RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/127 
6 September 2010 
 (10-4582) 
General Council 
29 July 2010  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 29 July 2010  
 
Chairman:  Mr. John Gero (Canada) 
 
 
 Prior to the adoption of the Agenda, delegati ons observed a minute's silence in memory of 
Mr. Krzysztof Januszek, Permanent Representative of  Poland.  The Chairman extended condolences, 
on behalf of all delegations, to the representative of  Poland, and through him, to his Government and 
Mr. Januszek's family. 
 
 In the course of the meeting, the Chairman, the Director-General  and many delegations bade 
farewell to Ambassador Ujal Bhatia (India), expr essing appreciation for his hard work and dedication 
during his time as Permanent Representative.  
 
Subjects discussed1: 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 Committee on Trade and Development ......................................12  
3. Transparency for Preferential Trade Arra ngements – Report by the Chairman 
of the Committee on Tr ade and Development......................................................................13  
4. The financial and economic crisis and the role of the WTO – Communication 
from Argentina, Ecuador and India  – Statement by the Chairman .................................16  
5. Waivers under Article IX of  the WTO Agreement..............................................................18  
(a) Argentina – Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO Schedules 
of tariff concessions – Request for extension of the waiver .....................................................18  
(b) Review of waivers pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement ......................................18  
(i) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Ag reement with respect to pharmaceutical 
products, granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 ...........................................................18  
(ii) Preferential tariff treatment for least-d eveloped countries, granted on 27 May 2009 
until 30 June 2019............................................................................................................. ........18  
(iii) European Union – Preferences for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia 
and Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, granted on 28 July 2006 until 31 December 2011 ......................................................................................18
 
                                                      
1 The Proposed Agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/625. WT/GC/M/127 
Page 2  
 
(iv)
 European Union – Application of autonomous preferential treatment to Moldova, 
granted on 7 May 2008 until 31 December 2013 .....................................................................18  
(v) Mongolia – Export duties on raw cashm ere, granted on 27 July 2007 until 
29 January 2012 ................................................................................................................ .......18  
(vi) United States – Former Territory of the Pacific  Islands, granted on 27 July 2007 until 
31 December 2016 ............................................................................................................... .....18  
(vii) United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 27 May 2009 
until 31 December 2014......................................................................................................... ...18 
(viii) United States – African Growth and Opport unity Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
30 September 2015.............................................................................................................. ......18  
(ix) United States – Andean Trade Preference Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
31 December 2014 ............................................................................................................... .....19  
6. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory 
Group on its Forty-third Session ...........................................................................................23  
7. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Reports on meetings of 
May and July 2010.............................................................................................................. ....25  
8. Harmonization Work Programme under the Agreement on Rules of Origin – 
Statement by the Chairman ...................................................................................................26  
9. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Samoa – Statement by the Chairman................................................................................................................... ........27
 
10. Administrative Measures for Members in arrears – Statement by the Chairman...........27 
ANNEX  - Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee on 27 July 2010 ...................................................................................................... ...........28 
 
 
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 , said2 that since his last report to the General 
Council in May, the TNC had met informally on tw o occasions to discuss and review developments in 
the DDA negotiations.  The more frequent rhythm of  meetings of this multilateral body was in line 
with his undertaking to delegations  at the March stocktaking.  In light of the beginning of a new 
dynamic which had recently characterized the DDA ne gotiations, he believed that Members needed to 
continue with these regular meetings in the inter est of transparency and inclusiveness.  At the 
informal TNC earlier that week, Members had engage d in a useful collective assessment of the state-
of-play in the DDA negotiations and had mapped togeth er the next steps in the autumn.  He had also 
provided delegations with a short overview of his recent activities and meetings – external as well as 
internal.  He would not repeat the whole of his st atement to the TNC, which had been circulated to 
Members, but would highlight a few main points.  He had reported on his message to, and impressions from, the G20 Heads of State and Govern ment in Toronto.  His message to Ministers and 
to Leaders in Toronto had been simple:  (i) exiting the crisis meant that growth was needed to create 
jobs without greater strains on national budgets, and tr ade offered this;  and (ii) concluding the Doha 
Round had to be an integral part of the G20 co-ord inated strategy to move forward.  The impression 
he had taken away from the G20 discussion on the DDA was one of realism – that gaps remained on 
                                                     
 
2 Subsequently circulated in document JOB/GC/3.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the right level of ambition and on the right balance in the contributions by Members – but also one of 
determination – that there was a an overall desire  to move the DDA negotiations to a conclusion as 
soon as possible, consistent with the mandate and based on progress already made. 
3. Since the March stocktaking, the Geneva process had been working according to the 
"cocktail" approach the membership had endorsed at  that time.  This process, and its ingredients – 
smaller groups in variable geometry, bilateral cont acts and his own consultations – had been working 
more intensively and with purpose.  Of course, th ese ingredients had to be given space and time, but 
there was general agreement that their ultimate pur pose was to energise the multilateral process into 
which they had to feed.  All of his recent contacts, as well as the large majority of interventions at the 
informal TNC, had made it crystal clear that the core of the DDA negotiations remained the 
multilateral process, i.e. the Negotiating Groups and the TNC.  At the informal TNC earlier that week 
he had provided Members with a brief outline of the state of play in each of the negotiating areas, as 
well as an insight into the process for work after the summer break.  This process had met with wide 
support from delegations.  Looking ahead to work af ter the summer break and the challenges in the 
last quarter of 2010, he detected energy in the me mbership and a belief that the various processes in 
place in Geneva could lead to moving from process to  tackling substantive issues.  As he had said at 
the informal TNC, and in keeping with the cockta il analogy, he believed Members had the ingredients 
for their drink of choice.  The mood music had become a bit more upbeat, and it was time Members 
started shaking the cocktail. 
4. He also wished to say few words on recent tr ade developments and on Aid for Trade, despite 
the fact that these fell outside the DDA.  As all were aware, his latest report reviewing trade and trade-
related developments in the period from 1 Novemb er 2009 to mid-May 2010 had been circulated in 
document WT/TPR/OV/W/3.  At the informal mee ting of the TPRB on 8 July, he had cautioned that 
although one had started witnessing encouraging ne ws illustrating economic recovery in many parts 
of the world, particularly in emerging economies, the world economy was not completely out of the woods.  Concerns about the fragility of recovery, the persistence of high unemployment levels and 
growing public finance difficulties in some economi es remained.  These were some of the challenges 
not only for the global economy, but also for the multilateral trading system.  He had urged vigilance to ensure that the multilateral trading system con tinued to serve as an insurance policy against the 
resurgence of protectionism in di fficult times.  All knew that le aders around the world, including at 
the Toronto G20 summit, had reaffirmed and extended previous commitments to resisting 
protectionism and their request for continued mo nitoring and quarterly reporting.  This was 
encouraging, and his next report on these issue was foreseen for early November. 
5. On Aid for Trade, work on this front was adva ncing well and Members needed to ensure that 
they sustained these efforts.  A series of meetings  at the regional and national level had taken place 
during the first half of 2010, and it was encouraging that Ministers and Leaders around the world, including APEC, the G20, the Caribbean Commun ity and the African Union had urged that the 
momentum on Aid for Trade should be maintained.  The call to accelerate regional projects on Aid for 
Trade was also encouraging.  The Enhanced Inte grated Framework which was the special Aid-for-
Trade vehicle for LDCs was also now up and runni ng, and focusing on concrete deliverables on the 
ground.  There was much reason to be proud of th e progress achieved, but Members could not rest on 
their laurels.  They now needed to show the positiv e effects of their collective endeavour.  This was 
why they had to place reporting on outcomes and impact s at the core of the Third Global Review of 
Aid for Trade in July 2011.  In order to sustai n progress, Members needed to be able to report on 
impacts and outcomes – if positive, to maintain funding, and if less positive, to correct the trajectory.  In two months countries would be gathering in  New York for the United Nations Millennium 
Development Goals Summit to look at progress achie ved in combating poverty.  The strengthening of 
the multilateral trading system through the conc lusion of the DDA and Aid for Trade were the 
contributions the WTO had to make to this goal.   He hoped everyone could collectively respond to 
this challenge. WT/GC/M/127 
Page 4  
 
6. All delegations who spoke tha nked the Director-General for his comprehensive report on the 
state of play and the way ahead. 
7. The representative of Costa Rica
 informed the Council that the new Costa Rican 
administration, under President Laura Chinchilla, ha d come into power in May.  For her part, as 
Minister of Foreign Trade, she had come to Geneva to meet with the team in the Costa Rican Mission 
to the WTO and with Director-General Lamy and had taken the opportunity to attend the present 
meeting of the General Council.  She was aware that the time had not yet come for a new meeting of Ministers in Geneva and that negotiations had to ripe n before political decisions could be taken.  She 
was also aware that work in Geneva, through the Ambassadors, had been given a new impetus and 
was confident that progress would be made in the autumn, that it would extend to all areas of 
negotiation in the Round and enable different views and different interests to be heard and considered.  
She wished to reaffirm Costa Rica 's resolute support for the multila teral trading system, for the day-
to-day work of the WTO's regular bodies, for the wo rk in the areas of monitoring, transparency and 
trade analysis, and for their crucial role in avoidi ng upsurges of protectionism, even in times of severe 
crisis.  Costa Rica attached great importance to th e WTO Agreements.  It was a small country with a 
small domestic market, and this had obliged it to look outwards and seek economies of scale and 
efficiency, producing for other markets and promoti ng competition within the internal market.  The 
WTO Agreements had offered Cost a Rica the security and predictability which a developing country 
needed to take those steps.  Thus, the WTO Agreem ents had been decisive in enabling Costa Rica to 
create a foreign trade platform and attract investme nt to facilitate its inte gration into the global 
economy.  This had been the engine of the country's  growth and of economic a nd social development.  
The current slow pace of progress in the Doha R ound could create the impression that the multilateral 
trading system had made little headway over the cour se of more than seventy years.  However, much 
had been achieved and it was for that reason that Co sta Rica believed that the achievements had to be 
consolidated.  Consolidation required advancement and strengthening.  Consolidating the multilateral 
trading system meant that openness in trade had to  be promoted and strengthened.  She expressed 
Costa Rica's support for the negotiations and for the successful conclusion of the Doha Round, and 
confirmed the country's commitment to make a subs tantive contribution to the negotiations, to find 
points of convergence, and ultimately to reach an agreement. 
8. The representative of India
 asked that his delegation's statement at the informal meeting of the 
TNC on 27 July 2010 be included in the record of the present meeting.3  He wished to address the 
issue of ambition.  The most important reason wh y Members were at an impasse in the Doha Round 
was that they had different perceptions about the le vel of ambition that was likely to emerge in areas 
of interest to them.  Discussions on this issue in the past had made it clear that ambition meant 
different things to different people.  What co mpounded the problem was that often there was no 
logical consistency in individual Members' percepti ons of ambition.  One had frequently seen some 
Members demanding high ambition in NAMA tariffs a nd retreating deep into their trenches when it 
came to discussions on Agriculture and even on NTBs in NAMA.  One had seen Members demanding 
ambitious outcomes in Services market access but taking out their red flags when it came to an equally ambitious outcome in Domestic Regulation or Services subsidies.  There was clearly a widespread schizophrenia among Members on this i ssue.  Akiro Kurosawa's classic film "Rashomon" 
very eloquently portrayed the problem of differe nt perceptions of reality.  But Rashomon was a 
sombre and tragic film.  Members could not allow th e Doha Round to go that way.  In the absence of 
a clear, fact-based discussion on this issue, the de bate on ambition in the D oha Round had veered off 
on a tangent, with various vocal constituencies ar ticulating their largely negative views based on a 
narrow understanding of the results Members were lik ely to achieve.  There also seemed to be a 
strange cohabitation between such constituencies a nd some think tanks, each feeding the other's 
apprehensions. 
                                                     
 
3 The statement is included in th e Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 5 
 
 
  9. It was therefore essential that Members had an  informed fact-based dialogue in the WTO 
about what ambition meant in the context of the Doha  Round.  The essential test for an outcome of the 
Round was whether it had contributed significantly to liberalization in the global trading system.  In this context, it was clearly simplistic to view market access as a function of tariff levels alone.  Such a view was uni-dimensional and ignored the complexity  of business in the real world.  The issues of 
liberalization and market access needed to be vi ewed in a larger framework involving a number of 
elements in the negotiating agenda of the DDA, some of which were as follows.  Removal of 
distortions in Agriculture through reduction or elim ination of subsidies, both domestic and export, as 
well as through simplification of tariff structures, would have a significant impact on market access in Agriculture.  NTBs in various market access area s of Agriculture and NAMA were arguably a bigger 
impediment in world trade at present than tariffs.  A strong outcome in this area could substantially 
improve the conditions of market access.  Howe ver, Members continued to avoid a discussion on 
horizontal elements of NTBs aimed at building upon TBT-SPS disciplines across the board, and were 
instead focusing on a limited number of sectoral NTB issues.  A discussion on NTBs without a discussion on strengthening international standard  setting was like a performance of Hamlet without 
the Prince of Denmark, yet this issue continued to be given short shrift. 
10. The single most important area for improving market access conditions was Trade 
Facilitation.   Various studies had established that this w as the area that would provide the maximum 
gains from the Round.  It was unfortunate to see that  Members were steadily inundating the text with 
more and more square brac kets designed to further reduce the alre ady modest ambition that remained.  
Members needed to preserve and enhance the amb ition in the Trade Facilitation negotiations and 
work on a methodology to quantify the outcome in terms of market access gains.  The issue of 
predictability was a major element of market access .  The substantial reduction of water in tariffs, 
especially in developing countries, would be a majo r outcome of the Round.  This needed to be 
acknowledged as an important outcome in a quantit atively robust manner.  The improvement and 
tightening of disciplines was yet another important contributor to trade liberalization and market 
access.  A substantial outcome in areas like domestic  regulations in Services, Anti-Dumping, RTAs, 
etc. could bring about a sea change in market-acc ess conditions.  All these i ssues were amenable to 
quantification in a properly designed analytical framework.  Such a frame work would enable an 
informed and fact-based discussion on what Member s could expect from the Doha Round.  He would 
not go into a debate on how Members might take up su ch an exercise, but would only urge them to 
reflect on this.  Now that there was a broad agre ement among Members to engage in brainstorming 
mode, it was important that these considerations we re kept firmly in mind while they looked for 
solutions in various formats. 
11. The representative of Zambia
, on behalf of the LDC Group , asked that his delegation's 
statement on behalf of the Group at the informal meeting of the TNC on 27 July 2010 be included in 
the record of the present meeting.4 
12. The representative of Gabon , on behalf of the African Group , noted that, although some of the 
Group's concerns were taken into account in the re port presented by the Director-General, the African 
Group remained concerned about the conduct of the process and the applicable operating procedure.  
The March roadmap had provided options based on a "c ocktail" approach characterized by multi-track 
consultations in small groups.  This approach, as long as it was used, should strictly adhere to the 
hallowed principles of transparency and inclusiven ess, and, most importantly, it should lead to a 
multilateral process.  To that end, it was essential that  all the parties be involved on an equal footing, 
including the African Group.  Therefore, the Group  called for observance of these principles, which 
underpinned the credibility of the organization, and wi shed to stress that development had to remain 
at the heart of the process.  On the substance, the Group welcomed the resumption of the discussions 
in the various committees and the untiring efforts of the Chairs of those committees to harmonize the 
                                                      
