RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/114 
27 June 2008 
 (08-3087) 
General Council 
7 May 2008  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 7 May 2008  
 
Chairman:  Mr Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Report by the Chairman of th e Trade Negotiati ons Committee ..........................................1  
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on  Trade and Development ........................................................17  
3. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala – Statement by the Chairman ...........17  
4. ACP-EC Economic Partnership Agreemen ts – Communication from Brazil...................21  
5. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administra tion – Report of the Committee on its 
meeting of February 2008 ......................................................................................................2 7 
6. European Communities – Application of autonomous preferential treatment to 
Moldova – Request for a waiver ............................................................................................28  
7. WTO Pension Plan Management Board – Election of Chairman, Members and Alternates – Proposal by the Chairman of the General Council .......................................28
 
8. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Uzbekistan...............................29  
9. Administrative Measures fo r Members in arrears ..............................................................29 
ANNEX – Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee on 17 April 2008...................................................................................................31  
 
 
1. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
1. The Chairman  invited the Director-General, as Chairman of the TNC, to report on the TNC's 
activities since his last report to the Council. 
2. The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC , said1 that since his last report the TNC had held 
one informal meeting on 17 April where the discussi ons had focused principally on the process for the 
finalization of modalities in Agriculture and NAMA.  His remarks at that meeting had been circulated 
in document JOB(08)/28.  In his opening remarks, he had underlined that, although intensive work 
                                                      
1 The statement was subsequently circ ulated in document JOB(08)/37.  WT/GC/M/114 
Page 2  
 
  had been taking place in the negotiating groups, it was time to move rapidly forward if Members 
wished to conclude the Round in 2008.  He had al so reported on his consultations regarding the scope 
of the horizontal process, where more clarity was ne eded.  On the process leading to establishment of 
modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, the aim of th e work over the past fe w weeks had been to 
produce revised modalities texts on the basis of discussions in the negotiating groups that could 
provide a platform for the establishment of modalities.   This meant the time was coming soon to take 
the work to a higher level and to begin drawing t ogether the threads both within and across the two 
modalities issues, as mandated in Hong Kong.  It also  meant giving sufficient reassurance that all the 
other negotiating issues were advancing as they should.  This was what was being called the 
"horizontal process", which was not an innovation, but merely the bringing together of the key 
elements in order to reach convergence on modalities.   Similar processes had taken place in the recent 
past, notably in 2004 and before Hong Kong.  The ai m was to follow the pattern that had worked in 
the past – concentric circles of consultations  with constant communication among them.  The 
substantive objective was to prepare the formal establishment of modalities in Agriculture and NAMA 
and to provide sufficient reassurance that othe r issues were also advancing within the single 
undertaking.  The basic principles to which all were committed would continue to apply:  modalities 
could be established only by the full membership;  transparency and inclusiveness were fundamental;  
and informal consultations in various smaller c onfigurations were essential to narrow differences but 
had to feed into a multilateral arena in a continuous loop.  To give effect to these principles he would 
hold informal TNC meetings throughout the duratio n of the horizontal process.  These would serve 
both to guarantee transparency and to help build  consensus.  He would supplement them with 
continuing dialogue with the regional and other grou ps, as well as with Green Room meetings.  The 
composition of the latter would ensure that the full spectrum of Members' views and interests were represented.  Some variable geometry might at  times be needed depending on the issues being 
discussed.  He was also well aware of the need to a llocate time for capitals to consider draft texts and 
for groups to coordinate. 
3. The horizontal process would start at Senior Offici al level in order to prepare properly for the 
Ministerial involvement likely to be needed at a later stage.  The starting point would be the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs' revised draft text s, and the end product should be sufficient 
convergence on key points in Agriculture and NAM A to enable final draft modalities texts to go 
forward to the TNC for establishment.  Besides est ablishing modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, the 
question of which other issues would need attenti on at the same time had been raised at both the 
December General Council and at an informal  TNC in January.  He had undertaken many 
consultations on this question of scope, and the informal TNC in Ap ril had formed part of this 
consultative process.  Following these consultations , there was now reasonable clarity on scope and 
that the primary focus of the next weeks had to be on modalities in Agriculture and NAMA.  It was 
also clear that issues such as Trade and Envi ronment, the S&D Work Programme and Trade 
Facilitation were advancing and did not need to be taken up in detail at the time of the modalities.  
This was also true for Dispute Settlement, although not part of the single undertaking.  Therefore, on these issues the respective Chairs would make repor ts to the TNC on progress and set out roadmaps 
for further work in their respectiv e areas.  There remained a middle group of three issues – Services, 
Rules and TRIPS-related issues – where it had become  apparent that more clarity was needed.  On 
Services, it was now clearer where Members were head ing, and a number of senior officials were in 
Geneva that week working on the preparations fo r the signaling conference. He would be meeting 
with them on Friday.  On Rules, he underlined th at there was wide agreement that this was not an 
issue for Ministerial negotiations at the time of modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, while of course 
it was not excluded that some discussion might take place.  This question had been linked to the question of a text.  Many particip ants had made it clear that they expected to see a new document 
from the Negotiating Group Chair before the opening of  the horizontal process.  The need that had 
been identified was to have a document that  would not prejudice Members' positions.  The 
Negotiating Group Chair had undertaken to table a document addressing these needs.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 3 
 
 
  4. Regarding the TRIPS issues, namely GIs and the TRIPS/CBD relationship, for the mandated 
negotiations on a GI register, the TRIPS Special Se ssion Chairman would make a report to the TNC 
on work in this area.  In addition, as Director-Gen eral he had a mandate from Ministers in Hong Kong 
to conduct consultations on the issues of GI exte nsion and the TRIPS/CBD relationship.  For these 
two issues, there would also be reports indicating th e state of play in his consultations, which were 
currently being undertaken with the assistance of D DG Mr. Yerxa.  On the basis of the consultations 
so far, these reports were likely to set out factually the different positions, rather than offer solutions.  
However, consultations were conti nuing and he reiterated his call for continued efforts between the 
groups of Members concerned so as to try to avoid a big clash during the moda lities exerci se.  From 
what had been said at the informal TNC, and also  from his contacts with officials in Geneva and 
elsewhere, all seemed to be aware of the urgency of what they were doing.  However, they also knew 
that it was the substance which drove the process, a nd that one had to proceed step by step.  The 
balance between these two key aspects of the work – urgency and substance – was what Members had 
to strive to fine-tune over the coming days.  As all were aware, it had not yet been possible to 
circulate comprehensive revised modalities texts fo r Agriculture and NAMA.  In Agriculture, some 
participants had asked for some more days to be able to finalize work they had been undertaking 
among themselves on some key inputs to the revision  process, namely on sensitive products, tropical 
products and preference erosion.  He  urged the Members involved in this work to make every effort to 
conclude it rapidly, and hoped th ey would have good news to announce at the meeting the Agriculture 
Chair had convened for the following day.  If Memb ers were to meet the collective target of 
concluding the Round by end-2008 – an objective that had been restated by ASEAN Trade Ministers 
the previous weekend – they had only a few weeks, not months or semesters, in which to establish 
modalities.  This was a very tight schedule, but still  doable.  He firmly believed this was doable under 
and within the procedures and principles that guided the work in organization.  The reality was that 
Members were not confronted with a choice between substance and timing.  It was fair to say that 
Members had come a long way in breaching differen ces on substance.  Putting the modalities in place 
very soon, therefore, was the only way to achieve the end-of-year target, since it would leave just 
enough time for scheduling in Agriculture and NAMA and to wrap up the negotiations in the other 
areas.  This was what many Members had recently confirmed to him. 
5. The reasons Members had to conclude the Round in 2008 were visible to all and were 
becoming more critical by the day.  In his last report, he had mentioned what was happening in the world economy, in particular the turbulent situation in the financial markets.  Since then, there had 
been an unprecedented escalation in food pri ces worldwide which had had negative effects, 
particularly on developing countries that depended on imports for their food security or were net food 
buyers.  The result had been unrest linked to these high food prices in a number of countries.  Although the WTO could not provide anything immediat e to help solve the current crisis, it could, 
through the Doha Round negotiations , provide medium- to long-term solutions.  This had appeared 
clearly in various meetings he ha d attended, whether at the UNCTAD XII meeting in Accra, or at the 
recent UN Chief Executives Board, where he had wo rked with the UN Secretary General and Heads 
of other international organisations and bodies to a ddress the various facets of this crisis.  Alongside 
other efforts by governments and international or ganizations, a WTO deal could help soften the 
impact of high prices by tackling the systemic distortions in the international market for food.  All aimed to substantially lower barriers to trade in ag ricultural products and diminish levels of trade-
distorting subsidies, particularly in developed countries, that had hampered food production and 
investment in agriculture in many developing count ries.  This was doable and Members were nearly 
there.  The overall outcome would be less dist ortion in world markets and increased international 
trade, leading to more rapid and e fficient adjustment by supply to ch anges in demand.  This issue was 
also connected to the Aid-for-Trade agenda wh ich addressed capacity problems of developing 
countries in production, infrastructures or standard s that were obviously relevant pieces of the food 
price puzzle.  The food price issue was obviously bad news for many countries, but if the declining trend in prices of agricultural commodities witnessed in  the past decade was to be reversed – which he 
believed had to be done – it could also mean good news for the future, provided the necessary policy WT/GC/M/114 
Page 4  
 
  responses were given.  The WTO could provide part of the solution, which was why it could, and had 
to, play its full part in this vital effort.  For this reason, which was a compelling one for all, the 
conclusion of the Doha Round was more ur gent no than it had been previously. 
6. All representatives who spoke thanked the Director-General for his report. 
7. The representative of Singapore
, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , welcomed the Director-
General's leadership in building consensus and prov iding the necessary clarity on the next steps in the 
DDA negotiations.  The recent ASEAN Economic Ministers' meeting in Bali had discussed pressing issues affecting ASEAN and had issued a statemen t on the DDA and a Joint Ministerial Statement on 
Food Security, both of which were available at the back of the meeting room.  In the interests of 
brevity, he would summarize the key messages delivered by the ASEAN Ministers on the DDA.  
First, one should not allow further delays in fi nalizing an outcome of the Round.  Second, it was 
expected that the revisions to the negotia ting texts on Agriculture and NAMA would be 
comprehensive and balanced, in order to provide a firm basis for Members to make decisions on the 
trade-offs necessary to finalize modalities.  To th is end, her delegation saw strong merit in having 
senior officials meet in order to further na rrow the remaining gaps as much as possible and 
substantively prepare the ground for an appropria te Ministerial Conference.  Third, the ASEAN 
Members reiterated that it was vital for efforts in a ll other areas in the single undertaking to also make 
progress in order to give all necessary comfort to th e membership.  Fourth, ASEAN reiterated its deep 
appreciation and firm support for the efforts of the Director-General and the Chairs of the negotiating 
groups.  Finally, ASEAN reiterated its strong supp ort for the early accession of the Lao People's 
Democratic Republic to the WTO.  She requested th at Singapore's statement on behalf of the ASEAN 
Members at the 17 April informal TNC meeting be  included in the records of the present meeting.
2 
8. The representative of Argentina  thanked the Director-General for his report on the meetings 
he had recently attended addressing the issue of soari ng food prices.  Argentina urged him to take an 
active part in the work being done on this subject in  various international fora  and to keep the General 
Council informed of the outcome of these proceed ings.  His delegation had no major misgivings 
concerning the Director-General's road map for fu rther work.  Nonetheless, the structure of the 
exercise proposed demanded, as di d any working hypothesis, that certain major prerequisites be 
fulfilled, which he would emphasize as follows:  (i ) The first was that Members had Agriculture and 
NAMA modalities texts from the respective Chairs th at were both broad enough to allow horizontal 
negotiation among senior officials and consistent wi th the negotiating mandates, so as to achieve a 
balanced outcome between Agriculture and NAMA in keeping with the terms of paragraph 24 of the 
Hong Kong Declaration;  (ii) the second concerned the Agriculture negotiations in particular, in which 
efforts regarding sensitive products appeared to be leading to far-from-satisf actory results.  This had 
an impact on the balance being sought with NAMA, but it also had to be clear that the outcomes of 
the Agriculture modalities for sensitive products had to be sufficiently specific to prevent any 
surprises when the time came to schedule commitments.  It would be difficult to move ahead with a 
successful horizontal negotiation if th ese prerequisites were not fulfilled. 
9. The representative of Lesotho , for the LDCs , said the convening of the present meeting at the 
present juncture in the DDA negotiations was timely, as this was the  moment of truth.  The LDCs 
commended the Director-General for his report, whic h was comprehensive, accurate and illuminating, 
and contained a well discerned prognosis.  The options put before Members seemed viable and 
deserved serious consideration.  It was very true that substance should drive the process and thus set 
the pace.  It could not be denied, however, that  time was of the essence.  Major changes looming on 
the horizon elsewhere emphasized the need to produ ce substance at an accelerated pace.  These 
changes would have a heavy bearing on the negotiatio ns, and procrastination would bring a high level 
of risk.  The food price crisis mentioned by the Director-General – which was closely, but not solely, 
                                                      
2 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 5 
 
 
  associated with escalating oil prices – was very ser ious in net food- and oil-importing developing 
countries, and the turmoil in international financia l markets was exacerbating this situation.  While 
there were other international organizations that we re expected to play their role in addressing the 
crisis, the WTO, given its mandate , could only contribute to addressing this crisis by ensuring there 
were no distortions in the market place.  Indeed, di stortions in markets might be the major root cause 
of this crisis.  The urgency of addressing this matter appropriately could not be over-emphasized.  
Timely conclusion of the DDA would make a contri bution, on condition that the development element 
occupied centre stage and that LDCs' proposals were duly taken on board.  The latter were well 
known.  Operationalization of Aid For Trade was also key, particularly the Enhanced Integrated Framework.  This crisis was causing not only socio-political problems, a nd thus affecting essential 
elements of an atmosphere conducive to economic  performance, but also had a direct impact on 
external balances and arrested growth rates, wh ich implied missed millennium development goals 
(MDGs) for many.  He noted that the UN General Assembly would be reviewing progress towards the 
achievement of MDGs in 2008.  The LDCs' submissi ons were time-sensitive, and their value eroded 
with the passage of time.  If there were further delays, they would amount to nothing but a mirage 
unless they were operationalized at the earliest opportuni ty.  Time was of the essence.  He asked that 
the statement by Uganda on behalf of the LDCs at  the 17 April informal TNC meeting be included in 
the records of the present meeting.
3 
10. The representative of Brazil  said his country remained firmly committed to the DDA.  The 
Round was at a critical juncture, and a successful agreement on full modalities was both feasible and 
desirable.  Agriculture was at the heart of th is Development Round.  Brazil had continuously 
emphasized that the ambition in Agriculture would de termine the ambition in other areas, particularly 
NAMA.  This was as valid now as it had been when  the Round was launched.  The move towards 
horizontal negotiations would require texts in Agriculture and NAMA that were complete and 
balanced, and provided clarity concerning actual cont ributions to be made by developed countries.  
These texts had to preserve the level of ambition of  the Ministerial mandate and the need for S&D 
treatment.  In Agriculture, Brazil had noted positiv e steps in the past we eks, especially in the 
discussions on market access.  This had taken some time to develop, but Me mbers were moving in the 
right direction.  Brazil noted, however, that th e constant accommodation of developed countries' 
sensitivities and concerns in the th ree pillars had a price in terms of the level of ambition.  
Circumstances in global agricultura l trade had changed since the beginning of the Round in 2001, and 
had taken a more dramatic turn in the past few months.  Rising food prices had consequences for food 
security in developing countries.  To a considerable  extent, this was linked to the displacement of 
production in developing countries by subsidized production in the Nort h.  It was more than ever 
imperative to reduce significantly trade-distorti ng subsidies in this Round.  Any remaining 
justification for those subsidies had been removed by the high prices of agricultu ral products.  In this 
regard, his delegation wished to support the Direct or-General's assessment that the Round could be 
part of the solution to the current food situation in developing countries.  The G-20 had consistently 
reiterated the mandate for substan tial reduction in domestic support levels and the central linkage 
between effective cuts in OTDS and product-speci fic disciplines.  These disciplines should not allow 
for concentration of support and should be effective,  including the specific mandate for cotton.  Real 
engagement was needed from deve loped countries, and they bore the main responsibility for reform 
and had to show their readiness to make a decisi ve contribution for the success of the negotiations. 
11. On NAMA, the revised draft had to contemplate the positions and perspectives of the 
NAMA-11.  It should focus on structure, combining both formula and flexibilities.  The level of ambition should not be prejudged.  It was essen tial that it incorporate the additional flexibilities 
required to address the specific needs of devel oping countries, such as those demonstrated by 
MERCOSUR in document JOB(07)/166/Add.1.  It was only on the basis of such a paper that 
Members would be able to build higher levels of co nvergence and move to hor izontal negotiations.  In 
                                                     
