RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/96 
14 May 2009 
 (09-2369) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
24 MARCH 2009 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassa dor Karen Tan (Singapore
) 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3336 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/615.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
 
I.
 NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.............................................2  
II. 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
 
III. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES.......................................................................................8  
IV. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT ......................................12  
V. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIARY BODIES...............................12  
VI. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................1 4 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ....................................................................................................14  
VII. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS .......................................................................................................................... ..........14  
 G/C/M/96 
Page 2  
 
  I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1 The Chair
 recalled that, under the working proced ures agreed by the Committee on Regional 
Trade Agreements following adoption by the Genera l Council of the Transparency Mechanism, the 
Council for Trade in Goods was to be kept informed of Members' notifications of new regional trade 
agreements.  She informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements had been notified to 
the RTA Committee: 
A.  Agreement between Japan and the Ph ilippines for an Economic Partnership 
(WT/REG257/N/1); 
B.  Economic Partnership Agreement betw een the European Communities and Côte 
d'Ivoire (WT/REG258/N/1); 
C.  Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Oman (WT/REG259/N/1); D.  Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Peru (WT/REG260/N/1); 
E.  Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Georgia (WT/REG261/N/1); 
F.  Free Trade Agreement between China and Singapore (WT/REG262/N/1);  and  
G.  Free Trade Agreement between Australia and Chile (WT/REG263/N/1). 
 
1.2 She proposed that the Council tak es note of the information presented. 
 1.3 The Council so agreed
. 
 
II. 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  
2.1 The Chair
 recalled the Council's consideration of the three waiver requests presented by the 
United States for the African Growth and Opportuni ty Act, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
Act and the Andean Trade Preference Act.  The Un ited States first submitted its requests for waivers 
for these preference programmes in March 2005.  In Ju ly 2005, the then Chair of the CTG reported to 
the General Council that the CTG had not been able to complete its consideration of the request and 
therefore needed additional time.  The General C ouncil agreed to allow the CTG to continue its 
consideration of the three requests and to report back once this work had been completed.   
 
2.2. In March 2007, the United States circulated the fi rst revisions to its requests and, at the formal 
meeting in March, highlighted the changes to the programmes that broug ht about the revised requests.  
Following the circulation of the revised documents, it  appeared that two Members continued to have 
concerns with the waiver requests.  One Member's c oncerns were related to what it considered to be 
discriminatory treatment by the programmes, wh ile the second Member's c oncerns were related 
primarily to the wording of the draft decisions.    2.3 The United States had recently circulated second revisions to its requests for the three preference programmes AGOA, CBERA, and ATPA.  The revised requests were circulated in 
documents G/C/W/508/Rev.2, G/C/W/509/Rev.2, and G/C/W/510/Rev.2.  In addition revised draft 
decisions had also been circulated in documents G/C/W/611 and Corr.1, G/C/W/612 and Corr.1, and 
G/C/W/613 and Corr.1.   She reported that she had ca lled an informal meeting of the Council on this  G/C/M/96 
 Page 3 
 
 
  matter.  She understood from that meeting that the first Member's objections had been overcome, and 
the second Member's concerns had been accommodated in the revised draft decisions. 
 
2.4 The representative of the United States  recalled that these request s had been on the Council's 
agenda for some time and had been exhaustively ex amined at the beginning of the process and in 
subsequent meetings.  He did not go into the detail s of the programmes because that would be repetitive 
given the history of examination of these programmes.  He reiterated that his delegation believed that 
these programmes served an important developmen tal purpose and remained committed to obtaining 
WTO approval for them.  Concerns had been raised by Members based on the original submissions.  His 
delegation believed that it had reached an unders tanding that allowed the Council to proceed.  He 
thanked all Members, the Chair and the Secretariat, who had participated constructively in this process in order to reach this point.   
 
2.5 The representative of Bolivia
 apologized that, for technical reasons beyond its control, her 
delegation was unable to present Bolivia's views an y earlier on this issue which was of  great 
importance to her country.  Until 15 December 2008, Bolivia was one of the beneficiary countries 
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, pursuan t to section 3202(b) on countries eligible for 
designation, which included Ecuador, Colombia and Peru, and modifications, amendments and 
subsequent extensions thereto.  There was no denyi ng the role Bolivia had played in the fight against 
drug trafficking over the last few years, even though the UNODC World Dr ug Report 2003 stated 
that, "In Bolivia, where cultivation had recorded a continuous decline between 1996 (48,100 ha) and 
2000 (14,600 ha), cultivation increased for the second year in a row (by 23 per cent to 24,400 ha in 
2002)".  2002 was the year that the Andean Tr ade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) 
was enacted, as an amendment to the ATPA.". 
 