4 The statement is included in th e Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/127 
Page 6  
 
opposing positions of Members.  He stressed th at, while the Group continued to believe in a 
successful conclusion to the Round, it nevertheless remained concerned at the continuing lack of 
commitment of certain Members on subjects of vital in terest to its countries.  The stocktaking exercise 
had enabled Members to review all the outstanding qu estions and had given the Chairs of the different 
negotiating committees an opportunity to submit stat us reports under their own responsibility in their 
respective areas of competence.  On that occasion, the African Group had reiterated its commitment to 
a successful outcome of the Doha Development R ound within a reasonable time frame, taking into 
account its concerns.   
13. He stressed that the African Group would persis t in highlighting the capital importance of the 
agriculture negotiations.  In the Group's view, the outcome of the Doha Round could only be 
determined by the success of the agriculture negotia tions.  These negotiations ha d to continue to be 
based on the draft modalities text of 6 December 2008 (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4).  Notwithstanding the technical work of recent months, the African Group had received no clear replies to its concerns on the substance.  For example, there had been no significant progress on the Cotton issue, even though 
all the Members affirmed that they remained committ ed, in principle, to an  expeditious, specific and 
ambitious solution in accordance with the Hong Kong mandate.  However, the 36 African cotton-
producing countries were still awaiting a reaction to the C-4 proposal of June 2006.  The resolution of 
this issue was a genuine test for the multilatera l trading system.  With regard to the NAMA 
negotiations, he recalled that, during the NAMA we ek from 12 to 15 July 2010, the Group had made 
its concerns known in a questionnaire on the topics of discussion.  The Group remained committed to 
a constructive dialogue enabling Members to reach  a consensus on this area of the negotiations. 
14. Additionally, the cross-cutting issue of Special  and Differential treatment was, in the Group's 
view, of vital importance in a Round which was devoted primarily to development.  The Group 
remained concerned at the desire of certain Member s to link the substance of the negotiations to the 
question of access to developing-country markets.  He stressed that delegations had to focus 
exclusively on adhering to the Doha mandate.  As the Organization approached the Third Global 
Review of Aid for Trade, the African Group wished to emphasize the vital need for inclusiveness and 
transparency in this exercise.  To that end, it called for broad consultations  in order to give the 
exercise a viable and universally acceptable found ation.  Furthermore, the Group encouraged the 
Chair of the TNC to continue his political cons ultations with a view to achieving a successful 
outcome to the DDA and hoped that the autumn se ssions in the various areas of negotiation would 
bring movement in the positions adopted, without changing the framework defined in Hong Kong.  
The Group remained committed to the process and was pr epared to play its part in the negotiations. 
15. The representative of Morocco
, on behalf of the Arab Group , said that since the stocktaking 
exercise of March 2010, many countries were wonde ring about the chances of concluding the Doha 
Round.  Their concern was legitimate in light of  the slowness of discussions and the lack of 
commitment on the part of Members, particularly th e major trading powers.  The "cocktail" approach 
advocated by the Director-General had prompted considerable interest, but its success depended on 
synergies between the various ingredients and on obs ervance of the principles of multilateralism and 
full inclusiveness.  The mix had been sufficiently sh aken vertically and now needed to be shaken 
horizontally if results were to be obtained in the autumn.  The Arab Group had taken note of the signs 
of a new dynamic referred to by the Chairman of the TNC in the report he had submitted on 27 July.  
However, it was known by all that the level of ambiti on fell short of what could logically be expected 
nine years after the launching of the Doha Roun d.  Furthermore, the level of involvement and 
participation varied from one country to another and one group to another, much to the regret of the 
Arab Group.  Besides, the main tasks still lay ahead  in terms both of political will and of careful and 
thorough technical work.  For these reasons and as a matter of urgency, fair and appropriate 
compromises had to be found in order to overcome differences in the are as of Agriculture, NAMA, 
Services and TRIPS.  Achievements to date we re being undermined by the global economic and 
financial crisis, whose effects were harmful for the economies of developing countries and 
particularly LDCs.  The devel opment dimension had to remain the pivot of the Doha Round  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 7 
 
 
  negotiations and a specific response needed to be found for the development imperative.  In this 
context, it was most advisable to strengthen Aid fo r Trade and make it widely available.  The Arab 
Group was still concerned about the difficult issue of Cotton, the complexity and persistence of which 
continued to affect the African producer countries adversely, whether at the economic, financial or 
social level.  Furthermore, the Arab Group wished to  draw attention to the principle that every country 
had the right to accede to the WTO, without the matt er being politicized.  The applications by Arab 
countries that were still outstanding were a source of concern for the Group.  In concluding, he 
stressed that the Doha Round would see a succes sful outcome only if Members showed greater 
commitment and political will, with substantial c oncessions on all sides and thorough, responsible and 
tireless technical work in which the Group would participate. 
16. The representative of the European Union  said his delegation also felt that since the Toronto 
G20 Summit, one was beginning to see some signs of in creased traction in the Geneva process.  This 
was welcome, because even if political guidance from Leaders' level could be helpful, it was 
becoming increasingly obvious that Geneva was where most of the substantive and hard part of the 
work in the Round had to be done.  Members now needed to capitalize on the emerging momentum 
and prepare in the coming few months the necessary s ubstantive and technical elements, and texts, for 
their political masters to hammer out a final deal.  The priority was to engage seriously in all areas of 
the negotiations, not least in areas outside the core modalities, and to ensure that those areas reached a 
greater level of maturity so that political choices c ould be made when the moment was ripe.  India had 
rightly observed that the added quantum of the R ound, the further ambition, would lie in areas like 
NTBs and Trade Facilitation, in Anti-Dumping an d TRIPS, and in more predictability through 
bindings, as much as in Services or NAMA sectorals.   There was a mass of unfinished business which 
needed urgent attention, both through the Nego tiating Groups and other configurations.  If Members 
were able to engage seriously in the autumn and br ing all issues to a high level of technical maturity, 
they would then be better placed to appreciate the global balance of the Round, to get into the "what 
if" mode that they had to get into at some point , and to make the necessary trade-offs on a broad, 
horizontal basis, when the time came.  A lot of work was therefore ahead, and Members needed to 
engage in it without delay.  Many saw the G20 Summit in Seoul as conceivably triggering a process 
that would allow the Round to be concluded in 2 011.  That would be welcome – the EU wanted the 
outcome of Seoul to be clear, ambitious and ope rational – but it would not materialise itself.  
Delegations in Geneva would have to work hard to tu rn the opportunity into a reality.  For its part, the 
EU remained absolutely committed to the Round,  and committed equally to  working with other 
Members to rapidly identify a balanced and amb itious Doha package acceptable to all.  It was 
genuinely confident that all Members would be pr epared to engage cons tructively and to commit 
themselves to reaching results. 
17. The representative of Brazil  said his delegation fully supported and agreed with the statement 
by India, and asked that his delegation's statemen t at the informal meeting of the TNC on 27 July 
2010 be included in the record of the present meeting.5 
18. The representative of Burkina Faso , on behalf of the C-4 , asked that his delegation's statement 
on behalf of these countries at the informal meeti ng of the TNC on 27 July 2010 be included in the 
record of the present meeting6, and associated his delegation with  the statement by Gabon for the 
African Group. 
19. The representative of the Dominican Republic , on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries , said the IGDC fully acknowledged the complexities of issues being addressed 
in the Doha Round.  However, it had important concerns at the present time over the slow pace of the negotiations and the paucity of po litical engagement.  The political messages and aims delivered by 
                                                     
 
5 The statement is included in th e Annex to the present records. 
6 The statement is included in th e Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/127 
Page 8  
 
Ministers and Heads of State at different meetings  should be translated into a way forward in the 
negotiations.  Members should not forget that the Doha Round was a Development Round, and 
development issues had to remain at the centre of all the negotiations, as had been clearly stated both 
in the Doha Declaration of 2001 and in Hong Kong in 2005.  It had to be reiterated once again that the 
majority of Members were developing countries.  In  Doha all had agreed and decided that the needs 
and the interests of developing countries would be at the heart of the Round.  All had agreed also that 
positive efforts should be designed "to ensure that  developing countries, and especially the least-
developed among them, secure a share in the growth  of world trade commensur ate with the needs of 
their economic development".  Members should not lose sight of the concept under which these 
negotiations had been launched, which was that of  a development-oriented Round.  It was necessary 
that inequities that kept developing countries at a disadvantage were fully recognized and addressed.  
The developmental benefits so far on the table in the negotiations were extremely modest and needed 
to be improved.  Furthermore, in the aftermath of the global economic crisis, it was imperative to 
make progress in order to conclude  the negotiations – and not just to conclude them on the basis of 
"splitting the differences", but by achieving a balan ced outcome, taking into account the Special & 
Differential Treatment provisions in favour of developing countries, as mandated in Doha.  
Consequently, the IGDC wished to emphasize agai n the importance of respecting the Doha mandates 
that had been reiterated in pa ragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Declaration and underscored at the 
Seventh Ministerial Conference, as well as preserving the progress achieved so far.  The developing countries were committed to a successful conclusion of the DDA and a positive achievement of its 
development goals through a fair and balanced ag reement.  The IGDC therefore urged Members to 
keep the focus on development, so  that all Members stood to benefit from a successful conclusion of 
the Round. 
20. The representative of Cuba
 said that for her country, the importance of this Round was based 
on the development requests which we re still pending in the different  areas of the negotiations.  Any 
initiative aimed at raising the level of ambition woul d not be acceptable if it did not put the necessary 
focus on development.  The developed countries s hould allow greater access to their markets for 
products from developing countries and should reduce non- tariff barriers to trade, in order to change 
trade patterns that disadvantaged developing countries.   The financial crisis, generated by developed 
countries, in addition to food prices, continued to affect developing countries.  Food prices had 
increased, and this had had a negative effect on developing countries and LDCs, as well as on 
NFIDCs, as these had had to increase their expenditure on basic food items.  According to the latest 
FAO report, the volume of food aid was at the lowest  level of the last few years, whereas the number 
of countries in need of aid had increased, due to the crisis of food prices.  It was difficult to do a 
simulation exercise of the positive effects of th e conclusion of the Round when there was still no 
complete data nor final agreement about the reduc tion of subsidies, about sensitive products, as well 
as agricultural products of interest to developing co untries.  Cuba continued to stand ready to work 
towards the conclusion of the Round.  However, it needed to preserve the national security interests 
which, under certain provisions contained in the cu rrent modalities text, would not be guaranteed – for 
example, credit provided for the purchase of food items.  In June 2010, Cuba had submitted, in TN/AG/GEN/31, a proposed amendment to the la nguage of Paragraph 5.  This provided new 
language for S&D treatment provided to LDCs  and NFIDCs which were facing exceptional 
difficulties preventing them from producing basic food ite ms.  Credits were barely given to small and 
medium-sized enterprises in developing countries.   The current modalities text on Agriculture was 
still insufficient, and this was why Cuba had asked for the right to an unlimited time-frame for the 
obtaining of credit for obtaining food items. 
21. Other aspects of the negotiations to which C uba attached importance were the reduction or 
elimination of NTBs.  With regard to the NAMA ne gotiations, her delegation had tabled a proposal in 
order to eliminate non-tariff measures that were unila teral in nature and prohibited trade.  Members 
would not obtain a balanced outcome without the dismantling of those measures which were 
inconsistent with the principles of this organization.   With regard to the pr ocess, in the new phase that 
the Director-General had presented,  all issues should be dealt with , negotiated, and decided, in  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 9 
 
 
  keeping with the current mandate, and with the prin ciples of the Single Undertaking and of less-than-
full reciprocity in NAMA, as well as the central role of Agriculture and development.  If this was not 
resolved, there could not be a successful conclusion to the Round.  Negotiations could not advance if 
there were no guarantees by richer countries to make effective the reduction to subsidies that distorted 
trade.  Developed countries should show real comm itment to reducing and eliminating the persistent 
imbalances in the multilateral trading system.  Sh e wished to reiterate that nothing justified 
developing countries making major concessions in favour  of a balanced outcome without their needs 
and development objectives being taken into consideration. 
22. The representative of Ecuador  wished to endorse the statement made by Chinese Taipei on 
behalf of the Group of Recently Acceded Members at  the meeting of the TNC of 27 July, as well as 
the statement by the Dominican Republic on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries.  
As for the way to proceed was concerned, his de legation had no objection to seeking all types of 
formats or approximations in order to move the c onsultations forward and build bridges, so that 
solutions could be sought to persistent deadlocks.  Nevertheless, small group formats ran the risk of 
overlooking the specific interests of certain Member s.  This could occur in the discussions on 
Fisheries Subsidies, a negotiating area of partic ular importance to Ecuador and one where it had 
demonstrated that its positions were balanced and consistent with its domestic policy.  He again 
wished to confirm his delegation's readiness to c ontribute to consensus-building on this issue and 
accordingly hoped to be invited to any meeting organized on this topic.   Furthermore, and in order to 
safeguard the principles of inclusion, transparency  and legitimacy, it was of the utmost importance 
that the outcome of any discussions in such small groups, whatever the topic, be multilateralized in a 
timely and appropriate manner.  He stressed th at Agriculture was pivotal and would influence 
ambition in all the other areas under negotiation.   The negotiations on Agriculture had to be 
intensified and not confin ed to discussion of templates or data which, while important and necessary, 
was ultimately out of step with reality, namely the lack of definitions in modalities.  Regarding 
NAMA, his delegation wished to highlight the efforts undertaken by the Chair to make headway on 
technical issues, where a proper balance was needed  in the interests of the developing countries. 
23. He recalled that Ecuador ha d concluded a long process in the Committee on Balance-of-
Payment Restrictions in which it had set precedents  as regards transparency, coherence and effective 
assertion of a right to which it was entitled under th e WTO Agreements.  The difficulties Ecuador was 
facing because of the global financial crisis – particularly as a "dollarized" economy with no 
sovereign monetary and exchange  policy – were compounded by the fact that the commitments 
required when acceding to the WTO had meant that Ecuador had had, inter alia , to maintain a low 
level of bindings, not to apply subsidies and undertak e broad liberalization in services.  In addition, 
Ecuador was not a user of trade defence measures.   Consequently, while reiterating that Ecuador 
would undertake no further commitments in Services  and would safeguard the regulatory capacity that 
Members, particularly developing Members, need ed, his delegation hoped that at the end of the 
negotiations the playing field would be levelled an d that those for whom the task had been pending 
since the end of the Uruguay Round would now accom plish it.  Ecuador had done its work in 1996 
and after nearly 15 years was still waiting for others  to do likewise.  His delegation was still counting 
on ambitious outcomes to the Round in line with th e commitment to development and to the challenge 
of narrowing the gap between developi ng and developed countries.  With that goal in view, in the area 
of TRIPS, disclosure of the source and country of or igin of biological/genetic material used in an 
invention, proof of prior informed consent and equita ble distribution of benefits  were issues that could 
not be left aside in any ambitious outcome to the Round. 
24. The representative of Argentina  said that the exercise undertaken in different thematic groups 
under a variety of formats had to strike a balance be tween the offensive and defensive interests of all 
Members and that, above all, it had to be seen and understood as a complementary exercise designed 
to support the work being done by the Chairs in the Negotiating Groups.  The actual solutions had to 
continue to be sought by the Groups on the basi s of multilateral negotiatio ns.  Negotiations should WT/GC/M/127 
Page 10  
 
