RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/BOP/R/99 
28 June 2010 
 
 (10-3526) 
Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions  
  
 
 
REPORT ON THE MEETINGS OF 28 MAY AND 8 JUNE 2010 
  
1. The Committee met on 28 May and 8 June  2010, under the Chairmanship of 
Mr. Raimondas ALISAUSKAS (Lithuania).  The agenda of the meeting is contained in 
WTO/AIR/3556 and WTO/AIR/3556/Corr.1.   
2. Ecuador informed the Committee of the 30% reduction on the tariff surcharges applied for 
balance-of-payment purposes.  The Committee agreed to meet again in late July 2010 to monitor the 
final dismantlement of the measures. 
MEETING OF 28 MAY 
3. The Chairman stated that he had convened this meeting as agreed on the last Committee 
meeting on 22-23 March 2010.  During that meeting,  Ecuador had committed to the elimination of all 
measures taken for balance-of-payment purposes by 23 July 2010, and the Committee had agreed to 
meet again in late May and late July 2010 to mon itor the gradual dismantlement of the measures.  The 
report of the meeting of 22-23 March was containe d in WTO document WT/BOP/R/98.  He reminded 
Members that the meeting had been originally  convened for Wednesday, 26 May, but had been 
postponed by two days at the request of the delegation of Ecuador, so as to enable Ecuador to provide 
Members with as full and up-to-date information as  possible with respect to the measures.  The 
agenda of the current meeting was contained in  WTO document WTO/AIR/3556, and was as follows:  
A. Information by Ecuador on progress in implementing the schedule of tariff surcharge 
reductions contained in COMEXI Resolu tions No. 533 and 549 (WT/BOP/N/74 AND 75). 
B. Other Business.  4. For the meeting, the European Union had ma de a submission containing some questions 
addressed to the delegation of Ecua dor.  At the request of the European Union, this submission had 
been distributed to Members and was contained in WTO document WT/BOP/W/33.  He wished now 
to invite the representative of Ecuador to take th e floor to inform the Committee with respect to 
progress made towards the gradual dismantlement of the measures. 
5. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the Committee on Balance of Payments for organizing 
this meeting and the Chairman, for convening it.  Ecuador wished to inform Members on this 
occasion, in accordance with the tr ansparency commitments that governed this Organization and the 
practice in this respect that Ecuador had alwa ys followed, of recent international economic 
developments that had had an impact on the country. 
6. From a preliminary assessment made by his authorities, a complex economic environment 
had emerged which had prevented Ecuador from an nouncing the third stage of the tariff reduction 
schedule of the balance of payments measures taken in January 2009.  Ecuador 's main concern related 
to the fall in international oil prices and the appr eciation of the dollar against the euro, with had 
obviously affected the levels of competitiveness of its exports.  WT/BOP/R/99 
Page 2  
 