2.6 Nevertheless, Bolivia found its tariff prefer ences suspended by the Bush Administration, 
despite the fact that Bolivia's coverage under the ATPDEA had been extended for a further six months 
by the US Congress in October that same year.  Th e US government authorities argued, in a document 
entitled "Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Dr ug Producing Countries for Fiscal Year 2009", that 
Bolivia, among others, had failed to adhere to its  obligations under intern ational counter-narcotics 
agreements.  Data in the UNODC World Drug Repor t 2008 provided the factual evidence to disprove 
these assertions and, moreover, demonstrated that Bolivia was complying with the requirements set forth in US legislation.  For example, of the th ree Andean countries mentioned in the report, Bolivia 
had one of the smallest increases in cultivation in the whole region at 5 per cent (the largest increase 
was 27 per cent);  the increase in the number of laboratories destroyed - more than 5,901 in 2005 - 
was primarily due to an increase in the number of d estructions in Bolivia and Colombia;  and Bolivia 
only accounted for 10 per cent of potential global cocai ne production.  Furtherm ore, drug seizures in 
South America were decreasing, whereas drug use was increasing.  Bolivia was the exception to this 
rule.  Finally, of all Andean countries, Bolivia r eceived the least financial assistance from the US in 
the fight against drugs:  66 million dollars in total,  while some countries received as much as ten times 
this amount. 
 2.7 These were just a few of the facts and figures contained in the UNODC Report, which her delegation wished to cite without in any way seeki ng to undermine narcotics control efforts in other 
countries.  On the contrary, Bolivia commended all e ndeavours in this regard and hoped that its own 
efforts were recognized in turn.  Furthermore, Bolivia surpassed the internationally agreed annual 
target for coca leaf eradication (5,000 hectares)  in 2008, eliminating over 5,500 hectares of 
cultivation, according to UNODC.  By suspending tariff preferences for Bolivia, the US seemed to be 
punishing the country the more it did to combat the drugs scourge, sending out extremely contradictory messages to the international community.  G/C/M/96 
Page 4  
 
  2.8 The position of the former Bush Administrati on could not therefore be justified by either 
scientific criteria or internationally recognized da ta.  It appeared to have been based on purely 
political criteria, without taking into account the potential social and economic consequences 
for thousands of Bolivians, or the impact on povert y reduction and the achievement of the millennium 
development goals.  For example, under this progra mme, Bolivia had recorded significant growth over 
the last few years in exporting manufactured pr oducts with high value-added content.  Around 500 
enterprises participated in these exports, mainly  producing textiles, manufactured wood products, 
leather and jewellery.  The ATPDEA translated into  some 25,074 jobs in Bolivia.  Multiplying this 
figure by the average family si ze of these workers, her Government estimated that 112,833 people 
relied on these exports.  15.4 per cent of total Bolivia n exports went to the United States, which was 
the second export destination in 20 08, excluding gas.  A third of the value of these exports, 
145.7 million dollars, enjoyed preferences under the ATPDEA.  These figures were of great 
significance to Bolivia, whereas for the US, only 0. 02 per cent of total imports were of Bolivian 
origin.  
2.9 The implication of the US not applying the ATPDEA to Bolivia only was, among other 
things, that the waiver, if not applied to all the co untries involved, would contradict its very purpose  
which was to assist the trade and economic devel opment of beneficiary developing countries by 
encouraging the expansion of trade in legitimate  products as an alternative to the production and 
trafficking of illicit narcotics.  Bolivia would ther efore be justified in requesting that the document 
under consideration not be adopt ed, without modifications and given such blatant political 
discrimination.  Moreover, Bolivia asked for the te xt to include the phrase "[Duty-free treatment] shall 
be provided equally and without di scrimination for all Andean countries".  This request was not well 
received.  Notwithstanding these valid reasons fo r not agreeing to adopt the current document, 
Bolivia, as a gesture of goodwill towards the new Obama administration, was willing to endorse the 
request for a waiver today.  This was on the unders tanding that the US would, in turn, correct past 
errors as a gesture of goodwill towards Bolivia, and th at the waiver, if adopted, would not be used by 
the US to discriminate between beneficiary members,  and that it would apply equally to each member 
that complied with the provisions of the ATPDEA, as was currently the case. 
 2.10 The representative of Mauritius
 expressed her delegation's apprec iation for the approval of the 
AGOA waiver.  She supported the statement made by the US and thanked the US for having added 
Mauritius to the list of countries for third country fabr ic in AGOA, as textiles remained one of the most 
important pillars of her country's economy.  2.11 The representative of Cuba
 said that her delegation welcom ed the resolution of a long-running 
issue in this Council.  Notwithstanding this, and gi ven that her country had been subject to lengthy 
discrimination because of its di fferent policies, her delegation t ook note of Bolivia's statement and 
shared these concerns.  Equally, her delegation hop ed that the new US Administration would take 
positive steps to take into account the concerns and particular situation of Bolivia, and resolve 
appropriately the type of  discrimination which th is country had undergone. 
 2.12 The representative of Kenya
 agreed that it was time for progr ess to be made on these waiver 
requests.  His delegation wanted to see the issues am icably resolved so as to make progress without 
disruption of the AGOA programme which had contribut ed to the development of Sub-Saharan African 
countries.    2.13 The representative of Barbados
 welcomed the revised versions of the waiver request for the 
CBERA, AGOA and ATPA programmes, submitted by the US.  Her delegation welcomed Members 
flexibility in resolving this issue which had occupied the attention of this Council for some time.  These 
programmes were essential to the economic developmen t of the beneficiary countries.  In this current 
climate and against the background of the economic and financial crisis, programmes such as these 
helped stem any tide of potential increases in protectionism.  As a beneficiary of the CBERA  G/C/M/96 
 Page 5 
 