resume after the summer break with a view to na rrowing the gaps so that Members could advance 
towards the conclusion of the Development Round.  That was the focus of the mandate and therefore 
work should be guided by developmen t rather than by purely commercial considerations.  He also 
stressed that any increase in the overall level of ambition could not be defined unilaterally.  
Agriculture had been, and continued to be, the dr iving force behind the Round, and determined the 
level of ambition in other areas - not the reverse.  One had also to start seriously considering the 
possibility of agreeing on an early harvest for the least-developed countries including, inter alia , 
quota-free and duty-free access, the Services waiver, and Cotton.  He hoped that in September 
delegations would pursue their efforts to improve th e understanding of their differences that continue 
to separate them in their effort to conclude the Doha Round. 
25. The representative of South Africa
 said his delegation agreed with the Director-General's 
assessment that some signs of hope had begun to emer ge in the past few months that the Doha Round 
was being rejuvenated  A small- group process had emerged to stimulate the negotiations in a few 
areas and to help spark the necessary dynamism in th e negotiations.  South Africa also agreed with the 
Director-General that it was too early to tell if th is process would indeed lead to the political dynamic 
that would change mindsets and build convergence s on key outstanding issues in the negotiations.  
However, there were signs of hope.  Heads of Delega tion in Geneva, disappointed by the failure of the 
efforts made by Ministers and Leaders to give r eal momentum to the Round, had taken ownership of 
the process, and South Africa saluted them for their initiative.  In particular, he wished to recognize 
the efforts of the new USTR in Geneva, who ha d hit the ground running.  His affable manner, 
commitment, and tenacity in a very difficult period in the Round was indeed a valuable asset that had 
provided Members with hope for the future of th e Round.  He also wished to recognize the positive 
and constructive role of the EU a nd India, which had taken the initiative to host meetings of Members 
to stimulate the negotiating process.  There were  also hopeful signs that the business community 
might be taking renewed interest in the Round. 
26. The previous week he had met the US Ch amber of Business in Geneva.  These 
representatives of US business believed that more am bition – or more precisely, more market access – 
was required from the major emerging markets to enable them to support the Round.  In a frank 
discussion with them, he had pointed out that the US  still remained the largest economy in the world, 
and that their companies remained the major be neficiaries of the rule -based multilateral trading 
system.  While the major emerging markets had been  growing, their economies still included a large 
percentage of the world's poor.  In this context, South Africa too had begun to recover from the worst 
recession since the 1930s, assisted by the fillip provi ded by the World Cup.  However, structural 
unemployment of over 25 per cent persisted, and poverty and inequality remained profound 
challenges.  As South Africa continued with its efforts to rebuild its economy – based on major 
infrastructure programmes, industrial regeneration a nd domestic consumption – it would be sucking in 
imports of capital equipment and technologies from the major developed countries.  Thus, he had 
argued that insisting on more market access at a time when economies around the world were all 
fragile and recovering was s hort-sighted.  Furthermore, he had argue d that rejecting the results of the 
eight years of hard work that was reflected in the current texts was a bad precedent for the United 
States to set in the WTO or any other multilateral system.  While all had to acknowledge the changes 
that had taken place in the world since the Doha Round had been launched, all had to respect the 
Doha mandate that recognized the existence of an imbalanced multilateral trading system – the 
playing field remained tilted against the exports of developing countries, especially in Agriculture.  
Members had agreed to fix this in this Round, as mandated in the Doha Development Agenda, and 
they had to honour that mandate.  Thus, South Afri ca remained hopeful that th e efforts currently being 
made would begin to stimulate the necessary politi cal will to change mindsets in major capitals.  
Change was what was required from a system that re mained biased against the interests of developing 
countries.  The plight of the Cotton-4 was a stark reminder of this inequity .  Change was required 
from a system that for over 50 years had focused on the interests of the strong and had marginalized 
the interests of the weak.  It was for this reason th at South Africa fully supported the call of the LDCs  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 11 
 
 
  and other weak and vulnerable countries to address their concerns as a matter of priority and to 
harvest results as soon as possible. 
27. The representative of Norway  asked that her delegation's statement at the informal meeting of 
the TNC on 27 July 2010 be included in the record of the present meeting.7  Norway agreed with 
India that ambition always meant different things to different people, but her delegation did not see 
this as an indication of schizophrenia among Member s.  This was exactly what multilateral trade 
negotiations were all about – defi ning a final package where the fine balance between Members' 
combined ambitions lay.  Therefore, she was not convinced that the Kurosawa movie was the correct 
reference point, but would rather be tempted to compare Members' situation to a Japanese novel in 
which the lead character's life b ecame unbearably difficult.  When he discovered a hole in the ground 
close to his home, he climbed in, stayed there, created his own dream world and refuses to surface and 
went on with his life for a very long time.  However,  he finally did climb out, and so should Members, 
to face the situation of different interests and differe nt ambitions.  India had just given an indication of 
the ambition seen from India's perspective.  Obviously, it would look different to Norway, with an emphasis on sensitivities in Agriculture, the importa nce of access to the markets of the fastest-
growing economies, updating rules, in particular on Anti-Dumping, safeguarding meaningful and real 
participation for LDCs and the interests of less fo rtunate developing countries, and so on.  India's 
initiative would be a good starting-point at the present juncture.  If Members could sit down after the 
summer break and start signaling where their real inter ests were, they could actually take a step out of 
the hole and start working through the "what ifs" towards the end game. 
28. The representative of Pakistan
 asked that his delegation's statement at the informal meeting of 
the TNC on 27 July 2010 be included in the record of the present meeting.8 
29. The representative of Switzerland  believed that delegations ha d an unprecedented opportunity 
to show the world that the WTO was capable of ca rrying on its work with the success for which it was 
renowned in the area of tariffs, by taking up more  recent challenges in trade policy, where, as India 
had pointed out, non-tariff issues were taking the lead over the lowering of customs duties.  The 
elimination of tariffs still played a role in some sectors, for example Textiles and Agriculture, but the 
real challenge in these negotiations were topics su ch as Trade Facilitation or Non-Tariff Barriers.  If 
these were addressed with intelligence and insight, they could really bring benefits to all economic 
players, in developing and developed countries alik e.  Another turning point was open to the WTO 
and Members would perhaps realize that, by accepting the idea of making a concession, as well as an important tool to ease adjustment of the various stru ctures, they would have acquired a source of fresh 
dynamism provided these adjustments were given time.  All were directly or indirectly seeking better 
governance that was conducive to the development of surveillance, peer pressure and factual dialogue 
among Members.  These were the ingredients that woul d allow levels of ambition to be moved closer 
and this opportunity should not be missed. 
30. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said his delegation supported the 
statement by the Dominican Republic for the In formal Group of Developing Countries and by 
Indonesia for the G-33 at the informal meeting of the TNC on 27 July.  His delegation had always been in favour of a successful conclusion to the Round, one that would spur development and focus 
on content and facts.  These were difficult days for a ll – more for some than others – but this should 
not lead Members to reach an agreement that woul d perpetuate the errors of the past.  The Doha 
Round had been started on the basis of favouring devel opment, and Members had to stick to that.  As 
the Dominican Republic had said on behalf of the IGDC, Members should not forget that the raison 
d'être of this organization required it to have a development-oriented Round and to make that a 
reality.  Today, more than ever, that was imperativ e.  It was not a question of concluding the Round 
                                                     
 
7 The statement is included in th e Annex to the present records. 
8 The statement is included in th e Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/127 
Page 12  
 
simply because Members were lagging behind in time , but rather to have an agreement that was 
balanced and which embodied real provisions on S&D treatment in favour of developing countries, 
and especially LDCs.  An early harvest could be ve ry valuable in addressing the needs of the LDCs.  
Like others, his country wished to suggest that these  matters be dealt with in the urgent fashion they 
required.  His delegation wished to thank the IGDC for the very constructive way in which it had been 
carrying out its work.  The statement the Dominican  Republic had just made on behalf of the IGDC 
bore witness to that effort, and Bolivia wished to en courage other Members to maintain a similar spirit 
in these negotiations. 
31. The General Council took note
 of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
32. The Chairman  said that in line with the framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda, and the Committee on Trade and De velopment reported regularly to the Council on 
the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this subject.  He invited Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia), 
Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD, to  report on the progress of work in this area. 
33. Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD , said the 
proponents of SVEs had already invested significan t work in the course of the Dedicated Session on 
Small Economies and the DDA, and were continuing th eir internal group discussions and engagement 
with other Members.  He, in turn, had recently me t again with the SVE coordinator, and was fully 
aware of the concerns of the proponents in the various Negotiating Groups and in the WTO 
Committees.  While the proponents continued to partic ipate in the negotiations and to monitor issues 
of their concern, particularly in regard to Agri culture, NAMA, Services, Aid for Trade and Fisheries 
Subsidies, he understood that they were also con tinuing their internal reflections regarding future 
work in these areas and other relevant bodies w ithin the wider WTO agenda, including the Dedicated 
Session on Small Economies.  It was expected that new submissions would be made in various bodies 
at the appropriate time.  He would keep Members in formed of any developments as they arose in the 
course of future work related to SVEs. 
34. The representative of El Salvador , on behalf of the SVEs , thanked the Chair of the Dedicated 
Session for his report.  It had been some time sin ce the Dedicated Session had met, but the SVEs had 
actively continued to use CTD sessions to voice their views on matters concerning them, including 
Aid for Trade and S&D treatment for developing countries.  He assured Members that the Dedicated 
Session and the Work Programme on Small Economies re mained an integral channel to facilitate the 
SVEs' interests in the fulfilment of the mandate in Paragraph 35 of the Doha Declaration regarding the 
fuller integration of SVEs into the multilateral trad ing system.  As reflected the Chair's report, the 
SVEs continued to be actively engaged with Memb ers and to pursue their trade-related interests 
across various negotiating fronts.  In addition, they  were undertaking an internal reflection process on 
further work to advance within  the DDA as well as other bodies, in cluding the CTD in Dedicated 
Session.  A particular challenge in considering future  work lay in determining how best to realise the 
objectives of the Small Economies Work Programme with in the context of the changed global reality 
the SVEs were confronting.  Achieving a rapid co nclusion to the Doha Round with development as 
the centrepiece became all the more compelling and urgent in this new environment.  The SVEs looked forward to sharing a number of concerns a nd ideas with Members in relevant bodies, as well 
as in the Dedicated Session after the summer break. 
35. The General Council took note
 of the report of the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statement.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 13 
 
 
  3. Transparency for Preferential Trade Arrangem ents – Report by the Chairman of the 
Committee on Trade and Development 
36. The Chairman  recalled that in December 2006, the Council had adopted a Decision with 
regard to Transparency for Preferential Trad e Arrangements, under which the Committee on Trade 
and Development had been asked to consider transparency for preferential arrangements under 
paragraph 2 of the Enabling Clause – other than RT As – and to report back within six months for 
appropriate action by the General Council.  The De cision had been adopted without prejudice to the 
results of the deliberations of the CTD.  Subseque ntly, on the basis of reports from the Chairman of 
the CTD, the General Council had agreed to exte nd by successive six-month periods the deadline for 
the CTD to consider this matter and to report back fo r appropriate action.  The latest extension, agreed 
by the Council in December 2009, ran until July  2010.  He invited Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia), 
Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development,  to report on the Committee's consideration of 
this matter since that Chair's last report in December 2009. 
37. Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia), Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development , recalled 
that his predecessor as CTD Chair, in his last re port to the General Council in December 2009, had 
mentioned that, in light of the discussions an d comments made in the small-group informal 
consultations he had been conveni ng, the proponents of the PTA tr ansparency mechanism – Brazil, 
China, India and the US – had circulated a re vision to their draft proposal in November 2009 
(JOB(08)/103/Rev.1).  This had served as the basi s for further small-group informal consultations 
convened in 2010 by both his predecessor and, subse quently, himself.  He was pleased to report that 
significant progress had been made in the small group's discussions on the establishment of a 
transparency mechanism for PTAs.  In June, the proponents had been able to circulate a further 
revision to their draft proposal.  After the circula tion of this second revision (JOB(08)/103/Rev.2), he 
had continued to hold a number of consultations  in the small-group format in order to allow 
delegations the opportunity to iron out as many ou tstanding issues as possible.  Intensive work had 
been undertaken to further refine the June text. 
38. After the informal consultation he  had convened earlier that week, he could say that the small 
group now had a text that was well stabilized.  Wh ile there remained a small number of issues on 
which further discussion was required in order to reac h consensus, his sense was that the current text 
– which was the outcome of a long process of negotia tions – was very close to being in a form the 
CTD could agree to.  To this end, his intention was to convene an open-ended informal CTD meeting 
shortly after the summer break, so as to allow the full membership the opportunity to consider the 
proponents' draft proposal.  He wished to convey his optimism that the CTD would soon be able to 
transmit to the General Council a proposed text for the establishment of a transparency mechanism for 
PTAs.  In fact, if the discussion in the open-ended CTD meeting so permitted, there was a real possibility that this could be done  well before the end of the year , perhaps even in time for the 
General Council's meeting in October.  Of course, in  order for him to be able to continue his work 
with Members on this issue, he would need to request, on behalf the CTD, more time from the 
General Council.  Specifically, he wished to ask  the General Council allow the CTD until December 
2010 to consider the matter and report back for appropriate action.  Th is would likely allow more than 
sufficient time for the CTD to transmit a proposed text to the General Council. 
39. The representative of India
 said that as one of the proponents of the PTA transparency 
mechanism, his delegation wished to thank the CT D Chair for his tireless efforts both in the CTD and 
in small-group meetings, and also wished to tha nk the Members engaged in the small-group process 
for their active participation.  He recalled that in December 2006, the General Council had adopted 
two decisions.  One was to implement, on a provi sional basis, the RTA Transparency Mechanism 
(WT/L/671).  The other was to invite the CTD to c onsider transparency for PTAs (WT/L/672).  At the 
May 2010 General Council meeting, while discussi ng the RTA Transparency Mechanism, there had 
been very broad support for the view that the Mechanism had worked well and that a process to WT/GC/M/127 
Page 14  
 
review the Mechanism, with a view to making it pe rmanent, should be started expeditiously.  India 
looked forward to the newly-appointed Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules starting the process 
for such a review soon.  However, he wished to point out that the RTA Transparency Mechanism did 
not cover in its scope PTAs under pa ragraph 2 of the Enabling Clause, as well as other non-reciprocal 
arrangements authorized under WTO Agreements or  Ministerial Decisions.  The PTA transparency 
mechanism currently being negotiated in the CT D was directed essentially towards enhancing 
transparency on this sub-set of trade arrangements.  It was India's understanding that the negotiations 
had progressed well, with active and constructive participation of Members, and were nearing 
conclusion.  At the present stage, India urged Members to walk the last mile and to conclude this matter as soon as possible.  While it supported the six-month extension recommended by the CTD 
Chair, it also hoped that this would be the last extension required. 
40. The representative of Brazil
 thanked the CTD Chair for his report on the state of play in the 
negotiations on the establishment of a transparen cy mechanism for PTAs and fully supported his 
request for another six month-extension of th e CTD's negotiating mandate, which should easily 
suffice to bring the negotiations to a successful conc lusion.  As all were aware, the purpose of the 
proposed mechanism was to enhance Members' unde rstanding and to increase transparency on the 
many existing PTAs by setting out procedural require ments.  By doing so, balance would be achieved 
between the institutional transparency obligatio ns set forth for RTAs – whose transparency 
mechanism had been fully operational for several year s – and those required for PTAs.  He noted that 
substantive differences between RTAs and PTAs nec essarily led to different notification and reporting 
obligations.  These differences were:  their nature – r eciprocal vs unilateral;  their legal basis – Article 
24 of GATT and 2(c) of the Enabling Clause versus 2(a), (b) and (d) of the Enabling Clause and other 
provisions;  and their operation – predictable results with clear a schedule versus unforeseen changes.  
Even though several difficulties had kept Members from reaching a final outcome within the earlier deadlines, Members had finally arrived at the final stages of the technical negotiations.  The revised 
draft which had emerged from the 26 July inform al consultation reflected most of the specific 
suggestions received from Members in small-group mee tings.  Except for three points in brackets, the 
language in the draft had been stabilized, and Br azil strongly encouraged Members not to re-open 
discussions on the non-bracketed areas.  Once Memb ers bridged the few remaining gaps, the text 
would be ready to be discussed in an open-ended format and subsequently taken up for approval by 
the General Council. 
41. The representative of China
 associated his delegation with the statements by India and Brazil 
and joined them in thanking the CTD Chair for his tireless work on this matter.  It was encouraging 
that Members had significantly narrowed the gaps through intensive small-gr oup meetings during the 
past few months, and that only three issues needed further discussion.  China was confident that by 
keeping this momentum, there was a good prospect of reaching an agreement.  Having said that, his delegation wished to welcome and support the CTD Ch air's request for an extension of time.  China, 
as one of the proponents, would con tinue to engage constructively in the future process with a view to 
achieving the long-awaited outcome, hopefully by the end of 2010 or even earlier. 
42. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the CTD Chair for his report which summarized the 
state of the discussions held on a provisional transp arency mechanism for PTAs.  His delegation also 
acknowledged the hard work done by the proponent s, by the preference-granting Members and by 
other Members, that had led to significant progress on this proposal.  Nevertheless, Ecuador 
considered that the satisfactory conclusion of th ese discussions implied that the mechanism should be 
confined to dealing only with commercial issues, excluding anything that did not come within the 
purview of this organization.  Moreover, it wished to emphasize that this mechanism should not have 
any connection with the Provisional Transparency  Mechanism for RTAs, which had been agreed 
under the Doha and Hong Kong mandates.  Ecuador  reiterated its interest in remaining actively 
involved in the efforts to conclude this work, a nd therefore supported the request for a six-month 
extension of the negotiations on this topic.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 15 
 