 
3 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/114 
Page 6  
 
  Services, a Chair's text had to respect fully th e mandate contained in Annex C of the Hong Kong 
Declaration and deliver on LDCs' modalities.  A signaling conference, if carefully planned and 
organized, might be useful.  In order to ensure a successful conference, developed countries should 
clearly indicate how they intended to provide ma rket access in sectors and modes of supply of export 
interest to developing countries, in particular LDCs , and substantially improve their revised offers.  In 
Rules, a result in line with the mandate would requi re redressing the imbalances in the current draft.  
In particular, Brazil and an overwhe lming majority of Members strongl y opposed attempts to reinstate 
the zeroing methodology.  The time for presentation of a new Chair's text had already come, and 
Brazil asked the Rules Chair to work on it as a matter of urgency.  Like others, Brazil needed comfort 
in Rules in order to proceed to horizontal ne gotiations.  A positive result in anti-dumping was 
essential to preserve the level of ambition in market  access.  On fisheries and horizontal subsidies, 
Brazil recalled that the outcome in Rules could not run counter to the development dimension of the 
DDA.  The number of co-sponsors in favour of ame nding the TRIPS Agreement in order to establish 
a mandatory disclosure requirement for genetic  resources and traditional knowledge in patent 
applications had grown steadily and now encompassed more than half the membership.  As a result, 
an outcome on TRIPS and CDB was an essential elem ent of any outcome at the modalities phase, and 
Members should intensify consultations to prepare th at outcome.  His delegation also wished to stress 
the need for concrete results on all outstanding de velopment issues, in particular Duty-Free Quota-
Free, S&D implementation issues and, as mentioned ear lier, cotton.  Members needed to complete an 
S&D package that fully implemented the Doha objective to make S&D treatment measures more 
precise, effective and operational.  Regarding the pr ocess, Brazil agreed with the Director-General's 
assessment that Members should move  step-by-step.  Members had to  focus on the sequence needed 
to arrive at a successful conclusion of the modalitie s in Agriculture and NAMA.  The first step was 
the presentation by the Chairs of revised modalities te xts that were complete and balanced.  This was 
an exercise that aimed at  a maximum of convergence among Members.   At the same time, there were 
limits to what could be achieved within the nego tiating groups.  Where there was no convergence, the 
Chairs should reflect the diversity of views.  The obj ective should be to have the best possible text to 
facilitate movement to a horizontal process in the shortest possible time.  The Chairs should be able to judge when this was feasible, bearing in mind that there was not much time left. 
12. Speaking on behalf of the G-20
, he stressed that the Group was fully committed to the Round 
and prepared to work hard with a view to achievi ng a timely, balanced and proportionate outcome in 
Agriculture.  Many of the G-20 contributions had b een incorporated in the Chair's draft modalities 
text.  The Group's positions reflected an ade quate balance among different positions in the 
negotiations.  The G-20 was prepared to engage cons tructively in this final stage and to move the 
Doha Round forward. 
13. The representative of Côte D'Ivoire , on behalf of the African Group , said the Group agreed by 
and large with the Director-General's report.  It wished to reaffirm the political commitment expressed 
through its trade and finance Ministers at their me eting in Addis Ababa in April, which aimed to 
ensure Africa's effective involvement in the Doha  negotiations in order to provide an impetus to 
reaching a fair and balanced agreement whose amb itions reflected the development dimension of the 
Doha Work Programme.  However, for the nego tiating process to gain momentum, Members would 
have to establish comprehensive modalities in Ag riculture and NAMA, in accordance with the Hong 
Kong mandate.  While the Group did not underestimate the importance of sticking to the timetable, it 
went without saying that substance would determin e the future development of the process and the 
successful conclusion of the negotiations.  These we re the premises that faced Members in the 
negotiations, particularly in Agriculture.  The TNC Chair had provided an accurate and welcome 
description of the state of play.  Based on the Group's own experience in the negotiations and on the Director-General's report, it noted that in Agri culture there remained a number of highly sensitive 
divergences, because there had been no compro mise on issues essential to the African Group, 
including preferences, tropical products, sensitive products, and the special safeguard mechanism.  
The almost simultaneous circulation on 8 February of the draft revised modalities in Agriculture and  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 7 
 
 
  NAMA had given the negotiating process a new impetus,  thanks both to the wide range of issues 
covered by those texts and the efforts to clarif y the disciplines therein.  In the same vein, on 
12 February another draft modalities text had been circulated on Services, clearly arousing a fresh 
interest in the DDA.  The negotiations based on the two draft Agriculture and NAMA texts already 
foresaw cross-cutting discussions, and the Group rema ined convinced that progress was possible on 
all the issues covered by both the Agriculture a nd NAMA texts.  While the African Group noted that 
in the agriculture negotiations there had been c onsiderable progress in the area of market access, 
because of the reticence among the negotiating parties with respect to other negotiating issues for which all interests were offensiv e – particularly within the deve loping countries group – the African 
Group wondered about the architecture of the re vised draft modalities on Agriculture.  It was obvious 
that the circulation of a partial modalities text on Agriculture or any other negotiating topic would be 
both inappropriate and unacceptable.  Consequently , the African Group, in a spirit of openness and 
compromise, was sparing no effort to intensify co nsultations with other ne gotiating parties with a 
view to finding areas of convergence and compromise on the disputed issues.  However, no one could be asked to do the impossible.  The African Group would assume its share of sacrifices and 
concessions within the limits of what was reasonabl y possible in order to conclude the Round.  The 
Round had to be concluded, given its ambitions in the area of mark et access for agricultural products 
and industrial products with a significant scope for tariff reduction, as well as its stated ambitions in 
the areas of domestic support and trade-distorting export subsidies. 
14. All of the ambitions associated with the Doha  Round were decisive factors for the African 
Group and explained their commitment to achieving a positive outcome to the negotiations as soon as 
possible, and under conditions that satisfied its me mbers.  Moreover, in view of the current world 
food crisis, it was imperative that Members speeded  up the negotiating process, since the conclusion 
of an agreement on Agriculture was clearly a prerequisite for a lasting medium- and long-term solution to the rise in food prices.  In this resp ect, the Group agreed with  the Director-General's 
statement.  Equitable and lasting solutions c ould be found to the economic problems plaguing the 
developing countries and the LDCs, pa rticularly in Africa, through in ternational trade as an economic 
growth factor, by strengthening the supply capacity  of those countries a nd introducing multilateral 
frameworks and mechanisms to ensure better access to international markets.  Regarding the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, the Group was a co-spons or of a proposed amendment to the TRIPS 
Agreement aimed at achieving the objectives of th e CBD.  The final results of the Round should 
include this relationship between the TRIPS Agreem ent and the CBD.  With respect to Services, the 
African Group as a whole was not a demandeur, since it stuck with the provisions of Annex C, but 
owing to the obvious interests of some of its members, it would follow the signaling conference very carefully, particularly since the results of the bila teral and plurilateral consu ltations would also have 
an MFN dimension.  For all of these reasons, the A frican Group reaffirmed it s commitment to speeding 
up the negotiations in order to reach agreement by the end of the year in keeping with Members' collective 
commitment..  The Group endorsed the statement by Lesotho for the LDCs and the statement to be 
made by Jamaica for the ACP Group. 
15. The representative of Uruguay
 said the Director-General had said important things in well-
expressed terms in the last part of his report, and his words should not go without comment.  His 
report prompted one to think about the outside world and the circumstances surrounding Members' negotiations.  Uruguay could not agree more with the Director-General's conclusion that if completion 
of the Doha Round had always been necessary, it had now become imperative.  Members were 
compelled to succeed, as the alternatives would be  too onerous.  The Round had to be concluded in 
2008, and in order to achieve that goal, the Ag riculture and NAMA modalities had to be finalized 
before the summer.  The Direct or-General had reminded Members of the global food crisis, which 
was another "deadline", and one Members would have  no choice but to face.  Food production had to 
double by 2050 in order to feed a prospective popula tion of 9 billion.  This had emerged from FAO 
reports as well as the long-standing but highly topi cal objectives of the Food Summit held more than 
ten years earlier.  The challenge of doubling food  production presupposed technological advances that WT/GC/M/114 
Page 8  
 
  would generate more effective and more extensive production.  This w ould call for not only better use 
of natural resources and more efficient distribution chains, but inevitably also reforms to Members' 
trade policies.  This was the direct link to the work  Members were doing and the need to conclude the 
Round in 2008.  In the face of this food crisis, Members had to adopt the best policy responses, fostering incentives aimed at increasing food supply.  To achieve that objective, it was necessary to 
abolish export subsidies, reduce domestic support for inefficient developed-country production and 
reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade.  One could not accept a new paradigm that 
trade was bad.  In short, what was needed was not less trade, but more and fairer trade.  The time had 
therefore come for the leaders to step in.  They  would have to show ambition and awareness of the 
challenges at stake.  Members needed to ask themselves fewer questions about ongoing political 
processes on the outside, and more questions about wh at they needed to accomplish here and now in 
order to ensure a successful outcome to the Round.  Many said that if the Round were to fail, it would 
take two or three years to get it back on track, but the real question was how much more time would be needed just to reach the point where Members were now.  It would undoubtedly take seven, eight or perhaps even ten years to revert to the presen t negotiating stage.  In addition, Members would 
clearly be returning to the negotiating table with  a much heavier and more difficult political and 
technical agenda.  The results would be visible in  perhaps 15 years or more.  Members would thus 
have wasted half of the time available between now and 2050.  Hence his insistence that they were 
compelled to succeed.  They had to produce Agricu lture and NAMA modalities and to finalize the 
Round in 2008.  Uruguay undertook to  make every possible effort and engage its best resources to 
meet that challenge, as there was no other alternative. 
16. The representative of Mexico
 said his delegation fully agreed  with the Director-General's 
views on procedure as well as substance, and reitera ted its full commitment to the negotiations and its 
willingness to contribute what was necessary to ach ieve a successful outcome.  Members had made 
enormous progress in various areas, but were not yet in a situation where they could say the 
negotiations were definitively on track towards succ ess.  All still had to show the flexibility required 
to reach that success.  The Director-General had said that substance would determine timing, but had 
also said that time was short.  Members needed to start a horizontal process as soon as possible, a 
process enabling them to establish modalities in Agriculture and NAMA and providing the certainty 
of progress in other areas as well.  The balance be tween urgency and substance was fundamental, as 
was the balance between urgency and the conclusion of the negotiations.  Time was running out.  The 
last window of opportunity was closing.  All knew th at for a number of reasons, if the Round was not 
concluded in 2008, several mont hs or even years would pass be fore the negotiations could be 
resumed.  Members were witnessing considerable changes in the world economy, and they would not necessarily reinitiate negotiations with the same issu es as those on the table at present.  In fact, the 
issues might be entirely different, which would imply that the Round would take many years to conclude.  Uruguay's reference to a 15-year period  did not seem to be an exaggeration.  Among the 
many changes one was observing in the world economy at present was the food crisis, which had been 
referred to by the Director-General in very strong terms.  There were many causes of this crisis – 
including droughts and low levels of production in many countries – but there were also distortions 
that were man-made, including trade-distorting subs idies for inefficient production for bio-fuels, and 
also tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in foods tuffs.  The WTO was now in  a very good position to 
apply measures that would substantially assist in alleviating the food crisis .  This could be done 
through a reduction in trade distortions.  Members had an historical opportunity to put an end to these 
distortions.  Trade liberalization was not a cause of th e food crisis but rather part of the solution.  
There were siren songs calling for hi gher levels of protection and autarchy as a solution.  However, 
this would make the crisis even more acute, rather  that solve it, as it would result in even more price 
surges in foods.  This was yet another reason for Members to conclude the negotiations as soon as 
possible.  As Uruguay had said, what was needed was more, not less, trade. 
17. The representative of India
 thanked the Director-General for his views on how to take this 
process forward, and in particular on how to comple te the Round as quickly as possible and within the  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 9 
 
 
  year.  His delegation had been especially heartened by the Director-General's comment on the need  to 
provide assurance that other issues were advancing,  and that while Members were working hard to 
complete modalities on Agriculture and NAMA, it was equally important that other things also got 
done.  In this context, Brazil had referred to at least two issues India wished to take up:  the Rules text 
and the linkage between CBD and TRIPS.  His delega tion took the Director-General's words at face  
value – namely, that assurance meant actual assura nce and not merely a post-dated cheque.  On the 
Rules text, a large number of Members had alr eady expressed serious reservations about the many 
anomalies and imbalances the text contained.  India had not hesitated to state frankly that a revised 
text was essential if Members wished to move fo rward on other matters, and he wished to reiterate 
that position, just as Brazil had.  Regarding the li nkage between CBD and TRIPS, India had noted the 
Director-General's assessment on this issue and ho w it had moved forward.  India's sense, echoed by 
Brazil as well as Côte d'Ivoire for the African Group, was that support for the issue had been 
consistently increasing, and at present the disclosur e proposal was co-sponsored by a majority of the 
membership.  The breadth and depth of support fo r the proposal was now well established.  Numbers 
did not always decide an issue.  However, the ge ographical spread and the socio-economic profile of 
the co-sponsors were surely a barometer of the importa nce and urgency attached to this issue.  There 
was wide convergence and it was now time to move  forward.  The proponents had been engaging 
constructively on this issue in meetings organized  by DDG Mr.Yerxa, as well as informally with other 
delegations.  There had been an evolution of positions and Members were now ready to move 
forward.  There was a ground swell of support for this critical deliverable – an idea whose time had 
clearly come.  Efforts to brush it under the carpet were fraught with risks which did not need 
repeating.  India took the Director-General's advice ve ry seriously, in particular his words at the April 
informal TNC meeting that this issue could possibl y lead to a big clash.  The Director-General had 
again at the present meeting referred to the possibility of another clash on this issue.  The fact that a 
large majority of the membership was rallying ar ound this issue significantly reduced the possibility 
of a big clash.  However, in order to avert altogeth er any possibility of such a clash, one way forward 
would be to start working on text-based negotiations, based on drafts submitted by the proponents.  
Members should start this immediately, and if others wished to bring something to the table they were 
welcome to do so.  This was what India suggested Members do now as a way to move forward. 
18. The representative of the European Communities  thanked the Director-General for his 
continuing efforts to strive for progress and completion of the DDA.  The EC Trade Commissioner shared the same concerns and the same sense of urge ncy, and had recently stated his considered view 
on where Members stood – in his words, they were "on a knife edge" between success and failure in 
the Round.  Success was definitely in sight, with an ambitious developmental package on the table, 
and realistic landing zones in Agriculture a nd NAMA hopefully very soon narrowed down to a 
limited range of options and figures manageable by Ministers.  It was doable, but the only way to capture this now was for revised texts of a fina l nature on Agriculture, NAMA and Services to be 
issued as soon as possible, so as to allow for a cros s-cutting negotiation.  This was within reach, but 
Members had to face the fact that failure was also  a possibility.  The EU was firmly committed to a 
2008 result and hoped others were as well.  The danger was that a process that remained bottom-up 
for too long would take Members beyond the 2008 timeframe, beyond which it became difficult to say 
with certainty when or on what basis the Round could be concluded.  All needed clarity, at the time of 
Agriculture and NAMA modalities, on the substan tive scope of the DDA outcome.  He reminded 
Members that for the EU, this outcome also had to include GIs, both the extension of protection and 
the register.  The Communities al so needed to see a clear sen se of ambition in Services, and 
maintaining as a minimum the level of ambition for NAMA contained in the NAMA Chair's text of July 2007.  All of these elements needed precise refl ection in the texts that would be adopted at the 
time of modalities on Agriculture and NAMA and as part of that package.  The EU also needed clarity 
on the timing and way forward to the end of the ne gotiations and the completion of the Round.  For 
the EU, it was an essential condition of success that Members agree, as a part of the agreement on 
modalities, to a binding roadmap that would allow Members together to lock in a comprehensive 
understanding of the bulk of the DDA package before  the close of 2008.  His delegation was grateful WT/GC/M/114 
Page 10  
 
