for th e ACP Group.  We therefore look forward  to a 
successful resumption across the board and pledge our full co-operation. 
 
9. Mexico  
 Thank you for your comments, Mr Chairman.  It would be difficult to disagree with what you 
have said.  Indeed, we have little time and many d ecisions to make, and it is clear that the process 
must return to Geneva.  In this regard, I wish to re fer to the letter that the Minister of the Economy of 
Mexico addressed to a number of negotiating gr oup Chairs (TN/AG/GEN/26, TN/MA/21, TN/RL/20 
and TN/S/31).  In it, he shared his concern about the current status of the process and instructed me 
and my team to intensify our contacts at all leve ls, which we will do on all negotiating fronts.  Since 
taking up my position as Mexico's representative to the WTO, I have witnessed and been part of collective mood swings, characterized by cycles of h ope, urgency and desperation.  Unfortunately, in 
none of these cycles have the necessary political decisi ons been made to conclude the Round.  Our 
only creativity has been to give names to the va rious stages of a process that has failed to move 
forward.  Agriculture, for instance, has been refe rred to as the "engine of the negotiations", and 
agriculture and NAMA have also been likened to th e engines of an aeroplane.  In 2005, we focused on 
reaching a first approximation, and did so only during the last minute of the last day of the Hong  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Kong Ministerial Conference.  Since then, we have em ulated an orchestra in our attempts to advance 
"in concert";  we have demonstrated our mutual l ove by entering into a "full engagement";  and we 
have shown ourselves to be incapable of reading "r oad maps" to get to a "landing zone", when we 
have in fact been moving in "concentric circles" .  Despite our penchant for finding appropriate 
expressions, the most important ones continue to evade us.  Take for example "convergence ", which 
in mathematical terms means "the approach of an in finite series to a finite limit", and "breakthrough", 
which in military terms means "the penetration of  a barrier such as an enemy's defence".  Until we 
resolve many of the dilemmas facing us, we will not be able to pe netrate our enemy's defence.  
Ironically, we ourselves are that enemy, because of  our hesitation in taking difficult decisions, our 
failure to realize that taking so long benefits very  few but affects millions, our lack of organization, 
which prevents the negotiations moving forward in no n-core areas, our lack of honesty and our failure 
to make enough effort to turn our words of support for the Round into concrete actions.  There is a 
proverb which says, "if you keep doing the same th ing, you'll get the same results".  My delegation 
therefore welcomes with optimism the apparent consen sus that this time we really are determined to 
make serious progress in the multilateral forum.  We trust that the new dynamic which will come into 
play in the various negotiating groups over th e next few weeks and the convergence of views 
achieved during the meetings of the G4 will enable  us to agree on modalities before the summer break 
and reach an agreement by December this year.  
10. Nigeria 
  The Nigerian delegation would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this important 
meeting. We also appreciate your comprehensive re port on the state of play in the DDA negotiations. 
This has, no doubt, provided us with a very rich  background and platform for appraisal, and in 
deciding on the way forward.  We also think this m eeting is timely and useful, particularly in the 
midst of the anxiety and uncertainty surrounding the fate of the DDA negotiations. We commend the 
Director-General and his team, including the Chairs of the various Negotiating Groups for the 
respective roles they are playing to make Member s realize the need to significantly contribute and 
exercise a greater level of flexib ility.  We hope that these efforts w ould enable us chart a new course 
that would achieve reasonable compromise and a major breakthrough as soon as possible.  On the process, we are in favour of a genuine, inclusive,  transparent and Member-driven multilateral process 
through which the Chairs of the Negotiating Group s would re-energize the negotiations.  In this 
regard, we welcome and commend the initiative of th e Chair of the Agriculture Special Session for 
taking the bold step to confront Members with hard questions to test our resolve and provide the foundation for possible movement.  Nigeria will conti nue to work closely with  Members, at different 
levels, in the spirit of trust and mutual resp ect.  We are happy to note and welcome the 
communication from the major players in these negotiations.  However, we believe that it is important 
and better to achieve a sound and balanced agreemen t that offers prospects for development rather 
than pursuing negotiations with the sole objective of meeting a time schedule.  We also believe that 
agriculture holds the key in the negotiations.  A br eakthrough in agriculture would definitely impact 
positively on other areas of the negotiations.  It is against this background that existing imbalances in 
the Agreement on Agriculture should be addressed.  Therefore, we would like to see a high level of 
ambition on both the market access and trade-distorting domestic support pillars. We must embark on 
concrete action to give effect to far-reaching agricu ltural reforms as already mandated.  We, therefore, 
subscribe to the view that without a substantial package of reforms on agriculture, the Round is not 
likely to deliver on its development objectives.   On Cotton, we are obliged to thank the Director-General for convening the High-Level 
Session on Cotton on 15-16 March.  In our evaluati on, the meeting, which was well attended, was 
successful and productive.  We recall that although  there were some divergences on details, Members 
largely agreed that cotton needs a breakthrough in  the Doha Round negotiations, and that more is 
needed to remove blockages on development assistan ce.  We also wish to re-echo the submission by 
the Chair of the Agriculture Special Session that  "there will be no Doha Round outcome, unless we WT/GC/M/108 
Page 28  
 