 
  43. The representative of the Dominican Republic  associated his delegation with the statements 
by India, Brazil, China and Ecuador.  The Dominica n Republic agreed to the extension requested by 
the CTD Chair and hoped this would be the last such extension. 
44. The representative of the United States  said his country had a longstanding commitment to 
transparency and shared the other proponents' inte rest in promoting the greater understanding of these 
programmes that would be enabled by more open access to information.  His delegation was pleased 
with the recent intensity of the work by Members to narrow the remaining issues in the text, and the 
efforts of the Chair to lead Members in these discuss ions.  The US valued the opportunity to continue 
to collaborate closely with Members in this effort , as well as the constructive feedback received in the 
informal consultations that had taken place in 2010.  With a bit of work and collaboration, Members 
would be able to agree on a standard set of information, and the US looked forward to continuing to 
work with others in this effort. 
45. The representative of Mexico  recalled that his delegation had always attached the greatest 
importance to strengthening the transparency mech anisms in the Organization, and it had accordingly 
supported, and would continue to support, initiatives aimed at enha ncing transparency disciplines, 
including notifications, and extending them to areas not yet covered by existing disciplines.  Mexico 
therefore supported the initiative by Brazil, China, India and the United States, as contained in draft 
proposal JOB(08)/103/Rev.2, which continued to be th e subject of consultations directed by the CTD 
Chair.  Similarly, Mexico supported the request ma de to the General Council by the CTD Chair for a 
further six-month extension and wished to thank hi m for his report and for his strenuous efforts to 
reduce the remaining gaps in that document.  He wished nonetheless to associate his delegation with 
those who had stated that this should be the last ex tension on this matter and that an agreement had to 
be reached as soon as possible.  The delegation of Me xico would contribute to the achievement of that 
aim. 
46. The representative of El Salvador  thanked the CTD Chairman for his report on the status of 
that Committee's mandate regarding transparency  for PTAs, and for the consultations he had 
conducted so assiduously as a way to advance the discussion of the proposal co-sponsored by a 
number of Members.  He wished to confirm El Salv ador's support for the transparency that needed to 
be achieved in order to enhance Members' understa nding of PTAs.  Members, including his country, 
had been focusing on a proposed transparency mech anism that would (i) not hamper the maintenance 
or creation of new PTAs by virtue of the obligat ions incurred by preference-granting Members;  
(ii) foster discussion in the Committee, as one of the bodies considering this matter, on questions that 
came within its purview in accordance with its fi eld of activity and functions;  and (iii) include 
expanded transparency procedures for PTAs that would be efficient and practical, i.e. that would not 
entail superfluous requirements relating to notificati ons, presentations and reviews, etc.  Although his 
delegation recognized that some of its suggestions had been taken into account, for which he thanked 
the proponents and other interested Members, El Salvador hoped that forthcoming meetings would 
make it possible to reach a balanced agreement that covered its concern regarding its systemic interest 
in maintaining the CTD discussion within the mandate  provided.  That said, it supported the requested 
extension of the time-limit for concluding this process. 
47. The representative of Turkey  said it was important that Members should also strive to 
improve the functioning of the multilateral trading sy stem under the already agreed set of agreements, 
and thus adapt to the changing times.  Therefore, this transparency exercise and the reporting by the 
CTD Chair had been important.  As PTAs had beco me more and more common, their members were 
increasing almost daily and they were regarded as an alternative to the multilateral system.  Therefore, 
such arrangements had to be closely monitored. WT/GC/M/127 
Page 16  
 
48. The General Council took note
 of the report by the Chairman of the CTD and of the 
statements, and agreed  that the deadline for the CTD to consid er this matter and to report back for 
appropriate action be extended to December 2010. 
4. The financial and economic crisis and the role of the WTO – Communication from 
Argentina, Ecuador and India (WT/GC/W /617 and Add.1) – Statement by the 
Chairman 
49. The Chairman  recalled that at the Council's meeting in May, he had reported on his 
consultations on the best way forward with regard to the proposal from Argentina, Ecuador and India 
on the financial and economic crisis and the role of the WTO (WT/GC/W/617 and Add.1).  In his report, he had noted the divergent views which ha d been expressed in his consultations on the way 
forward, and had suggested that further consultations  needed to be conducted in various settings.  He 
had invited delegations to continue to discu ss among themselves in pursu it of greater clarity 
concerning possible areas of convergence.  On 27 Ju ly, the Chairs of the Trade Policy Review Body, 
the Goods Council, the Services Council and he had he ld a further consultation on this matter, at 
which Argentina, India and Ecuador had introduc ed a proposal regarding the organization of a 
symposium at the WTO in Geneva.  Prior to that consultation, the three proponents had consulted a 
number of other Members on their proposal and had re fined it in the light of the comments they had 
received.  The proposed purpose of such a symp osium would be to provide an opportunity to 
Members to be more informed about research conduc ted by other internationa l organizations on this 
issue, and also to allow Members to exchange information and discuss their experiences.  The 
proposed event was intended as a continuation of th e work done in the TPRB, and it was proposed 
that it could be held as a Special Session of the TP RB.  The event would have a broad scope, covering 
the possible trade effects of the measures taken by Members in response to the financial crisis – in 
both the goods and services areas, while avoiding any overlap with the work already conducted by the 
Committee on Trade in Financial Services.  It was also proposed that the symposium should be 
divided into two segments.  The first segment would involve presentations by experts from 
international organizations which had undertaken wo rk in this area, such as the OECD, IMF, World 
Bank and WTO, followed by a question-and-answer  session.  The second segment would be devoted 
to an exchange of information and experiences among Members, including statements from the floor, but also presentations by Members wishing to do so .  The proponents had str essed that their intention 
was for a factual discussion to take place aimed at  improving understanding, rather than a "finger-
pointing exercise".  At the consultation there had been strong support for the proposal, although some 
minor amendments had been suggested by some de legations.  The proponents had since refined their 
proposal to reflect the discussions on 27 July and su bsequently, and copies were available in the room 
at the present meeting.  From what had been sai d on 27 July, and in the contacts he had had with 
delegations since then, there now appeared to be consensus on holding the proposed symposium under 
the auspices of the TPRB in line w ith the proposal by Argentina, Ecuador and India.  He therefore 
intended to refer this matter to the Chairman of the TPRB, with the request that he take the steps 
necessary for the organization of such an event.  He  presumed that this was agreeable to delegations. 
50. The representative of the European Union
 said his delegation wished to thank the Chair for 
his consultations on this matter, and even more the three proponents for their good-faith efforts to 
work with the EU and others to find a proposal wh ich met with everyone's desires.  For the EU, it was 
important that this initiative be located in th e TPRB and that bodies like the World Bank and IMF 
could contribute, that the coverage  be broad, looking at both trad itional and non-trad itional measures, 
and that there be no overlap with the recent wo rk done in the Committee on Trade in Financial 
Services.  On all those points the EU was sa tisfied, and wished to thank the proponents. 
51. The representative of Argentina , also on behalf of Ecuador and India , said that as co-sponsors 
of the proposal, these countries wished to thank the Ch air for his efforts in the consultations he had 
held, and also to thank all the delegations who ha d taken an active part in the consultations with  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 17 
 
 
  flexibility, in order to arrive at a solution on a matter that had been before the General Council for 
more than a year. 
52. The representative of Korea  said his delegation wished to thank the proponents for their 
flexibility during the consultation process and to c ongratulate the entire membership on reaching a 
consensus after months of discussions.  Korea sincerely hoped that the symposium would provide 
Members with a valuable opportunity to review the impacts of stimulus packages on trade – both 
positive and negative – in an objective and impar tial manner.  Korea reiterated its willingness to 
cooperate with other Members for a successful outcome of the symposium. 
53. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said his delegation had all along been supportive of 
the work undertaken by the WTO in enhancing und erstanding of the trade impact of the measures 
implemented during the financial a nd economic crisis, having due rega rd to the unique circumstances 
calling for their implementation.  To this end, hi s delegation had been actively participating in the 
relevant work of the TPRB on this front.  It w as also encouraged by th e recent holding of the 
dedicated session of the Committee on Trade in Fina ncial Services, where Members had had a fruitful 
exchange on the measures taken during the crisis and their impact on financial services.   In the same 
vein, Hong Kong, China supported the holding of th e symposium as proposed by Argentina, Ecuador 
and India, which would help facilitate factua l discussion and promote further understanding of 
Members on this important subject.  Thanks to  the Chair's consultations, this proposal now 
commanded a consensus from Members.  His delega tion looked forward to participating in the 
ensuing discussion on the organisation of the symposium and in the symposium itself. 
54. The representative of Brazil  thanked the proponents for their initiative.  The proposed 
symposium would be timely and would provide Members with a proper ad hoc forum for a long-
needed debate.  The stimulus measures that had b een adopted worldwide after the onset of the global 
financial crisis were still a black, or grey, box fo r most Members.  Not only were their scope and 
precise content unclear, but Members still did not grasp  how useful or nefarious they were for the 
global economy, or from the perspective of the mu ltilateral trading system.  The participation of 
representatives or experts from other international organizations would provide a richer and more 
diversified source of perspectives, and Brazil enc ouraged their active engagement.  Brazil warmly 
welcomed and strongly supported the understanding of the proponents that the proposed symposium 
should focus on the improvement of understandi ng rather than on pointless finger-pointing. 
55. The representative of El Salvador  thanked the delegations of Ar gentina, Ecuador and India for 
the proposal to hold a symposium in order to  give WTO Members a better understanding of the 
measures adopted in the context of the global economic and financial crisis and their effects on trade.  
His delegation had been informed of the latest progress on the proposal to hold the symposium through the participation of the coordinator of GRULAC in the consultations organized by the 
Chairman of the General Council and as well as through Argentina as proponent.  El Salvador 
considered the initiative to compleme nt other work carried out in this Organization, such as the recent 
workshop on the effects of the crisis on the fina ncial services sector in the Committee on Trade in 
Services, as well as the report from the Director-Gener al on Trade-Related Developments in the Trade 
Policy Review Body.  Therefore, his delegation suppor ted this initiative;  apart from its positive focus, 
it concerned a comprehensive and factual approach  which would take account of both the measures 
adopted and their effects on trade, including trade in goods and services.  He welcomed the fact that 
any other topic for discussion should be agreed be tween the Members, and believed that this would 
help one focus on achieving a result that gave a be tter understanding of the measures and their effects 
on international trade.  He also emphasized that the proposed approach was objective in nature and 
that it avoided any finger-pointing exercise. 
56. The General Council took note
 of the statements. WT/GC/M/127 
Page 18  
 
5. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement  
(a) Argentina – Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO Schedules of tariff 
concessions – Request for extension of the waiver (G/C/W/632) 
57. The Chairman
 said the draft decision in document G/C/W/632 provided for a waiver from the 
provisions of Article II of GATT 1994 until 30 April 2011 for Argentina to enable it to implement the 
HS 1996 changes to its Schedules of concessions, subject  to certain conditions.  This matter had been 
considered by the Council for Trade in Goods at its meeting on 21 May, and he invited Mr. Maruping 
(Lesotho), Chairman of the Goods Council, to report on that Council's consideration of this matter. 
58. Mr. Maruping (Lesotho), Chairman of the Goods Council , said that at its meeting on 
21 May 2010, the CTG had approved the draft waiv er decision in document G/C/W/632.  This 
decision concerned the one-year extension of the waiver decision adopted in connection with the 
introduction of HS1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions, contained in document 
WT/L/757, which had expired on 30 April 2010.  Th e Goods Council, when approving the request for 
extension as forwarded to it by the Market Access Committee, had also agreed to forward it to the 
General Council for adoption. 
59. The Chairman  proposed that, in accordance with the Decision-Making Procedures under 
Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement ag reed in November 1995 (WT/L/93), the General 
Council adopt the draft decision in G/C/W/632. 
60. The General Council so agreed .9 
(b) Review of waivers pursuant to Ar ticle IX:4 of the WTO Agreement 
(i) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to pharmaceutical products, 
granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 (WT/L/478) 
(ii) Preferential tariff treatment for least-devel oped countries, granted on 27 May 2009 until 30 
June 2019 (WT/L/759) 
(iii) European Union – Preferences for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and 
Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, granted on 28 July 2006 until 
31 December 2011 (WT/L/654, WT/L/799 and Corr.1) 
(iv) European Union – Application of autonomous p referential treatment to  Moldova, granted on 
7 May 2008 until 31 December 2013 (WT/L/722, WT/L/800 and Corr.1 ) 
(v) Mongolia – Export duties on raw cashmere, grant ed on 27 July 2007 until 29 January 2012 
(WT/L/695) 
(vi) United States – Former Territory of the Pa cific Islands, granted on 27 July 2007 until 31 
December 2016 (WT/L/694, WT/L/798) 
(vii) United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Reco very Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 31 
December 2014 (WT/L/753, WT/L/794) 
(viii) United States – African Growth and Opportun ity Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 30 
September 2015 (WT/L/754, WT/L/795) 
                                                      
9 The Decision was subsequen tly circulated as WT/L/801.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 19 
 
 
  (ix) United States – Andean Trade Preference Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 31 December 
2014 (WT/L/755, WT/L/796) 
61. The Chairman  recalled that in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement, "any waiver granted for a period of mo re than one year shall be reviewed by the 
Ministerial Conference not later than one year af ter it is granted, and thereafter annually until the 
waiver terminates".  There were nine waivers before  the General Council for review.  With regard to 
the waiver in sub-item (i) for LDCs under the TRIPS Agreement, he noted that in connection with the 
approval of the draft waiver at the meeting of the TRIPS Council in June 2002, the Chairman of that 
Council had noted that it was understood, in regard to the review foreseen in paragraph 2 of that 
waiver, that the exceptional circumstances justifying  the waiver would continue to exist for least-
developed-country Members until its expiry date of 2016.  Six of th e waivers under review provided 
that an annual report be submitted by the Me mbers concerned regarding the operation or 
implementation of those waivers, with a view to  facilitating their annual review by the General 
Council.  The reports from these Members had been  circulated in documents WT/L/794, 795, 796, 
798, 799 and Corr.1, and 800 and Corr.1. 
62. The representative of Bolivia  said her delegation considered it necessary to place on record 
once again its complaint that her country had been excluded as a beneficiary from the tariff 
preferences granted to Andean countries by the United States under the Andean Trade Promotion and 
Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA).  She recalled that Bolivia had been one of the countries benefiting 
from the preferences granted under the Andean Tr ade Preference Act (ATPA) and subsequently the 
ATPDEA from 2000 onwards.  These preferences had b een granted in view of Bolivia's efforts to 
combat drug trafficking and the good results it ha d achieved during that period.  However, the 
benefits had been suspended by the former Pr esident George Bush on 25 November 2008 and the 
reason given had been that Bolivia had been consid ered to have failed to comply with the ATPA 
eligibility criteria concerning counter-narcotics coope ration.  As a result, Bolivia had been excluded 
from these benefits since 15 December 2008.  She furt her recalled that when the waiver extension had 
been approved by the General Council on 29 May 2009,  her delegation had made  a statement pointing 
out that the decision by the previous administrati on to suspend Bolivia's ATPDEA benefits had been 
arbitrary, politically motivated and unjustified, and that it had signified in practice a form of discrimination between beneficiary countries.  On that occasion, Bolivia had also stated that it hoped 
that the new administration of President Barack Obama would change this decision and carry out a 
fair review of the eligibility criteria for ATPDEA  beneficiary countries.  In a spirit of good faith, 
Bolivia had not at the time requested the revision and non-adoption of the draft waiver decision, 
hoping to achieve positive results at bilateral level.  However, on 30 June 2009, the President of the 
United States had issued a determination excluding  Bolivia from the benefits of the ATPDEA, and on 
14 December 2009 the US House of Representatives had approved the extension of the ATPDEA programmes without the inclusion of Bolivia. 
63. She noted that the main reason advanced fo r the exclusion of Bolivia had been non-
compliance with obligations under the internationa l anti-narcotics agreement and failure to take 
measures under the 1961 Law on Financial Assistan ce.  Other alleged reasons included Bolivian 
investment policies and trade policies.  With respect to investment policies, this was an area in which 
the US administration had questioned the Bolivia n Constitution, which had been drawn up by 
parliamentarians elected by democratic ballot and approved by a vote of more than 60 per cent in a 
national referendum.  The United States had speci fically questioned the treatment of private 
ownership under our new political Constitution, ev en though it did no more than respect and 
guarantee such ownership.  The United States had also questioned the nationalization policy 
conducted by Bolivia in the hydrocarbons sector, which had culminated in the independent and 
impartial renegotiation of contracts to the benefit of  both investors and the Bolivian State.  However, 
her delegation wished to focus on the issue of fight  against drugs, which Boliv ia had developed in a 
responsible and committed manner and which it was c ontinuing largely with its own resources, as was WT/GC/M/127 
Page 20  
 