 
  programme, the US represented a major trading partner for the CBERA Members States.  Nonetheless, 
it was noteworthy that imports under this programme repr esented less than 2% of the total imports into 
the US.  For Barbados, in particular, domestic exports  to the US had fluctuated  and represented only just 
over 15% of total domestic exports.  The majority of  these exports had been under the GSP system or 
CBERA.  Her delegation commended the US for its continued partnership with the Caribbean countries 
and its several trade development initiatives. 
 2.14 The representative of Haiti
 associated his delegation with others in thanking the US for the 
waiver request for the CBERA progr amme.  His delegation hoped that the new legislation would be 
more sustainable over time than the previous one, and that it would be extende d to other sectors besides 
apparel and textiles.  His delegation also hoped that the administra tive and legislative procedures would 
be made more flexible.  It was also incumbent upon  the Haitian authorities an d the private sector to 
become organized.  His delegation supported the stat ement by Barbados.  The US was the first trading 
partner in the region.  The implementation and applic ation of this new legisl ation would present a huge 
economic opportunity for Haiti and count ries in the region as it aimed to create millions of jobs per year, 
to attract new investment, to strengthen export capaci ty of countries to the US, and to make national 
economies more dynamic and thereby facilitate their in tegration into the multilateral trading system.  
Given the long-running consideration of this matt er, his delegation hoped that resolution would be 
provided to the various concerns expressed.    2.15 The representative of Venezuela
 expressed his delegation's solidarity to the statement by 
Bolivia and hoped that the concerns voiced would be taken into account and a swift solution found. 
 2.16 The representative of Ecuador
 also expressed his delegation's sympathy towards Bolivia.  The 
Andean Trade Preference Act wa s a time-bound pref erence system which reflected the principle of 
shared responsibility acknowledged and promoted at  the international level.  The Andean countries 
benefited from this.  He recalled that the aim of this system was to combat the production and illegal 
trade in narcotics and psycho-tropic substances.  In doing so, it promoted the diversification of 
sustainable exports and economic alternatives, vis-à-vis  crops from which the illicit drugs were obtained.  
This was in line with the broad economic development in the Andean region.  Ecuador, in light of its 
very limited budgetary and huma n resources, earmarked a large quantity of resources for the 
implementation of policies to fight  against illicit drugs.  The efficiencies of these policies and 
programmes had been broadly recognized and they c ontributed to the fight against the production and 
consumption of illegal drugs and narcotics.  As on previous occasions, Ecuador recalled that the ATPA 
programme contained specific eligibility criteria to grant tariff preferences and was time-bound in 
nature, i.e. subject to time lines .  Ecuador's vision looked towards th e gradual consolidation of this 
system through bilateral, regional and, of cour se, multilateral trade negotiations based on real 
considerations of the development dimensi on which acknowledged th e economic and social 
asymmetries that existed amongst the negotiating parties.  Ec uador thanked Members for the 
constructive inputs in this lengthy process, and partic ularly, the US for its work in achieving this desired 
objective.  2.17 The representative of Colombia
 said that his delegation was pleased with the outcome that 
had finally been achieved.  As  on previous occasions, he noted the importance of ATPA to his 
country's economy.  His delegation hoped that the concerns voiced by some Members would be 
resolved in the near future and thanked th e US for its hard work on this matter. 
 2.18 The representative of Chile
 noted that these programmes were  beneficial to many developing 
countries and was pleased with the outcome achieved .  He thanked all Members for their flexibility in 
reaching a satisfactory agreement.    2.19 The representative of Jamaica
 thanked the US for its continued engagement on this matter and 
for the flexibility of Members in joining a consensus in approving the waiver requests.  The main G/C/M/96 
Page 6  
 
  beneficiaries of CBERA were the small economies in the Ca ribbean sub-region which viewed the 
programme as a platform for integrating into the gl obal economy.  The significance of this programme 
could not be overstated, particularly in view of its objectives which included facilitating the sustainable economic development and export diversification of th e countries in the Caribbe an Basin.  In this 
regard, her delegation welcomed the amendments to  provide additional trade benefits to Haiti.  
Preferential arrangements, such as CBERA, continued to play an important role in enabling greater 
participation in the global economy, particularly at this time when beneficiary countries were facing the 
challenges of globalization.  These requests had been before the CTG for some time;  their approval 
would now provide the necessary predictability and legal certainty to investors regarding the 
programmes' continuation. 
 
