RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/93 
17 June 2008 
 
 (08-2838) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
22 MAY 2008 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassa dor Karen Tan (Singapore
) 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3190 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/598.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
 
Table of Contents
 Page  
 
I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.............................................2  
II. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS .............................................................................................2  
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ...............................2  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO SCHEDULES OF 
TARIFF CONCESSIONS – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER ..........................................2  
III. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH 
AND OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS 
AMENDED........................................................................................................................ ........2
 
IV. SENEGAL - CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR AN 
EXTENSION OF WAIVER  GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO 
AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ....4 
V. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ENLARG EMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994.....................................................................................4  
A. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 MAY 2004 ...........................................4  
B. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU ROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 JANUARY 2007.....................................5  
VI. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES.......................................................................................6  
VII. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................. .9 
 DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ......................................................................................................9 G/C/M/93 
Page 2  
 
  I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
 
1.1 The Chairman
 recalled that, under the working procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements following adoption by  the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the Council for Trade in Goods was to be  kept informed of Members' notifications of 
new regional trade agreements.  He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements 
had been notified to the RTA Committee:  
(a) Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Pa nama in document WT/REG239/N/1;  and   
(b) Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Albania in document WT/REG240/N/1. 
 
1.2 He proposed that the Council takes note of the information presented. 
 1.3 The Council so agreed
. 
 
II. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS 
2.1 The Chairman  noted that the Market Access Comm ittee had forwarded three items for 
consideration to the Council for Trade in Goods.    A. 
COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE  
 2.2 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to the peri odic report of the Committee on Market 
Access contained in document G/MA/198.  As the repo rt was factual in nature, and reflected the work 
undertaken in the Market Access Committee, he s uggested that the Council take note of it.   
 2.3 The Council so agreed
. 
 
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO SCHEDULES OF TARIFF 
CONCESSIONS – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER  
 2.4 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to the draft waiver decisions circulated in documents 
G/C/W/595 and G/C/W/596 by Argentina and Panama respectively, which had been made in connection 
with the introduction of HS1996 changes into WTO sche dules of tariff concessions.  The current waiver 
decisions were contained in documents WT/L /692 and WT/L/693 respectively and expired on 
30 April 2008.  The one year extensions of the waiver decisions were the subject of consultations in the Market Access Committee wh ere they were considered at the form al meeting that took place on 19 April 
2008.  They had been forwarded by that Committ ee to the CTG for action.  He proposed that the 
Council approve the draft waiver decisions contained in G/C/W/59 5 and G/C/W/596 and forward them 
to the General Council for adoption. 
 2.5 The Council so agreed
. 
 
III. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH AND 
OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT, AS 
AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS AMENDED  
 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled the Council's consideration of the three waiver requests presented by 
the United States for the African Growth and O pportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act and the Andean Trade Preference Ac t.  The United States had submitted revised waiver 
requests for these three progra mmes in documents G/C/W/508/Rev.1, G/C/W/509/Rev.1, and  G/C/M/93 
 Page 3 
 
 
  G/C/W/510/Rev.1.  She recalled that the General Council,  at its meeting of 27 and 29 July 2005, 
agreed that the CTG should continue its consider ation of this matter a nd report back when it had 
completed this work.  At the 11 March 2008 meeting, it was agreed to revert to this matter at this 
meeting.   
 
