RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/78/Add.1 
24 January 2006 
 
 (06-0316) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
25 NOVEMBER 2004  
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Ambassador Choi (Korea
) 
 
Addendum  
 
Textiles 
  
V.
 MAJOR REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON 
TEXTILES AND CLOTHING (ATC) IN THE THIRD STAGE OF THE INTEGRATION PROCESS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8.11 OF THE AGREEMENT (G/L/683, G/L/692).........................................................................................1
 
VI. POST-ATC ADJUSTMENT-RELATED ISSUES ................................................................2  
A. REPORT BY THE CTG  CHAIR INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS (G/C/W/469/R EV.1)........................2  
 V. MAJOR REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON 
TEXTILES AND CLOTHING (ATC) IN THE THIRD STAGE OF THE INTEGRATION PROCESS PURSUANT TO  ARTICLE 8.11 OF THE AGREEMENT 
(G/L/683, G/L/692) 
5.1 The Chairman
 recalled that the Major Review of the ATC had been initiated on 
1 October 2004.  At that Session, Members had provided initial overall comments on the TMB Report 
prepared by its Chairman, Mr. András Szepesi.  All delegations had welcomed the TMB Report as comprehensive, professional and balanced.  The Chairman considered that the TMB Report had 
provided an invaluable basis for the Council’s wo rk.  In concluding the discussions, the CTG had 
agreed to proceed with dedicated sessions to focu s more closely and examine more scrupulously the 
indicative list of issues.  Dedicated sessions ha d been held on 25 October and 11 November 2004.  
There had also been several informal consultati ons.  At both the dedicated sessions and the open-
ended informal consultations, Memb ers had exhaustively discussed the list of six topics.  A draft 
report to conclude the Major Review had been ci rculated and was still under discussion by Members.  
He proposed that the CTG:   (i) decide to conclude the process of the dedicated session;  (ii) decide to 
bring back into the regular CTG the current item on  the Major Review;  (iii) agree to suspend the 
discussion on the item in this meeting to allow for continuing discussion on the draft text to conclude 
the Major Review;  and (iv) agree to reconvene the CTG regular session as soon as possible, before 
the December General Council, in order to conclude the consideration of the item. 
5.2 It was so agreed
. 
5.3 The Chairman  further informed Members that he in tended to convene ope n-ended informal 
consultations on the Major Review  draft text on 1 December 2004. G/C/M/78/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  VI. POST-ATC ADJUSTMENT-RELATED ISSUES  
A. R
EPORT BY THE CTG  CHAIR INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS  
6.1 The Chairman  recalled that this item was on the agenda in order for him to report on the result 
of informal consultations.  On the basis of the pr oposals by Mauritius and six co-sponsors (joined later 
by three additional co-sponsors), he had convened open-ended inform al consultations on 26 October 
and 19 November 2004.  The proposals by Mauritius and co-sponsors were contained in 
document G/C/W/496.  He noted that in between these open-ended informal consultations, he had 
been in contact with, and contacted by, individual  delegations and groups of delegations.  At the 
26 October consultations, Turkey had circulated doc ument G/C/W/497, containing several proposals.  
In the open-ended informal consultations, Memb ers had extensively exchanged views on these two 
sets of proposals.  Various levels of support and divergence had been eviden t.  At the informal 
consultations on 19 November, he had reported to the Membership on these facts and offered his 
assessment of the state of the discussions.  Also, as mandated by Members, he had been in close contact and consultation with the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on LDCs.  He also recalled that the 
LDCs had made a submission to the Sub-Committ ee on Least-Developed Countries entitled:  "Market 
Access For LDCs In the Textiles and Clothing S ector after the Expiry of the ATC".  This 
communication had been included in the Sub-Co mmittee’s Agenda for the meeting on 29 October 
2004.  The purpose of the consultation with the Ch airman of the Sub-Committee was to coordinate 
and to explore any scope for c oordinated action on similar items in two different WTO standing 
bodies. 
6.2 He noted that he had been informed by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee that he was 
exploring an option for a WTO Secretariat pape r for LDCs' competitiven ess in the textiles and 
clothing business.  The Chairman w as still consulting on this option.  This development was only for 
the information of the CTG.  He added that he woul d remain in contact with the Chairman of the Sub-
Committee on LDCs for coordination purposes.  Toge ther with the Chairman, they were consulting 
with the Director-General on any possible options. 
6.3 Also, the Chairman’s assessment of the st ate of the discussions was that Members, 
particularly developing country Members, attached  significant importance to the issues involved.  