  to the Director-General for having briefed Member s on his discussions with the UN Secretary General 
on the food price crisis and how the WTO could contribute to solutions.  There were various causes for the recent rise in food prices, and the EU ag reed that Members needed to find a coherent 
international response to address this issue.  Any recourse to rapid, unilateral restrictive measures, 
such as export restrictions or export duties, would only exacerbate the problem of food shortages.  In 
any case, beggar-thy-neighbour measures should be avoided.  The EU agreed with the Director-
General that the Doha Round had a key role to play in this regard.  Liberalization of trade in farm 
products would facilitate access to commodities at lower prices.  The reduction of trade-distorting 
farm subsidies as well as the elimination of export s ubsidization in a Doha deal would also improve 
trade flows for agricultural products.  Since these effects of the Round would only be felt in the 
medium term, it was all the more important that Members lose no time and conclude it now.  The food 
price crisis was one more reason why the rapid conc lusion of the Round, in 2008, had to be Members' 
common priority. 
19. The representative of China
 said his delegation shared the Director-General's view on the 
situation of the negotiations and concurred with the sense of urge ncy that many delegations had 
expressed, particularly given the uncertainty in gl obal financial and food markets and the increasing 
challenges facing the global economy.  Negotiations  during the previous months had made some 
progress, but this was still far from satisfactory.  It would be difficult to succeed in the negotiating 
process if Members failed to bridge the gaps in the key areas of Agriculture and NAMA.  In this 
regard, China looked forward to the revised texts from the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs as soon as 
possible.  These texts should be complete and reflec t Members' positions in a balanced way so as to 
facilitate the intensive negotiations in the comi ng weeks.  The major developed-country Members 
should show political will, provide l eadership and put substantially impr oved offers on the table.  This 
was a Development Round and the development dimens ion was the core element in the negotiations.  
The outcome of the negotiations had to be conduci ve to the more effective participation of all 
developing countries in the global economy and to th eir sustainable development.  To fulfil the 
mission of this Round, developed countries should be willing to consider sufficient policy flexibilities 
for developing countries.  Development issues such  as SPs, SSM, cotton, specific concerns of LDCs, 
SVEs and RAMs had to be dealt with earnestly, co mprehensively and effectively.  On Rules, China 
supported the statements by the ASEAN Economic Ministers and many other Members that it was important for the Rules Chair to provide a new text that reflected the reality of the negotiations and 
adhered to the DDA mandate.  On the relations hip between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, 
China supported the statements by Brazil, India and Côte D'Ivoire for the African Group, and wished 
to emphasize that the disclosure proposal had gather ed the clearest and broadest co-sponsorship of a 
vast majority of Members, and also an even  wider range of support from others.  Among the 
outstanding implementation issues, this issue ha d matured both politically and technically.  China 
together with many other developing countries st rongly urged that text-based negotiations on this 
issue be started immediately, and that the outcome be an integral part of the final single undertaking 
result of the DDA.  China would as always work c onstructively with all other Members to ensure a 
successful and balanced conc lusion to the Doha Round. 
20. The representative of Jamaica
, on behalf of the ACP Group , welcomed the Director-General's 
comments on rising food prices, an issue of great concern to many in the ACP Group.  The Group also shared his analysis of the WTO's contribution in  addressing this issue.  She assured the Director-
General that the ACP Group remained committed to  playing its part to arrive at a successful 
conclusion to the Doha Round by end-2008.  For the sake of brevity, she request ed that the statement 
by Mauritius on behalf of the ACP Group at the 17 April informal TNC meeting be included in the 
records of the present meeting.
4  The Group also wished to support the statements by Côte D'Ivoire 
for the African Group and Lesotho for the LDCs. 
                                                      
4 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 11 
 
 
  21. The representative of Costa Rica  reiterated his delegation's readiness to work so that Members 
could collectively bring the Round to a successful conc lusion in 2008.  To the reasons that prompted 
the launching of this Round – i.e. recognition of trade liberalization as an indispensable instrument for 
growth and development – Members now had to add special circumstances that had brought urgency 
to this work.  The slowdown in growth, the fina ncial crisis and soaring food prices did not allow 
further postponement or delay in completing the Round.  The outcomes of the Round would help 
resolve these specific problems in the medium and long term, as the Director-General had noted.  
Costa Rica firmly supported the Round and hence the efforts being made in the negotiations, which 
were moving in the right direction.  It also endor sed the process described by the Director-General in 
his capacity as TNC Chair.  The Agriculture a nd NAMA modalities needed to be agreed, and senior 
officials should take part, in order for Members to attain the higher levels of convergence that would 
pave the way towards agreement.  In addition, signa ls and assurances needed to be given in the other 
areas covered by the mandate, so that Members we re clear on the work that lay ahead once the 
Agriculture and NAMA modalities had been adopt ed.  The tremendous efforts and significant 
advances made in the negotiations thus far had finally brought Members closer to the actual 
possibility of the Round being concluded in the short term.  All of this had to be translated into 
practical outcomes, which should be achieved in 2008.  The NAMA and Agriculture modalities had to 
be agreed promptly if Members were to succeed.  This was the bridge Members had to cross, and had to do so now. 
22. The representative of Paraguay
 said the Director-General's statement not only reflected very 
clearly the present state of play, but also gave Me mbers guidance as to the direction they should now 
take.  Paraguay was aware of the difficulties still to be overcome in order to conclude the Round, and 
current international events and circumstances mean t that Members had to make the maximum effort, 
as this was an opportunity which, if missed, Members would very much regret in the future.  In any 
future negotiations, the negotiating conditions, th e requirements and the prerequisites would be 
different, and Members did not even know what type of requirements would be necessary.  This might 
lead them into lengthy and difficult negotiati ons as described by Uruguay.  For these reasons, 
Paraguay would give its full support to ensuring th e Round was concluded in 2008.   This did not 
mean however that it would be ready to agree to conclusion of the Round at any price.  Members had 
to ensure that the major delegations – partic ularly the developed-country Members – showed 
leadership, compromise and a degree of ambition that would lead to a reduction of obstacles to trade 
in agricultural products without any concessions, and without exaggerated demands or unreasonable 
requirements in other areas.  There would have to  be a sufficient and efficient reduction of trade-
distorting subsidies, without these countries keeping an y cards up their sleeves that could allow the re-
establishment of such subsidies wh en circumstances changed.  Paraguay agreed with the Director-
General on the contribution the WTO could make to th e world food crisis.  The increase in trade, in 
conditions of liberalization in wh ich all developing countries fully co ntributed, was the best way to 
face this crisis and many others the world had to tackle at present, such as the problems stemming 
from the cost of energy, migration etc.  As to the process, Paraguay could agree to the Director-
General's proposal and hoped the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs would be in a position to come up 
with revised texts as soon as possible.  It also agreed  that following circulation of such texts, Members 
should be in a position to abide by any timetable that  might be doable.  Paraguay also hoped that in 
this process mechanisms ensuring transparency and the effective participation of all Members, 
including small economies, would be respected. 
23. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said his delegation fully shared the importance of 
concluding the Round by the end of 2008.  Since a breakthrough in NAMA and Agriculture could lead to the successful conclusion of the Round over all, Chinese Taipei en couraged Members to 
narrow their differences as soon as possible, in par ticular on the issues of sensitive products, tropical 
products and preference erosion in agriculture.  This  would help the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs to 
finalize their respective revised texts, which it was hoped would pave the way for a much-needed 
breakthrough.  As a strong demandeur in Servi ces, Chinese Taipei wished  to see the CTSS Chair's WT/GC/M/114 
Page 12  
 
  text issued as soon as possible, or at the latest i mmediately after the issuance  of the Agriculture and 
NAMA revised modalities.  As for the signaling c onference, his delegation saw this plurilateral 
exercise as complementary to the Chair's text.  This would give Members the much-needed comfort 
that would make it easier for them to endorse fi nal modalities in Agriculture and NAMA.  To save 
time, he requested that his delegation's statement at  the 17 April informal TN C meeting be included in 
the records of the present meeting.
5  He would repeat one point in that statement, namely that the 
Agriculture and NAMA Chairs continue conducting thorough discussions on their revised texts in 
order to bring the texts to maturity and clar ity before the start of the horizontal process. 
24. The representative of Turkey  agreed with the Director-Gener al on the need to conclude the 
Round successfully by end-2008.  A reinforced trad ing system would be an essential anchor for 
economic stability and development in the face of the looming financial crisis and soaring food prices.  
Turkey fully supported the Director-General's view that the WTO should not fail to play its part in 
alleviating the existing food crisis  and should contribute fully.  Turkey was pleased to see there was 
an emerging convergence of views in some crucial areas of the negotiations, the most recent example 
being the compilation of consumption data for sensitive products.  In Agriculture and NAMA, 
Members had come a long way, and the achievements t hus far should not be wasted.  For the last few 
months, Members had witnessed convergence in some  essential negotiation areas, and these needed to 
be reflected in the revised texts.  Although the text-based negotiation phase on Rules had made 
significant progress, Turkey still believed that a revised Chair's text would create a fresh impetus for furthering the work to reach a compromise text.  B ilateral market-access negotiations at the level of 
senior officials in services in the upcoming signaling exercise would yi eld some concrete results and 
would hopefully pave the way for the signaling conferen ce.  Turkey had been calle d to take part in the 
signaling exercise and would try to work constructively  with its partners.  It was expected that the 
momentum gained recently would enable Members to  advance the negotiations in other critical areas 
as well.  At the present stage, it was crucial to make sure that the key issues relating to the content of 
the modalities were taken up with the participati on of all major stakeholders.  Thus, countries' 
interests would not only be fairly represented but  would also be consequential in the further 
engagement of committed countries.  Turkey was w illing to contribute to the successful conclusion of 
the negotiations. 
25. The representative of the United States
 thanked the Director-General for his comments on the 
WTO’s response to the world food crisis.  The Un ited States agreed on the urgency of concluding a 
successful, market-opening package, and reiterate d its commitment to the collective objective of 
concluding the negotiations in 2008.  Members had to intensify their efforts to achieve this.  The 
United States was committed to making the effort n ecessary to realize that goal, but this would require 
contributions by all Members, a nd not just one segment of the membership.  The most pressing 
immediate need was for the issuance of Chairs ’ texts on Agriculture and NAMA modalities that 
properly set up the horizontal process.  The WTO w as often accused of negotiating an agenda that 
lagged behind developments in the world economy that emerged during the negotiations.  However, 
the points just made by the Director-General rega rding the world food situation correctly pointed out 
that the current negotiating agenda – either by for esight or coincidence – did address the situation the 
world economy faced at present, and offered substan tive contributions to solv ing the problems being 
created by high food prices.  One had only to look at the negotiating agenda in agriculture:  agricultural subsidies, export restrictions, high ta riffs, monopolies in the agricultural sector, food aid – 
all of these were elements that would contribute, if Members were successful, to addressing the 
problems the world was facing with the food crisis.  In addition was the parallel work Members were 
doing on Aid for Trade.  The United States agreed th at the focus of Members' efforts, their highest 
priority, had to be to agree on modalities for Agricu lture and NAMA.  It also agreed that Members 
had to provide reassurance that the other subj ects in the Doha mandate would be addressed 
successfully as integral parts of the final DDA agreem ent.  However, solid reassurance did not mean 
                                                     
 
5 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 13 
 
 
  making decisions prematurely on the content or outcomes of individual negotiating topics, let alone 
adding new topics to the mandate.  If Members starte d down that path, even on what appeared to be a 
relatively limited number of topics, they would no t reach their immediate goal of providing the 
necessary platforms for scheduling commitments on tariffs, TRQs and subsidies.  In addition, if 
Members did not move promptly to the scheduling stage, they would fail to meet their urgent goal of 
concluding the Round in 2008.  Members should therefore not get distracted by issues that were 
important – and which had to be resolved within th e final agreement – but which did not need to be 
resolved, and could not be resolved, in the few weeks left to reach agreement on Agriculture and 
NAMA modalities.   
26. The representative of Honduras  reiterated his country's commitment to the Round and its 
support for a successful but balanced result in order to deal with the various crises facing the world 
economy at present.  The result needed to be ba lanced, because the impact of these crises was 
particularly reflected in small economies, such as Honduras.  Likewise, his delegation wished to 
emphasize the other related matters which might inte rfere with the Round and suggested that they all 
be given due importance.  Honduras also requested that all interested countries be included in 
whatever horizontal process was carried out.  His country expressed support for the statement to be 
made by Barbados for the small, vulnerable economies, asked that Honduras's statement at the 17 April informal TNC meeting be included  in the records of the present meeting.
6 
27. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said his delegation agreed with 
the Director-General and with other delegations th at the starting point for the final phase of the 
negotiations would be the revised draft Agriculture  and NAMA texts.  Delivery of the texts – if 
Members finally reached that point – would mark the end of a complicated road.  Venezuela was 
convinced that neither of these texts would be approved by acclamation, because differences would 
remain in many areas.  In Agri culture, issues were still being discussed and there was as yet no 
consensus, not to mention those on which there was no discussion at all and where positions were 
relatively far apart, such as special products and the special safeguard mechanism for developing 
countries.  NAMA was a very special case.  As a lawyer might say, the case had been ready for 
judgment for some time.  Nonetheless, his country was concerned about the substance of the ruling, 
because judging from the press, the outcome would not be very favourable for developing countries.  Venezuela hoped the information in the press was no  more than idle speculation.  Regarding the 
process, discussions should continue at negotiati ng-group level – before moving on to the so-called 
horizontal process – until such time as Members succeeded in narrowing differences in the NAMA 
and Agriculture draft modalities.  Recent WTO hist ory showed that it was pointless to set artificial 
deadlines.  Now more than ever, the internationa l economic and financial situation demanded that 
substance drive the process.  At stake was the livelihood of too many millions of human beings to 
allow imposed deadlines to decide their destiny.  As the saying went: "more haste, less speed".  In the 
present case, it would lead to a standstill.  There had been a great deal of discussion about the need to 
complete the Round so as to mitigate the global effect s of soaring prices of certain foodstuffs.  There 
had even been mention of the need for even further trade liberalizati on in order to ensure that people 
had access to food.  Without wishing to enter into an academic debate on the subject, his delegation 
suggested that some thought be given to how a c ountry like Venezuela – a net food-importing country 
whose main source of revenue was a highly volatile  resource, which had low tariff bindings and a 
share in agricultural and non-agricultural world trad e below that of several SVEs – could ensure food 
security for its population if it did not have the n ecessary breadth and adequate leeway to implement 
agricultural and industrial development programmes. 
28. The representative of Japan
 said his country shared the sense of urgency expressed by the 
Director-General.  He wished to underline that  Japan was very much committed to the successful 
conclusion of the DDA within the year.  His dele gation was grateful for the Director-General's 
                                                      
6 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/114 
Page 14  
 
  description of his meetings with various UN offici als regarding the recent food price crisis.  Japan 
shared the concerns about the current world economic situation and was of the view that the early and 
successful conclusion of the Round would provide one  of the medium- and long-term solutions to 
these issues.  In this context, he wished to recall that Japan had recently presented a proposal 
regarding export restraint measures.  Japan's pos itions on various negotiating issues, including Rules, 
were very well known, and he would not repeat them .  His delegation looked forward to working hard 
and closely with all Members in order to reach an early and successful conclusion to the Round. 
29. The representative of Barbados
, on behalf of the small, vulnerable economies , supported the 
Director-General's statement that  it was critical to conclude the Round in 2008.  The SVEs were 
committed to working towards a solution in 2008.  He  requested that the statement by Barbados on 
behalf of the SVEs at the 17 April informal TNC meeting be included in the records of the present 
meeting.7  The SVEs entered the upcoming period with a lot of hope and expectation and, regrettably, 
some uncertainty.  A few months earlier one delegation had expressed concern that Members were in danger of overloading the boat in the horizontal pro cess, but it appeared that the Director-General had 
successfully managed to balance the load around the main cargo of Agriculture and NAMA.  The 
SVEs' concern now was not that the boat would not be  able to leave the harbour, but whether it would 
be denied entry into its destination port.  As  Uruguay had suggested, Members should focus on what 
they could do in the WTO, rather than on wo ndering about ongoing political processes in other 
countries.  The SVEs agreed entirely, but Member s had to ponder these elements and ensure that 
appropriate comfort was given to all Members on the process and that the final outcome was 
acceptable to all. 
30. The representative of Cuba
 said that while his delegation agreed with the Director-General's 
diagnosis of the gravity of the food crisis, it ha d a few different points to make on some of the 
suggestions put forward as potential solutions or cont ributions by the WTO to alleviate or resolve the 
food crisis in the medium to long term.  Many ha d been blaming the current world food crisis on 
agrofuels, the growing global demand for food, or cl imatic problems, but the truth was that the crisis 
also stemmed from uneven agricultural liberalizat ion between developed an d developing countries 
and from the policies promoted by internationa l agencies over the past 20 or 30 years through 
structural adjustment programmes and trade liber alization, which had undermined domestic food 
production, investment in agriculture, support for small- scale farmers, as well as the roles of the state, 
state-owned enterprises, and state food reserves.  Developed-country coopera tion in favour of the 
developing countries had risen from US$20 billio n in 1980 to some US$100 billion in 2007.  
Agricultural support, on the other hand, had fallen from US$17 billion to US$3 billion, while official 
development aid had diminished by 8 per cent in 2007 compared to the preceding year.  Speculation was one of the main causes of the current crisis.  F ood was, in fact, not in short supply.  According to 
the FAO, there was enough food on the planet to feed the world's population, and production and stocks could meet the needs of up to 12 billion people in the future.  The 2007-2008 harvests had 
produced an estimated 2.1 billion tonnes of grain, representing an increase of more than 4 per cent 
over the preceding season and exceeding the previous decade's average 2 per cent growth.  Average 
cereal consumption for feeding purposes had grown by a mere 1 per cent per year, while cereals used for other purposes would amount to some 364 million tonnes, the hope being that a major share would be used for agrofuel.  The leading developed count ry would probably use 81 million tonnes of maize, 
i.e. 37 per cent more than the preceding year.  Fina ncial speculation played a critical role.  The best 
example of this was rice, which had not been used as biofuel, but with a record yield of 423 million 
tonnes, was available in sufficient quantity to meet  global requirements.  However, the price of rice 
had doubled, from US$360 to US$760 per tonne.  The volatility of food markets was due chiefly to 
regulatory problems, the absence of control over leading multinationals, and the absence of necessary 
intervention at both national and in ternational level in order to stabilize markets as a result of the 
diminishing role of the state and the rise of developed-country monopolies.  An organization such as 
                                                     