3.2 The representative of the United States  reported that he had no progress to report on the 
acceptability of the waiver requests to the WTO Memb ership as a whole, although consultations were 
continuing.  He hoped to be in a position in the future to report a mutually acceptabl e understanding on 
the matter.  He also reported that the ATPA prog ramme had been extended.  There were no substantive 
changes in the programme, only changes in the date s.  His delegation would submit a revised waiver 
request for the ATPA which would be made available for the review of the Me mbership in advance of 
the next meeting.  3.3 The representative of Paraguay
 recalled that this was an issue that remained unresolved for three 
years despite efforts made by previous Chairs.  His delegation had shown gr eat willingness to find a 
solution and would continue to do so.  Paraguay was faced with two aspects to this matter.  The first was 
systemic as his delegation maintained that preference s to developing countries could not be granted to 
the detriment of other developing countries, discriminating against th em on the basis of non-commercial 
and non-developmental criteria.  This was a position  that had been maintained by his delegation in 
various WTO bodies and in other organizations.  In this context, he recalled that  the Heads of States of 
MERCOSUR supported Paraguay in maintaining eq uitable treatment on the ba sis of the principle of 
non-discrimination in the implementa tion of preferences granted by WTO Members.  Paraguay believed 
that before preferential schemes were introduced for developing countries, consultations should be 
carried out with other affected Members whose concerns should be ta ken into account.   
 3.4 The second aspect to this matter was a trade pr oblem.  Paraguay had a trad e deficit in its balance 
with the US at the ratio of 15:1.  For every dollar that Paraguay exported to the US, it  imported 15.  
This gap was difficult to close because Paraguay was not a highly competitive country and had few 
exported goods.  It also faced trem endous transportation, insurance and other charges for exports, given 
that it was a developing, land-locked country.  For th is reason, Paraguay could not remain inactive when 
preferences were being granted to countries more  developed, more competitive and had a more 
favourable geographical position.  His delegation did not oppose granti ng these preferences, but also 
wanted to be included.  If the issue of drugs was ra ised, while Paraguay did not have land that was prone 
to cocoa plantations, it was fertile territory for the tr ansit of drugs, given its low-level of inhabitants, 
long borders without any geographical ob stacles, and easy to travel flat expansions of land.  Also, the 
Paraguayan soil was favourable for the plantation of marijuana.  The criminals that were involved in this illegal activity were the same as those involved in co caine trafficking.  The pr oblem of marijuana should 
not be underestimated since it was a vehicle for cocaine traf ficking.  This was why Paraguay maintained 
that, although not an Andean country, i.e. it was not  affected by the production of cocaine, it should 
receive similar treatment at least if the idea was to combat this scourge efficiently in a framework of shared, global responsibility.  Furthermore, Paragua y was constantly being moni tored in relation to its 
commitment and determination in the fight against narc otic drugs, and constantly  had to justify itself in 
order to obtain certification from the United States Congress.   
 
3.5 Paraguay had done everything in its power to make its position understood and had tried to take 
advantage of its excellent diplomatic and political relationships with the US.  The Paraguayan representative in Washington informed  his delegation about a fruitful meeting with Congressman Elliot 
Engel, Democratic Representative of New York a nd Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the Western 
Hemisphere and House of Repres entatives at which the Paraguayan Ambassador, James Spalding, 
discussed the issue referred to above.  Paraguay had always shown itself to be a democratic nation that 
upheld institutions.  It, therefore,  deserved corresponding treatment. On 20 April 2008, in peaceful and 
free elections, the people of  Paraguay elected a new Government wh ich would come into office on 15 
August 2008.  This was a major change as one of  the opposition groups had won the election.  The G/C/M/93 
Page 4  
 
  entire nation was hopeful that this new Government would change direction to make Paraguay a more 
efficient and competitive country, more reliable in its commercial and trade activities, and that. 
ultimately, it would correct the errors of the past and plan for a better future for the population.  Finally, 
his delegation was aware that its position may raise problems for many other countries.  It called upon 
their understanding and patience bear ing in mind that the preference regimes were already in force and 
beneficiaries were effectiv ely benefiting from them. 
 3.6 The representative of Mauritius
 repeated her delegation's positi on.  While it had stated it many 
times,  it did so because it could not underestimate the importance of the AGOA scheme in the social 
and economic development of Sub- Saharan African countries, includi ng Mauritius.  Her delegation, 
therefore, again appealed for the AGOA waiver to be dealt with separately to be approved.  Her 
delegation had stated again and again the various achievements of the AGOA programme and was highly concerned about the uncertainty that the delay in adopting this waiver had caused.   
 3.7 The representative of Nigeria
 supported the statement by the dele gate of Mauritiu s.  Nigeria's 
position remained the same on the AGOA issue. 
 3.8 The Chairman
 proposed that the Council takes note of th e statements made and reverts to this 
item at its next meeting.  3.9 The Council so agreed
. 
 