There was widespread sympathy for the countries undergoing painful adjustments associated with 
trade reform and liberalization.  However, while  there was support for the proposals that had been 
presented, it was also clear from the discussions th at there was opposition to the specific proposals 
and the logic of a uni-sectoral approach for deali ng with adjustment-related issues.  Although several 
useful and relevant ideas, sugg estions and approaches had been put forward in the discussions 
amongst Members, the discussions, until that moment , had been inconclusive and had failed to 
produce a consensus. 
6.4 The Chairman recalled the understanding that ha d been reached at the informal consultations 
on 19 November 2004 that the Council should retain th is item on the agenda for a subsequent meeting 
to enable further discussion of the issues involved. 
6.5 The representative of India
 wished to comment on this latter point.  He noted that this was not 
the understanding his delegation had of the results of  those informal consultations.  He recalled that 
India had expressed reservations on the desirability  of keeping this item on the CTG's agenda given 
that not much progress had been made and obser ved that some other delegations had expressed 
similar sentiments as well.  He was cons trained to question this conclusion.  
6.6 The representative of Sri Lanka  noted that, as far as he recalled, at the 19 November 
consultations, most, or a large number of delegati ons, had requested keeping this item on the agenda, 
particularly because of the inability during this session for most of the African delegations to  G/C/M/78/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  participate, as they would not been present in Ge neva.  He strongly supporte d keeping this item on the 
agenda and stated that he would be completely oppos ed to the idea of taking this out of the agenda.  
6.7 The representative of China  stated that, as the representative of India had pointed out, her 
delegation had also expressed reservations at the in formal consultation regarding the prospects for 
retaining this item on the agenda.  She observed that, as the Chairman had rightly pointed out, 
Members had already exchanged views extensively.  But these views were quite different from one 
another and there appeared to be no consensus on this issue.  She did not see any possibility of 
reaching further conclusions in the CTG.  Her understanding was that the Chairman had suggested 
that Members hold informal consultations given th e fact that the African Group was not in Geneva 
that week. 
6.8 The representative of the United States  understood that there were a number of delegations 
that wanted to discuss this as a future agenda topic in the CTG meetings and some delegations  
preferred not to.  These latter delegations had stated  that they did not see any possibility of reaching 
an agreement and that further discussion would be fu tile.  He drew Members' attention to item 1 of the 
agenda of this meeting, the review of the ope ration of the TRIMS Agreement, which had been a 
standing item on the agenda for years.  A number of  delegations had made precisely the same point, 
i.e. that this item should not remain on the age nda because the prospects for any agreement were so 
slim it would not be worth their time to pursue the discussions.  But those delegations that had taken 
the position that it was not something that was likely to result in an agreement had not stood in the 
way of keeping this item on the agenda, because they  recognised that there were delegations that 
wanted to continue to discuss this issue.  Ultim ately, this question of whether something was on the 
agenda or not was a matter of courtesy.  If certa in Members wanted to discuss the issue it was the 
practice of this Body not to stand in their way.  He added that discussion did not necessarily lead to 
agreement and he did not believe that the likelih ood of a positive outcome was the question that 
Members were facing in the present case.  The question was whether Members were going to continue the practice of this Body and other Bodies of the WT O, that if Members felt strongly that they wanted 
to discuss an issue they would be given the opportunity  to do so.  He believed that the answer to that 
question should be in the affirmative. 
6.9 The representative of Zambia
, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, said that the absence of a 
consensus did not require the item to be taken off th e agenda of the CTG.  Any country had the right 
to include an item in the agenda.  There had b een other issues in the WTO that had been on the 
agenda for years despite the absence  of consensus on the subject.  Therefore, she did not agree that 
this subject should be removed from the agenda of  the CTG unless those countries that had made the 
proposals wished to take it off the agenda. 
6.10 The representative of Uganda  stated that lack of consensus should not be a means to eliminate 
a subject from the agenda.  Examples had been cited from the past where there had been no consensus 
but negotiations had continued, such as on TRIM S, because Members wanted the item to be 
discussed.  Delegations had presented reasons why this item had to remain on the agenda.  He 
believed that it should remain on the agenda as l ong as the proponents, those who wanted it to be 
discussed, remained convinced and committed that th is issue should be discussed and remain on the 
agenda.  Therefore, he opposed any attempt that this  item should be removed.  He believed it had been 
the understanding of the African Ambassadors when th ey had been leaving for Tunis that this item 
would remain on the agenda and dele gations in Geneva had been asked to ensure that this item would 
remain on the agenda.  
6.11 The representative of Turkey  observed that this item was alr eady on the agenda and that the 
suggestion had been made, the previous week, to  remove it from the agenda.  As far as he 
remembered, there had been no consensus to remove it from the agenda.  It was too early to decide 
that this item was unnecessary, because there was no c onsensus on that.  This item was totally related G/C/M/78/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  with post-2005 market conditions and it was a genuine issue that needed to be tackled in every detail. 