demonstrated by official United Nations reports s howing that there were no justified grounds for the 
US suspension of Bolivia's benefits. 
64. Furthermore, she drew Members' attention to the World Drug Report 2009 and the Bolivian 
Coca Cultivation Survey of 2009 published in June  2010, both of which had prepared by the 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Cr ime (UNODC).  In particular, for the year 2009, the text of the 
UNODC Coca Cultivation Survey 2009 for Bolivia stat ed that:  "This year's survey reveals that 
30,900 ha. are under coca bush cultivation in Bolivia in  2009, an increase by 1 per cent compared to 
last year's estimate of 30,600 ha.  Coca cultiva tion in Bolivia accounts for 19 per cent of global 
coca cultivation in 2008, far below the levels estim ated in the early to mid-nineties when Bolivia 
accounted for about a quarter of the global total".  In the same document it was also stated that:  
"Bolivia reported the rationalization/eradication of  6,341 ha. of coca crops in 2009, 16 per cent more 
than in 2008".  Additionally, Bolivia had recorded  substantial seizures of cocaine, amounting to 
14,088 kg. in 2006, and rising to 28,887 kg. in 2008.  Accordingly, the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime had co mmented in June 2009 that "the Bolivian 
Government deserves praise for a significant increase in drug interdiction".  She also said that it was 
recognized by multilateral organizations that no ch emical or aerosol agents were used and the 
eradication of coca cultivation was exclusively ma nual.  Also, of the three main coca-producing 
countries, Bolivia remained the smallest producer and had occupied third place since at least 1999.  
Above all, however, these results had been achie ved in the context of the new counter-narcotics 
strategy 2007-2010, which included the following as one of its general principles:  "The strategy of 
the Bolivian Government is a genuine, sustainable re sponse with social participation based on respect 
for human rights in the context of action to combat drug trafficking and the upgrading of the status of 
the coca leaf".  This strategy was recognized in the above-mentioned cultivation survey, which stated 
that in 2009, coca crop rationalization/eradication had given rise to no reported clashes or acts of 
violence. 
65. She stressed that these data and facts, endorsed by United Nations bodies and implicitly 
supported by the relevant Bolivian agencies working in this field, showed that Bolivia's efforts 
surpassed many of the results achie ved in respect of coca leaf cultivation, eradication and seizure 
when ATPDEA preferences had been available.  Mo reover, they were even as good as or better than 
some of the results achieved by the other countries in the region which still enjoyed these preferences 
and faced similar situations.  They also demons trated the effectiveness and appropriateness of anti-
drug trafficking policies which significantly reduced the incidence of violent acts, inter alia  through 
dialogue, coordination and participation by all the actors involved, particularly indigenous 
communities and peasant farmers.  Her delegation c onsidered that these efforts were important and 
sufficient for ATPDEA eligibility, but the United States, without referring to the internationally 
recognized technical studies or data, had excluded Bo livia, thereby demonstrating its political use of 
tariff preferences.  For Bolivia, these trade preferen ces were of the utmost importance and sensitivity 
in view of their economic and social implications , particularly in the manufacturing sector because of 
the direct impact on employment and because this  sector generated high value added goods or goods 
for final consumption.   
66. She explained that, according to the data, te xtiles and textile manufactures had been the 
Bolivian exports most significantly affected by the ATPDEA.  Data for 2008 showed that exports 
affected by the suspension of ATPDEA preferences accounted for 16.9 per cent of the total value of 
Bolivian exports to the United States in that year, which was equivalent to 89 million dollars.  Also, 
approximately 19,300 jobs had been created by the ATPDEA, and according to Bolivian private 
sector estimates, in the absence of ATPDEA benefits, roughly 30 per cent of jo bs in the textiles and 
textile manufactures sector would have been lost in 2009.  Job losses amounted to 15 per cent in the 
camelidae and camelidae manufactures sector and to 38 per cent in the leather manufacturing sector.  
All these figures made it difficult for Bolivia, the c ountry with the lowest development index ranking 
in South America, to achieve the Millennium Deve lopment Goals and poverty reduction targets.  For 
all these reasons, Bolivia continued to hope that a solution would be found on the basis of a fair,  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 21 
 
 
  impartial, fact-based and full evaluation of the Andean countries' comp liance with the Trade 
Preference Act, without any political discrimination between the beneficiary countries, and considered 
that the United States had the possibility to carry out su ch an evaluation.  However, if it persisted in 
an attitude inconsistent with the facts and data  published by various multi lateral and plurilateral 
international organizations, Bolivia would be obliged to reserve its ri ght to reconsider the flexible 
position it had presently taken up to as a sign of go odwill under Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement. 
67. The representative of Ecuador  expressed his delegation's support for Bolivia's statement as 
well as its hope that the US Administration and US Congress would promptly recognize Bolivia's major ongoing human and economic effort in the fi ght to curb illegal traffic in narcotic and 
psychotropic substances, so that preferences under the ATPDEA could be reinstated in favour of that 
country as soon as possible.  In this light, he noted that the ATPDEA reflected the principle of "shared 
responsibility" and the commitment of certain de veloped-country Members to support the fight 
against the major scourge of drug trafficking and rela ted crimes.  Ecuador wished to repeat its request 
to the US Administration and US Congress for an  objective and positive assessment and view of the 
commitment to combating drug trafficking and of  the need for development among peoples, through 
the renewal of Andean trade prefer ences on a longer-term basi s, at least for four years, rather than 
annually, which would provide security and confidence in trade relations. 
68. The representative of Brazil
 said that all were aware that Brazil had been traditionally 
concerned with actions that might discriminate am ong beneficiaries of preferential arrangements.  
This would include programmes operating under the umbrella of both the Enabling Clause and 
specific waivers.  As far as waivers were concer ned, he recalled that WTO jurisprudence established 
that they had to be interpreted strictly.  Waiv ers were granted by the membership to address 
exceptional circumstances and needs that justifie d a departure from the disciplines to which all 
Members were bound.  Without prejudice to the sp ecifics of the programmes Members were currently 
reviewing, Brazil simply wished to recall that programmes operating under these very special instruments had to fully adhere to the letter and spirit of the waiver granted. 
69. The representative of Cuba
, referring to sub-item (ix), said that although recognizing the 
importance of the Andean Trade Preference Act fo r the Andean countries, his delegation supported 
the statement by Bolivia.  Over the past few year s, Bolivia had conducted an  effective fight against 
drug trafficking, and this had led to results whic h had been recognized by the UN Office on Drugs and 
Crime.  In the past few years, the Bolivian Gove rnment had also undertaken economic growth which 
was unprecedented, as it was the second-poorest economy in the Latin American region, and this had 
been recognized by the World Bank.  For those r easons, Cuba was concerned that in the unilateral 
suspension of preferences to Bolivia, account had not been taken of the fight against drug trafficking 
as well as the economic growth of that country.  Cuba had been suffering for 50 years from the violation of WTO rules and was fully aware of the negative consequences of the suspension of 
preferences and of trade rules on economic devel opment.  This was why it wished to express its 
concern and to hope that in the near future, Bolivia  could again be a beneficiary of the preferences 
offered by the United States to the Andean group of countries. 
70. The representative of Chile
 associated his delegation with the statements relating to sub-
item (ix) by those countries who had called upon Memb ers to renew dialogue for cooperation in this 
area, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory agre ement so that preferences could be restored in a 
non-discriminatory manner. 
71. The representative of the Dominican Republic , referring to sub-item (ix), urged the United 
States, as well as Bolivia, to try to resolve through dialogue the obstacles preventing Bolivia from 
benefiting from the Andean Trade Preference Act.  At the same time the Dominican Republic, as a former beneficiary of the former Caribbean Basin initiative, was pleased with the latter's extension by 
the United States to small countries of the Eastern Caribbean.  This initiative, since the time it had WT/GC/M/127 
Page 22  
 
been adopted in the 1990s, allowed beneficiary coun tries to create jobs and promote wealth through 
preferential trade.  Its extension would allow t hose small economies to achieve greater and greater 
openness, precisely at a time when they were expe riencing the adverse effects of a widespread 
international crisis which had a ffected their exports and had led to their losing out on preferential 
market arrangements.  These countries were also severely affected by climate change. 
72. The representative of Zambia
, on behalf of the LDC Group , referring to sub-item (i), 
expressed the Group's sincere thanks to the member ship for the continued support for this waiver, 
which complemented the Decision on access to afford able medicine to respond to public health 
concerns.  For the LDCs, access to affordable medicine  was a matter of life and death for the majority 
their people surviving on less than a dollar per day.  The extension of the transition period to meet the 
obligations in Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement provided flex ibility in sourcing pharmaceutical 
products in order to effectively r espond to public health concerns a ffecting millions of people in these 
countries.  It remained an important and useful co mplement to the Decision taken to amend the TRIPS 
Agreement.  With regard to sub-item (ii), the Group wished to thank all developing countries that had 
extended preferential tariff treatment since this waiver had first been adopted.  The LDC Group 
believed that several other developing countries w ould be encouraged to extend preferential tariff 
treatment to them following the extension of this wa iver.  In providing such preferential treatment, it 
would be useful to have simplified and transparen t rules of origin to en able the LDCs to make 
effective use of the market access granted.  Th e Group was confident that expanded trade with 
developing-country partners would assist LDCs to  enhance economic development and growth and 
thereby contribute to job creation and poverty reduction.  The Group therefore wished to thank the 
membership for successfully holding this first annual review on the goods waiver following its 
extension in 2009. 
73. The representative of Bangladesh  said his delegation fully endorsed the statement by Zambia 
for the LDCs.  While it thanked Members for the exte nsion of the TRIPS waiver for LDCs, it also felt 
that, more than halfway through the period of th e waiver, it was important to take stock of the 
exceptional situation for which the waiver had been granted.  Members needed  to see what assistance 
had been provided and how much the LDCs had b een able to progress in en suring access to affordable 
medicines to respond to public health concerns. 
74. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,  referring to sub-item (ix), said 
his country took note of the report by the United States on the Andean Trade Preference Act and associated with the statement by Bolivia.  As  had been expressed by other developing-country 
delegations, Venezuela hoped that  Bolivia's efforts would be assessed objectively and would allow for 
this country to be reintegrated as a beneficiary under this Act. 
75. The representative of Argentina
, referring to sub-item (ix), said his delegation wished to thank 
Bolivia for its statement and for its work in the fi ght against drug trafficking.  Argentina also took 
note of the value to Bolivia's exports of being able  to benefit from the Andean  Trade Preference Act.  
Therefore, Argentina would appreciate that Bolivia's  efforts were duly taken into account and that the 
preference-granting country would examine th e criteria for eligibility under the Act. 
76. The representative of Nicaragua , referring to sub-item (ix), said that regarding the Andean 
Trade Preference Act, from which Bolivia – a country which had a very difficult and complex 
development situation – had been excluded, Nicar agua had hoped that the US authorities would 
review the information put forward at the presen t meeting which had mentioned sources such as the 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.  Alt hough the Decision on this waiver was in line with 
Article IX of the WTO Agreement, it was hoped that this provision would be read jointly with other 
provisions, as well as in the spirit of the multilateral trading system.  It had been acknowledged by all 
that there was a need to carry out  positive efforts to ensure that developing countries participated in 
international economic growth, in keeping with their development needs.  It had also been 
acknowledged that the granting of waivers could be a usef ul instrument to contribute to that objective.   WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 23 
 
 
  However, this instrument should be based on criteria that were clearly defined and applied, and that 
were transparent and in favour of developing coun tries' efforts, and this should be done without 
unjustified discrimination among developing countries at  a similar level.  If not, Members would be 
pursuing objectives that were contrary to the purpose of the instrument.  Having said that, her delegation urged the United States to come up with a solution to this situation as soon as possible, so 
that Bolivia did not suffer economic injury in addi tion to other challenges it faced as a developing 
country. 
77. The representative of Colombia
, referring to sub-item (ix), said that this legislation – which 
sought to develop economic possibilities that were sust ainable in Andean countries with regard to the 
fight against the drug trade by offering them preferential access to the US market – had contributed 
efficiently to the purposes for which it had been concei ved.  This legislation continued to be useful.  
Preferences had allowed the beneficiaries to expa nd their exports to the United States, generating 
investment and new forms of production, strengt hening legitimate trade and providing employment 
for tens of thousands of people.  Colombia hoped th at in the future, all beneficiary countries would be 
able to continue enjoying preferences under this Ac t, which were useful fo r economic growth and job-
creation. 
78. The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of CARICOM , referring to sub-item (vii), thanked 
the United States for its report on the performance of the CBERA during 2009.  Over the years, the 
CBERA had helped to facilitate the economic develo pment and export diversification of the countries 
of the Caribbean Basin, thereby reducing the region' s vulnerability to fluctuations in markets for 
traditional products.  The US was a major trading pa rtner for the region, as at present well over 50 per 
cent of the region's current exports entered the US ma rket duty-free as a result of this programme.  In 
addition to duty-free entry for particular products, another important element of this scheme was the 
provision of assistance aimed at improving the busin ess environment of beneficiary countries through 
support for investors and exporters.  Thus, the signi ficance of this programme for the region could not 
be overstated.  Preferential arrangements such as CBERA continued to play an important role in 
enabling greater participation in the world economy,  particularly at a time when CARICOM countries 
were still grappling with the impact the global fi nancial and economic crises had had on each of their 
economies.  The CBERA was an important example of  a preferential arrangement which continued to 
be of benefit to the CARICOM countries. 
79. The General Council took note  of the reports in documents WT/L/794, 795, 796, 798, 799 and 
Corr.1, and 800 and Corr.1, of the statements, and th at the General Council woul d revert to the review 
of multi-year waivers under Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement at its meeting in December 2010. 
6. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory Group on 
its Forty-third Session (ITC/AG(XLIII)/232) 
80. The Chairman  said the Joint Advisory Group on the International Trade Centre 
UNCTAD/WTO had held its Forty-third Session on 14-15 December 2009 and its report been 
distributed in document ITC/AG(XLIII)/232.  In keeping with customary practice, this report had 
been considered initially by the Committee on Tr ade and Development at its meeting on 28 June, 
where it had been presented by the Chair of the Fo rty-third Session of the Joint Advisory Group, Mr. 
Dennis Francis (Trinidad and Tobago).  He inv ited Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia), Chairman of the CTD, 
to report on that Committee's consideration of the report. 
81. Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia), Chairman of the CTD , said the Chairman of the 43rd Session of 
the JAG had presented the report to the CTD at its meeting on 28 June 2010 , with a few remarks on 
the proceedings of the meeting.  The JAG Chairman  had informed the CTD that the meeting had been 
convened to discuss the ITC's Annual Report for 2008 and preliminary Annual Report for 2009, the Consolidated Programme Document for 2010, and the ITC's Strategic Plan for 2010 to 2013.  He had WT/GC/M/127 
Page 24  
 