IV. SENEGAL - CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR AN 
EXTENSION OF WAIVER GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
 4.1 The Chairman
 recalled that Senegal had submitted  documents G/C/W/581 and G/C/W/582 
and Add.1 in respect of its request for an extens ion of the waiver granted for the use of minimum 
customs values.  Consultations among interested Me mbers had resulted in the circulation of a draft 
decision on this waiver extension request in document G/C/W/594.   He asked if there were any 
comments on the draft decision.  Given no comments , he proposed that the Council agree to approve 
the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/594 and forward it to the General Council for 
adoption. 
 4.2 The Council so agreed
. 
 
V. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ENLARGEMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994  
5.1 The Chairman  informed Members that under this age nda item, the Council was to consider a 
request for extension of the time period for th e withdrawal of concessions for the two recent 
enlargements of the European Communities.   A. E
NLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 MAY 2004.    
 
5.2 He drew Members' attention to document G/L/695/Add.7 which concerned the accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 of Cyprus, the Czec h Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.  In  this communication, the EC indicated that it 
would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 
were precluded from withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of 
GATT 1994 because this withdrawal occurred later th an six months after the EC's withdrawal of 
concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member  withdrew concessions no later than 57 months 
after the EC's modification of concessions.  He r ecalled that the General Council had on four earlier  G/C/M/93 
 Page 5 
 
 
  occasions, on the basis of similar communications fro m the EC, extended the deadline for withdrawal 
of concessions referred to in Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994, namely, at its meetings in October 
2004, and in March, June, and December 2005.  Similarly, the Council for Trade in Goods had 
extended the deadline on four occasions, namely at it s meetings of 12 July 2006, 30 January 2007, 21 
May 2007 and 23 November 2007.   
 
5.3 The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation was offering to extend 
the periods to withdraw substantia lly equivalent concessions with respect to the modifications of the 
schedules of the EC and its Members States for both the 2004 and 2007 enlargements.  With regard to 
the 2004 enlargement, the negotiations had been fina lised, the agreements had been concluded and the 
provisions had been applied.  Only the setting of the bana na tariff for the EC 25 had yet to be finalised.  
Therefore, his delegation proposed an extension of the period to allow Members to withdraw 
substantially equivalent concession s.  The message itself was identi cal to the one endorsed by the CTG 
six months ago.    
5.4 Regarding the second enlargement in 2007, the negotiations were currently ongoing.  His 
delegation was confident that it would be able to  reach an agreement with its partners soon.  
Nevertheless, some further time for negotiations wa s necessary and the setting of the new tariffs for 
bananas was also relevant for this exercise.  The EC had, therefore, circulated a proposal to  extend the 
period in which Members were allowe d to withdraw substant ially equivalent conces sions.  The message, 
again, was similar to the one e ndorsed by the CTG six months ago. 
 
5.5 The representative of Colombia
 said that Colombia had rights to compensation for the 
enlargement of the European Communities to 25 Memb ers.  Four years had elapsed and Colombia had 
not been compensated for the prejudice to the Colomb ian banana market.  The bound-tariff of some 10 
Members was as follows:  the Czech Republic = 0;  Estonia = 20%;  Hungary = 20%;  Latvia  =  50%;  
Lithuania = 5%;  Poland = 51%;  and Slovakia = 0% .  On the other hand, since 1 January 2006 the MFN 
tariff for European bananas increased by €75 per tonn e to €176 per tonne according to the report of the 
Panel in WT/DS27/RW2/ECU.  This is superior to the tariff established in Part I of the European Communities list.  Despite all of this, during the course of these negotiations, the EC had maintained that it had compensated for the existing tariff of €176 per tonne, an argument which Colombia had 
rejected.  The EC was requesting an additional period of 6 months to reach 57 months for the 
termination of these negotiations.  Her delegation believed that this ti me-period was far too long.  At 
present, negotiations had intensified in an attempt to reach an overall solution to the banana dispute.  In 
this context, 2 additional months would be quite sufficient.  However, within a spirit of compromise, 
Colombia agreed on this occasion to a final extens ion of the time period for 6 months as requested. 
 