7. The symptoms of a worsening international cris is with the latest developments in Greece, 
forced Ecuador to be prudent in making decisions, so  as not to jeopardize its balance of payments.  In 
the context of a dollarized economy such as Ecuador's , the external sector's performance became more 
important, to the extent that it was the main gene rator of the liquidity needed to finance productive 
activity.  Factors that impacted heavily on the count ry's foreign exchange earnings directly affected 
the level of liquidity in the economy, having an e ffect on production, employment and the welfare of 
the population.  In this regard, Ecuador wished to analyze the evolution of these indicators and others 
that affected liquidity, such as income from re mittances from migrants, especially from European 
countries.  
8. Ecuador was willing, as on previous occasions, to  continue to report to the Committee on the 
evolution of those economic indicators that would allow to objectively ev aluate the (balance-of-
payments) measures taken by Ecuador.  In this c onnection, he wished to thank Members for their 
understanding on this important issue.  He hoped to be  able, shortly, to substantiate the decision taken 
by his Government in this regard.  
9. Finally, with regard to questions raised by the European Union and Canada's request 
concerning the preparation of a table showing the st eps in the process of tariff reductions, he wished 
to note that Ecuador was working on them and as soon as the technical team dealing with these issues 
concluded its task, the replies would be distributed to Members. 
10. The representative of Colombia
 thanked Ecuador for meeting with other Members to inform 
of the gradual dismantlement of its balance-of-pay ments measures.  Colombia also wished to thank 
Ecuador for the information just provided with resp ect to progress made in the implementation of its 
schedule of reductions, or, better said, with the l ack of progress in the implementation of this 
schedule.  
11. Since Ecuador had mentioned the questions received from the European Union on 18 May 
and an additional request for information from Ca nada, Colombia would also wish to submit to 
Ecuador some questions, which could be answered if  possible today or if not, later.  The questions 
were the following: 
• On what date did Ecuador foresee that the ta riff reduction mentioned in Resolution No. 549 
and scheduled for 23 May would take place?  
• What was the cause of the delay in the ad hoc gr oup's ruling?  Colombia wished to know if 
there had been a change in the balance-payments  situation that justified the additional time 
taken by the group to complete its evaluation?  Or was there any other circumstance that 
explained the delay?.  
• Colombia wished to know if Ecuador was envi saging the retroactive devolution of the tariff 
surcharges paid over the percentage of reducti on between 23 May and the date in which the 
reduction would take place. 
• Colombia wished to know if the additional tim e Ecuador was taking to adopt the decision to 
implement the second tariff cut would have an impact on the next and final stage of the 
dismantling schedule or if the final da te would be retained, and lastly: 
• Colombia wished to know if th ere was any situation which Ecuador considered could make 
abiding with the implementation schedule difficult,  other than those already mentioned at the 
beginning of the meeting and of whic h Colombia had taken careful note. 
12. Colombia thanked Ecuador and looked forward to the answers to their questions, which 
would anyway be submitted in writing to facilitate answering them.   
13. The representative of the European Union  thanked Ecuador for its readiness to inform the 
Committee about the state of its balance-of-payments measures.  The European Union wished to 
register its regret and disappointment that the third additional cut of 30% had not proceeded as  WT/BOP/R/99 
 Page 3 
 
 
planned on 23 May, as foreseen in COMEXI Resolu tion No. 549 of February 2010, which had been 
notified to WTO Members and reconfirmed by Ec uador during the Committee's last meeting in 
March.  This continued to raise systemic concerns. 
14. The European Union was not sure it had unde rstood whether COMEXI was still deliberating 
on the issue, or if a decision had been taken not to  proceed with the cut as scheduled.  The European 
Union understood that the reason why the Committ ee meeting had been postponed to today was 
precisely to allow COMEXI to conclude its deliber ations.  The European Union was hopeful that a 
decision to implement the cut as planned would be  taken shortly.  The European Union looked 
forward to receiving confirmation from Ecuador  that the reduction had taken place.   
15. The European Union was not sure when it woul d get replies to the questions it had submitted 
in writing on 18 May.  The European Union would li ke to have clarifications on these issues and was 
not sure on how now to proceed.  In the meantime, as  it had said during the last meeting, the European 
Union continued to reserve its rights under WTO ag reements, since the measures in place did not have 
multilateral legal cover.  The European Union woul d appreciate any clarification from Ecuador about 
what to expect in the coming weeks.  Certainly, the information given today about developments in 
oil prices and currency movements was not really su fficient to judge the situation so the European 
Union would be grateful for any additional clarification. 
16. The representative of the United States  express his appreciation to Ecuador for its willingness 
to provide an update on the implementation schedule of the tariffs surcharge reduction contained in 
the COMEXI Resolution No. 549.  The United States w ould also like to thank Ecuador for giving this 
meeting. 
17. Needless to say, the United States was disappoi nted that Ecuador was not in a position today 
to confirm that the second reduction in its tariffs su rcharges had been carried out as had been planned.  
The United States wished to recall the commitment Ec uador had made in March to this Committee to 
remove the trade restrictions that had been no tified in Notifications 74 and 75 not later than 
23 July 2010.  The United States was interested in he aring what today's report meant for that date.   
18. He assumed Ecuador remained committed to ma intain the reduction timeframe spelled out in 
Resolution No. 549 and remove the restrictions notif ied to the WTO.  The United States continued to 
request that it removed the measures immediately in line with its commitment in the Committee's 
report WT/BOP/R/91 to remove all trade measures for balance-of-payments purposes not later than 22 January 2010 and to immediately notify the steps taken to the Committee.   
19. As the United States had noted in past Committe e meetings, there had been improvements in 
Ecuador's current account, and Ecuador's fiscal di fficulties, not the country's balance-of-payments 
situation had been the primary cause of declining reserves and net foreign assets.  The explanations 
given today relating to oil prices and rising value of the dollar relative to the euro did not seem 
enough by themselves to have changed that situa tion.  So as such, the United States did not see a 
balance-of-payments justification for a conti nuation of Ecuador's trade restrictions.   
20. The United States also remained very concerned w ith the effect that Ecua dor's restrictions had 
had on trade, with Ecuador's imports from the worl d and the United States of products affected by the 
measures dropping by over 35% and over 31%, resp ectively, between 2008 and 2009.  Despite the 
decline in imports, market demand for specific pr oducts had not significantly decreased in Ecuador, 
and there had been pressure for local producers for th e Government to maintain trade restrictions.   
21. The United States again stated its appreciation of  Ecuador's participation in this information 
session and of its commitment at the March Comm ittee meeting to remove its remaining trade 
restrictions not later than 23 July.  However, in lin e with its previous commitments, the United States 
requested that Ecuador remove its current trade restrictions immediately.  WT/BOP/R/99 
Page 4  
 