2.20 The representative of Dominica
 joined other Members in thanking the US, other Members and 
the Chair for the efforts in working towards a solution on this long outstanding matter.  His delegation 
associated itself with the statements made by Barbados and Jamaica.  
2.21 The representative of the United States
 thanked Members for their support and was pleased to 
be able to move forward on this matter.  In part icular, he thanked Bolivia for the co-operative attitude 
expressed at this meeting.  His G overnment would be reviewing Bolivi a's eligibility for the programme's 
benefits by the end of June, and would ensure that a fair and thor ough review of Bolivia's compliance 
with the programme's eligibility criteria be carrie d out.  To complete this review, his Government 
needed the most recent and reliable information poss ible and it, therefore, welcomed the statement made 
today and was willing to work with them to this end. 
 2.22 The representative of Argentina
 noted that the consideration of these requests had been a 
lengthy and difficult process aimed at overcoming the technical and ot her differences en countered.  His 
delegation also welcomed the US statement regardi ng Bolivia's presentation of  appropriate information 
so that it would be able to benef it from the preferences made to other Andean countries.  Bolivia was an 
Andean country and like others in the Andean region, was suffering from the problems of drugs.  It was 
difficult for the Bolivian Government to carry out all actions necessary in the fight against drugs. 
 2.23 The representative of Peru
 echoed the appreciation expressed for Members' flexibility and for 
the Council to overcome the concerns raised a nd reach a consensus to implement these three 
significant programmes aimed at helping developing countries. His country had benefited from ATPA 
for many years.  Peru also considered it positive that Bolivia had the possi bility in the future, as 
flagged by the US delegation, to resolve the concerns it outlined.  2.24 The representative of Rwanda
 thanked Members for their constructive spirit in endorsing the 
this important US initiative and for the untiring efforts by the US delegation.  His delegation 
particularly thanked the Obama Administration fo r the firm commitment to co-operate and support 
poor countries.  Rwanda's benefits under AGOA went  directly to the local communities which had 
already started to enjoy its benefits and which hope d to continue to realise the production strategies 
achieved.    
2.25 The Chair
 proposed that the Council takes note of  the statements made and that it 
recommends that the draft waiver decisions contained in G/C/W/611 and Corr.1, G/C/W/612 and Corr.1 and G/C/W/613 and Corr.1 be forwarde d to the General Council for adoption.   
 2.26 The Council so agreed
. 
 
2.27 The representative of Paraguay  thanked the Chair as well as the previous Chairs for the due 
attention given to this topic which had contributed  towards the achievement of a solution.  Following 
a long series of consultations, quest ions and answers and bi lateral discussions on the waiver requests 
presented by the US for its tariff preferences  programmes, known as ATPA, CBERA and AGOA,  G/C/M/96 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Members had reached a consensus.  In this conn ection his delegation was in a position to support the 
adoption of the decisions linked to these programmes.  It was important to recall that, with respect to 
Paraguay, the reservations made at the time stemmed from claims made from the Paraguayan private sector.  They saw that goods that were being produced competitively re ceived more favourable 
treatment in the US when they came from other co untries in the region.  Th is gave rise to unfair 
discrimination and a clear case of unfair competition against Paraguay.  The justification was that these 
preferences were supporting efforts in the fight against drugs.  This was a struggle that Paraguay had 
been waging systematically, using it s own means, and receiving blessi ngs from the US Congress and US 
Government.  Therefore, it would seem unfair that, while even taking part in the common objective, 
Paraguay would be excluded from the programme and,  even worse, its trade would be damaged because 
of its application.   
 2.28 This situation was brought befo re the US which agreed to set up a bilateral council for trade and 
investment which began to meet on an annual  basis in 2003, rotating between Asunción and 
Washington.  However, no specific measure encourag ing Paraguayan exports to the US and investments 
from the US to Paraguay could be implemented.  The trade deficit wa s on the rise and investments were 
virtually nonexistent.  It was impo rtant to underscore that Paraguay, since its accession to GATT in 
1994, maintained the principle of non-discrimination amongst developing countries with respect to the 
implementation of preferential program mes and it put forward specific propo sals to render this effective.  
Equally, it maintained a claim in the CTG regarding the Cotonou Agreem ent and, as a third party, it 
supported India's request against the EC on the discriminatory application of the GCP Drugs 
programme.  Paraguay had always been co-operative in  its search for a solution with the US,  a country 
linked to Paraguay through histor ically friendly ties.     
 2.29 The Paraguayan government provided may proposal s aimed at finding a sati sfactory solution for 
both countries.  This was ex emplified by an occasion re layed to the Council:  when an official from the 
US Government said to the Para guayan Ambassador in Washington, 'So you want compensation?', the 
Ambassador's reply was, 'No, we want a conversation.'.  In August 2008 a new government took power 
in Paraguay.  This was a political group headed by  Fernando Hugo quite distinct from the group which 
had governed for over 60 years.  This government had been fighting for a long time for the well being of 
its people, particularly the neediest.  President Hugo visited the US President, George Bush, in October 
2008.  This was a gesture that disp layed the consideration the Paraguayan Government attached to the 
US Government.  A couple of weeks later, a delega tion of 9 US congressional representatives came to 
Asunción, headed by the Democrat, Elliott Engel,  President of the Sub- Committee for the Western 
Hemisphere.  During this time, the trade situation betw een Paraguay and the US was dealt with in detail.  
He recalled that, in 2007, the US exported US$1.2 million while Paraguay exported to the US, 
US$68 million.  At that time Paraguay was number 69 on the list of exporters to the US. With respect to 
investment, a USTR report stated that in 2006 the volume of investme nt to the US from Paraguay was 
not available.  Paraguay welcomed  the fact that opportunities for new dialogue had opened.  Both 
governments were seeking responses to their concerns.  In order to  facilitate this process, the 
Paraguayan Government decided to withdraw its obje ctions to the approval of these decisions in the 
CTG.  His delegation trusted that  the beneficiary delegations of the preferential schemes, ATPA, 
CBERA and AGOA were appr eciative of this gesture and encour aged them, in turn, to support the 
relevant incentive measures for Para guay.  Paraguay's gesture would regularise the multilateral trading 
system which would be preserved and strengthened.  Paraguay thanke d the delegations that, throughout 
this process, displayed comp rehension and understanding.   
 2.30 The Chair
 proposed that the Council takes note of this statement.   
 