 
7 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 15 
 
 
  the WTO promoted the elimination of state trading monopolies, yet there was nothing more 
monopolistic than the multinationals controlling food st ocks and prices – not in one country alone, but 
the world over.  Some were advocating the need  for more food aid and more extensive market 
liberalization, but not a word was being said of  the need for greater regulation and market 
stabilization.  Some developed countries had supp lied food aid in an amount of several hundred 
million dollars – a ridiculous sum when one was talking of 800 million starving people and another 
100 million who were going hungry as a result of the cu rrent price crisis.  An example was Cuba, a 
small developing country with a population of on ly 11 million, which had spent an additional 
US$300 million in 2007 to meet the same food bill. 
31. The contribution the WTO could make was not limited to a reduction of domestic support by 
the developed countries and the tariff issue, in partic ular concerning the developing countries.  In fact, 
the developing countries had been gradually phasing out their agricultural import tariffs since the Uruguay Round and on the basis of the structural  adjustment programmes recommended by the IMF 
and the World Bank.  Nevertheless, they were facing the most severe food price crisis in recent decades.  Developed-country domestic support had to  be reduced in an effective and substantial 
manner in keeping with the mandate.  The best th ing would be to freeze such support at the levels 
applied in recent years.  This should be combin ed with "green box" disciplines to prevent the 
developed countries from circumventing their commi tments to reduce trade-distorting support by 
changing boxes.  At the same time, developing co untries should have sufficient flexibility under the 
green box to guarantee public food reserves that ensu red price stability and food availability in their 
domestic markets.  The new disciplines being ne gotiated in the WTO on food aid and export credit 
should not hamper, but rather facilitate, access to  food for least-developed and net food-importing 
developing countries.  Obstacles to developed-country  agricultural market acces s, in the form of non-
tariff barriers, including private standards, had to be substantially reduced or eliminated.  Tariff 
escalation in the developed countries, which im peded industrialization of developing-country 
agricultural production and exports, was an issue the R ound also needed to resolve, as well as the very 
important outstanding issue of implementation in particular of the Marrakesh Decision on least-
developed net food-importing countries,  which had never materialized in  practice and which had to be 
fully realized. 
32. The representative of Switzerland
 said his delegation endorsed the guidelines set out by the 
Director-General.  The latter had spoken about the imminent food crisis a nd other crises, and had 
stressed the urgency that Members continue their ef forts.  Switzerland agreed.  Delegations had to use 
all the arguments at hand to convince their capitals to give the green light to move ahead in this 
process.  Reforms would be made.  What was at  stake now was whether Members could determine 
these reforms in the context of a multilateral system, or whether these reforms would be effected outside this system.  All Members, particularly th e weakest and the medium-sized, of course  stood to 
gain if the multilateral system remained not just strong, but also provided a bit of a boost and more 
muscle from time to time.  His delegation had been impressed by the very wise and strong statement 
by Uruguay and could agree with almost everything in  it.  Switzerland particularly agreed that what 
was needed was not less trade but more trade.  In this  context, he wished to recall, as Japan had, that a 
joint proposal had been made by Japan and Swit zerland regarding greater transparency and better 
predictability of measures taken by Members to restri ct exports.  The political context was such that it 
would be difficult to sell heavy tariff cuts if Memb ers faced a whole range of export restrictions taken 
by exporters.  Switzerland was hoping for some comfort from the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs, and 
was awaiting these two draft texts with ever-incre asing impatience.  However, Members should not 
forget that in making fundamental choices, they need ed to have an overall view.  Thus, in the week 
they would be looking at these two texts, they s hould also have a multilateral text on Services and a 
revised text on Rules.  The text on Services was essential and urgent.  Members should not forget that, 
just as in Agriculture and NAMA, the negotiations would be followed by a phase of scheduling of 
commitments comparable to schedules Members would have in the other two market-access sectors.  
Members also had to send a strong signal that in Services, work on domestic regulation would also   WT/GC/M/114 
Page 16  
 
  be fulfilled.  Switzerland looked forward to worki ng intensively in the coming weeks on this subject 
and hoped this work would be fruitful in the prep aration of the signaling conference.  His country 
hoped to see some increased glimmers of hope and a speeding up of the work.  On both the GIs and 
the TRIPS-CBD issues, Switzerland hoped to see a basis emerge that would make it possible for Members to enter into negotiations while schedu ling was under way in Agriculture and NAMA.  He 
requested that Switzerland's statement at the 17 April informal TNC meeting be included in the 
records of the present meeting.
8 
33. The representative of Ecuador  reiterated his country's commitment to an inclusive Round that 
recognized the concept of development.  His delegati on wished to refer to one particular element of 
the development dimension of the Round that was of vital importance to Ecuador.  Ecuador agreed 
with India and other developing countries on the ur gent need to strengthen the consultation process 
conducted by DDG Mr. Yerxa, which was enabli ng Members to find common ground on the TRIPS-
CBD issue, the disclosure of origin in patent app lications, and the reform of the TRIPS Agreement, 
precisely to avoid the "big clash" mentioned by the TNC Chair in his report at the present meeting.  
That risk was unnecessary.  Members should  immediately  begin negotiations on the basis of texts 
submitted by the proponents or, if that were not possi ble, a text put forward by the Chairman of the 
TRIPS Council in Special Session, as had been done  in other areas of the negotiations.  Members 
should not forget that this subject came under the principle of the single undertaking.  He requested that Ecuador's statement at the 17 April informal  TNC meeting be included in the records of the 
present meeting.
9 
34. The representative of Korea  agreed with the Director-General that the negotiations had to be 
concluded by the end of 2008 and that this was still doable. Like previous speakers, Korea hoped 
Members would be able to press ahead with the horizontal process as soon as possible, because the 
issues that had caused delays were now slowly but  steadily being resolved in both Agriculture and 
NAMA, and the revised texts to be presented by the respective Chairs should reflect the latest 
progress and should be comprehensive and balanced.  The Director-General had mentioned two levels 
of horizontal process, starting with senior officials and then moving to Ministerial engagement at a 
later stage.  At the first level there should be an opportunity for senior officials to discuss issues fully 
and comprehensively, thereby reducing the number of i ssues to be submitted to Ministers for decision.  
It was therefore imperative that senior officials be given sufficient time to accomplish this.  The 
meeting at Ministerial level had to be held at a time when the chances of its success were highest.  It had to be remembered that if this Ministerial me eting failed, the goal of concluding the DDA by the 
end of 2008 would be put in great jeopardy.  Th e focus of the horizontal process was understandably 
the Agriculture and NAMA modalities.  However, at  the same time, in order to allow Members to 
concentrate on these two issues, a certain level of comfort should also be provided in other areas of the negotiations.  In this context Korea looked fo rward to a Chair's text and a successful signaling 
conference in Services, and a revised Chair's text in  Rules.  Regarding the latter, Korea wished to 
underline that any new text had to be a balanced  one that could serve as the basis for future 
negotiations. 
35. The representative of El Salvador
 requested that his statement at the 17 April informal TNC 
meeting be included in the records of the present meeting.10 
36. The General Council took note  of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
                                                      
8 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. 
9 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. 
10 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 17 
 
 
  2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
37. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting in Febr uary and March 2002, the General Council 
had taken note of a framework and procedures fo r the conduct of the Work Programme on Small 
Economies, under which this Work Programme w ould be a standing item on the General Council's 
agenda.  The framework and procedures also pr ovided that the Committee on Trade and Development 
shall report regularly to the General Council on the pr ogress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this 
subject.  Furthermore, Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed the CTD, under the overall responsibility of the General Council,  to continue the work in the Dedicated Session and to monitor 
progress of the small economies' proposals in the ne gotiating and other bodies.  In December 2006, on 
the basis of a report by the Chair of the CTD in Dedicated Session, the General Council had taken 
note that Members in that body would be pursui ng the substantive work under the Small Economies 
Work Programme. 
38. Mr Servansing (Mauritius), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD
, said that since 
the most recent General Council meeting, the propon ents of the work programme had been actively 
following the DDA negotiations and had made further contributions in the areas of trade facilitation, 
fisheries subsidies and NAMA.  In trade facilita tion, a group of SVE Members had revised their 
proposal on regional approaches to trade facilitation (TN/TF/W/129/Rev.2).  In fisheries subsidies, another group of SVE Members ha d submitted a proposal regarding Ar ticle III on S&D treatment in 
the Chair's draft text on fisheries subsidies (TN/ RL/W/226).  The latest contribution of the small 
economies was in NAMA regarding the treatment of SVEs in th e NAMA Chair's revised draft 
modalities text (JOB(08)/26).  In addition, the pr oponents of the work programme remained actively 
engaged in the Agriculture and Services negotiations. 
39. The representative of Barbados
, on behalf of the SVEs , said Members were aware of the 
efforts of the SVEs in the negotiating and other grou ps as reflected in the report by the Chairman of 
the Dedicated Session of the CTD.  The SVEs appr eciated the monitoring role being undertaken by 
the Dedicated Session, as it continued to provide a benchmark of their progress in all areas of the 
negotiations.  The SVEs thanked th e Chairman of the Dedicated Session and welcomed his re-election 
as Chair of this body. 
40. The General Council took note  of the report by the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statement. 
3. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala (WT/GC/85, WT/GC/90 and Corr.1, 
WT/GC/100, WT/MIN(05)/9) – Statement by the Chairman 
41. The Chairman  recalled that this matter had first been  raised by the delegations of Honduras 
and Guatemala at the Council meeting in December 2004 .  It had subsequently been considered by the 
General Council at each of its regular meetings sin ce then, without resolution.  In the light of the 
views expressed at these meetings, and the re quests for consultations made by Honduras and 
Guatemala, both his predecessors and he had been hold ing consultations in order to assist in finding a 
way forward.  He recalled that the matter referre d to the General Council in 2004 concerned the non-
recognition of claims of substantial interest in the very specific context of the EC's modification of its 
concessions as a result of enlargement from 15 to 25  members, and the modification of its concession 
on bananas in its move to a tariff-only regime as fro m 1 January 2006.  This matter had been brought 
to the General Council in keeping with Paragra ph 4 of the 1980 Procedures for Negotiations under 
Article XXVIII, under which, when a Member rene gotiating its Schedule did not recognize a claim of 
principal or substantial supplying interest, the Me mber making the claim "may refer the matter to the 
Council."  At the February General Council meeti ng, the Chair, in reporting on his most recent WT/GC/M/114 
Page 18  
 
  consultations, had said that the constructive and good-faith nature of the discussion had given him 
hope that the parties concerned would be able to r each a negotiated settlement in the very near future, 
and that he was certain that his successor would be willing to use his good offices to explore further 
with the parties directly concerned the possibilities of a resolution soon.  The previous day, he had 
held further consultations to allo w delegations to be updated on cont acts that might have taken place 
among the parties directly concerned since February with regard to the broader issues involved, and 
on any developments that would ta ke Members further towards the negotiated settlement on this issue 
that the parties had been pursuing over the past y ear.  He had invited to the consultations all the 
delegations who had spoken on this issue at previous meetings of the Council, and had made clear that 
the consultations were without prejudice to an y Member's rights under the WTO.  While the 
consultations has been useful – and it appeared th at a lot of work was being done generally on the 
broader issues involved, and that there was a show of restraint and good will on the part of all – the 
lack of a negotiated settlement as yet was very clear ly not satisfactory from the point of view of the 
two Members that had brought this matter to the C ouncil's attention.  He believed therefore that 
Members would have to work a lot harder collectively to find some way forward.  He strongly 
encouraged all the parties concerned to continue, an d to intensify, their efforts to find a satisfactory 
resolution to the concerns brought to the Council's attention under this Agenda item.  Like his 
predecessors, he stood ready to offer his good o ffices to assist the parties in this process. 
42. All delegations who spoke tha nked the Chairman for his report and for the efforts and 
consultations he had undertaken to he lp find a solution to this matter. 
43. The representative of Honduras
 recalled his delegation's previous  statements on this issue and 
said he regretted once again that it was taking so much time to settle this issue and that no 
negotiations were being undertaken in  this regard.  Since Members had first addressed this issue, the 
report of the WTO panel examining Ecuador's se cond recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU had 
confirmed the following:  (i)  that, since January 2006, the EC had not been in compliance with its 
obligations concerning the binding of its banana tariff;   (ii) that the EC had not yet satisfied its re-
binding commitments under Article XXVIII;  and (iii) that the EC could only satisfy these re-binding 
commitments by restoring full conditions of comp etition for the MFN suppliers as required under the 
2005 arbitration.  Honduras wished to thank Ecua dor for its commendable effort in achieving these 
findings.  His Government remained convinced that the restoration of its rights under Article XXVIII had considerable systemic implications.  A devel oped-country Member that had received 11 adverse 
rulings over more than a decade should not have the unilateral power to disregard a claim for 
recognition of interest from a sm all developing country.  This was particularly true when the 
developing-country Member could show  statistically that it would have had an interest as a substantial 
supplier to the market in question if it had not b een discriminated against by the developed-country 
Member.  Allowing a developed-country Member w ith a record of non-compliance to arbitrarily 
disregard claims of interest that were covered by Article XXVIII would be tantamount to rewarding 
illegal discrimination and could easily nullify th e rights of small developing countries under 
Article XXVIII.  Honduras was perfect ly ready to negotiate a positiv e and lasting solution to this 
matter.  However, it would have to be an integral part of any horizontal negotiation on this issue from 
the very outset.  Were this not to be the case, Ho nduras wished to inform the membership that it 
would not be in a position to accept any solu tion that might try to be imposed.   
44. The representative of Guatemala
 said that after three and a half years on the Council's agenda, 
this item had become a tradition.  In spite of this , Guatemala still trusted in  constructive dialogue to 
enable Members to find a solution to this issue.  Since the last meeting of the Council there had been 
no progress in the discussions on this item.  However, in spite of the considerable limitations facing 
her country as a small, vulnerable economy, and al though the Doha negotiations were becoming more 
intensive in all areas, Guatemala hoped very so on to be able to begin a series of informal 
consultations with Members interested in this issue, in order to be ab le to evaluate the substantive and 
procedural elements that might possibly be include d in a working document.  However, this would  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 19 
 
 
  have to be a joint effort on the part of both Guatemala and the European Communities.  While 
Guatemala was gathering together the elements of  a working document, it was also waiting for some 
kind of initiative on the part of the European Communities.  In particular, the EC had promised to present a "comprehensive solution" to the banana is sue.  After repeated delays in submitting the 
eagerly awaited proposal, the EC had now lapsed into silence.  She re iterated her delegation's 
insistence that Guatemala had two types of interest in this matter:  a trade interest and a systemic 
interest.  Both were of vital importance to her count ry, and neither was limited exclusively to bananas. 
45. The representative of St. Lucia
, on behalf of CARICOM , said these countries had carefully 
noted the statements by Honduras and Guatemala.  He  recalled that in past meetings of the General 
Council, St. Lucia, along with CARICOM and ACP banana-producing countries, had stressed the 
importance of ensuring an equitable outcome in th e ongoing discussions on bananas, an outcome that 
provided for the sustained viability of the banana industries in respective CARICOM and ACP member States.  It again had to be stressed that the viability of those industries was linked not 
only to the question of balance of payments, but also to real livelihood and food security 
considerations.  These considerations were now  exacerbated and amplified by global economic 
uncertainty and what appeared to be medium-t erm instability in international markets.  The 
multilateral trading system of necessity had to ta ke due account of the economic imperatives of all 
Members.  To this end, St. Lucia again urged th at modalities treat with pr ecision the concerns of 
CARICOM and ACP banana-producing countries. 
46. The representative of Paraguay
 wished the Chairman luck in hi s efforts to foster a solution to 
this matter and hoped he would be able to offer ma ny good ideas so that this could be done before the 
end of his mandate.  Paraguay had a systemic interest  in this matter in the overall context of its long 
struggle against discrimination against small economi es.  In the present case, it was very difficult to 
meet the criteria necessary for a country to be cons idered a principal supplier, and the complementary 
provisions regarding the criteria necessary to be met in order to be consider ed a substantial supplier 
were also very difficult to meet.  For this reas on, Paraguay believed that in this case, special 
consideration and treatment should be given that was based on equity rather than a strict application 
of legal texts, given the specific circumstances and the situation in which the SVEs found themselves.  
It was also very important to make progress towards an overall solution that justly met the concerns of 
the SVEs, which were by definition small suppliers. 
47. The representative of Panama  agreed with the Chairman that all parties had to make greater 
efforts to find a solution that had been long-awa ited not only by Guatemala and Honduras but by most 
of the producer countries in Latin America.  Panama  understood and shared the concerns raised by 
Honduras and Guatemala, and was much concerned that contacts had not been established over the 
past months to further consider this issue.  It  hoped that the European Communities would make the 
requisite effort to respond not only to the questi ons raised by Guatemala and Honduras in this matter, 
but also claims raised by the Latin American count ries wishing to find a solution to this issue. 
48. The representative of Nicaragua  said that like Honduras, her delegation regretted that the EC 
had yet to correct its illegal banana tariff.  As a r esult of that high tariff, Nicaraguan bananas had been 
entirely excluded from the EC market.  Her country had participated in four WTO proceedings – two 
in 2005 and two in 2007 – to try to obtain relief.  Rather than accordi ng relief, the EC had enlarged its 
access discrimination.  Nicaragua therefore join ed Honduras in renewing the call for a negotiated 
solution to this matter.  Her country was looking for a solution that would enable its work force and 
exporting firms to regain a sustained presence in the EC market. 
49. The representative of Mexico  said his delegation fully supported the Chairman's consultations 
and continued to support the claims made by Honduras and Guatemala in this matter.  It fully trusted 
that the Chair's efforts would lead to a solution rapidly. WT/GC/M/114 
Page 20  
 