22. Lastly, even though it was not a balance-o f-payments measure, the United States would 
appreciate any update Ecuador could provide on its  implementation of COMEXI Resolution No. 550 
which had changed Ecuador's tariff schedule to apply a mixed tariff on 28 tariff lines corresponding to 
footwear effective as at 1 June 2010.   
23. The representative of Canada
 extended his delegation's appreciation to Ecuador for their 
willingness to discuss and provide an update on th eir balance-of-payments situation as per the 
conclusion of the last Committee meeting.   
24. Canada wished to express its disappointment th at Ecuador had not fulfilled its commitment to 
remove trade surcharges on 23 May 2010.  Canada believed that Ecuador w as not only contravening 
the balance-of-payments Understanding, but the spir it of its provisions as well.  He wished to seek 
clarification from Ecuador as to whether a decision had been made by the COMEXI that the cut that 
was scheduled for 23 May would not be implemented.  He consider ed that this point was a bit 
ambiguous and wished to have a more clear picture of what the situation was with respect to COMEXI's deliberations on this issue.  
25. With regard to the balance-of-payments measu res, Canada wished to remind Ecuador that 
these measures should be of a temporary nature only and that they had been put in place in January 
2009, more than one year ago.  Furthermore the commitment that Ecuador had given to the WTO in 
June 2009 was that these measures would be fully re moved by January 2010.  This commitment had 
not been fulfilled and the measures had been contin ued for another six months.  Canada noted that 
data from Ecuador's Central Bank showed that the trade balance from January to March 2010 had 
been in surplus for a third con secutive quarter, and wished to ask Ecuador whether they had any 
information as to whether there was a trade surplus forecast for the remaining of 2010. 
26. In addition to the positive trade data, Canada noted that remittances had continued to show 
increases.  Both the trade surplus and strong rem ittances had pushed the current account into a surplus 
for the past three quarters ending in the fourth qua rter of 2009.  Given this  economic data, Canada 
wondered whether Ecuador still ha d a balance-of-payments problem.  In fact, the balance-of-
payments was actually showing the opposite. 
27. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked Members for their interventions.  With respect to the 
questions posed by Colombia, he stated that, as so on as they were received in written form by his 
delegation, they would be transmitted to his author ities and, particularly to the COMEXI, for their 
evaluation and the preparation of responses at the s hortest delay.  With respect to the European 
Union's, the United States' and Canada's questi on as to of the whether the COMEXI had taken a 
definitive decision, he wished to assert that that had not been the case.  Regrettably, the COMEXI, 
which had continued to make monthly assessments on  the performance of the balance of payments as 
specified in Resolution No. 549, had not yet taken a decision, but he expected that it would be taken 
in the course of the next weeks. 
28. Ecuador expected to have answers to the rema ining European Union questions in the course 
of the following week.  The replies were almost re ady, awaiting for a last revision by the technical 
group.  Regrettably, it had not been possible to finalize them in the last COMEXI plenary, but Ecuador was committed to submitting them in the next few days.  Answers to the questions raised by 
Canada would also be provided. 
29. The representative of Venezuela
 thanked the Chairman for convening the meeting and 
Ecuador for the transparency it had shown throu ghout the process that had revived the activities of 
this Committee, which had not been used due to a lack  of transparency.  This lack of transparency was 
common in times of economic and financial crisis and had led to the situa tions which developing 
countries were currently enduring.  The crisis ha d of course affected a small country like Ecuador, 
which due to its transparency found itself questioned as if it was a country with a large impact on the  WT/BOP/R/99 
 Page 5 
 