Members had enough time to discuss and there were so  many other arguments to bring to the table 
that he saw merit  in continuing to discuss this agenda item.  
6.12 The representative of Pakistan
 said that his recollection of the informal consultations on this 
particular item in the CTG was that the understa nding had been that there was no consensus on 
keeping this particular item on the agenda.  In f act, some delegations, including his own, had also 
indicated that there were appropriate fora for a ddressing this item as far as adjustment-related issues 
for LDCs was concerned, where they had indicated th ey were willing to discuss.  Reference had been 
made and a correlation had been atte mpted between the review of the TRIMS being part of the agenda 
and why the same treatment should not be given to another agenda item proposed.  He wished to 
clarify that agenda item 1 of the present mee ting was an item because it was mandated under the 
TRIMS Agreement itself, under Article 9.  Therefor e, it had no correlation to the particular agenda 
item that Members were discussing to be introduced in the CTG meetings. 
6.13 The representative of Bangladesh  fully supported the statements made by the representatives 
of Zambia, Uganda, United States and others who ha d expressed the view that this item should be on 
the agenda of the CTG meeting.  He noted that in the last informal meeting, there had been no 
consensus for removing this item from the agenda of the CTG meeting.  Most of the Membership had 
been in favour of continuing discussions.  Ther efore, he supported the proposal for continuing 
discussions of this agenda item in the CTG.   
6.14 The representative of India  wished to clarify that his intention had been simply to point out 
that, perhaps, the Chairman's suggestion that there was a consensus on keeping this item on the 
agenda of the CTG had been premature because  reservations had been expressed.  He was not 
suggesting that there had been a consensus on dropping the item from the agenda.  In fact, in the last 
informal consultations  there might have been some  suggestions towards inform al consultations by the 
Chair on this very issue.  He believed that perhap s Members needed to get back to where they had 
been at the informal consultations and thereafter take a view as to whether a consensus emerged on 
keeping the item on the agenda or dropping it.  And if keeping it on the agenda, in whatever form, 
under what parameters, because those kind of issues ha d been raised in the informal discussions.  He 
finally noted that Pakistan had pointed out that the analogy with the TRIMS discussion that the US 
delegate had pointed to di d not apply in this case. 
6.15 The representative of Jordan  felt that in general there were too many issues which some 
Members felt it was not necessary to keep on the agenda of the different meetings, Committees and 
Councils.  He was thankful for  the representative of India for the clarification he had just made.  
Members needed to have exhaustive discussions on the issues.  His delegation strongly supported 
keeping the issue on the agenda for discussion in the Council in the hope that that discussion would 
lead to agreement. 
6.16 The representative of El Salvador  stated that, as her delegation had said at the informal 
consultations on 19 November, El Salvador felt that  it was extremely important that this item should 
be kept on the agenda because, in her view, the l ack of consensus should not limit the possibilities of 
continuing to discuss this item, which was of great importance for many Members. 
6.17 The representative of Tunisia  noted that, as it had already been stressed by several countries 
such as the United States, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Tu rkey, El Salvador and Jordan, the understanding 
which had been reached at the informal consultatio ns was that there was no question of withdrawing 
the item from the agenda.  This item was on the ag enda and had been there for some time.  The 
question had been whether to withdraw it or not from the agenda, not whether or not to keep it.  There 
had been no consensus to withdraw it from the agenda .  Several delegations had indicated that it was 
extremely important for them to continue to discu ss the matter and, as the representative of the United  G/C/M/78/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  States had said, discussing did not mean that anything would be imposed upon any Member.  Nothing 
would be agreed except by consensus.  He di d not believe that any delegation would oppose a 
Member raising its concerns in any WTO body.  Th erefore, he wished to continue discussing this 
item.  In fact, this was what had been agreed at  the informal consultations.  He recalled that the 
Chairman had said that discussions on the matter woul d continue and that he was considering having 
a meeting in December or January.  This was the c onclusion he had reached on leaving that meeting.  
He also thanked the delegation of India for the clarification he had provided. 
6.18 The representative of  the European Communities  said that this was a very important issue for 
her delegation, a subject that needed to be dealt with in further depth.  Therefore, her delegation 
wished to continue discussing this item.  It was clea r that there were differences of opinion on how to 
approach this matter but it was important to continue  with the discussions.  Therefore, she invited the 
Chairman to continue with his consultations. 