said that the Executive Director of the ITC had indi cated in her statement to the Group that the ITC 
was now in the second year of its Strategic Pl anning cycle.  Having completed the change 
management process, the focus was now on quality, delivery, results and impact.  The ITC Executive 
Director had announced that for the third year runni ng, the ITC was publishing the results of its Client 
Survey.  The Survey showed that satisfaction with  the agency's performance had improved from just 
38 per cent in 2007 and 43 per cent in 2008 to 56 per cent in 2009.  The JAG Chairman had gone on 
to inform the CTD that the Group had endorsed th e Consolidated Programme Document for 2010 and 
the 2010-2013 Strategic Plan.  Many delegations ha d stressed the importance of the ITC’s work, and 
in particular the support for small and medium-sized  enterprises in developing countries.  Delegations 
had been particularly appreciative of the connec tion between the ITC's programmes and efforts to 
achieve the Millennium Development Goals.  In th is regard, the ITC's activities in developing the 
capacity of poor communities to engage in inte rnational export trade had been highlighted.  
Delegations had also emphasized the need to mainstre am gender concerns and to  factor considerations 
related to climate change into ITC programmes. 
82. The JAG had further underlined the importance of  the  Aid-for-Trade initiative, in which the 
ITC focused in particular on the private sector .  Appreciation had been expressed for efforts 
undertaken to improve the performance and effectiven ess of trade support institutions in developing 
countries.  The Group had welcomed the introduction of results-based management.  However, some 
delegations had felt there was still considerable work to be done to establish clear baselines for 
measuring performance, prior needs assessment, veri fiable indicators and links between outputs and 
outcome and developmental impacts.  The JAG Chairman had informed the CTD of voluntary 
contributions that had been announced at the JAG m eeting.  In this regard, he expressed thanks on 
behalf of the Group to the Govern ments of Canada, China, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New 
Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.  The CTD had taken note of the JAG report and had forwarded it to the General Council for adoption. 
83. The representative of Zambia
, on behalf of the LDC Group , thanked the Secretariats of ITC, 
UNCTAD and the WTO for their 43rd JAG Report.  The continued collaboration between UNCTAD, 
ITC and WTO had been helpful in assisting deve loping and least-developed countries to respond to 
productive capacity needs.  Through programmes undertaken under this collaborative initiative, 
several of these countries had been assisted in  enhancing capacities for business and trade-policy 
formulation, export strategy development, strengt hening of trade support institutions, trade 
intelligence and exporter competitiveness.  The fo cus on LDCs and small- and medium-sized 
enterprises in particular was important for achieving inclusive growth and development.  As was well 
known, the focus of discussions in various fora fo llowing the financial crisis had been on building 
productive capacities and diversification.  The LD C Group was confident that with the continued 
assistance from ITC, WTO and UNCTAD, progress could be achieved towards meeting the objective of inclusive and sustainable development.  The Group wished to thank all cooperating partners who 
had made it possible for the work under this collabor ative initiative to be undertaken, and to call for 
continued financial support to help their economies pl ay an active role in the global trading system. 
84. The representative of Japan
 said his country very much valued the activities of ITC, 
especially in helping LDCs to diversify their expor ts and to increase their competitiveness.  They had 
done a great deal in areas close to Japan's private se ctors, and Japan certainly intended to continue to 
support the activities of the ITC. 
85. The General Council took note  of the statements and adopted  the report of the Joint Advisory 
Group in document ITC/AG(XLIII)/232.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 25 
 
 
  7. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Reports on meetings of May and 
July 2010 (WT/BFA/116 and 117) 
86. The Chairman  drew attention to the reports of  the Budget Committee in documents 
WT/BFA/116 and 117 and invited Mr. Vaaranm aa (Finland), Chairman of the Committee, to 
introduce the reports. 
87. Mr. Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said that at its meetings in May and Ju ly, the Committee had reviewed the budgetary 
and financial situation of the Secretariat and the extra-budgetary funds up to the end of June.  The 
Committee had also taken note of a report on human r esources and the first annual report of the Office 
of Internal Audit.  The Committee had then take n note of the progress made on the building project.  
The Secretariat had finalized the contracts with the two general contractors selected for the intra- and 
extra-muros projects.  The building permit for the in tra-muros project had been issued and the work 
had commenced in July in the South Courtyard.  The renovation of the Centre William Rappard was 
also entering a new phase.  The renovation of the South Wing was almost complete.  Work was 
currently under way on the link between the South a nd North Wings.  Members should expect to face 
increasing difficulties as the building project progressed to the North Wing, where most of the current 
conference rooms were located.  The Committee had been briefed on the more than 20 common facilities that would need to be equipped and furnis hed as part of the building project.  These facilities 
would include the South Courtyard conference centre, the North Courtyard Atrium, the North Wing meeting rooms, the cafeteria and the library to be relocated in the new building.  The Secretariat had 
presented a preliminary budget estimate for the e quipment of the new South Courtyard conference 
centre that would become operational in October 2011.   The Committee would continue its review of 
the financial requirements to equip and furnish th ese common  facilities.  The Secretariat would also 
seek Members' sponsorship of specific facilities or  equipment.  The Committee had finalized its 
review of the first annual report on diversity in th e Staff of the WTO presented by the Secretariat.  
The Secretariat had provided detailed responses to measures proposed by some Members.  The 
Committee had held a constructive discussion and had recognized the importance placed by the 
Secretariat and the Director-General on the diversity issue. 
88. Finally, the Committee had reviewed the situa tion of Members subject to Administrative 
Measures.  The Secretariat had informed the Comm ittee on the progress achieved.  The Chair of the 
Working Group on Administrative Measures had provided an update on the work engaged by the Working Group.  The Director-General continued to  engage Members in this area and the situation 
was gradually improving.  The Committee had review ed two new payment plans aimed to liquidate 
the arrears in contributions of the Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic.  In 
accordance with the Decision of the General C ouncil of 15 May 2006, the Committee recommended 
that the General Council suspend the application of  Administrative Measures for the Republic of the 
Congo, which had agreed to, and undertook to abide by, a schedule of instalment payments aimed at 
liquidating all arrears over a period of five years, starting on 1 January 2010.  The Committee had also 
recommended that the General Council suspend the a pplication of Administrative Measures for the 
Central African Republic, which had agreed to, and undertook to abide by, a schedule of instalment 
payments aimed at liquidating all arrears over a peri od of 30 years, starting on 1 January 2010.  The 
payments had to be received no later than 31 Dece mber of each year, failing which the Administrative 
Measures would be reinstated.  The Secretaria t had received positive signals from other Members 
willing to liquidate arrears in c ontributions.  The Administrative Measures approved by the General 
Council provided that a Member was declared as an Inactive Member if more than three full years of 
assessed contributions remained outstanding at the end of the financial year.  These Measures also 
required that the list of Inactive Members be notif ied to the General Council by the Committee each 
year with a recommendation that these Members be ur ged to liquidate their arrears.  The Committee 
therefore recommended to the General Council that th e following Members be urged to liquidate their WT/GC/M/127 
Page 26  
 
arrears:  Burundi;  Chad;  Demo cratic Republic of the Congo;  Djibouti;  Dominica;  Gambia;  
Guinea;  Guinea-Bissau;  Mauritania;  Nicar agua;  Niger;  Sierra Leone and Togo. 
89. The representative of Togo
 said that on 7 June 2010, his Government had notified the 
Secretariat of its acceptance of the plan for the settlement of its WTO arrears over a period of five 
years, beginning in April 2011, in view of its very limited financial resources and of the fact that it 
had had to invest considerable sums of money to ope n its mission in Geneva.  In addition to this, in 
Togo the budget was voted on only at the end of the year.  The communication had been sent to the Secretariat by the Permanent Mission on 2 July 2010. 
90. The Director-General
 said he understood that the notifica tion had indeed arrived, but that 
before it was taken into account by the General Council, it had to go through the Budget Committee.  
Thus, this would be a matter for the next meeting of the General Council. 
91. The representative of China  said his delegation wished to highlight the importance of the 
diversity issue, considering the existing compositi on of the Secretariat as demonstrated by its own 
report.  This issue had been extensively discussed at both the May and July meetings of the Budget 
Committee.  Diversity would help to enhance the legitimacy of the multilateral trading system and 
strengthen its capacity to serve its Members.  He wished to commend the Director-General and 
Secretariat for their positive response to, and concre te actions taken on, the diversity proposal made 
by some Members, including China.  China took it as an important signal of the readiness "to work to 
ensure that the positive trends of diversity in th e Secretariat will not only be continued but also 
reinforced over time".  China remained committed to engaging actively and constructively in pursuit 
of this important objective. 
92. The representative of Ecuador  said that like China, his delega tion also wished to underscore 
the importance of taking measures that would lead to the further strengthening of diversity of the 
Secretariat, which would not be in conflict with a policy of hiring based on merit but, to the contrary, 
would contribute to strengthening the Secretariat's capacity to respond to the needs of the Members.  
All these measure could make it possible to strengthe n the competences of the Secretariat.  In order 
for these actions to obtain the desired results, it was also necessary to further strengthen the internal 
provisions that would ensure equal acce ss to all applicants to vacant posts. 
93. The representative of the United States  said his delegation agreed that the WTO benefited 
when it took full advantage of the talents of the highly capable pool of candidates that existed all 
across the membership.  It commended the Director-Gen eral and his team for their work in promoting 
diversity while continuing to put merit first in hiring decisions.  The United States saw no inherent 
conflict between diversity and merit, so th is was clearly the right path to take. 
94. The General Council took note  of the statements, approved  the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendations in paragraphs 20, 23 and 25 of its report in document WT/BFA/116, and adopted  
the reports in WT/BFA/116 and 117. 
8. Harmonization Work Programme under the Ag reement on Rules of Origin – Statement 
by the Chairman 
95. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that at the May Council meeting, 
Members had discussed a submission by India, Pakistan and China in document WT/GC/W/622 and Add.1 concerning the way forward on the Harmoni zation Work Programme under the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin.  Since then, he understood that the newly-appointed Chairperson of the Committee 
on Rules of Origin, Ms Quah-Zubair (Singapore), had made some suggestions to the Committee on 
how to advance the work in this area, and that  she was now consulting with delegations on her 
suggestions.  He believed it would be appropriate to allow Ms Quah -Zubair more time for her efforts  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 27 
 
 
  in this respect – for which he tha nked her – and thus suggested that th e Council revert to this issue at a 
later date. 
96. The General Council took note  of the statement. 
9. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Samoa – Statement by the 
Chairman 
97. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", informed Members that following 
consultations with members of the Working Party an d the authorities of Samoa, and in keeping with 
usual WTO practice, it had been agreed that Mr. K itajima (Japan) would serve as Chairman of this 
Working Party, replacing Ms Sato (Japan), who would be leaving Geneva shortly and would no 
longer be available to serve in this capacity.  On behalf of the General Counc il, he thanked Ms Sato 
for having served as Chairperson of this Working Party. 
98. The representative of Turkey  said he wished to remind the me mbership of an issue that was 
quite dear to all.  He had recently learned that n early one-third of the Chairs of the existing working 
parties on accession were vacant, for various reasons.  Accession was an important agenda item and the absence of working party Chairs was not acceptab le.  Therefore, he called on his colleagues to 
volunteer for these vacant Chairs, and asked the Counc il Chair to use his good offices to facilitate the 
appointment of Chairs to all accession working parties. 
99. The representative of Zambia
, on behalf of the LDC Group , welcomed the appointment of 
Amb. Kitajima as the new Chair of the Working Pa rty on the Accession of Samoa.  Samoa, along with 
Vanuatu and Yemen, was at an advanced stage of  accession.  The LDC Group was keen to see that 
Samoa's accession process was completed in 2010. 
100. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
10. Administrative Measures for Members in  arrears – Statement by the Chairman 
101. 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.  Among these 
Administrative Measures was a requirement that at each meeting of the General Council, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance a nd Administration should provide information with 
regard to which Members were under Administra tive Measures in Categories II through IV.  He 
invited the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr . Vaaranmaa (Finland), to provide the Council 
with this information. 
102. Mr. Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , listed the Members under Categories II through IV of the Administrative Measures as 
at 28 July 2010:  Papua New Guinea and Peru in  Category II;  Grenada in Category III;  and 13 
Members in Category IV, as previously reported under item 7. 
103. The Chairman  said that under the revised Administrative Measures, he was also required at 
each Council meeting to request those Members in Ca tegories III and IV of the Measures to inform 
him, before the next meeting of the General Counc il, as to when their payment of arrears might be 
expected.  In keeping with the Administrative Meas ures, he would report on Members' replies to the 
next meeting of the General Council. 
104. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
_______________  WT/GC/M/127 
Page 28  
 
ANNEX 
 
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting 
 
of the Trade Negotiations Committee  
on 27 July 2010  
 
 
 At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned 
meeting are included below as part of th e minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
1. Australia (including for the CAIRNS Group)  
 Coming at the end of the speakers list, it has b een very useful to me and I have been very 
encouraged actually by the comments and support for the process that you have laid out from, I think, 
just about every speaker if not every speaker and cer tainly Australia would like to offer its very strong 
support as well.  We are encouraged that we seem to  move into a more focused process that will allow 
us to engage on substance as we come back from the summer break and certainly for Australia, this 
strengthening and deepening of engagement is we lcome and something that we have been hoping 
would happen since the March stocktaking.  I think that the informal dialogue that has been taken place since then seems to be taking sh ape into a process that we think offers a real prospect of trying 
to make progress between now and the end of the year.  
  
 Of course, with my CAIRNS Group hat on, I wanted to emphasize the importance that Australia and of course the CAIRNS Group places to  Agriculture, and its central role in the 
negotiations.  I think we've made this point many times before and indeed at the most recent meeting 
of the TNC in June and I think the statement we made then continues to apply and shows that the 
CAIRNS Group remains constructivel y engaged and wanting to help in moving the Agriculture 
Negotiations forward as a key plank of our work.    Certainly, for Australia there are a range of othe rs areas that also need to move forward which 
is why we are very supportive of the idea of st rengthening and deepening discussion across the board.  
There are multitude of issues in the Market Acc ess area, not only Agriculture but also NAMA and 
Services, there are a multitude of issues in the Ru les Negotiations, multitude of development issues 
that all need to be discussed as we try to build a pack age that is acceptable to all Members.  I think for 
us we are very mindful of the place we are at the pr esent time in the negotiations and the need to be in 
a different place by the end of this year.  I think th at we are very focused on the fact that there is a 
window of opportunity in 2011 and I think that for the sake of this Organization, for the sake of 
development, for the sake of building a platform fo r strong economic growth in the future, we really 
need to try and to capitalize on.  I therefore think that  the mindful of really wanting to be in a place by 
the end of the year where we can hopefully look forward to major advances in the negotiations and 
the conclusion of the negotiations.    The way you have suggested that we take stock again in October, I think it is very important 
we need to make sure that the work we are doing intensifies straight after the summer break and then 
that we look to how we can use meetings outside of the process here in Geneva and people have 
mentioned the G20 and APEC and certainly Australia's  view remains that political engagement at the 
right time remains very important to overall progress.   But for us, the key thing at the moment is 
making sure that the process in Geneva works, and th at we can put a process in place that leads to real 
progress, and as we go off for the summer break, I thi nk we feel encouraged that we are moving in 
that direction and certainly, Mr. Chair, you can c ount on Australia's very strong support as we come 
back from the summer break.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 29 
 