 
world economy.  A process such as the one Ecuador was going through was very trying for a small 
delegation like Ecuador's and those of the countri es which had supported it during the process.  One 
wondered how long did a process like this would ta ke.  Large delegations such as the European 
Union's or the United States' could send a different de legate to each meeting, but not small countries, 
which had to make a significant effort to  go from one meeting to the other.   
30. In the course of the past meeting, some larg e Members had requested that the Committee held 
the current meeting in May;  the alternative would have been protracted discussions that might not 
have ended until now.  Those Members had wanted  to make the Committee accept the notion that 
Ecuador was applying new measures, which had resu lted in lengthy discussions over two days;  this 
motion had been rejected.   
31. Ecuador had no means to face its balance-of-p ayments difficulties becau se it was a dollarized 
economy and did not hold foreign exchange reserves.  In a 2009 report, the World Bank had stated that the external financing needs of developing coun tries exceeded the private supply of financing.  
Lacking official financing to close this gap, deve loping countries would have to make use of domestic 
measures under their control to face the crisis.  A selective import restriction of non-essential products 
and services with domestic substitutes could prove e ffective to alleviate difficulties related to the 
balance of payments and to facilita te expansionist macroeconomic polic ies, by allowing an increase in 
the importation of the inputs and capital goods n eeded to expand production and boost domestic 
revenue. 
32. Ecuador's Constitution stated that was the Gove rnment's obligation to ensure food security 
and foster development.  This was above any WTO commitment.  Moreover, the current economic 
conditions of many countries justified the use as a last resort of the WTO's balance-of-payments 
provisions. 
33. Finally, concerning oil, being an oil-rich count ry could sometimes be a curse, becau se it was a 
sector where the outcome was completely independent from a country's policies, and which led to unstable situations.  Moreover, higher oil prices we re not sufficient to redress Ecuador's balance-of-
payments situation.  Considering all this, Venezuel a wished to commend Ecuador for its transparency;  
Venezuela was convinced that Ecuador would disman tle the measures adopted on 23 July.  Of course, 
provided this was possible and be nefited the Ecuadorian people. 
34. The Chairman
 thanked delegations for their comment s provided and their questions.  For 
transparency reason he would like delegations to put their questions in writing for the Secretariat to be 
able to distribute them to all delegations.  His impression of today's discussions was that Ecuador was 
trying to keep the commitments made to this Committee and that COMEXI was deliberating on the 
current economic situation of the country.  Give n this information, which had been provided by 
Ecuador to the Committee, the Committee might wi sh to suspend the current meeting and to 
reconvene next week to continue discussions on th e current situation.  The date proposed for the 
meeting was 3 June, 10 a.m.  He wished to open the floor to the delegations for their comments.  
35. The representative of Ecuador  thanked the Chairman for his summary.  Ecuador had no 
problem meeting on 3 June, but that would depend on COMEXI having taken a decision by that date, 
so he would request form him and from Members an d extension of a few days to ensure a COMEXI 
decision and to enable Ecuador to provide Me mbers with a firm answer on the issue.   
36. The representative of Peru  agreed with Ecuador with respect to the convenience of granting 
some more time to facilitate a COMEXI decision and enable the Ecuadorian authorities to provide 
concrete answers to the interesti ng questions that had been posed t oday to Ecuador and allow them to 
ensure that the measures would be dismantled as originally planned.   WT/BOP/R/99 
Page 6  
 