2.31 The Council so agreed . 
  G/C/M/96 
Page 8  
 
  III. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES 
3.1 The Chair
 recalled that at the previous meeting of the CTG the discussion had focused on the 
submission made by Turkey, contained in document G/C/W/599.  At that meeting, it was agreed to 
revert to this matter at this meeting.  During the interim, she had urged Members to consult bilaterally 
and plurilaterally as much as possible in order to ha ve a better appreciation of  the matter and of each 
other's positions.  She informed Members that Turk ey had circulated a new submission, in document 
G/C/W/614.  
3.2 The representative of Turkey  recalled that the subject of trade in textiles and clothing had 
been on the agenda of the CTG for more than four years.  It was first brought to the attention of 
Members in 2004, on the eve of the termination of  the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), 
taking into account the expected alterations in the post-ATC markets.  A number of proposals for 
establishing a work programme, including full and periodic sector-specific reviews in order to better understand production, export and market circumst ances regarding the sector, had been discussed in 
subsequent CTG meetings.  The last of these proposal s, presented in light of the previous discussions, 
was a communication from Turkey circulated as G/C/W/599 of 21 May 2008.  This proposal 
contained a two-stage programme - a compilation of the recent international studies by the WTO 
Secretariat and a workshop to be held on the basi s of this compilation.  Taking into account the 
reactions of Members to this communication, his delegation declared that, in its own capacity, it 
would submit a compilation of recent international studies on the post-ATC era.  This was presently circulated in document G/C/W/614.   
3.3 His delegation believed that these contribut ions would help Members make a better 
assessment of the impacts of the phase-out on deve loping and least developed economies.  In this 
vein, his delegation strived to analyse the post-AT C developments through different aspects, and to 
that end, searched studies of international organiza tions like the UN, ILO, IMF, OECD and ITCB, and 
combed through WTO documents as well as studies carried out by academic circles.  Through this analysis, his delegation examined over 200 document s, most of which concerned the upside of the 
post-ATC period, while relatively little paid atte ntion to the downside, which would result in 
irreversible damage if not addressed soon.  While  acknowledging that the studies compiled represent  
a drop in the ocean, he stressed that the selec tion was made by taking original studies which 
elaborated on the unsettled dust of the sectoral restru cturing.  Therefore, the main conclusions derived 
included: (i) many developing countries were at risk of losing a large number of jobs and export 
revenues in the short run, despite the fact that the sector was a driving force "[to] enable a number of 
countries to exit the group of lowest-income countries";  (ii) the future was not promising, owing to 
the rise of key exporters and global production chains , and to slow growth of demand in developing 
countries, all of which restricted opportunities for export diversification and economic growth;  (iii) 
the current situation, called for a state of emergency for the majority of textile and clothing producers/exporters in developing and least-develope d countries as the protectionist movements were 
also gaining ground. 
 
3.4 Turkey attached importance to its co mmunication mainly for 4 reasons:   
 (i)  These sectors, especially the clothing sector, could be characterised by less educated and unqualified workers, making absorbing masses into other sectors extremely difficult.  The resulting 
unemployment could be linked to efficiency, competiti on, market clearance or adjustment costs.  It 
should also be emphasised that di splaced workers imposed serious so cial costs on the economy and the 
society;  this was true for many le ast-developed and sm all-size economies; 
  G/C/M/96 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (ii) Some studies predicted that a limited number of exporters would cover more than half of the 
world textiles and clothing trade following the phas e-out.  While not yet proven, the impact of the 
phase-out not only claimed jobs but  also considerable market shar es for many developing countries; 
 (iii) The global financial crisis was expected to  have negative effects on the multilateral trading 
system.  Unless the crisis was not tackled properly  and soon, there was a risk  of further slowdown of 
economies worldwide.  Moreover, "at the national leve l, there would be risks,  job losses, bankruptcies 
[translating into] [...] demand for grea ter safety nets and security which is legitimate.  [...] [T]here will 
also be demand for protectionist m easures", as Director-G eneral Lamy stated in  November 2008.  The 
deteriorating world financial conditi ons understandably cast a shadow on fre e trade in the sector;  and   
 