 
  2. Brazil 
 
I took careful note of the report you have given us (and I thank you for it) and find no 
disagreement with its basic elements.  We are on tr ack on the basis of the "cocktail approach" agreed 
at the last stocktaking exercise.  I would emphasize however that the central element of that approach 
is the multilateral front, now basically centered on the Negotiating Group's process.  The Chair's 
process is the only legitimate and encompassing fo rum where Members do actually negotiate and 
attempt convergence in a text-based and result-oriented  manner.  From our perspective, however, that 
process is not moving fast enough.  It is not that the process itself is faulty; it is just that the right political alignment is not quite in place.  Therefore, we must work harder to facilitate synergies at the 
political level.  In this context, I am pleased to note that, consistent with the cocktail approach we 
agreed, some Members are trying to complement th e Chair's process with meetings in different 
configurations and purposes.  There were at least  a couple of broader horizontal discussions where 
Members tried to look at the wider context of th e negotiations; where the key obstacles were and how 
best to deal with them.  These meetings also id entified the need for more  focused issue-specific 
meetings, in smaller configura tions, where Permanent Representatives could brainstorm from a 
political perspective, having a satellite view of the negotiating landscape.  At least a couple of these 
issue-specific meetings took place already, and the environment there was very positive, although Ambassadors there are still trying to find the best way to make that kind of engagement truly 
productive.  I hope those discussions will at some point turn to a solution-finding mode, so as to feed 
into the Negotiating Groups.  Brazil will remain engage d at all levels – technical and political – trying 
to contribute in any way it can to move the pro cess forward.  In our view, we must find solutions 
within the realm of what is on the table.  We don' t believe that any significant departure from this is 
doable.  Any attempt to get more in a selective an d non-reciprocal fashion will not help the process 
and could only lead to a quick unraveling of the negotiations, with serious and long-lasting 
consequences.  I must also recall that any adjustments to what we have today cannot lose sight of two 
fundamental vectors that have guided us over the l ast 9 years:  Development and Agriculture.  These 
remain the benchmarks for measuring contributions in all other areas of the Single Undertaking.  
Finally, given the time that apparently will be need ed to conclude our efforts, Brazil firmly believes 
that we should be seeking ways for faster delivery in  matters of special inte rest to the smaller and 
poorer Members, LDCs in particular.  3. Burkina Faso (for the C-4) 
 
 I am speaking today on behalf of the co-sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee for having convened this meeting and e xpress appreciation for his exhaustive report on the 
measures he has taken to push the Doha Round negotia tions forward.  The C-4 remains constant in its 
demands and again refers you to the formula it prop osed in June 2006, combined with the additional 
disciplines put forward by the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Agriculture and reproduced in 
the modalities text of 6 December 2008.  As I have already stated and repeated, the African 
cotton-producing countries cannot afford to wait inde finitely for the conclusion of the Round;  to do 
so would make their position even more precarious and drive them deeper into poverty.  We have 
already welcomed the bilateral agreement between  Brazil and the United States and continue to 
believe that an agreement of this kind can afford a real opportunity to settle the issue of trade-distorting subsidies once and for all.  Accordingly,  we are paying heed to the protagonists in this 
case and stand ready to look for comm on ground with them.  If we have  proposed early harvesting of 
cotton it is because we wish on the one hand to help the weakest among us to remain on the 
international trade scene and on the other, to preven t this troubling issue of trade-distorting subsidies 
from being relegated to last place in the negotiatin g process and disposed of without further ado as a 
result of the enormous pressure that could be brought  to bear on four of the poorest countries, which, 
incidentally, could take the Round "hostage".  It would be a tautology to say that without prompt 
action to find a solution, the African cotton sector is in serious jeopardy.  For us, such a solution WT/GC/M/127 
Page 30  
 
necessarily involves the reduction and elimination of trade-distorting subsidies, and the conclusion of 
the Doha Round.  
4. Chinese Taipei (for the RAMs Group) 
  First, I would like to join others in thanki ng you for the report on the recent developments in 
the DDA negotiations.  The RAMs Group believes that  for this Round to be completed successfully, 
Members must continue to engage actively in th e DDA negotiating process.  We are pleased to see, 
therefore, that Members have maintained their enga gement in the negotiations on all fronts.  At the 
same time, we have noticed that discussions have  been held recently in different small-group 
configurations, such as the G-23, the G-5, and certain other groupings.  The RAMs Group countries 
are deeply concerned at being left out of this pro cess and at not being consulted, either in the process 
of identifying which topics are placed on the agen da for such discussions, or in selecting which 
Members are to join in these various small grouping s.  We are also very confused and somewhat 
troubled at the prospect of how the outcome of these small-group discussions will affect the overall 
DDA negotiations.  As I am sure you will understand,  the RAMs Group could not in any way, or in 
any situation, accept the outcome of these small-gr oup discussions if the principles of "no-surprises" 
and inclusiveness are not respected.  Any result will have to be discussed and agreed at the 
multilateral level.  The RAMs Group l ooks to you for guidance, and comfort, in this respect.  In terms 
of negotiating substance, I will ta ke this opportunity to re-emphasize our belief that, for the Doha 
Round to successfully deliver a fair and balanced outco me with substance, it is essential that Members 
give due consideration to the extensive commitments already made by the RAMs at the time of their 
accessions.  In this regard, we would like to draw Me mbers’ attention to the mandate in Paragraph 58 
of the Hong Kong Declaration.  Finally, you can be assured that the RAMs Group remains committed to working closely with you, with the Chairs  of the Negotiating Groups, and with our fellow 
Members, to bring the DDA negotiations to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. 
 
5. China 
 
 Thank you for your comprehensive and obj ective assessment regarding the DDA.  We 
support the statement by Indonesia on behalf of the G33.  We share very much the concerns by many Members on the slow progress of the Doha Round.  We believe that the conclusion of the Round 
would greatly benefit trade growth and job crea tion worldwide and the recovery of the world 
economy.  We believe that we need at least two ke y elements for the conclusion of the Round.  First 
the political will of the leaders, and second the wo rk by the negotiating bodies on the technical details 
in Geneva.  It is encouraging to note that at th e G20 Summit, the leaders did spend some time on the 
Doha Round, which is a positive sign.  In order to  complete the Round, we need to stick to the 
mandate of development and capture what is already on the table, and not to re-do the whole thing.  
We should collectively have an objective assessment on the value of what is on the table and work for 
a balanced and comprehensive outcome of the Round.   The hard work by Ambassadors and technical 
people is also very important.  The cocktail appr oach with various configurations will certainly 
contribute to the process of the negotiations.  We hope these will further facilitate the Chairs’ 
multilateral process with transparency and inclusiven ess, which is right at the center of the Geneva 
process.  The small-group experiments so far have proved to be positive and helpful, which were in 
the mode of brain-storming and have provided go od input for the Chairs of various negotiating 
bodies.  We hope these meetings could continue af ter the summer break and be expanded to cover 
those issues which still have gaps to be bridged and which lay behind in technical negotiations.  
Obviously, we are not yet at the stage for horizontal negotiations, but we must be prepared for it when 
the time is right.  Finally, we would encourage Me mbers to treat issues of concern to LDCs with a 
sense of urgency in order to meet the urgent need of those poorest countries and address their particular concerns expeditiously.  China is ope n to any form of consultations as long as it is 
conducive to multilateral progress, and is ready to wo rk with all other Members for achieving our goal 
of the Round.  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 31 
 
 
  6. Colombia 
 
 We are grateful for your report on the state of play of the Doha Round negotiations.  Over the past few days, we have heard of the beginnings of  a process of substantive discussion in small groups 
at the initiative of the largest Members of this orga nization.  It is significant that we should have 
begun these discussions, because it gives us the opport unity to stand back from our positions for a 
moment, to listen to the problems of the others invol ved, to measure the magnitude of our differences, 
and to exchange ideas on possible approaches to a so lution.  There is hope that if this process 
continues, it will help to prepare the ground for the negotiating decisions that need to be taken as 
quickly as possible.  We are pleased that the la rge Members of this organization are beginning to 
assume their responsibilities and to explore ways to r each an understanding.  In this connection, we 
would like to make the following remarks.  The sm all-group process, which began with two important 
negotiating topics, should continue to delve into the complexities of those two areas.  The process 
should also be expanded to involve other areas of ne gotiation.  Only then can we begin to build up 
horizontal discussions covering all of the topics on the ta ble.  The diversity of interests with respect to 
the different issues involved in each topic under discussion must be properly represented.  The 
solutions or decisions reached in the small-group process must always be passed on to the Committees 
or the negotiating groups, which must remain the fo cal point of the negotiations.  At the same time, 
although we may not be pleased with the informal or  limited nature of the process that is underway, 
we have to acknowledge that it forms part of the so-c alled "cocktail approach".  We must bear in mind 
that at the end of the stocktaking meeting last March, we all agreed to participate in a horizontal 
exercise involving a multifaceted approach.  What is important is that every effort made should 
contribute to examining all of the areas under negotia tion and help feed a transparent, inclusive and 
participatory multilateral process which is a pre-requi site to the satisfactory and legitimate conclusion 
of the negotiations.  It goes without saying that wh ile these parallel discussions are taking place, the 
work of the negotiating groups must be pursued as intensively as possible.  Finally, Colombia would 
like to renew its commitment to do everything in its power to help reach an early conclusion of the 
Doha Round negotiations.  
7. European Union 
 
 Thank you for your report.  We broadly share y our assessment.  It was particularly useful to 
hear your summary of the state of play in each ne gotiating area, as this demonstrated that across the 
board there is a lot of useful activity taking place.   Like you, in the past few weeks, and notably 
following the Toronto G20 Summit, we have detected some tentative signs of increased traction in the 
Geneva process.  This is welcome.  Even if politi cal guidance from Leaders' level can be helpful, 
Geneva is where the hard part of the work in  this Round must be done.  Many people see the G20 
Summit in Seoul in November as conceivably tri ggering a process that would allow the Round to be 
concluded in 2011.  This would be most welcome, but will not ma terialise by itself.  We in Geneva 
will need to work very hard in making this possi bility a real opportunity in the months following the 
summer recess.  We now need to capitalize on the emerging momentum and prepare in the coming few months the necessary technical elements for our political masters to hammer out a deal.  We must 
start negotiating again in Geneva.  How do we do this ?  There seems to be a growing recognition that 
more effort needs to be directed at getting oursel ves to a place where Members will be able to make 
trade-offs on a broad, horizontal basis (when the time comes).  Among other things, it is necessary to ensure that negotiating topics outside of the core m odalities are at a sufficiently high level of technical 
maturity.  This will still require a lot of work, and we need to engage in it w ithout delay.  To advance 
this objective, and as part of the cocktail approach , various informal groupings have been exploring 
ways to make progress, in a manner complementary to the work of the NGs which, as you and others 
have underlined, must remain the focal point of the multilateral process and the principal forum for 
negotiations.  We have found that the small-group processes in which we have been involved have so 
far proven useful in helping to identify critical issues and possible areas for convergence that could 
feed back into the work of the NG's.  The EU has been involved in work recently on SDT and on WT/GC/M/127 
Page 32  
 
Fisheries Subsidies, and expects similar work to be  carried out on other issues such as, for example, 
GIs, Anti-Dumping and Services, to name just some.  Progress on a horizontal basis is a key condition for moving the Round to a successful conclusion.  In that respect, we fully support your call for a 
widening and deepening of the negotiations – a concep t that the EU is familiar with.  In conclusion, 
let me simply restate that the EU remains fully committed to working with other Members to rapidly 
identify a balanced and ambitious D oha package that will be acceptable for all.  We are confident that 
everyone will be prepared to engage constructiv ely, to compromise and to commit themselves to 
reaching results.  We certainly will not be found wanting in that respect.  
 
8. Hong Kong, China 
 
 Thank you for convening this informal TNC so that we can evaluate where we stand 
following the stock-taking exercise in March.  We would also like to thank you for sharing with us 
your detailed assessment of the current state of play.  While we of course share a certain disappointment over our failure to bring the Round to an early conclusion, the consultations in various 
configurations following the stocktaking exercise have at least kept the negotiating process moving 
forward.  This is the momentum we must maintain at every opportunity during the rest of the year, as 
part of our continued efforts to conclude the R ound.  We support the view you have expressed that 
completing the Round is technically possible, although the tactical and political impasse must be broken.  The next important opp ortunity to continue building political momentum will be the 
forthcoming APEC Leaders’ Meeting and the G20 Su mmit in November.  What is equally important 
is for Members to work intensively in Geneva to close the gaps as well as to bring about a 
breakthrough in the negotiations.  Many delegations  who have spoken before me have pointed to the 
primacy and centrality of the multilateral proces s and the cardinal principle of maintaining 
inclusiveness and transparency.  In fact, while Memb ers are working together to bridge the remaining 
gaps, both through the Chair-led Negotiating Groups and via meetings of small groups in variable 
format and geometry, we need to find a way through such a process to allow the remaining 
substantive gaps to be addressed in a systemic and c oordinated manner.  In this respect, it is all the 
more important to maintain a proper linkage among all these small groups and the TNC.  As you have 
pointed out, we are not yet at a stage when we can engage in a horizontal give  and take on the issues 
which remain open.  Horizontal discussions can pr oceed on a balanced basis only when the issues are 
at a similar level of maturity.  To this end, th ere is a need to intensify the discussions on some 
outstanding subjects in the months after the summer break, so that we can deliver substantive results 
for the overall package.  In this respect, we we lcome the increased involvement of Ambassadors and 
Permanent Representatives in the process.  Finally, Hong Kong, China remains very much prepared to 
act as an "honest broker" in bringing about tangi ble results for world trade.  My delegation will 
continue to contribute actively in the negotiatin g groups, and various other processes in their 
periphery, in bringing the negotiations closer to a fruitful end. 
 
9. India 
 
 It is clear that while the first seven months of the year have witnessed engagement across the 
negotiating spectrum, this engagement has produced  little of note in terms of concrete progress on the 
key outstanding issues in the negotiations.  For sever al weeks we have waited for the G20 leaders to 
provide us with some guidance on how we can break the stalemate.  Sadly this has not been forthcoming.   We are aware that the South Kore an hosts of the next G 20 meeting hope to have a 
more structured engagement on the DDA, but clear ly we cannot simply wait for that discussion to 
take place or to confine our engage ment to reporting to the G20.  The dynamic to break the stalemate 
has to emerge through a Geneva-based process wh ich focuses on creative solutions.  Therefore, the 
only recourse for us is to institute a process among Members in various formats for a comprehensive 
discussion on all key issues.  The informal process that  has been initiated in the last two months holds 
some promise of such a real engagement, but for this promise to materialize, it is important that such small groups discussing specific issues do not metamorphose into clones of negotiating groups, with 
Members repeating long-held positions.  The small groups must enable creative discussions in the  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 33 
 
 
  most informal manner.  It is also important that  such discussions feed into the Negotiating Groups, so 
that the formal discussions can benefit the flow of  new ideas.  That an impetus is needed in the 
negotiations is not an issue in doubt.  From our persp ective this is amply reflected in the sterile debate 
we have had in recent days on the SSM and othe r issues in the Agriculture negotiations.  It is 
important, therefore, that we pursue the informal track through small groups of Ambassadors who are 
focused on solutions rather than problems. 
  Discussions on process in the last few weeks refl ect a new understanding.  Unlike in previous 
years, there is little talk of enhanced Ministerial engagement or clusters of SOMs.  The emphasis is 
now on the role of Ambassadors.  The Ambassadors at last have their place in the sun.  It is up to us 
now to create the new dynamic so essential to break the logjam.  While we seek to collectively design 
a virtuous process that will hopefully create this ne w dynamic, we have to keep in mind the basic 
rules of engagement.  First, the mandate of the DDA is not the issue being negotiated.  Any efforts to 
modify the mandate for negotiating advantage will derail the new process that we are trying to 
institute.  Yes, the world has changed somewhat since we launched the Round.  But the world is 
changing every minute.  Surely this change cannot be reflected in a continuously changing mandate.  
Second, the considerable progress already achieved has to be the basis of our further efforts.  Any 
attempt to move away from the body of work alrea dy done and on which there is a large measure of 
understanding can only serve to further delay the out come.  Third, the needs and concerns of the 
poorest countries have to be foremost in our negotiati ng priorities.  It is obviously difficult at this 
stage to expect the negotiations to conclude in th e next few months.  The lack of tangible progress in 
Geneva will not only test the patience of all stake holders but raise fresh questions about the central 
role of the WTO in the global trading system.  The plight of the poorer countries has to be understood and appreciated.  We must therefore engage in  a serious discussion regarding a possible early 
outcome on issues of interest to the poorer countries.    10. Indonesia (for the G-33) 
 