37. The representative of Venezuela 
supported Peru's motion and requested that the Chairman be 
in touch with the delegation of Ecua dor set up a date for the meeting.. 
38. The representative of the Dominican Republic  thanked Ecuador for its commitment to the 
WTO.  The Dominican Republic considered that it was evident that Ecuador was facing serious 
difficulties due to falling remittances from its citiz ens abroad, mainly in developed countries which 
were now facing a crisis.  As a c onsequence, Ecuador's balance-of-p ayments problem remained.  With 
respect to the questions posed by several Members to Ecuador, he considered  that Ecuador should be 
given some more time to respond, to be able to  assess the evolution of its current account of the 
balance of payments.  The Dominican Republic agr eed with Peru and Venezuela that the Chairman 
should coordinate with Ecuador to fi x an adequate date for the next meeting, a date when the picture 
with respect to the measures would be clearer. 
39. The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chairman for his suggestion to come 
back to the Committee.  At this moment in time,  the European Union was in fact a bit confused 
because it had understood from Ecuador that COMEXI c ould take a decision in the next weeks, which 
was a bit open-ended and also that the European  Union would already receive responses to its 
questions next week.  It was a bit difficult at the moment to judge where we stood and where we were 
going.  The European Union agreed to come back in a few days but certainly some deadlines should 
be set.  Perhaps Ecuador could tell the Committee what would be a reasonable time for COMEXI to 
complete its proceedings.  She supposed this woul d not be in a month's-time, since COMEXI was 
already reviewing the information that was availa ble.  The Committee could not suspend or resume 
the meeting and then have it sleep for weeks and w eeks;  some certainty w as needed about when it 
would meet again, and then if there was no de cision, the Committee would have to draw its 
conclusions from it.   
40. She also wished to note that Ecuador had not  responded to the questions that Canada and 
Colombia had put on whether the restrictive measu res would be fully removed no later than the 
23 July.  
41. The representative of Canada  thanked the Chairman for hi s proposal for suspending the 
meeting and welcomed Ecuador's demo nstration of flexibility to come back next week.  From what he 
understood from the discussions this  afternoon, Ecuador had indicated it did not have a firm time line 
for specific dates on when COMEXI may be taking a d ecision.  He thought this was an important fact 
in considering when the Committee would meet.  He wi shed to reiterate that it would be important to 
get a better understanding of when COMEXI may actua lly meet and take a decision on the cuts that 
were supposed to have been implemented on 23 Ma y.  He took note of Peru's comments supporting an 
extension but also in a similar vein to what the European Union had suggested, he thought it 
necessary to have some firm time table for when this meeting would take place.  Canada would be 
supportive of that proposal and looked forward to  hearing from the Chairman as to which would be 
the appropriate date for reconvening this meeting.  
42. The representative of Argentina  thanked Ecuador for the transparency it had being showing 
since the beginning.  With respect to Ecuador's in tervention Argentina considered that the delegation 
of Ecuador was trying to ensure that the next time the Committee met, it would be ready to provide some positive information.  The Committee was not evaluating whether Ecuador had complied with a 
certain deadline or not;  rather, it was being info rmed by Ecuador on how the issue was being dealt 
with in its capital.  It would hence seem very r easonable that Ecuador itself get in touch with the 
Chairman when more information was available so as to make of the next Committee meeting a 
substantive one.  Argentina supported this approach.  
43. The representative of the United States
 stated that, like others he would like to have the 
meeting resume perhaps next week when more inform ation was available.  While he did not wish to 
have a meeting where the Committee would basically exactly get the same report and nothing to come  WT/BOP/R/99 
 Page 7 
 