  50. The representative of Cameroon
 said his delegation had taken note of the statements by 
Honduras and Guatemala, and encouraged Guatem ala, Honduras and the European Communities to 
continue to seek a negotiated solution to this i ssue.  At the same time , Cameroon encouraged and 
supported all efforts aimed at taking account of th e interests of all Members, including Cameroon, 
which had interests in the banana sector. 
51. The representative of Argentina  encouraged the Chairman to continue to offer his good 
offices in the hope that a solution could be found to  this longstanding issue on the Council's agenda.  
Argentina was very concerned that there seemed to be no solution on the horizon as yet to a matter 
that had various systemic implications.  He r ecalled that this item was on the Council's agenda 
because the 1980 Procedures for Negotiations under Artic le XXVIII provided that when this type of 
incident arose, the matter should be dealt with by  the General Council.  However, the aim was for a 
solution to be found, and not simply for the matter to remain indefinitely on the Council's agenda.  Thus, Members had an obligation to find a solution,  and any outcome would clearly have to recognize 
the legitimate rights of countries under Article XXVIII. 
52. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that on the issue of non-recognition of 
negotiating rights raised by Honduras and Guatemala,  he wished to reiterate that in refusing to 
recognize these two countries' negotiating rights in th is particular case, the EC had based itself on 
WTO law and well-established practice when rejecting their claims.  As he had stated on earlier occasions, the EC would have no interest in doing otherwise, because it attached enormous importance to the respect and correct application of WTO agreements.  However, it accepted that 
there might be a systemic issue here.  It had noted  that Guatemala and Honduras had, in addition to 
seeking recognition of rights in this specific case, s ought to start a broader review of the question of 
whether – and if so, how – to rebalance the rules of Article XXVIII and the related Understanding to 
provide recognition for small countries which were  very dependent on a particular product and 
market, but which did not meet the current criteri a for recognition or compensation.  The EC was 
open to engaging in such a review in the Genera l Council or in the Council for Trade in Goods, but 
would encourage Guatemala and others to present concrete ideas.  The EC knew they had been 
working on such ideas and was ready to further purs ue this point.  As all knew, the EC and other 
countries were working hard to find a comprehensive stand-alone agreement on bananas that could be 
inserted into the DDA modalities on Agriculture at the right moment and would settle all outstanding issues.  This was not an easy job, as one had to find an almost impossible balance between several 
very different sets of interests – between MF N countries and ACP partners, and even between 
different MFN exporters – but the EC was cautiously optimistic that it would be possible, with some 
flexibility and realism on all sides.  In this cont ext, he wished to thank the Director-General for 
helping, through his good offices, the countries involve d to reach the comprehensive solution all were 
seeking. 
53. The representative of Honduras
 said the European Communities could not ignore two facts.  
The first was that Honduras had justified and request ed in time the recognition of its claims of  
substantial interest under Article  XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII on va rious items where compensation 
had not yet been granted, including for products in respect of which Honduras had been recognized as having a substantial or principal supplying in terest.  Honduras still continued to seek this 
compensation.  The second point was that the Euro pean Communities could not ignore the decision 
by the Panel in Ecuador's second recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU.  The EC had to fulfil its 
rebinding commitments under Article XXVIII for its concession on bananas, and it could only do so 
by re-establishing full conditions of competiti on for MFN suppliers as required under the 2005 
arbitration.  The results for Ecuador in the a bove-mentioned Panel report ga ve Honduras the dual right 
under Article XXVIII as a result of the modification made  in the Annex to the Doha waiver as well as 
Honduras's participation in the arbitration pro cesses in 2005.  Honduras was committed to finding a 
solution that would avoid any form of conflict with  other issues being negotiated in the Round.  This 
was its commitment to the organization and to the membership.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 21 
 
 
  54. The General Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
4. ACP-EC Economic Partnership Agreements – Communication from Brazil 
(WT/GC/W/585) 
55. The Chairman  recalled that at the request of Brazil, this matter had been considered by the 
General Council at its meeting in February.  It ha d been placed on the Agenda of the present meeting 
again at the request of Brazil. 
56. The representative of Brazil  said his delegation once again wished to bring to the Council's 
attention the EPAs that had been signed or initialled by the EC and a number of ACP countries, as it 
believed they raised issues of systemic interest to  the membership.  Brazil was particularly concerned 
about the MFN clauses contained in these agreements , the existence of which had been confirmed by 
the EC at the Council's most recent meeting.  At the outset, he wished to reiterate that it was 
incumbent upon the ACP countries themselves to evalua te and take a decision on the signature and 
implementation of EPAs in accordance with their development needs.  Nevertheless, Brazil believed the EPAs posed a series of questions and challe nges both to ACP countries and to the broader 
membership.  This concern had recently been express ed by African Union Trade Ministers meeting in 
Addis Ababa the previous month.  First, the MFN clauses required that ACP countries extend to the EC, on a line-by-line basis, any treatment they mi ght negotiate with third parties.  These clauses 
would have the practical effect of disabling, as so me had put it, the Enabling Clause negotiated in the 
1970s with the objective of enhancing trade among de veloping countries on a preferential basis.  The 
ACP countries would have to take into account the competitiveness of the EC’s industry when 
negotiating with other developing countries.  By  raising the cost for the ACP of negotiating 
agreements with other developing countries, the EP As would reduce their opportunity to sell to large, 
dynamic markets a wide range of products they did no t export to the EC.  This ran counter to the EC's 
professed commitment to fostering development and South-South trade.  Regarding the argument sometimes presented by the EC that if the ACP count ries had, in negotiations with the EC, put some 
product on a list of sensitive produc ts, these products should be sensitive with regard to every other 
supplier, this was obviously not what the EC did,  because since the EC was liberalizing eventually 
100 per cent of its trade with the ACP countries, one would assume there were no sensitive sectors, 
which of course there were, depending on who the supplier was.  The MFN clauses in the EPAs 
would, in practice, prevent third countries from negotiating FTAs with EPA parties and would create 
major constraints to South-South trade.  This came  at a time when major initiatives were under way, 
such as the extension by some developing countri es of duty-free quota-free market access to LDCs 
and the current round of GSTP negotiations, which ha d received the strong backing of participants at 
the UNCTAD XII Conference in Accra.  The inclus ion of MFN clauses in th e EPAs would undermine 
these initiatives and not help the integration of de veloping countries into the world trading system, 
one of the central objectives of the Doha Round, and would certainly not serve the objectives of 
promoting further development of the ACP countries. 
57. The second point he wished to raise concerning th e EPAs was that not all the EPAs contained 
the same provisions for all parties, which intro duced an additional layer of complexity for ACP 
countries.  At the February General Council, the EC had stated that "the EPAs will further support 
development and regional integra tion amongst ACP countries".  However, it seemed that different 
sets of rules of origin would apply to different  EPAs.  Brazil thus failed to see how this would 
contribute to the objective alleged by the EC.  Th e EPAs would have a significant impact on the 
integration of a large number of Members in world trade, and therefore on the shape of the 
multilateral system.  It was therefore essential that  these agreements be notified in the shortest 
possible time, so that Members could conduct a thorough analysis of their implications.  In this case, the issue of transparency was essential.  There were WTO provisions for such an examination, and 
these were being strengthened in the context of th e present Round.  There were also disciplines to WT/GC/M/114 
Page 22  
 
  guarantee that the interests of Members were not a ffected.  Finally, there were commitments to S&D 
treatment and the central development concern of the DDA.  The way to dispel doubts was to be transparent and to acknowledge the legitimate concer ns of others.  Brazil's objective in bringing this 
matter to the General Council was not to engage in sterile polemics, nor  to question the nature of the 
relationship between the ACP countries and the EU, but  simply to bring to light some undesirable 
implications of some of the provisions in the EPAs.  Brazil hoped that the present discussion would 
lead to more clarity on the nature of those provisions, especially the MFN clause. 
58. The representative of China
 said his delegation shared Braz il's concerns on the consistency 
with the Enabling Clause of the MFN clause in the EPAs in question.  As China had said at the 
February General Council, the Enabling Clause, wh ich was an important p illar of the multilateral 
trading system, allowed developing countries to enjo y preferences granted by developed countries or 
through agreement among themselves.  Article 3(a)  of the Enabling Clause clearly identified its 
purpose:  "[T]o facilitate and promote the trade of de veloping countries", and Article 6 stipulated that 
developed countries would refrain from demanding r eciprocity regarding concessions accorded by 
developing countries.  Those central principles shoul d not be undermined by Members in any way, 
including through actions outside of the framewo rk of the DDA negotiations.  However, with the 
MFN clause demanded by the European Communiti es from the ACP countries and inserted in the 
EPAs, the EC was running counter to the direction of  the Enabling Clause.  This would certainly have 
a negative effect on other developing-country Members in their efforts to negotiate trade agreements 
with ACP countries, would impede the growth of South-South trad e and would undermine the efforts 
of ACP countries for further development.  In this  regard, China wished to echo the statement in the 
Addis Ababa Declaration that the entry into EPAs w ith the EC should not preclude Africa from taking 
full advantage of South-South cooperation.  China ther efore urged the EC to carefully re-examine this 
MFN clause and take action to bring all its EPAs w ith the ACP countries into conformity with the 
spirit and objectives of the Enabling Clause.  
59. The representative of India  said his delegation shared the concerns expressed by Brazil.  The 
inclusion of the MFN clause in the EC-ACP EPAs rai sed serious systemic concerns.  The implications 
of such provisions for the meaning and intent of the Enabling Clause would need to be carefully 
assessed.  The Enabling Clause was an important pillar of the multilateral trading system and of the 
WTO acquis.  Members could not allow it to be undermined in any way, especially in a development Round.  A major objective of the Enabling Clause was the need to enhance trade between developing 
countries.  To the extent that such provisions would deter ACP members from negotiating preferential 
arrangements with other developing countries, the EPAs would prevent the Enabling Clause from 
meeting that objective.  The inclusion of the MFN clause would also add a new dimension to the 
challenge of preference erosion, except that in  the present case it would be a question of the 
preference erosion of a developed-country Member.  I ndia urged the EC, in line with the transparency 
mechanism for RTAs in operation since December 2006,  to notify at the earliest the details of the 
EPAs.  These agreements were a major event, invol ving more than 100 countries, and a meaningful 
discussion of them in the WTO would provide fresh meaning to Members' mandate for clarifying and 
improving disciplines and procedures under existing WTO provisions. 
60. The representative of Ecuador
 said his country, together with members of the Andean 
Community, was currently negotiating an association agreement with the European Union, and the 
concern raised by Brazil was important to th e development of those negotiations and their 
implications for Ecuador's WTO commitments.  At the same time, Ecuador wished to reiterate its 
concern that, contrary to specific WTO commitments , the agreements signed or initialled between the 
European Communities and the ACP countries had not been notified to the WTO.  Ecuador also wished to raise with the EC a question that had remained unanswered since the last General Council 
meeting, namely under what legal basis or waiver  was the EC justifying the preferences currently 
granted to ACP countries, in particular for banan as.  Ecuador requested that this agenda item be  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 23 
 
 
  maintained on the Council's agenda until sufficient clarification had been given, and reserved its 
rights in respect of the concerns raised above. 
61. The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP Group , said the Group again took note of 
the statements by Brazil and other Members and of  the concerns raised regarding the EPAs recently 
concluded and initialled between some ACP Members and the EC.  The Group wished to recall that 
upon notification of the EPAs to the WTO, there would be an opportunity for Members to examine 
these agreements and to highlight any concerns, su ch as those raised at the present meeting.  The 
Group expected that notification to take place as soon as possible. 
62. The representative of Argentina  associated his delegation with the concerns expressed by 
Brazil, and took note of the statement by Jamaica for the ACP Group that notification of these 
agreements would make it possible to have a clear er picture and a more detailed analysis of the 
situation.  However, Argentina wished to draw atte ntion to some concerns it had at the present time.  
At the outset, Argentina recognized the right of each member of the ACP to take the decisions it felt 
were the most appropriate for its economic developm ent and integration into world trade.  As WTO 
Members and as participants in a development Round , Members of course had to pay attention to the 
possible consequences these agreements might ha ve, both for the ACP countries and for the WTO 
membership as a whole.  Argentina agreed with con cerns expressed by Brazil, particularly regarding 
the MFN clause in the various agreements in relati on to the Enabling Clause, and the difficulties that 
would be caused in the current negotiations rega rding preferential issues, particularly for ACP 
Members and other developing countri es, thus limiting their possibilities to diversify their imports and 
exports.  This was of particular concern for his dele gation, in the light of the fact that there were 
important initiatives being negotiated, particularly  the negotiations on the global trade preferences 
among developing countries, on which there had been  a renewed impetus as a result of the Ministerial 
meeting of the ACP countries that had taken place within the framework of the UNCTAD meeting in 
Accra.  The possibilities for ACP countries to par ticipate in integration initiatives among developing 
countries, together with the question of the particular trade rules relating to the EC, the 
implementation of which did not always take plac e within the framework of multilateral negotiations, 
could lead to a model of trade which, only with great difficulty, would lead to a diversity of the production and exports of the ACP countries.  As had been said, Argentina did not see how these 
agreements could improve the importing role of the ACP countries and truly promote South-South 
trade. 
63. The representative of South Africa
 said his delegation wished to reiterate the concerns it had 
expressed on this matter at the February Council me eting.  South Africa was currently engaged in a 
constructive dialogue with the EC on this issue at a b ilateral level.  It thanke d Brazil for its statement, 
which reflected its own concerns.  South Africa looked forward to a fuller discussion of this issue – 
which was of great relevance to the development of the vast majority of developing countries in the 
WTO – once the EPAs had been notified to the WTO, and in this regard supported the statement by 
Jamaica for the ACP Group. 
64. The representative of Paraguay  said his delegation shared the c oncerns expressed by Brazil.  
Paraguay was very interested in, and had always tried to encourage, contacts and an agreement 
between MERCOSUR and the European Communities.   Transparency in the WTO was important, 
and there should be greater transparency regardin g these EPAs, which was why the EC and the other 
interested countries should notify these agreements within the WTO framework for such notification, 
thus ensuring the possibility of appropriate examinat ion and analysis that would shed further light on 
this issue.  He recalled that the EC had been very  active in the negotiations leading up to the adoption 
of provisions on notification of regional agreements , and it would be good to test this mechanism by 
making such notifications.  For this reason, his delegation noted with pleasure the statement by 
Jamaica for the ACP Group. WT/GC/M/114 
Page 24  
 