5.6 The Chairman
 proposed that the Council takes note of the statements made and agrees on the 
extension of the deadline as set out in the Eu ropean Commission's document G/L/695/Add.7.   
 5.7 The Council so agreed
. 
  B. 
ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU ROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 JANUARY 2007 
 
5.8 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to docum ent G/L/821/Add.2 which concerned the 
accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 of Bulgaria and Romania.  In this 
communication, the EC indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precl uded from withdrawing subs tantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 becau se this withdrawal occurred later than six 
months after the EC's withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions no later than 24 months after the EC's  modification of concessions.  She proposed that the 
Council agrees on the extension of the deadline as set out in the European Commission's document 
G/L/821/Add.2.   G/C/M/93 
Page 6  
 
   
5.9 The Council so agreed
. 
  
VI. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES 
 6.1 The Chairperson
 recalled that at the last CTG meeting the discussion had continued on a 
proposal submitted by Turkey, more than a year ear lier, for a draft outline of the work programme 
Turkey had previously proposed.  Several delega tions had supported Turkey and spoke in favour of 
the proposed outline, whilst several others had rema ined unconvinced of the need for such a work 
programme and were not prepared to discuss a po ssible outline.  The Chairperson’s predecessor had, 
therefore, concluded inter alia  that it was clear that that there remained no common understanding 
amongst Members on this item. He had once again en couraged Members to seize any opportunity to 
meet with a view to getting a better appreciation of each other's position, in order to create a situation 
where the Council would be in a position to move fo rward.  He had also noted that all Members 
agreed that there was no point in prolonging a discussion unnecessarily.  But if, as a result of 
consultations, possibilities emerged for moving forw ard, he did not exclude the possibility of 
reverting to the matter at this meeting.  The Chai rman had, thus, received a request from Turkey that 
the item remain on the Agenda and that the references to the previous proposals be deleted.  Turkey 
also explained that a new submission, which woul d replace the ones previously listed on the agenda, 
would be submitted. This submission was circulat ed on 21 May 2008 in document G/C/W/599.  She 
also understood that there had been a series of c onsultations between Turkey and several Members, 
some as recent as this week.    
6.2 The representative of Turkey  recalled that at the meeting of the Council on 11 March his 
delegation had shared its willingness to consult with  other WTO Members on this item and said that 
the compilation by the Secretariat of previous st udies might be an option for a programme.  Having 
examined this option further, Turkey had tabled its new proposal contained in document G/C/W/599.  
In preparing this document Turkey had taken in to account the long-standing concerns of some 
Members while attaching the utmost importance to the expectations of other Members who had been supporting the initiation of a work programme in the WTO.  His delegation had focussed on an idea 
that had emerged from Council’s discussions a nd had prepared a two-stage programme. WTO 
Members would make an assessment of the post-ATC era in the most appropriate way. His delegation now believed that a very neutral way to do that  would be for the WTO Secretariat to make a 
compilation of those studies already conducted by selected international institutions such as the 
OECD and the World Bank.  An important aspect of the proposal was the second stage, i.e. to have a 
workshop or workshops, in collaboration with the rela ted international institutions, to deliberate on 
the study or studies.  Such a workshop, like the ones organized until now at the WTO in collaboration 
with other institutions, would provide an opport unity for Members to share their views and 
experiences with other Members, and even compare th e findings of those studies.  In that regard, his 
delegation suggested that the OECD’s current ongoi ng analysis, "Economic Impact of the Phase-Out 
in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions under the Agreem ent on Textiles and Clothing", should be taken 
up by WTO Members in collaboration with the OECD S ecretariat.  The first draft of that study, which 
was comprehensive and analytical, had been presented in June 2007.  The next draft would be tabled 
in the fall of 2008.  His delegation believed that the timing fitted the work plan.  He observed that this 
item had been long-standing on the Council’s age nda.  His delegation wished to reach a common 
understanding on it very soon.  He was aware of the time constraint and looked forward to the co-
operation of other Members to reflect on this proposal  and assist Turkey in order to come up with a 
mutually agreed plan.  His delegation was ready to initiate bilateral and plur ilateral contacts in order 
to further elaborate on the proposal. 
6.3 The representative of China
 observed that he had just received the new submission by Turkey, 
which he would forward to his authorities for an alysis and study. He would come with formal 
comments and positions on this paper at a later stage.   He had some preliminary remarks or questions  G/C/M/93 
 Page 7 
 