 
out of it, he noted that there were outstanding qu estions already from the European Union and Canada 
and it would be useful to be able to see those ques tions because not all them related to the most recent 
cut that was supposed to be occurring.  So he tho ught that there was value in meeting relatively soon 
if at least to get the answers to those questions.  He would be hesitant to support a proposal whereby 
the meeting could effectively be suspended indefin itely pending an outcome of a COMEXI review.  
His suggestion would be perhaps to not think about 3 June but to give Ecuador perhaps a few more 
days so that it could at least have sufficient time to complete the preparation of the responses to the 
questions that had already been given and then come back to the Committe e, hopefully with some 
news from COMEXI but, if not, then at least there would be a full discussion in terms of the answers 
to the European Union's and Canada's questions.  The United States was also interested in those 
answers.  
44. The representative of Ecuador  thanked the delegations of Peru, Argentina, Dominican 
Republic and Venezuela for their support.  Ecuador was willing to keep consulting with the Chairman 
to fix the next meeting.  Ecuador did not wish to extend the period before resuming the meeting.  On 
the other hand, he wished to recall those Member s insisting with respect to the answers to the 
questions raised that Ecuador had committed to provi de in a spirit of transparency and collaboration, 
but wished to note that this was not a dispute settle ment panel nor an Appellate Body proceedings.  So 
Ecuador was free to provide an answer to the questions  or not.  Finally, he wished to recall, that the 
reduction schedule would be implemented based on th e monthly reports made by the COMEXI ad hoc 
group on Ecuador's balance-of-payments situation. 
45. The Chairman  stated that it was his impression that the Committee could agree to meet again 
next week on a possible date to review further developments and the decision that COMEXI was 
supposed to take.  Then if the date of 3 June w as not acceptable his proposal would be 8 June, 3 p.m. 
and he would like to come back to the delegation of Ecuador to see if there was enough time for their 
internal decision. 
46. The representative of Ecuador  considered the date to be adequa te and state that it would do its 
best to have the COMEXI decide before  that date and inform the Committee.  
47. The Chairman  stated that the Committee had decided to suspend the meeting and to 
reconvene on 8 June, 3 p.m.  
MEETING of 8 JUNE 
48. The Chairman  recalled that at the last Committee meeting on 28 May 2010, Ecuador had not 
been in a position to inform on the implementati on of the schedule for the dismantlement of the 
measures taken for balance-of-payment purposes, since COMEXI had not yet taken a final decision.  
Members had agreed to give Ecuador more time to inform the Committee, and to answer the questions 
posed by the European Union, Canada and Colombia .  As a result, the Comm ittee had agreed to meet 
again today to continue discussions. 
49. As Members would be aware of, as per the no tification submitted by Ecuador and contained 
in WTO document WT/BOP/N/76, COMEXI had met on 28 May and had taken the decision to 
proceed with the 30% additional reduction of all th e tariff surcharges taken for balance-of-payments 
purposes imposed through COMEXI Resolution No. 466 and its subsequent modifications. 
50. He invited the representative of Ecuador to ta ke the floor to inform the Committee with 
respect to the notification made and make any other comment. 
51. The representative of Ecuador  stated that COMEXI Resolution No. 566 of 28 May 2010 had 
been circulated to Members through document WT/B OP/N/76 of 3 June 2010.  By means of this 
resolution, all tariff surcharges applied fo r balance-of-payments purposes under COMEXI WT/BOP/R/99 
Page 8  
 