(iv) The WTO had a pioneer role as an internationa l platform to address th e issues of this sector 
which, for some countries, made up to 85% of mercha ndise exports.  More than two-thirds of the world 
textiles and clothing exports  were handled by developing countries,  and data available indicated that 
though the ATC opened up the avenues of liberalized tr ade, it also af fected the development of the 
markets.   Some countries  achieved double thei r shares in the wo rld markets wh ile many others faced 
difficulties in even maintaining th eir market shares in important markets like the EU and the US.   
 3.5 His delegation believed that such an importa nt sector experiencing important restructuring 
should be kept on the agenda of the WTO mainly becaus e "there is need for positive efforts designed to 
ensure that developing countries, and especially th e least-developed among them, secure a share in the 
growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development".  
(Marrakesh Agreement).  His delegation stressed that  this communication could be considered as new 
input to the ongoing debate in the CTG.  The so cial and economic costs caused by the sectoral 
restructuring were enormous and the situation was worsening given the global crisis, which threatened 
to intrude on free and fair trade.  Under these circumstances, the WTO had a pioneering role in 
gathering information and working with other organiza tions.  His delegation hoped that this contribution 
would enable the CTG to focus on this topic and play its role in this regard.  His delegation wanted to hear the suggestions and views of Members and welcomed any contribution to its compilation efforts.  3.6 The representative of the Dominican Republic
 welcomed the Turkish proposal and considered 
that it would give rise to a new debate in the WTO on textile trade following the expiration of the 
Agreement on Textiles and Apparel.  His delegation reiterated the importance of trade and textiles for its 
economy and, as a result, was interested in continuing this debate in the CTG.  On a preliminary basis, he found the proposal interesting since it provided spec ific dates related to th e developments and their 
impacts on textiles and apparel in developing countrie s.  His delegation would submit this proposal to 
the capital and come to the next m eeting with more detailed comments. 
 
3.7 The representative of Jordan
 also welcomed the proposal which it only received two days ago. 
His capital needed more time to look into all it s elements.  This document brought more understanding 
to the dynamics of international textile and clot hing trade and there was great value in many of the 
concluding points, although they needed more clarific ation and/or verification.  His delegation believed 
that the Council needed to maintain the issue on the agenda for monitoring. 
 
3.8 The representative of Korea  welcomed Turkey's new proposal on trade in textiles.  Certainly 
the abolition of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing was a shock to WTO Members and his 
delegation was aware of the difficulties certain Memb ers, especially developi ng Members, were facing 
in this new era.  In this light, his delegation appr eciated Turkey's continuous e fforts to bring this issue 
into this Council for further reflection.  One ca veat would be that the work should move forward 
towards trade liberalization, rather than backward .  His capital was currently reviewing the paper 
carefully and would share the results with Members in due course.  His delegation believed that the sector needed to be discussed in the WTO but with a common understanding on how to proceed without 
pre-judging the final outcome.   G/C/M/96 
Page 10  
 
  3.9 The representative of Mauritius
 welcomed Turkey's new proposal.  Her delegation would 
examine the document more fully and come back with our comments.    3.10 The representative of China
 believed that no progress had been made on this long-running 
issue because Turkey's proposals went against the sp irit of trade liberalization, the cornerstone of the 
WTO.  Every delegate was aware how quantitative restrictions on market access distorted trade and 
investment in this sector.  Luckily,  the elimination of the ATC moved the sector in the right direction.   
Any hesitation over the elimination of quotas in this sector or any attempt to reverse the process would 
not win support from Members.  Secondly, this pro posal went against the spirit of competition.  The 
WTO and its Members endeavoured to establish a level playground and the elimination of quantitative 
restrictions was among these efforts.   After 2005 Chinese producers and e xporters in this sector enjoyed 
a fair trade environment.  He added that efficiency was the major determinant of competition.  In competition, there were winners a nd losers;  whom should the losers  blame, the competition or the 
competitors?  In fact, he believed that the quota system  and inefficient producers were to blame.  China 
understood the difficulties fa ced by less competitive Memb ers in the course of li beralization and it had 
always shown sympathy to these Memb ers.  In the past years, China had intensified its aide to these 
Members, either through financial as sistance or through transfers of technology.  It had encouraged its 
enterprises to invest in these countries to help them  gain trade capacity or di versify their industries.  
Fruitful results, bringing jobs and income, had been achieved in  these countries.   
 3.11 Thirdly, the proponent was selling his proposal in a manner that was not acceptable for some 
WTO Members, including China.  The WTO was an or ganization of co-operation and consensus.  The 
basic principle to follow was to show due respect to  other Members, i.e. one Member should not target 
others through unwarranted accusations.  Howeve r, from the document G/C/W/522 to the present 
G/C/W/614 the proponents held unfriendly attitudes towa rds some Members.  He reminded Members to 
refrain from such practices which were not helpful.  At the Council's last discussion on this issue there 
was no consensus on having this compilation.  Many questions were raised to the proponent 
multilaterally and bilate rally and the proponent did not give convi ncible answers.  Now, the proponent 
submitted this so-called compilation which was selective, biased and misleading.  While Members had the right to circulate communications, his delegation  believed that they should be of good faith and 
merit.    
3.12 Fourthly, the way in which the proponent de signed its proposal was not workable.  Some 
organizations were mentioned and quoted several times in this communication.  He asked what 
credibility these organizations had in a WTO meeting?  Were these studies fair and objective?  Were the  
positions of these organizations in the interest of  WTO Members who did not belong to them?  Had the 
WTO invited them to present their studies?  If not , why should the Council spend its time on it.  His 
delegation did not want to enter into a discussion of the details of G/C/W/614 because it was not worth 
the time of this Council.  To conclude, China consid ered that this proposal had not enjoyed consensus in 
this Council and requested that this  item be removed from the agenda. 
 3.13 The representative of India
 recalled that in an earlier discus sion, his delegation had asked what 
the purpose was of the exercise that Turkey was seekin g to initiate.  Turkey clearly stated that it wanted 
the WTO Secretariat to come up w ith policy options for Members.  This was an unthinkable proposition 
and his delegation explained at length why this was so.  Then Turkey stated that its initiative could be an exercise to better understand the situation through a  workshop and examination of various submissions.  
He recalled that at one of the previous CTG meetin gs he had counted close to 70 studies on the textile 
industry in the past 3 or 4 years.  The present docu ment gave one Member's interpretation of a few of 
these studies, primarily one study from an orga nization of which India was not a Member.   
 3.14 What was more worrying was what Turkey was ac tually seeking from this paper.  In paragraph 
17 Turkey implied that it wanted the WTO Secretariat to come out with sectoral policies for Members to implement.  This came back to the same situation and the same discussion as at the beginning of this  G/C/M/96 
 Page 11 
 