6.19 The representative of Hong Kong, China  recalled that in the past his delegation had fought 
fiercely to ensure that no item should be blocked from discussion simply because it had not been possible to reach agreement on that discussion.  In that spirit, he very much wished to associate 
himself with the clarification by the representative of India.  Clearly there was no agreement either 
way at this stage and he believed it would be beneficial to resume  consultation under the Chairman’s 
supervision.  He noted with interest, in the same context, the Chair’s remark s about the work by the 
Chairman of the Sub-Committee of CTD on LDCs.  His delegation had had a systemic concern for 
some time about the appropriateness of discussing some of these issues in these fora, and would 
welcome the opportunity to elaborate on that at some poi nt in the future.  It was not that he wished to 
block discussion, but he wished to have these di scussions in a forum where they could be most 
appropriately and constructively addressed. 
6.20 The representative of Trinidad and Tobago
 said that from his perspective, the continuation of 
discussions, informal discussions or exchanges did not preclude, but rather reinfo rce, the need for the 
maintenance of this issue as an agenda item in or der to facilitate further formal discussions at the 
CTG, in order to move towards consensus on this is sue.  Hence, he supported keeping this issue as an 
agenda item given the fundamental importance of th e issue to many developing countries in general 
and ACP countries in particular. 
6.21 The representative of Mauritius  said that he had come late to  the discussions for two reasons.  
First, because he thought that the Chairman had pres ented the perspectives of this agenda item and its 
future course very well.  Second, he was interven ing because of the valuable clarification that had 
been made by India.  It was known where his de legation came from on this issue, therefore he 
suggested that the Chair pursue the consultations.  Members would then see how they would move 
forward with this agenda. 
6.22 The representative of Dominican Republic  wished to repeat the position her delegation had 
stated in the informal consultations on 19 Novemb er 2004.  She noted that, as other delegations who 
had taken the floor before, she felt that the lack of consensus should not restrict the possibility to 
maintain an item on the agenda and that was why her delegation wished to keep this item on the 
agenda of the CTG. 
6.23 The representative of China  echoed the views which had been expressed by some of the 
speakers that there was a difference between the TRIMS review and the issues that Members were 
talking about.  There was a clear mandate in th e Agreement on TRIMS concerning the review and 
indeed it was regrettable that Members could not accomplish their mandate as required by the 
Agreement.  She also noted that , as it had been pointed out, the  LDC  group had put forward their item 
on the agenda of the Sub-Committe e on LDCs on 29 October 2004.  Some of them were also 
proponents of the presently discussed item in the CTG.  As her delegation had already said to G/C/M/78/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  colleagues from LDCs, China was open to further discussions at the Sub-Committee.  She believed 
that was a more appropriate forum for them and it was also consistent with the mandate of the Sub-
Committee.  Therefore, her delegation was willing to  explore possible ways in a manner consistent 
with existing WTO principles and rules.  
6.24 The representative of Sri Lanka
 underlined that the subject under discussion was not of 
interest to LDCs alone, it was of great importance to a large number of developing countries which 
were not LDCs.  Therefore, he believed that the CTG was the perfect forum for this discussion, which 
had just started.  He strongly believed that this ite m needed to be on the agenda.  He also underlined 
that there was no consensus to remove this item fro m the agenda for the CTG’s next sessions or in the 
near future.  
6.25 The representative of Mongolia  understood that the CTG had taken a decision on 1 October 
2004 by consensus to include the item on the agenda of the coming sessions of the CTG.  So, from a 
legal point of view, the item could only be remove d from the agenda by consensus.  There was no 
such consensus in the CTG.  Many , even a majority of the Members were in favour of retaining the 
agenda item for the coming Council meetings.  The notion of taking the item off the agenda should 
not be entertained  any more in the Council because it did not enjoy a consensus. 
6.26 The representative of Turkey  said that he was encouraged by the statement made by the 
representative of Sri Lanka, whose thinking he shared .  His delegation did not want to change the 
focus.  The discussions had started on 1 October in the CTG and Turkey had also contributed to the 
discussions.  Members might have noticed that the c ountries which had taken the floor at this meeting 
were not only LDCs.  This was a much broader i ssue which concerned all developing countries for 
which textiles and clothing represented the highest share in their exports  and which were directly 
dependent on this sector.  His delegation would a ppreciate it if the other Members would also take 
this into consideration.  His delegation would c ontinue to discuss this issue and bring some other 
arguments related to this topic to the CTG meetings. 
6.27 The Chairman  concluded that he did not consider th at the Council was still engaged in the 
exercise of identifying whether there was consensus or not but was beyond that point, as some of the 
delegations had very clearly stated.  His understa nding was that according to what he had stated 
regarding the future process of this meeting on th is topic, he intended to  convene an informal 
consultation at an appropriate time.  It could be before the end of the year or early the following year.  
Much depended on the Membership.  He suggested th at the Council take note of his report and of all 
the statements made. 
6.28 The Council so agreed . 
__________