  65. The representative of St. Lucia
 associated his delegation with the statement by Jamaica for the 
ACP Group.  He recalled that the negotiations for an EPA had been undertaken inter alia  to bring the 
trade regimes of the EC and its CARIFORUM part ners into conformity with the rules governing 
multilateral trade.  To this end, St. Lucia, al ong with its CARIFORUM count erparts, had faithfully 
engaged with the EC towards completing a comprehe nsive trade and development pact.  After five 
years of arduous negotiations, the CARIFORUM had negotiated, completed and initialed a regional 
trade accord in compliance w ith GATT Article XXIV.  According to WTO procedures, the 
CARIFORUM/EC EPA would be notified and reviewed  in the appropriate forum and in line with 
procedures governing the notification of RTAs.  His delegation had noted Brazil's concerns and 
assured Members there would be an opportunity in due course to examine these and any other 
concerns about the EPAs.  However, it would be pr emature to prejudge the outcome of this process.  
St. Lucia was confident that the CARIFORUM agre ement would prove to be compatible with the 
letter and spirit of the rules governing RTAs.  It look ed forward to a full discussion on this important 
issue at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum. 
66. The representative of Uruguay  said his country had always s hown interest in South-South 
trade.  Markets of the developing countries were the most dynamic in terms of growth, and many of 
their proposals within the framework of the Doha Round on Agriculture were, of course, linked to 
their interest in markets in other developing c ountries.  An example was Special Products and the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism in the agriculture sector .  However, their interest in these areas went 
beyond the MFN clause, and was also in relation to th e preferences they might obtain.  In this sense, 
Uruguay fully shared the concerns expressed by Br azil, because initiatives such as those being taken 
by the EC could put at risk the effectiveness of the Enabling Clause.  The Enabling Clause had been a 
success in relation to the instruments which the GA TT, at that time, had set up in relation to the 
promotion of South-South trade.  It had been a su ccess from the political and the commercial points of 
view, and Uruguay did not wish to see an erosion of  that instrument.  This was why his delegation 
shared the concerns expressed by a number of Me mbers who wished to see progress made here that 
would help other developing countries in th eir negotiations and contacts with the EC. 
67. The representative of Lesotho  supported the statements by Jamaica for the ACP and by 
St. Lucia. 
68. The representative of Pakistan  associated his delegation with the statement by Brazil, which 
had been endorsed by China, I ndia, Argentina and South Africa. 
69. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  said his delegation fully supported the statement by 
Jamaica for the ACP Group.  However,  Côte d'Ivoire, as a signatory to  an interim agreement with the 
European Union, wished to state that its commitments in relation to this free trade agreement had to 
be seen in relation to the implementation of Article  36 of the Cotonou Agreement, which had existed 
previous to the new regime of EC trade exchanges.   This was, of course, in conformity with WTO 
rules and disciplines, particularly Article XXIV of th e GATT.  Côte d'Ivoire, because of its integration 
coefficient, had a privileged position in relation to its diversity in trade relations in South-South trade.  
There had never been any question in Côte d'Ivoire or in the EC of failing to strengthen this South-
South aspect.  In the context of systemic difficu lties in relation to agreements between developing 
countries and the European Union, many questions c ould be raised.  However, once the ACP partners 
and the EC had ratified the various agreements a nd notified them to the WTO, his delegation hoped 
there would be a substantive discussion.  For the ti me being, his delegation wished to say that the 
regime at issue was not only based on a system of as ymmetric dismantling of certain tariffs, but that 
there was no question of obscuring the aspect of S outh-South cooperation.  He reiterated Côte 
d'Ivoire's support for the statement by Jamaica for the ACP. 
70. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that at the February Council 
meeting, his delegation had explained why Brazil's contentions about the MFN clauses in the EPAs in  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 25 
 
 
  question were mistaken and ill-founded, and why th ese clauses did not contradict the objective of 
promoting South-South trade.  EPAs were a new chap ter in the long-standing partnership between the 
EU and the ACP countries.  With the EPAs, the EC had created a new basis fo r the trade relationships 
with these countries and had moved away from un ilateral preferences that had required a WTO 
waiver.  The EC presumed this was something all Members would welcome.  The EC had also noted 
in February that MFN clauses were not unusual – other Members had signed trade agreements with 
similar provisions.  For example, Brazil, together with other Latin American countries, had adopted a 
similar approach under the Treaty of Montevideo, an d the EC thanked Brazil for giving it this good 
example and inspiration.  Other examples were th e FTA between Mercosur and Israel, and several 
FTAs of Chile.  The United States also used MF N clauses in FTAs, including with developing 
countries, as in the case of the FTA with Morocco.  T hus, one should not exaggerate this issue.  The 
EC would notify the agreements to the WTO as soon as possible, i.e. once they had been signed.  In 
the meantime, the EC was providing information on the agreements to interested Members, for 
example through information seminars such as one held  on 13 March.  Regarding Brazil's concerns 
about the Enabling Clause, the EC recalled th at the Enabling Clause governed FTAs between 
developing countries, and one-way preferential sch emes between developed an d developing countries, 
such as the GSP.  However, th e Enabling Clause did not govern RTAs between developed- and 
developing-country Members, of which the EPAs were  an example.  In short, the Enabling Clause 
was in legal terms irrelevant to the MFN clause in EPAs, or indeed any other provision of the EPAs.  
EPAs had to conform to GATT Article XXIV, not to the Enabling Clause.  Apart from this purely legal reasoning, his delegation did not share Brazil's view that the MFN clauses were in some vague 
way against the spirit of the Enabling Clause and that they threatened liberalization between 
developing countries – quite the reverse.  First, th e MFN clauses in EPAs were limited in scope.  They 
applied only to concessions made under a future agreement between ACP countries and a "major 
trading economy" – i.e. a country directly competi ng with the EC.  In practice, the definition of 
"major trading economy" was such that it would appl y to less than a handful of large and competitive 
developing countries, seven in total. 
71. On Brazil's question as to the kind of FTAs to which an MFN clause would apply, one would 
need to look at this if and when the case arose.  S econd, in order to promote further integration on the 
African continent, such MFN clauses were not app licable to more favourable treatment granted by 
ACP partners to other African countries or region s.  Third, the MFN clauses were intentionally 
asymmetric.  In line with the principles of S&D trea tment, the EC would grant to ACP partners any 
more favourable treatment arising from subsequent  agreements the EC concluded with any third 
parties.  This was a major commitment on the EC's part which the ACP partners obviously welcomed.  
On the other side, the ACP partners would only have to extend to the EC any more favourable 
treatment granted in the future to a major trading country with whom they entered into an economic 
integration agreement.  It was important to unde rstand why there were MFN clauses in the EPAs.  
They were a direct consequence of the fact that EPAs were FTAs with asymmetric liberalization.  On 
the one hand, with the most generous offer in the history of trade agreements, the EC had opened its 
market to 100 per cent duty- and quota-free imports from the ACP.  On the other hand, EPAs made use of existing flexibility in WTO rules and allo wed ACP economies to protect sensitive sectors and 
adjust to liberalization, up to 20 per cent of thei r imports.  Where the ACP countries decided to limit 
the extent of liberalization under EPAs, it should be assumed that this was done for development 
reasons.  Major trading economies that were ne gotiating FTAs with ACP countries in the future 
should arguably be similarly respectful of ACP count ries' development needs.  However, although the 
EC was generous, it was not naive.  If in the future  an ACP partner felt it had developed to the point 
where it could open up a product or sector it had she ltered and make a concession to a competitor of 
the EC – or major trading economy – it was perfec tly normal that such concession would then be 
extended to EC exporters, allowing them to comp ete with the producers of such major trading 
economy on an equal footing.  Finally, Brazil ha d noted differences in the EPAs regarding the 
liberalization schedules of the ACP partners.  Of course there were differences, which reflected the 
different priorities or sensitivities of each ACP partner.   Some ACP partners wished to liberalize more WT/GC/M/114 
Page 26  
 
  rapidly than others, for example.  On the rules-of -origin issue raised by Brazil, there were some 
differences, mainly because some ACP partners ha d asked for more relaxed rules in areas like 
fisheries or textiles.  In general, however, rules of origin were more uniform and would provide for 
full cumulation across Africa.  In conclusion, th e EC believed the MFN clauses in the EPAs were 
wholly consistent with South-South liberalizati on.  At most, the MFN clause might require ACP 
countries to consider, when negotiating a future FTA,  that more favourable treatment could also be 
extended to the EPAs. The practical effect of the MFN clause would in fact be to improve liberalization overall and reduce trade diversion.  The fact that MFN clauses were a fairly common 
feature of several other FTAs would seem to underlin e this point.  The EC would be happy to discuss 
this issue further once the EPAs were notified a nd subsequently discussed in the Committee on RTAs. 
72. The representative of Mauritius
 associated his delegation with the statement by Jamaica for 
the ACP Group.  Mauritius had taken note of the con cerns raised by Brazil.  His country wished to see 
EPA agreements signed between the EC and the East ern and Southern African Group.  It therefore 
remained fully committed to the ag reement it had signed with the EC, which had  been the result of a 
long process of protracted negotiations and had no t been entered into overnight.  Regarding the 
objectives and motivations behind the EPAs, first of a ll, the EC was one of his country's major trading 
partners with whom it was engaged historically in  preferential trade arrangements.  These had been 
included in Annex 5 of the Cotonou Agreement wh ich had come to an end in December 2007, and 
Mauritius had thus had to look for an  alternative trade regime so as not to have its trade disrupted.  It 
had been able to achieve this through the EPA.  Second, because there had b een concerns in the WTO 
about the non-reciprocal trade arrangements under th e Lomé and Cotonou régi mes, Mauritius had had 
to look for WTO-compatible trading arrangements with  its partners that would meet the test of the 
WTO.  The EPAs were fully compatible with Ar ticle XXIV of GATT, which was the applicable 
provision and the yardstick by which the EPAs should be judged in the WTO.  The third objective was to have an important  development dimension in the EPAs – in all the EPAs there was a dedicated 
development chapter with full commitments on deve lopment programmes.  The final objective was to 
ensure regional integration, and this objective ha d been achieved through improvements of rules of 
origin and also through a package of development as sistance that would foster regional integration in 
the regions involved.  Mauritius did not see any pr oblem due to the EPA for any third country that 
wished to enter into FTAs or trade agreements with  it.  The EPA signed by Mauritius had stretched to 
the outermost limit the trade coverage in value term s that it could do with any other partner, not only 
the EC – i.e. 96 per cent coverage in terms of va lue of trade – while the EU had liberalized 100 per 
cent.  Thus, as a developing country, Mauritius was prepared, through the EPA, to liberalize 96 per 
cent in terms of the value of its trade and was prep ared to do this with any other partner.  For a 
developing country, that was a lot of ambition in te rms of trade liberalization.  As to the other 
concerns raised by Brazil, there was an institutio nal process in the WTO through the notifications in 
the Committee on RTAs.  His delegation would have an opportunity once the notification was made 
to provide further clarifications on the agreements signed with the EU. 
73. The representative of Haiti
 said his delegation understood the concerns raised by Brazil.  
However, regarding the agreements at issue, onl y the Caribbean countries had actually signed EPAs 
with the European Union.  The other regions were  still in negotiations, and there was therefore no 
need for Brazil or any other Member to be con cerned.  One should await the completion of these 
agreements and their subsequent  notification.  Haiti unreservedly supported the statements by 
St. Lucia and Jamaica for the ACP Group. 
74. The representative of Cameroon  said his delegation had taken note of the statement by Brazil.  
It endorsed the statement by Jamaica for the ACP,  and wished to recall the communications on this 
issue of 13 March by high-level officials from his capital and from Brussels.  At the present stage there was nothing new to add.  Cameroon urged Me mbers to await the notifications, which would 
enable the present discussions to be more open and substantial.  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 27 
 
 
  75. The representative of Uruguay , in response to the EC, said that although the Montevideo 
Treaty had an MFN clause, it was not the same as the MF N clause in the EPAs in question.  In fact, it 
was totally the contrary of what was being discussed .  What the Montevideo Treaty originally called 
for was that if a Latin American country, out of the 11 that made up the Latin American Integration 
Association (ALADI), were to grant a preference  to a developed country, that preference would 
automatically be granted to the other developing countries that made up ALADI.  The logic in this 
was easily understood, but even so, that Artic le had been modified in 1994 and now required 
negotiations.  Thus, the clause referre d to by the EC was in exactly th e reverse sense, and in any event 
had since been modified. 
76. The representative of Chile  said the reference to Chile by th e EC had prompted him to make 
two points.  First, the MFN clauses in some of Ch ile's regional agreements were limited to certain 
sectors and certain goods.  He did not wish to try to defend those clauses or provisions, which 
improved trade and prevented distortion or displacement of trade.  He wished to highlight that Chile 
was not familiar with the various agreements betw een the EU and the ACP countries, and therefore 
looked forward to their notification, which would provide an opportunity to discuss them in the 
Committee on RTAs and to be able to ascertain whet her the MFN clauses therein did, in fact, abide by 
the established guidelines.  The other point he wished to make was that this type of clause and the 
current discussion once again reflected the need to ta ke up work on regional trade agreements in the 
Negotiating Group on Rules. 
77. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
5. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Report of the Committee on its 
meeting of February 2008 (WT/BFA/102) 
78. The Chairman  drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee in document 
WT/BFA/102. 
79. Mr. Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said he wished to highlight a number of po ints in the Committee's report.  In respect 
to Trust Funds, the funding situation of the Doha  Development Agenda Global Trust Fund remained 
critical, with a balance of only CHF 200,000 at 31 Ja nuary 2008.  The slow receipt of contributions 
and the unpredictable nature of the voluntary cont ributions put the Secretariat in a very difficult 
situation in terms of planning and implementing the annual plans for technical assistance and training 
activities.  In order to meet the end-March thr eshold, contributions of some CHF 10 million still 
needed to be received.  Since that date, there ha d been some contributions, and the Secretariat was 
certainly grateful to those donors.  The present ba lance was CHF 1.9 million, which would take these 
activities only through to mid-July.  This meant th at commitments beyond that date, which would 
include two regional trade training courses, could well be jeopardized.  There were a number of 
outstanding pledges, and he wished to encourag e those Members who had made pledges to come 
forward as soon as possible, and for any other Members to  dig deep into their pockets to assist in this 
important process and work.  On the important issu e of the future building needs of the WTO, a 
member of the Secretariat had addressed the Committee and had explained that the Director-General had reached a preliminary understanding with the Presi dent of the Swiss Confederation as to the basic 
elements of the renovation and expansion of the CWR, including (i) the full renovation and 
modernization of the existing building, including the improvement of physical infrastructure and the densification of the main conference room; (ii)  the intra-muros expansion of the CWR with a 
delegates' lounge and a new conference area;  and ( iii) the completion of an extension to the CWR in 
the south parking area, including a new underground pa rking facility for 200 cars.  The financing of 
this project would be accomplished with a CHF 70 million grant from the Swiss government to the 
WTO and a CHF 60 million interest-free loan over 50 y ears to the WTO by the host country.  The full 
project, including the renovation, expansion and exte nsion, would take around 5 years to complete.   WT/GC/M/114 
Page 28  
 