 
  for Turkey to clarify the nature and themes of the pa per.  He had noted that the paper contained some 
innovative ideas vis-à-vis Turkey’s previous submissi ons and his delegation was, of course, interested 
in discussing them and the basic principles of the WTO.  For instance, this paper seemed to have 
nothing to do with the previously suggested outline and was fresh in th at sense.  He had noticed that 
some organizations had been named and that it had been suggested that their studies should be 
considered as possible material fo r future work by the WTO.  Ther efore, he asked what criteria did 
Turkey use to select these organizations?  He had not ed that some of these organizations had little or 
no expertise in textiles and clothing.  Some studies by other organizations with a lot of expertise in 
textiles had not been mentioned, such as the In ternational Textiles and Clothing Bureau (ITCB).  
Another question of interest to his delegation w as how Members could ensure that the reports or 
studies selected would be fair, objective and compre hensive.  He asked these questions because the 
new submission by Turkey mainly referred to the challenges but did not mention the opportunities and 
benefits brought about to a lot of countries.  He questioned whether enough support would be 
garnered and consensus reached in the WTO if one  focused only on the challenges, a narrow aspect of 
the textile issue, rather than having a comprehens ive, objective, impartial assessment of the whole 
situation.  He would appreciate Turkey helping his delegation to understand this issue so that it could 
come up with a position as soon as possible.  He expr essed his deep appreciation to Turkey for this 
new effort in trying to bridge the gaps among Memb ers on this issue, which was of utmost importance 
to WTO Members. 
6.4 The representative of El Salvador  recalled the importance of this issue for her country. She 
stated that this new initiative, while putting forward innovative ideas on how to deal with textiles and 
clothing was also a compromise and should be c onsidered as a basis for the Council’s continued 
discussions. The Council should reach a positive conclusi on as soon as possible.  On the basis of this 
new proposal and given the importance of this topic,  her delegation favoured the idea of keeping this 
item on future agendas of the CTG. 
6.5 The representative of India  noted that Turkey had presented a submission that represented a 
substantial change from its earlier proposals, ta king into consideration a large number of his 
delegation’s genuine concerns.  At  this point he could only offer preliminary comments. His main 
question was that, in paragraph 7 of the proposal, Turkey said that the stocktaking exercise should take into consideration all those studies that had al ready been conducted, wher eas in the later part of 
the proposal it mentioned a study by the OECD that was not yet finalized.  He questioned whether there was any particular reason why Turkey would lik e Members to focus on this study in particular. 
Another issue was the choice of organizations prop osed. Turkey had mentioned organizations "such 
as UNCTAD, OECD, IMF" and he questioned whether there were other organizations that Turkey 
would like to point out, as they were the proponents,  to be brought on board. He thanked the Turkish 
delegation for seeking a bilateral meeting, which his delegation would seek to hold in the near future. 
6.6 The representative of Jordan
 welcomed the new proposal by Turkey.  The issue of textiles and 
clothing was of importance to Jordan and his dele gation supported the two-step proposal by Turkey, 
i.e. the fact-finding exercise and the workshops.  He considered that this was the least that could be 
done for this sector to help the Council in finding a solution to this long-standing issue.  He looked 
forward to discussing the issue in this Council. 
6.7 The representative of the United States  stated that his delegation was sympathetic to the 
approach that Turkey had presented. This was perh aps a way forward. His Capital was studying the 
specifics of this proposal. He was encouraged that Members had something that might allow them to 
move forward on this issue. 
6.8 The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that her delegation had not yet studied 
this proposal by Turkey but had forwarded it to her Capital.  However, she supported the idea of G/C/M/93 
Page 8  
 