  deliver on cotton". We urge that we translate our commitment into concrete actions, aimed at 
fulfilling the mandate, as adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004.  Furthermore, since 
improving trade opportunities for developing countries is at the heart of the Doha work programme, 
Aid for Trade must be seen as a sine qua non to co mplement trade opening.  In  this regard, we support 
the ongoing efforts by the Director-General as well  as the international development and financial 
institutions and donors to raise the effectiveness of Aid for Trade.  The support of all Members on this 
issue would be vital in meeting the developmen t objectives of the Doha Round.  In conclusion, 
Nigeria supports the Statements made by Uganda on behalf of the African Gr oup, Brazil on behalf of 
the G20, Jamaica on behalf of the ACP, and Indonesia on behalf of the G33.  11. Rwanda  
 
 Let me begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairm an, for convening this meeting and for your 
communication regarding the importance of resumi ng negotiations at the multilateral level.  My 
delegation supports your proposals on the overa ll negotiating process.  We also commend your 
relentless efforts and great skills employed in cond ucting intensive consultations with the different 
stakeholders with the aim of bringing the negotiations  back to Geneva.  These efforts will continue to 
be of vital importance in the overall process ahead.  My delegation supports the statements made by 
our coordinators, Lesotho, Uganda and Jamaica respectively on behalf of the LDC Group, African 
Group and ACP Group.  Rwanda is particularly encour aged by the fact that major players are still 
committed to the spirit of Doha and the multilateral trading system as a whole, and are focused on 
putting the Round back on track. We would encour age them to continue narrowing down the 
remaining gaps so as to bring all negotiations back to Geneva.  It is importa nt that we resume our 
negotiations.  It is equally importa nt that the negotiations remain fo cused on the spirit of Doha, and on 
the issue of development cutting across all sectors of negotiations.  Let me once again reiterate Rwanda's commitment to the successful conclusion of the Doha Round.  We are convinced that a 
successful DDA can make a vital contribution to de velopment, growth and poverty reduction efforts 
of our countries.  It would be unfortunate to let the opportunity of this only development Round in the 
history of the multilateral trade negotiations be lost.  We encourage Members to strive to reach a win-
win outcome.  Rwanda remains committed to work ing with you, Mr. Chairman, and the entire 
membership towards achieving this aim.  12. Singapore 
 