  As for the next steps, the WTO and the Swiss aut horities would have to negotiate a formal MOU as a 
basis for both the Swiss Parliament and the Genera l Council to adopt the final legal and financial 
arrangements necessary to carry out the project.  Since the February meeting, there had been 
considerable work in this area, and the Secretar iat had made substantial progress on the project with 
its Swiss counterparts.  He himself had held info rmal consultations and in tended to call a regular 
meeting of the Budget Committee in the near futu re to review these developments.  The current 
thinking was that the Committee should be in a po sition to make recommendations to the General 
Council at its meeting in July.  On the issue of the possible adverse impact of management decisions on the actuarial balance of the WTO Pension Pl an, the Committee had considered this very 
complicated issue on the request of the Management Board of the Pension Plan.  He would not go into 
the details, but this was an ongoing issue that rema ined to be resolved, and the Committee would be 
giving it further attention in order to reach a sat isfactory outcome.  Finally, he wished to draw 
attention to the recommendation in paragraph 20 of the Committee's report which required the 
General Council to take a decision with regard to  those Members currently in Category IV (Inactive 
Members) urging them Members to liquidate their arrears.  
80. The General Council took note
 of the statement, approved  the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendation in paragraph 20 of its re port in document WT/BFA/102, and adopted  the report. 
6. European Communities – Application of autonomous preferential treatment to Moldova 
– Request for a waiver (G/C/W/592, G/C/W/597) 
81. The Chairman  drew attention to the request for a waiver from the European Communities in 
document G/C/W/592, and to the related draft d ecision in document G/C/W/597, which proposed a 
waiver from the provisions of Article I.1 a nd Article XIII of GATT 1994 from 1 March 2008 until 
31 December 2013 to the extent necessary to perm it the EC to afford duty-free or preferential 
treatment to products originating in Moldova.   
82. Mrs. Tan (Singapore), Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods , said that at its meeting 
on 11 March, the Goods Council had approved th e draft waiver decision for the European 
Communities' application of autonomous preferenti al treatment to Moldova (G/C/W/597), and had 
recommended that it be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.   
83. The Chairman  proposed that in accordance with  the Decision-Making Procedures under 
Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement ag reed in November 1995 (WT/L/93), the General 
Council adopt the draft decision in G/C/W/597.  
84. The General Council so agreed .11 
7. WTO Pension Plan Management Board – Election of Chairman, Members and 
Alternates – Proposal by the Chairman of the General Council (WT/GC/W/588) 
85. The Chairman  recalled that Article 4 of the Regula tions of the WTO Pension Plan provided 
for the establishment of a Management Board comprising, inter alia, a Chairman, four members and four alternates elected by the General Council.  The term of office of the current membership of the 
Management Board would expire on 26 May.  Fo llowing consultations held on this matter, he 
proposed that the General Council agree to the elect ion of the following candidates, whose names had 
been submitted to Members in document WT/GC/ W/588, to serve in these positions on the Pension 
Plan Management Board for a three-year term:  Chairperson – Mr. Nicholas Niggli (Switzerland);  Members – Mr Andrew Johnston (United Kingdom ), Mr William Tagliani (United States), 
Mr Dominic Trindade (Australia), Ms Salina Ya n (Hong Kong, China);  Alternates – Mr Mathias 
                                                     
 
11 The Decision was subsequently ci rculated in document WT/L/722.   WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Francke (Chile), Ms Heather Grant (Canada), Mr  Jean-Marc Mignon (France), Mr Alexandre Parola 
(Brazil). 
86. The General Council agreed  to the election of the above individuals to the Management 
Board of the WTO Pension Plan for a three-year term. 12 
8. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Uzbekistan 
87. The Chairman  informed Members that following cons ultations with Members of the Working 
Party and the authorities of Uzbekistan, and in keep ing with usual WTO practice, it had been agreed 
that Mr Sung-Joo Lee (Korea) would serve as Chairm an of this Working Party, replacing Mr Hyuck 
Choi (Korea), who had left Geneva a nd was no longer available to serve in  this capacity.  On behalf of 
the General Council, he requested the delegation of Korea to thank Mr Choi for having served as 
Chair of this Working Party since May 2004. 
88. The representative of Nigeria , on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries , 
congratulated the ambassador of Korea  on his appointment as Chair of the Working Party and wished 
him every success in his efforts to  facilitate the accession of Uzbekistan.  The Informal Group looked 
forward to welcoming soon this important Cent ral Asian economy as a Member.  The developing 
countries were committed to achieving universal member ship in this organization, and it was for this 
reason that they once again wished to express th eir view that accession processes should strictly 
observe the principle of less-than-full reciprocity.  Accordingly, countries in the process of accession 
should be asked to undertake only commitments that  were consistent with their present and future 
development, financial and trade needs.  The Inform al Group also wished to reiterate its concern that 
the accession of some developing countries was being unduly delayed due to political and non-
commercial considerations.  In a rules-based sy stem, such as the WTO, it was the commercial, 
technical and juridical considerations that should be the deciding factors in every accession process.  
Therefore, the Informal Group urged Members to ta ke serious note of these concerns and to respond 
positively to any future efforts to unblock the accession processes of those countries encountering 
obstacles that were not based on comme rcial and technical considerations. 
89. The General Council  took note of the statements. 
9. Administrative Measures for Members in arrears 
90. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that at its meeting in May 2006, the 
General Council had approved a recommendati on from the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration regarding revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears (WT/BFA/86).  
Among these Administrative Measures was a requirement that at each meeting of the General C ouncil, 
the Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Fina nce and Administration s hould provide information 
with regard to which Members were under Administ rative Measures in Ca tegories II through IV. 
91. Mr Lynch (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said that while the Council Chair had set out the background to the Budget 
Committee's decision, he wished to add that  the General Council had also authorized the Budget 
Committee to waive the application of the Measures for Members in Category IV who agreed to, and 
abided by, a schedule of instalment payments aimed at liquidating all arrears.  In this context, he 
invited the Members concerned with this question to contact the Secretariat to discuss the modalities 
for establishing such an instalment plan.  In purs uance of the revised Administrative Measures, he 
wished to inform the Council that as at 7 May,  the Members under Categories II through IV of the 
                                                      
12 The Decision was subsequently ci rculated in document WT/L/723.  
 WT/GC/M/114 
Page 30  
 
  Administrative Measures were as follows:  Mali, Ni caragua and Peru in Category II;  Senegal in  
Category III;  and the following Members in Categor y IV:  Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, 
Commonwealth of Dominica, Côte d'Ivoire, Demo cratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, 
Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Paraguay, Republic of Congo, Sierra 
Leone and Togo. 
92. The Chairman
 then recalled that under the revised Administrative Measures he was also 
required at each Council meeting to request those Members in Categories III and IV of the Measures 
to inform him, before the next meeting of the Ge neral Council, as to when their payment of arrears 
might be expected.  In keeping with the Admini strative Measures, he would report on Members' 
replies to the next meeting of the General Council.   Since the February General Council meeting, he 
had not received any replies from the Members concerned. 
93. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
 
______________________  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 31 
 
 
  ANNEX  
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of  
the Trade Negotiations Committee on 17 April 2008  
 
 
1. Barbados (for the small, vulnerable economies) 
 
 We thank you for your status  update this morning on the current situation regarding the DDA 
and in particular for sharing y our expectation of how the work should proceed during the next two 
critical months.  We commend you for your continued work and commitment as we all aim to achieve a 
result in the DDA this year.  We also acknowledge wi th appreciation the level of engagement you have 
had with representatives of all delegations, particular ly with the SVEs.  Your report this morning comes 
at an interesting moment in globa l dynamics.  We are on the cusp of  UNCTAD XII, which will seek to 
place the priorities and needs of developing countries at the centre of its debate in Accra.  We are in the 
shadow of the expanding reality of rising food pric es and rising fuel prices, both of which have 
potentially devastating impacts on all developing co untries, particularly on SVEs, net food-importing 
developing countries and LDCs, and we continue to negotiate at the WTO under a political cloud of 
uncertainty which has recently gotten even more grey  and tentative in nature.  On one side, we are 
dealing with the potential of trade and developmen t rules and norms to provide "deliverables" for 
developing countries, and on the other side we see increasing political difficulti es, and in some cases 
reticence, to commit to the kinds of agreements an d concessions required.  Threatening to engulf both 
this potential of trade and the political dynamics we are working under is the reality of the situation – 
people rioting over food prices, governments having to  take drastic policy deci sions to ensure that 
people can eat and live comfortably, livelihoods disappearing.  It is the hope of the SVEs that we can 
truly abide by the indicative timelines and expectat ions you have provided to us today and that the 
realities confronting us right now will feed into the kinds of conces sions and flexibilities which are 
required to ensure that the results of this Round have  real and positive  implications on the ground.  We 
have to extend appreciation for the work undertaken by all of the Chairs  of the negotiating groups.  In all 
negotiating areas, SVEs remain engaged and have found that th e Chairpersons have created 
opportunities for us to present our views and for these views to be taken into account.  In the past few 
weeks, some SVEs have submitte d additional proposals in the areas of NAMA, fisheries subsidies and 
Trade Facilitation, and continue to engage construc tively on Agriculture, Services, TRIPS and all other 
areas of the DDA.  We take note of the informat ion you have shared on the proposed scope of the 
horizontal process and call for this process to be inclusive and geographically representative, and for 
there to be clear systems to transmit any discussions from smaller groups to the wider WTO membership.  We take note of the proposed signali ng conference in the market access negotiations on 
Services, and while recognizing the importance of an  outcome from such an event for some Members, we 
would like to emphasize that this in itiative should not detr act from the multilateral process.  We would not 
wish to see the interests of the non -participating Members marginalized.  Bearing in mind the importance 
of transparency in this exercise, and on the understanding that detail s of the Conference are still to be 
finalized, SVEs wish to avail ourselves of the opportunity to observe the proceedings.  In the quest to complete modalities on NAMA and Agri culture and to gain greater comfor t on issues related to Services, it 
would be important to remember that for some of us, the other issues under the single undertaking remain 
of extreme importance.  In particular , there needs to be a result on fish eries subsidies which truly takes into 
account the present and future importanc e of fisheries to SVEs, and there must be a clear and workable 
mechanism in Trade Facilitation to provide the necessary technical assistance and capacity building to 
developing countries.  We also look forward to more concrete discussions on Aid for Trade, which should focus less on aid that has occurred in the past and more on the expected additional aid which had been 
envisioned by SVEs and other developing countries. 
 
  WT/GC/M/114 
Page 32  
 
  2. Chinese Taipei (for the Recently Acceded Members) 
 
 Thank you for convening today's meeting and for your debriefing on the preparatory work for 
the horizontal process.  Since the last TNC mee ting on 31 January, Members have intensified their 
engagement in the negotiations.  Despite there bei ng some stumbling blocks that still need to be 
cleared, we are more optimistic now that the gr owing sense of urgency among Members can bring the 
DDA negotiations to a successful conclusion in 2008.  First, I would like to speak on behalf of the 
group of Recently Acceded Members (RAMs).  Many Members, including RAMs, expect that after 
the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs have tabled th eir revised draft modalities, the DDA negotiations 
will enter the final stage, and the intensive process of  horizontal negotiations will begin.  Therefore, at 
this critical juncture, the RAMs would like to bring th eir concerns to your attention, for consideration 
in the planning of the future process.  Before getting to that, we would like to remind you of the 
important fact that the RAMs' issues in Agri culture, NAMA and Services are cross-cutting, and 
require a horizontal solution.  Despite the fact that the draft modalities on Agriculture and NAMA have taken on board some of the RAMs' proposals,  there are still some issues pending.  Regarding 
NAMA, the flexibilities accorded to RAMs still fall shor t of our legitimate request.  On Services, the 
overall ambition is not sufficient to match RAMs ' extensive commitments made upon their accession. 
We think this imbalance must be rectified.  Th e reasonable amount of flexibilities that the RAMs are 
asking for is no more than due recognition of their extensive market-access commitments made at the 
time of their accession.  We share the same goal as most Members, of an ambitious and balanced 
outcome which can generate meaningful new tr ade flows for all and deliver the development 
objective of this Round.  Regarding the future process, RAMs concur with the importance of 
enhancing negotiating efficiency.  However, we w ould urge very strongly that the principle of 
inclusiveness not be sacrificed in the process.  Fo r the horizontal process to be a vehicle that is 
conducive to consensus-building, sufficient partic ipation by the representatives of the various 
groupings, including the RAMs, should be essential.  On the subject of transparency, the RAMs 
would appreciate it if you could provide Members with more detail about the transparency 
arrangement for the horizontal process.  We woul d also like to propose some options which we 
believe will enhance the transparency of the horiz ontal process:  (i) The Chairpersons of the NAMA 
and Agriculture negotiating grou ps should continue thorough discussion on their respective revised 
texts to bring the texts to maturity and clarity be fore the horizontal process.  (ii) All Members should 
have access to timely debriefings throughout the course of  the horizontal process to keep up to date on 
the important developments.  (iii) You could a ppoint contact persons from whom all interested 
Members can request a copy of the room or any re ference documents circulated during the horizontal 
process negotiations.  Of course, we would be mo re than happy to see these documents routinely 
circulated by e-mail.  The RAMs have always been  ready and willing to make their due contribution 
in this Round.  At the same time, we urge you to pa y particular attention to their views on the issue of 
inclusiveness and transparency.  We trust you will do your utmost to ensure that Members have a 
sufficient level of comfort with the procedural aspects of the horizontal process. 
 
3. Ecuador  
 Thank you for keeping all the membership up to  date on process and substance.  With regard 
to process, my delegation, like many others, consider s transparency and participation to be important 
at this stage where we may be nearing a conc lusion to the Round.  We endorse the comments on 
participation made by the coordinato r of the RAMs group, as it is important that, at the end of the day, 
the results of this process are legitimized and the Members are given ownership of the outcomes.  My 
delegation also considers it important that the te xts on Agriculture and NAMA, which I believe are to 
be issued at the end of this month, return to their respective committees before the horizontal process 
begins.  My delegation was not inte nding to make any specific reference to substance.  However, after 
listening to several groups, made up of numerous delegations here at the WTO, I believe it is 
important to level out the playing field and achieve a balance.  I refer specifically to the subject of 
tropical products, which has already been address ed by the group coordinator, the delegation of  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Costa Rica.  I would merely reiterate that very c onstructive work is continuing with all the developed 
countries and that results will soon be visible.  Both the developed and the tropical countries have 
shown considerable flexibility in th is process and, as I have already said, we will carry on working 
hard so as to provide the Agriculture Chair with ma jor elements for the revised text on Agriculture.  
However, although we are, on the one hand, maki ng progress, the exact opposite is happening in the 
area of preference erosion.  Less flexibility, more products which continue to  be added to the lists 
without any filters being applied, and the inability as yet to reduce the scope of the products involved.  
Such lack of flexibility naturally al so continues to reflect on potential solutions.  We have just heard 
references being made to a very lengthy period of time, that is, a ten-year grace period plus five 
additional years.  We are talking about a period of some 15 years.  This ultimately constitutes special 
and differential treatment for the developed countries, which goes against the logic of the Round and 
the negotiations geared towards development.  Th e outcomes regarding tropical products obviously 
could not lie outside the mandates, under which the issue of tropical products takes precedence over those of preference erosion and sensitive products.  It is therefore essential that the group on tropical 
products reduce the scope – and that is what we ar e doing in the negotiations with developed countries 
– and the number of products for which the phasing out of preferences is being requested.  It is vital 
that effective filters be established and that th e scope and coverage of  this list be reduced. 
 
4. El Salvador 
 
 My delegation thanks you for outlining the st ate of play in the negotiating process and for 
sharing your views on discussions over the coming m onths, which will be crucial in deciding which 
direction the DDA negotiations will take.  El Sa lvador is still committed to this Round being 
concluded through a transparent and inclusive pr ocess that accommodates all Members' national 
interests, and especially those of the developing co untries, including the small, vulnerable economies.  
In this connection, we consider it important th at all interests be properly represented at every 
negotiating stage and in the various discussion groups , so as to ensure that Members' positions are 
taken into account.  We would also recall that th e negotiating process must be driven by substance 
and, therefore, while we acknowledge the sense of urgency to conclude this  Round, this cannot be 
done at the expense of content in each of the ne gotiating areas.  El Salvador takes note of your 
considerations regarding the three core nego tiating areas, including Agriculture and NAMA, 
"intermediate"-level areas such as services, rules and intellectual property, and other issues on which 
work is moving ahead in the various negotiating gr oups.  Emphasis should be laid on the importance 
of maintaining the principle of a single undertaking, because although El Salvador still has considerable interest in Agriculture and NAMA issues , it also has major interest s at stake in the other 
DDA negotiating areas.  One final point concerni ng the process has to do with the signaling 
conference on Services – a process conducted alongside the multilateral process.  While 
acknowledging the importance of the outcome of this  exercise for some delegations, El Salvador 
believes that any results that may be achieved should  not turn into the final outcome of the Services 
negotiations or undermine the interests of non-par ticipating Members.  My delegation considers that 
decisions pertaining to Services should stem fro m the multilateral process conducted by Ambassador 
de Mateo.  As regards substance, my delegation hopes that the revised Agriculture and NAMA texts 
take into account the positions outlined by the SVEs in every single one of these negotiations, 
including the latest proposal tabled before th e NAMA Negotiating Group.  We agree with your 
assessment that the Rules question is not yet ready for discussion at Ministerial level.  Regarding fisheries subsidies in particular, El Salvador supports new disciplines in this area , to the extent that the 
flexibilities needed for the developing countries, esp ecially the small economies, are maintained so as 
not to adversely affect Members with a very minor share in global marine fisheries capture.  I wish to 
conclude by endorsing the statement by Barbados for the SVEs, and by repeating my delegation's 
readiness to continue to work hard in order to achieve substantive progress in the various negotiating 
areas, with a view to the conclusion of this Round of negotiations.   
 