  keeping the item on the agenda and would comment on  the Turkish proposal in future meetings, given 
the importance of this entire issue for her country. 
6.9 The representative of Pakistan
 appreciated that Turkey had come up with an innovative step 
and constructive spirit with a view to reaching c onsensus. As a preliminary comment, he endorsed 
those made by the delegation of China.  In order to  reach a solution that would be acceptable to all, 
there should not be any pre-selection of the organiza tions that had made studies. In particular, one 
should consider those credible studies that had been ma de by organizations with more expertise in this 
area, even though they might not be an international forum but a private organization.  Second, as mentioned by India and confirmed by Turkey, th e OECD study was still preliminary. One should, 
therefore, wait for the outcome of the study before di scussing it in the Council.  Third, in view of the 
capacity constraints of small delegations, he ques tioned whether the timing was appropriate.  Most 
delegations were busy with the D oha negotiations and he was not sure that enough time would be 
available, which this sector and the compilation d eserved, to reach any meaningful conclusion.  
Therefore, he wanted to discuss with Turkey whether this was the right time. 
6.10 The representative of Mauritius
 observed that Turkey had just made the proposal available. 
Her delegation, therefore, hadn’t had time yet to study it in detail. Recalling the importance of this 
issue for her delegation, she said that it s hould be maintained on the Council’s agenda.  
6.11 The representative of Japan  also appreciated Turkey's effort for bridging the gap between 
Members and as a preliminary comment, stated that her delegation received the proposal favourably. Her delegation would make further comments at a later stage. 
6.12 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 observed that the new proposal by Turkey was 
different from the previous one and that time w as necessary to go over it. However, fundamentally, 
his delegation was still not sure whether the tex tiles and clothing sector should be singled out for 
separate treatment.  Nevertheless, his delegation woul d study the proposal and revert to it at the next 
meeting.  As regards the stocktaking exercise, he  considered it necessary to  take into account some 
regional studies conducted by regional organizations. These organizations had not been named in the 
proposal and he questioned why this was the case. 
6.13 The representative of Tunisia  associated himself with the c onciliatory attitude of Turkey, 
which showed its commitment to finding a common  ground for the diverging views existing on this 
important question. His delegation stressed the import ance attached to this issue, which it wanted to 
be kept on the agenda of the Council. 
6.14 The representative of Turkey  recalled that he had already me ntioned the time constraint and 
observed that the submission had been distributed on ly the day before the meeting.  His delegation 
wanted to reach a resolution of this issue as soon as possible.  This sector was very important for 
many developing and devel oped countries, and, therefore, since the beginning of these discussions his 
delegation had tried to underline that this was a ne w era and that the Members needed to share their 
experience with one another under the umbrella of th e WTO. He felt that this proposal was a way to 
do that.  Turkey planned to have bilateral and plurila teral meetings with interested Members.  As to 
the question put by China on the selection of organizations, Turkey was, and the Council should be, ready to consider other organizations than the OECD and the IMF.  There should be criteria for 
choosing the organizations. One could be that the stud ies should be ready. In this regard, Turkey had 
mentioned the OECD because this organization had already prepared such a study, the first draft 
having been discussed among its Members and the sec ond one being due for the fall of 2008. Another 
element to consider was timing, which was important  because the Council would have to agree to this 
compilation exercise, select the studies and, if it deemed it necessary, organize the workshop or workshops.  Turkey was ready to consider othe r studies and other international organizations.  
Another question raised was how could the Member s ensure that the studies would be fair and  G/C/M/93 
 Page 9 
 
 
  objective and also that Turkey seemed only to be interested in the challenges facing Members after 
the ATC.  In this regard, he observed that all Me mbers were facing challenges but that his delegation 
was not only interested in challenges.  Rather than  use criteria, he suggested that the Members should 
consider the studies and organizations that the Coun cil could agree on. When Turkey was referring to 
a stocktaking exercise, the fact that the studies s hould be available would give comfort to Members 
since they would know their content before taking them into account or discussing them in 
workshops. The OECD study did correspond to this  definition because it was available, with an 
evolving part of it that would be ready in the fall of 2008. His delegation would continue 
consultations with other Members, hoping to come  up with a common understanding on the issue.   
6.15 The Chairperson  concluded first that, in view of th e late availability of the new proposal 
submitted by Turkey, time had been short for the Memb ers to take cognizance of it, and therefore, to 
offer comments not preliminary in nature. Second, it seemed clear that the Council would have to 
continue the discussion at the next meeting of  the Council when Members would have had the 
possibility to consider the new proposal more in dept h.  Therefore, she proposed that the Council take 
note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting.  In the meantime, she 
encouraged Members to take up the offer by Turkey to have bilateral and pl urilateral discussions so 
that they would have a better appreciation of the question and of each other’s position, so that the 
Council would, eventually, be in a position to move forward on the issue. 
6.16 The Council so agreed . 
 
VII. OTHER BUSINESS 
 
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
 7.1 The Chairman
 informed Members that the next CTG meeting was scheduled to take place on 
Tuesday, 1 July 2008.  The agenda would close on Friday, 20 June 2008. 
 
7.2 The meeting was adjourned.  
__________