Resolution No. 466 had been cut by an additional 30%.  By passing Resolution No. 566, el Ecuador 
had complied with its offer and commitment to pr ogressively dismantle the tariff surcharges adopted 
for balance-of-payments purposes.  He wished to make a clarification, with respect to the date of entry 
into force of this resolution.  In the Spanish vers ion, which was the correct one, it was stated that the 
resolution had come into effect immediately, while in the English version, there was apparently an 
error, since it indicated that the resolution would enter into force upon its publication in the Official 
Gazette.  That was not the case.  
52. Ecuador had additionally submitte d replies to the questions raised by some Members with 
respect to its economic situation.  He understood th at the replies had been circulated that same 
morning, and he trusted that they would respond to the queries posed by different delegations.  
Ecuador was ready to answer any further questions Members might have. 
53. The representative of the European Union
 thanked Ecuador for coming to the Committee and 
sharing some information about the latest developm ents.  The European Union appreciated the fact 
that since the last Committee meeting COMEXI had proceeded with a 30% cut that had been foreseen 
for May and in this context the European Union would very much appreciate to have also 
confirmation from Ecuador that all measures ta ken for balance-of-payments purposes would be 
removed on 23 July 2010 as planned and announced.   
54. Until all balance-of-payments measures were to tally removed, the European Union would 
continue to reserve its rights under WTO Agreem ents, since the measures in place did not enjoy 
multilateral cover and multilateral approval for th em had expired at the end of January.  
55. The European Union had taken note that economic indicators seemed to point to an 
improvement in Ecuador's external accounts;  ther e were, therefore, some doubts that the balance-of-
payments measures were justified on economic grounds.  The European Union was additionally 
concerned about the fact that some sectors were now doubly affected by trade measures:  indeed, on 
top of the balance-of-payments measures that s till remained in place, the European Union was 
informed that Ecuador had since 1 June imposed a new (mixed) tariff structure for footwear, clothing 
and textiles, resulting in a much higher effective pr otection for these products than had been the case 
before.  This was causing serious damage to European Union exporters. 
56. The European Union would like to request Ecua dor to share with Members some information 
about this change in tariffs:  had it been intr oduced for balance-of-payments reasons?  Did the 
resulting mixed rates remain within the bindings to  which Ecuador had committed?  When and where 
did Ecuador intend to notify WTO Members?  And finally, was there a timeline for their removal? 
57. The representative of Canada  stated Canada's appreciation for the update that had been 
provided by Ecuador today and in particular the confirmation of the 30% cut that had been 
foreshadowed as part of the notification that Ecua dor had provided to Members earlier in the year.  
Canada certainly appreciated the COMEXI's latest  Resolution No. 566, which had confirmed the 30% 
reduction.  Canada noted with great appreciati on also that Ecuador ha d provided the Canadian 
delegation with responses to the oral questions prov ided to Ecuador at the last Committee meeting.  
He would be forwarding these responses to  capital for further examination.   
58. Canada looked forward to the last proposed cut which was scheduled for July of this year and 
to the complete phase out of the m easures by 23 July.  Like other Members, Canada reserved its rights 
up to the final outcome.  Canada would be interested  in further details in having more details with 
respect to the new measures that had just been mentioned by the European Union. 
59. The representative of the United States  stated that her delegation looked forward to examining 
the responses provided in the room to the questions from some other delegations.  Like the European 
Union had pointed out, the United States, too, was ve ry concerned with the latest measures Ecuador  WT/BOP/R/99 
 Page 9 
 
 
had taken as of 1 June regarding mi xed tariffs on footwear and clothing.  The United States would like 
some additional information from Ecuador confirming that these measures would enter into effect on 1 June, and as to whether Ecuador planned to not ify them under the WTO's  balance-of-payments 
provisions.   
60. The United States would also like confirmation that  the plan was still for Ecuador to eliminate 
all the balance-of payments measures on 23 July or  before, as planned.  The United States, too, 
reserved its rights.  
61. The representative of Brazil
 expressed his country's appreciation for the transparency with 
which Ecuador had handled this issue.  Brazil noted that Ecuador had always been open to discuss this 
issue with Members and had shown willingness to k eep Members informed about the steps taken to 
remove the trade measures.  Brazil understood the diff iculties that a small dollarized country such as 
Ecuador might face in a context of international cr isis and recognized the right of Ecuador to take 
measures consistent with the WTO Agreements to address those difficulties.  Finally, Brazil would 
like to express its wishes that the balance-of-payment s situation in Ecuador w ould continue to evolve 
positively so that the remaining surcharges could be  removed according to the timetable established 
by COMEXI Resolution No. 549.  
62. The representative of China  noted that new measures had been  adopted for some products and 
requested Ecuador to provide more information on the issue:  what were these new measures for and 
on what products and what was the legal basis?  China looked forward to having a response from 
Ecuador. 
63. The representative of Venezuela  thanked Ecuador for the information presented.  That was a 
demonstration of Ecuador's good will to comply with  the commitments taken in  this Committee.  He 
was sure that Ecuador would continue showi ng the same good will throughout the rest of the 
(dismantlement) programme s ubmitted to the Committee. 
64. The representative of Peru also thanked Ecuador for the info rmation submitted referring to the 
important decision contained in Resolution No. 466 through which COMEXI has authorized the 30% 
cut of the tariff surcharges app lied for balance-of-payments safeguard purposes.  As the Committee 
was aware, Peru was also being affected by tho se measures.  Several sectors, as well as micro and 
small entrepreneurs were being negatively affected.  Peru understood the effects the crisis had had on 
Ecuador's economy, but was hopeful that Ecuado r could meet the commitments made to the 
Committee and dismantle the measures by July.  Peru would also like to have more information on the 
recent measures adopted on clothing and footwear imports, including the legal basis for their 
application.  
65. The representative of the Dominican Republic  thanked Ecuador for the measures adopted 
through Resolution No. 466.  This confirmed Ecua dor's commitment to implement to schedule of 
tariff reductions established.  Ecuador's economy ha d improved, but continued to be affected by 
instability in (international) markets.  As a dollarized economy, Ecuador  could not count on the 
massive backing of its currency issuance centre, as had been the case for Greece or other euro-area 
countries.  Regrettably, Ecuador was constrai ned to apply import restriction measures.  
66. In the replies provided by Ecuador to the ques tions raised by Members, one could see that 
imports of products affected by the measures had actually increased during January-April 2010, with 
respect to the same period in 2009.  This conf irmed the fact that, without the adoption of the 
measures, Ecuador would have found itself in a much more difficult situation.  This showed that 
Ecuador had acted prudently, despite not having had the monetary support that others had had to face 
the acute crisis that had affected it.  Ecua dor had met and would continue meeting its WTO 
commitments. WT/BOP/R/99 
Page 10  
 