 WT/GC/M/114 
Page 34  
 
  5. Hong Kong, China  
 
 We firmly support that the horizontal process would address Agriculture and NAMA as a matter of priority and, in accordance with the H ong Kong Ministerial Declaration, with comparable 
levels of ambition.  We look forward to seeing th e revised texts on Agriculture and NAMA soon, and 
hopefully they can provide a sound basis for further pr ogress.  We also agree with you that the process 
should continue to be transparent and inclusive.  Afte r all, at the end of the day, consensus can only be 
found and decisions made by the membership as a whol e.  We also believe that apart from Agriculture 
and NAMA it is important to register progress in other areas under the single undertaking, notably Services and Rules.  On Services we look for a good final outcome, both in market access 
commitments and in domestic regulation disciplines, in order to achieve the objective of progressive 
liberalization under Article 19 of the GATS and in accordance with Annex C of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration.  In this regard, we s upport the organization of a signaling conference at the 
same time as Ministers gather to discuss Agricultu re and NAMA, followed by a report by you to the 
TNC.  Apart from indications on market access commitments, we believe it is important for the 
signaling conference also to consider a high leve l political message on the importance of Domestic 
Regulations, which are essential to secure the true va lue of any commitments made.  On Rules, many 
Members including Hong Kong, China have expressed  serious concern about the lack of balance in 
the current Anti-Dumping ext.  Members definitely  need something more than a report to provide 
them with necessary comfort to proceed in other ar eas.  Indeed, we would prefer a comprehensively 
edited and revised text with brackets and options refl ecting the full reality of the negotiations.  This 
should not come out later than the commencement of  the horizontal process.  As for other issues 
including TRIPS, Trade Facilitation and Trade a nd Environment, we look forward to reports 
reflecting the situation in the resp ective negotiations.  Finally, we no te from previous speakers that the 
process outlined by you enjoys the general support  of Members.  We very much hope that the 
goodwill expressed by Members and leadership by majo r players can provide a suitable incentive for 
progressing the Round to a successful conclusion in 2008. 
 
6. Honduras 
 
 We should like to begin by thanking you for your  report.  We wish to make a few comments 
in this connection and to endorse the statement made  by Barbados on behalf of the small economies.  
Statements by various Members clearly show that there are differences in interpretation regarding the 
process, as well as in the form and order in which topics should be addressed.  This means that we 
need to work on reaching a consensus in that r espect.  Honduras believes that the horizontal process 
should be inclusive, not exclusive, because any outcome resulting from an exclusionary process is 
liable to create problems and may therefore prove difficult for many delegations, including my own, 
to accept.  We cannot forget that the outcome of this Round will have a direct impact on our 
respective domestic economies and on our relations w ith other countries.  The Doha mandate clearly 
specifies that what is being sought is integration in  international trade of the countries concerned, and 
therefore deliberate exclusion of the developi ng countries from the ongoing negotiations would result 
in the opposite to what was est ablished in Doha.  Honduras believes in the Round, but not in an 
expedited and exclusive outcome.  Participation of the entire membership and taking whatever time 
may be necessary will produce the balance we are seeking.   To conclude, I woul d like to take this 
opportunity to say that the collateral issues linke d to the Round should be resolved before any 
decision is taken in the current nego tiating areas, especially Agriculture. 
 
7. Mauritius (for the ACP) 
  Let me thank you for convening this meeting and for the very candid assessment you have 
provided us on the negotiations this morning.  We  also wish to commend both yourself and the Chairs 
of the negotiating groups for your tireless efforts inte nded to propel the negotiations forward.  This is 
undoubtedly welcomed by all Members.  The AC P Group wishes to recall that we supported the  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 35 
 
 
  process which you outlined at the last meeting of the TNC – that is, to continue working in the 
negotiating groups in order to develop in a bala nced way full modalities, especially on Agriculture 
and NAMA.  This would lead to revised texts wh ich we would have an oppor tunity to review in 
capitals, in our respective groupings and in the respective negotiating groups before moving to a 
horizontal process and eventually to a meeting of Mi nisters.  This was recognized as a process which 
would give comfort to all Members.  I note that you are still committed to continuing that approach 
once the revised texts on Agriculture and NAMA have been adopted.  We would not want to see this 
approach jeopardized by the introduction of artific ial timeframes.  The ACP Group represents a vast 
constituency of the WTO membership, and it is import ant that the views of its members be fully taken 
on board in these negotiations.  This has taken on a particular poignancy  as all of our countries, 
mainly net food-importing developing countries, ar e grappling with various policy alternatives in 
order to address the rapid and continuing rise in food and fuel prices, along with the potential for 
social instability.  Therefore, on the one hand we must bear in mind that we are involved in a major 
and very complex undertaking as prescribed by the Doha mandate, while on the other, the expectation 
of countries like those in the ACP Group is for a Round that delivers on development, particularly in 
terms of allowing our vulnerable economies to integr ate into the global economy in a fair, harmonious 
manner, always in keeping with our  current, social, political and econom ic realities.  Suffice it to say 
that it is important to draw lessons from the current crisis.  This might necessitate a course correction.  
While there has been progress in many areas of the negotiations, there are still many issues to be 
further addressed, and many of these concern the inte rests of the ACP Group.  Because so much time 
has been spent dealing with so-called gateway issues , we are just seeing some momentum on some of 
the issues of concern to the ACP Group.  We have also in recent days detected a discernible will of 
some Members to take on board some of our concerns and we welcome this.  We wish to place on record that we will not accept being pressed to en ter a horizontal process with partial modalities.  
There is no doubt that the ACP Group wants a successful conclusion to the Doha negotiations and recognizes the imperatives of a conclusion as soon as possible, but the process to getting to a meeting 
of Ministers must be right.  Let me just touch briefly on a few points of substance.   
  In Agriculture, longstanding preferences is one  of the key areas which the Group hopes that 
enough time will be provided in order to arrive at a consensus on modalities that take account of the 
interests of all concerned.  As regards the i ssue of the overlap between tropical products and 
preference-receiving products, the ACP Group maintains its position on the principles on which the 
current negotiations rest. The Doha mandates do not provide any hierarchy between tropical and 
preference-receiving products, and the Group cons iders it unacceptable for an hierarchy to be 
established between the two sets of products.  As is  known, if the proposal in the draft Agriculture 
modalities text is retained, the ACP stands to lose ove r two-thirds of the produc ts listed in Annex H of 
your text.  This is not acceptable to the Group.  Th erefore, we reiterate the ACP's readiness to engage 
with all concerned to find a mutually-acceptable so lution to this issue of the overlap.  On Sensitive 
Products, we acknowledge the great deal of work done by the G-6 countries on the methodology to be 
used for calculating domestic consumption.  However, there is still need for clarity and transparency 
so that all Members can have a clear picture of which products will be d esignated as sensitive.  The 
ACP Group also wishes to see a satisfactory resoluti on to the issue of Special Products for countries 
that will be utilizing the so-called classic Special Pr oducts provision, the SSM and the request by the 
ACP and African Groups for flexibility in the terms of  the agreement to be re ached on Export Credits.  
On NAMA, the ACP Group reiterates its position that pr eferences play a very important role in their 
economies.  We have on numerous occasions emphasi zed the need for adequate coverage in the 
Annexes to the draft NAMA modalities of the products  of interest to the ACP Group as identified in 
its submissions to the NAMA Negotiating Group.  In this regard, the Group is disappointed that 
Annexes 2 and 3 of the Chair's text still exclude a co nsiderable number of lines of interest to the ACP 
Group.  The ACP Group considers paragraph 28 of the draft NAMA modalities text as a complement to a decision on preferences which will help the ACP Group face external competition.  The Group 
has submitted a proposal on paragraph 28 which aims  to strengthen its provisions.  Though tariff 
reduction is the main aim of this  Round, due account must be taken of the need for a grace period of WT/GC/M/114 
Page 36  
 
  5 years coupled with an implementation period of 10  years.  As regards the sectoral approach, the 
ACP wishes to reiterate its opposition to the recent proposals on trade-offs between sectoral 
approaches and flexibilities, particularly for fish a nd fish products, textiles and clothing, and gems and 
jewellery, as this will have significant adverse impa cts on preference-dependent countries.  As regards 
Services, the ACP Group would like to reiterate that any Services text should be consistent with the 
various mandates agreed upon, and be firmly anc hored in Annex C of the Hong Kong Declaration, 
particularly the need to respect and preserve the fl exibilities contained in the GATS in order to ensure 
that commitments undertaken by individual developi ng countries in the area of services reflect good 
economic policy.  ACP countries reiterate the need to inter alia :  provide effective market access to 
sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries, in particular Mode 4, as 
indicated in their requests, with the aim of achievi ng the objectives of Article IV of the GATS;  give 
due consideration to proposals on trade relate d concerns of small economies;  and secure 
commitments for enhanced support for technical assistance and capacity building.  The ACP Group 
also maintains that the proposed signaling conferen ce should ensure voluntary participation, and that 
the results should not have any bearing on the mu ltilateral process in terms of establishing a higher 
level of ambition in Services for the rest of the Members.  In addition, the ACP Group requests that 
due consideration be given to sector s and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries 
in the outcome of the conference, as it is clear th at the majority of ACP members will not participate 
in the signaling conference.   On Rules, the ACP Group is not a demandeaur for Rules to be discussed in the horizontal 
process.  However, the Group unders tands that some Members might ne ed the comfort of an update in 
some form.  In that regard, it is our view that wh atever document is produced will cover all the areas 
under the Rules negotiations, including fisheries subsid ies.  On development, the ACP Group wishes to 
reiterate that this is a key objective of trade and remains at the heart of the Doha mandate.  We remain concerned at the continuing lack of progress on the development issues in the Round.  We believe that 
there needs to be greater constructive engagement  on S&D treatment by al l Members.  On Trade 
Facilitation, this continues to be a bright spot in the negotiations.  The Group is actively working with 
Members to give operational content to the Trade Faci litation modalities.  We stand ready to continue to 
work with other Members in order to present accept able revised texts to Mini sters at the appropriate 
time – texts that reflect the interests of all Me mbers.  While the ACP Group is committed to the 
completion of the Round as soon as possible, it maintains that subs tance should drive the process and 
this supersedes timeframes.  In that regard, the Gr oup's understanding in these negotiations is that the 
interests of all parties will be re flected and that the outcome will be  fair and balanced .  In order to 
achieve this, the modalities to be considered in the horizontal process must also be fair and balanced.  
We are not yet there.  Issues of key interest to th e ACP Group must receive adequate time and attention, 
in the context of a multilateral, tr ansparent and inclusive and bottom-up approach.  We wish to support 
the statements by Côte d' Ivoire for the African Group, Uganda fo r the LDCs and Barbados for the SVEs. 
 
8. Singapore (for ASEAN Members) 
 
 As many here are aware, it is not often th at ASEAN chooses to speak in a single voice.  We 
do so today because of the urgency and gravity of our present situation.  With a population of 
560 million and total trade of around US$1.5 trillion, ASEAN has a strong stake in this process and 
the pressing need to conclude the Round by end of 2 008.  We wish to thank you for your report.  We 
welcome your leadership in build ing consensus and providing the necessary clarity on the next steps 
in the DDA negotiations.  The horizontal process in volving Agriculture and NAMA must show the 
way forward.  We look forward to the revised te xts from the respective Negotiating Chairs, based on 
their intensive consultations with  concerned Members.  Based on these revised texts, we will be a 
position to take decisions on the trade-offs necess ary to conclude modalitie s for Agriculture and 
NAMA.  We also strongly support the intensive efforts by the Chairs of the other negotiating groups, as you had underscored at the TNC of 31 January 2008, to "give all necessary comfort to the membership that other areas which are being negot iated are also moving forward, in line with the  WT/GC/M/114 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Single Undertaking".  In the case of Services, the Ministerial signaling conference will be organized.  
Any report arising from the said meeting should be  balanced, reflecting the position of Members and 
taking into account the Hong Kong mandate on Services.  In the case of Rules, ASEAN in its joint communication (TN/RL/W/225) dated 10 March 2008 seek s a revised Rules text – one that could be a 
good basis for negotiation and adheres closely to the DDA mandate – before the horizontal process 
begins.  Finally, on the question of timing, we agr ee with the sound principle that has guided us so far 
– that substance should drive the process.  After the Agriculture and NAMA te xts are released, there 
should be sufficient time for the texts to be delib erated on in the negotiating groups.  If the assessment 
of the respective Chairs is that they have narro wed the gaps as much as they can, then we must 
prepare the way for negotiations to move to the next  level.  In that regard, we see strong merit in 
having a senior officials meeting so that we can fu rther refine the respective texts and prepare the 
ground, and make the decision on the timing of the necessary Ministerial intervention. 
 
9. Switzerland  
 We thank you for a lucid, comprehensive and transparent report on the state of play and 
events to come.  We are taking the floor at a ti me when the overall picture is becoming increasingly 
sombre.  Environmental issues, food security, energy  supply and the financial crisis are challenges 
that will have a direct or indirect impact on our work and on the decision-ma kers who will be judging 
how valid our work is.  All the more reason to pay close attention to the way in which every single 
aspect of the process is managed, especially by taking proper stock of the situation and calling on 
Ministers only if we stand some chance of success.   This presupposes our pursuing our task in an 
atmosphere of constructive criticism conducive to a re alistic assessment of the situation.  At the same 
time, we need to maintain a very intensive pace in ou r work on substance, for there is still much to be 
done if we are to achieve a successful outcome and,  as you yourself have said, substance must take 
precedence over deadlines.  At this  stage in the negotiations, I will state matters very clearly:  
Switzerland will need an ambitious outcome not only in NAMA but also in Services, otherwise the 
Doha Round negotiating package will be impossible to sell domestically.  The high price we shall be 
paying in Agriculture also compels us to achieve concrete results inter a lia as regards geographical 
indications.  The gravity of the situ ation has just been demonstrated by  the fact that the adjustment of 
our negotiating mandate has come up against hurdles  in two parliamentary committees already, whilst 
another two will be examining the matter this coming  week, and we shall then see whether or not we 
have a negotiating mandate.  The draft negotiating mandate is based on the parameters that are 
currently on the table.  It is therefore time that  those who ask us to make excessive sacrifices in 
Agriculture finally come forward with what they them selves are prepared to put into the balance.  We 
have been asking them for years to state what are the elements on which they are prepared to make 
sacrifices, but the fact is that no response has been  forthcoming.  As regards Services, even as we 
focus on the signaling conference it is essential to my mind that we have a Services text which reflects 
the status of our work and directs us with some degree of confidence towards the next stage in the 
process.  In this connection, it is also important to emphasize that domestic  regulation requirements 
are all the more crucial since their value is more or  less equivalent to that of concessions.  Indeed, the 
transparency and clarity of domestic regulations can reassure service providers and stimulate trade.  I 
will be very brief regarding Rules, because I think that  almost everyone here in this room is awaiting a 
new revised text before initiating the horizontal process.  The challenges I mentioned earlier should 
also prompt us to draw as much as possible on the very modest negotiating mandate concerning trade 
and environment, to make the most of the potentia l offered by the trade facilitation negotiations, and 
to move together towards concrete outcomes rega rding S&D treatment for the developing countries. 
 
10. Uganda (for the LDCs) 
 
 The LDC Group would like to thank you for c onvening this meeting and for the report you 
have given to us.  The Group looks forward to  the forthcoming Agriculture and NAMA Chairs' 
revised modalities texts.  Regarding process, the Group is prepared to go along with your proposed WT/GC/M/114 
Page 38  
 
  approach which involves, first and foremost, th e revision of the Agriculture and NAMA modalities 
texts.  The Group hopes that substance will continue to drive the process, and that the revised texts 
will correctly and positively reflect the issues of interest to LDCs.  These include the timely and 
appropriate operationalization of dut y-free quota-free market access, pref erence erosion, cotton, food 
aid, as well as rules of origin in NAMA.  Furtherm ore, the Group is of the view that there should be 
ample time to study and reflect on the revised Agri culture and NAMA modalities texts by all relevant 
stakeholders at all levels of the negotiation process.  This is because there still appear to be several 
outstanding issues in Agriculture, which seem to be t oo many for consideration by Ministers.  There is 
for instance, the issue of preference erosion, whic h is of utmost importance for the LDCs.  Also, 
adequately addressing the issues of cotton and food ai d in a fair and balanced manner still remains an 
imperative.  Regarding Services, the Group would like to recall and reaffirm that the modalities in this 
area have already been agreed and set out in Anne x C of the Hong Kong Declaration.  Therefore, all 
that remains is the operationalization of the LDCs' speci al priorities.  This means that any text to be 
developed in this area should not in any way reopen Annex C.  Progress on the rest of the areas of 
negotiations should advance in stride, up to the st age where they will give requisite comfort to 
Members and lead to a meaningful horizontal process.  The Group still remains committed to a 
constructive engagement in the nego tiations with a view to arriving at  a conclusion that is favourable 
to all, especially the least-developed countries.  
__________