 I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening th is meeting and I welcome and endorse your 
opening statement.  The presence of the Minister of Trade of Uruguay at our meeting today reminds us that, not too long ago, we concluded a multilate ral trade agreement and that such agreements are 
doable.  I would like to thank members of the G4 an d the G6 for their statements and their updates on 
their recent meetings.  I wish to put on record  the view of Singapore that we welcome their 
commitment to conclude the Doha Round by 2007.  This is a clear and concrete commitment and it is 
very welcomed and very encouraging.  I also  welcome their roadmap for senior officials and 
ministerial meetings in the weeks ahead.  This gi ves us renewed hope, and with renewed hope, there 
is also renewed expectations of the G4.  The G4 now face the challenge of living up to these 
expectations.  I wish to make three points.  First,  the multilateral process in Geneva is the backbone of 
the Doha Round.  In this regard, I welcome the a ssurances given by the G4 of their commitment to the 
multilateral process.  But, for the multilateral proce ss in Geneva to succeed, we need engagement on 
substance, not just engagement on process.  What we get out of the Geneva process depends on what 
we put into it.  In other words, output depends on inpu t.  As for input into the Geneva process, the G4 
have a key role to play.  This is the political rea lity.  But, of course, I should add that all Members 
also have to play their part and make their contribu tion.  In this regard, Singapore will do its part and 
you can count on that.  Second, we need texts to have a real negotiation.  In this regard, it is important 
to support the Chairs, especially the Ag and NAMA Ch airs, to table their texts.  But Chairs cannot 
produce texts in a vacuum.  In that sense, the responsibility for producing texts also lies with all  WT/GC/M/108 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Members.  Ultimately, Members have to fully enga ge in the process so that Chairs can produce and 
table their texts.  My delegation will fully enga ge in the process and support the negotiating process 
led by the Chairs.  Third, I would like to underline the sense of urgency that you conveyed in your opening statement.  No one likes a deadline and neither do I.  But I wanted to point out that, excluding this weekend, and till the end of July, we have ex actly 100 days.  From the beginning of September 
until Christmas Eve, we have another 114 days.  What  this means is that the more things we postpone 
to the post-summer period the less time we have to get this done by the end of this year.  The more we 
back-load, the less the chances of succe ss.  So, if we want to get this  done by end 2 007, we have to 
start working on substance right away.  13. Switzerland for the G10 
I would like to stress that the G10 very much welcomes this meeting which clearly links the 
multilateral process here in Geneva with the bilate ral/plurilateral one taki ng place among the G4/G6.  
Like others, the G10 is convinced that a succe ssful and balanced outcome can only be achieved 
through a multilateral process which involves and takes into consideration the needs and concerns of 
all Members in an inclusive and transparent manne r.  The interests at stake are multiple and the 
negotiations very complex.  It is our strong hope  that a convergence among the key players about the 
key modalities of a final deal will emerge very s oon.  But such a convergence would of course not 
mean the end of the story and it is as important th at the multilateral process takes place in an orderly 
manner so as to bring an outcome which is acceptable to all of us.  14. Uganda for the African Group 
 I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, fo r organizing this informal TNC session. The 
African Group reiterates its support for the Doha Wo rk Programme that puts development issues at 
the forefront of the negotiations but stresses th at in order to obtain a legally binding outcome, 
development must be an integral part of the overall outcome of this process.  In regard to the process, 
the African Group is of the view that the process that was adopted at the beginning of this year has 
failed to deliver.  We have no alternative other th an to bring the negotiations back to Geneva to a 
multilateral platform and make it an all inclusive and transparent process.  In this context, we request 
you as the chairman of the TNC to instruct the ch airmen of the negotiating bodies to resume the 
negotiations and assume their full responsibilities.  Furt hermore, we request that there be a balanced 
representation in the restricted meetings that might be held from now onwards.  Indeed, in the light of 
the size of our constituency, the African Group leg itimately deserves a broader representation.  The 
central theme of these negotiations and the intent and purposes of this Round is development.  This 
must be the bench mark of assessing the progress an d final overall outcome of the negotiations.  The 
Group is not in a position to compromise on the instructions given by the Ministers in Doha.  This takes me to the real gateway issues in Agricultu re and NAMA.  Africa calls for improved market 
access.  Any commitment that Africa will make can only be on the basis of an outcome that leads to a 
higher level of development in our countries.  In Agriculture, domestic support must be substantially 
reduced.  Reductions must lead to effective cuts in all forms of trade distorting domestic support. 
Disciplines on the Blue box should be developed to achieve its conditions to be less trade distorting 
than AMS and to prevent box shifting.  Green box crite ria should be reviewed to ensure that the Green 
box is less or has no trade distorting effect and to  provide developing countries with the needed 
flexibility to achieve their developmental objectives.  From what we have seen on the table so far, the 
Group urges that the market access ambition must be  matched with ambition in the elimination of 
domestic support.  The agreed tariff reduction form ula should result in substantial improvement in 
market access especially for products of  export interest to African countries. 
 