67. The representative of Argentina
 noted that the notification submitted by Ecuador showed its 
commitment with respect to transparency.  Delayi ng the current meeting had provided Ecuador with 
the additional time needed to make a thorough presen tation, and to present answers to the questions 
submitted by Members.  Argentina wished to recognize Ecuador's e fforts towards tr ansparency and 
towards meeting its commitments to the Balance-of-Payments Committee. 
68. The Chairman  noted that, with respect to the issue of  the date of entry into force of the 
COMEXI Resolution, the Secretariat would issu e a Corrigendum to the English version of the 
notification.  
69. The representative of Ecuador  thanked those delegations that had intervened to refer to 
Ecuador's situation.  He wished to note that the an swers to the questions raised by Members were at 
the back of the room.  With respect to Ecuador's intention to comply with the next phase of tariff 
surcharge reduction, as scheduled, he wished to assure Members that Ecuador had committed to do 
so.  However, one could not ignore the instability th at persisted in international markets, which had a 
direct effect on a dollarized economy such as Ecuador's .  It was Ecuador's intention to comply with its 
commitments, and Ecuador trusted that internati onal market conditions would allow it to do so. 
70. Some Members had made references to some me asures that Ecuador had adopted.  First, he 
wished to clarify that those measures had nothing to  do with those adopted by Ecuador for balance-of-
payments purposes.  The new measures were of a completely different kind and nature:  they 
consisted in the conversion of ad valorem  tariffs into mixed tariffs.  Doing so was within Ecuador's 
(WTO) rights.  Ecuador wished to assure Members th at the conversions had not affected their rights 
and that tariffs continued to be  within their WTO bound levels. 
71. The Chairman  thanked all Members for their comments and questions.  He proposed to take 
note of the statements made, and suggested that the Committee convene again in the last week of July 
to review Ecuador's further progress in phasing-out th e measures in line with the timetable presented.  
He proposed the date of Tuesday 27 July at 3 p.m. for the Committee's next meeting.   
72. The representative of Ecuador  stated that, in principle, Ecuador had no problem with the date 
proposed.  He would, however, wish to consult with  capital before accepting it.  In order to prevent 
what had happened n previous o ccasions, its would perhaps be convenient to have some flexibility 
with respect to the Committee meeting date.  Ecuador  believed it would not be very useful to convene 
Members if no decisions has been previously ta ken by COMEXI, and it that sense supported having 
more flexibility with respect to th e date for the Committee meeting. 
73. The Chairman  stated that the Committee would meet again on 27 July at 3 p.m. 
 
_______________ 
 
  WT/BOP/R/99 
 Page 11 
 
 
Appendix I 
 Questions submitted by Canada  
1. Data from Ecuador's Central Bank show that th e trade balance for January to March 2010 has 
been in surplus for a third con secutive quarter.  Does the Ecuadorian government have a trade surplus 
forecast for 2010? 
2. In addition to positive trade data, remittances into  Ecuador continue to show increases.  Both 
the trade surpluses and strong remittances have pushe d the current account into surplus for the past 
3 quarters ending in 2009Q4.  Given the positive current account, would it not be unreasonable for 
Ecuador to maintain BOP measure s when in fact the balance of payment data is showing the 
opposite? 
 
__________