 
  initiative.  In this regard, there could be an auto mobile policy or a financial services policy.  Where 
would Members start and stop?  Was this really the line the CTG wanted to take?  In paragraph 18 of 
its text, Turkey stated that it wanted the CTG to m onitor statistics.  He asked which statistics and what 
could the CTG monitor?  The next page containe d WTO trade statistics which showed that the WTO 
was already monitoring this sector.  His delegation agr eed with China that, after considering this issue 
extensively, there was really nothing to add and th at the matter should be dropped from the agenda.  If 
Turkey was seeking policy advice, it should ask the OECD for assistance.  The OECD could study the 
sector, elaborate and publish reports and hold seminar s if it wished.  However, his delegation was no 
longer interested in the Turkish proposal.  
3.15 The representative of Tunisia
 thanked Turkey for the document which enabled Members to 
adopt a more pragmatic and realistic approach.  Th is document and Turkey's initiative in general was 
well based and came at a good time given current financ ial crisis.  His delegation believed that, at this 
stage, the CTG should continue to examine this i ssue.  His delegation would communicate its detailed 
position during the next meeting, after reading the document in detail.  Turkey's initiative responded 
to the demands voiced by a number of delegations  for a compilation of experience and data from a 
number of different, reliable and significant organizations such as the IMF, OECD, etc.,.  His delegation reserved the right to return to this is sue at a later date and to submit more detailed 
information related to this document which it requested  remain on the agenda of the next meeting.   
 3.16 The representative of Egypt
 welcomed Turkey's proposal and fully endorse d the statement 
made by Turkey and other Members including Jordan and Tunisia, etc.   His delegation sent the proposal 
to his capital and would come back  with comments at the next meeting.  He requested those Members 
who questioned the references of the studies in the paper to inform the Membership of other suitable 
studies they wished to be examined.  
3.17 The representative of Argentina
  thanked Turkey for the document and, in particular, the 
document references, the summary pages and the Anne x highlighting the market situation of recent 
years.  His delegation was struck by the paper's fi ndings and had some preliminary comments on it.   
After the first two summary pages, Turkey said, in  paragraph 16, that the main responsibility of 
governments was to formulate the nece ssary policies.  Further, paragra ph 17, as pointed out by India, 
Turkey said that the WTO should be "the right platform to develop policies".  He reminded Turkey 
that it was not the function of the WTO to design or develop policies.  Members, on an individual 
basis, developed sectoral policies which they deemed  necessary.  However, in paragraph 18, Turkey 
stated that the WTO should adopt a monitoring f unction to monitor develo pments in the textile 
markets. His delegation did not believe that it fell within the remit of the WTO to carry out 
monitoring activities.  WTO Committees received notifications from governments on various sectors 
which were forwarded to Members for discussion, if necessary.  To ask the WTO to take on a 
monitoring function is above a nd beyond the Marrakesh Agreement.  Therefore, his delegation 
requested Turkey to bear these cons iderations in mind if the Council decided to review this issue. 
 3.18 The representative of Pakistan
 said that his delegation was examining the issue and discussing 
the matter with colleagues.  However, it was mindful of the statements by China and India today.  He 
was waiting for instructions from his capital but also remained committed to not opening settled 
issues for further approval and creating unnecessary work.  He would revert to the CTG once a 
decision was taken in his capital.  3.19 The representative of Morocco
 reserved her delegation's position because she was still 
awaiting feedback from her capital.  She asked for this  item to be retained on the agenda for the next 
meeting.  3.20 The representative of Turkey
 said that his delegation did not believe that it was raising any 
systemic issues on the textiles and clothing sector.  It was not looking backward but only forward, G/C/M/96 
Page 12  
 
  taking into account the crisis environment and the real need to discuss these issues for a large number 
of countries represented in this Council.  This compil ation was, of course, made in Turkey's capacity 
and it was clear that the research did not belong to Tu rkey but to credible international organizations 
working on this topic.  His delegation understood th at there was a need to further discuss the issues 
which had been under discussion in this Council fo r over 4 years.  It understood more time was 
needed for Member's perusal and study of th e document.  His delegation took note of the 
interventions made by Members and suggested, as ma ny Members also did, that the Council continue 
its discussion on Turkey's latest 2 submissions at the next CTG meeting.  3.21 The Chair
 proposed that the Council takes note and reverts to this item at the next meeting 
when Members would have had time to consult th eir capitals, study the new submission, and have 
further bilateral consultations for clarification a nd verification.  She encouraged Members to meet 
with a view to getting a better appreciation of each others' positions so that the Council would be in a 
position to move forward on this issue.    
3.22 The Council so agreed
. 
 