 With regard to export competition, an e ffective time schedule s hould be developed to 
eliminate all forms of export subsidies without prej udice to the interests and concerns of LDCs and 
NFIDCs.  Disciplines to be developed with regard  to export credits and Food Aid should fully take WT/GC/M/108 
Page 30  
 
  into account LDCs and NFIDCs as provided for in pa ragraphs 3 and 4 of the Marrakech Decision.  It 
should also be noted that State Trading Enterprises (STEs) in Africa play an important developmental 
and poverty alleviation role and, in this regard, African countries' STEs should be exempt from the 
application of any disciplines.  For Africa, agricult ure is a way of life.  We need to pay special 
attention to the livelihood concerns of the millions  of our people, rural development issues and the 
problems of food security.  The African Group urges that the issues raised by African countries and 
other developing countries concerning Special Produc ts and the Special Safeguard Mechanism should 
be fully addressed.  In this regard, the designati on and treatment of Special Products must provide 
maximum flexibility to the African countries to reflect particular domestic circumstances and 
development needs.  The SSM to be established for developing countries should be operationally 
effective to address the specific circumstances of  the African countries.  Specific and concrete 
mechanisms and solutions to the problems of pr eference erosion must be devised within the WTO 
context to fully address the concerns of African countries.   On NAMA, the African Group cannot but re-e mphasize that the NAMA outcome should be 
such that it does not lead to the de-industrializa tion of African economies.  Hence, the distance 
between the two coefficients for developed and developing countries respectively as well as the 
results of the formula cuts must be sufficient to r espect the principle of less than full reciprocity. 
There must be flexibilities to which African countri es are entitled in accordance with the mandate so 
that they effectively serve their industrial and de velopment needs.  The African Group has pointed out 
several times that some proposals on NTBs do not qualify as NTBs.  It is necessary that Members 
avoid coming up with such proposals that add unwarranted obligations in the context of a 
Development Round, while other issues of high impor tance to Africa are ignored.  We would like to 
recall that paragraph 16 of the Doha Declaration mandates that special studies be undertaken to assess 
the impact of the potential outcome of the negotiatio ns in NAMA.  The Group urges that this mandate 
be addressed fully and expeditiously.   
 
 The Group is extremely disappointed that th e S&D mandate is not respected by some 
Members, who are instead watering down the exis ting language, making it difficult to make progress 
on issues of critical importance to African countries.   The treatment of the gateway issues cannot be 
complete without effectively addressing the issue of non-reciprocal preferences. Preferences are a 
market access issue and should be addressed in th e negotiations.  For us this issue is what will 
determine whether the Round responds to the devel opment needs of Africa.  The African Group urges 
that negotiations on Services move in tandem with those in Agriculture and NAMA, and emphasizes the need to maintain the current flexibilities unde r the GATS and the need for African countries to 
liberalize in line with their individual level of development.  The Group wishes to reiterate that 
developed countries seem to be asking developing co untries for deeper market access commitments in 
some of their major sectors such as telecom, financial services and a broad range of business services 
although in turn they have still ma de no substantial offers that address the interests of African 
countries.  We once again call upon them to do so.  Ar ticle IV is a key element of the GATS as far as 
Special and Differential treatment is concerne d and the African Group believes that discussions 
related to S&D would lead to the implementation of Article IV and would help our countries continue 
negotiations on market access in services.  The Afri can Group believes that what is lacking today in 
the negotiations is not lack of technical inputs, but rather political will.  We therefore call for practical 
political will and flexibility among the major players in  the DDA so that this meeting prepares us to 
fully engage in negotiations and qui ckly bring this heavily laden ship into safe harbour.  We believe 
that the solution is not far fetched.  The African  Group remains ready to engage constructively in 
these negotiations. 
 
__________