 First, let me join other delegations in tha nking you for convening this meeting.  The G-33 
takes note of your report on the Doha negotiations a nd the possible future course of work within the 
framework of your "cocktail approach".  We c ontinue to commend your tireless efforts aimed at 
advancing the Doha Development R ound of negotiations.  We also wish to commend the Chairs of the 
various Negotiating Groups for their commitment to the process.  The G-33 notes that during the first 
half of 2010, small-group meetings took place in various configurations, both at political and 
substantive levels.  While these meetings could he lp break the lingering impasse in the negotiations, 
we believe that the most important ingredient to  the success of these negotiations is the renewal of 
Members' commitment to concluding a pro-develo pment Doha Round as soon as possible and to the 
centrality of Agriculture in the DDA.  The G-33 re iterates its readiness to engage in any future 
activities on the basis of the principles of transp arency, inclusiveness, and bottom-up approach, in 
order to help break the impasse.  The G-33 wishes to  reiterate its long-standing position that the Doha 
Round must fulfil its developmental mandate throu gh the provision of operational and effective S&D 
treatment mechanisms to enable the hundreds of  millions of poor and vulnerable farmers in 
developing countries to meet their food security , livelihood security and rural development 
requirements.  For the G-33, this can only be assu red and delivered through SP and SSM.  Within the 
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, th e G-33 has demonstrated its constructive attitude 
towards finding creative solutions to the outstanding  issues of SSM.  Early this year, the Group put 
forward a series of technical papers with a view to reaching an understanding of these issues.  The G-
33 is of the view, however, that our arguments have not adequately been responded to.  We hope that 
any future work on the SSM will be guided by a problem-solving mode.   The G-33 also wishes to 
remind all Members that the SSM is just one among several other pending issues in the draft 
Agriculture modalities.  We therefore expect to see these addressed meaningfully  in the future work 
of the Committee.  WT/GC/M/127 
Page 34  
 
11. Lesotho 
 
 The factual, highly analytical and forward-looking report of the Chair of TNC is much 
appreciated.  The delegation of Lesotho associates itsel f with the statement made by Zambia on behalf 
of LDCs this morning.  The delegation of Leso tho wishes to commence by commending the Director-
General, in his capacity as the Chair of the TNC, and his able team of staff and Chairs of various 
Negotiating Groups, for trying ceaselessly and with all th e might at their disposal, various avenues to 
accelerate the tempo of progress in the negotiations of the Doha Development Round.  Lesotho joins 
others in encouraging the DG and his team to persist in their efforts to achieve that noble objective.  
May that currently thin fuel called  "political will" thicken and thicken fast to more effectively propel 
the negotiation process forward towards logical conc lusion of the DDA.  Signals of that actually 
already happening, which have been observed and me ntioned  by some this morning, are welcome.  
Much has already been said about process and substa nce ( i.e. format, activities and progress, or lack 
thereof, being made) in negotiations on Market Ac cess in Goods and Services, TRIPS, Rules, Trade 
Facilitation and other fields of trade; all of which are of critical importance for a balanced and rule-
based multilateral trading system.  Progress made on some fronts to varying degrees is noted with 
gratification.  Rapid progress on the rest of the negotiating areas is urged.  The aspect that Lesotho wishes to highlight this morning, with a view to showcasing successful multilateral negotiations, is 
the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) which is  indeed highly trade-related for LDCs.  Although 
not part of the Single Undertaking, and although the initiative pre-dates the DDA, as it is the successor of the IF that comme nced in the late 1990s, the EI F sets an example of successful 
multilateral negotiations and at a decent pace. 
 
12. Mexico 
 
 Thank you for your report, with which we ag ree entirely.  We are delighted that the 
negotiations are being given a new impetus in th e form of discussions among Members in different 
formats.  The process has only just begun, and it is difficult to determine at this stage whether it is 
going to work, but so far so good.  We are more optim istic now than we have been at any time since 
July 2008, that we are making progress in the ne gotiations.  We must continue encouraging these 
meetings between Members, while at the same time  recognising the central role of each one of the 
Negotiating Groups.  The discussions must address a ll of the topics that require the attention of 
Members.  From the brainstorming stage, we will ha ve to move on to the establishment of a menu of 
solutions for each of the different topics.  We shall see as we go along.  We must bear in mind that the negotiating process is not isolated from the worl d reality.  The global economic upturn remains 
fragile, and the possibility of a W-shaped recovery  cannot be excluded.  Protectionist forces grow 
with the consolidation of structural unemploym ent, but the basic question we should be asking 
ourselves is how many jobs have been forgone b ecause of our inability to successfully conclude the 
Round?  A successful conclusion to the Round would be  the best possible political statement to the 
effect that Members are ready to strengthen the multilateral trading system and resist protectionist pressures, that we are ready to maintain and pursue the opening up of markets, and that we are convinced of the need to strengthen and modernize trade disciplines.  When we come back from the 
summer break, we will need to get down to wo rk immediately on expanding and deepening our 
discussions. 
 
13. Norway 
 
 I thank the Director General for the compre hensive report, capturing the situation in a 
constructive and forward-looking way.  We agree with  Singapore, India and others that the situation – 
in substance – is more or less the same as at the stoc ktaking.  Like others, we are pleased that there is 
a new dynamism and optimism in Geneva.  This is ma inly due to the leadership by key players to 
explore ways to get us back on track.  Hopefully,  brainstorming on concrete issues will provide ideas 
and elements of solutions that could be inserted into the negotiations, and, provided this informal 
brainstorming process is expanded to other remaining areas, it will provide the stepping-stone into the  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 35 
 
 
  final stage of the negotiations – when the time is ripe.  We welcome the intensified contacts between 
key players, which obviously is  a precondition for a successful conclusion of the Round.  While 
attempting to solve important questions among your selves, I would, however, urge you to keep in 
mind, at all times, the following:  the importance of providing expeditious solutions to issues of importance to LDCs, and the importance of new market access and strengthening and updating the 
multilateral trading system to LDCs and the r est of us, the vast majority of Members. 
 
14. Pakistan 
 
 The delegation of Pakistan appreciates and fu lly supports the comprehensive report presented 
by you a short while ago.  We share your assessment  that progress is slower than what we have 
expected, but the increased level of engagement w ould definitely take us closer to our goal of 
completing the ever-lingering Doha Round.  We k eep hearing that key players are involved in 
bilateral talks, probably to better understand the position of their trading partners to move the process 
forward.  There is lot of talk that delay in comple tion of Doha Round is likely to divert our effort and 
resources to regional and bilateral agreements.  Paki stan is of the view that the centrality of the 
multilateral trading system is the only work philo sophy which can deliver results for economies like 
mine.  The regional approaches have inherent deficiencies not to address many issues important to the developing countries, like domestic support.  We are of the view that even bilateral engagements 
should be geared towards complementing the multilatera l talks.  We fully share the disappointment of 
Members regarding the delay in completion of the Doha Round.  The discomfort is about the process 
as well as the end results.  The signs of negotiating fa tigue are also visible.  In this gloomy scenario 
we are left with two options:  (i) to wait and see when the environment would be conducive to 
engaging, and (ii) to engage now and try to give a push .  To me it is always better to talk than not to 
talk.  I can see that the delegations are interested in engaging.  The activity at the G-23 also seems a 
fresh bout of renewed activity.  As outlined by you in  your "cocktail approach", we need to work on 
all areas with a view to bringing those to a level of maturity where the delegations can have more 
clarity for trade-offs in the horizontal process.  While we need to focus on all areas of the 
negotiations, we must ensure that there is no unrav elling of issues which are already stabilized.  We 
must continue talking in variable geometry, prefer ably in issue-specific sessions across all areas of 
negotiations.  The only word of caution is that we should remain transparent and inclusive.  I am 
confident that with responsible collective behaviour , we can bridge the gaps and successfully run the 
last leg.  I would like to flag that the G20 Summit has also required us to report so that a way forward 
can be planned.  The message from G20 leaders is not  for us to sit and wait for instructions, but to 
prepare ourselves with a precise schedule of our work.  The G20 would only provide their political 
guidance and support.  We should be fully prepared  to engage to move the process forward.  My 
message is enjoy your summer vacations and come back  well rested.  As we return we have a job at 
hand to do. 
 
15. Singapore 
 
 Thank you for the assessment you provided on th e current state of our negotiations and the 
next steps.  When the Informal TNC last met in J une, we agreed to continue mixing the cocktail in our 
approach towards the negotiations.  While we are sti ll not able to enjoy the cocktail as yet, what is 
clear, however, is that we have added quite a few ingr edients to that cocktail in the past few weeks, 
and  that has added to its "fizz" or a new dynamic.  The challenge now is to ensure that we do not lose 
sight of our final goals, and to ensure that all our ingredients contribute towards that end.  We should 
first acknowledge that at least in terms of pro cess, there is significant and sufficient commitment on 
our parts to move forward in these negotiations.  Here in Geneva, we have met in various 
formulations since June.  The G-5 have met on several occasions, with the inclusion of other 
Members as well, in an effort at increased tran sparency and inclusiveness.  Following from these 
meetings, smaller groups have been formed to brainstorm on selected issues in the negotiations, such 
as Fisheries Subsidies and Development.  We are encouraged with the formation of these groupings, WT/GC/M/127 
Page 36  
 
and by the inclusion of the relevant Negotiating Grou p Chairs in these meetings.  As gaps still remain 
in other negotiating areas, we hope that they too w ill benefit from more in-depth consideration.  We 
also look forward to further opportunities for transparency and multilateralizing the work and 
discussions at these meetings.  Singapore has also b een involved in meetings with other Members in 
variable configurations, aimed at  making modest but important contributions in other areas of the 
negotiations.  All such meetings will be important in entrenching a process of engagement which will 
not only help in providing a platform for more de tailed technical discussions, but in the long term, 
these smaller-group meetings could provide the basis for horizontal views of issues and trade-offs.  
We are not there yet, but our work now should work towards that goal.  
 I wish we could be as encouraged on the substa nce as we can be on the process.  The fact is, 
little has changed since our stocktake.   The issues that were ripe for political decision remain so – and 
there is scant clarity on where the gaps are for th e remaining unripe political issues.  Hopefully, our 
meetings in the cocktail approach will soon iden tify these gaps.  As always, Singapore is fully 
prepared to work with other Members on any of these remaining issues where we can play a useful 
role.  Before we embark on our summer break, it is important that we look forward to the fall and our 
work schedule with some purpose.  We are not w ithout important milestone events.  The key, of 
course, will be the meeting of G20 Leaders in Seoul in November.  APEC leaders will meet 
immediately thereafter.  Our delegation was heartene d to hear that at the recent G20 Summit meeting 
in Toronto, leaders had a good discussion on trade and the DDA.  It will be imperative that the G20 
show the requisite leadership in taking these discu ssions forward towards November.  As with all 
other Members, we will be watching outcomes from November very carefully.  If I recall correctly, 
towards the end of your opening remarks at our stoc ktaking in March, you used the words of Admiral 
Nelson to underline that all of us as Members were e xpected to do our duty in the months ahead.  We 
are still on the right track, but our duty entails much more to ensure that we remain on course.   
 16. Switzerland (including for the G-10)  
 The G-10, net food importers in Agriculture, has engaged constructively in negotiations on 
the basis of the December 2008 Ag riculture draft modalities text, despite the high level of ambition 
across all three pillars.  During the course of the negotiations, the G-10 has been continuously making 
concessions from its original position, in order to advance the Agriculture negotiations and the DDA.  
We are very committed to finding adequate solutions  together with other Members for all the open 
issues remaining, maintaining the delicate overall bala nce in the current text that reflects the eight 
years of negotiations.  However,  we  have to ensure that any possibl e solution to the open issues could 
guarantee the very existence of our agricultures.  The question that we are faced with at this stage is 
how to best ensure that negotiations are move d forward with the adequate representation and 
inclusiveness so as to build up  the necessary confidence to pr epare the ground for a successful 
conclusion of the DDA.  In order to achieve this, the G-10 supports continued work, in the months 
ahead, in various settings, with dialogue and engage ment between key Members.  But bilateral or 
plurilateral discussions can only be legitimate if th ey include the Members impacted by the specific 
issues, and only when transparency is ensured rega rding the outcome of such discussions.  The G-10 
believes that the multilateral process is the onl y way for success, and would like to remind all 
Members that any discussion where Agriculture is rai sed must be held in the presence of the various 
groups that cover the whole membership, including the G-10.  Our group is committed to the swift 
conclusion of modalities and is ready to contribute as much as deemed necessary so that no more time 
is lost towards full success of the DDA.  
 Allow me to add a few remarks to give Switzerla nd's view.  First, Switzerland is satisfied that 
we seem to have agreed today that all subjects must be on the table and must be dealt with as 
efficiently as possible.  We agr ee with the cocktail approach an d a process of brainstorming among 
ambassadors.  This implies that they are ready to br ave the storm and make their brains available.  As 
regards small groups, representation is obviously  a matter of concern for many small and 
medium-sized Members, developed as well as deve loping.  In our view, Members with the most  WT/GC/M/127 
 Page 37 
 
 
  exposure in a given subject should be included in th e discussions on it.  We believe that the G-5 can 
provide impetus and we realize that the G-5 has likewise realized that th ere should be sufficient 
flexibility to take on board ideas that they might not c onceive of or defend in their heart of hearts.  We 
of course need structure, but not a building that is  too intricately designed for the process.  What we 
want is to discuss all subjects and to serve as scouts to look for paths that will lead to solutions that 
strengthen our system.  Mr Chairman, we appreciat ed your reference to your consultations on 
GI extension and TRIPS/CBD.  As document TN/C/W/52 says, it is a single undertaking, and here too 
we are hoping for the possibility of a broader approach than in the past.  
17. Zambia (for the LDC Group) 
 
 I wish to thank you for upholding your commitment made during the March stocktaking exercise to hold more frequent meetings at the level of the TNC, with your last TNC meeting held 32 
working days ago, on 11 June 2010.  The LDC Group is also pleased to note that space has been left 
for Members to negotiate through Chair-led pro cesses within the negotiating groups.  Although this 
process has been complemented by small-group meeti ngs in variable geometry  and bilateral contacts 
to move forward, the multilateral process must re main the anchor for these negotiations.  Although a 
lot of work has been done in the recent past, and presentations have been made on the need to 
conclude the negotiations under th e Doha Development Agenda as soon as possible at the highest 
political level (the G20 Meeting held in Toronto) , the Group remains concerned at the slow progress 
made to date.  We regret to state that we do not feel that substantive progress has been made to move 
the agenda closer to conclusion.  As highlighted in our past interventions, delayed conclusion of the 
Doha Round is a denial of deve lopment benefits to the poorest countries.  For this reason our 
consistent message remains the following:  Memb ers of this august house must deliver on the 
commitments undertaken in Hong Kong to grant duty-free and quota-free market access, to simplify 
and make transparent preferential rules of origin, to address Cotton in an am bitious, expeditious and 
specific manner, and to create an enabling environm ent for preferential trade in Services for LDCs.  
To this end, we are calling for early implementa tion of these commitments in line with the mandate 
given by Ministers in paragraph 47 of  the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
  With regard to Services, we believe that th e paper we recently tabled during the Council for 
Trade in Services Special Session meeting held on 2 July 2010 in docum ent JOB/SERV/18 dated 30 
June 2010, provides a good basis for convergence in pos itions.  We further wish to stress that the 
sequencing of the negotiations on the waiver in rela tion to revised offers should be undertaken in line 
with Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Decl aration and the Council for Trade in Services 
Special Session Chair's report of July 2008 in documen t TN/S/34 dated 28 July 2008.  With regard to 
Trade Facilitation, we call upon Members to provide maximum flexibilities to LDCs as policy space 
to enable them to undertake commitments consistent  with their individual development, financial and 
trade needs, and administrative and institutional capabiliti es.  To this end the next revision of the text 
on Trade Facilitation should have specific provision s tailored towards the needs of LDCs as far as 
S&D treatment, technical assistance and capacity build ing are concerned.  As we look forward to the 
review of the Millennium Development Goals dur ing the forthcoming UN Summit this September, 
and the UN LDC IV Conference next year in Istanbul , there is need to show the world the continued 
relevance of the multilateral trading system to the growth of the global econo my in general, and to 
LDCs in particular.  How else can we show the wo rld the benefits of a strong and inclusive global 
trading system than through having results, especially  on issues that affect the weak and vulnerable 
economies.  The LDCs are more than confident in your able leadership to take this process to a 
fruitful development-centred conclusion. 
 
__________