IV. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
4.1 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to document G/L/223/Rev.161 containing the status of 
notifications under the provisions of the Agreement in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement.  In the 
absence of comments on the text, she proposed that the Council takes note of the document.  
 4.2 The Council so agreed
. 
 
V. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIARY BODIES 
5.1 The Chair  recalled that the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies 
contained in document WT/L/510, adopted by the General Council on 10 December 2002, provided 
that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods would conduc t consultations on the 
appointment of the Chairpersons of the subsidiary  bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  She had 
carried out consultations over the past five weeks on this matter.  These consultations were carried out 
in a highly transparent and open manner whereby all Members were informed that she would be 
accepting proposals for candidates for these positions.  Based on the proposals and suggestions from 
Members which came forth to respond to her call, she formed a draft slate of names.  This draft was 
the basis for further bilateral c onsultations among interested Members, and a collective informal 
meeting among regional coordinators  and other interested Members yesterday.  Overall, this had not 
been an easy task.  Finally, this morning, she held an open-ended c onsultation on a proposed slate of 
names.  At this informal meeting, her proposed slate was agreed by Members.  She, therefore, 
believed that she was in a position to propose to this  Council an agreed slate of names for the Chairs 
of the subsidiary bodies.  This slate reflected the open, transparent manner in which the consultations 
were carried out, as well as the wide diversity of the WTO Membership.   
                                                      
1 A corrigendum to this document has recently  been circulated in G/L/223/Rev.16/Corr.1.  G/C/M/96 
 Page 13 
 
 
  5.2 The names for the subsidiary bodies were as follows: 
 
Committee on Market Access Barney RILEY (New Zealand) 
Agriculture Valeria CSUKASI (Uruguay) 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measu res Miriam Chaves (Argentina) 
Anti-Dumping Practices Pasquale de MICCO (Italy) 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Raimundas LISKAUSKAS (Lithuania) 
Safeguards Dineswaree MOHUN (Mauritius) 
Import Licensing Marco KASSAJA (Tanzania) 
Rules of Origin Vera  THORSTENSEN (Brazil)  
Customs Valuation Mohammed SAEED (Pakistan) 
Technical Barriers to Trade Ami LEVIN (Israel) 
TRIMs Vasile RADU (Romania) 
State Trading Enterprises Haitao ZHU (China)  
Committee of Participants on the Expansion 
of Trade in Information Technology Products Khalid EMARA (Egypt) 
5.3 She proposed that the Council agr ee with the nominations read out.   
 5.4 The Council so agreed
. 
 
5.5 The Chair  recalled that while all the other subsidia ry bodies of the Council had provisions in 
their respective Agreement or rules of procedur e requiring them to elect Chairpersons, Working 
Parties did not have any procedural rules on electing Chairpersons.  As a result, in the case of the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, she proposed that the Council appoint the nominated 
Chairperson.  In the case of all the other subsidia ry bodies, she proposed that the Council takes note of 
her proposals.   5.6 The Council so agreed
. 
 5.7 The Chair
 added that, on the question of Vice-Chairs, it was her understanding that it would 
be for the subsidiary bodies to decide if they needed a Vice-Chair in cas es where the option existed 
under the Agreement or rules of procedure and th at it was for the respective Chair to hold the 
necessary consultations.  She asked it the Council could proceed on this basis. 
 5.8 The Council so agreed
.   
 
5.9 The Chair  thanked the outgoing Chairpersons of the various subsidiary bodies of the Council 
for Trade in Goods for their hard work and dedication during the year.  G/C/M/96 
Page 14  
 
  VI. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. D
ATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
6.1 The Chair  informed the Council that the next meeting was scheduled to take place on 
Tuesday, 12 May 2009.  The agenda would close on Friday, 1 May 2009. 
 
VII. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
7.1 The Chair  informed Members that the Chairman of the General Council had carried out 
consultations on a slate of names for Chairpersons to the different WTO standing bodies in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers.  These proposed 
nominations were approved by the General Council at its meeting on 3-4 February 2009.  In line with 
the nominations, she proposed that the Council fo r Trade in Goods elect Ambassador Elin Østebø 
JOHANSEN of Norway as Chairperson of this body by acclamation.    7.2 The Council so agreed
. 
 
7.3 The Chair  thanked all delegations, the Secretariat, the interpreters and all support staff, for 
their untiring efforts and dedication to carrying out the work of the CTG in 2008.    7.4 The meeting was adjourned
. 
  
 
  
__________